The stitches came out today.
I did my taxes last night. I owe more than the GDP of several Third World nations (not that I'm complaining, just a bit...OK, this was expected, but I still wasn't ready for it!).
I'm getting the hell out of dodge tomorrow for a few days. I need a break and got an offer that I had previously turned down which will enable me to just hang out.
See ya Tuesday!
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Hump Day Comedy Blogging
They haven't written stuff this funny in sixty years...
The Money Train
Here's another interesting piece from Jake Tapper, who seems to be waking up to the Obama campaign, finally:
You know, fat cat money.
His first assumption, that people will flat out run out of money, is spot on. Already, his monthly totals have plateaued, and even slipped, comparatively speaking. As the economy falters further and people start getting laid off and can't find work, his well runs drier each day.
Admittedly, with Super Tuesday being so early in the cycle, this is slightly skewed, but I think I'm not far off in the fund-raising activity area. Already, I'm getting money calls from Obama's campaign, and they know I'm in Hillary's camp.
His second assumption is dicey. It really depends on whether party loyalty and a dislike for McCain will translate into keeping Democrats, particularly traditional "Reagan Democrats Who've Got Bucks", in line. Given how hard he's hammered Hillary, and how close all three candidates are on so many issues (absent Iraq), it's not hard to see how people might defect.
Should both assumptions hold true, then we should expect Obama to raise an awful lot of money. If even the first assumption is untrue (not likely) and the second assumption is true (likely), he's going to outraise both party candidates from the 2004 general election.
However, if the nightmare scenario I've postulated-- first assumption true, second assumption untrue-- arises, Obama will be in deeply serious goo if he turns his back on his pledge.
A pledge is a promise. If he betrays that promise, and then it explodes in his face, it will be a long time before he can show up on the national scene again. He can betray that pledge by just raising money, lots of it, from people who will smell a chance to own a piece of a President.
But that's not going to sit well with the starry-eyed dreamers who have flocked to his candidacy in the forlorn and futile hope that somehow, a deeply ambitious, more ambitious than any other politico in history, politician would be "different".
Despite his previous pledge to enter into the public financing system should he be the Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has recently been reluctant to re-commit to entering the system.I think Obama assumes two things: one, the success of his primary fundraising will falter in the general election, as people whose spirit is willing but wallets faltering run out of money, and he has to rely then on assumption number two, that he'll gobble up the lion's share of Hillary's donor base in the general election.
This reluctance has coincided with his primary, caucus, and fundraising successes. For that reluctance, Obama has been hammered as hypocritical by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., not to mention impartial observers.
Tonight at a fundraiser in Washington, D.C., at the National Museum of Women in the Arts -- at a $2,300-per-person event for 200 people held before a $1,000-per-person reception for 350 people -- Obama previewed his argument to justify this possible future discarding of a principle.
"We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful," Obama said.
You know, fat cat money.
His first assumption, that people will flat out run out of money, is spot on. Already, his monthly totals have plateaued, and even slipped, comparatively speaking. As the economy falters further and people start getting laid off and can't find work, his well runs drier each day.
Admittedly, with Super Tuesday being so early in the cycle, this is slightly skewed, but I think I'm not far off in the fund-raising activity area. Already, I'm getting money calls from Obama's campaign, and they know I'm in Hillary's camp.
His second assumption is dicey. It really depends on whether party loyalty and a dislike for McCain will translate into keeping Democrats, particularly traditional "Reagan Democrats Who've Got Bucks", in line. Given how hard he's hammered Hillary, and how close all three candidates are on so many issues (absent Iraq), it's not hard to see how people might defect.
Should both assumptions hold true, then we should expect Obama to raise an awful lot of money. If even the first assumption is untrue (not likely) and the second assumption is true (likely), he's going to outraise both party candidates from the 2004 general election.
However, if the nightmare scenario I've postulated-- first assumption true, second assumption untrue-- arises, Obama will be in deeply serious goo if he turns his back on his pledge.
A pledge is a promise. If he betrays that promise, and then it explodes in his face, it will be a long time before he can show up on the national scene again. He can betray that pledge by just raising money, lots of it, from people who will smell a chance to own a piece of a President.
But that's not going to sit well with the starry-eyed dreamers who have flocked to his candidacy in the forlorn and futile hope that somehow, a deeply ambitious, more ambitious than any other politico in history, politician would be "different".
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Interesting Story, More Interesting Comments
I happened to run across this rather interesting little tidbit along the journey through the news today:
But Tapper's point is interesting: given how Obama all but included either an invasion of Pakistan or a nuclear bomb drop on it in his vision of the Global War on an Emotion, you'd think at some point this little item would have come out from the candidate's camp long before this.
More intriguing is this comment in replies to the piece:
I recall that, when Obama was first gearing up his candidacy, many darkly shaded questions about his Muslim background were raised: that he was schooled in a Madrassah, that he's sworn allegiance to the Koran and converted to Christianity as a front.
OK, all crackpot theories, to be sure, but all deserving of at least a little fact-checking, you'd think. After all, this is the same media that went gangbusters when it was revealed during the 1992 campaign that Bill Clinton had travelled to the Soviet Union as a college student!
How does a college trip to Pakistan a) pass under the simple fact-check of asking Barack Obama, "So where have you been in your life that you feel you can speak to foreign affairs issues?" and b) pass without mention in any of the books Obama has written to demonstrate his bona fides as a President?
Come on, it's not like Pakistan suddenly blipped on our radar in 2002 after the September 11 tragedies! During the 2000 campaign, much sport was made regarding the fact that George Bush couldn't even name the newdictator president of Pakistan, Pervez Mussharraf, despite the fact that, oh, THEY DETONATED NUKES JUST TWO YEARS EARLIER!
All these months, when people have harped and harangued on Obama about his inexperience and lack of foreign affairs standing, we're only just finding out now that he took a vacation in Islamabad and is claiming that as a notch in his bedpost????
This is pretty embarrassing, to be frank. How the media could miss this kind of at once laughable-yet-important story is beyond my understanding.
"Foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain," Obama said, according to the Huffington Post.Now, no big deal, right? I mean, after all, college kids travel and while many kids went off to the Bahamas or Florida, Barack Obama travelled to visit relations and friend's relations in South Asia.
"It's ironic because this is supposedly the place where experience is most needed to be Commander-in-Chief. Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world. This I know. When Senator Clinton brags 'I've met leaders from eighty countries' -- I know what those trips are like! I've been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There's a group of children who do native dance. You meet with the CIA station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. You go take a tour of a plant that [with] the assistance of USAID has started something. And then -- you go."
"You do that in eighty countries," Obama said, "You don't know those eighty countries. So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa --knowing the leaders is not important -- what I know is the people...I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college -- I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."
This last part -- a college trip to Pakistan -- was news to many of us who have been following the race closely. And it was odd that we hadn't hear about it before, given all the talk of Pakistan during this campaign.
So I asked the Obama campaign for more information.
Apparently, according to the Obama campaign, In 1981 -- the year Obama transferred from Occidental College to Columbia University -- Obama visited his mother and sister Maya in Indonesia. After that visit, Obama traveled to Pakistan with a friend from college whose family was from there. The Obama campaign says Obama was in Pakistan for about three weeks, staying with his friend's family in Karachi and also visiting Hyderabad in Southern India.
But Tapper's point is interesting: given how Obama all but included either an invasion of Pakistan or a nuclear bomb drop on it in his vision of the Global War on an Emotion, you'd think at some point this little item would have come out from the candidate's camp long before this.
More intriguing is this comment in replies to the piece:
Jake, you said you were surprise (sic) to suddenly learn about this Obama trip, this goes a long way to show that the media has looked the other way while another arrogant and incompetent man runs close to the whitehouse (sic). While salivating and drooling, the media has failed to vet this man, just as they failed to ask GOP and Bush/Cheney tough questions about Iraq. It is the massive disinformation of the nation, stupid. Obama is a mediocre, smart but too shallow. His chances in this race is an indictment (sic) on the media's bias and incompetent.Obama has gotten a pretty fair shake by the media, practically kid gloves and all.
- Posted by: Ed Banks | Apr 8, 2008 9:33:25 AM
I recall that, when Obama was first gearing up his candidacy, many darkly shaded questions about his Muslim background were raised: that he was schooled in a Madrassah, that he's sworn allegiance to the Koran and converted to Christianity as a front.
OK, all crackpot theories, to be sure, but all deserving of at least a little fact-checking, you'd think. After all, this is the same media that went gangbusters when it was revealed during the 1992 campaign that Bill Clinton had travelled to the Soviet Union as a college student!
How does a college trip to Pakistan a) pass under the simple fact-check of asking Barack Obama, "So where have you been in your life that you feel you can speak to foreign affairs issues?" and b) pass without mention in any of the books Obama has written to demonstrate his bona fides as a President?
Come on, it's not like Pakistan suddenly blipped on our radar in 2002 after the September 11 tragedies! During the 2000 campaign, much sport was made regarding the fact that George Bush couldn't even name the new
All these months, when people have harped and harangued on Obama about his inexperience and lack of foreign affairs standing, we're only just finding out now that he took a vacation in Islamabad and is claiming that as a notch in his bedpost????
This is pretty embarrassing, to be frank. How the media could miss this kind of at once laughable-yet-important story is beyond my understanding.
Monday, April 07, 2008
What An Afternoon!
So I wake up this morning having slept for, ohhh, all of three hours, ahead of my debut on The Blog Bunker, featuring Joe Salzone on the Indie Channel on Sirius Satellite Radio.
Not good. My sinuses exploded last night because of my allergies and there's this lone Sudafed...expired of course.
So I bully through the day, and arrive at Sirius HQ at the appointed time. First, let me say I don'tfaze easily. I grew up on the Upper East Side. Among my friends were the sons and daughters of some heavy hitters, and I would regularly bump into celebs and stars from all walks of life.
I nearly creamed my jeans when I almost ran over Candy Dulfer of the B-52s in the lobby. Alexandra, the marvelously charming engineer/producer of the Bunker comes out to greet me to let me know I have a few minutes to hang out, so I drool watching Candy get her photo taken by some PR flacks.
The appointed time. I'm a little nervous. I haven't done radio since, well, lemme think...Clinton was still President.
Bill, I mean, not Hillary.
The crew was absolutely amazing, made me feel like I'd never left the studio. I sat down, Joe walked in (he's a Paulite, if you must know), and we had a half hour of, well, fun.
I take a page here out of the actor's handbook: the two criteria for a successful performance are 1) Did you do what you set out to do, and 2) Did you have fun doing it?
Mission accomplished. I don't know how it played on air, and I have only a suspicion how it played out in the studio (if you think I'm quick on-line, you ought to hear me when I'm panicking), but I had a blast! I zinged out a couple of jokes, sucked up where necessary and even was forced to think.
Which doesn't happen often.
The encounter gave me a lot to work with in terms of blogposts, so at the very least, you guys are going to read echoes of my appearance over the next few days.
But I had fun.
I want to thank Joe, Alexandra and whatisname, the Blogcast Boy...
As I walked out, I realized why I love doing radio in the first place. So much freedom. Anybody listen in? Shout it out, please.
Not good. My sinuses exploded last night because of my allergies and there's this lone Sudafed...expired of course.
So I bully through the day, and arrive at Sirius HQ at the appointed time. First, let me say I don'tfaze easily. I grew up on the Upper East Side. Among my friends were the sons and daughters of some heavy hitters, and I would regularly bump into celebs and stars from all walks of life.
I nearly creamed my jeans when I almost ran over Candy Dulfer of the B-52s in the lobby. Alexandra, the marvelously charming engineer/producer of the Bunker comes out to greet me to let me know I have a few minutes to hang out, so I drool watching Candy get her photo taken by some PR flacks.
The appointed time. I'm a little nervous. I haven't done radio since, well, lemme think...Clinton was still President.
Bill, I mean, not Hillary.
The crew was absolutely amazing, made me feel like I'd never left the studio. I sat down, Joe walked in (he's a Paulite, if you must know), and we had a half hour of, well, fun.
I take a page here out of the actor's handbook: the two criteria for a successful performance are 1) Did you do what you set out to do, and 2) Did you have fun doing it?
Mission accomplished. I don't know how it played on air, and I have only a suspicion how it played out in the studio (if you think I'm quick on-line, you ought to hear me when I'm panicking), but I had a blast! I zinged out a couple of jokes, sucked up where necessary and even was forced to think.
Which doesn't happen often.
The encounter gave me a lot to work with in terms of blogposts, so at the very least, you guys are going to read echoes of my appearance over the next few days.
But I had fun.
I want to thank Joe, Alexandra and whatisname, the Blogcast Boy...
As I walked out, I realized why I love doing radio in the first place. So much freedom. Anybody listen in? Shout it out, please.
It's About Time
ALBUQUERQUE, April 6 -- Mark J. Penn quit Sunday as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's chief strategist, the second shake-up in her campaign's top ranks since the onetime front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination began trailing Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).Good riddance, don't let the door hit you on the way out, blahblahblah...
This moron is nearly singlehandedly responsible for the mess the Clinton campaign finds itself in. As opposed to having comfortably secured the nomination last month with victories in Texas and Ohio, Penn's idiotic "strategy" of banking it all on SooperDooperTuesday, rather than laying the ground troops in in January in states after the big red letter day, Penn's shortsightedness and hubris has put Hillary in the position of really having to bust humps in the last three months of the campaign in order to take the nomination in a subjective and therefore suspect fashion.
Neither candidate can win the delegates out in the field, and right now, while Obama has been seeing some movement towards him in superdelegates, it's clear that the SDs have been holding their fire out of respect for and fear of the Clinton machine.
After all, deals will now have to be made, and the campaign with the most to offer is the campaign that is going to get the lion's share of the SDs. Clinton, should she lose the nomination, will be among the most powerful Senators and will likely extract retribution against those SDs who cross over to Obama (listening, Leahy?)
Obama does not have that kind of stroke in the Senate, and my suspicion is, should he lose the nomination, he'll not seek re-election from Illinois.
Why do I say this? One word: Rolodex.
Sure, Obama is gathering up campaign contributions from first time small donors (altho my sense is that he's getting PAC and special interest money in some form that he's not disclosing because he doesn't have to), but those are not carryover contributions: those folks won't give to the Senate campaigns of a Chuck Schumer or a Diane Feinstein, or Ken Salazar, or...
Clinton's will. And there's the rub. Snub Clinton, you snub the money you need to run for re-election.
Which leads me to one other facet of this story: Tim Russert on The Today Show this morning mentioned that, privately, several large campaign contributors had already warned the Clinton campaign that they would only donate and solicit more donations if they could be assured that the funds would not be used to support Penn or his work.
So basically, this was just the trigger that fired the cocked weapon off. Penn was gone, long before he met with Colombian officials.
Good riddance to bad rubbish, is my thinking, and for you hockey fans out there, Game on!
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Nobody Asked Me, But...
1) You may now pry the gun from his hands. Good riddance. The man was blessed with great luck and had no sense of his entitlement, except that he and his cronies deserved more.
2) A topic that SLB has been all over since our inception in 2004, thanks largely to Katrina's insistence, the US might finally be starting to pay attention. Thank god it didn't take them decades as it did with Vietnam.
3) Say what you will about McCain's hawkish stance, he has skin in the game.
4) When I speak of justice for all, without regard to race or gender or what have you, this is the kind of story I'm speaking to. Government is supposed to work FOR us, not against us.
5) I am officially eliminated in any office pool I was in.
6) This has never been an issue for me, since my life doesn't depend on my blogging. That said, I feel like I've let you guys down these past couple of weeks while I was self-indulging my depression over this beautiful face getting all fucked up by cancer. Rat bastard cancer. I'm going to find him and kick his ass.
7) The one bright spot in the whole mortgage business is that corporate powerhouses are feeling the pain of their greed.
8) But that bright spot is dimmed many millions of times over by the poor homeowners who got suckered into these atrocious deals.
9) Was anybody really surprised by this story? Bush was never interested in Russia's opinion (except when it came to validating his own horrific aggressions) and Putin is poised to be a real world leader who will fill the American void.
10) Make no mistake: America in the '10s will be as irrelevant on the world stage as Japan was in the '90s. That's Bush legacy, not only to destroy our credibility as a world power, but to destroy us economically so the world might pick at our bones.
11) I was saddened to see Tang back in the news in such a bizarre way. Who knew?
12) This is an awful lot of money to spend to be uncomfortable.
2) A topic that SLB has been all over since our inception in 2004, thanks largely to Katrina's insistence, the US might finally be starting to pay attention. Thank god it didn't take them decades as it did with Vietnam.
3) Say what you will about McCain's hawkish stance, he has skin in the game.
4) When I speak of justice for all, without regard to race or gender or what have you, this is the kind of story I'm speaking to. Government is supposed to work FOR us, not against us.
5) I am officially eliminated in any office pool I was in.
6) This has never been an issue for me, since my life doesn't depend on my blogging. That said, I feel like I've let you guys down these past couple of weeks while I was self-indulging my depression over this beautiful face getting all fucked up by cancer. Rat bastard cancer. I'm going to find him and kick his ass.
7) The one bright spot in the whole mortgage business is that corporate powerhouses are feeling the pain of their greed.
8) But that bright spot is dimmed many millions of times over by the poor homeowners who got suckered into these atrocious deals.
9) Was anybody really surprised by this story? Bush was never interested in Russia's opinion (except when it came to validating his own horrific aggressions) and Putin is poised to be a real world leader who will fill the American void.
10) Make no mistake: America in the '10s will be as irrelevant on the world stage as Japan was in the '90s. That's Bush legacy, not only to destroy our credibility as a world power, but to destroy us economically so the world might pick at our bones.
11) I was saddened to see Tang back in the news in such a bizarre way. Who knew?
12) This is an awful lot of money to spend to be uncomfortable.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Wealth And Politics
Yea....so?
, David Rothkopf notes that one of the quickest ways to fabulous wealth is to serve in government, and that Presidents, by dint of their international connections, are poised to become immensely wealthy.
Hey, you didn't really think Obama or McCain, nevermind Clinton, were running because they wanted to do good, did you?
But something odd about the Clinton's wealth should be stressed:
Most former government officials sign on with boards of directors of multinational corporations to achieve this kind of wealth. Indeed, it is a testament to President Clinton's popular appeal and his moral fiber that he hadn't accepted the kind of cheap wealth that his predecessor had, and successor likely will.
Like his Vice President Al Gore, Bill Clinton could easily have sat on any number of boards of directors for companies as diverse as Wal-Mart, Citigroup (Robert Rubin, his Treasury Secretary, once served there ex-administration), the Red Cross, and MicroSoft (as a thank you for his help in keeping Bill Gates from off-shoring his entire company).
But he didn't. He decided to try to leverage his popularity and more important, his Rolodex into something positive: The William Jefferson Clinton Foundation, and as its centerpiece, the Clinton Global Initiative, a kind of "Davos That Does" in that Clinton doesn't just ask his participants to indulge in rhetoric, but to make concrete valuable pledges of resources to tackle the world's problems.
Being a rich ex-President is not a sin. Wasting that power and influence is. It's nice to see that the Clintons not only made it, made it big, but didn't forget where they came from or whom to help.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Bill Clinton released tax data Friday showing they earned $109 million over the last eight years, an ascent into the uppermost tier of American taxpayers that seemed unimaginable in 2001, when they left the White House with little money and facing millions in legal bills.In his book, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making
, David Rothkopf notes that one of the quickest ways to fabulous wealth is to serve in government, and that Presidents, by dint of their international connections, are poised to become immensely wealthy.Hey, you didn't really think Obama or McCain, nevermind Clinton, were running because they wanted to do good, did you?
But something odd about the Clinton's wealth should be stressed:
The bulk of their wealth has come from speaking and book-writing, which together account for almost $92 million, including a $15 million advance — larger than previously thought — from Mr. Clinton’s 2004 autobiography, “My Life.” The former president’s vigorous lecture schedule, where his speeches command upwards of $250,000, brought in almost $52 million.(emphasis added)
Most former government officials sign on with boards of directors of multinational corporations to achieve this kind of wealth. Indeed, it is a testament to President Clinton's popular appeal and his moral fiber that he hadn't accepted the kind of cheap wealth that his predecessor had, and successor likely will.
Like his Vice President Al Gore, Bill Clinton could easily have sat on any number of boards of directors for companies as diverse as Wal-Mart, Citigroup (Robert Rubin, his Treasury Secretary, once served there ex-administration), the Red Cross, and MicroSoft (as a thank you for his help in keeping Bill Gates from off-shoring his entire company).
But he didn't. He decided to try to leverage his popularity and more important, his Rolodex into something positive: The William Jefferson Clinton Foundation, and as its centerpiece, the Clinton Global Initiative, a kind of "Davos That Does" in that Clinton doesn't just ask his participants to indulge in rhetoric, but to make concrete valuable pledges of resources to tackle the world's problems.
Being a rich ex-President is not a sin. Wasting that power and influence is. It's nice to see that the Clintons not only made it, made it big, but didn't forget where they came from or whom to help.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Friday Cat Kitten Blogging
Dadby es bizzee at da dockers today. Hem's noze wuz bleedin, so hem nawt hab a chance to pose today.
So I tuke a pitcher of me composerin ma moosic!
Thursday, April 03, 2008
PostNATO Care
Well, some interesting developments in foreign relations today...
However, the Georgia/Ukraine as well as Croatia/Albania questions...there's an interesting little bit of chemin de fer amongst the NATO allies. Russia, which of course was most decidely NOT a charter member of NATO, set up to defend against the Soviet Union's hegemony into Europe.
One almost gets the sense that Bush got the split difference: he lost out on Georgia and Ukraine, countries he had explicitly asked membership for, but was granted Albania and Croatia, which, while not former Soviet republics, certainly were under USSR influence in the old Warsaw Pact country of Yugoslavia. He had not lobbied for these. Give the baby his candy, perhaps?
This indicates the rise of Vladimir Putin's profile in European matters in tandem with the decline of American prestige in such affairs, even amongst our staunchest allies and pledged defenders.
In his book, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making, David Rothkopf makes the observation that the 21st Century will see a kind of global government arise that will subsume national governments, and it won't be led by America.
While this was likely inevitable before the Bush administration fumbled foreign affairs so badly after the sparkling diplomacy of Bill Clinton, Rothkopf points out that only the Bush administration could have the world hating us...for being the victim of a terror attack!
This "New World Order," to use a hackneyed phrase, will originate in Asia, and be led by China, India (which is poised to become the most populous nation on the planet shortly) and-- you guessed it!-- Russia.
Indeed, several nations which have been mulling admission into NATO have not aggressively pursued admittance simply because they view NATO as not "European enough" (code word for "too dominated by the US").
Keep in mind that Russia, China, and India all possess nukes, and all have shall we say, close working relationships with Iran?
NATO has decided not to include the Ukraine and Georgia among its new members after strong objections from Russia. However, the alliance pledged that the two countries would eventually become members.The denial of Macedonia is a pretty silly matter, unless of course, you're Greek, or Turkish, for that matter. It's a little like denying York, Pennsylvania full American rights because it sounds like New York City.
President Bush was a supporter of the Ukraine and Georgia's bids to become members of NATO.
Former Soviet republics Croatia and Albania were invited to become members in the decision announced Thursday.[...]
Macedonia was denied entry to the alliance after Greece blocked its invitation because of objections to the country's name. However, leaders said Macedonia can join as soon as it resolves the dispute, AP said.
Greece has a northern province that is also called Macedonia, and argues the former Yugoslav republic's insistence on being known as Macedonia implies a territorial claim.
However, the Georgia/Ukraine as well as Croatia/Albania questions...there's an interesting little bit of chemin de fer amongst the NATO allies. Russia, which of course was most decidely NOT a charter member of NATO, set up to defend against the Soviet Union's hegemony into Europe.
One almost gets the sense that Bush got the split difference: he lost out on Georgia and Ukraine, countries he had explicitly asked membership for, but was granted Albania and Croatia, which, while not former Soviet republics, certainly were under USSR influence in the old Warsaw Pact country of Yugoslavia. He had not lobbied for these. Give the baby his candy, perhaps?
This indicates the rise of Vladimir Putin's profile in European matters in tandem with the decline of American prestige in such affairs, even amongst our staunchest allies and pledged defenders.
In his book, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making
, David Rothkopf makes the observation that the 21st Century will see a kind of global government arise that will subsume national governments, and it won't be led by America.While this was likely inevitable before the Bush administration fumbled foreign affairs so badly after the sparkling diplomacy of Bill Clinton, Rothkopf points out that only the Bush administration could have the world hating us...for being the victim of a terror attack!
This "New World Order," to use a hackneyed phrase, will originate in Asia, and be led by China, India (which is poised to become the most populous nation on the planet shortly) and-- you guessed it!-- Russia.
Indeed, several nations which have been mulling admission into NATO have not aggressively pursued admittance simply because they view NATO as not "European enough" (code word for "too dominated by the US").
Keep in mind that Russia, China, and India all possess nukes, and all have shall we say, close working relationships with Iran?
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Healthcare Proxies
It seems to me that, when the American healthcare system works, there's not much room for improvement. It's when it doesn't work, or is non-existent, that things get cocked up.
I'll relate my story from yesterday as anecdotal evidence of how it can and should work:
As many of you know by now, I was diagnosed with a basal cell carcinoma on my nostril three months ago. Two months ago, I had it excised, and needed same-day plastic surgery to close the wound. During that procedure, another nest of suspicious cells was found, excised and biopsied.
Yesterday, I had the surgery to close everything up, since it was determined that I no longer had malignant cells in this region.
I arrived for surgery at 1PM at a New York City Catholic hospital, on an ambulatory basis. Surgery was scheduled for 2PM.
I filled out a couple of forms: a consent to allow the insurance company to pay the hospital, and a patient's bill of rights acknowledgement. I was then ushered to the pre-op area, where I might change into a gown and have my clothes secured. In that area, I was interviewed by two nurses, an anesthesiologist, and the surgeon. Two orderlies took my temperature. The area of concern was examined, and the surgeon initialed my nostril.
In the course of the interview with the first nurse, along with questions about what medications I might be on and what previous surgeries I had, the fact that I had eaten 7 hours ahead of surgery instead of eight was revealed (I misread the directions. My bad!)
So we waited an hour. No problem. At the appointed time, I got my IV unit inserted, and walked into surgery with the anesthesiologist. I laid down on the operating table, and was conscious for quite a while after that, which is a good thing, since the IV unit has jostled slightly out of position, wetting the linens I was on.
All three nurses walked in and interviewed me separately: what are you here for? Specifically where is the incision to be made? Who is your surgeon? Is this your name on the name tag?
The surgeon came in, and we spoke briefly, again, about my options for being out cold v. being groggy. The "late" meal was not a crisis, it turns out, but to be on the safe side, we agreed to put me out, but if I started to come to, it would be OK.
Precisely what happened.
I should explain. I'm not big into medication. I don't like to even take aspirin if I can avoid it. When I've had surgery in the past (not recently, admittedly), I've asked for local and pain meds.
This time, I wanted to be out given the proximity of a sharp object to my eye. I've always had problems with things flying at me. That's probably why I was such a good goaltender: I didn't want to get hurt!
By the time I woke up, however, the knifey part was done, and the doctor was into stitching. Needles and my eyes don't get along, but I was too groggy to really give a crap. But it was fun to listen to the surgical team talk about how I was awake and to even get off a one liner or two ("Hey, doc? Did I get Heath Ledger's nose like I asked?")
The other advantage to this strategy was I was practically able to get up and walk when we left the operatory. I was released on schedule, pretty much, despite being in surgery nearly ninety minutes later than planned.
So what went right here?
Well, for one thing, the rules were followed. There was great communication all around, no one fumbled for the next question. Information was passed on efficiently, and I was given as much choice as possible in my treatment options. The surgeon had already consulted with me about two possible options for closure, and I picked one, which we went over in the hospital. He said that one option would require less work to do, but might leave my nose slightly misshapen (as in you couldn't tell unless you looked closely), and one would require a graft of both skin and cartilage, which is what we ultimately decided on. Good thing, too, because the wound turned out to be a bit more complex than we thought.
The staff worked quickly and as a team. No one was asking questions they didn't need to ask and everyone understood his or her role. I confess that, after the last encounter, I was very scared going in, but by the time I was in the operatory, I felt very at ease, despite my own error.
What went wrong here, however?
Ahhhh, and there's the rub: if you re-read all this carefully, so much of what transpired, while for my benefit, was not done out of concern for my well-being, necessarily. I'm not saying that this doctor, or these nurses and orderlies, or any doctor, nurse, or orderly, does not have the best interests of the patient first and foremost in his or her heart.
What I am saying is that a lot of this communication is generated for one reason and one reason only: to stem lawsuits.
By putting the onus on me for decisions, by making sure that I understand each and every choice and decision that has to be made, but more important, by confirming that I am fully aware and vested in each step of the operation, the hospital is mitigating their risk.
This was brought home to me today, when the hospital called for a follow-up: are you in pain? Are you satisfied with the results? Did you receive post-operative counseling?
As the healthcare system in America becomes more and more profit-driven, as hospitals and HMOs have to answer first and foremost to their stockholders as opposed to the public weal, we are all going to be forced to deal with the downsizing of authority to the patient, who in many cases may be the least informed party.
Think about it: I had a simple operation, and yet underwent grueling questioning of my understanding of what was to happen. I was fortunate in that my surgeon and his team were all communicative and helpful, and more important, understandable.
Imagine if I hadn't understood what was to take place. Imagine if my procedure was complex and risky. Imagine if I was of even average or below average intelligence.
Such enormous risk to place on the shoulders of a civilian, as opposed to leaving it to the expert. And if you've spent anytime in doctor's offices lately, this trend continues in there.
Exhibit A: The original lesion itself, which I've had for nearly thirty years now. In that time, literally hundreds of doctors have seen it, yet it took an urgent care doctor in a clinic to mention "You oughta have that looked at", nevermind how many doctors have stuck a probe up my nose or looked directly in my eye.
If you have a question about your health, even while you're standing there in your underwear, it's next to impossible to get taken seriously in an awful lot of doctor's offices, a circumstance I suffered two years ago when I had chest pains and trouble breathing, until I basically called a doctor and said "Look, if you can't help me with this stuff, I'm going into a hospital."
Which clearly triggered his self-preservation mechanism. He might have imagined that I was a bit upset over his inability to listen to my complaints.
I'm glad this ordeal is over because through it, I gained a new-found respect for the medical professions and confidence that not everytime I see a doctor, I get sicker.
But let me say this: It shouldn't have taken this long for just one doctor to prove me wrong
I'll relate my story from yesterday as anecdotal evidence of how it can and should work:
As many of you know by now, I was diagnosed with a basal cell carcinoma on my nostril three months ago. Two months ago, I had it excised, and needed same-day plastic surgery to close the wound. During that procedure, another nest of suspicious cells was found, excised and biopsied.
Yesterday, I had the surgery to close everything up, since it was determined that I no longer had malignant cells in this region.
I arrived for surgery at 1PM at a New York City Catholic hospital, on an ambulatory basis. Surgery was scheduled for 2PM.
I filled out a couple of forms: a consent to allow the insurance company to pay the hospital, and a patient's bill of rights acknowledgement. I was then ushered to the pre-op area, where I might change into a gown and have my clothes secured. In that area, I was interviewed by two nurses, an anesthesiologist, and the surgeon. Two orderlies took my temperature. The area of concern was examined, and the surgeon initialed my nostril.
In the course of the interview with the first nurse, along with questions about what medications I might be on and what previous surgeries I had, the fact that I had eaten 7 hours ahead of surgery instead of eight was revealed (I misread the directions. My bad!)
So we waited an hour. No problem. At the appointed time, I got my IV unit inserted, and walked into surgery with the anesthesiologist. I laid down on the operating table, and was conscious for quite a while after that, which is a good thing, since the IV unit has jostled slightly out of position, wetting the linens I was on.
All three nurses walked in and interviewed me separately: what are you here for? Specifically where is the incision to be made? Who is your surgeon? Is this your name on the name tag?
The surgeon came in, and we spoke briefly, again, about my options for being out cold v. being groggy. The "late" meal was not a crisis, it turns out, but to be on the safe side, we agreed to put me out, but if I started to come to, it would be OK.
Precisely what happened.
I should explain. I'm not big into medication. I don't like to even take aspirin if I can avoid it. When I've had surgery in the past (not recently, admittedly), I've asked for local and pain meds.
This time, I wanted to be out given the proximity of a sharp object to my eye. I've always had problems with things flying at me. That's probably why I was such a good goaltender: I didn't want to get hurt!
By the time I woke up, however, the knifey part was done, and the doctor was into stitching. Needles and my eyes don't get along, but I was too groggy to really give a crap. But it was fun to listen to the surgical team talk about how I was awake and to even get off a one liner or two ("Hey, doc? Did I get Heath Ledger's nose like I asked?")
The other advantage to this strategy was I was practically able to get up and walk when we left the operatory. I was released on schedule, pretty much, despite being in surgery nearly ninety minutes later than planned.
So what went right here?
Well, for one thing, the rules were followed. There was great communication all around, no one fumbled for the next question. Information was passed on efficiently, and I was given as much choice as possible in my treatment options. The surgeon had already consulted with me about two possible options for closure, and I picked one, which we went over in the hospital. He said that one option would require less work to do, but might leave my nose slightly misshapen (as in you couldn't tell unless you looked closely), and one would require a graft of both skin and cartilage, which is what we ultimately decided on. Good thing, too, because the wound turned out to be a bit more complex than we thought.
The staff worked quickly and as a team. No one was asking questions they didn't need to ask and everyone understood his or her role. I confess that, after the last encounter, I was very scared going in, but by the time I was in the operatory, I felt very at ease, despite my own error.
What went wrong here, however?
Ahhhh, and there's the rub: if you re-read all this carefully, so much of what transpired, while for my benefit, was not done out of concern for my well-being, necessarily. I'm not saying that this doctor, or these nurses and orderlies, or any doctor, nurse, or orderly, does not have the best interests of the patient first and foremost in his or her heart.
What I am saying is that a lot of this communication is generated for one reason and one reason only: to stem lawsuits.
By putting the onus on me for decisions, by making sure that I understand each and every choice and decision that has to be made, but more important, by confirming that I am fully aware and vested in each step of the operation, the hospital is mitigating their risk.
This was brought home to me today, when the hospital called for a follow-up: are you in pain? Are you satisfied with the results? Did you receive post-operative counseling?
As the healthcare system in America becomes more and more profit-driven, as hospitals and HMOs have to answer first and foremost to their stockholders as opposed to the public weal, we are all going to be forced to deal with the downsizing of authority to the patient, who in many cases may be the least informed party.
Think about it: I had a simple operation, and yet underwent grueling questioning of my understanding of what was to happen. I was fortunate in that my surgeon and his team were all communicative and helpful, and more important, understandable.
Imagine if I hadn't understood what was to take place. Imagine if my procedure was complex and risky. Imagine if I was of even average or below average intelligence.
Such enormous risk to place on the shoulders of a civilian, as opposed to leaving it to the expert. And if you've spent anytime in doctor's offices lately, this trend continues in there.
Exhibit A: The original lesion itself, which I've had for nearly thirty years now. In that time, literally hundreds of doctors have seen it, yet it took an urgent care doctor in a clinic to mention "You oughta have that looked at", nevermind how many doctors have stuck a probe up my nose or looked directly in my eye.
If you have a question about your health, even while you're standing there in your underwear, it's next to impossible to get taken seriously in an awful lot of doctor's offices, a circumstance I suffered two years ago when I had chest pains and trouble breathing, until I basically called a doctor and said "Look, if you can't help me with this stuff, I'm going into a hospital."
Which clearly triggered his self-preservation mechanism. He might have imagined that I was a bit upset over his inability to listen to my complaints.
I'm glad this ordeal is over because through it, I gained a new-found respect for the medical professions and confidence that not everytime I see a doctor, I get sicker.
But let me say this: It shouldn't have taken this long for just one doctor to prove me wrong
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Well....
....see for yourself!
They had to partially deconstruct my ear in order to rebuild my nose, and these bandages are hideous, but....IT'S FUCKING FINALLY FINISHED!
I'm bushed. I'm off to bed....
Monday, March 31, 2008
Housekeeping
OK, a couple of updates and some news:
1) I have my final surgery to reconstruct my nose tomorrow. I'm hoping things go smoothly, of course, but this story didn't put my mind to ease. I know, not bloody likely, but given the screw ups from last knifing...
2) ThumbPer is fine. A few of you have asked about him this weekend. He's just angry with me because he found out how much an accountant makes to prepare taxes and told me "But I spended all dai accounting papahs foah you! Dere wuz 47 of dem!"
And now, to the news...next Monday, I will be live and nationwide on Sirius 110 at five PM, on a show called "The Blog Bunker".. that's right, I'm...
Assuming, of course, that I don't develop some mysterious surgical malignant hyperthermia...planted there by some Obama-leaning lefty loon....
1) I have my final surgery to reconstruct my nose tomorrow. I'm hoping things go smoothly, of course, but this story didn't put my mind to ease. I know, not bloody likely, but given the screw ups from last knifing...
2) ThumbPer is fine. A few of you have asked about him this weekend. He's just angry with me because he found out how much an accountant makes to prepare taxes and told me "But I spended all dai accounting papahs foah you! Dere wuz 47 of dem!"
And now, to the news...next Monday, I will be live and nationwide on Sirius 110 at five PM, on a show called "The Blog Bunker".. that's right, I'm...
Assuming, of course, that I don't develop some mysterious surgical malignant hyperthermia...planted there by some Obama-leaning lefty loon....
Proving A Point
There's a curious dynamic involved in this story, one I haven't fully contemplated yet:
After all, he's basically turned on, and then turned off, the faucet of violence, keeping American and British troops dancing in the background while he held off allied-armed Iraqi forces to a standstill.
Clearly, he wanted to demonstrate that the nation will dance to his tune.
He also demonstrated the abject impotence of the American-chosen president, Nuri Maliki, who apparently couldn't crush an uprising any more effectively than the American-led Coalition of the Bribed!
There is an allegory about the lion and the fly, which applies to Iraq: In a fight between a lion and a fly, the fly cannot land a killing blow, while the lion cannot fly.
So it goes with Iraq and the insurgency: we are fighting a fight that we cannot win, despite our overwhelming force, and the Shi'ites know this lion cannot fly.
The ironic thing about this is, this was a fight, and still is a fight, that we didn't have to fight. The sponsors behind this fight, the Iranians, are perhaps the most sophisticated democratic government in the area, just behind India. Yes, the Ayatollah in Iran has supreme power, but if you look at society, even Khameni hasn't been able to stifle all dissent, or make women wear the burqa, or...well, you choose the field, and Iran has advanced fairly far in it, comparatively speaking.
That's not to say we should be holding them up as a model of the Middle East we'd like to see, but we could try working with them to bring them into the fold, so to speak.
Ahmadinejad may come off as a fucking loon, but if you carefully look at the ripples that he sends out, there's a very deep logic to his insanity and it is very profitable to Iran and to its peer nations. And I have no doubt that he speaks for the Ayatollah.
Iraqis returned to the streets of Baghdad after a curfew was lifted and the southern port city of Basra appeared quiet on Monday, a day after the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr called for his followers to stop fighting and in turn demanded concessions from Iraq’s government.OK, the most obvious bit of information we can glean from this story is that al-Sadr is establishing that he is firmly in control of the Shi'ite faction in Iraq. Is this a prelude to his taking over the parliament? Or worse? Is this a signal that Sayyid al-Sistani is preparing to rule over Iraq the way Ayatollahs in Iran have for decades, as "Expwert Jurist"?
Mr. Sadr’s statement, released Sunday afternoon, came at the end of six days in which his Mahdi Army militia had held off an American-supported Iraqi assault on Basra.
After all, he's basically turned on, and then turned off, the faucet of violence, keeping American and British troops dancing in the background while he held off allied-armed Iraqi forces to a standstill.
Clearly, he wanted to demonstrate that the nation will dance to his tune.
He also demonstrated the abject impotence of the American-chosen president, Nuri Maliki, who apparently couldn't crush an uprising any more effectively than the American-led Coalition of the Bribed!
There is an allegory about the lion and the fly, which applies to Iraq: In a fight between a lion and a fly, the fly cannot land a killing blow, while the lion cannot fly.
So it goes with Iraq and the insurgency: we are fighting a fight that we cannot win, despite our overwhelming force, and the Shi'ites know this lion cannot fly.
The ironic thing about this is, this was a fight, and still is a fight, that we didn't have to fight. The sponsors behind this fight, the Iranians, are perhaps the most sophisticated democratic government in the area, just behind India. Yes, the Ayatollah in Iran has supreme power, but if you look at society, even Khameni hasn't been able to stifle all dissent, or make women wear the burqa, or...well, you choose the field, and Iran has advanced fairly far in it, comparatively speaking.
That's not to say we should be holding them up as a model of the Middle East we'd like to see, but we could try working with them to bring them into the fold, so to speak.
Ahmadinejad may come off as a fucking loon, but if you carefully look at the ripples that he sends out, there's a very deep logic to his insanity and it is very profitable to Iran and to its peer nations. And I have no doubt that he speaks for the Ayatollah.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Friday Music Blogging
Bob Marley would be the first to say that this applies to typical white people like me as much as it applies to black folk like the Rev. Wright. THIS is what I & I are fighting for and we can only do it together.
Nobody Asked Me, But...
Oh dear...this has been a tough week all around, hasn't it? Thank god it's Friday!
1) This can't be making Hillary too happy, especially considering that when the liberal wing of the Democratic party threw a hissy fit about pro-life Bob Casey addressing the national convention, the Clinton's interceded on his behalf.
2) Guess Casey won't be on the short list when she wins the nomination.
3) You had to figure this was likely to happen some time this week. Look for Bush to make the case for continuing theescalation surge.
4) If Barack Obama thought the Rev. Wright story was going away eaasily, he had another think coming. Already, there are hints of even uglier allegations regarding Rev. Wright's comments, and I'm thinking it's just a matter of time before someone comes up with a videotape of Obama nodding his head as Wright spews some venom towards America.
5) This is without a doubt one of the dumbest things in recent American political history. You have a deeply ambitious man, who figures to run for national office (Senator) sticking with a church that he knows will give him trouble, and it's not even a church that he was forced to attend! He wasn't born to it, his parents didn't socialize with them, he chose it because it was a large congregation of 3,000 that could help him get elected to Congress. That's all. That's a disposable church. And suddenly, in 2008, Obama's all about "leaving the church", and even then, not until the Wright story was on the cusp of revelation? Obama knew about all this at least as early as the day he announced his candidacy, specifically banning Rev. Wright from giving the invocation to his candidacy announcement!
6) How to embarass a government:
7) Let me get this straight: nipple rings are a threat to national security, but you can have your navel pierced?
8) Of course, I couldn't let this go by: Killer pizzas!
9) One suggestion to Obama on an issue: This is a dumb thing to do, particularly in light of seven years of Bush. Maybe the idiots who support YOU have a short attention span, but typical white people like me do not:During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare rolls. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus. As part of a plan to celebrate the millennium in 2000, Clinton called for a great national initiative to end racial discrimination. (emphasis added)
10) One more nail in the coffin of Karl Rove's political machinations.
11) Were you aware of Earth Hour this weekend?
12)
1) This can't be making Hillary too happy, especially considering that when the liberal wing of the Democratic party threw a hissy fit about pro-life Bob Casey addressing the national convention, the Clinton's interceded on his behalf.
2) Guess Casey won't be on the short list when she wins the nomination.
3) You had to figure this was likely to happen some time this week. Look for Bush to make the case for continuing the
4) If Barack Obama thought the Rev. Wright story was going away eaasily, he had another think coming. Already, there are hints of even uglier allegations regarding Rev. Wright's comments, and I'm thinking it's just a matter of time before someone comes up with a videotape of Obama nodding his head as Wright spews some venom towards America.
5) This is without a doubt one of the dumbest things in recent American political history. You have a deeply ambitious man, who figures to run for national office (Senator) sticking with a church that he knows will give him trouble, and it's not even a church that he was forced to attend! He wasn't born to it, his parents didn't socialize with them, he chose it because it was a large congregation of 3,000 that could help him get elected to Congress. That's all. That's a disposable church. And suddenly, in 2008, Obama's all about "leaving the church", and even then, not until the Wright story was on the cusp of revelation? Obama knew about all this at least as early as the day he announced his candidacy, specifically banning Rev. Wright from giving the invocation to his candidacy announcement!
6) How to embarass a government:
7) Let me get this straight: nipple rings are a threat to national security, but you can have your navel pierced?
8) Of course, I couldn't let this go by: Killer pizzas!
9) One suggestion to Obama on an issue: This is a dumb thing to do, particularly in light of seven years of Bush. Maybe the idiots who support YOU have a short attention span, but typical white people like me do not:During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare rolls. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus. As part of a plan to celebrate the millennium in 2000, Clinton called for a great national initiative to end racial discrimination. (emphasis added)
10) One more nail in the coffin of Karl Rove's political machinations.
11) Were you aware of Earth Hour this weekend?
12)
WHEN WILL THEY LEAVE BRITNEY A LOANNNNNNNNNNNN?!?!?!?!?!? *sob*
13) Where's Bill Murray when you need him?
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Cracks In The Ice
Al Gore warned us in An Inconvenient Truth about this:
However, ice shelfs in the Antarctic are like dams, and when a dam breaks, it doesn't take much to encourage the stuff behind the dam to fall too.
The collapse and calving of the Wilkins ice shelf won't raise sea levels. It was already on the water, so it's specific gravity was accounted for. But the stuff behind it, that's all on land, and would add to sea levels quickly, like dropping an ice cube into a full glass of water.
Worse for us, of course, is the fact that ice doesn't move as rapidly as liquid water. In the year when the land ice slips into the ocean, people will have forgotten this event, and what triggered the next collapse. This is one large difficulty about explaining the global climate crisis to people who's attention span is now shorter than an MTV video.
It's going to be a long hot summer.
March 25, 2008—New satellite images reveal what scientists call the "runaway" collapse of an enormous ice shelf in Antarctica as the result of global warming.Keep in mind that it's nearly "autumn" in the southern hemisphere, and so there might be some firming up of this ice before long.
The chunk of coastal ice was some 160 square miles (415 square kilometers) in area—about seven times the size of Manhattan.
The shelf's rapid collapse began on February 28 (see image sequence at top right), sending a giant swath of broken ice into the sea—as seen in the bottom image, which shows a 2-mile-wide (3.2-kilometer-wide) area.
However, ice shelfs in the Antarctic are like dams, and when a dam breaks, it doesn't take much to encourage the stuff behind the dam to fall too.
The collapse and calving of the Wilkins ice shelf won't raise sea levels. It was already on the water, so it's specific gravity was accounted for. But the stuff behind it, that's all on land, and would add to sea levels quickly, like dropping an ice cube into a full glass of water.
Worse for us, of course, is the fact that ice doesn't move as rapidly as liquid water. In the year when the land ice slips into the ocean, people will have forgotten this event, and what triggered the next collapse. This is one large difficulty about explaining the global climate crisis to people who's attention span is now shorter than an MTV video.
It's going to be a long hot summer.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Foreshadowed
Consider this a glimpse of things to come:
Sadr declareda ceasefire last summer, and apparently went into hiding for the past seven months, only to pop up again Tuesday, calling on Iraqis, and particularly Shi'ites, to engage in civil disruptions if American "attacks" did not cease.
These attacks consisted of wide-scale arrests of Iraqis (apparently non-discriminatory) across Iraq in an attempt to round up militia members.
The lone bright spot in this story is that the bulk of the fighting is being done by Iraqis themselves, against other Iraqis. Allied forces are providing support and reconnaissance functions.
The New York Times is reporting that Sadr has attempted to negotiate with American and Iraqi leaders, but that those talks have broken down.
We're in the middle of this mess, and sadly, it looks like McCain's prediction of 100 years (which he will shortly scale back to fifty) of American presence in the country is not too far off the mark. The Koreas have had us for nearly sixty years, and they are not that much closer to resolution of their grievances and disputes.
We will, I think, be forced to leave a military presence, even as a policing presence, in Iraq for some time to come, and it really doesn't matter who was right or who was wrong about the war.
The bus, to borrow a phrase, has been driven into the ditch. This kind of story will be the template for stories to come out of Iraq for the next few generations, I suspect: Iraqi fighting Iraqi, with Americans trying and failing to talk them both down from the ledge. Civil disobedience will take the form of more bullets and less bluster.
To rattle sabers will be taken far more literally. You almost get the sense that Sadr hoped the American troops would be long gone by now, and figured there's no real reason to wait to take over the country, which would be an unacceptable resolution for America, which have pinned its feeble hopes on Maliki's government.
While McCain was wrong about Iran training Al Qaeda fighters, Shi'a warriors are most definitely allied with Iran, much like the Northern Ireland Catholics were allied with American Irish Catholics. That means money, influence, and weapons are at their disposal, possibly ad infinitum.
It would, of course, be a feather in Iran's cap to rule the nation that they once waged a terrible and terrifying war against.
Pundits on the left have, among others, have tried to paint Iraq's relevance to this election cycle, but I think the realpolitik is that all three remaining candidates would probably have to suck it up and accept our presence in Iraq until 2012, at least (something both Clinton and Obama have admitted to in debates).
Iraq will not be an issue in the campaign this year, not even as a retrospective review and mandate of George Bush's failures. The parry to any serious questioning about our involvement in Iraq would be "Yes, but..."
No use crying over spilled milk, I suppose, but you have to sit and wonder what we've lost, how much we've lost, in this foolish aggression of a few unprincipled men.
Heavy fighting has been raging in Basra as thousands of Iraqi troops battle Shia militias in the southern city.Yea. Some "civil disobedience", huh?
At least 12 people have died in the operation, which is being overseen in Basra by Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki, a day after he vowed to "re-impose law".
[...]Oil-rich Basra is in the grip of a bitter turf war between armed groups, including the Mehdi Army, say analysts.
The Mehdi Army - which supports radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr - called for a nationwide campaign of civil disobedience.
Sadr declareda ceasefire last summer, and apparently went into hiding for the past seven months, only to pop up again Tuesday, calling on Iraqis, and particularly Shi'ites, to engage in civil disruptions if American "attacks" did not cease.
These attacks consisted of wide-scale arrests of Iraqis (apparently non-discriminatory) across Iraq in an attempt to round up militia members.
The lone bright spot in this story is that the bulk of the fighting is being done by Iraqis themselves, against other Iraqis. Allied forces are providing support and reconnaissance functions.
The New York Times is reporting that Sadr has attempted to negotiate with American and Iraqi leaders, but that those talks have broken down.
We're in the middle of this mess, and sadly, it looks like McCain's prediction of 100 years (which he will shortly scale back to fifty) of American presence in the country is not too far off the mark. The Koreas have had us for nearly sixty years, and they are not that much closer to resolution of their grievances and disputes.
We will, I think, be forced to leave a military presence, even as a policing presence, in Iraq for some time to come, and it really doesn't matter who was right or who was wrong about the war.
The bus, to borrow a phrase, has been driven into the ditch. This kind of story will be the template for stories to come out of Iraq for the next few generations, I suspect: Iraqi fighting Iraqi, with Americans trying and failing to talk them both down from the ledge. Civil disobedience will take the form of more bullets and less bluster.
To rattle sabers will be taken far more literally. You almost get the sense that Sadr hoped the American troops would be long gone by now, and figured there's no real reason to wait to take over the country, which would be an unacceptable resolution for America, which have pinned its feeble hopes on Maliki's government.
While McCain was wrong about Iran training Al Qaeda fighters, Shi'a warriors are most definitely allied with Iran, much like the Northern Ireland Catholics were allied with American Irish Catholics. That means money, influence, and weapons are at their disposal, possibly ad infinitum.
It would, of course, be a feather in Iran's cap to rule the nation that they once waged a terrible and terrifying war against.
Pundits on the left have, among others, have tried to paint Iraq's relevance to this election cycle, but I think the realpolitik is that all three remaining candidates would probably have to suck it up and accept our presence in Iraq until 2012, at least (something both Clinton and Obama have admitted to in debates).
Iraq will not be an issue in the campaign this year, not even as a retrospective review and mandate of George Bush's failures. The parry to any serious questioning about our involvement in Iraq would be "Yes, but..."
No use crying over spilled milk, I suppose, but you have to sit and wonder what we've lost, how much we've lost, in this foolish aggression of a few unprincipled men.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
Posts
