blog.suchlike.net

More on Bhopal...

Today is the 20th anniversary of the gas leak at the Union Carbide factory in Bhopal, India.  Too many news organizations will simply run the AP or Reuters story they pull off the wires and leave it at that, just like they do with World Aids Day every year...

Here are a few links that didn't make it in today's haiku:

• The 'official' Union Carbide version (Is it official, or just another hoax by the Yes Men?)
• International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal
• Anushka Asthana, whose grandparents survived the leak, revisits Bhopal in an article from last Sunday's Observer
• Bhopal Express, a feature length film about the disaster
• An undated story about local residents waiting for potable water to arrive by truck
• A new report by Amnesty International, along with letter writing and postcard campaigns, and their recommendation on UN Human Rights Norms for Businesses

Intelligent Devolution

I've recently had two opportunities to hear Richard Dawkins speak about his new book The Ancestor's Tale : A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution: one at a reading at Powell's Books here in Portland (more to follow), and the other a taped reading at a DC bookstore, broadcast by CSPAN this past weekend.  (Sidenote:  CSPAN is vastly more interesting when Congress is out of session - I guess I prefer watching smart people discuss their favorite sausage recipes to watching those who are charged with making the sausage do such a miserable job of it.)

At the end of both readings, I detected a slightly desperate sense of apology in the majority of the audience members' questions. Most of them seemed to want to achieve two things:

1.  Make it clear that they themselves are not one of those 'crazy Americans' who wants to ban the teaching of evolution in favor of creationism (aka intelligent design aka the earth is only 10,000 years old).
2.  Elicit some deliciously clever line from Dr. Dawkins about how crazy all those other Americans who do are.

I found the narrow focus odd.  Here is one of the most brilliant minds in biology in the world today, and all people want to talk about is how backward Mississippi's middle school science curriculum is?

As I survey all of the challenges we currently face in this country, the 'creationism' debate doesn't leap to the forefront, any more than changing the national anthem does.  But I must spend too much time around reasonable people, because I am entirely mistaken about the importance of this issue.

According to this Gallup report, blogged last week by Dan Gillmore, America's problem with facts is much worse than I ever would have guessed: only one third think there is any evidence to support natural selection, and nearly half believe that humans were 'created' less than 10.000 years ago.

What do you wanna bet that's the same half of the country that 'knows' Saddam was responsible for 9/11?

on Eno

What a pleasant surprise to find Brian Eno's face on the front page of the 'Living' section of Tuesday's Oregonian.  Of course, all my Eno-indentified dork brain cells have been activated, and I feel the need to share.  Eno doesn't get nearly enough ink, considering his vast output, so here's where you can find out more:

Astralwerks has reissued four of his ambient CDs (packaged in 'luxury digipack format', according to the site) and four of his vocal CDs, which they describe as "early works".

If you like his vocals (and many don't), also check out 'Wrong Way Up', his collaboration with John Cale.  Some of it is sort of campy, but 'Spinning Away' is one of the best vocal tracks he's ever done.

Two of my favorite Eno CDs are much harder to find:

'Compact Forest Proposals' is a set of five studies he created for an SFMOMA project in 2001.  The reel-to-reel tape machines of Discreet Music have been replaced by ten CD players, playing tracks he created in random order, and this cd features five different takes of the results.  I picked mine up at the museum, but you can also get it online.

'Music for Onmyoji'  is a two-disc set in what must certainly qualify as luxury digipak format: transparent overlays, a glossy reflective cover, and multi-lingual liner notes/insert.  But be warned: only the second disc of the set has music by Brian Eno (along with Peter Schwalm), and it is short, barely 30 minutes, if I recall correctly.  However, it is arguably some of the best work he has done in the last ten years.  Track 6 alone is worth the price of the set in my mind (depending on what the price is now...it was about JPY4000 when it was released, in Japan only), and it is much better than 'Drawn for Life', Eno's other project with Peter Schwalm that came out around the same time.  The first disc is traditional Japanese music, and it is also very good, just not Eno, if that's what you're expecting.

There's much more to Eno beyond his work producing and creating music, from the Oblique Strategies to the Long Now Foundation.

Enoweb has all sorts of information, including archives of articles and interviews going back to the 1973, though the last few years are a bit thin.

I'll try to make the transition from a fan back to a critic now.  Forgive the indulgence...

Home Invasion? Or Home Invitation?

A column by Frank Rich and a post on Jeff Jarvis's blog both describe the manufactured nature of the controversy about the NFL towel drop.  It reminded me of an interview I heard over a week ago on CNN's Newsnight in which Rebecca Hagelin, a 'vice president' of the Heritage Foundation, characterized the clip as a "home invasion". 

Huh?

If only we could convince them all to go lock themselves in their family values safe rooms, never to be heard from again...

Her description is a great example of what George Lakoff means when he talks about framing.

What was actually shown on television?  A dropped towel, the bare skin of a woman's back, and the implication of sex.  That's the controversy, as far as I can tell, from the clip that I saw.  Or maybe there's a deeper sin:  a sports star that prioritizes his personal pleasure over joining the team on the field. 

But by calling it home invasion, what is implied?  Fear, attack, struggle, violation, the imminent threat of violence and maybe even death.  By using this term, a stupid stunt is recast as an emergency, a crisis, a threat to your home.  Raise the Terror Alert to Red!  This frame implies a crime which requires immediate intervention by law enforcement, and some prosecutorial action towards the perpetrators.

When you open your door and invite someone to sit down on the couch with you and your family, only to be shocked by their behavior, it's not a home invasion.  It's a reflection of your poor judgment in house guests.

FOREX Update: US Dollar trading at 3.224 Bananas

Amidst soaring budget and trade deficits, massive unfunded obligations, and Social Security privatization schemes, Paul Krugman has been hinting at America's pending status as a banana republic for a while now.  With four more years of tax cuts on the horizon, he recently reiterated his concerns in an interview with Reuters, also mentioned by Salon's War Room.

But he's not alone.

The last few lines of The Economist's Nov. 23 Buttonwood column, The Dollar's Demise, hint at a similar conclusion:

And what will then happen to the dollar? It is hard to imagine its hegemony remaining unchallenged when so many will have lost so much. And doubly so given that America has abused the dollar’s reserve-currency role so egregiously that its finances now look more like those of a banana republic than an economic superpower.

Rethinking, Relaunching

To my regular haiku readers (and hopefully new readers of this blog),

It's been more than a week since my last haiku post, and judging by my site statistics, your attention to the project has been much better than mine.  Thanks for your continuing interest.  No, I haven't jumped off a bridge or moved to Switzerland because of the election.  I'm still here, contemplating and strategizing.  And no, I'm not planning to quit working on the haiku project altogether.

But there is a problem. 

My time for blogging is limited, and the haiku blog is taking too many minutes away from other projects, including this stalled blog.  I enjoy doing the haiku, but frequently, what I want to say about an event simply can't be summarized in such a brief format.  I can't even begin to relate my horror at the murder of Margaret Hassan, for example, in seventeen pathetic syllables.  I also worry that my words, though carefully selected, may still have more ambiguity than I would like, and are vulnerable to too many misinterpretations.  There are so many issues, and so many topics, for which haiku is simply not enough.

It was my intention to create one news-related haiku a day, but each day the process must compete with everything else I want to write about, with other projects I am working on, with my day job, and the rest of my life.  On reflection, I think the daily deadline both undermines the quality of the haiku and limits progress on other fronts.  In declining this challenge, am I surrendering?  Perhaps.  But I prefer to think of it as a diversification of tactics, with the same overall strategy in mind.

So what's next?

I don't have to tell you that the design of all the suchlike blogs are boring and plain.  I plan to do a bit of renovation.

You should expect more frequent postings both here and on the quotes blog, which also never gained momentum.  I have dozens of snippets of other people's brilliance in the backlog, I just need the time to cull them.

And I'm also starting two new categories on this site.

For every haiku I've published, I've made three or four false starts, with an average of half a dozen links each.  In Haiku Outtakes, I will post some of the thoughts and links that were (and are) proto-haiku, but never quite came together.

I also have a pile of more general notes I never quite got around to publishing, but which I think are still relevant.   Posting these fragments of the past under the category 'Flashbacks' will be my minor act of rebellion against form in a blogosphere that can be a little overly-enamoured with the immediate.

Thanks for checking in, and keep the feedback coming.

Matt

You're right, Dick, it's not clear at all...

Embedded in a series of questions that George Will would like Condi Rice to answer at her confirmation hearings, there was this choice quote from our current Vice President:

In 1991 the secretary of defense, explaining the lack of wisdom of regime change, said: "Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?" Was Dick Cheney right?

Congress: We're busy

The banner headline in this morning's Oregonian:

'We are not safe'

The Chicago-Sun Times, the Seattle Times, and many other papers led the same way.

I have not read the entire report by the 9/11 Commission yet, but as I work through parts of it, and the coverage surrounding it, I'm trying to reconcile two aspects of the story:

1. This comment from Commission Chairman Thomas Kean during yesterday's news conference about the report:

"Our goal is to prevent future attacks. Every expert with whom we spoke told us an attack of even greater magnitude is now possible and even probable. We do not have the luxury of time. We must prepare and we must act." (Italics are mine)

And this one from Commissioner James Thompson:

"If these reforms are not the best that can be done for the American people, then the Congress and the president need to tell us what's better. But if there is nothing better, they need to be enacted and enacted speedily, because if something bad happens while these recommendations are sitting there, the American people will quickly fix political responsibility for failure and that responsibility may last for generations and they will be entitled to do that."

2. With summer vacations, political conventions, and elections coming up, Congress, which was reportedly 'slammed' by the commission, can't be bothered to do much until next year.

From USA Today on July 21:

"It's a very difficult time to squeeze out and have the oversight and the testimony to put new legislation in place," House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Tuesday after being briefed on the report's recommendations.

Now that's leadership. But this lack of urgency is not limited to one party: In the same article, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi reportedly agrees with Hastert.

Is it really the right time for Congress to take the rest of the year off?

Read more:

GOP leaders urge gradual reforms Knight Ridder/Bradenton Herald

RESPONSE TO THE REPORT: Major changes aren't likely soon Detroit Free-Press

Lawmakers to delay action on 9/11 report Washington Times

Hastert: 9/11 Reforms Unlikely This Year The Guardian

And if you live in the US, please contact your senators and representatives in Congress to urge them to get their priorities in order.

Looking for Yellowcake?

Simson Garfinkel has created two searchable versions of the Senate Intelligence Committee's mammoth report on "Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq".

If you would like to be able to find specific topics in the report, without plodding through all 521 pages, check it out.

via MIT's Emerging Technologies newsletter

Adventuring for Peace

As I was researching Antarctica links for today's haiku, I stumbled onto the Breaking the Ice project:

"On January 1st, 2004, four Israelis and four Palestinians (two women and six men) will set off on a sea and land expedition to the distant reaches of Antarctica. Their goal is to summit and name a previously unclimbed mountain. Their expedition is called: 'Breaking the Ice'.

This journey combines the spirit of adventure with a quest for understanding. It will force people separated by deep political and religious differences to cooperate in pursuit of a shared goal."

They also kept a trip diary.

In the mainstream press, the recent history of the Middle East is framed in terms of the Oslo Accords, dashed hopes at Camp David, the second Intifada, the failed roadmap, and the controversial security 'fence'.

Lasting peace will not come from any of these agreements or tactics. It will come when a critical mass of individuals -- on both sides -- realizes they have more reasons to live together than die together. Projects like "Breaking the Ice" help build the social and cultural infrastructure for that eventual reconciliation. Bravo.

'Big Time' strikes again

When US Senators gathered to have their annual photo taken earlier this week, Vice President Dick Cheney and Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy seized the opportunity to have a 'frank exchange of views', ranging from the sins of Halliburton to the politics of Catholic apostasy.

It has been widely reported (from Al Jazeera to the Sydney Morning Herald) that Mr. Cheney summarized his position with a so-called "bad word" aimed at Mr. Leahy. (The whole concept of 'bad words', especially in the case of one deployed with such versatility, is silly, but that's an argument for another time.)

I'm no apologist for Mr. Cheney, but I do have an alternate theory of events.

My hunch is that Mr. Cheney actually pronounced the abbreviation "FA-CA", a reference to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). FACA was central to the administration's psuedo-victory at the Supreme Court on Thursday. From a Christian Science Monitor article Friday:

Under FACA, advisory committees set up by the president that are composed entirely of federal officials do not have to publicly disclose details of their inner workings. The Bush administration said the energy task force was just such a committee.

Democratic aides within earshot of the exchange, given their disposition towards cynical interpretations of the Vice President (and who could blame them), and not expecting the vice president to cite legislation in such a heated discussion, heard "FA-CA" as "Fuck off!", and the press ran with it.

How might we hear the "FA-CA" retort used to deflect interest in the 'inner workings' of the Bush administration in the future?

FOIA? FACA!

It's just a hunch.

And knowing is half the battle...

From John Ashcroft's first press conference on the subject, hastily-convened during a trip to Moscow, it seemed like Jose Padilla didn't really know squat about dirty bombs. Mr. Ashcroft's enthusiastic description of Mr. Padilla's detention as the disruption of a major dirty bomb plot may have sounded chilling at the time, but given recent reports, I wouldn't be surprised if the strongest evidence turns out to be a sketch of a mushroom cloud on a cocktail napkin.

Beyond the specifics -- or lack of them -- in the Padilla case, how worried should we be about the threat of radiological weapons?

In his latest Technology for Presidents column, Richard Muller takes a closer look at the issue.

A few key points:

A "dirty bomb" is just a conventional explosive encased in radioactive material. The explosion of such a bomb would disperse radioactive particles, but there would not be a fission reaction, and therefore, no Hiroshima-type mushroom cloud. It wouldn't look any different than a conventional bomb of the same size.

Any immediate deaths or injuries on the scene would be caused by the explosion, and most likely would not have anything to do with radioactivity. No one will know whether a bomb was "dirty" until the blast area is tested.

The effects would be much closer to what is seen at an industrial pollution site, and any major harm from the radiological aspects would probably play out over years, not seconds. An attack could render an area unlivable for a few decades, but there would be plenty of time for an orderly evacuation with minimal long-term health consequences for those outside the immediate blast area.

So what might be the worst part of a dirty bomb explosion? Panic and fear. Unfortunately, rather than educating the public about what we should and should not worry about in such a scenario, this administration's focus has been fear-mongering.

Dr. Muller even speculates that in the event of a dirty bomb attack, there could be more deaths from car crashes during a panic than from the actual explosion.

In other words, it's not so different from any other day: You have a greater chance of being killed by a car than by Al Qaeda.

Drive safely.

Another Afghan Update

In an article published yesterday by The Economist, a couple of statistics popped out:

* The $2.3b in poppy production is eight times the Afghan government's tax revenues

* Despite a target of 40,000 troops, there are still only 7,500 enlisted in the Afghan army

* With elections scheduled for September, only about one-third of eligible voters are signed up in the north, and significantly less than that in the south

Coordination of Powers

Here's Arnold-enthusiast and California Congressman David Dreier reminiscing about former president Ronald Reagan on Hardball yesterday:

"I worked for him. That meant I worked for him by coming to Congress because we followed his marching orders, you know?" (emphasis added)

So much for checks and balances...

Unasked questions for the Veep

When I watch our political celebrities interviewed by our news celebrities, I'm usually as much aghast at the questions not asked as I am at those that are.

Last Friday, Larry Kudlow tossed softballs to Dick Cheney for slightly more than 30 minutes on Kudlow and Cramer. I was cringing at all the missed opportunities. Here are a few questions I might have asked...

[I'm a bit late in posting this, in part because I was hoping that a transcript would show up on either the CNBC website or the Vice President's website. Foolish of me, I know...]

Mr. Cheney offered a variety of reasons for the current spike in gas prices, including the defeat of efforts to open the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in 1995, lack of refinery capacity due to environmental regulations, and the requirements for "boutique" (which he pronounced "bow-teak", probably out of contempt for the French origins of the word...) fuel blends to satisfy varying clean air standards around the country.

My question: "Of all the factors that affect prices at the pump, which factor has changed the most in the last six months? Oil prices, right? And are energy markets at the moment driving prices higher because of a sudden realization that there is no drilling going on in ANWR, or a perceived lack of refining capacity in the US, or disgust with air that is too clean? No. Could a shaky House of Saud, or Al Qaeda's stated strategy of attacking oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, or the recent success of pipeline attacks in Iraq have anything to do with higher oil prices?"

Larry Kudlow wondered about the rise of hybrid cars, but Mr. Cheney dismissed them as still "expensive" to buy.

My question: "I know you like to reduce taxes. Why not double the tax credit for hybrids, so that the fuel savings combined with the tax relief make purchasing a hybrid a no-brainer, and maybe even profitable?"

This wouldn't even cost the treasury much in the near term, because relatively few hybrid cars were made this year, but it would clearly increase demand and incentivise expanded hybrid car production over the next few years. In the longer term, you could probably make an increased tax credit for hybrids revenue-neutral by simultaneously eliminating the tax deductions for Hummers and other luxury SUVs. How's that sound, Mr. Cheney?

A broader followup would be:

"What sort of commitment has this administration made to foster innovation in alternative energy research, and what more can be done? How is this addressed in your energy proposal? Is this administration content to let other countries take the lead in wind, solar, hybrid cars, fuel cells, 'hydrogen highways', and other 'technologies of tomorrow'?"

On WMD, Mr. Cheney repeated the 'explanation' that by now we are all familiar with: they could still be hidden, someplace we haven't looked yet, it's a country the size of California, etc...

My question: "If you can't find WMD after more than a year of occupation, is invasion still a viable strategy to use in pursuit of WMD non-proliferation?"

Mr. Cheney also gave his standard response about Halliburton: "I've totally divested myself of those interests."

There's no point in going after this question directly, because he feigns outrage at the merest suggestion of impropriety.

My question: "Are no-bid contracts the best procurement strategy for the US military, and if so, why? Why not 'let the markets work' as you so eagerly encourage in other sectors of our government?"

I'll keep these questions nearby, just in case the Veep shows up on a call-in show...

The "Other" Front

The news from Afghanistan has been less-than-encouraging this week.

On Memorial Day, the US Department of Defense announced the deaths of three soldiers who were killed by a landmine in Kandahar, and the death of a Navy Seal.

The same day, Bob Novak, in his column "US is lost in Afghanistan", described the mood of the soldiers on the ground:

"They are undermanned and feel neglected, lack confidence in their generals and are disgusted by Afghan political leadership. Most important, they are appalled by the immense but fruitless effort to find Osama bin Laden for purposes of U.S. politics."

Later in the week, the Pentagon announced a "stop-loss" order, which extends a soldier's tour of duty until 90 days after their unit returns from combat, regardless of when their contract for voluntary service expires.

Mr. Novak also mentioned the struggle against "narco-terrorists", who are flourishing because of the explosion of poppy production. James Kunder, of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), in testimony to the House International Relations Committee on June 2, said that one hectare of poppies will yield thirty times the value of one hectare of wheat.

While USAID claims that less than ten percent of the farmers in Afghanistan are growing poppies, Afghanistan's opium crop was worth $2.3 billion last year. Mr. Kunder's opening remarks for the hearing are available on the USAID website.

The BBC's Andrew North recently accompanied Antonio Maria Costa (head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime) on a trip from the Afghan border to Herat to investigate this year's poppy crop. This telling exchange took place in Kunduz Province:

"But don't you know this is against Islam?" says Mr Costa, holding up a poppy bulb.

The farmer looks up plaintively. "There's freedom now, it's a democracy isn't it?"

Elections are scheduled for this September...

Finally, in the Northwest province of Badghis, around 550km west of Kabul, the Taliban claimed responsibility for an ambush which killed five aid workers from Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF).

MSF has been working in Afghanistan since 1980, but has suspended all activity in the wake of the attack. There is an "In Memoriam" page to the five workers on the MSF website.

According to the BBC, at least 13 aid workers have been killed this year in Afghanistan. In a more detailed report, PakTribune claims that 20 aid workers have been killed in 2004.

More information:

MSF in Afghanistan
USAID in Afghanistan
The latest USAID Fact Sheet on Afghanistan

Nothing lost in this translation...

Al Jazeera's English website gave readers an overview of American talk radio on Thursday.

Outtakes include this Rush Limbaugh description of the detainees who were abused at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq:

"They are the ones who are sick. They're the ones who are perverted. They are the ones who are dangerous. They are the ones who are subhuman. They are the ones who are human debris, not the United States of America and not our soldiers and not our prison guards."

And Michael Savage, who reveals the secret genocidal yearnings of the American "crusader" public:

"I tell you right now - the largest percentage of Americans would like to see a nuclear weapon dropped on a major Arab capital. They don't even care which one ... I think these people need to be forcibly converted to Christianity. It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings"

Even Donald Rumsfeld would probably consider those remarks "unhelpful," though he probably couldn't resist taking a swing at Al Jazeera for reporting them.

t-minus 37 days

Tuning in last night to watch President Bush's speech on Iraq at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, I did a double-take at the graphic CNN had placed at the bottom of the screen. Countdown to Hangover? That's a gutsy editorial decision, I thought for a moment, before I re-read it. "Countdown to Handover". Ah. And I bet there is a catchy logo and musical theme to go along with it that we'll be subjected to for the next five weeks or so. That is reason enough to hope the handover won't be delayed.

Mr. Bush's speeches often make me feel like I've entered the wrong channel on the remote and landed on Nickelodeon, the kids' channel. He laboriously explained the current situation in simple language fit for a 6th-grader, as though his audience doesn't have enough of a vocabulary, interest, or attention span to read the 'big people' newspapers yet. The disconnect between him and the American public couldn't possibly be a failure to communicate on his part, so he treats us like we just haven't understood him yet. We just need to hear it again, and so, to make sure no listener is left behind, he dutifully repeats the same old explanations and the same tired arguments, punctuated with that smirk that asks "Don't you get it yet?" The sentences are short and punchy, the delivery is plodding, and the awkward pauses occasionally find his tongue peeking out through pursed lips. I suppose that's 'folksy' to some.

When he approaches unfamiliar names, it's as if he is taking us along with him on a brief journey to an exotic location. He begins with fretful trepidation and a flash of panic, but continues with determination, and finishes, if he has safely navigated the length of it, with a sense of achievement and accomplishment. In one less-successful instance last night, he scraped up against the "Abu......Ga.....reeb" iceberg and probably threw a few listeners from their chairs, but it seemed to jar him enough that he managed to miss other hazards further along. Giving credit where credit is due, his makeup artist did a fantastic job on his chin after his weekend bike spill. It couldn't have been fun to scrape whatever that was off after the 'show'. Here's to a speedy recovery.

Enough about appearance and presentation. What about the substance?

Those looking for a change of direction or a new strategy were likely disappointed. With many international eyes trained on Carlisle, it could have been an opportunity to send a subtle SOS to the world, or a clear reminder that they have as much of an interest as we do in keeping Iraq afloat and escorting her back to safe harbor. Instead, it brought to mind another definition of SOS: same old shit.

Nearly everything Mr. Bush said has been said before, with a few exceptions. It was the first time I've heard him put the word "full" in front of sovereignty, though I imagine there will be all sorts of qualifiers added once Iraq's as-yet unnamed defense minister starts vetoing CentCom decisions.

Mr. Bush pledged to build a new, modern prison, and then destroy Abu Ghraib, if the Iraqis wish it. That would have been brilliant and bold a year ago, but it now seems half noble, and half an attempt to destroy a reminder of our own atrocities there. If the Iraqis instead choose to turn Abu Ghraib into a museum of torture, or a monument to Saddam's victims, no doubt a tiny corner, perhaps a broom closet, will be set aside to chronicle America's own "inconsistencies" with the Geneva conventions.

The "caretaker government" formula of a president, a prime minister and two VPs was announced more than a month ago by UN Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, but this is the first mention I've heard Mr. Bush make of a representative "national council" that will advise the new leadership until planned elections in January 2005. The council will not be a legislative body, and therefore it will have no real power, and it's still difficult to envision 'free and fair' elections in which each political faction is backed by their own militia. They face much greater challenges than hanging chads or dubious results from touchscreen machines.

Was there anything positive in the speech? The longest and most authentic applause of the evening came after this passage:

"The mission of our forces in Iraq is demanding and dangerous. Our troops are showing exceptional skill and courage. I thank them for their sacrifices and their duty."

The troops certainly deserve that applause. And I liked this sentiment:

"We believe that when all Middle Eastern peoples are finally allowed to live and think and work and worship as free men and women, they will reclaim the greatness of their own heritage. And when that day comes, the bitterness and burning hatreds that feed terrorism will fade and die away. America and all the world will be safer when hope has returned to the Middle East."

I don't doubt that is true, but it doesn't seem to square with tactics on the ground, or the broader strategy. Hope can not be "returned to the Middle East" by military force alone. In reading the writings of and interviews with those still in charge of this war effort, you won't come across many references to helping other countries and cultures "reclaim the greatness of their own heritage." Instead,
you're more likely to find condescending quips about vases that exhibit a shameful ignorance of Iraq's heritage. Safety and security, in their conception of the "New American Century", is best achieved by keeping the rest of the world under the thumb, or perhaps the boot-heel, of American supremacy. That's not a plan for spreading hope.

In mentioning Falluja, Mr. Bush admitted that "we have pursued a different approach." Any effort to minimize civilian casualties and the further alienation those casualties would create is certainly laudable. However, chest-thumping and threats of attack at a "time and place of our choosing" after the murder and mutilation of four American contractors quickly and quietly transformed into negotiation and withdrawal, and it's not clear where this "different approach" will take us. According to a New York Times article this morning:

"In Falluja, the scene of deadly fighting last month, American commanders agreed to set up an Iraqi security force composed almost entirely of former members of Mr. Hussein's Republican Guard and anti-American guerrillas."

Is that why we have spent nearly $200 billion dollars, lost more than one thousand coalition soldiers, suffered thousands of serious injuries, and disrupted the lives of millions worldwide? To merely peel a few dozen 'playing-card superstars' off the top of the deck of the old regime, reshuffle the rest of the 'thugs', and politely excuse ourselves from the table? The Pentagon has already had to remove Maj. Gen. Jassim Mohammed Saleh, only days after giving him command of the Falluja brigades, when a public vetting process led to outcry from the Sunni population there that he was too closely tied to Saddam's regime. Is that an approach that will return hope to the region? Once again, the people of the Middle East will see America choosing political expediency over principle.

The impression Mr. Bush gave is that either the Iraqis want freedom, and will have it, or that "evildoers" who want chaos will succeed, and tyranny will return. There seems to be little recognition of the vast and stormy sea of other possibilities, from Iraq as a mild or militant Shiite theocracy, to Iraq as a failed state engulfed in civil war and flooded with terrorists, to an Iraq that splits into three or more smaller nations which destabilize the entire region. Regardless of the specifics, failure will not be confined to Iraq.

Even if we wish freedom for the Iraqis, and even if they want freedom for themselves, building a stable, robust, and democratic society is an extraordinarily difficult and complex undertaking. We will not succeed simply because we hope we will. That's why there has to be a plan, not just a vision or a hope. And to refine it just a bit more, it's not just a plan or some plan that it is needed, but a robust plan that seems like it could actually work. A realistic plan that not only the American people and the Iraqi people, but the people of nations that are not now involved, can sign on to and believe in.

The question remains: Can the plan Mr. Bush outlined achieve the goals he articulated? If we want Iraqis to succeed, we have to make sure they have the security, tools, skills, cash and support to be able to succeed. To try to put a positive spin on an abused phrase, we have to 'set the conditions' in which democracy, and the Iraqi people themselves, can flourish. Can 'staying the course' do that?

Maybe CNN's banner graphic should have read "Countdown to Hangover". On July 1, as we open our eyes and lift our heads, the room will still be spinning, and I imagine we are going to have a one hell of a headache. We are going to wonder what we did the night before, and just who we've gotten into bed with, and how on earth we're going to make a graceful exit. We'll promise ourselves that in the future, we'll listen to more sober voices, and that it'll never happen again...ever. But then what?

Catching Up

This week, the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal has dominated the news, as it should, in my opinion, but the rest of the world grinds on:

In a bold move that will hopefully help de-stigmatize HIV-positive South Africans, Mangosuthu Buthelezi, leader of the Inkatha Freedom Party, admitted in an interview that his son died of AIDS. The government recently announced its plans to distribute anti-retroviral drugs to all of the estimated 5.3 million citizens infected, though president Thabo Mbeki still maintains that he doesn't know anyone with HIV. Maybe it's time for a meet and greet at the presidential mansion.

Sudan was re-appointed to the UN Human Rights Commission, despite the ongoing tragedy in Darfur. The impact of a US walkout prior to the vote was dampened, in the opinion of some, by the abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib.

In 1999, eight tourists were killed in Uganda by Rwandan rebels who had wandered over from DR of Congo. Ugandan officials, worried about the steep drop in visitors since, have come up with a new plan: strippers.

In Yelwa, Nigeria, there are claims that at least 630 were killed by a Christian militia in ongoing ethnic and religious battles. While the exact death toll ranges from 67 to 1,000, Muslims have begun to flee the area.

Another reason we need an International Criminal Court: Blue Helmets in Kosovo who are there to keep the peace, are actively participating in the underage sex trade, and escaping prosecution on top of it.

As oil hit $40 a barrel this week, the BBC cited several reasons: Increased oil transportation insurance costs after an attack on the offices of oil companies in Saudi Arabia, multiple attacks on offshore loading terminals for Iraqi oil near Basra, and the potential of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal to add even more uncertainty to the June 30 handover of sovereignty.

The evoting saga continues here in the US: The body appointed to monitor the transition to electronic voting reports that it is overwhelmed. Best stock up on painkillers now, because November has the potential to be excruciating, no matter who you are voting for.

Amidst the manufactured brouhaha over whether John Kerry was wounded enough to deserve the first of three Purple Hearts in Vietnam, more than 21,000 pages from FBI files on John Kerry's antiwar activities in the 1970s were released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. The files describe him as a moderate who urged that the movement remain nonviolent. Expect the RNC to pounce on this one as further proof that Mr. Kerry's "inability" to keep America secure.

It's back to the drawing board once again for Ariel Sharon, after the Likud party rejected his proposal to withdraw from Gaza.

And finally, an update from the land of the perpetual apology:

Yasuo Fukuda, Japan's chief cabinet secretary who only a few weeks ago derided Japanese ex-hostages upon their return from Iraq, resigned from his post after admitting that he missed 37 months of payments into Japan's pension plan in the first half of the nineties. (This link is worth it for the bashful photo alone!)

A few months ago, actress Makiko Esumi was featured in ads promoting the pension system that said "If you pay now you'll be paid later... Do you want to end up crying in the future?" Apparently, she did plan on crying in the future, because she had been missing payments herself.

Mr. Fukuda's response at the time? "Although it's a serious matter it is quite funny."

Adding it up...

According to an AP report, the Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress for another $25 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. The report didn't provide a detailed breakdown of the amount, but based on the the level of activity in each location, and the proportion set aside for each in the last request, it is fair to assume that most of it is for Iraq.

Doing the math, roughly:

April 2003: $79.5 billion
November 2003: $87.5 billion
May 2004: $25 billion

Total: Approximately $192 billion and counting

Former Bush chief economic advisor Larry Lindsey's prediction that a war with Iraq might cost $100 to $200 billion, for which he was derided at the time, now seems like wishful thinking. In contrast, on March 27, 2003, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz's testified to Congress that Iraq would be able to use its oil revenues to "finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." It's not the most egregious example of Wolflowitz's misperceptions of the costs of war in Iraq. As Donald Rumsfeld might say, "It is what it is."

Other key issues from the AP story: it 'seemed likely' that this $25 billion is only the 'first portion' of funds that will be needed for FY2005, and 'billions' more may be needed for the last few weeks of this fiscal year. The 'burn rate' for the occupation has risen to $5 billion per month, and the Pentagon has announced that troop levels will stay at around 135,000 through the end of calendar year 2005.

Remember, the administration did not include the cost of the war in their budget proposal for this fiscal year, hoping to postpone any additional requests until after the election.

With friends like this...

The story of Ahmed Chalabi (aka Ahmad, particularly in the UK press), were it to appear in a Hollywood film, would likely be ridiculed as contrived and hyperbolic, another example of Left Coast liberal propaganda masquerading as entertainment.

Who is Chalabi? When pundits make glancing reference to Iraqi exiles who lack popular support in the "new" Iraq, Chalabi is almost certainly the person they have in mind. Born to a powerful family in Iraq in 1944, he was (and for some, is) a focal point among neoconservatives in the Bush administration who led the charge for regime change.

Chalabi is in the news this week because of a report in Newsweek's May 10 issue that he has been acting as a double agent, playing the US government for a fool, while leaking secret political plans to Iran's theocratic government. On Tuesday, Salon.com published an article written by John Dizard (a columnist for the Financial Times) that examines Chalabi's role in lobbying for regime change before the war, and his maneuvers for power during the reconstruction. Along with promises to forge a secular Iraq that would be friendly to Israel, he offered hopes of a revived oil pipeline from Mosul (Iraq) through Jordan to the port of Haifa in Israel.

Here's a bit of additional background:

* He founded Petra Bank in Jordan, and was later convicted (in absentia) of 31 counts of "embezzlement, theft, misuse of depositor funds and currency speculation" in Jordan, and left the country hidden in the trunk of the Crown Prince's car. He was sentenced to 22 years in prison in Jordan.

* Chalabi is a key leader (he has had various titles over the years) of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a coalition of Iraqi exile groups formed in 1992, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service.

* He was involved in a failed coup launched from northern Iraq in March of 1995, and the CIA later blamed him for a failed military coup attempt, referred to as DBACHILLES, in June of 1996, according to David Ignatius. (Washington Post, May 16, 2003) Two hundred opposition fighters were executed, "as many as" 2000 were arrested, and approximately 650 participants (most of whom were INC) were evacuated and resettled in the US, according to the previously mentioned CRS report.

* The Iraq Liberation Act, passed in the US Congress in October 1998, paved the way for renewed INC funding from the US government, which had been cut off after the failed coup attempts.

* In early April 2003, before the fall of Baghdad, he was delivered into Iraq by the US Military, along with approximately 620 INC-backed "opposition fighters" dubbed the Free Iraqi Forces. These forces were later accused of lawlessness by American troops. An article on 5/1/2004 in USA Today provides even more detail:

Lack of interagency cooperation:

"U.S. officials say neither the State Department, the National Security Council, the Joint Chiefs of Staff nor the CIA were informed when the U.S. military's Central Command flew Chalabi and 700 of his forces from northern Iraq into the southern city of Nasiriyah on April 5."

Lawlessness:

"U.S. troops arrested eight members of the group earlier this month after they were found looting abandoned homes of ousted regime members. The senior Defense official says several militiamen were caught recently robbing a bank."

Quality of the force:

"Analysts say the paramilitary group was rapidly assembled in northern Iraq earlier this year and not vetted to weed out criminals, fighters as young as 13 and elements of the Badr Brigades."

* In mid-July, 2003, he was appointed as one of twenty-five members of the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC).

* After Saddam's capture in December 2003, Chalabi was one of four IGC leaders to have a private audience with him.

* Chalabi attended the 2004 State of the Union speech, as an invited guest of Laura Bush.

* In reaction to accusations that he misled the US government with bad intelligence about WMD (including those mobile bioweapons labs that have never been found), he provided this now infamous quote to the Telegraph on February 19, 2004:

"We are heroes in error...As far as we're concerned we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We're ready to fall on our swords if he wants." (emphasis added)

* In a guest Op-Ed published by the Wall Street Journal on April 17, 2004, in response to the poor debut performance of the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps (ICDC) in Fallujah, he offered up troops 'nominated' by the INC, along with Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and a few others: "Most importantly we can provide forces that have been vetted and vouched for." As the head of the IGC's de-Baathification committee, he also warned: "Reconstituting the old Iraqi army would be a grave mistake." The military, however, seems to have ignored his advice in favor of 're-Baathification'.

* He is at odds with the United Nations in general, and UN special envoy to Iraq Lakhdar Brahimi specifically, because of Brahimi's recommendation that the IGC be dissolved after the June 30 handover of sovereignty. While there are some very real problems that need to be investigated in the UN Oil-for-Food Program (aka Oil-for-fraud), the INC has been instrumental in using this scandal to smear the UN's involvement in Iraq.

* On Hardball on April 29, 2004, Chris Matthews asked Donald Rumsfeld about Chalabi's ability to be independent and on the payroll at the same time, and the Secretary confirmed that "...his organization, the INC, receives funds to do a variety of things." How much? $340,000 a month. (Matthews says $350,000 in the transcript, but $340,000 is more commonly quoted in other sources.) What things? Stay tuned...

More Information

Disinfopedia has a detailed profile of Ahmad Chalabi, with a comprehensive set of links at the bottom of the page.

The temperature at which film burns...

The New York Times reports that Disney is refusing to allow its Miramax division to distribute Michael Moore's new film, "Fahrenheit 911". The film, which will be shown at Cannes later this month, depicts the cozy relationships between the Bush family and the royal family of Saudi Arabia, which have also been explored in great detail in Craig Unger's book "House of Bush, House of Saud". (see excerpt)

Moore's agent claims that Disney is worried that tax breaks they receive for their Florida enclave might be endangered if the president's brother Jeb (Florida's governor) is offended by the film. Disney denies it, and says they informed Moore of the decision a year ago.

And then there is this bizarre detail: Miramax stepped in after Mel Gibson's Icon Productions decided it "wasn't right for Icon" last May. One wonders what kind of film Moore and Gibson might be able to produce together. Probably a short, if that.

Pounding down nails

On April 8, three Japanese citizens were taken hostage in Iraq. Their captors sent a videotape to Al Jazeera in which they threatened to burn the hostages alive if the 550-member Japanese Self-Defense Forces (SDF) contingent posted in Samawah didn't withdraw from Iraq. Some of the family members of the hostages went to Tokyo to plead for a withdrawal, and this earned them threatening and harassing letters from the public. No yellow ribbons there, but a Japanese diplomatic team was dispatched to Jordan to do what it could to negotiate.

Less than two weeks later, appearing in video footage with the local Iraqi clerics that secured their release, 18-year old peace activist Noriaki Imai seemed to have his wits about him as he shared tea and embraced one of the clerics, but 32-year old humanitarian aid worker Nahoko Takato sat on a couch and sobbed uncontrollably. Days of being held blindfolded had obviously taken their toll. Unfortunately, it was about to get worse.

The ex-hostages faced an onslaught of detractors from the moment they arrived back in Japan. According to a NY Times article, one sign 'greeting' them at the airport read: "You got what you deserved!" and a post on a website read: "You are Japan's shame." Why? They had committed the grave Japanese sin of "causing trouble" to others, and had disobeyed government warnings that Iraq was a "dangerous" place. A psychiatrist who examined them several times declared that they were experiencing more stress after returning to Japan than they had while in captivity.

Takato, whose family lives on Japan's northern island of Hokkaido, spoke of her fears of rejection: "I feel like going back home quickly, but I'm also afraid of going home." She has since disappeared completely from public view.

Some Japanese lawmakers actually proposed banning all travel to "dangerous" countries, and others demanded that the former hostages reimburse the government tens of thousands of dollars for transport fees. An unnamed member of the majority Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) referred to the ex-hostages as "anti-government, anti-Japan elements", according to The Independent.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda, pondered: "Can we praise people who may have placed the lives of others in danger because they wanted to stick to their beliefs and principles?'' And in the previously mentioned NY Times article, he was quoted: "They may have gone on their own but they must consider how many people they caused trouble to because of their action."

In contrast, US Secretary of State Colin Powell, much beleaguered this week in the wake of Bob Woodward's new book, emerged as one of the hostages' few supporters in comments to Japan's TBS TV:

"If nobody was willing to take a risk then we would never move forward, we would never move our world forward," Powell said. He said the Japanese people should be "very proud that they have citizens like this that are willing to do that."

Akira Kurihara, a professor of political sociology at Meiji University, added: "Which is more important, responding from their hearts to humanitarian calls or obedience to authority's instructions? The answer is too obvious.''

Is it? After reading several articles full of comments from Japanese citizens, I'm really not sure which answer Mr. Kurihara considers "too obvious." I know which one I do.

To those brave Japanese who go against the grain, who 'cause trouble', who 'stick to their beliefs and principles', who dare to be the nails that stick up, only to be almost invariably pounded down, you have my continuing admiration. Keep it up.