12/31/06
Iraq.
Saddam Hussein is dead.
Can we go home now?
Election. It is encouraging that the Democrats did so well. My best wishes to Senator Johnson. As I said before, the Democrats might even have the winds at their backs. But where are our sails? And who knows how to steer this thing?
Happy New Year to us all!
06/06/06
Iraq. Nation-building is tough. Successes include Germany and Japan, sixty years ago. Both were countries with well-educated populations, and in the case of Germany the cultural gap was particularly small. In both cases, we knew we were conducting a military occupation. Our Constabulary Corps kept order; the Military Government people ran things. But that was sixty years ago.
Fast-forward to Iraq. We want a democracy, which means putting the underclass group -- the Shiites -- in charge, because they're the majority. But do the Iraqis want a democracy? The Shiites want a theocracy, like Iran. The Sunnis want an autocracy, like before. The Kurds want to be left alone to start a Greater Kurdistan. As I say, nation-building is tough, especially when the people involved aren't sure they want the nation we try to build. Having thrown ourselves into the quagmire, we face a struggle to get out, so we can go back to concentrating on the war against terrorism.
The first thing we need to do is to make a clear separation in our minds between the war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism. These are not at all the same. We need to wind down the former, to help us with the latter.
Other countries. The fact that we smashed Iraq had the side-effect of strengthening Iran, their rival in the region. It will be hard now to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Let's hope that the royal family in Saudi Arabia manages to keep its grip on the reins -- as imperfect as their rule is. The bin Laden family remains influential there. (And for some reason their sand is on top of our oil!) If things go wrong here, they could go very wrong. Islamic extremists seem to be taking over Somalia, which was up for grabs. But it's only Somalia, right?
In South America, Bush is the most unpopular US president (ever). It's the arrogance. Well, it's hard to keep from being arrogant when you rule the world.
Environment. The Bush administration continues to be an environmental disaster. Global warming, national forests, ... You name, they botch it.
Economy. We are enjoying a positive part of the economic cycle. But we shouldn't be running up these huge deficits in good times. We should immediately reverse the Bush tax cuts, to reduce the budget deficit.
Decency. The White House wanted the CIA to be allowed to use torture. Bush finally had to give in to McCain on this issue -- everyone except Cheney was on McCain's side. It is embarrassing that our president holds immoral views on this. Step one is to acknowledge that decency matters.
Future. It is cheering that I'm not the only one who thinks a change of direction is needed. Going into the 2006 midterm elections, the Democrats might even have the winds at their backs. But where are our sails? And who knows how to steer this thing?
May 2005
We are now 100+ days into Bush's second term. How are we doing?
Paul Wolfowitz (Mr. Empire America) has been appointed head of the World Bank. That's good; at least it gets him out of the Pentagon.
John Bolton has been nominated ambassador to the U.N., an organization for which he has shown contempt in the past. Even some Republicans are finding this one hard to swallow.
In the 2004 election, there was much discussion of "the Christian vote." I don't remember any usage of that term before 2004, but times are changing. The Christian vote was decisive in 2004, and it may be decisive in 2008 (when it will be Jeb vs. Hillary).
More generally, it is becoming acceptable (acceptable to some) to mix religion and politics. Don't try to learn about evolution in Kansas.
In particular, we are coming to a showdown over judicial appointments and the filibuster. The judicial nominations of devout conservatives are being recycled. If the filibuster goes (and maybe even it it doesn't), then the judiciary is going to become more Christian. (DeLay wants to make this change retroactive.)
Contrast a democracy like the U.S. with a theocracy like Iran. In Iran, reformist steps by the government can get squelched by the clerics. That couldn't happen here. Could it?
Advice: Don't get declared an "enemy combatant." That can get you disappeared, in the supreme interests of the state.
For a change of pace, here is a link dealing with the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
November 2004
Just in case anyone (e.g. John Ashcroft) wants to know, here are some of my political opinions.
What is wrong with George Bush?
Barbara Boxer is running for re-election. Let's give her another term. She had the guts to vote against the Iraq war.
Propositions.
[Lost] Proposition A: Yes?
Judges. The LA Times endorses
Mildred Escobedo, Lori Jones, Laura Priver, Daniel Zeke Zeidler, and
Donna Groman. Lacking other information, I'll copy that.
[Jones lost; Escobedo, Priver, Zeidler, and Groman won.]
City Council. Curiouser and curiouser.
SMC Board of Trustees.
SMMUSD School District.
Propositions
28 April 2003
Are we safer now? I am glad the military accomplished its mission quickly. Now comes the problem of getting out, and changing the regime to -- to what?
27 March 2003
What now? Now that Bush has -- unwisely, in my view -- sent our troops into Iraq, I can only wish them a speedy victory. May they extricate themselves from the predicament successfully, safely, and soon!
11 March 2003
Just in case anyone wants to know, here are my views on the Iraq crisis.
Is Iraq a threat to America? That is the crucial question. The answer is that Iraq is no more a threat to us than are the other countries that intensely hate us (a growing club).
What about WMD? Much is made of Iraq's so-called weapons of mass destruction. From Powell's speech, it is clear that Iraq's nuclear program went nowhere. (It bombed, so to speak.) Iran was more successful, with Russian help. Iraq does have some World-War-I type chemical weaponry, such as mustard gas. Their success seems to have been greatest in the biological category, where they have been able to produce an unknown amount of anthrax. Their delivery capability for these weapons is minimal -- comparable to any third-rate power.
So they do have objectionable weaponry. But no more than could be made in the deserts of Libya or Sudan, or in Yemen, ... And much less of that weaponry than we know North Korea has. North Korea is about to make atomic bombs at the rate of one a month, perhaps for sale to ambitious oil-producing countries. (Bush, as a matter of pride, refuses to talk with North Korea.)
Saddam Hussein. Yes, Saddam Hussein is a deceitful slimey bastard. The same goes for Tariq Aziz. It would be very satisfying to smack them good. That does not constitute grounds for launching a war.
Inspectors. The UN inspections, by themselves, cannot reasonably be expected to bring about Iraq's disarmament. But they have met with some success in keeping a lid on things, in keeping the Iraqis off balance, and in finding some of the proscribed weapons.
Conclusion. Yes, it is possible that Iraq will do us harm. But the possibility seems no greater for Iraq than for other countries. And less than the case of North Korea. Bush is determined to correct his father's mistake, no matter what. His certainty that he is right is a danger to world peace. But justification for starting a war with Iraq at this time isn't there.
For a more imaginative presentation of what is about to happen, see this poster.
November 2000
Comments?
send me mail.In some cases, the links to candidates don't work. But the URL is the one the candidate says will work "soon."
In each category, the SMRR candidates are listed first. SMRR (Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights) is the dominant political organization running this city. Before they took over (1979?), the city was run by real-estate interests. No happy balance.
Michael Feinstein is a member of the Green Party. All the other candidates are Democrats, I think. The Republican Party is not a significant force in this city.
City Council. There are thirteen candidates for four seats. SMRR took the unusual step of endorsing only three candidates. My take on this is that they decided not to fight Herb Katz, because he will probably win.
School Board. There are five candidates for three seats.
SMC Board of Trustees. There are seven candidates for three seats.
Rent Control Board. There are two candidates for two seats. Why bother saying anything?
And here is how I plan to vote:
City Council: I'm not voting for any of the SMRR incumbents. City government here has been one-party rule, and I don't even like the party much. The only continuing non-SMRR council member is Bob Holbrook, and it is unreasonable to expect him to constitute "viable opposition" all by himself.
But then whom to vote for? Herb Katz, despite his support of KK. Also Rob Ross. Then I get two more votes. Anyone know about Donna Block or David Cole?
College Board of Trustees: The main thing is to keep Margaret Quiñones out. She was disruptive on the school board, and probably sees this race as a step toward the City Council. The two incumbents are likely to be re-elected. (I'm trying to remember what I know about them.) It's who gets the third slot that matters.
I'm voting for Margaret Carroll, and two other people.
School board: Jose Escarce comes highly recommended (by Mark Green's son). Gleam Davis is recommended by Dorothy Chapman (who was the independent thinker on the outgoing board). Eleanore Meyer is recommended by another friend.
Yes on Y, of course. I'm against KK, partly because I think their campaign is dishonest. It is being presented as a living wage proposal, when its real purpose is to take away from the City Council its authority to enact any wage proposal. Actually, I don't want the City Council to enact the SMART proposal either, but at least that proposal is up front about what it's doing.