IMPERIAL DREAMS: Zbigniew Brzezinki, ancient cold-war thinker, now notes that Eurasia is the key to the whole world, so America 'the premier power' must figure out how to dominate Eurasia!

We are NOT the premier power. Br. admits that Eurasia will out-power us economically.
In fact, a FinancialTimes columnist said bluntly that America, with the upcoming onslaught of BabyBoom retirees, is BANKRUPT !

Militarily, the only thing we're really good at is bombing and missiling, and blitzkrieg invasions (about the last skill, we don't know why the Saddamites didn't fight to the last house in Baghdad, so we don't really know how our invasion would fare against a power that was ready to fight to the last house, using gas and germs to punish the invader.)

If we don't reinstitute the Draft, we'll likely run short of suckers to volunteer to man our empire.

The fact is that few Americans, even among our elite, are interested enough in the outside world to learn much about it--not even foreign languages, let alone foreign cultures. We will NOT dominate Eurasia successfully, though we might cause all kinds of havoc in trying.

 
BAPTIST-TYPE MISSIONARIES: A Bushie representative is touring the Middle-east to explain our 'GREATER MIDDLE-EAST INITIATIVE', our determination to remake these cultures into duplicates of Texas, with democracy and especially BARE-KNUCKLE FREE ENTERPRISE dominating.

The rulers of these countries have indicated they don't welcome this missionary activity.
Voice of America Also, Europeans find it annoying.INDEPENDENT

Other 3d-world countries who have tried these sudden makeovers have NOT flourished.

This effort reminds one of the determination of TEXAS BAPTISTS to rush into Iraq and get these benighted Muslims to accept Jesus as their personal Savior and thus be SAVED. (NO KIDDING!) The main difference is that these Baptist missionaries, haranguing ordinary Iraqis, will likely face gratifying martyrdom , while the Bushie 'missionary', talking only to the more reserved rulers, will just be ignored.

 
TOO-NICE TOM IS AT IT AGAIN: For a long time, Tom Friedman has been a most-effective, seemingly balanced, propagandist for Bush imperialists, dutifully denouncing Bushie bungling while endorsing their silly dream that they can remake Middle-East culture by judicious bombing, invasion, and military occupation (by people who can't even speak the local languages!)

Now (DP29FEB) he's taken on the job of countering the rising U.S. sentiment favoring protectionism. He goes to India and talks to the people who are getting the outsourced U.S. jobs.
[Tom's points below in bold.


It turns out they're mainly nice people.
[So what? so are the jobless Americans.]

Not only that, the equipment these Indian firms use is often imported from America. They buy stuff from U.S. corporations
[Never mind that the devices imported from America might involve parts imported from overseas, and the service-work involved in making these devices might itself be outsourced.]

Take movie-animation; while it's now done in India, says Tom, this work is not taken from America, because movie companies have been outsourcing this work away from America for twenty years.
[In other words, once it's outsourced, why should we care if it's done in India or Japan?]

Surprisingly, when Indians wanted to do a movie about the life of Krishna, they hired a writer from U.S. The voices of the characters are being done in U.S., and the music is from Britain.
[Noone doubts that some exporting is done from America..the question is, HOW MUCH , compared to how much importing plus outsourcing?

"It's unfair that you want all your products marketed globally, "says an Indian, "but you don't want any jobs to go."
The interesting question is FROM U.S. WORKERS' POINT OF VIEW: would they be better off if both U.S. imports and U.S. exports were cut severely? And the workers' point of view is the one most Americans should take, if they have any sense.

Friedman notes with compassion that we must cushion those Americans hurt by the outsourcing of their jobs.
But a) our right-wing government is NOT cushioning these Americans: the Congress just refused again to extend unemployment benefits, and
(b) if enough jobs are outsourced, our government can't afford to cushion adequately the replaced workers. There's no sense in retraining them, when the jobs they're retrained for are also automated or outsourced!

"Don't lets be stupid, "admonishes sensible Tom," and start throwing up protectionist walls...beneath the surface, what goes around comes around."
The question is whether the amount of harm to U.S. workers that 'goes around' is balanced by the benefit to those workers that 'comes around', in a global free-trade system. Globally we import far more goods/services than we export--and this gap increases every year!

As usual, Friedman doesn't address the real issues at all. He doesn't 1
advert to the real possibility that U.S WORKERS ARE NO LONGER WORTH THEIR KEEP--(luxurious, by world-standards).
------------------
An authentically liberal economist (Krugman) is still an economist, and reacts with knee-jerk antipathy to any protectionist measures. He wants Kerry (rMN1mAR) to apply bandaids to the problem, to quiet workers' rage that may pressure Congress to pass real protectionist measures.
(No problem when blue-collar jobs were shipped overseas; but the elite workers who are now being displaced--THEY VOTE! )
----------
A completely pro-outsourcing news-agency notes that now we allow U.S. corporations operating overseas a big tax-break, equivalent to the taxes they pay overseas. (In what sense are they still AMERICAN corporations if they don't even pay full taxes here ??!!) This agency worries that Kerry talks as if he would revoke these tax-breaks.
--------
Defenders of outsourcing say piously that we must retrain displaced workers.
But what guarantee is there that the new careers we retrain them for won't also be eliminated, either by automation OR by outsourcing, OR by moving the entire enterprise overseas (and then importing our goods/svcs from them)?

The only measure that has any chance of working to slow down the export of U.S. jobs is to cut all the absurd tax-breaks and subsidies for corporations, then grant tax-breaks in proportion as the firm hires U.S. workers. (While we're at it, we should revoke the SocialSecurity tax on firms, a tax on every dollar paid to U.S. workers! We should also lift from firms the burden of providing health-care for their U.S. employees.)

But no pols right now (except maybe Edwards) show any real intent to address joblessness (Krugman says the U.S. is now short FOUR MILLION jobs.)

So, as I said earlier, 'do-gooders' who care for workers' welfare should devote themselves to encouraging workers to SPEND LESS , since they can't earn more!

 
DOG-FIGHT OVER THE MONEY: Congress appropriated $18, 000, 000, 000 for 'rebuilding Iraq." Civilians experienced in construction were to spend it. But then they were informed that only $2 billion would be available.

The rest would go to Army Engineers--in other words, to Pentagon bureaucrats.. However, the civilians raised hell and went public. (PBS interviewed recently U.S. personnel who told how destructive were the delays in funding.)

Now, we hear, the original money will be restored. RobertNovak

 
REMEMBER NORTH KOREA? While Bushies were using FICTITIOUS WMDs to justify invading Iraq, they let NORTH KOREA develop actual nuclear bombs. Six nations just met to solve this problem. N.K. says they would FREEZE their nuke program; Bushies demand that they DISMANTLE their nukes. No progress was made at the meeting--they couldn't even agree on a joint statment; but Bushies declared it successful. ChinaDaily

A while ago, the Bushies were breathing fire about N.K. Now all is peaceful. One imagines that they realize they can't afford a 3d war when they're bungling two already.
(Or perhaps they plan a surprise 'PearlHarbor' bombing attack, using the armada of B-52s they've put on Guam just to threaten or destroy N.K.)

N.K. would be fools to dismantle their nukes (they already have a few). They need only a few as 2d-strike deterrents vs. U.S. They could say, "Yes, you can wipe our cities off the map, as you did 50 years ago. But we came out of our caves then and rebuilt.
And this time we can make you REGRET you did it !"

How could they hurt us (and thus threaten/deter us) with only a few nukes and no reliable missiles to deliver them to U.S.?

--they could donate the nukes to terrorists, who could fire short-range nuke-armed missiles at our West Coast from freighter-ships in Pacific.

Or they could smuggle in nukes in some of the thousands of huge ship-containers landing UNINSPECTED in our ports EVERY DAY.

(More likely, they could smuggle in PLUTONIUM in these ship-containers for making 'dirty bombs' (balls of explosive in radioactive shells--they need only to explode, not to start a chain-reaction, to make key areas of our cities uninhabitable for some time.)

N.K. could nuke several Japanese cities, to punish them for their long-ago crimes vs. Koreans and for current aggressive moves vs. N.K. (This threat MIGHT deter U.S.)

So it looks like we'll have to accept N.K. as a new NUKE power, along with a dozen other countries. South Korea has no fear of invasion from the North; South Koreans dislike our GIs intensely, and want them out.

It may be that we dislike the idea of a United Korea--but we might have to live with that also.
------------------
GLOOM: North Korea said that, given U.S. stubbornness, little could be hoped for from more talks. Analysts said that the 'upbeat' U.S. take on the talks was for U.S. domestic consumption, to lessen worries about a 3d war before the election.
Analysts said that the delay will give N.K. more time to build more nukes before it agrees to halt production. FinTimes

 
REMAKING THE MIDDLE EAST: Strangely, Osama bin Laden and Bushies share a dislike of present Middle-East rulers: bin Laden because they aren't 'traditional' enough, and Bushies because they aren't 'progressive' enough.


The present rulers are quite annoyed at Bushie arrogance. INDEPENDENT

 
In Iraq, The first (temporary) BASIC LAW (taking effect in July, after the Bremerites bug out) was to be agreed on by our puppet council by today 28 Feb. But bitter disagreements showed up over(a) terms of Kurdish semi-autonomy and (b) role of Islam. (Bremer indicated earlier that he would veto any 'Sharia' that worsened the legal position of women.) ENOUGH PEOPLE WALKED OUT SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE A QUORUM!
PhiladelphiaEnquirer
------------
GOOFY INTERVENTION: Again and again, U.S. has imposed on 3d-world nations a)immediate universal suffrage and (b) bare-knuckled 'free-market' capitalism. Often this has left one ethnic minority disproportionately rich and hated by the ethnic majority, which elects a demagogic government which turns on the rich minority. '

In Iraq, the SUNNIS are the progressive minority, knowledgeable about how to prosper under bare-knuckle capitalism. The SHIITES are the less-advanced 60% majority (outnumbering the Sunnis 3 to 1 !). Under the usual scenario pushed by U.S., the poor Shiites will soon turn and rend the rich Sunnis. The situation is aggravated by all that OIL, to fight over. Guardian

The Shiites will be all more likely to turn on the Sunnis, because this Sunni minority has dominated, and often trampled,the Shiite majority for CENTURIES.

----------
In Shiite city of Basra (2d-largest Iraq city), groups of fundamentalist 'vigilantes' roam the streets unimpeded while they threaten, kidnap, rape or murder any who disobey their version of Islamic rules.GUARDIAN
-------------
This will make the more secular Sunnis all the more determined to resist Shiite majority rule! (Some observers say Sunnis will fight a strong Shiite government to the death!)

Perhaps the final result of our lunges into Afghanistan and Iraq will be taliban-like regimes established in both countries!
=============
All this chaos was held down by dictator Saddam. Bushies' decision to topple him , (mouthing slogans about replacing him with a democracy)must have come from some combination of recklessness and ignorance.

 
GREENSPAN says that the sluggish job-growth is not likely to improve UNTIL PRODUCTIVITY RATES GO DOWN. CNN

DUH! Productivity increases MEAN that for any given level of production(of goods or svces), LESS HUMAN INPUT IS NEEDED ! An increase in production or exports in NO WAY guarantees an increase in jobs!

Greenspan should have said that when job-growth goes up, (for a given level of sales) then that will mean that productivity rates have gone down.

The relatively good news: Too bad for workers--but at least Bushies can't goose the economy TEMPORARILY to cause job-growth just before November.
----------
Firms' purchase of equipment (not old-line) and software went up 15% per annum.
FinTimes
That looks like more machines-replacing-humans.

 
KERRY ADDS MORE LIES: John Kerry criticizes Bush by saying he has only an 'ad hoc plan to keep our enemies at bay', not a 'comprehensive strategy to win the War on Terror' (which Kerry will offer). SanDiegoUnion

This is blatantly false, on several counts:

--'Terror' is an abstraction..you don't declare war on an abstraction (though dim Americans think you can--e.g. war on hunger, war on drugs, war on cancer, etc.)

--You can't declare war on terrorists either; they are stateless groups of (hundreds? thousands? of) individual madmen, from all over the world, eager to die while killing Americans. We are dealing with a worldwide epidemic of madness, NOT with a rational nation-enemy. Granted, this madness is taught to young children by local imams (e.g., in Pakistan 'schools')--but the imams are mad also.

-We can't 'win' the war on Terror'; we will face these dangers for years or decades.

--so Bush is right to settle for 'ad hoc ways to ward off attack' (e.g., by guarding our borders better to keep out foreign terrorists). The problem is that Bushies are doing FAR TOO LITTLE in this line.

FOR INSTANCE: They should be training thousands more health-workers to face germ-war/
-inspecting the thousands of huge ship-containers entering our ports each day, perhaps carrying terrorist supplies--up to, and including nuclear bombs/
-enforcing 'no-fly' zones over our 104 nuclear power plants whose wasteponds are vulnerable to small planes loaded with explosives crashing into them /
-bolstering our '1st-responder' forces of police & firemen (instead of cutting the funding by one-third, as they just did !) /
-training our national Guard forces to help with'first-response' to attacks--INSTEAD OF DEPLETING THESE FORCES to send them over for the Iraq fiasco! (This reckless expenditure of NG troops means already that enlistments/reenlistments in NG are plummeting.)
-retrofitting airliners with 'decoys' to confuse shoulder-fired missiles fired at them/ helping other countries guard better their huge supplies of nuclear material/
-and so on.

WHY are the Bushies neglecting these measures to ward off attacks (and repair/heal after those that get through) ? Because these measures are all very expensive, and the Bushies are already spending us into disaster with their tax-cuts for the wealthy, plus $1 billion a DAY for the Pentagon's routine expenses, plus $216 billion extra projected for Iraq through 2005.
-----------
Kerry is playing right into Bushies' hands, encouraging the feeling that we can't protect our Homeland perfectly, so why even try?

 
HASTE MAKES WASTE: Land-mines have been developed that will disarm themselves after the 'war' ends. Present land-mines 'persist' long after a war, killing 20,000 civilians each year.
FinTimes: Bushies now say they will switch to 'non-persistent' mines BY THE YEAR 2010! Why the delay? Well, they have thousands of the old-fashioned mines left--you can't expect them to just WASTE these? !

Analogously, cluster-bombs that disarm themselves if they don't explode right away are available..but U.S. & Britain used the old-fashioned ones in Iraq war (where children pick up cute unexploded bomblets and blow themselves to bits).

The Pentagon gets far more than $1, 000, 000, 000 per DAY; but they still are eager to avoid pointless waste.

 
More people were fired in mass layoffs in Jan.04 than in any January since mass-layoff record-keeping began.KansasCtyStar
-------------
GOOD NEWS, BUT NOT FOR WORKERS: Reuters rejoiced that U.S. 'business investment' (e.g., in software) rose sharply--but this investment might mean more replacement of workers by computers. Exports rose also, but the firms exporting might be outsourcing jobs overseas.

Whenever the economy is 'booming', but jobs-available are not rising, new evidence is given that U.S. workers are superfluous, not worth their keep.
-------------
GOOD NEWS FOR US 'ANTI-BUSHIES: Consumer-confidence dropped sharply in February.
One commentator said this was from worry about jobs, not about any weakness in the Economy..in other words, 'no jobs' is not a defect in the Economy. REUTERS

On the one hand, consumer spending often continues even when confidence is down.
On the other hand, people will blame Bush if jobs don't return in just 7 months...and people are smart enough to see this is not likely.

So, IF they're smart enough to vote theirpocketbooks, not their spleen (e.g., vs. gay marriage, after possible capture of binLaden,etc.)...
-------------
USATODAY editorial 27Feb praised Greenspan for demanding curbs on federal spending, producing gigantic deficit...though he never said anything about cutting the hundreds of billions going to the Pentagon (which amount--far greater in reality than the $400 billion given them openly--is probably greater than the deficit ! In other words, the whole deficit can be traced to the Pentagon!)
They also praised Greenspan for calling for 'Social Security Reform'. but in fact, he called explicitly for CUTTING SS BENEFITS for future retirees !

The Bushies immediately backed away from touching this (electrocuting) '3d-rail'.
It will be fascinating to see what happens when childish Baby-boomers, who haven't saved enough for retirement, hear about reduced SS benefits..will their rage trump the hypnotic influence of the Pentagon?
-------------
Congressional Budget Office says cumulative deficit over next 10 years will be over $2700 billion, i.e., 2.7 millions of millions of dollars. FinTimes

That averages only $270 billion per year; this year's deficit was almost $500 billion. Remember this is all a PENTAGON DEFICIT. If Pentagon disappeared, so would our deficit--(our Homeland would be just as safe as now if Pentagon disappeared.)

 
UN ON IRAQ SECURITY: U.S. generals (e.g., Sanchez) tell us that the security situation is improving. But UN honcho says situation has gotten worse, and that means UN won't send in a full staff for the time being. \Aljazeera

 
WHY WOULD BANDITS SHOOT AID WORKERS? 5 workers for internatl. aid org. were shot 40 miles from Kabul in Aghan.. Rumsfeld said the shooters were perhaps mere bandits, not terrorists. C'mon! Observers say (a) present U.S. security arrangements are flawed; (b) U.S. is rushing toward elections 'come what may', in spite of security dangers.
reuters

It's black humor: U.S. rejecting of early elections in Iraq, 'for security reason', but demanding early elections in chaotic Aghanistan. Clearly, U.S. wants to bug out of Afghan. (no oil!) and leave Taliban and drug-lords to duke it out over the bodies of ordinary Afghans.

Many Afghanis accepted Taliban tyranny last time as better alternative than anarchy. After months or years of civil-war to come, this might happen again.

Other troubled countries, seeing our 'redemption' of Afghanistan, will say, "Go redeem someone else!"

 
BOMBSHELL: I've been wondering if Sistani was going to accept passively the defiance of his wishes by Bremer & gang (he demands short reign of interim group, a term guaranteed by UN Security Council, dominant Shiite influence, and SHARIA as basic law.)

In this interview with a German magazine, Sistani says that if he's defied, he'll declare an INTIFADA ( as in Palestine vs. Israel)--and that the posters calling for religious war have already been printed up ! VoiceofAmerica
-----------
Sistani has asked the UN to guarantee the timing of Iraq elections before 15 Nov.'04.
VOICE OF AMERICA
----------
WashPost has optiimistic headline "Sistani would accept interim govt.". Only later do we read about his DEMANDS. No reference to this threat of INTIFADA.
About his demand for minimal role for interim regime, Post story just tells about Iraqi objections to this demand...interim regime must be strong enough to ward off civil war, etc. Also no reference to his demand for SHARIA, which proposal Bremer has already threatened to veto.

If Sistani goes for INTIFADA, American readers will be surprised in a nasty way, since our media is downplaying his firmness.
===========
Gen.Sanchez says that civil war is possible, not likely. In such a civil war, he says,
our GIs will stand between the combatants. NYTIMES

In other words, the Bremer gang of civilians will bug out by July, leaving the GIs to face the wildcats.
===========
Interestingly, Bremer said earlier that UN said no elections possible in less than 12-15 months. But then UN spokesman said'not possible in less than EIGHT months."
That would be October '04, which was the date Sistani was calling for--just before the U.S. elections! FinTimes
-----------
FinTimes
also omits strong Sistani threats. But they do mention that other (less moderate) Shia leaders have still not given up on pre-June elections. They note that UN doesn't say WHY early elections are impossible--it just says the 'climate' is not right.

(Once again, it's black humor that while U.S. objects to early elections in unstable Iraq, it's demanding early elections in chaotic Afghanistan!)

Bremer tells fibs.
==========
Why does U.S. want interim regime (vs. immediate elections) so intensely? Our puppet Council signed decrees privatizing Iraq's public companies (letting in rich foreign predators to buy up Iraq assets at fire-sale prices). But it turned out that any decrees or contracts written under Occupation could not bind a future Iraq
government.

So then Bremerites set up a phony caucus system that would set up a more subtle puppet regime..if this counted as legit Iraq govt, then it could validate all those delicious contracts.

Very likely, this 2d puppet regime would not be recognized (say by hostile Germany,France and Russia) as legit, so U.S. would be no further ahead.

But now Sistani, with a veto on changes, says the interim regime must be restricted to daily housekeeping duties, plus preparing for election, before Dec.'04. Specifically, he says this interim regime must NOT be able to make important, permanent changes in Iraq (e.g., privatizing!)

 
REAL COSTS OF OUR WARS ARE DOUBLE THE STATED EXPENSE ($400 billion annually): says an authority quoted in ChristSciMonitor

Other authorities agree that real costs are far higher than stated costs.

 
DON'T YOU LOVE IT? Despite widespread realization that the Republicans care only for the interests of the wealthy, about half of Americans (most of them unrich!) vote Republican--including my relatives--because they have been bamboozled into voting emotional issues (abortion, gay-rights, guns, feminism) instead of sensibly voting their pocketbooks. Now who's surprised to hear that Bush is backing a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to forbid same-sex marriages?

The billionaires behind Bush don't really care if people mate with goats; they care only about money.

My take: Wealthy Republicans are the smartest Americans; the dumbest are the other Republicans.

 
OSAMA might not let himself be captured, say Pakistan papers cited by BBC.
8 bodyguards are directed to shoot him in this case; and they say he wears explosive belt. So it looks like Bush will not be able to trot him out in October--unless they've already captured him and they'll hide him to be trotted out in October.
That would probably re-elect Bush, given the stupidity of so many Americans.

Osama's best move would be to commit suicide early, and have his body hidden. Muslims the world over would never believe he's dead, and Bush would be frustrated. After all, with $25 million reward on his head, and his having to hide out with people who are not of his tribe, even of his nation..it's astonishing that he has not been captured before now.

A sensible American would say the Bushies have already shown their incompetence in this regard..but millions of sensible Americans may be outnumbered by the OTHER Americans.

 
RUMSFELD WAS TOLD that biggest danger in Iraq now is SUICIDE-BOMBERS. That means the danger is NOT from Saddamites--who would die for Saddamism? But it does NOT show that danger is from foreign infiltrators. (Rummy thundered about infiltrators from Iran and Syria, but other U.S. officials said there was little evidence of this.)USATODAY

If native Iraqis are now motivated strongly enough by hate & fanaticism to volunteer as suicide-bombers, we are really in trouble.

U.S. honchos brag that attacks are down from 50-per-day in November to 15-20 a day now. But that was the standard number before Nov ! And one GI says the attacks are so numerous they're not even logged if they don't result in casualties.

A suicide-bomber just attacked one of our police-stations in Baghdad, killing or wounding
dozens. INDEPENDENT

(To assess effectiveness of attacks, count the WOUNDED. They have a more dramatic effect on locals than deaths--especially since medical care is so primitive.)
-----------
A U.S. helicopter crashed into the Euphrates, with both pilots killed. U.S.honchos said cause was unknown, but one witness said he saw copter on fire before it crashed, and another witness said he saw a missile hurtling toward the copter. BostonGlobe

Copters costing millions brought down by cheap shoulder-missiles; and guerillas getting training in aiming these missiles carefully..training that could be used elsewhere in the world.

 
"04 ELECTIONS POSSIBLE,NOT LIKELY," UN's Annan said Monday. Earlier Sistani had said he'd accept interim regime if it was a) short-lived (he mentioned Oct'04 as election date(!) which he said should be GUARANTEED by UN Security Council) and (b) powerless to make any long-run changes in Iraq.
"Little political will for reconciliation" was the most disturbing item in the list of reasons for election-difficulty. REUTERS

A Shiite clergyman accused U.S. of 'stalling' on elections. Yeah!
Everyone's waiting to hear Sistani's reaction to Bremer's defiance ("up to 18months till elections.")

 
OIL SABOTAGE IN SOUTH: An explosion (smoke seen for miles) on SOUTHERN oil-lines.
Usually such sabotage is vs. NORTHERN lines--but these are now guarded closely.
This opens up a new front.

U.S. can place guards all over pipeline, and get oil out. But this is expensive. Iraq oil is intrinsically cheap to pump; but this added expense might mean (a) that U.S. can't make a profit on export (to help pay occupation expenses), or even worse (b) that it might lose $ on every barrel exported. (And U.S. $ for Iraq are running short!)

Countries like Russia, with only expensive oil, now have reason to sneak help to Iraq guerillas for sabotaging oil pipelines, to minimize cheap-oil competition.AgenceFrancePresse
===========
SUNNI BLOWUP? An Anglican clergyman has been in Iraq for years, and has mediated many ethnic conflicts--he fears that the Sunni minority is ready to explode and bring on a civil war. Sunni clergy tell him that their people are ready to join the guerillas.PakistanTimes

Everything hinges on whether the Shiite majority is willing and ABLE to GUARANTEE to Sunnis that they won't be trampled as outvoted minority--unlikely.

Bushies may hope that guerilla attacks will go down after 'sovereignty' is handed to U.S. puppets on 1 July. Bloodly likely.
---------
RUMSFELD REJOICES that, in spite of recent bomb-attacks, people still line up to join our civil-defense forces. Yes, but how many (compared to the number needed)?
How many are guerilla infiltrators? (we couldn't tell, not even knowing the language!)

Rumsfeld admits that after we pull GIs out of cities (hoping to cut down GI casualties before the election) things may blow up under sole 'civil defense' force--and we may sometimes have to bring GIs back in to keep guerillas under control.WashPost

 
IRRELEVANT COMPARISON: A letter in COLORADOAN makes a familiar point (proposed frequently during the Viet fiasco): Mr.Schantz notes correctly that the number of GI deaths in Iraq pales in significance compared to the number of deaths we accept from autos each week in America. HOWEVER:

--the deaths in Iraq are ADDED to the auto-deaths; they are not substituted.

--Suppose I said, "The 5 people I just murdered--that number is trivial compared to the auto deaths..." Analogously, IF the Bushies got us involved in an UNJUSTIFIED WAR, then they are guilty of the THOUSANDS of deaths of innocent Iraqis, plus the almost SIX HUNDRED GIs killed SO FAR; plus the more-than-11,000 GIs evacuated for serious medical reasons--many having lost arms,legs, eyes, faces--or having incurred brain-damage, perhaps worse than death.
Either the war was justified or not--in either case, the number of auto deaths is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

Someone said to me, "Why get so excited over the carnage in Iraq? Carnage is going on (human-caused and nature-caused) all over the world." I replied, "But THIS carnage is being caused by MY government..that's why I'm excited!"

It's incredible the dumb arguments hawks will use to defend this war !
=============
HOWEVER, auto-carnage IS relevant to other moral issues. Once we accepted the HIGHWAY CULTURE, the idea that the speed-pleasure and ego-boost and convenience of the automobile was WORTH the thousands of vehicle-deaths each year, plus the MILLIONS of auto-injuries and pollution-ills each year--once we accepted that trade-off--knowing that a system of public transit would involve far, far fewer deaths and injuries-- then we showed we had NO real RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE--long before we legalized abortion !

 
VICARIOUS ATONEMENT:
The new movie PASSION OF THE CHRIST should rouse new interest in the theory behind the crucifixion story: the idea that Jesus died for our sins. This idea seems logically incoherent.

To die for misconduct sounds like punishment. There are different reasons cited throughout history for justifying punishment:

--consequential justification: the punishment of this wrongdoer will at least disable him from future wrongdoing, and will deter other possible wrondoers: a) would-be wrongdoers,who will be deterred by fear--the wrongdoer himself might be deterred from future misconduct by fear;
(b) potential (now law-abiding) wrongdoers who will be confirmed in their law-abiding inclination by associating crime with unpleasant punishment.

--retributive justification: A willful, knowing wrongdoer 'deserves' to suffer; 'It serves him right!"/ "That's good FOR him!" / "HE has no complaint at being harmed, after the way he harmed others. He has forfeited his right not to be pointlessly harmed." (This forfeiting is limited by the degree of wrongdoing; a person does not forfeit his right not to be killed just because he told a small lie!) Sometimes this form of justification is expressed metaphorically: "He has paid his debt to society." (i.e., he has paid his parking fine; he has served his prison-time). But, as we will see, this metaphor can be gravely misleading.

--H.L.A. Hart's combination-theory: Innocent individuals have a standing right NOT TO BE USED AS MERE MEANS for others' benefit (a la Kant). But if I do wrong, then I forfeit my right (to some degree) NOT TO BE USED FOR SOCIAL BENEFIT. So, IF some consequential justification holds up in my case, then I have no complaint if I am used harshly, e.g., to deter others. However, this does not justify my being punished POINTLESSLY, with no benefit to anyone. Guilt and social benefit are jointly sufficient to justify punishment; each is necessary for justification; neither alone is sufficient.

--Plato said that we are purified only by suffering. This wasn't a theory of punishment at all; and of course B can't be purified by A's suffering. (though he might be edified by A's heroic bearing of suffering.)
-------------
Now: under what theory can it make logical sense for A to suffer justly for B's wrong-doing?
--If B has incurred a FINE: then since A can offer a money-gift to B (incurring some financial suffering himself) without moral criticism, and since B can then use this money to pay the fine, then it seems at first that A can justly fulfill B's debt to society--since a fine is a money-debt owed to society. (However, if parent A pays B's fine, then the fine may fail to deter B --and any other child in B's situation--from doing wrong again. In such a case, A's gift IS wrong, morally.Such gifts could persuade young people,e.g., that parking fines are mere taxes..whereas a fine--unlike a tax--implies misconduct.)
[Scandinavian countries charge HUGE traffic fines for rich offenders, reasoning that a wealthy man will not be deterred by a small fine appropriate for ordinary people.]

--Suppose B has not repaid a debt, and is sentenced to debtor's prison until he can pay it--or until SOMEONE pays it. A can satisfy B's debt and get him justly released--but once again, B may then not be deterred from running up another debt....

--But suppose B is sentenced to a jail-term. Then A cannot legally volunteer to serve the term for B. And this limit is justified (a) by consequential theory, since B--nor other would-be wrongdoers--will not be fear-deterred by such an institutional procedure.

What about A's enduring the jail-sentence confirming law-abiders in their distaste for crime (by associating crime with unpleasantness) ? It's hard to imagine this happening, when people see B dancing around free after doing wrong that deserves a jail-sentence.

b) Of course A's substituting in jail for B cannot be justified by retributive theory. A doesn't deserve to go to jail; B DOES! A gross wrong is done if we let generous, innocent A volunteer to substitute in jail for guilty B. The jail-time is not a money-debt to society that anyone can pay; only the wrongdoer B can 'pay' it.

[The pre-christian story of Damon & Pythias might seem to contradict my point. One of these youths (B) was sentenced (let's assume justly) to die; but he wants to go home to say goodbye to his family. Then the other youth (A) volunteers to stay on until B returns. Sure enough, to the ruler's astonishment, B does return; and then the awed ruler pardons him. Here A is not volunteering to substitute for B in death--he is just guaranteeing--as a hostage--that B will return to get punished.)
==============
Now let us assume that we are all born vicariously guilty,deserving damnation--thanks in some mysterious way to Adam's sinning--["In Adam's fall, we sin-ned all!"]--let's not inquire here whether THAT story is coherent!

Along comes perfectly-innocent Jesus ('like us in all things but sin'); he doesn't exactly volunteer to substitute for us; his divine Father asks this sacrifice of him, and Jesus reluctantly (sweating blood from intense fear) agrees.
He dies 'for us' (though, actually, he does NOTsuffer the eternal damnation we deserve!) Does this penalty absolve us?
The theory here must be retributive, not consequential, since Hell continues after all earthly decision-making (subject to deterrence.etc.) has ceased.

NO! we still deserve damnation if we ever did; retributive justice is not served if an innocent person suffers in place of a guilty one--indeed, a new wrong has taken place. [perhaps not an injustice, since A VOLUNTEERED to suffer; but we do wrong in accepting his irrational offer.]

So the classic story of Jesus dying for our sins seems not just empirically improbable; it seems logically incoherent. A crude satire of this doctrine: "God sees that sin has been done, and so His justice demands that SOMEONE suffer!"
---------
FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS: In the early Church, sinners had to do public penance before being absolved by the priest (e.g., sitting in sackcloth/ashes in front of the Church for a certain time.) [Nowadays, the sinner says a few HailMarys after confession.]

At the same time, heroic Christian martyrs sat in prison awaiting their grisly end. One of these martyrs said that his voluntary suffering should substitute for the due-penance of some sinners. This idea was accepted, as an extension of the idea of VICARIOUS ATONEMENT.

Then it was decided that NON-martyrs could offer theirsufferings in vicarious atonement for the penance due to sinners. And at some point the idea of Purgatory was taken up (where absolved sinners still had to undergo much suffering to atone); I could offer up my sufferings to get some purgatorial spirit spared some deserved suffering. (One of my brothers refused novocaine at a dentist so he could offer up the suffering for the Holy Souls in Purgatory.)

Then, a further extension: good deeds [e.g., money given to the poor] (often at some personal expense) would be accepted as vicarious atonement.

Then, the fatal extension: giving money to the Church is obviously a good deed; so money donated to the Church would relieve the deserved suffering of my grandfather in Purgatory.

Now we are at the stage of SELLING INDULGENCES! ["The minute the coin in the tambourine rings, the soul from Purgatory springs!] of course it's called 'asking for a donation'...this still goes on in many Catholic societies.
And every step is logical, once you accept the idea of VICARIOUS ATONEMENT.
----------------------
ON THE OTHER HAND: Jesus' death couldn't change what we deserve. BUT God could always choose to FORGIVE us, to remit the PENALTY of sin. He could do this without any action of Jesus; OR he could choose to make the forgiveness contingent on Jesus' agonizing death. Why would he choose this 2d course? Well it would be surprising if God's decisions were not, to us, surprising.

Analogously, God could make a merciful shortening of deserved Purgatory time for a person either contingent on someone else's offered-suffering (or good deeds), or not.
So indulgences are no more irrational than vicarious 'penalty-remission'. Of course, we'd expect that indulgences following contributions to the Church would be proportionate to the SACRIFICE endured by the giver, not just to the amount contributed--and one suspects God would ask if giving to the Church was the best form of alms-giving available.




COMMENTS welcome (click on COMMENT below.)

 
REAL REASON FOR WAR? Oil has always been priced in dollars. That, mysteriously, gives us a huge, interest-free loan..I don't understand why...but some people have noted that Saddam enraged us by pricing his oil in EUROS..suppose other oil companies...
Now this reason for war is confirmed by Karen Kwiatkowsky, who was a top intelligence honcho in Pentagon till she resigned in disgust. LAWEEKLY
--------
The joke is that with the discrediting of the dollar now, its deliberate devaluation by the Bushies, the oil companies might switch to the Euro ANYWAY ! What are we going to do, invade all the oil nations? Bomb SaudiArabia? We can't even stop the new Iraq govt.,once it's independent of us, from doing that.

How does our guerilla-beleaguered force of irate, sullen GIs tied down in Iraq make us more influential in Mideast politics and oil-price policies? (Bombing threats could have been made without invasion/occupation decision.)

It's hard to figure what was the 'real strategy' behind actions of Bushies who have showed themselves so ignorant of Mideastern affairs!

 
KURDS REJECT FIRST LAW: The Kurds in NorthIraq will not accept the first document for self-government, because it does not guarantee them: preservation of their militia of 50,000 armed, trained troops;
no other military forces in their area without their consent; their own parliament; their right to veto any Baghdad edicts applying to them. [WashPost21FEB]

In other words, they will not give up the large degree of autonomy they have enjoyed for a decade, when U.S. protected them from Saddam's planes.

This seems like a (barely) covert call for independence, which would enrage Turkey, Iran, Syria, as well as the Sunni & Shiite Arabs. Exciting times ahead.
-----------
Kurds feel betrayed by U.S. (as they've been betrayed by every Western power since 1920..they recognize the feeling.) They even fought on our side during the invasion.
Now Bremer flatly refuses their 3 demands: a) keeping their militia (b) fair share of Iraq oil for Kurds (c) regaining the lands stolen from them by Saddam.[NYTIMES,cited by HoustonChronicle
--------------
Bushies should have foreseen this quite predictable development before they invaded.

 
VAGUE POWELL: At Princeton he said that actual WMD stockpiles weren't the only, or main, consideration in our invading. Our invasion, he said, helped prevent terrorism from becoming the defining label of the post 9/11 era. He noted that Saddam helped terrorist groups (Lyons: only by rewarding families of martyr-murderers in Palestine.) so Iraq became a laboratory in which WMDs and terrorism could mix.
S. had the capabilities in place for WMD production..he never lost the intent...and so on.
JERSEYCOM

Talk about VAGUE! a 'lab mixing WMDs and terrorism'/ 'terrorism becoming the defining label' and so on. (Even though S. had the capabilities--as dozens of countries have capabilities to produce gas & war-germs-- yet apparently never produced them, we know he still had the intent...!)

The bankruptcy of the Bushie case for invasion is amply demonstrated when their top spokesman has to resort to such gobbledygook.

Oh, by the way, we still might find WMDs, says Powell. (If Saddamites really still have them, then gas and germs might be unleashed on our GIs any day now--they are not now wearing their space-suits. If Bushies really believe this, then shame on them for not pulling out our GIS immediately, to prevent their disaster from turning into a nightmare!)

 
MORE SHAMELESS LIES FROM BUSH: --He cites alleged letter from alqaeda guy in Iraq (a letter promulgated by American honchos in Iraq, with NO EVIDENCE OF AUTHENTICITY) as showing connection between Saddamites and A.Q. (A connection NOW does not show a connection before the invasion, justifying the invasion.)

Bush says that's why Iraq is now our 'central front' against terrorism ! CNN

But even if A.Q. & remaining Saddamites are in bed together, that's irrelevant to terrorist threats vs.our Homeland !

Bush is going to run as anti-terror leader, even though (a) he won't fund anti-terror defenses at home; and (b) his invasion has weakened our anti-terror efforts in several ways: b1) photos of children blown up in Iraq further inflame 1 billion Muslims world-wide, generating more terrorists eager to die killing Americans; (b2) he is spending $1 billion per DAY for routine Pentagon expenses PLUS $1 billion per WEEK on Iraq fiasco--so we CAN'T AFFORD Homeland Defense; (b3) he has enraged practically every other population in the world, so we can't expect much international cooperation in nabbing terrorists.

Many Americans so far have been dumb enough to trust Bush in fight against terrorism.
(They're waking up on issues of JOBS and IRAQ WAR..we'll see if they wake up on this 3d, vital issue.)
-------------
MORE AWAKENING: Now only 36% trust Bushies to handle our outrageous DEFICITS; 52% trust Democrats. /GUARDIAN
===============
THEY'RE PUSHING IT! After Sistani agreed to compromise (elections postponed for a short,definite time), Bremer brazenly announced that elections could not be held in LESS THAN 15 MONTHS !

Also, Kurds demanded that these provisions be written into 28Feb document: a) Kurd 'autonomy' in terms of militia, parliament, and taxation; (b) final constitution applies to Kurdland only if the people there vote it in. WashPost
=============
U.S. wants NATO to take over Southern swath of Iraq now manned by Polish-led contingent. (Perhaps the Poles want out?) But NATO leader says that even after NATO meeting in June, even if members consented, it would take some time for the force to get organized. REUTERS

 
INDESCRIBABLE IS DESCRIBED: Conditions are hair-raising in the 'top' Baghdad children's hospital, TEN MONTHS AFTER WE TOOK OVER. INDEPENDENT

No comment is needed.

 
HOW TO HELP OUR YOUTH: It might not help them much to get 'better general education, readying them to learn new skills'---not if they have to compete with MILLIONS of well-trained Asians who'll work for ONE-SIXTH the pay our youth expect.

Instead of training our youth to EARN MORE, we'd better teach them to SPEND LESS! Those of us who survived the Great Depression--or have lived among sensible populations like the Scots, could tell them that humans can live COMFORTABLY on FAR LESS than they might think possible.

First, they should have few or no children. (The 'morning-after pill' may be a great saviour here.) Children are the most expensive of all luxuries.

Next, they should wean themselves from CARS ! They should move to cities or towns that have good public-transit systems (e.g., Chicago) and live near to a bus-stop or train-stop. (Having to walk several blocks to such a stop will improve their health!) They should insist that govt. tax gasolene heavily to subsidize public transit--as they have done for decades in Europe.

They should abandon the idea that every family must have a home-on-quarter-acre.
Either they should share such a home with another couple (or, as many are doing now, with their parents)--or they should set out to live in apartments for the rest of their life. (Middle-class Scots do that.)

They should demand reasonably-priced health-care set up by our government. Canadians are healthier than we are, FOR HALF THE COST-PER-PERSON WE PAY !

They should signal our government to withdraw from its pose as World Leader, World Empire. Most of our monstrous deficit is money spent for weapons and war. (We will have to pay billions for effective defense of our Homeland from terrorists.)

Also, they should wean themselves from (a) restaurants and (b) processed foods in grocery stores. If they're underemployed (e.g., part-time) then they'll have time to cook their own food.

Besides training for a high-pay career, a young person might do well to train also for a job that's will not likely be automated or shipped overseas: e.g., orderly or nurse in an old-folks' home; or gourmet cooking for fine restaurants; or as a policeman or fireman.
----------
Also of course they must protect themselves from LOW-PAY competition from India/China,etc, by signalling our government that we must pressure companies that sell to Americans to hire Americans, not replacing them with foreigners OR robots.

At the very least, our government should SLOW DOWN the job-leakages here so that young people have time to adjust psychologically to their new, more frugal lifestyle.

 
GREENSPAN'S POLLYANNA PREDICTIONS: The once-respected Greenspan now says, predictably, that 'in the long run' (which he sees as the 'long sweep of American GENERATIONS !! not years but GENERATIONS! ) , sending U.S. jobs overseas will be beneficial,will raise our 'living standards'. He says it always has in the past (over generations!)--why not now?

[Lyons: because we're in a UNIQUE situation where, thanks to runaway MEGATECH, the capacity to produce goods and services exceeds the amount of these goods and services that will be bought, world-wide. That means there won't be new jobs for the displaced people to move to--as for instance there were when millions of farm-workers were displaced.]

Greenspan says the solution is to get our young folks generally educated, ready to learn WHATEVER NEW SKILLS might be required. (He doesn't note that our typical youth, every year, get a WORSE general education, are LESS ABLE to pick up new skills.)
He soberly admits that even then they should aspire to 'nearly comparable pay.' CNN

(One study showed that recently re-employed workers have had to take drastic pay-cuts!)

Even our better-educated,retrainable youth will have to compete with MILLIONS of well-trained Indian/Chinese youth who will work for ONE-SIXTH the pay our elite youth now expect. (One observer noted that it pays U.S. firms to hire foreigners even if it takes 3 of them to do the job done by one American.)

I foresee the day when youth here will decide it's not worth the huge expense of going to college (college-costs plus no job-pay for 5 years). If present college-grads can't pay off their education-loans, their younger siblings may catch on.

A bright, hard-working youth could get a 'general education', preparing him to learn new skills, in twelve years.
But even then he might not be able to compete with low-pay foreign 'elite'.

Of course Greenspan opposes PROTECTIONISM. However, since for years we have sold abroad far less goods and services than we bought abroad, --AND EVERY YEAR THAT GAP GROWS !--
our workers might well be better off if --both imports and exports (when other countries also went protectionist) --were cut down considerably. (One study showed that only 10% of our workers are employed in our export industries--and that number will fall as outsourcing/automation progresses.
It seems plausible that we LOSE MORE THAN 10% OF OUR JOBS from the staggering amount of our imports.

Our workers might well be better off if we went for complete economic autarky--OR if we included Canada and Mexico in our 'free-trade' zone, and then excluded both exports to and imports from Asia--and eliminated importing foreign workers, and outsourcing.)
-----------
The CEO of the chipmaker INTEL just was cited as saying that there are 300 million people in India/China/Russia who can do effectively any job that can be done in U.S.
However, there are only 144 million jobs in America! /FromaHarrop in DenverPost20Feb.
--------------
Greenspan especially emphasized the need to up the skills of our lower workers, to mitigate inequality REUTERS (which might rouse those lower workers to vote non-Republican).

NO PROBLEM ! We'll mitigate inequality among workers by LOWERING THE PAY OF ELITE WORKERS (facing competition from low-pay elites overseas.) Then it will be obvious to everyone that the REAL INEQUALITY is not between elite workers and non-elite workers, but BETWEEN IMPOVERISHED WORKERS GENERALLY AND OBSCENELY WEALTHY OWNERS !

 
SISTANI'S LATEST UTTERANCE: In a rare interview, Ayatollah Sistani agreed to postpone elections FOR A BRIEF TIME, and to accept an interim regime WITH LIMITED POWERS, just running day-to-day affairs NOT MAKING LONG-TERM DECISIONS..(e.g., not validating the exploitative contracts signed under our occupation--which contracts are therefore invalid, not binding future Iraq governments). [Before, Sistani suggested elections there in Oct.'04, embarrassingly JUST BEFORE U.S. ELECTIONS !] Sistani wants these limits guaranteed by a Security Council resolution.

The rival Shiite leader, al Sadr, though, has rejected our puppet ANNAN's edict delaying the elections. REUTERS
-----------
In Washington Post story about the interview, Sistani's point about 'limited powers' for interim regime was noted, but not his recent insistence on a 'very short time'--NOT FOR A DELAY OF 15 MONTHS!

Bremer has basically defied Sistani. Why? Perhaps Bushies want a Shiite uprising which they could put down with much blood and then announce that Shiites will be excluded from new govt. Would Sistani be dumb enough to play into their hands? I'd imagine that instead he'd issue a fatwa calling for guerilla resistance to Yanks. Then GIs would face bombs in Shiite areas as well as Sunni area.

Or is Bremer so dumb that he figures that if Sistani will yield this much, he'll yield all the way ?

One unintended side-effect of Bremer's brazen announcement might be this: Sistani never really trusted UN. He told some Iraqi interviewers that he didn't invite UN in, and wasn't bound by their edicts. (What he said was that if they could PROVE early elections were impossible...) He might now come to believe what seems pretty clear; that UN's Annan is a complete U.S. puppet. Then who will mediate between Bremer and Sistani?

 
CIA NOW USELESS AS SPIES: The Third Top CIA honcho in Baghdad was just replaced. (2d one annoyed Bushies in Nov. by reporting that Iraqis now thought we could be defeated.)
Sensibly fearful, few CIA operatives will volunteer to go to Iraq or Afghan. for more than 90 days. Such people are useless for 'infiltrating' or sniffing out guerillas.

They are so short of Arabic speakers they must rely on (and trust) translators, and so short of operatives that they had to call back hundreds of retired operatives.

Sensibly fearful, they stay inside our fortresses, venturing out only with armed guard..not very effective as spies! And they're used for troop protection, not for long-run intelligence.

They're sending over recruits right out of training school, who don't know the language (of course!) In Afghanistan also, they're closing isolated bases for 'security reasons' (naked fear).

At least 5 people turned down the TOP post in Pakistan, until one finally accepted! (CIA denies this--but they tend to lie.)
FinTimes

Unlike the martyr-murderers on the other team, these people have sensible concern for their own skin. One more bit of evidence that we should not be involved in these rat's nests, that Americans are not suited to run an empire--where we must act in BLIND ignorance.

 
REFLECTIONS ON THE SACRED DEADLINE: (NYTIMES)
--first point to note: the Bushies are bugging out, chased by the guerillas:
"Our plan was to have a govt., build a structure, write a constitution as a source of long-run stability. Now all that's out the window."

The Bushies say no compromise on the 30June bugout date: "That's holy writ."

We'll end up with a shaky govt., lacking legitimacy.. there's no sense in setting a rigid deadline for a govt. when YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT KIND OF GOVT. WILL RESULT !

"This is a schedule set up by Karl Rove (Bush's genius in managing elections)."

"Such deadlines are a bad idea when they correspond, even coincidentally, to our electoral schedule. Iraqis have TV. Everyone in Iraq believes these deadlines come from our election schedule...an extremely hi-risk policy."

 
NEW MOVES IN THE 'TRANSITION' GAME:
--Annan of UN said: "June 30 deadline must be respected. No elections before then."
--Someone consulted with Ayatollah Sistani, who said "OK, if elections by 1 Oct.'04.'
--UN,US said, "Oh no, not before 8 months after handover 30June."
-----
We'll see if Sistani will accept that deadline, and will accept handover to our puppet Council..he previously said NO to council, and said expanding it won't help. REUTERS
---------
Annan seems more of a U.S.puppet every day. WHY must 30June deadline be respected?
Because Bushies say so. We'll see.
===========
2 members of OUR 'civil defense' force are suspects in guerilla attack. How could we screen out guerilla infiltrators from 'our' forces..when our people don't even speak the language? ! REUTERS
=========
BLACK HUMOR: While U.S. is so picky about 'premature' elections in IRAQ, U.S. is pushing UN for premature elections in AFGHANISTAN ! UN has registered only 1 in 10 voters; UN complains about inadequate money; U.S. ambassador blames UN 'poor planning'.

One possibility is Presidential elections soon (with Kharzai the only candidate!) but parliament elections postponed. . But Tajiks will raise hell about 'strong Pashtun President' getting head-start on balancing Parliament. (That balance was the bargain that made 'constitution' at all possible.) Opposition might not accept results of these 'elections.
.
Analysts worry that U.S. wants some kind of 'election' in Afgh. to use as a 'success story' for Bush in Nov. FinTimes

 
$ SEVEN MILLIONS OF MILLIONS ($7 TRILLIONS): our Natl. debt. That comes to over $23,000 owed by every man, woman, and child in U.S. / NETSCAPE

WHODUNIT? A graph shows that the big deficits were run up under REPUBLICAN presidents, who used to pose as champions of fiscal sobriety. LITTLEPIGGY

Let's face it: Republicans figure that average American is too subliterate, and too unconcerned about tomorrow, to care about our national debt. Republicans show absolute contempt for typical American. Maybe they're right.
---------
ON THE OTHER HAND: Latest poll shows (if an election were held today) Edwards leading Bush by 10%, and Kerry leading Bush by 12%. Americans may be, slowly, waking up.

 
SHIITE ELECTION PLAN: The Shiites & Kurds are collaborating to propose that we hold immediate elections in STABLE parts of Iraq, namely Shiite & Kurd areas, and then let the Sunni Arabs figure out their own method of selection (for their 20% of the new Assembly).

Sounds plausible. Sunnis of course enraged, but they'd be far outnumbered in any fair selection-method. Of course they're enraged at Kurd/Shiite cooperation. /NYTIMES

 
IRAQUIS ALWAYS BLAME YANKS: 2 suicide-bombers blasted Polish base, killed some Iraqi civilians. RESIDENTS BLAMED U.S., SAID THAT U.S. AIRPLANE FIRED MISSILE! (The U.S. army is rarely seen in this Shiite town...no matter../SAN DIEGO/REUTERS

The absurdity of this charge is irrelevant. What counts is that Iraqi hatred of America (even among Shiites, whom we rescued from Saddam!)--this hatred means the locals will hide and protect guerillas..no solution visible!
-----------------------
Hours after the attack, Iraqis were still throwing stones at GIs./WashPost
===========
U.S. general Sanchez (the most frank of our generals--he will, of course, be replaced)
told a Spanish-language periodical that our GIs will be in Iraq 'FOR YEARS' ! REUTERS

What makes him think that Americans will TOLERATE GIs being sitting ducks for years?
It's not just that Americans are childishly impatient (they often are). It's mainly that as war drags on, they wake up to the fact that WE HAVE NO STAKE IN THIS WAR, that all the thousands of GIS killed, wounded or MAIMED are suffering FOR NOTHING.
----------
KURDS WILL KEEP MILITIA: Bremerites plus Shiites plus Sunnis plus Turkey, Iran, and Syria want Iraqi Kurds to disband their 50,000-man militia. Kurds UNSURPRISINGLY refuse. They want the militia to be legitimized as 'national guard' in end-of-Feb document, and Iraq declared to be FEDERAL nation, with semi-autonomy for Kurds.

Trouble is, then other militias will want to be 'legitimized', including a couple of openly anti-U.S. Shiite groups. Still, the Kurds will get their way. Who's going to invade their territory and destroy their army? /GUARDIAN
===========
IN AFGANISTAN: 500 people have been killed by 'ousted' Taliban in 6 months. Only 8% of potential voters have been registered for this summer's fake 'elections' (to be held so Bushies can bug out before Nov. elections.) Taliban leader contacts REUTERS to warn that they will kill anyone who participates in these 'elections'.

 
A NEW COMPROMISE? Caucuses proposed by U.S. are out. Bremerites out in June.
Power handed to our puppet Council (perhaps augmented; Sistani says that won't help.)
No consitution before elections, held at beginning of '05. Top foreign honcho will be UN honcho; Brits & Yanks will be 'mere' ambassadors.GIs will stay on../INDEPENDENT

Questions:
--Will Sistani accept this as a compromise? He's said he wants no 'interim regime' (he explicitly rejects rule by our council.)

--Will guerillas continue attacking? Will GIs continue being killed, wounded, maimed right up till elections? (Or will they be pulled back into 'safety' of fortresses, being rendered fairly useless for countering guerillas & gangsters? Will Iraqi 'police' be able to control the guerillas? (Not much hope there, so far!)

--Election seems certain to put Shiites into power. Will Sunnis accept this? One expert says "no way!" Will new Shiite regime write into constitution enough autonomy to satisfy the Kurds? Or will Iraq degenerate into civil war--as many observers fear?--and as many experts predicted, before our silly invasion?

--Will 'interim regime' of our puppet Council be accepted as 'legit government' by other nations (to validate exploitative contracts already signed?)
--------------
HOWEVER: it seems the puppet Council WILL come up with a temporary constitution, before elections. Bremer has warned that he will veto any return to ISLAM as basis of constitution (because it would put Iraqi women at risk.) Bremer notes that women compose a large majority in Iraq, because Saddam killed off so many men!
Shia clerics are furious at Bremer's warning. He has undermined any pretense that this temporary constitution is Iraqi, not American. AlJazeera

Our puppet council now says U.S. should hand temporary power over to THEM ! Surprise!

All this makes even more dubious the chance that Ayatollah Sistani will accept this new 'compromise'.
The deadline for this first step is only 11 DAYS FROM NOW !

 
FEAR-HYSTERIA IN BUSH'S TALK: Cynthia Tucker of ATLANTIC CONSTITUTION notes that in his one-hour MEETthePRESS interview, Bush used terms like 'war', 'terror', etc. SEVENTY TIMES. She also notes that Pew poll shows 37% think 'security' is top issue, vs. only 35% who name 'Economy'--in spite of obvious economic problems.

Trouble is, we ARE in danger of terrorist attack. But Bushies will not spend to counter this danger. And they get away with it; most Americans TRUST Bush on 'Security' !
For possible explanation, see my piece on RAGE DISGUISED AS FEAR .

 
GIs OUT OF HARM'S WAY? An INDEPENDENT reporter says Bushies are desperate to get GIs 'out of harm's way' before the Nov. elections. They pulled out of Fallujah; immediately the guerillas launched a DAYTIME attack on our 'police', with impunity.

We say (a) we will pull out the Bremerite civilian regime by 30June, and (b) direct elections can't be held by then, but (c) this reporter says that without those elections, the new 'Iraqi' regime couldn't survive without GI protection. [Lyons: maybe even WITH elections (putting Shiites in power) GIs would still be needed against Sunni guerillas, and would still be 'in harm's way' by November. And many KURDS are calling for complete independence from Iraq, or at least considerable autonomy under a 'federal' scheme.]

Also, Sistani told Sunni interviewers (see below) that he was not bound by any UN recommendations; he says Bremerites should stay in charge until elections ARE possible.

Bushies are in big trouble.

 
AFGHAN ELECTIONS? U.S. says it's too soon for elections in chaotic Iraq, but is pushing for elections in FAR MORE CHAOTIC Afghanistan. (They have managed to register only 8% of potential Afghan voters.) Now U.S. hints that parliamentary elections might be postponed, while Presidential elections proceed.

However, this would give a great boost to Kharzai, our puppet (a former functionary of a Western oil company!), since he is about the only Presidential candidate. The constitution calls for Pres. & Parliament elections to be simultaneous--the non-Pashtuns think they can control the Parliament, to balance Kharzai's power.
NYTIMES
--------------
U.S. is pushing 'national guard' for now because efforts to recruit 70,000 into Afghan army are failing; (only 10,000 recruited; many desertions). Locals say that means U.S. is 'legalizing' war-lords' militias; critics say that will weaken further the puny Kabul 'central government'. REUTERS

 
A SUNNI'S INTERVIEW WITH SHIITE AYATOLLAH: This secular Sunni (with a degree in Engineering) interviews Ayatollah Sistani, who said he did not want clergy running Iraq, as happened in Iran. The interesting thing is that he said he DID NOT CALL IN THE UN, and HE DID NOT FEEL OBLIGED TO OBEY THEIR ADVICE. He wants elections.
(Another interview said S's only objection was vs. any 'intermediate stage' between U.S. rule and real elections. If the elections aren't possible now, then let U.S. stay in power till they are. DEAR_RAED.BLOGSPOT.COM )

Of course that 'intermediate regime' is exactly what Bushies want most--
--so their puppets can set rules for the 'real'election in '05;

--and, more important, so a 'legitimate' Iraqi regime (controlled by U.S.) can VALIDATE the contracts already signed with our puppet Council, to sell Iraq assets at fire-sale prices to rich scavengers. (Of course, if other nations--e.g., France, GErmany, Russia--didn't recognize this new regime as 'legitimate', then the validation wouldn't work.

 
OUTSOURCING OK? NYSUNDAYTIMES cites a spokeswoman for a research foundation advocating Free Trade (vs. protectionism) who says we shouldn't fear when U.S. corporations 'ship jobs overseas' (e.g., when, thanks to instant communications, project-requirements for software development are wired to India, and the programming is wired back quickly..and the Indian programmers charge only 1/6 the wages expected by U.S. programmers.)
[Pro-outsourcing points below are in BOLD.]
"If svces are cheaper from India, it makes sense for companies to produce them there."Lyons: Of course it 'makes sense' for companies to do this; the question is, is this good for typical Americans?
-------------
"Outsourcing will ultimately enhance companies' productivity..and enhanced productivity is good."
Enhanced prod. MEANS that for any level of goods and services that can be sold, FEWER HOURS OF HUMAN INPUT are needed. It's mysterious why the humans who get paid only for their input would benefit when less human input is needed.
--------------
"Outsourcing does not lower total number of jobs in U.S."
This could be true only if more goods/svces will be purchased--(goods produced here, not imported. )At the same level of consumption, outsourcing DOES lower total number of jobs in U.S.
--------
"Outsourcing means prices of software, computers will fall..Productivity will rise, and more jobs will be created.."
This last claim violates common-sense. Rising productivity, with all other factors equal, means FEWER jobs. The BURDEN OF PROOF falls on those who predict that other factors won't be equal, so there won't be fewer jobs.
--------------
"Tendencies over the last few years support optimist-claim. a)Take cell-phones; the number of jobs in this area have INCREASED..b)on the higher end of the technological spectrum."
But Craze for cell-phones is now decreasing; practically everyone here has one. Notice that 'new demand' now hinges on a constant succession of new CRAZES..not on stable, sensible needs. And crazes are temporary. Advertisers must constantly get people hooked on new crazes for this Ponzi scheme to keep working. (The lastest word is that consumer confidence fell sharply in January.)

About (b) It's true that so far American top-skilled-people must design the requirements for the software; only the lower-level programming can be 'farmed out'.
However, what's good for a tiny number of technical super-elite may not be good for typical Americans--even COLLEGE GRADS--who are not, and will not be, at all well-educated. (Anyway, If by some miracle they DID get highly trained , then there'd be a huge surplus of super-elite, and their scarcity-price would drop!)
--------------
This writer notices that 'the trend to outsource seems to be moving up the skills ladder';
i.e., higher and higher-level workers in U.S. can now be replaced by millions of far-cheaper 'elite' workers overseas.
--------------
"During '90s boom, demand for computer-skilled workers rose 22% , (b) twice as fast as for other workers, (d) when outsourcing was going on...(c) unemployment rate fell to 4%, (d)in spite of aggressive outsourcing.."

In other words: a) Over 10 years, demand for the computer-skilled rose only 2% a year; (b) demand for other workers rose only 1% a year..not even enough to keep up with our population-increase; (c) that 4% low-unemployment-rate happened only for a short time at the very end of the boom,just before the bust (d) ' aggressive outsourcing was going on." We're not told how much outsourcing of middle-class jobs actually HAPPENED during that time. Perhaps the process was just warming up.
-------------
"Asians then bought more business and financial services from America."
How much more? Enough to make up for losses in other areas? For many years, Asian countries have sold us far more goods & services than they have bought from us: (our staggering trade deficit). Besides, more and more of the goods they bought 'from us' were really made by foreign workers, not by Americans.
-------------
"Admittedly it's said that 3.3 million more white-collar svc. jobs will be lost to other countries by 2015."
Yeah.
---------------
"But economists think that,once again, prices of technology will fall, more technology will be used, and jobs will be created as people think of more things to do with technology."
When people think of more things technology can do, these ingenious new tricks might very well be in the line of 'more productivity'--e.g., more automation replacing human workers with machines. Some new jobs may be created, but far more will likely be lost.
-----------
"Many of the lower-level outsourced jobs could have automated, anyway."
Yes--the workers are threatened both by being replaced by cheap foreign labor, and ultimately by being replaced by machines..(which will ultimately undersell the foreign workers also.)
--------------
"We lost a lot of jobs after '99, but that's because we fell into a recesssion."
'Recession' is not an explanation of job-loss, but a restatement of the problem. Aggregate demand (backed by money) fell short of staggering supply-capacity, so the whole economy sagged.
What's new now is that the 'economy' has recovered from 'recession', is 'growing fast' --BUT jobs are NOT now being created; total number of jobs at end of '03 was no higher than at end of '02..and our population (people needing jobs) went up during that time, enough so that 150,000 new jobs each MONTH were needed--but not provided !
---------
From 99 to 03, business and financial svcs added 600,000 jobs (in 48 months; that's only 12,500 per month !) while computer/math occupations added 150,00 (i.e.,only 3125 per month !).
[Or is it from beginning of '99 to end of '03? that's 5 years, 60 months--even less impressive for job-creation.]
And during '03, economy was technically in Boom not in Bust. Meanwhile, manufacturing lost nearly 3 million jobs.
---------
One source said that only 69% of people laid off from '79 to '99 got new jobs.
Of these, 55% ended up with lower pay; indeed, one in four of those laid off were rehired at 30% less than before. / One source said that for every dollar lost to America in outsourcing, only 5 cents is increased in U.S. exports. STRAITSTIMES
-------------------------------
Pres. Bush just announced, "I don't care about numbers; I care about people!" But when huge and growing numbers of people are threatened with joblessness...he'd better care. Numbers of votes count, at least outside of Florida.

 
GI ATROCITY? It's said that 5 laughing GIs forced 2 Iraqi cousins into a raging river.
One drowned; one lived to tell the tale.INDEPENDENT

Whenever regular soldiers come up against faceless guerillas, some soldiers run amok from frustrated rage. Guerilla war after the invasion was predictable AND PREDICTED.

This psychological damage to GIs was a cost of war accepted cheerfully by the Bushies. We'll see disastrous family tragedies, and many suicides, after these GIs get home.

 
CONSUMER CONFIDENCE PLUNGES: This index dropped in one month from 103 to 93, against the optimistic predictions of the experts. GUARDIAN
This shows that the shortage of jobs has sunk through to the ordinary consumer. (Even those who still have jobs realize from their bad raises and benefits that they have little bargaining power when millions of jobless are looking over their shoulder, anxious to replace them.)

Imports are up--because the only people with money to spend, the well-off, prefer to spend on imports. Even the cheap dollar has not much boosted U.S. exports.
-----
All this makes even more amusing the Bushies' prediction that 226,000 new jobs will be added each MONTH this year !

Another huge bungle. Administration spokesman trampled backwards to disavow the optimistic prediction mentioned above. But this '2.6 million JOBS WILL BE ADDED THIS YEAR' was in the OFFICICAL ECONOMIC REPORT SIGNED BY GEORGE W. BUSH ! [ABCNEWS18Feb.]

One econ.spokesman for Bush ENDORSED outsourcing jobs! Even Hastert, the top GOP honcho in the House, was horrified !

Tame Greenspan said the prediction could come true, if 'productivity' fell (producing more goods/svcs with less U.S. human input)..but now the Federal Reserve predicts that 'productivity' will NOT fall.

Earlier this same report predicted somewhere between 1.7 and 3 million new jobs in '03. Instead, we LOST 53,000 jobs in '03. /STAR-TRIBUNE

The whole White House team seems to be coming unglued.

 
UN ENVOY WANTS A VERY TEMPORARY 'INTERIM' GOVT. IN IRAQ THIS JUNE, with VERY LIMITED POWERS. /guardian

The key question is if this unelected 'interim' regime will have power to validate contracts selling Iraqi assets to rich scavengers. That's what U.S. wants.

The second question is whether Ayatollah Sistani will accept this solution.

The envoy warned about the 'very serious' danger of Civil War--with GIs caught in the middle; this danger was also predictable, and predicted, before the invasion.

 
BRAZEN GUERILLA ATTACKS: U.S. just handed security job in Fallujah over to local police. In response, 70 guerillas attacked police station IN PERSON, in uniforms of NEW IRAQI ARMY! They killed 23 police (wounding many more), and freed 100 prisoners. Americans did not intevervene, as a U.S. plane hovered overhead.

Gen Abizaid, top commander who nearly got creamed this week, returned to QUATAR (his USUAL base!) and said, "We have to take risks, taking our hands off control. It's their country..." On the other hand, he said, "Obviously they're not trained, not ready."

It's clear now that U.S. will pull back troops out of the cities, risking takeover by guerillas.
DEBKAFILE [DEBKA is a journal based in Jerusalem].
-----------
Similar story on CNN . Gun-battle lasted over an hour; U.S. humvees seen on a side-street, yet they didn't intervene.
-----------------------
Lyons: Could Americans be punishing Fallujah natives for not turning in guerillas? That seems pretty dumb..that could be it.]

This reminds one of 'Vietnamization, Nixon's gimmick of pulling back U.S. troops, letting our Saigon allies get whipped, then using this as excuse to bug out altogether.)

"It's their country.."/Yes, but we provoked the guerilla insurgency.. now we're letting natives pay the price. We're doing the same thing in Afghanistan.

 
HERE'S THE REAL SCOOP !
While U.S. spokesmen were talking upbeat in public, a confidential U.S. report [Jan.Natl.Revue of Iraq] told a more sober story:

--Strikes vs. non-gov. organizations rose from 19 in Dec to 26 in Jan.

--Hi-intensity attacks (using mortars or explosives) more than doubled, from 316 in Dec to 642 in Jan. !

--8 attacks a day in Baghdad (up from 4 a day in Sept.)

--11 total attacks(in Jan) on U.S. aircraft.

--a truck with explosives penetrated perimeter at Baghdad Airport.

--Attacks on military targets have doubled. FinTimes

-----------
If this is 'last gasp' of guerillas after Saddam's capture, it's a pretty powerful, prolonged gasp!

 
WILL LYONS BE BLOCKED FROM FLIGHT?
3 California NUNS--born in India--were blocked from a flight because crew-members thought they smelled sulfur on the plane! The nuns were delayed 6 hours, and their luggage searched. One nun was PRINCIPAL OF CALIF.HIGH-SCHOOL!

Wait a minute! Nuns..? a smell of sulfur...? Maybe that the connection. American yahoos once suspected that nuns wore their elaborate head-gear to HIDE THEIR HORNS!
click on NUNS .

(It turns out that now ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN can be blocked from a flight if the crew objects to their boarding.) CNN--or, presumably if some other authority objects.

Lyons has published many, many letters critical of Bushies in Colorado papers (E.G., in COLORADOAN13feb). I'm planning to fly to Edinburgh in March to show off the city to my 4 grandchildren. Now I'm a little nervous. Who knows what smells will scare the crews on my flights?

Just for the record: although I'm of Irish-Catholic descent, I've always disapproved of IRA terrorism! Some of my best friends are god-damned Brits!

 
HOW MUCH ? ! We've been told that the Iraq fiasco is costing $1 billion per week (that's PLUS the
$1, 000, 000, 000 EACH DAY for ROUTINE Pentagon expenses !)
And it turns out that in the last 3 months, they've spent $14, 000,000,000 in Iraq,

The kicker is this: the Bushies were prudently going to postpone UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION calling for $50 billion extra for Iraq. But now the fear is that the present money will run out in SEPTEMBER...just BEFORE the election. /AssocPress

 
CHARLIE: DON'T HEED POOR UNCLE GREG.
Greg Snyder tells young Charlie (in Ft.CollinsWkly,11-17Feb] that we invaded Iraq to free their people from a nasty dictator. Charlie, our government has been in bed--so to speak--with nasty dictators for a long time; in fact, we backed this one (Saddam) even after we found out he had gassed his own citizens. Freeing Iraqis is surely NOT why we went to war.

Then Snyder switches smoothly to our wanting to remove a leader who threatened world peace. But, Charlie, nasty as Saddam was, he posed NO real threat to other countries. That's why practically all the people in practically every other country (and the Pope!) oppose our invasion.

Greg says it's noble for our soldiers to die for 'the cause of liberty'--but he doesn't say whywe now object to calls for elections in Iraq. He doesn't say that a good number of soldiers in Iraq did NOT volunteer to go there..they foolishly joined a reserve unit just to 'be with the guys at meetings' in their home-town and make a little extra pin-money. They went to Iraq grudgingly; now they find out that even when their enlistment period is up, the government just announces that they must stay on. (Their little brothers have caught on: enlistments in the Army Reserve have plummeted.) There'd be room if Greg wants to join up.

Greg also thinks that it's noble to have over 11,000 GIs who have been evacuated home for medical reasons; many have lost arms, legs, eyes, or faces--or have brain damage, often a fate worse than death. And, Charlie, it's all for nothing. It's a needless, pointless war; heartless, brainless and luckless.

As I say: about the Iraq fiasco, Uncle Greg can't tell his ass from a shell-hole.

 
BRUTAL SELF-DECEPTION:
IN a letter to ROCKYMTNNEWS,11feb, one J.Cardie writes
EVIL UNDERSTANDS FORCE: "It's time that bleeding-heart pacifists understand that evil does truly exist in this world and that the only language evil understands is superior force."
---------
Notice how ABSTRACT Cardie's letter is. 'Evil' exists--no, although evil people may.
'Evil' understands--no, though evil people may.
'Superior force''--this could mean threats to assassinate a ruler, or it could mean indiscriminate bombing of a civilian population.

'Evil people understand only force'. This is real nonsense. Humans, evil or good, do NOT usually 'understand' violence used against them..that is, they don't react rationally to violence.

If the Viet people reacted rationally to the INCREDIBLE violence we subjected them to, they would have surrendered ( and perhaps prospered like Japan and Germany.) Instead our slaughters so enraged them that they got TOO STUPID TO SURRENDER--so all our bombing turned out to be pointless, indeed counter-productive.

Should we say that suicide bombers are responding rationally to the violence against their people? C'mon!

Violence enrages humans, renders them irrationally resistant to the violent agent.

Why do people like Cardie WANT TO BELIEVE that violence works to intimidate victims into compliance? Perhaps they want to use(or approve of) violence for its own sake, yet want to hide from themelves this primitive desire to vent rage pointlessly--by pretending that the violence will have good results.

When a father growls "I'll teach YOU a lesson!", the child knows that what comes next is not teaching, but a pointless--yet satisfying--venting of primitive rage.