OK, I'm back! Did you miss me?!? Pardon the extended absence but I took a few days off for a trip to California to visit friends and family and then was swamped with work for the next several days upon my return. I have to say that California was a nice place to visit, but I'm not sure I could afford to live there. Good grief! We looked at some houses that were selling for $1.5 million that weren't much bigger than where I'm living now. You could buy a monstrosity with a huge ranch thrown in for that much green stuff here in these parts. But I guess it is like they always say.... location, location, location. And by that they must mean beachfront property.

It was surprisingly easy to travel on the airlines what with a war going on and the terror alert up at the burnt orange level (but not maroon yet). Going through LAX I assumed we would all be strip searched and forced to provide blood and urine samples, but it was not much different than any other flight I've been on. Got to fly a jumbo jet for the first time. I'd never been on a plane where you get on and see a staircase going up to a second floor.

Unfortunately, the war is still going on. Today I was shocked to find out that the first U.S. journalist to die over there was Washington Post columnist Michael Kelly, also editor of The Altlantic monthly. I guess you never expect a celebrity journalist to be the first to go. Apparently, he was killed in some bizarre humvee accident of which the details are still sketchy. I am sad to see Kelly go, although I was no fan of his writing. His columns were always very conservative and bitter attacks on first Clinton and later Gore. I guess I have to admire his determination in getting out in the field to cover this war which he so stridently pushed for in his columns. I've known and know lots of people whose political views I strongly disagree with but who are nevertheless wonderful, upstanding and decent human beings. From the little I've read about Kelly since his death I get the feeling that he fell into that category.

Today the Senate voted to slash Bush's $726 billion tax cut in half. That means we are halfway back to some fiscal sanity. A $350 billion tax cut is still outrageous when we are in the middle of a war and are already in debt up to our ears.

The Academy Awards were more unpredictable than I had imagined and thus more entertaining. I am still upset that The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers took just two measly technical awards - Visual Effects and Sound Editing - but at least that was better than Gangs of New York which was completely shut out after receiving 10 nominations. I guess Peter Jackson will just have to console himself for now with his $335 million domestic box office take.
I was getting just a bit tired of hearing the theme music to ‘Chicago’ being played over and over, but the film topped out at six awards which - while respectable- is far short of a complete sweep. The film, which I still have not seen, took just one acting award for Catherine Zeta-Jones for best supporting actress. The big surprise turned out to be the Holocaust drama The Pianist which took three really big awards - adapted screenplay, best actor and best director. I’m not sure what to think about the directing award going to Roman Polanski the fugitive child molester who is living in exile in France. But I am happy for Best Actor Adrien Brody after first being upset when his name was called. I was pulling for Michael Caine or Daniel Day-Lewis, but after hearing Brody’s poignant and touching acceptance speech I was somewhat mollified.
I expected Nicole Kidman and her prosthetic nose to win Best Actress - the only award for The Hours. And Chris Cooper’s best supporting actor win was also expected, although I would have preferred to see Paul Newman or Christopher Walken win. Walken’s excellent performance in ‘Catch Me If You Can’ was the only one I have seen so far.
I thought that Steve Martin did an excellent job hosting under the strained circumstances. I was actually afraid that they would just do away with the host altogether like they did at the Grammys this year. But Martin was able to be funny and entertaining without offending the tender sensibilities of a nation in war-mode.
I was happy to see the Japanese animated film ‘Spirited Away’ win in that category and I hope to actually see the film some day too. The American offerings this year just weren’t up to the same level if ‘Ice Age’ is any indication - haven’t seen the others yet. I was also glad to see Eminem win Best Song for Lose Yourself from Eight Mile even though it meant that U2 did not win and Bono was not allowed to make an anti-war statement on the stage.
Documentary film maker Michael Moore’s anti-Bush speech was to have been expected. He clearly deserved to win this year for “Bowling For Columbine” and there was no way he was going to accept the award without saying something that would rattle peoples’ cages. I thought what he had to say was clever - contrasting non-fiction film making with ‘fictitious election results’ in Florida and ‘fictitious reasons for going to war in Iraq.’ We still have found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (and fortunately none have been used against our troops). So if it turns out that Iraq wasn’t really an immediate threat to our national security, then what? Oh, well? He was a bad man and needed to be toppled anyway? At what cost? We are still finding out, unfortunately.
But back to Moore’s rant - even though what he said was clever, if he truly intended to win people over to his side I don’t think that standing up on stage and shouting “Shame on you, Mr. Bush!” was the way to go about it. But of course, Moore has never been very good at actually achieving the results that he espouses. After all, his support for Ralph Nader in the last election just helped to pull down Al Gore and hand the keys to the White House to runner-up George W.

The complete list of Oscar winners is here.

The behavior of the stock market never ceases to disgust me. Typically, you can count on the stock market to react favorably whenever big companies announce mass layoffs or shut down factories to move jobs overseas. Last week when Bush finally announced the long-anticipated start to his war against Iraq, the markets reacted boisterously with back-to-back-to-back rallies for the highest one week gain in years. The more bombs that burst around Baghdad, the higher stock prices would go. But now, after a weekend with more than a few setbacks and U.S. and British casualties climbing upward, the stock market has plunged nearly 300 points. It didn't take long for Wall Street to lose its enthusiasm for the war. Did they really expect it to all be over in a matter of days?
There is a good op-ed piece in the NYTimes today explaining why the war won't help our dreary economy.

It is almost scary how accurate this satirical news story from The Onion ( 1/18/01) has turned out: Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'

"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."
Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.
During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.
"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"

Sales of Dixie Chicks albums have not suffered too much despite boycott attempts after lead singer and Lubbock native Natalie Maines dissed President Bush during the group's current European tour.

"Although radio airplay subsided about 20 percent, Home's sales remained strong relative to other current releases. Overall, the album finished the week ended Sunday by selling 124,000 copies, down 21,000 copies from the prior week, according to SoundScan data. However, when compared to the other top-selling albums, the Chicks fared pretty well. Home experienced about a 15 percent drop-off, while the top 5 holdovers from the previous week's charts averaged nearly a 26 percent decline.
With Home holding up better than its competition, the Grammy-winning disc actually climbed two spots to number four and remained number one on the country sales chart. (Of course, the fairly stable sales stats could be attributed to those fire-loving yokels stocking up on Home for the next burning.) "

While I think that Maine's comment was ill advised (She said she was embarrassed that George Bush is from Texas), I also think the whole issue is being blown far out of proportion by our nation's right-wing propaganda machine -- talk radio yakkers, Faux News, etc. There were a lot of other ways she could have made her point without fanning so much controversy, but that's what happens every once in a while to people who have microphones stuck in the faces everyday as part of their job without the benefit of professional handlers to tell them what to say and how to say it. At least Maines issued a sincere apology and I think that should be the end of it. Unfortunately, forgiveness is not one of the strong points of the right wingers here in the U.S. And many on the far-right love nothing better than the opportunity to work themselves up in a fit of self-righteouss indignation.

My jaw dropped the other night when Bush spoke about the "broad coalition" that is supporting his war in Iraq. Now the State Dept. has come out with a list of 30 countries that they say are backing the war effort:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. The State Department listed Japan as available for "post-conflict" support.

Of course, the only ones backing up their stated support with actual troop deployments is the UK along with a "token 2,000 troops" from Australia. It is kind of a stretch to include Turkey on the list as well, since they are not allowing U.S. troops to use bases in that country and is also sending its own troops into the Northern Iraq/Kurdish territory in in spite of repeated U.S. requests that they stay out.

The real story, however, is how world opinion of the U.S. has fallen sharply in recent months. The NYTimes is reporting today that opinion polls by the Pew Charitable Trust show "a serious disconnect" between Americans and their traditional allies. While 59 percent of Americans say they support a war against Iraq, only 39 percent of Britons and 13 percent of the Spanish favor military actions. Gee, aren't those our two biggest allies and they don't seem to have anywhere close to majority support of their home populations. The survey also showed that favorable opinions of the U.S. have fallen sharply in many countries including Germany where just 25 percent had a favorable opinion of the U.S. compared to 61 percent last June. In France, the numbers have fallen from 63 percent a year ago to 31 percent today, and in Italy it fell from 70 percent a year ago to 34 percent today. Wow! Just imagine what they will think if things don't go exactly as planned during the next several days.

From the resignation speech of Robin Cook, who stepped down as leader of the House of Commons in the UK to protest the Iraq situation.

"The threshold for war should always be high. None of us can predict the death toll of civilians in the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq. But the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at the very least in the thousands. Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size at the time of the last Gulf war. Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate invasion. And some claim his forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the basis that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a seri ous threat. Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of that term - namely, a credible device capable of being delivered against strategic city targets. It probably does still have biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions. But it has had them since the 1980s when the US sold Saddam the anthrax agents and the then British government built his chemical and munitions factories.

Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years and which we helped to create? And why is it necessary to resort to war this week while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is frustrated by the presence of UN inspectors?"

On the one hand, Saddam is so weak that we are predicting a quick and easy military victory. On the other hand, we are being told that Saddam is an imminent threat to U.S. security and therefore we must embark on a pre-emptive attack with or without the support of international allies.

Last night in his speech, Bush spoke of a "broad coalition" that will use military force to disarm Saddam. But that coalition includes just two nations - the U.S. and Great Britain - Spain is not even providing any troops, just diplomatic cover such that it is. Bush went on to criticize France for its opposition to the war, but Cook makes it clear that France is not alone in its opposition.

"In recent days France has been at the receiving end of the most vitriolic criticism. However, it is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany is opposed to us. Russia is opposed to us. Indeed at no time have we signed up even the minimum majority to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves about the degree of international hostility to military action if we imagine that it is all the fault of President Chirac.
The harsh reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading member. Not Nato. Not the EU. And now not the security council. To end up in such diplomatic isolation is a serious reverse. Only a year ago we and the US were part of a coalition against terrorism which was wider and more diverse than I would previously have thought possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition. "

I think that "diplomatic miscalculations" is putting it rather mildly.

The United States has ordered the U.N. inspectors to leave Iraq. It is the first clear signal that the diplomatic charade that the Bush administration has been trying to orchestrate is over and the war is set to begin. It now occurs to me that the rightness or wrongness of this war will now be judged on two factors -- the number of U.S. casualties (Iraqi casulaties are irrelevant) and whether or not the U.S. economy will bounce back after it is all over. The stock market already shot up 200 points today in eager anticipation of a quick war. I can only hope that the war does go well, that Iraq's army scatters at the first hint of confrontation and that Saddam either flees or is quickly dispatched. But even if that is the case, the aftermath is still likely to be an ugly, drawn-out and expensive affair.
I have never been convinced that this war is necessary. Perhaps if Bush were capable of defending his position in a one-on-one interview with an aggresive reporter the way that Britain's Tony Blair does here, then I would feel a little better. But I can't even imagine a U.S. TV reporter being that tough and/or knowlegeable in any case, so maybe it is not entirely Bush's fault.

Consumer confidence has plunged to its lowest level in more than a decade, according to a Reuters report. That means it hasn't been this bad since, well, since the last time there was a President Bush in the White House.
War fears continue to drive gasoline prices higher. Unemployment continues to hover at the highest level in more than a decade. The Economic Policy Institute has reported that we are experiencing "the longest continuous stretch of job decline since 1944-46." Since March 2001, the economy has lost 2.5 million private-sector jobs.
Let's face it. Bush has been in office for more than two years, over half his term, and there are no bright spots to point to on the domestic front. The driving obsession of this administration for the past six months - at least since it became clear that Bush's tax cuts were not having the desired effect on the economy - has been in prosecuting an unprovoked conflict in Iraq. As a diversionay tactic it has worked like a charm. It largely responsible for the Republican victories in the November election fueled by "rally round the flag" sentiments. But the question that remains is what effect will the war have on the economy? I'm sure Bush's folks are hoping - betting the farm - that a quick victory in Iraq will be followed by a rebound in U.S. consumer confidence which will then drive the economy back into the black just in time for Bush's re-election campaign in 2004. Then, with a fresh mandate (who knows, maybe he will even win the election this time) and possibly a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and continued control of the House, the Republicans can finally push through their entire agenda on tax cuts, education vouchers, repealing Roe vs. Wade, filling up the federal courts with movement conservatives, elimination of environmental regulations preventing oil drilling and logging efforts, etc. A rightwinger's paradise.
Unfortunately, when this whole loopy fantasy comes crashing down, it's not going to be the wealthy Bush supporters who suffer the most. The vast majority of the Bush team never served in the military, and their children are not serving there now. They did not attend public schools and neither do their children. They live in a different world where you make a fortune by investing big piles of other people's money and then looking for ways to keep from paying taxes on it.

Looks like there will be no diplomatic cover for Bush's war in Iraq after all. Two days ago the White House was insisting that it was just one vote away from securing majority support on the U.N. Security Council. But that prediction has held up about as well as the administration's guarantee that its big surplus-eliminating tax cut last year would jump-start the economy. Guninea has said it will abstain and Chile has said it will vote no. But Bush is going to go forward anyway thrusting our nation into an unprecedented pre-emptive attack on another nation in defiance of the United Nations. Even Bush Sr. has come out in opposition to this foolish course of action!

Meanwhile, Bush's supporters here in the U.S., in a fit of pique, are busy tossing out their French toast and blacklisting the Dixie Chicks on country radio.

In order for Bush to win U.N. support for his pre-emptive war on Iraq, he must gain the support of eight other countries on the 15-member U.N. Security Council and avoid a veto by any of the five permanent members (U.S.; Great Britain; France; Russia; China). This is all but impossible as France and Russia have both made it clear they will veto a move to go to war at this time. Since Bush intends to go to war either way, he is simply trying to garner majority support from the Council to use as diplomatic cover when he ignores the veto. As best I can tell, the only thing that would halt Bush from going forward with the war now would be for Saddam to personally hand over the keys to the Iraqi oil fields to Dick Cheney.

It will be interesting to see if Bush can arm-twist enough of the little countries to get his 9-vote majority. Here is how the field looks right now:

Countries in favor of war:

United States
Great Britain
Spain
Bulgaria


Countries opposed:

France
Russia
China
Germany
Syria

The so-called Undecideds:

Mexico
Chile
Pakistan
Cameroon
Guinea
Angola

 I thought this was pretty funny from some Canadian comic:
       
       “On behalf of Canadians everywhere I’d like to offer an apology to the United States of America. We haven’t been getting along very well recently and for that, I am truly sorry. I’m sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron but, it wasn’t nice of us to point it out. If it’s any consolation, the fact that he’s a moron shouldn’t reflect poorly on the people of America. After all it’s not like you actually elected him. I’m sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean, when you’re going up against a crazed dictator, you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than two years before you guys pitched in against Hitler, but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons."

The last comment raises a good point about the World War II analogies that keep getting tossed around by war proponents today. Comparisons of Saddam Hussein to Hitler are ridiculous on their face, but they are made in such a way as to demonstrate the urgent need to go to war right away. Isn't it ironic then that back when Hitler was around in the days before Pearl Harbor -- attacking his neighbors, persecuting Jews and other minorities, using weapons of mass destruction -- it was the same types of folks who are so eager to go to war today (mostly Republicans and conservatives) who fought tooth and nail to keep us out of the war in Europe. The Republicans back then were even critical of FDR for his efforts to lend economic assistance to our European allies under assault from the Nazi's. So it took two years for us to get involved and only after we were provoked by the Japanese. And that is not counting the years that Hitler was building up his power base, just the time when he was being openly aggresive.

Check out the Adventures of Hercubush!

There was a most disturbing story that trickled out last Friday about the Iraq situation and it has received very little attention since then. It seems that a "key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program" was forged, according to The Washington Post. The New York Times and the L.A. Times reported similar stories.
Apparently, documents that Colin Powell used to show that Iraq officials were shopping for unanium in Africa two years ago had been fabricated. U.S. officials said they were duped. "We fell for it," said one unnamed U.S. official in the story. The U.N. spokeman said they do not blame the U.S. or Britain for the forgeries, but the story does not address who else might have been responsible or why.
That seems like a pretty serious question to me. If there is someone out there forging documents in an effort to help start a war in Iraq wouldn't it be prudent to find out who and why? And have they planted other false evidence. The U.S. media always laughs and dismisses the Iraqi government whenever they call charges against them "lies" but now we have proof for the first time that they were right. This doesn't mean that Saddam is suddenly a good guy or anything, but perhaps he is not as intent on obtaining nuclear technology as some interested parties would have us believe. I would really like to know more about these forged documents before we plunge into a bloody confrontation.

On a lighter note, I saw on one web site a suggestion for what we should name this war once it gets started:
Dubya Dubya III.

Every day now for the past five years I have been subjecting myself to the comic strip "Alley Oop". Why, I am not sure because it has to be one of the stupidest comic strips ever written. Maybe it was better years ago when the original authors were still alive, but the current yahoos that write the strip have no logical consistency whatsoever, and still I can't resist reading it everyday.
Alley Oop is about a caveman who has become the willing accomplice of a group of current day time travelers led by a Dr. Wonmung. The Doc has lately lost what little brains he ever had because he apparently
does not know how to repair his damaged time machine that he built. So a few months back he turned to the want ads to find someone who could fix it for him - and who shows up but one of his nephews from the future traveling back in a future time machine. Now if Wonmung was unable to keep his own time machine operational, how did his descendants advance the process and even have the technology in the future? Can't they see the fallacy here? Apparently not. Oh well, tomorrow Oop will probably do something so utterly stupid that I will forget about the other problems in the storyline.

I don't know if Gov. Howard Dean will be in the race long enough for me to vote for him, but for now I have to say he is my favorite for the Democratic Presidential nomination. In this speech at Drake University Dean outlines a position on the Iraq situation that is the best I have seen so far.
I'm still concerned that Dean won't be able to raise enough money to be a viable contender and I will probably end up supporting Sen. John Kerry as the practical alternative. But while we are this far out from the primaries, I can let my idealistic side outweigh my practical side.
The New Republic talks about Dean's surprising strength in Iowa.

"Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" passed the $330 million mark in domestic gross this weekend passing up "Forrest Gump" for the No. 7 spot on the All-Time list (not adjusted for inflation). I doubt that it will catch up to "Jurassic Park" with $353 million before it wraps up its theatrical run shortly after the Academy Awards show on March 23.
Here is the complete list.

Bush's top intelligence officer at the Pentagon and the No. 3 man at the CIA have met with Michael Drosnin, author of "The Bible Code," to discuss the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden, according to today's Wall Street Journal. Drosnin claims that his "Bible code" can reveal Bin Laden's hideout in the Middle East and the Bush officials agreed to meet with him after he "pestered" them with faxes and phone calls.
Is it really that easy for any wingnut to get an audience with the top brass at the Pentagon these days? Was this just another case of the Bush folks pandering to the far-right religious nuts? Or are they really this desperate that they are willing to believe anything? The "Bible Code" is essentially some guy taking the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, running all the letters together like a big jumbo crossword puzzle and then searching for specific word combinations (forward or backward) by skipping every 'nth" letter. For a more thorough explanation and debunking of the Bible Code go here.

It reminds me of when I was a reporter in a small town in Connecticut covering a bunch of local officials struggling with a water shortage. Up until that point, they had relied on well water for the whole town but the wells were starting to run dry and they were desperately looking for anyway to stave off the big water companies from coming in and hooking everyone up to city water. Without the water company they could enforce a minimum one acre per residence rule on all new home building because that is how much room you needed to separate a well and a septic system. That way they kept out the multi-unit housing (apartments and condos) which would lead to (gasp!) poor people moving into town and filling the local schools with kids that would eventually require local property taxes to go up.... and so on.
Anyway, they couldn't find any fresh water sources and they were getting so desperate that they turned to a water diviner for help. You know, the people who walk around with a forked stick and claim that it can point the way to fresh water sources. The person they hired actually used a couple of bent coathangers. I thought that was pretty silly at the time and had a lot of fun writing about it. But now we have something similar going on at the top levels of our government. What's next? Astrologers in the White House!?! Oh, wait. I forgot. Ron and Nancy Reagan already did that.

I'm still miffed about the Veterans Committee for the Baseball Hall of Fame. Doesn't it seem unfair to have all the living members of the Hall get to decide who else can join their ranks? Wouldn't they have a selfish motive to keep as many people out as possible on the grounds that the higher they can raise the bar and the fewer people who can get in will make those who are already there look that much better?

On another note, there are now 9 announced Democratic presidential candidates. I wonder what the record is? The latest entry is U.S. Sen. Bob Graham of Florida. I predict he will be treated as a Top Tier contender because of his Senator status, at least initially. Here is the complete list to date in the order that I think they shake out:

U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts
U.S. Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri
U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina
Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont
U.S. Sen. Bob Graham of Florida
U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio
Rev. Al Sharpton
Former U.S. Sen. Carole Mosely-Braun of Illinois

And they say that U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and former U.S. Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado are waiting in the wings.