As Congress struggles to pass legislation that will keep SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) funded, they once again turn to tobacco taxation as the key. Depending on which bill you look at (House or Senate) the proposed federal tax increase on tobacco would be 45 or 61 cents (per pack of cigarettes).

Tobacco taxation, in its msot current incarnation, is touted as a way to reduce the smoking of tobacco by increasing the price of the product. The theory (and it has been proven to a small extent among some smoking populations) is that if the price of tobacco increases fewer people will smoke, or at least those who smoke will smoke less. In this case, tobacco taxation is being used as a tool to change behavior. But you should ask yourself if the government really wants to have fewer smokers around. I submit that they do not, and the constant attempts to increase tobacco taxes to pay for any myriad of government projects should bear out my stance.

For instance, in the case of SCHIP, the federal government decides that in order to fund the program they need to increase tobacco taxes. Yet, under the behavioral modification theory, the fact that they plan to increase taxes on tobacco should lead to fewer packs of cigarettes being sold, meaning that there would be less tax money to fund SCHIP. In that case, where does the remainder come from? In fact, the government hopes that raising tobacco taxes will not affect most smokers, who are in fact addicted to the substance, and they will just keep smoking and paying the taxes. They know this is what will happen, and they count on smokers keeping right on smoking. They WANT smokers to keep smoking.

But SCHIP isn’t the only thing dependent on tobacco taxation. Aside from health related programs (that are dependent primarily, if not solely, on tobacco taxes) governments use tobacco taxes to swell their general funds accounts, thereby using tobacco money for projects unrelated to health care. When the states sued the tobacco companies and settled for multiple billions of dolalrs, they said that those funds were to be dedicated to health care costs for smoking related diseases. But state governments have repeatedly raided those “windfall funds” and used them for anything from roads to environmenta l impact studies to school building projects and so on. And they rely on smokers to keep those dollars rolling in.

It’s bad enough that tobacco taxation is a regressive tax policy, that is, one that targets those with less overall income disproportio nately. But what makes tobacco taxation policies worse, to me, is the fact that it is a hypocritical policy based on saying one thing while depending on the other. Governments claim to want less smoking, but then they turn around and base programs and policies on a dependence to tobacco taxes.

How does this even make sense? It doesn’t, and everyone knows it doesn’t.

And when you consider the fact that government rules and regulations are constantly limiting the places where people can smoke, you have to wonder where all these smokers are going to go to continue to light up so that the governments can continue to collect the taxes that they rely on.

Smoking is a bad health choice. That much has been proven pretty conclusively . But instead of trying to ban smoking (as the government does with much less harmful drugs like marijuana) the government takes a two-faced approach- don’t smoke, but if you do, smoke over there in the street; and please smoke because we want your money to pay for these programs.

One wonders if the government really even cares about the programs they seek to fund with tobacco taxes. If they were indeed intent on taxing tobacco out of existence, they’d surely not tie that revenue to programs that enjoy wide support, like children’s health insurance. Unless they want the program to die a slow, smoker-like death.

How can anyone support the current dichotomy of tobacco taxation? It is a policy riddled with contradictio n and hypocrisy. I think legislators simply have too much smoke in their eyes to see the absurdity of their actions. Maybe we should apply a tax to bad governance instead.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

I haven’t read a newspaper, perused a blog entry, watched TV news, or listened to any talk radio since August 30th. I have little to no idea about what has been happening in Iraq, Congress, or around the world. For me, it’s almost as if time stopped two and a half weeks ago, and ever since then I’ve been living a blur of days- one blending into the next without much thought or effort or anticipation of the next.

No, I haven’t been on a self-imposed sabbatical or a long overdue vacation to somewhere sparkly and bright. The complete opposite in fact. You see, on August 30th, my father died, and in the short span of time that a simple telephone conversation takes my whole world shifted a bit on its axis.

The thing you’ve got to realize though is that this wasn’t the first time that my father had died. He was 58 years old. Since his first open heart surgery in the early 1970’s to the last one he had in December 2005, my father has beaten back death time and time again. In fact, he’d been technically dead at least three times in his past, each time being brought back to life by the skill of some wonderful doctors and medical professionals. I wrote about these events after his last operation, and you can read about it here.

Living with a frequently dying father has the effect of preparing you (intellectually at least) for the eventual day when he will actually die for good. At the same time though, it instills a sense that this was a man who would never really die, since he had beaten the odds so many times before. It was through that lens of his medical history that I had to accept the fact that this time there would be no return from death’s door. This time it was permanent. This time it was for real.

My dad was on vacation in Eastern Washington when he died. He went there every year to enjoy his high school reunions, visit with old friends, and family too. This visit he spent most of his time helping move my grandmother (his ex-mother-in-law) from her home of 30 years into her final residence, a retirement home. Not much of a vacation really, but that’s the kind of man he was. He was a helper, and he rarely took “no” for an answer. He’d actually gotten pretty much everything finished up- she was in her new place, the old place was nearly empty- but apparently when he went back for the last few things his heart finally gave out. He was alone in an empty house when his heart failed him.

It’s impossible for me to know what his last thoughts might have been. Does our last moment of consciousness become flooded with the images of our loved ones, of our life? Is it filled with thoughts of things undone? I won’t know until my turn comes. But I do know that I don’t think I want it to be alone.

We all traveled up to Washington to have the service. It was a small affair, but at least 15-20 of his old high school friends attended, in addition to the 20 or so family members present. Afterwards we took my father’s cremated remains to a beautiful promontory on the Oregon Coast and scattered them in a place where you can see the forest, the flowers, the ocean, and hear the sea lions barking their never-ending chorus of life. It was a 3 mile hike each way out to that spot and I know he never could have made it on his own, but I never felt so proud to carry anyone in my life. For a final resting place, I can’t think of a more peaceful place.

My father was not a religious man (and neither am I) but he was a spiritual man. At an early age, his own mother succumbed to cancer, and he and one of his brothers were adopted together. Their adopted mother was never a loving woman towards them, and once he came of adult age, he sought out and discovered his natural family. Yet even knowing who and where they were couldn’t fill the void that losing his mother left in his life. He tried to fill that hole by giving his love so freely to his own children, by making sure we got from him what he never could get for himself. In that, he succeeded brilliantly. I’d like to think that now that he has passed from this world he may finally get a chance to meet his real mother and feel from her the love he so freely gave. It’s a nice thought, even if at an intellectual level I don’t think it is true.

The experience of losing my dad has exposed the dichotomy of death to me that only previously could I grasp from afar. I don’t believe in heaven or hell or any of the religiously charged afterlife theories at all. I doubt I ever will. But losing a parent sure makes me wish I did, if only just for a minute. Because if I did believe in the afterlife, then I could also believe that my father wasn’t really dead at all, but only waiting for the rest of us to join him. It’s a nice thought, and I can understand why so many people choose to grasp at this kind of dream.

Instead, I have a different take. As a non-religious person, it is still possible for me to believe in an afterlife of sorts, just not in the same way. To me, the way one achieves a sort of immortality is through the memories of the living. So long as there are stories to be told and pictures to share, a person continues to live on. If I remember to remind my daughter of who her grandfather was, of what he taught me and her, then she will carry him with her throughout her life. And if she has children and shares her memories with them, my dad will continue to live on, much as my great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents live on in my memory from the stories and pictures I have heard. That is the afterlife, and it is as good as any other I can think of.

My father’s views on politics are were very close to my own. He was a prolific writer of Letters to the Editor of his local paper, and frequently was published there. (I am toying with giving those a re-print here. A tribute of sorts perhaps, if you will.) He would be disappointed if I didn’t get back in the saddle to continue the fight against corrupt politics, stupid politicians, and a general lack of common sense. I guess it’s time to return.

The hard, numbing part of putting my father to his final rest and going through his papers and belongings has been completed, for the most part, and it’s time for me to rise from the ashes of loss and mourning. The world looks a bit different to me now, but that’s not always a bad thing.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

For anyone who’s studied the history of marijuana prohibition in the United States, it’s pretty clear that financial greed was at the heart of taking a magnificently useful plant off the market to make way for the petrochemical industry, as well as the textile and paper industries. Prior to hemp’s becoming illegal, it was used throughout the world as a source of cloth, oil, food, rope, paint, medicine, and energy. But new technologies (in the 1930’s) viewed hemp as a threat, and as a result, those in powerful positions began a slanderous and erroneous campaign against the benign plant, resulting in its being outlawed.

Ignoring hundreds of years of contrary evidence and multiple governmental and scholarly studies that proved that hemp was not only extremely useful, but that it’s intoxicating flowers and leaves were about as dangerous as coffee, a cabal of industry and government officials engineered its eventual status as a “demon weed” and so began one of this country’s biggest mistakes. By focusing on the intoxicating part of hemp, and by instituting a concerted campaign of fear and disinformation, the bounty of the hemp plant has languished in darkness for decades, and those who use the plant for recreational relaxation have borne the brunt of this hapless government prohibition.

Yet still, hemp and marijuana have remained alive and well, providing some of the industrial products of days past and continuing to give people a buzz when they feel the urge. And in the last decade or so, over 10 states and several countries have legalized the use of medicinal marijuana despite a federal government that continues to attack.

The latest round of hemp and marijuana propaganda has recently sprung forth from Great Britain where recently published “studies” have warned that smoking pot will turn you psychotic. Shades of William Randolph Hearst’s “yellow journalism” scares and the cult movie Reefer Madness come to mind. But the truth is simply that these “new” reports are not new, and the headlines they engendered are far from truthful.

According to this post, the “new studies” first printed in England’s The Lancet (and subsequently picked up by all the other media hacks) are anything but new. And further, the reports themselves do not claim that smoking pot will make you psychotic. The truth is the “new report” was merely a compilation of seven old studies, all previously published, some decades ago. The truth is that these studies actually showed that the association between cannabis and mental illness is small, about the same as the link between head injuries and psychosis. Get that? Smoking pot or getting a bad head injury both have the same chance of causing some form of psychosis. Should we outlaw head injuries?

Just as in the 1930’s, the hype over these reports may have much more to do with political ambitions that about actual science. It seems that the new Prime Minister in Great Britain, Gordon Brown, has a thing about people who smoke pot. He wants to stiffen penalties against marijuana users, and by getting a supposedly credible medical journal like The Lancet to publish false reports is one way to get the public behind you- much like Hearst did when he began writing about pot-crazed killers back in the day.

But the reality is that investigators really reported that cannabis use was only associated with a slight increase in psychotic outcomes, but that the increase was not really a causal one. Instead, they found that use of intoxicants were higher among people with psychoses, whether that was marijuana, alcohol, or tobacco. In fact, studies have shown that people often turn to cannabis to relieve stress, or for other medical reasons, showing that rather than make people ill, already ill people were turning to pot for relief.

When dealing with shady situations, one of the first things investigators do is “follow the money.” This is no less true with hemp and marijuana. The continued prohibition of this plant, both for industrial and non-industrial uses, is a purely economic one. All the other moralistic and political rationale are simply BS.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

The White House has a new legal strategy in its arsenal- we’ll call it the “Screw you and the horse you rode in on” theory. Basically what it amounts to is the President declaring that any time he asserts executive privilege on anything the matter ends then and there. No questions, no subpoenas, no answers, no consequences . King George has finally arrived.

This final attempt to sever for all time the powers of checks and balances between the three equal branches of our government bodes ill for this democracy. Imagine, Bush pretending to embrace the notions of a democratic form of government, even going so far as to send thousands of our young people to their deaths using ‘democracy’ as a front for their sacrifice, while establishing his own little dictatorship right here at home. It would be shameful for any of us to do so, but for silver-spoon George, it’s merely the culmination of a lifetime of pampered idiocy.

According to the Washington Post, “Administrat ion officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administrati on, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.”

But under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, “whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.” However, as U.S. attorney’s are now understood to be mere political pawns in the Bush administrati on, and not actual bringers of justice (at least not if it runs in opposition to the political ideology of the head cheese), any congressiona l attempt to compel the DOJ to adhere to this federal law has been like holding on to a greased pig.

This is more than just about Attorneygate here folks. This rationale, if allowed to fly, will shield Bush and his team of criminal cronies from any and all legal recourse by allowing him to claim executive privilege on anything he sees fit to keep hidden. It is a dangerous precedent to allow.It is not democracy. It is not justice. It is not American.

Impeach. The. Bastards. Now.

(originally posted at Bring It On!)

Can we all send out a big BOO HOO to the Bush administration? Apparently, all the congressional investigations taking place under Democratic control is just too much for the Bushie to handle. After 6 years of rubber-stampers at their beck and call, Team Bush is beginning to feel the heat. And apparently, just too hot in the kitchen for these guys to handle.

During a press briefing yesterday, Bush spokeshole Scott Stanzel told reporters that the Democrats in Congress are spending too much time investigating the administration and not enough time making laws. Curious though is that when the Democrats do try to get legislation passed they are stone-walled by congressional Republicans or are threatened with presidential vetoes, making them too timid (or unable) to push ahead with the lawmaking part of their job. All they really have left is investigating. And frankly, the Bushite have given them more than enough fertile ground to work in.

To be honest, I voted for the democratic majority just for this reason. I never expected them to be able to pass any real legislation that would push America back on track as a world leader in social/scientific/humanistic/health/education arenas. But I did vote for them to bring an end to the do-anything-Bush-says-Congress we had and that got us to the place we are. I did vote for them to uncover the morass of secrecy and corruption that this administration wallows in.

As long as they don’t fall down on that job as well, I’ll be fine with a lack of legislative accomplishments for another year or two.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

He used to be a Democrat. Then he decided to become a Republican when he ran (and was elected) for mayor of New York City. Now he’s switched course again, renouncing his political affiliation to either party and instead joined the growing ranks of non-affiliated registered voters.

Michael Bloomberg. The self-made billionaire turned politician who denies a possible presidential run in 2008 in spite of the recent whirlwind of media speculation that he will do just that. There’s no end to the buzz about what a Bloomberg candidacy would bring to the ’08 election race. Many compare the scenario to the Perot candidacies of ’92 and ’96, and that’s probably as good a comparison as any. Except that Bloomberg is slightly better known than Perot was and he’s a hell of a lot richer. Naturally, the media focuses on who a Bloomberg candidacy would hurt the most: the Democratic or the Republican candidate? Choosing to portray Bloomberg as just another spoiler (ala Nader and Perot) from the outset, pundits and traditional media outlets once again reinforce to voters the notion that American government is a two party affair; that even though other kids can get into the school dance, they never really make it onto the floor. So while I don’t know a whole lot about Michael Bloomberg, per se, I do have some thoughts about what his independent candidacy could mean.

Hooray For Independents

My initial reaction to a possible independent Bloomberg candidacy is a burst of relief, not just that there would be a non-party affiliated candidate running for president (because after all, there are dozens of small party candidates on the ballot every election), but because Bloomberg has the capital to back up a decision to run. That financial might makes him a real contender if he chooses to be, meaning that there would at least be a realistic possibility that America could elect a non-partisan (at least officially) president not bound to any party, and perhaps (theoritically at least) more willing to look at what Americans seem to say they want from their government, and then present those ideas to the Congress for action. It would serve as a big wake-up call to the political establishment that it was time to change their ways and return to representing the people, or the people would be changing them.

Bloomberg seems to be a more true representation of the American voter too, at least in terms of political ideology. Few voters are staunchly right or left leanings in all their political/social beliefs. Most are a nuance of beliefs that affilliation with neither party exclusively can provide. If Bloomberg indeed fits this mold, as his Dem/Rep/Ind positions show, the citizens of America would have a president not bound by party ideology that appealed to a narrow “base,” or a corporate subservience based on financial fealty. And in an era of political scandal for personal gain, Bloomberg’s own lack of scandal (that I am aware of) and his refusal to take any more than $1 in salary as mayor of New York City, shows a refreshing sense of stewardship clearly lacking in today’s politicians. As Congress and state officials across the land vote to increase their own salaries while slashing troop benefits and social programs, Bloomberg thinks his city can use the money more than he can, so he makes sure the city keeps it. A small gesture to be sure, but one that some recent wealthy presidents and government leaders seem unable to make themselves.

Which of course brings us to speak of Bloomberg’s wealth and the advantages that offers him. As a billionaire, the man wouldn’t need to be beholden to any particular entity (corporate, economic sector, or otherwise), nor would he have to engage in the cesspool of incestuous political fundraising that now consumes much of our elected officials’ day planners. His money makes him truly independent, and what’s more, injecting a few billion dollars into the national economy would mean he could truly claim to have done something to help the economy. His campaign would stimulate income for broadcasters and advertisers, bumper sticker printers, t-shirt vendors, and on down the line. Talk about a tangible campaign slogan.

On The Other Hand

Of course, the other side of the money issue is whether a Bloomberg campaign would be portrayed as an attempt to ‘buy the presidency.’ Would a Bloomberg independent (and independently financed) candidacy spell trouble for future independent candidates simply by raising the bar so high? After all, there are only so many billionaires to go around. Other than BIll Gates and Oprah, there aren’t many to choose from. Maybe Warren Buffet? And who’s to say they want they job? Or are even independent? If the only way to win a major office as an independent is to be insanely wealthy, Bloomberg could end up an anamoly instead of a harbinger of real change.

And then there is still the whole “spoiler” issue to contend with. Because unless Bloomberg can convince tens and tens of millions of Americans to actually vote for him, all he’s likely to do is tip the scales more heavily towards one of the major party poster children or effect a painfully close decision likely to lengthen our country’s divisiveness. Instead of disfunctional dualism, we’d end up as a disfunctional triad. And I’m not sure that this country needs to become even more politically divided.

Final Thoughts

So is America well served by an independent, billion-dollar campaign? And is Michael Bloomberg even the guy to run it? I’m afraid I just have the answer right now. But I can tell you this- I’m pretty well tired of the bullshit and what passes for political leadership these days. And maybe if for no other reason than to show those pampered, out-of-touch politicians that enough is enough, a Michael Bloomberg is just what this country needs. I tell you what- unless we find out he’s some kind of underground child molester, I’ll vote for an independent these days over a party candidate every chance I get.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Vice-President Dick Cheney has obviously spent too much time in “undisclosed” locations because since 2003 he has directed his office to quit complying with Executive Order 12958 that requires the National Archives to inspect federal agencies and White House offices to ensure that they are complying with the security procedures regarding classified information.

In a letter to the national Archives, sent in 2006 by Cheney’s staff, Cheney asserted that the Office of the Vice-President is not an “entity within the executive branch” and therefore not subject to presidential executive orders.

Excuse me…what?!?

Since when was the OVP not part of the executive branch? Has Dick Cheney ever even read the Constitution of the United States? You know, the one he took an oath to uphold and protect?

The disclosure that Cheney views himself and his office as a separate apparatus unaffected by any restraint comes from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, led by Congressman Henry Waxman. The issue itself was brought to Waxman’s committee by National Archive personnel after the Department of Justice (under Alberto Gonzales) refused to look into the matter. In other words, this bold and stunning assertion was discovered not as the result of some “witchhunt” for wrongdoing.

The prospect that Cheney clearly views himself and his office (and has apparently since 2003) to be an ‘independent operator’ inside the American government, subject to no laws or rules from anyone or anything, including the president, is chilling indeed.

If this isn’t enough to remove this man from office then American government and democracy is nothing but a farce and a shell of its former self.

(cross posted at Bring It On!

ABC News has reported that a recent ‘Suicide Bomb Training Graduation Ceremony’ has concluded with large teams of would-be martyr’s headed for points unknown in England, Germany, Canada, and the United States to spread fear, mayhem, and terror by means of suicide bombings.

This photo (again from ABC News) shows a proud schoolmaster and teaching staff as they send their apt pupils off with their new skills. One wonders if they dispense actual certificates or simply strap on the vests right then and there.

The photo (and others, as well as a videotape) was obtained from a Pakistani journalist who had been invited to the event to document the occasion. On the videotape, a Taliban military commander, Mansoor Dadullah, was shown introducing and congratulating each team as they stood.

“These Americans, Canadians, British and Germans come here to Afghanistan from
faraway places,” Dadullah says on the tape. “Why shouldn’t we go after them?”

Apparently this guy didn’t get the “we have to fight them over there so they don’t follow us home and fight with us here” memo the president sent out. Fortunately, there’s no possible way even one of these guys could make it into the US. After all, President Bush has personally done everything possible to make sure that our land borders are secure enough that we at least know who is coming in and going out, and he’s done everything a guy could do to make sure that airport security isn’t just a sham, and he’s even tried to keep an eye on all of our ports so that nothing bad could slip in through there. Yessiree, these Suicide Teams haven’t got a chance against the US.

Tell me again why we left the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan to fight Saddam in Iraq?

There’s something about being an independent politician that must allow these maverick “people’s candidates” to feel free to speak their minds, especially when doing so goes against the grain of not just their supposed “peers,” but most of the country (including their constituents) as well. Sometimes, these kinds of political statements are refreshing, opening what may seem to the common citizen to be a “common sense” approach to a particular problem or issue. Other times though (and especially when coming from the mouth of a politician who only found the ‘calling of independence’ when he lost his party’s primary nomination and his ego couldn’t face the fact that “his base” no longer wanted him to be their voice in Congress) the things that escape from the lips of an elected official are enough to make you shiver. Case in point, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman’s Sunday declaration that the United States should expand the war in Iraq into neighboring Iran.

“I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action
against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,” Lieberman
told Bob Schieffer. “And to me, that would include a strike into… over the
border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which
they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.”

If the U.S. does not act against Iran, “they’ll take that as a sign of
weakness on our part and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region
and ultimately right here at home,” Lieberman said.

He said that he has seen evidence that the Iranians are supplying
insurgents and foreign fighters in Iraq.

“We can tell them we want them to stop that, but if there’s any hope of
the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for
instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can’t just talk to them,”
Lieberman said. “If they don’t play by the rules, we’ve got to use our force,
and to me that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what
they’re doing.”

And Joe wonders why he couldn’t keep the support of the Democratic party in his state. Here’s a clue Joe…America doesn’t want the war to expand. We want it to end. This whole business of attacking nations to stop gangs of terrorists really isn’t the best way to go. More cells and plots have been disrupted through police work Joe. And fewer civiliains die that way too. Oh, and it’s a hell of a lot cheaper.

And to think that if Al Gore had won (I mean been declared the winner) in the 2000 election, America’s Vice-President would still be Dick Cheney, albeit with a different name. If that little realization isn’t a wake-up call to what a complete farce this whole two-party system pretends to be, I don’t know what is. In American politics, there is only one party that rules the roost-the fund-raising party. And whomever gives the most money to help keep the politicians in office (i.e. – power) gets to mold the rules of the game. And make no mistake- the loss of over 3500 US service people is just a part of the game to them. Pieces on the board so to speak. An expected and acceptable cost of imperialism, I mean corporatocracy, I mean exporting democracy, I mean fighting terror.

Hawkish Joe. The People’s Man. The Independent.

It may well be that Iran (or elements within Iran) is training or supplying insurgents who then come across the border into Iraq to fight against American troops there. To pretend though that this is something that the US, nor any ‘civilized’ nation, would undertake to do is ludicrous. In fact, the US is doing just that right now. According to this New York Times article, America is now arming more and more Sunni Arab groups (who also are know to us as insurgents, sectarian rebels, or former Saddam Baathist bastards) to fight against suspected al-Qaeda terror cells in Iraq. Unfortunately, the vast majority of violence in Iraq, aside from the targeting of US troops from both sides of the sectarian clash, is Iraq Sunni fighting Iraq Shia. In that light, the odds of US arms being used against US troops is pretty good. That chance that they will be used by the Sunnis against the Shia (and remember-most of Iran is Shia) may serve to inflame Iranian concerns about this war at their back fence. Hell, by arming the Sunni groups, Iran may well have credible claim that the US ” has a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iran to kill our soldiers.”

Joe has determined that talking just isn’t going to work with the Iranians. After all, “if there’s any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can’t just talk to them,” said Joe on CBS. Again, it’s conceivable that others around the world feel the same way about the American government under George W. Bush. Hell, it’s not only conceivable, it’s the fact Jack! Er, Joe. For all this talk about “living according to internation rule of law” give me about a minute and I can pull up hundreds of reminders of America’s own high standards of the past half decade. Do these words ring a bell? Torture. International kidnappings (arrests/detentions/disappearances) by covert US operatives on foreign sovereign land. Here’s a tip Senator. Don’t preach the talk if you can’t (and demonstrably haven’t) walked the walk. Especially you, Joe “My Ego Is More Important Than The Will Of The People” Lieberman. Especially from you.

But what’s scarier than hearing former Demcorat-turned faux-Independent Joe Lieberman call for the bombing of Iran? The certainty that Joe’s appearance this Sunday morning was not so much the rantings of a man who longs for face time and relevance but rather a carefully pre-planned event from the bowels of the Bush Administration to start spreading the lubricant for sliding into Iran. After at least a year of denial that the US would seek to engage Iran militarily, despite leaks about prepared war plans and increasingly hostile rhetoric between the two countries, Team Bush may finally be letting the cat out of the bag, via good old Joe Lieberman, a man who (if you are a neo-con or party loyalist republican) you can almost trust since he left the Democrats (who are a bunch of wimps), or (if you are a democrat or anti-war American) a man you most certainly despise for his glad-handing with Bush. In either case, the Bushite’s can simply remain silent on Joe’s performance, leaving the general public to mull over what may come next. And seeing how the American people aren’t too supportive of a military showdown with Iran, even over it’s nuclear activities, perhaps the only way Cheney’s former corporate boardroom buddies can get into Iran is by relying on less spectacular half truths and building inuendo to push war to the next level.

I’m not dovish on Iran as a matter of absolute principal. Under certain conditions, I could well see the US engaged in some kind of legitimate military actions in the Middle East. But those conditions do not include conflating situations already out of hand with those that need not become so.

We may not trust Iran enough to hold face to face talks at high levels. They surely don’t trust us. Neither party has given the other any reason to do so. But trust, and therefore a more amicable (or at least non-confrontational) relationship, isn’t likely to sprout out of a bombing campaign either. />
(cross posted at Bring It On!)

For a brief moment, despite the now overwhelming evidence that the Iraq War was based on a crumbling foundation of lies, the American and British overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s despotic rule in Iraq could have been seen as the liberation of an oppressed people. In that brief moment, the hopes of western nations that a democratic government in the heart of the Middle East could mark the coming of a new era of international cooperation and peace overshadowed the more reasoned voices that warned against too much exuberance and cautioned that such an expectation was hardly a certainty. Yet as the statues of Saddam were pulled from their bases and the ubiquitous pictures of the dictator were systematically defiled across the nation, the new American leadership made mistake after mistake and the country became an embroiled mess of violence, sectarian division and hatred, and official corruption. The moment, however haphazardly arrived at, was lost. Liberation became occupation. And occupation became just another word to describe a long, drawn-out war.

While liberation is sometimes synonymous with free, occupation is almost always associated with repression, especially by those who find themselves living in the occupied country. Having been told that that initial war was meant to bring freedom and democracy to their country, regular Iraqis can only sit in incredulity as they see the shambles their country has become. Indeed, if this is the path to freedom, many doubtlessly would have chosen to leave bad enough alone. But once ‘liberation’ has gone out the window and all you are left with is occupation forces, it becomes difficult to sit back and wait for the promise of self-determination to begin. After all, Iraq was promised a democratic government. So far, all they’ve gotten is more bloodshed and a paralyzed parliament.

Increasingly, the presence of foreign troops on Iraqi soil has led to factional divisions within Iraq itself, as our lack of effective provisional governance created a vacuum of power in Iraq that has been filled by a rash of sectarian rebel groups, terrorist organizations who moved in to fertile training grounds, and disaffected Iraqi citizens fighting for their daily existence. Our lack of planning, competence, and ability to engage Iraq and its neighbors in finding peace has exposed the emptiness of American colonialism sans intelligence and revealed an American system of capitalist-controlled corporate governance that shares no values with the people of America, let alone Iraq and the Middle East as a whole. Being exposed as such, the modern “Iraqi Street” has concluded that American democracy has only destroyed their once secular (albeit despotic) government and replaced it with a daily bloodbath where no one is safe, where you don’t know your enemy from your friend, and where each walk outside may be your last.

Our moment as liberators quickly transformed into an eternity as occupiers who have become little more than catalysts for chaos. And as yet, there seems to be no end in sight. President Bush has all but said that he’ll never leave Iraq while in office, meaning that more US troops will die needlessly, more Iraqi’s will die needlessly, and the flames of Mid-East tensions will continue to rise, fueled by arrogance and idiotic decisions from the Oval Office.

Unless…..

Unless the Iraqi’s have anything to say about it. In an under-reported story out of Iraq, the Iraqi parliament yesterday passed a binding resolution that will guarantee Iraqi lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the UN mandate under which coalition troops now remain in Iraq when it comes up for renewal in December. The bill would require any new extensions to be approved by the parliament instead of the Prime Minister, as is now the case. And Iraqi lawmakers have indicated that when given the chance, they’ll block any future extensions of the mandate that do not contain specific timelines for withdrawal, meaning that coalition (read: mostly US) troops would no longer have UN cover to remain in Iraq. Without that cover, any foreign troops in Iraq would legally be considered as an armed occupation force, not so unlike the Japanese when they conquered parts of China back in the 1930’s. In other words, the overwhelming impression by Iraqis that American troops are now an occupying force would become a matter of international law and not just an overwhelming national opinion.

Of course, with George W. Bush at the helm, I have no doubt that he will ignore any such actions from the Iraqis. After all, democracy is great to this president, so long as he’s the one calling the shots. Remember, he’s the decider guy. But if the Iraqi’s pass this bill, and if they refuse to extend any further UN mandates that do not contain specific timetables for ending this conflict, expect this war to grow larger as other Arab nations in the region reach out to their Iraqi neighbors against American insolence and intransigence. And expect America to lose more and more of her foreign support, perhaps becoming even more of a target than she is today.

Six years ago America was ruthlessly attacked by a group of religious zealots who got lucky and were able to take advantage of our laxity. That was a monumental tragedy and represented an internal failure on our part. In the six years since that day, America, under Geroge Bush and Dick Cheney, has done more harm to herself and to world peace than any Middle Eastern mullah could have hoped for. And in the process, they have guaranteed that “freedom and democracy” aren’t going to be embraced in the Middle East any time soon.

Nice job guys. Nice job.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)