The Bush Diaries

The Last Chapter

2009-01-16T09:11:00.000-08:00

Oh, Bush! What a truly abject performance last night, in your farewell address. It was a little like this (with apologies to Jack Horner):

Little George Bushy sat on his tuschy
Eating his Humble Pie;
He put in both thumbs
And pulled out a few plums
And said, What a good boy am I!

There you were, Bush, a little person on the big screen with your little coy, little self-satisfied, little snarky smile, in a rosy world of your own imagination. Who would have thought, listening to you, that you had brought us a needless war that cost tens, no, hundreds of thousands of lives; an American city still devastated by nature and your subsequent callous neglect; an economy in freefall with millions of your fellow-countrypeople losing their nest-eggs or their jobs; a world that looks askance at the country you were never fit to govern? No, Bush, your words put a new complexion on those hackneyed rose-tinted glasses. They added a whole new level of meaning to the ability to keep looking on the bright side. So much for good intentions!

Here's the question, Bush, to which we really need to know the answer: do you really know the truth? Have you simply decided to disguise it in the best way possible? Or is there something in your mind that prevents you from seeing it? Do you actually believe yourself what you're trying to persuade the rest of us to believe?

I have honestly not been able to answer this question (it's really only one.) Perhaps it doesn't matter. I look at you, Bush, and I see a sad little boy trying hard to stay afloat in waters that are much too deep and dangerous for him. I have always seen you that way. A little boy, never quite fully adjusted to the real world and clinging to a few Big Ideas as though to a life raft. It's a sad reflection on our culture and the state of our education that we allowed you to get this far out of your depth. It's the ultimate manifestation of the syndrome that unfortunately bears my name: the Peter Principle, which holds that "In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence." How true, Bush. How true.

One of the big questions now, for your successor, is whether to investigate your incompetence and your inexcusable exploitation of power for political gain; and, if necessary, to prosecute your crimes, and those committed in your name. I have tended to side reluctantly with those who say that there are more important, desperately pressing issues--issues that will prove all the harder to solve without bipartisan support. However--no doubt you read this piece in this morning's New York Times, Bush? Or maybe not-- Paul Krugman's column, "Forgive and Forget?", was most persuasive. He argues a good case, indeed.

No matter, the time has come to say farewell. You will become, as you say, an "American citizen" again and the worst harm you'll be able to wreak upon the country, we hope, will be in the voting booth. There have been times, as well you know, that I have been angry with you, Bush. And the truth is that I still hold a lot anger for the things you have done, and am unable to come to terms with this anger unless you, in turn, are able to acknowledge and accept responsibility for them. And believe me, Bush, I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime, all I can feel for you at this point is pity--and even pity is a stretch.

So, farewell, Bush. Our daily intercourse concludes with this last entry. I wish you... well, I wish you enlightenment and, with it, in the spirit of the Buddhist teachings I have come to embrace, eventual release from whatever suffering you feel.

A Reminder

2007-02-15T11:26:00.000-08:00

The Bush Diaries has recently morphed into The Buddha Diaries. Please check us out there.

The Budget Proposal

2007-02-06T09:35:00.000-08:00

(As posted in The Buddha Diairies.)

Trading "The Bush Diaires" for "The Buddha Diaires" did not mean, of course, eschewing all expression of political opinion. I just don't plan to spend so much time in that arena.

Yesterday's release of the Bush budget proposal needs some response in these pages in view of its distinctly un-Buddhist approach to national and international priorities. It seems clear at this point in time that the military-industrial complex about which Eisenhower warned us all those years ago has triumphed, and that the reverse Robin Hood budgetary philosophy of the Bush administration is to be aggressively pursued in flagrant denial of the wishes of the American electorate when they returned a Democratic majority to both houses of Congress. The profligate generosity extended to the military, in the form of budget increases, and to the very wealthy in the form of tax benefit extensions is matched only by the mean-spirited parsimony when it comes to the poor and the oppressed. On the global front, the dismissively short shrift it gives to the most urgent problem facing our planet--the stabilization of our environment--is mind-boggling.

So where is the compassion? Where is the mindfulness of well-established realities? Where is the recognition of urgent problems needing resolution? I am left with the bleak hope that the power to which this sadly ovine country has entrusted a president apparently bereft of a human heart and the requisite listening skills to govern is not, now, such that even the Congress of the United States in unable to thwart it. The Bush budget proposal is an arrogant kiss-off to every basic humanitarian value, and a shameful statement about our country to the world. Its unambiguous message is that we care more for the acquisition of needless weaponry and excessive wealth than we do for the well-being of our own people and the survival of our species. It is, in a word, disgraceful.

Remember...

2007-02-05T16:36:00.000-08:00

... The Bush Diaires has morphed into The Buddha Diaries. Please visit us there! Cheers, PaL

Weather

2007-02-02T10:12:00.001-08:00

This morning's news of death and disaster in Central Florida due to tornado activity coincides with the larger news that accompanies the concurrent release of the United Nations report on climate change. We have too long chosen to remain deaf to the signals from our planet with the result that the damage caused by our negligence is now, according to the scientists who contributed to this study, basically irreversible. The harm we have inflicted on our little corner of the universe is surely no more than an infinitessimal blip on the cosmic radar screen; but to us, the human species--well, Florida is likely to prove but a minor foretaste. Even Katrina, with all her deadly force, may look like a tempest in a teapot when compared with what the Earth has in store for us, her unruliest inhabitants.

The UN report makes clear that the effects of our industrial and post-industrial consumption and our burning of the fossil fuel resources that enabled it may last for centuries to come. Whether the human species will survive its own mindless improvidence and greed remains an open question. We pride ourselves on the knowledge we have gained about the planet we are given to inhabit, but surely our ignorance is far greater. In the grand scheme of things, I suppose, it matters little to the universe--perhaps even to the planet itself--whether this one troublesome species survives. We have contributed already to the extinction of so many others, and the world keeps turning inexorably, shrugging off the loss and adapting to the change in ways of which we humans seem incapable. Our minds are prisoners of old ways of thinking, old conceptions of what it is we need--and what we need is always more than what we have. We seem fated to strive for the "growth" and "progress" that will assure our downfall.

Until we learn that there must be some limit to our grasping, until we learn tolerance and patience for the needs of other humans and of other species, we will continue down this path toward eventual destruction. We need to be more mindful that it is our actions that contribute to the creation of the world we live in; and our actions, should we all finally agree to make it so, that can begin to reverse the disastrous path that we have chosen.

An Apology... and an Invitation

2007-02-01T08:57:00.000-08:00

Visitors to The Bush Diaries--and readers of "The Last Post", below--will discover that this journal has been largely discontinued. My apologies. They are kindly invited, instead, to catch up with PeterAtLarge at The Buddha Diaries, where he continues to hold forth.

The Last Post

2007-01-30T13:32:00.000-08:00

"THIS IS GOODBYE…

… to The Bush Diaries from PeterAtLarge. Well, maybe not a complete goodbye, but rather more of a Let’s not see quite so much of each other any more.

Here’s the thing, Bush. You have just been taking up too much of my time of late. You have been occupying too much of my mind space. I have been getting up early every morning thinking about you and what I have to say to you. I have been too anxious to get to the newspaper and the morning television news. I have been too anxious to get to my computer.

It has been a good run. I have enjoyed our daily chats. But more and more I have been finding myself predictable on virtually every issue that comes up between us. I know exactly what I’m going to say, and I’m guessing that you do, too. Truth to tell, it hasn’t been so much fun as it was when we started out, more than two years ago. And I want more time to read. I want more time to explore the intricacies of my mind, and follow where it takes me.

I know you have another two years in office. I’m all too aware, indeed, of that unpalatable fact—as is most of the rest of the nation at this point. But you, too, have become irritatingly predictable. “Stay the course” seems to have become your whole life’s purpose. And not just in Iraq. Your State of the Union speech was proof enough that you don’t have a single interesting new idea on any subject. You’re just treading water at the moment, in the desperate attempt to remain afloat for another two years.

So you’ll just have to manage without me, Bush. Well, as I say, not completely. My hope is that my colleague Cardozo will accept my offer of The Bush Diaires, which I intend to make today. He’s a bright young man, and he writes well. I trust that he can do a good job for you. If he accepts, I make the gift without strings attached. I know that he’s partial to Obama for the 2008 election: maybe he’ll want to change our daily conversations to reflect that view. Maybe he’ll bring friends in to the conversation, more voices… I don’t know. He’ll be free to do whatever he wants to.

And I hope that he’ll be open to posting a word from PeterAtLarge when the spirit moves me. Once in a while, Bush, I do have something that I need to tell you. But I don’t need the responsibility of having to talk to you every single day. I have begun to get tired to the sound of my own voice. At least in this particular forum.

To those of our faithful readers who have enjoyed this journal, I say thank you. As I say, it has been a good run for me, and I have always enjoyed your comments and responses. And to them, too, this invitation: come join me in my new venture, the new forum for my writing practice—for I would not wish to give that up with The Bush Diaries. You’ll find me meandering through my thoughts and feelings at The Buddha Diaries. It’s a fit sequel, I hope, and one which will allow me the freedom that I’m always looking for. It started yesterday.

To you, Bush, I send all the metta I can muster. That’s goodwill and compassion. As my teacher has taught me to say: May you be happy. May you find true happiness in your life. Because, as he points out, if you and others like you were to find true happiness, the world would be a better place. "

A footnote: Cardozo has, regrettably, declined. He has his own fish to fry, and rightly so. In view of this, I plan to keep these pages open for occasional addition, as when I feel the need to be back in touch. For now... well, Bush, it's fare thee well. Your PaL

A Meditation Weekend

2007-01-29T08:08:00.000-08:00

I only hope you had as profitable a weekend as I did, Bush. Three days (almost) of (almost) total silence. Can you imagine anything more beautiful? This, nestled in among the snow-blanketed hills of New Mexico, just a little south od Santa Fe. It was cold at nght, I promise you. And the meditation sits sometimes seemed long: an hour in the morning, and three consecutive hours in the afternoon interspersed with two half-hour periods of meditative walking. Sometimes, too, the hour seemed unbelievably short. It depends, of course, on what the mind is doing. If it's busy fighting the whole thing, as mine sometimes does, then the hour gets interminable: I sit there wondering what I'm doing there and when it's going to end. When the mind's at rest, observant and attentive and the breath flows smoothly, the hour flies by.

It would have been great to have you there with us, Bush. Our teacher--a Thai Forest monk who normally studiously eschews politics in his teaching--relayed the joke that the voice of God had been revealed to be actually your Cheney on the intercom, and that no one had yet figured out a way to tell you. Had you been with us, though, I believe you would have been much moved by his teachings on goodwill, compassion, empathetic joy and equanimity. Such great wisdom in the Buddha's teachings, much of it not at all inconsistent with the teachings of your Jesus but with the added benefit, for me, in not needing to believe in any God--or gods. The notion that happiness is possible for human beings to achieve, if only they manage to let go their cravings, is an attractive one; and the breath meditation is a wonderful way to release those cravings, if only for one moment at a time.

What I brought home with me: a renewed sense of the expansion of my potential as a human being and the goal to look for simpler ways to lead my life, less demanding and invasive of all those other living beings with whom I share this planet; and a rededication to the notion that sitting meditation need not be viewed as some kind of self-imposed disciplinary torture, but that can quite simply be a pleasure, a daily treat, or retreat. "A nice place to be."

More later, Bush. Give me time to catch up with your doings and I'll be back in touch. In the meantime, as the teaching goes, may you be happy; may you find true happiness in your life; may you be free from animosity; may you be free from stress and pain...

Looking out for Number 1

2007-01-27T12:08:00.000-08:00

The case can be made that everything you've done so far in your adminstration, Bush, has been in America's best interests. Certainly, one way to respond to a physical threat is to try to annihilate that threat, and to gradually transform - through economics, regime change, and warfare - the region where that threat originated.

The motivations for your dogged pursuit of America's strategic interests are still unclear to me. Patriotism? Divine inspiration? Avarice?

Regardless of the motivation, it's clear to me that you are looking out for #1 - that is, the United States. (Not necessarily it's citizens, mind you, but rather the state as a whole.) This has been our MO ever since independence. Which is not surprising, either. Nearly all countries act toward the same end.

But what if we had a new #1? What if #1 was peace and prosperity for all people? Then, when you looked out for number 1, you'd have to take into account all of the death and misery resulting from military actions that preserve America's "safety" (read: dominance) in the world. The victims of state violence would no longer be expendable.

I think it's time to make that change. At this moment in history, no one is threatening us with full-scale invasion. The physical safety of Americans is jeopardized not by our way of life but by our single-minded economic expansionism. At this time in history, we have some slack to begin assuaging the antogonism between states that leads to violence, economic ruin for the losers, and to the rise of extremism.

Yes, given the current state of things, we will sometimes have to resort to force. But what are we doing to start down the path of eventual peace? What are you doing, Bush? What are any of us doing?

May I be so bold as to suggest a place to start? Admit the failings of our Iraq policy to the international community, and bring forward a proposition to the United Nations through which the world can come together to stabilize that nation. Our vulnerability is on display already. Own up to it, and ask for help. Be the kind of leader the world can respect, and not just at the point of a gun. In a phrase, Bush, help America grow up.

Remember Osama

2007-01-25T11:36:00.000-08:00

Good afternoon, Bush. Nauseated from state-of-the-union platitudes (don't worry, Clinton served up equal amounts) I've been scouring the web for some meaningful debate about how to salvage our rotting foreign policy.

I wound up, as I often do, at the Rockridge Institute site, lapping up George Lakoff's words with abandon.

Several months ago,Lakoff penned an article that merits continual rediscovery. For once prioritizing the substance of the issues rather than their "framing," Lakoff lays out convincing reasons why the country is headed in the wrong direction, and why so many Americans see it that way, too.

Lakoff reminds us that the Iraq invasion was detrimental to our response to 9/11, for reasons that by now are clear to most of us: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and the death and destruction resulting from the invasion increased the effectiveness of Osama bin Laden's anti-Americanism.

Next, Lakoff insists that the concept of a "War on Terror" naturally drives us toward such ineffective invasions, rather than the international police and spy work that leads to the capture of terrorists and the dismantling of their organizations. He also notes that the "war on terror" was actually extremely effective in it's true aims - providing a boost to the seemingly-inexorable process of rich becoming richer.

The country is clearly fed up with the war. The majority of us wish the whole conflict had never started. And yet, Democrats still seem to be talking about Iraq and nothing but Iraq. It's time - as Lakoff would have us do - to return to a national debate about the proper response to terrorism. Yes, we clearly need to find a face-saving and life-saving solution to the growing chaos in Iraq. But that cannot be the only focus of our foreign policy. Instead of non-binding resolutions about troop-levels, I suggest a repeal of the Patriot Act and the advancement of a brand new approach to terror, based upon traditional policework AND (my ever-elusive holy grail) the pursuit of detente between the United States and the Arab world.

George Lakoff, meet Barack Obama. The two of you should talk. Meanwhile, Bush, I suggest you put your ear to the door and wait for that new strategy you've been supposedly looking for these past couple of months.

Just To Let You Know...

2007-01-24T15:38:00.000-08:00

....Bush, that I'll be gone for the next few days. I'll be sitting in meditation at a retreat in Santa Fe, away from the television, newspapers, computers, the sound of my own voice... away from everything, in fact, that preoccupies me in these pages. It should prove a refreshing interlude, a good way to get back in touch with the deeper, more important things in life. And maybe forget about your good self. While I'm gone, I'm leaving you in the thoughtful hands of my associate, Cardozo, who will be keeping an eye on you for me. Not much in the way of favorable response to your speech, so far as I can tell. But who knows, you may have won some converts. I'll be back in touch on Monday. Meantime, I trust you'll check in with Cardozo as you would do with me. Have a great weekend. Your PaL

PS Ten degrees at night in Santa Fe. Brrrr....! For us disgustingly pampered Southern Californians, that spells capital C... O... L... D!

Posted by PeterAtLarge

Your Speech

2007-01-24T07:22:00.000-08:00

You know me, Bush. I'm no political pundit and no policy wonk. I did listen to your speech last night, as well as to some of the commentary. Your belated attempt to address some serious domestic issues that have been seriously neglected during your tenure in the White House seem to me, at this point, not only too little and too late, but too wrong-headed to lead anywhere. We talked yesterday about health care and insurance. Enough said. Your new spirit of bipartisanship is likely to be sorely tested unless you show a greater ability to soften your anti-government, pro-business positions on the economy, the environment, education, social security, and so on.

Speaking of bipartisanship, though, I'll grant you this: one of the highlights of your speech came right at the start, with your gracious acknowledgement of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her achievement. I thought you did that very nicely. Really. And it was a pleasure to see her sitting there behind your shoulder with that scowling Mr. Toad beside her. (Interesting sidelight, by the way, coming out at the beginning of the Libby trial, on your internal White House politics. Libby's lawyer's argument that his client was the scapegoat to save Rove from exposure has the ring of truth to it--especially when electoral success was at stake. If I had to choose which one of those two men to throw in jail, it would be no contest...)

The second highlight, of course, was Mr. Wesley Autrey (any relation to Gene? Just kidding, Bush,) whose "You the man" gestures from the balcony must have warmed your heart, given the cool reception from the Democratic (excuse me, the Democrat) side of the aisle. A man who throws himself under a train to save the life of another man is a sure-fire hero, and his fish-out-of-water presence amongst all those lawmakers and distinguished guests was a refreshing reminder that there really does exist a world out-there, beyond the halls of congress. Best of all, he seemed to be having a whole lot of fun.

The real hero of the evening, though--for me at least--was Jim Webb, who gave the Democratic response to you speech. I thought he was terrific. He offered a powerful, honest, impassioned talk that did not make nice and yet managed to keep the tone to one of tough political and ideological disagreement. I'm sure I wasn't the only one watching who wished that all political discourse could be at this level of authentic intensity.

Let Them Eat Cake

2007-01-23T06:23:00.000-08:00

We were worried, yesterday, about George. The dog, that is. He had been squealing a bit, the night before, when I touched his ear and he woke up definitely out of his usual sorts. He did manage his usual hearty breakfast, but otherwise he seemed listless and that ear was still clearly bothering him. Anyway, we called the vet and had an appointment for him that very morning (not as it is for we humans, Bush, as Ellie pointed out. At least those of us with HMOs--who have to wait days or weeks for an appointment with our doctor). Well, a very healthy number of dollars later, George emerged from his doctor's visit with three medications, count 'em, two pills, one vial of ear drops, and spent the day feeling pretty much sorry for himself.

Coincidentally, though, both Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert chose to write about health care insurance yesterday. For humans, of course. Krugamn was deploring your latest let-them-eat-cake approach to solve the growing problem of the unavailability of health insurance for those most in need ot it: the poor, who can't afford it; and those who are already sick, and excluded from coverage by insurance companies who are in it for the profit and are disinclined to cover those who might actually cost them money. Your proposal for providing tax deductions for those probably too poor to be paying taxes anyway is absurd to the point of cruelty. And your "incentives" do nothing for those who are rejected from the system in advance. Herbert highlights the growing problem of those reduced to using credit card debt to cover essential health care costs.

I'm glad that Hillary Clinton put this out at the top of her agenda, and I hope that it will become a central topic in the coming campaign. "Coming"! It's already in high gear. But no matter how much the political hopefuls talk, there will still be people out there for the next couple of years facing life-and-death medical decisions in a system designed to benefit the insurance companies rather than the sick. I've talked about this national disgrace in the past, Bush. I understand you plan to talk about it tonight. If you say what Paul Krugman suggests you're going to say, your proposal is lamentably lacking in the "compassion" you once touted to convince the American people that you were the right man for that job that you hold onto with increasing futility and desperation.

I'll be holding my nose as I listen to the State of the Union speech. So will countless others. Too many of us in desperation, too. It's a depressing thought that George the dog could get the medical attention he needed right away--for no better reason than that his owners were in a position to afford it. Ellie says we're infatuated with this creature. She says he should run for President. Which prompts the thought that he wouldn't be the first dog in the White House, Bush.

Dangerously Delusional

2007-01-22T06:38:00.000-08:00

Posted by PeterAtLarge

I woke in a blue funk this morning, Bush. Perhaps it was the result of a conversation I had yesterday afternoon with a couple of smart women at a party, where I found myself propounding the notion that you are not simply the puppet of an evil cabal of corporate oligarchists, but rather a dangerously delusional man who has managed to manipulate all those around him into sharing his delusions. Perhaps my argument was partly the result of having read this analysis of your personality in Truthout last week, forwarded to me by one of our readers of these pages. It's something I have been unwilling to believe because the implications are so terrifying. And yet, and yet... That Conrad cartoon I posted yesterday, the Humpty Dumpty, the cracked egg... I tremble at the thought of the dreadful power you have acquired, the damage you have already done to this nation and the world, and to the planet that we live on. I tremble at the thought of the damage that saner minds may no longer be able to prevent you from doing in the next two years... And, truthfully, I am scared for all of us.

About That Speech...

2007-01-21T10:32:00.000-08:00

..this coming Tuesday, Bush. I'm wondering if your speechwriters have noticed that we folks out here in what we like to think is the real world are sick to death of the bullshit and the justifications. To quote a great, late songwriter, "All I want is some truth. Just gimme some truth." I, for one, do not need to hear any further pretenses about your wonderful successes in Iraq and the progress you purport to be making there. I don't want to hear about the victory you're counting on. (I also don't need to see Maliki sitting behind Laura, okay, Bush? Please? Nor the grieving parents of a dead US Marine who have been begging you not to let him have died "in vain.") I don't want any more cover-ups or excuses, and certainly no more lies. This is--or should NOT be--about rallying support once more for policies that have already proved a failure. This is--or should NOT be--yet another sales job for you and your administration. Sad to say, the American electorate has fallen for that sales job many times now, since the 2000 campaign and your subsequent "election." I, for one, am not buying any more lemons from your store.

I watched a special last night on the great cartoonist, Paul Conrad, who skewered Nixon and Reagan for the lies they told and the bill of goods they sold the American public. He's still at it, as I understand, and he has a fine target in the current successor to those worthies--your good self. Conrad was--is--a man who is possessed of a single-minded dedication to the truth, particularly in regard to such matters as war and peace and social justice. I just wish that this fine man, at eighty plus years old, had a bigger bullhorn than he has these days. He needs a fearless editorial page--one that's willing to speak the truth without compromise. We need that kind of incisive critical take on current policies and politics, and it's in regrettably short supply.

Anyway, Bush, good luck with your preparations for that speech. And remember these key words: NO MORE BULLSHIT. Thank you.

Star Wars

2007-01-20T08:57:00.000-08:00

Posted by PeterAtLarge

... But first an admiring word for the late Art Buchwald, who died an apparently cheery death a couple of days ago, with a teasing jab at the man with the scythe that was worthy of the best of his irreverent assaults on the pomposity, self righteousness and hypocrisy of those in power. I used to turn to his syndicated column with pleasurable anticipation in the days when the Los Angeles Times still carried it, and missed it when--for whatever specious editorial policy reason--it was gone. I have to say, too, that I feel a kinship with him as a writer, even though I can only aspire to the excellence of his sardonic wit. For him, I believe, as it is for me to this day, all politics was personal.

On another front, Bush, I'm hoping that you're too hamstrung with other weighty matters to respond with your typical bellicosity to the Chinese provocation in destroying one of their own aging satellites in space. It became clear not long ago that you thought the US owned this extra-territory when you nixed negotiations on an international treaty to ban space weaponry and asserted the freedom of this country to do exactly as it pleased beyond this new frontier, as it did--remember?--to its lasting shame, with the native residents of that other new frontier in the 19th century. I find myself wondering what Art Buchwald's imagination would have produced by way of a response to China's action and your arrogant, dismissive America-firstism?

Enough for a lovely Saturday, though. I'm not wasting another minute of it on you, Bush, nor on the state of the world you have created. Have a good weekend.

Barack the Vote, Bush

2007-01-19T12:47:00.000-08:00

Posted by Cardozo

Top 3 reasons George W. Bush should vote for Barak Obama in 2008

1. You believe in "Compassionate Conservatism"
You once said, Bush: “It is compassionate to actively help our fellow citizens in need. It is conservative to insist on responsibility and results.” After the calamities in Katrina and Iraq - and considering that you’ve relied wholly on trickle-down economics to help people out of poverty and reduce the ranks of the uninsured – it’s clear that the contract of compassionate conservatism has been broken. For six years, who monitored your administration’s “responsibility and results?”

Compassion is just a word for you, Bush, so how about lending your support to someone like Obama, who spent years (through a church group, no less!) directly assisting the poor and disenfranchised in Chicago, and who is currently on the forefront of the push to demand ethics reform in congress?

2. You want U.S. citizens to be safe
It is well documented, Bush, that you spent a long time (seven minutes, at the very least) deliberating about the best way to respond to the 9/11 attacks. Now, nearly four years into Gulf War #2, more Americans have been killed on the battlefield of Iraq than were killed in the 9/11 attacks, and anti-American sentiment, by virtually all accounts, has risen.

I believe that you do want your fellow U.S. citizens to be safe from attack. So why not vote for Obama, who opposed the war from the very beginning, preferring a narrower focus on the actual perpetrators of the crime?

3. You believe in public service
But do you serve the public? You were born into wealth and never left it. You became a businessman. You owned a baseball team. I think it’s fair to say that you embody (and can only truly hope to represent) the interests of the wealthy.

Your vote for Barack Obama would put someone in the oval office with the capacity to understand where virtually all Americans are coming from. He knows of poverty and discrimination – both personally and professionally. And now, as an established public servant, he has reaped the rewards of the hard work and responsibility that you so admire.

Can you acknowledge that such a man might be better equipped to serve the public as its chief executive? If so, no one will have to know. Our ballots are still secret, aren’t they Bush?

Technorati tags:
2008 election, bush, george w bush, iraq, Obama, president

The Art of Outrage

2007-01-18T07:23:00.000-08:00

Posted by PeterAtLarge

I neglected to mention this earlier, Bush, but Monday of this week witnessed the launch of Artscene Visual Radio with a column by yours truly under the title "The Art of Outrage." I believe I mentioned a while ago that I had been working on the first installment, a piece about an artist I identified as "the master" of the genre, Robbie Conal. Now that piece is out, and you can listen to it online by merely clicking on the link. You'll also find some less-than-flattering images of your good self, I fear, one of them in a nice tango with your Rice. I'm working on a second program right now, which will have to sufficently account for the brevity of today's entry. Those of our readers so inclined may choose to check in on the Robbie Conal piece as an interesting alternative.

A quick note, though, to acknowledge some political changes in the air: first, the Democrats seem to be headed finally toward some kind of collective stance in opposition to your escalation of the Iraq war. And now, it seems from today's headlines, you are backing off from your domestic spying program--I suppose also as a result of the new political pressures from those Democrats. Good new on both fronts, in my opinion, though I doubt that you'll agree.

Dinner With Jack... Bauer, That Is

2007-01-17T06:27:00.000-08:00

Posted by PeterAtLarge

We went out to dinner with our new neighbors from across the street last night, Bush. They happen to spend some time, like your good self, in Washington, DC, and they acquired this Los Angeles base in order to be able to spend time with their young folk, who ended up out here. We had been planning for a while to make a dinner date so that we could get to know each other better, and Ellie made us a reservation for last night at this unpretentious little Italian restaurant in the neighborhood, located at an unprepossessing mini-mall not ten minutes from where we live.

Well, no sooner had we settled down to order when in walks Jack Bauer. In the flesh! And takes a seat with his lady friend at the very next table to us! No gun, of course. Not that we could see, anyway. This obviously wasn't one hour of his 24, since he had the leisure to interrupt his dinner for long enough to enjoy a cigarette out in the cool night air. (A bit disappointed in that, Bush, I have to say. I hadn't imagined our good Jack Bauer mortgaging his life to the tobacco industry. Ah, well, some illusions do get shattered from time to time...)

We had an excellent dinner, though. This place is really something. A wonderful Italian spread, solicitous waiters anxious that the patrons know every detail of the menu and choose well, a nice glass of Chianti, good company... what could be better? And we arrived back home in time for me (Ellie wisely chooses to abstain from such television fare) to watch that same Jack Bauer, in a recorded episode, defend his country once again against those evil terrorists. (This time, though, despite Jack's very best efforts--including killing his best friend--the terrorists managed to stage that mushroom cloud you've been warning us about. More next week!)

So I thought to myself, well, I hope Bush has a few of these guys around--guys like old Jack, who seems like a good friend, now that we've virtually broken bread with him. We didn't actually speak to each other, but you know what I mean, right? Rubbing shoulders... But I'm sure you need these guys who aren't afraid to show a little muscle when it's needed, who don't let a few quaint moral qualms get between them and a little old-fashioned torture when it's needed to extort that vital information... I mean, Bush, where would a President be without them? Right? Between you and me, and Jack Bauer.

Just thought you'd like to hear about this adventure, Bush. Sometimes it pays to be living in Hollywood, if you want excitement.

A Note on Integration after Martin Luther King Day

2007-01-15T22:08:00.000-08:00

Posted by Cardozo

Encourage minority friends to bid for homes in your neighborhood that are for sale, or invite them to join you in your vacation areas. Help figure out how more than one individual or family from a particular underrepresented group might come along, so that your friends are not - yet again - the only minorities in the room, on the street, at the party, on the slopes, in the store, on the beach.

Look, I know it can seem artificial consciously to consider race or ethnic background. But simply not thinking about integration is a failing tactic in much of America.

Rob McCord penned the above in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer, and I cite it, Bush, in order to celebrate naivete.

In an interview on NPR's Talk of the Nation, McCord suggested that naivete might not be such a bad thing. Or rather, that what is commonly thought of as naive (like the above plea for renewed integration driven by individuals acting in good conscience) might actually be far-sightedness.

With this I wholly agree. Despite those annoyingly oft-quoted words of John Maynard Keynes about us all being dead in the long run, the true difference makers always assume that even dramatic social changes can happen in the short run. And sometimes they do, in spite of those who scoff at the naivete of well-intentioned idealism.

Say what you will, Bush, about McCord's idealism. There's nothing very nuanced about it. But maybe nuance is overrated - a product of an overmediated culture, perhaps. After all, how can pundits keep selling books, or editorialists keep writing editorials, if all they do is repeat those simple truths with the power to change everything if only they were put into actual practice?

McCord's words are truth, aren't they, Bush? If everyone who despises the continuing segregation in America were to integrate their own lives in any substantial way, the forces preserving segregation would dissolve proportionately.

I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank McCord for risking the label of naivete and appealing to those who would act, to act. And for leading by example.

About That Interview...

2007-01-15T08:13:00.000-08:00

... on 60 Minutes, Bush. I watched. I noted that folksy humor, that attempt at down home, plain-thinking realism. "I'm a flexible, open-minded person," I heard you say. And I'm sure that's how you think about yourself. I also heard you say: "I'm not going to change my princples," for the sake of popularity. "My spirits are strong and I'm blessed to be the President." It's we out here, Bush, who feel less than blessed to have you as the "President." I watched your Rice. I shuddered every time I heard her say, "The President thinks... the President believes..." The mistakes you could acknowledge: Abu Ghraib, and "Bring 'em on!" Oh, and just possibly, too few troops on the ground. The troop levels "could have been a mistake."

And now we've gone beyond the Decider and the Commander in Chief. We're now the "Educator in Chief." Well, that's a laugh, Bush. That's a laugh. Have you ever tried teaching in a classroom where not a single kid is listening to what you say and they're all busy throwing paper pellets at each other? Well, I have. I was a lousy teacher, back when I was young. I know just exactly what it feels like. If it doesn't feel a little like that to you, Bush, at this very moment, all I can say is, well, you're just not listening. Again.

Anyway, I woke with this dream/poem. It's called

ALL POLITICS (IS PERSONAL)

I had this dream,
that I was lost
and late, and hurrying
in a city at once
foreign and familiar,
through white tiled
corridors toward
some unknown
destination. And at
some point I knew
I should turn left
toward downtown,
but saw, on the steps
in front of me, to
the right, a woman
in Muslim garb, who
tripped and fell,
rolling and bumping
down a steep flight
to the next level
down. I should,
I knew, just hurry on
to make my meeting
but some instinct
made me pause, and
change my mind, and
take that other flight
of steps to where
she lay, crumpled
and weeping on
the concrete floor.
That Muslim garb, I
dreamed, was somehow
less severe, I noticed
now, than I had thought,
softer, more giving,
warmer to the touch;
and the woman, too,
more womanly, more
sensual, even, her eyes
quite lovely in their
woundedness. I held
her, asking whether
she had broken any
bones, but she said,
No, testing them,
nothing, she thought
but scrapes and grazes.
The dream ended
without my knowing
who she was, of what
became of her; or of
the meeting I had
missed; but rather
with the memory of
the warmth of simple
human contact and this
recurring thought: all
politics is personal.

Waste and Corruption: The Iraq Story

2007-01-14T10:01:00.000-08:00

It's Sunday morning. Just got through reading this op-ed piece about the waste and corruption in Iraq, Bush, and it serves only to increase my anger and despair. It's written by a man who's in a position to know, having observed what he writes about at first hand, as one who has served on the ground with the American forces in Iraq. He describes the level of corruption among the Iraqi security forces as "staggering." It seems that commanders there are pocketing wages for thousands of "ghost" personnel, who exist only in their money-grubbing minds; not only is this costing you (us, Bush) countless millions in cold cash, it's also creating a badly distorted notion of the strength of Iraqi military forces and police. Another massive delusion underpinning your new plan for peace and stability in a country that seems determined not to accept these blessings that you offer them. In addition, Bush, this writer gives a real sense of the extent to which the smuggling and illegal sale of oil, weapons, and reconstruction necessities is undermining efforts to put the country back on its economic feet.

I hear that you don't bother to read the op-ed pages, Bush. I guess it might be understandable for you to avoid pieces like Frank Rich's exquisitely pungent essay, also in this morning's Times. But I wish you'd take a good look at this one, and consider the futility of fighting against these kind of odds. It makes me sick to read. Sick and angry, Bush, that you persist in the arrogant folly of your actions in the Middle East. Clearly, it's something quite different than military action that is needed there.

On Israel, the Power of the Individual, and Haloscan

2007-01-12T14:21:00.000-08:00

Posted by Cardozo--and welcome back!

Practically every story I’ve ever heard or read about the modern state of Israel has involved an explosion of some kind. So when I left Los Angeles for Tel Aviv last month, part of me wondered if there would be anything there left to see. How many explosions can one small piece of land absorb?

Quite a few, apparently, because the cities I visited were pretty well intact. Furthermore, I survived two weeks in Israel without encountering a single one. No bus or café bombings, no rockets falling from the sky. As far as I could tell, everything was a-okay. Of course, the recent war with Hizbollah was a frequent topic of conservation, especially in the North. But the Israelis I met talked about the war like Californians talk about earthquakes: as an isolated event that scared them half to death at the time, but that is no longer relevant to daily life.

The relative state of calm that I found in Israel caused me to reflect on war, and its persistence. Israelis have been forced to endure a lot: not infrequent invasions, a burgeoning threat of nuclear annihilation from its neighbors, and the possibility that a suicide bomber might at any time be walking among them. And yet, in between such wars and acts of violence, life quickly returns to normal, apparently. Why, I wondered, aren’t Israelis more obsessive about the political conflict that makes their existence so precarious? How could they possibly think about anything else?

On reflection, I think the answer is simple. Life finds a way. When and where it is possible, people will pursue fun, love, adventure, art – all the things that make life tolerable. Furthermore, the average Israeli lacks the power to actually impact the direction of the political situation, so why bother obsessing over it?

This dynamic (it occurs to me, Bush) is the very thing that makes the development of peace so difficult to achieve. We find the same dynamic, of course, here in the United States, and practically everywhere else. Even in Iraq, where daily life is absolutely co-opted by war, people can do very little but try and protect themselves and eke out whatever satisfaction they can from life. We are pawns in a global chess game that alternately bores (in the case of the U.S.) or overwhelms us (in the case of Iraq or any other location currently experiencing the localized effects of the latest chess move.)

My conclusion? Those of us who have the luxury of walking the streets in relative safety, of having reliable access to food and shelter, of pursuing happiness, in short; we, the fortunate, must live our lives to the fullest. This means not only maximizing our personal happiness, but also staying as true as possible to our values, thereby living out our potential. I cannot tell you, Bush, that your paradigm of good versus evil is destructive to peace. I cannot tell you that compassion must lie behind all actions, even warfare. But I can certainly live these truths and trust that, eventually, they will trickle up.

My biggest pet-peeve about the progressive blogosphere is that compassion and a belief in the goodness inherent in mankind – the basic tenets of progressivism, in my opinion – are not borne out. Check out the discussions on Haloscan or Blogger or WordPress, Bush, and you will find accusations flying (mostly directed at you, of course), and compassion reserved for the victims of your tyrannical foreign policy. Progressives believe that hatred when acted upon cannot lead to peace, and yet many of the participants in these online diaologues hate you, and (it would seem) all conservatives, too.

More thoughts on why this apparent discrepancy exists in a future entry, Bush.

Protest the War

2007-01-11T09:18:00.000-08:00

Here's a site to protest the escalation of the war that I have received from a couple of different sources this morning, Bush. You might be hearing more of this. I hope so.

The Big Speech, Part Deux

2007-01-11T08:27:00.000-08:00

Oh, alas and alack, Bush. And golly gee, as your Rumsfeld might have said, before being booted off into the wings. It took you three months to come up with this rehash of old ideas? I've heard some in the media grasping at straws to find something new in what you had to say. Your mea culpa made one headline--but even that pale admission has been made before. Otherwise, what do we have, except more of the same, plus a little bit more. Boiled down to its basics, was your speech any different from that tired old refrain: stay the course? Send in another handful of American troops, but essentially stay the course. Get those Iraqis working on a political solution, but stay the course. Train some more of their military and police. Set benchmarks for effective action. But stay the course. Same old bullshit, Bush--not to make too fine a point of it.

I have to tell you that I haven't heard a single unqualified, positive reaction to your speech last night. Your Rice was her usual prickly self at the Senate hearings this morning--a loyal supporter, if ever there was one. Her idea of diplomacy--and yours, it seems--is to listen to everyone who agrees with you and cast all the rest as enemies and extremists. Which reminds me that there was one new thing, of course, in your new plan for success in Iraq: in direct contradiction to one of the major recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report, you made it clear that there would be no talking to Iran or Syria; instead, you actually threatened both these countires with action--presumably military--to thwart their intervention in our own military interests in Iraq.

Where did this idea come from, Bush? That you refuse to talk to those with whom you disagree--even those who hate you--unless they previously capitulate to your demands? It's an idea that springs naturally from the unquestioning belief that everything we do ourselves is good and right. To judge by your actions and your words, that seems to be what you seriously believe. I noticed that, at the end of your speech, you were unable to resist another appeal to that Almighty One who whispers in your ear. Something else that's new! He's no longer the Higher Father but the "Author of Liberty," whom you called upon, in your final words, to guide us. To which I say, in plainer speech, Bush, than yours: if this is your "new way forward" in this disaster, then God help us all.

Big Day: The Speech

2007-01-10T08:09:00.000-08:00

Well, Bush, here we are, three months after you started promising us that mother of all speeches--or at least the one that will lay out your "new way forward" in Iraq and, presumably, lead to the war's satisfactory conclusion. Or "victory", as you like to call it. The speech has been quite a while in the gestation, so I have to guess it will be a good one. I imagine that your trusty speechwriters are sitting around as I write, sweating out the eloquent details.

Were I your speechwriter, I'd have a couple of suggestions. I offer them without much hope that you'll approve them, but I thought I'd let you have them anyway.

Speech #1 (my personal preference)

My fellow Americans (that's de rigueur, I know), I have been thinking long and hard about this situation in Iraq, and I have consulted with the best advisors I know, both military and civilian. I have also listened to your voice, the American people, who have indicated unambiguously in every recent poll as well as the election this past November that you wish for this war to be over and the troops brought home. I now recognize that the invasion of Iraq was a ghastly mistake on the part of my administration. We fudged the intelligence and manipulated your post-9/11 goodwill to justify an action that a bunch of my neoconservative advisors had been pitching for years. Their rosy predictions about the ease of the job and their assessments of the probable outcome have proved disastrously wrong. Their failure to understand the history and culture of that region of the world--let alone our own--has led us on a tragically misguided and arrogant path into what most observers now agree to be a terminally chaotic situation.

Despite all my best hopes to the contrary, democracy has not taken root in Iraq; the government there has proved incapable of stemming the centuries-old animosity and violence between religious sects; the military and police forces have proved at best feckless and at worst brutally traitrous to the interests of the country as a whole; the Iraqi people have repeatedly indicated that they believe that the presence of American forces does more to promote violence than to stem it; and there seems to be little or no prospect of achieving an American-imposed peace.

In view of all this, and listening to both the military and civilian advice I have received in the course of the past three months, I have now decided that the wisest--indeed the only course--for our country is to apologize profusely for having intruded in the first place, to offer financial compensation for the physical damage caused, and to recall our troops as soon as dignity and their security allow. This action will make it clear to Iraq and the rest of the world that we are capable of recognizing and rectifying our mistakes and that we do not harbor those imperial intentions that much of the world attributes to us. Instead of arms and warfare, we will offer compassion, aid and hope.

Good night, God bless the United States of America (can't leave this out, Bush!) and God bless the rest of world.

Speech #2 would sound much the same, but the conclusion would be different. Here's what I would (reluctantly) propose:

Despite all the above, and despite the mistakes that have been made by my administration--mistakes for which I assume full and sole responsibility--I continue to hold to the belief that our troops must remain in Iraq until some lasting settlement has been reached. I now recognize, however, that it is not enough to ask Americans to support my actions without question or to go out and shop. This war must become a national priority. The military has been significantly weakened both in manpower and materiel, and will need a new infusion of srtength if we are to persevere and, at the same timne, fulfill other military obligations in the world as they arise.

I am therefore asking the Congress of the United States to act on two fronts: first, to reinstate the draft, or at least some form of national service for all Americans. And second, to consider what modifications must be made in our current tax obligations to properly fund the war. I was mistaken in believing those who told me that this war could be successfully concluded on the cheap, and the tax cuts I have pushed through in the course of my tenure in this office are proving to be unafforadable.

My fellow Americans, iI is time for all of us, not just those brave young men and women in uniform, to make the sacrifices needed if we are to prevail. It is time for all of us to play our part, and I am asking you tonight to support our troops in a significant new way. Good night, etc.

So there you go, Bush. My suggestions. I still think Speech #1 is the right one for the country. But at the very least, please give us #2. Good luck.

The Power of the Purse

2007-01-09T07:10:00.000-08:00

A mixed bag this morning, Bush. I guess we're all kind of waiting for that other shoe to drop when you give your much heralded speech about Iraq tomorrow night.

I see Senator Edward Kennedy on the television this morning promising a resolution to deny funding for your surge. The intention, as I understand it, is not to cut funds for the troops already in the war zone, but to prevent you from escalating the conflict by sending more. It's a fine distinction. Obviously, from the purely practical point of view, the Democrats would have much to risk in a blanket denial of funds for the war, no matter how terrible the mess you have created there; but to act now to prevent that escalation we hear you're planning to tell us about tomorrow night seems like simple common sense. As Kennedy points out, his resolution does no more than give congressional backing to what a significant number of the military brass have been recommending.

At the same time, despite the violence which I deeply abhor, I find it hard to fault the American attack on an Al Qaeda hideout in Somalia which I also heard about this morning. Assuming the intelligence provided by the Ethiopian troops on the ground to have been accurate, this is precisely the way your war on terrorism should be fought--small, isolated, well targeted actions, insofar as possible away from possible harm to civilian populations, designed to incapacitate those plotting acts of terror in pursuit of their fanatical agenda.

On another front, I'm happy to hear that our Republican Governor here in California is planning an assault on the problem of universal health care insurance in this state. It's past time for us to address this basic humanitarian issue. We should be ashamed, as a country, that we have done nothing at the national level to assure this security for our citizens--the only advanced nation in the world to lack a government-backed health care system and to foster instead the waste and profiteering that result from our private insurance systems. I trust that the Democrats now elected to represent us in Washington will make it their business to revisit this issue which has been all but ignored since the Clintons failed effort in the1990s.

Back to Work

2007-01-08T06:26:00.000-08:00

You will have noticed that I have been unusually silent this weekend, Bush. That's because I foreswore use of the computer until today--except to catch up with any email. Two reasons. First, it was Ellie's birthday yesterday. We celebrated with our usual Sunday morning meditation at our sangha--our sitting group--and then a long walk along the beach at Crystal Cove, a short way north from here, where the beach stretches for miles in each direction, and where there is a newly-opened restaurant where we had hoped to have a late breakfast. Alas, it was so crowded, and the wait so long, we had to settle for a late lunch instead, with that long walk along the beach filling the time gap. Anyway, it all worked out for the best, and we were back at home by mid-afternoon, with time to read the Sunday papers while it was still warm and sunny on the balcony.

The second reason for my abstinence is less pleasing: I had a day in computer hell on Friday, and simply couldn't face the prospect of looking at another keyboard or monitor. It was one of those days, Bush--and I imagine that you have a number of them, these days--when everything that could possibly go wrong does just that. It got to the point where it was simply laughable: at one point, I heard a clatter outside my office door and found that a large sheet of plexiglass had descended from apparently nowhere and shattered on the concrete steps. The telephone rang, and nothing happened when I picked it up. I completed a small voice-over job for Artscene magazine on my computer--an advertizing spot, no more than a minute--which should have been a simple job to email out; instead, it took three hours of frustration before I gave up, burning a CD instead to put in the US mail.

Everything, then. One of those days. As I said, I imagine you must have experienced many of them recently. Those pesky Democrats taking power from your Republicans in Congress... And the war! Iraq! One disaster after another. Last week, of course, it was not only the constant sectarian slaughter and the bombings, it was the brutal mishandling of Saddam's execution and the attendant worldwide revulsion: a reflection, necessarily, on your policies. That Maliki! Not to be trusted, Bush. And what an irony, that the most powerful Shiite leader seems to be no longer the (in retrospect) rather mild-mannered Sistani, but the wild and youthful Moktada al-Sadr, no respecter of the American presence in his country, nor of the democracy you still seem to want to establish there, against all odds.

Don't we have enough proof now, Bush, finally, that your concept of a peaceful democracy is simply not taking root in that unhappy region? Do we really need to send in more American troops in the stubborn attempt to force them to accept it? Have we not learned any lessons from the very recent--and the not quite so recent--past? Will it take yet more death and destruction to persuade you that your venture there is futile? My last hope, Bush, is that the Almighty Himself will get word to you before that speech on Wednesday. Or is He, like the rest of your compliant advisors, already persuaded of the rightness of your ways?

Madam Speaker: An Historic Moment

2007-01-05T09:29:00.000-08:00

It was quite a sight, Bush, even on the television screen: children scampering around the floor of the House, spouses chit-chatting, a sense of fun everywhere. The sanctuary of suits and ties was transformed wonderfully into a more inclusive representation of humanity.

A lot was made, of course, of history being made as the first woman accepted the gavel of the United States Congress from her male predecessor. And Nancy Pelosi did a fine job, I thought, of conducting the whole event with a great deal of dignity, but without too much self-importance. She struck the right note between pride in her achievement and a sober appraisal of the work to be done. She managed to be light-hearted, a little giddy, even—but serious at the same time.

Quite a change, though, you’ll have to admit, in the image of power. That gavel has an unmistakably phallic air about it, and the symbol of its passage into female hands could have traumatic repercussions among those attached to its historic charge. I’d like to think, however, that it embodies a deeper change in the way in which we think about power in this country: that it doesn’t have to be male, suited, self-protective, competitive. It doesn’t have to relish “victory” or regard “defeat” as disgraceful and intolerable. It doesn’t have to be hard and unemotional: it can be nurturing and loving as well. Good lessons for a country that has been short on compassion for its own needier children and on the spirit of generosity toward other, less fortunate parts of the globe.

I did think it more than a little ingenuous on the part of your Republicans—now piously embracing the spirit of “bi-partisanship”, along with your good self—to be whining on about the unfairness of it all. The common refrain in response to the Democrats’ eagerness to get a running start on some basic, long-neglected legislation was generally: “How dare they do what we did?” Having successfully used the rules of order to silence Democrats and stymie their ability to set agendas, speak to the issues, or even to propose amendments, your folks on the Hill, it seems, are now having to taste a little of their own medicine, and the taste is bitter, Bush, and not at all to their liking.

I’m not sorry for them. Let them suffer. They have been for so long insufferable themselves, they deserve to eat a slice or two of humble pie. But Democrats must be careful—and I think they will—not to follow the example of their predecessors in power for too long. They, too, are preaching the benefits of by-partisanship to the country, and it behooves them to live up to what they preach. Let’s keep our fingers crossed, Bush, and hope that both sides of the aisle prove capable of serious, respectful cooperation.

My final thought: if you yourself are serious about rescuing your presidency from its growing reputation as the worst in the history of the United States, you’ll follow the same path; and begin by listening to the collective wisdom of the people of this country when deciding on your “new way forward” in Iraq.

Pictures

2007-01-04T07:36:00.000-08:00

You must have been noticing, Bush, how everything is showing up on videotape these days. Maybe I have the techonology wrong, but digital or otherwise, it's moving pictures that keep popping up to document almost everything you can imagine--and a lot you can't.

This thought, this morning, provoked by yet another replay of the telephone video of the disgraceful events surrounding Saddam's hanging, the insurgent-released images of those four American contractors abducted weeks ago and--from the sublime to the ridiculous, the Today Show interview of the store clerk attacked from behind through the wall of his convenience store by a marauding SUV. (Have you noticed, in fact, how those SUVs seem to be going wild these days? There has been a remarkable surge--excuse the word, Bush--of videotaped SUV intrusions through the walls of department stores, automobile display floors, Seven-Elevens... It's amazing. You'd almost think these vehicles are beginning to declare war on the human species. An idea for a sci-fi thriller? What do you think?)

The ubiquity of cameras is something I don't think most of us would have imagined twenty years ago. I've been reading about the those security cameras they have installed at virtually every street corner and tube station in England, and am uncomfortable about this "1980" (eat your heart out, Orwell: you overestimated by at least twenty years!) version of what I still consider to be my home country. Now everyone can have his or her personal means to make a visual record of anything they care to, from intimate porn in the bedroom to the car crash at the local intersection and this week's blizzard, hurricane, or tornado.

All of which leaves me feeling more than a little spooked, Bush. I don't know about you--you must be used to cameras pointed at you everywhere--but I happen to value my privacy. One of the founding principles of this country was surely that we each have the right to what I read described the other day as our "bubble"--that small, and apparently decreasing personal space in which we can feel at home, unwatched, free to be exactly who we are. I don't honestly know whether I would have preferred to remain ignorant of the sectarian barbarity that characterized the final minutes of the miserable existence of Saddam Hussein, but I know that the implications leave me more than ever exposed to the prying eyes of the contemporary world.

Walking toward Peace

2007-01-03T00:23:00.000-08:00

Posted by PeterAtLarge

I have no time for you today, Bush. I'm in transition: from one house to another, one city to another, one computer system to another... Yes, we're finally giving up on PC here in my house, and swtitching to Apple. Lots of glitches to be taken care of. I'm anticipating a week of computer horrors. Anyway, I imagine you're pretty busy yourself Bush, so you won't miss my ramblings. I am pleased, though, to have a post from Cardozo to share with you. He's still in Israel, and it's good to hear first-hand from that part of the world... So here's

"Walking Toward Peace"
Posted by Cardozo

One of the best things about travel is that it has the power to put your convictions to the test. If, like me, you fancy to yourself that universal truths do indeed exist, travel provides an opportunity to witness firsthand if such "truths" apply in a pratical setting, thousands of miles from home.

Over time, I have become convinced that human beings quite naturally develop compassion and love for the members of their community. Let's use Katrina as an example. Many heroic stories emerged of individuals risking life and limb for the sake of their pets. I'm sure you can relate, Bush.

Why should this be so? It's just a dog, right? But that's exactly the point. Pets are alive and worthy of love, just like Americans and Scandinavians, Eskimos, Brazilians and apple trees. But you don't love the apple tree growing in somebody's backyard in Boston, and you don't love the puppy in the tub in the photo above. In fact, you didn't know the puppy existed until confronted with visual evidence, and how can you love something you don't know? With rare exceptions in cases of extreme hardship or mental illness, you love the members of your community - the creatures that are witness to your life, and vice-versa.

I've always felt that inside this simple truth lies the solution to the severest plagues affecting human beings. To take the idea to its logical conclusion: if the entire world existed in a single community, love and compassion would prevail over hatred and impatience. This is not such a touch-feely concept, is it Bush?

To return to the idea of putting your convictions to the test: one of the most essential nuggets I've come away with since arriving in Israel is being reminded of the many nuances in the term "Arab." The average American, I think, thinks of an "Arab" as a muslim from a middle-eastern nation such as Jordan or Saudi Arabia, or the Palestinian territories. But if you are an average Israeli living in Haifa, for example, an Arab is your next door neighboor. He is a patriotic citizen of Israel. He is the doctor that repaired your punctured lung. He is Christian or Muslim, or Druze, or Jewish. Increasingly, he is a part of your community.

It seems to me that whatever small steps toward peace that have occured here since the war of 1948 have occured because of the gradual emergence of community, the degrading of stereotype, the shattering of myth. It's an important lesson to heed, Bush, as you contemplate the consequences of your xenophobic foreign policy. Though the road be a long and dangerous one, we need to walk toward, not away, from the Other. Otherwise we are only treading water and acceding to the institutionalization of war.

Back to L.A.

2007-01-02T07:06:00.000-08:00

Well, Bush, the vacation is over. Later today, we head back to Los Angeles and our usual routine. Meantime, Gerald Ford's funeral cortege is headed down Pennsylvania Avenue as I write, and the dignitaries await his arrival at the Washington Cathedral. I have seen the other former presidents with their wives and families, but I have not yet spotted you in the crowd--though I imagine you must be back from Crawford and dressed for the occasion.

I have been thinking much about death these past few days, thanks, largely, to the book I have been reading: Philip Roth's Everyman.

It's a sad book, really. The main character--I first wrote "hero", then went back and changed it: you could hardly describe this sad, complex, internally conflicted man as a hero--contemplates the history of his personal relationship with death, from his earliest youth, including the death of his father and other family members and friends. He contemplates, too, with agony--and with envy for his robust brother--his declining health as his body ages, the illnesses and hospitalizations that have plagued his life, his failed marriages, his isolation... And then he dies. If this sounds like a bleak read, Bush, well, then, I guess it is. But it's also a very deep exploration of the psyche of a human being--truly, an "everyman"--and has much to tell us about ourselves. The saddest part of it, for me, is that this man is bereft of spiritual resources, and that he dies without any sense of meaning or achievement in his life.

Ah, well. So I finished that and switched on the television set to watch the Rose Bowl. Pleased that USC won the game--I used to teach there, many years ago. I imagine Gerald Ford would have been rooting for the other team...

2006/2007... and 3000

2007-01-01T08:35:00.000-08:00

It's cruel timing that the 3000th American military death coincided so neatly with the end of 2006. Your White House put out a statement, in response to this not unanticipated news, that you "mourn every death" and that you vow to ensure that they "did not die in vain." At the cost, inevitably, of more lives. At the same time, the by-now tiresome drumbeat continues to roll in preparation for your widely-expected announcement of that "surge" in US forces in Iraq to quell the violence there, despite the lessons of recent history.

In reading the lead article in today's Los Angeles Times, the 1st of January, 2007, suggesting that you could be preparing to announce your plans for victory in Iraq this week, I found myself formulating this uncomfortable thought: we should no longer be allowing you to make plans for our military, Bush. You have proved yourself incompetent to make them. You have led this country into a military disaster of nightmarish proportions. You have demonstrated beyond any reasonable question that your judgment in such matters is faulty, guided more by ego than by wisdom, and that those you have appointed in the past to advise you in reaching these decisions--I think particularly of your Rumsfeld--are equally deficient.

I personally do not trust you to make life-and-death decisions in my name, Bush. It is clear that I am not alone in this. It is clear that the vast majority of the American people no longer trust you to make those decisions either. It is clear that the rest of the world no longer trusts you, and no longer trusts America.

In the light of this conviction, I wonder what in God's name we can do. Express our dissenting opinion as forcefully as we can? We did that in the election last November, and it seems to have been to no avail. Write blogs? Ha! Protest your decisions, once made, as vigorously as we can, if we disagree with them? You seem as incapable of hearing protest as you are of listening to advice. Require our Senators and our Congress members to reject your policies? They're so caught up in this mess, there are few of them able to see through the fog of war. Impeach? Too long a process. I'd find a resignation acceptable, but I'm not naive enough to see that happening.

I wrote earlier in these pages of my admiration for Gerald Ford, and was taken to task--not severely, Bush, but with gentle remonstrance--for not having sufficiently recognized the damage done by his pardon of Richard Nixon, and by his opening of the door for Ronald Reagan and the rise of the conservative movement in the last quarter of the 20th century. I was more distressed, myself, to read of Ford's strongly critical analysis of your rush to war in Iraq, and saddened by his choice to remain silent on the subject at a moment when his voice could have been an important one for us all to hear. Whom was he serving by this silence? The country that he so evidently loved, and in whose service he devoted his life? The Republican party? Your good self? It seems to me that a man of integrity needs to speak out when he sees things going wrong, and it saddens me to conclude that political loyalty, in this instance, took precedence over conviction and the best interests of the country.

In the context of which I have to wonder, too, where were our other former presidents? Jimmy Carter? Bill Clinton? Even, Bush, your father, George H.W.? They were surely better informed than the rest of us about the "intelligence" that led to war. Was it nothing more than presidential etiquette that allowed them to stand by without a word of protest while you deceived the country in your haste to muscle Saddam out of office? Was it plain protocol? Were they, like the rest of us, cowed by the events of 9/11. All it takes, the saying goes, is for good men to remain silent in the face of evil... Or perhaps, unlike Ford, they spoke, or tried to speak, and their thoughts went unreported by the media.

And now we have those 3000 dead, along with countless thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens. We have a morass in the Middle East, with all those intractible problems to which you have given short shrift during your six-year tenure in the Oval Office. Here at home, we still have no health care system worthy of a great and wealthy nation, and the safety net for those in need continues to fray while the rich go shopping for luxuries. It was not a good year for you, Bush, as I think you must agree. Except for those who enjoy the benefits of corporate or hereditary wealth, it was not a good year for America--not even, eventually, for those who worship at the altar of right-wing conservatism and who suffered a severe setback at election time.

My hope for 2007, Bush, is simply that we all awaken to a new appreciation of the bountiful blessings we enjoy, a new consciousness of our true place among all those other beings with whom we share this planet, and a new sense of our responsibility in the world.

Tornado Warning: A Narrow Escape

2006-12-30T13:13:00.000-08:00

I read how you and Laura were evacuated today from your Crawford ranch--along with Barney and Miss Beazley--and driven by armored car to a tornado shelter during a spell of bad weather down there in Texas. Which conjured images of your good self being whirled up by the tempest, to be deposited without ceremony in a strange land called Oz, where you go prancing down the yellow brick road, accompanied by your hand-picked menagerie of advisors and your good witch Condi to that exotic Emerald City to see the great Oz and consult with him about the way back home from that dreadful country in the Middle East. Trouble is, when you arrive there, you realize suddenly that you're not in Texas any more: the whole place is in ruins and Oz turns out to be none other than the Father to whom you listen more than to your own, a foolish old dodderer behind the curtain who washes his hands of the whole mess you made of everything he gave you to take charge of.

Sorry, Bush. No ruby slippers. Wouldn't it be nice to click your heels and find yourself back home in Crawford with peace breaking out all over? Not to be. Just the hard work of being the decider. I saw somewhere that you've just been polled the world's biggest villain of 2006--and that's over both Osama and Saddam--by an overwhelming number of percentage points. Not sure who was voting. Americans? Or the rest of the world? Congratulations, anyway. I guess you'd best get back to that big speech about the new way forward, and come up with some magic of your own. Watch out for those nasty flying monkeys and the Wicked Witch. Meantime, I wish a good New Year's Eve to you and yours, and a better 2007.

Saddam Is Executed

2006-12-30T08:14:00.000-08:00

I think you know by now that I hold no brief for Saddam Hussein, Bush. You and I don't often agree on anything, but I do share your view that this man was evil. The atrocities he committed in his long reign of terror are unforgivable by any rational human being.

I do take issue, though, with the process that culminated in his death by hanging this morning. First--and most importantly, for me--his sentence effectively deprived Iraqis and the world of an accounting for his many other terrible deeds. Most notable, of course, is the genocidal chemical attack on his own Kurdish citizens; his trial for this crime was already under way, and to cut it short is another criminal act. As the atonement hearings in South Africa showed, a public airing of these grievous acts is a prerequisite to national healing. Iraq, I believe, is sorely in need of healing of this kind.

My second issue has to do with the secretiveness and the barbarity of the thing. You know from previous entries that I am opposed, conscientiously, to the death penalty, which says more about the society that practices it than about those miscreants (not to mention the innocent) subjected to it. But the irony of this particular execution in Iraq goes far beyond my personal objections. The haste with which Saddam was dispatched and the dead-of-night secrecy that preceded his execution are bitterly reminicent of the man's own despicable methods. Add to that such recent events as the discovery, by the British, of that hellhole of a jail in Basra, along with the daily bombings, abductions and beheadings, and you have to wonder just how far this society has come as a result of Saddam's fall from power.

Were this some evidence of a civilized and orderly progression toward the rule of law, Bush, I would be less harsh in my judgment of the process that led to Saddam's death. It just seems that the words of that old French adage have been proved true yet again: translated, it says "The more things change, the more they stay the same." This whole sad, brutal spectacle makes me wonder, all the more, what it is you can possibly imagine you have achieved by your incursion into the politics and culture of the Middle East. The barbarism continues. Apace. And, heaven help us all, Bush, we are a part of it.

Secrets

2006-12-28T06:23:00.000-08:00

We saw the new Robert DeNiro-directed movie the other night, Bush--"The Good Shepherd." I enjoyed it a great deal. Ellie, not so much. True, it was long, but my attention was engaged throughout. Ellie nodded off. She found the plot convoluted, hard to follow. I thought it not so important to follow every twist and turn. There was a good deal that I couldn't sit here and explain to you: perhaps it was all consistent, perhaps not. In a sense, I felt it was important NOT to be able to understand it all. That was the point. Like that other recent spy story, "Syriana," the characters themselves were lost in their self-created world of lies, deceptions, secrets... The factual "truth" was swallowed up in the stew.

But that didn't prevent the deeper truth from coming through: that secrets, when pursued obsessively, are toxic to the human soul. And in this movie they were layered thick, from the intimate and personal secrets that lead to the slow destruction of relationships with other human beings to those big, national and international secrets that lead to war. In this sense, Bush, I saw the movie as being tragically relevant to our current situation: without the lies with which you led our military rashly into the morass of the Middle East, without the black holes of Guantanamo and those other secret prisons, without the secretiveness of your administration and its insidious attack on the rights of our citizens, would we be in the mess we are today? I tend to think not.

We have been lulled to sleep by the comfort of our lives. We have been content to know too little. Until recently, the media have been content to accept without probing questions the dribs and drabs of truth that emanated from your office and your agencies. There is still too much we do not know. About the war, its origins and conduct. About the abrogation of our rights. About the ways and means you have used to conduct the country's business--not least in the appointments you have made. My hope is that, with Democrats back in power, the Senate and the House will use the subpoena power of their committees to demand some truths that have been withheld from us. The process may not be a pleassant one. Truths are frequently painful in the process of their revelation. But maybe with more openness in government, the atmosphere in this country will begin to finally detoxify.

Israel: Life on the Kibbutz

2006-12-27T10:54:00.000-08:00

Shalom from Israel, Bush! I arrived early on Christmas morning, a bleary-eyed but eagerly present for Karmit, who flew in a week earlier for some quality time with her parents in Rosh Pinah, in the far North and East of the country.

We are guests of the Ophir family at Kibbutz Mishmar Ha'Emeq, which I heard described as "conservatively communist." In other words, this Kibbutz has mostly held fast to the collectivist way of living of the original Kibbutz movement.

As visitors, we are entitled to free room and board. In no other sense, however, are we a part of this community. We do none of the work, and aside from the Ophir's, the Kibbutzniks do not greet us in the pathways or speak to us in the dining hall. In this, one of the few havens of communal living (all for one, one for all!) accessible to outsiders, I feel pretty isolated. Other contradictions abound. While most Kibbutzniks have no real need to ever leave home, their exports (agricultural netting, used by companies as large as John Deere) are cast widely, bringing in impressive profits that keep the Kibbutz afloat. Full participation in global economics preserves the internal socialist order.

I've been having a great time here, Bush. As promised, the food in Israel is tremendous. I paid for dinner for five of us in the lovely winery town of Zichron Jacob. Sweet potatos with tahini, woody Cabernet, penne with beet sauce and homemade bread with butter that actually tastes like butter. Eyal's Hebrew-speaking sister, Efrat, ate with us, and to make her feel a bit more at ease with me I tried to speak as much Hebrew as possible, which meant spastically repeating the very few phrases I know, such as "Ani raq mavin Ivrit" (I only understand Hebrew.) Either Efrat finds me hilarious or genuinely retarded.

Because Karmit's mother is seriously ill, much of Kar's time will be spent in nearby Ram Bam hospital, which has a lovely view of the Mediterranean and the ancient streets of Haifa. I am learning to drive the route between the Kibbutz and the hospital so that I can give Eyal some relief from shuttling Karmit and her sister Adi back and forth several times a day.

So long for now, Bush. I hear that in my absence you are continuing with furrowed brow to puzzle out your next move in Iraq. As you ruminate, please consider the following advice, attributed to Buddha: Hatred can only be stilled by non-hatred.

Goodbye to a President

2006-12-27T07:42:00.000-08:00

Not a big surprise, Bush, the news that President Gerald R. Ford died yesterday. He had obviously been in declining health for months, and had reached an age when death comes as not great shock. But sad nonetheless. With most other Americans, I suspect, I had a sneaking fondness for the man, and gratitude for his ability to pull us all out of the slough of Watergate and the war in Vietnam. A remarkable achievement, when you think of it. You had the sense, back then, that this was a man of integrity and honor--a simple man, too, and a man of unfeigned candor--at a time when those qualities had been sorely missing in the White House. I wonder what he could have thought in recent years about the ruthlessness and duplicity evidenced by his party and his President. The TV stations keep replaying that clip where he describes himself as "a Ford, not a Lincoln." But amongst the Fords, surely not one of those lemony Edsels. And compared with his current successor in the Oval Office--I make the analogy with a certain sadness, Bush--Gernald Ford was possessed of the class and the stability of a Bentley.

Christmas Gifts

2006-12-26T07:59:00.000-08:00

Lucky I declared that truce in my war on Christmas, Bush. Otherwise I might have missed out on a wonderful day with family and friends, not to mention some delightful gifts. For me, notably, from my son in England, via the Internet I presume, a special present: an original America's Real Action Heroes "Talking Presidents Presents" George W. Bush Top Gun doll! What a kick! It's a "12 inch tall action hero with accessories", replete, of course, with pictures, on the back cover, of that famous landing--and that infamous banner above your head as you made you "Mission Accomplished" speech.

I reread that speech, Bush. It's printed in full on the inside cover of the Bush doll box, above a picture of your good self standing tall at the podium in front of rows of raptly attentive sailors. It's the one where you declared that "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." "We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons," you added, "and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated."

Ah, well, Bush. This, and many other ironies in that speech, when read in hindsight, along with all the hot air and the promises of freedom and democracy that you continue to mouth in lieu of a sane, realistic appraisal of the situation your actions have created there, and a strategy with which to address it.

One other thing you might be interested to hear about. On the bottom of the box, just below the bar core and the Item No. 05103 you'll find the MADE IN CHINA stamp, in bold print. Odd, you'll agree, for "Real American" heroes. And on the front of the box, below a picture of this handsome toy-man in his flight suit, next to a warning exclamation mark enclosed in a triangle, these words: "Choking Hazard". And surely the crowning insult: "Small Parts."

Oh, no!

Hope you had a good Christmas, Bush. Hope Santa was kind to you. Hope you managed to do better than me in the food and drink department. My daughter gave me a refrigerator magnet image of the Wicked Witch of the West. I've put her by the handle of the ice-box door and renamed her The Diet Lady. Maybe that will scare me off, the next time I head in that direction. Anyway, we're all looking forward to that "new way forward" in the New Year, Bush. It's hard work, I'm sure, preparing for that speech-to-come. Just, please, a little more realism than the one that's printed on the George W. Bush Top Gun doll box.

Season's Greetings

2006-12-25T09:17:00.001-08:00

Merry Christmas, Bush. Or, as we Brits like to say, Happy Christmas. Don't know where you Yanks got the Merry from. Dickens, maybe. Anyway, have a peaceful one. Laura, too. And those girls. And the same for all those good folks over in Iraq. Iraqis and Americans. And, of course, the coalition of the willing. May they have a truly peaceful day. Blessings, PeterAtLarge

US Marines Charged with Murder

2006-12-23T09:03:00.000-08:00

I haven't yet discovered how to get our usually faithful Blogger to break lines as I want them to be broken, Bush, when I write a poem for you. What follows is supposed to appear in short, ragged lines, not the ones you see, all justified to the left like a bunch of compliant soliders on parade. Ah, well, as they say, we can't have everything. Try to imagine what it's meant to look like as you read. It's called:

ABOUT THOSE FOUR...

… United States
marines, indicted, charged
with the murder
of twenty-four
Iraqi civilians, in
the city
of Haditha:
unforgivable, should
their actions match
those for which they
stand indicted. Such
actions, even
in times of war, merit
harsh punishment.
And yet…
I see the face
of this one
supposed offender, so
fresh, so young,
so
“American” in its
innocence
of the duplicity
of the world out
there; I see
young eyes, brilliant,
devoid
of malice, eager, even,
to do right
by his buddies, by
his country,
and
I think, war
is it; it is
war
that turns this
man, this boy
into a monster.
And
there goes my
heart again, grieving
for our
barbaric species, that
slaughters its
young, grieving
for our state
of unenlightenment, for
the victims and
the victimizers; grieving
for the complicity
of our nation, for
my own
complicity
in this peculiar, unforgivable
insanity we call
“war.”
End sum: it’s
all of us, it’s
an abomination that
we fail, time
and again, to see
how simply
fucking
tragic
it all
is.

Iraqi Army Taking Charge

2006-12-22T07:03:00.000-08:00

Well, that was some ceremony in Najaf, Bush--the one I read about in the New York Times yesterday. "As soldiers paraded past a reviewing grandstand," read the Times report, "commandos with their faces blackened gathered for a demonstration of their courage. Each man reached into his pocket, pulled out a frog, and bit its head off. They threw the squirming legs to the ground as the group's leader held aloft a live rabbit. He slit the belly and plunged his mouth into the gash. The carcass was then passed around to the rest of the soldiers, who took their own bites." Witnesses were told, the report continues, by way of hasty explanation, "that the practice was especially popular among Saddam Hussein's feared Fedayeen militias, whose members had done the same things with live snakes and wolves."

That's progress, Bush, no? That Iraqi military really beginning to step up to the plate. Frogs and rabbits, eh? Who knows but that they might soon be polishing off those insurgents--though not, we hope in the same way. And the report did give me something of an inspiration, Bush, to help you on your "new way forward." How would it be, when you give that speech you're planning in January, if you pulled a frog out of you pocket and... well, you know. In front of the live television audience. I mean, that would be a more than adequate demonstration of your macho, no? Worth a try.

That's all for today, Bush. Cardozo cannily suggested posting a picture of the above, and I was tickled by the idea. Not surprisingly, I was unable to find one, even on the Internet. Who knows, perhaps I just didn't look far enough. But curiously, as I googled, I did come across this report from your Department of Defense, describing a parade to celebrate the Iraqi army taking charge at Najaf--in September, 2005! History does have a way of repeating itself, it seems. But perhaps they forgot the frogs and rabbits back then. This time, for sure, it will work like a charm.

Iraq & Terrorism: The Fundamental Error

2006-12-21T07:16:00.000-08:00

As you well know by now, I lay no claim to expertise in matters military or in international affairs, Bush. I bring nothing to this debate but what I learn from various news sources and a little studied common sense. And common sense tells me this: your fundamental error in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 11 September, 2001, was to elevate terrorism itself from the admittedly brutal tactic of a relative handful of fanatics to the status of a “global war.”

Whether this was a panic response or cynical opportunism on the part of your neocons I’ll leave others to decide. It could be either. Or, as I suspect, a bit of both. But this response, the rhetoric that accompanied it, and the ensuing policies have, in my common sense perception, brought us to the brink of failure where we now stand, disempowered, not quite—but nearly—friendless, deeply divided amongst ourselves, and terribly confused as to where to go from here.

At your press conference yesterday morning, I listened in disbelief as you mouthed the same vain, rosy platitudes about “victory” and “success,” about the “international war on terrorism” as the “defining issue” of the twenty-first century. I heard you talking about Iran, and the need for that nation to listen to you and acquiescence to American stipulations before talks could begin, without mentioning the possibility of listening to them. And frankly, Bush, it all sounded like utter nonsense to this one American who prides himself on possessing an ounce of common sense.

It is you, Bush, who have made what you are pleased to call the war on terrorism the defining issue of the twenty-first century. A wiser man, I believe, would have chosen a different response, one that did not empower and elevate these “extremists,” as you are wont to call them, to a nation of warriors worthy of a war with the most powerful military force in the history of the world—a war which they, these disparate gangs connected by little more organized than a common loathing of America, are actually winning! A wiser man, I believe, would have recognized the nature of these “enemies” and treated them accordingly, with rhetoric and tactics appropriate to their capabilities and their goals.

But now we have, thanks to your good self, a global war; and despite your protests to the contrary, we are not winning it. Now, too late, with a full-fledged and self-engendered war on your hands, you finally recognize the problem; and to solve it, you want to increase the number of the troops at your disposal. You have created this international war on terrorism, and hva committed us, willy-nilly, to fighting it. What a tragedy, to see so many lives sacrificed to what amounts, perhaps, to no more than a dreadful error in judgment, a rhetorical excess, and an obstinate refusal to recognize or admit mistakes.

More troops? To prove that America can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat? To justify the mistakes that have been made and demonstrate to the terrorists that we are stronger than they? As I see it, Bush, not even the addition of thirty thousand American troops in Baghdad—nor fifty, nor a hundred thousand—will do anything to prevent the next terrorist suicide team from wreaking havoc here in the United States. On the contrary, it might only serve to encourage them. Will it provide you with your “victory” over those “insurgents”? I tell you, Bush, I have my serious doubts.

Technorati tags:
Bush, George W. Bush, Iraq, President, surge, terrorism

2006-12-20T09:50:00.000-08:00

Endless Love

Yesterday on NPR's "Fresh Air," Terry Gross interviewed a man close to your own heart, the vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals, Richard Cizik.

This man's compassionate and sophisticated approach to policy discourse, to partisan politics, and to his own organization's mistakes truly made me stop and think, Bush.

I disagreed with most of Mr. Cizik' s positions on social issues, but his frankness and humility made me eager to listen, and to search for areas of common ground (like his belief that the NAE should prioritize poverty and environmental work).

When the interview concluded, I began to fantasize. How would things be different now if the "compassionate conservatism" you espoused during the campaign turned out to be more than just empty rhetoric? What if you had not abandoned our domestic poor to focus all of your energy on a strange, polarizing, crusadist foreign policy?

The hilarious images of "Bush and Blair Endless Love" helped feed the fantasy. I wonder, Bush, do you remember what it's like to be in love?

It's Christmas...!

2006-12-19T10:24:00.000-08:00

I've decided to call a truce in my war on Christmas, Bush. Or, as you call it, cut and run. The reason is simple enough: I need a vacation. So don't count on me for too much in the next couple of weeks. I'll post if I have something urgent to say, or if something strikes my fancy. And I trust that Cardozo will make himself heard from time to time, especially next week when he takes off for a stay in Israel. Should he be able to get online with relative ease from where he's staying, I'm looking forward to some first-hand observations from that part of the troubled Middle East.

So let's encourage our readers to keep checking in from time to time, Bush, but caution them not to be disappointed if we miss a few days here and there. But we'll certainly be back in full voice after the first of the year, and awaiting with great anticipation your promised "new way forward in Iraq." I trust that the spirit of "peace and goodwill to men"--and, of course, in these enlightened days, to women and children, too--will inspire you to come up with better plans this time.

Gen. Colin Powell...

2006-12-18T07:31:00.000-08:00

...and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama

Good people all, Bush, who have been prominent in the news in the past couple of days (in the case of Powell) and weeks (in the case of Clinton and Obama). I watched Powell's interview with Bob Schieffer on "Face the Nation" yesterday morning, and I was impressed with his mostly forthright answers to tough questions about the current situation in Iraq. Too much of a good soldier still, perhaps, to come up with direct criticism of yourself and your Rumsfeld, what he said was nonetheless an honest and unblinking appraisal of the failures of your policies and the bleak options that face us in that country now.

As always with Powell, I wondered how this thoughtful man could possibly have allowed himself to be so badly misled by those clamoring for war, or how he could have swallowed the misgivings based on his own wisdom and experience, and be swept up into the war fever your people were generating at the time. It was he, after all, whose reputation for unimpugnable integrity persuaded the majority of the American people and their elected legislators that Saddam was a real and present danger to the stability of the world. I myself, as I have said before in these pages, Bush, was persuaded by his rhetoric at the United Nations.

So, it seems, was Hillary Clinton, who voted with the majority of our lawmakers to capitulate to your plan to invade Iraq. She was asked about that vote on the "Today Show" this morning, and declined to call it a "mistake." She did allow that it had been "wrong" to believe the lies we had been told, and that in hindsight she would not have cast that vote. I like her candidacy, Bush. I like the prospect of having a woman in the Oval Office for the first time, and she came across well: a realist, well-informed and articulate, with both an intimate, family-based and a broad view of the world, both hard- and level-headed, thoughtfully critical of your administration and its policies, politically astute, and capable. I have no doubt that she would make an admirable President. My hesitations have to do with her propensity to equivocate and straddle the political fence. But is that, I have to ask myself, a part of what it means to be realistic.

And, ah, Obama. So much adulation. Hard not to fall under his spell when you hear him speak with such elegance and passion. What he projects, above all, and powerfully, is what your father memorably dismissed as "the vision thing." Is it possible that this still young man actually has a handle on the way past the present partisan impasse, the negativism and rejectionism rife in American politics? There can be little doubt that the vast majority of the country is heartily sick of the spectacle of political leaders who are so arrogant and dismissive of the opinions of others that they have run this country into the ground, and Obama seems to envision something different. Could he turn out to be the "uniter" that you once famously claimed to be?

What's heartening to me is that we do have good people in this country who show promise of finding a way back to those real American values that you, Bush, have talked about so often and so much, but have failed, notably, to live up to. Sure, they have made, will make, mistakes and errors in judgment. That's forgivable. They have made, will need to make compromises along the way. That's realistic. But there's a core of honesty, compassion, inclusiveness, concern for the welfare of not just the wealthy few but for the many--a breadth of vision that, frankly, has not been the hallmark of your presidency, Bush. There's a more expansive, open-minded quality of character amongst these people that contrasts favorably with the shiftiness, the secretiveness, and the arrogant, self-righteous certainty with which you wield the authority of your position.

God knows, it's past time for America to open its heart and mind to the rest of the world again. I'm looking forward to some significant debate about the direction that we need to take, and hope that the country is ready to engage it.

The Surge

2006-12-16T11:00:00.000-08:00

The surge?

Bad idea, Bush. Take it from one who claims absolutely no military expertise but does possess an ounce, at least, of common sense and can see disaster looming. (Take a look at Mt. Fuji in this Hokusai print! Take a look at those boats!)

Oh, and a memory. The long term memory these days is better than the short, I will admit. It's age. But the long term is all I need to remember Vietnam. The more those darned "insurgents" threatened to whup us, Bush, the more men we sent in... and the more were killed.

Result? Much the same, I think, as it would have been if we had pulled out before so many more had died.

My advice? Free for the taking. Don't let those surge supporters con you into believing their bullshit this time around. Forget the macho stuff about not looking weak. You had your strut on that aircraft carrier, the USS "Mission Accomplished." So forget about "victory." You screwed up on that possibility months or years ago. Well, technically I guess your Rumsfeld screwed it up for you but you're the boss, remember? You're the decider-in-chief.

So take the path of greater valor while you can. Be wise. Retreat. Pull our good men and women out of there. You've done everything that can be done by fighting forces and bully tactics to offer democracy to the Middle East. They're not taking, Bush. Let them fight it out between themselves. Okay, so this would never have happened if we hadn't marched in there and stirred up the hornet's nest, but that milk is spilt (oops, sorry about the mix of metaphors!)--and that frankly doesn't seem to worry you too much anyway.

So there you go. Take a deep breath. Ask yourself, if you prefer, what Jesus would say (and don't put words in his mouth, listen to his--among others, these: "Blessed are the peacemakers.") Swallow whatever is left of your pride. Admit that this war of yours is headed only for further disaster on all sides if you prosecute it. Pick up that phone and tell your Maliki the gig is up. And get us out of there, post haste. No waiting, Bush, until after Christmas. Who wants to be blown to smithereens on Christmas Day?

Technorati tags:
Bush, George W. Bush, Iraq, Jesus, President, surge

The Art of Outrage

2006-12-15T06:45:00.000-08:00

You're probably wondering, Bush, what has been keeping me so busy that I have had little time for you and your nefarious doings. I've been working on a project, the first part of which I hope to have completed by noon today. It's a contribution to a projected "visual radio"--as I understand it, a kind of online podcast art magazine. I'll keep you up to date with its development. My segment is to be called "The Art of Outrage", and the piece is about the artist I consider to be the master of the genre, Robbie Conal. Here's one of his recent pictures of your good self as a "Dance of Death" skeleton shitting glitter skulls. An acerbic view of your activities in the world, to be sure, but not without a certain accuracy. Here's another of his images, this time a Bush-Condi tango with Condi, I note, in ascendancy! An unkind cut, perhaps, but Conal is nothing if not barbed in his observations of the world of politics.

I trust that the artist won't mind my showing you his pictures--but you might otherwise never get the chance to see them, unless you happen to visit the fascinating Robbie Conal website. And it's not, of course, that we have a million readers.

Anyway, Bush, I thought you'd like to know what's been consuming my attention and my time. The result of all this labor, if the publisher approves of what I've done and assuming all goes well with his plans for publication and airing, will appear next month, I think. I'll let you have details about how to find it when the time comes.

Senator Tim Johnson: The Balance of Power

2006-12-14T07:51:00.001-08:00

I don't have much time for you this morning, Bush. I'm trying to meet a deadline, and the job is far from finished. But I did want to put in a quick word about the stroke--no matter how you cut it, that's what it seems to be--suffered yesterday by Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota and its possible consequences on the balance of power in American politics.

First, of course, along with all right-thinking people, I wish heartily for the Senator's full and speedy recovery. Then again, I'm not sure what "right"-thinking people are thinking, since it might well serve their cause should the Senator not recover fully enough to serve out his term. If that turned out to be the case, the Republican governor of his home state would be in a position of unimaginable power: he could literally change the course of history with his little finger by tipping the scale in the US Senate back in favor of his own party. That would require, in my view, incredible hubris on his part--to override the decision of the people of his state (to elect a Democrat) for purely partisan political gain.

I don't know anything about the person who occupies the governor's mansion in the state ot South Dakota, but it's a fraught question: would he have the balls to single-handedly corrupt the will of the entire American electorate?

I trust that this one person will never be given this fateful power. I suppose a proponent of the selection of a Republican might bring up the example of Senator Jim Jeffords, who changed his alliegeance--and the balance of power--a few years back. But there it was the choice of a man elected to the seat to follow, presumably, the dictates of his conscience. In the case of Tim Johnson, it would be some other person usurping the power given him by the electorate.

I'm hoping that it doesn't come to this, Bush. I don't know about you. I very much fear that in your own evangelical hubris you might mistake this unfortunate medical event for the action of that higher Father you claim to hear whispering in your ear.

Technorati tags:
Bush, George W. Bush, President, Senate, Tim Johnson

Pandora's Box

2006-12-13T01:21:00.000-08:00

Over the weekend I drove north to Stanford with Karmit (that’s my girlfriend, Bush. I’ll introduce you sometime.) In a heartwarming display of filial affection, Kar’s sister and brother-in-law, both talented artists, spent two days designing the cover art for her first demo-album of original songs.

Since I was only getting in the way of this adorable design and production process, I wandered onto campus, letting curiosity lead the way. (Curiosity, I’ve found, almost always leads to some worthwhile adventure, Bush, as long as you’ve remembered to pack your moral compass.)

Dodging bicyclists heading to final exams, I gravitated toward Cecil Green Library and, once inside, followed some twists and turns before stumbling upon a drafty, musky-smelling room containing copies of the official records of the United Nations. I took down the volume covering the 1947 special session regarding the “Palestinian Question” and began to read.

It was an eerie feeling, Bush, flipping through those pages and taking in the words of diplomats who could not foretell the gravity of the issue before them. The ambassador from Great Britain spoke first, conveying in no uncertain terms that nation’s determination to wash its hands of their territorial mandate in then-Palestine. A few days/pages later, representatives from the Arabs and the Jews put in their two cents, employing many of the same justifications that we hear today, for why their side should control the land in question.

What has transpired since 1947 has been sheer bloody mayhem, and I wanted to jump inside those documents and scream at the top of my lungs. Scream what? Anything, I suppose, to prevent the U.N. from making that fateful decision to split the land in half, cross its fingers, and hope for the best; an invitation, if there ever was one, for hostility to explode into direct combat.

This week, almost 60 years later, a conference was held in Iran, in which David Duke (among others), was invited to debate the historical legitimacy of the Holocaust. The conference itself is the insult of all insults. Meanwhile, suicide bombers and governments of all stripes and religious affiliations continue to treat human life as expendable.

Two questions haunt me these days, Bush, as I await the day’s reports of escalating rhetoric and rising bloodshed in the Middle East. First, when was this Pandora’s Box of unending violence and hatred opened? Was it in when Hitler took power? Was it when the victors of WWI carved up the earth as spoils of war? Was it when the intifadah began, or was it when a Jew blew up the King David hotel? Or has this visceral hatred for our fellow human beings always lurked in the human imagination, its periodic rearing inevitable?

And second, how deep does the Pandora’s Box go?

Ch...ch...ch... Changes

2006-12-12T06:05:00.000-08:00

It seems like change is in the air. Everywhere I turn these days, someone is talking about change. What I'm hearing, Bush, is that you yourself are contemplating this dread word. Stay the course is out. It's all about change. You're rushing everywhere, hither and yon, to create the impression of seeking the advice you never wanted in the past.

But change, of course, is just another word. The Bush lexicon is known to include quite a number of terms whose meaning is the opposite of what we ordinary, error-prone, English-speaking mortals have come to expect. The context in which I hear you utter the word "change" these days does not bode well for its welfare either. I very much fear that "change" has become another euphemism for "stay the course."

"Success" is the word with which I hear it frequently associated on your lips, and I suspect that "success" is the new word for "victory"--now banned, presumably since your Gates admitted right out loud for everyone to hear that we are not winning the war against the insurgents in Iraq: "No"--his plain, one-word answer to the question posed by a senator at his approval hearing--"no" leaves little room for ambiguity or doubt. "Success" may be a fraction easier to achieve than "victory", and a whole lot easier to sell to the American public.

It seems to me, Bush, that you're attempting what I might call the Jack Horner strategy. Remember the nursery rhyme? It goes like this:

Little Jack Horner
Sat in the corner
Eating his Christmas pie.
He put in his thumb
And pulled out a plum
And said, What a good boy am I!

Well, good luck finding that plum, Bush. Your Christmas pie is very short of goodies at this point. Increasingly, you're looking to the Iraqis themselves to solve the problem you created for them. Good luck with that. The track record is dismal. The Iraqi security forces, so-called, have amply proved themselves to be the source of sectarian violence, not the cure. The most this feckless bunch seem capable of is collecting weapons paid for by the American taxpayer and selling them, unused, in mint condition, to the highest bidder.

So tell me, Bush, just exactly how do you expect these folks to achieve what the greatest military in the history of the world has failed to achieve in three long years of conflict? Unless, of course, when the irritant of the American presence and the enabling agent of American arms and money are finally removed, they do prove, surprisingly, capable of restoring their nation to some semblance of sanity. They'll never do it, Bush, while we're still there to give them the excuse for all their troubles.

Miami Dawn, Laguna Beach Sunset...

2006-12-11T06:40:00.000-08:00

Two Coasts

To watch
the sun rise
over the Atlantic
Ocean, and
that same
day, set
over the Pacific
Ocean: something
of a marvel,
no? Who
of all humans
who ever
lived, but we,
this past
century, and less,
have seen
this miracle?

And a Final Thought ot Two...

... inspired by Art Basel/Miami. Aside from the fairs we have talked about, Bush, it was the number of private collections open to the public and the concurrent museum shows that made decisions about what to see—and what to miss—that much more difficult. I already mentioned the Rubell collection and its exhibition of Los Angeles artists, which we saw on our first day in Miami. Regrettably, we missed the show of Bruce Nauman’s neon works at the Museum of Contemporary Art, which proved too far to get to easily, especially given so short a stay. We also missed the Bass Museum—close to the Convention Center, but, well… we simply lacked the time.

I was happy, though, that we did make time to cross over to downtown Miami to catch two exhibitions of selections from the Ella Fontanals-Cisneros Collection. “The Sites of Latin American Abstraction” was a useful history of the manifestations of geometric abstraction in Latin America. My own preference is for the more “hand-made” works in this genre rather than those architectural, sometimes mechanical forms that strike me as rather cold and intellectual. I do love monochrome painting and even the simplest of geometric surfaces where I detect the obsessive striving for perfection of the human mind. There were enough examples of this kind of work included to make this show appealing to the soulful part, as well as stimulating to the brain cells.

Still more fascinating, for me, was the rather clumsily entitled “Forms of Classification: Alternative Knowledge and Contemporary Art.” This headline led me to expect something drearily academic, but the title proved misleading. I’m sure that the curator’s statement of intention was also intended to illuminate, but I found that it unnecessarily obfuscated what was a truly wonderful exhibition—by turns deeply moving, intellectually challenging, and at times just laugh-out-loud funny. “Conceptual art” can all too often be a bore, especially, for me, when I can easily “get it” and move on. The works in this show, for the most part, were rich, engaging to the eye and mind, and inexhaustible in meaning and association.

Take, for example, the work that occupied the entire first room of the exhibition, an installation by the artist Susan Hiller: a wall text, a whole wall of small, framed photographs and an accompanying book documented Hiller’s journey throughout contemporary Germany in search of streets whose names included references to Jews: Judenstrasse, Kleine Judengasse… innumerable variations which poignantly evoked the past history and contribution of a once-vital part of the population to German society and German culture, as well as the memory of their ubiquitous presence in these towns and villages and cities, and the tragedy of their loss in the Holocaust. And, too, a kind of ghost-like, haunting presence evoked simply by the remaining street names and the signs that identify them.

Or take the work of Mathilde ter Heijne, whose long racks of stark, black and white postcard images of unknown women of the nineteenth century brought all cultures together—African, Indian, Western-Caucasian, East Asian—in an equally poignant recollection of the vulnerability and the anonymous, transitory nature of human, in this case particularly feminine existence. Invited to take an image from the racks, I found myself involved in a complex contemplation of the possible reasons for making my own selection: beauty or pathos, strength, seeming intelligence or compassion… and exploring the social implications of those choices; and fascinated by the choices that others had made before me, how some racks were almost depleted of their images, while others remained untouched, neglected, waiting for recognition or attention. The piece seemed to me a new, less strident, more reflective feminism, an invitation to think with depth and penetration about how each of us individually views women and their place in the world.

Or the work of Francis Alys, the videotaped night-time adventures of a fox let loose in the deserted halls of the British National Portrait Gallery, assembled, I assume, from the tapes of surveillance cameras. It’s amusing, of course, to watch the creature’s restless travels over the polished parquet floors and, on occasion, over the stuffed leather benches, between the serried rows of masterpiece human portraits from all ages; but its also a study in the contrasting worlds of art and nature, an evocation of the old ars longa, vita breva (do I have my Latin right this time) conundrum, the swift vitality of the constantly moving fox and the stuffy, lifeless things hung on the walls. Lots to think about there, and an engaging visual treat—one that never bores or tires the eye.

More hilarious still, and equally compelling from the viewer-auditor’s point of view is the installation Julian Rosenfeldt, whose videotapes and sound equipment record the details of his every smallest movement in a deadpan reenactment of life’s daily activities: eating, walking, scratching, crumpling paper, rolling a cigarette and lighting up, placing things on the surface of a table, all in high definition sound and image… Three large, wall-sized screens record the action from three different angles, focussing sharpened attention on the most ordinary of sounds and movements and challenging us, it seemed to me, into surprised and delighted awareness of the inherent interest of each passing moment in time.

Joseph Grigely’s wall of simple paper notes also draws on the most ordinary aspects of the daily experience of being human. Colorful recycled post-its, sheets from memo pads, folded napkins, scraps of torn paper of all kinds are pinned up edge to edge to form and fill a perfect rectangle, a geometric not-painting flush against the wall inviting the viewer to contemplate the passing thoughts and feelings of scores of anonymous—and probably unwitting—contributors whose scribbled notes have been assembled here. Polite or acerbic, passionate or simply business-like, these throwaway texts form a fascinating pattern of interrupted, essentially temporal human-to-human (or self-to-self!) communications, spontaneous in their original intention but transformed into a kind of gently ironic timeless status by their inclusion in the artwork. We are asked to reflect on the relationship between the public and the private, the relativity of meaning and ephemeral intentions…

And then there are Allan McCollum’s surrogate paintings, lines of small black monochromes which mock the art of painting, the viewer, and themselves; Jimmie Durham’s videotape in which the artist is seen simply smashing whatever happens to be brought to him by willing participants, and handing them a signed certificate in exchange; and Monika Weiss’s moving work about books, their physical properties and their intellectual content… and the tyrannical act of burning them.

And more, too much to mention here. I found myself engaged throughout, constantly shifting in intellectual position and emotional response. The “up” side of the Miami experience remains the reassurance that our artists will continue to surprise and challenge us with their investigations into the unknown and the unknowable, and their inventive forays into the infinite possibilities of creative media.

Back home in California, I gather that you, too, Bush, are exploring infinite possibilities. None of them good. I have some catching up to do before we talk again. In the meantime, forgive these long digressions.

Miami Airport

2006-12-10T07:17:00.000-08:00

I have to tell you, Bush, that this is the worst I have ever seen. Unbelievable, the lines. First to get your boarding pass at the ticketing desk, a twenty minute wait. Then to check the bags in at the x-ray area. Another twenty minutes--and we were jumped to the front of the line at one point because our time was getting short. And then security. Another twenty minutes. The whole process about an hour of waiting in line. At the security check-point, with long lines of people waiting to reach their boarding areas, they had only two of four gates open for business. Still, we all waited with remarkable calm at each stop. Conditioned, I suppose. I'm not sure who to be angrier at, though: that tiny confraternity of terrorists who started all this, the panic that dictates such stringent security against so small a prospect of actual threat, or the airport administrations and the various airlines for their remarkable inefficiency.

I had thought to have left enough time to make a full report on yesterday's art fair activities, but alas, I have no longer the time nor the head for it as I sit waiting to board. Shouldn't be too long. So I'll try to catch you up tomorrow, assuming that I'm up and about in time.

Art... and Money

2006-12-09T05:04:00.000-08:00

It's easy to be cynical about this whole thing, Bush. I mean, where else can you see people dolled up in their designer best lining up to crash the doors to get at million-dollar merchandise like those less wealthy folks at Macy's for the post-holiday sales? It's a pretty disgusting spectacle, when you think about it. And yet... as a friend astutely pointed out at dinner last night, there's something satisfying about the complete nakedness of this greed parade.

Ah, yes. Money. The ka-ching of the cash register is loud and clear here at Art Basel-Miami Beach. The prices are so outrageous, you wonder where people can possibly get the money to afford these high-priced trophies. You see an artist you could have acquired a few short years ago for a mere couple of thousand dollars selling works for fity, sixty, a hundred thousand dollars... and more! You kick yourself for not having bought them when you could have done: my God, you could sell them now and make a more than handsome profit! Or you kick yourself for having sold a piece five years too soon.

So the talk here, Bush, is all about money, and very little about art. It's a fair, for God's sake. What else to expect? We art jungle denizens love to exchange self-righteous exclamations of horror at the beastliness of it all, but here we are--a good number of us with checkbooks in hand, in some cases buying stuff which no self-respecting artist would have allowed out of the studio unless some hungry dealer had happened by and snatched it from his hands. Big name stuff sells. Go around the booths, you'll see the red dots everywhere there's a De Kooning or a Johns, a Gerhard Richter or Gilbert & George. Believe me, Bush, thanks to you and your policies, the money is out there amongst the wealthy, and they're happily exchanging it amongst themselves. As to just how much of it trickles down, well... no bets there.

So there you have it. Our day was simple: we started out with a few-block walk up to Aqua, another of the satellite fairs, intending to stop by and make a quick tour of the two floors of this deco hotel taken over by lesser-known galleries from throughout the country, and ended spending four hours at this one location. We enjoyed the less formal, less expensive atmosphere, and found the dealers eager to talk about their artists and the work. We even managed to find an artist or two in the melee, and handed out not a few Bush Diaries cards. And were ourselves parted with a bit of money.

Up the street to Pool, another, still smaller satellite fair, where we ran into a couple of old friends amongst the dealers and stopped for a bite of lunch, and pushed on under a gentle rain shower to the main fair again. It was getting toward late afternoon at this point, and we managed only a couple of hours--maybe another eighth of the total, leaving about a half uncovered for our last day, today. We found a small Cuban restaurant on our way back home, and were happy to stumble upon good people from Los Angeles. Good to have the opportunity to sit and chat and get to know each other better.

That's all that time allows this morning, Bush. I trust you're looking forward to a relaxed weekend to come up with a solution to your problems in Iraq. I'll probably get to read a newspaper again tomorrow, to catch up with your doings. Until then, well... don't worry too much about the rich. They're doing okay.

Art, Artists... and Some Politics

2006-12-08T05:05:00.000-08:00

I don't know what you've been up to these past couple of days, Bush. I haven't seen the news, haven't read a newspaper. Haven't had the time. This place is amazing. it's not just the Basel/Miami Art fair. There are ten other, concurrent shows. We must have seen the work of a tousand artists yesterday, and we barely scratched the surface. Great names you would recognize, Bush, like Picasso, Matisse, Georges Braque--giants of the early twentieth century--along with those of only slightly lesser fame: Balthus, Duchamp, Max Ernst... Then, too, the prominent--now mainstream--artists of the second half of the twentieth century, many still alive and working: Rauschenberg, Rosenquist, Wesselman, Frank Stella, Andy Warhol (hundreds of these, it seemed!) and countless others.

Okay, Bush, I know. A bit of a yawn, these chestnuts, at this point in time. We've seen a lot of them. But what's amazing is the sheer multiplicity and diversity of creative endeavor. There are the paintings, of course, and millions of them; and drawings and prints, and assemblages and collages, and relief works and sculptures; and then the films and the videos, the sound pieces, the performances... Massive works--so immense, you wonder however they got them in here--and tiny, erotic and bland, fascinating in the detail and starkly monochromatic. There's everything, Bush, that you could imagine... and more.

We started out the day at the renowned Rubell Collection, where they had installed an exhibition of current Los Angeles art, and were startled to find out how many L.A. artists we had no idea existed. Many of them we knew. John Baldessari, Chris Burden, Charles Ray, Paul McCarthy--these are the pioneers and the teachers, the ones whose work has opened doors for the younger generation. I was impressed with a huge Jason Rhoades "Chandelier"--a vast, ungainly, and yet strangely appealing arrangement of neon wordage, complete with all the cables and transformers; the words were all euphemisms for the feminine genitalia. Just what you'd need over your dining room table at the White House. A conversation piece.

All in all, a good show, and one which gave a good impression of the vitality and diversity of visual art in our home city. The crowds were uneblievable. The streets all around the warehouse building were jammed with traffic, and in the building itself there were places where it was simply impossible to move. Better, then, to walk from the Rubell's to our next destination, Pulse, one of the ten satellite fairs, where the artists were for the most part slightly less well known--and a tad less expensive. (I haven't talked about money yet, Bush, but you'd be amazed at the prices of some of these artworks; and amazed that people acutally vie with each other to pay them.)

Rather more interesting than Pulse was Nada, another satellite, where the galleries and their artists are supposedly more "cutting-edge" than the others. We travelled there, this time, by a kind of bicycle-propelled rickshaw, with a cheery driver who chatted with us happily along the way and accepted, at our destination, not a fare but a tip. Nada proved to be a much more approachable affair, with less crowded aisles and young dealers who were willing and eager to talk about their wares. We noted a couple of artists ourselves, whose work was interesting enough to consider affording. At least it was within our price range...

Back to the main fair toward mid-afternoon, where we found a pleasant spot in the adjacent Botanical Gardens for a chocolate (P) and pistachio (E) gelato. Delicious. The enthusiastic proprietor even insisted on bring us seonds. A couple of hours, then, in the fair, where we covered perhaps a quarter of the acreage of art--ranging from the aforementioned Picassos and Braques to the only slightly lesser known, and only slightly lower-priced major artists of our own time. Much to be happy about here. The creative spirit is still very much alive in our times, and it does feel good, Bush, to be in touch with that side of our human existence. So much more positive than the world of politics, in which we usually find ourselves engrossed.

A note of politics, though, here and there. Ellie and I were particularly attracted by an artist who works with books and paper, scraping and shaving the material into interesting transformations. The one that initially attracted my attention was a book, laid neatly on a pedestal, whose cover had been scratched to inscribe a new title: THE WAR HAS BEEN LOST. Oh, Bush, you would surely have been displeased by the clarity of this satire. For me, I have to say, it tickled my fancy.

A fine dinner at Talula's, and a pleasant walk back to our hotel through the bright, crowded streets of Miami Beach.

Technorati tags:
art, art fair, Basel/Miami Art Fair, bush, george w bush, miami, president, Rhoades

Privilege

2006-12-07T05:02:00.000-08:00

Did I tell you I was coming to Miami, Bush? I think I may have neglected to mention this earlier in the week as I had planned. Too many other things to talk about, I guess. But anyway, here we are, Ellie and I, in Florida. The sun is rising in the wrong place as I write--over the ocean, where it's supposed to set. The time is all wrong. Last night it was warm, even muggy, until midnight...

We came here for the international art fair, Art Basel/Miami Beach, and the place is jam-packed with art folks celebrating their own importance. I took good note of all my habitual judgments coming up, about the extravagant wealth of the privileged few on ultra-glamorous parade. And I was outraged, Bush, having called two months ago to arrange for it, to find myself bereft of the VIP pass I had been promised by the fair administration on the telephone. ME! Excluded! Can you believe it? I have my press credentials, of course, which will allow me almost universal access. But where shall I be without a VIP pass?

Absurd, right, Bush, to be so outraged? We managed to make our way around the fair without one--although we were denied access to the only area where there was food and drink, and we had eaten nothing since early morning at the airport in Los Angeles (and don't get me started on American Airlines food and service: at one point, when the dreadful croissant sandwich I had been sold for $5.00 by way of "lunch" began to leak all over me, the attendant told me sharply to use my newspaper when I asked for a napkin! The sandwich was inedible after the first bite.)

So no food, no drink until very late in the evening, after we had left the "vernissage"--that unnecessarily chi-chi art world word for an opening event--and we had to walk a ways before we found it. The food, I mean. Still, it was fun discovering Miami Beach--my first visit here, Bush, in brother Jeb's territory!--at night. A glimpse of all those famous deco facades. Fancy hotels. Music everywhere, most of it at head- and heart-pounding volume. A zillion people jostling, elbow to elbow, in the streets. A festival of life, and light... and noise. Unbelievable, Bush, the noise!

Anyway, I concluded this morning, on waking early, that my outrage had all to do with privilege. I was outraged that some people should be considered more important than my worthy self and treated accodingly. How dare they! Forgetting, of course, in the heat of the moment, just how much privilege I have in my own life, how much more I have had the grace or simply the good fortune to achieve and receive: as a pampered Brit, "old school tie" and ancient university, with a nice--though eroding--British accent; as a white male immigrant, admitted to the privileged American middle class; as a resident of sunny Southern California; as one privileged to live and work as he pleases, and to gripe about his exclusion from the ranks of the VIPs at the Miami Art Fair; as the owner of a King Charles Spaniel, for God's sake. So much...!

Ah, yes. I woke this morning to the sun rising over the wrong side of the ocean and had a good inner chuckle at the pettiness of my outrage, Bush. And I felt a lot of gratitude for the all privilege I have in life. I thought about Darfur. Baghdad. New Orleans. How about you? It's humbling, really, when you think about it. No?

Balance and Play: an Alternative War on Terror

2006-12-06T09:40:00.000-08:00

Part I: Balance

This year’s senior oration at Brown University was delivered by Greta Pemberton who said, in part:

In life, the method doesn’t have to be meticulous and the results don’t have to be repeatable. From here on out, we get to figure things out playfully. We can teeter around, arms outstretched, until we find those good balances between isolation and community, between service and self, between action and contemplation.

Since my own college graduation in 2002, Bush, I have tried to absorb knowledge about politics, and about the politics of my personal life, as well. Although I have much to learn about how to be happy and successful, there are a couple of lessons (or metaphysical “laws of the universe”) that have emerged over and over again. I ignore them at my own peril and so, too (it would seem) do nations.

Greta Pemberton alludes to both of these lessons in her oration. The first is balance; as Greta notes, “between isolation and community, between service and self, between action and contemplation.” These are truly words to live by, and they, more than words like “incompetence,” “arrogance,” and “hegemony,” explain why America stands paralyzed, five years after 9/11, with no coordinated response and no current path forward.

America is unbalanced. As the world’s only superpower, she is isolated among nations, having forgotten, or never learned, that successful leadership requires a balance of isolation and community. Within our borders, we usually remember that no one is above the law (not even you, Bush, whose extension of executive authority will shortly pass under the white light of scrutiny). But outside our borders, we have scoffed at international law and ideas like “fair trade,” which might help lift all boats together. Our thinly veiled strategy inside the global village is to amass money and influence, period.

Naturally, this kind of imbalance is not unique among nations. But we are leaders. We have the awesome responsibility and opportunity to impart a guiding ethic onto the world. Do we really want that ethic to be: “Might makes right?” Are we then surprised when the world’s response to that is often hatred, and that that hatred sometimes (at the extreme fringes which we cannot ignore) boils over into violence against our citizens?

I think its important to note that, in terms of protecting the safety of Americans, it doesn’t matter that terrorist tactics are immoral. It doesn’t really matter that America’s enemies are using her as a scapegoat to further their territorial or fundamentalist ambitions. What matters, ultimately, is that we have failed to connect with the world, to become part of the community. Until the world at large views America as neighbors rather than (military, economic, cultural) overlords, we will continue to be attacked, we will continue to be used as scapegoats, and we will continue to have to resort to violence to enforce a semblance of order.

Balance between isolation and community. That’s the mandate of the powerful and I hope that - despite your utter obliviousness to it, Bush, and despite the credibility we have lost during your tenure - we can begin to address it in the next Congress.

In an upcoming post I’ll discuss the idea of “play,” which Greta also discusses in her oration. Play might just be that root cause which tells us why our nation’s leaders are failing us.

The Oil Addiction

2006-12-05T07:20:00.000-08:00

I wonder, Bush, how the world would look today had we elected George McGovern instead of Richard Nixon, back in the early 1970s? I wonder how it would look had we honored President Jimmy Carter's pledge to end US dependency on foreign oil instead of increasing it, as we have done? I wonder how the world would look had we not swallowed--hook, line and sinker--the bait of the giant SUV and embraced the electric car instead of killing it?

These sadly idle thoughts inspired by two recently-viewed DVDs in our household, Bush: "One Bright, Shining Moment"--the story of Senator George McGovern and his run for the presidency against Nixon in 1972; and "Who Killed the Electric Car"--about the design, brief life and premature death of General Motor's EV1, a vehicle much loved by its owners and equal in performance to its gas-consuming cousins but soon recalled for demolition by the manufacturer.

I voted for George McGovern, Bush. No surprise there. He was among the most liberal of politicians of the past fifty years. He was also clearly a thoroughly decent, caring, intelligent man of absolute integrity and perhaps precisely for those qualities was roundly mocked and soundly defeated by the red-blooded American electorate. We reelected Richard Nixon instead, and look what we got. A prolonged and unnecessary war in Vietnam. More needless deaths--on both sides of that conflict. And Watergate.

As for Carter's pledge, this was no idle promise. It was delivered with an unquestionable seriousness of purpose. I didn't write down the exact words, but I can assure you they were unambiguous. Never again, he said--and I paraphrase--will we allow this country to be held hostage to the interests of foreign oil producers. Well, we know what happened to that solemn vow. Ronald Reagan soon put paid to those good intentions, and we were back on the mainline.

The EV1? A wonderful little car, by all accounts, with enormous promise for the future. It was capable of driving perfectly acceptable mileage before recharging, and the battery technology was already dramatically improving. The new hybrids, as I understand it, have capitalized on developments for the electric car. And yet no sooner had the public begun to cotton to its potential when GM got cold feet, pulled back the entire fleet, and literally crushed it. The short-term profits from the despicable Hummer and other SUVs--promoted by the hype machines which had all but ignored the EV1--were preferable to energy independence and the future of the planet.

In the McGovern film, such terrible reminders of the long-denied similarities between our ill-fated ventures in Vietnam and Iraq. "I will never be swayed," said LBJ, by those protestors in the streets. By the will of the American public, then. Not unlike your good self, Bush. Remember the promise of "Vietnamization"? Handing over the responsibilty for the war to the Vietnamese... Sound familiar? It may be a cliche, but history certainly seems to be repeating itself as you dig yourself ever deeper and ever more stubbornly into the bloody hole of Iraq.

Thanks to my reader for having alerted me to these two important movies, Bush. You'd do well to spend a couple of hours with them yourself. As a former alcoholic by your own admission, you should understand something about addiction, particularly the ways in which denial can blind you to the realities that surround you. Sadly, despite all the talk of change, I heard your recent pronouncement on Iraq in a news clip: "When all's said and done," you said, "I will make decisions based on principles--and I'm not changing my principles."

Which doesn't bode well for Iraq, for the United States and its military forces at risk there, nor for the future of the world.

Technorati tags:
bush, electric car, EV1, george w bush, McGovern, oil, president

Iraq: The Rumsfeld Memo

2006-12-04T07:20:00.001-08:00

A great dinner party last night, Bush! Great food, great company, great conversation, good wine to loosen the tongue... And especially good to be in a house whose every wall and niche is occupied by provocative art works and a wonderful, pristine collection of American ceramics. It's surprising how rarely art takes this kind of prominent place in a lived environment, and alwys a real pleasure when we come upon it. This was a place, like our own, where there is something to attract the eye no matter which way you turn. Small talk, big talk, lots of stories, anecdotes, plenty of laughter around the dinner table... Just a terrific evening.

This morning's news: still the Rumsfeld memo. Aside from the duplicity it revealed--not only Rumsfeld's, but also yours, in those pre-election days when you were clearly more concerned with getting votes than with the welfare of those troops you so readily accuse others of failing to support--I was apalled by the paternalistic tone and the assumptions it suggested. "Stop rewarding bad behavior," your Rumsfeld writes simplistically. And "reward them for their good behavior." "Start 'taking our hand off the bicycle seat.'" The clear assumption: the Iraqis are a bunch of children, whose good and bad behavior warrants reward or punishment from a "Father knows best" daddy. If this reflects the depth of thinking at the top level of the Defense Department these past four years, it's hardly surprising to find ourselves in the mess we're in. This kind of shallow thought ranks up there with "Stuff happens."

Rumsfeld's "laundry list" is further evidence, too, of the absence of any serious strategic planning in your administration. To come up with this kind of off-the-cuff, back-of-the-napkin stuff bespeaks a confusion, a desperation, and cynical indifference that boggles the imagination after so many months of warfare, so many American lives sacrificed, so many Iraqi citizens slaughtered. Let's see, it says, we could try this, we could try that... And if all else fails, we could go "below the line" and consider even undesirable options. There's no real substance to this memo. It's a throwaway. What monumental arrogance and care-lessness. And this from the most powerful nation in the history of the world.

I was surprised to hear, as a kind of aside in the news this morning, of your Bolton's resignation from his United Nations post. Not by the resignation, but by the lack of interest with which it seems to have been received by the media. Perhaps there's more to come.

Technorati tags:
bolton, bush, iraq, memo, president, rumsfeld

Crime Wave in Venezuela

2006-12-02T07:14:00.000-08:00

It was disheartening to read the article in today's New York Times about the current crime wave in Venezuela. I'm sure you're delighted to have a bludgeon with which to belabor your friend Hugo Chavez, Bush, but I'd like to believe that this it not what socialism is all about. When I read that "homicides are up 67 percent since 1999," I'm horrified for the people who must live with the insecurity and the daily danger such a statistic suggests--and I read further to discover (surprise!) that these are mostly the poor.

It seems that the Chavez policy is to have the police go easy on the criminals, perhaps in part to give the appearance of social concern. But it seems also--if the same report is to be believed--that the police themselves are the source of some of the murderous violence. That age-old disparity between the rich and the poor is evidently not the outcome of one particular political ideology if, in oil-rich, socialist Venezuela, the poor are still victimized by both social discrimination and virtually unchecked crime.

It would be nice to believe that the purported values and the good intentions of socialism--the political philosophy in which I, Bush, as I have mentioned in the past, was brought up believing--would lead to something approaching social justice. It would be nice to believe that those you personally despise and distrust could create a better situation for the poor than the more conservative-minded. I would be nice to see satisfying results from the Chavezes and the Castros of this world. Alas, no. Poverty, social injustice, neglect of the needy persist. Who was it said, The poor will always be among us?

It's not about what we preach, as human beings or as political idealists. It's about what we practice. And it seems, sadly, that that discrepancy, too, will always be among us.

Controlled Chaos

2006-12-01T19:49:00.000-08:00

Posted by Cardozo

This blogosphere amazes me, Bush. It provides a snapshot in vivid colors and wonderfully varied colloquialisms of what people are thinking, all around the world.

Today’s snapshot of America shows that life, in all of its many forms, rolls merrily along in this country despite the madness your administration has wrought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some of my favorite bloggers are focusing on domestic issues like feminism (see skylarkd’s strident defense of public breastfeeding in Life as I Know It), while some merely dabble in political punditry while allowing themselves frequent forays (see Gone Mild’s mouth-watering education on winter ales) away from the daily life-or-death that is America’s foreign policy.

We’ve sunk into a kind of controlled chaos in relation to rising death tolls of soldiers and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. When we talk about those crises, our voices quake with passion. We curse and spit at the television screen. (Or, like PeterAtLarge in this morning's entry, we wax incredulous at the extent of your career advancement, Bush.) But then we move on, and this is partly due to a "success" of yours. As you’ve said repeatedly, “we’re taking the fight to the terrorists abroad, so we don’t have to face them here at home.” That’s true enough for now. Even though your preventive wars have clearly bolstered anti-Americanism and put us all, ultimately, in greater peril, there has not been a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.

I’m thinking maybe we are too set in our ways. Too self-absorbed, perhaps. The utter nonsense in Iraq and Afghanistan – the absolute and absolutely unnecessary horror – has ultimately failed to arouse Americans to any particular action except voting your party out of Congress. Is this all we’re made of? The Mexicans have a simple recount, and they are out in the streets marching! They’re camping out on the steps of the capitol!

I am not one to complain, having adjusted quite comfortably to our state of perpetual purposeless war. It just amazes me that the only clear sign of discontent with your administration’s gargantuan blunder are public opinion polls, editorials…and blogs.

"The President"

2006-12-01T07:44:00.000-08:00

I was listening to an interview with your Rice this morning, Bush. She was going on in that scolding, "I can't-beleve-you-don't-get-this" tone about "the President" this and "the President" that, and I realized that I cringe inwardly every time I hear those words applied to you. I don't like to think of myself as a Bush basher, but every time I hear "the President" applied to your good self... I don't know. Is it disbelief? Anger? Something comes up that is deeply rooted in a sense of usurpation, of a man acting in a position far beyond his capacity and desserts, something fraudulent and incongruous. You are now, it seems to me, virtually the only man in America--no, the world--who clings vainly to the belief that you are somehow a capable "decider" and "leader", that you know what you're doing up there in the elevated position of this country's highest office. I have to confess that see it all as a sham. Which is why, then I hear those two words, "the President", I feel that cringing sensation in the gut. "The President?" I wonder. "What President? You mean... Bush?"

Bush and Maliki: The Un-Snub

2006-11-30T06:40:00.000-08:00

I think I know a snub when I see one, Bush. I'm a Brit. We've been practitioners of this not-so-subtle art for centuries. It's in the blood, along with the stiff upper lip, the nose in the air, and the inbred knowledge of who's who and what's what. And--sorry, Bush--no matter how you slice this one, no matter how your palace people spin it, this was a snub. You hop on your Air Force One amid great advance hoohah, you make a stopover in Latvia to get a kiss of approval from the lady president there and tell your NATO partners--unsuccessfully, it seems--that you're expecting more from them by way of help to fix your other problem in Afghanistan; and then on through the darkening skies to fulfill the purpose of your odyssey--that meeting with al-Maliki--and you find out just before you land that he has decided to postpone it. Now that's a snub. (I suspect he was smarting, Bush, from that report that your people leaked to the New York Times before you left--the one in which your national security advisor questioned his competence and authority. And who could blame him?)

Oh, I know you had your meeting with the King of Jordan. He had something different on his mind, however. His main concern was the continuing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians which he sees to be at the center of all Middle Eastern problems. Many agree with him. Me too. One of the less discussed failures of your administration's foreign policy since your taking of the White House in 2000 has been the scandalous American neglect of an issue to which your predecessor brought much energy and passon. While Clinton reached the very brink of success, but lost out in the end, there were still avenues to pursue, and your apparent distaste for exploring them has certainly contributed significantly to the deterioration of relations in the region. Even this past summer's war between Israel and Hezbollah, the invasion of Lebanon and the simultaneous battle with angry Palestinians to the south failed to provoke much more than a yawn from your administration.

Now, it seems--perhaps in recognition of King Abdullah's willingness to host your meeting with al-Maliki--your Rice stays on in the Middle East as you fly home and meets with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, all smiles and handshakes across the conference table. Too little, many think, and much too late to repair the damage done. But I do hope that this might still open the door at least a crack.

Meanwhile, there is total confusion on the subject of Iraq. Before leaving Amman, you continue preaching solidarity with Iraq, faith in the government there, and eventual victory: "getting the job done." Your "study group" is talking "gradual withdrawal"--a bow to Democrats and, now, the vast majority of the American people; but without a timetable--a bow to you. They're likely to recommend direct talks with Syria and Iran---which you have once again unambiguously ruled out. They're also sure to recommend intensified training of Iraq's security forces, army and police--a strategy that has already proved disastrously misguided. If all the combined might of the American military and that famous "coaltion of the willing" has failed to pacify that troubled country in three years, how can anyone possibly expect results from a ragtag group of poorly trained, poorly motivated men who are themselves divided by sectarian loyalties?

It's sheer bloody chaos, Bush. I recall that boast, not so very long ago, that you were the "uniter", not the "divider." But all I see now, everywhere I look, is division, disagreement, dissenssion, dischord. And that's a lot of "diss." I don't envy you on your return to what you have created in this country. And, alas, I see it only getting worse.

Technorati tags:
al-maliki, bush, jordan, maliki, president

Revising Nationalism or Condoning Slaughter: Part II

2006-11-29T08:20:00.000-08:00

Posted by Cardozo

I was heartened to read of the Israeli Prime Minister’s proffered olive branch to the Palestinian leadership – a wholly unexpected bright spot in what has seemed a never ending cycle of dreadful world events. This news reminded me that compromise and the high road still exist, and must always, because…

I refuse to believe in the inherent maliciousness of humankind, or of any individual human being. Is this my Achilles heel, Bush? Does it reflect a naiveté, preventing me from arriving at sound opinions on world affairs until I rid myself of its intoxicating illusions? Perhaps. Nevertheless, the belief in the goodness of humanity is what propels and surrounds me; without it, I would not be Cardozo but some other being.

Clearly, the goodness inherent in all creation is not generally assumed in politics. Otherwise you would not go around creating axes of evil. Neither would Osama bin Laden launch a jihad against massive populations of “infidels,” nor would governments employ capital punishment to snuff the life out of those who commit murder.

It is equally clear that a belief in evil incarnate has failed to bring about more good in the world. Death, disease, and dis-ease are as rampant now as they were in any page of the history book.

How would it change the world, if, as its superpower, America began to assume that its enemies were not acting out of an endemic badness, but something else? Would it alter your strategy in the “war on terror” if you had absolute faith that inside the body cavity of every suicide bomber from Gaza to Saudi Arabia lurks a beautiful, if corrupted soul?

I would never suggest that terrorist atrocities go unpunished. But it’s time to try out a more nuanced strategy in combating violence, one predicated on the belief that violent people are driven to violence by hatred and a sense of victimization (real or perceived.) And while hatred is inflamed by more hatred, it will always succumb, in the end, to compassion, understanding, and perspective. (The pillars, by the way, of progressivism, Bush.)

Why does the world revere Ghandi, King, and Mandela – the great exemplars of passive resistance? Because, Bush, these leaders risked both life and limb; staked them on the idea that hatred can be diffused by incontrovertible evidence of our common humanity. The world makes heroes of such men. The idea strikes a chord. How about we try it for a while, by investing in the hope of peaceful coexistence between ourselves and the entire league of nations? There are many who would gladly wipe us off the map entirely, if given the chance. Can we win them to peace by showing restraint, not bloodthirsty vengeance? By showing humility, compromise, and an acknowledgement that we, too, have sinned?

What might such a foreign policy look like, in practice? That’s the debate we need to have.

On Being Right... Or Not

2006-11-29T06:31:00.000-08:00

Posted by PeterAtLarge

You'll forgive me, Bush, if I make another brief aside to talk to my passionate friend, whose comment on my entry yesterday I read with much interest. My response, though, is addressed as much to you, Bush, as to my reader. It's this: that it's not always about being right. It's not about having the right definitions, the right data, the right historical facts, the right side of an argument. It's not about moral rectitude. What I'm talking about is just as important as all that. I'm talking about the ability to see around the corners of my rightness, to see the cracks in its surface, to take a look at it from the flip side. It's about having the humility and the humor to take my own rightness with that proverbial pinch of salt and to realize that others, too, might just possibly have some rightness on their side even--no, especially--when I'm convinced that they're wrong. When I act or argue from the advance knowledge that I'm right, I speak out of prejudice: I pre-judge. So it's about tone. It's as much about the way I try to tell you what I mean as the rightness of my words. To take a Buddhist approach, it's about not being "attached" to my rightness. It's a matter of reminding myself, always, to have a little com- with the passion.

That's the sermon for the day, Bush. Take it with a pinch of salt. I could be wrong. But of course I don't think so.

Racism, Again

2006-11-28T06:08:00.000-08:00

Racism. It has been on my mind, Bush, as you know. I have been writing about Daniel Mendelsohn's "The Lost." I was disturbed by the Michael Richards rant and the response to it. I wrote about his apology on the David Letterman show and have taken note of the many dismissive reactions I have heard to that apology. I heard a report last night about his session with the Rev. Jesse Jackson, and was pleased that Jackson himself saw in it an opportunity for national self-examination and discussion. I frankly see little chance of that happening, but I do agree that it's way past time for us to acknowledge the systemic racism that persists in America to this day, and to begin to find ways to heal. The first step of those famous twelve is to come out of denial.

As I've said only recently, Bush, I do acknowledge the racism in myself. I know that it's buried deep in the unconscious mind, that that it surfaces only rarely. I try to be watchful, and take note when it does. And I try to at least be attentive to the racism in others. And I have to say that I'm not a little dismayed--no, angered--when I see the state of Israel compared to Nazi Germany in the comment section of these pages. I censor no one, but there are times when the comments are so wildly out of whack with my own thinking that I almost wish I could. This one reader--and I do welcome him and thank him for his loyalty to The Bush Diaires--has recently contributed such vitriolic comments that I simply can't let them pass without some response.

First, I do not by any means believe that the state of Israel should receive a free pass. No nation is above criticism, and Israel surely comes in for its share. But to label an entire nation "Zionist" and to lay the blame for virtually every tension with its neighbors at its door is to ignore the history even of the recent past. Since the Oslo agreement, every effort toward peace on the part of Israel, every concession offered or made has been met only with increased hostility and violence. What are you to do when your small piece of territory is bombarded daily by a hail of rockets? When children and, most recently, old women are used to carry bombs into your populated areas and blow your innocent citizens to kingdom come? When most of your neighbors loudly proclaim their belief that you should be wiped from the face of the earth? When governments embrace this as thier policy?

If my reader who is so insensed about Israel that he compares it with the Nazi state in Germany, let him read "The Lost." Let him understand what institutionalized racism looks like. Let him experience from the other side, the victims' side, the meaning of discrimination, what the life of an ordinary citizen might be in a state whose official policy is their extermination. When not only the Germans but the Poles and Ukrainians who had for centuries been their neighbors, turn suddenly cruel and hateful when given the opportunity to unleash the basest of their racist instincts. I anticipate that his response will be to draw attention to the plight of the Palestinians, and certainly there is much work to be done--and, yes, by Israel as well as by their own leadership--to address the very real issues that plague them.

Of course there is a racist element in Israeli society. How could it be otherwise? They are human beings, and all human beings, I would argue, do harbor these ignoble feelings. But institutional racism? I don't see it. The national policy has more to do with self-defense, survival, preservation of the state, its protection from attack and eventual destruction than with any racial prejudice against their neighbors and their own non-Jewish population. The racial hatred, as I see it, spouts from the mouths of the Ahmedinejad's of this world, from the leaders of organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah who preach it as the policy they embrace.

Beyond my disagreements with him, though, I am bothered almost as much by the tone of my reader's comments. I love passion, and I believe he is passionate in his opinions. But the line is thin between passion and vitriol, and my reader crosses that line to his own detriment. His arguments are offered in the guise of rational discussion, but they would carry more weight with me if they came less freighted in their tone with an anger and narrowness of vision whose source, I suspect, is unconscious and unintended racism. I acknowledge my own prejudices, and am willing to be called on them when they appear. My hope is that my readers would do the same.

And given that latest fatal shooting in New York, Bush, The Rev. Jesse Jackson has it right. It's time for a national dialogue on the reality of racism in our own society.

The Lost (Part II): Impossible to Know...

2006-11-27T06:42:00.000-08:00

Posted by PeterAtLarge

I spent a good part of the day yesterday finishing my reading of The Lost: A Search for Six of the Six Million by Daniel Mendelsohn. The last time I wrote to you about it, Bush, was on 11/21, if you care to look back in the archives, and I was thrilled to find a comment posted on that entry from the author's brother Matt, a photographer, who accompanied Daniel on many of his travels and figures prominently in the story, and whose photographs appear on many of the pages of the book. The pictures, many of them also from family archives, are small, faded and grainy, and their details are hard to make out--an entirely appropriate visual analogy to the author's struggle to make sense of the past.

It was odd, Bush, to find myself sitting out on the sunny balcony of our cottage on the Southern California coast, embarked on a journey through times and places so dark and distant that they might have seemed unreal, had they not been evoked with such poetic truth.

Because this truly is an epic, Bush--a modern Odyssey which takes us on a journey into the past which is part historical narrative, part detective mystery, part Biblical exegesis, part scholarly research, part family saga, part personal confession, part cultural history and in the end, all in all, a poem of epic proportions. It will make you--as they say of certain movies--laugh and cry, though I'm sure you'll do more crying than laughter, given the atrocities that are all too often described, and the heartache of those who were forced to experience them or, if spared, to watch their loved ones victimized before their eyes. It takes five years of study and travel, interviews, recordings, and photography for Mendelsohn to approach his destination and then, finally, to understand that what he was really looking for is unreachable.

But not quite, because we have Mendelsohn's text, the journey, which turns out to be in itself the goal. We have the writing. We have the phtotographs. His search for the factual truth concerning those six lost family members becomes, in his words, "narrower and narrower" as he travels the globe to turn up more and more telling details from the fading, never fully reliable memories of rapidly aging survivors--an extraordinarily rich and engaging cast of characters.

To Mendelsohn's "narrower and narrower"--speaking of the focus of his attention as the narrative proceeds--I would only add "deeper and deeper." Traveling ever further into the depths of the human psyche, the agony of not knowing, of knowing too much, of confronting the ultimate truths, for all of us, of the battle for survival and inescapable death, we end up, as you'll see--I refuse to disclose the "mystery" of this story--in the bowels of the earth, the darkest place of the human soul where moral truths become murkier and more agonizingly ambiguous even as the factual details become clear.

I myself have "known" about the Holocaust. I have seen those terrible films, the photographs from the death camps. I have read some of the books. I was myself alive already, while these events were taking place, not more than a couple of hours by air from where I lived. Other than the (for me) fortunate accident of birth, I could have been that child speared by a pitchfork or thrown from a third story window to the street. But this was not England, where I was born and where, certainly, those German bombs dropped, but Eastern Europe where Daniel's six family members were "lost" to history, swallowed up in the enormity of the Nazi crime--a crime not limited, as Mendelsohn recalls, to Nazis. Nor to the Poles or the Ukrainians who all too readily joined in the slaughter; or even only to those Jews who acted as enablers, betrayers of their own friends, neighbors and family in the misguided and usually futile attempt to ensure their own survival. It was all of us, who failed to prevent its happening, or who failed--as did certain of Mendelsohn's family, to their lasting regret--to respond to desperate appeals for help from America, for transportation out of that hell while it was still possible to leave...

But then I realized as I read this book that I have never "known". That it is, in fact, in the phrase to which the author constantly returns, "impossible to know." But thanks to Mendelsohn I know a lot more than I did. His story, in all its rich complexity and refusal to accept the first or the easy answers, in all the limitation of its scope to a single family, though millions died, in its insistence on the personal and on personal responsibility, opened up the door for a deeper knowing of the Holocaust and its meaning for mankind than I had ever had before, and I thank him for it.

If only all the world were to read this book, I thought, as I sat there in the improbable Sunday sunshine on my peaceful balcony with his book in my lap, there might, there just might be a lesser chance that we would find ourselves repeating that dreadful history.

But then I look to Darfur, and now to Chad, and to the world standing by and, at most, wringing its impotent, unwilling hands, and I'm forced to wonder, Bush. I'm forced to wonder if it will ever end.

Technorati tags:
bush, holocaust, mendelsohn, president, The Lost

Iraq: A Picture--Worth a Thousand Words

2006-11-26T09:33:00.000-08:00

I was struck by this picture on the front page of the "Week in Review" section of today's New York Times, Bush. Such bright eyes, this young insurgent has, with his rocket launcher at the ready, and his Koran (bottom right). So very sad. I was searching for the anger there, the defiance, the revolt... and I found only a deep well of sadness. A despair. I suppose others would project other feelings into those dark eyes, with the rest of the face masked. But I saw only sadness. I found myself wondering how old he is, what else he might be doing with his life? What his father or mother might be thinking, feeling? Pride, fear, anger? How many brothers and sisters he might have? How long he might have to live? How many of his own people he might have killed, or be called upon to kill in the coming days, weeks, years? How many of ours? What do you think, Bush?

The War on Christmas

2006-11-25T06:29:00.000-08:00

Today it's official, Bush. I'm declaring the start of my first annual War on Christmas. (I would have done it yesterday, Black Friday, which seemed the most propitious date, but the War in Iraq raised its ugly head and it would have been hard to compete with the news of more than two hundred dead, so I postponed my own declaration until today.) This news should hearten those who have fantasized the existence of such a war in the past, and who will now have something real to get their teeth into.

Yes, Virginia, there IS a War on Christmas.

My casus belli? Or should I say casi belli? I'm a little rusty with my Latin plurals these days, but there are many of them, Bush. Here's an admittedly incomplete list (with thanks to Ellie for her contributions):

Jingle Bells
Department store Santas
Shopping mall Santas
All other sources of fraudulent HoHoHos
The escalation of the gift war
Greetings cards with images of the family
Greetings cards with images of Rudloph the Red-Nosed Reindeer
and all other forms of wildlife and domestic animals
Sleigh bells
Santa Claus wish lists
Bing Crosby singing White Christmas
Images of airports filled with frustrated travelers on my TV screen
False advertizing
Pseudo snow
Pseudo holly berries
Pseudo mistletoe
Pseudo good cheer
Egg nog, all too real
Hypocrisy, particularly the pretense that this is all about Jesus
Sony Play Station 3
Nintendo
All other games, toys and dolls that stimulate the spirit of violence among children
Sleigh bells ringing
Neglect of the hungry and the homeless
Credit card purchases that cripple the family budget
Jingle Bells
Traffic jams
Angry drivers on the freeways
HoHoHo
Faux Christmas trees
Abandoned Christmas trees littering the streets in the coming weeks
Christmas decorations appearing two months before Christmas
and strictly for reasons of commerce
Self-righteous breast-beating about Christian "values"
Dogs and cats in Santa hats
Rampant paranoia
AM radio (any station)
Elevators, shopping malls, supermarkets and department stores
and all other locations with wall-to-wall Christmas "music"
The abject pretense of goodwill to all men (and presumably women too)
Jingle Bells

As I say, Bush, it's only a partial list, but it provides me with sufficent cause for my personal declaration of war.

With this declaration, I hereby welcome all volunteers to the cause--a coalition of the willing, if you will--and I expect each member of my volunteer army to bring his or her own casus belli, along with the only weapon I will allow in our pursuit of eventual glorious victory: words.

Call me Scrooge, Bush. To which I'll just say, Bah, humbug.

Oh, and by the way, I can reassure all my volunteers that I have what you notably failed to provide for in your War on Iraq--or indeed, in your larger War on Terrorism: a guaranteed exit strategy. Mine is called, in England, Boxing Day--the day after Christmas when all good Christians do penance for their excesses, nurse their hangovers, and return their unwanted presents to the store for cash or credit.

Have a good one, Bush.

Revising Nationalism or Condoning Slaughter - Part I

2006-11-24T09:44:00.000-08:00

Posted by Cardozo

Since I began contributing to this page, I’ve often spoken of my impatience with the “good versus evil” theory that drives your foreign policy, Bush.

The terms of the theory, of course, are simple euphemisms. “Good” refers to America and anyone who supports her. “Evil” refers to anyone who disagrees with her to the point of taking up arms. Would you agree with these definitions? In other words, it is the preservation of the status quo of American dominance (conflated and equated with “good”) that underpins our foreign policy.

Thus, I wouldn’t go as far as some on the far left, who argue that racism, tempered by military and economic realities, determines which countries are branded with an “E” for evil on your war room map. (If race alone comprised the litmus test, your friends the Saudis would never have escaped inclusion in the “Axis of Evil.”)

No, it seems clear that plain old Nationalism – that scourge, that harbinger of war, that ever-ready excuse for all manner of atrocities – lurks, as always, behind the rhetoric and diplomacy. And I won’t blame you for the persistence of runaway Nationalism, Bush. Bill Clinton played the game too, as have each of your other predecessors, to my knowledge.

And as the death tolls mount on both sides of the Iraq conflict, and as Democrats preach eagerly to the choir (which now includes basically everyone) about your administration’s strategic incompetence, I wonder if it is time to begin discussing Nationalism, the elephant in the room.

There is one sure-fire way to prevent Americans from being targeted by suicide bombers, and that is to stop pissing the suicide bombers off. This strategy seems only too obvious, but is never seriously discussed by the President, in Congress, or in the mainstream media. Why? Because any policy revisions undertaken during a “war on terror” amount to a validation of terrorist tactics, and a violation of the great American dictum of non-negotiation with terrorists. Quite a corner you’ve thus painted us into, Bush. And one can see that it is your (and the neocons’) ultimate victory. In the context of a never-ending, global war on terror, America can never make substantive changes to her foreign policy.

So congratulations are in order, Bush. Regardless of outcomes in Iraq, it seems your larger failure - your refusal to grapple with the causes of anti-American sentiment- will remain unchallenged in Washington.

Another Black Friday--in Iraq

2006-11-24T08:16:00.000-08:00

I was planning to write a light-hearted piece this morning, Bush, about the beginning of the Christmas rush (did you see some of those clips on television: crowds lining up for hours to be first to hit the stores?) but the truth is, I'm not feeling too light-hearted.

Black Friday over here is supposedly when retailers break into the annual profit zone: Black Friday in Iraq is just another Friday, when the good people begin to bury their dead from Thursday. For us, yesterday was Thanksgiving Day. For them, just another day of slaughter at the market. While we plump turkeys over here were stuffing ourselves to the gills with plump turkey and stuffing, those desperate folks over there were once again busy killing each other by the score. The result? Over two hundred dead, I hear this morning, Bush, at the hands of suicide car bombers.

There's nothing, then, to feel light-hearted about. My mind keeps coming back to this awful truth: we created this mess. Well, no, we didn't create it. The roots of hatred have existed for more centuries than this country has, Bush. But we did trigger the current bloodshed, with our brash invasion and our failure to foresee its consequences. Even if we concede that pre-emptive war was an excusable way to take out a bloody dictator and protect our access to his fossil fuel resources(I don't), the failure to foresee the consequences and prepare for them remains inexcusable.

The responsibility for this dreadful mistake lies at your door, Bush. Is it not now finally time to be accountable?

Thanksgiving

2006-11-23T07:44:00.000-08:00

Happy Thanksgiving, Bush! I wonder what blessings you're counting this morning. Not too many of them, on the political front at least. Nor in the world at large, this time around. The latest outrage in Lebanon doesn't help the situation in the Middle East. As for me, well, as you might guess I'm giving thanks that we'll soon have Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, and perhaps, finally, hopefully, some accountability in Washington. Something to celebrate, at our end. Not that I'm one to crow...

But seriously, Bush, I'm sure that you and I both are thankful for some of the same things. For family, above all, and friends. For those who love us, and the love they give. For everything we have learned in life, even the hard lessons. For myself, for having been blessed to reach an age in life where I can enjoy a certain detachment, a kind of wisdom. And a greater ability to slough off the anxieties of the ego and just love, and live, and let live... I say "greater" in the full knowledge that I'm still capable of the tantrums, the petty acts of selfishness.

Ah, well. Speaking of petty, I have one more thing this year to be thankful for, Bush. A new car. The day before yesterday I'd have called you crazy if you had suggested such a thing. But then I took my Prius in for a minor service... and came out with a brand new one. They made me an offer I couldn't refuse. It seems that the demand for used Priuses (Prii?) is such that the Toyota folks are so keen to lay their hands on one for their sales lot that they're prepared to make special offers on their new ones--which are now more plentiful, I hear. So my thinking is, I did a double favor to myself and the environment: in making my old Prius available to another (soon-to-be) happy Prius owner and in acquiring a new one myself, I have effectively doubled my contribution to the health of the planet and can feel even a little bit more self-righteous as I drive the freeways.

So there you have it, for this Thanksgiving Day. Have a good turkey, Bush, down there in Crawford. I assume you're back at the ranch for the festival. Best of everything, your PaL.

Racism: The Richards Rant

2006-11-22T14:17:00.000-08:00

I didn't see any more than a few clips from the now-notorious Richards rant, Bush. It was ugly. Like most people, I guess, I had known him only as the goofy Kramer on the Seinfeld show, and had always found him endearing in that role. But what he showed that night at the Comedy Club was ugly, no two ways about it. I did find his apology on the David Letterman show, however, and there could be no doubt that the man was shattered by the experience. He offered no excuses, acknowledged the rage that opened the way for his tirade, and made an apology that was too spontaneous, too halting, too vulnerable to disbelieve.

The key parts of the apology, for me, were two places where he seemed to recognize that this was not some aberration, but rather a deep truth about himself that he needed to address. Near the end of the interview, he said simply and, to me, believably, that he had "personal work to do." While he insisted in almost the same breath that he was "not a racist," that recognition of the racist in him was more important than the more proper--and much more familiar--insistence on denial.

I tend to believe that we are all racists, Bush. It's a distressing part of our human heritage. We struggle to hide it, but I don't suppose there's a person alive who is free of racist feelings and reactions. Some of us are ashamed of them, and work hard to keep them out of sight--our own and others'. And some are not. Some seem to take pride in them. But for those of us who know in our rational minds that racism is wrong--dishonorable, arrogant, instinctive--something from which we would want to dissociate ourselves at all costs, it's important not to slip into that comfortable zone where we allow ourselves to forget our baser selves, the dark side of our being.

So that Richards rant, as I see it, was a healthy thing for our society. It was not pretty, certainly, but it held the mirror up for us to look into and see some part of ourselves--whether black or white: the part that hates and rages. (The part, Bush, too, that declares war on other human beings.) Particularly healthy, too, was Richards' refusal to let himself off the hook with a quick, easy apology, and his understanding that he had "personal work" to do. I honor him for the recognition, and for acknowledging the hurt he inflicted on himself and others. His rage and the outburst of hidden hatred was grievous. His stunned recognition and regret, an example to us all. Let's wish him a difficult stint of personal work, and an eventual recovery.

Technorati tags:
bush, kramer, letterman, michael+richards, richards, seinfeld

Sharks or Asses: The Potential Impeachment of George W. Bush

2006-11-21T21:00:00.000-08:00

Posted by Cardozo

That is the question facing Democrats, Bush, when they walk into the chambers of Congress in January as the new majority party. When Nancy Pelosi wakes up in the morning on her first day as Speaker of the House, dons her snappy business suit and casts a final glimpse in the mirror before heading out to change the world, what will she see?

If she sees a shark, Bush, you are in very serious trouble. Sharks, as you know, are attracted to the smell of blood, and yours currently flows from a thousand self-inflicted wounds. If Pelosi does see a shark, you will only have yourself to blame for the inevitable circus sideshow to follow. Well, yourself and the GOP establishment who dramatically lowered the bar for impeachment back in 1998.

Of course, there are other possibilities. Ms. Pelosi may be in no mood for this fight, just yet. Her mirror’s image might present the mighty Donkey: the aptly plodding, moody, stubborn symbol of the Democratic Party. This would be fortunate for you, Bush, because the Donkey would probably rather keep you around, now that the country has seen you without any clothes.

Which begs the question: what should Nancy Pelosi see? As a stateswoman, as a leader in her party, as a citizen and as a human being, what is the right course of action? The stakes couldn’t be higher.

Progressive voices are split on the issue of impeachment. (See here, here, and here for some takes from the liberal blogs.) The question, of course, is strategic rather than substantive, because progressives are rightly united in the belief that adequate causes for impeachment exist, and in plenty. The founders created impeachment to prevent the accumulation of excessive powers by the Executive Branch, which describes, to a tee, your particular brand of high crimes and misdemeanors.

The ramifications of an impeachment battle for the nation are the real issue, and because of this I believe you should stay in office (unless of course, you decide to resign out of contrition, which is just fine). Yes, you have tried, and in many cases succeeded, in obliterating the checks and balances that were erected to avoid tyranny. Yes, I believe you deliberately manipulated the American people into supporting a foolish nation-building scheme. Yes, you have shown utter disregard for laws protecting our cherished civil liberties.

But you have not done so in a vacuum. Your expansion of executive powers happened right before our eyes and, in the case of the Iraq invasion, with the explicit, bipartisan consent of Congress. In so many ways our country was not prepared for 9/11. We are a politically immature nation. This immaturity should be the focus of a national trial in which we the people impeach a select few of our prevailing national ethics. For one, the mythology of “good versus evil” that fosters xenophobia among the public and diplomatic impatience among leaders of both parties. For another, the “look out for #1” mantra that impedes any meaningful national dialogue about political issues.

These cultural idiosyncrasies, more than your perfidious power plays, Bush, are ultimately responsible for the mess we are in. And when Nancy Pelosi and other congressional Democrats look in their mirrors come January, I hope they see themselves not as sharks and not as donkeys, but as leaders who will turn the mirror back on all of us and usher in a national day of reckoning to answer the question: how did we get to this point?

Technorati tags:
bush, congress, democrats, founders, impeachment, pelosi

A Jewish History

2006-11-21T06:24:00.000-08:00

I'm a goy, Bush, as I suspect you are, too. I could, actually, consider myself something of an honorary Jew, having been married to one for now these thirty-four years, plus a few days. But I choose not to. I choose not to identify myself with any faith or religion--although, as I've mentioned at odd moments in the past, I'm closer to Buddhism than any other. I guess one reason that I'm hesitant to declare myself such is the sense that it would feel like an act of presumption on my part: I still feel like a newcomer.

All this, though, Bush, because I'm reading a terrific book called The Lost: A Search for Six of the Six Million by Daniel Mendelsohn. You know who the "Six Million" are, right? The victims of the Nazi Holocaust. This is not a review. I have read barely a hundred pages out of many hundreds more in this huge tome, but it already seems to me like one of those truly important works of enormous dedication that should be read by everyone--but probably won't be. In the hundred pages I have read, I have learned more about the history of the Jews--ancient, medieval and modern--and more about Judaism, the religion, more about the culture and the ethos of the Jews than I have in thirty-four years of seders. And I don't mean to be trivial.

I have also learned a lot about my wife, Ellie's story-telling techniques, which have often mystified me, sometimes even aggravated me in the past. As you know from reading these pages that we write together, Bush, I'm a straightforward kind of a guy when it comes to the story. I aim for the concise. I aim for precision and clarity. I like to get to the point, get it said, and move on to the next. Ellie, on the other hand, meanders. She'll start a story and digress into three others before she reaches the conclusion of the first one. She adds-on endlessly. Sometimes, good goy that I am, I sit there squirming, impatient for her to get back to the point. She usually does. But not always. Sometimes that too gets lost.

If I mention all this, it's because reading Mendelsohn's book has made me realize something about the effectiveness of Ellie's approach--maybe something, too, about its origin. Mendelsohn meanders shamelessly, with abandon, weaving in and out from one topic, one story-line to the next, so that we're sometimes trying to keep up with three or four narrative threads at one and the same time, from Genesis and the stories of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah, to the horrors of the medieval hounding of the Jews from country to country, the pogroms, and the final atrocity of the Holocaust, even as we follow the intricate personal story of the author's family from the mid-eighteenth century to the present day. I tell you, Bush, it's quite a feat. And a marvelously rich and compelling tapestry of Jewish life, history and thought.

I'm looking forward to the rest, though I admit it's quite a slog in terms of the sheer time of the read. But Mendelsohn engages us both intellectually and emotionally in his search for those six lost relatives, and is willing to narrate the journey toward their discovery only slowly, with all those asides. The asides are, after all, a good part of the journey.

They say you've been engaged in a reading contest this year with your Rove, Bush--to see how many books you can read, I presume. This one won't help you along in that contest, because it requires more time and patience even than those Shakespeare plays you're purported to be reading. Still, I recommend it to anyone who wants to learn about the peripatetic, often tragic, and very human history of the Jews. Aside from anything else, it helps one better understand that fierce, uncompromising, even aggressive dedication to the preservation of the tiny piece of territory that was set aside for their state in the wake of World War II.

More of this later, I'm sure. In the meantime, welcome home, Bush. Are you home yet? I presume. But the news media are not paying much attention if you are. Is it possible that you have already become, er... irrelevant?

Technorati tags:
bush, holocaust, Judaism, Mendelsohn, religion

In Vietnam

2006-11-20T06:45:00.000-08:00

Nice duds, Bush. That ao dai. You look good in blue. I like the gold trimmings, too. Kind of rich. But what's with the scowl? Things not going your way?

Or perhaps it was just a weird feeling, being in Hanoi? The description of your visit to Vietnam in yesterday's New York Times and its comparision of your visit there with Bill Clinton's visit six year ago was depressing: the gregarious Bill, the reclusive George; the expansive Bill, the secretive George. The Bill who loved nothing better than to wade into crowds and who insisted on making a lunch stop at a local noodle shop. The George who, according to the Times report, spent only 15 minutes ouside his hotel on a single non-official event.

Still, according to your national security advisor, Stephen J. Hadley, even though you did not come into direct contact with the Vietnamese people, you managed to "connect" with them anyway. Said your Hadley, "If you'd been part of the president's motorcade as we've shuttled back and forth, [you'd have seen that] the president has been doing a lot of waving and getting a lot of waving and smiles." (Which reminded me, Bush, of your driving past Cindy Sheehan in your motorcade in Texas last summer--minus, of course, the smiles and waves.) "I think he's gotten a real sense of the Vietnamese people and their willingness to put a very difficult period for both the United States and Vietnam behind them."

Wow! All this from a motorcade, behind bullet-proof glass. I have to hand it to you, Bush, you really can read the minds of those people on the streets. I guess the waving and smiling says a lot. Bill, of course, could feel their pain--but everyone laughed at him for that.

On to Indonesia, on the grand tour. I gather that it was a flying visit to the largest Muslim nation on the face of the earth. Six hours on the ground. And massive security. No overnight stop, too dangerous. Ah well, I guess with your superhuman abilities to connect at speed through bullet-proof glass, you got a real feel for the Indonesian people too. Though from what I read and hear, there were more hisses and boos than smiles and waves from these particular visitees.

Home again soon, though, Bush. And back to Crawford, I bet, for the Thanksgiving feast. After Thanksgiving, I'll let you know about my planned preemptive war on Christmas. Just something I'm cooking up...

Technorati Tags: President bush Vietnam Hadley Indonesia

Women in Politics:Vive la Difference

2006-11-18T08:50:00.000-08:00

Good to see that the French have voted for a woman to represent the Socialists in their forthcoming presidential elections, Bush. They've made Segolene Royal look like a bit of a harridan on her "site officiel"--that's French for "official site," Bush--and I wonder why they would have chosen to do that. Still you have to wonder whether things are changing in the world of politics, what with Nancy Pelosi taking on the Speaker's job in the House, a slew of new women in both houses of Congress, and now this news from France!

What's next, Bush? Hillary? No comment from me yet, on that subject. I'm still skeptical about her nose for the political winds. But I will say that I'm looking forward to seeing more women in powerful positions throughout the world. They can't make more of a hash of it than we men have done with our macho posturing and our territorial imperatives; and who knows, they might prove to be a benevolent force for peace and unity. So I say, Bush, to borrow a not-so-felicitous phrase from your own recent past, "Bring 'em on!"

Iraq Study Group: Baker & Cheney

2006-11-18T08:18:00.000-08:00

Here's an interesting picture of your two great mentors, Dick Cheney and James A. Baker III in today's New York Times, Bush. A nice ambiguity. You could read it either way: the image of a two-headed monster, or of two men headed in opposite directions, with Baker the more prominently placed. No way to determine which it is, though, at least until the Iraq Study Group comes out with its report and recommendations. Both of these men, though, are grim-faced, wouldn't you say? Not surprising, given the mess you've passed on to this committee of elders to clean up.

Anyway, the Times reports that the group has been having discussions with Syrian officials about how Syria might be induced to help with the situation in Iraq. It must be a bit galling for you, Bush, having kept a studied and morally superior distance from Syria in the course of your administration, as you have done with that other "sponsor of terrorism", Iran. You and your Condi have been frostily stand-offish when it comes to the "axis of evil" and their friends. We see the results of this vain, ideological policy: more bitter emnity, more chaos in the Middle East, the building of nuclear weapons by Iran, the war in Lebanon, the growth in support for those terrorists who cause us so much grief... The opposite, really, of what you had presumably intended.

Let's hope that Baker and his chums can talk some sense into you, Bush. It seems, for the moment, that even the majority of the American electorate has failed to do so, since I still hear you blathering absurdly about "victory" in Iraq. The lesson you claimed yesterday to have learned from the Vietnam debacle was that it takes time to achieve success when you get yourself into a bloody quagmire. When you say such things, what I hear is still "Stay the course." Wrong lesson. The lesson from Vietnam was surely that we had no standing there in the first place: it was a civil war, we got ourselves caught in a bind between two implacable foes. The lesson was surely that the deeper the hole you dig, the harder it is to climb back out of it.

My fear, as I was saying only yesterday, is that Baker's group will be more concerned with saving your pretty face than with coming up with a real and lasting resolution. Let's hope they have the guts to do the latter.

Go Nancy: The Speaker Speaks

2006-11-17T10:28:00.000-08:00

I didn't want to be hogging your time today, Bush, especially with you being on a trip and all, but I'm good and steamed by all this nonsense around Nancy Pelosi. From the faux storm that's blowing among the overpaid blowhards regarding her support of Rep. John Murtha and his defeat for the House Majority Leader's job, you'd think she had chucked her gavel in the village pond before she starts to pound it.

Here's the dissenting view: she did a great job. She took a stand. She lost. She accepted the loss and moved on with good grace. So there was disagreement. So there was wrangling and argument. So it wasn't tidy. But isn't that what your "democracy" is all about, Bush? Well, actually I'm pretty sure that's not quite your concept. From everything you've said and done for the past (nearly!) six years, and despite your frequent mouthing on the subject, democracy for you seems to be about authority from above, about loyalty, about hewing to the party line.

I don't happen to see it that way. What I've seen happening amongst the Democrats is healthy democracy at work, in my view, and damn the editorialists, damn the alarmist media, damn their know-it-all pundits, damn the Republicans rubbing their hands--and even those Democrats wringing theirs. Have we all been so benumbed by your "rule", Bush, that we have forgotten that this is how it's supposed to happen? Even John Murtha himself is clear about the outcome.

So good on you, Nancy, as those Aussies like to say. Don't go listening to everyone who knows so much better about everything. They full of it. Go ahead and risk being on the wrong side of the argument sometimes. Then pound your gavel and get started on what needs to be done.

Technorati Tags: speaker pelosi murtha democrats

Religion & Politics: The Hudood Law

2006-11-17T06:17:00.000-08:00

Listen, Bush, this does sound like good news at last from Pakistan on that infamous hudood law--the one that demanded four male witnesses from women accused of rape, or threatened them with adultery charges if they failed to produce them. Well, semi-good. Your, er... good friend, Pervez Musharraf seems to have been forced by world opinion into a reform that is seen as at least a partial vindication for those who have been pressuring for relief from this medieval, draconian, religiously-inspired law.

This week's amendment to the law approved by the Pakistani lower house of Parliament, as I understand from reports I have read, allows rape cases to be charged in civil rather than Islamic courts and removes the four male witness requirement. It also allows for the consideration of forensic and circumstantial evidence in addition to the absurd reliance on eye-witness testimony. As a concession to the religious opposition to the change, however, it upholds the law against "fornication," by which a woman may still be charged with a legal offense in cases of adultery. This, it seems, is the sop to radical Islamists and the continuing bone of contention among those fighting for women's rights.

Revealing, I thought, was what Musharraf felt obliged to say in his address to the Pakistani people about the passage of this controversial law (the fact that it is even controversial in this day and age is almost incomprehensible to the Western mind): "I assure the entire nation," Musharraf insisted, "that no Pakistani can ever think of enacting law that is repugnant to the Holy Koran and the Sunnah”--the recorded teachings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad.

You see how troublesome it becomes, Bush, when you add religion to the political mix. We would do well, however, not to be too smug about Muslim influence in Pakistani law while we continue to allow the radical arm of the Christian right to influence our own political issues here at home. I think, of course, of the Terry Schiavo case last year, when your Republicans in Congress enacted legislation in the attempt to keep a poor brain-dead woman alive--and you rushed back overnight from Texas to sign it in a flurry of publicity; of the road blocks you personally have set up against the progress of stem cell research; of the continuing battles over the teaching of "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution in our schools.

So let's not be pointing our fingers, Bush, at the Pakistani people; let's not be scoffing too loudly at their backwardness in matters where we ourselves are none too forward-looking. But special thanks are due to writers like Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times, whose efforts to bring world attention to this particular barbarity have surely played a large part in the eventual passage of this halfway measure in Pakistan. It was his story of Mukhtar Mai that first brought my attention to the dreadful hudood law, and I'm sure that of many others. And more importantly, let's not forget to honor that brave woman herself, and all those who chose to risk not only their reputations but also their very lives to fight against this injustice.

Technorati Tags: bush hudood musharraf pakistan kristof

Those Auto Industry CEOs...

2006-11-16T07:46:00.000-08:00

Posted by PeterAtLarge

Just a note from your PaL, Bush, about that session with the US auto industry giants in the Oval Office. Isn't it more than a little pathetic to see our country's corporate leaders come crying to the President for help? I mean, isn't it a bit late for that? Had they been thinking ahead some twenty years ago, they'd have the cars that we consumers want these days. Look at the exponentially growing number of Toyota Priuses you see on the city streets and in the mall parking lots. It's a phenomenon. Instead, they went hell-bent on producing their gas-guzzling SUVs and spent billions marketing them to the American consumer. Take a look at the monsters spilling over their lanes on the freeways, Bush, and dwarfing the average parking slot. Who needs them? Families of sixteen?

And while we're on the subject, had these guys no idea, twenty years ago, that the dual crisis of climate change and dwindling resource would be upon us? It seems disingenuous of them now to blame spiraling health insurance costs and pensions for their problems, and lay responsibility for their own mismanagement and lack of foresight at the door of the workers.

Still, with your knee-jerk support for corporate welfare, Bush, you welcome these guys in your White House. If only you could evince a similar concern for those who lose their jobs, or earn a bare minimum wage to keep their families alive, or live with the threat of disastrous medical costs. I'm frankly repulsed by that picture of grinning executives in their expensive suits.

Technorati Tags: bush "auto+industry" corporate environment toyota prius gas

Character Counts

2006-11-15T17:33:00.000-08:00

Bush, you emerged from your meeting with U.S. Auto Industry CEOs talking about "our dependence on foreign oil," "fair trade vs. free trade," and "the rising costs of health care."

Congratulations, you have put your finger on some of the most pressing issues we face in this country. My question is...so why don't you do something about it? Why don't you use the bully pulpit to lead us toward some solutions?

Here is what you told the media and the American people regarding the health care crisis you identified above: "...I assured these leaders that the Government is addressing rising health care costs through a variety of initiatives that I think over time are going to make a significant difference not only in their cost, but the cost to the U.S. taxpaper, as well."

Well done, Bush. Very specific. In fact, I'm tempted to stand on my street corner holding a sign that says, "Support the President's 'variety of intiatives.'!"

When it comes to oil, there is actually a great deal of substance you could say, and have said in the past. Deep down, Bush, I do not believe that you want to be a nation-builder. (On this point you were fairly eloquent and even showed some genuine-seeming conviction during the 2000 presidential debates.) Which may explain why there was no plan to win the peace in Iraq or Afghanistan. You don't have the stomach for it, do you? You don't want to take over Iraq's oil. In fact, you don't care a lick for Iraq either way. Your prime concern is and always has been preserving the status quo of American economic and military domination of the world. If Iraq is a military threat, let's take it apart. If Iraq is an economic threat because of its oil, why then, let's reduce our dependence on oil. Makes perfect sense.

The odd convergence of environmentalism and America's global economic interests has opened a window of opportunity. So why aren't we doing anything? Why aren't you on the airwaves pleading with us to purchase hybrid or electric vehicles. Why aren't you using your political muscle to force industry into making renewable energies viable NOW?

Answer this question Bush, and you will discover why America has lost faith in you.

Bipartisanship

2006-11-15T06:33:00.000-08:00

Posted by PeterAt Large

(A sad note before starting, Bush. I was telling you yesterday about Noah Purifoy's wonderful art work. Today I hear from an alert reader what I had missed myself: the artist died a couple of years ago in a fire, apprarently started when he fell asleep while smoking. He was found sitting in a wheelchair in his smoke-filled home, according to this report, with burns over 90 percent of his body. What a terrible end for so gifted a man!)

Bipartisanship. Now there's a mouthful. The word is as hard to say as its meaning is to practice, it seems, these days. I'm tickled by your own idea of bipartisanship, Bush. You seem to believe, in all sincerity, that it's enough to announce that you're open to new ideas--and then exclude all those that don't coincide with your preconceptions. On Iraq, for example, you're ready to listen to anyone with fresh ideas, you say, but not to anyone who fails to embrace your concept of "victory." (I've heard at least three pundits in the past couple of days who say they shudder at the sound of the word. I myself said as much in these pages not too long ago. As I hear it, most analysts agree that victory is likely to prove elusive, at best, and yet this idee fixe is standing solidly between you and any possible solution.)

Off the list of admissable new ideas, we hear, for this very reason, are several that have been floated in unison by both your friends and foes: some limited form of partition, designed to keep sectarian factions from each others' throats (Sen. Joe Biden's long-standing theory); approaching Syria and Iran, among other neighbor states, for advice and help (even your good friend Tony Blair put this one out in his transatlantic meeting with the Baker gang yesterday); and a timed withdrawal that would put the Iraqi "government" on notice that they need to take care of themselves as soon as possible.

The problem with the latter, of course, is that old Powell warning: "You break it, you own it." It would seem churlish, to say the least, after causing such deadly chaos there with our friendly invasion, to step back and simply tell the recipients of our benificence to go fix it. Partition does present all kinds of practical difficulties, obviously, and it flies in the face of your notion of a unified and peaceable government setting a noble example to the rest of those benighted people in the Middle East who fail to appreciate the niceties of freedom and democracy. As for direct talks with Syria and Iran--well, that would involve an awful lot of humble pie and nose-holding on your part, having scoffed at them and scolded them so roundly in what passes for your foreign policy.

So I do see the problem there, Bush, really. But "new ideas" are, after all, new ideas. You might need to bend your head around them. Soon. I don't hold out much hope for the Baker gang. As old friends of your papa, I think they're going to cop out, if only to save face for you, the Bush family, and its place in history.

Meantime, your Republicans are rubbing their hands over the apparent discord among top Democrats over leadership. Don't worry, Bush. I do believe they'll get past their differences and learn to work together. They might even learn to work with you, if you prove to be more open on other fronts than on Iraq. I believe also that they'll work for bipartisan solutions, if only for survival reasons, until the next election.

Given all the mouthings on both sides on the subject, I do love Michael Moore's magnanimous expression of bipartisan generosity in the letter on his current website--and also posted yesterday by a reader of these pages in the comment section. Thanks to him for bringing it to my attention. Moore's satirical bite offers more than a good chuckle, it also carries a whole lot of truth. Check out this "Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives", Bush. This one's worth reading.

Technorati Tags: Iraq bush Baker "Michael+Moore" Democrats

Fun with Video

2006-11-14T15:44:00.000-08:00

Thanks to DownWithTyranny for alerting us to the latest Son Volt video. Enjoy!

Reclamation

2006-11-14T06:15:00.000-08:00

The Art of Noah Purifoy
Posted by PeterAtLarge

Yesterday we were talking about the process of decay, Bush, if you remember. Today it's reclamation. I want to tell you about a special delight that Ellie and I stumbled upon in Joshua Tree. It's called the "Joshua Tree Environment." Or I think that's what it's called. We heard about it as the "Noah Purifoy's Outdoor Museum of the Desert." Either one would do. Whatever you want to call it, this is a truly magical place where the human imagination soars in a maze of art works so amazing that it's simply indescribable. You have to be there.

We were. Actually, we didn't just stumble on it. It took two tries to find the place, which is so remote that you have to negotiate several dusty, deeply rutted lanes in the far reaches of the town of Joshua Tree to get there. First try, we followed the directions we had been given and ended up nowhere. On a second try, we followed new directions and still had to improvise some of our own modifications to find it. We were glad we persevered on the second attempt.

Noah Purifoy recycles junk into art works on a massive--and, actually, also on and intimate--scale. If you didn't know better, walking into this acreage of impossible structures, you might mistake him for one of those great unschooled artists like Simon Rodia of Watts Towers fame, or Grandma Prisbey and her "Bottle Village." No. Purifoy clearly shares with them a curious love for the no longer needed, cast aside objects that litter our contemporary world, and a peculiar obsession with the processes and intricacies of construction.

But there the similarities end, because Purifoy is firmly and consciously rooted in the traditions of modern and contemporary art. He sees his roots in Dada, in the work of artists like Marcel Duchamp, Max Ernst, Kurt Schwitters and Hans Arp; and, looking the other way through the telescope, he himself has clearly exercised an enormous influence on successors like the Saar family, David Hammons, and countless others. He may be something of a recluse, he may be something of an iconoclast, he may be getting on in years, but Noah Purifoy is no folk artist, laboring in isolation or in ignorance of where his work stands in the history of art.

Okay, Bush. That said, a word about the work itself. Best take a look at the pictures first--and maybe read, in the same location, what the artist himself has to say about the work. It's worth a few minutes of your time. (You'll find the pictures at the bottom of the page I referred you to.) Purifoy has clearly taken the art of assemblage beyond those neat little constructions that, for the most part, preceded him, and enlarged it to environmental scale. Same with the idea of sculpture. These are art works that you walk through, or around, or clamber on--sometimes at your peril. They require your full participation and attention to detail.

Not having had a guide, I'm unfamiliar with titles or dates of individual works, but let's just mention a couple in particular. First, the big, semi-underground homeless shelter, through which you're invited to walk, end to end, through the mass of dangling rags of discarded articles of clothing and unsavory piles of rubbish, past rusting kitchenware and a wrecked bathroom, way past use, experiencing the dire circumstances and the mental fragility of those who are forced to dwell, in reality, in primitive shelters of this kind on the streets of our great, thriving cities. It's a sobering and humbling experience.

Or enter through the formal "portal" of a temple-like structure, dedicated, it would seem, to the gods of elimination. The columns at each side of the entry are stacks of white toilet bowls (Purifoy, like many other post-war artists, makes a great deal out of repeated imagery) and the wall of the interior "chapel" is lined, on one side, with a row of toilet thrones that invite the visitor to sit in contemplation. Amongst other things, it's a funny, outrageous, whimsical, irreverent and visually complex play on the world's architecture of religious institutions, from the Parthenon to the contemporary cathedral.

There are smaller, more traditionaly sculptural objects here, too, which juggle such wildly diverse objects as bicycles, baby carriages, and shopping carts with a myriad of odd cultural symbols: bowling balls, barbeques, beer kegs... often in a gentle rebuke to the values of our American society. As an African-American--oh, yes, Bush, did I mention this?--born in the deep South in 1917, Purifoy brings a personal and social history into play that is at times poignant, at times subversive, at times angry and satirical... and often simply joyous and celebratory, like this wacky railroad.

It's all about art, and it's all about life. It's all about the life of the imagination. It's about possibility, and change. I wish all America could visit this place, and get a taste of the energy, the humor, the curiosity, and the lively, irrepressible intellect of this eighty-nine year old genius. In the meantime, you could get a sense of him by visiting the Noah Purifoy website and learning about the artist, his work, and the foundation that has been set up to preserve it.

If you want to learn something about America, Bush, here's your chance.

Technorati Tags art desert george w. bush president

Entropy: A Reflection

2006-11-13T07:35:00.000-08:00

Or Perhaps an Elegy
Posted by PeterAtLarge

It's an education, Bush. Joshua Tree. The Mojave. A place of such incredible natural power and beauty, a person is simply overwhelmed by the grandeur of the landscape. That wonderful word "awe" comes readily to mind. It's humbling, as a small human being, to walk amongst those massive rocks and boulders, to gaze out at the sunrise or the sunset, to look down from a mountain top to the immense vista of the valley floor, and in this way to register a sense of scale that leaves us with a renewed perspective on our lives.

It's grand, inspiring... and at the same time a powerful reminder of the endless battle for survival, and the vital role of decay and death in that natural process. It's not only the plants--those which have adapted miraculously to an arid, rocky, inhospitable environment, and those which have not: their skeletons are everywhere in evidence, rotting in the desert sun... and providing, incidentally, a home for a myriad of more successfully surviving animals and insects. Not only the plants, but the rocks themselves, in the infinitely slow, but almost visible process of change, their surfaces eroding in the wind. You can feel it there, Bush: the Earth at work.

And then there are the works of man. A gold mine, high in a remote part of the mountains, its walls collapsed, its massive gears and crushing machinery rusted into silence, a testimony under the infinite blue sky to the short life of man's grandest and most ambitious plans... An old flatbed truck, the wooden boards of its cargo bed rotted, its upright steel frame locked in the inevitable process of decay, its engine block a solid chunk of useless metal... An abandoned mill, a heap of rubble out of which soars the spindly wreck of wind tower... Not long, we guess, before it, too, topples.

These are the lucky ones. They have become "picturesque," photogenic. Almost romantic. We tourists stop along the path and snap a nice shot with our digital cameras. Less happy are the other evidences of the hand of man. Vandalism. Ancient petroglyphs, "improved" with modern paint or marred with arrogant graffiti. Worse, Bush--you see it from the mountainside, looking down--the air pollution caused by our addiction to the consumption of fossil fuels. No question. Our stuff down there, ruining the atmosphere, fouling our own nest.

Does it count as entropy when the destruction of our environment is man-induced? I don't know. You can't help but think about this kind of thing though, Bush, when you stumble on a corner in the shelter of the rocks where there is evidence of grinding by the ancients who lived here, where a stick figure is painted close by on the wall of the rock, and where you can imagine those early humans practicing their survival arts with so little impact on the Earth on which they depended for surivival. You can sense their reverence for the natural world; just as, sadly, you see everywhere the evidence of our disrespect, and thoughtlessness, and greed.

Something to think about, on a Monday morning, Bush. I'm back. Somewhat chastened by my close encounter with that primitive world. We saw, with that great thrill you get from encounters with the wild, two coyotes, a rabbit, a couple of quail. But where were the rest of them, I wondered? This is their home that we invade--yes, me too!--with our cars and trucks, our recreation vehicles, our high tech climbing gear, our cell phones... This was their home, and we are the invaders with our destructive habits. No wonder they make themselves scarce when they see us coming.

Still, Bush, despite those thoughts, a great weekend. A great way to celebrate an anniversary. Have a good week.

Botero's Looking at You, Bush

2006-11-12T10:40:00.000-08:00

An interesting perspective on the incoming class of Senators and Congressmen in today’s New York Times, Bush. Unlike the “Contract with America” bunch that took Washington by storm in 1994, these “New Direction” Democrats seem interested in crafting policies that are palatable on both sides of the aisle.

Yes, this is only rhetoric at the moment, and you may be right to be suspicious, Bush. After all, Democrats are Democrats for a reason, and these Freshmen may have all kinds of tricks up their sleeves. Each emerged from a bitter campaign and probably are wont to shore up the Democratic majority (by any means necessary?) in order to ensure their own job security. Certainly, each sees him/herself as the next Robert Byrd or Ted Kennedy, standing righteously at their antique Congressional desk, hurling gracefully-worded epithets at rogue conservatives for decades to come.

But fear not, Bush, because the Tom Delay-style partisanship intended to result in a “permanent majority” was just roundly rejected by voters. Democrats are in a good position to learn this lesson and reach across the aisle toward solutions to the many, many pressing issues that have collectively forged America’s current image in the world, nicely encapsulated by Colombian painter, Fernando Botero.

Two or four years from now, what will Botero see when he peers into our borders? What will Hugo Chavez see? The British public? Muslim-Americans? The every day citizens of Iraq or Afghanistan? I know you well enough by now, Bush, to know that your grasp on power and your convictions about public policy have become inseparable – a very strange brew that has warped your ability to function as a statesman in times of crisis. Now it’s up to the Democratic rank-and-file to decide whether or not to force your hand toward compromise, for the good of the world.

America's Hangover

2006-11-10T14:23:00.000-08:00

America has been drunk for five years, and election day was our call for help. We’ve been drunk on your affected Southern charm, Bush. We’ve been drunk on blood: the blood of some who had a hand in plotting or condoning the September 11th attacks, as well as the blood of many who did not. We’ve been drunk on ourselves, and a belief in our own superpowers. (“Smarter than the United Nations…More powerful than suicide…Able to erect democracies in a single bound!”)

It’s been one hell of a bender, and we now find ourselves bleary-eyed, unshaven, and full of remorse. Sometime during our alcohol-induced stupor, our woman left us, and our best friends stopped speaking to us. Which doesn’t surprise us because, truth be told, we can’t even remember half the crazy shit we must have pulled. Our house is in absolute disarray. Looks like a Hurricane hit at some point.

The ironic thing is, Bush, that you, our leader, were sober during all of this madness. After 9/11, every last one of us lined up dutifully on the White House lawn, awaiting your orders. You had a 90 percent approval rating. We were willing to sacrifice. No, we wanted to sacrifice. Our collective confusion and helplessness was going to change the world. And so it did, but first you drugged us with half-baked evidence of WMDs and a phony link between Saddam and Osama. Then you sent us into war, foaming at the mouth, so drunk with rage that we forgot right from wrong. We forgot about decency and we forgot that the antidote to hatred and violence can never be, simply, more hatred and violence.

Now we are in need of healing, a process that we finally started on Tuesday by acknowledging that we are on the wrong path. But more soul-searching and more brutal honesty needs to be done. We recognized the consequences of rash action based on incomplete intelligence. And we understand that pride and self-worship has led to incompetence in warfare.

But all of this just puts us back at square one – exactly where we were on September 11th, 2001. The same question that confronted us then confronts us now: How do we respond to terrorism?

It seems pretty evident to me that our Congressional leaders, Republican or Democrat, do not have a workable plan. We’ve already seen the Republican plan: 1) hunt down and kill terrorists; 2) incite more Anti-American sentiment, thereby creating more terrorists; 3)repeat; 4)if cycle continues, invade random countries we hate.

The Democrats obviously do not have a better plan, otherwise they would not have voted (tails between their legs) to give you carte blanch power to go to war with Iraq. My frustration with Democratic elected officials on this issue knows no bounds. After all, we know the answer. The fundamentals of progressivism, if we would only listen to them, tell us the answer. Those fundamentals tell us that when people act out (be they children, criminals, or countries) they do so for a reason. Punishment, while sometimes necessary, cannot stand alone as a response to bad behavior. At some point you have to identify the underlying causes, and, when it comes to terrorism, this is the question we have been avoiding from the start.

Now that Democrats have no small measure of power, answering the question is up to us. Can we do it? What do you think, Bush?

The Senate, Too

2006-11-09T07:13:00.000-08:00

That's what I hear, Bush. The media vote-counters have announced that Jim Webb has taken Virginia. I'm still waiting for George Allen's concession, and hoping that we can all avoid the agony of another cliff-hanger recount. We'll see. Meanwhille, though, we can provisionally enjoy the prospect of Democratic control of both houses. Checks, Bush, and balances. That's the ticket.

Rumsfeld? I hear of grumblings from Republicans who have lost their seats--and other Republicans who have lost their power--to the effect that they are pissed you didn't take this action earlier. Even a week ago, when you were still swearing eternal loyalty, it could have made a difference, they believe, to the election results.

Pelosi? Coming to lunch at the White House today, they say. Hmmm. Bon appetit, Bush.

But this entry is intended just to let you know that I'm taking a few days off. Ellie and I have an anniversary coming up (34 and counting!) on the 11th--yes, Bush, Armistice Day, 11/11: we made it out of City Hall in time to toast the event at 11 minutes past the 11th hour--and we're driving out to Joshua Tree to spend a couple of days in the California desert. Don't get your hopes up, though. I'm leaving The Bush Diaires in the capable hands of my new associate, Cardozo, who will be posting as usual. As for me, I plan to leave my computer at home. The only downside to this luxury is the anticipated flood of email waiting for me Monday.

Until then, Bush, keep working on that "New Bush" I've been hearing about.

Your Rumsfeld: Full Speed... Astern?

2006-11-08T10:41:00.000-08:00

Sorry, Bush, back again--for the third time today. Just heard the news about your Rumsfeld falling on his sword. What a drama, eh? We had all been waiting for it, and the collective sigh of relief is almost audible through the wireless media. What I'm deducing now is this: that we'll soon be seeing an approach to the problem you created in Iraq that is far more pragmatic and far less ideological. Your "Full Speed Ahead" Dick Cheney and your Rummy will, I trust, recede into the background, while you begin to listen to more rational thinkers like James Baker, Lee Hamilton and, now, Robert Gates. Even the neocons, I hear, are stepping back from neocon-ism. Past time, but these are welcome harbingers of change.

As for your news conference, well, I'm afraid I joined it only towards the end. But I did sense--and heard in the wrap-ups of the commentators--that this was a somewhat chastened Bush who appeared before the press. "I never saw him as humbled as today," said one. "This was not the feisty, combative President" we're used to seeing, agreed another. One even went so far as to suggest that you might have heard the message from the voters.

I hope so, Bush. If it's true, I know we'll be much better friends than we have been sometimes in the past. Welcome, I hope, to the real world, where the climate is already seeming to improve.

Congratulations: A New Congress, and...

2006-11-08T10:16:00.000-08:00

... a Happy Anniversary!

Yes, Bush, my eyes fell on the date at the top of today's newspaper and I realized: it's our anniversary! Congratulations! We made our first entry in these pages exactly two years ago today, on November 8, 2004, just shortly after that year's disastrous (in my view!) election. It was on that day that I happened to stumble all unwittingly into the blogosphere and hit instinctively upon the name that has brought us... well, if not fame and glory, at least a few faithful readers: The Bush Diaries. Two years old today. Still an infant, really, but with a relatively short life expectancy: only two years to go.

They promise to be tough ones with, now, a Democratic Congress and, just possibly, a Democratic Senate. But they should be interesting, too. I'm looking forward to them.

Speaking of congratulations, I neglected earlier this morning to send mine to all those Democrats who put their hearts and souls into this election. Not only those who won in sometimes bruising races, but also those (like Steve Young in my congressional voting district) who contended valiantly and lost. To the Democratic leadership: to Howard Dean and his vision of a fifty state attack; to Senator Chuck Schumer and Rep. Rahm Emanuel, for their efforts on behalf of senatorial and congressional candidates respectively; to Nancy Pelosi, a real winner, and Harry Reid; and to all those who volunteered their time and effort, who worked so hard to counter the Republican machine, congratulations!

And congratulations, too, to my myriad fellow-bloggers. Congratulations especially to online organizations like MoveOn. I do believe their contribution was enormously significant, and will continue to be in the coming years.

I'm just happy that all those efforts were rewarded with the results we see today.

Election Victory

2006-11-08T06:41:00.000-08:00

I'm not one to crow, but I woke up this morning and checked out yesterday's election results and, well...

COCK-A-DOODLE-DO!

(Actually, the whole nursery rhyme, if you remember it, Bush, goes like this:

Cock-a-doodle-do!
My dame has lost her shoe,
My master's lost his fiddle-stick
And knows not what to do.

Cock-a-doodle-do!
What is my dame to do?
Till master finds his fiddle-stick,
She'll dance without her shoe.

Read that as you want to, Bush. I thought it might cheer you up. I myself got a chuckle when I remembered the bit about the master and his fiddle-stick. I wonder if he'll ever find that stick again. As for the dame... Well, I trust you to figure that one out.)

But seriously... You lost the House. The Senate, as of this moment, is a toss-up--though I was especially glad to see that both Jim Webb and Claire McCaskill won, since I made telephone calls for both of them through MoveOne.org. I'm sure there will be challenges and recounts, but I'm confident both of them will prevail and take their seats in the US Senate.

Otherwise, it's Nancy Pelosi with the gavel. (Maybe she'll be dancing now, without her shoe!) The bogey-woman your people have been trying to scare the voters with for the past few weeks... and months. "The worst nightmare of the Republicans," I heard on television this morning. But what a kick, Bush, to have a woman in the most powerful position ever occupied by a woman in the history of the country! And third in line for the Presidency. Which means, should anything untoward happen--God forbid!--to your good self, and should your Cheney's heart finally pop, we'd have our first woman President. I'd frankly like to see that happen. We men have done enough damage over the centuries. It would be good to see what a woman might bring to an office with that kind of power.

Still, for the moment, let's be happy with what we've got. I'm personally confident that Pelosi will not turn out to be the monster she has been made out to be. Her power does not extend to implement a personal agenda, not even the liberal one that she--and, yes, I too, Bush--would probably prefer. She'll have a good support base for whatever she does, with votes and to spare in the House. I'm happy to see that our two Sanchezes, here in California, were handily reelcted and will be back at her side. (Remember, Bush, my having mentioned a couple of months ago having met Loretta Sanchez and having been much impressed by her? Her complaint at the time was that your Republicans controlled everything in Congress, including the agenda. That will change now. We'll see what she brings to the table.) I was happy, too, to note that voters have put paid to the career of that one-man environmental disaster, Richard Pombo.

The agreement among the pundits seems to be that this election was about sending you a message. The voters no longer trust you or your Republicans to manage the affairs of this country with any degree of competence. They no longer believe your rosy predictions about the war. They no longer believe your assertions of moral superiority: they have seen clear evidence of the corruption and hypocrisy of your closest friends and advisors. They are no longer entertained by the spectacle of the toxic partisanship you have fostered in Washington, and the diviseness your rhetoric has promoted throughout the country.

The message, Bush? You must change. Sorry. I know it goes against your nature, but you must change. You must change the strategy of your war. You must make key changes in the upper echelon of your administration (hint: think the Department of Defense.) You must change the direction of your policies at home and you must listen to the opinion of those who oppose them. And most importantly, you must change that part of you that refuses to change. That's the message as I see it. I hope we might be able to agree on this and, soon, on other matters. Looking forward to it, Bush. Hope you are, too.

The Purple Finger

2006-11-07T08:36:00.000-08:00

Checking around the blogs today, I'm hearing about so many problems with the voting machines that I won't be surprised by huge delays after today's action. Maybe we should take a leaf out of Iraq's book, Bush, and get back to the old purple finger technique. We could all come out of the booth and wiggle one for democracy. I suppose the effect though, does depend on which finger you use.

Oh, and... if you have a couple of minutes, Bush, here's a nice montage of effects for Election Day.

Election Day

2006-11-07T07:51:00.000-08:00

First, a footnote to yesterday's entry on Saddam's conviction and his sentence. No small number of people have drawn attention to the amazing coincidence of Sunday's announcement, just two days before our election, Bush. More to the point, I think, is the convenient supression of reaction in Iraq prior to the election over here. The curfews there have effectively postponed any possible adverse response to the verdict, especially, of course, from the Sunni population. I can only conclude that this was done with forethought: this way, you get to do your little victory dance in front of the electorate (not unlike the one you've been accusing the Democrats of doing!) without the risk of bad pre-election news about the anger and dissent.

Anyway, today is Election Day. Finally. After the most expensive--and I think the most divisive--race in history. We'll have to wait until likely late this evening before we begin to see what shakes out. Meantime, this anecdote. I was talking to a friend at the gym yesterday, election eve. Well, more an acquaintance than a friend perhaps, but I’ve known him casually for about ten years. He was on an exercise bicycle, I was on the elliptical walker, which I happen to prefer. We were talking about the election.

Turns out that my friend--my acquaintance--Michael had not too high an opinion of you and your administration, Bush. Which did not especially surprise me. I think that many of my friends--most of them really--share that unfavorable opinion. It did surprise me, though, when we began to talk about voting:

Me: So I imagine you’ll be voting for Steve Young tomorrow? (He’s the Democrat, Bush, running for Congress in this heavily Republican Orange County district. A good man. I voted for him already, last week, by mail.)

Michael (cheerfully): Oh, I don’t vote.

Me (shocked): You don’t vote?

Michael: Not since the fiasco in Florida in 2000. Gore won. Bush lost and got elected. So what’s the point? (I’m paraphrasing a bit here, Bush, but you get the picture.)

Me (sputtering): Well, I can’t disagree with you about Florida. But even so…

Michael: You were just talking about distrusting the election process. (We had been, Bush.) In Ohio, right? Those machines?

Me: But even so, it's a responsbility to vote.

Michael: Even if I can’t be sure it will be counted?

Me: If you don’t vote, you can be sure it won’t be.

Michael: You’re contradicting yourself. You say you don’t trust the election process and then you tell me that I have to vote. You're asking me to trust what you say you don't trust yourself. As I see it, it’s a waste of time.

Me: So you won’t be voting then?

Michael: I’m not even registered any more. I haven’t been registered to vote since 2000.

Well, Bush, I have to tell you I was shocked. Here’s a bright man, young-ish. Married, with a little one. Had a car detailing business, then went into real estate. Of Irish descent, and from back East, where he has two brothers heavily involved in Democratic politics. And he's not registered, and not even bothering to vote.

How many more are there like this? I was doing calls for MoveOn.org the other day--did I mention this already, Bush?--and reached a man in the state of Missouri who was a registered Democrat and did indeed plan to vote. But not, he added, if he had to wait in line for three hours, as he’d had to do in 2004. Not enough polling places, not enough machines in his (heavily African American) district. How many more are there like this?

Ah, well, I guess we’ll see before the end of the day today. Or maybe not. I understand that there are armies of legal eagles out there, watching, from both sides of the aisle--the Democrats watching for unfair practices in the requirement of IDs and situations like the one described above; and the Republicans watching for “voter fraud.” So maybe by the end of the day we’ll be in a bigger mess than we are already, Bush. I can easily envision it.

Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, though. Let’s hope that we get a clear-cut verdict from the American people this time. Let’s hope they see through the bullshit of same sex marriage and the myth of evil Democratic tax hikes on the middle class and the looming "victory" in Iraq to the real issues that we’re facing. Let’s hope they give your Republicans a good trouncing.

Well, I hope so, anyway, Bush. You probably don’t.

Saddam Hussein: Hang Him High?

2006-11-06T09:01:00.000-08:00

These are certainly times that test one's ethical principles, Bush. Saddam's death sentence puts me personally on the spot, with my principled opposition to the death penalty. If anyone deserves it, it's surely Saddam--along with those Nazi monsters we disposed of after World War II. I don't think there's anyone who seriously disputes the fact that thousands of his own citizens were brutally slaughtered on his orders. As Senator Joe Biden said on television yesterday, there has to be a special place in hell set aside for him.

Still, I have a couple of concerns about the Saddam verdict and his sentence. The most important, in my view, is that it effectively preempts all other trials, and every other accounting. To be sentenced for the death of a few dozen people when the man has tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of others to account for, seems to short-change those other many victims--as well as their survivors. I regret the hasty dismissal it implies, and the fact that it deprives the Iraqi people--especially, perhaps, the Kurds--of the opportunity to fully account and heal. I wonder, too, if there weren't a good few Sunnis who suffered at his hands, and whether that disgruntled group of Iraqi citizens might not be more fully persuaded of the quality of justice if he were to be brought pubicly to account for these offenses, also.

As for the death sentence itself, well, I hope we all might be allowed some exceptions from our principles. What else could be done with him? A life spent breaking rocks--or digging graves, perhaps, in the hard desert sand, and reburying the remains of those for whose deaths he was responsible, one by one? I don't know, Bush. I don't know. My nobler, more spiritual self says putting him to death does the rest of us more harm than him. And yet my gut says, hang the man.

Taking the Swing Votes, and Holding them

2006-11-05T09:49:00.000-08:00

Posted by Cardozo

“We have to be careful about sour grapes. The current result of American democracy (though this may change on Tuesday) is Republican control of the presidency, both houses of Congress and (undeniably by now) the federal courts. And that, in turn, has produced policies that, unless I badly misjudge the demographics, most readers of The New York Times Book Review don’t care for: unjustified tax breaks for the rich, a miserable war in Iraq, unbelievable indifference to civil liberties (Secret prison camps? Torture?? America???), among other treats. But this doesn’t prove any flaws in democracy itself. Maybe it’s what people want.”

Essayist Michael Kinsley brings up an excellent point in today’s NY Times, Bush. As Kinsley hints above, the current political tide that may wash away GOP control of (at least) the House of Representatives cannot be attributed to a resurgence of progressive belief among Americans. The current low poll numbers for Republicans signify widespread discontent with the way conservative policies have been carried out, not with the policies themselves.

Generally, the country cheered and waved the flag when you announced that our invasion of Iraq was set to begin. It took two years of daily killings, political missteps, and military inadequacies to spoil Americans on that basic tenet of neo-conservatism, the preemptive war. Certainly, one might argue that your policy in itself, Bush (preemptive war) led inevitably to the results we now see. But I doubt that Americans see it that way. They now believe that a better president might have handled the mission more deftly, and by now would be standing under a “Mission Accomplished” banner that actually meant the mission was accomplished. (What mission, Bush? That a functioning, pro-American democracy would emerge from the ruins of an American-led invasion?)

So in all likelihood and despite virtual GOP control of the ballot box, Democrats will make serious gains on Tuesday and will have more power to shape the policy agenda. But progressives ought to bear in mind the reasons for this political victory: that swing voters have soured on Republicans, not come to believe firmly in the kind of progressivism that might have led to successful diplomacy in Iraq. (“Success” in this case meaning the realization through peaceful means that Iraq did not possess your WMDs, Bush.)

In other words, progressives have serious work to do and must continue to cleave to our beliefs, formulate and “frame” them as best we can, and do the difficult work of changing minds. Otherwise, the potential upcoming electoral victory will be quickly reversed.

... and a note from PeterAtLarge

Yes, I also took note of the Michael Kinsey piece in the NYT Book Review. I agree that it struck a valuable cautionary note, but I found myself in disagreement on a couple of his points. First, Kinsey seemed a lot more comfortable than I am with the role of the Electoral College. He seems to think that it balances things out, when the results of the election are close. My own belief is that it acts to disenfranchise a good part of the electorate. Then I thought that, while was was right on Florida 2000 and the musguided action of the US Supreme Court in stepping in to disallow a recount when there was ample evidence of deliberate partisan mishandling, he brushed aside the problems with Ohio 2004 far too easily. In his discussion of this issue, he didn't even mention the Conyers report--which, to me at least, was a far more important document than the better-known Kennedy article in Rolling Stone. I continue to believe that Ohio was "stolen", too. But I guess, as Kinsey suggests, that it all comes back to what you mean by the word "stolen."

The Reverend Ted Haggard

2006-11-04T06:45:00.000-08:00

... But I Didn't Inhale

Remember Bill Clinton's "confession" about smoking pot, Bush? "I tried marijuana," he allowed. "But I didn't inhale." He was roundly mocked for his half-way admission, and not only by your Republicans. Laughed, as they say, out of court.

Now comes your friendly evangelical pastor, the Rev. Ted Haggard of the New Life Church, with the reluctant--and belated--confession that, yes, he did buy methamphetamine from a gay "escort" but "never used it. I was tempted, but never used it." Oh? And, yes, he now remembers that he did in fact receive a massage from this man he insisted only hours before he had never met. Of course. Where else would a man go to get a good massage if not a male prostitute? The next thing we'll hear, he paid for a blow job, but didn't come. Or didn't... well, let's not touch that one, eh?

You know, Bush, I personally have no problem with same sex sex. If a guy wants a blow job--or whatever--from another guy, who am I to come between them? Perish the thought. I also have no problem with same sex marriage. I acknowledge that you have moral qualms on the subject... or that it's convenient for you to say that you do, loudly and often, in order to appeal to that voter "base" that everyone keeps talking about. But the issue does seem--forgive the expression--to be blowing up in your face right at the moment. First your congressman Foley comes out of the closet, with some very nasty stuff about those underage pages; and now your Haggard, leading gay sex basher and vocal gay marriage opponent... and the recently retired head of the National Association of Evangelicals.

I do have a problem with those who preach one thing and practice another. My judgment: they're dishonest, they're hypocritical, they're out of integity with themselves and with others. But it's one thing do be dishonest and hypocritical and out of integrity in private. It's quite another when you indulge in political hay-making with your dishonesty, your hypocrisy, and your lack of integrity. Because then it affects me. It affects us all. It makes a mockery our democracy and our character as a nation. If people like this are advising the President and helping to shape and drive the national agenda, what does it say about us?

So what are you going to say about this, Bush? Surely you have to say something. The pastor was apparently a frequent advisor, a man who--as they say--had the President's ear. Hmmmm. I understand that it might be embarrassing for you to speak on such matters, so shortly before the election. You have terrorists on your mind. But your silence, I think, might be taken by some voters as cowardly in this circumstance. I'm interested to know what you'll do.

Fish

2006-11-03T08:26:00.000-08:00

Just a quick note today, Bush. No time. But did you happen to hear the BBC World News report last night on the world's fish? Scary stuff. It seems, according to this international team's report, that if current trends continue, the world's fish stocks will be fully depleted by the year 2048. Just another example of our modern civilization's lack of thoughtful husbandry, and what it might mean for the future of the planet--and the human beings who have lived on it for centuries. How much longer can this rapacious species itself expect to be around?

Election Paranoia

2006-11-02T06:08:00.000-08:00

posted by PeterAtLarge

Okay, Bush, call me paranoid. But the specter of rigged elections still looms large in my mind. It’s supported by a ton of evidence, much of which is available for all to read in the archives of The Washington Spectator online.

The history is in itself convincing. There was Florida in 2000, remember, Bush? That election, according to those who have studied it in depth, should rightly have been invalidated on multiple counts of fraud. The results were rammed down the nation’s throat, first by the actions of the infamous Katherine Harris, whose extreme bias as arbiter of the Florida election process has been evident since that election through her own political ambitions—which hopefully will finally crash in flames next week; then by the patrician power tactics of James Baker and the hasty, split decision of the United States Supreme Court.

I wonder, incidentally, if Al Gore regrets not having fought this battle to the bitter end? Especially now, looking back on the record of your denial of sound science, Bush, your rejection of Kyoto, and your significant contributions to the deterioration of the environment of this nation and the planet through your seemingly unqualified and uncritical support of business interests. Had Gore known what he must know now, would he have been less compliant in “defeat”?

And then in 2004 there was Ohio. The same kind of story. Voters disenfranchised by various forms of chicanery, corrupt election officials, corrupted voting machines… All resulting in a surprising “victory” for Bush.

So call me paranoid if you will, Bush, but having followed the track record of those who engineered these past two election victories and watching the smug self-assurance that suffuses the countenance of your Rove even today, I can’t help but worry for next Tuesday. We know that the technology for fraud is readily available. As Mark Crispin Miller notes in the Washington Spectator article referenced above,

In 2004, 23 percent of the electorate cast their votes on "direct-recording electronic" (DRE) machines. Today, according to Election Data Services, it's over 39 percent. And nearly 41 percent will have their votes counted by computerized scanners—a method preferable to using DRE machines, as it allows for paper ballots, but a risky practice nonetheless. Thus over 80 percent of next month's vote will be counted secretly, by private vendors closely tied to Bush's party. (Italics mine.)
The GOP has also furthered mass disenfranchisement by passing Jim Crow laws of startling brazenness (yet that have gone largely unnoticed by the press). The Ohio legislature has passed a law that quadruples the price of recounts, makes machine audits near-impossible, hinders registration of new voters, tightens partisan control of the election work-force and requires all voters to bring IDs to the polls. Photo IDs, effectively a poll tax, are now required in Indiana and Florida—where, moreover, it is now illegal to hand-count paper ballots once they have been "counted" by machine. Through such laws—and epidemic lawlessness—the [Republican] party will control the vote throughout the nation on November 7.

Scary, no? At least to those of us who still want to believe in democracy as we used to know it, before you came along. Miller argues convincingly that the supposed tidal wave of Christian right voters in 2004 was largely a myth, created to provide plausible cover for an otherwise inexplicable victory. The same with the fear factor. As for the coming election, he predicts that the “terror-obsessed pre-propaganda […] tragically portends an imminent ‘surprise’ [to be] deployed, before Election Day, to make Bush's empty, crazy argument seem suddenly believable. Whether it's a second 9/11, or a huge ‘defensive’ strike against Iran, or a paralyzing combination of the two, a move like that would serve to make the recent Bush/Cheney line on ‘terror’ sound prophetic rather than insane.”

Or perhaps, more plausibly, your people have already found their cover for another inexplicable election victory (inexplicable, that it, given the now-evident mood of the country) in this latest Kerry nonsense. Should the fix be in, should you win again against all odds, we’ll all be reminded, after the fact, of how John Kerry’s remark served to turn the tide in your favor.

Paranoia, anyone?

Election 2006 - No Laughing Matter for Olberman

2006-11-01T23:49:00.000-08:00

Posted by Cardozo

Is it just me, or have our national elections turned into bad comedy? A few days ago I heard a piece on This American Life about a man who tried out an old comedy routine…at a Karaoke bar. His halfway decent jokes failed to crack open a single smile or jar loose a single belly laugh, and after a while he was booed off the stage. People just weren’t expecting it. They felt betrayed.

And that’s kind of how I feel lately, Bush, about the upcoming election. The images in my head are of Senator George Allen – with his sly off-hand grin - mocking a volunteer from his opponent’s campaign; and of politician after politician lining up to sit opposite Stephen Colbert, happily construing his witty barbs and their lame responses as precious free publicity.

Why is it that candidates feel so much pressure to be charming and funny? This kind of pressure only leads to trouble, as it did recently for John Kerry with his botched ribbing of you, Bush. And as it did for you, too, when you made light of the failed U.S. intelligence surrounding WMDs in Iraq.

A little humor must always be welcome, but when humor becomes the substance of our political debate then we have a problem. In our profit-driven media, sound bytes are all we have left to inform ourselves of the important topics of the day. And now even these sound bytes are being co-opted by awkward attempts at humor, as if our candidates for Senate and Congress are actually running for class president: no serious issues at stake, and plenty of time for laughs.

So I want to say thanks, Bush, to Crooks and Liars for calling my attention to Keith Olberman’s recent commentary, which everyone should listen to. This one you won’t like, Bush, because the venom in Olberman’s voice contains no trace of humor, and his solemn disgust at your administration’s policies and consistent aversion to truth travel well over the airwaves. I think Olberman's style should be emulated, in a time when we so clearly need serious dialogue yet are so seemingly afraid, unwilling, or incapable of engaging in it. Olberman eschews humor in favor of genuine conviction, and I believe that this style (if adopted by elected officials) may prove even more appealing to voters than the sound byte humor that currently prevails. It’s the same appeal that voters feel for John McCain, whose history as a prisoner of war and clearly authentic patriotism allows him, every once and a while, to break the ice with a well-timed quip.

If the Olberman/McCain paradigm shift takes hold, after a while, as in many other parts of the world, politics might again be considered a worthy topic of discussion in mainstream America, leading to the kind of education and voter interest so sorely needed for the development of good public policy. For your sake, Bush, you had better hope that I am wrong, because right now an uninformed public is the only thing keeping you on this job.