Don't Gaff That Shark!

Some years ago, I worked as a deckhand on a sportfishing boat out of Los Angeles. One summer morning we were fishing out at Rocky Point (South of Redondo Beach), and we had a pretty good bite going. A good mix of fish, including Calico Bass, Bonito, Barracuda, with a few Yellowtail mixed in.
Unfortunately, we also had a pair of Blue Sharks cruising off the stern.

They were eating pretty much every fish the passengers hooked. They were going for the bait, too, and cutting off the fishermen’s lines. One of the Blues was going back and forth so close off the stern, I decided to do something about it. So I grabbed the long gaff and went to the back of the boat. Terry, the skipper, shouted “Don’t stick him!”. I said “He’s just a little fish, no problem.”
Well, Blue Sharks are kind of long and skinny (like I was in those days), so their appearance can be deceptive. I gaffed that Blue just behind the dorsal fin, and pulled about six feet of shark out of the water. There was still more fish in the water than there was out of it. That Blue wrapped its skinny little tail section around the gaff, started thrashing about, and broke it off. The shark swam away, looking unhappy, with the hook in its back. Because I didn’t listen to the skipper, I wound up having to replace that gaff out of my own pocket.
I learned a lesson from that, eventually. I tried to pass that lesson on to President Bush a while ago. I tried to tell him not to stick that gaff into Iraq. He didn’t listen to me. He didn’t listen to a lot of people. Now, well, it looks to me as if Iraq has broken off the gaff, and is swimming away with the hook in its back.
Seems to me, the President owes the people a new gaff, paid for out of his own pocket. And he should take care when and where he uses it in the future.

About that "crushing debt Saddam created in Iraq". Originally posted Dec. 19, 2003.

Thomas Friedman (New York Times, Dec. 18) wonders why France now seems willing to provide some measure of "debt forgiveness" to Iraq. Others have extolled James Baker's statesmanship in getting other European countries to follow suit. I think Mr. Baker has a slam dunk here: whatever government eventually comes to be in Iraq will certainly, after as much temporizing as it can, repudiate the debt incurred by Saddam Hussein. So, why not look generous and forgive a debt you will never collect on anyway. Get some bonus points for appearing nice.
And how can the United States make a fuss over this? Ever since Saddam's regime stopped following America's orders, we have branded him an illegitimate government. How can a legitimate Iraqi government be held responsible for Saddam's debts?
So, I think we can all expect to see that advertisement in a "paper of general circulation" very soon: "Not responsible for any debts other than my own." Signed: Iraq.
[This seems to me to be more likely now than it did last December.]

I'm returning home...

I'm at the end of a very nice vacation here in America, and it's time to go back home to Thailand. It's a very nice place, if you don't mind sweating a lot. I expect I'll be pretty busy at work, but not to worry; I'll be back here to post bigger and better (i.e. more sarcastic) diatribes from time to time. It's really too easy.
For example, this morning in the news: "The war on terrorism has resulted in the liberation of 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the protection of their rights... People in thosse countries did not have the kinds of protections that we're used to in the United States, and now they do." Scott McClellan (White house press secretary) (Washington Post, May 27, 2004). What is this guy saying? We humiliate, beat, and kill our citizens too? If we liberated these countries, how coume they aren't liberated? At least, it seems some of the liberated people in Afghanistan and Iraq don't feel very liberated. I wonder if Mr. McClellan can pass the blush test.

What's in a poll?

I was in the library the other day, browsing through some news mags. I looked at the latest (May 24) Time/CNN poll, because it had some bad news for the president. One of the questions (the last one, I think) went something like "Given the revelations of prisoner abuse at Abu Graib prison, are you more/less inclined to support the war?".
Interesting question. The answers are really interesting!
Sixty one per cent. said the news and the pictures had no effect on their opinion. Thirty one per cent. said it made them less supportive of the war. Eight per cent. said it made them MORE supportive of the war.
Here's a clear example of what's wrong with polls: I really want to know what it is about a picture of pvt. Englund holding a leash attached to a cowering naked Iraqi man that makes someone say - "Yeah! Now I see what this war's all about! We should be doing a lot more of this!" That's 8% folks, almost one in twelve, who thinks this sort of thing is a good idea.
Well, this has really made me think. And try to figure out what is going on. So far, my best idea is that this shows that about one in twelve people polled have exactly no idea what they are being asked. This might explain other seemingly anomalous poll results. Another possible answer is that about one in twelve poll respondees are sado-masochists. I hope that's wrong. Perhaps one in twelve regards this all, as Rush Limbaugh suggests, as nothing more than just a few little good-natured franternity pranks. Considering the body count, and the number of prisoners sent to the hospital, I have to think that Rush must have been in a really tough fraternity!
Time/CNN: How about some followup questions to that one-in-twelve? I really would like to know what kind of people I'm walking among.

George the 43rd, or is it G. 41st?

I remember in 2000, a long time ago now, lots of people were saying that George XDIII (43) wanted to become president to redeem his fathers legacy from his errors of
1.) A tax increase, and
2.) Not occupying and destroying Iraq.
Now I read where a lot of people in the "liberal left" American press are saying that George XDIII has destroyed George XDI's legacy with his record-setting budget deficits and his maladroit mishaps in Iraq. I say different. The short reign of G. XDI seems to me, now, like a veritable Golden Age. Nothing like a son showing what might-have-been to burnish dad's curriculum vitae. Perhaps something like what Tiberius said to Caligula (well, at least what Robert Graves said he said): "I shall nurture you to Rome's breast like a serpent." So that his (G. XDI - or do I mean Tiberius'?) place in history would seem finer, by comparison if not in reality.
You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone...

Protecting Marriage

There's been a lot of arguing going on lately about marriage. I really don't have much interest in marriage, myself, anymore. But it does seem to me that if somebody told me I couldn't marry, why then I'd probably think that that was a big deal.
I decided to do a little research. Only a little, because I'm a lazy guy. So, I downloaded a copy of the United States Constitution(tm), so I could do a keyword search. I searched on: "homosexual", "gay", "queen", "fag", "faggot", "lez", "lezzie", "lesbian", and a few other more derogatory terms I don't think are fit for a family blog like this one. I got 0 hits. This sort of surprised me, because so many people over the years and the decades and, yes, even over the centuries, seem to have found things in the Constitution that told them some citizens had more rights than other citizens. Well, it turns out that homosexuals, gays, queens, ..., etc., have the same constitutional rights as everybody else!
I think the president should know about this, because he took an oath (on the Holy Bible, no less!) to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I think this means his job is to defend the Constitution from people who want to put words in it to make some citizens have different rights from other citizens. As a compassionate guy, and especially as a uniter and not a divider, I expect he can do no less.

Here's one from the past. Originally posted on March 18, 2003.

The war is on. That was certain at the point where the United Nations approved resolution 1441, while at the same time our Vice President referred to the process as a sham. And we simultaneously started to prepare for the war to come.

It has been clear since then that the administration has always been willing to pay the price, no matter how many Iraqi children must die in the war. One wonders if anyone in the White House has given thought to the future consequences:
The fact is, the world now knows indisputably what it previously only suspected: they only exist at the sufferance of the United States. This will still be true after this warlike administration has been replaced by a more peaceable one. For the forseeable future, we will be forced to maintain a bellicose posture in order to defend our title of "King of the Hill". The "Operation Shock and Awe" that we applied in the Dresden firebombing, to demonstrate our power to the Soviet Union, only spurred the arms race. The sequel, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, spurred the nuclear arms race. This operation will accomplish the same. As a response to this beaing of the war drums, other countries will be scrambling (are now scrambling) to find a deterrent to our agression. Governments stricken with fear will not become our friends; they will do their best to avoid our wrath, while seeking that deterrent.

I suppose in the course of time it will become clear that this was not a single point failure caused by George W. Bush alone. It was forseeable if we had only noted how many people how often felt the need to remark on how strong and powerful and unique we were as "The Only Remaining Superpower". When that becomes the most notable observation of a nations character, supplanting earlier identification as, e.g., "The World's Leading Democracy", that super power was bound to be unleashed by somebody. It just happened that President Bush was the first one to be seduced by his apparent possession of power sufficient to control the world. He will find he is chasing a will'o'the'wisp.

Despite all the military might of the United States, President Bush still is powerless to determine the fate of nations.

"Its not us; we're not like that". (Originally posted May 5)

In all the uproar over the scenes of abuse in Abu Graib prison, I haven't heard any one make mention of that apalling young woman (Lyndie England) in the pictures. The one with the fully erect cigarette and the fully erect fingers. Pretty clearly very drunk or very stoned, or both. In any case, she is obviously very pleased at being in TOTAL CONTROL over a group of naked men. If she was this way when she joined the army, I think that's pretty alarming. If she learned this sort of behavior in the army, that's even more alarming.
There is a third possibility however. Since, as the president says, "It's not us - we're not like that", perhaps she is an evildoer disguised as an American soldier. There are many, I am sure, who would greatly prefer that to be true. I think they will be disappointed. In any case, the perpetrators of this (these) acts, whether widespread as some have claimed, or narrowspread, as some insist, have given great aid and comfort to the enemy. Gee, that's the definition of treason, isn't it!

A running-mate to be proud of! (Originally posted Apr. 17)

As the Pres-Election season heats up, along with the pennant race, I would like to commend to candidate Kerry's attention a possible running mate with absolutely impeccable credentials. A man with a long and honorable record of service to his country. A man of high moral standards, and absolute commitment to his country. A man who, moreover, with one simple sentence, demonstrated a depth of knowledge of the real world far greater than the entire present administration combined. I would like to recommend Gen. Eric ("Several hundred thousand troops...") Shinseki.

Looking forward to June 30. (Originally posted on Apr. 12)

What can President Bush be thinking? How can he allow Iraq to become a sovreign state again while they remain in possession of those hidden Weapons of Mass Destruction? Is the president playing politics with the safety of the American people? Will the next Smoking Gun be a Mushroom Cloud?
Ahh, C'mon! We all understand two things. 1, there are no WMD and 2, Iraqi sovreignty is to be a farce watched over by a hundred-and-many-thousand occupying U.S. troops and presided over by Don Rumsfeld.
Note: Secretary Powell and Administrator Bremer are now (May 15) responding to questioners by avowing that, if asked to, American troops will leave Iraq. I find this unlikely, even knowing that, if everything goes according to plan, we can always reoccupy Iraq on November 3.

How to win a war, in three easy steps. (Originally posted Apr. 10)

The administration of President Bush, or at least the Department of Defense, seems to have a myopia common to militarists - believing that achieving each objective in succession (secure a road, capture a city, kill an opposing general, etc.) will lead to the accomplisment of the ultimate goal. Now, the goal of President Bush in Iraq was, in fact, accomplished a year ago, when Saddam Hussein was removed from power. As far as the president was concerned, it was "Mission Accomplished." What as to follow was of no concern to the president. He likely remains confused to this day as to what the fuss is all about. Not sufficient, however, for the miltarists in the DOD. Their ultimate goal has always been the establishment of a unified Iraq with a government friendly to American interests (note to self: do NOT use the term puppet here). Unfortunately (for them, at any rate), this goal has never been attainable. No matter how many cities are captured, no matter how many resisters are captured or killed, no matter how many slogans are utered (what, by the way, is the flavor this month: Shock&Awe; Hearts&Minds; Peace&Freedom?), no matter how many Operation Something-or-Another-Swords are mounted, there will never be a government friendly to the United States in Baghdad. Anyone establishing such a government is not likely to survive much past the withdrawal of the U.S. occupying forces. Knowing that, it's pretty easy to guess that the 'coalition' will be asked to vacate post-haste on or about July first, by whatever group recieves the note saying "you are now the Official Sovreigns of Iraq".
Napoleon, a much better general, and better imperialist, than Don Rumsfeld, won victory after victory, even reaching his objective of capturing Moscow. Where he spent the winter. His army froze and starved to death there, completely crushing his hopes of defeating Russia. His only reward was the phrase 'Moscow Winter'. Hitler failed to learn from his fellow would-be conqueror, and suffered the same fate, failing even to get past the suburbs of Moscow (which had grown considerably in the intervening 150 years).
In January of last year, before the attack on Iraq, I was visiting in the bay area. I took the opportunity to go into San Fransisco to join a peace march. Much to my delight, I found myself for a time marching under a banner reading "Berkeley Students Against the War". I mentioned to one of the bearers that I had marched under that same banner 33 years earlier, as a Berkeley student myself at the time. I was quite pleased that my fellow students, one generation removed, remembered the lesson of Vietnam, but saddened that the President, who should have learned the first time through, failed to learn the lesson of history, thus forcing us all to relive it.
It was amusing to read comments in the news in the following days accusing me of naivete for believing I could prevent the war. Not so! I insist. Actually, I was only marching so as to establish my credentials to say, today, "I Told You So".

Close down the paper, stop the violence. (Originally posted Apr. 10)

In a marvellous piece of self-referential irony, something for which the Bush administration is becoming noted, Brig. General Kummitt on Saturday told Iraqis in a press conference that anti-occupation forces were against freedom of the press. Unlike, of course, the American Administrator Paul Bremer, who closed down a newspaper because it "advocated violence". If advocating violence is reason to censor the news, why doesn't the government shutter Fox News? In any case, Mr. Bremer's move had the anticipated result. It created violence. Which allows the occupying American forces to show their expertise in violent methods. As Secretary Powell says, "they have a handle on it." If this is a way to create a unified Iraq, it's too Machiavellian for me. Now, if we can just insult the Kurds and Turkmen, Iraq will truly become a unified country. Unified against anything resembling American influence, at any rate. But then, Bush advertises himself as a uniter-not-a-divider.
By the way, why does Brig. Gen. Kummitt get all dolled up in camos, complete with sidearm, to go to a press conference? Is he about to be called to the front to shoot some evildoers?

Coalition of the Willing? (Originally posted Mar. 15)

No need to worry about Spain's actions causing a rift in the "coalition of the willing". The rest of the foreign troops will also be departing Iraq shortly after it becomes a "sovreign nation" again. As a simple matter of saving their necks, the provisional government will have to require the troops to leave. This will be fine with the President Bush, for whom it was mission accomplished as soon as Saddam Hussein was no longer in power. It will also be a great relief to the U.S. Army, which will no longer face the logistical nightmare of trying to find troops to rotate into the combat area. It will, however, be an unhappy event for the President's cronies, whose aim from the beginning was to create a compliant state in Iraq. Nothing personal, Mr. Hussein - it's all a matter of dollars and dinars. Of course, if the President is reelected (a dismal but distinct possiblity), we can always reinvade and reoccupy Iraq. It will be but one more example of the George W. Bush foreign policy doctrine in action: Nothing matters but what I want, all else is irrelevant - The United Nations, Europe, International Law, norms of moral behavior, so forth. The next unilateral invasion will, however, spell the end of the government of Tony (George W.) Blair, and end any semblance of cooperation of other governments with the United States. Too bad the President detests the French language so heartily, else he might also claim "Apres moi, le deluge".

How sanctified is THIS marriage? (Originally posted Feb. 28)

Thanks to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who turns out to be far bolder than one would have thought, we now have a face to put with the strange phobic reaction to gay relationships. We now see clearly that the marriage of Rosie O'Donnel and wife (formerly girlfriend) endangers the marriage of George W. and Laura Bush. One is impelled to ask - HOW? How does Ms. O'Donnel's relationship impact President Bush's at all? As for the President's assertion that "Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society", I am likewise motivated to comment on the quality of the President's ability to promote the welfare of HIS children, who seem to spend an inordinate amount of time in trouble with the law, for underage drinking, for possession of illegal drugs, for generally acting disgracefully in public. If Mr. Bush's children are an example of well-brought-up children, well then, I think marriage should be banned for hetero- as well as homo-sexuals.

Why Iran isn't a democracy (Originally posted Feb. 22)

Someone in the American administration sure has a wonderful ear for irony! Imagine a Bush adminstration employee saying something like "... [the Iran] vote was neither free nor fair because an unelected watchdog of jurists had disqualified the candidacies of moderate candidates." Is he referring to Iran in February 2004, or America in November 2000?
In other news, Mr. Nader announces he will again offer himself as a presidential candidate because, as we all know, there is not a scintilla of difference between G. W. Bush and John Kerry. Or is it possible that some of his supporters from the last millenium now perceive that there just might be a difference between a president with an apocalyptic vision of the world and his role as liberator, and a senator who has seen the results of an earlier "preemptive" war?

Curiouser and curiouser (Originally posted Jan. 24)

Curiouser and curiouser, said I.
First Dick Cheney says the U.S. inspectors 'need more time' to find those pesky weapons of mass destruction. Strange that the United Nations wasn't considered to 'need more time'.
Now, the president's own press secretary avows that Iran needs to send its captured suspected al Quaeda terrorists to their native countries to be tried. This in spite of the fact that the United States steadfastly refuses to do the same with its alleged al Quaeda members, being held without charge, without indictment, and without legal representation, in a place of legal limbo called Guantanamo Bay.
What's going on here? Why is the United States exempt from the rules it attempts to impose on other countries? Perhaps it is because, as our president says, "I know we are incredibly good!", thus we can be trusted where others cannot.
Sure.