Saturday, February 15, 2003



Yes, march. It wasn't supposed to be but that's what happened. We went until my daughter, 6 years old, couldn't take any more. It was an enormous gathering. And the crowds flowing into the rally were so great that it became a chaotic march for at least twenty blocks and 3 avenues. If the purpose of not having an official march was to make things orderly, it failed. It was a mess but fortunately peaceful.

The feeling was much different than the last one I attended, about 15,000 in Central Park in October. This one was incredibly exciting while there. I just hope that it works. I simply can't believe that one foolish man can wield the power that Bush has. Wasn't the Constitution designed precisely to prevent this??


Beautiful small piece from Maria Hinojosa of CNN about the new war kind of war protestor:

<<[Middle-Aged Woman handing out antiwar leaflets] "I've never done this before in my life. I have never been involved in a protest son is in the Marines, and he went into the Marines because he needed money to pay for his education, and now he's going to have to die for it?"

And that just stopped me in my tracks: The sense of people who might have sons in the Marines, who might be extremely patriotic, but have a tremendous fear of what might happen if their own children are involved in a situation where there might be lots of deaths. >>

It's true, this is not the old antiwar movement. These aren't anti-Americans. These are Americans from all walks of life, from every possible color in the political spectrum.


William Saletan in Slate sez

"...if you equate war with failure or forbid it as long as alternatives are conceivable, you'll never turn to it. Iraq can foster just enough promise in some compliance "process" to keep you from picking up your gun. "

So what's wrong with that?

The goal is not to pretend you're Rambo. The goal is protect your citizens. If Iraq is overrun with inspectors with a huge army on his borders, what room does he have to develop and deploy WMD undetected?


Is Blair softening his position?

“He told a conference of his Labour party in Glasgow that "there will be more time given to inspections" - but he also stressed "the moral case for removing Saddam".”

This doesn't sound like "the game is over" to me. Although other stuff he says is pure Bush bushwah.


So the Times supports a preemptive war.

My response:

Aside from placating an increasingly immature and shrill Bush administration, what have you heard that could possibly justify expending my tax dollars, and yours, on killing tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and condemning the US citizenry to a worldwide escalation of retaliation?

No one is saying Saddam is a warm, fuzzy, likable sort of fellow. No one is saying Saddam has not made WMD. No one seriously believes Saddam has revealed everything he still has.

But will Saddam use WMD against the US? Not unless Bush starts a war, says the CIA.

Will Saddam provide al Qaeda with WMD? Your own editorial says there's no proven link.

Is preemptive war justified at this time? By any standards except the wacko ones of Bush and his extremist advisers, no.

Will the US be safer if Bush goes to war? No, says not only the US intelligence agencies, but the entire world.

Is the Bush administration capable of successfully prosecuting a war? Given its dismal record in Afghanistan, no.

Is the Bush administration capable of managing a post war transition? Given the thoroughly flaky plans they've made public, no.

Given two years of Bush economic mismanagement, can the US afford to underwrite Bush's Middle Eastern adventure? Of course not.

Your editorial is shamefully wrong.

Friday, February 14, 2003


ABC news asks Has War Begun?


From The American Prospect online:

"All of which is to say that it is not Americans the French hate; it is George W. Bush." here

Actually, I think they just hate the fact that he and his pals are in power.


Dang! Sorry everyone (all two of you) for the duplicate postings. I'm still getting the hang of this.


Here's a great web page from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Carnegie Endowment Iraq Information

Be sure to download the pdf of "Iraq: What Next?" It's great.


Here's a great web page from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:

Be sure to download the pdf of "Iraq: What Next?"

permanent link to this entry 2:10 PM


February 14, 2003

I've decided to start this blog for two main reasons and two less important ones (in terms of this blog, not in terms of my life!).

First, like most other people, I am horrified that the Bush administration will probably be starting a war within weeks. I wanted a place to publicly affirm my opposition to the Bush War and to collect thoughts, strategies, and material relevant to defeating Bush in 2004. No reason to go into details now. They'll be plenty to come for sure.

Second, I've been writing numerous emails to friends, newspapers, politicians, magazines, bloggers, etc. I found that, in several cases, I had anticipated arguments against Bush in the "real" world by several months (no, no one read my ideas and ran with them; they were "in the air" and I thought they were interesting before others did). I thought if I posted them, they might get out and about earlier. I hasten to add that I am not a conspiracy theorist or interested in crackpot theories; I am quite realistic, somewhat cynical, but not paranoid (being scared of the Ashcroft/Poindexter agenda strikes me as reasonable, not paranod).

In any event here are two, of many, examples of this (I'll expand them in later posts):

1. In October of '02, I made a speech to a parent's gathering at my daughter's school about the Cuban Missile Crisis. In that speech I asserted that the Bush administration had been mistakenly classified by the press as "conservative." Instead, they are right-wing extremists with "intellectual" ties to the nuts of the Kennedy era, like Curtis Lemay or the John Birch Society members. A few days ago, Molly Ivins and Robert Kuttner (I'll add links in an update as I learn HTML: I've avoided learning it until now) published columns with exactly the same points! I was delighted to see that writers who I respected shared my view of the Bush administration but worried that it took so long for them to acknowledge that publicly.

2. Several months ago, I was speculating on how on earth Bush could ever get elected in '04. It struck me that the Dems could put up their weakest candidate and he'd clobber Bush. Then I came up with a terrible thought: replace Cheney with Rice. A smart black woman as VP (who's been described as having no love life - a transparent euphemism, at least in the entertainment business ) would make a Bush ticket close to unstoppable. I started telling my wife and friends and opined that there damn well better be a strategy in place to combat such a ticket or the people behind Bush will control the country for the next 25 years. No one took the idea seriously, but last week or so, Camille Paglia, whose naughtiness usually is far more interesting than her ideas, speculated about exactly the same tactic.

So, rather than keep such odd thoughts to myself and my friends, I figured that perhaps I should air them in public as soon as they move from being half-baked to three quarters-baked. Perhaps they may be of some use to someone.

As for the other two reasons for this blog: I love new music, ancient music and music of other cultures. I go to a lot of concerts and sometimes will talk about them. (BTW, my idea of new music is rather different than most folks, as you'll see!) I also read voraciously and sometimes will talk about my reading. I'm not going to focus too much on those topics as, right now, I feel that it is basic cultural hygiene to focus on the continuing havoc Bush will wreak as long as he and his cronies are in the White House.

A few quick closers to this long post: I'm going to keep this semi-anonymous. I'm not going to publish my name or the names of those in my private life. But anyone who knows me, if they come across this, will immediately know who I am. Why be anonymous? I want a place to speak frankly without getting onto a blacklist that could harm my career; there are some very strange, very vindictive people in power right now. Also, I'm not a professional journalist and have no interest in becoming one. So there is no reason to know my name or to know very much about what I do for a living.

What does matter is the quality of the information and comments here. I will make every effort to provide you with accurate information and reasonable speculations. If I make a mistake, I will not edit but rather update the post. If I change my mind - and I reserve the right to change my mind about anything -I will do so and explain why.

In any event, that's enough for now. Hope you enjoy this site and find it helpful!


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?