Global Warming

The year 2006 was reportedly the warmest on record. Fortunately for those soon-to-be-flooded coastal property owners in Florida, there is a new opportunity for beachfront living. Unfortunately, it's on Jupiter's moon Titan. And the lakes are actually liquid ammonia.

Perhaps the best thing about global warming is that it will melt the polar icecaps and end the horror of clubbing baby seals. Of course, they will be dead anyway, but at least people won't be clubbing them anymore.

War of Lies

When historians finally get around to examining the roots and results of Bush's Iraqi War it will require a strong stomach. America went to war on the basis of fabricated evidence, false assumptions and a high level of hubris.

Ahmed Chalabi -- a criminal who should rot in jail rather than flit from one international scheme to the next -- still divides his time between brokering deals with Iran and lying to the Bush Administration. Incompetent failures like Stephen Hadley and Condi Rice are still scratching their heads over why the world doesn't conform to their preconceived notions. Dick "Don't Ask About My Lesbian Daughter" Cheney is still snarling at the press -- and they are still cowering in fear when he does it rather than demanding honest answers from this public servant.

Fortunately, the race for party nominations for the next president is already heating up. And, as we all know, telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth is the first requirement for winning elections in America. Not.

Yet after so many years of "nothing but the lies" we may just find that some political entrepreneur will discover that the truth is so unexpected that it leads to free media coverage. Even if only in a man-bites-dog fashion.

However, given the fact that StopHillary.com has already started rolling out the attack ads in Iowa, it is unlikely that the Republican'ts will give up their standard approach of waging a war of lies. Let's hope this time the Democrats fight back.

Where mistakes have been made...

President George W. Bush made a speech last Wednesday. It was a bad speech. It would have been appropriate for Dubya to dab a handkerchief to a sweaty upper lip ... it was that bad.

One of his (many) misleading or inaccurate statements was "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." The mainstream media immediately declared this an admission of mistakes and an acceptance of blame by Bush. Yet Bush did not say that he, personally, had made any mistakes -- he merely admitted the fact that he is Commander-in-Chief and protocol dictates that he is ultimately "responsible." This still leaves open the adminstration's dodge that "bad advice" or poor intelligence was somehow to blame for the disaster that is the Bush-Cheney war in Iraq. They remain as dishonest, or as disconnected from reality, as ever.

Bush's Embolism

Take heart America -- Dubya has a plan!

In the grand scheme of things, this is not exactly Douglas MacArthur's landing at Inchon or George Washington's Yorktown. To take a Texas example, it's more of an Alamo.

The Bush Administration, ever mindful of the danger of words, has been fighting a rearguard action against those who dispute their claim that the addition of over 20,000 troops is a mere "surge." For example, Condi Rice argued in Senate testimony that it was an "augmentation" rather than an "escalation." Nonsense. We are dealing with a critically ill patient, so let's use medical terminology. This is not a "surge" it's an embolism. Bush's surge is essentially a clot in our military deployment that prevents troops from coming home. Like a pulmonary embolism, it is potentially fatal if it doesn't receive prompt, appropriate treatment. Given the history of medical diagnoses in Congress (see: Schiavo, Terri) we are not optimistic.

Various reasons have been presented to justify Dubya's gambit. They are as illusory as his reasons for the war in the first place. Dubya's defenders claim that these troops will make Baghdad safe for democracy. That's laughable. They assert that these troops will be able to do what previous troops were unable to do -- clear and hold enemy territory. That's lunacy. The fact that these will be largely the same, recycled troops is ignored. Apparently, this time they mean business.

So why is Bush pushing this absurd strategy? Think for a moment: Has Bush-Cheney team ever told the whole truth and nothing but the truth about anything? (Hint: "No") So what's the real reason for this deployment?

OplusO has analyzed the strategery behind this force increase and has uncovered the most likely reason. A major stated goal of the troop "surge" is to confront Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army in Sadr City. We also know that Dubya wants to take out Iran's nuclear research facilities. Given that Sadr City is home to 2 million Shiites, a force of 20,000 will only be able to operate as a buffer for a short period of time. A few months at most. Yet that may be all the time Bush needs to strike Iran and beat back the resulting explosion (literally and figuratively) in Sadr City (Iran is the leading Shia nation and supports much of the Shiite violence in Iraq). He will blame the inevitable pull-out on Democrats and the collapse of the Iraqi government on indigenous corruption and incompetence (Iraqi, not Republican).

By hiding in plain sight, Bush is executing Cheney's mad strategy. Bush and Cheney will soon enough retire to millionaire luxury and neocon adulation. The rest of us will be left with the bill and the mess to clean up.

Tyranny of the Minority

In a sad turn of events, a small minority of the Massachusetts legislature was able to impose its will on the majority. Anti-Gay bigots, cheered on by now-former Governor Mitt "Only Mormons Go To Heaven" Romney, scored a strategic victory by forcing a vote on a constitutional measure that could eventually repeal the right of gays and lesbians to get married in the Bay State.

The proposal has to pass during the next session of the state legislature before it can be placed on the 2008 statewide ballot. This time, in a joint session of both houses of the legislature, the anti-gay vote was 62 to 134. That's right, better than two-to-one in favor of protecting gay marriage and we still lost. Massachusetts requires only 50 votes in two consecutive sessions to put a measure on the ballot. Of course that's better than in most states where the bigots can whip up irrational fears and tap into hatred during a one-shot campaign that changes the constitution for a generation or more. At least Massachusetts has two more chances to get it right -- during the next legislative session and, assuming this vile assault on civil rights "passes" again, during the 2008 election.

Although polls in Massachusetts since the original court decision (granting gays equality) have shown a steady trend toward support of gay rights, no one should assume the measure will be defeated. And, of course, this won't be the end of it. There are plenty more constitutional amendments where this one came from. For example, taking away a woman's right to vote, religious tests (and that means christian) for public office and heck, while they're at it, why don't we bring back slavery? Think what it could do to compete with low foreign wages...