(Originally posted to Politics at EraBlog on Fri, 14 Feb 2003 22:46:43 GMT)

Hans Blix presented his latest report to the UN this morning. No surprises. Saddam is not being particularly cooperative, there are some "proscribed" missiles, but they've found no evidence that Iraq is hiding prohibited weapons. All the players held fast to their positions.

Colin Powell hammered home the point that if Saddam had nothing to hide, the Iraqi scientists would be lining up to be interviewed by UN inspectors. True, but that's still not a case for going to war.

In today's New York Times, a new poll shows most want war delay. 59% of Americans favor giving the inspectors more time and 56% want Bush to wait for UN approval. Three-quarters see war as inevitable, and two-thirds approve of war as an option.

I think the war is inevitable. Bush won't back down and Saddam is unlikely to. Inspections are containing Iraq, and I see no need to attack. About the only thing that would change my mind is clear, unequivocal proof that Saddam was behind the September 11th attacks. So far, that proof has circumstantial, fragmentary, and unconvincing. Tuesday's tape from Osama bin Laden showed that Al-Qaida has little liking for Saddam.

The Bush Administration seems more interested in using nukes in Iraq than it is in planning how to maintain a long occupation. We liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban and broke up the Al-Qaida training grounds, but we've not seen it through. Afghanistan is a mess, the opium trade is flourishing again, and was omitted from the US aid budget! An attack on Iraq will further inflame disempowered young Muslims who, rightly, complain that too little is being done by the US to make peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Much of the world thinks that Al-Qaida is a bigger threat than Saddam. Others believe that Bush is a bigger threat to world peace than Saddam: certainly the Administration's alliance wrecking in NATO and the UN tends to supports that. (It's hard to believe how quickly Bush managed to dissipate the good will that poured out to America after 9/11.) And the crisis in North Korea, which is being handled so differently, is perhaps most worrying of all.

The US economy is in a shambles, with deficits soaring. The War on Terrorism is going nowhere. The Department of Homeland Security is raising public anxiety by going to Threat Level Orange, but can offer nothing better than suggesting that we seal off windows with plastic sheeting and duct tape. Ashcroft is cooking up a draconian sequel to the Patriot Act.

Meanwhile, I intend to go to the Seattle Peace March and Rally tomorrow. It's important to demonstrate to Bush, the US public, and the world that a lot of Americans oppose Bush's warmongering.

(Originally posted to Politics at EraBlog on Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:15:16 GMT)

I've been meaning to rant about this for a while now, but haven't found the time yet.

Last Friday, the Center for Public Integrity announced that it had obtained a secret draft of Patriot Act II. Previously, it had been kept in almost complete secrecy, only being shown to Dennis Hastert and Dick Cheney.

The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (full text) is outrageous. Secret arrests, eavesdropping without court orders, delaying notification to targets of investigations for up to three months, secret subpoenas, crippling the Freedom of Information Act, deporting American citizens, huge new powers for the FBI, and more.

Obviously, we need to fight terrorism more effectively, but shredding the Bill of Rights is unacceptable.

Bill Moyers interviews Chuck Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity. TomPaine.com has a useful summary. WarBlogging.com has addressed Patriot Act II repeatedly. It's all positively Orwellian.

Write to your representatives.

(Originally posted to Politics at EraBlog on Sun, 09 Feb 2003 08:30:52 GMT)

Earlier today, I posted some reactions to Powell's visit to the UN, including my own. Since then, I've come across some interesting links.

Powell's Evidence Looking Shaky describes several serious shortcomings: the aluminum tubes, "the fine paper that the United Kingdom distributed" (plagiarized), and a supposed al-Qaida camp in Northern Iraq.

The LA Times has Iraq Opens Suspicious Sites to Eyes of Media.

In a lighter note, Neal Pollack makes fun of live coverage of the Powell address.

I fear that Bush has painted himself into a corner. He can't afford to back down now without losing face. That means we'll go to war, unless Saddam steps down, which is almost as unlikely as Bush backing down. Feh!

(Originally posted to Cool Stuff at EraBlog on Sun, 09 Feb 2003 08:02:27 GMT)

Emma bought herself a TiVo Digital Video Recorder a few weeks ago. I had heard it said that TiVo changes the way you watch TV. It's true. Emma is fond of Home and Garden Television (HGTV), which has a lot of shows about redecorating and remodelling. They're padded unmercifully, constantly recapping what they showed you before the most recent break. She can work through an ostensible 30-minute show in under 10 minutes by skipping from highlight to highlight.

Our TiVo also has a DirecTV satellite receiver built in, giving us access to far more stations than we had on cable, with better quality picture. We also bought a new 27" TV to replace the 21" TV that I bought secondhand in 1993. The combination of a digital signal and a new TV gives us a far better image than we're used to -- though it's not half bad on the old TV either. Alas, Sturgeon's Law (Ninety percent of everything is [crud]), still applies to the content.

The sheer convenience of being able to tell it to record a slew of shows, without having to mess around with lots of videotapes, means that we're able to watch a number of programs that we wouldn't otherwise watch. I've started watching the Charlie Rose Show again, for the first time in years. It airs from midnight to 1am in Seattle. I'm a night owl, but that was too inconvenient for me. "Time shifting" makes it much more likely that I'll watch it.

I've never been much of a TV watcher, but I'm seeing more than I have in years. I've also taken to watching Cirque du Soleil: Fire Within, a documentary series about the making of the Cirque's new show Varekai, and Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, a series debunking alien abductions, psychics, and more.

We're also recording a lot of films that we might not have got around to renting or seeing in the cinema. Our main problem is that the hard disk only holds about 35 hours of content. That sounds like a lot, but it fills up quickly.

(Originally posted to Politics at EraBlog on Sun, 09 Feb 2003 01:08:16 GMT)

Colin Powell went to the UN and made a case that Saddam has not disarmed and that he continues to act in defiance of the UN. Not too surprising, since that's what Blix has said. If Saddam had nothing to hide, he would have cooperated with the UNMOVIC inspectors.

What Powell did not show is why Saddam's defiance warrants going to war.

Some doubt the veracity of Powell's case, citing the ease of forging evidence. This is the same administration that gave us the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Information aka the disinformation unit. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. They have to know that if a war is launched and significant quantities of weapons of mass destruction are not found in Iraq, that Bush will be out on his ear.

Joe Conasaon reviewed Colin Powell's UN speech in Wednesday's Salon and concludes that the case for war has not been made.

What was most noticeably absent from Powell's presentation, however, was any evidence that Iraq is a present threat to its neighbors or any other nation -- and thus must be invaded and subdued immediately. He showed that Saddam has sought an arsenal of mass destruction, and that his regime is still resisting disarmament. But he inadvertently made some arguments for continued inspections backed by force, rather than war.

Nicholas Kristof comes to a similar conclusion in yesterday's NYT.

Hawks often compare Saddam to Hitler, suggesting that if we don't stand up to him today in Baghdad we'll face him tomorrow in the Mediterranean. ...

A better analogy is Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya, who used to be denounced as the Hitler of the 1980's. ...

But President Ronald Reagan wisely chose to contain Libya, not invade it -- and this worked. Does anybody think we would be better off today if we had invaded Libya and occupied it, spending the last two decades with our troops being shot at by Bedouins in the desert?

(Originally posted to Humor at EraBlog on Sat, 08 Feb 2003 01:54:46 GMT)

I have received hundreds of copies of the Nigerian scam spam in the last couple of years. Nigerian criminals, typically claiming to be relatives of rich-but-deceased African potentates, ask for "help" in getting assets out of Africa. You are asked to pony up some money to defray expenses, in return for a cut of the proceeds.

Someone has put together a Bush-Iraq parody of these letters. George Walker Bush, son of the former President of the USA, seeks your help in acquiring oil funds that are trapped in Iraq...

----- Forwarded message from Steve Schear <schear@attbi.com> -----

From: Steve Schear <schear@attbi.com> Subject: It was bound to happen.... Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 14:27:29 -0800

IMMEDIATE ATTENTION NEEDED : HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

FROM: GEORGE WALKER BUSH DEAR SIR / MADAM,

I AM GEORGE WALKER BUSH, SON OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH, AND CURRENTLY SERVING AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS LETTER MIGHT SURPRISE YOU BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT MET NEITHER IN PERSON NOR BY CORRESPONDENCE. I CAME TO KNOW OF YOU IN MY SEARCH FOR A RELIABLE AND REPUTABLE PERSON TO HANDLE A VERY CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS TRANSACTION, WHICH INVOLVES THE TRANSFER OF A HUGE SUM OF MONEY TO AN ACCOUNT REQUIRING MAXIMUM CONFIDENCE.

I AM WRITING YOU IN ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE PRIMARILY TO SEEK YOUR ASSISTANCE IN ACQUIRING OIL FUNDS THAT ARE PRESENTLY TRAPPED IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ. MY PARTNERS AND I SOLICIT YOUR ASSISTANCE IN COMPLETING A TRANSACTION BEGUN BY MY FATHER, WHO HAS LONG BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE EXTRACTION OF PETROLEUM IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND BRAVELY SERVED HIS COUNTRY AS DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.

IN THE DECADE OF THE NINETEEN-EIGHTIES, MY FATHER, THEN VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUGHT TO WORK WITH THE GOOD OFFICES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ TO REGAIN LOST OIL REVENUE SOURCES IN THE NEIGHBORING ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN. THIS UNSUCCESSFUL VENTURE WAS SOON FOLLOWED BY A FALLING OUT WITH HIS IRAQI PARTNER, WHO SOUGHT TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL OIL REVENUE SOURCES IN THE NEIGHBORING EMIRATE OF KUWAIT, A WHOLLY-OWNED U.S.-BRITISH SUBSIDIARY.

MY FATHER RE-SECURED THE PETROLEUM ASSETS OF KUWAIT IN 1991 AT A COST OF SIXTY-ONE BILLION U.S. DOLLARS ($61,000,000,000). OUT OF THAT COST, THIRTY-SIX BILLION DOLLARS ($36,000,000,000) WERE SUPPLIED BY HIS PARTNERS IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA AND OTHER PERSIAN GULF MONARCHIES, AND SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLARS ($16,000,000,000) BY GERMAN AND JAPANESE PARTNERS. BUT MY FATHER'S FORMER IRAQI BUSINESS PARTNER REMAINED IN CONTROL OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ITS PETROLEUM RESERVES.

MY FAMILY IS CALLING FOR YOUR URGENT ASSISTANCE IN FUNDING THE REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ACQUIRING THE PETROLEUM ASSETS OF HIS COUNTRY, AS COMPENSATION FOR THE COSTS OF REMOVING HIM FROM POWER. UNFORTUNATELY, OUR PARTNERS FROM 1991 ARE NOT WILLING TO SHOULDER THE BURDEN OF THIS NEW VENTURE, WHICH IN ITS UPCOMING PHASE MAY COST THE SUM OF 100 BILLION TO 200 BILLION DOLLARS ($100,000,000,000 - $200,000,000,000), BOTH IN THE INITIAL ACQUISITION AND IN LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT.

WITHOUT THE FUNDS FROM OUR 1991 PARTNERS, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACQUIRE THE OIL REVENUE TRAPPED WITHIN IRAQ. THAT IS WHY MY FAMILY AND OUR COLLEAGUES ARE URGENTLY SEEKING YOUR GRACIOUS ASSISTANCE. OUR DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES IN THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION INCLUDE THE SITTING VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RICHARD CHENEY, WHO IS AN ORIGINAL PARTNER IN THE IRAQ VENTURE AND FORMER HEAD OF THE HALLIBURTON OIL COMPANY, AND CONDOLEEZA RICE, WHOSE PROFESSIONAL DEDICATION TO THE VENTURE WAS DEMONSTRATED IN THE NAMING OF A CHEVRON OIL TANKER AFTER HER.

I WOULD BESEECH YOU TO TRANSFER A SUM EQUALING TEN TO TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT (10-25 %) OF YOUR YEARLY INCOME TO OUR ACCOUNT TO AID IN THIS IMPORTANT VENTURE. THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL FUNCTION AS OUR TRUSTED INTERMEDIARY. I PROPOSE THAT YOU MAKE THIS TRANSFER BEFORE THE FIFTEENTH (15TH) OF THE MONTH OF APRIL.

I KNOW THAT A TRANSACTION OF THIS MAGNITUDE WOULD MAKE ANYONE APPREHENSIVE AND WORRIED. BUT I AM ASSURING YOU THAT ALL WILL BE WELL AT THE END OF THE DAY. A BOLD STEP TAKEN SHALL NOT BE REGRETTED, I ASSURE YOU. PLEASE DO BE INFORMED THAT THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION IS 100% LEGAL. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO CO-OPERATE IN THIS TRANSACTION, PLEASE CONTACT OUR INTERMEDIARY REPRESENTATIVES TO FURTHER DISCUSS THE MATTER.

I PRAY THAT YOU UNDERSTAND OUR PLIGHT. MY FAMILY AND OUR COLLEAGUES WILL BE FOREVER GRATEFUL. PLEASE REPLY IN STRICT CONFIDENCE TO THE CONTACT NUMBERS BELOW.

SINCERELY WITH WARM REGARDS,

GEORGE WALKER BUSH

Switchboard: 202.456.1414 Comments: 202.456.1111 Fax: 202.456.2461 Email: president@whitehouse.gov --

----- End forwarded message ----

(Originally posted to Politics at EraBlog on Fri, 07 Feb 2003 08:44:21 GMT)

The Independent profiles Congresswoman Barbara Lee, the sole Representative to vote against President Bush's resolution of September 15, 2001 asking Congress for the authority to make war on any person, nation, or organisation deemed responsible for the attacks.

Lee's argument for voting against the resolution: "Pared down to its essentials, it ran like this: Congress represented the rational. It was a body that had to remain above the fray. What decisions it made had to consider the lasting good and not respond to the emotion of the moment. By pushing for a vote so quickly, Lee believed, the Bush resolution was taking power out of the hands of legislators and giving it to the executive branch."

"It was something said at the memorial service that finally decided her. A clergyman implored the assembled Congressmen and Senators: 'Let us not become the evil we deplore.'"

Would that more members of Congress had had the fortitude to take such an unpopular stand. We might not have had the USA PATRIOT Act foisted upon us with so little debate a month later.

(Originally posted to Queer at EraBlog on Fri, 07 Feb 2003 08:51:06 GMT)

Amy Sohn writes about Hasbians: Women who came out of the closet only to end up in heterosexual relationships.

I came out as bi in 1991. I was very careful never to call myself "gay" because that label never fit me. Even so, that must have been what many people heard, because only that can explain their surprise when I told them a few years later that I had fallen in love with Emma and was going to marry her.

Now many people believe I'm heterosexual, unless I take the trouble to educate them. Bisexual Invisibility. <sigh>

(Originally posted to Politics at EraBlog on Fri, 07 Feb 2003 GMT 03:19:36)

I didn't listen to Bush's State of the Union last week, because I was still at work. Reading about it afterwards, I found it to be predictably objectionable.

I'm a Toastmaster, so I found Salon's "Horrible" speaker, great speech to be an interesting critique of the delivery and presentation.

The only parts of the speech that I did care for were the hydrogen car and the promise to help prevent and treat AIDS in Africa.

Hydrogen cars would be a big improvement over gas-guzzling SUVs, but there are a few problems. First, they're many years out and the Administration is making no moves towards more fuel efficiency in the short-to-medium term. A big part of the Iraq crisis is our dependence on foreign oil, but the Administration is riddled with oil and energy industry veterans.

Secondly, hydrogen may be environmentally friendly to consume, but the production of hydrogen can be environmentally harmful. "96 percent of hydrogen produced in the world today comes from natural gas, oil and coal -- the same fossil fuels that environmentalists would like to abandon."

AIDS is ravaging Africa. 90% of new cases of HIV infection occur there, 30 million are HIV+, and millions have already died. Many of the dead are adults in the prime of their life, leaving behind orphans to be cared for by the elderly. Generic versions of the AIDS antiretroviral drugs, although much cheaper than the first batch of drugs, are still beyond the reach of most Africans. Not only is it the morally right thing to help Africa, but it's a good for our security. Failed states breed terrorism.

Apparently this has been in the works for several months and I applaud the Administration for this. Despite the Bush Administration's preference for abstinence instead of safe sex, condoms are reported to be part of the package. Unfortunately, much of the new money is coming out of money used to fight malaria and malnutrition.

(Originally posted to Cool Stuff at EraBlog on Fri, 07 Feb 2003 01:25:48 GMT)

Strange and beautiful: Pencil Carvings. Pencils carved into double spirals, chains, rings, and honeycombs.

(Originally posted to Politics at EraBlog on Fri, 07 Feb 2003 07:13:08 GMT)

Tomorrow [Wed Feb 5th, 2003], Colin Powell goes to the UN to make his case against Iraq. Reportedly, he has "no smoking gun".

To my mind, the Bush Administration has not yet made a compelling case for going to war.

Yes, Saddam Hussein is a murderous tyrant. Yes, he has not come clean with the UN and appears to be in "material breach" of Resolution 1441. Yes, he almost certainly has chemical and biological weapons, though probably not nuclear weapons.

But, to my mind, this is not a case for war. Containment has worked for the last twelve years. Why should it not continue to work? It worked against the Soviet Union for forty years of Cold War. And Saddam must surely know that if he tries anything, he will be bombed back into the Stone Age.

Many suggestions are mooted for the Administration's yearning for war. Oil is the most prominent one. Unproven links to Al Qaida. Finishing what was started in Gulf War I. Strategic control of the Middle East. "Weapons of mass distraction" to divert the US public's attention from the failing economy and the Administration's war on the poor and the economy.

Or some combination of all of these. I don't know. If there is a good reason, now is the time to tell us. Excuses about needing to protect intelligence sources don't cut it. Hard evidence is required.