Checking In.

Conditions: Warm, quiet.


Consider this a small missive from my knee, in the absence of a desk.



Another Checkpoint For Iraq.

Very soon the 4,000th American soldier will be killed in Iraq. That's quite an achievement, considering all that hasn't been achieved in the last five years. (I continue to find it interesting that while the American body count is well known and oft-updated, the Iraqi Body Count is still up for debate.)

Baghdad - A roadside bomb killed three U.S. soldiers in Iraq on Saturday, pushing the U.S. death toll closer to the 4,000 mark at the start of the sixth year of the war for U.S. troops.

The deaths, which brought the number of U.S. soldiers killed since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 to 3,996, came three days after President George W. Bush said the United States was on track to victory in Iraq.

In an upbeat speech marking the fifth anniversary of the war, Bush acknowledged the "high cost in lives and treasure" but said a U.S. troop build-up in Iraq had reduced violence there and opened the door to a strategic victory in the war on terror.

- Truthout.org

Yes, yes. Hussein was a massive threat to America, and Iraqis would welcome the invading American army with open arms and flowers. Heard it all before, not listening anymore. (Note that from the neocon perspective Iraq may well be a success story, what with the massive military-industrial spending and huge contracts going to American companies that support the war. Perhaps that is how he can define a 'strategic victory'.) But from all the bullshit that was laid about what Iraq had done before the invasion and what it would do after, you'd think some pretty smart flowers would grow, but again, you would be over estimating the American Government.

President Bush said Thursday that Iran has declared that it wants to be a nuclear power with a weapon to "destroy people," including others in the Middle East, contradicting the judgments of a recent U.S. intelligence estimate.

The president spoke in an interview intended to reach out to the Iranian public on the Persian new year and to express "moral support" for struggling freedom movements, particularly among youth and women. It was designed to stress U.S. support for Iran's quest for nuclear energy and the prospects that Washington and Tehran can "reconcile their differences" if Iran cooperates with the international community to ensure that the effort is not converted into a weapons program.

But most striking was Bush's accusation that Iran has openly declared its nuclear weapons intentions, even though a National Intelligence Estimate concluded in December that Iran had stopped its weapons program in 2003, a major reversal in the long-standing U.S. assessment.

"They've declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people - some in the Middle East. And that's unacceptable to the United States, and it's unacceptable to the world," Bush told U.S.-funded Radio Farda, which broadcasts into Iran in Farsi.

How exactly does Bush think he's reaching out to the Iranian public when he declares Iran is building nuclear weapons to destroy people, and then threatens them? Imagine for a moment you were an Iranian, listening to that. What would you think? Does this man have one diplomatic bone in his body?

Experts on Iran and nuclear proliferation said the president's statement was wrong. "That's as uninformed as [Sen. John] McCain's statement that Iran is training al-Qaeda. Iran has never said it wanted a nuclear weapon for any reason. It's just not true. It's a little troubling that the president and the leading Republican candidate are both so wrong about Iran," said Joseph Cirincione, president of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation.

Others said it is unclear whether the president believes what he said or was deliberately distorting Iran's position.

"The Iranian government is on the record across the board as saying it does not want a nuclear weapon. There's plenty of room for skepticism about these assertions. But it's troubling for the administration to indicate that Iran is explicitly embracing the program as a means of destroying another country," said Suzanne Maloney, an Iran specialist at the State Department until last year and now at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center.

- Truthout.org

Seriously, how long until this guy can't do anymore harm?

Special Bonus Level: Iraq and the Surge, Iraq and it's Oil.




Global Economy: All In It Together.

Are you of the opinion that the proto-recession-economy-crisis is only really going to affect America, and is only really about a bunch of greedy corporate assholes who spent years signing up mortgages to anyone who wanted one, regardless of whether they could pay for it or not? Well, that might not be all there is to it.

We're suffering the blows of a great triple shock, the scope and the consequences of which are still difficult to measure, but which we know will profoundly refashion the global system.

The first shock is the world's shift from the West to the East. The unique American engine is exhausted, China, Asia are taking over. The second shock is a consequence of the first: Chinese thirst for raw materials has caused prices to explode and provoked a return of inflation - dead for 30 years - to the forefront of concern. The third shock is the financial crisis which persists, expands and leads to the end of (too-) easy credit.

There is no equivalent for the first shock unless it be the passage of supremacy from Europe to America during the First World War. The second is like the so-called "oil" shock of the 1970s. For the final shock, comparison oscillates among the Great Depression of the 1930s and the more limited crises of the 19th century and those more recent crises of the 1980s. The three shocks together have, in any case, an unprecedented scope: boom, boom, boom, they come at once and act in concert.

The Federal Reserve is blamed for having been the source of the evils of easy money. The "wizard" Alan Greenspan, adulated only yesterday, decided on interest rates too low to encourage growth, but that inflated asset bubbles instead. American households were able to go into debt cheaply and consume more and more. Imports grew in a straight line; the trade deficit deepened; the dollar began to weaken.

And this is all bad. So what is the end game, here?

From now on, food and energy will be more expensive. We are experiencing the end of a 30-year downward trend in commodity prices. Does that mean the resurgence of the specter of inflation? Probably not, even if it is too soon to be entirely reassured. In the immediate future, these elevated prices are going to corrode purchasing power, slowing both consumption and growth.

To what extent are developing countries autonomous enough to resist the fall of the American economy, now poised on the verge of recession? This East versus West "uncoupling" is one major uncertainty.

Then, there's the financial crisis. The collapse of an investment fund in the American giant Carlyle Group, this week, has come to show that that crisis is far from being contained. What's new about this crisis is that it does not center on one country or one bank, but concerns the sui generis construction of the financial world.

- Truthout.org

So, really and once again, we're all in it together. But fear not, or at least fear quite not so much. For the long term view says the new economy that should grow from the current one will be better and stronger. We just have to get through the crisis at hand without jumping off any tall buildings.



I Have A Point.

By now you should know all about Barack Obama's recent speech about Race in America, made in response to the supposed outcry over comments his pastor made in church about America. So finally Obama had to stand up and acknowledge the elephant in the room, since it was now standing on his foot. But instead of some kind of standard distancing move, or a practiced apology, he decided to try and explain a few things. It's quite unusual to have a politician stand up and intelligently explain the things he believes in and hopes for. It's quite a powerful speech. So in case you didn't hear it, check out the transcript here.



Film Review: 3:10 To Yuma.

Ah but the Western is a tricky endeavour. Part road trip movie, part heist flick, it relies heavily on character and atmosphere in order to work. Yuma scores well in the character department. Russell Crowe and Christian Bale play charismatic bad guy and good guy, respectfully. But surprisingly it’s the atmosphere department that lets Yuma down. Perhaps it’s the unfair comparison with the spectacular and recent Assassination of Jesse James film, but Yuma does not exactly sparkle.

It’s all the more frustrating when you consider the parts. The plot is pretty good. The actors are all top notch. But sadly the atmosphere, when not focusing on the troubled visages of our two lead actors, is decidedly flat. It does look like the fabled old west, sort of, but there’s a distinct lack of ‘weight’, or reality to what we see. The buildings seem small, and tatty, and fake. The horses are props. Even the mountains have a cardboardy, stand in-ish affair. And I’m pretty sure there was some music in this film, but nothing really registers. Unsurprising I suppose, considering it was handled by Marco ‘T3’ Beltrami.

So we’re left with an interesting film that fails to really engage the viewer with what it’s doing. One impression I had was of the camera being too close to it’s subject, things filling up the frame that would have looked better had they been pushed back a bit. Another impression was of the camera moving about a lot, as if we the viewer spend the film on horseback as well. Distracting things, pitfalls that should be easily avoided. Crowe and Bale give their all, and put in very impressive characters who affect and are affected by each other. The supporting actors are all solid too. There’s just a lack of something here, that’s tough to put a finger on. Does Yuma earn it’s ending? Does it live up to it’s talent? Will we remember it in time? All good, open questions. Two inscrutable glances out of five.



End transmission.