“Saigon. Shit. I’m still only in Saigon.” In the opening sequence of Apocalypse Now, Capt. Willard awakens from his fever dream only to discover he’s still in Saigon. President Bush, who after much denial likens Iraq to Vietnam, made clear last week that a huge number of US troops will remain in Iraq as the fall ’08 election begins.
** IRAQ ABOVE ALL. What President George W. Bush and his associates such as General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker did last week all but guaranteed that Iraq and affiliated matters will be the dominant issue of the 2008 elections.
By an odd coincidence, the US is now slated to have just as many troops in Iraq come next July as we had before the latest “surge” strategy began. And while there have been some successes — as well there might be, given the extraordinary efforts underaken — they remain isolated both geographically and politically, with their sustainability in deep question. Indeed, the key Sunni sheik Bush had met with only 10 days earlier who was so key to the newfound ability to take on Al Qaeda in Anbar province was assassinated just before Bush spoke to the nation last Thursday night.
And the following day, this past Friday, the White House sent a new benchmarks report to Congress showing progress on only one indicator. The various factions have agreed to allow former members of Saddam’s Baath Party to hold government posts. The de-Baathification policy pursued by the Bush Administration was one of the most boneheaded moves made after the invasion of Iraq. Even in Germany after World War II, many former Nazis were allowed in the system.
The history of unconventional warfare suggests that the enemy is dispersed rather than defeated by the insertion of large numbers of troops in an area.
I have no doubt that there would be signficant US troop withdrawals underway now if the latest Iraq policy — or, I should say, the one just before the one announced this week — were working better. Stubborn though he clearly is, Bush undoubtedly knows that it is not in his interest or in the interest of the Republican Party to have the news flow continue to be dominated by trouble in Iraq.
But he really has no choice, aside from giving in, which he has refused to do. Even as he has slowly but surely adopted the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group — first reviled on the right and by Bush’s diehard supporters — he has done so haltingly and late. So everything becomes even further attenuated.
Which is actually good for Democrats, from a cynical point of view. Cynicism, nonetheless, not infrequently wins elections.
** SOME SUNDAY THOUGHTS ON CALIFORNIA POLITICS. If Republicans really want more water storage and conveyance, i.e., aqueducts to carry water from one place to another, why are so many of them taking off from the special legislative session on water to go on foreign junkets and other forms of vacations?
Unlike the special session on health care reform, which can go on for quite awhile since nothing in it is aimed for the February ballot, the special session on water has only a few more days or it will miss that ballot.
With climate change, California clearly does need more water storage. Legislative Republicans have pushed and nagged about water storage for the last few years. And unlike the case with health care, where their votes aren’t needed for any likely legislation, their votes probably are needed on water, given the reflex position of many environmentalists against dams and aqueducts.
It’s a strange time for serious political people to go missing.
On health care reform, there is a lot of talk about raising the sales tax to help finance a new comprehensive program. It’s a regressive tax, of course, but as a well-known Democrat was pointing out in a recent discussion, the national health systems of Western Europe are funded by a regressive VAT (value-added tax) and no one whines about that. Attitudes here, however, are different, and the sales tax certainly hasn’t been pre-sold. In fact, it’s barely been mentioned as a health care option — outside the few hundred people involved with the issue, who frequently forget how insular they can become — until a few weeks ago.
Another big problem with the sales tax option. It would likely have to pass through the general fund, in so doing giving up about 40% of its take to education per the Proposition 98 education finance strictures California operates under.
That’s a good way to get support from the teachers unions. But not a good way to get support from voters, who think that education already gets enough money, and that that money needs to be used more effectively.
And also a fleeting thought about redistricting reform, left off the special session menu after another supposed near-miss at an agreement. I’ll write more specifically about the latest failure on redistricting another time. But at the California Republican Party convention last weekend, it occurred to me that — no matter their rhetoric — there is really little reason to believe that right-wing Republicans actually want competitive legislative districts.
Just as the ultra-government faction is against redistricting reform, so too is the anti-government faction. Which is perhaps a reason why Republican legislators began getting very cold feet a few days before that convention.
Your posts are welcome in the Forum.
Read 
| Comments (0) |
Of course the righty wingnuts don’t want fairly drawn legislative districts. Doh! Normal people won’t take marching orders from the Flush Report. lol
Of course the righty wingnuts don’t want fairly drawn legislative districts. Doh! Normal people won’t take marching orders from the Flush Report. lol
And I don’t want to pay a higher sales tax for the CTA.
Who is the upside down face in the video? Is that Marlon Brando?
That’s Marty Sheen, who played Willard. Brando was Col. Kurtz.
I think the teachers union has considered and rejected sales taxes in the past. This would be for health care, on the surface. Which could make the ballot proposition look like a bait and switch.
>Ann :
And I don’t want to pay a higher sales tax for the CTA.
Sep 16, 2007 11:58 AM
Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like ‘boat people,’ ‘re-education camps’ and ‘killing fields.’ – GWB.
What a ‘douchebag’! I’m pretty gung ho on the US being in Iraq nearly forever; but I cannot listen to Bush anymore. Everything is about debating word definitions and semantics with that man. Now he wants to talk about what words we use to describe the end of the Vietnam War.
That video is a real classic. “This is The End.” It’s not the end. It’s never the end.
There’s something to that.
Gung ho? Planning on serving?
Sam, I’d be interested in your strategy for winning the war in Vietnam.
>’boat people,’ ‘re-education camps’ and ‘killing fields.’ – GWB.
What a ‘douchebag’! I’m pretty gung ho on the US being in Iraq nearly forever; but I cannot listen to Bush anymore. Everything is about debating word definitions and semantics with that man. Now he wants to talk about what words we use to describe the end of the Vietnam War.
Sep 16, 2007 12:43 PM
Can “sin taxes” such as those on alcohol and tobacco be directed to this specific purpose and diverted around the Prop 98 siphon?
You’re talking about something else, “sin” taxes rather than sales taxes.
I suppose so, but that hasn’t been proposed.
An increase in the overall sales tax could be directed away from the general fund, but that could draw the wrath of the teachers unions, which always want more money.
Well, I’m proposing it then. High-risk-group “user fees” designated to the fund to offset those behaviors’ disproportionate contributions to system costs.
Question 2: How much of the special taxes on cigs and booze currently go into the general fund and get skimmed off by Prop 98? Are they currently earmarked (wasn’t there some special earmark on the cig tax and/or tobacco settlement money?) Anyone? Bueller?
Teachers’ unions, with whose rank and file at least I’m generally pretty sympathetic but I’m increasingly less sure about CTA, would do well to note the recent experience of CCPOA. Their hand CAN be overplayed, and their warm and fuzzy image lost. Getting on the wrong side of the health care debate by opposing any tax supplementation funding structure that denies them their 40% “skim” seems like one good way to make that mistake.
Well, I’m proposing it then. High-risk-group “user fees” designated to the fund to offset those behaviors’ disproportionate contributions to system costs.
Question 2: How much of the special taxes on cigs and booze currently go into the general fund and get skimmed off by Prop 98? Are they currently earmarked (wasn’t there some special earmark on the cig tax and/or tobacco settlement money?) Anyone? Bueller?
Teachers’ unions, with whose rank and file at least I’m generally pretty sympathetic but I’m increasingly less sure about CTA, would do well to note the recent experience of CCPOA. Their hand CAN be overplayed, and their warm and fuzzy image lost. Getting on the wrong side of the health care debate by opposing any tax supplementation funding structure that denies them their 40% “skim” seems like one good way to make that mistake.
Mr. Bush is nothing more than a years-long, ongoing embarrassment of pinheaded plans vis a vis Iraq. Those others of us with advanced Harvard degrees should demand some form of recompense.
Mr. Bush is nothing more than a years-long, ongoing embarrassment of pinheaded plans vis a vis Iraq. Those others of us with advanced Harvard degrees should demand some form of recompense.
Sorry for the double-posting.
Brother Bush’s mendaciousness aggravates me greatly.
Sorry for the double-posting.
Brother Bush’s mendaciousness aggravates me greatly.
Sorry for the double-posting.
Brother Bush’s mendaciousness aggravates me greatly.
That’s OK, Jonathan. It was worth saying twice.
Dr. Hemlock knows even more about these things than he sometimes lets on and can get quite agitated.
Nah, nice try, the education establishment wants the money.
> Wilbur :
Well, I’m proposing it then. High-risk-group “user fees” designated to the fund to offset those behaviors’ disproportionate contributions to system costs.
What does the Republican far right or the CTA get about general elections in California? lol
Actually, if you build large desalination plants, conveyance becomes much more important than storage. This water can also be shipped to other states (e.g., Arizona and Nevada).
Is anyone proposing that?
Is anyone proposing that?
No.
Martin Sheen didn’t look that fat again upside down for 25 years. lol
That’s mean.
NickM, the problem with desalination is that I don’t think anyone’s figured out a way to do it on a large enough scale without large inputs of power. While I’m still of the opinion that we can get electricity demand under control mostly by deploying efficiency measures*, large-scale desalination with current tech would lead to exploding energy demand.
* Remember, current projections of demand are based on the assumption that we keep doing what we’ve done in the past, most of which is phenomenally inefficient; new LEED buildings are 4x to 10x more efficient with power and water, and old buildings could be brought up to the low end of that at a price comparable to, possibly lower than, building new power plants.
Just as a couple examples of how dumb power usage often is — there’s an available case study on the Adobe Systems HQ in San Jose, where one of the first things they discovered when they started working on LEED certification was that the fans in their open-sided parking structure were on 24/7. After some analysis, they discovered that the open sides provided plenty of ventilation outside peak driving hours (morning and evening commute), and even then they only needed to be turned on for one out of every six minutes to maintain air quality well above required standards. At the cost of a few hundred dollars’ worth of a consultants time, they saved, within the first year, several thousands on running these big fans.
Such savings are typical. The entire economy has been designed with no attention to resource efficiency, because we’re still stuck in the Industrial Revolution mentality of making labor more productive by throwing material capital at it. Given that the modern world has an overabundance of people, and a shortage of resources, that paradigm needs to be killed, in favor of a willingness to employ more labor in order to improve the productivity of each unit of material.
Oh, and while I’m not bullish on building lots of new power plants (possibly a few to replace old ones, with as much focus as possible on distributed co-gen), water conveyance and storage is definitely called for. With global warming, the mountains aren’t going to keep providing that service to us, so clearly we need to reinforce and expand systems for that before it’s too late.
Auros – storage and conveyance of precipitation only gets you so far. Beyond that, the water needs of CA and other states have to be met somehow. I don’t see another source for the necessary amounts of water for the CA (and AZ, NV, etc.) population of a few decades from now.
With efficiency measures, the ability to capture meltwater and rainwater rather than letting it all run down to the see, and barring major shifts in precipitation patterns (like, the Sierras themselves turning significantly more desert-like), at the very least NorCal can be accounted for without much trouble.
SoCal and the rest of the desert southwest may be in more trouble, long-term. My parents live in the Phoenix area. It would help if all the idiots out there would quit making emerald-green yards and golf courses. Xeriscaping can be very attractive.
In any case, at some point, desert areas are going to have to start charging what water really costs in places like that, instead of handing it out like candy.