Second is a long and fascinating report by Jon Lee Anderson on The Candidate (not available online) — based on a series of recent, face-to-face, on-the-ground interviews with the likely first legitimately elected president of post-Saddam Iraq, Abdulaziz al-Hakim, and with several of his supporters, detractors, and informed observers in Iraq. The impressions from Anderson’s report are consistent, and almost the opposite of what the Bush regime is saying, and doing:

• The American occupying force is increasingly and uniformly despised by a huge majority, and almost every faction, of Iraqis. Iraqis overwhelmingly believe the US has long overstayed its welcome, is now doing far more harm than good, and is going to get embroiled in greater violence and more sustained and broad-based opposition the longer it stays. As one Iraqi put it so well “We are working, but it’s really just playing around as long as the Americans and the British are in charge. It’s like Iraq is a TV and the Americans and the British have the remote control.”
• All civility that prevailed in the weeks after the war, and all progress achieved in post-Saddam Iraq is credited, rightly or wrongly, to the Iraqis themselves, and especially to the Shia Badr forces. There is an overwhelming sense that the occupying force doesn’t know what they are doing, have grossly inadequate resources to do anything anyway, and are trying to run Iraq on the cheap — no significant investment in labour or cash to rebuild the country. In other words, they are just “in the way” of Iraqis getting on with the job of determining their own future.
• There is enormous resentment of native Iraqis at what is seen as a paternalistic attitude by the occupiers towards the ability of Iraq to rebuild itself. They feel insulted at Americans’ misperception of Iraqis as anarchic, politically naive, uneducated and under-skilled, the Americans’ foot-dragging in turning over control to an elected Iraqi government, and the lack of consultation with Iraqis in making important decisions affecting Iraq’s future.
  
• Whether the occupiers leave now or later, the future will inevitably be violent and divisive. Hakim is guarded in his comments but he makes it absolutely clear that the next government will be a Shia Islamic state, and Anderson’s other interviews make it clear that significant concessions will be made to the Kurds in the North (probably an autonomous Kurdish state, setting the stage for a war with Turkey), and that the Sunnis and Baathists will be caught in the squeeze, put down in a violent civil war, and/or massacred. It’s going to be ugly, but it’s the only way to true constitutional liberalism and democracy, as everyone except the occupiers knows. The pieced-together ‘Governing Council’ is unsustainable and will not hang together. In case there is any doubt about any of this, Anderson quotes one Sunni businessman who says simply the large Baathist and Sunni minority “will accept any Sunni government for Iraq, but no other solution”. There is zero chance of that ’solution’ coming about.

So let me say it again: The US needs to invest heavily in rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure that it destroyed, let the Iraqis do the rebuilding themselves, can Bremer’s hapless Provisional Authority, and bring the occupying forces home and out of harm’s way now. When will someone running for US office have the courage to stand up and say this? Did we learn nothing from Vietnam?

The best article in the magazine — in fact the best piece of political writing I have read in years — is the incomparable Hendrik Hertzberg’s lead Talk of the Town commentary entitled Unsteady State. This short piece should be compulsory reading in journalism school and for anyone who wants to write for a living, including us bloggers. It’s articulate, packed with brilliantly selected, illuminating examples and anecdotes in support of his arguments, punctuated with creative and memorable turns of phrase, short on adjectives, and savage in its broad and compelling skewering of every aspect of the sorry-ass Bush regime’s three years in power. In just 1200 words, Hertzberg (pictured above) succinctly sums up why so many of us believe that Bush will be remembered in perpetuity as the worst president in American history. Quick, someone sign this guy up to write the Dems’ speeches.

Please read the article, save it (it’s currently online but repeated below in its entirety so you’ll still be able to access it when it disappears into the New Yorker archives). And any time you think you have the stuff to be a world-class editorial writer, compare this article to your best work and be humbled and amazed. This guy is the master.

George W. Bush says he wants to go to Mars — a motion that many of his fellow-citizens would heartily second — but he probably doesn’t mean it. The speech in which he announced his ìNew Vision for Space Explorationî was exceedingly vague about how and when the trip was to be made. It did say that in 2015 or maybe in 2020 Americans would be going back to the moon, where they would build a base for ìhuman missions to Mars and to worlds beyond.î An official likened this speech to President Kennedy’s address of May 25, 1961, in which he asked the nation to ìcommit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.î

A week later came Bush’s State of the Union address, the text of which one scans in vain for any mention of Mars, the moon, or space exploration. The subject has already been dropped. (By contrast, Kennedy’s 1962 State of the Union reiterated and discussed the lunar excursion he had proposed eight months before.) Nor is a short attention span the only sign of Bush’s lack of seriousness about his interplanetary venture. There is also its Wal-Mart price tag. The President is asking Congress for an extra two hundred million dollars per year, about what it costs to make a movie like ìWaterworld.î Another couple of billion is to be cannibalized out of the existing space budget. This kind of money will get no one to Mars, but that isn’t to say that Bush’s project will yield no results. It has already led to the cancellation of maintenance on the Hubble Space Telescope, NASA’s most scientifically valuable project, which means that the Hubble will go blind in three or four yearsí time. Bush’s ìNew Visionî is a sharp stick in the eye.

Polls published between the two Bush speeches revealed a distinct lack of public enthusiasm for the President’s space proposal, and it will be surprising if he mentions it again anytime soon. But ìMars,î ìthe moon,î and ìspaceî are not the only words missing in action from the State of the Union. So are ìunemployment,î ìaids,î and ìthe environment.î ìDeficitî makes but a single appearance, as part of an utterly unconvincing, detail-free assertion that the gigantic budget shortfalls with which Bush has replaced the surpluses he inherited can be halved in five years if Congress would just ìfocus on priorities.î

The word ìwar,î on the other hand, makes a dozen appearances in the speech, while ìterrorî and its derivatives appear twenty times. The surrounding contexts suggest that Bush and his political handlers plan to use 9/11 and its aftermath every bit as ruthlessly this year as they did in 2002, when Republicans captured control of the Senate by portraying Democrats as friends of terrorism. (The most prominent victim of this strategy was Senator Max Cleland, of Georgia, who lost three limbs fighting in Vietnam, and who was defeated by ads showing his face alongside those of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.) In 2004, according to Bush, ìwe face a choice: we can go forward with confidence and resolve, or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us.î If the choice he is talking about is November’s (and what else could it be?), then this is slander. The illusion that Bush describes is shared by none of the four remaining Democratic candidates with a chance at nomination. Nor, by the way, do any of them doubt that the Iraqi people are better off without the regime of Saddam Hussein. And, while all four are for other reasons critical of Bush’s Iraq policies, all recognize that, like it or not, the rehabilitation of Iraq is now an American responsibility.

The truth is that at this point no one can be sure whether the Iraq war, in its over-all effect, will turn out in the end to have helped or hindered the larger campaign against Islamism terrorism. What does seem fairly clear is that Iraq’s biological, chemical, and, especially, nuclear weapons did not exist. Public and congressional support for the war, as well as the scattered international support it enjoyed, was therefore purchased falsely and, to a degree not yet known, dishonestly. There has been a serious breach of trust, which cannot fail to have damaging results. ìFor diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible, and no one can now doubt the word of America,î the President said in his speech, and for a moment one couldn’t be sure one had heard him right. Was he speaking ironically? America’s word — the present Administration’s, anyway — has in fact been cast into the deepest doubt, and that is one of the reasons its diplomacy has not been effective. Bush was talking about Libya’s promise, post-Iraq, to abandon its (not very scary) nuclear ambitions, and what he actually meant, of course, is that no one now doubts America’s will to make war. But that is not true, either. Iraq has stretched the Pentagon’s legions thin, and the misinformation that the Administration promulgated, from whatever admixture of intelligence failure and deliberate distortion, means that it will no longer be possible to rally domestic or international support for military adventures in the absence of a clear and independently verifiable casus belli. Washington’s word won’t do.

Bush’s only serious (that is, expensive) domestic program, as always, is yet another mammoth tax entitlement for the rich and the superrich. The new plan would make permanent his earlier tax cuts, which, in a gimmick designed to make future deficits look less terrifying, were scheduled to expire in 2010. This new round of relief for the unneedy, like the previous three, is to be financed (though the President didn’t mention this part) by confiscating the Social Security ìtrust fund,î curtailing federal activities that benefit society at large, and borrowing more trillions — taking out a fourth mortgage on the future, payable to foreign creditors. The rest of Bush’s proposals were either ruinously expensive, socially poisonous non-starters (such as privatizing Social Security) or cheap cuts of wormy red meat for the conservative and evangelical base. Of the latter the cheapest was an exhortation to professional athletes to quit taking steroids, the wormiest a threat to deface the Constitution with anti-gay graffiti.

In last year’s State of the Union, Bush’s buzz phrase was ìweapons of mass destruction,î the threat of which justified the impending conquest of Iraq. This year’s speech subsumed that phrase into the longer, mealier ìweapons of mass destruction-related program activities,î a usefully adaptable locution. Were teams of inspectors to fan out across Bush’s domestic policies in search of solutions to the nation’s problems, they would be less likely to return empty-handed if they settle for environment-related program activities (such as logging in national forests), education-related program activities (such as requiring tests without providing the funds to help kids pass them), and health care-related program activities (such as forbidding Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices). Like the speech itself, all this comes under the heading of winning the election-related program activities. Here’s hoping it will prove equally effective.

ExxonMobil is a disgrace, a perennial resident on most social and environmental boycott lists. If you’re not already boycotting these robber barons, please start. Include subsidiaries Ancon, Esso, Delhi, Fina, Superior, Columbia Resources, Standard, Duke Energy, Imperial, and Paxon. This organization demonstrates with stunning clarity how desperately we need radical reform of corporate charters, the revocation of ‘rights of persons’ for corporations, and an end to indemnification of officers and directors of corporations for company wrong-doings. If we had these reforms in place, the corporation, on being found guilty of such outrageously negligent behaviour, could have its charter revoked, its officers imprisoned, and fines a hundred times larger could be imposed, and made to stick. The fines could used to shake the rest of the industry into proper environmental safeguards, and to provide a fund for protection and remediation of natural sites despoiled by the oil oligopoly the world over.

Here is just a partial list of the long litany of ExxonMobil corporate misdeeds, other than the Valdez disaster:

• human rights violations (providing facilities and equipment for torture and murder of political opponents in Indonesia, Chad & Cameroun)
• toxic discharges (into NY harbour, from a pipeline spill in California, a spill of carcinogens into Long Island groundwater, radioactive contamination of residential area in Louisiana, disregarding the dangers of carcinogenous oil additive MBTE contaminating the drinking water in several states, and toxic discharges from a waste storage facility in Kazakhstan)
• testing of its petrochemical products on laboratory animals
• shareholder disclosure violations (failure to disclose required information on diversity, environmental breaches, executive compensation, lack of investment in alternative renewable energy and human rights violations)
• abuse of power and public trust (high-powered and heavily-financed opposition to the Kyoto Accord, denial of the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming. and trying to get scientists concerned about global warming removed from government advisory bodies)
• disregard for health and safety (negligence resulting in death of refinery workers in Australia)
• threat to endangered species (seismic testing in areas inhabited by rare whales in Asia)
• discrimination (a score of 14 out of 100 on equality and discrimination against gays and lesbians in hiring practices, refusal to provide benefits to unmarried couples, violations of the international embargo against apartheid in South Africa)
• ethics violations (price-gouging of independent retailers, reneging on price agreements with franchisees, cheating state governments out of royalties)
• complicity in the coal-for-arms trade between the US and Colombia (Exxon built the huge, devastating coal strip-mine in Tabaco, Colombia, and then spun it off to a consortium of other multinational oil companies, so that those suing the mine cannot get satisfaction from either “we’re no longer involved’ Exxon or the “this happened before we were involved” consortium that now owns the mine — a classic corporatist tactic)
• reports from several countries also allege that Exxon/Esso engages in price-fixing with competitors, and has the dirtiest burning gasoline available

Of course ExxonMobil denies virtually all of this. They’re fighting, have been fighting, and will continue to fight most of these charges until the litigants die or run out of money. They are listed as one of the Top 10 ‘Greenwashers’ in the world — companies that spend huge amounts on PR, advertising and litigation to misrepresent themselves as socially and environmentally responsible, while investing next to nothing on remediation, research or any other programs that could actually make them more responsible.

A new report commissioned by Friends of the Earth, just out today, shows ExxonMobil is single-handedly responsible for 5% of all the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere in modern history, earmarking it as the world’s single largest contributor to global warming. The company is the object of literally hundreds of boycotts worldwide, and is absolutely remorseless for what they are doing to our planet.

We need to stop these bastards. Please support a renewed boycott of all ExxonMobil products, companies, and suppliers, and spread the word to others. ExxonMobil and the oil barons may have the Bush Administration in their back pockets, but we can use our back pockets to make an example of them, until it hurts their bottom line.

• The US Department of Health does an annual survey that indicates that about 10% of adults are either dependent on or chronic abusers of alcohol or drugs. Alcohol heads the list (8%), followed by illegal drugs (2%) and prescription drugs (1%). The proportion dependent on or abusing inhalants and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs is under 0.5% but is far and away the fastest growing category, currently doubling each year. Rates of dependence and abuse are twice as high in the 18-25 age group in all categories, twice as high among the unemployed in all categories, and 50% higher among Native Americans than those of other ethnic groups. These are truly epidemic numbers, higher than ever before in history, and far higher than during the ‘tune in, turn on, drop out’ hippie days of the 1960s and 1970s.
• Another 8% of adults are listed as having a serious mental illness (SMI). Even accounting for the significant overlap between SMI and substance abuse and dependence, that means that one in six North Americans is struggling with one or the other, and that means one third of households have someone in the home with one or the other. Over 40 million North American adults afflicted. As I reported last fall, a significant proportion of both groups is either in prison or homeless (probably about 3 million), where their illnesses will almost certainly get worse.
• By any imaginable measure, the ‘war on drugs’ is a total failure, ruining lives and costing billions while having no effect on either the availability or use of drugs.
• There are more people hooked on prescription pain killers than on cocaine.
• Inhalants and OTC drugs are the substances of choice for those under 18. Nearly 20% of kids have used inhalants by the age of 12. Preferred inhalants include the aerosols in spray paint, cooking spray, aerosol whipped cream and hair spray, nail polish, paint and nail polish removers and thinners, spot removers, video head cleaners, corrrection fluid, cements and model glues, nitrite-based room deodorizers, propane, helium and gasoline (gasoline is a particular problem among third world and arctic Native American children). The active petrochemical compounds in most inhalants are addictive and can cause severe brain damage.
• As reported recently on several public affairs programs, the latest fashionable drug among the young is dextromethorphan (DXM), most commonly consumed in massive doses (16 pills at a time once tolerance has been built up) of over-the-counter cough and cold remedies like Coricidin and Robitussin. The epidemic has caused many pharmacies to move their cold supplies behind the counter and restrict sale to three boxes at a time. Because Coricidin contains chlorpheniramine maleate, and many cold remedies contain analgesics (pain killers), both of which are toxic in the type of doses needed to get a DXM high, abusers are warned to stick to ’straight’ DXM products. The manufacturers of these products, of course, waive all responsibility. DXM is from the same chemical family as morphine and codeine, but not believed to be as addictive. Overdoses produce a legal PCP-like high, but with huge risks. The ultimate tragedy is that, like most of the commercial crap foisted on us by the big corporations, DXM doesn’t do anything to relieve your cough anyway.

I’m sure it comes as no surprise to readers of How to Save the World that I don’t believe that making substances illegal, and putting people in jail for consuming them, accomplishes anything. It would be nice if we could put the money and energy from the ‘drug war’ into dealing with the underlying causes of SMI and substance abuse, into technologies that would prevent impaired people from driving, and into developing safe, non-addictive, effective, low-cost recreational and medical-use drugs to replace the dangerous, addictive, useless, expensive ones. That way, substance users wouldn’t fry their brains, kill people with cars, clog the prisons, need to steal, or hurt their fetuses, those of us that like to get high could do so cheaply, safely and hassle-free, the Rush Limbaughs of the world could keep their sorry asses out of rehab. and the millions of disease sufferers in the third world could get treatment instead of empty promises. But I’m not holding my breath.

Republicans break into private Democrat databases, use and leak what they find for partisan purposes:

First up, via Atrios, another Bush Republican scandal, this one very reminiscent of Watergate. What these clowns, including Novak, did, is completely illegal, and they should all be in prison. Here’s the lead from the Boston Globe, with a link to the full story:

Canadian sues Ashcroft & Ridge for knowingly & illegally sending him to Syria for torture sessions:

The US Torture Victim Protection Act, ironically passed by Bush I to extend Americans’ ability to sue for torture overseas, makes illegal the practice of ‘extraordinary rendition’ — the practice of using other countries to extract information through torture and other methods illegal in the US. Maher Arar, who was intercepted at an airport stopover on his way home to Canada from vacation, deported by US authorities without evidence, due process, or notification of Canadian authorities, and then tortured by Syrians for over a year before being released without charge, wants to prevent others from being subject to extraordinary rendition. In his case, Arar makes it clear his release was a Syrian screw-up — he was supposed to ‘disappear’ in Syria’s prison system to keep his case from coming to light. The second irony is that, although never charged with anything, he’s banned from entering the US for five years so he can’t testify personally in the case. Sixty Minutes has covered the story but the US print media have hardly mentioned it. [Full Story]

Senior CIA advisors tell Bush of high probability of Iraq degenerating into civil war

I‘ve only made two major predictions on this blog and this was one of them — that regardless of what Bush tries to do to ‘impose’ order, democracy and constitutional liberalism on Iraq (and Afghanistan), the people of those countries will determine their own future on their own terms and in their own time — and that will inevitably be by way of further bloodshed, totalitarianism and civil strife. It’s encouraging to see that someone in a position to get Bush’s attention is saying the same thing. Not that he’s likely to listen. Here’s the lead from Knight-Ridder, picked up by Common Dreams and not many others:

Oh, and my other major prediction? That the crushing Bush debt will plunge the world into economic collapse. The IMF are my strange bedfellows on that one. It’s going to be a fun year.

Environmental groups grapple internally with the explosive issue of population — and immigration

Last but not least, a story from the LA Times about how environmental groups like the Sierra Club are waking up to the terrifying prospect of One Billion Americans, with the consequence of coast-to-coast sprawl, eco-catastrophe and zero green space. The debate pits two core liberal values: environmentalism and openness to immigration, head-to-head. The result, not surprisingly, is a headache. The discussion is long overdue and important. The LA Times did a great job on this story, and since it’s passed into the archives, I’m posting it, courtesy of the Ecological Weblog, in its entirety: