I was very saddened to learn that David Bloom of NBC Today show fame died this morning. I knew him like most of America, as a talking head and reporter on TV. But I felt closer to him than I do most reporters, perhaps due to his personality and his position on morning talk shows. Over these last three weeks or so, I followed Bloom's reports with a deep fascination, this man was living one of my dreams (and I'm sure one of his) and doing it with such class and intelligence, that his work would be remembered with a wealth of awards and with incredible historical significance. It's difficult to express how I feel about the loss of this one human. I do recommend you read Partygirl, a blogger I've been following since 9/11, actually met him and shares her very personal story. My best wishes go out to his friends and family. They have experienced a tremendous loss and will not soon recover.

Again from kottke.org. He links to an important article from Dan Gillmor on how the American public is losing the civil liberties battle. It's all too reminiscint of Orwell's horrible depiction of world gone crazy with doublespeak in 1984.

Thin Ice. Another excellent E-sheep production. While you're there check out Rush Limbaugh Eats Everything. An oldie, but a goodie. (via Kottke.org)

The Globe and Mail prints a letter from Margaret Atwood to America. I've been fan of Atwood's since reading/seeing her "Handmaid's Tale" in college. Can't say I disagree with her sentiments here. In fact, the letter is like a litany of areas the U.S. left needs to focus on for the next election.

Digby thinks GW may be certifiable. Too bad this isn't like Star Trek where Bones can kick Kirk out of the command seat.

In another volley aimed at securing a Democratic White House, Kevin Drum at CalPundit serves up this excellent point:
"Rich countries rarely go to war against each other, and rich people rarely become terrorists — Osama may be a rich man, but his followers aren't. Therefore, if we truly want to be safe from terrorism in the long term, we need a foreign policy aimed at making poor countries rich. Tolerance and democracy will follow. This is an enormously sensitive and difficult problem, and I don't pretend to know how to attack it, but it's imperative that it be our goal. Nothing else will work."

He's talking about how the next Democratic presidential candidate can formulate a viable foreign policy in the wake of Bush's major mess. Something to think about.

Craig at BookNotes has a good roundup of war news that has flown under the wire of the major media.

Terminus has a post talking about political correctness coming from the right this time. Worth a read.

Oddly soothing. (requires flash)

There’s a serious argument to be made that terrorism throws the whole notion of just law on its ear. How is it possible to defend oneself against unseen forces except by aggressive policy? It’s an interesting hypothesis. But in order for it to carry any water as a just strategy, it cannot be pre-emptive and unilateral, both of which the US reserves as its right. If a new dispensation is going to be added to just war theory—that just cause includes pre-emptive strikes—it must also include further conditions. In the case of pre-emption, it must include a condition of international support.

-- Notes on the Atrocities.

Go read more of the above from Emma Goldman (another anonymous blogger). However, Emma leaves out the real justification for Bush's war with Iraq... spreading democracy throughout the region. I'd like to see her opinion on that.

Winds of Change starts to provide an answer to the question: "Where do they get young men like this?

Jeanne D'arc's Body and Soul posts a very important letter concerning the long debate over extremism vs. centrism. Needless to say this debate has been going on since the first conceptualism of liberalism, I don't think it will end anytime soon.

Counterspin echos my earlier post on what future foes might want to start investigating as far as defense.

Arundhati Roy, author and commentator for the Guardian/UK, pens a long piece on her view of the US and UK invasion of Iraq. It's definately worth reading, bringing up many of the arab street's usual complaints and a few new ones. My big problem with this piece is that it offers no alternate path to the one suggested by Bush and his Neocons.

In fact, if the goal is to bring democracy and human rights to these countries, I haven't heard a workable alternate suggestion from anyone. The only alternate offered has been stronger sanctions. The reason being they worked in South Africa and should work again. But sanctions in Iraq only resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. The difference was that there was a resistance movement in South Africa that asked for sanctions where the Iraqi people did not. So that would not work in Iraq. Nor is it likely to work in Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Iran, etc. The only country it is likely to work on is Israel, as the resistance is crying out everyday for sanctions against Israel from the west. But we're on other side of the fence there, just like we were for many years in South Africa.

So, while I continue to be a strong believer in the importance of spreading human rights, including the right to representation (ie, democracy), across the globe, I cannot currently invision a path that will get us there without use of force. Any suggestions?

Gary Hart, the once-again presidential candidate, has a blog. What amazes me about this is his willingness to open himself up to criticisms and debate (read the comments). Exactly what I want from my next president. (btw, Howard Dean has a good website, but so far no personal journalesque writings from him, but there is a Dean Blog tracking the campaign.)

"Where Do They Get Young Men Like This? Embedded CNN reporter emits what is sure to be one of the lingering memories of this war. (via "Lt. Smash)

Eject! Eject! Eject! writes a long essay about the reasons for war and some historical perspective on what we're fighting for. Here's a quote:
Now it seems fair to say that you can boil down the opinions of many of those opposed to the War in Iraq to a question uttered by leading anti-war activist Susan Sarandon, who asked, “I want to know what Iraq has done to us.”

There are two reasons to fight this war. One is so that History will never be able to answer that question. I don’t ever want to read about the VX attacks that left 16,000 dead at Atlanta Hartsfield airport. I don’t want to see the video of makeshift morgues inside the LA Coliseum as more anthrax victims are emptied from the hospitals. And I don’t want to look at helicopter shots of a blackened, radioactive crater where Times Square used to be, or of millions of dead bodies burning in funeral pyres, like columns of failure, dead from starvation and disease in the worldwide depression that such an attack on New York would produce.

I personally have a hard time justifying "peace from the end of a gun barrel" as a reason to go to war. 'Pax Democracia' is a noble goal but if lives are lost unnecessarily and unjustly in obtaining it, then the goal will feel hollow (and probably unreachable). Fear of imperialism (a reasonable fear based on past experience) makes warfare an almost impossible option and therefore it should be the final resort. This seems to be the key point that the Bush regime has missed in the eyes of anti-war camp. The pro regime change camp believes they have tried everything and that waiting is no longer an option.

So is the barrel necessary? Even knowing Saddam's history, if I could truly believe that Iraq had a part in 9.11.01, had WMD and planned to use them (again), or was an imminent threat to his neighbors (the most provable of the three) then I would feel better about regime change. As it is, I think this war is being fought for different reasons. The fact that Iraq is our target is just due to the incompetence of Saddam (he could have defused this whole thing 12 years ago and instead be in the same position N. Korea is right now). We would be at war with someone right now because the people in power want a war to prove their theories of 'pre-emptive strikes' and that even a 'semi-democracy' is better than being ruled by a ruthless dictator (as William Kristol said on 'Fresh Air' tonight). And, since they have a President who is partial to their ideas already, now is the time to implement then.

Now, I'm not opposed to those ideas in every instance. I can see cases where a 'pre-emptive strike' is required (JFK's embargo of Cuba, which was an act of war for one) or would have been preferable to our isolationist politics (WWII, when we waited for Pearl Harbor). But when the goal from the outset is to 'install democracy' instead of 'to root out evil' then I'm on the fence. So, until I have proof from a trusted third party (I just can't trust the Bush regime) that a 'pre-emptive strike' was as necessary in this case as it was in those other cases, then I remain unconvinced this war is a good thing. And if you can't convince me (an Eagle scout), then how can you convince the Arab Street or the rest of the world.

Btw, the time for convincing the rest of the world is before you launch your attack, or shortly there after. The window is swiftly closing for the Bush regime. America will have to act decisively in 2004 to save face if the case for attack can't be made to the rest of the world.

So here we go... hoping for the best, afraid of the worst, not knowing what either side has up its sleeve, nor how long this will take. I hope the loss of life on both sides is minimal from here on out. I am afraid that the slaughter through the sights of our advanced weaponry will continue. I hope the regime change comes swiftly. I'm afraid that WMD will be used. I hope that when the war is over, peace and rebuilding come swiftly. I'm afraid that the war will only spread to Syria, Iran, and N. Korea. Only one thing we can be sure of, the future will be interesting.

First go read Talk Left. Then for more on 'American Global Leadership' (a euphemism for Global Domination) listen to the April 1st 'Fresh Air' on NPR. The first guest will scare you with his analysis of current events. The second guest (William Kristol) will send chills down your spine with his earnest beliefs that have led the world down this dangerous road.

Phil Carter is a must read today.

Untelevised reminds us of this age old arab proverb:
Myself against my brother. Myself and my brother against my cousin. Myself, my brother and my cousin against the foreigner.
I think we haven't even seen the beginning of our troubles in the middle-east. The sooner this is over the better.

Unruled has a great piece on the Economics of bombs. Read all the way to the bottom to find some great stuff on cement bombs. (via Jim Henley)