Ever since Arnold Schwarzenegger became Der Kali-Führer in 2003, I've been wondering if the Democrats could ever find an equivalent figure to run for office.

And suddenly it seemed so obvious: If Mr Freeze can run on his celebrity-recognition quotient alone, with a campaign platform containing no discernible political ideas whatsoever, then surely Batman himself can run for the White House.

That's right: George Clooney for president. Far-fetched? Well, let's run some comparisons. It's been a while since we had our last actor president.

Whatever liberals may think of Reagan, celebrity earns you extra points with the public and knowing how to deliver one's lines is an asset in politics, so Clooney already has one up on the verbal dyslexic currently calling the shots in Washington.

Clooney has one divorce in his background, but no scandal beyond clipping David O Russell round the ear on the set of Three Kings, which is the kind of thing that plays well in the Red states - much like shooting lawyers in the face.   more »

Even on what passes for a left in the U.S., many commentators seem to think that the invasion is properly understood as a bungled effort to spread democracy – an incompetent occupation that genuinely sought to “liberate” and would have been undertaken even if Iraq’s only raw materials were chicory, lettuce, and bananas.

The “freedom”- loving Bush administration, many “left” American commentators seem to think, should just call off its overly “idealistic” misadventure and let the Iraqis work their problems out on their own.

“We” should accept “defeat,” which “we” allegedly suffered in Vietnam and muster the humanitarian courage to admit “our” (merely) tactical “mistake” and leave (see, for example, Nicholas Kristoff, “What We Need in Iraq: An Exit Date,” New York Times, 14 February, 2006, p. A23).

The White House has never had the slightest interest in creating a genuinely free, sovereign, democratic, and independent Iraq.

Under the useful cover story of “Iraqi Freedom,” it wants to deepen U.S. control of Iraqi and thus Middle Eastern oil, something such an Iraq would be certain resist.   more »

Paul Krugman, in Marxist-Lite vein, discusses class in American Society. In Graduates Versus Oligarchs, he makes the obvious statement:

"...We're seeing the rise of a narrow oligarchy: income and wealth are becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small, privileged elite."

Now, isn't that a big surprise? Paul Krugman manages to get through his 1,000 article on wealth and power distribution without once using the c-word, class. Is this a record?

Nevertheless, without frightening the sensitive liberal, affluent NYT readers, he does launch a fairly fierce attack on class and capitalism:

...Who are the winners from rising inequality? It's not the top 20 percent, or even the top 10 percent. The big gains have gone to a much smaller, much richer group than that...

The idea that we have a rising oligarchy is much more disturbing. It suggests that the growth of inequality may have as much to do with power relations as it does with market forces. Unfortunately, that's the real story.   more »

Keywords: wealth, capitalism, krugman, oligarchy

If the riots continue and grow, the Pakistani security forces responsible for containing them will at some point go over and join the rioters.

Musharraf will try to get the last plane out; perhaps he will find Texas a congenial place of exile. If he doesn't make that plane, his head will serve as a football, not just of the political variety.

A new Pakistani government, in quest of legitimacy, will understand that comes from opposing Bush's America, not getting in bed with it.

Osama will be the new honorary President of Pakistan, de facto if not de jure. Our, and NATO's operation in Afghanistan will become strategically unsustainable overnight. That nice Mr. Karzai will, one hopes, find a seat on a C-17.

The fall of Pakistan to radical Islam will be a strategic disaster greater than anything possible in Iraq, even losing an army.

It will be a greater disaster than a war with Iran that costs us our army in Iraq. Osama and Co. will have nukes, missiles to deliver them, the best conventional armed forces in the Moslem world and an impregnable base for operations anywhere else.   more »

Everyone in the Middle East rewrites history, but never before have we had a US administration so wilfully, dishonestly and ruthlessly reinterpreting tragedy as success, defeat as victory, death as life - helped, I have to add, by the compliant American press.

I'm reminded not so much of Vietnam as of the British and French commanders of the First World War who repeatedly lied about military victory over the Kaiser as they pushed hundreds of thousands of their men through the butchers' shops of the Somme, Verdun and Gallipoli.

The only difference now is that we are pushing hundreds of thousands of Arabs though the butchers' shops - and don't even care.

Last week's visit to Beirut by one of the blindest of George Bush's bats - his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice - was indicative of the cruelty that now pervades Washington.

She brazenly talked about the burgeoning "democracies" of the Middle East while utterly ignoring the bloodbaths in Iraq and the growing sectarian tensions of Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.   more »

"BEFORE BUSH, NO LEADER IN MODERN HISTORY, NOT EVEN HITLER, STALIN, OR MAO, HAD PUBLICLY DEMANDED THE RIGHT TO TORTURE."

Mr. Bush's statement that "we do not torture," even as he was threatening to veto the entire Defense bill because it limited his right to torture, is a dramatic example of how torture degrades the torturer even more than his victims.

And it is a disgraceful commentary on our nation that no major church, business, or political leader, nor the fawning media personalities who interview him and his officials, has expressed outrage at this bald-faced lie.

And one can barely mention an unspeakable Congress, which ignored his lying about torture after spending two years impeaching his predecessor for lying about sex.

The real question for us, however, is what this says not about President Bush and our other leaders, but ourselves.

What are we, as citizens, as human beings, willing to live with? Are we willing to live with a President, Vice-President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and Attorney-General who either engage in or rationalize torture in our names, even as they shamelessly deny they are doing so?   more »

Why wouldn't the U.S. bomb Shiite holy places in Iraq and shift the blame to Sunnis? Why wouldn't the U.S. want a civil war in Iraq?

Hasn't the U.S. Always pursued "divide and ruler" strategies, starting with the earliest days of conquering the native inhabitants of Turtle Island?

Didn't the British allies of the U.S. get caught with SAS soldiers in Arab garb driving around Basra with bomb-making materials in their vehicle?

Weren't the Brits so concerned over the capture of their covert operators by Iraqi police that they broke them out of custody, using tanks to destroy a local jail?

Anyone who doubts that the U.S. wouldn't deliberately provoke hostility within the Iraqi population is naive, ignorant, or stupid.

Didn't the U.S. set up an Iraqi constitution that subdivided the nation by religion and culture in order to provoke resource disputes between the subdivisions?   more »

26 FEBRUARY

"Jewish Lobby" Tries to Ban Palestinain Film from Oscars

"Ports Deal": Global Capitalism Meets Anti-Arab Bigotry

"Civil War" in Iraq? Is America Encouraging It?

Nicholas Kristof on America's Anti-Arabism

Cheney's Antics Expose America's Ruling Class

Israel's Politicians: Psychopaths in Power

Capitalism & Wealth Distribution: Americans Are "Poles Apart"

It's Alright to Be Racist Again: "They're All Jihad Monkeys"