Revised Cover



Check out who did the intro to my upcoming book!

To the People of New Hampshire



You have an important decision to make today. You have a choice between the one Democratic candidate, Howard Dean, with the guts and gumption to take on George W. Bush this coming fall, and an ordinary Democrat like John Kerry or John Edwards.



Howard Dean is far from perfect. I disagree with him on many issues, especially the war in Afghanistan. And it's a little weird to know that your president sometimes growls like a Siberian snow leopard. But none of the other major contenders can beat Bush.



First and foremost, the nation has become so polarized that the "swing vote" has all but disappeared. I discovered this trend while researching my new book. What used to be a 40% Democratic-20% Independent-40% Republican nation is now closer to 45-10-45. The key to electoral success, as Gore and Bush discovered in 2000, is energizing your party's base. All of those pumped-up twentysomethings--the successor to the Gen Xers who elected Clinton in 1992--are not going to vote for pro-Iraq war Kerry, or vote at all. Old-line liberals won't turn out in sufficient numbers. In the final analysis, the difference between Kerry and Bush isn't great enough to convince the American people to make a change.



Bush is a disaster. He has nearly bankrupted the federal government and many states with his profligate spending policies. He has planted the seed of fascism in the highest levels of government with his concentration camp, red-baiting and increased surveillance powers for Das Homeland. And it's a fair bet that he's planning more unwinnable wars for 2005. The Democratic Party needs its best chance at defeating him this fall, and that chance isn't in the form of John Kerry.



I fear that too many Democrats, and too many Americans, don't get it. If Bush wins this election, there may never be another one.



If you live in New Hampshire, vote Dean.

Coming April 2004







376 pp., all prose/no cartoons/all new content, nothing reprinted



TO PURCHASE this important book: you may either pre-order from Amazon or watch Soft Skull Press' website.



BOOK REVIEWERS/EDITORS: Contact me to receive an advance review copy.

News for Completists



I wrote the introduction for the new MAD Magazine anthology of comic strip parodies. If that isn't enough to prompt you to buy a copy (and I'm not sure it should be), they really are very, very funny parodies running the gamut from the 1950s to the present. A must for comics fans, methinks.



Heck, looks like I'll have to buy one myself since MAD didn't bother to send me a comp copy.

Why Did David Kay Resign as Bush's Chief WMD Hunter-Gatherer?



Bush-appointed WMD inspector has resigned. The first question on most people's minds was "why?"--a question not asked or answered in most American media reports about what easily rates as the week's most dramatic story.



This interview sheds some light on the matter.



Some highlights:

Why did you decide to step down?



It was, as usually it is in these cases, a complex set of issues, it related in part to a reduction in the resource and a change in focus of ISG (Iraq Survey Group). When I had started out, I had made it a condition that ISG be exclusively focused on WMD. That's no longer so. The reduction of resources. And the reason those were important is, and at least to me they were important, is I didn't feel that we could complete the task as quickly as I thought it important to complete the task, unless we exclusively focused ISG.



You're talking about that they were asking some of the analysts to do the insurgency work, right?



Yes.



Is it true that one of the reasons you wanted to step down was because you don't believe that anything will be found?



No. No, that wasn't the reason. In fact, the reason I thought it important to complete everything is that ... by the time we get to June ... we're not going to find much after June. Once the Iraqis take complete control of the government it is just almost impossible to operate in the way that we operate. In fact it was already becoming tough. We had an important ministry that would not allow its people to be interviewed unless they had someone present. It was like the old regime.



I think we have found probably 85 percent of what we're going to find.



The country is such and he hid so much that you can probably spend the next decade of your life in the country, and you will find things, but I think in terms of understanding that program, we're well on the way, almost at the end, so that you can say what went wrong, what they had."



What happened to the stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons that everyone expected to be there?



I don't think they existed.



I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and those were a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them. I think the best evidence is that they did not resume large-scale production, and that's what we're really talking about, is large stockpiles, not the small. Large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the period after '95.



After '95?



We're really talking about from the mid-90s, when people thought they had resumed production



What about the nuclear program?



The nuclear program was as we said in the interim report, I think that will be a final conclusion. There had been some restart of activities, but they were rudimentary.



It really wasn't dormant because there were a few little things going on, but it had not resumed in anything meaningful.



You came away from the hunt that you have done believing that they did not have any large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the country?



That is correct.



Is that from the interviews and documentation?



Well the interviews, the documentation, and the physical evidence of looking at, as hard as it was because they were dealing with looted sites, but you just could not find any physical evidence that supported a larger program.



Do you think they destroyed it?



No, I don't think they existed.



Even though in the mid-1980s people said they used it on Halabja?



They had stockpiles, they fought the Iranians with it, and they certainly did use it on the Kurds. But what everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s.

And there you have it--all of the statements about WMDs--they have them, we know they have them, we even know where they are--were a lie. Every one of the 500 US troops and the thousands of Iraqis who have died since the start of the war has died for that lie.



Kay is no leftie--quite the contrary.



Forget impeachment, which won't happen under a Republican-controlled Congress anyway. Bush & Co. deserve to be brought up on international war crimes charges as well as charges of mass murder by whatever government ultimately emerges in Iraq. Bush is scum. My stomach would be roiling right now, food poisoning or no. Yours should be too.



Sadly, there's no sign that any American will do anything to defend our democracy from Bush's goons. The French may have lost to Germany in six weeks, but they had Panzers to contend with. What's our excuse? We've been taken over by a dozen fascist idiots in suits and ties and we haven't done squat about it.

Here's a Laugh for the French-Bashers



Sorry for the silence these last few days. I was laid low by a nasty case of food poisoning. For those who want to know the symptoms so they can recognize them, here's what happens. First: liquid diarrhea. Then stomach cramps that come and go, with stabbing pains. Then a fever--mine rose to 102. You can ride it out--sleep, toss and turn, eat bread and soup and ginger ale--or you can also take antibiotics. It gets better after a few days if you don't die.



I'm 99% sure the blame goes to Air France. After a four-hour delay preceding a seven hour Paris to New York flight I can time the event to food served on the plane. There was one very dubious gastonomic moment--greenish paté. I only gave it a wee sample taste, but it doesn't take much to introduce a bug into your system.



I'm still taking it slowly, so please bear with me.

General Wesley Clark



FOR Rachel sends me the following:

I was wondering what your take on Gen. Wesley Clark is. True, he may or may not have supported the war (see http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/nation/7720762.htm), but many of the Democratic candidates did support the war. Dean's stance against the war makes him stand out but does not necessarily mean he will win against Bush. You mentioned that the Rev. Al Sharpton "won" after using Whack-A-Pol (he did for me, too).



The economy and national security will most likely be key issues this November. Bush will inevitably portray himself as a strong president when it comes to security. Of course, the AWOL Asshole will not have much of a chance to do this next to Clark.



I'm surprised I haven't seen any hint of your opinion on Clark. Back in August of 2003, your article "Love Me, I'm (Not Really) a Liberal" didn't endorse Dean; in fact, you described him as "opportunistic" and providing "strident vagaries that fuel (his supporters') self-delusion." Granted, these are general political tools, but in less than 6 months you endorsed him. I'm finding that many liberals get caught up in a popularity contest. Of course it's about beating Bush (without the help of Republican-in-sheep's clothing Lieberman). I was wondering if there was any other reason, besides big talk from the Dean camp, why you endorsed him?



Thanks for your time!

Great questions all. Let me take them one at a time.



1. I haven't discussed Clark because (a) I don't think he stands a chance of winning the Democratic nomination and (b) his decision to refuse to accept the vice-presidency negated him as a personality of interest for me. When he got into the race at the last minute (arguably, beyond the last minute) I assumed that he was running for the veep spot. Those stars would have made a big difference; a Dean-Clark ticket would have rocked. That said, he was a registered Republican until a month before he announced that he was running and there's a better choice for Dean's possible future veep (assuming he wins the nomination--I'm astonished that Iowa caucausers didn't see him as being the most electable of the bunch) in the form of Florida Senator Bob Graham.



2. Why did I endorse Dean? As I wrote way back in August, Dean isn't a liberal. He's pro-business, a deficit hawk (which I agree with, by the way), supported the war in Afghanistan, etc. Were I going to support a candidate whose positions I agreed with, I would have picked Sharpton or Kucinich. Neither man, however, stands a chance of winning the nomination. Dean, however, stood a chance and still does--I'm keeping my money on him. Had Joe Lieberman, whose positions nearly make him a Republican, had the best chance of kicking Bush's ass come November, I would have endorsed him.



This election is critical. Our economy is in fiscal freefall, we're bogged down in two unwinnable wars, we've pissed off our allies and our government has been hijacked by a cabal of roughly a dozen neofascist loons. What mainline Dems don't get, as proven by the wimpy Democratic response to Bush's State of the Union Address last night, is that they're not running against a normal Republican. This time it's for keeps. If Bush goes back for a second term, with a GOP Congress and Supreme Court, they'll be out of control.



This time we're playing for all the marbles. Losing isn't an option.

Separated at Birth?



There's a photo of Scott Peterson awaiting trial on page A10 of today's New York Times that caused me to ask: are Scott and Ben Affleck the same person?



Just asking.

We'll Always Have New Hampshire



Obviously I was wrong to prognosticate Howard Dean victories in Iowa and New Hampshire. Well, half wrong so far, anyway. you probably ought to consider my primary prediction record when considering the rest of today's post.



The grand irony is that John Kerry won Iowa by convincing caucus delegates that Howard Dean couldn't beat Bush in November--when in fact, Howard Dean is the only Democratic presidential contender who can.



In Howard Dean Republicans would be faced with the first aggressive Democratic presidential candidate since LBJ--a guy who's as mean as he is smart. And we need someone mean to parry Karl Rove's dirty tricks and lying attack ads--not to mention to convey to an insecure post-9/11 electorate a sense of strength and determination.



That man, unless I've missed something, doesn't seem to be John Kerry or John Edwards.



Today's Associated Press analysis reads, in part:

Aides to Kerry and Edwards said their positive messages contrasted with Dean and Gephardt. ''I hate mudslinging,'' said Theresa Strabala, who voted for Edwards.

Jesus H. Christ. When are Democrats going to learn? Politics ain't a tea party. It's a bar brawl. Come this fall, when Bush's neofascist thugs are administering a ferocious beatdown to the Democratic nominee, we're all going to wish we'd sent someone to the brawl who knows how to sling mud, kick ass and keep on going.

Stung by criticism of his record on race relations, Medicare and trade, Dean said a week ago he was tired of being the party's ''pin cushion,'' and suddenly looked weak to voters drawn to his blustery image.

This is what leading Democrats I've been talking to have been echoing in recent weeks. I agree with them. Dean decided to try to run out the clock after achieving frontrunner status--don't mess it up, just keep coasting--without understanding that his rivals would view his approach as an invitation to attack. Dean got as far as he did, expecting to receive 42 percent in Iowa just two weeks ago, by aggressively chastising Bush and his fellow Democrats for selling out the American people and getting us into the unwinnable Iraqi quagmire. He needs to get back to what he does best--standing up for the Democratic wing of the Democratic party--and quick.



Fortunately, New Hampshire is a truer measure of the feelings of the Democratic Party, the first true primary. Iowa doesn't even require its caucus attendees to present proof of state residency, as Dan Savage wrote in the New York Times a few days ago. It's prone to manipulation by party bosses. Never doubt for a minute that the clammy hand of Al From's Democratic Leadership Council is behind the Dean defeat in Iowa...the abominable "Stop Dean" campaign came out of Washington, dutifully fueled by a gullible and compliant media.



I will support any Democrat against George W. Bush this fall. Despite their faults, Kerry and Edwards would represent substantial improvements over Bush. (And Dean is hardly perfect either--he still supports the invasion of Afghanistan, which was no more justifiable or winnable than Iraq.) After all, none of the remaining seven candidates--Mosely-Braun and Gephardt have dropped out--echo Bush's neofascism.



That said, we need a winner in November. Unless Kerry changes his tune (saying that Bush conned him into supporting the war, though it's obviously untrue, would be a start), I don't think he's got what it takes.



Why don't Democrats realize what's at stake this year?

The Mathematics of War in Iraq, continued



I've received some interesting feedback concerning my post about US casualties in Iraq. Julian writes:

Your blog entry "The Mathematics of the War in Iraq"

was very convincing. I'd like to make one small

correction.



You claimed that 2,445 American soldiers have been

wounded. However, according to NPR, the Army has

evacuated 9,000 soldiers from Iraq for medical

reasons.

http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1587762

I'm more inclined to believe NPR's estimate than the Pentagon's, and here's why: a good rule of thumb in active combat zone is that injuries outnumber deaths by a ratio of roughly 1 to 15. That said, I used the official Pentagon assessment. There I go, getting criticized for being too conservative.



Then Brian sent the following, far more detailed response:

You have made an error in calculating the relative magnitude of deaths between Bagdad and New York City. You are comparing the rate of homicides in NYC to the whole of the population (just fine) but you compare the deaths of American/Alliance soldiers only to their numbers in Bagdad (rather than to the population as a whole). That is fallacious. To be correct in comparing the homicide rates of these two cities, the whole population of each - troops/cops and general population together - must be used...you didn't do that. For example, you chose Occupier deaths that occurred throughout the country, not Bagdad alone. Obviously, the number of Occupier deaths that occurred only in Bagdad is a subset of the total number you cite.

I'm sticking with my methodology. Conservatives, after all, claim that Iraq is safer for US servicemen than the mean streets of New York City. The best way to compare apples with apples is to rate each scenario's per capita chances of being murdered: the danger to a US serviceman in Iraq is found by dividing the number of killings of US servicemen divided by the total number of servicemen serving there. (And I didn't focus just on Baghdad anyway.) The method that Brian suggests would be a good way to determine whether Iraq or New York are safer as a general part of the population--but that's a different exercise. I don't know what the odds are of being murdered if you're an ordinary Iraqi citizen. But US soldiers are singled out for murder in Iraq. Back here at home, they're not.

It is a mixed bag of facts you use and the result is gobbledygook that does not support your premise that Iraq is a dangerous place...I'm NOT saying Iraq isn't dangerous, just saying what you compare is apples to potatoes and is inconclusive.

It would be better to compare the NYC crime rate to Iraq's crime rate...Your blog entry gives numbers so I shall use them to illustrate:

-------quote---------

There are 125,000 American troops serving in Iraq. By contrast, the updated 2002 Census Report says that 8,008,278 people live in New York City--64 times the American "population" of Iraq.

--------unquote-------

From http://www.graphicmaps.com/webimage/countrys/asia/iq.htm the Iraqi population is 26,298,000. Add 125,000 Occupiers and that's 26.4 Million. That's a bit over three times the population of NYC you cite. However, I'm not asserting that this comparison is valid (I'm not done yet.) Notice that although the homicide numbers you cite for NYC include all homicides, the homicide numbers you use for Iraq are only for Occupiers and exclude any civilian homicide deaths. Those must be included if the comparison is to be valid. How many civilians have been murdered(killed) since the beginning of hostilities? I have no idea where to begin to gather accurate data but I bet you do. Once you find that number (it's got to be in the tens of thousands) add those civilian deaths to the Occupiers death toll (divide by 26.4 million to get the per capita homicide rate) and then compare that to NYC with 618 homicides per 8 million population...I predict you will find the relative death toll to be far higher in Iraq than on the mean streets of NYC.

I bet that's true. But it's not what I was trying to discuss.

Another way of comparing apples to apples is to compare the death rate of police officers in NYC to that of Occupier troops killed in Iraq + the Iraqi policemen that have been killed. NYC's police force is 38,000 (www.nypd.net) and I doubt more than a handful get killed in a year. Iraqi police force numbers are harder to estimate. Find those numbers and you have a valid comparison...again, I predict it will fairly show that Iraq is a dangerous place.



I hope I have explained how your entry had erroneous comparisons and how useful, fair comparisons can be constructed.

Sorry, but Brian and I are just not talking about the same thing. The question isn't about which place is safer for civilians, or cops, but for US soldiers. And my comparison holds up.



I'll be away from the blog until next week.

The Mathematics of the War in Iraq



In today's column in The New York Times, William Safire casually dashes off this oft-repeated Republican trope: "In Iraq, where casualties in Baghdad could be compared to civilian losses to everyday violence in New York and Los Angeles..."



Scripps Howard News Service's Robert Hardaway writes: "The fact remains that American soldiers are far safer in Baghdad than in America's crime-ridden cities during off-duty hours."



But are they really?



As of January 8, 2004, the Associated Press reports:

As of Thursday, Jan. 8, 485 U.S. service members have died since the beginning of military operations in Iraq, according to the Defense Department. Of those, 333 died as a result of hostile action and 152 died of non-hostile causes, the department said.



The British military has reported 55 deaths; Italy, 17; Spain, eight; Bulgaria, five; Thailand, two; Denmark, Ukraine and Poland have reported one each.



Since May 1, when President Bush declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, 347 U.S. soldiers have died--218 as a result of hostile action and 129 of non-hostile causes, according to the Defense Department's figures.



Since the start of military operations, 2,445 U.S. service members have been injured as a result of hostile action, according to the Defense Department. Non-hostile injured numbered 383.



The latest deaths reported by the military, not included in the above total: --Nine soldiers died Thursday afternoon when a helicopter crashed south of Fallujah, Iraq. --A 3rd Corps Support Command soldier died Wednesday of injuries suffered in a mortar attack west of Baghdad.

A total of 494 American servicemen and servicewomen have died since combat began on March 25, 2003 and an additional 2,445 have been wounded. There have been 292 days since combat began. Extrapolating this to an annual rate at 365 days, this makes an annual Iraq war casualty rate of:



618 deaths (or, if they had occured on urban streets in the United States, "murders")



3,056 injuries (or, if they had taken place here at home, "assaults/muggings")



If we stop here, these rates appear to coincide with prowar pundits' assertion that American troops are nearly--just 3.7 percent less--as safe walking the streets of Basra as they are those of the Bronx. According to a New York Times article dated January 1, 2004, "The final tally for 2003 [in New York City] was 596 homicides, up from 587 in 2002, according to official statistics released yesterday."



NYC and Iraq--both involve roughly 600 deaths per annum.



However, raw numbers only tell part of the story--and nothing significant. If 596 people are murdered in a town of 2,000 people, that town is an out-of-control Wild West hellhole where you'll almost certainly be killed if you live there more than a year or two. If they occur in a megapolis of 25,000,000 people, that is an incredibly safe to live. Odds are you'll live to a ripe old age there.



Per capita crime determines how safe a place is, not raw numbers. If you really want to compare the odds of being murdered in Iraq to those of being murdered in New York, consider the chances of you personally getting whacked. That's entirely a per capita question.



There are 125,000 American troops serving in Iraq. By contrast, the updated 2002 Census Report says that 8,008,278 people live in New York City--64 times the American "population" of Iraq.



For New York City to become exactly as "safe" as Iraq for Americans, then, New York's annual murder rate would have to skyrocket: to 38,183 homicides. Believe me, Mayor Bloomberg would call a curfew and declare martial law were that to occur. Alternatively, for Baghdad to become as safe as New York would represent a stunning achievement for the U.S. coalition: just 10 deaths a year. In the final analysis, fewer than one American would lose his or her life in Iraq every month.



Iraq "just as safe as New York"? Like the Right's other claims, were only that it was so. Denial aside, there is no more dangerous place on earth for a U.S. citizen to be than occupied Iraq.

Depressing Democratic Determinants



Check out Slate's amazing Whack-a-Pol to determine which of the major Democratic presidential candidates you most agree with.



How'd I do?



Suffice it to say that Al Sharpton lasted longest for me, but I lost him on the very last question. In the end no candidate did it for me 100%.



I lost Dean over his support for NAFTA--I think it was a terrible idea for American workers. I lost Kucinich over his desire to keep some of Bush's irresponsible tax cuts. When I put Dean back in by saying I didn't care about NAFTA, I lost him again on single-payer healthcare. I kept losing him--on defense, supporting Republicans, etc.



I'm still voting for Dean, though. Why? Because he's the only one of the bunch who can beat Bush in the general election. I mean, think about it. I like Dick Gephardt. I like John Kerry. And even Joe Lieberman, a Republican in Dem's clothing, would be an improvement over the evil fascist, Generalissimo El Busho. Lieberman might even close Bush's concentration camp in Cuba! But can you really see any of these dudes giving as good as they get when Bush unleashes his dirty tricks, sleazy attack ads and over-the-top debate lies? Nope. They're too...polite. Not Dean. He's a prick, and we need a prick to take on an anti-American turd like Bush.

Another Impeachable Story That Won't Result In Anything



Forgive my cynicism, but after literally dozens of stories that ought to have led to Bush's impeachment and jailing for a litany of felonies, the news that former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill is going on "60 Minutes" to say that Bush wanted to take out Saddam way before 9/11 looks like nothing more than the latest titillating bit of scandal. What the hell is wrong with we Americans that we take this kind of thing lying down, with a shrug and a glance at the bartender for another Rolling Rock?



OK, some highlights:

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill contends the United States began laying the groundwork for an invasion of Iraq just days after President Bush took office in January 2001 — more than two years before the start of the U.S.-led war that ousted Saddam Hussein.



"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS's "60 Minutes" in an interview to be aired Sunday night.



The official American government stance on Iraq, dating to the Clinton administration, was that the United States sought to oust Saddam.



But O'Neill, who was fired by Bush in December 2002, said he had qualms about what he asserted was the pre-emptive nature of the war planning.



"For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap," according to an excerpt of the interview that CBS released Saturday.



The administration has not found evidence that the Iraqi leader was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks but officials have said they had to consider the possibility that Saddam could have undertaken an even larger scale-strike against the United States.



White House spokesman Scott McClellan would not confirm or deny that the White House began Iraq war planning early in Bush's term. But, he said, Saddam "was a threat to peace and stability before September 11th, and even more of a threat after September 11."

Of course, the Bushists were entitled to their opinion about Saddam. (It was an incorrect opinion, of course--many other countries were rules by far worse dictatorships and several presented far more dangerous threats to the United States than Iraq.) What's galling here, and it seems almost pedantic to have to say it because it's so friggin' obvious, is that they lied to us about their intentions.



Had Bush and his gangbanging thugs run in the 2000 campaign on the we're-going-after-Saddam platform, we might have been able to decide whether we wanted our foreign policy to make such a radical right turn. Once he assumed office, they should have told us that attacking Iraq would be their top priority--but they didn't. Truth is, they didn't think their Iraq policy was popular--so they hid it from us until they could disseminate enough lies to fool us into going along. That's criminal behavior on the part of people who work for us, not the other way around, remember?



Disgusting.

Best Campaign Email Headline of the Month



Received this morning at Ted Rall headquarters:



"PELOSI KICKS OFF GEPHARDTPALOOZA



Dozens of national and Missouri leaders to thunder across Iowa in support of Gephardt "



Who headlines Gephardtpalooza? Do the Heck's Angels provide security?

The Taliban's Offer to Turn Over Osama



Faced with certain annhilation the Taliban regime of Afghanistan repeatedly offered to turn over Osama bin Laden during the weeks between 9/11 and the 10/4 start of the US invasion of Afghanistan--and even after the start of the war. Oddly this has become, along with the failure of US air defenses to scramble jets to investigate the four hijacked planes, one of the great lost stories of the "war on terrorism."



I have received several inquiries from readers about the Taliban offer after posting this week's column, which references this unequivocal fact. Some of the best sources still available to verify the fact that George W. Bush deliberately allowed Osama to "get away" include the Associated Press' report about the Taliban offer, the UK Guardian's account of Bush's rejection thereof and a Washington Post transcript of a press conference with Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Bush's New Immigration Proposal



Since the news that Generalissimo El Busho is proposing to allow employers to hire foreigners for jobs here broke today, it's too late to get a column out this week to deal with it. (I did, however, manage to sneak a cartoon out under the wire. It'll hit the streets tomorrow.)



Bush is certainly correct in his assessment of the problem. The current state of affairs, wherein America makes little to zero effort to guard her borders, then drives its illegals into hiding, is absurd and immoral. It has the practical effect of creating a workforce composed of de facto slave laborers, many toiling for subminimum wages under dismal, unregulated conditions, while driving down wages across the board, even for those who earn higher incomes.



I agree that the 8 million estimated illegals who are already here should be permitted to remain legally. After all, we all but invited them. But the door--to illegal immigration--should slam shut immediately. Vigorous enforcement at the borders and requiring tracking of long-term visa holders would help make sure that only people who are here legally could remain.



That said, the cornerstone of Bush's proposal has nothing to do with helping beleagured illegal immigrants. Under his plan, any employer who "couldn't" find an American worker to fill his job opening could post ads for it overseas and invite "guest laborers" to come here and take the spot. Liberals like to argue that illegals take jobs that Americans "won't" take. That's bullshit. Truth is, Americans--particularly now, with high official and higher unofficial unemployment--will take any job that pays a salary that justifies the work. Offer me $500,000 a year to shovel dog feces and I'm there. The only reason employers say they can't fill a job is because they're unwilling to pay a living wage.



Bush's immigration reform proposal would elevate one-way free trade to the point that it would destroy the ability of Americans to earn a living. If we workers have to compete with the world's desperately poor and dispossessed--something we're already doing when employers move factories overseas--right here at home, we're screwed. There will always be someone somewhere, in Gambia or Uzbekistan or Vietnam, willing to work for minimum wage. This is Bush's biggest business giveaway ever--and its effects would be devastating.



Fortunately, true conservatives care enough about the rule of law and national sovereignty to stand fast against this insanity. The horror is the first liberal reaction--that Bush's plan doesn't go far enough! What the hell are these people thinking?



Pat Buchanan, call your office.

Is Bush a Nazi?



Lately we're being told that it's either (a) inappropriate or (b) untrue to refer to Bush's illegitimate junta as Nazi, neo-Nazi or neofascist. Because, you know, you're not necessarily a Nazi just because you seize power like one, take advantage of a national Reichstag Fire-like tragedy like one, build concentration and death camps like one, start unprovoked wars like one, Red-bait your liberal opponents like one or create a national security apparatus that behaves like something a Nazi would create and even has a Nazi-sounding name. All of those people who see a little Adolf in the not-so-bright eyes of America's homeland-grown despot are just imagining things.



Me, I'm catching it for this week's cartoon for daring to suggest that, well--you know.



Of course, there are differences. Hitler, for example, was legally elected. And he had a plan--not one that I like, but a plan--for the period after the war.



I'll be happy to stop comparing Bush to Hitler when he stops acting like him.

A Peaceful, Easy Feeling



It's done. I've sent the final draft of my new book WAKE UP, YOU'RE LIBERAL!: HOW WE CAN TAKE AMERICA BACK FROM THE RIGHT to my publisher.



I say this with every book I do, mostly because it's true: this was the hardest project I've done. Roughly 350 pages, all prose, insane amounts of research (the bibliography is 20 pages alone), dumping most of my thoughts about contemporary party politics, forming a coherent party platform for a revitalized Democratic Party, coming up with new solutions for what ails us, forming an argument that flows progressively and organizing it logically...it's the product of years of work and now it's done.



I'll post the cover art and ordering information as soon as they become available. In the meantime watch Soft Skull Press' website and this blog.



I can't believe it's finally done!



Basic Details: Wake Up, You're Liberal! How We Can Take America Back From the Right will be published by Soft Skull Press in April 2004. Approx. page count: 350. There will be both hardback and paperback editions.



BOOK REVIEWERS/EDITORS: Contact me to receive an advance review copy.



And don't forget to put in an order for ATTITUDE 2: THE NEW SUBVERSIVE SOCIAL COMMENTARY CARTOONISTS (NBM Publishing, February 2004, $13.95) today! 128 pages of ass-kicking cartoons and interviews with the men and women who make them, out in February:

Y'All Come Back, You Hear?



Talk about hospitality. From now on tourists visiting the United States (with the exception of 28 mostly European nations where the people happen to mostly be Caucasian) are being fingerprinted and photographed upon arrival at the airport.

Called US-VISIT, or U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology, the program will check an estimated 24 million foreigners each year, though some will be repeat visitors.



Inkless fingerprints will be taken and checked instantly against the national digital database for criminal backgrounds and any terrorist lists.



Homeland Security spokesman Bill Strassberger said that once screeners become proficient, the extra security will take only 10 to 15 seconds per person. Foreign travelers also will continue to pass through regular Customs points and answer questions.



Photographs will be used to help create a database for law enforcement. The travel data is supposed to be securely stored and made available only to authorized officials on a need-to-know basis.



A similar program is to be installed at 50 land border crossings by the end of next year, Strassberger said.



Brazil's Foreign Ministry has requested that Brazilians be removed from the U.S. list, and police started fingerprinting and photographing Americans arriving at Sao Paulo's airport last week in response to the new U.S. regulations.



"At first, most of the Americans were angered at having to go through all this, but they were usually more understanding once they learned that Brazilians are subjected to the same treatment in the U.S.," Brazilian (news - web sites) police spokesman Wagner Castilho said last week.



The U.S. system consists of a small box that digitally scans fingerprints and a spherical computer camera. It will gradually replace a paper-based system that Congress ordered to be modernized following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.



A person whose fingerprints or photos raise questions would not be turned away automatically. The visa holder would be sent to secondary inspection for further questions and checks. Officials have said false hits on the system have been less than 0.1 percent in trial runs.

Yes, we need to take security measures. But treating visitors like criminals is wrong, wrong, wrong.



The thing is, no other nation in the world subjects tourists to this kind of degrading treatment. Some of the most arduous countries to visit include the Russian Federation, which charges extravagant fees of up to $600 for a visa and whose customs officials like to relieve new arrivals of their cash and cameras, and the Central Asian republics like Turkmenistan, where you have to register with the former KGB every time you change hotels. But even these nasty trouble spots don't fingerprint you.



Terrorism? Russia has been victimized by Chechen and other terrorists a hell of a lot more than we have. 9/11 doesn't make us special, folks. All of these tourists are going to go back and tell their friends and family that the U.S. treats them like scum.



Still wonder why everyone hates us?