OId Fort Stevens on the Oregon Coast

Fort Stevens was built during the Civil War, although exactly what it was supposed to defend America from at that time isn't entirely clear. It was named after Isaac Stevens, an important general in the Union Army who got himself killed during the Civil War. From the Civil War through the end of World War II, Firt Stevebs defended the mouth of the Columbia River, but eventually it became obvious that submarines could do the job much more effectively. It has since been converted into a pleasant 2800-acre Oregon State Park. You can still see some of the gun batteries. I think the Japanese once lobbed a few shells at it, but otherwise it had a very peaceful existence during all those years. It's even more peaceful now, with plenty of camping spots. There's also a KOA across the road, if you prefer that kind of Kamping.

Iraq choices -- Extremely bad and even worse

David Brooks, in this morning's edition of Eugene, Oregon's daily newspaper, the Register-Guard, offered a solution for Iraq. "Soft" partition. Sounds good, but we've been there before.

It fails on the fundamental calculus of Iraqi oil and population. The Kurds are 20% of the population and control 40% of the oil. The Shiites are 60% of the population and control 60% of the oil. The Sunni Arabs are 20% and have nothing to speak of. These are rough numbers, but they illustrate the problem.

The Kurds hate the idea of Iraq. They are not interested in giving up anything in order to make it viable and they have negotiated a national constitution that gives them what they want. Asking them to give up Kirkuk and some of their oil in order to achieve something they don't want doesn't sound reasonable.

The Shiites would take a strong national government, because their 60% of the population would give them control. Even if they shared nicely, they would get 60%. However, if the Kurds exit with their oil, the pie shrinks. The Shiites can still get 60% if they follow the Kurdish model, and if it's good enough for the Kurds, why not them? They in fact have also enshrined this in the sacred Iraqi constitution that we helped bring about.

Leaving the Sunni Arabs. Brooks thinks that if they agreed to stop fighting, the other parties will give them things. The Sunnis doubt this. The Sunnis may harbor thoughts of a final arrangement in which they get more than 20% of the action. They've had it in the past and they have much more military expertise per capita than the Shiites.

There are two possible scenarios. A bloody Civil War in which America participates for some time before giving up, and a bloody civil war in which America takes an early exit. I suggest the latter. Won't this lead to a humilitation for America and a blow to our economic and strategic interests in the Middle East? Yes, it will. Next question, please.

Who is the danger?

The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon's daily newspaper, had two items today. One was an article about a gentleman from Canada who was wrongly identified as a terrorist, intercepted at an airport in the United States, and sent to his native Syria where he was tortured into making a false confession. The government of Canada has apologized and made compensation. The United States government refuses to even take him off the watch list.

Secondly, there was a letter to the editor, chastizing those of us who can't remember that we're in a worldwide war against terror and bemoaning the fact that some of us can't distinguish between those who attacked our freedoms and those who lead our country.

Remember the first item. When Osama's crew attacked on 9/11, they didn't attack our freedoms. They attacked our property and our sense of safety. Our freedoms are also being attacked, but the attackers are our national leaders.

Best Weather on the Coast

When is the best weather on the Oregon Coast? It probably isn't July or August. That's when the weather is hottest in the Willamette Valley. The winds blow in from the Pacific Ocean and bring cold and fog. Sometimes, just watching the fog climb over the hills can be fascinating, at places like Pacific City and Cape Kiwanda, but for the most part, it's not all that warm and pleasant. September is often better and maybe October, although the famous Columbus Day storm that hit Oregon in 1962 was on October 12. It actually happens to be the most pleasant on the beach in February, many times. The main reason is that a wind from the east will bring quiet decent temperatures and no fog.

California epithets

There's a big controversy over something that actor Isaiah Washington said during production of "Grey's Anatomy," of which he is one of the stars. Evidently, it had something to do with the sexual orientation of one of his fellow actors. I don't, however, know what the word was.

Because amazingly, in a world in which the filthiest language imaginable is used routinely on television, when a word gets written down it becomes too hot to handle. So this is now referred to as an "epithet." Which one, we don't know because no one will print it. It's unfit.

Out here on the Oregon Coast, we look carefully at people who seem to be moving in and if they don't meet out standards, we say, "Not from Oregon, are you? You from California?" And we siddle slowly across the street. We say that such people are Californicating our beautiful state. I think it's healthier. Californians! There I said it. I feel better.

The State of the Union

I make it a policy never to listen to a State of the Union address. Or a candidate's acceptance speech at a national convention. Some things are just too stressful. So rather than talk about yesterday's speech, I'll hold forth on what fun we have on the Oregon Coast.

When Jason Lee and his friend Cyrus Shepard got married in 1837 in Salem, they decided as many others would later that the Oregon Coast would be a great place to honeymoon. There were no roads at the time, so they packed up some horses, hired a guide, and made their way out to a site near Lincoln City where they spent a week with their new brides. This makes them the first known honeymooners on the Oregon Coast. Nowadays, people are just as likely to come to the Oregon Coast for the wedding. Wren Smart will help you if you need to make arrangements.

History on the Lower Columbia

The Columbia River Maritime museum is one of the "can't miss" attractions in Astoria. Located at the east end of town, right on the river, it has been designated Oregon's official maritime museum. The building is in the shape of a wave, in case you were wondering why it seems so unsquare. The purpose, according to museum director Jerry Ostermiller, has been to break out of the box of a traditional museum. If you've ever seen their display of a Coast Guard boat, simulating its passage through a breaking wave at the Columbia River Bar, you'll agree that they've succeeded.

There are lot of museums on the Oregon Coast, and you'll get quite a few articles about them in Oregon Coast Magazine.

Seaside Excursions

Once upon a time, the Seaside Aquarium was a "natatorium," or indoor swimming pool. Natatorium is one of those words that you were taught if you took Latin in school, just to show that Latin gave you something useful. Anyway, the natatorium was a great idea in 1924, but during the Depression, times got tough and the swimming pool business didn't work out. So the pool was converted to an aquarium, which it remains today. It's one of the few private, family-owned aquariums around the Oregon Coast.

Seaside has been another hot spot for Oregon Coast real estate in the last few years. There isn't a lot of available oceanfront, most of which is taken up with hotels and resorts.

Confessions of a Global Warming Sceptic

I've always been a little sceptical of global warming. Particularly the dire and fairly specific predictions about what would result, such as rising oceans. It's been about 20 years. CO2 keeps increasing and the average temperature does seem to be trending a bit upwards. But the oceans? I'm here on the Oregon Coast and frankly I haven't noticed it coming an iota higher up on the beaches.

But on the other hand, I have enough respect for the basically unstable and sensitive balance of the climate that permits humans to populate as much of the planet as they now do. Maybe things will be OK. Maybe, but maybe no. It seems like a silly gamble.

Particularly when the U.S. economy seems unable to produce as much as it consumes, year after year, and we go increasingly in hock to foreigners. Don't get me wrong. Love foreigners. Wonderful folk. But I just don't want to see them own all our assets, which is where we'll end up at the current rate.

So even though I'm not a global warming hawk, I'm a Thomas-Friedman hawk for a mass program to achieve energy self-sufficiency. This is the sort of thing we do. We're the top techno country and this is a techno problem. Let's fix it, be proud of it, and screw the Arabs. Also, maybe we won't melt the Arctic.

The Big Brother Incident

Everybody in India and UK seems to be upset over an episode of a "reality" TV show called "Big Brother," in which an actress from Bollywood (the Indian version of Hollywood, located in Bombay) is seen to receive snide remarks about her ethnic heritage. She breaks down and appears distraught.

Politicians in both countries are now jumping on the bandwagon. Indian politicians are declaiming that racism has no place in a civilized society. British politicians at the highest levels are harumphing that Britain is not a country that tolerates such attitudes, although of course, it does.

Meanwhile, three things seem to be getting less attention than they deserve. The first is that this is a "reality" TV show, which means that it has nothing to do with reality and all the participants, who are getting paid, realize that the show will die, and they will not get paid, if nothing happens. The show doesn't work if everyone is polite and accommodating. It's essential to have assholes. Some of the participants obliged.

Second, the actress is, to restate the obvious, an actress. She might have said, "Oh, don't worry, sticks and stones may break my bones, ..." Instead, she had a breakdown due to the anguish caused by racist remarks. Which apparently she had never heard in Britain before. We should take her anguish with a grain of salt.

Finally, the criticism is coming from India, which defines racism. India is riven by prejudices based on language, religion, and caste. Britain collectively does not treat its most despised groups the way Indians treat dalits. The pot is definitely calling the kettle black here.

Of course, out here on the Oregon Coast, we know all about racism, having mistreated our Indians a century and a half back. However, we have decided to rectify the situation. Since we once corrupted them with liquor, they have now been given the inside track to corrupt us with slot machines. What goes around, comes around.

Sunni vs Shiite: The Ku Klux Klan analogy

There's an interesting analogy to be made between the current situation in Iraq and the Reconstruction Era in the American South after the Civil War. In both cases, an outside armed force overthrew the established, traditional power structure and attempted to install a new arrangement under which the formerly oppressed people would exercise freedom.

There are many points on which the analogy does not work, but there's no question that the officers of the Confederate Army were white, and the officers of the old Iraqi Army were primarily Sunnis. People who are accustomed to military leadership are easily persuaded that the interests of their people require them to crush the aspirations of the those formerly oppressed. I'm sure the Sunnis, just like the Southern whites, consider their fight a noble one.

Whether it is or not isn't relevant. We're talking about practical matters, and just as blacks in the South could not hold their own against the militarily trained and economically advantaged whites, so is it unlikely that the Shiites, even with a greater preponderance of the population, will ever defeat the Sunnis militarily. Our policy, which has been to back the Sunnis into a corner and convince them that they couldn't prevail, is based on a fallacy. Which is that the 20% of the population that the Sunni Arabs represent cannot defeat the 60% Shiites. Time will tell, but in a war, I'd still bet on the Sunnis.

Cherry Picking Democracy in Iraq

Soon we will be hearing Bush's until now secret plan to fix Iraq. There doesn't seem to be much doubt about the nature, only the numbers. We're going to send more troops. Bush has consulted with lots of people before making this decision.

Except the Iraqi government, which clearly doesn't want it. Iraq being a democracy [sic], the government in sensitive to the wishes of its people. Those people are now clearly in favor of America packing up and leaving. They may also be fearful of the likely consequences, as well they should, but they want us out. They watched America stay for almost four years and continue to lose, or not to win as quickly as we'd like as the administration prefers to put it. They see no prospect of good results from America's continued involvement, which they would like to see terminated.

But we won't, because whatever nonsense we spew about the sovereignty of the Iraqi government, they have none. We are the occupiers and we will decide how many troops conduct the occupation and for how long. This creates a fatal contradiction. We want to raise the legitimacy of the Iraqi government we have created, but because we have created it and won't let it tell us to leave, its illegitimacy becomes transparent to every Iraqi.

Ashley Treatment

The parents of the disabled girls Ashley in Seattle are catching hell from the self-righteous over their decision. Ashley should be glad, if she's capable of being anything, that she lives at a time and in a country where keeping her alive is given a moment's consideration, let alone whether it's unethical to provide her with anything less than the maximum lifetime experience of which she's capable.

I suspect that the "advocates for the disabled" have spent very little time in the type of situation which Ashley's parents have experienced. I have only done a small bit myself when my aged mother was dying and the task was less, was shared, and was clearly time-limited. I wouldn't consider doing what Ashley's parents have done, let alone face a lifetime of continuing to do it. But that's their choice.

However, let's put that choice in context. It's the same context as keeping Terri Schiavo alive. This is not a world with unlimited resources. When you decide to maintain someone in a vegetative (Schiavo) state in some vague hope of a better outcome, or near vegatative (Ashley) because you somehow enjoy the relationship, you spend millions of society's dollars. The spenders seldom pay it all or even much of it; it's passed on to everyone else in medical bills and insurance. But it's a ton of money for every such decision.

Meanwhile, in India, about 750,000 children under the age of 6 die annually as a result of bad water. Hardly anyone considers it a moral obligation of America to fix this problem, but we could do it easily for the amount of cash lost annually in Nevada casinos. On a smaller scale, we could have devoted the cash required to keep Terri Schiavo staring at the walls for years to saving thousands of young lives.

But we don't. We are ethnocentric, which is why we don't save children in India. But even in the United States, we have an infant mortality rate that is among the worst in the advanced industrialized world. For the cash we spend on silly grand gestures, we could save many American babies who would have the prospect of actual, full and productive lives.

We should not expect Ashley's parents to work any harder than they have, and we should not as a society consider extending more services for the severely disabled until we've taken care of our reasonable priorities.

Be careful what you ask for

We are within the next few hours going to execute Saddam Hussein. We have within the past few days occupied Mogadishu through our Ethiopian proxies. There are probably a bunch of happy neocons around.

Unfortunately, executing Saddam will achieve nothing except the further alienation of Iraq's Sunni Arabs. They will note that Shiite death squads go around unpunished. Hell, they run the departments where law and order is supposed to be delivered. If the Sunnis have any doubt as to how the New Order is going to work in Iraq, Saddam's execution is going to clarify things for them. People talk about the expected "spike" in violence. The "spikes" seem to go up but never come as far down. Expect more of the same.

And in beautiful downtown Mogadishu, who exactly do we expect to take over? After it all falls apart, and the largely Christian Ethiopians have gone home, and what was once the effective national government has been dispersed, and the warlords return to their traditional pastimes of rape and pillage, will the United States face less threat from extreme Islam than it did last week?

There's a pattern here. There are times when it's better to have an effective government that you don't like that no government. We got rid of Saddam and are about to kill him. We've driven out the Islamic Union. Things are doubtless now going to be peachy. Details to follow.

Consistency, a hobgoblin that does not bother small minds on the far Right

The peace activists who were just rescued in Iraq have been denounced on far right talk radio for not sufficiently thanking their rescuers. They were on record, before they were kidnapping, as stating that violence in Iraq was due to the Coalition troops and if captured, they didn't want to be rescued.

Afterwards, they stuck to their story. Why shouldn't they? They really believe the teachings of Christ in a fairly literal way. This is in contrast with the so-called Christian fundamentalists, who believe exactly what the Bible says except where it talks about "Thou shalt not kill," and the part about not trying to get rich. Shouldn't Christian Peacemakers be allowed to practice their faith?

Now it seems that another one wants to go back. The following comes from an online article based on BBC coverage:

Despite the kidnappings, another CPT member, Jan Benvie has told BBC News she intends to go to the country in July.

She said she did not accept her presence should mean an extra responsibility for the security forces.

Let her go, I say. And if she gets kidnapped, leave her alone. American soldiers are being asked to die in Iraq in defense of an American belief system. Pacifists should be allowed the same right.

Who are the terrorists now?

Even the US Ambassador to Iraq now thinks the "militias" are killing more than the insurgents. Of course, by "militias," we mean the Shiite dominated police. It's not happening in Kurdistan. It's also not surprising, statistically, that if you piss of the Shiites, they will wreak more havoc than the Sunni arabs because they outnumber them 3:1.

However, all this begs the question, who are the terrorists in Iraq that we're fighting? The Bush doctrine of a universal fight against terrorism involves a rough definition of what a terrorist is. It includes state-run terror, which is how we roped Saddam into the definition. We now see that semi-official death squads are involved in ethnic cleansing. We supported intervention in Yugoslavia for that reason.

Now, of course, it's a little trickier since we trained them. Except the ones who got trained in Iran. Which brings up the fact that in the 1980's, we were supplying support to Saddam against the Iranians, so the "remnant Baathists" in Iraq may owe some of their training to the US as well. Not to mention the jihadists from Afghanistan.

Am I trying to make a point here? Yes. Let's get out now.

Alice in Iraqiland

Joost Hiltermann, writing in the Baltimore Sun, has put forward four steps to save Iraq from distintegration. Juan Cole mentions him, although it isn't obvious if it's approvingly or not.

I hope not, since I generally appreciate Cole's realism. Hiltermann's four points are:

• Iraqi political leaders renounce violence and so inform their followers,
• an inclusive and representative government must be formed,
• the constitution must be revised to meet everyone's objectives, and
• the security forces must be trained by the US to replace the militias.

That's the gist of it. Cole describes Hiltermann as "veteran," which sounds like the guy should know what's up in Iraq, but his four points have been US policy for years and all four are proving to be unachievable. What's the point in laying them out again?

Perhaps the logic is to demonstrate that the disintegration of Iraq is now inevitable and that the US should simply try to figure out the least damaging exit strategy. If these are essential and all are out of the question, let's go home! George Will called on President Bush to give Americans the unvarnished truth. I doubt he meant that we've lost and should high tail it out of town. Americans are approaching that realization, but you don't sell newspapers or attract TV audiences by being pessimistic before the time is ripe.

I've been saying for three years and I'll say it again that Iraq will fail over two non-negotiable issues -- control of Kirkuk and control of Baghdad. The Kurds have wanted nothing from Iraq except to be out of it and they need Kirkuk. They got it from the constitution last fall and they aren't going to negotiate it away now. Nobody has anything to offer them that's worth as much.

This is a national destiny issue and the Kurds won't back down. The Iraqi arabs are going to be very unhappy as are the Turks, which may make life very interesting for the US, a NATO ally of Turkey. There could easily be civil war over Kirkuk with a dangerous international flavor.

If not, then the Sunni arabs will have lost one of the two things they need to obtain and Baghdad will loom even larger. They need to control Baghdad, which in turn must control some semblance of national government with oil revenue from the South. That's not going to happen peacefully.

There are three groups and two oil regions. The historic ruling group, which has abused and oppressed the other two for decades, is the one with no oil in its natural geographic base. This isn't going to be settled amicably. Every day brings us closer to the inevitable civil war. Let's get out now.

Pfaff makes sense on Iran as usual

William Pfaff continues to write calmly and rationally about issues that tend to disturb so many editorial writers in this country. He recently commented that the prospect of Iran getting nuclear weapons is a non-issue. I especially liked his brief comment about the security issues connected with a state providing nukes to non-state terrorists.

Think about it. Countries take steps to prevent people, mostly their own citizens but including anyone else on their soil, from doing dangerous things. They license automobile drivers. They station police within easy range of banks.

Now imagine the danger inherent in letting psychologically unstable people get their hands on nuclear weapons. Governments have their own enemies within the borders of their countries. A workable nuclear bomb would be hard to get across an international border, but much easier to stuff into a Ryder truck and drive to a domestic location. The logistics of getting a nuke into the hands of al-Qaeda so as to pose a threat to foreigners only are daunting.

For states themselves, nukes are strictly defensive. The North Koreans may bluster, but they know that if they ever lobbed a live one at anyone, the United States would turn Pyongyang into a glowing heap of radioactive dust in an hour. A nuclear armed Iran is not a pleasant prospect. But then, any Iran is not a particularly pleasant prospect under its current regime. Being nuclear armed is not enough worse to start an actual war over.

Iran's claim to have only peaceful intentions for its nuclear program is laughable. They need nuclear power for their economy? They sell gasoline to their citizens for about ten US cents a liter. Not exactly the policy of a country concerned about its energy supplies. On the other hand, we don't have much room to talk. Bush now wants us to develop cars that run on booze. Maybe he'll hire Kate Moss as a consultant.

When we think of Hamas, let's think about IRA

The American press is stressing out over the prospect of Hamas forming the next government of Palestine. Meanwhile, other reports make it appear that the Irish Republican Army is sticking to its agreement to disarm and disavow violence.

One should remember that not long ago, the IRA was committed to removing the last British soldier from Ireland and considered the occupier and their collaborators to be fair game, whether in Ireland or England, and viewed collateral damages to be an acceptable price whether they were men, women, or children. Now they've given that up. Things change.

Think about China. The Chinese Communist Party has come so far down the road to capitalism that they make Wal-Mart look like a social services agency. Things change. Hamas in power is not going to be Hamas in basements packing explosives into vests. This is actually going to make life more difficult for the chauvinist element of Israeli politics, but it shouldn't be a problem for the United States.

Roy Blunt, as in Dull, Obtuse

Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri is an announced candidate for the job of majority leader in the US House of Representatives. I live in Florence, Oregon, population about 8000. It's 15 miles from Mapleton, population about 1000. Almost two years ago, I wrote the following:

Congressman Roy Blunt, the third ranking Republican member, told a joke to the Missouri Republican Convention. "How many Frenchmen would it take," he asked," to defend Paris? It's not known. It's never been tried." The audience laughed and applauded.

I was in France in September, 2001. I recall vividly a monument in a small French village, definitely smaller than Florence, perhaps the size of Mapleton. It commemorated the young people from the parish who had died defending their homeland in the Great War. There were more than 50 names.

On September 11, fewer than 3000 Americans died. Between July, 1914, and November, 1918, the French lost 1,357,000 defending Paris. In proportion to their smaller population, they lost as many as we have lost in the war on terrorism. Every day. For 50 months.

During the battle of Verdun in northern France, a ton of high explosive was dropped on every square yard. Decades later, nothing grew there. A half century later, one could still sometimes see green chlorine gas collecting in the bottoms of old shell craters after rain.

The French know something about death during war. They know something about chemical warfare. Representative Blunt, who represents the Ozarks, is the sort of person who gives hicks a bad name.

If this moron is the best that the Republican Party can find to lead them in Congress, they deserve to lose control in November.