Author: zenbowl

Hillary Clinton is a fire pig. Fire Pigs are very lucky, with lots of friends.

Al Gore, on the other hand, is an Earth Rat. A dependable soul, who always pays attention to his loved ones.

If you haven’t guessed yet, I’m talking Chinese horoscopes. After all, this Sunday is Spring Festival, AKA Chinese New Year! Join me for lots of 2007 Chinese Horoscope Fun, with all of the Democratic candidates, below the fold.
In the Chinese zodiac, there are twelve animals, and depending on the year you were born, you are known as “that animal”. But the Chinese lunar calendar runs in a 60-year cycle, meaning that each animal appears four times. Each time the animal appears, it is paired with one of the four “elements”: earth, fire, water, and air. For example, I was born in 1977, the year of the Fire Snake.

You may have heard the news about the “golden pig”. This is a bit unrelated, and there’s actually some arguments in the Chinese astrological community about whether this is a golden Pig year or not.

But seeing as it’s Friday, and that my diary yesterday was a bit on the dark side, I thought I might bring some fun in here and analyze 2007 for each of the candidates, depending on their Chinese zodiac sign. And by analyze, I mean pick and choose among hilarious forecasts. Fortunately (for me), none of our candidates were born in January or February, which would have forced me to double check when the lunar year started.

Perhaps the fairest way to do this is from oldest to youngest. And that brings us to Mike Gravel, a metal horse.

Humility and kindness would ensure you enjoy your good fortune fully. Another advice for maximising your fortune is to be selective in your choices of projects or business deals so that nothing of inferior quality slows you down. The only drawback for the year is psychological – you may become complacent from time to time and the feeling of loneliness may creep in, too.

Next up is Joe Biden, born twelve years after Mr. Gravel in the year of the Water Horse, 1942.

A mixed year for Horses…Not a good year for great changes but rather for contemplating your future. During 2007, when in doubt or trouble others are prepared to be your safety net and benefactors abound. Go ahead and lean as hard as you need to and ask for assistance if necessary.

After Joe comes Wes Clark (and remember, Clarkies, I’m just reading the stars!) Wes is a Wooden Monkey.

Don’t be misled by all those favorable months — this is not likely to be a good or a bad year, but rather one with mixed results. You have unlucky stars around you. The key is to take full advantage of lucky months and bide your time during the rest.

(Wood tends to get burned by fire)

Next in line is Dennis Kucinich, a Fire Dog.

They view all of life through rose-colored glasses. Grays and beiges lead to momentary confusion. They don’t know how to deal with adversity and when confronting a mountain, will walk all around the foothills for hours before even getting started. This person’s life is filled with dichotomy. On the one hand, they know that hard work and effort will make things happen, but they sometimes accept the status quo. They dream of a bright future but wind up chasing windmills.

Next, and interestingly enough, we have both Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton, both Fire Pigs, which means that 2007 will be a definitive year for both of them (as it is 60 years, a full cycle, after their birth). However, as we will see, it doesn’t always mean that it will be a great year.

The Pig does not always have the best luck in the Year of the Pig. You can encounter many frustrations and obstacles while trying to accomplish your goals. Don’t be too hard on yourself, though, or you may create too much stress in your body that could lead to infections or illness. Drink a lot of water to strengthen your kidneys and reduce the amount of sugar in your diet. On the bright side, the stars are shining brightly on both your love life and social life.

Next up is Al Gore, an Earth Rat. And this might be bad news for the Draft Gore folks.

2007’s Yin Fire brings “happiness and contentment” to those born into Yang Earth years (Earth Rat)…In 2007 it is time to solidify your position. If you have been wanting to make some changes in your present circumstances, go ahead and make plans but, hold off on moving residences or making major life changes just yet. Make the best of your present situation and consider that you may need to learn a particular lesson to progress. 2007 slows down the Rat’s hectic socializing schedule and more time will be enjoyed at home this year.

Tom Vilsack is next, and he will be thrilled to learn that Tigers tend to be the luckiest animals in the year of the pig. Tom Vilsack is, of course, a Metal Tiger. And the astrologers advise him to keep close to home, which is Iowa, of course.

Yin Fire brings opportunities to make beneficial changes to those born into Yang Metal years (Metal Tiger)…You’ll desire to stay closer to home this year and redecorating your abode would be enjoyable and uplifting. Appeal is the name of your game this year and in both personal relations and at work, others are powerfully drawn toward you. This passion poses some danger and yet, such delightful opportunity. Magnetism aside, avoid confrontations with Monkeys and Snakes. [That would be Clark and Edwards, btw]

Quite an endorsement!

John Edwards is next, and he is a Water Snake. Snakes are known as being handsome and very smart. Did I mention I was a snake, too? 2007 could be very promising for Mr. Edwards.

This Year of the Pig is a revolutionary one for the Snake. There is a chance for exceptionally good fortune this year. Snakes, overall, need to practice caution this year. However, there are some Snakes that need to be more careful than others. Any Snake who believes himself to be above harm, those Snakes who are in a medical profession, and those who are martial artists or work in a disciplinary field all need to exercise extreme caution in 2007. It looks as if 25% of Snakes will find themselves in very fortunate situations in this Year of Pig…If you wish to be one of the lucky Snakes, you need to step up to bat and take a swing.  No more sitting around waiting for good luck to find you!  This shouldn’t be too difficult as you have ruling stars within your constellation for half of the year. You need to settle any old debts.  If you owe money, pay it back. If you made a promise, keep it.  If there is an old grudge, clear it up. This is the first step to bringing fortune your way.

And last, but not least, is Barack Obama, a Metal Ox. And, somehow, 2007 is supposed to make him more handsome than he normally is. I’m not really sure how the fire pig can pull that off, but here’s the prediction.

Surprisingly, the majority of Oxen will have good fortune this year. Also, the majority of Oxen will find they are more eye-catching and charismatic to others in 2007 than normal. Why surprisingly?  Because within the Ox’s constellation there are far more unlucky stars than there are lucky stars.  Additionally, the lucky stars that do preside there are not any luckier than in previous years. So, why should Oxen prepare themselves for good fortune in the coming year? Instead of a major lucky star in the Ox’s constellation, there are many relatively minor lucky stars scattered all about.  It’s as if all of the king’s court is in attendance, only without the king.

So here’s your 2007 summary of the candidates-

• Gravel needs to avoid feeling lonely
• Joe Biden needs to think seriously about his future
• Wes Clark needs to take advantage of good months
• Dennis Kucinich needs to stop dueling with Windmills
• Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson need to brace for obstacles, and drink lots of water.
• Al Gore can rearrange his furniture, but should hold off on major life changes.
• Tom Vilsack should stay in Iowa.
• John Edwards should settle his old debts.
• Barack Obama needs to avoid being trapped by the mirror.

Happy Chinese New Year, everyone!

Chun Jie Kuai Le! Gong Xi Fa Cai!

Last night my dad and I were talking about the Republican nominees, and there’s one guy that we couldn’t figure out: Giuliani. He doesn’t appeal to the religious nuts, and he doesn’t appeal to the libertarians. The rich, I suppose, like him, but it’s not like they make up a large percentage of Republican voters. So where does his poll support come from?

That’s when it hit me. There is a third portion of the Republican electorate that is ignored in the discourse about that party. The very, very scared. These are the people that would sell the constitution for an extra deadbolt on the doors to our democracy. Why you should really, really, worry, below the fold.
First of all, the media absolutely loves Rudy Giuliani. Chris Matthews gushes over him:

Giuliani is a front-runner because the voters like this guy because during 9-11 he was the one guy there on the street corner, not hiding like all the other pols did.

Or from a different broadcast (same link)

The issue in the country today is security. Who’s going to protect this country against the bad guys? Everybody agrees that’s the number one concern in the country today, and everyone agrees that Rudy has street cred on that issue. He can protect us. That’s the image he conveys.

Rudy is going to get the much-coveted “underdog” role all through the primaries, despite the fact that he has a firm grip on the nomination at the moment, because he happened to dress in drag a few times.

The other major warning sign is that Giuliani understands his strength, and plays to it better than any other Republican.

Giuliani called for a broadening of the war on terrorism into a war of ideology similar to the ideological battle of the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Union.

“A much bigger part is about ideas,” he said, and “the hearts and minds of people. We’ve got to get better at selling our life, our economy.”

And there more than a few Republicans for whom feeling safe is more important than their Jesus.

“I’m a Christian, and his views on a lot of social issues are to the left of mine,” said Larry Stirling, a retired state superior court judge from San Diego. “But if you have to make a trade-off, I’ll make the trade-off for Giuliani. He’s been through a trial by fire. He’s got gravitas. The first thing a president has to do is protect us. The rest is a secondary consideration.”

This is going to be the mind-bending rhetoric that so many of the fear voters will be using to explain their vote for a man who is more than willing to use the bill of rights as a mop to soak up the blood of the oppressed. Never mind the fact that Jesus never asked for security from persecution, or encouraged his followers to trade off their beliefs for a safety blanket. Never mind that the first duty of a President, indeed the only duty, is to Preserve, Protect and Defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America. Never mind that Rudy Giuliani once said, and still believes, this:

Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it.”

Let’s face it, you know a fear voter yourself. You know someone who will vote solely on whether or not a Presidential candidate will keep them safe from teh Islamistic Brown People.

No one is better at manipulating fears better than Giuliani. It’s how he got elected, and then reelected in New York City. It’s why he’s still popular despite being the first ever recipient of a Lifetime Muzzle Award from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression for the following reasons, among others:

• Refusing to permit more than 20 taxi drivers to assemble for a protest against proposed city pick-up and drop-off rules (a federal judge ruled that action unconstitutional)
• Barring city employees from talking to reporters without specific approval – a policy which the federal appeals court found in violation of public workers’ free speech rights
• Directing the transit authority not to display on city buses ads bought by New York Magazine which contained a gentle if critical caricature of the mayor’s quest for publicity (an order held by federal district and appeals courts to be in violation of the First Amendment)
• Barring a Lutheran church group from demonstrating and conducting an AIDS education program in a city park (a ban which a New York state appellate court held in clear violation of free speech)
• Using city licensing power to terminate the franchises of certain newsstands and raising the fees for other newsstands on the basis of the content of publications they carry (a policy that was partly invalidated by a federal judge, ruling that newsstand operators do have First Amendment rights and that the city’s claimed too much discretion in the standards it had set)
• Refusing a permit for a parade or march designed to protest police brutality (a federal judge, ruling that the permit denial violated free speech, implied that the action had reflected the city’s objection to the subject matter)
• Barring most public events — starting with a rally to commemorate World AIDS Day — from being held on then steps of City Hall, which had long been a forum for such expressive gatherings (a policy promptly struck down by a federal district judge on free speech grounds)

And this, my friends, is all prior to 9/11. The censorship, the encouragement of aggressive police tactics, all the hallmarks of Rudy, were formed well before the current excuse for ignoring our Constitution came along.

For all of us who might think that Rudy might not be so bad as a President, let it be known that the censorship, the illegal imprisonments, the reckless war-mongering, the egregious violations against our own Constitution that have taken place under George W. Bush will seem like peanuts compared to four years of Rudy Giuliani. And it will be made possible by voters who are willing to throw away the constitution, and even their beliefs and their religion, for the sake of feeling safe from the Terra.

MSNBC and many other news outlets are hyping China’s latest “terror” raid of an “Al Qaeda-linked” group in Xinjiang province. The breathless beginning of the article states:

Chinese police raided an alleged terrorist camp in a western mountain region near the border with Pakistan, killing 18 suspects and arresting 17, a police official said Monday.

Of course, no one really knows where the raid took place, as the Chinese official refused to name the specific location, so the news reports will be forced to describe the location as “near the border with Pakistan”, which could be a bit like describing Philadelphia as “near Canada.”

Of course, while the story touches on some of the problems faced by Uyghurs in China, as well as the fact that the United States has detained Uyghurs captured in Afghanistan, the fact that the Uyghurs currently held in Guantanamo have been found innocent of any charges, and are currently being held because returning them to China would probably ensure their detainment, if not execution, despite their innocence. More below the fold.
Some background information:
Uyghurs face a situation similar to Tibetans. They are a Central Asian people who adhere to a religious faith, and were coopted into China’s national borders as a historical accident. The reason they don’t receive the attention in the West that Tibetans get is twofold:

1. Uyghurs lack a photogenic and congenial representative like His Holiness the Dalai Lama
2. Uyghurs are Muslim, which carries a much greater stigma in the minds of the West than Buddhism.

Xinjiang province, where Uyghurs live, has been flooded with Han Chinese immigrants, exacerbating already-steep tensions:

Both long-standing and recent policies by leaders in Beijing and Ürümci have combined to deepen discontent among Uyghurs, and the official refusal to allow open expression of dissatisfaction in the region has only increased that discontent. Invariably harsh responses to demonstrations have left the field of overt political action to the violent and desperate while failing to address the concerns of the majority. The multifaceted repression of religion–including the closure of mosques, supervision and dismissal of clerics, and the prevention of religious practice by the young–has made Islam in Xinjiang more rather than less political in the Reform era.

As usual, the complex story behind the Uyghurs of Xinjiang has been turned into a he-said, she-said story. The truth is that the East Turkestan Independence Movement (ETIM) was declared a terrorist group by the United States simply to get China on-board with the American invasion of Iraq.

The lawyers [of American-detained Uyghurs] allege in the court documents that their clients’ detention was one of several demands the Chinese government solicited in mid-2002 as the United States was seeking global support for toppling Saddam Hussein.

U.S. officials labeled the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) — a group that includes Uighur separatists who want their own nation in western China — a terrorist organization in August 2002 after diplomatic discussions with China about Iraq, the lawyers allege.

“In the crisis atmosphere of the time, the interests of a few dozen refugees paled beside the urgency of the Administration’s war plans,” the lawsuit said. “The Iraq deal sealed the fate of the seven petitioners here. More than four years have passed. Long-discarded pawns in a diplomatic match between superpowers, petitioners today remain illegally imprisoned at Guantanamo.”

Is this an apologist diary for a group that is, in all likelihood, responsible for bus-bombings in Beijing? Of course not. However, for the media to portray these events as simple as China killing off a few dozen Al Qaeda soldiers on the Pakistani border is irresponsible. And that is how the headline reads. For those who will defend the fact that the story includes, several paragraphs in, other information on Uyghurs, I ask you: how many Americans do you think will read this story and decide to learn more about Uyghurs?

Also posted at daily kos.

Is there any doubt about the terrible job Condi Rice is doing at the State Department? When President Bush announced that she was his nominee to the position, this is what he had to say:

The Secretary of State is America’s face to the world. And in Dr. Rice, the world will see the strength, the grace and the decency of our country.

Yesterday, Condi Rice upheld those values of strength, grace, and decency by continuing the American policy of refusing to seek the cooperation of Iran or Syria in stabilizing Iraq because they might ask us for something that we don’t want to give. More below the fold.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday rejected a bipartisan panel’s recommendation that the United States seek the help of Syria and Iran in Iraq, saying the “compensation” required by any deal might be too high.

It is absolutely preposterous that we have a Secretary of State who refuses to even begin negotiations with a country because he or she fears the potential outcome. Let’s marvel in this statement:

She said she did not want to trade away Lebanese sovereignty to Syria or allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon as a price for peace in Iraq.

Only Condi or her Boss could fit that many stupid sentiments in one sentence without causing the Press Corps to explode. Let’s analyze them, quickly.

1. Apparently she thinks that Iran and Syria would be stupid enough to request permission from the United States to invade Lebanon or build a nuclear weapon in exchange for cooperation.
2. She must have missed the memo that said Iran has never actually expressed the desire to build a Nuclear bomb in the first place. Regardless of what their true intentions are, they’re certainly not going to ask for a bomb before they ask for a better civilian nuclear policy.
3. Condi Rice has such low expectations of her own ability to negotiate, she is afraid that if she entered into talks with Tehran, they might end up convincing her that they should be allowed to nuke Israel.

Can it get dumber? I’m afraid so. From the same piece:

Indeed, Rice argued that the Middle East is being rearranged in ways that provide the United States with new opportunities, what she repeatedly called a “new strategic context.”

If Condi calls what’s happening in the middle east a “rearrangement”, I can only imagine what her house looks like after she decides the couch should be on the other side of the living room. Snark aside, this leads to an even more dangerous point about Rice’s style of non-diplomacy: Holding your breath until someone new comes along to negotiate is not any way to run foreign policy. Particularly if the nations you’re hoping for a democratic government to talk to happen to be Iran and Syria. Imagine if the United States had tried that in the Cold War.

Condi Rice has obviously been over her head at State since the day she set foot in Foggy Bottom. It’s time to begin asking for her resignation.

Also on Daily Kos

Can you see the Democracy spreading from Iraq? The march of freedom taking place throughout the Middle East? Remember this, from less than two years ago?

Hardly a day goes by without Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice or another senior administration official speaking publicly about the “march of freedom” and the success of the Iraq invasion in securing peace. “There’s a movement toward freedom around the world,” Bush said…

Well, that freedom is permeating Somalia, thanks in large part to America’s foreign policy. And now a new regional war is preparing to breakout between Ethiopia and the Islamic extremists of Somalia.

“I am ready to die,” said Osama Abdi Rahim, dressed head-to-toe in camouflage and marching around with a loaded Kalashnikov. He is 7 years old.

The coming conflict between Somalia and Ethiopia signals the powerful return of the same folks who sheltered bin Ladin for so long. It was just in July when bin Ladin went public with a warning to the US and the world about getting involved in Somalia:

Addressing Somalia, which was largely taken over in June by an Islamic militant group, [bin Ladin] urged Somalis to support the militants and said they were building an Islamic state in the Horn of Africa.

“You have no other means for salvation unless you commit to Islam, put your hands in the hands of the Islamic Courts to build an Islamic state in Somalia,” he said…His comments on Somalia included a stern warning to leaders of any country, including Islamic ones, against getting involved in the conflict.

“We pledge that we will fight your soldiers on the land of Somalia and we will fight you on your own land if you dispatch troops to Somalia.”

You remember how quickly the United States acted to prevent that from happening, right?

Wait, you mean that Osama bin Ladin openly declared that his forces and others loyal to the Al Qaeda cause were prepared to take over a nation, and the United States did absolutely nothing to prevent it?

Of course, our troops were tied down a bit somewhere else, but certainly our Secretary of State worked as hard as she could to hammer out a UN resolution to get peacekeepers to prevent this from happening.

Wait, you mean that the UN resolution passed actually lifted an arms ban on the region, resulting in an escalation of hostilities?

Well, certainly, the US is discouraging Ethiopia from invading Somalia and seeking a peaceful resolution to the war.

General John Abizaid of the U.S. Central Command, which has military authority for the Horn of Africa, flew to Ethiopia recently to meet with Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, who has told American officials that he could cripple the Islamists “in one to two weeks.”

Walking a careful line, Abizaid made it clear that a military invasion of Somalia could create a humanitarian crisis in the Horn of Africa.

But Abizaid did not tell Ethiopian officials to pull their troops out, Centcom officials said.

Hmm, ok, well, we’re sending mixed messages. But at least the Ethiopians are subduing the terrorist threat:

Officials in Washington have accused the Islamists of sheltering Al Qaeda terrorists, but whether or not that is true, the presence of Ethiopian troops seems to have increased the potential for terrorist activity.

Right. Wait, invading force creating terrorism? I think we may have known that. That’s dishearening. But at least the broader regional American policy-

“I’ll be honest,” said Sheik Muktar Robow Abu Monsur, the deputy security chief for the Islamists. “America is the best friend of Islam. It wakes up the sleeping Muslim.”

And, wait for it,

The problem with [the American foreign policy] strategy, many analysts said, is that it misreads the Islamists’ power, which is rooted not so much in their military strength — limited to a few hundred armed pick-up trucks and a few thousand fighters — but in their popular support.

Ethiopia may have the strongest military in the region, trained by American advisers and complete with jet fighters, but attacking Islamist forces may only drive them into a guerrilla insurgency.

Ok, I give up. I mean, I really freaking give up. Can anyone tell me why Condoleeza Rice still has her job?

Also at Daily Kos

Over the past few days, something terrifying has emerged in Russia, largely unreported in the US media, and a direct result of the Bush administration’s terrible policies on non-proliferation and nuclear weapons. Russia is deploying new ICBMs.

A mobile version of Russia’s single-warhead Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) entered service Dec. 4.

Russia accelerated its efforts to build a mobile Topol-M (SS-27 by NATO classification) in 2002, after Washington withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to deploy missile defenses. The U.S. withdrawal was widely regarded in Moscow as an attempt to tilt the strategic nuclear balance in Washington’s favor.

In case you forgot, Bush gave notice that the US was withdrawing from the ABM Treaty in December of 2001 so that America could continue developing the miracle defense shield that would protect us from all of those nuclear weapons that Al Qaeda was certain to launch.

The terrifying ramifications of one of the worst US Foreign Policy decisions, below the fold.
From the mouths of babes:

Six months ago, I [George W. Bush, Idiot-in-Chief,] announced that the United States was withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, and today that withdrawal formally takes effect. With the Treaty now behind us, our task is to develop and deploy effective defenses against limited missile attacks. As the events of September 11 made clear, we no longer live in the Cold War world for which the ABM Treaty was designed. We now face new threats from terrorists who seek to destroy our civilization by any means available to rogue states armed with weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Defending the American people against these threats is my highest priority as Commander-in-Chief…

Last month, President Vladimir Putin and I agreed that Russia and the United States would look for ways to cooperate…Over the past year, our countries have worked hard to overcome the legacy of the Cold War and to dismantle its structures. The United States and Russia are building a new relationship based on common interests and, increasingly, common values.

Leave alone the question as to why, once attacked by men with boxcutters on airplanes, his first instinct was to withdraw from a Nuclear Treaty with Russia. Or why the Russians seem to have taken advantage of the American withdrawal with the creation of the Topol-M system, while the US’s missile shield remains a crayon sketch in a Pentagon coloring book. Or why he would believe that the US withdrawing from such a treaty would make the Russians feel all safe and snuggly.

Mr. President, are you sure you looked into the eyes of Vladimir before writing off Russia and wider nuclear attacks as a threat? Because Vlady doesn’t really see things the same way. From the Defense News story linked above:

The United States has long viewed mobile Soviet and Russian ICBMs with concern, and has pushed for limitations on their development and deployment ever since Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty negotiations began in the 1980s, said Alexei Arbatov, a nuclear security expert at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences…

Putin and Ivanov said that Topol-M and its naval modification Bulava, which can carry 12 individually targeted warheads, are to be the core of the country’s nuclear deterrent forces.

As U.S.-Russian relations were getting increasingly strained in the past few years, Putin has repeatedly said that Russia needs a strong military to fight off foreign pressure.

Yes, Virginia, the Cold War may, in fact, be coming back in style. Mobile ICBMs, by the way, make a perfect present to your favorite terrorist. Difficult to detect, harder to destroy, and capable of far more damage than anything North Korea could put out, the elimination of the ABM treaty essentially created an incentive for Russia to produce something far more dangerous to the United States than anything we faced prior to 2002.

Now that the President has voided the ABM treaty, in addition to cutting out the legs from underneath Non-proliferation efforts in an attempt to have a “foreign relations victory”, the world seems to be spiralling back into a cold-war.

Who could have foreseen that withdrawing from the ABM treaty would be detrimental to our national security? Everyone, it seems, including some notable figures:

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (Democrat, Michigan) warned that possible retaliatory steps by Russia in withdrawing from other arms control treaties would “likely lead to an action-reaction cycle in offensive and defensive technologies, including countermeasures.” And, Levin said, “That kind of arms race would not make us more secure.”

Expressing similar sentiments, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (Democrat, South Dakota) termed abrogation of the treaty “a high price to pay for testing that’s not required this early in the schedule for missile defense.”

While the debate over domestic policies may take a bit longer to solve, in foreign policy there is no doubt: George W. Bush is the worst President ever.

Did you know that in the past few weeks the dollar has lost 4% against the British Pound and 3.6% against the Euro? The sharp drop in the value of the dollar was the cover subject of the Economist this past week. And today, the news from China got much, much worse.

The Standard is reporting that China’s Central Bank is sounding an serious alarm about the dollar:

China’s central bank issued a warning Thursday about the risks of dollar weakness, piling fresh pressure on the US currency after a steep drop over the past few weeks…

“If external capital stops flowing into the United States, a significant drop in the US dollar may occur with consumption and investment shrinking, interest rates rising and financial markets experiencing turbulence – endangering global financial and economic stability,” the report said.

I’ve written about Chinese warnings to the US before, and this one is no different. It’s not a declaration of economic war, it’s a “get your shit together, quick” hint that China is going to stop financing the American debt.

As a chief holder of American dollars and debt, it is not in China’s interest to tank the dollar. It is in China’s interest, however, to try and get the dollar back on track, and it is in American interests as well. Before the days of globalization, currencies could fluctuate in value slightly, and a dip in the dollar would mean American manufactured products would be more desirable, leading to increased demand.

But now, with a decaying manufacturing center that is largely immune to currency shifts, thanks to a race-to-the-bottom mentality in terms of labor rights and wages, a drop in the dollar will not help the American poor. Rather, it will minimize their purchasing power, forcing them to go deeper into debt to maintain their current standard of living.
Also from the story:

The world economy has been enjoying the strongest sustained growth in 30 years, even as the US current account deficit steadily widens and surpluses grow in Asia and oil- producing countries. But the People’s Bank of China said the longer the imbalances persist, the greater the risk of a disorderly adjustment and of damage to the world economy.

“If the US current account deficit continues to grow faster than GDP, then the investment value of US assets may be subjected to doubts and challenges and the willingness of investors to continue holding and buying US financial products may weaken,” the central bank said.

If China decides to stop being a principle purchaser of American debt, the current budget imbalances will quickly become untenable, forcing our hand on a number of current programs.
Importantly, this may also render the entire debate about Iraq moot by making it fiscally impossible for us to maintain a troop presence.

The popular question about the Iraq report that Bush received today is this: Will he listen to the advice of the Iraq Study Group, contained within the report? It’s even the cover of Newsweek this week.

Certainly, this is a valid question, as the President has a long record of not listening to advice. But the real question we should be asking is this: Will the President even read the report?
The President may have a record of stubbornness on Iraq, but he has an even longer record of ignoring critically important documents. The most notable occurrance was in August of 2001, when Bush decided not to read a one-page memo entitled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US”. If Bush refused to read a one page document, how in the world can we expect him to read a report that contains, per the post, at least 70 recommendations about Iraq?

The President has admitted that he doesn’t read Newspapers, and that he has his chief of staff and Condi Rice summarize world events for him.

The President wasn’t even expected to read the entire 9/11 commission report.

The question that MUST be posed to Bush is this: Will you read the report in its entirity?

John Bolton was an easy scapegoat for US Diplomacy. He had lied under oath about pushing fake evidence to support the Iraq war, and his record at the UN was a case study in heartlessness and paranoia. And now the International Community won’t have John Bolton to kick around anymore.

The only problem is that the International Community, with the exception of the few diplomats who actually had to work with the Walrus, didn’t ever want to kick around John Bolton. They wanted to welcome the US at the bargaining table, they wanted a strong US role at the United Nations, and they wanted a country with a cohesive, comprehensible, and consistant international policy.

John Bolton was a symptom of the Bush Foreign Policy, not a cause. The administration official who has overseen this collapse in its entirety is Condoleeza Rice. If anyone should resign, it should be Condi.
Condi Rice has been, by far, the worst Secretary of State in a long time. Leaving her tenure as the National Security Advisor alone, when she advised the US into Iraq, her diplomatic efforts have been disastrous on every front.

International support for the Iraq mission has declined. When she was appointed in 2004, W. kissed her on the cheek and said:

“In Dr. Rice, the world will see the strength, the grace and the decency of our country…The nation needs her.”

It is the whole world, however, not just the US that needs a Secretary of State. Since her appointment, the US has:

• Refused to censure or condemn the political repression taking place in Russia. Most recently, a former KGB operative and current dissident was assassinated in London.
• Seen the following members of the “coalition of the willing” disappear: Poland, Italy, Ukraine, Netherlands, Tonga. The UK and South Kirea have also indicated that they are considering withdrawal, which would leave only two countries with over 1,000 troops in Iraq: the US and Australia.
• Helped secure a potentially catastrophic and definitely illegal agreement to sell nuclear fuel and equipment to India, violating non-proliferation agreements and setting a poor standard for other nuclear powers.
• Failed to prevent the testing of a nuclear weapon in North Korea.
• Failed to halt the genocide in Darfur.
• Witnessed the rise of China as a serious diplomatic power in the absence of a strong US diplomatic presence in East Asia.
• Failed to halt the political destabilazation of Lebanon.

If Rumsfeld is so clearly accountable for the debacle that is Iraq, it is time to begin asking why Condi is not accountable for the plummeting international opinion of the United States. Of course, both failures can be attributable to the President, but his cabinet must also be held accountable.

It’s fine and good to rejoice in the demise of John Bolton, a true failure of a diplomat. But we must also begin looking up the ladder, for, when it comes to bringing America’s image back from the depths to which it has sunk, there are clearly bigger problems than one ornery walrus.