Oh, G. Dub is still president?

Who knew. 

Mr. Bush is currently on a tour of the Middle East in a last-minute effort to get Israel and Palestine to come to terms. I assume the thinking there is, if Bush's name is linked to an Israel-Palestine treaty, people will forget about the Constitution-as-toilet-paper, militant cronyism of his administration. 

In swinging by Saudi Arabia, he offered our allies a 900 smart bombs so they'll back us in the upcoming Iran War and so they'll back the peace deal. But don't worry, officials say: the bombs we give Israel are smarter. 

Great. Piss off the Arabs more. That should help.

Oh, and no comment about oil. Why would they talk about that? It's not like the Saudis are the most powerful arm of OPEC or anything. 

This is why I pay such sporadic attention to the the news these days. 

***  

There's also a story about the national intelligence director is making plans to gain access to any email, anytime. One of his aides told the New Yorker, "We have a saying in this business: 'Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'" 

Meaning security only comes at privacy's expense. 

Now if that were phrased as just this guy's thoughts on the subject, fine. It would be troubling enough, but still, fine. But allegedly there's a "saying in this business." Implying that many, most, some, a lot of the people in this business (INTELLIGENCE) take this as a given. 

Holy balls. 

The Race

This is the internet equivalent of standing on a mountain and screaming one's ideas into space. But here I go, just the same. 

I imposed a self-moratorium on paying attention to the presidential campaigns. They started so early -- do they always start so early? -- and it pissed me off. First of all, the constant news from the trail eclipsed the more important and more relevant news about what the current president was up to. Second, a lot of these candidates are senators. Influential senators. But instead of voting, debating, reviewing bills, they were stumping for their next jobs. 

I know this is to be expected, but 18 months before the election? 

Unfortunately, I let the campaign boycott go too far and found myself watching the Iowa results on a bar TV, knowing nothing I hadn't gleaned through osmosis. It's the same way I always know what's going on with certain former pop stars. I don't try; it just happens. 

So in the few days since I've been trying to catch up. I've tried to take in the plans for change listed on Obama's, Clinton's and Edwards's web sites. (Overwhelming in one sitting.) I've compared the amount of money given to the candidates from different industries: oil, lobbying, pharmaceuticals. (Opensecrets.org) I've looked for stories and columns that address not what the candidates are doing right now (whirling through New Hampshire on either sheer determination or some combination of that and a lot of uppers), but what they would do from the White House, what they have done in the past. 

Will they fill the government with friends and supporters, like an incompetent horse association commissioner to run FEMA, or hire qualified, intelligent people? Will they give billion-dollar contracts to other friends and refuse to prosecute corrupt war contractors? Will they work for the oil companies, for big business, for a narrow idea of what God wants? 

Will they ignore the opinions of the people? Will "America" mean a few thousand close, rich friends, or 300 million people, most of whom are not white, wealthy, Christian men? Will they address the huge portion of the country living below, at, or double the poverty line? Will they attend to the poor, the sick, the oppressed in this country, or insist that those problems lie within other borders?

Will they stop bombing other countries in order to gain more influence, power and money in those countries? 

Will they tell the truth, or will they lie?

Will they steer America off this consumptive path toward exhaustion of resources, toward the end of a first-world lifestyle for anyone?

Is a presidential election really going to change anything? 

I've become cynical about what change within the system can do, and idealistic about that outside the system. But I'm beginning to look forward to next January. An entire year from now, still. I don't think the Republicans have a chance, no matter who the candidate. People are too fed up with war, corruption and an eroding economy. So who will it be? Obama, Clinton, or Edwards? So far I like Edwards the most. But Obama has this incredible following, which includes, not insignificantly, Oprah. Clinton, I don't know. She wouldn't be a change, and people know that. And I'm not convinced that the question of sex is moot. A lot of people wouldn't vote for a woman, consciously or not. 

So maybe, in a year, things will change. They will superficially, I'm sure. I'll have to wait and see. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, and see that change can come from the top. 

But I doubt it.