The Distant Ocean

Spottyblog

I'm going to be preparing for and then taking a trip, so posting will be anywhere from sporadic to nonexistent for the next few weeks.  If it's not too much trouble, could y'all make sure we end the Afghan and Iraq wars, slash the military budget, enact a comprehensive plan to address global warming, repeal corporate personhood, and establish single-payer health care while I'm otherwise occupied?  Thanks in advance.

Better late than never

Tony Norman at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has had an epiphany:

Glancing over back columns, I'm ashamed to say I did my share of Nader-bashing during the 2004 presidential election, too.

In an Oct. 15, 2004, column, I applauded a Commonwealth Court judge's decision to knock Mr. Nader off the Pennsylvania ballot.

While conceding that Ralph Nader was the candidate who truly reflected my values on the issues, the headline of my Feb. 24, 2004, column lacked any sense of nuance: "Principled vote for Nader isn't what this nation needs."

In retrospect, it was easier to scapegoat Mr. Nader than to question the values of a so-called progressive political party that would nominate candidates as beholden to corporate interests as the incumbent we were desperately trying to unseat.

Norman had actually started veering in this direction nearly two years ago (as I wrote about at the time), though he was still actively planning to swim in the Democratic cesspool one more time.  I give him enormous credit now not only for seeing that he was wrong (and why), but for admitting it so publicly and with such humility.

There seems to have been a marked increase in the number of people making public declarations like Norman's—a good sign on its own, but also pretty extraordinary considering that it's happening in the honeymoon phase of a freshly-minted Democratic president.  Whether it will lead anywhere is another matter entirely, of course, but it still warms my cockles.

Day of climate action (with bonus: polar bear hot-or-not)

What impressed me most about the various climate change actions across the San Francisco Bay Area today was the variety, the creativity, and the energy.  I biked across the Golden Gate Bridge with a group of people who'd ridden 350 miles down from Arcata to San Francisco (I didn't quite make it 350 miles myself, but I did ride at least 3.50 miles three to five times).  A different group of 350 riders rode along San Francisco's potential future coastline wearing masks, snorkels, floaty-gear, and so on.  The guy who somehow managed to pedal around the city with 18-inch fins on his feet has my eternal admiration.

What did you do today?  Any interesting actions in your area?  Share!

I also saw two polar bears at the San Francisco rally:

I have to say that bear number 2's costume was unbelievable—just look at the claws (and you can see that the toenails were the same here).  This bear actually had to be led around by a helper, since the fur was so fluffy there was hardly any visibility through it.  Pretty darned impressive.

But bear number 1 had a better sign, wiped imaginary sweat from its brow, and was unquestionably the jauntier of the two.

So: bear number 1 or bear number 2?

Cataclysmic fun!

The flash programmers at Greenpeace have outdone themselves with a web site where you can create a little cardboard dude with your own image and a nifty slogan, to be delivered by Greenpeace to the Copenhagen climate summit.  I recommend "U R A JACKASS", but hey, go wild.

And don't forget that this Saturday (October 24th) is the international day of climate action; you can find an action in your area at 350.org's actions page.  Invite all your friends and make it a day of disaster-mitigating merriment!

HRW and moral equivalence

I've always treated Human Rights Watch skeptically (for reasons I've noted elsewhere), and now Robert Bernstein, the founder of HRW and its chairman from 1978 to 1998, explains why that was a good idea:

At Human Rights Watch, we always recognized that open, democratic societies have faults and commit abuses. But we saw that they have the ability to correct them — through vigorous public debate, an adversarial press and many other mechanisms that encourage reform.

That is why we sought to draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds, in an effort to create clarity in human rights. We wanted to prevent the Soviet Union and its followers from playing a moral equivalence game with the West and to encourage liberalization by drawing attention to dissidents like Andrei Sakharov, Natan Sharansky and those in the Soviet gulag — and the millions in China’s laogai, or labor camps.

How helpful of Bernstein to state outright that HRW has historically observed a double standard between "the democratic and nondemocratic worlds" in order to avoid the nagging problem of "moral equivalence" (translating: HRW has mainly focused its attention on official enemies—whose democratic credentials are always suspect, regardless of their electoral practices—because it rejected the ludicrous notion that crimes committed by our side are just as bad as crimes committed by their side).  This is no surprise given that HRW started out as Helsinki Watch, which was basically an unofficial organ of the U.S. government (like the National Endowment for Democracy) dedicated to highlighting human rights abuses by the Soviet Union and its satellites.

In many ways HRW continues to act as the outsourced human rights division of the State Department, as in their execrable 2008 report on Venezuela, which tracked U.S. policy so closely it may as well have been written by the Bush administration.  But they've shown some signs of improvement in recent years, particularly with regard to Israel—refuting Israeli propaganda about Hezbollah using human shields in Lebanon, for example, and criticizing the U.S. for blocking investigation and prosecution of Israel's crimes in Gaza.  It's this slowly increasing tendency toward "moral equivalence"—i.e., a single universal standard for human rights—that pissed off Bernstein so much that he felt compelled to attack HRW publicly (and he's definitely not alone in that).

Hopefully HRW will ignore the attacks and keep moving closer to the heretical notion of moral equivalence, but until they get there you'll just have to judge them on a case-by-case basis.  A good rule of thumb (which applies much more broadly as well): pay attention to them if they're contradicting U.S. policy, and ignore them if they're not.

The misanalysis of humor

In a discussion of a Louisiana judge's refusal to give a marriage license to an interracial couple, Patrik Jonsson offers this novel analysis:

Ever wonder why jokes about the South and "rednecks" persist?

...[T]he underlying tenets of humor about the South has a bit to do with the insecurity of the North facing a virile Sunbelt economy that, up until recently, had a major influence on national and presidential politics. 

But the political defeat of the Southern-based Republican party has given a little more leeway to poke fun at the South.

Now, there are no doubt many reasons why jokes about the South and rednecks persist, but somehow I don't think many people are weighing regional economic factors and consulting the current political fortunes of the Republican party before they trot out their favorite possum joke.

They should call it the Buenodives

Stupendous:

President Mohamed Nasheed, Vice President Dr Mohamed Waheed and 11 cabinet ministers donned scuba gear and submerged 4 meters below the surface of sea to hold the world's first underwater cabinet meeting, in a bid to push for a stronger climate change agreement in the upcoming climate summit in Copenhagen.

"We are trying to send our message to let the world know what is happening and what will happen to the Maldives if climate change isn't checked" said President Nasheed, speaking to the press as soon as he resurfaced from underwater.

"What we are trying to make people realize is that the Maldives is a frontline state. This is not merely an issue for the Maldives but for the world. If we can't save the Maldives today, you can't save the rest of the world tomorrow", said President Nasheed further.

During the 30-minute meeting held in the turquoise lagoon off Girifushi Island, with a backdrop of corals, the President, the Vice President and eleven other Cabinet ministers signed a resolution calling for global cuts in carbon emissions.

President Nasheed and the ministers used a water proof pencils to sign the declaration, 'SOS from the frontline', printed on a white plastic slate, to be presented before the landmark UN climate summit in Copenhagen in December.

Press release comes with action photo!

And I should point out that they're not just asking the rest of the world to do the job for them—the plan is for the Maldives to be carbon neutral by 2020.

This was part of a coordinated effort by 350.org to raise awareness of global warming ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit, culminating in an international day of climate action one week from now on October 24th.  You should definitely click on over there and look for an action near you.

"Obama's bad influence"

Naomi Klein echoes the exact same theme I wrote about a few days ago, but unlike me she supports her analysis with a bunch of "facts" and "examples":

The Nobel Committee, which awarded the prize specifically for Obama's embrace of "multilateral diplomacy," is evidently convinced that US engagement on the world stage is a triumph for peace and justice. I'm not so sure.  After nine months in office, Obama has a clear track record as a global player. Again and again, US negotiators have chosen not to strengthen international laws and protocols but rather to weaken them, often leading other rich countries in a race to the bottom.

Let's start where the stakes are highest: climate change. During the Bush years, European politicians distinguished themselves from the United States by expressing their unshakable commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. So while the United States increased its carbon emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels, the European Union countries reduced theirs by 2 percent. Not stellar, but clearly a case where the EU's breakup with the United States carried tangible benefits for the planet. 

Flash forward to the high-stakes climate negotiations that just wrapped up in Bangkok. The talks were supposed to lead to a deal in Copenhagen this December that significantly strengthens the Kyoto Protocol. Instead, the United States, the EU and the rest of the developed countries formed a unified bloc calling for Kyoto to be scrapped and replaced.

See what I mean?  It's all X percent this, Y percent that.  I really felt my piece was more agile, if you will, thanks to the omission of this sort of relevant supporting information.  But that's just her thing, as you can see in these astute observations about the effects of the Obama administration's withdrawal from the UN conference on racism:

Within forty-eight hours of the US announcement Italy, Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Poland had pulled out. Unlike the United States, these governments had all signed the 2001 declaration, so they had no reason to object to a document that reaffirmed it. It didn't matter. As with the climate change negotiations, lining up behind Obama, with his impeccable reputation, was an easy way to avoid burdensome international obligations and look progressive at the same time--a service the United States was never able to provide during the Bush years.

At least she manages to stick to opinions in the last few sentences, though:

But a clear pattern has emerged: in areas where other wealthy nations were teetering between principled action and negligence, US interventions have tilted them toward negligence. If this is the new era of multilateralism, it is no prize.

You can read the rest if you want, but I'll warn you right now that it's all just as informative and well-argued as the bits I've quoted here.

Your daily dose of sunshine

The great news just keeps on coming:

The IPCC says that rich industrial countries must cut emissions 25 to 40 percent by 2020 (from 1990 levels) if the world is to have a fair chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change. By contrast, the WBGU [the German Advisory Council on Global Change] study says the United States must cut emissions 100 percent by 2020--i.e., quit carbon entirely within ten years. Germany, Italy and other industrial nations must do the same by 2025 to 2030. China only has until 2035, and the world as a whole must be carbon-free by 2050.

Yeah, see, that's not going to happen.  And to appreciate just how much that's not going to happen, keep in mind that the Obama administration is trying to set 2005 as the baseline year for emissions rather than 1990 (the baseline year in the Kyoto Protocol), since the 2005 emission levels for the U.S. were 17% higher than in 1990.

As you can see from this interview, though, WBGU chairman Hans Joachim Schellnhuber is clinically insane:

Schellnhuber: Our basic principle is that all humans have equal rights to the atmosphere. This is a basic right. This is also what German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh decided at a meeting in 2007. Why should a German be allowed to emit more CO2 into the atmosphere than someone from Bangladesh? No, we must divide the quota equally and fairly among all nations.

Someone from Bangladesh should be allowed to emit as much CO2 as an actual human being?  But plasma screen TV market penetration there is minimal at best!  If Schellnhuber's bizarre value system is any guide to the quality of his team's science, we've got nothing to worry about.

Smitten Norwegian nimrods explain deep love for Obama

Testify, Thorbjoern:

"We simply disagree that he has done nothing," committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said. "He got the prize for what he has done."

He singled out Mr Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and to scale down a Bush-era plan for an anti-missile shield in Europe. "All these things have contributed to … I wouldn't say a safer world, but a world with less tension," Mr Jagland said. [...]

"Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year," Mr Jagland said. "Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?"

(Oh, about 6.7 billion people.  But who's counting?)

Speak your truth, Aagot:

Aagot Valle, a left-wing Norwegian politician who joined the five-man Nobel panel this year, also dismissed suggestions that the decision to award Mr Obama was without merit.

"Don't you think that comments like that patronise Obama? Where do these people come from?"

How about Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan for starters?  Maybe you should try getting out of Norwegia more often, Aagot.  Just a thought.

The Idea of Obama

Having given Dan Perkins (aka Tom Tomorrow) some grief in the past over Democratic blind spots, I have to give him credit as well for this great cartoon, in which he posits the existence of the Idea Of Obama—an entity entirely separate from the actual Obama.  The best line: "Late last week, the Idea of Obama even won the Nobel Peace Prize!"

My only quibble with the strip is that the Idea of Obama didn't spring to life on its own; Obama has been carefully crafting his doppelganger for years now.  That's true of all politicians to some extent, of course, and it's also true that nice liberals are a willing audience for any Democrat.  Nonetheless, even granting all of that, Obama still has an extraordinary ability to create and peddle illusions about himself, and—crucially—to do it without seeming to be doing it.

And it's precisely that ability that makes him so dangerous.  In a discussion of Obama's Nobel, Joseph Palermo plaintively asks:

Have we become so traumatized by the belligerent Bush-Cheney-Bolton unilateral militarism of the previous eight years, with its attendant hatred for the world and its people, that we are incapable of recognizing the simple fact that it is much better for America to have a president who is admired and respected in the world than one who is despised and feared?

Palermo has it exactly backwards: it's much better for America to have a president who is despised and feared than one who's admired and respected, because based on its consistent behavior under both Democratic and Republican administrations, America should be despised and feared.  And that's more important than ever, because it's the one thing that offers the best chance that this country's destructive policies will be recognized, called out, and opposed by the rest of the world.

And one of the main functions of the Democrats in general (and Democrats like Obama in particular) is to prevent that from happening.  As I've said before, George Bush catalyzed dissent—both domestically and internationally—but Obama euthanizes it.  I can't think of any better evidence for that than Obama's ability to win the Nobel Peace Prize while he's simultaneously increasing the military budget, presiding over an expansion of the U.S. role as the top arms merchant to the world, and waging two wars.  Thanks to the Idea of Obama, the actual Obama will be able to spend the coming years pursuing the same policies as Bush with only a tiny fraction of the level of opposition—and the effects will be just that much worse as a result.

Entertainment/mass murder nexus still going strong

As I sit here listening to the Blue Angels putting on their annual Bay Area advertisement for airborne destruction, I can't help but recall a recent episode of Mythbusters investigating whether or not a sonic boom can break glass.  A question I'm sure we've all asked ourselves.  And where did they get this idea?

"I came up with the idea of getting 'Mythbusters' to test the theory about a year ago," said Capt. Tyson Dunkelberger, Blue Angels’ public affairs officer. "They were busy filming at the time, but we tried again six months ago and now we’re finally here working with them." To test the myth, the crew built a small shed with a window, parked a car nearby with the windows rolled up and set up glassware on a table. Two Blue Angels F/A-18 Hornets then zipped over the test area, directing the sonic boom toward the ground as they passed. [...]

Events like this are part of the Blue Angels public relations mission. "Our role is to represent and promote the Navy and Marine Corps in the best possible way," said Dunkelberger. "An event like this is a great public relations opportunity. If we can inspire someone watching the show to think about joining the military, then the Blue Angels have done their job."

Hey, it sure was helpful of the Mythbusters to produce a prime-time recruiting video for the Pentagon.  And it's also fortunate that these F-18s weren't too busy blowing up mosques in Fallujah to do the show with them.

While I can appreciate their dedication to the scientific method, though, the Mythbusters could have saved a lot of time by going to the Gaza Strip and asking anyone on the street about this "myth", since the Israelis have made a regular practice of terrorizing the entire population there with sonic booms:

Israel is deploying a terrifying new tactic against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip by letting loose deafening "sound bombs" that cause widespread fear, induce miscarriages and traumatise children.

The removal of Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip opened the way for the military to use air force jets to create dozens of sonic booms by breaking the sound barrier at low altitude, sending shockwaves across the territory, often at night. Palestinians liken the sound to an earthquake or huge bomb. They describe the effect as being hit by a wall of air that is painful on the ears, sometimes causing nosebleeds and "leaving you shaking inside".

The Palestinian health ministry says the sonic booms have led to miscarriages and heart problems. The United Nations has demanded an end to the tactic, saying it causes panic attacks in children. The shockwaves have also damaged buildings by cracking walls and smashing thousands of windows.

Tonight on Israeli Mythbusters: we know sonic booms can break glass, but can they also shatter the human psyche?  Stay tuned!

As much as I wish it would happen, though, I don't think we're going to see a Gaza followup episode.  There's just not nearly as much entertainment (or recruitment) value in Palestinian children wetting their beds and having night terrors as there is in showing brightly-painted F/A-18 Hornets screaming through the sky against a bad heavy metal soundtrack.

[ Previous Fleet Week-related thoughts here. ]

What it takes to win a Nobel

President Obama 'orders Pakistan drone attacks'

January 23, 2009 - Missiles fired from suspected US drones killed at least 15 people inside Pakistan today, the first such strikes since Barack Obama became president and a clear sign that the controversial military policy begun by George W Bush has not changed.

Security officials said the strikes, which saw up to five missiles slam into houses in separate villages, killed seven "foreigners" - a term that usually means al-Qaeda - but locals also said that three children lost their lives.

------------

US air-raid kills over 100 civilians in Farah

May 5, 2009 - Residents of the Bala Boluk district in western Farah province on Tuesday claimed more than one hundred 'innocent people' have been killed in the Monday's air offensive by the US forces. [...]

Following the militant attack, locals say, the American forces bombarded Grani village, inflecting huge casualties to non-combatants.

Dr Atiqullah, a resident of the village, told Pajhwok Afghan News the bombardment destroyed the whole village and some of the mutilated bodies were beyond recognition.

He said they had so far retrieved 123 dead bodies from beneath the debris of the destroyed homes by using tractors.

------------

Obama warns Iran: 'come clean' on nukes

September 25, 2009 - Backed by other world powers, U.S. President Barack Obama declared Friday that Iran is speeding down a path to confrontation and demanded that Tehran quickly "come clean" on all nuclear efforts and open a newly revealed secret site for close international inspection. He said he would not rule out military action if the Iranians refuse. [...]

"Iran is on notice that when we meet with them on Oct 1 they are going to have to come clean and they are going to have to make a choice" between international isolation and giving up any aspirations to becoming a nuclear power, he said. If they refuse to give ground, they will stay on "a path that is going to lead to confrontation."

------------

Nobel prize win 'humbles' Obama

October 9, 2009 - US President Barack Obama has said he was "surprised and deeply humbled" to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, less than 10 months into his presidency. [...]

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the Norwegian committee said in a statement. "His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

------------

Obama's acceptance speech:

I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.

Now, these challenges can't be met by any one leader or any one nation. And that's why my administration's worked to establish a new era of engagement in which all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek. We cannot tolerate a world in which nuclear weapons spread to more nations and in which the terror of a nuclear holocaust endangers more people.

No, really: Barack Obama just used his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to reiterate his threats against Iran.

UPDATE: Best headline so far: "Some Analysts Warn Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Complicates War Efforts".

QUIETUS RIOT: The Nobel committee issued a clarification explaining that Obama was actually awarded the "Rest In Peace Prize", in recognition of becoming the most prolific active killer on the planet and thereby ushering so many human beings beyond this vale of tears.  "By helping thousands of men, women, and children achieve ultimate peace, and showing every sign that he intends to do the same for thousands more, Barack Obama has truly earned this prestigious award."

SECOND-BEST HEADLINE: "Nobel List: Carter, Gore, Obama . . . No Clinton" (here).  Aww, poor Bill.  This genuinely is a bit of a mystery, though; I'd love to believe that the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis through sanctions disqualified him, but high body counts clearly don't deter these Norwegian nincompoops.

The depth of our concern

As a diver, I have to say this is one of the coolest global warming actions of all time:

The president of the Maldives is desperate for the world to know how seriously his government takes the threat of climate change and rising sea levels to the survival of his country. He wants his ministers to know as well.

To this end, Mohamed Nasheed has organised an underwater cabinet meeting and told all his ministers to get in training for the sub-aqua session. Six metres beneath the surface, the ministers will ratify a treaty calling on other countries to cut greenhouse emissions.

Ahead of the meeting, scheduled for 17 October, cabinet members have been squeezing into wet-suits and practising their underwater skills. The President was not present at the first session, held over the weekend, because he is already a qualified diver.

They released this jaunty photo of the cabinet with their dive instructors:

(There's an even more entertaining photo here*.)

I like this underwater governance idea.  In fact, I like it so much that I think the entire legislative and executive branches in the United States should try it as well—but they should descend to a majestic 30 meters instead of a paltry 6, and they should breathe 100% oxygen to symbolize the purity of their commitment to environmental issues.  I think I can guarantee that the country, and indeed the entire world, would be far better off after this historic dive.

That's going to remain a wistful dream for the moment, though, since this is what the Obama administration is actually doing these days:

The US threatened to derail a deal on global climate change today in a public showdown with China by expressing deep opposition to the existing Kyoto protocol. [...]

[Chief US negotiator Jonathan Pershing] forcefully outlined America's opposition to the Kyoto protocol. "We are not going to be in the Kyoto protocol. We are not going to be part of an agreement that we cannot meet. We say a new agreement has to [be signed] by all countries. Things have changed since Kyoto. Where countries were in 1990 and today is very different. We cannot be stuck with an agreement 20 years old. We want action from all countries."

(The best part is where Pershing says, "There has been a startling change in the US position. There is now engagement."  Because it's so much better to tell the rest of the world to go fuck itself in person!)

Compare the Obama administration's startling stance to John Kerry's official 2004 position on Kyoto:

The Kyoto Protocol is not the answer. The near-term emission reductions it would require of the United States are infeasible, while the long-term obligations imposed on all nations are too little to solve the problem.

Or Al Gore's remarks at the Kyoto conference in 1997:

Our first step should be to set realistic and achievable, binding emissions limits.... [Our proposal] provides the means to ensure that all nations can join us on their own terms in meeting this common challenge.

Ah, the Democrats: so reassuringly consistent in their refusal to do anything about global warming that would prioritize the survival of human civilization over corporate profits.

*UPDATE: Well, there was an even more entertaining photo there, but it's been removed.  Luckily I was able to retrieve a copy from the web's voracious maw:

Let me just take this opportunity to extol once again the many virtues of fair use.

The best laid plans

Have you heard the good news, brother?

Waters around the North Pole are absorbing carbon dioxide at such a rate that they will soon start dissolving the shells of living sea creatures.

The potentially disastrous consequences for the food chain have been highlighted by Professor Jean-Pierre Gattuso of the National Centre for Scientific Research in France. [...]

His research suggests that 10% of the Arctic Ocean will be corrosively acidic by 2018; 50% by 2050; and 100% ocean by 2100. "Over the whole planet, there will be a threefold increase in the average acidity of the oceans, which is unprecedented during the past 20 million years. That level of acidification will cause immense damage to the ecosystem and the food chain, particularly in the Arctic," he added.

Ho hum, just another terrifying result of humanity's centuries-long, unintentional experiment in de-terraforming the planet.  But the following bit caught my eye, since (as I've said before) I'm skeptical about the chances of successfully pulling our bacon out of the fire with science miracles:

"Scientists have proposed all sorts of geo-engineering solutions to global warming," said Gattuso. "For instance, they have proposed spraying the upper atmosphere with aerosol particles that would reduce sunlight reaching the Earth, mitigating the warming caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide.

"But these ideas miss the point. They will still allow carbon dioxide emissions to continue to increase – and thus the oceans to become more and more acidic. There is only one way to stop the devastation the oceans are now facing and that is to limit carbon-dioxide emissions as a matter of urgency."

That still leaves methods of carbon sequestration like synthetic trees, of course.  And if we're lucky, the side effects of those techniques will only be inconvenient rather than catastrophic, and might even be amusing—like, say, giant swarms of carnivorous aphids or woodpeckers spontaneously bursting into flames.

One thing you can say for the future: it won't be boring.

The anti-Republican-war movement

Having dedicated herself to electing Democrats for the past eight years, Medea Benjamin is now confused about where everybody went:

We should be there flooding the halls of Congress. It’s a little lonely here .... The antiwar movement is way too quiet. We should be flooding the halls of Congress every day now. This month and the next month are absolutely critical months. We have to be seen. We have to be heard. So I would say that the most important thing is to reactivate the networks that were so active during the Bush years to force Obama to do the right thing, which is to set an exit strategy and bring our troops home.

What Benjamin (still) doesn't seem to understand is that "the networks that were so active during the Bush years" were filled with Democratic voters who couldn't give a rat's ass what she or anyone else wants them to do now that a Democrat is president and all is therefore right with the world.  The anti-war movement that briefly manifested itself during Bush's reign was not the homogeneous whole it may have appeared to be, but two separate and distinct entities: 1) a genuine anti-war movement, comprising a relatively small number of people (like Benjamin) who oppose U.S. assaults on other countries no matter who's waging them, and 2) a much larger group of anti-Republican-war activists, the majority of whom are much more content with killing Afghans now that such an articulate and personable Democrat is calling the shots, while the rest are at least willing to spot Obama a few morgues' worth of corpses before they'll decide if the killing he's doing is likely to "succeed" or not.

If you doubt this proposition, here's a brief review of recent anti-war history in San Francisco:

January 1991: 100,000 people come out to protest an attack on Iraq initiated by Republican George H.W. Bush.

December 1998: Hundreds of people come out to protest air strikes on Iraq initiated by Democrat Bill Clinton.

March 1999: On the first evening of Clinton's assault on Yugoslavia, dozens of people come out to protest (and I know this because I was one of them).  More protests occur throughout the bombing, drawing increasing numbers of protesters, with the totals reaching into the low thousands.  After 78 straight days of bombing, a final protest—the biggest of all—draws just 10,000 people.

March 2003: Hundreds of thousands of people come out to protest an upcoming attack on Iraq initiated by Republican George W. Bush.

I can't help but feel I'm detecting a pattern here.

Now, is it possible we're on the verge of a Vietnam-style breakout in anti-war sentiment, and a newfound willingness on the part of Democratic voters to protest a war, even if it's being waged by one of their own?  Sure, it's possible.  But I don't see any sign that it's on the horizon and many signs that it's not—like Benjamin's experience, or what happened when Cindy Sheehan traveled to Martha's Vineyard in August to hound Obama over his warmaking:

Sheehan no longer has the following she once had, when thousands joined her in Crawford and across the country. As CBS News White House producer Robert Hendin reports, there were only a handful of people in her audience yesterday, in addition to the four speakers. There were more present from the media than there were protestors.

So barring a miraculous change, get used to seeing token opposition to the exact same crimes—until another Republican takes the throne, that is, and the anti-Republican-war movement rises once again.