Wittmann: Win or Get Out? -- A Bleak Scenario

Marshall Wittmann, the moderate Democrat calling himself "Bull Moose," who used to work for John McCain, has a thoughtful piece about the non-option, in his mind, of unilateral withdrawal from Iraq.

My comment to him:

I'm unconvinced of the utility of keeping forces in Iraq, but assuming you're right, I notice your piece says nothing about the possibility, even at this late date, of securing more international involvement. Surely if Iraq is so dangerous to our future security, it poses at least to some degree the same danger to Europe, China, Russia? Why should the U.S. bear this burden alone? I believe if Kerry had been elected president he would have spent the last year on just this effort. This president has not, and as a result the situation in Iraq is so bleak that there appears less and less likelihood that any outcome other than eventual unilateral withdrawal can successfully be brought about. And that is a catastrophe. The only way to wrest some kind of victory from this debacle would be through honest admission of past mistakes, and appeal to common security interests to secure international commitment, including U.N. troops, to ensuring stability in that country. I can't see this administration doing this or being successful at it even if it tried. The moral gravitas simply isn't there.

At this point, it seems to me that otherwise the eventual outcome will almost certainly be worse than if we had simply left Saddam Hussein in power. And THAT is the real betrayal of the sacrifice of all the ordinary citizens who have been asked, or forced, to serve there; some to sacrifice their lives there. The chief fault here lies not in those who see quagmire and oppose any further commitment to a lost cause, but in the halls of power. And the greatest tragedy is that any other outcome is coming closer and closer to being impossible, politically if not militarily. If that happens, those who propose withdrawal will come to be seen as having proposed the "least worst" option, in terms of mounting casualties, since the outcome will be the same. In this way, the war in Iraq does indeed resemble Vietnam more and more.

See also Larry Johnson's piece in TPM Café.

Pakistan, Iran, and nuclear deceit

Iran built its nuclear program in secret over 18 years with the help of Abdul Qadeer Khan, a top Pakistani official and nuclear scientist who sold spare parts from his country's own weapons program to Iran, Libya and North Korea. Khan's black-market dealings were uncovered in 2003. He confessed on national television, was swiftly pardoned by Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and is now under house arrest.

Pakistan has denied IAEA inspectors access to Khan and to the country's nuclear facilities, but earlier this year it agreed to share data and some equipment with the inspectors to expedite the Iran investigation. Among the equipment were discarded centrifuge parts that match those Khan sold to Iran.

That's from Dafna Linzer's piece today in the NYT.

Am I alone in thinking that we should hold Musharraf's feet to the fire?
What kind of so-called ally is this, who has all but admitted that his government is doing nothing to find Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri? How 'bout revoking evey single Pakistani national's visa and cutting off every cent of aid unless he makes Khan available for interrogation by the IAEA, and Pakistan's own nuclear facilities available for inspection? And if he won't (it isn't "can't") locate and turn over these 9-11 enemies, pressure him open up his territory to commando raids to get 'em ?

But the real point of Linzer's piece is that Bolton and other Bush officials are playing worse than fast and loose with the truth about Iran's mostly ineffective and non-weapons capable nuclear program, thereby eroding still further U.S. credibility on the non-proliferation issue.

My two cents: what America needs

I feel quite sure that I will be tactitly dismissed by some who happen to read this, for "oversimplifying" complex issues and failing to understand how an intricately interacting global economy works. But my point is that, for the majority of American working people, who are the people to whom I believe our government owes its first and foremost loyalty, the intricately interacting global economy isn't working. It is resulting in good jobs disappearing, declining standard of living, increasing dependence on formerly third-world countries not only for energy supplies but for basic manufactured goods, soaring deficits, and increasing and very troubling debt to other countries, particularly China.

I believe we need to rethink, revamp, and largely do away with the post WWII Free Trade Regime, and recast our domestic and international policies, with these priorities (after security and defense of course; we're talking economic policy): 1) Ensure that American working people have opportunities for education and good jobs, including retirement and health care security; 2) Ensure that American business can compete on a level field with other countries, while requiring that to do business in America you must comply with American law, whether here or anywhere. Part of this would be revamping labor laws to encourage organizing and unionizing workers. This benefits everyone in the long run, and anyone who disagrees is not really interested in a consumer economy, they've cast their lot with the current Robber Baron economic model.

To do this, beyond encouraging workers to organize, we need to re-regulate the economy to require business to provide decent wages and decent benefits, or else, no business in the U.S. As for foreign competition, my solution is quite simple: assess a "wages and benefits" tariff on any products sold in the U. S. from countries that fail to pay a calibrated living wage/benefits compensation level, or who fail to provide open information about their economies. This will make their goods cost exactly what they would cost if the wages and benefits were paid. We could then earmark the revenues to assist lower and middle income citizens in our country. In other words, pay and play fair, or else we'll tax your goods and use the money for our people. That way our products will compete on a level playing field. It's time to abandon the whole paradigm of Free Trade, GATT, etc., and consider that decent living standards for working people everywhere must come first, corporate profits second, or else you don't get to play in the world's largest consumer market. If the U.S. were to lead on this (for once), Europe would follow. As for the Chinese and Malaysia; their interests are clearly not ours. Let them fend for themselves in the NEW New World Order.

Meantime, I believe that a program at least comparable to the Interstate Highway System, the wartime and postwar program to develop nuclear weapons, and the Space Program, needs to be funded, with increased taxes as necessary, to invest in developing the necessary technology to move beyond fossil fuels as the dominant source of energy as soon as possible.

If the Democrats embraced something like this; something really meaty, and really meaningful to ordinary people, they would attract a large majority of voters. Politicians of the past 30 years have been far too timid: the problems of our times demand bold solutions.

Bush War on Terror, Iraq Strategy: Miserable, Immoral Failure

TCR, self-styled "honest conservative," has a terrific post on why the Bush "war on terror" is such a miserable failure and how the "flypaper" strategy in Iraq is both totally misguided and unsuccessful, and morally bankrupt.

My comment is that it isn't honest conservatism that bothers me. It's the total contempt for the people and the truth consistently demonstrated by this administration. At 52, I've never felt more alienated from the centers of power of American government.

Say no! to Eminent Domain for Private Development

This is my response, actually agreeing (sacre bleu!) with John Tierney's column in the New York Times today.

Mr. Tierney:

Usually, I disagree with what you have to say pretty much entirely, but here's a curious area of common ground between the "get government off our backs" conservatives and those of us liberals who have come to realize that the road to perdition is indeed often paved with good intentions... and with a little of that "for their own good" paternalistic mindset all too willing to stretch the plain meaning of the original constitutional protections.

I know I'm out of step with most of my liberal compatriots, but I think most "redevelopment" has been an unfortunate mess (and yes, for the same reasons that State Socialist infrastructure like that of East Germany and the Soviet Union is so mind-numbingly dreary and ineffective). It is indeed past time to rethink the rationale that allowed it in the first place. Genuine public use...public buildings, highways, roads, rail lines, airports, hospitals, schools, universities... of course. But private redevelopment "for their own good," using the strong arm of eminent domain, I say no, too. And for the simple and obvious reason: it just ain't right.

But the courts need not have to revisit the issue, and it need not be a litmus for future supreme court justice candidates. (We have enough other issues to fight over). The congress, which too often abrogates its responsibilities, could, without fear of being overturned, simply legislate that no government agency, whether federal, state, or local, may take property except for certain defined ... and genuine ... public purposes, regardless of "fair compensation." There's no need for reinterpretation of the constitution, still less amendment of it, on this one, as it quite clearly falls within the congress's legislative and regulatory powers. (The state and local part would come under the interstate commerce clause, but given the way THAT's been used in the past, this would hardly be a stretch; see the Medical Marijuana decision).

Real conservatives in congress (of both parties) should readily support such legislation. I fear it wouldn't pass right now, though, and largely because most of the Republicans in congress aren't really conservative at all... they're as solidly in the pockets of big business contributors as are the likes of the Democrats-in-Name-Only Biden and Lieberman.

It seems strange to say this, but good luck with your campaign to convince Americans that this is an important issue, and that their rights here (as in many other areas), are under assault.

David Studhalter

Rove source of Plame leak, big surprise

This is excerpted from Editor & Publisher, in a piece by Greg Mitchell:

. . . Friday night, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

Today [July 1], O'Donnell went further, writing a brief entry at the Huffington Post blog:

"I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's e-mails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but sidn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.

McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.

"Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow."

Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's McLaughlin Group remarks:

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury--the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

"I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper. Besides his career at a TV journalist, O'Donnell has served as a producer and writer for the series "The West Wing."

According to published reports, Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the case, has interviewed President Bush and Vice President Cheney and called Karl Rove, among others, to testify before the grand jury.

"The breadth of Fitzgerald's inquiry has led to speculation that it has evolved into an investigation of a conspiracy to leak Plame's identity," the Chicago Tribune observed on Friday, "or of an attempt to cover up White House involvement in the leak."

A Republican Defector

An interesting piece in the Eugene (Oregon) Register-Guard by a longtime Republican who feels so betrayed by what that party has become that he is hanging it up and dissociating himself from the party once and for all.

Karl Rove Remarks

TCR offers these two quotes juxtaposed, without comment. I certainly concur that they speak for themselves.

Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and
prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.

--Karl Rove 6/22/05

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

--Hermann Goering 4/18/46, during the Nürnberg trials

In Memoriam - Carlo Maria Giulini (1914-2005)

Saudi Regime a rogue state, newest member of Axis of Eviule ?

Today our friend The Cunning Realist is pointing out this piece in the Guardian. Do some of us recall that one of the justifications for invading Iraq was the Hussein regime's refusal to cooperate with U.N. nuclear inspections? Seems our so-called allies the Saudis are doing the same thing. By the logic of the Bush Doctrine, we should be giving them an invasion ulimatum even now. But don't hold your breath.

TCR on similarity between Vietnam and Iraq

The Cunning Realist has a truly excellent post, "History's Rhyme," giving an analysis of the similarities between Vietnam and Iraq, thus shedding light on the total implausibility, even on its own premises, of current U.S. policy.

Bush Admin. Prevaricates on Global Warming

NYT: Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming -- This is an example of why I remain convinced that the Bush Administration is bent on the destruction of our environment, in flagrant disregard of America's laws. This rogue administration is out of bounds on almost everything, but on the environment they are nothing short of criminals.

My Letter to Nazi Apologist Pat Buchanan

June 2, 2005

Mr. Patrick J. Buchanan
The American Cause
501 Church St., Suite 217
Vienna, VA 22180

Dear Mr. Buchanan:


I recently came across your May 11, 2005 column in WorldNet Daily. I am appalled, sir. Your views are positively un-American. Were a so-called liberal to express views anything like as far from, and as contemptuous of, the principles for which tens of thousands of my parents’ generation fought and died, he would be pilloried and attacked by you rabid-dog conservatives. But this, sir … all but defending Nazism, accusing Churchill and FDR, who were faced with terrible choices as their best options, of virtual treason, and ignoring the published facts about the genocidal intent of the Nazi regime; failing even to mention the murder of millions of Jews… this, sir, is beyond the pale.

I agree with former Mayor Ed Koch. Anyone who sits at the same table with you on the Sunday talk circuit as you spew your right-wing propaganda and hate is polluted by your very presence, and should refuse to do so.

You should hang your head in shame, and withdraw forever from public life.

Very truly yours,

David Studhalter

Septentrional - Ursa Major

While the focus of this log is mostly political, occasionally I indulge other interests, including unusual connections, where one thing leads to another.

I had occasion today to comment to my father, who was offering me several unusual words for use as my “words for the day,” on the word "Septentrional," a more or less interchangeable term with "boreal." "Septentrional" refers to the Seven Stars of Ursa Major (aka "Septentrion"), which dominates the skies of the North. I have been unable to find a truly comparable term linking the regions of the South with some prominent feature of the Southern Sky. "*Argonavital," "Magellanic," or even "Crucial" come to mind, but none of them has any pedigree, and the last one has obvious drawbacks in that it already has other meanings.

It’s a not-too-well known fact that the Sun and its planets are located in a somewhat enriched region of the Milky Way Galaxy, from the point of view of stellar populations and especially prevalence of bright stars in the vicinity. At least part of the reason for this is that the Sun happens to be in the midst of a slowly dissolving star cluster, the Ursa Major Stream or “Moving Group.”

The seven chief stars of Ursa Major (“The Big Dipper,”) and some of the other stars of the constellation, to which could be added Sirius, are the main members of a real star cluster in space, noticeable from any given direction for a distance of at least a couple of hundred light years. You may notice, from the inclusion of Sirius, which is something like 50 degrees of arc across the sky, that the Sun is actually inside this loose association of stars, but it is not a member of it. These are relatively young stars, having formed together from a protostellar nebula something like 150 million years ago, since which time they have been gradually drifting apart, and the cluster losing coherence as the stars "evaporate" into the general stream of stars in the galactic plane. The Sun, in its normal streaming orbit around the Galaxy, just drifted on in to their region.

Probably most stars in the galaxy are somewhere near something prominent like a group of bright stars, but this feature (usually called nowadays the "Ursa Major Moving Group" or “Ursa Major Stream,” and consisting of about 100 stars, most of them dimmer than the Sun), is the most prominent nearby feature for us. 30 or 40 million years ago, the Sun was nowhere near these stars, as it peregrinated on its 250 million year galactic orbit.

Compared to the bright stars of Orion's Belt, which are much younger, brighter, and farther away, this little cluster isn't much, and wouldn't gain any special notice from even 300 light years away.

Septentrional, incidentally, was one of those obscure words which turned up in James Joyce's Ulysses, to titillate the verbophiles of the Literary World.

For more information about Ursa Major as a real feature in nearby space, see this, from which the following is an exceprt:

Many other stars scattered all over the sky share a common space motion with the UMa cluster. And like the cluster the most massive, hence brightest, stars have evolved to the subgiant and even giant phases. One hundred or so stars have been accepted as members of the UMa stream, as it is called. Spanning a few hundred light years of space, it's much too big to be a cluster proper. As these stars are seen in all directions, we are obviously passing through the stream. The spectral types give stellar ages similar to that of the cluster, and this together with the space motions suggests a common origin about 150 million years ago -- just over half a galactic rotation. This age is about midway, ratio-wise, between the youngest and oldest star clusters (one million to 10 billion years).

Update:
It seems that the usual antonym for "septentrional" is "meridional." This word, however, doesn't refer to a celestial feature in the South, but to the noonday sun:

adj.
1. Of or relating to meridians or a meridian.
2. Located in the south; southern.
3. Of or characteristic of southern areas or people.

n.
An inhabitant of a southern region, especially the south of France.

[Middle English, pertaining to the sun's position at noon, from Old French meridionel, southern, from Late Latin meridionalis, from Latin meridianus, of midday, southern. ]

Why the noonday sun is associated with the South is a bit unclear to me.

Neo-Goldwater Conservatives v. Bush

See Bullmoose's interesting comments on the re-emergence of old fashioned conservative Republicans à la Barry Goldwater, who are very uncomfortable both with the big-government, fiscally irresponsible, and plutocratic tendencies, as well as the theocratic leanings, of the current administration.

Unlikely these folks will vote for a Democrat in a general election, but they very well might split the Republicans enough to enable the whole climate of politics in this country to finally shift away from its current dismal course.

Common Ground: Fiscal Conservatism and Liberalism

Many fiscal conservatives, like the Cunnning Realist, are sounding more like liberals than like the "Radical Conservatives," (as Robert Reich calls them), who rule Washington these days. It seems the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are becoming increasingly inaccurate and irrelevant as labels for people's political persuasions. See avowedly-conservative columnist David Brooks's piece in today’s New York Times, in which he talks about an emerging alliance between "liberals" like U2's Bono, and evangelical Christians on the issue of poverty amelioration.

Many Goldwater-style conservatives look at the 30+% growth in Federal spending in this administration, the unprecedented policy- and tax-cut- driven shift of wealth from the middle class to the rich, the fast and loose attitude towards the obligation to tell the public the truth, and the incredibly unrestrained growth in the national debt and annual deficit spending ... and say, “if this is conservative government, I want no part of it.”

At the same time, many liberals have come over the years to realize that a balanced policy, which respects the rights and values of religious people, which recognizes the necessity for incentives to work, and which strives to keep government within the means provided by its revenues, rather than shifting the burden of today's government to future generations, is best. These people are finding fiscal conservatives, who generally believe in the right of privacy and keeping government out of people's private lives, their natural allies.

The war in Iraq, too, is a terribly divisive issue. There are rational reasons for believing it was a good policy, although I do not believe they are right. In fact, this administration misrepresented the reasons for war, and continues to do a very poor job both of managing it and explaining in plain language why they believe it is in America's national interests to continue prosecuting it. Old fashioned conservatives, like Marshall Wittmann, even if inclined to give the administration some benefit of the doubt, just don't go for the kind of propaganda and double-speak coming out of the administration. No wonder many traditional conservatives are abandoning the Bush radical right-wing movement, and thinking it's time to work with liberals to move the country away from polarity and divisiveness, and towards comity, mutual respect, and a government which can function effectively both in the World and as steward of America's economic and social weal. Here, it seems to me inevitable that history will judge this President's government harshly indeed.

Rats and the Sinking Ship

Marshall Wittmann comments:

Ralph [Reed] and Grover [Norquist] are claiming that they were completely ignorant of any nefarious doings by their old pal. A curious case of amnesia perhaps. Or are they headed for the tall grass as the feds may be on their tails? In any event, it is not exactly a profile in loyalty. Consider this in today's New York Times,

"As Mr. Abramoff's problems touched Mr. DeLay - the majority leader may face an ethics inquiry over trips arranged by Mr. Abramoff - Mr. Norquist was their most vocal defender. But in recent weeks he has distanced himself from the two men whose success has been so intertwined with his own.

At a gala dinner this month to support Mr. DeLay, Mr. Norquist declined a seat on the dais, despite being listed as a host. He slipped out after a predinner reception, he said later, for a dinner party at his home.

Mr. Abramoff attended his wedding on April 2, yet Mr. Norquist described him as simply a "friend," someone he has lunch or dinner with a few times a year. "I knew him when we were in college," he said. "But there's no business or financial relationship."

Mr. Norquist later elaborated: "I haven't seen that much of him recently, and I don't - and it's mostly because - I'm not shunning him or anything. It's just, I'm busy, he's busy, he's in a different world. He took the path I didn't take, which was to go make money as a consultant, and I decided to build A.T.R."

Really, with the scabrous likes of these two, it seems hardly surprising.

My e-mail to pabaah.com

I tried to engage these loony toons, but it was no use. An obviously futile venture, I must admit.
§§§
To: jonalvy44@hotmail.com
Date: Thursday, May 19, 2005 10:36 am
Subject: My registration on pabaah.com
Dear Mr. Alvarez, [http://pabaah.com]

I was directed to your website by an article in the New York Times, and I mistakenly assumed that, as with most public interest websites, there would be room for a diversity of views. Having observed your "rules," which apparently quite explicitly prohibit any disagreement, I must ask that you delete my registration. I gather that were I to post anything on one of your message boards, I would find myself exiled to oblivion in any case.

If you will accept the challenge to read a few sentences of explanation:

I am an American with pre-Revolutionary antecedents (on my mother's side; the last name is Swiss). I am very proud to call myself a Patriot. I believe in America, not only as my homeland but as an embodiment of the ideal of representative government and guaranteed rights of free expression. These guaranteed rights make our nation stronger, not weaker. Your anti-dissent views are, I believe, anathema to the spirit of the American Revolution, and I find the unwillingness to even consider others' take on things to be characteristic of closed-minded people who really do not really believe in the principles of representative democracy on which our nation was founded. Moreover, I believe that the opinion, espoused everywhere on your webiste, that a man is a traitor because he is a dissident from the policies of his government, is a very betrayal of the spirit of the founding of this country. People holding such views have no legitimate claim to call themselves patriots.

Patriotism is not "supporting our president." It is supporting the ideals on which our nation is based. A patriot's duty to his country is to seek to change that with which he disagrees. If you do not understand this, you do not understand the central idea of America, and I am sorry for you.

I support your right, of course, to boycott entertainers who you think are advancing a political agenda with which you disagree. This is a time-honored form of dissent. But calling such people traitors, and shutting up all dissent in your own forums, is indicative of a profound lack of understanding of what the right to dissent is all about. Calling for the government to prosecute dissenters like Michael Moore, is a frightening and ugly throwback to the worst excesses of 1950s McCarthyism.

Some day, I believe, people will look back on people like you the way post-WWII thinking Americans have tended to look back on the regrettable racist-fascist views of such people as Huey Long, Father Conklin, and Charles Lindbergh. Which is to say, as part of a dark chapter of our history, but not in stream with its main currents.

Thank you.

David Studhalter

Gazpacho and Ensalada de lentejas

Once again, it's summer, and time for gazpacho. If you don't know gazpacho, try it. It's lovely. But don't use the the recipe in Pedro Almodovar's Mujeres al bordo de attaca de nervios... (barbiturates are not an essential ingredient).

Most gazpachos have oil and breadcrumbs, which make them heavy and filling. This one is light and delicious, like liquid salad. Put in ¼ cup extra virgin olive oil, if you really want to, but leave out the breadcrumbs. Garnish with croutons if you like bread. Use a mandolin to cut up the vegetables if you have one.

Flexible Gazpacho Andaluz

1½ lb. ripe garden tomatoes, cut in chunks, carefully preserving juices (If all you have is supermarket tomatoes, used canned tomatoes instead, they're riper).
1 bell pepper, seeded and cut up
1 good size cucumber, peeled and cut into chunks
1 small onion, peeled and cut into chunks. Sweet onions are nice here.
1 clove garlic, toasted in the jacket in dry skillet, then peeled and minced (optional; or use raw if you don't mind the sharpness of raw garlic)
1 apple, peeled, cored, and cut up into chunks (optional, but it adds a nice fruitiness; pear is good too)
¼ - ½ tsp. tarragon or something similar; basil or marjoram. Not rosemary or sage, they're too distinctive.
salt and pepper to taste
1 cup tomato juice or ice water
1 tsp. sugar (may omit if using apple; substitute 1½ tsp. honey if you want)
2 tbs. wine vinegar, or 3 of rice vinegar (more vinegar to taste)
Few drops worcestershire, if desired

Mix in batches in blender until no big chunks remain, but don't puree. Strain, pushing mixture thru with wooden spoon into large bowl. Stir thoroughly to blend all the batches of different stuff into a unified mixture.

Chill at least 3 hours, better overnight. Keeps several days in refrigerator. Serves 6, but just barely (no room for seconds). Recipe can easily be doubled, if you want to make a lot.

Serve cold in tall bowls if you have them. Set out with small bowls of cut up onions, bell peppers, tomatoes, and croutons, if desired, as garnishes. (Traditional in Spain).

Delicious.

§

A good accompaniment:


Ensalada de lentejas (Spanish Lentil Salad)

2/3 cup of lentils, washed
2 cloves garlic, toasted in the jacket in dry skillet, then peeled and minced
2 cloves
½ tsp. cumin
bay leaf
2 tbs. pimientos, cut into strips
3 tbs. wine vinegar or use rice vinegar
2 tbs. extra virgin olive oil
salt and pepper to taste
(optional) 1 small zucchini
½ cup shredded carrots... use more if you like more carrot

Put cloves and bay leaf in a bouquet garni or tea ball. Cover lentils with water at least 2 inches above surface of beans, add salt (about 1 tsp.) and cumin. Bring to boil, cover then cook on low heat until not quite tender, about 30 minutes. At this point, add the zucchini, cut into ½ inch pieces, and re-cover. Continue cooking another 5 min. or so, until lentils are just tender. If not using zucchini, skip this step, and just cook straight through until just tender, about 35 min.

Remove bouquet garni and pour beans into strainer and immediately rinse thoroughly with cold water, until cool.

Add remaining ingredients to lentils in bowl, stir together, add salt and pepper to taste; add other herbs like Ms. Dash if you want to, but not too much. Chill, preferably overnight, as it gets better if the ingredients marinate together for awhile. Serve cold. Serves 4, or 6 if you're giving French-size portions.

§

These two and a little pasta with pesto or agli oli, and/or bread (such as garlic bread, pan con tomate, or bruschetta) will make a light summer supper.

Carbon Dioxide and the Climate Change

I'd like to again take the opportunity to highly recommend The New Yorker: Annals of Science: The Climate of Man I, II, and III* by Elizabeth Kolbert, in the April 25, May 2 and May 9 issues. This is pretty clearly the dominant environmental issue of the present decades, and these pieces sound a warning which should compare with Rachel Carson's Silent Spring... except the stakes are far, far higher, and next to nothing is being done about it.
......
*Pt. III doesn't seem to be online currently, but should be shortly.