so yesterday's article somehow shape-shifted into some piece of blather about colin powell and weapons inspections. hmmph. yesterday the headline was about UN opposition and how that might or might not be "stalling" congressional approval of bush's brilliant "america does whatever the hell it wants to just because it can" resolution, but the piece of information i posted it about was this: yesterday, in a procedural motion, the senate voted 95-1 to move ahead with debate of the resolution. 95-1!!!

last night i was sitting in palmer lounge at about 2 am when sarah kelly came down with a very concerned look on her face. "did you know we're going to war?" i think she said. luckily, it turns out we're not *actually* *definitely* going to war yet...but sarah made a good point when she likened the situation to winter 2000, when the issue was still slogging its way through the courts but somehow we all felt bush was inevitably going to be president. right now i wish i had been more serious back then when i said i would emigrate if he won.

it's both depressing and embarrassing to be an american in an era when a large majority of the population has apparently decided (decided?) to swallow anything and everything it's told by a barely-literate "president" and his henchmen. the atlantic monthly, not exactly a bastion of radicalism, nevertheless has an article this month detailing the consequences of a war with iraq which turns up only negative answers. interestingly, the only hawks on this issue are people who have never served in a war. figures.

i hate to be cynical, but what could this possibly be about? i think the two most probable answers (oil money for administration cronies and stupidity and hubris of the administration itself) are equally untenable.

so i'm off to new york on sunday.