If you happen to be undergoing anger-management therapy, reading Lachman's newest book will probably test your recovery.

Long-time residents of New York, those who have chosen to stay, have watched a steady decline grip many parts of the state. While other regions of the country enjoyed the go-go days of the 90's, New York was still hunkered down in a recession. Eliot Spitzer caused an uproar when he compared Upstate to Appalachia, but for many New Yorkers, the analogy fit.

Lachman's "Three Men in a Room: the Inside Story of Power and Betrayal in an American Statehouse" gives the ultimate insider's view of the state's corroded political infrastructure.

A Long Island Democrat, Lachman served nine years in the State Senate. His conclusion: our worst fears about Albany are true --- billions of tax dollars wasted, a legislature that doesn't legislate, and a government completely controlled by what Lachman calls a "trimocracy."

Lachman was in town on Tuesday, talking to folks at RIT and the Center for Governmental Research about reform. While it was the theme of Spitzer's campaign and his State of the State address --- budget reform, education reform, reducing taxes, an end to gerrymandering districts --- Lachman says Spitzer is in for the fight of his life. And he'll need help if he is to succeed, because the leaders of both houses of the legislature will resist with everything they've got.

We're already seeing it.

From today's New York Times: "Few Veteran Diplomats Accept Mission to Iraq.... The White House's strategy calls on diplomats to head to some of Iraq's most hostile regions, but many refuse to go."

"Edwards and Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had distinct perspectives on Iraq, but their other differences were, if anything, more revealing": The American Prospect's Harold Meyerson, reporting on Clinton's, Edwards', and Obama's pitches to the Democratic National Committee.

In The Nation, John Nichols looks at the implications of the mistrial declared yesterday in the court martial of Army Lieutenant Ehren Watada, who refused to be sent to Iraq because he believes the US invasion was illegal.

"Pathetic Senate, Timid Reid on Iraq War": Matthew Rothschild in The Progressive, on this week's Senate debate.

In the Washington Post: "Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included ‘reporting of dubious quality or reliability' that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon's inspector general." The Post article is based on portions of the report that were released yesterday by Michigan Senator Carl Levin.

ON OBAMA: In Rolling Stone,"Destiny's Child." "No candidate since Robert F. Kennedy has sparked as much campaign-trail heat as Barack Obama. But can the one-term senator craft a platform to match his charisma?"

ON IRAN: From today's Guardian Unlimited: "Target Iran: US able to strike in the spring."

"US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.

"The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr. Bush leaves office."

In today's New York Times, Paul Krugman's "Scary Movie 2," listing the signs that indicate that the Bush administration is preparing to attack Iran. Among them: as it did before the Iraq war, the administration has set up "a special intelligence unit to cook up rationales for war," Krugman writes. And the person heading it is Abram Shulsky, who headed the unit that "helped sell the Iraq war with false claims about links to Al Qaeda."

The scariest part of Krugman's column: his theory about why the administration is accusing Iran of meddling in Iraq. "Because there's no way Congress will approve another war resolution," Krugman writes. "But if you can claim that Iran is doing evil in Iraq, you can assert that you don't need authorization to attack --- that Congress has already empowered the administration to do whatever is necessary to stabilize Iraq. And by the time the lawyers are finished arguing --- well, the war would be in full swing."

On Iran: Ruth Coniff, writing in The Progressive ("The Anonymous Briefing on Iran's Weapons"): "On BBC radio Monday morning military analysts pointed out that the bomb-making technology the Administration says must come from Iran has also been found in Lebanon and Syria. Hezbollah, armed by Iran and actively supporting Shia factions in Iraq, is just as likely a culprit for these weapons in Iraq as the Iranian government.

And, from that BBC piece, a lengthy analysis of the Bush administration's claims about Iran and the weapons, including the report that British troops doubt that the weapons come from Iran.

On Schumer: From The Nation, "Note to Schumer: What about George Bailey?" -- Katrina Vanden Heuvel's review of New York Senator Charles Schumer's new book, "Positively American: Winning Back the American Middle Class One Family at a Time."

While Democrats like Sherrod Brown, Jim Webb, and Jon Tester "are all speaking in bold populist terms that capture a growing majority of Americans' frustration with the free trade/corporate agenda," writes Vanden Heuvel, "Schumer has been promoting a go-slow approach that might tamp down the very boldness he claims to stand for in ‘Positively American.' Indeed, at a recent book discussion in Washington, DC, Schumer said that he believes presidential candidate John Edwards' populist stance on trade is ‘a mistake' politically and policy-wise."

Schumer, who fashions his book around a fictitious Long Island couple named Joe and Ellen Bailey, ought to embrace another Bailey: George, from "It's a Wonderful Life." That Bailey "fights and sacrifices for the welfare of ordinary Americans," writes Vanden Heuvel. "He is dedicated to keeping the Potters of the world from buying influence and taking over people's lives, neighborhoods, and communities."

Quote of the day: From the Washington Post, President Bush's explanation on why he won't be watching the Congressional debate on his Iraq policy. "‘You know, I've got a full day,' he said. ‘I mean, it's not as if the world stops when the Congress does their duty.' ‘Besides,' he added: ‘I already know what the debate is. I hear a lot of opinions.'"

 

"Every single week, the American people spend $2 billion on Iraq --- much of it for troops and materials, but plenty of it for schools, hospitals and electricity for Iraqis. Their oil money hasn't paid for reconstruction. We have," writes Cynthia Tucker for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Tucker aptly points out how the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are quietly, but surely pushing the US into "a deep sea of red ink." Similar to charges on a VISA card, the mounting costs of war don't feel like real expenses to most Americans.

But real they are indeed, as state's like Georgia can no longer afford to pay for PeachCare, a program that provides affordable health care for children and families.

"In Squandering Billions in Iraq While US Suffers," Eric Margolis of the Toronto Sun writes, "Our minds boggled last week at US government estimates that President George W. Bush's war on terror (including Iraq and Afghanistan) will cost at least $690 billion US by next year."

The war will cost more than World War I, Korea and Vietnam combined, writes Margolis, leaving each and every American, seniors and children included, an invoice of $2,800 (so far).

Is he trying to scare the Iranians? Maybe not. But the president's sure scaring me.

At a news conference earlier today, President Bush was ramping up the rhetoric, insisting that the al-Quds Force, a unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps in Iran, is supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents.

"I can't say it more plainly," Bush said. "There are weapons in Iraq that are harming US troops because of the Quds Force. As you know, I hope, the Quds Force is a part of the Iranian government. Whether Ahmadinejad ordered the Quds Force to do this, I don't think we know. But we do know that they're there."

And, he said, "I intend to do something about it."

Reporters tried to pin him down --- noting, for example, that Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace has said there isn't enough evidence that the Iranian government is involved. Bush would have none of it.

"We know they're there," he said. "We know they're provided by the Iranian government. I don't think we know who picked up the phone and said to the Quds Force ‘go do this,' but we know it's a vital part of the Iranian government."

"What matters is that we're responding," said Bush.

Now we wait to see what that response will be.

 In The Nation: "Targeting Tehran," Michael Klare's review of the Bush ramp-up, rhetorical and physical, over Iran. Among the latter:

"The deployment of a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf region, along with an accompanying array of cruisers, destroyers and submarines. Several additional US and British naval minesweepers are also being sent to the Gulf -- a clear indication that senior commanders anticipate Iranian efforts to block vital oil routes in response to any US airstrikes."

And "The decision to replace the outgoing head of the US Central Command -- which oversees US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and the surrounding region -- with a Navy officer, Adm. William Fallon. It makes no sense to put Fallon, a former carrier group commander, in charge unless the next phase of combat in the region will emphasize air and naval operations against Iran."

Klare urges Congressional hearings and sets out the questions that should be asked.

IRAQ: "Apocalypse Not," Robert Dreyfuss's myth-buster in Washington Monthly. "Much of Washington assumes that leaving Iraq will lead to a bigger bloodbath," writes Dreyfuss. "It's time to question that assumption."

IRAQ: "A New Paradigm for Peace," Jeremy Brecher's article in The Nation, suggesting that there are ways to deal with the situation in Iraq without condemning Iraq to even more bloodletting.

Yesterday couldn't have been a good day for developer Fred Rainaldi. He went before the city's Zoning Board to present his latest plans for a Rite Aid at the Monroe Avenue-South Goodman Street intersection. And he was met with more than 50 opponents who, for more than two hours, criticized his plan sharply.

Rainaldi's Rite Aid building would be more than 15,000 square feet --- substantially larger than the Zoning Ordinance allows. He would demolish the 20-unit brick apartment building on the corner, along with the rear portion of the Monroe Theater (now the fruit-colored Show World).

Rainaldi has been trying to develop the site for about 10 years and has run into resistance each time. Rainaldi has made substantial changes to the plan, but he would still need at least five significant variances. And critics were direct with members of the Zoning Board: The long-term damage to Monroe Avenue could be irreversible, they said.

The tussle between developers and community groups is about finding a shared vision. Neighbors have legitimate concerns about property values. Rainaldi owns a piece of commercial property that also comes with some rights.

Then there is the city, eager for development.

Getting to a shared vision is no easy task.

Rainaldi clearly sees the retail venture as a positive step. And to answer some of the neighbors' concerns, he agreed to find a way to salvage the theater's façade, add four townhouses, and create additional office space --- a project that resembles the multi-use urban plan the Monroe Village Task Force says it favors.

But the Task Force, which has been leading the opposition to Rainaldi's plan, wants more. Its leaders envision a four-story building that includes residential and office space on the upper floors and a small pharmacy or other retail in the street level.

Rainaldi says his client, Rite Aid, is firm about having the large store or nothing at all. And, he says, as the developer, there's only so much risk he's willing to assume.

And there's the rub. If the site is as desirable and versatile as the Task Force believes, why haven't other developers been rushing to put their cash on the table? If Rainaldi walks away, the current eyesores may linger for years to come.

That's the thing about coming to a shared vision. Understanding the shared risk is prerequisite.

From The Guardian: "Gunmen, children, brutality and bombs - Iraq's dirty war," on Iraqi insurgents' use of children and women as human shields in their fights with US troops.

"The Iraq Effect: War Has Increased Terrorism Worldwide," Mother Jones' analysis -- with charts -- of terrorist attacks before and since the invasion of Iraq.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS: "The Sanity of Jimmy Carter," in The Nation, Editor Katrina vanden Heuvel's tribute to the former president, under attack for his latest book, "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. "At a time when there is too little honesty or boldness in our politics, Jimmy Carter speaks his mind, with sanity and humanity," writes vanden Heuvel. "His ideas deserve discussion and debate, not vituperation and ad hominem attack."

IRAN WATCH: "The Redirection," Seymour Hersh's latest analysis and warning about the Bush administration's preparations for war against Iran.