Once upon a time, Yemen had rich areas for growing grapes, pomegranates, oranges, and the famed Yemeni coffee. Then came oil in Saudi Arabia and Yemeni men flocked there for work. The women cut trees for firewood and the terraces eroded for lack of maintenance. Water which once could be found at 60 meters is not found until 850 meters or more. Now Yemenis fight over water. See "Postcard from Yemen", Thomas Friedman, New York Times, 2013-05-08.
"Trees have the deepest system of root in soil. They evaporate water from sometimes 50 meters deep level of soil. It increase humidity in air and probabilities of rains, dew-sources of water." Comment by mioffe2000 in response to "Postcard from Yemen".
This comment got me thinking about "The Man Who Planted Trees" about a shepherd who planted acorns over a wide area that had been deforested by charcoal burners. The land was dry and suitable only for grazing sheep.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Planted_Trees, the story is a work of fiction. However, people all over the world have planted millions of trees in many countries to stop desertification and alleviate global warming. This article mentions a few of these projects.
What would the effect be on world peace if the U.S. exported cones instead of drones to some of the trouble spots of the world. Well, not exactly cones because evergreens are not suitable for many areas. Actually, for a small fraction of the military budget, the U.S. could send teams to plant trees of any size, from seeds to semi-mature trees a few meters tall. It would take a few years to bring better rainfall back to areas where water is scarce. More available water would reduce tensions among various groups and go a long way to reducing the hold terrorists have on some areas.
Showing posts with label drones. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drones. Show all posts
Thursday, May 09, 2013
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
President Obama calls U.S. a terrorist nation
Well, he didn't directly say that the U.S. is a terrorist nation, but he didn't choose his words carefully in response to the Boston Marathon terrorism.
First, let me back up to my first knowledge of this meaningless act.
One of my earliest reactions was when Rep. John Boehner called it a terrorist act. I read the subtext as an "Islamist terrorist act." I don't know if that was his intention or not, but he certainly gave me the impression that was what he meant.
Some authorities were reluctant at first to call the bombing a terrorist attack, but I don't think there is any other definition for it. Sandy Hook was a terrorist attack; the Boston Marathon was a terrorist attack. The whole object of these and many others is to frighten, maim, and kill a large number of people.
Given that nobody has claimed any responsibility, my guess is that someone who was disqualified from the Marathon might have done this out of spite. Whoever it was and for whatever reason, I hope the authorities can track that person down, for no other reason than some sense of closure for the victims who lost their lives or who have had their lives drastically altered.
President Obama said the right words under the circumstances, but some of them may haunt him and other politicians later:
“This was a heinous and cowardly act, and given what we know about what took place, the F.B.I. is investigating it as an act of terrorism.” “Anytime bombs are used to target innocent civilians it is an act of terror.”
“What we don’t yet know, however, is who carried out this attack or why,” the president said, “whether it was planned and executed by a terrorist organization, foreign or domestic, or was the act of a malevolent individual. That’s what we don’t yet know.”
- "Obama Calls Blasts an 'Act of Terrorism'", Mark Landler, New York Times, 2013-04-16
So, Mr. President, if bombs targeting innocent civilians are acts of terror, what are missiles shot by drones into occupied dwellings? What are missiles shot from ships into cities? What are atomic bombs dropped from planes or sent by guided or ballistic missiles? Are these weapons only taking out "bad guys" or are a lot of people who have no control over the bad guys just going to be "collateral damage"? We certainly don't want to think of the victims of the Boston Marathon bombs as being "collateral damage" for somebody's grudge against Boston or against the United States.
First, let me back up to my first knowledge of this meaningless act.
One of my earliest reactions was when Rep. John Boehner called it a terrorist act. I read the subtext as an "Islamist terrorist act." I don't know if that was his intention or not, but he certainly gave me the impression that was what he meant.
Some authorities were reluctant at first to call the bombing a terrorist attack, but I don't think there is any other definition for it. Sandy Hook was a terrorist attack; the Boston Marathon was a terrorist attack. The whole object of these and many others is to frighten, maim, and kill a large number of people.
Given that nobody has claimed any responsibility, my guess is that someone who was disqualified from the Marathon might have done this out of spite. Whoever it was and for whatever reason, I hope the authorities can track that person down, for no other reason than some sense of closure for the victims who lost their lives or who have had their lives drastically altered.
President Obama said the right words under the circumstances, but some of them may haunt him and other politicians later:
“This was a heinous and cowardly act, and given what we know about what took place, the F.B.I. is investigating it as an act of terrorism.” “Anytime bombs are used to target innocent civilians it is an act of terror.”
“What we don’t yet know, however, is who carried out this attack or why,” the president said, “whether it was planned and executed by a terrorist organization, foreign or domestic, or was the act of a malevolent individual. That’s what we don’t yet know.”
- "Obama Calls Blasts an 'Act of Terrorism'", Mark Landler, New York Times, 2013-04-16
So, Mr. President, if bombs targeting innocent civilians are acts of terror, what are missiles shot by drones into occupied dwellings? What are missiles shot from ships into cities? What are atomic bombs dropped from planes or sent by guided or ballistic missiles? Are these weapons only taking out "bad guys" or are a lot of people who have no control over the bad guys just going to be "collateral damage"? We certainly don't want to think of the victims of the Boston Marathon bombs as being "collateral damage" for somebody's grudge against Boston or against the United States.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Quote of the day: sex is more sinful than killing
"The real scandal is that we're scandalized by sexual escapades, not by the license to kill given to the CIA's drone program." - a paraphrase inserted in bold in "Real spies don't behave like Bond. Or do they?", David Rothkopf, Star Tribune, 2012-11-14, originally published in Foreign Policy as "Shaken, Not Stirred by CIA 'Values'", 2012-11-12.
I just find it amazing that we are willing to upset people's lives to suit our own purposes, whether it is with subpoenas to ransack houses of people we don't like or with drones to demolish houses of people we don't like.
I just find it amazing that we are willing to upset people's lives to suit our own purposes, whether it is with subpoenas to ransack houses of people we don't like or with drones to demolish houses of people we don't like.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Selective "religious liberty"
Many are raising a hue and cry about the Department of Health and Human Services requiring all employers to include various birth control treatments in their health plans.
For example, Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN8) wrote in a newsletter: "Forcing Catholic hospitals to comply with this mandate violates their core moral commitment to protecting the lives of the unborn."
Where is the hue and cry about forcing Quakers and other pacifist religions to pay taxes for wars? They have a core moral commitment to protecting the lives of the born. And the Catholics should equally raise a hue and cry about paying taxes for war - a lot of unborn are killed by drone attacks, by indiscriminate use of other conventional weapons, and by nuclear weapons.
For example, Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN8) wrote in a newsletter: "Forcing Catholic hospitals to comply with this mandate violates their core moral commitment to protecting the lives of the unborn."
Where is the hue and cry about forcing Quakers and other pacifist religions to pay taxes for wars? They have a core moral commitment to protecting the lives of the born. And the Catholics should equally raise a hue and cry about paying taxes for war - a lot of unborn are killed by drone attacks, by indiscriminate use of other conventional weapons, and by nuclear weapons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)