Mr. Trump has proudly acknowledged that he fights to pay as little tax as possible so that the federal government cannot waste his money.
- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/politics/democrats-see-opening-in-tax-overhaul-fight-trumps-own-deductions.html
So now he is busy wasting our money with military attacks that didn't do much lasting damage, with increased military spending in a military budget that dwarfs quite a few of the next largest military budgets combined.
Does "Make America Great Again" mean being able to engage in whatever military fiasco Trump wants? Ah, but he doesn't read history: Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Syria.
And he forgets the American Revolution: a ragtag bunch of locals beat a seasoned army of a superpower of the day. Ah, they did get some help from an enemy of the superpower, but that superpower was acting under the direction of the American generals. The American generals were not acting under the direction of the superpower.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
Thursday, June 16, 2016
Casting the first stone
Apropos "Quran and sex slaves", http://magree.blogspot.com/2016/06/quran-and-sex-slaves.html
Given that Muslims call Christians and Jews people of the Book. shouldn’t Muslims also heed the the words of Jesus? Especially when it comes to punishing others: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” - John: 8:7
This would apply equally to ISIS punishing others for their beliefs and punishing ISIS for its adultery.
Too bad ISIS and its ilk won’t “go and sin no more”.
Quran and sex slaves
Isn’t it adultery when ISIS, Boko Haram, and others take sex slaves? I think they must have cut passages dealing with adultery out of their Qurans. But that is the way of "true believers" of any kind: their way is the only way, even if their texts say otherwise.
“The adulteress and the adulterer-whip each one of them a hundred lashes, and let no pity towards them overcome you regarding God's Law, if you believe in God and the Last Day. And let a group of believers witness their punishment.” Quran: 24:2 (The Light: an-Nur)
Excerpt From: Talal Itani. “Quran In English. Modern English Translation. Clear and Easy to Understand.” iBooks. https://itun.es/us/lvcp2.l
Also see "ISIS Committed Genocide Against Yazidis in Syria and Iraq, Panel Says"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/world/middleeast/isis-genocide-yazidi-un.html
“The adulteress and the adulterer-whip each one of them a hundred lashes, and let no pity towards them overcome you regarding God's Law, if you believe in God and the Last Day. And let a group of believers witness their punishment.” Quran: 24:2 (The Light: an-Nur)
Excerpt From: Talal Itani. “Quran In English. Modern English Translation. Clear and Easy to Understand.” iBooks. https://itun.es/us/lvcp2.l
Also see "ISIS Committed Genocide Against Yazidis in Syria and Iraq, Panel Says"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/world/middleeast/isis-genocide-yazidi-un.html
Tuesday, April 07, 2015
The myths of fighting terrorism
President George W. Bush used “War on Terrorism” over and over again, and, like many before and after him, thought that military might from air or ground could stop the terrorism. But these actions only foment more terrorism. In fact, these actions in and of themselves are terrorism.
Just what is terrorism? Governments generally define it as lethal attacks on civilians or governments, often perpetrated by a small number of people. Terrorism really is any act by any group, government or not, meant to reinforce an agenda. Torture by any government is terrorism. Invasion of one country by another that leads to the deaths or injuries to the unarmed civilians is terrorism. Pilots deliberately crashing airplanes is terrorism. Gunmen shooting people on buses or in theaters is terrorism. People blowing up mosques, churches, or temples are terrorists. Governments dropping bombs on civilian populations is terrorism.
Terror has been a part of our country from the beginning. During the Revolution, mobs of “Tories” or “Patriots” would tar and feather and ride out on a rail those they suspected of supporting the other group. The tar was very hot and the rails were triangular; the victims were probably made to sit with the triangle facing up.
Slaves knew the terror of being whipped by a ruthless owner or overseer for the slightest infraction. If that weren’t enough, many owners justified the whippings with verses from the Bible.
The end of slavery didn’t end the terror for former slaves or their descendants. The Ku Klux Klan hung those they disagreed without any benefit of trial. Others were “lucky” to “only” have crosses burned in front of their houses. The Klan made “Christianity” just another example of a violent religion.
The Klan and its ilk have not been eradicated, but their influence has been greatly diminished by a more just civil society.
Unfortunately, civil society has been under attack since the writing of the Constitution. Slavery was permitted in the Constitution with the onerous counting of slaves as three-fifths of persons. Slavery was further strengthened by the Second Amendment, “the right of the People to keep and bear Arms”. For many, the purpose of this was to protect slave owners if the Federal government threatened to take away their slaves. Civil society is also under attack by those who want to consider corporations as “persons”.
Terror by “civil society” continued after the abolition of slavery with the forced relocation or slaughter of aboriginal peoples. The U.S. Army wiped out several villages including women and children. The Cherokee and others, successful farmers who dressed the same as their neighbors, were forced off their land and told to move to Oklahoma. Many did not survive the trip.
I could go on with several other instances of the U.S. being involved in violence against the populations of other countries, but I don’t have space to examine the pros and cons of these interventions. But, there are many people who remember these interventions and still hold grudges about them.
Let’s examine one chain of events that got us to the messes of today.
The Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan to protect the Communist-led government. Afghanistan, being the tribal country it is, had many who attacked the Soviet occupiers. The United States, being engaged with its own battle with “godless Communism”, aided and abetted the resistance. One of the most deadly weapons the U.S. arsenal was Stinger missile. The U.S. supplied Stingers to the mujahedeen fighting Soviet helicopters, the deadly Hinds. The new weapons turned the battle around and the Soviet Union eventually left. But many of the Stingers did not return to the United States.
Then the United States decided to take on Saddam Hussein when the latter invaded Kuwait. As part of the military arrangements, Saudi Arabia allowed the U.S. to base troops in their country. A big mistake to make. Many Muslims consider Saudi Arabia a holy place that should not be “overrun” by an infidel army. One of these objectors was an Arab who had been very active in helping the mujahedeen repel the Soviet invaders: Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden decided to make a big theatrical demonstration of his displeasure, the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York after some practices in the Gulf of Aden and other places. George W. Bush fell into bin Laden’s trap and escalated the conflict, invading both Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing “freedom and democracy” to both countries. Both countries may have “elected” officials, but the fighting still goes on and has brought in a third party: the Islamic State in Syria. ISIS or ISIL or IS has thousands of Muslims, traditional or new converts rushing to join their cause.
The United States, under a President who wanted to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is sending jets to attack ISIS in Iraq. Do you not think there are a few Muslims who are thinking of ways to attack the U.S. for its “attack on Islam”? On top of this, thousands of those fighting to expel ISIS from Tikrit have withdrawn because of the U.S. attacks. Can the jets occupy Tikrit? I think it is Sunnis who have withdrawn; Tikrit is a predominantly Sunni city.
What frosts me is that the U.S. gives billions of aid each year to both Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but neither has put much effort in expelling ISIS from Iraq. Saudi Arabia has probably put more effort into Yemen than it has into Iraq.
And now we have a Congress that wants to spend even more money on the “defense” of its world view while protecting the “rights” of our home-grown terrorists.
Pete Seeger’s lament is still relevant: “When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?”
Also published in the Reader Weekly at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/04/01/5049_the_myths_of_fighting_terrorism.
Just what is terrorism? Governments generally define it as lethal attacks on civilians or governments, often perpetrated by a small number of people. Terrorism really is any act by any group, government or not, meant to reinforce an agenda. Torture by any government is terrorism. Invasion of one country by another that leads to the deaths or injuries to the unarmed civilians is terrorism. Pilots deliberately crashing airplanes is terrorism. Gunmen shooting people on buses or in theaters is terrorism. People blowing up mosques, churches, or temples are terrorists. Governments dropping bombs on civilian populations is terrorism.
Terror has been a part of our country from the beginning. During the Revolution, mobs of “Tories” or “Patriots” would tar and feather and ride out on a rail those they suspected of supporting the other group. The tar was very hot and the rails were triangular; the victims were probably made to sit with the triangle facing up.
Slaves knew the terror of being whipped by a ruthless owner or overseer for the slightest infraction. If that weren’t enough, many owners justified the whippings with verses from the Bible.
The end of slavery didn’t end the terror for former slaves or their descendants. The Ku Klux Klan hung those they disagreed without any benefit of trial. Others were “lucky” to “only” have crosses burned in front of their houses. The Klan made “Christianity” just another example of a violent religion.
The Klan and its ilk have not been eradicated, but their influence has been greatly diminished by a more just civil society.
Unfortunately, civil society has been under attack since the writing of the Constitution. Slavery was permitted in the Constitution with the onerous counting of slaves as three-fifths of persons. Slavery was further strengthened by the Second Amendment, “the right of the People to keep and bear Arms”. For many, the purpose of this was to protect slave owners if the Federal government threatened to take away their slaves. Civil society is also under attack by those who want to consider corporations as “persons”.
Terror by “civil society” continued after the abolition of slavery with the forced relocation or slaughter of aboriginal peoples. The U.S. Army wiped out several villages including women and children. The Cherokee and others, successful farmers who dressed the same as their neighbors, were forced off their land and told to move to Oklahoma. Many did not survive the trip.
I could go on with several other instances of the U.S. being involved in violence against the populations of other countries, but I don’t have space to examine the pros and cons of these interventions. But, there are many people who remember these interventions and still hold grudges about them.
Let’s examine one chain of events that got us to the messes of today.
The Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan to protect the Communist-led government. Afghanistan, being the tribal country it is, had many who attacked the Soviet occupiers. The United States, being engaged with its own battle with “godless Communism”, aided and abetted the resistance. One of the most deadly weapons the U.S. arsenal was Stinger missile. The U.S. supplied Stingers to the mujahedeen fighting Soviet helicopters, the deadly Hinds. The new weapons turned the battle around and the Soviet Union eventually left. But many of the Stingers did not return to the United States.
Then the United States decided to take on Saddam Hussein when the latter invaded Kuwait. As part of the military arrangements, Saudi Arabia allowed the U.S. to base troops in their country. A big mistake to make. Many Muslims consider Saudi Arabia a holy place that should not be “overrun” by an infidel army. One of these objectors was an Arab who had been very active in helping the mujahedeen repel the Soviet invaders: Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden decided to make a big theatrical demonstration of his displeasure, the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York after some practices in the Gulf of Aden and other places. George W. Bush fell into bin Laden’s trap and escalated the conflict, invading both Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing “freedom and democracy” to both countries. Both countries may have “elected” officials, but the fighting still goes on and has brought in a third party: the Islamic State in Syria. ISIS or ISIL or IS has thousands of Muslims, traditional or new converts rushing to join their cause.
The United States, under a President who wanted to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is sending jets to attack ISIS in Iraq. Do you not think there are a few Muslims who are thinking of ways to attack the U.S. for its “attack on Islam”? On top of this, thousands of those fighting to expel ISIS from Tikrit have withdrawn because of the U.S. attacks. Can the jets occupy Tikrit? I think it is Sunnis who have withdrawn; Tikrit is a predominantly Sunni city.
What frosts me is that the U.S. gives billions of aid each year to both Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but neither has put much effort in expelling ISIS from Iraq. Saudi Arabia has probably put more effort into Yemen than it has into Iraq.
And now we have a Congress that wants to spend even more money on the “defense” of its world view while protecting the “rights” of our home-grown terrorists.
Pete Seeger’s lament is still relevant: “When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?”
Also published in the Reader Weekly at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/04/01/5049_the_myths_of_fighting_terrorism.
Monday, December 01, 2014
An open letter to President George W. Bush
Originally published in Reader Weekly
December 4, 2003
Note: most of the links are no longer available.
Dear President Bush:
You have said dozens of times that you will “do whatever it takes” to win the war on terrorism, the latest being when you signed the National Defense Authorization Act for 2004 on November 24, 2003. (1) At that time you said, “We will do whatever it takes to keep our nation strong, to keep the peace, and to keep the American people secure.”
I submit that you are not doing everything it takes to do all that you promised. Here are some ideas of what it takes to leave Iraq satisfactorily and continue the “war on terrorism.”
First, accelerate training in Arabic. I have read that the Army is short of Arabic translators (2)(3) and I have read how effective good translators are (see Stars and Stripes among others). I have also seen it reported that troops have killed unarmed people because they could not speak Arabic and had no translator. However, nowhere in your speech or in the Defense Authorization Act do the words Arabic or language appear.
You should not only accelerate training for more Arabic translators, but you should provide training for all Iraq-based troops to learn as much Arabic as they wish. This latter could be with CDs, small-classes, or just a mass distribution of phrase books. I know from personal experience that speaking the local language even a little bit builds better relations.
Second, you should start reading newspapers and magazines and stop depending on your staff to filter the news for you. The best you can depend on your staff to do is to tell you what they think you want to hear, not what you need to know. I recommend that you read The New York Times, The Washington Post, The American Spectator, The Progressive Magazine, Stars and Stripes, The Atlantic Monthly, Harper’s Magazine, The Daily Star of Lebanon, and Dawn of Pakistan, especially the editorials in all of these. They should give you a very wide range of opinions to provide you a much better basis for your decisions. Among recent articles I highly recommend is “Tour of Duty” in the December issue of The Atlantic Monthly; it includes accounts of now-Sen. John Kerry’s experiences as a Navy officer on river duty in Viet Nam. It will give you some insight in the disconnect between what is happening on the battlefield and what is happening in the Pentagon. Read some books on recent Iraq history – an example is Sandra Mackey’s The Reckoning: Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein. Iraq is a very complex country with a long history of domination by outsiders. One cannot make judgments about Iraq without understanding these complexities.
Third, have a long private talk with General John Abizaid, no advisors present, just you and him. Let him tell you what he thinks needs to be done to get Iraqis governing themselves peacefully. Not only does General Abizaid speak Arabic, but he has lived and studied in the Middle East. He also has made a specialty of unconventional warfare using semi-independent units rather than big coordinated units. This style is much better for fighting small-scale insurgencies such as occur in Iraq on a daily basis.
Fourth, have a long private talk with Senator John Kerry. Again no advisors. He should be able to give you a good understanding about what really happens in war. He understands that what headquarters thinks is happening or wants to happen is not always what is really happening or should happen.
Sixth, rename the “War on Terror”. The struggle against terrorism really is more a police investigation on a massive scale. Are you going to bomb Germany, France, Turkey, England, and Canada because they are “harboring” terrorists? Bombs did not arrest those who were found in these countries, police did. On the other hand bombs dropped on civilians are a good recruiting tool for any resistance.
Finally, don’t worry about re-election. Which would you rather do - pass your successor in 2005 a plan that is bringing about your goals or pass your successor in 2009 a mess that is spiraling out of control? Short-term actions that may please a large number of voters may work against long-term interests that would “keep our nation strong, … keep the peace, and … keep the American people secure.” If you are going to do whatever it takes, do the right thing.
(1) Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2004, November 24, 2003, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031124-2.html
(2) "Expert: Lack of Arabic hurts U.S. in Iraq", Washington Times, July 25, 2003, http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030725-032406-5262r.htm
(3) "U.S. 'desperately in need' of Arabic speakers to hold Iraq", World Tribune.com, July 9, 2003, article no longer available online
P.S. May 26, 2007, one of my sources for this article was "Iraq Today, The Independent Voice of Iraq". I can find no direct reference to it. The URL http://www.iraq-today.com cannot be found. The editor, Hassan Fattah, left Iraq in March or April 2004 when his situation became too dangerous. See "Goodbye, Baghdad", by Hassan Fattah, published in the July/August 2004 Columbia Journalism Review. This article is not available directly from CJR.
©2003, 2007 Melvyn D. Magree
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Let’s you and him fight
The Middle East is in turmoil because there are fanatics who think their way is the only way and those who disagree should die. Many seem to think the United States should take responsibility for this mess and clean it up. But as we have seen from Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military cannot solve local and cultural political problems.
We are sending billions of dollars to Egypt, sell billions of armament to Saudi Arabia, and ostracize Iran. All three plus Turkey have a greater interest in regional stability. Why not encourage them to take leadership in attempting to solve the regional problems.
Consider also, that U.S. involvement in Middle East just encourages the recruitment of the susceptible for direct attacks on the United States.
Muslim opposition to ISIS is growing because ISIS is the anti-thesis of Islam. See “Top Saudi Cleric: ISIS is Enemy No. 1 of Islam, ‘Destroying Human Civilization’”.
Now if the Muslim states in the area would take more action than words in curbing ISIS.
We are sending billions of dollars to Egypt, sell billions of armament to Saudi Arabia, and ostracize Iran. All three plus Turkey have a greater interest in regional stability. Why not encourage them to take leadership in attempting to solve the regional problems.
Consider also, that U.S. involvement in Middle East just encourages the recruitment of the susceptible for direct attacks on the United States.
Muslim opposition to ISIS is growing because ISIS is the anti-thesis of Islam. See “Top Saudi Cleric: ISIS is Enemy No. 1 of Islam, ‘Destroying Human Civilization’”.
Now if the Muslim states in the area would take more action than words in curbing ISIS.
Defense and Education - More newspeak
Yet another loose note from the Bush days:
The Dept. of Defense is headed by Terence Bell. Defense of a nation is the passing of traditions and knowledge from generation to generation.
The Dept. of Education is headed by Casper Weinberger. The U.S. seems to be trying to educate lots of people that the U.S. government knows best by hitting them over the head with a big stick.
Addendum on 2014-08-21:
Have we learned anything since then? We still have many who think the U.S. should be responsible for hitting others over the head with a big stick.
The Dept. of Defense is headed by Terence Bell. Defense of a nation is the passing of traditions and knowledge from generation to generation.
The Dept. of Education is headed by Casper Weinberger. The U.S. seems to be trying to educate lots of people that the U.S. government knows best by hitting them over the head with a big stick.
Addendum on 2014-08-21:
Have we learned anything since then? We still have many who think the U.S. should be responsible for hitting others over the head with a big stick.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Fools rush in where linguists fear to tread
From a very old undated note on my desk:
What is the percentage of those who speak Spanish advising more military aid to El Salvador and of those advising against military aid?
This still holds in so much of what goes on in the world in 2014. Fools rush in where linguists fear to tread.
What is the percentage of those who speak Spanish advising more military aid to El Salvador and of those advising against military aid?
This still holds in so much of what goes on in the world in 2014. Fools rush in where linguists fear to tread.
Thursday, June 05, 2014
Censuring Project Censorship
Every year the Reader Weekly publishes excerpts from Project Censored, “The News That Didn't Make The News”, and every year I gnash my teeth over at least half the items. I’ve already read about them someplace else. If they were censored, how did they get published so that I already knew about them? If they were censored stories, how did the authors of these items get all their information? And if they were censored, how did they get public coverage through Project Censored? Wouldn’t the “censors” have closed Project Censored’ offices?
This year I’ll try a bit harder to find out where all of these items did make the news.
Widespread GMO Contamination: Did Monsanto Plant GMOs Before USDA Approval?
I am not surprised. Monsanto has had widespread objection to its products and practices for years.
I searched for “monsanto gmo contamination 2000”. A History Commons article gives citations from the Washington Post and others from 1999 and from the New York Times from 2000
Pennsylvania Law Gags Doctors to Protect Big Oil’s “Proprietary Secrets”
The Philadelphia Inquirer apparently didn’t know that this story was censored. In December and January it ran stories on this law in its Philly.com site. The law is being contested in state courts. That law is even being opposed by local Republican politicians; one even thought all the state Republicans should be turned out of office in the next election.
The Power of Peaceful Revolution in Iceland
I knew that years ago Icelanders turned out the government that let banks run rampant. The new government did not bail the banks out. They let the banks take their own losses rather than “socialize” the losses as so many other countries did.
Food Riots: The New Normal?
I expected that this could happen given global warming and government corruption impoverishing many countries. But there could also be a bright side. Education, cell phones, and local electricity are giving many people the power to better their own lives. And not all live in areas overrun by militant, religious extremists.
Journalism Under Attack Around the Globe
What’s new? There have been many reports about attacks on journalists. Reporters without Borders have been working for years to end violence against reporters. One of the latest was a German photographer shot point blank in Afghanistan. And an Italian reporter was killed in Ukraine.
The US Has Left Iraq with an Epidemic of Cancers and Birth Defects
This is not surprising considering the amount of toxic junk left by the military. I’ve seen many stories about the depleted uranium shells left behind and its dangers.
Trans-Pacific Partnership Threatens a Regime of Corporate Global Governance
This title is ambiguous. Does TPP threaten an existing “regime of corporate global governance”? Or does it threaten to bring about a “regime of corporate global governance”?
I’ve seen the latter complaint before, many times. There are many opposed to TPP who have been vociferous in their condemnation of it. I’ve read many stories about the requested “fast track” authority and the secrecy about what is in the agreement. Those voting for TPP ought to consider what happened with the PATRIOT Act. Most did not read it. I know of one case in which a Senator read the act and refused to vote for it.
What we probably can know for sure is that the “greatest deliberative body in the world” probably won’t deliberate much.
A Fifth of Americans Go Hungry
This headline is a sweeping generalization of the real problem described afterward. Going hungry once a year is not the same as always being hungry. Going hungry through no fault of one’s own is bad enough, but generalizations weaken the case for helping those who do.
Another side is that many unwittingly go hungry even though they have plenty of food. The “American diet” is filled with food that only increases hunger, food brought to you through the “hard work” and “generosity” of big-ag.
Bank Interests Inflate Global Prices by 35 to 40 Percent
There is a simple explanation; it is called compounding. Most everything we consume or use is produced by a pyramid of suppliers, each paying interest on its loans and expecting profit.
Mary sells a widget to John. John uses Mary’s widget to make a thingamajig. John sells his thingamajig to Carl. Carl uses John’s thingamajig to make a whatchamacallit. Carl sells his whatchamacallit to Karen. Karen uses Carl’s whatchamacallit to make “The Latest Great Thing”.
Assuming the value added at each stage was twenty percent and each paid five percent interest on his or her costs, the accumulated interest is 15.5 percent. The longer the chain of suppliers, the greater the compounding of interest. And we aren’t including the interest each of these producers is paying for a house, a car, and a credit card. And all that interest is not going just to banksters. Many a pension is paid for by interest. Many colleges, foundations, and charities depend on the interest and dividends paid on invested donations.
Richest Global 1 Percent Hide Trillions in Tax Havens
Many have complained about this. It seems I see at least one story a week about tax havens.
Bradley Manning and the Failure of Corporate Media
We don’t know the rationale of rejection by the Washington Post, the New York Times, and Politico. These are only three of dozens of corporate media. This is a sweeping generalization too much like too many other sweeping generalizations of all X do Y. The Huffington Post did report in 2013 that Manning did reveal he tried to reach these media organizations, but he received no answers. The real question is did those at the lower echelons who received his messages have any reason to believe his credibility.
Think about it! How often has your contact with any large corporation gone past the first person you reached?
As far as “corporate media” shunning the story, I can easily find many articles at the time of his trial. I do know that I got tired of reading about it.
Manning’s sexual orientation was new to me after his trial.
Gogebic Taconite President Bill Williams Faces Environmental Charges in Spain
Wisconsin Public Radio has been publishing stories about the Spanish pollution charges against Bill Williams. I don’t know how often they have to cover it to have more than “little coverage”. The Wisconsin Citizens Media Cooperative has published several stories. Maybe about 4,000 followers means little coverage, but how many more read these stories without becoming followers? Other publications reporting these charges include The Daily Press of Ashland, WDIO, Sawyer County Record of Hayward, and Business North (KUWS story),
Police Brutality and Disregard for People’s Rights
These stories are always coming up. Sadly, these abuses have been going on for a long time. Joseph Wambaugh, a police officer who became a novelist in the 1970’s, wrote about some of these abuses in his stories.
Protests Everywhere and No One Cares
Who the hell are the Smiley Cyprus and Dustin Peeper mentioned in this section? I certainly don’t care to read much about their escapades.
I read about the Venezuela protests in the News Tribune or Star Tribune.
Could the Rome protests be about a story in La Repubblica? La Repubblica reported that the head of the Ukraine Communist Party was accused of being a sniper, beaten, and forced to kiss a cross. This story appeared in contropiano.org, an online Communist journal. Contropiano’s story was published March 1, 2014, but La Repubblica ran a correction on February 22 that the party official was not a sniper!
My conclusion
My “censorship” is your “lack of interest” and vice versa. We would have to spend all day and all night reading all the stories that may have some interest to us. But we can never keep up with all that others may consider important.
Almost every day I read the Duluth News Tribune, the Star Tribune, and the New York Times. Do I read everything published in them? Come on, I would like to do a lot of other things besides read news on a screen, especially news about the doings of Cypress and Beeper.
People are highly selective in what they read. Some read only the sports; some, the headlines, some, the entertainment, and on and on. Because you and I take note of economic treaties doesn’t mean everybody else does.
I know this very well! I’ve been beating the drum that Adam Smith has been misinterpreted. Other than the copy that was in the Reader (“The Invisible Adam Smith”), I doubt if one hundred people have read that article in my blog. Has my view been censored? No, it has only been overwhelmed by millions of articles that are more interesting to tens of millions of readers.
Mel is a gullible skeptic. Sometimes he swallows somebody's line; sometimes he tries to figure out what is really going on.
Published in Reader Weekly, 2014-06-05, http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/06/05/3495_censuring_project_censored
This year I’ll try a bit harder to find out where all of these items did make the news.
Widespread GMO Contamination: Did Monsanto Plant GMOs Before USDA Approval?
I am not surprised. Monsanto has had widespread objection to its products and practices for years.
I searched for “monsanto gmo contamination 2000”. A History Commons article gives citations from the Washington Post and others from 1999 and from the New York Times from 2000
Pennsylvania Law Gags Doctors to Protect Big Oil’s “Proprietary Secrets”
The Philadelphia Inquirer apparently didn’t know that this story was censored. In December and January it ran stories on this law in its Philly.com site. The law is being contested in state courts. That law is even being opposed by local Republican politicians; one even thought all the state Republicans should be turned out of office in the next election.
The Power of Peaceful Revolution in Iceland
I knew that years ago Icelanders turned out the government that let banks run rampant. The new government did not bail the banks out. They let the banks take their own losses rather than “socialize” the losses as so many other countries did.
Food Riots: The New Normal?
I expected that this could happen given global warming and government corruption impoverishing many countries. But there could also be a bright side. Education, cell phones, and local electricity are giving many people the power to better their own lives. And not all live in areas overrun by militant, religious extremists.
Journalism Under Attack Around the Globe
What’s new? There have been many reports about attacks on journalists. Reporters without Borders have been working for years to end violence against reporters. One of the latest was a German photographer shot point blank in Afghanistan. And an Italian reporter was killed in Ukraine.
The US Has Left Iraq with an Epidemic of Cancers and Birth Defects
This is not surprising considering the amount of toxic junk left by the military. I’ve seen many stories about the depleted uranium shells left behind and its dangers.
Trans-Pacific Partnership Threatens a Regime of Corporate Global Governance
This title is ambiguous. Does TPP threaten an existing “regime of corporate global governance”? Or does it threaten to bring about a “regime of corporate global governance”?
I’ve seen the latter complaint before, many times. There are many opposed to TPP who have been vociferous in their condemnation of it. I’ve read many stories about the requested “fast track” authority and the secrecy about what is in the agreement. Those voting for TPP ought to consider what happened with the PATRIOT Act. Most did not read it. I know of one case in which a Senator read the act and refused to vote for it.
What we probably can know for sure is that the “greatest deliberative body in the world” probably won’t deliberate much.
A Fifth of Americans Go Hungry
This headline is a sweeping generalization of the real problem described afterward. Going hungry once a year is not the same as always being hungry. Going hungry through no fault of one’s own is bad enough, but generalizations weaken the case for helping those who do.
Another side is that many unwittingly go hungry even though they have plenty of food. The “American diet” is filled with food that only increases hunger, food brought to you through the “hard work” and “generosity” of big-ag.
Bank Interests Inflate Global Prices by 35 to 40 Percent
There is a simple explanation; it is called compounding. Most everything we consume or use is produced by a pyramid of suppliers, each paying interest on its loans and expecting profit.
Mary sells a widget to John. John uses Mary’s widget to make a thingamajig. John sells his thingamajig to Carl. Carl uses John’s thingamajig to make a whatchamacallit. Carl sells his whatchamacallit to Karen. Karen uses Carl’s whatchamacallit to make “The Latest Great Thing”.
Assuming the value added at each stage was twenty percent and each paid five percent interest on his or her costs, the accumulated interest is 15.5 percent. The longer the chain of suppliers, the greater the compounding of interest. And we aren’t including the interest each of these producers is paying for a house, a car, and a credit card. And all that interest is not going just to banksters. Many a pension is paid for by interest. Many colleges, foundations, and charities depend on the interest and dividends paid on invested donations.
Richest Global 1 Percent Hide Trillions in Tax Havens
Many have complained about this. It seems I see at least one story a week about tax havens.
Bradley Manning and the Failure of Corporate Media
We don’t know the rationale of rejection by the Washington Post, the New York Times, and Politico. These are only three of dozens of corporate media. This is a sweeping generalization too much like too many other sweeping generalizations of all X do Y. The Huffington Post did report in 2013 that Manning did reveal he tried to reach these media organizations, but he received no answers. The real question is did those at the lower echelons who received his messages have any reason to believe his credibility.
Think about it! How often has your contact with any large corporation gone past the first person you reached?
As far as “corporate media” shunning the story, I can easily find many articles at the time of his trial. I do know that I got tired of reading about it.
Manning’s sexual orientation was new to me after his trial.
Gogebic Taconite President Bill Williams Faces Environmental Charges in Spain
Wisconsin Public Radio has been publishing stories about the Spanish pollution charges against Bill Williams. I don’t know how often they have to cover it to have more than “little coverage”. The Wisconsin Citizens Media Cooperative has published several stories. Maybe about 4,000 followers means little coverage, but how many more read these stories without becoming followers? Other publications reporting these charges include The Daily Press of Ashland, WDIO, Sawyer County Record of Hayward, and Business North (KUWS story),
Police Brutality and Disregard for People’s Rights
These stories are always coming up. Sadly, these abuses have been going on for a long time. Joseph Wambaugh, a police officer who became a novelist in the 1970’s, wrote about some of these abuses in his stories.
Protests Everywhere and No One Cares
Who the hell are the Smiley Cyprus and Dustin Peeper mentioned in this section? I certainly don’t care to read much about their escapades.
I read about the Venezuela protests in the News Tribune or Star Tribune.
Could the Rome protests be about a story in La Repubblica? La Repubblica reported that the head of the Ukraine Communist Party was accused of being a sniper, beaten, and forced to kiss a cross. This story appeared in contropiano.org, an online Communist journal. Contropiano’s story was published March 1, 2014, but La Repubblica ran a correction on February 22 that the party official was not a sniper!
My conclusion
My “censorship” is your “lack of interest” and vice versa. We would have to spend all day and all night reading all the stories that may have some interest to us. But we can never keep up with all that others may consider important.
Almost every day I read the Duluth News Tribune, the Star Tribune, and the New York Times. Do I read everything published in them? Come on, I would like to do a lot of other things besides read news on a screen, especially news about the doings of Cypress and Beeper.
People are highly selective in what they read. Some read only the sports; some, the headlines, some, the entertainment, and on and on. Because you and I take note of economic treaties doesn’t mean everybody else does.
I know this very well! I’ve been beating the drum that Adam Smith has been misinterpreted. Other than the copy that was in the Reader (“The Invisible Adam Smith”), I doubt if one hundred people have read that article in my blog. Has my view been censored? No, it has only been overwhelmed by millions of articles that are more interesting to tens of millions of readers.
Mel is a gullible skeptic. Sometimes he swallows somebody's line; sometimes he tries to figure out what is really going on.
Published in Reader Weekly, 2014-06-05, http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/06/05/3495_censuring_project_censored
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Insurgencies, outside forces, and good government
Why is it that those seeking to overthrow a government can often do it without outside help other than weapons, but that government forces need outside advisers?
We saw it in Viet Nam where the Viet Cong kept fighting and fighting against both the South Vietnamese government and their U.S. advisers. It got to the point where the "advisors" were doing more of the fighting than the government forces.
We saw it in Iraq where a large variety of "insurgents" fought against the foreign invaders and then against the Iraqi government as well as each other. The outside invaders stayed to advise the new government, but that government seems ineffectual against the "insurgents".
We see it in Afghanistan where the Taliban keeps striking at the foreign invaders/advisers and the Afghan government, including local governors as well as the Afghan army and police.
Could the common thread be that all these governments were not only corrupt but not fully supported by the general populations? Could it be that the only way to put down anti-government forces is to have a strong, dictatorial government or to have wide-spread popular support of a freely elected government?
And a freely elected government cannot really be imposed from outside.
We saw it in Viet Nam where the Viet Cong kept fighting and fighting against both the South Vietnamese government and their U.S. advisers. It got to the point where the "advisors" were doing more of the fighting than the government forces.
We saw it in Iraq where a large variety of "insurgents" fought against the foreign invaders and then against the Iraqi government as well as each other. The outside invaders stayed to advise the new government, but that government seems ineffectual against the "insurgents".
We see it in Afghanistan where the Taliban keeps striking at the foreign invaders/advisers and the Afghan government, including local governors as well as the Afghan army and police.
Could the common thread be that all these governments were not only corrupt but not fully supported by the general populations? Could it be that the only way to put down anti-government forces is to have a strong, dictatorial government or to have wide-spread popular support of a freely elected government?
And a freely elected government cannot really be imposed from outside.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Appropriate punishment for Islamic and other terrorists
Many terrorists of any ilk act in the name of an ideology, whether it be religious or political. They think they are doing their cause a favor by killing as many people as possible who don't believe in their cause or just happen to be in the way as they kill their targets.
Many think these terrorists should be executed if caught, with or without a trial, fair or otherwise. But this is just what some of them want – to be martyrs to their cause. An example is former Major Nidal Hassan who has been sentenced to death for shooting and killing thirteen people at Fort Hood. This probably won't happen and really shouldn't happen.
He probably won't be executed because the military hasn't executed any active military personnel for some time and the appeal process can take decades. He shouldn't be executed because this is just what he claimed to want – to be a martyr to his cause.
I don't think terrorists should be subjected to forced watching of similar crimes like that in Stanley Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange". I do think they should be subjected to repeated recitations of the non-violent portions of their beliefs. For example,
“O People of the Book! [Jews, Christians, Muslims] Come to what is common between us and you: That we worship none but God, that we associate no partners with Him, that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords other than Allah. If then they turn back, say: 'Bear witness that we are bowing to Allah’s will.'" From "The Qur'an and Tolerance of Christianity and Judaism", Islam Online.
The same kind of tolerance can be found in the Talmud and the Bible.
Narrow interpretations or even misinterpretations are found over and over again down through the centuries. Catholics killed Protestants and Jews. Protestants killed Catholics and Jews. Jews killed the worshippers of Ba'al. Christians killed Christians and Muslims in the Crusades. Muslims killed Christians and Muslims in the Crusades. Muslims seem to be killing more Muslims in these times than they are killing Christians. All this despite the fact that the text they hold in common states unequivocally "Thou shalt not kill"! It does not state "That shalt not kill any who believe as you do but thou mayest kill those who believe even slightly differently."
So, if terrorists are jailed and subjected to similar recitations, videos of their listening to these should be made widely available. If the terrorists wish to make any statements recanting their previous beliefs, then these statements should be widely circulated.
I know this is wishful thinking and probably won't happen. But those of us who believe that these three faiths (and others) have many tenets of generosity can avoid general statements of hate and counter those who do spew hate.
Many think these terrorists should be executed if caught, with or without a trial, fair or otherwise. But this is just what some of them want – to be martyrs to their cause. An example is former Major Nidal Hassan who has been sentenced to death for shooting and killing thirteen people at Fort Hood. This probably won't happen and really shouldn't happen.
He probably won't be executed because the military hasn't executed any active military personnel for some time and the appeal process can take decades. He shouldn't be executed because this is just what he claimed to want – to be a martyr to his cause.
I don't think terrorists should be subjected to forced watching of similar crimes like that in Stanley Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange". I do think they should be subjected to repeated recitations of the non-violent portions of their beliefs. For example,
“O People of the Book! [Jews, Christians, Muslims] Come to what is common between us and you: That we worship none but God, that we associate no partners with Him, that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords other than Allah. If then they turn back, say: 'Bear witness that we are bowing to Allah’s will.'" From "The Qur'an and Tolerance of Christianity and Judaism", Islam Online.
The same kind of tolerance can be found in the Talmud and the Bible.
Narrow interpretations or even misinterpretations are found over and over again down through the centuries. Catholics killed Protestants and Jews. Protestants killed Catholics and Jews. Jews killed the worshippers of Ba'al. Christians killed Christians and Muslims in the Crusades. Muslims killed Christians and Muslims in the Crusades. Muslims seem to be killing more Muslims in these times than they are killing Christians. All this despite the fact that the text they hold in common states unequivocally "Thou shalt not kill"! It does not state "That shalt not kill any who believe as you do but thou mayest kill those who believe even slightly differently."
So, if terrorists are jailed and subjected to similar recitations, videos of their listening to these should be made widely available. If the terrorists wish to make any statements recanting their previous beliefs, then these statements should be widely circulated.
I know this is wishful thinking and probably won't happen. But those of us who believe that these three faiths (and others) have many tenets of generosity can avoid general statements of hate and counter those who do spew hate.
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Just who is "The Media"?
I was in a University for Senior class on Social Justice this morning. In one discussion, several people complained about "the media" not reporting many aspects of the news, for example, the number of civilian deaths in Iraq.
From my iPad, I searched the New York Times for "iraq civilian death" and received a list of over 31,000 articles. I told the class this number and read the five headlines that appeared on my screen:
"A Grim Portrait of Civilian Deaths in Iraq", 2010-10-22
"W.H.O. Says Iraq Civilian Death Toll Higher Than Cited", 2008-01-10
"Civilian Death Toll Reaches New High in Iraq, U.N. Says", 2008-11-23
"Civilian toll in Iraq increased in November"
"Civilian deaths in Iraq decrease significantly in one month"
The text shown for the last gives the lower figure as 922!
I did the same search for the Duluth News Tribune; nothing was shown from its entire archive. If I searched for "Iraq death" I received 17 items. One of these from 2006-11-10 gave an Iraqi Health Ministry estimate of 150,000 civilian war deaths.
But we shouldn't fault the DNT too much for this lack; it is not a national paper like the NYT and focuses more of its news on local and state events.
Many of these critics probably watch TV news a lot. TV news has the burden of limited time; the news given on a half-hour broadcast (oops! 22 minutes excluding commercials) is about as much as you can read in a newspaper in five minutes or less. If your "the media" is TV; is it any wonder that you miss a lot of in-depth coverage?
From my iPad, I searched the New York Times for "iraq civilian death" and received a list of over 31,000 articles. I told the class this number and read the five headlines that appeared on my screen:
"A Grim Portrait of Civilian Deaths in Iraq", 2010-10-22
"W.H.O. Says Iraq Civilian Death Toll Higher Than Cited", 2008-01-10
"Civilian Death Toll Reaches New High in Iraq, U.N. Says", 2008-11-23
"Civilian toll in Iraq increased in November"
"Civilian deaths in Iraq decrease significantly in one month"
The text shown for the last gives the lower figure as 922!
I did the same search for the Duluth News Tribune; nothing was shown from its entire archive. If I searched for "Iraq death" I received 17 items. One of these from 2006-11-10 gave an Iraqi Health Ministry estimate of 150,000 civilian war deaths.
But we shouldn't fault the DNT too much for this lack; it is not a national paper like the NYT and focuses more of its news on local and state events.
Many of these critics probably watch TV news a lot. TV news has the burden of limited time; the news given on a half-hour broadcast (oops! 22 minutes excluding commercials) is about as much as you can read in a newspaper in five minutes or less. If your "the media" is TV; is it any wonder that you miss a lot of in-depth coverage?
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Quote of the Day: Republicans, Hagel, and Iraq
"Strip away all the demagoguery and there seems to be one reason and one reason only the neocons loathe Chuck Hagel. He was right about Iraq, and they were wrong."
- "Readers View, GOP has no reason to reject Obama Cabinet picks", James J. Amato, Duluth News Tribune, 2013-01-20
- "Readers View, GOP has no reason to reject Obama Cabinet picks", James J. Amato, Duluth News Tribune, 2013-01-20
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
How many people must die before you show up and vote?
Too many times we have had "wars of choice" where we went in with little understanding of the countries we invaded. We assumed that all our fancy weaponry would overcome "the enemy" with "shock and awe". We are really dismayed when the people we are "protecting" regard us as the enemy and can fight for years with far less sophisticated weaponry.
We have forgotten our own history. There was a well-organized army with advanced weaponry and organization "protecting" us. But many of the people regarded this army as the enemy. They formed poorly-armed, poorly-organized militias and fought back. It took eight years for the "super-power" of the time to admit defeat.
Now we are getting ourselves into the same quagmires as that once world-spanning empire got itself into, not once, but many times. Thousand of our countrymen are killed and even more are permanently maimed. The casualties of the citizens of the "enemy" country are even greater.
But less than half of us vote into office our governments that beat the war drums. The opposition party often goes along with or eggs the other party into the conflict. Too many of those who dislike both parties or for some reason are unhappy with the less aggressive party don't show up.
Now we are seeing a similar situation within our own borders. Many people were dissatisfied with the party of their choice and stayed home in the 2010 elections. The more aggressive party "won" the elections in many jurisdictions and is enacting laws that allow citizens to "protect themselves" with impunity against some unspecified "enemy". If there are no witnesses, these armed citizens can kill somebody "threatening" them and face no consequences.
Thus was set up the situation that many predicted – an armed white man killed an unarmed black teenager!
How many people must die before you show up and vote?
We have forgotten our own history. There was a well-organized army with advanced weaponry and organization "protecting" us. But many of the people regarded this army as the enemy. They formed poorly-armed, poorly-organized militias and fought back. It took eight years for the "super-power" of the time to admit defeat.
Now we are getting ourselves into the same quagmires as that once world-spanning empire got itself into, not once, but many times. Thousand of our countrymen are killed and even more are permanently maimed. The casualties of the citizens of the "enemy" country are even greater.
But less than half of us vote into office our governments that beat the war drums. The opposition party often goes along with or eggs the other party into the conflict. Too many of those who dislike both parties or for some reason are unhappy with the less aggressive party don't show up.
Now we are seeing a similar situation within our own borders. Many people were dissatisfied with the party of their choice and stayed home in the 2010 elections. The more aggressive party "won" the elections in many jurisdictions and is enacting laws that allow citizens to "protect themselves" with impunity against some unspecified "enemy". If there are no witnesses, these armed citizens can kill somebody "threatening" them and face no consequences.
Thus was set up the situation that many predicted – an armed white man killed an unarmed black teenager!
How many people must die before you show up and vote?
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Oil! Republican dependency on fantasy
Rep. Chip Cravaack, R-MN8, claims to be an independent voice for his constituents but he seems to be sticking to the ALEC and Koch brothers line. ALEC is American Legislative Exchange Council that is an organization of big businesses to write laws in their interests rather than the public interest.
One is his recent republishing in his newsletter of his op-ed article in the Duluth News Tribune, "Reducing regulations, expanding U.S. drilling will lower gas prices". He also republished it on his Congressional web site! See http://cravaack.house.gov/in-the-news/reducing-regulations-expanding-us-drilling-will-lower-gas-prices/. Hm, I'm supposed to give exclusive rights to the News Tribune for my submissions, and so I do not re-post my submissions on my blog.
Back to the subject.
As to be expected in election year, the opposition gets all the blame for any problems. Cravaack blames Obama for high gas prices, but he ignores the high gas prices during Bush's terms. In both cases, there are many more factors contributing to gas prices.
How about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Not only do these create uncertainty in energy markets, they add enormously to the demand for fuel. Wouldn't it be grand if all those humvees, fighter jets, and drones could run on the hot air coming out of Congress?
How about the cost of drilling? As the easily accessible oil is depleted, it cost lots more to get the remainder. And these costs will go up as the oil becomes even less accessible. Right now it costs $60 a barrel to extract gulf oil (see "Two dollars a gallon gasoline? No way!"). But will world markets price oil only a little bit above that? I doubt it.
Reducing regulations won't really change the price of oil; it might if Congress mandated that no oil could be imported or exported. Do you think the large oil companies would go for that? Right now, gasoline is being EXPORTED from the U.S. Oil and gasoline are world commodities. If somebody in India, say, is willing to pay $3.28 per gallon (today's NYMEX price, not including shipping) to import a tanker of gasoline, do you think any U.S. gasoline refiner is going to charge less in the United States?
Cravaack points out how the U.S. investment in Solyndra and Fisker automotive went sour. How many energy investments have done well? He is silent on oil depletion allowances and other tax breaks the oil industry gets. He is silent on the huge investment in nuclear energy research made by the U.S. Government. He is silent on the cost of nuclear waste, most of which will be borne by the U.S. Government. He is silent on the loan guarantees that have gone to nuclear power plants. He is silent on the huge cost in health and other externalities of burning fossil fuel.
He faults the secretary of energy, Steven Chu, when asked if his goal was to lower gas prices, he said, “No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil.” Does Cravaack live in a bubble? How many wars are we going to fight to ensure access to oil? How much are we going to go into debt to finance these wars? How many people are going to die for "lower gas prices"? If we can reduce our dependency on oil faster than India or China can, we will be at a huge economic and foreign policy advantage.
One is his recent republishing in his newsletter of his op-ed article in the Duluth News Tribune, "Reducing regulations, expanding U.S. drilling will lower gas prices". He also republished it on his Congressional web site! See http://cravaack.house.gov/in-the-news/reducing-regulations-expanding-us-drilling-will-lower-gas-prices/. Hm, I'm supposed to give exclusive rights to the News Tribune for my submissions, and so I do not re-post my submissions on my blog.
Back to the subject.
As to be expected in election year, the opposition gets all the blame for any problems. Cravaack blames Obama for high gas prices, but he ignores the high gas prices during Bush's terms. In both cases, there are many more factors contributing to gas prices.
How about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Not only do these create uncertainty in energy markets, they add enormously to the demand for fuel. Wouldn't it be grand if all those humvees, fighter jets, and drones could run on the hot air coming out of Congress?
How about the cost of drilling? As the easily accessible oil is depleted, it cost lots more to get the remainder. And these costs will go up as the oil becomes even less accessible. Right now it costs $60 a barrel to extract gulf oil (see "Two dollars a gallon gasoline? No way!"). But will world markets price oil only a little bit above that? I doubt it.
Reducing regulations won't really change the price of oil; it might if Congress mandated that no oil could be imported or exported. Do you think the large oil companies would go for that? Right now, gasoline is being EXPORTED from the U.S. Oil and gasoline are world commodities. If somebody in India, say, is willing to pay $3.28 per gallon (today's NYMEX price, not including shipping) to import a tanker of gasoline, do you think any U.S. gasoline refiner is going to charge less in the United States?
Cravaack points out how the U.S. investment in Solyndra and Fisker automotive went sour. How many energy investments have done well? He is silent on oil depletion allowances and other tax breaks the oil industry gets. He is silent on the huge investment in nuclear energy research made by the U.S. Government. He is silent on the cost of nuclear waste, most of which will be borne by the U.S. Government. He is silent on the loan guarantees that have gone to nuclear power plants. He is silent on the huge cost in health and other externalities of burning fossil fuel.
He faults the secretary of energy, Steven Chu, when asked if his goal was to lower gas prices, he said, “No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil.” Does Cravaack live in a bubble? How many wars are we going to fight to ensure access to oil? How much are we going to go into debt to finance these wars? How many people are going to die for "lower gas prices"? If we can reduce our dependency on oil faster than India or China can, we will be at a huge economic and foreign policy advantage.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
What 9/11 should have taught ALL of us
First, before the über patriots criticize me, let me question Al Qaeda.
What do you hope to gain? You are like flies or mosquitos in a house. You annoy many people, but many of you will get swatted without gaining anything meaningful. Sure you may bite a few people, but the people go on about their business. You think you speak for all Islam, but you speak for all Islam as much as the Ku Klux Klan or the Crusaders speak for all Christianity.
If you are so sure that you have Allah on your side, why do you say "Inshallah" ("God willing")? If you have doubt that Allah wants you to succeed, how can you be sure you are doing Allah's will in the first place? And if hundreds and thousands of imams and ayatollahs write volumes of commentary, often disputing each other, how can you be so certain?
If you're so interested in protecting Islam and Muslims, why do you kill those who disagree with you and why do you instigate others to blindly strike back at Muslim countries? You gain nothing but chaos, but doesn't your Allah want order and harmony?
Second, many of those who are justifiably disturbed by the attacks of 9/11 have reacted like somebody who is paranoid about flies in the house; they are willing to knock over furniture and break windows to kill a single fly. These people have reacted so wildly that they are ready to invade countries that have no connection with Al Qaeda or think that invading the base of "The Base" will eliminate it. Ten years later they have not succeeded in eliminating the threat; quite the contrary, they have increased the number of terrorist wannabes to levels where the costs are budget-breaking.
In invading other countries, these fly-swatters didn't learn from history. They sent into foreign countries armies that were not wanted, who didn't speak the language, and who didn't understand the culture. Have they forgotten their own history? Our predecessors disliked being governed by a country thousands of miles away, and that country shared our language and culture. Of course, that country made matters worse by sending mercenaries who didn't speak our language. Have they forgotten the French Resistance? At least many of the Germans spoke French. But as soon as the Germans killed or captured a leader of the Resistance, somebody took his or her place.
The intolerant among us are playing right into Al Qaeda's hands. By treating all Muslims as Al Qaeda they are indirectly recruiting more Al Qaeda sympathizers. Fortunately, like most Christians are not interested in going on a Crusade, most Muslims are not interested in going on an Al Qaeda-style jihad.
Many opportunities have been lost in neutralizing or marginalizing the likes of Al Qaeda. What if the State Department had one-tenth the military budget to train people in languages, cultures, and negotiation? Wouldn't this undercut support for Al Qaeda more than military action that "proves" Al Qaeda "right" in its criticism and rhetoric?
Mourn the Christians, Jews, Muslims, and non-believers who were in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2011, but also give serious thought to how we can bring about a world where nobody resorts to violence to bring about their wishes.
What do you hope to gain? You are like flies or mosquitos in a house. You annoy many people, but many of you will get swatted without gaining anything meaningful. Sure you may bite a few people, but the people go on about their business. You think you speak for all Islam, but you speak for all Islam as much as the Ku Klux Klan or the Crusaders speak for all Christianity.
If you are so sure that you have Allah on your side, why do you say "Inshallah" ("God willing")? If you have doubt that Allah wants you to succeed, how can you be sure you are doing Allah's will in the first place? And if hundreds and thousands of imams and ayatollahs write volumes of commentary, often disputing each other, how can you be so certain?
If you're so interested in protecting Islam and Muslims, why do you kill those who disagree with you and why do you instigate others to blindly strike back at Muslim countries? You gain nothing but chaos, but doesn't your Allah want order and harmony?
Second, many of those who are justifiably disturbed by the attacks of 9/11 have reacted like somebody who is paranoid about flies in the house; they are willing to knock over furniture and break windows to kill a single fly. These people have reacted so wildly that they are ready to invade countries that have no connection with Al Qaeda or think that invading the base of "The Base" will eliminate it. Ten years later they have not succeeded in eliminating the threat; quite the contrary, they have increased the number of terrorist wannabes to levels where the costs are budget-breaking.
In invading other countries, these fly-swatters didn't learn from history. They sent into foreign countries armies that were not wanted, who didn't speak the language, and who didn't understand the culture. Have they forgotten their own history? Our predecessors disliked being governed by a country thousands of miles away, and that country shared our language and culture. Of course, that country made matters worse by sending mercenaries who didn't speak our language. Have they forgotten the French Resistance? At least many of the Germans spoke French. But as soon as the Germans killed or captured a leader of the Resistance, somebody took his or her place.
The intolerant among us are playing right into Al Qaeda's hands. By treating all Muslims as Al Qaeda they are indirectly recruiting more Al Qaeda sympathizers. Fortunately, like most Christians are not interested in going on a Crusade, most Muslims are not interested in going on an Al Qaeda-style jihad.
Many opportunities have been lost in neutralizing or marginalizing the likes of Al Qaeda. What if the State Department had one-tenth the military budget to train people in languages, cultures, and negotiation? Wouldn't this undercut support for Al Qaeda more than military action that "proves" Al Qaeda "right" in its criticism and rhetoric?
Mourn the Christians, Jews, Muslims, and non-believers who were in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2011, but also give serious thought to how we can bring about a world where nobody resorts to violence to bring about their wishes.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Freedom and democracy: It's not what you believe but what you do
I find it very hard to read Charles Krauthammer; I think he is very rigid in his thinking. When he wrote in his latest column, "From freedom agenda to freedom doctrine", Washington Post, 2011-02-10, that George Bush and the neo-cons were the only ones interested in promoting freedom and democracy, I stopped reading.
What he ignores is that the neo-cons solution was to bring freedom and democracy at the point of a gun. We can see how well that is working in Iraq and Afghanistan where chaos is more the norm. What he ignores is that the Egyptians have started on a path to freedom and democracy, not with guns but with their gums. They did it not with outside armies but by themselves.
In writing this, I did go back and skim Krauthammer's article. He does make a good point with the second point of his Freedom Doctrine, but most of the rest is a call for the world being as we think it should be, not as others may want it.
A much better read is "They Did It", Thomas Friedman, New York Times, 2011-02-12, written in Cairo. One of the best quotes is, "Because the Obama team never found the voice to fully endorse the Tahrir Square revolution until it was over, the people in that square now know one very powerful thing: They did this all by themselves."
What he ignores is that the neo-cons solution was to bring freedom and democracy at the point of a gun. We can see how well that is working in Iraq and Afghanistan where chaos is more the norm. What he ignores is that the Egyptians have started on a path to freedom and democracy, not with guns but with their gums. They did it not with outside armies but by themselves.
In writing this, I did go back and skim Krauthammer's article. He does make a good point with the second point of his Freedom Doctrine, but most of the rest is a call for the world being as we think it should be, not as others may want it.
A much better read is "They Did It", Thomas Friedman, New York Times, 2011-02-12, written in Cairo. One of the best quotes is, "Because the Obama team never found the voice to fully endorse the Tahrir Square revolution until it was over, the people in that square now know one very powerful thing: They did this all by themselves."
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The Anglo-Mexican War: Ten Years in
By 2050 Mexico had restored much of the area of Aztec and Mayan control, from the Rio Grande to the Panama Canal. In 2050 Mexico saw its chance to expand its control. The U.S. was now bogged down in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Korea. In the name of the freedom of Latinos in the Southwest U.S., Mexico invaded California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
After pushing the overburdened U.S. Army out and quelling the Tea Party Patriots, Mexican forces met resistance from Los Insurgentes, a loose confederation of Apache, Hopi, Navaho, and descendants of immigrants from Mexico.
Losses for the Mexican army are now over 15,000. Five thousand of those were killed when Los Insurgentes lured the Mexican Army into the Grand Canyon and then blew up the Glen Canyon Dam.
The fiercest fighting has been in East Los Angeles where many of the gangs have ambushed Mexican patrols. The gangs have used the sewer system to great effect to move around the city. The Mexican army has tried booby traps, tear gas, and other means to hinder the Los Insurgents; but Los Insurgents often seem to be able to turn these back on the Mexican Army.
Mexico City itself had been filled with demonstrations in support of the troops and demonstrations protesting the war. One of the biggest scandals was the discovery that the government had hired drug lords as contractors to quell the violence in the American cities. The actions of the contractors have further alienated the residents and all but eliminated any cooperation with the Mexican Army.
Although President Volpe was re-elected in a landslide because he played on the patriotism of the Mexican people, the cost of the war in its tenth year is draining his support rapidly. People complain that taxes are too high and that the government has done little to alleviate the three-year-long recession.
This just in! President Volpe has appointed Pedro Santos as Generalissimo of La Reconquista. President Volpe said that Generalissimo Santos has a plan to bring the war to a close in two years. An editorial in La Jornada pointed out that Generalissimo Santos' predecessor said the same thing two years ago.
After pushing the overburdened U.S. Army out and quelling the Tea Party Patriots, Mexican forces met resistance from Los Insurgentes, a loose confederation of Apache, Hopi, Navaho, and descendants of immigrants from Mexico.
Losses for the Mexican army are now over 15,000. Five thousand of those were killed when Los Insurgentes lured the Mexican Army into the Grand Canyon and then blew up the Glen Canyon Dam.
The fiercest fighting has been in East Los Angeles where many of the gangs have ambushed Mexican patrols. The gangs have used the sewer system to great effect to move around the city. The Mexican army has tried booby traps, tear gas, and other means to hinder the Los Insurgents; but Los Insurgents often seem to be able to turn these back on the Mexican Army.
Mexico City itself had been filled with demonstrations in support of the troops and demonstrations protesting the war. One of the biggest scandals was the discovery that the government had hired drug lords as contractors to quell the violence in the American cities. The actions of the contractors have further alienated the residents and all but eliminated any cooperation with the Mexican Army.
Although President Volpe was re-elected in a landslide because he played on the patriotism of the Mexican people, the cost of the war in its tenth year is draining his support rapidly. People complain that taxes are too high and that the government has done little to alleviate the three-year-long recession.
This just in! President Volpe has appointed Pedro Santos as Generalissimo of La Reconquista. President Volpe said that Generalissimo Santos has a plan to bring the war to a close in two years. An editorial in La Jornada pointed out that Generalissimo Santos' predecessor said the same thing two years ago.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Afganistan - When will they ever learn?
Corruption in a client government!
Hubris in an imperial government!
Wikileaks of a bleak situation!
Reading "The limits of power" by Andrew J. Bacevich
History of the French Resistance
American colonial history
English only in the Lino Lakes government
Cutting foreign languages in schools
It all really ties together, sadly.
Let's start with American colonial history. The colonists did not like being occupied by a foreign army. They started fighting back. They didn't follow the rules of engagement and fought from concealment. George the Third had many derogatory things to say about those rebels. Many Afghanis (and Iraqis) don't like being occupied by a foreign army. They started fighting back. They don't follow the rules of engagement and fight from concealment. George the Bush had many derogatory things to say about those insurgents.
Many French did not like the German occupation. They fought back, often from concealment. Instead of roadside bombs, they threw train switches the wrong way. Some Germans took bribes to look the other way. Some Vichy police were very hard on the resistance. Other Vichy police called resistance leaders to warn them of a planned raid. See "Occupation déja vu". Oh, yes! The Germans in France had an advantage that the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have; a large number of them spoke the local language.
We are running up huge deficits to fight these wars and don't have money for education in our own country. In fact, we are cutting back on the teaching of foreign languages. If our soldiers and diplomats are not linguistically proficient, can we expect them to communicate with people who speak other languages with little or no proficiency in English?
Many states and localities want to put into law English-only for government business, the latest being Lino Lakes, Minnesota (Star Tribune 2010-07-26). What if other countries did the same, including at immigration and customs control at the airport? If the U.S. is English only, shouldn't Japan be Japanese only? If so, they should remove the Romaji from all the train station signs and leave only the Kanji and Hiragana. Ah, so! You didn't get off at せんだい? So sorry, you missed Sendai.
Which gets us back to imperial hubris. If we think we know what's best for other countries, how can we even know what's best for them if we don't speak their language, much less understand many of their customs? Insurgency will surely follow. Knowing the culture, the language, and the landscape better than any foreigners, the insurgents have an immense tactical and strategic advantage.
When will they ever learn?
Hubris in an imperial government!
Wikileaks of a bleak situation!
Reading "The limits of power" by Andrew J. Bacevich
History of the French Resistance
American colonial history
English only in the Lino Lakes government
Cutting foreign languages in schools
It all really ties together, sadly.
Let's start with American colonial history. The colonists did not like being occupied by a foreign army. They started fighting back. They didn't follow the rules of engagement and fought from concealment. George the Third had many derogatory things to say about those rebels. Many Afghanis (and Iraqis) don't like being occupied by a foreign army. They started fighting back. They don't follow the rules of engagement and fight from concealment. George the Bush had many derogatory things to say about those insurgents.
Many French did not like the German occupation. They fought back, often from concealment. Instead of roadside bombs, they threw train switches the wrong way. Some Germans took bribes to look the other way. Some Vichy police were very hard on the resistance. Other Vichy police called resistance leaders to warn them of a planned raid. See "Occupation déja vu". Oh, yes! The Germans in France had an advantage that the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have; a large number of them spoke the local language.
We are running up huge deficits to fight these wars and don't have money for education in our own country. In fact, we are cutting back on the teaching of foreign languages. If our soldiers and diplomats are not linguistically proficient, can we expect them to communicate with people who speak other languages with little or no proficiency in English?
Many states and localities want to put into law English-only for government business, the latest being Lino Lakes, Minnesota (Star Tribune 2010-07-26). What if other countries did the same, including at immigration and customs control at the airport? If the U.S. is English only, shouldn't Japan be Japanese only? If so, they should remove the Romaji from all the train station signs and leave only the Kanji and Hiragana. Ah, so! You didn't get off at せんだい? So sorry, you missed Sendai.
Which gets us back to imperial hubris. If we think we know what's best for other countries, how can we even know what's best for them if we don't speak their language, much less understand many of their customs? Insurgency will surely follow. Knowing the culture, the language, and the landscape better than any foreigners, the insurgents have an immense tactical and strategic advantage.
When will they ever learn?
Monday, July 19, 2010
To support the troops, don't support the wars
The Duluth News Tribune, 2010-07-18, had two somewhat opposing views about "Support the Troops".
David McGrath wrote "Empty gestures often equal hollow support". He is concerned that "Support our troops" is sending a contradictory message to young people "between embracing soldiers and embracing wars."
The Duluth News Tribune disagrees in "Support the troops? Absolutely". Children can tell the difference between "paying tribute to military members… isn't the same as endorsing war." But, the writer then qualifies that with "as long as parents and other adults take the time to explain."
Unfortunately, too many adults aren't making the distinction, or at least aren't making it clear, in their own behavior. When they use phrases such as "defending our freedom" and "serving our country" to describe military members, they shut off any discussion of how our freedom is being defended and what service is really being done for our country. And this is the discussion that a democracy really needs.
We too often, as citizens and as writers, do not strongly question our leaders' motivations in waging war. We take without qualification their definition of "the enemy" and "protecting our country". One of the greatest smoke screens was to rename the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Have any of the wars waged since World War II really been against an enemy that had any serious chance of invading the United States? Or have these wars been grand geopolitical games played by "leaders" who really didn't know much about the countries and the people involved?
Coincidently, before I read these articles I had borrowed from the library "The Limits of Power, The End of American Exceptionalism" by Andrew J. Bacevich. I had only gotten through the first chapter Saturday night, but almost every page had insightful and powerful statements about the American follies and hubris in its recent wars. After a description of Reinhold Niebuhr's prescience about the current world situation, Bacevich writes, "Realism in this sense implies an obligation to see the world as it actually is, not as we might like it to be. The enemy of realism is hubris, which in Niebuhr's day, and in our own, finds expression in an outsized confidence in the efficacy of American power as an instrument to reshape the global order." (p. 7)
Before you jump to the conclusion that this is another "liberal rant", the jacket describes Bacevich as a "conservative historian and former military officer". See Wikipedia for more details. He also writes for The American Conservative, his latest article being "Will Iraq be forgotten as well?"
I am with McGrath that we should provide veterans with "a good job…, tuition for college, financial credit…, and the very best health care for veterans."
David McGrath wrote "Empty gestures often equal hollow support". He is concerned that "Support our troops" is sending a contradictory message to young people "between embracing soldiers and embracing wars."
The Duluth News Tribune disagrees in "Support the troops? Absolutely". Children can tell the difference between "paying tribute to military members… isn't the same as endorsing war." But, the writer then qualifies that with "as long as parents and other adults take the time to explain."
Unfortunately, too many adults aren't making the distinction, or at least aren't making it clear, in their own behavior. When they use phrases such as "defending our freedom" and "serving our country" to describe military members, they shut off any discussion of how our freedom is being defended and what service is really being done for our country. And this is the discussion that a democracy really needs.
We too often, as citizens and as writers, do not strongly question our leaders' motivations in waging war. We take without qualification their definition of "the enemy" and "protecting our country". One of the greatest smoke screens was to rename the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Have any of the wars waged since World War II really been against an enemy that had any serious chance of invading the United States? Or have these wars been grand geopolitical games played by "leaders" who really didn't know much about the countries and the people involved?
Coincidently, before I read these articles I had borrowed from the library "The Limits of Power, The End of American Exceptionalism" by Andrew J. Bacevich. I had only gotten through the first chapter Saturday night, but almost every page had insightful and powerful statements about the American follies and hubris in its recent wars. After a description of Reinhold Niebuhr's prescience about the current world situation, Bacevich writes, "Realism in this sense implies an obligation to see the world as it actually is, not as we might like it to be. The enemy of realism is hubris, which in Niebuhr's day, and in our own, finds expression in an outsized confidence in the efficacy of American power as an instrument to reshape the global order." (p. 7)
Before you jump to the conclusion that this is another "liberal rant", the jacket describes Bacevich as a "conservative historian and former military officer". See Wikipedia for more details. He also writes for The American Conservative, his latest article being "Will Iraq be forgotten as well?"
I am with McGrath that we should provide veterans with "a good job…, tuition for college, financial credit…, and the very best health care for veterans."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)