Terrorism a “mental health problem”?

Trump has already pronounced this a “mental health” problem, and not a “guns situation.”

"Trump says Texas shooting is a problem of mental health, not guns", Ashley Parker, Washington Post, 2017-11-06.

Is ISIS-induced terrorism a “mental health” problem and not a religious problem?

One Representative’s take on “terrorism”

”Now we're obsessing over whether the (Nevada) carnage was 'terrorism'," he wrote in a tweet. "If we decide it is, we'll mobilize untold resources. If not, nothing.”’
Jim Times, Rep. Connecticut

“Terrorism, Race, Religion: Defining the Las Vegas Shooting”, Associated Press, reprinted in New York Times, 2017-10-02, https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/10/02/us/ap-defining-terrorism.html.

Jim Himes has also stayed away for the “prayers” for the victims of Orlando shootings.  “There would be, for the umpteenth time, a moment of silence. To ‘honor’ the victims.”
“Why I walked out of the House’s moment of silence for Orlando”, Washington Post, 2016-06-14, https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/14/why-i-walked-out-of-the-houses-moment-of-silence-for-orlando/?utm_term=.0511e903c97b.

Jumping to conclusions can…

Lead one to fall flat on one’s face.

See http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trumps-fed-bashing-is-ridiculous-181419495.html

The problem is the usual one of ascribing more power to a person or an organization than if available i reality or law.

The generalization that frosts me the most is calling the President of the United States the “Leader of the free world”.  One, who elected him or her to such a position.  Certainly not people in England, France, Germany,…

The world is a complex place.  The President of the United States cannot even get his or her allies to agree to each and every U.S. position. if POTUS cannot get allies to jump through hoops, how can anybody assume that POTUS can get adversaries to agree even to a small portion of a U.S. position?

I keep thinking the best course for all the governments that want peace and prosperity for all should be working through the U.N. a lot more.

Is Donald Trump the ISIS candidate?

No, I don't mean that Donald Trump is a supporter of ISIS.  But he is certainly doing just what ISIS wants.  His attacks on Muslims bolsters ISIS's claim that the West is at war with Islam.  The more Trump rails against Muslims in general, he helps recruit disillusioned or disaffected Muslims to join ISIS or to carry out attacks in the West.  The more attacks, the more people like Donald Trump will over-react.  The more over-reaction, the more recruits and the more attacks.

The only counter to a vicious cycle is a virtuous cycle.  Probably the best tactic is to out-Qur'an ISIS, especially considering some of their camps don't even have copies of the Qur-an.  Consider that few in ISIS even know "...and you should forgive and overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you?” (Qur’an: Surah 24, v. 22)

Quote of the day: divisive categorizations

"Dehumanisation is a choice. Calling a police officer a ‘pig' or reducing any population to a ‘threat' not only perpetuates stereotypes, it does nothing to temper discontent.”

-Morwari Zafar, Al Jazeera, 2016-07-14, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/07/real-reason-nice-lorry-massacre-160717112202209.html

Be careful of the "domino assumption" of conquest

The domino "theory" touted so much as justification for the invasion of Vietnam has a fatal flaw .

It assumes dominos stood on end.  However the game of dominos is played with the pieces laying flat.  And when a player places a double there are three possible moves for the other player at that place.

Think Sarajevo 1914.  An assassination of two people brought about so many deaths completely unrelated to that event.

Now we have State Dept. analysts calling for more U.S. involvement in Syria.  I assume that Russia and Iran will react negatively.  I am certain that there will be more lone wolf attacks in the U.S. against the "war on Islam”.

Shall we expel Roman Catholics?

Shall we expel Roman Catholics?  If we go by Donald Trump’s logic, if someone from a particular group commits a crime, terrorism or otherwise, then all members of that group are guilty of the same crime.

Timothy McVeigh was one of the bombers of the Oklahoma City Federal Building; an attack that killed over 160 people.  He grew up as a Catholic.  Does that mean all Catholics could commit similar crimes?

Maybe we should expel all Southern Baptists.  After all, most of the Ku Klux Klan were upstanding members of their community and church by day, but when night came, they donned white sheets and hoods and terrorized black people for crimes real and imagined.

But how many Southern Baptists didn’t like the Ku Klux Klan and thought they were unchristian and dangerous?  Why didn’t they speak out?  Because they were afraid of retribution by the Klan?

Critics of Islam say that all Muslims should speak out against terrorism committed in the name of Islam.  I think many of these critics aren’t really listening to those who speak out.

How many of us speak out against all the injustices we know that exist around us?  Very few of us.  We have jobs and any number of activities that we would rather do than speak out.

“Don’t complain about the speck in your brother’s eye when you can’t see the beam in your own."

Bombs away!

No, I don’t mean drop bombs from an airplane.  I mean bombs go away, bombs never to be used again.  Let’s get rid of nuclear weapons, drone bombers, conventional bombs, cannons, and all other weapons that indiscriminately kill bad people as well as good people.

Yes, ’n’ how many times must the cannonballs fly
Before they’re forever banned?
Yes, ’n’ how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?

From Bob Dylan’s web site at  http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/blowin-wind

Unfortunately, the answer is not blowing in the wind from the mouths of politicians around the world.  They blow out phrases like “defense”, “saving jobs”, and “gun rights”.

We should ask “defense of what”?  Defense of the right to tell other people how to live?  Defense from dictators?  Strange, we are allies with lots of dictators, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.  Oh, but they are “our” dictators, not “their” dictators.  Defense from Communism?  Communism as a label is all but dead.  “Communism” in China is just a label for another dictatorship that is withering away.  “Communism” in North Korea is a name for a paranoid dictatorship.  Our “defense” against North Korea only serves to feed the paranoia.

Another paranoid quasi-dictatorship is Russia.  But consider the historical reason for its paranoia.  The Mongols invaded, the French invaded, the Germans invaded twice, and now the alliance that was built as defense against the Soviet Union keeps expanding, feeding the paranoia of not only Vladimir Putin, but many ordinary Russians.  Of course, it doesn’t help the alliance that Putin’s given name contains the Russian words for lord and world.

If we are so interested in “saving jobs”, we should never have instituted Prohibition.  Think of how many bartenders, servers, distillers, and brewers lost their jobs.  Prohibition did help the gun industry, guns for both the bootleggers and for the police.

Do we want to “save jobs” at the cost of lives far, far away?  How many wedding guests should die because somebody up in the sky decided the guests were “terrorists”?  How many hospitals must be destroyed because enemy combatants were believed to be hiding there?  Interesting, the “enemy combatants” live in the country; the bombers are from a country far, far away.

I didn’t know guns had “rights”.  As far as protection in case of a terrorist attack, would more people die because some of the target group had weapons?  John pulls out a gun to shoot the terrorists.  Mary sees John with a gun in his hand and thinking he is a terrorist, shoots him.  Even the police have a hard time shooting the terrorists.  And the police get wounded and killed.  Major Hassan at Fort Hood wounded and downed a police officer who had excellent scores in marksmanship.  Her partner managed to wound Hassan enough to get him to stop shooting.

Maybe the better idea is to keep military-style weapons in armories and not make them easily available to the general public.  Many seem to have forgotten that we had armories to keep the more deadly weapons away from the general public but available to the militia in case of insurrection.

Another better idea is to use propaganda instead of bombs.

Instead of attacking Israel, Palestinian protesters should fly children’s balloons over Israel.  Each balloon would carry a slip of paper with the words of Hillel in Hebrew: “Do not unto your neighbor what you would not have him do unto you; this is the whole Law; the rest is commentary.”

Instead of burying Daesh terrorists in bomb debris, bury them in pamphlets: “...and you should forgive and overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you? And Allah is The Merciful Forgiving.” _ Qur’an (Surah 24, “The Light”, v. 22)

And of course, the “bomb them back to the Stone Age” bloviators who claim to be “Christian” should receive letters from their constituents: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” – Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew 7:12

I am surprised that Iran didn’t use this latter quotation with those negotiating to stop Iran’s nuclear capacity.  All the nuclear-armed negotiators except the Chinese purport to be Christians.  If the negotiating countries didn’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons, shouldn’t Iran have proposed some schedule for these “nuclear powers” to eliminate their nuclear weapons?

Maybe the only answer is for a peace coalition to be formed in the United Nations.  It could start with countries without militaries, like Iceland and Costa Rica.  This coalition could offer a time table for the elimination of nuclear weapons, then of massive navies, then of bombs, then of armies.

Impossible?  Improbable?  Maybe!  Consider that Europe had a very vicious war, with many, many civilian deaths on both sides, seventy years ago.  The Cold War ended twenty-four years ago.  And a country divided by that war is now a major player on the world stage.

The answer my friend is blowing in your votes!

Are “conservatives” the lackeys of Daesh?

One of the ways that people control a narrative is by defining the terms.  The more the terms are favorable to their narrative, the more they get others to “dance to their tune”.  Both Daesh and “conservatives” have been controlling the narrative to their respective audiences.

What’s this Daesh?  It is the Arabic term for the group that calls itself the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Islamic State in the Levant (ISIL), or just the Islamic State (IS).  Keith Ellison, a member of Congress from Minnesota and a Muslim, refuses to use these “Islamic” descriptions and uses Daesh instead.  One, Daesh does not represent the Islam that Ellison and many others follow.  Two, Daesh does not like this name which is somewhat of a pejorative in Arabic.

Look at this another way.  Daesh represents Islam no more than the Coo Coo Clucks Clan represents Christianity.  By the way, many letter writers say that all Muslims should speak out against Daesh; they forget that many Christians did not openly criticize the Coo Coo Clucks Clan.

Many Muslims are speaking out against Daesh.  See the article about Rep. Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, the other Representative who is a Muslim speaking out against Daesh (see CQ Roll Call, 2015-11-17, also published in the Duluth News Tribune the next day).  The article stated that Ellison and Carson shared the same religion as the terrorists; this is way off the mark.  It is like saying those who call for punishment of gays share Christianity with those who believe “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.”

Also, by the time you read this, my friend M. Imran Hayee should have his own take on Daesh published in the Duluth News Tribune.

Why are “conservatives” the lackeys of Daesh?  Because Daesh wants a war with “Christianity” and anybody else who doesn’t share their corrupted view of Islam.  The “conservatives” think that the U.S. is the Calvary of the movies and will save the wagon train from the bandits or the Indians.  As “Leader of the Free World” with the mightiest army in the world, the U.S. will crush anybody who is not for “freedom”.

But what is the reality of the effectiveness of the U.S. military against a “moral” force such as Daesh?

In 1775, a ragtag army took on a heavily trained army of a distant empire.  It took some years, but with the help of another empire they forced that army to surrender.  Then a much better trained U.S. Army took on lightly-armed groups of a widely-dispersed populace.  In the next century, the U.S. military joined several other countries in defeating an opposing army in a long-drawn out struggle.  That led to the same defeated army being reconstituted under a dictator far worse than the Kaiser of two decades earlier.  Again the U.S. joined several other militaries to defeat this dictator and his army.  Half-way around the world the U.S. military joined several other militaries to defeat an Imperial military.

Then with the confidence from that war the U.S. fought an army that tried to unite a country under its dictator rather than the dictator of the other half of the country.  That other half did move to a democracy that is prospering compared to the invading half which has been living under a brutal line of paranoid dynastic dictators.

These military successes led to a confidence that has not been fulfilled since.

First, the U.S. thought it could fight a guerrilla army that knew the language and had willing and unwilling support from a large portion of the country.  The U.S. could never be sure who was friend and who was foe.  The U.S. had to leave for a variety of reasons.  Ironically, that same country is now a trading partner.  Even though the government is still run by “godless” Communists, it seems to have taken to heart the Christian dictum “forgive those who trespass against you.”

The U.S. did have success in defeating a “ferocious” army that was more bluster than power.  It did leave the dictator in power, but the U.S. did accomplish the goal of getting the dictator’s army out of the country he invaded.

Next, the U.S. took on fighters in a strongly religious country that had a very corrupt government.  The U.S. could never tell for sure who was friend or foe.  That fight still goes on.

Then the U.S. took on the dictator with the “ferocious” army again and sent him into hiding.  However, for a variety of reasons, the country became splintered into several factions and no local politician has made any serious attempt to unify the country.  The U.S. tried supporting the government against its antagonists, but like the army of 1776, the antagonists are scattered throughout the populace.

Out of this chaos has come Daesh.  Who does the U.S. have as allies in the region?  A military dictatorship and the country that promotes Wahhabism, the unforgiving variety of Islam that created Daesh, an Islam that ignores “As Allah forgives you, forgive others.”

Now we have “conservatives” who are “liberal” with dropping bombs in the Middle East.  Are they just playing into the hands of Daesh?  These “Christians” want to keep out Muslims who are fleeing Daesh.  They are afraid that terrorists might come in with the refugees.  But by dropping more bombs and by refusing refugees, might we just reinforce Daesh’s claim that there is a Christian war against Islam?

Also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth on 2015-11-25 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/11/24/6304_are_conservatives_the_lackeys_of_daesh

Do we reap what we sow?

 History is filled with “what ifs?”  What if the Normans hadn’t invaded England?  What if Columbus hadn’t sailed across the Atlantic?  What if England had included the colonies in Parliament?

We really don’t know how much different actions would have gotten quite different results.  Several authors have written speculative fiction describing outcomes quite different from actual history.  One example is an author who wrote several books on what if the South had won the Civil War.

I don’t really know how things would have turned out if only…, but bear with me as I join the speculators.

Lincoln went to war against the Confederacy because he felt that an un-United States would have left the States open to foreign intervention.  It wasn’t so much that he wanted to free the slaves, but the South did fear the North taking away its slaves.  Lincoln did take away the slaves, but that left so much resentment that “blacks” still are treated as second class citizens in much of the South, to say nothing of the murders committed against blacks in the South (and in the North too).

If the South had successfully seceded, with or without a war, would the slaves eventually be freed?  Probably not.  For example, textile mills in New England would be eager to buy slave-picked cotton from the South.  And manufacturers in the North would be eager to sell all kinds of labor-saving machinery to the South.  Would that machinery be more efficient than slaves?  Thereby reducing the market in slaves?  We really don’t know.

In Europe empires grew to embrace many people of quite different languages and interests.  The empires in turn were distrustful of each other and made treaties with “friendly” empires to protect themselves against “unfriendly” empires.  They thought a balance of power would create a balance of peace.  Then “one leg of the chair” collapsed.  With a single assassination, one group of empires felt the need to attack another group of empires.

If there had been an alliance of all the nations of Europe to settle disputes in a more peaceful manner, would there have been “The War to End All Wars”?  We do know that most of those countries are now at peace with one another.

But at the end of World War I, some victors wanted to punish the losers.  This punishment had two different serious consequences.

In Europe, the injustices perceived by the Germans led to the rise of Adolph Hitler.  Millions died because they were “other” and millions died because of the wars Hitler started.  Consider that not all these deaths were caused by Hitler and his Japanese allies.  The number of innocent people killed in the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are far greater than the number of people killed in a decade of “Islamic” terrorism.

In the Middle East the Ottoman Empire was broken up willy-nilly without any consideration for the people of the various countries created.  Then oil was discovered and buying countries wanted to make sure they had stable supplies.  It didn’t matter what the form of government was or the what the wishes of the people were.  The buyers supported non-democratic leaders with nary a blink of an eye.  In fact, if a democratic leader tried to change oil contracts to be more beneficial to his country, the buyers sought to overthrow him and replace him with an autocrat.  Remember Mosaddegh and Reza Pahlavi?  Is it any wonder that the ayatollahs took over and had so much animosity to the U.S.?

Then George W. Bush and company decided that they had to do something about Saddam Hussein because of 9/11.  How many Iraqis died because of this war?  It was far more than had died in any number of terrorist attacks before.  And the easy victory that the Bush administration predicted resulted in chaos that still hasn’t settled down either with a stable democracy or a firm dictator.

Into the vacuum came equally hard-nosed militants who believed Allah was on their side.  I find it strange that Allah isn’t booming down from heaven the same message to the rest of us.  And strange that God isn’t booming the same message that George W. Bush received.

All of this religiosity seems to ignore the more gentle wisdom that is in both the Bible and the Koran: do unto others as you would have them to do you, blessed are the peacemakers, the sins of the fathers are passed on to the sons, yea unto the seventh generation, and many more.

“Yet it is in fact militarization that is the cause of the problem in the first place.” - Ben Norton

If you have an hour to spare, read Ben Norton’s “Our Terrorism Double Standard: After Paris Let’s Stop Blaming Muslims and Take a Hard Look at Ourselves”, Salon, 2015-11-14 at
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/14/our_terrorism_double_standard_after_paris_lets_stop_blaming_muslims_and_take_a_hard_look_at_ourselves/ The article doesn’t take an hour to read, but you will want to read many of the related articles in the sidebar.

After the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush is infamously quoted as advising Americans to “Go shopping.”  I think it was a misguided attempt to ask people to act normally.  My advice to Americans after any of these catastrophes is “Go vote”.  Too often the militant vote and the peacemakers stay home.

Also published in the Reader Weekly, 2015-11-19 at
http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/11/18/6257_do_we_reap_what_we_sow

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.

Terror as theatre

I heard a piece on a Swedish Radio program about terrorists not being generals but theatre producers.  They are not trying to win battles as put on theatre to gain maximum effect.  If we could only think of some way to make each of their productions a flop in their own eyes.

I followed up the information on http://sverigesradio.se/sida/default.aspx?programid=438.  The program interviewed Yuval Noah Harari, author of “the theatre of terror” in The Guardian, 2015-01-31.  Read the full article for more.

The Moderate Manifesto

Originally published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2004-11-18.  You can find many articles on “Moderate Manifesto” published since then by many authors since.

A spectre is haunting America – the spectre of divisiveness.  All the powers of old grudges have entered into an unholy alignment to excite this spectre: freethinker and evangelical, Moore and Limbaugh, urban radicals and exurban commuters.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as divisive by its opponents in power? 

Where is the Opposition that has not hurled the branding reproach of divisiveness against more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
Two things result from this fact:

1. Moderation is sadly needed by all American powers to become itself a power.

2. It is high time that Moderates should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of divisiveness with a manifesto of moderation itself.

To this end, a Party of One assembled in Duluth and sketched the following manifesto, to be published, sadly, in only one newspaper and in only the English language.

A moderate party would be based on four principles:

1. Strive for a balance between individual liberty and public good.

2. Discuss issues openly and respectfully.

3. Provide and pay for government services at the appropriate level.

4. Use party policies as guidelines.  Individual officeholders are free to make independent decisions based on the first three principles.

We need a balance between individual liberty and public good because too much liberty for some leads to harm to others and too much public good leads to loss of liberty for all.  On the other hand, too little liberty leads to a lack of creativity and too little public good leads to a lack of infrastructure to support creativity and the movement of people, goods, and ideas.

We need open and respectful discussion of issues to allow voice for a wide range of ideas.  Hardened opinions lead only to more hardened opinions.  “Our side is right and your side is wrong.”  Ideas lead to more ideas.  Rather than debates to win voters to one candidate or another, we need conversations to define what the real problems are and what possible solutions are available.

We need to provide for government services at the appropriate levels as well as levy the taxes at those levels that provide the services.  We avoid taxes at lower levels of government and demand more services from higher levels of government.  This has several pernicious effects.  As we avoid taxes at lower levels, local governments have few resources to provide the services local communities want. 

The demand for the local services does not go away but is pushed up to higher government levels. 

Higher government levels need to raise taxes to pay for those services.  Provision of services from outside the local community leads to services out of proportion to local needs resulting in poor delivery, excessive requirements, or unused services and equipment.  As taxes at higher levels go up, the ability to tax at lower levels goes down.  Inevitably, taxes at higher levels reach a point where voters rebel, the services provided at the higher level are cut, and the lower levels are unable to make up for those cuts.

We need politicians who follow a broad set of guidelines rather than a detailed list of party policies. 

When parties have detailed policies we move toward groupthink rather than individual liberty, and groupthink is not good for the common good.  The United States Senate is often called “the greatest deliberative body in the world.”  This may be true in some committee hearings, but hardened opinions has led to more posturing and less deliberating in the general sessions.  Hardened opinions are being demonstrated in state legislatures and city councils as well.

What are some policy examples that might follow from these principles?

One of the most divisive issues is abortion.  One side wants no abortions anytime anywhere; the opposite side wants no government interference in abortions anytime anywhere.  The only way to have no abortions is to keep all fertile females away from all fertile males.  That would move far away from the first principle of individual liberty.  Even if mixing of the sexes were permitted for married couples what happens when a pregnancy goes seriously awry?  Do we sacrifice both the mother and the fetus to a principle of no abortions?  The basic problem is unwanted pregnancies.  To reduce abortions we need to reduce unwanted pregnancies.  The proven ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies are to reduce abusive family situations, poverty, and ignorance.  The real discussion should be how to implement policies to reduce these problems.

The right charges that the left is weak on defense and the left charges that the right is militaristic.  But what is defense?  Is it military might that is suitable against mass armies?  Or is it international co-operation to resolve disputes?  Is it high-tech weaponry that can take out selected targets?  Or is it international police co-operation to root out terrorist cells before they can strike?

Freedom and democracy are words brandished like swords by those who claim them as their own goals.  Is freedom only granted to those who agree with a government?  Or is it the freedom to express unpopular opinions?  Is democracy only granted to those who vote for a dominant party and begrudgingly given to a large-scale opposition?  Or is democracy an open society in which people feel free to exercise their right “to petition the Government for redress of grievances”?

In summary, the Moderate Party should be the party that asks the hard questions.  And by asking the right questions, might lead a consensus that will lead to a better country and to a better world.

Military training from outside

Why is an outside military needed to train a country's military on fighting rebels?  If the rebels are so effective against government troops, could it be that the government troops are either unmotivated or corrupt?  In the case of Afghanistan, why has it taken 12 years to train Afghan troops in counterinsurgency.  Shouldn't those who were trained 12 years ago have enough expertise to train others?  Consider that many of the outside trainers had no military experience at the outset of the war in Afghanistan.

From what I've read, the Afghani soldiers are in it for the money, honest or otherwise, or because they were drafted.  Too many of them have no loyalty to the government.

I think U.S. policy long ago should have been: Karzai! Shape up or we ship out!

See also “Insurgencies, outside forces, and good government”.

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.

State security without proof

"I assert, he said with a calm and low voice, I assert that Mr. Colomban has responsibility for an act that has put our country within two fingers of its loss. The case of Pyrot is secret and must remain secret. If disclosed, the most cruel wars, pillage, devastation, fires, massacres evils, epidemics, will be brought immediately on Penguinia.  I would consider myself guilty of high treason if I uttered one word more." - General Greatauk, "L'Île des Pingouins", Anatole France, 1908, my translation with help from Google Translate

Colomban is Emile Zola who strongly defended Dreyfuss (Pyrot) in the press.  For more on the Dreyfuss affair, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair.

Does this sound familiar a century after the Dreyfuss affair?  At that time there was extreme anti-semitism.  Are we now in a time of extreme anti-muslim paranoia?

The original French:

Je laisse, dit-il avec calme et d'une voix peu élevée, je laisse à monsieur Colomban la responsabilité d'un acte qui a mis notre pays à deux doigts de sa perte. L'affaire Pyrot est secrète; elle doit rester secrète. Si elle était divulguée, les maux les plus cruels, guerres, pillages, ravages, incendies, massacres, épidémies, fondraient immédiatement sur la Pingouinie. Je m'estimerais coupable de haute trahison si je prononçais un mot de plus.
- EBook #8524, Project Gutenberg

Export cones, not drones

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.

Nation of laws or nation of revenge?

As expected, several Republican members of Congress don't want Miranda rights read to Dzhogar Tsarnaev, the surviving Boston Marathon bomber; they want him tried in a military court as an enemy combatant; and of course, they want the death penalty.

This does not sound like due process for a U. S. citizen; it sounds like revenge is more important.  A nation of laws would be sure that any accused is proven beyond doubt to guilty of the crimes as charged.

As for the death penalty, what does that prove?  That the government believes killing is a solution just as the killer believes killing is a solution to some real or imagined problem.

Finally, whether the Tsarnaev brothers acted out of anger and craziness or they acted for political reasons, executing Dzhogar Tsarnaev will provide Islamists with yet another martyr.

Immigration and leaping to conclusions

“Given the events of this week, it’s important for us to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system.” - Sen. Charles Grassley, Rep. IA, quoted in "Senator Says Boston Attack Should Factor in Immigration Debate", Ashley Parker and Michael D. Shear, New York Times, 2013-04-19

Let's see, it is a loophole to let teenagers into the U. S. if they are Muslim, if they come from a country with ethnic violence, or…

One brother came at the age of 15.  He was probably somewhat unhappy to be taken away from his friends and never really got over it.  And how many immigrants from wherever come at that age and somehow manage to fit in and have socially satisfying lives?  The other brother came at the age of 8 and seemingly adapted quite well and was popular.  But because he adored his older brother, he probably picked his brother's dissatisfaction and anger.

If we are to close the "gaps and loopholes" on a couple of loopy brothers, maybe we should have never let Italians into the U. S.  Isn't Lanza, the last name of the Newtown terrorist, an Italian name?  And the Mafia is Italian based.  Ah, yes, we should suspect every Italian of being a Mafia member.  But then we wouldn't have had "Woody Woodpecker" to chuckle over, created by Walter Lantz.  Immigration changed his father's name from Francesco Paolo Lanza.  We wouldn't have Ghirardelli chocolates and Jacuzzis and Zambonis.  For hundreds more famous Italian-Americans who enriched our country, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Italian_Americans.

If we are to close the "gaps and loopholes" maybe we should never have let Germans into the U. S.  After all, many German-Americans became spies or apologists for Hitler.  Remember the informant in "Stalag 17".  Unfortunately, if German immigrants had been kept out, I wouldn't be here.  Some readers think this might be a good thing.  Four of my great-grandparents were born in Germany.

Maybe the original inhabitants of this continent should have closed the "gaps and loopholes" that let thousands of English and others in.  The English and others unleashed a reign of terror on the original inhabitants for over three centuries that led to the massacre at Wounded Knee.

As Pete Seeger told it, two Indians watched a ship launch a small boat.  When the boat landed, Columbus stepped out and said, "Buenos días, señores!"  One Indian turned to the other and said, "There goes the neighborhood."

Quote of the day – violence

"And that speculation leads me to wonder about acts of violence against innocent victims cloaked in the language either of religion or nationalism, of Islam or the perceived national interests of the USA, or even of revenge. We 'know' that violence begets violence, yet some/many, of us persist in acting as if planting another bomb (or dropping just one more from a drone) would break the endless cycle."

Comment left by JO to "The Mind of a Terror Suspect", Charles M. Blow, New York Times, 2013-04-19.

Blow's column is a description of the morphing of a "nice kid" into someone with a bigger and bigger chip on his shoulder.