Sunday, August 19, 2007
Saturday, August 11, 2007
The Tenuous Case for Strategic Patience in Iraq
Anthony Cordesman, director of the Center for Strategic Studies, was the guest this morning on C-Span's Washington Journal. He is the author of the newest study on Iraq, The Tenuous Case for Strategic Patience in Iraq. You can read the report here. The man knows his stuff, to put it colloquially. He is a scholar of the middle East, Iraq in particular.
I was embarrassed for him with some of the callers, ignorant callers. One suggested to him that Iraq needs to have a democracy so that it becomes 'a civilized nation.' It did not take too long for Mr. Cordesman to assure the caller that Iraq had been a civilized nation for thousands of years before the British and Americans de-civilized it.
Another embarrassing call suggested that the problem in Iraq was the fault of the Democrats as did one other caller who said that if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, Americans would need to have an arsenal of guns in their homes, just as the Iraqi people.
The host asked Cordesman about the Dick Cheney question and answer he gave in a recent interview where Cheney was asked why, in 1991, he said that no American life was worth being sacrificed in going into Baghdad to get Saddam, but now he thinks it was the right thing to do. Cheney answered, "because of 9-11." Cordesman, instead of being unkind to Cheney, said that the Administration's biggest blunder was having no plan for the after-Saddam topple. That stupidity, he suggested, has caused much bloodshed, both ours and the Iraqis.
"American mentality is to blame," he declared. "We think in short terms only." He went on to lecture us on the consequences of such football logic. We fail to see the big picture, the long-term consequences, just like the British when they occupied Iraq.
His tone was one of despair; his hope for any meaningful outcome to the fiasco there was at best dim. One could detect in his voice and words that he had great pity for the people of Iraq and the awful consequences they have suffered at the hands of the British and Americans for the past 75 years. And the dumbed-down callers proved his conjecture very well.
I was embarrassed for him with some of the callers, ignorant callers. One suggested to him that Iraq needs to have a democracy so that it becomes 'a civilized nation.' It did not take too long for Mr. Cordesman to assure the caller that Iraq had been a civilized nation for thousands of years before the British and Americans de-civilized it.
Another embarrassing call suggested that the problem in Iraq was the fault of the Democrats as did one other caller who said that if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, Americans would need to have an arsenal of guns in their homes, just as the Iraqi people.
The host asked Cordesman about the Dick Cheney question and answer he gave in a recent interview where Cheney was asked why, in 1991, he said that no American life was worth being sacrificed in going into Baghdad to get Saddam, but now he thinks it was the right thing to do. Cheney answered, "because of 9-11." Cordesman, instead of being unkind to Cheney, said that the Administration's biggest blunder was having no plan for the after-Saddam topple. That stupidity, he suggested, has caused much bloodshed, both ours and the Iraqis.
"American mentality is to blame," he declared. "We think in short terms only." He went on to lecture us on the consequences of such football logic. We fail to see the big picture, the long-term consequences, just like the British when they occupied Iraq.
His tone was one of despair; his hope for any meaningful outcome to the fiasco there was at best dim. One could detect in his voice and words that he had great pity for the people of Iraq and the awful consequences they have suffered at the hands of the British and Americans for the past 75 years. And the dumbed-down callers proved his conjecture very well.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Silent Screams of a Survivor: Toledo Author Mitch Garwolinski
Toledo resident Mitch Garwolinski has written a detailed account of his childhood experiences in Nazi controlled Poland in WWII. A summary can be found here. My wife's brother gave her the book yesterday; he is a runner and often runs with Mitch. That's how he got the book.
It's an easy but stomach-curdling read like all accounts of Nazis both living and now dead. One more episode in the file, 'man's inhumanity to man.'
The author is also a cancer survivor which begs the question: how much can one person endure in life? He is in therapy too, trying to get rid of those horrible experiences as well as the guilt for the three murders he committed. Writing the book was one way to help him try to put the past aside, if that is ever possible.
He speaks to groups around the Toledo area about his experiences, often to high school audiences. He hopes that his life story will have some effect on the youth of the area. Surely some in the audience will find his story compelling and it may also serve as an impetus to them to reach for higher ideals during their own lives.
Presently the city of Toledo has been 'threatened' with an unwelcome visit by a neo Nazi group this Sunday. These boneheads will stimulate the residents and news media into action just as they have planned. Shortly after their verbiage is finished, they will drive back to their places of residence satisfied with the ugliness they perpetrated in the name of their god of hate. One wonders if they have families, wives, and children. Do they go to church? What do they see in the mirror each morning? What do they dream of at night? What will be said of them at their funeral service? What will be written in their obituary? On their tombstone?
Man's inhumanity to man. Alive and thriving in America. Thank God there are men like Mitch Garolinski who educate our youth on evil.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
John Pilger's Warning to Journalists
Author John Pilger has penned a scorching warning to those who call themselves journalists. The Unseen lies: Journalism as Propaganda is an article that lays bare the shenanigans of so-called journalists who are little more than government pimps. Pilger berates especially the 'journalists' and news media in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. But Clinton doesn't get off the hook either. He says of the former president, "Bill Clinton [was] the most violent president of the late 20th century."
The article is fascinating and jaw-dropping in detail. The man knows his stuff about propaganda, a theme I have visited regularly on this blog.
Read it and weep; cross your fingers that there are a few honest mud-raking journalists still willing to expose the fascism and warmongering tendencies of this nation and our allies, especially the UK.
Monday, August 6, 2007
I'm not smarter, but maybe I'm wiser
Frank Rich had an interesting article in the New York Times on Sunday titled, "Patriots Who Love the Troops to Death."
He mentions Michael Ignatieff, a former Bush War cheerleader, who acknowledged "that those who “truly showed good judgment on Iraq” might have had no more information than those who got it wrong, but did not make the mistake of confusing “wishes for reality.”"
Although I don't like to toot my own horn: me too.
The title: Patriots Who Love the Troops to Death is morbidly humorous but deadly accurate. I have to scoff at these war-lovers who, when confronted by these thousands of useless American military deaths, offhandedly remark: 'it's an all-volunteer army,' s if 'they were asking for it.' Or that other callous statement flowing from their lips; ' Vietnam saw 50,000 dead.' Which statement is more ignorant is up for grabs. Did you see that recent Young College Republican Convention video where the reporter asked these young men about supporting the war, then asked 'why haven't you joined the military?' The bobbing, weaving, and ducking was classic Dick Cheney.
Yes, these 'patriots' love the Bush War. Broad definition of patriotism, no doubt. Does a true patriot follow the leader blindly and mindlessly? Does the leader receive carte blanche from his citizens? One might ask: when does dogged party loyalty dilute patriotism?
Today we read that Afghanistan is more dangerous than it was a few years ago according to President Hamid Karzai. The poppy crop was enormous this year. Karzai told the press yesterday about finding bin Laden, "We are not closer, we are not further away from it."
Six full years after 9-11, the mastermind is still on the loose, but Saddam Hussein is dead. And so are more American soldiers than Americans who died on 9-11. Brilliant.
I am still troubled by the fact that so many of my fellow citizens were bamboozled by the Bush/Cheney rhetoric and rush to invade Iraq while bin Laden sat in his mountain hideout. What happened to my fellow citizens? Was their need for vengeance so great than they were willing to use Hussein as a scapegoat for bin Laden? Any dastardly dictator will suffice?
What were they thinking? Why do wisdom and logic fail during patriotic passion? Perhaps the better question is: have we learned any lesson from this major mistake? Or, will some charlatan a few years down the road once again lead us astray with a wave of the flag?
He mentions Michael Ignatieff, a former Bush War cheerleader, who acknowledged "that those who “truly showed good judgment on Iraq” might have had no more information than those who got it wrong, but did not make the mistake of confusing “wishes for reality.”"
Although I don't like to toot my own horn: me too.
The title: Patriots Who Love the Troops to Death is morbidly humorous but deadly accurate. I have to scoff at these war-lovers who, when confronted by these thousands of useless American military deaths, offhandedly remark: 'it's an all-volunteer army,' s if 'they were asking for it.' Or that other callous statement flowing from their lips; ' Vietnam saw 50,000 dead.' Which statement is more ignorant is up for grabs. Did you see that recent Young College Republican Convention video where the reporter asked these young men about supporting the war, then asked 'why haven't you joined the military?' The bobbing, weaving, and ducking was classic Dick Cheney.
Yes, these 'patriots' love the Bush War. Broad definition of patriotism, no doubt. Does a true patriot follow the leader blindly and mindlessly? Does the leader receive carte blanche from his citizens? One might ask: when does dogged party loyalty dilute patriotism?
Today we read that Afghanistan is more dangerous than it was a few years ago according to President Hamid Karzai. The poppy crop was enormous this year. Karzai told the press yesterday about finding bin Laden, "We are not closer, we are not further away from it."
Six full years after 9-11, the mastermind is still on the loose, but Saddam Hussein is dead. And so are more American soldiers than Americans who died on 9-11. Brilliant.
I am still troubled by the fact that so many of my fellow citizens were bamboozled by the Bush/Cheney rhetoric and rush to invade Iraq while bin Laden sat in his mountain hideout. What happened to my fellow citizens? Was their need for vengeance so great than they were willing to use Hussein as a scapegoat for bin Laden? Any dastardly dictator will suffice?
What were they thinking? Why do wisdom and logic fail during patriotic passion? Perhaps the better question is: have we learned any lesson from this major mistake? Or, will some charlatan a few years down the road once again lead us astray with a wave of the flag?
Thursday, August 2, 2007
My First Socialist Worker Meeting
I attended my first meeting sponsored by the Socialist Worker Party this evening at Sanger Branch Library. It was great. My grandfather, his brother and my older cousin were all socialists and I felt right at home among the assembly. The topic was 'universal health care' for Americans. Wow! How radical is that.
Local physician Dr. John Ross was one of 3 panelists who spoke of the need for universal health care for all citizens as their right of being a citizen. Insurance companies would argue against it and have, in fact, been successful in stifling any thought of that. This is why they contribute so heavily to members of Congress. They know that once the tide begins to shift against them, it's good bye profits and easy street.
Some in Ohio are making an attempt at a single payer health care system at the state level. SPAN Ohio is attempting to get petitions signed to bring up legislation for universal health care in Ohio. Their website has informationon this project: http://www.spanohio.org/
Nationally, HR676 attempts to address the issue and one can only imagine the number of representatives, coached by the insurance donors, who will castigate the bill. In fact, that was the very issue I brought up during the open forum section of the meeting. Surely the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies have slick ad agencies already working on disinformation advertisements against such a 'radical' plan.
It was pointed out that Medicare seems to work well with a one-company administrator. Another point was that if corporate America would not have to plan for employee health care plans, they would free up great quantities of capital to invest in their product. Further, if taxes were slightly raised for the cost of the plan, that small increase would be balanced by the citizens not having to pay monthly insurance costs, prescription drugs, co-pays and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred even with 'insurance.'
Clearly it is a no-brainer. Yet that means nothing because of the amount of money and power wielded by insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyests in Congress. They have already 'bought' the majority.
I believe that soon, millions of middle-class Americans will wake up and realize what a ruse this has been, how they have been scammed by both the insurance industry and politicians. Whether that comes sooner or later spells the difference between savings now or later.
I'd bet on later.
A link that discusses the issue: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072707S.shtml
Local physician Dr. John Ross was one of 3 panelists who spoke of the need for universal health care for all citizens as their right of being a citizen. Insurance companies would argue against it and have, in fact, been successful in stifling any thought of that. This is why they contribute so heavily to members of Congress. They know that once the tide begins to shift against them, it's good bye profits and easy street.
Some in Ohio are making an attempt at a single payer health care system at the state level. SPAN Ohio is attempting to get petitions signed to bring up legislation for universal health care in Ohio. Their website has informationon this project: http://www.spanohio.org/
Nationally, HR676 attempts to address the issue and one can only imagine the number of representatives, coached by the insurance donors, who will castigate the bill. In fact, that was the very issue I brought up during the open forum section of the meeting. Surely the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies have slick ad agencies already working on disinformation advertisements against such a 'radical' plan.
It was pointed out that Medicare seems to work well with a one-company administrator. Another point was that if corporate America would not have to plan for employee health care plans, they would free up great quantities of capital to invest in their product. Further, if taxes were slightly raised for the cost of the plan, that small increase would be balanced by the citizens not having to pay monthly insurance costs, prescription drugs, co-pays and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred even with 'insurance.'
Clearly it is a no-brainer. Yet that means nothing because of the amount of money and power wielded by insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyests in Congress. They have already 'bought' the majority.
I believe that soon, millions of middle-class Americans will wake up and realize what a ruse this has been, how they have been scammed by both the insurance industry and politicians. Whether that comes sooner or later spells the difference between savings now or later.
I'd bet on later.
A link that discusses the issue: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072707S.shtml
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Freakonomics: Crime and Abortion
Last week I was in a conversation with my son-in-law and he pointed out that in the book, Freakonomics, there is a hypothesis that Roe v. Wade actually is responsible for the lower crime rate of these times.
Of course, this is a delicate matter to discuss and further, cause-effect in a hypothesis like that is bound to create controversy.
The website, The Ornery American, has this essay with this statement: the fetuses that were aborted, had they been born, would have become children who were statistically the most likely group to become criminals. Raised by single mothers, in poverty, with genes that might not provide them with much ability to foresee the longterm consequences of impulsive actions.
The author, Orson Scott Card, admits that what he is saying is tantamount to genocide: Purifying the race by preventing the birth of the class of people who are most likely to degrade the quality of life for the rest of us. So few would have dared even suggest such a thing in 1973; but a group of judges decided to perform this eugenics experiment on the American people, and now we're seeing the results.
Card refers to the book by Levitt and Dubner for the data on this. The data is there but the cause-effect of the facts can be debated, and Card offers his own opinion.
What I find interesting is that the right-wing of the political spectrum is often both anti-abortion and anti-crime. I wonder how many of them know that, according to data, the two go hand-in-hand?
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Freedom of Speech in Peril: Tories Among Us
In my previous post we read of a 74-year-old man who was 'arrested' for selling 'Impeach Bush' buttons at a farmer's market. What happened to Freedom of Speech, the First Amendment to the Constitution. Dictators, kings, and other scoundrels fear it and suppress it mercilessly.
As a child hearing my teacher telling the story of the American Revolution, I would visualize those early papers in the Colonies nailed to lamp posts and trees which spoke of defying the king of England and his soldiers. Brave men nailing them, more brave authors. Sedition was the crime; death the sentence.
As we slide up the history time line a few hundred years to our day, we find curious Tories among the American populace these days. The Tory of the Revolutionary War days believed that the King's authority was supreme and superseded that of the Parliament. How interesting that today, here in 'the colonies,' that same argument continues.
Lately, many Americans are alarmed at the ever-expanding powers of the Executive Branch of our government. Many believe that the term, 'executive privilege,' is tantamount to limitless monarchical authority.
Some Americans are confused by the statements of President Bush, especially when he speaks of 'bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.' Some ask: what kind of freedom, what type of democracy?
Some Americans are brave enough to publicly question the wisdom of the leaders, the President and Vice-President, the Congress. Many Americans, blinded by the fresh images of 9-11, cheered President Bush's preemptive invasion of Iraq back in March of 2003. They were misled by the propaganda that falsely linked Saddam Hussein to the attacks of September 11, 2001. There are still Americans who believe that.
Nonetheless, some Americans spoke out against such an invasion. I was one of them. And I was severely criticized for my speech. My phone rang off the hook after I had written a letter to the editor of The Blade questioning the wisdom of such an invasion. I was jeered and called un-American as I carried a 'No War' sign on street corners. Tories, indeed.
Apparently there are fewer and fewer Tories today, four years later, yet they have not all gone away. They wait in ambush in dark alleys and under the shrubs. They blindly follow authoritarian figures no matter where they are led. There must be some sort of satisfaction that they derive out of this, a cathartic akin to a baby's pacifier. Presumably these folks find comfort in a power-figure, in the status quo. Tories.
A short while ago, a friend of mine wrote his own letter to the editor critical of the 'imperial presidency' that he observed of the Bush/Cheney reign. As with me, his telephone answering machine recorded the verbal blast of one of those Tories for what he had written. Freedom of speech. My friend used his Caller ID and called back. Rather shocked by the return call, the Tory continued his rage and hung up, not permitting the author to speak. A second call-back resulted in profanity and the slamming of the receiver once again.
Tories hiding in dark alleys and under the bushes. Ready to pounce or shoot those who dare question the authority of the king. Freedom of speech apparently has limits.
As a child hearing my teacher telling the story of the American Revolution, I would visualize those early papers in the Colonies nailed to lamp posts and trees which spoke of defying the king of England and his soldiers. Brave men nailing them, more brave authors. Sedition was the crime; death the sentence.
As we slide up the history time line a few hundred years to our day, we find curious Tories among the American populace these days. The Tory of the Revolutionary War days believed that the King's authority was supreme and superseded that of the Parliament. How interesting that today, here in 'the colonies,' that same argument continues.
Lately, many Americans are alarmed at the ever-expanding powers of the Executive Branch of our government. Many believe that the term, 'executive privilege,' is tantamount to limitless monarchical authority.
Some Americans are confused by the statements of President Bush, especially when he speaks of 'bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.' Some ask: what kind of freedom, what type of democracy?
Some Americans are brave enough to publicly question the wisdom of the leaders, the President and Vice-President, the Congress. Many Americans, blinded by the fresh images of 9-11, cheered President Bush's preemptive invasion of Iraq back in March of 2003. They were misled by the propaganda that falsely linked Saddam Hussein to the attacks of September 11, 2001. There are still Americans who believe that.
Nonetheless, some Americans spoke out against such an invasion. I was one of them. And I was severely criticized for my speech. My phone rang off the hook after I had written a letter to the editor of The Blade questioning the wisdom of such an invasion. I was jeered and called un-American as I carried a 'No War' sign on street corners. Tories, indeed.
Apparently there are fewer and fewer Tories today, four years later, yet they have not all gone away. They wait in ambush in dark alleys and under the shrubs. They blindly follow authoritarian figures no matter where they are led. There must be some sort of satisfaction that they derive out of this, a cathartic akin to a baby's pacifier. Presumably these folks find comfort in a power-figure, in the status quo. Tories.
A short while ago, a friend of mine wrote his own letter to the editor critical of the 'imperial presidency' that he observed of the Bush/Cheney reign. As with me, his telephone answering machine recorded the verbal blast of one of those Tories for what he had written. Freedom of speech. My friend used his Caller ID and called back. Rather shocked by the return call, the Tory continued his rage and hung up, not permitting the author to speak. A second call-back resulted in profanity and the slamming of the receiver once again.
Tories hiding in dark alleys and under the bushes. Ready to pounce or shoot those who dare question the authority of the king. Freedom of speech apparently has limits.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
If They Arrest Them All, Will They Have Won?
Cindy Sheehan along with 45 fellow Iraq war protesters are arrested for demanding an impeachment for Bush and Cheney. Disorderly conduct. Could that 'charge' mean: conduct not befitting the normal style of citizens? I guess that the Founding Fathers were charged with that along with sedition.
What is 'normal' conduct and how do we recognize it when we see it? Complacent folks nodding off? Detached people working hard to make some money? Incurious citizens dumbed-down by propaganda?
Fascists love to arrest the so-called trouble-makers. Nixon relished the idea. Latin American prisons are filled with these identified provocateurs. So are the Russians and Chinese.
malcontents not satisfied with the status quo. Anarchists, instigators and rabble-rousers. Throw the whole lot into prison cells before the masses awaken.
What is 'normal' conduct and how do we recognize it when we see it? Complacent folks nodding off? Detached people working hard to make some money? Incurious citizens dumbed-down by propaganda?
Fascists love to arrest the so-called trouble-makers. Nixon relished the idea. Latin American prisons are filled with these identified provocateurs. So are the Russians and Chinese.
malcontents not satisfied with the status quo. Anarchists, instigators and rabble-rousers. Throw the whole lot into prison cells before the masses awaken.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Toledo Catholic Bishop Caught in Web of Deceit
Bishop Blair of the Toledo Catholic Diocese has been caught in blatant act of hypocrisy. According to an article in The Blade, "A Toledo priest who was to take over St. Rose Parish in Perrysburg — but then abruptly stepped away from the new post — has been placed on a sabbatical after a “consensual but inappropriate” relationship with a woman, the Toledo diocese said."
Many Catholics have been wondering why Fr. David Nuss, appointed by Bishop Blair to succeed Fr. Leyland as pastor, suddenly declined the new post. Now the truth is known. Not only that truth, but the fact that the bishop knew about this 'affair' back in January, seven months before he appointed Nuss to the position.
The Blade article continues: "But just why the diocese revealed the information yesterday is baffling and frustrating, said Joan Foster, a longtime St. Rose parishioner. Bishop Leonard Blair “knew this in January and now he pretends this is brand new news? Aren’t we Christians? Isn’t truth one of our most important things?” she asked."
Would 'cover-up' be the operative term here? Of course, the Toledo Diocese is up to its ears in cover-up, especially in priest sexual abuse issues in the diocese. It is a pattern of behavior that once served the hierarchy of the local church quite well. Until it all unravelled.
The Blade continues: "Claudia Vercellotti, local coordinator of SNAP — the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests — earlier had been contacted by the advocate for the woman and said she also “tried to get answers” from the bishop about his plans for the priest.“Shame on the bishop,” she said. “He owes the community answers.”"
One more interesting note about all of this is the fact that Fr. Leyland wanted to continue to serve as pastor of St. Rose Parish but was forced out by Blair because Leyland had voiced some strong opinions about the Catholic hierarchy. Now this.
Oh well, what a wicked web we weave...
Many Catholics have been wondering why Fr. David Nuss, appointed by Bishop Blair to succeed Fr. Leyland as pastor, suddenly declined the new post. Now the truth is known. Not only that truth, but the fact that the bishop knew about this 'affair' back in January, seven months before he appointed Nuss to the position.
The Blade article continues: "But just why the diocese revealed the information yesterday is baffling and frustrating, said Joan Foster, a longtime St. Rose parishioner. Bishop Leonard Blair “knew this in January and now he pretends this is brand new news? Aren’t we Christians? Isn’t truth one of our most important things?” she asked."
Would 'cover-up' be the operative term here? Of course, the Toledo Diocese is up to its ears in cover-up, especially in priest sexual abuse issues in the diocese. It is a pattern of behavior that once served the hierarchy of the local church quite well. Until it all unravelled.
The Blade continues: "Claudia Vercellotti, local coordinator of SNAP — the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests — earlier had been contacted by the advocate for the woman and said she also “tried to get answers” from the bishop about his plans for the priest.“Shame on the bishop,” she said. “He owes the community answers.”"
One more interesting note about all of this is the fact that Fr. Leyland wanted to continue to serve as pastor of St. Rose Parish but was forced out by Blair because Leyland had voiced some strong opinions about the Catholic hierarchy. Now this.
Oh well, what a wicked web we weave...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
