Saturday, December 30, 2006

John Edwards for President!

I'm really happy John Edwards is running for president again. Please visit his site, John Edwards for President. I learned a lot about him when I was supporting him in the last elections, and though I didn't agree with his position on every single issue, I found his proposed "Plan for America" to be pretty much in line with most of my thinking. In the two or three years since then he's gotten more experience and perspective, and his ideas about what needs to be done have gotten even better. I think he's eminently qualified, by virtue of his honesty, values, intelligence, and ability to coordinate teams of experts, and I believe he'd make a great leader ~ vote for him in 2008!

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Border Fence?

I was just reading that Mexico's president, Vicente Fox, is criticizing the United States for authorizing the building of a fence along our border, even comparing it to the Berlin Wall. Ummm... Mr. Fox... the Berlin Wall was built to keep people in so they wouldn't be exposed to the "corrupting influences of the capitalistic west," and to keep people out for pretty much the same reason. People were rarely allowed to cross, and getting permission from the government was extremely difficult. In contrast, our border with Mexico has plenty of crossing points, through which people can cross both ways easily - all they have to do is check in. We're not building this wall in an Orwellian effort to keep people in or out, merely to steer them toward the gates so we can keep track of who's coming and going - its purpose is nothing like that of the Berlin Wall.

Look at it from our perspective. Imagine that your house had no walls, and strangers kept walking through. You'd expect that they'd at least stop and ask to come in, but they seem to have no respect, so they just keep sneaking in uninvited, and when confronted, pretend that they're the ones who are wronged! Wouldn't you want to build some walls to protect your home and family? Well, our nation is our home, and our citizens are our family, and your people have been walking (and climbing, and tunneling...) right into our home uninvited for long enough now. There are millions of you here, uninvited, already, and there is, after all, this terrorist problem; so we've simply decided to build some walls and insist that you knock on the door and identify yourself when you come to visit. Assuming our house isn't already full of guests, and we're in the mood for some company, We'll probably welcome you with open arms. Thank you very much.

Your friendly neighbor to the north...

Daniel

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

"When war is on the horizon, follow the money"

Hello,

I ran across this article in the Seattle Post Intelligencer, and thought it would be appropriate to re-post it here. Most of us know this already, it's pretty basic capitalist economics, but I think many of us seldom think about it. Perhaps, when we exercise our right to vote, we can cast it in such a way that it will have some impact on the way things are - I don't suppose they'll put "Reshape our foreign and environmental policies in such a way as to foster peace among men and sanity in our treatment of the planet" on the ballot in 2008, but... well, do what you can.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

When war is on the horizon, follow the money

GARY FERDMAN AND MYRIAM MIEDZIAN
GUEST COLUMNISTS

Pop quiz: Who founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq?

A. A prominent Iraqi political exile.

B. Bruce Jackson, former Lockheed Martin vice president

C. Neoconservatives William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz.

Answer: b.

What does this mean? To understand our nation's foreign policy, including military interventions, follow the money.

This should come as no surprise. Our country is built on the profit motive; we proved its effectiveness by outlasting the Soviet Union.

While Americans understand that making money motivates McDonald's or Wal-Mart, and some are concerned about businesses donating large sums to influence politicians, most are unaware of how the profit motive helps shape U.S. foreign policy.

This is caused in part by our leaders draping decisions, especially wars, in patriotism. Take Iraq; President Bush leads Americans to believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, has weapons of mass destruction, and threatens our national security. Once he invades Iraq, any questioning is portrayed as endangering our troops and homeland.

By the time most Americans realize that none of it is true, thousands of young soldiers are killed or maimed and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars are flowing to often incompetent, politically connected Pentagon contractors.

For most decent, caring Americans it is almost unthinkable that the profit motive played a significant role in putting our soldiers in harm's way. It is painful to acknowledge that we have been lied to, and to ask, why? Why was this war started? What role did our president's, vice president's, and secretary of state's close ties to the oil industry play? Which powerful American companies stood to profit?

Bruce Jackson founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq in 2002, a few months after retiring from Lockheed Martin. In 2001, he and other members of the neocon Project for a New American Century wrote to President Bush stating that "American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means." A year earlier, Jackson had chaired the subcommittee that produced the Republican Party's foreign policy plank that George Bush ran on in 2000.

Any chance that the views Jackson promoted had something to do with the billions that Lockheed Martin pockets thanks to the war?

For war profiteers, soldiers returning maimed or in caskets, and a $500 billion Pentagon budget paid for by the taxes of ordinary citizens, are externalities -- costs and consequences borne by others.

There is nothing new about weapons manufacturers encouraging wars and profiteering from them.

During the Civil War, President Lincoln stated that those profiteering from defective weapons "ought to have their devilish heads shot off."

The role of weapons manufacturers in creating the tensions that led to World War I is well documented, and no doubt influenced President Roosevelt's 1934 message to Congress that "the uncontrolled activities of the manufacturers, and merchants of engines of destruction," were a menace to world peace.

Profiteering was so common during WWII that then-Sen. Harry Truman became a national hero by bringing to heel war contractors whose waste and inefficiency threatened the war effort.

In his famous farewell address, President Eisenhower warned the nation of the "undue influence" of the military-industrial complex, and the need to control it.

As the war in Iraq grinds on at a cost of more than $250 million per day, and another contractor-heavy organization, the Iran Policy Committee, calls for a pre-emptive strike against Iran, there is a dire need to act on his warning.

Just as government food inspection and child labor laws were enacted to protect us against the worst excesses of capitalist exploitation, our government must assure that corporate interests do not trump the national interest in foreign policy.

Pentagon contractors' congressional allies routinely defeat or bury in committee initiatives that could curtail war profiteering. This June, for example, all 55 Senate Republicans voted to kill an amendment strengthening laws governing waste, fraud and abuse in defense (43 of 45 Democrats voted for it).

In his farewell address, Eisenhower called for "an alert and knowledgeable citizenry" to stand up to the military industrial complex. Isn't it time to heed his call and demand that our representatives rein in the war profiteers?

Friday, July 21, 2006

The Israeli-Palestinian Thing

Okay, so this is my understanding of this whole Israeli-Palestinian thing. IF the facts are as I believe them to be, and have concluded them to be after reading the news about the middle east for some thirty-odd years. There are roughly two distinct viewpoints on this matter, as evidenced most glaringly if one reads several publications from both sides of the political spectrum, the 'left' and the 'right.' Leftist sources would repeatedly blame Israel for being heavy-handed, right-wing publications consistently insist Israel is only defending itself against terrorist attacks, and trying earnestly to avoid 'collateral damage.' In my humble and perhaps uninformed opinion (always open to new information that might change it), The truth is probably more accurately represented (though still perhaps not very objective) in the right-wing publications, because of one glaring omission from most of the more liberal articles: the undeniable and insurmountable fact that the 'terrorists' target civilians with their suicide bombings and their rockets, refusing to participate in political solutions. This fact alone (and there are many others, such as the fact that they have no legitimacy in negotiations as they are not governments and can't control their own factions anyway...) renders whatever arguments they might have rhetorical. So...

A World Court, or some such international body, granted Israel a homeland in 1948 by dividing up some land in Palestine. This same international body apparently made no provisions, or at least not any adequate or viable ones, about what was to happen to the displaced "Palestinians," and the nations of the Arab community didn't invite them into their various countries, so they were in effect relegated to some smaller areas within their original lands. A situation ripe for revolution. Then there was this big dispute between religious groups about who got to have control over some religious sites, too. That didn't help. Religion rarely does.

Hostility grew, and in 1967 Israel was attacked by most of their neighbors. They kicked ass, and occupied some of the surrounding territory in order to prevent further attacks. The defeated people, the Palestinians, have apparently refused to accept either the partitioning of their land or their subsequent defeat in '67, and continue attacking Israel. Having little in the way of resources, and no plan, or even thought, for mutual peaceful coexistence, they resort to sending suicide bombers and launching crude rockets to kill Israeli civilians. For years various Palestinian groups espoused terrorism against civilians as a valid path to accomplishing their goals - they meant it, too, and suited actions to words by conducting a seemingly endless string of atrocities. Israel then continues in its efforts to prevent the attacks on its citizens, eventually becoming a rather onerous burden to the Palestinian people - who unfortunately, and for some unfathomable reason, are unwilling to curb the more violent elements in their society. I avoid saying unable, as such groups couldn't exist without the support, tacit or overt, of the people.

International outcry over the inevitable civilian casualties caused by Israel's aggressive campaign to stop the bombing (where was the outcry over the terrorist bombings?...) eventually pressures Israel into withdrawing from Gaza and parts of the West Bank in an effort to loosen the tensions, and as an indication of their intentions to seek a negotiated two-state solution - but the attacks don't stop. Note here that the civilian casualties caused by Israel were collateral damage (I know, that's politically incorrect, but that never stopped me from telling it like it is) that occurred in spite of efforts to minimize it, and in spite of the fact that the various terrorist groups embed themselves in areas with high civilian populations, or in mosques or other religious sites, using them as shields, and their deaths or destruction as anti-Israeli propoganda, while the innocent civilians killed by the Palestinians were targeted.

In the final analysis it all seems pretty cut and dried, to me. Though there are almost certainly some very valid complaints about the way Israel has treated the Palestinians, these complaints need to be pursued through normal political channels, negotiation, appeals to international bodies, communication, education, illumination, and other peaceful means, to the fullest extent possible. Cripes, hire a Madison Avenue advertising firm to pitch your cause, they can sell darn near anything! If, however, at some point, the level of frustration with the situation and the lack of progress becomes too much to bear, and the Palestinians and their various factions decide they must resort to violence to achieve their ends, then so be it. They have chosen war, and they must be prepared to pay the price. I guess that's the case - they did, after all, elect Hamas, a violent terrorist group, to run their country. What were they thinking?

What, Israel is supposed to sit there while people blow up on the streets and rockets come raining in a few times a day? Uh uh. I'm not saying Israel hasn't made its share of mistakes, I'm just saying that by employing terrorist tactics as the Palestinian groups have done countless times, targeting innocent civilians, is completely unacceptable. It not only renders any legitimate argument they might have had moot or irrelevant, but also invites severe retribution - and the hellish cost of war will be paid by innocent civilians on both sides. It's about time the Palestinian people woke up and realized that they must turn away from the violence promoted by their radical elements, and convince each other that they must pursue peaceful strategies to accomplish their objectives.

In the end it's their choice, though - and if they choose violence, then it's pretty inevitable that they're going to reap what they sow. If that sounds callous, it's not. It isn't as if I don't sympathize and empathize with the plight of the Palestinians, I do, conditions are so bad there I can't even imagine living like they do, under occupation, with a collapsed economy, a history of massive corruption in their various "governments," and so on. But I also sympathize and empathize with the plight of the Israelis... and they're the ones who've been on the receiving end of terrorist attacks for decades, and certainly have a right to defend themselves. There are many nuances and subtleties to all of this, I realize that it's really not quite as cut and dried as this, but I maintain my opinion that it's up to the Palestinians and the other elements that support terrorism (attacking civilians to instill terror in a populace in order to achieve your political goals) to put a stop to this insanity. Then, AFTER the killing stops, we can talk about what Israel needs to do to be a good neighbor to its Palestinian brothers and sisters.

Brief history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Your thoughts?

P.S. (7/30/2006): Just found an article in the Washington Post that explains the legal basis for Israel's response.

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Illegal Aliens - America's 21st Century Slave Class

My buddy Rose just sent me a link to this article, which really got my attention and made me think about the implications of this ugly situation. The "corporate mindset" of our nation has allowed us to fail to see, or worse, ignore and do nothing about, the existence of this slave class of people in our culture, and it's causes and effects. Frosty Woodridge, the author of this article (published at Rense.com), examines the phenomenon with relentless logic, and draws some ominous conclusions.

I'm for my buddy Dave's solution - just do away with borders and national identity, let's just all be "people" together on the planet who care about ourselves and each other and live in harmony (well, that's paraphrased, but you get the idea - "Can't we all just get along?"). Well, things seem to be going to hell in a handbasket all over our nice little planet here, so apparently the answer to that is "No, sorry, we can't. We have to act like immature hormonal teenagers for a little while longer, hurt each other some more, and ourselves... maybe after we get tired of killing each other, and being killed, and using each other, and being used (etc.), and have some epiphany that shows us how childishly we're behaving, we'll stop the hatred and the killing and learn how to get along, but for now, we're just not ready yet. But thanks for asking"

God, how I wish the people with real power on this planet would "get it." Okay, I'll keep praying.

:~)

Thursday, June 08, 2006

A Blog Around the Clock...

Hi!

My greatly admired and erudite friend Bora Zivkovic has started a science blog! It's called A Blog Around the Clock... you should check it out, explore. Bora has a broad perspective and a penetrating mind, he'll no doubt make you think. Check out his other older blogs, too (they're linked to on A Blog Around the Clock).

Have a fine day...

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

In Search of Balance

Hi!

I haven't written anything in here for a while... it's not because I haven't had anything to say, it's more that I've had too much to say! I get overwhelmed by current events and can't decide where to start, what to include in my rant, what to leave out, what's relevant or superfluous, and so on. I find myself in awe of both the complexity and the simultaneous simplicity of many of the issues that face us today. It's that old paradox thing again.

On immigration, for instance, it seems so obvious that we should secure our borders immediately and effectively, work out some viable immigration policy that allows honest people to come here and work, figure out a humane way to deal with the millions of illegal immigrants that are already here, and institute policies that prevent employers from taking unfair advantage of people by paying them substandard wages and denying them what we consider to be the basic rights of employees (social security, some form of health insurance, and so on). Each one of these seemingly simple concepts, though, is incredibly complicated when one considers the details of implementing them. As with so many other issues, extremists on both sides of the argument stretch their credibility far beyond the cracking point and incur our comtempt for their narrow-mindedness. In their attempts to make their point they exaggerate, twist, ignore or deny conflicting evidence or facts, muddy the waters with unfounded assumptions and conclusions, and obfuscate things until we've lost sight of the big picture. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could break out of our adversarial paradigm and learn to cooperate in sincere efforts to address problems.

It's the same with almost every dillema that faces us - we polarize the issues, separating one 'side' from the other, building walls where none need exist and knocking down any bridges that might contaminate the pure fundamentalist vision of one group with that of the other, frustrating any efforts at compromise, and insuring our continued imprisonment in the cages we've created for ouselves.

Of course I'm doing the same thing right now... trying to oversimplify a very complex situation (different people have different perceptions of what's best for all, for starters), and complicating what is essentially a simple issue (that we should just try our best to work together for the benefit of all, rather than a select few).

Okay, I'll shut up now...

Big sigh. Well, life's a constant balancing act, isn't it? And that's the way it should be, I imagine. May your search for the balance go well.


:~)aniel