I was listening to a major broadcast network news analyst and another political analyst discussing the tightness in recent presidential polls and they were coming up with all sorts of reasons why Obama might be doing worse than expected or McCain doing better than expected. They discussed matters ranging from recent drops in the price of gas to continued fall-out over the lapel pin fracas to the pace of war in Iraq. What they didn't mention at all -- not at all -- was race. Guess they didn't want to play the "race card" ... or, more to the point, they were probably afraid to bring up the subject. But for good or ill, the voters know that race is the issue lurking out there, possibly unacknowledged publicly but nevertheless present in everybody's awareness.
We won't ever be able to move past racism unless we acknowledge it and face issues relating to race head-on. That's not so much the responsibility of the candidates as it is of our news media and, especially, ourselves. (Never mind his brilliant speech in Philadelphia; Senator Obama has, after all, done more to do that than anybody ever has, just by running so successfully.) Towards that end, I commend the following column from the New York Times of August 9: "Racism and the Race," by Charles M. Blow.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 10 August 2008
31 October 2009
Legacy
We're told that retiring presidents become concerned with their legacy. Let's look at the current incumbent's legacy ....
War in Afghanistan, not only with no end in sight, but with the government we installed riven with corruption, opium production skyrocketing, the war increasingly endangering Pakistan's fragile democracy, our enemies emboldened, the Taliban and al Qaeda becoming stronger and Osama bin Laden still free.
War in Iraq, with all the rationales for invasion exposed as lies, over a million dead, deadly violence still common, ethnic partitions hardening, political reconciliation still a distant dream, Iranian influence greater than ever, widespread corruption, hundreds of billions of dollars wasted, no concept of what "victory" might look like, and no realistic exit strategy.
The nation disgraced by torture, Guantanamo, rendition, Abu Ghraib, denial of the most basic human rights, unlawful wiretaps and surveillance, obsessive secrecy, shredding of the rule of law, secret murders and untold crimes against humanity.
Shocking denial of the most pressing environmental threat to ever threaten humanity, and an almost criminal refusal to take even the most basic measures to reduce or even postpone the danger.
An appalling eagerness to take advantage of a national tragedy for narrowly partisan purposes, coupled with a squandering of a global wellspring of sympathy for our national pain so astonishingly incompetent that most of the world now fears us, holds us in contempt, and views our espoused values as hypocritical.
Ruinous energy policies which threaten the collective health of the planet and all its inhabitants, send vast amounts of the national treasure to unstable and dictatorial regimes and quite probably into the hands of our enemies, and do enormous damage to the national economy and our industrial base.
Transformation of an inherited federal budgetary surplus into the largest deficit to ever saddle an incoming president, simultaneously saddling future generations with a mountain of debt and enormous consequences for the ability of the nation to deal with emergencies and other pressing issues in the future.
Massively regressive fiscal, tax and health care policies plus encouragement of appalling corporate excesses which combine to worsen the plight of the nation's less fortunate and exacerbate the gap between the rich and everybody else.
Cynical manipulation of public opinion, the mass media and the political process to divide Americans, foster intolerance and distract the nation from issues critical to its well-being.
Utter contempt for the hallowed principles of the Republic, starting with the antidemocratic machinations which established the incumbent's administration in the first place and leading on to packing the courts with reactionary judges, Congressional maneuvers to undermine the legislative process, dictatorial assertions of unchecked executive power, and both illegal and unethical practices to drive professional judgment out of government and replace it with partisan rancor.
The list goes on and on; readers can surely add many more examples. The sum of it all is not only that this is the worst President this country has ever had, but that succeeding administrations will need to labor heroically for a long, long time to even begin to repair the damage.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 28 July 2008
War in Afghanistan, not only with no end in sight, but with the government we installed riven with corruption, opium production skyrocketing, the war increasingly endangering Pakistan's fragile democracy, our enemies emboldened, the Taliban and al Qaeda becoming stronger and Osama bin Laden still free.
War in Iraq, with all the rationales for invasion exposed as lies, over a million dead, deadly violence still common, ethnic partitions hardening, political reconciliation still a distant dream, Iranian influence greater than ever, widespread corruption, hundreds of billions of dollars wasted, no concept of what "victory" might look like, and no realistic exit strategy.
The nation disgraced by torture, Guantanamo, rendition, Abu Ghraib, denial of the most basic human rights, unlawful wiretaps and surveillance, obsessive secrecy, shredding of the rule of law, secret murders and untold crimes against humanity.
Shocking denial of the most pressing environmental threat to ever threaten humanity, and an almost criminal refusal to take even the most basic measures to reduce or even postpone the danger.
An appalling eagerness to take advantage of a national tragedy for narrowly partisan purposes, coupled with a squandering of a global wellspring of sympathy for our national pain so astonishingly incompetent that most of the world now fears us, holds us in contempt, and views our espoused values as hypocritical.
Ruinous energy policies which threaten the collective health of the planet and all its inhabitants, send vast amounts of the national treasure to unstable and dictatorial regimes and quite probably into the hands of our enemies, and do enormous damage to the national economy and our industrial base.
Transformation of an inherited federal budgetary surplus into the largest deficit to ever saddle an incoming president, simultaneously saddling future generations with a mountain of debt and enormous consequences for the ability of the nation to deal with emergencies and other pressing issues in the future.
Massively regressive fiscal, tax and health care policies plus encouragement of appalling corporate excesses which combine to worsen the plight of the nation's less fortunate and exacerbate the gap between the rich and everybody else.
Cynical manipulation of public opinion, the mass media and the political process to divide Americans, foster intolerance and distract the nation from issues critical to its well-being.
Utter contempt for the hallowed principles of the Republic, starting with the antidemocratic machinations which established the incumbent's administration in the first place and leading on to packing the courts with reactionary judges, Congressional maneuvers to undermine the legislative process, dictatorial assertions of unchecked executive power, and both illegal and unethical practices to drive professional judgment out of government and replace it with partisan rancor.
The list goes on and on; readers can surely add many more examples. The sum of it all is not only that this is the worst President this country has ever had, but that succeeding administrations will need to labor heroically for a long, long time to even begin to repair the damage.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 28 July 2008
Gift
What's the best gift imaginable?
Attended a conference a while back. My employer is usually penurious when it comes to conferences and travel for people like me. But this one was in town and my boss thought I'd somehow benefit. I didn't want to go; it was sponsored by a vendor and wasn't terribly relevant to my work. Besides, I've got lots to do, since I keep getting new responsibilities without losing any of the old ones. But orders are orders; I went.
Turns out my boss was right, just not in the way she thought.
Towards the end of the conference I was sitting in a fairly crowded lecture hall. A late arrival found the seat next to me. I don't much remember what the presentation was about, but I certainly remember the conversation that my neighbor and I fell into after it ended. Polite noncommittal comments on the presentation slid into professional issues and rapidly branched seamlessly into myriad topics ranging from current events to literature to baseball to history to music to electoral politics to family histories and on and on. The neighbor finally had to run to catch the train home to a distant city. Then exploratory e-mails wondering if the conversation was a fluke, followed by more e-mails, more exchanges, more sharing over a gulf of two hundred miles that confirmed a simpatico soul.
Sometimes the origins of true friendship stretch back into a dimly remembered past, seemingly as much a part of the firmament of life as the earth beneath your feet. Sometimes it grows slowly, framed in familiarity, creeping silently into your life until some anomalous event suddenly reveals the bond's strength. Or it can be forged in compelling shared experiences. And sometimes it bursts forth from a vacuum with breathtaking abruptness.
However it comes, it's a gift almost beyond compare. Friends are good. Very good.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 3 July 2008
I just don't get it
But then, I'm old.
Got my 16 year old a cell phone a while back. Unlimited calls within network, and a generous allotment for prime-time out of network calls. No good; it didn't include unlimited texting.
"But you can call," says I.
"Daaaaaaaad," says she, clearly frustrated by my ignorance of all matters significant.
Despite exhortations to be prudent, if not miserly, texting still occurred, month after month. Recriminations.
Back to the provider; signed up for unlimited texting within network, and what looked to me to be a generous ration of texting outside of network. Kid agrees to bear the cost for any over that amount. First month's bill with the texting service comes today. 178 messages out of network over and above that generous allotment.
"Pay up," says I.
"Daaaaaaaad,: says she, with that exasperated, dismissive voice only teens can master.
I just don't get it. But then, I'm old. And getting older.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 2 July 2008
Got my 16 year old a cell phone a while back. Unlimited calls within network, and a generous allotment for prime-time out of network calls. No good; it didn't include unlimited texting.
"But you can call," says I.
"Daaaaaaaad," says she, clearly frustrated by my ignorance of all matters significant.
Despite exhortations to be prudent, if not miserly, texting still occurred, month after month. Recriminations.
Back to the provider; signed up for unlimited texting within network, and what looked to me to be a generous ration of texting outside of network. Kid agrees to bear the cost for any over that amount. First month's bill with the texting service comes today. 178 messages out of network over and above that generous allotment.
"Pay up," says I.
"Daaaaaaaad,: says she, with that exasperated, dismissive voice only teens can master.
I just don't get it. But then, I'm old. And getting older.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 2 July 2008
No refuge from guns
Today we learned that the Bush administration wants to let people carry loaded, concealed guns in national parks (click here for the news article). This letter is in reply.
To the editor, New York Times:
Permitting guns into National Parks is an incredibly bad idea. Poachers will be delighted. So will the deranged predators, the rapists, the thieves, the sociopaths who prey upon innocent people. But for the rest of us, it’s a recipe for tragedy.
The NRA tells us guns will make parks safer. Wrong. Department of Justice figures clearly show that the innocent are far, far more likely to be the victims of gun violence than the beneficiaries. In 2004, a fairly typical year, private citizens used their guns to kill 170 criminals. Criminals used their guns to kill 11,624 innocent victims. What makes anybody think that appalling ratio will somehow be reversed if we allow guns into our national parks?
When people come to National Parks, they’re looking for respite, for peace and quiet, for the simpler joys of our natural world. They want to get away from the violence and tension of their workaday world. Let’s not ruin it for them, for all of us.
Update: In 2009, President Obama signed into law a provision permitting guns to be carried in national parks.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 30 May 2008
To the editor, New York Times:
Permitting guns into National Parks is an incredibly bad idea. Poachers will be delighted. So will the deranged predators, the rapists, the thieves, the sociopaths who prey upon innocent people. But for the rest of us, it’s a recipe for tragedy.
The NRA tells us guns will make parks safer. Wrong. Department of Justice figures clearly show that the innocent are far, far more likely to be the victims of gun violence than the beneficiaries. In 2004, a fairly typical year, private citizens used their guns to kill 170 criminals. Criminals used their guns to kill 11,624 innocent victims. What makes anybody think that appalling ratio will somehow be reversed if we allow guns into our national parks?
When people come to National Parks, they’re looking for respite, for peace and quiet, for the simpler joys of our natural world. They want to get away from the violence and tension of their workaday world. Let’s not ruin it for them, for all of us.
Update: In 2009, President Obama signed into law a provision permitting guns to be carried in national parks.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 30 May 2008
A key to unlocking a vital door to peace
The key to nearly the full range of conflicts in the Middle East is the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict which establishes a viable Palestinian state and leads to a secure Israel, thereby removing a casus belli within the Middle East and leading ultimately to the furtherance of regional prosperity and peace. I've become increasingly convinced that the political forces holding that key reside in America and shape the direction of American policy towards the region.
In that light, I recommend an opinion piece appearing in today's New York Times by Jeffrey Goldberg, a correspondent for The Atlantic, who argues that the long-range interests of Israel depend upon the emergence of a Palestinian state and that American supporters of Israel must come to realize what many Israelis already know, that the Israel that they value cannot continue to exist unless the emergence of such a state is encouraged.
Goldberg's column can be found through this link to the Times.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 18 May 2008
In that light, I recommend an opinion piece appearing in today's New York Times by Jeffrey Goldberg, a correspondent for The Atlantic, who argues that the long-range interests of Israel depend upon the emergence of a Palestinian state and that American supporters of Israel must come to realize what many Israelis already know, that the Israel that they value cannot continue to exist unless the emergence of such a state is encouraged.
Goldberg's column can be found through this link to the Times.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 18 May 2008
Restraining the four horsemen of the Apocalypse
George W. Bush is a master at redefining the bottom. Every time it's seemed that he's plumbed the lowest levels of leadership, he discovers ways to slide even deeper into the muck at the bottom. Today in Israel he did it again.
"Some seem to believe," he said, "that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement."
Like much of what he says, this has a patina of sensibility to it. But as usual, that thin patina proves to be only camouflage for demagoguery.
What's he really saying here? That we shouldn't negotiate with our adversaries simply because they are, well, our adversaries? How, pray tell, is it otherwise possible to resolve conflicts, save by annihilation? Should we negotiate only with our friends, with people we find agreeable? Much help that is in resolving disputes.
The real world is filled with conflict. The quality that separates civilization from barbarism isn't the lack of conflict, but the ability to deal with conflict without resorting to violence and coercion. Negotiation is the tool for resolving conflicts. The only tool. Yes, that means talking with adversaries, even negotiating with them. But it's infinitely better than the desolation of war.
The easy route, the cheap route, the cowardly route, the barbaric route, is the one Bush would use. Negotiation is the more difficult, the more courageous, the more honorable ... but ultimately, the only successful way to resolve conflicts and still restrain the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 15 May 2008
Bush should be ashamed. But he's not, so his misguided approach must be condemned.
"Some seem to believe," he said, "that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement."
Like much of what he says, this has a patina of sensibility to it. But as usual, that thin patina proves to be only camouflage for demagoguery.
What's he really saying here? That we shouldn't negotiate with our adversaries simply because they are, well, our adversaries? How, pray tell, is it otherwise possible to resolve conflicts, save by annihilation? Should we negotiate only with our friends, with people we find agreeable? Much help that is in resolving disputes.
The real world is filled with conflict. The quality that separates civilization from barbarism isn't the lack of conflict, but the ability to deal with conflict without resorting to violence and coercion. Negotiation is the tool for resolving conflicts. The only tool. Yes, that means talking with adversaries, even negotiating with them. But it's infinitely better than the desolation of war.
The easy route, the cheap route, the cowardly route, the barbaric route, is the one Bush would use. Negotiation is the more difficult, the more courageous, the more honorable ... but ultimately, the only successful way to resolve conflicts and still restrain the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 15 May 2008
Bush should be ashamed. But he's not, so his misguided approach must be condemned.
Keeping my fingers crossed
The process was exhausting -- a day and a half of being "on" 100% of the time t'ain't easy for me -- but I like the people, the position, the place and the institution.
Now it's down to hoping they like me. And remembering that there are a couple of other candidates probably thinking and feeling the same thing I am.
Tick, tick, tick, tick.
Funny thing is, even if they don't want me and I end up staying where I am, there's good reason to try to build a cooperative relationship 'cause their place and mine would both benefit.
Update: Didn't get it. Didn't even get a rejection. Much more polite, I guess, to leave people hanging.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 14 May 2008
Now it's down to hoping they like me. And remembering that there are a couple of other candidates probably thinking and feeling the same thing I am.
Tick, tick, tick, tick.
Funny thing is, even if they don't want me and I end up staying where I am, there's good reason to try to build a cooperative relationship 'cause their place and mine would both benefit.
Update: Didn't get it. Didn't even get a rejection. Much more polite, I guess, to leave people hanging.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 14 May 2008
Crossing my fingers
Tomorrow and Tuesday I've got a job interview I really, really, really, really want to go well. On the short list; only two others hoping the exact same thing. Spent the whole weekend preparing. Wonder how it'll go. Wonder how I'll manage being fatalistic, waiting for the word. It would be a good job I think, but I sure do hate the process ....
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 11 May 2008
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 11 May 2008
The whole less than the sum?
Are molecules smarter than people? An argument can be made ....
Add additional molecules to a gas and they'll quickly disperse through the gas until pressure is equalized. Add additional commuters to a subway car, and they'll congregate near the doors, in effect establishing a higher pressure of commuters there than in the spaces between the doors. Most stand cheek to jowl by the doors, with few if any dispersing into lower pressures of the mid-car spaces.
This experiment is not only reproducible, but is reproduced every day, on almost every train.
Molecules, or people? You be the judge.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 7 May 2008
Add additional molecules to a gas and they'll quickly disperse through the gas until pressure is equalized. Add additional commuters to a subway car, and they'll congregate near the doors, in effect establishing a higher pressure of commuters there than in the spaces between the doors. Most stand cheek to jowl by the doors, with few if any dispersing into lower pressures of the mid-car spaces.
This experiment is not only reproducible, but is reproduced every day, on almost every train.
Molecules, or people? You be the judge.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 7 May 2008
Windy disconnect
On Saturday, a horribly destructive cyclone hit Burma. Two days later, Laura Bush declared that the U.S. stands ready to send "substantial" disaster assistance to Burma provided its government plays nice. That's about as long as it took after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast for her husband to make his famous flyover of devastated New Orleans as he flew home to Washington after vacationing in Texas. If Burma's autocrats follow his schedule, they're due on Wednesday to compliment the leader of their emergency response effort for doing "a heck of a job."
The obvious question for the first lady is how well any "substantial" American aid to Burma would compare to the inadequate and dilatory assistance her husband's administration has provided to New Orleans. Put another way, one wonders if even Burma's autocratic government beat the Bush administration's sorry record of succoring its stricken communities.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 5 May 2008
The obvious question for the first lady is how well any "substantial" American aid to Burma would compare to the inadequate and dilatory assistance her husband's administration has provided to New Orleans. Put another way, one wonders if even Burma's autocratic government beat the Bush administration's sorry record of succoring its stricken communities.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 5 May 2008
When does life begin?
In a recent forum on faith in Pennsylvania, both Democratic candidates were asked whether they thought life begins at conception, and both accepted an erroneous assumption that has skewed and inflamed the national debate over abortion ever since the issue became prominent. Life is a continuum; it does not begin at conception but began at the beginning. If we all understood that, we might be able to begin finding a way to successfully address the divisiveness of abortion and abortion rights issues in our culture.
Okay, what do I mean? Biology 101. All organisms which reproduce sexually alternate between haploid and diploid generations. A haploid cell or organism has but one set of chromosomes; a diploid has two. With humans, the people we see walking around are the diploid generation; the vast majority of our cells are diploid while our sperm and eggs are our haploid generation. In sexual reproduction, two haploid individuals join to form one diploid individual ... which, upon maturity, spends much of its time trying to find another diploid individual with which to share the haploid individuals it is producing and thereby form diploid zygotes which grow up to be mature diploid individuals, and so on. In some species, such as all mammals, the diploid generation is the one we notice the most. In others, the haploid is the more obvious.
But in one important sense, it doesn't matter which generation attracts our notice, for they're both part of an unending continuum which stretches back to the origins of life and this is true whether you are a firm believer in the validity of creationist doctrine or of evolutionary theory. Individual lives may end, but in every case their beginnings stretch in an unbroken chain back across countless generations to the origin of life, and forward through their progeny to the end of time (at least, as earthly life experiences it).
Conception thus represents nothing more (nor less) than a recombination of genetic material occurring when two haploid individuals join to form a single diploid individual. It is no more a beginning of life than when a diploid individual creates haploid individuals (a process which happens without our conscious knowledge), but is just an alternation of forms occurring repeatedly in an unending continuum.
Life does not begin at conception.
And that has profound implications for the social and political debate over abortion and abortion rights, as the question shifts away from when life "begins" to a determination of when we should recognize a new diploid generation of our species as an individual with "inalienable rights." And that question is one of interpretation, over which people of good will and sincere beliefs may honestly disagree.
But more on that in another posting.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 17 April 2008
Okay, what do I mean? Biology 101. All organisms which reproduce sexually alternate between haploid and diploid generations. A haploid cell or organism has but one set of chromosomes; a diploid has two. With humans, the people we see walking around are the diploid generation; the vast majority of our cells are diploid while our sperm and eggs are our haploid generation. In sexual reproduction, two haploid individuals join to form one diploid individual ... which, upon maturity, spends much of its time trying to find another diploid individual with which to share the haploid individuals it is producing and thereby form diploid zygotes which grow up to be mature diploid individuals, and so on. In some species, such as all mammals, the diploid generation is the one we notice the most. In others, the haploid is the more obvious.
But in one important sense, it doesn't matter which generation attracts our notice, for they're both part of an unending continuum which stretches back to the origins of life and this is true whether you are a firm believer in the validity of creationist doctrine or of evolutionary theory. Individual lives may end, but in every case their beginnings stretch in an unbroken chain back across countless generations to the origin of life, and forward through their progeny to the end of time (at least, as earthly life experiences it).
Conception thus represents nothing more (nor less) than a recombination of genetic material occurring when two haploid individuals join to form a single diploid individual. It is no more a beginning of life than when a diploid individual creates haploid individuals (a process which happens without our conscious knowledge), but is just an alternation of forms occurring repeatedly in an unending continuum.
Life does not begin at conception.
And that has profound implications for the social and political debate over abortion and abortion rights, as the question shifts away from when life "begins" to a determination of when we should recognize a new diploid generation of our species as an individual with "inalienable rights." And that question is one of interpretation, over which people of good will and sincere beliefs may honestly disagree.
But more on that in another posting.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 17 April 2008
Read Krugman, think globally, act locally
As is usual, Paul Krugman's column today (use this link to read the original) about the sharply rising price of staple foods provides valuable insights into a vexing problem. Clearly, the problems he discusses are global. Yet it is possible for each of us to make changes which could prove very important collectively.
Krugman notes that raising meat is a lot less efficient means of producing food than raising crops for direct consumption. We don't need to become vegetarians to make a difference (although I do think it would be a great idea!), but by simply reducing the amount of meat we eat we can easily conserve arable land. Reduce demand for meat, and free land to feed others. Our dietary choices do matter globally.
Similarly, changes in our shopping behavior can make a real difference. To the extent that we increase the proportion of our food which is grown locally, we decrease the energy costs of its transportation. To the extent that we buy organically grown food, we decrease the demand for petroleum-based fertilizers. We don't need to be 100% pure to have an effect.
We can get smarter about our driving, combining errands and using alternative, more fuel efficient means of travel when feasible. Obviously we can move towards more fuel efficient cars, but perhaps just as important, we can keep cars longer and thereby reduce the resource costs of producing automobiles.
Do these things, we'll also save a good bit of money along the way. If enough of us do it, we may also redefine what living affluently means, making less wasteful practices more attractive to people around the world striving to become as affluent as we are.
We can also commit to voting for legislators and a president committed to energy conservation and intelligent usage of available resources, and also to pressuring them as candidates before their election and incumbents afterwards to work towards those goals. We can let them know that working to feed the poor of this world is a better use for our tax dollars than continuing a ruinous, illegal and counterproductive war in Iraq. It is disturbing that Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain seem so tightly wedded to ill-considered ethanol programs, but we can and should let them know that we think they're wrong on this issue, and that it matters to us.
Each of us can make a difference. Our choices matter, and if enough of us do it, our collective impact can be huge.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 8 April 2008
Krugman notes that raising meat is a lot less efficient means of producing food than raising crops for direct consumption. We don't need to become vegetarians to make a difference (although I do think it would be a great idea!), but by simply reducing the amount of meat we eat we can easily conserve arable land. Reduce demand for meat, and free land to feed others. Our dietary choices do matter globally.
Similarly, changes in our shopping behavior can make a real difference. To the extent that we increase the proportion of our food which is grown locally, we decrease the energy costs of its transportation. To the extent that we buy organically grown food, we decrease the demand for petroleum-based fertilizers. We don't need to be 100% pure to have an effect.
We can get smarter about our driving, combining errands and using alternative, more fuel efficient means of travel when feasible. Obviously we can move towards more fuel efficient cars, but perhaps just as important, we can keep cars longer and thereby reduce the resource costs of producing automobiles.
Do these things, we'll also save a good bit of money along the way. If enough of us do it, we may also redefine what living affluently means, making less wasteful practices more attractive to people around the world striving to become as affluent as we are.
We can also commit to voting for legislators and a president committed to energy conservation and intelligent usage of available resources, and also to pressuring them as candidates before their election and incumbents afterwards to work towards those goals. We can let them know that working to feed the poor of this world is a better use for our tax dollars than continuing a ruinous, illegal and counterproductive war in Iraq. It is disturbing that Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain seem so tightly wedded to ill-considered ethanol programs, but we can and should let them know that we think they're wrong on this issue, and that it matters to us.
Each of us can make a difference. Our choices matter, and if enough of us do it, our collective impact can be huge.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 8 April 2008
It went well. Maybe.
You can come away from an interview thinking "I wish I had said ...." or not.
In this case, not is better. Then you can relax; your fate is out of your hands. The people on the other side of the table have a list and as you talked, they were checking off boxes on that list. Maybe their check marks are in your favor, maybe not. But if you said what you wanted to say -- no regrets -- then it's almost immaterial whether they put their checkmarks in the "good" or "bad" boxes; you did what you wanted to do, and it's up to them to decide that's what they wanted too.
Almost immaterial. But you do want to be invited back for the second round.
At least, I do ....
Besides, I actually did like talking with them.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 4 April 2008
In this case, not is better. Then you can relax; your fate is out of your hands. The people on the other side of the table have a list and as you talked, they were checking off boxes on that list. Maybe their check marks are in your favor, maybe not. But if you said what you wanted to say -- no regrets -- then it's almost immaterial whether they put their checkmarks in the "good" or "bad" boxes; you did what you wanted to do, and it's up to them to decide that's what they wanted too.
Almost immaterial. But you do want to be invited back for the second round.
At least, I do ....
Besides, I actually did like talking with them.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 4 April 2008
Character does count
I'll admit that I'm becoming more and more dismayed about the prospects of a Clinton presidency, and to my doubts are much more about character than policy. As many have noted (check out Paul Krugman's column in yesterday's New York Times, for example), from a liberal perspective, Clinton is better on domestic issues than Obama, albeit not by much in matters that count.
But character?
Her arrival in Bosnia has already blown up in her face, thankfully. (For any who haven't heard about it, she simply lied to make herself look more heroic, and when the lie was blown apart by archived CBS footage of her arrival she tried the classic weasel of claiming she had only "misspoken;" for me and many others the episode evoked memories of George W. Bush's "flight suit moment" aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.) Somewhat less noticed are her claims to have been "instrumental" in the Northern Ireland peace process which led to the Good Friday agreement. Yet the newly released copies of her White House schedules clearly show that when Bill was dealing with Northern Ireland, Hillary wasn't involved. I am employed by an organization dedicated to promoting conflict resolution around the world, and we have an extensive library on the peace process in Northern Ireland. I checked the indices of every book on the shelf for mention of Hillary Clinton, and found only one which mentioned her, written by Gerry Adams after Bill had left the White House and Hillary had entered the Senate, and although Adams was clearly trying to curry favor with anybody who might be helpful, even he didn't describe any significant role for Hillary. As FactCheck.org notes, the list goes on: Hillary claims to have "negotiated open borders" in Macedonia, but didn't arrive until after they had been opened; her claimed role in trying the stop the Rwandan genocide was ineffective or minimal or both.
Like George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton seems to think that facts are malleable things that can be bent to passing political purposes. In short, she is a liar. And that is a character issue that matters.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 29 March 2008
But character?
Her arrival in Bosnia has already blown up in her face, thankfully. (For any who haven't heard about it, she simply lied to make herself look more heroic, and when the lie was blown apart by archived CBS footage of her arrival she tried the classic weasel of claiming she had only "misspoken;" for me and many others the episode evoked memories of George W. Bush's "flight suit moment" aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.) Somewhat less noticed are her claims to have been "instrumental" in the Northern Ireland peace process which led to the Good Friday agreement. Yet the newly released copies of her White House schedules clearly show that when Bill was dealing with Northern Ireland, Hillary wasn't involved. I am employed by an organization dedicated to promoting conflict resolution around the world, and we have an extensive library on the peace process in Northern Ireland. I checked the indices of every book on the shelf for mention of Hillary Clinton, and found only one which mentioned her, written by Gerry Adams after Bill had left the White House and Hillary had entered the Senate, and although Adams was clearly trying to curry favor with anybody who might be helpful, even he didn't describe any significant role for Hillary. As FactCheck.org notes, the list goes on: Hillary claims to have "negotiated open borders" in Macedonia, but didn't arrive until after they had been opened; her claimed role in trying the stop the Rwandan genocide was ineffective or minimal or both.
Like George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton seems to think that facts are malleable things that can be bent to passing political purposes. In short, she is a liar. And that is a character issue that matters.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 29 March 2008
Obama's speech on race
We've known for a long, long time that race is the central test of who we Americans are as a people, as a nation.
We've come a long ways since I was a child, but we've much farther to go. Perhaps we'll never reach the point I'd like to see, but how we face the question is at least as important as how far we go; indeed, the means are the more important, for they - as always - determine the ends.
In America's long history of being tested, there are signal events which stand out, illuminating our lives and beckoning us onward. One such event occurred today. Barack Obama "had to do something," we were told, to deal with the racial issues swirling around his campaign. What he did was to rise well beyond the mere political, and move our collective discussion measurably forward.
I'll say no more, save to provide here a link to the transcript of his speech, as well as a link to an editorial review of it from a prominent newspaper supporting his rival. I commend both to your attention, in the hope and belief that our nation is better for the discussion he opened today.
Update: Here are some more editorial and op-ed reactions, from the Boston Globe, L.A. Times, Tim Rutten writing in the L.A. Times, Eugene Robinson writing in the Washington Post, and Mary Schmich writing in the Chicago Tribune. And here's a YouTube link.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 19 March 2008. The original post also linked to an editorial and columns by Annette Joh-Hall and Monica Yant Kinney which appeared in the 19 March 2008 edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer, but the newspaper removed those pages.
We've come a long ways since I was a child, but we've much farther to go. Perhaps we'll never reach the point I'd like to see, but how we face the question is at least as important as how far we go; indeed, the means are the more important, for they - as always - determine the ends.
In America's long history of being tested, there are signal events which stand out, illuminating our lives and beckoning us onward. One such event occurred today. Barack Obama "had to do something," we were told, to deal with the racial issues swirling around his campaign. What he did was to rise well beyond the mere political, and move our collective discussion measurably forward.
I'll say no more, save to provide here a link to the transcript of his speech, as well as a link to an editorial review of it from a prominent newspaper supporting his rival. I commend both to your attention, in the hope and belief that our nation is better for the discussion he opened today.
Update: Here are some more editorial and op-ed reactions, from the Boston Globe, L.A. Times, Tim Rutten writing in the L.A. Times, Eugene Robinson writing in the Washington Post, and Mary Schmich writing in the Chicago Tribune. And here's a YouTube link.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 19 March 2008. The original post also linked to an editorial and columns by Annette Joh-Hall and Monica Yant Kinney which appeared in the 19 March 2008 edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer, but the newspaper removed those pages.
Another letter on the 2nd
To the editor,
New York Times
Your analysis of the Washington, D.C. gun control case before the U.S. Supreme Court (Gun Case Causes Bush Administration Rift,” March 17, 2008) is interesting, but like many stories reviewing the Second Amendment, it relies on the standard but confusing punctuation which inserts a comma between the words “Militia” and “being.”
However, examination of volume I of the Journal of the Senate of the United States and the Annals of Congress for the first Congress shows that text of the amendment actually submitted to the states for ratification lacks that comma, resulting in a sentence which clearly links the concept of militia service to the right to bear arms: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
That linkage is all the more important given the technological development of weaponry from the time of the Revolution to the modern day. In the late 18th Century, the militia relied on the same types of weapons a common citizen might possess, but the responsibilities of today’s militia -- the National Guard and the Reserves -- demands weapons nobody would suggest should be in private hands.
This is not merely an interesting grammatical distinction, for a proper understanding of the Second Amendment best serves the needs of this nation even now.
Submitted March 17, 2008
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 17 March 2008
New York Times
Your analysis of the Washington, D.C. gun control case before the U.S. Supreme Court (Gun Case Causes Bush Administration Rift,” March 17, 2008) is interesting, but like many stories reviewing the Second Amendment, it relies on the standard but confusing punctuation which inserts a comma between the words “Militia” and “being.”
However, examination of volume I of the Journal of the Senate of the United States and the Annals of Congress for the first Congress shows that text of the amendment actually submitted to the states for ratification lacks that comma, resulting in a sentence which clearly links the concept of militia service to the right to bear arms: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
That linkage is all the more important given the technological development of weaponry from the time of the Revolution to the modern day. In the late 18th Century, the militia relied on the same types of weapons a common citizen might possess, but the responsibilities of today’s militia -- the National Guard and the Reserves -- demands weapons nobody would suggest should be in private hands.
This is not merely an interesting grammatical distinction, for a proper understanding of the Second Amendment best serves the needs of this nation even now.
Submitted March 17, 2008
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 17 March 2008
The war won't go away
The war has receded from the headlines, displaced by the Presidential campaign, the credit implosion and resultant threat of recession, and the latest politicosexual contratemps in New York ... and especially the false but oft-repeated assertion that the "surge is working." Recent days have brought several grim reminders that the war won't go away, but will continue to demand our attention for quite some time to come.
First, there's the unending horror of the war itself. Yes, the number of American casualties is down, but yesterday's deadly blasts killing eight American soldiers was a distressing reminder that it continues. In fact, about as many American soldiers died over the past five full months as during the five months following George W. Bush's infamous "mission accomplished" photo-op on the U.S.S. Lincoln nearly four and a half years earlier, and quite a few more were wounded.
The horror has been even worse for Iraqis. Five were killed by a suicide bomber in Dhuluiya today and another ten in Kut, plus 16 in a bombed out bus near Basra and two political leaders in Falluja with five more killed by gunmen in Mosul. The day before, gunmen killed a doctor in Basra, a minibus bomb killed one in Baghdad, a suicide bomber blew up two in Muqdadiya, three were murdered in Mosul, and a suicide bomber killed a Sunni leader northeast of Baghdad. Last Thursday bombs killed 68 shoppers in Baghdad, on a day when other attacks killed one in the al-Waziriya district, four in Basra, and four more in Mosul. Day after day, Iraqis are being killed and maimed. Perhaps it's at a lower rate than during the worst of 2007, but let us not pretend the suffering is going away.
Meanwhile, let's face it, there's precious little evidence the Iraqis have been using the the surge as cover for forging the democratic, pluralistic government of national unity they need to create peace ... and without which, the war can never end on any terms remotely resembling real peace.
Then there's the cost. The Nobel laureate economist, Joseph Stiglitz, writing with Linda Bilmes, released a study this past week forecasting that the total cost of the war will be around $3 trillion when all the indirect costs are computed, including costs as diverse as long-term care for injured veterans and debt service costs for the massive borrowing the administration is using to finance the war. In the short term, the we're squandering treasure that could be used to address such pressing needs as funding national health care, strengthening Social Security and Medicare, improving schools, developing energy alternatives, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and balancing the budget. In the long-term, the war is seriously jeopardizing our economic future, constraining our ability to deal with other problems and handicapping us in the world economic and political arena.
And then there's the utter lack of any reasonable hope that it will end within the foreseeable future. The administration and its sycophants foresee no end to the war until the distant golden day when "victory" -- undefined and unknowable -- is finally attained.they'll be long gone while the war still drags on and poisons all aspects of national life.
As Stiglitz and Bilmes note, "the United States will be paying the price of Iraq for decades to come ... and the cost will grow the longer we remain." The time to end this awful war is now.
Note: this was orginially posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 11 March 2008
First, there's the unending horror of the war itself. Yes, the number of American casualties is down, but yesterday's deadly blasts killing eight American soldiers was a distressing reminder that it continues. In fact, about as many American soldiers died over the past five full months as during the five months following George W. Bush's infamous "mission accomplished" photo-op on the U.S.S. Lincoln nearly four and a half years earlier, and quite a few more were wounded.
The horror has been even worse for Iraqis. Five were killed by a suicide bomber in Dhuluiya today and another ten in Kut, plus 16 in a bombed out bus near Basra and two political leaders in Falluja with five more killed by gunmen in Mosul. The day before, gunmen killed a doctor in Basra, a minibus bomb killed one in Baghdad, a suicide bomber blew up two in Muqdadiya, three were murdered in Mosul, and a suicide bomber killed a Sunni leader northeast of Baghdad. Last Thursday bombs killed 68 shoppers in Baghdad, on a day when other attacks killed one in the al-Waziriya district, four in Basra, and four more in Mosul. Day after day, Iraqis are being killed and maimed. Perhaps it's at a lower rate than during the worst of 2007, but let us not pretend the suffering is going away.
Meanwhile, let's face it, there's precious little evidence the Iraqis have been using the the surge as cover for forging the democratic, pluralistic government of national unity they need to create peace ... and without which, the war can never end on any terms remotely resembling real peace.
Then there's the cost. The Nobel laureate economist, Joseph Stiglitz, writing with Linda Bilmes, released a study this past week forecasting that the total cost of the war will be around $3 trillion when all the indirect costs are computed, including costs as diverse as long-term care for injured veterans and debt service costs for the massive borrowing the administration is using to finance the war. In the short term, the we're squandering treasure that could be used to address such pressing needs as funding national health care, strengthening Social Security and Medicare, improving schools, developing energy alternatives, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and balancing the budget. In the long-term, the war is seriously jeopardizing our economic future, constraining our ability to deal with other problems and handicapping us in the world economic and political arena.
And then there's the utter lack of any reasonable hope that it will end within the foreseeable future. The administration and its sycophants foresee no end to the war until the distant golden day when "victory" -- undefined and unknowable -- is finally attained.they'll be long gone while the war still drags on and poisons all aspects of national life.
As Stiglitz and Bilmes note, "the United States will be paying the price of Iraq for decades to come ... and the cost will grow the longer we remain." The time to end this awful war is now.
Note: this was orginially posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 11 March 2008
Troubling demagoguery
Don't get me wrong. I'm not an Obama supporter, not really. My preferred candidate dropped out a while ago, and I harbor some serious questions about Barack Obama.
However, I am deeply troubled by Hillary Clinton, on a number of accounts. The latest is her hired gun's demagogic comparison of Obama's legitimate call upon Clinton to release her income tax returns with the odious witch hunt conducted by Ken Starr and the neocons of the Gingrich era.
As the New York Times lamented in an editorial back in November, the tradition of financial disclosure, and especially the release full income tax returns, is eroding. Although Senators Obama and Dodd had already released theirs, Hillary Clinton had not; the editorial noted that "primary voters should have this information while they ponder who should get their party's nomination."
The paper made a similar point in an editorial on February 15: of the leading candidates, Barack Obama is the only one who has released his full federal income tax return, "a level of disclosure," said the Times, which was "once routine for candidates."
And mind you: the Times endorsed Senator Clinton, so their criticism can hardly be viewed as unfair or partisan.
But when Senator Obama called for Senator Clinton to release her tax returns yesterday, the Clinton campaign accused Obama of "imitating Ken Starr."
Absurd attempts to deflect legitimate criticisms with baseless ad hominem attacks is the sort of scurrilous tactic we have come to expect of Dick Cheney, Carl Rove and George W. Bush. No leading Democrat should stoop to their level. That the Clinton campaign has done so is appalling, and certainly does not auger well for the kind of President she would be.
Note: this was originally posted in ketches, yaks & hawks 7 March 2008
However, I am deeply troubled by Hillary Clinton, on a number of accounts. The latest is her hired gun's demagogic comparison of Obama's legitimate call upon Clinton to release her income tax returns with the odious witch hunt conducted by Ken Starr and the neocons of the Gingrich era.
As the New York Times lamented in an editorial back in November, the tradition of financial disclosure, and especially the release full income tax returns, is eroding. Although Senators Obama and Dodd had already released theirs, Hillary Clinton had not; the editorial noted that "primary voters should have this information while they ponder who should get their party's nomination."
The paper made a similar point in an editorial on February 15: of the leading candidates, Barack Obama is the only one who has released his full federal income tax return, "a level of disclosure," said the Times, which was "once routine for candidates."
And mind you: the Times endorsed Senator Clinton, so their criticism can hardly be viewed as unfair or partisan.
But when Senator Obama called for Senator Clinton to release her tax returns yesterday, the Clinton campaign accused Obama of "imitating Ken Starr."
Absurd attempts to deflect legitimate criticisms with baseless ad hominem attacks is the sort of scurrilous tactic we have come to expect of Dick Cheney, Carl Rove and George W. Bush. No leading Democrat should stoop to their level. That the Clinton campaign has done so is appalling, and certainly does not auger well for the kind of President she would be.
Note: this was originally posted in ketches, yaks & hawks 7 March 2008
29 October 2009
Just some more random shootings in America
Nine shot in a Memphis home; six are dead. Police said that neighbors reported hearing shots but that was not uncommon in the area.
In Emory, Texas, also on Sunday, a pair of teenagers angered that the girl's parents wanted her to stop seeing each other, apparently shot the girl's parents and brothers.
Yesterday, in Ft. Collins, Colorado, a woman was convicted of ordering her ex-lover's wife to her knees and then shooting her in the head.
The carnage goes on and on and on and on. If the killers had the same intent but didn't have guns, would these murders have occurred? One can't be sure, of course, but it's a lot tougher and a lot chancier to kill people with bare hands or even knives. Does anybody honestly believe that even a fraction of the killing would be occurring if guns weren't so horribly prevalent in our country?
Note: the second story was reported in the News Tribune of Tacoma, Washington, and the third in the Las Cruces Sun News of New Mexico, but the original links are now invalid
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 7 March 2008
In Emory, Texas, also on Sunday, a pair of teenagers angered that the girl's parents wanted her to stop seeing each other, apparently shot the girl's parents and brothers.
Yesterday, in Ft. Collins, Colorado, a woman was convicted of ordering her ex-lover's wife to her knees and then shooting her in the head.
The carnage goes on and on and on and on. If the killers had the same intent but didn't have guns, would these murders have occurred? One can't be sure, of course, but it's a lot tougher and a lot chancier to kill people with bare hands or even knives. Does anybody honestly believe that even a fraction of the killing would be occurring if guns weren't so horribly prevalent in our country?
Note: the second story was reported in the News Tribune of Tacoma, Washington, and the third in the Las Cruces Sun News of New Mexico, but the original links are now invalid
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 7 March 2008
The sheriff says it all
A gunman in a jacket wordlessly opened fire inside a Wendy's today, killing a firefighter who had gone back to fetch his child's toy. "This was not a robbery. He didn't demand anything," said a spokesman for the local sheriff. "Looks like this was just another random shooting like we've seen around the United States."*
Just another day in America.
Any bets whether this gun entered circulation entirely legally?
If we're going to fight the "long war" against terrorism, why don't we focus on where the terrorism hurts us the most. Let's deny the deadliest weapons to our home-grown terrorists. Let's get rid of all privately owned handguns, assault rifles, and their like. Now.
------------------------------------
* Reported in (and paraphrased from) the New York Times, March 3, 2008
Note: this originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 3 March 2008
Just another day in America.
Any bets whether this gun entered circulation entirely legally?
If we're going to fight the "long war" against terrorism, why don't we focus on where the terrorism hurts us the most. Let's deny the deadliest weapons to our home-grown terrorists. Let's get rid of all privately owned handguns, assault rifles, and their like. Now.
------------------------------------
* Reported in (and paraphrased from) the New York Times, March 3, 2008
Note: this originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 3 March 2008
The red phone test
As you undoubtedly know by now, Hillary Clinton is running an ad in her race against Barack Obama in which the "red phone" in the White House rings during the middle of the night as the narrator reminds voters that they will decide who answers, darkly hinting that it better not be Obama.
Wrong. Hillary Clinton has already flunked the test.
The foreign policy crisis came, and she reacted the wrong way.
Time and time again she has excused her support for George W. Bush's criminal war in Iraq by saying "If I knew then what I now know, I would not have voted that way," when in fact anybody who was paying attention (and millions of us were, with millions more abroad ... and dozens more in Congress) already knew the administration's case for war was specious. Clinton didn't care what she knew; she was too busy pandering to the right. Since then, she has come to criticize the administration's abominable handling of the war, but she has never repudiated her vote, her early support for the war, or her consequent complicity for the oceans of blood that this illegal war has shed and the trillions in treasure it has cost America.
Hillary Clinton is running on her "experience." But her most important foreign policy experience was to commit a colossal mistake.
If the red phone rings, I hope it's not Hillary Clinton who answers.
Note: this originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 1 March 2008
Wrong. Hillary Clinton has already flunked the test.
The foreign policy crisis came, and she reacted the wrong way.
Time and time again she has excused her support for George W. Bush's criminal war in Iraq by saying "If I knew then what I now know, I would not have voted that way," when in fact anybody who was paying attention (and millions of us were, with millions more abroad ... and dozens more in Congress) already knew the administration's case for war was specious. Clinton didn't care what she knew; she was too busy pandering to the right. Since then, she has come to criticize the administration's abominable handling of the war, but she has never repudiated her vote, her early support for the war, or her consequent complicity for the oceans of blood that this illegal war has shed and the trillions in treasure it has cost America.
Hillary Clinton is running on her "experience." But her most important foreign policy experience was to commit a colossal mistake.
If the red phone rings, I hope it's not Hillary Clinton who answers.
Note: this originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 1 March 2008
It seems others are noticing too
The lead editorial in today's New York Times notes that Senators Obama and Clinton have maintained a distressing silence on gun control, even as the nation suffers a surge of massacres and the Republican candidates pander to the NRA.
We're waiting, Barack and Hillary. Tell the nation what you propose to do to free us form this frightening assault by domestic terrorists.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 1 March 2008
We're waiting, Barack and Hillary. Tell the nation what you propose to do to free us form this frightening assault by domestic terrorists.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 1 March 2008
Zero
That's the number of times the words "gun," guns" or "firearms" came up during the much-ballyhooed "final" debate last night between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Never mind the carnage on our streets, in our shopping malls, on our campuses, in our homes. Never mind that the radical right's candidates keep promising to protect our right to own howitzers. Never mind that the NRA's handmaidens in Congress keep assaulting what few gun control laws are on the books (the latest, to let would-be poachers and rapists carry loaded weapons into national parks on the specious theory that we'll all be safer, even though it's a well-established fact that guns are far, far more likely to be used to commit crimes than to defend victims ... and the probable reality that folks out enjoying nature probably don't really want to pack heat in case they meet well-armed criminals on the trail).
Never mind all that. The "courageous" "liberals" running for President aren't paying attention. Seemingly, all they want is the White House as a resume item.
[Note: President Obama signed the appalling national parks amendment into law.]
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks, 27 February 2008
Never mind the carnage on our streets, in our shopping malls, on our campuses, in our homes. Never mind that the radical right's candidates keep promising to protect our right to own howitzers. Never mind that the NRA's handmaidens in Congress keep assaulting what few gun control laws are on the books (the latest, to let would-be poachers and rapists carry loaded weapons into national parks on the specious theory that we'll all be safer, even though it's a well-established fact that guns are far, far more likely to be used to commit crimes than to defend victims ... and the probable reality that folks out enjoying nature probably don't really want to pack heat in case they meet well-armed criminals on the trail).
Never mind all that. The "courageous" "liberals" running for President aren't paying attention. Seemingly, all they want is the White House as a resume item.
[Note: President Obama signed the appalling national parks amendment into law.]
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks, 27 February 2008
Comment on a comment
Received a comment on yesterday's Nader post that appeared to facetiously suggest that I was suggesting that Nader shouldn't run because I thought only more conservative candidates should be allowed.
No, that's not it.
There are two basic reasons I don't think Nader should run. One is a distinct and pronounced disdain for vainglorious fools ... but hey, that's just me.
More important, to the extent that he (or any other third party candidate) is successful, he will only hurt the chances of the major party nearest him and help the one farther away. That part's obvious, but Naderites excuse it by saying that they'll "teach" the party nearest them to move in their direction, i.e., the Democrats will move left.
Wrong.
In the face of a third party threat, the major party ideologically nearest the third party will move away from it, not towards it. Consider the math. If the Democrats were to move left in order to placate Nader, they would lose more swing voters clustered around the center than they would ever gain from Nader's fringe. Nader's only effect would be to shift American politics away from his position.
Some victory, huh?
If the Naderites really wanted to change the complexion of American politics, they'd take a page from the neocons' book, and work inside the party to move it to the left, just as Gingrich and the movement conservatives bored into the Republican Party, took it over, and sent it lurching off to the right.
Face it, Nader is either a egotistical fool of monumental proportions, or a stalking horse for the far right.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 25 February 2008
No, that's not it.
There are two basic reasons I don't think Nader should run. One is a distinct and pronounced disdain for vainglorious fools ... but hey, that's just me.
More important, to the extent that he (or any other third party candidate) is successful, he will only hurt the chances of the major party nearest him and help the one farther away. That part's obvious, but Naderites excuse it by saying that they'll "teach" the party nearest them to move in their direction, i.e., the Democrats will move left.
Wrong.
In the face of a third party threat, the major party ideologically nearest the third party will move away from it, not towards it. Consider the math. If the Democrats were to move left in order to placate Nader, they would lose more swing voters clustered around the center than they would ever gain from Nader's fringe. Nader's only effect would be to shift American politics away from his position.
Some victory, huh?
If the Naderites really wanted to change the complexion of American politics, they'd take a page from the neocons' book, and work inside the party to move it to the left, just as Gingrich and the movement conservatives bored into the Republican Party, took it over, and sent it lurching off to the right.
Face it, Nader is either a egotistical fool of monumental proportions, or a stalking horse for the far right.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 25 February 2008
Didn't he do enough damage the first time?
Marx once said* "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."
He must have been talking about Ralph Nader.
-------------------------
* Okay, that's a bit of a paraphrase from his Eighteenth Brumaire, but that's how it's usually quoted. It certainly fits Ralphie.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 24 February 2008
He must have been talking about Ralph Nader.
-------------------------
* Okay, that's a bit of a paraphrase from his Eighteenth Brumaire, but that's how it's usually quoted. It certainly fits Ralphie.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 24 February 2008
February must be NRA month
Again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
The litany of death -- a peculiarly American litany of death -- continues.
February 1, Cockeysville, Maryland: A 15 year old is accused of killing his parents and two brothers. With a gun.
Groundhog's Day: Five women killed in a shopping mall in Tinley Park, Illinois. Robbery gone bad? Psychopathic misogyny? Does it matter? Five women are dead, because a murderer had a gun.
February 7, Los Angeles: A police officer, three hostages and the killer, all dead. Once again, because the murderer had a gun. Even the highly trained police SWAT team couldn't prevent it, but lost one of their own.
Same day in Kirkwood, Missouri: Another killer with a gun killed another police officer, and then invaded a City Council meeting and killed four more, including several local officials.
February 8: A killer with a gun murdered two nursing students and herself at Louisiana Technical College in Baton Rouge. Nurses are meant to save lives, not lose them to gunfire.
February 11: One high school student in Memphis allegedly shot another in a gym class, and then handed his gun to the coach. Too bad he wasn't shooting hoops instead.
Fbebruary 12: An 8th grader in Oxnard, California is the apparent victim of a hate crime; now brain dead, he is alleged to have been shot by a 15 year-old. A hater becomes a killer with a gun in his hand.
Valentine's Day at Northern Illinois University: Five college students shot to death in a lecture hall and 15 more wounded by a suicidal killer with a gun. Four guns. Four legally purchased guns. A modern day St. Valentine's Day massacre.
When are we going to get rid of the guns? The time is past for debating the issue (aside to totalrecoil: yes, that was an interesting article, albeit with major logical flaws; I'm going to respond to it soon). Intellectual arguments about the Founder's intent are fascinating, much like medieval discussions of dancing angels and pinheads, but the fact is America is hemorrhaging because of the private arsenals permeating our land. We've got to get rid of the guns and rejoin the civilized world.
It's that simple.
I just wish America's so-called leaders would break free of the NRA's evil enchantment and do it. (I know John McCain and Mike Huckabee are hopeless, but are you listening, Senators Obama and Clinton?)
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 14 February 2008
The litany of death -- a peculiarly American litany of death -- continues.
February 1, Cockeysville, Maryland: A 15 year old is accused of killing his parents and two brothers. With a gun.
Groundhog's Day: Five women killed in a shopping mall in Tinley Park, Illinois. Robbery gone bad? Psychopathic misogyny? Does it matter? Five women are dead, because a murderer had a gun.
February 7, Los Angeles: A police officer, three hostages and the killer, all dead. Once again, because the murderer had a gun. Even the highly trained police SWAT team couldn't prevent it, but lost one of their own.
Same day in Kirkwood, Missouri: Another killer with a gun killed another police officer, and then invaded a City Council meeting and killed four more, including several local officials.
February 8: A killer with a gun murdered two nursing students and herself at Louisiana Technical College in Baton Rouge. Nurses are meant to save lives, not lose them to gunfire.
February 11: One high school student in Memphis allegedly shot another in a gym class, and then handed his gun to the coach. Too bad he wasn't shooting hoops instead.
Fbebruary 12: An 8th grader in Oxnard, California is the apparent victim of a hate crime; now brain dead, he is alleged to have been shot by a 15 year-old. A hater becomes a killer with a gun in his hand.
Valentine's Day at Northern Illinois University: Five college students shot to death in a lecture hall and 15 more wounded by a suicidal killer with a gun. Four guns. Four legally purchased guns. A modern day St. Valentine's Day massacre.
When are we going to get rid of the guns? The time is past for debating the issue (aside to totalrecoil: yes, that was an interesting article, albeit with major logical flaws; I'm going to respond to it soon). Intellectual arguments about the Founder's intent are fascinating, much like medieval discussions of dancing angels and pinheads, but the fact is America is hemorrhaging because of the private arsenals permeating our land. We've got to get rid of the guns and rejoin the civilized world.
It's that simple.
I just wish America's so-called leaders would break free of the NRA's evil enchantment and do it. (I know John McCain and Mike Huckabee are hopeless, but are you listening, Senators Obama and Clinton?)
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 14 February 2008
A life well lived
Two weeks ago, and well before his time, a friend died. I've been reflecting since on him and his life, and on me and mine, and on life generally.
I say "friend" but the truth is that probably just about everybody who knew him claimed him as a friend, and with justification, for that was the sort of person he was. To know him was to like him, for not only did he personify ebullience, but he was genuinely interested in everybody he met; how could one not like him?
The simple facts of his life are enough to humble most of us. He was a distinguished professor at his state's flagship university. His works fill a bookcase; his c.v. stretched for pages. His discipline awarded him one of its highest honors for a path-breaking book. The students of his university honored him as the best teacher in the school. He found ways to meld his scholarly work with the public policy arena, working with government and the media. He was a director of one of the largest human services charitable organizations in the region. He was a founding member of a renowned choral group, and sang with two others. He was devoted to his wife (herself a distinguished professor at the same university) of three decades. He carved out time to do all sorts of things with his nieces and nephews. He loved his toys, whether they were fast cars or high tech equipment or the go-kart he built with his nephews. Most of all, I think, he loved people.
And that was a measure of the man.
Oh yes, one other little detail: he was born with bad genes, and had suffered for that mistake for years and years, undergoing numerous organ transplants, severe cardiac problems, and decades of precarious health.
A measure of the man, though, was not merely that he never let his health rob him of the pleasures and successes of life, but that he did that so well that few indeed had even a glimmering of his physical problems.
Many friends and family gathered at his home after his formal memorial service. His widow recognized that the web of his associations stretched in so many directions that few of the people there knew many of the others, even though they all had been close to him, so she asked everybody to introduce themselves. The introductions quickly became explanations of how they knew him, and then stories about him. Long before even a quarter of the people gathered had spoken, everybody in the room was laughing for the joy of having known him.
And that too was a measure of the man.
It's hard to decide what his most amazing quality was. His joie de vivre? The rare state of balance he achieved in his life? His seemingly total commitment to doing well everything he did -- especially, living? His brilliance? His extraordinary normalcy? Or his ability to be what he was, even though he stood on the doorstep of death for nearly his entire adult life yet never seemed to let that affect the joy he found in living?
A life ended far too soon, but a life lived well.
Very well.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 5 February 2009
I say "friend" but the truth is that probably just about everybody who knew him claimed him as a friend, and with justification, for that was the sort of person he was. To know him was to like him, for not only did he personify ebullience, but he was genuinely interested in everybody he met; how could one not like him?
The simple facts of his life are enough to humble most of us. He was a distinguished professor at his state's flagship university. His works fill a bookcase; his c.v. stretched for pages. His discipline awarded him one of its highest honors for a path-breaking book. The students of his university honored him as the best teacher in the school. He found ways to meld his scholarly work with the public policy arena, working with government and the media. He was a director of one of the largest human services charitable organizations in the region. He was a founding member of a renowned choral group, and sang with two others. He was devoted to his wife (herself a distinguished professor at the same university) of three decades. He carved out time to do all sorts of things with his nieces and nephews. He loved his toys, whether they were fast cars or high tech equipment or the go-kart he built with his nephews. Most of all, I think, he loved people.
And that was a measure of the man.
Oh yes, one other little detail: he was born with bad genes, and had suffered for that mistake for years and years, undergoing numerous organ transplants, severe cardiac problems, and decades of precarious health.
A measure of the man, though, was not merely that he never let his health rob him of the pleasures and successes of life, but that he did that so well that few indeed had even a glimmering of his physical problems.
Many friends and family gathered at his home after his formal memorial service. His widow recognized that the web of his associations stretched in so many directions that few of the people there knew many of the others, even though they all had been close to him, so she asked everybody to introduce themselves. The introductions quickly became explanations of how they knew him, and then stories about him. Long before even a quarter of the people gathered had spoken, everybody in the room was laughing for the joy of having known him.
And that too was a measure of the man.
It's hard to decide what his most amazing quality was. His joie de vivre? The rare state of balance he achieved in his life? His seemingly total commitment to doing well everything he did -- especially, living? His brilliance? His extraordinary normalcy? Or his ability to be what he was, even though he stood on the doorstep of death for nearly his entire adult life yet never seemed to let that affect the joy he found in living?
A life ended far too soon, but a life lived well.
Very well.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 5 February 2009
Cold-war redux
Letter in response to a Los Angeles Times article, A Cold War redux is seen on the horizon, January 29, 2008
Rather than enlighten its readers, the Times' article on U.S.-Russian relations ("A Cold War Redux Is Seen on the Horizon," Jan. 29) fosters tensions through its curiously one-sided reportage. It may well be that Bush administration officials have concluded that "Russia is now more comfortable with the U.S. as an enemy than an ally," but if so, they are merely projecting their own prejudices on the Kremlin, for there is strong evidence that it has been U.S. policies and statements which are predominantly responsible for the deterioration. It was the Bush administration which unilaterally abandoned the ABM (anti-ballistic missile) treaty; works to militarize space; plans new generations of nuclear arms; endeavors to push NATO's borders eastward and establish military relationships with countries encircling Russia; and is trying to establish ABM batteries along Russia's western borders. And it has been the Bush administration which has been pursuing reckless and destabilizing policies in the Middle East, the Caucuses and southwest Asia, regions of considerable strategic importance to Russia. Russian analysts and leaders reasonably perceive these actions and aims as threatening to Russian security, and have reacted in the regrettable but understandable ways described in the article. We should not be blind to the disturbing anti-democratic developments within Russia, but tensions would be much lower and the U.S. would be able to play a far more constructive role if our policies were better chosen, and if our news media were more objective in their reporting. Let us hope that 2009 brings us an administration which pursues a wiser course.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 29 January 2008
Rather than enlighten its readers, the Times' article on U.S.-Russian relations ("A Cold War Redux Is Seen on the Horizon," Jan. 29) fosters tensions through its curiously one-sided reportage. It may well be that Bush administration officials have concluded that "Russia is now more comfortable with the U.S. as an enemy than an ally," but if so, they are merely projecting their own prejudices on the Kremlin, for there is strong evidence that it has been U.S. policies and statements which are predominantly responsible for the deterioration. It was the Bush administration which unilaterally abandoned the ABM (anti-ballistic missile) treaty; works to militarize space; plans new generations of nuclear arms; endeavors to push NATO's borders eastward and establish military relationships with countries encircling Russia; and is trying to establish ABM batteries along Russia's western borders. And it has been the Bush administration which has been pursuing reckless and destabilizing policies in the Middle East, the Caucuses and southwest Asia, regions of considerable strategic importance to Russia. Russian analysts and leaders reasonably perceive these actions and aims as threatening to Russian security, and have reacted in the regrettable but understandable ways described in the article. We should not be blind to the disturbing anti-democratic developments within Russia, but tensions would be much lower and the U.S. would be able to play a far more constructive role if our policies were better chosen, and if our news media were more objective in their reporting. Let us hope that 2009 brings us an administration which pursues a wiser course.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 29 January 2008
So that's what they think!
You know that Gary Larson cartoon on "how birds see us"? From the perspective of a bird in a tree, the people walking below all have bull's eyes superimposed on their heads? Well, today at lunch ....
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 23 January 2008
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 23 January 2008
Oh goody, another three day weekend
I'm wondering if anybody else is noticing that the Martin Luther King, Jr. observance nationally is largely ignoring the import of King's message, and especially his economic, peace and antiwar witness? Again?
------------------------------------------
For the record: three notable examples of King's message:
Southern Christian Leadership Conference presidential address, August 16, 1967.
Acceptance speech for Nobel Peace prize, Oslo, December 10, 1964.
Speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on April 4, 1967, at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 20 January 2008
------------------------------------------
For the record: three notable examples of King's message:
Southern Christian Leadership Conference presidential address, August 16, 1967.
Acceptance speech for Nobel Peace prize, Oslo, December 10, 1964.
Speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on April 4, 1967, at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 20 January 2008
28 October 2009
Don't bother the War Post with facts
To the Washington Post:
Your editorial of January 17, "Fight in Afghanistan," unfairly denigrates the contribution of our NATO allies in Afghanistan, alleging that they are "too averse to casualties" to be as effective as U.S. troops and backing up that derogatory insinuation with a cruelly misleading comparison of the number of fatalities suffered since the invasion of Afghanistan began. However, since the middle of 2006 when NATO significantly increased its force size and shouldered a larger share of allied operations, it has been our allies, primarily from NATO, who have paid the higher blood cost, with 193 allied fatalities compared to 165 U.S. troops. Happily, I haven't heard of any of our NATO allies alleging a similar canard about the U.S.
Note: This is in response to a Washington Post editorial of January 17, 2008.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 18 January 2008
Your editorial of January 17, "Fight in Afghanistan," unfairly denigrates the contribution of our NATO allies in Afghanistan, alleging that they are "too averse to casualties" to be as effective as U.S. troops and backing up that derogatory insinuation with a cruelly misleading comparison of the number of fatalities suffered since the invasion of Afghanistan began. However, since the middle of 2006 when NATO significantly increased its force size and shouldered a larger share of allied operations, it has been our allies, primarily from NATO, who have paid the higher blood cost, with 193 allied fatalities compared to 165 U.S. troops. Happily, I haven't heard of any of our NATO allies alleging a similar canard about the U.S.
Note: This is in response to a Washington Post editorial of January 17, 2008.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 18 January 2008
And is there a follow-up question?
Four days ago, George W. Bush's National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley snuck another one by that somnolent lap dog known as "the working press."
The topic was the recent National Intelligence Estimate which found that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons policy back in 2003, a finding which significantly undercuts the administration's heated rhetoric about the supposed threat of Iranian mushroom clouds. (Recall that the NIE is a consensus document of the nation's 16 intelligence agencies.)
At a press briefing during Bush's current Middle East trip, Hadley forcefully mouthed the White House line, saying that Bush believes that "Iran was a threat before the NIE, was a threat on the day the NIE was issued, and continues to be a threat after the NIE has been issued."
Put simply, the NIE didn't change Bush's perceptions one iota.
Do you see the teensy-weensy little logical problem here? If so, you're doing better than the press corpse, because the ladies and gentlemen of the 4th Estate totally dropped the ball. Again.
What the administration is really saying is that George W. Bush assumes he knows better than all the intelligence personnel in all of our intelligence agencies, that his gut is a better source of information than the multi-billion dollar intelligence community America has painfully developed.
Okay, so how does he know? Is he withholding information from the CIA, DIA, NSA, et al.? Or does he just know? Maybe a little bird told him? Or one of his neocon buddies, the same sorts of folks who got Iraq so terribly wrong? Or is he just blowing air, figuring that if he repeats a lie often enough, we'll believe it?
Or at least the press will. Again.
Don't confuse Bush with facts; his mind is already made up.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 14 January 2008
The topic was the recent National Intelligence Estimate which found that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons policy back in 2003, a finding which significantly undercuts the administration's heated rhetoric about the supposed threat of Iranian mushroom clouds. (Recall that the NIE is a consensus document of the nation's 16 intelligence agencies.)
At a press briefing during Bush's current Middle East trip, Hadley forcefully mouthed the White House line, saying that Bush believes that "Iran was a threat before the NIE, was a threat on the day the NIE was issued, and continues to be a threat after the NIE has been issued."
Put simply, the NIE didn't change Bush's perceptions one iota.
Do you see the teensy-weensy little logical problem here? If so, you're doing better than the press corpse, because the ladies and gentlemen of the 4th Estate totally dropped the ball. Again.
What the administration is really saying is that George W. Bush assumes he knows better than all the intelligence personnel in all of our intelligence agencies, that his gut is a better source of information than the multi-billion dollar intelligence community America has painfully developed.
Okay, so how does he know? Is he withholding information from the CIA, DIA, NSA, et al.? Or does he just know? Maybe a little bird told him? Or one of his neocon buddies, the same sorts of folks who got Iraq so terribly wrong? Or is he just blowing air, figuring that if he repeats a lie often enough, we'll believe it?
Or at least the press will. Again.
Don't confuse Bush with facts; his mind is already made up.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 14 January 2008
Is he really this ignorant?
Or does he just think we are?
George W. Bush visited Israel and Palestine this week, and came up with three statements which appallingly revealed either how ignorant he is, or how ignorant he thinks we are.
For one thing, after having all but ignored the Arab-Israeli conflict for the past seven years -- and, indeed, having thrown in with the Israelis and further antagonized the Palestinians every time the region heated up -- Bush somehow manages to say, "I believe it's going to happen, that there will be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office. That's what I believe." Incredible. It takes more than blind faith to make that leap. If he truly believes that one, he's the only person on earth who does.
During the trip, he also repeatedly made comments such as this: "But the only lasting peace will be achieved when the duly elected leaders of the respective peoples do the hard work." Does this mean he's forsaking Abbas for Hamas? For in fact, whether he likes it or not, the duly elected leaders of Palestine are from the Hamas party. Bush has consistently refused to acknowledge the inconvenient truth that in the most recent free and democratic Palestinian elections, Hamas swept to an overwhelming victory over the Fatah party of Abbas, and that Abbas remains in power on the West bank primarily through force of arms. So with this statement, Bush demonstrates a total disregard for the principle of democracy for Palestinians. (Of course, I suppose this is hardly surprising, given Bush's happily moving into the White House after losing the 2000 election by 532,000 votes; one doesn't look to the leader of a constitutional putsch to care much about the voice of the people.)
Given his lack of knowledge about contemporary issues, I suppose it's hardly surprising that his grasp of history is just as poor. While in Israel, Bush visited the Israeli Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem, he "was most impressed that people, in the face of horror and evil, would not forsake their God, and in the face of unspeakable crimes against humanity, brave souls young and old stood strong for what they believe."
Wrong.
The 6 million Jews (and Roma, and homosexuals, and other victims of the Holocaust) weren't murdered because of their beliefs, but because of who they were. Jews who were atheists, Jews who were agnostics, Jews who had converted to Christianity, and people who only had only one Jewish parent and might not have considered themselves Jewish at all were murdered right along with the most pious of Jews, simply because the Nazis considered them all Jewish, and all sub-human. They couldn't have saved themselves from the gas chambers by renouncing their religion if they had wanted to; with the greatest possible respect for these victims, one must say that the strength of their faith was immaterial to their mortal fate.
Hitler wasn't interest in their conversion to Christianity. He wasn't trying to "Christianize" (it seems horrific to use the term in such a context) Jews. He was trying to exterminate them. They were murdered for their ancestry.
Mass murder is repugnant in all its forms, but it is worst when it is used to exterminate people for immutable qualities of their being. This wasn't some horribly criminal attempt to influence religious beliefs; it was genocide at its very worst. Bush should know that. Every human should know that.
But then, maybe some of us are so stupid, after all. I heard one reporter ask Bush how it felt to be "walking in the footsteps of Jesus." Huh? Walking in the footsteps of Jesus? Is there any contemporary American who has demonstrated less of an inclination to walk in the footsteps of Jesus than George W. Bush? If the answer to that question isn't painfully obvious to you, go back and read the Beatitudes, and then reflect on the entirety of Bush's career in the public sector: the illegal and awful war in Iraq, the executions, the manifold suffering he has visited upon millions, his disregard for the sufferers, his clear preference for the rich and powerful coupled to his contempt for the meek, his ridicule of the world's peacemakers, his disdain for all of creation; the list goes on and on. There is absolutely no way George W. Bush could be considered to be "walking in the footsteps of Jesus," and anybody who could even ask the question must be as stupid as Bush and his handlers think we all are.
Note: this was originally posted in ketches, yaks & hawks 11 January 2008
George W. Bush visited Israel and Palestine this week, and came up with three statements which appallingly revealed either how ignorant he is, or how ignorant he thinks we are.
For one thing, after having all but ignored the Arab-Israeli conflict for the past seven years -- and, indeed, having thrown in with the Israelis and further antagonized the Palestinians every time the region heated up -- Bush somehow manages to say, "I believe it's going to happen, that there will be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office. That's what I believe." Incredible. It takes more than blind faith to make that leap. If he truly believes that one, he's the only person on earth who does.
During the trip, he also repeatedly made comments such as this: "But the only lasting peace will be achieved when the duly elected leaders of the respective peoples do the hard work." Does this mean he's forsaking Abbas for Hamas? For in fact, whether he likes it or not, the duly elected leaders of Palestine are from the Hamas party. Bush has consistently refused to acknowledge the inconvenient truth that in the most recent free and democratic Palestinian elections, Hamas swept to an overwhelming victory over the Fatah party of Abbas, and that Abbas remains in power on the West bank primarily through force of arms. So with this statement, Bush demonstrates a total disregard for the principle of democracy for Palestinians. (Of course, I suppose this is hardly surprising, given Bush's happily moving into the White House after losing the 2000 election by 532,000 votes; one doesn't look to the leader of a constitutional putsch to care much about the voice of the people.)
Given his lack of knowledge about contemporary issues, I suppose it's hardly surprising that his grasp of history is just as poor. While in Israel, Bush visited the Israeli Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem, he "was most impressed that people, in the face of horror and evil, would not forsake their God, and in the face of unspeakable crimes against humanity, brave souls young and old stood strong for what they believe."
Wrong.
The 6 million Jews (and Roma, and homosexuals, and other victims of the Holocaust) weren't murdered because of their beliefs, but because of who they were. Jews who were atheists, Jews who were agnostics, Jews who had converted to Christianity, and people who only had only one Jewish parent and might not have considered themselves Jewish at all were murdered right along with the most pious of Jews, simply because the Nazis considered them all Jewish, and all sub-human. They couldn't have saved themselves from the gas chambers by renouncing their religion if they had wanted to; with the greatest possible respect for these victims, one must say that the strength of their faith was immaterial to their mortal fate.
Hitler wasn't interest in their conversion to Christianity. He wasn't trying to "Christianize" (it seems horrific to use the term in such a context) Jews. He was trying to exterminate them. They were murdered for their ancestry.
Mass murder is repugnant in all its forms, but it is worst when it is used to exterminate people for immutable qualities of their being. This wasn't some horribly criminal attempt to influence religious beliefs; it was genocide at its very worst. Bush should know that. Every human should know that.
But then, maybe some of us are so stupid, after all. I heard one reporter ask Bush how it felt to be "walking in the footsteps of Jesus." Huh? Walking in the footsteps of Jesus? Is there any contemporary American who has demonstrated less of an inclination to walk in the footsteps of Jesus than George W. Bush? If the answer to that question isn't painfully obvious to you, go back and read the Beatitudes, and then reflect on the entirety of Bush's career in the public sector: the illegal and awful war in Iraq, the executions, the manifold suffering he has visited upon millions, his disregard for the sufferers, his clear preference for the rich and powerful coupled to his contempt for the meek, his ridicule of the world's peacemakers, his disdain for all of creation; the list goes on and on. There is absolutely no way George W. Bush could be considered to be "walking in the footsteps of Jesus," and anybody who could even ask the question must be as stupid as Bush and his handlers think we all are.
Note: this was originally posted in ketches, yaks & hawks 11 January 2008
The second comma and the Second
By now, we should all realize that the Second Amendment is used by the N.R.A. and its sycophants to argue that we should all have the right to possess grotesquely lethal arsenals.
We should also recognize the the Second links gun ownership to membership in the militia. Here as a reminder is the text as usually printed, from the National Archives:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
First, let's dispense with one of the sillier arguments one sometimes hears from gun advocates, that the term "militia" somehow includes odd collections of alienated "survivalists" crashing around in the woods. No, thanks to the use of the "well regulated" phrase, we may easily dismiss that fatuous argument: in the modern day, a "well regulated Militia" means the National Guard and the various Reserve units of the regular military.
Without any further ado, one might -- I would argue, should -- read the Second as linking the right to "keep and bear Arms" to membership in such a "well regulated Militia." Apparently, however, some argue that because of the positioning of the three commas in the Second, the phrase about the Militia is essentially window dressing.
But their grammatical gymnastics fall apart when one examines the version of what we now call the Second as actually submitted to the States for ratification and sees that it does not include the first or third comma! Here is is, as printed in volume I of the Journal of the Senate of the United States of America:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
One finds the same punctuation in the Annals of Congress for the first Congress, in which is copied the ratification of the Bill of Rights by the several States, either directly or by reference.
With this punctuation, it becomes abundantly clear that the right to "keep and bear Arms" qualifies and is inextricably linked to the necessity of having a "well regulated Militia." Simply put, Congress intended and the States ratified an amendment making that linkage quite clear. Put another way, there is no Constitutional right to private ownership of guns for private purposes.
I wish this analysis was entirely my own, but modesty forfends; I direct you to a very interesting and insightful column on the punctuation of the Second Amendment published in today's New York Times by Adam Freedman, a regular columnist with the New York Law Journal.
Not only should guns be strictly controlled for protection of the public safety, but the Constitutional basis exists for doing so. Let's get rid of the guns. We should, and we can.
Note: this was originally posted in a slightly different form on ketches, yaks & hawks 16 December 2007
We should also recognize the the Second links gun ownership to membership in the militia. Here as a reminder is the text as usually printed, from the National Archives:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
First, let's dispense with one of the sillier arguments one sometimes hears from gun advocates, that the term "militia" somehow includes odd collections of alienated "survivalists" crashing around in the woods. No, thanks to the use of the "well regulated" phrase, we may easily dismiss that fatuous argument: in the modern day, a "well regulated Militia" means the National Guard and the various Reserve units of the regular military.
Without any further ado, one might -- I would argue, should -- read the Second as linking the right to "keep and bear Arms" to membership in such a "well regulated Militia." Apparently, however, some argue that because of the positioning of the three commas in the Second, the phrase about the Militia is essentially window dressing.
But their grammatical gymnastics fall apart when one examines the version of what we now call the Second as actually submitted to the States for ratification and sees that it does not include the first or third comma! Here is is, as printed in volume I of the Journal of the Senate of the United States of America:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
One finds the same punctuation in the Annals of Congress for the first Congress, in which is copied the ratification of the Bill of Rights by the several States, either directly or by reference.
With this punctuation, it becomes abundantly clear that the right to "keep and bear Arms" qualifies and is inextricably linked to the necessity of having a "well regulated Militia." Simply put, Congress intended and the States ratified an amendment making that linkage quite clear. Put another way, there is no Constitutional right to private ownership of guns for private purposes.
I wish this analysis was entirely my own, but modesty forfends; I direct you to a very interesting and insightful column on the punctuation of the Second Amendment published in today's New York Times by Adam Freedman, a regular columnist with the New York Law Journal.
Not only should guns be strictly controlled for protection of the public safety, but the Constitutional basis exists for doing so. Let's get rid of the guns. We should, and we can.
Note: this was originally posted in a slightly different form on ketches, yaks & hawks 16 December 2007
Leadership?
The last presidential debate before the Iowa caucuses occurred tonight, capping a lengthy series of debates among both the Democrats and the Republicans vying for the White House.
For all the verbiage in all the debates, we heard nothing constructive about gun-related violence or gun control. (The New York Times had a good editorial on the topic earlier this week.) A few gibes thrown by Republicans at other Republicans suggesting they weren't sufficiently in favor of gun ownership ("I favor machine guns for everybody!" "Bazookas are better!" "I want a howitzer in every garage!"), and that's about it. Nothing from the other side of the aisle.
Nothing about the 33 killed at Virginia Tech. Nothing about the rampage in Omaha earlier this month. Nothing about the shootings in Colorado just a few days ago. Nothing about the assault weapons ban, which President Bush and the Republican Congress allowed to lapse three years ago. Nothing about America's dismal first place ranking in the world's homicide by firearm rate. Nothing about the slaughter occurring every day and every night throughout our land. Nothing about a culture of violence and retribution which lionizes guns and rhapsodizes about vengeance and killing.
Democrats? They avoid the topic like the plague. Look under "Issues" on Hillary Clinton's web site, and you won't find anything about gun control. Ditto Barack Obama. Ditto John Edwards.
Republicans' web sites are a little more open -- they're agin' it, and proud. Fresh meat for their faithful. Rudy Giuliani is a "strong supporter of the Second Amendment" ... and no, boys and girls, that doesn't mean he wants you to join the National Guard if you like to play with guns. Mitt Romney sings from the same homicidal hymnal. You'll find Fred Thompson in the same bloody robes. Mike Huckabee would have you believe he's the choirmaster. John McCain tries to be even more adamant.
So, while home-grown terrorists build their arsenals and slaughter Americans by the thousands on our streets and in our homes, the Democrats are busy ducking the issue and the Republicans cry out for more.
Leadership. Wish it was as easy to find as guns.
P.S. Wanna know how often the word "guns" was mentioned in the debate? Yep. Zero.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 13 December 2007
For all the verbiage in all the debates, we heard nothing constructive about gun-related violence or gun control. (The New York Times had a good editorial on the topic earlier this week.) A few gibes thrown by Republicans at other Republicans suggesting they weren't sufficiently in favor of gun ownership ("I favor machine guns for everybody!" "Bazookas are better!" "I want a howitzer in every garage!"), and that's about it. Nothing from the other side of the aisle.
Nothing about the 33 killed at Virginia Tech. Nothing about the rampage in Omaha earlier this month. Nothing about the shootings in Colorado just a few days ago. Nothing about the assault weapons ban, which President Bush and the Republican Congress allowed to lapse three years ago. Nothing about America's dismal first place ranking in the world's homicide by firearm rate. Nothing about the slaughter occurring every day and every night throughout our land. Nothing about a culture of violence and retribution which lionizes guns and rhapsodizes about vengeance and killing.
Democrats? They avoid the topic like the plague. Look under "Issues" on Hillary Clinton's web site, and you won't find anything about gun control. Ditto Barack Obama. Ditto John Edwards.
Republicans' web sites are a little more open -- they're agin' it, and proud. Fresh meat for their faithful. Rudy Giuliani is a "strong supporter of the Second Amendment" ... and no, boys and girls, that doesn't mean he wants you to join the National Guard if you like to play with guns. Mitt Romney sings from the same homicidal hymnal. You'll find Fred Thompson in the same bloody robes. Mike Huckabee would have you believe he's the choirmaster. John McCain tries to be even more adamant.
So, while home-grown terrorists build their arsenals and slaughter Americans by the thousands on our streets and in our homes, the Democrats are busy ducking the issue and the Republicans cry out for more.
Leadership. Wish it was as easy to find as guns.
P.S. Wanna know how often the word "guns" was mentioned in the debate? Yep. Zero.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 13 December 2007
27 October 2009
Nearer my god to thee
And again. Coming to a city near you.
"Gunman Kills 2 at Missionary Dormitory Near Denver." Two more points for the N.R.A. and its sycophants. Yeah, yeah, yeah, guns don't kill people; people kill people. But they sure make it a whole lot easier. Let's get rid of the damn things.
Somehow, a society that does its utmost to confront hate and prevent murder is going to be nearer God than this one.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 9 December 2007
"Gunman Kills 2 at Missionary Dormitory Near Denver." Two more points for the N.R.A. and its sycophants. Yeah, yeah, yeah, guns don't kill people; people kill people. But they sure make it a whole lot easier. Let's get rid of the damn things.
Somehow, a society that does its utmost to confront hate and prevent murder is going to be nearer God than this one.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 9 December 2007
If smells were colors
My dog and I like to walk, but we're not very good conversationalists. He spends his time as dogs are wont, inhaling a broad and bright array of scents and smells, seeming to hardly notice anything reflecting photons. I don't smell a thing, contenting myself with a scenic vista whose changes, I gather, are far less intriguing and dynamic than his olfactory universe. If he could describe odors as I might colors, I wonder how my neighborhood appears? Would he pity my blindness?
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 8 December 2007
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 8 December 2007
Going out in style
It's happened again. America's ridiculous love affair with guns has led another psychopathic citizen to blast away his fellow human beings for the sport of it. This time he killed eight, apparently as a set-piece to his own suicide because he reportedly wanted to "go out in style."
Some style. American style.
When are we going to get guns off our streets? Put differently, when are we going to join the civilized world? Readers of this blog, like anybody else in America who is paying attention, know that the chances that a gun will be used in a criminal homicide is far, far higher than the likelihood it will be used in self-defense, and that the number of gun-related homicides is surpassed by gun-related suicides.
America's homicide by firearm rate is in a league by itself, far above the civilized world. Canada is a country pretty much like ours, eh? Our homicide by firearm rate is more than ten times higher than Canada's. Surprise! Canada has effective gun control; the U.S. doesn't. Duh. Remember England, America's "mother country"? Their rate is barely a hundredth of ours. Effective gun control there, too. Oh yes, we need guns to protect our liberty, right? Well, that's what the N.R.A. and all the rest of the gun crazies say, but y'know, neither Canada nor Britain come to mind when lists of totalitarian dictatorships get compiled. Neither do Holland, or Australia, or Denmark or Japan, yet they all have firearm-related homicide rates that are a small fraction of ours, and yes, they all have effective gun control.1
This time it happened in Omaha, but don't worry, this peculiar form of American madness will soon be coming to a city near you.
Let us hope that the Supreme Court -- yes, I know it's the Reagan/Bush/Bush Supreme Court, so I'm not too hopeful -- makes it clear once and for all that the Second Amendment is about membership in the National Guard, and that Congress and the states have the power to start getting these terroristic weapons off our streets, and to start saving the thousands upon thousands of Americans who will otherwise be needlessly killed. It's time to finally start restoring some sanity -- and safety -- to our country.
Now, that would be stylish.
1. E.G. Krug, K.E. Powell, and L.L. Dahlberg, "Fire-Arm Related Deaths in the United States and 35 Other High- and Upper-Middle Income Countries," International Journal of Epidemiology, vol 27 (1998), p. 216.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 5 December 2007
Some style. American style.
When are we going to get guns off our streets? Put differently, when are we going to join the civilized world? Readers of this blog, like anybody else in America who is paying attention, know that the chances that a gun will be used in a criminal homicide is far, far higher than the likelihood it will be used in self-defense, and that the number of gun-related homicides is surpassed by gun-related suicides.
America's homicide by firearm rate is in a league by itself, far above the civilized world. Canada is a country pretty much like ours, eh? Our homicide by firearm rate is more than ten times higher than Canada's. Surprise! Canada has effective gun control; the U.S. doesn't. Duh. Remember England, America's "mother country"? Their rate is barely a hundredth of ours. Effective gun control there, too. Oh yes, we need guns to protect our liberty, right? Well, that's what the N.R.A. and all the rest of the gun crazies say, but y'know, neither Canada nor Britain come to mind when lists of totalitarian dictatorships get compiled. Neither do Holland, or Australia, or Denmark or Japan, yet they all have firearm-related homicide rates that are a small fraction of ours, and yes, they all have effective gun control.1
This time it happened in Omaha, but don't worry, this peculiar form of American madness will soon be coming to a city near you.
Let us hope that the Supreme Court -- yes, I know it's the Reagan/Bush/Bush Supreme Court, so I'm not too hopeful -- makes it clear once and for all that the Second Amendment is about membership in the National Guard, and that Congress and the states have the power to start getting these terroristic weapons off our streets, and to start saving the thousands upon thousands of Americans who will otherwise be needlessly killed. It's time to finally start restoring some sanity -- and safety -- to our country.
Now, that would be stylish.
1. E.G. Krug, K.E. Powell, and L.L. Dahlberg, "Fire-Arm Related Deaths in the United States and 35 Other High- and Upper-Middle Income Countries," International Journal of Epidemiology, vol 27 (1998), p. 216.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 5 December 2007
One more teensy-weensy reason not to bomb Iran
Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. So no excuse for a surgical strike. Darn. But there you have it.
Not my opinion -- it's a National Intelligence Estimate representing the consensus view of the various U.S. intelligence agencies. Which means that all the demagogic bellicosity emanating from George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, a discouragingly bipartisan coalition of presidential candidates and a devil's chorus of belligerent pundits is just that: demagogic bellicosity. Someday, Iran might build nukes, but for the past four years they haven't even been trying.
See the story in the New York Times (click here) or, if you don't want to believe that bastion of east coast intellectual snobbery, try the Washington Post (click here) or CNN (click here).
Any bets that this will silence the calls for bombing Iran?
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 3 December 2007
Not my opinion -- it's a National Intelligence Estimate representing the consensus view of the various U.S. intelligence agencies. Which means that all the demagogic bellicosity emanating from George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, a discouragingly bipartisan coalition of presidential candidates and a devil's chorus of belligerent pundits is just that: demagogic bellicosity. Someday, Iran might build nukes, but for the past four years they haven't even been trying.
See the story in the New York Times (click here) or, if you don't want to believe that bastion of east coast intellectual snobbery, try the Washington Post (click here) or CNN (click here).
Any bets that this will silence the calls for bombing Iran?
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 3 December 2007
Weak coffee at the CAFE
Letter to the New York Times
submitted December 1, 2007 in response to an article (click for full article) reporting on legislation to increase auto efficiency standards
Contrary to the assertion reported in the Times, the automotive fuel efficiency standards wending their way through Congress would not "force wrenching changes on the American car companies." The handwriting has been on the petroleum wall ever since our existing standards were enacted nearly a quarter century ago. The technology to meet the proposed standards is not only proven, but available to consumers throughout the rest of the world. The proposed legislation calls for only a 27% increase in automobile efficiency over the 36 years since the existing standards were set, a rather paltry improvement considering that even China is already there, and the Europeans are already 14% better. The only real questions are why such belated action is even controversial, and why stronger efficiency standards aren't even on the table.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 1 December 2007
submitted December 1, 2007 in response to an article (click for full article) reporting on legislation to increase auto efficiency standards
Contrary to the assertion reported in the Times, the automotive fuel efficiency standards wending their way through Congress would not "force wrenching changes on the American car companies." The handwriting has been on the petroleum wall ever since our existing standards were enacted nearly a quarter century ago. The technology to meet the proposed standards is not only proven, but available to consumers throughout the rest of the world. The proposed legislation calls for only a 27% increase in automobile efficiency over the 36 years since the existing standards were set, a rather paltry improvement considering that even China is already there, and the Europeans are already 14% better. The only real questions are why such belated action is even controversial, and why stronger efficiency standards aren't even on the table.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 1 December 2007
Deterrence works; war doesn't
Deterrence works
USA Today
November 28, 2007
Letter as printed:
Joshua Muravchik calls for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. Even assuming that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons — and there is no credible and convincing evidence that it is — Americans should all realize by now that there is no such thing as a clean, surgical strike ("Iranian bomb 'intolerable'," Opposing view, Iran debate, Nov. 20).
Any attempt to launch a massive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would embroil America in yet another futile Middle Eastern war, stretch our overburdened military even further and expose us to greater risks abroad and at home.
Muravchik asserts that an attack would not require a declaration of war, which he describes as "an antiquated concept." This is a fatuous claim because the Constitution clearly assigns to Congress the power to declare war.
With the advent of intercontinental ballistic missiles, America has come to accept the logic that a president can launch a defensive war without a formal declaration of war.
There can be no excuse for a failure to comply with the Constitution when contemplating a preemptive war.
Muravchik also overlooks the effective role of deterrence. America had no greater confidence in the Soviet Union or in China when those countries developed nuclear weapons than it now has in Iran. Past presidents have wisely ignored calls by the belligerent pundits of their day, and history has proven them right.
Deterrence will work with Iran, too. Iran's leaders know with utter certainty that it would be destroyed if it ever used a nuclear weapon against the USA, Israel or any other American ally.
(Overly long) Letter as written:
Joshua Muravchik calls for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities
(Iranian bomb 'intolerable'," November 20, 2007). Even assuming that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons, and there is no credible and convincing evidence that it is, we should all realize by now that there is no such thing as a clean "surgical strike." Any attempt to launch a massive attack upon Iran's nuclear facilities would embroil us in yet another futile Middle Eastern war, stretch our overburdened military even further, and expose us to even greater risks abroad and at home, for Iran would be a far more dangerous foe than any group of Iraqi insurgents.
Muravchik asserts that an attack would not require a declaration of war, which he describes as "an antiquated concept." This fatuous claim is incredible, since conservatives from his own American Enterprise Institute and other conservative think tanks supposedly hold sacrosanct the principle of "strict construction" of the Constitution, which very clearly assigns to Congress and not the Presidency the power to declare war. With the advent of ICBMs, America has come to accept the logic that a President can launch a defensive war without a formal declaration of war, but there can be no excuse for a failure to comply with the Constitution when contemplating a preemptive war. Surely we recognize by now that Iraq has proven the folly of recklessly starting a war without a reasoned national debate.
Muravchik also overlooks the effective role of deterrence. We had no greater confidence in the Soviet Union or China when they developed nuclear weapons than we now have in Iran, yet Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon wisely ignored similar calls by the belligerent pundits of their day, and history has proven them right. Deterrence will work with Iran, too, for Iran's leaders know with utter certainty that they and their country would be destroyed if they or their proxies -- and we could determine the origin of any bomb used, no matter how anonymous the group might be which actually detonated it -- ever used a nuclear weapon against the U.S., Israel, or any other American ally.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 28 November 2007
USA Today
November 28, 2007
Letter as printed:
Joshua Muravchik calls for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. Even assuming that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons — and there is no credible and convincing evidence that it is — Americans should all realize by now that there is no such thing as a clean, surgical strike ("Iranian bomb 'intolerable'," Opposing view, Iran debate, Nov. 20).
Any attempt to launch a massive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would embroil America in yet another futile Middle Eastern war, stretch our overburdened military even further and expose us to greater risks abroad and at home.
Muravchik asserts that an attack would not require a declaration of war, which he describes as "an antiquated concept." This is a fatuous claim because the Constitution clearly assigns to Congress the power to declare war.
With the advent of intercontinental ballistic missiles, America has come to accept the logic that a president can launch a defensive war without a formal declaration of war.
There can be no excuse for a failure to comply with the Constitution when contemplating a preemptive war.
Muravchik also overlooks the effective role of deterrence. America had no greater confidence in the Soviet Union or in China when those countries developed nuclear weapons than it now has in Iran. Past presidents have wisely ignored calls by the belligerent pundits of their day, and history has proven them right.
Deterrence will work with Iran, too. Iran's leaders know with utter certainty that it would be destroyed if it ever used a nuclear weapon against the USA, Israel or any other American ally.
(Overly long) Letter as written:
Joshua Muravchik calls for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities
(Iranian bomb 'intolerable'," November 20, 2007). Even assuming that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons, and there is no credible and convincing evidence that it is, we should all realize by now that there is no such thing as a clean "surgical strike." Any attempt to launch a massive attack upon Iran's nuclear facilities would embroil us in yet another futile Middle Eastern war, stretch our overburdened military even further, and expose us to even greater risks abroad and at home, for Iran would be a far more dangerous foe than any group of Iraqi insurgents.
Muravchik asserts that an attack would not require a declaration of war, which he describes as "an antiquated concept." This fatuous claim is incredible, since conservatives from his own American Enterprise Institute and other conservative think tanks supposedly hold sacrosanct the principle of "strict construction" of the Constitution, which very clearly assigns to Congress and not the Presidency the power to declare war. With the advent of ICBMs, America has come to accept the logic that a President can launch a defensive war without a formal declaration of war, but there can be no excuse for a failure to comply with the Constitution when contemplating a preemptive war. Surely we recognize by now that Iraq has proven the folly of recklessly starting a war without a reasoned national debate.
Muravchik also overlooks the effective role of deterrence. We had no greater confidence in the Soviet Union or China when they developed nuclear weapons than we now have in Iran, yet Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon wisely ignored similar calls by the belligerent pundits of their day, and history has proven them right. Deterrence will work with Iran, too, for Iran's leaders know with utter certainty that they and their country would be destroyed if they or their proxies -- and we could determine the origin of any bomb used, no matter how anonymous the group might be which actually detonated it -- ever used a nuclear weapon against the U.S., Israel, or any other American ally.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 28 November 2007
26 October 2009
One rock, thrown
Thanksgiving eve, somebody threw a sizable rock through my almost new vehicle's rear window. Glass everywhere, some minor damage to the interior, and a $200 hit. Apparently the same good citizens similarly assaulted two other cars in the neighborhood.
The perps will never be caught, I'm sure, so I'm left to speculate about who they were, and why they did it. One supposes anger and alienation, a terminal lack of empathy, and a personal sense of powerlessness fleetingly assuaged by striking out at some perceived representative of the hated order.
The bottom line is that I feel violated. I felt the same way when somebody stole my bike from my basement, and when somebody stole my motorcycle years ago, and when somebody else smashed the window of an earlier vehicle to steal a tool box and sleeping bag. These are minor crimes, to be sure; none involved personal injury or even peronsal risk, and none posed insurmountable financial problems for me. But there was real injury nonetheless, the sense of violation, the feeling that part of my personal world had been violently entered and abused.
Such victimization perhaps gives me some insight into the nature of the crime of rape, insofar as someone who has never felt vulnerable to rapists may have such insight, as I'm given to understand the worst part for victims is not the physical injury, but the emotional one, the sense of violation of the most intimate and sacrosanct core of one's personal world, the violent assertion by the attacker that the victim lacks even the right to control her very body.
I suspect that in all such cases the criminal is motivated more by a desire to assert power than by any more "rational" desire for the material benefit of their crime ... and to assert that power over an anonymous other, a faceless part of the "them" seen as the criminal's oppressor, or over a known other who personifies in the criminal's mind the same supposedly nefarious "other."
It probably seems an enormous cognitive leap to jump from here to a commentary on the body politic, but I posit that there is a linkage between the failings of these small-time criminals and the cabal that has stolen our country. I used to believe -- I believe still, in fact -- that government exists to serve the common good and reflect the will of the people, and I've spent my entire career in public service for that reason. But the capitalists' and reactionaries' silent coup has terribly corrupted our polity, our government, our governmental process and our culture. Yes, base greed offers some explanation for their motivations, but I cannot help be feel that the inner demons driving the neocon era of reaction are closely related to the alienated rage of the mindless petty criminal.
Surely, a leadership which truly felt emotionally secure in their own selves and which felt true compassion and empathy with others would not devise the policies currently besetting our country, just as surely as a compassionate and emotionally secure individuals would never viciously attack nor attempt to subjugate others to their will.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 23 November 2007
The perps will never be caught, I'm sure, so I'm left to speculate about who they were, and why they did it. One supposes anger and alienation, a terminal lack of empathy, and a personal sense of powerlessness fleetingly assuaged by striking out at some perceived representative of the hated order.
The bottom line is that I feel violated. I felt the same way when somebody stole my bike from my basement, and when somebody stole my motorcycle years ago, and when somebody else smashed the window of an earlier vehicle to steal a tool box and sleeping bag. These are minor crimes, to be sure; none involved personal injury or even peronsal risk, and none posed insurmountable financial problems for me. But there was real injury nonetheless, the sense of violation, the feeling that part of my personal world had been violently entered and abused.
Such victimization perhaps gives me some insight into the nature of the crime of rape, insofar as someone who has never felt vulnerable to rapists may have such insight, as I'm given to understand the worst part for victims is not the physical injury, but the emotional one, the sense of violation of the most intimate and sacrosanct core of one's personal world, the violent assertion by the attacker that the victim lacks even the right to control her very body.
I suspect that in all such cases the criminal is motivated more by a desire to assert power than by any more "rational" desire for the material benefit of their crime ... and to assert that power over an anonymous other, a faceless part of the "them" seen as the criminal's oppressor, or over a known other who personifies in the criminal's mind the same supposedly nefarious "other."
It probably seems an enormous cognitive leap to jump from here to a commentary on the body politic, but I posit that there is a linkage between the failings of these small-time criminals and the cabal that has stolen our country. I used to believe -- I believe still, in fact -- that government exists to serve the common good and reflect the will of the people, and I've spent my entire career in public service for that reason. But the capitalists' and reactionaries' silent coup has terribly corrupted our polity, our government, our governmental process and our culture. Yes, base greed offers some explanation for their motivations, but I cannot help be feel that the inner demons driving the neocon era of reaction are closely related to the alienated rage of the mindless petty criminal.
Surely, a leadership which truly felt emotionally secure in their own selves and which felt true compassion and empathy with others would not devise the policies currently besetting our country, just as surely as a compassionate and emotionally secure individuals would never viciously attack nor attempt to subjugate others to their will.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 23 November 2007
Where's the party?
I'm a life-long Democrat. I spent a decade as a policy analyst for legislative Democrats. I've poured hundreds and hundreds of dollars into Democratic campaigns. I've gone door-to-door exhorting my fellow citizens to vote for them. I've happily supported many Democrats ... although I'll admit it has seemed that I've far too much time holding my nose and supporting equivocal Democrats simply because they were "the lesser of two evils." Through it all, I've been a good Democrat.
That approach led me through the 2006 elections, when the Democrats took both Houses of Congress from the neocons who had stolen it. I was hopeful that 2007 would see a new dawn of both capital-D Democracy and, more important, democracy itself.
Wrong.
The war continues, meaningful action on global warming is entirely absent, the administration's assault on the Constitution continues unabated, nothing's been done to reverse the growing disparity in our nation's distribution of wealth, the new Congressional majority acquiesces in the administration's abridgments of civil liberties and violations of international law, our addicition to petroleum continues unchecked as Congress fails to enact new CAFE standards or other effective conservation strategies, the leading Democrats vying for the Presidency utter dark threats against Iran which differ little from Republican threats of war except in the use of marginally softer words, the Senate continues to confirm the awful nominations coming from the White House, and the I-word remains unutterable against an administration which has horribly outstripped the petty offenses which charged against Bill Clinton.
However, the Democrats still want my money.
The other day, the Democratic National Committee sent me a fund-raising letter disguised as an opinion survey. Among other things, it asked me to rank order a list ten issues described as "the most important." Hah! There was nothing on the list about the administration's unconstitutional assertions of power. Nothing about "signing statements." Nothing about protecting our civil liberties. Nothing about torture. Nothing about habeas corpus. Nothing about Guantanamo and "rendition." Nothing about confirming the administration's awful appointments. Nothing about Mukasey. Nothing about restoring America's international reputation. Nothing about Iran. Nothing about caving in to lobbyists from ADM and other major corporations and calling it "energy policy." Nothing about impeaching Bush and Cheney. And nothing, absolutely nothing, about being a real party of opposition, a party "speaking truth to (the abuse of) power. Frankly, I'd rate all of these a tad higher than stem cell research, but I can guarantee that the Democrats won't use their Congressional majority to do anything about any of them. Most important? Most important? Hah! I'm afraid the Democrats don't even care.
Except about my money. And using it to gain a share of power, and the goodies it brings. Which doesn't seem to set them that far from the Republicans they should be opposing most forcefully.
As Mercutio would put it, a plague o' both their houses.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 11 November 2007
That approach led me through the 2006 elections, when the Democrats took both Houses of Congress from the neocons who had stolen it. I was hopeful that 2007 would see a new dawn of both capital-D Democracy and, more important, democracy itself.
Wrong.
The war continues, meaningful action on global warming is entirely absent, the administration's assault on the Constitution continues unabated, nothing's been done to reverse the growing disparity in our nation's distribution of wealth, the new Congressional majority acquiesces in the administration's abridgments of civil liberties and violations of international law, our addicition to petroleum continues unchecked as Congress fails to enact new CAFE standards or other effective conservation strategies, the leading Democrats vying for the Presidency utter dark threats against Iran which differ little from Republican threats of war except in the use of marginally softer words, the Senate continues to confirm the awful nominations coming from the White House, and the I-word remains unutterable against an administration which has horribly outstripped the petty offenses which charged against Bill Clinton.
However, the Democrats still want my money.
The other day, the Democratic National Committee sent me a fund-raising letter disguised as an opinion survey. Among other things, it asked me to rank order a list ten issues described as "the most important." Hah! There was nothing on the list about the administration's unconstitutional assertions of power. Nothing about "signing statements." Nothing about protecting our civil liberties. Nothing about torture. Nothing about habeas corpus. Nothing about Guantanamo and "rendition." Nothing about confirming the administration's awful appointments. Nothing about Mukasey. Nothing about restoring America's international reputation. Nothing about Iran. Nothing about caving in to lobbyists from ADM and other major corporations and calling it "energy policy." Nothing about impeaching Bush and Cheney. And nothing, absolutely nothing, about being a real party of opposition, a party "speaking truth to (the abuse of) power. Frankly, I'd rate all of these a tad higher than stem cell research, but I can guarantee that the Democrats won't use their Congressional majority to do anything about any of them. Most important? Most important? Hah! I'm afraid the Democrats don't even care.
Except about my money. And using it to gain a share of power, and the goodies it brings. Which doesn't seem to set them that far from the Republicans they should be opposing most forcefully.
As Mercutio would put it, a plague o' both their houses.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 11 November 2007
This guy flunked history
President Bush said yesterday he was "absolutely serious" last month when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War III. Citing Iranian leaders' almost ritualistic threats against Israel, he said "If you want to see World War III, you know, a way to do that is to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon."
It would be terrible if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. As readers of this blog know, however, I think it highly unlikely that Iran would, as such an attack would be a death sentence for Iran, and I'm pretty confident that Iran's leaders know that. But even if it happened, it would be a regional war. A devastating, tragic war, to be sure. But World War III? No.
World War I consumed millions of lives in the developed and undeveloped world, disrupted economies worldwide and had other global repercussions, and set the stage for World War II. World War II consumed even more lives, led to desperate fighting in nearly every part of the globe, and drastically reshaped the world order for generations to come. Throughout the Cold War, the world lived in fear that a real World War III would break out, destroying humanity on a global scale, or nearly so.
World War, by definition, involves in the most destructive ways imaginable most of the world, or at least most of the powers within the developed world with complex economies and/or large militaries. An Iranian nuclear attack on Israel -- which isn't even possible now and, according to most informed observers, will not even be potentially possible until years after George W. Bush leaves the White House -- simply would not meet that awful standard.
To raise the specter of World War in this context at this time is fear-mongering at its worst and is of the sort that, alas, we and the entire world have come to expect from this administration, akin to its hysteric cries about Saddam Hussein's mythic weapons of mass destruction. Let us refuse to be suckers for Bush's demagoguery this time, lest we find ourselves in another bloody and needless war.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 9 December 2007
It would be terrible if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. As readers of this blog know, however, I think it highly unlikely that Iran would, as such an attack would be a death sentence for Iran, and I'm pretty confident that Iran's leaders know that. But even if it happened, it would be a regional war. A devastating, tragic war, to be sure. But World War III? No.
World War I consumed millions of lives in the developed and undeveloped world, disrupted economies worldwide and had other global repercussions, and set the stage for World War II. World War II consumed even more lives, led to desperate fighting in nearly every part of the globe, and drastically reshaped the world order for generations to come. Throughout the Cold War, the world lived in fear that a real World War III would break out, destroying humanity on a global scale, or nearly so.
World War, by definition, involves in the most destructive ways imaginable most of the world, or at least most of the powers within the developed world with complex economies and/or large militaries. An Iranian nuclear attack on Israel -- which isn't even possible now and, according to most informed observers, will not even be potentially possible until years after George W. Bush leaves the White House -- simply would not meet that awful standard.
To raise the specter of World War in this context at this time is fear-mongering at its worst and is of the sort that, alas, we and the entire world have come to expect from this administration, akin to its hysteric cries about Saddam Hussein's mythic weapons of mass destruction. Let us refuse to be suckers for Bush's demagoguery this time, lest we find ourselves in another bloody and needless war.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 9 December 2007
25 October 2009
Where are you going, my little one?
I had a dream last night which in one form or another probably comes to most parents.
Early in the dream, my daughter and I were doing the sorts of things together the way parents and eight-year olds do, laughing and playing. As the dream progressed, she slipped in and out of my awareness, a little bit older and more independent each time she reappeared. At the end of the dream she was fifteen, in the midst of a dozen or so friends walking down the street away from me; just before she rounded the corner and left my sight, she turned to look at me, smiled, and continued on with her friends.
I awoke with tears in my eyes.
It can hurt so much, yet you know you've got to let them go.
Note: this originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 7 November 2007
Early in the dream, my daughter and I were doing the sorts of things together the way parents and eight-year olds do, laughing and playing. As the dream progressed, she slipped in and out of my awareness, a little bit older and more independent each time she reappeared. At the end of the dream she was fifteen, in the midst of a dozen or so friends walking down the street away from me; just before she rounded the corner and left my sight, she turned to look at me, smiled, and continued on with her friends.
I awoke with tears in my eyes.
It can hurt so much, yet you know you've got to let them go.
Note: this originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 7 November 2007
Podhoretz may not want to admit it, but ....
One minor little fact tends to get ignored in all the rhetoric about the advisability of preemptively attacking Iran: Iran is a sovereign nation, and it pretty much has the right to do what it wants, short of committing aggression against another sovereign nation, no matter what other nations may say or think. Its leaders can say what they want, structure their government they way they want, and pursue the armaments policies that they want, and the United States doesn't have the right to use military force to do anything to stop them, unless Iran attacks first.
Yes, Iran is a nuclear nonproliferation treaty signatory, but that reserves for Iran (or any other signatory not already possessing nuclear weapons) the right to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Any signatory also has the right to withdraw from the treaty upon three month's notice. Nothing in the treaty gives any nation the right to launch a preemptive attack to enforce treaty compliance.
In short, if Iran wants to build nuclear weapons, the United States has no legal right to use military force to stop it. The U.S., like every other member of the United Nations, has agreed, and is bound by international law to "refrain ... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state," except in self-defense against an actual armed attack. Period.
In any case, there's no clear evidence Iran is developing nuclear weapons, according to sources both inside and outside of the U.S. government. Hyperbole aside, there would be no justification for a preemptive strike even if it was legal and sensible. Rather like Saddam Hussein's nukes, only with an "n" rather than a "q" at the end of the name.
So all this talk about whether the U.S. should use force to prevent the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons is beside the point. America has no legal right to do so, and if nevertheless it does attack, the U.S. would be an aggressor state, in total violation of international law.
Aggressor state. That's not a descriptive term any American would want to have applied to their beloved country.
Note: this originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 5 November 2007
Yes, Iran is a nuclear nonproliferation treaty signatory, but that reserves for Iran (or any other signatory not already possessing nuclear weapons) the right to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Any signatory also has the right to withdraw from the treaty upon three month's notice. Nothing in the treaty gives any nation the right to launch a preemptive attack to enforce treaty compliance.
In short, if Iran wants to build nuclear weapons, the United States has no legal right to use military force to stop it. The U.S., like every other member of the United Nations, has agreed, and is bound by international law to "refrain ... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state," except in self-defense against an actual armed attack. Period.
In any case, there's no clear evidence Iran is developing nuclear weapons, according to sources both inside and outside of the U.S. government. Hyperbole aside, there would be no justification for a preemptive strike even if it was legal and sensible. Rather like Saddam Hussein's nukes, only with an "n" rather than a "q" at the end of the name.
So all this talk about whether the U.S. should use force to prevent the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons is beside the point. America has no legal right to do so, and if nevertheless it does attack, the U.S. would be an aggressor state, in total violation of international law.
Aggressor state. That's not a descriptive term any American would want to have applied to their beloved country.
Note: this originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 5 November 2007
War of the consonants?
Iran may be trying to develop nuclear weapons. If true, this is not good news. Definitely not good news.
But neither is the American response. Worse, the U.S. seems intent upon making the situation more dangerous, not less.
George W. Bush says he wants to "make it absolutely clear that the development of a nuclear weapon in Iran is intolerable," and hints darkly that he will use military force to prevent that. Dick Cheney goes further, saying "we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," heightening the suspicion that the administration considers preemptive attack a viable option, perhaps even the preferred option. Simultaneously, the administration seems to have abandoned a multilateral strategy focused on diplomatic efforts in favor of unilaterally imposed sanctions, while ratcheting up their rhetoric. The odds of war appear to be growing.
Unfortunately, most of the presidential candidates echo this stridency. Rudy Giuliani is quoted as saying the the U.S. should use every lever at is disposal, including a military strike, to prevent Iran form acquiring a nuclear weapon, and one of his principal foreign policy advisors, Norman Podhoretz, is even more bellicose. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she is "not in favor of doing nothing," adding that although she prefers "vigorous diplomacy" she warns that "we should not let them acquire nuclear weapons." Although Barack Obama says he doesn't "think we should be talking about attacking Iran at this point," he warns darkly that "there may come a point where these measures have been exhausted and Iran is on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon where we have to consider other options."
The clear implication -- the clear threat -- in all of these statements is that Iran must abandon its nuclear programs or we will attack and destroy them, that Iran must bend to Amerian will or be bombed into submission. Although varying degrees of support for diplomatic efforts are voiced, the common thread among all these political leaders and aspirants is a willingness to launch a preemptive war against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.
But why? Even under the worst feasible scenario, Iran poses far less of a threat to the United States or its allies than America's potential threat to Iran. If Iran were to somehow attack the United States with nuclear weapons, Iran would suffer a devastating retaliation which would literally destroy that nation, all of its leaders, and a huge proportion of its people. An attack on Israel would have a similar effect, even without the probable support of American nuclear forces. Nor could Iran escape such deadly consequences if it permitted proxies to use its nuclear weaponry to effect the ultimate terrorist attack on the U.S. Simply put, at its very worst, Iran could not destroy America, but would itself be destroyed if it made the attempt. Iranian leaders surely know that. Although it is appealing to consider the Iranian leadership mad, one can safely assume that the sort of people having the intelligence and acumen to achieve political power have the desire to preserve that power, and their lives, all of which would end the very day that they launched a nuclear attack.
But a preemptive attack against Iran would create massive difficulties for the United States. Iran is a much larger, stronger and richer nation than Iraq, and if media speculation is accurate, Iran has much greater influence within the shadowy world of terrorism than Iraq ever had. Iran would be a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq, yet our concurrent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already sapped the strength of America's conventional military forces. Moreover, Iran could do much to worsen the conflict in Iraq, and might well be able to bring a war home to the United States through the use of sophisticated terrorism. Further, petroleum supply could be so disrupted as to wreak havoc in the world economy. A preemptive war against Iran would also further isolate the United States from the rest of the world. A preemptive war against Iran would come back to haunt the United States.
If a preemptive attack could pose grave dangers for the United States, might it still be necessary to accept that risk in preference to "tolerating" a nuclear Iran? History provides a clear answer. The truth is that even with a few nuclear weapons, Iran would pose a far lower risk to the United States than did the Soviet Union during the Cold War, or even than China posed before the rapprochement initiated during the Nixon years.
When first the Soviet Union and later China began developing nuclear weapons, belligerant American pundits and politicians called for preemptive war to stop them, but Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon wisely refused their advice, and history proved them right. As perilous as the Cold War was, the world's super powers learned to accept the awesome logic of deterrence, and over time worked to efffectively manage and reduce tensions until finally the Cold War itself collapsed with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. War was averted, to the relief of all, and finally the world emerged from the shadow of nuclear holocaust.
The situation is similar now, though less perilous. Even if Iran develops a nuclear arsenal, deterrence would stay the hands of Iranian leaders, just as surely as it stayed the hands of nuclear powers throughout the Cold War.
Yet if we loose the dogs of war, we will all have a terrible price to pay. It behooves America's contending political leaders to lower the rhetoric, and refocus American efforts on engaging Iranian leaders in constructive, multilateral diplomacy based on respect, toleration, and the identification and pursuit of mutual interests.
Note: posted originally on ketches, yaks & hawks 3 November 2007
But neither is the American response. Worse, the U.S. seems intent upon making the situation more dangerous, not less.
George W. Bush says he wants to "make it absolutely clear that the development of a nuclear weapon in Iran is intolerable," and hints darkly that he will use military force to prevent that. Dick Cheney goes further, saying "we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," heightening the suspicion that the administration considers preemptive attack a viable option, perhaps even the preferred option. Simultaneously, the administration seems to have abandoned a multilateral strategy focused on diplomatic efforts in favor of unilaterally imposed sanctions, while ratcheting up their rhetoric. The odds of war appear to be growing.
Unfortunately, most of the presidential candidates echo this stridency. Rudy Giuliani is quoted as saying the the U.S. should use every lever at is disposal, including a military strike, to prevent Iran form acquiring a nuclear weapon, and one of his principal foreign policy advisors, Norman Podhoretz, is even more bellicose. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she is "not in favor of doing nothing," adding that although she prefers "vigorous diplomacy" she warns that "we should not let them acquire nuclear weapons." Although Barack Obama says he doesn't "think we should be talking about attacking Iran at this point," he warns darkly that "there may come a point where these measures have been exhausted and Iran is on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon where we have to consider other options."
The clear implication -- the clear threat -- in all of these statements is that Iran must abandon its nuclear programs or we will attack and destroy them, that Iran must bend to Amerian will or be bombed into submission. Although varying degrees of support for diplomatic efforts are voiced, the common thread among all these political leaders and aspirants is a willingness to launch a preemptive war against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.
But why? Even under the worst feasible scenario, Iran poses far less of a threat to the United States or its allies than America's potential threat to Iran. If Iran were to somehow attack the United States with nuclear weapons, Iran would suffer a devastating retaliation which would literally destroy that nation, all of its leaders, and a huge proportion of its people. An attack on Israel would have a similar effect, even without the probable support of American nuclear forces. Nor could Iran escape such deadly consequences if it permitted proxies to use its nuclear weaponry to effect the ultimate terrorist attack on the U.S. Simply put, at its very worst, Iran could not destroy America, but would itself be destroyed if it made the attempt. Iranian leaders surely know that. Although it is appealing to consider the Iranian leadership mad, one can safely assume that the sort of people having the intelligence and acumen to achieve political power have the desire to preserve that power, and their lives, all of which would end the very day that they launched a nuclear attack.
But a preemptive attack against Iran would create massive difficulties for the United States. Iran is a much larger, stronger and richer nation than Iraq, and if media speculation is accurate, Iran has much greater influence within the shadowy world of terrorism than Iraq ever had. Iran would be a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq, yet our concurrent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already sapped the strength of America's conventional military forces. Moreover, Iran could do much to worsen the conflict in Iraq, and might well be able to bring a war home to the United States through the use of sophisticated terrorism. Further, petroleum supply could be so disrupted as to wreak havoc in the world economy. A preemptive war against Iran would also further isolate the United States from the rest of the world. A preemptive war against Iran would come back to haunt the United States.
If a preemptive attack could pose grave dangers for the United States, might it still be necessary to accept that risk in preference to "tolerating" a nuclear Iran? History provides a clear answer. The truth is that even with a few nuclear weapons, Iran would pose a far lower risk to the United States than did the Soviet Union during the Cold War, or even than China posed before the rapprochement initiated during the Nixon years.
When first the Soviet Union and later China began developing nuclear weapons, belligerant American pundits and politicians called for preemptive war to stop them, but Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon wisely refused their advice, and history proved them right. As perilous as the Cold War was, the world's super powers learned to accept the awesome logic of deterrence, and over time worked to efffectively manage and reduce tensions until finally the Cold War itself collapsed with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. War was averted, to the relief of all, and finally the world emerged from the shadow of nuclear holocaust.
The situation is similar now, though less perilous. Even if Iran develops a nuclear arsenal, deterrence would stay the hands of Iranian leaders, just as surely as it stayed the hands of nuclear powers throughout the Cold War.
Yet if we loose the dogs of war, we will all have a terrible price to pay. It behooves America's contending political leaders to lower the rhetoric, and refocus American efforts on engaging Iranian leaders in constructive, multilateral diplomacy based on respect, toleration, and the identification and pursuit of mutual interests.
Note: posted originally on ketches, yaks & hawks 3 November 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
