I received an email this morning from the Mid-Missouri Peaceworks that expressed sentiments I have felt and written about for a long time. The concision of this little blurb makes it worth repeating here, so I decided to copy it then comment:
“. . . we need to do more than just get U.S. combat troops out of the "theater of operations." Rather, we need to challenge the fact that our nation, with 4.5% of the world's people spends fully half of the planet's annual military expenditures. We need to question the network of bases in 130 nations around the world.
We need to understand and communicate the motivations behind this vast expenditure. Geopolitical and economic imperatives of U.S. and western-based trans-national corporations play roles that are poorly understood by many of our fellow citizens, and, for some reason, these issues never seem to come up in the Presidential debates. Geopolitics and the control of resources, markets or cheap labor is rarely discussed. Likewise, the profits of military contractors.
We need at this point to build a strong, independent grassroots movement to challenge the largely bipartisan consensus that the U.S. should fill the role of dominant global power. We need to challenge the politicians of both major parties who want a larger, stronger U.S. military. We in the peace movement need to be advocating a major reappraisal of the role of our military. We need to speak truth to power. We need to utter what the liberals have allowed to be labeled "heresy." That is the notion that perhaps an 80% cut in the U.S. military budget is in order. We need to point out that if we were spending only 20% of our current military budget we would still have the most powerful, capable military establishment on the planet. And, we would have hundreds of billions to invest each year in sustainable development to create real security. We could even take the steps needed to end our oil addiction and address global climate change by investing in energy efficiency and renewables.”
America spends more on its so-called defense budget than all the rest of the top ten spenders combined. The assertion that we can’t afford a single payer national health care system is absurd except that the military/industrial complex won’t allow it. I refuse to accept the term ‘defense budget’ because it isn’t about defense at all. It is about dominance and offense.
There is no doubt that a reversal in our national spending priorities would create a temporarily chaotic economic situation, but the long term gains would so outweigh the short term losses as to make those losses laughable.
Our military budget could be much more wisely centered around the maintenance of highly trained personnel with small weaponry and equipment based on protection from and prevention of terrorism than the world-dominance oriented present system of tactical nuclear weaponry and large bases around the world. That old system is based on the threat of nation-states seeking to dominate the world. At this point we are the only nation showing interest in that concept. Withdrawal from the numerous bases we maintain as a means of exercising political control would cut our military costs considerably while freeing up personnel for assignment in hotspots like Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Changing our national priorities from attempting to create and maintain American hegemony to ensuring that our citizens and those of the world are free from worry about health care, food and shelter would go a long way toward defusing the enmity our military stance creates daily. We are seen as a military power which is hungry for resources and economic control. We could be seen as a rich neighbor willing to apply its resources to assist in ensuring the well-being of the world’s peoples.
Our wealth is not a deterrent to friendship. Hoarding is. Our strength is not a generator of enmity, our misuse of it is. Our freedom is not a reason to attack us. Our enslavement of others is no matter whether it is accomplished with whips and chains or genetically engineered seed.
The money we spend on our paranoid attempts at world management through military adventures and economic control is a slap in the face of the people around the world who must scrape for every scrap they put on the table. The money we could spend on the development of sustainable sources of energy, on the health and well-being of the people of the world, on education, and on the growth, processing and delivery of affordable food to a hungry world would earn us not enmity but friendship and respect.
For years our nation has operated only on the principle that although we have plenty, we must have more. In fact, we must have it all.
It is time that we as a nation recognized that as citizens of the world, we cannot be allowed to have more than our share. It is also time that, as citizens of the planet, we recognize our responsibility to live in such a way that the planet can maintain its health and sustain our presence indefinitely.
In both cases, it is imperative that we reach these conclusions or inevitably the day will come when we will be forced from our position on the top of the chain and become instead the victims of first the world’s rejection of our position as a nation and finally the planet’s loss of the means for man’s survival.
We must think peaceably. We must think globally. We must think sensibly about our role in all aspects of the health of our world. Or . . . we must perish. It seems a simple choice to me.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Friday, March 14, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
DEATH OF A LIBERAL
Last night Howard Metzenbaum, retired Senator from Ohio, died. Here’s what part of what Wikipedia has to say about him:
“While in the Senate, Metzenbaum was a powerful liberal. He was known as "Senator No" (a nickname shared by Republican Jesse Helms of North Carolina) because the Senate Democrats knew that almost nothing would get through if Metzenbaum opposed it even though he never held an official party leadership post or chaired a committee. Metzenbaum took a particular interest in antitrust and consumer protection issues, often threatening to repeal the exemption from antitrust laws given to Major League Baseball. Since his retirement, however, the issue has gone largely unaddressed. Metzenbaum became well-known for his service on the Senate Judiciary Committee, particularly because of his dedicated efforts to keep stringent antitrust laws and his pro-choice stance on abortion.
Metzenbaum devised a different method for filibustering in the Senate by offering scores of amendments to bills in place of talking one bill to death like his Southern colleagues did during the debate for Civil Rights in the 1950s and 1960s.
Metzenbaum was behind several important pieces of legislation, including the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which required warning periods for large factory closures; the Brady Law, which established a waiting period for handgun purchases;[5] and the Howard M. Metzenbaum Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 (MEPA) (U.S. Public Law 103-82), which prohibits federally subsidized adoption agencies from delaying or denying child placement on grounds of race or ethnicity.”
In reporting on his death this morning, an NPR reporter on Morning Edition referred to Senator Metzenbaum as “an unapologetic liberal”. That got my goat.
What conservative has ever been called “an unapologetic conservative”? What does a liberal have to apologize for? Should we apologize because we think that government should be the servant of the little guy instead of the gluttonous corporations that bloat the coffers of the “conservative” party? Should we apologize because we think that it is better to work with people as they are than to find ways to punish them for not being what we want them to be? Should we apologize for wanting to apply tax dollars to social problems instead of to wars? Should we apologize for believing that amassing personal wealth at the expense of the rest of civilization is immoral? Should we apologize for believing that our government should not be a wholly owned subsidiary of the military/industrial complex? Should we apologize for being able to recognize when we are being had by a government bent on sacrificing the country’s future and the lives of our children and grandchildren in the name of amassing more wealth and power?
The right wing has done an excellent job of one thing - the attachment of a completely negative connotation to the tag “liberal”. If liberal politicians were as mean spirited as their opponents maybe they could by now have come up with some way to make people think politicians should have to apologize for being conservative. The fact is, though, that one of the differences between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives believe that it’s their way or the highway while liberals are still trying to be accepting of everyone including their blockheaded colleagues across the aisle.
I, for one, am sick of it. I far prefer being labeled a liberal with all the attempted negative tags the right wing has stuck on it to being called a conservative. The best definition I’ve ever run into for that side of the aisle is a person who can’t enjoy a good meal unless he knows someone else is going hungry.
I’d much rather be known as someone who is willing to do without a meal to feed a person in need.
Don’t you dare ask me to apologize for being a liberal, because I won’t and there is absolutely no reason why I should.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
“While in the Senate, Metzenbaum was a powerful liberal. He was known as "Senator No" (a nickname shared by Republican Jesse Helms of North Carolina) because the Senate Democrats knew that almost nothing would get through if Metzenbaum opposed it even though he never held an official party leadership post or chaired a committee. Metzenbaum took a particular interest in antitrust and consumer protection issues, often threatening to repeal the exemption from antitrust laws given to Major League Baseball. Since his retirement, however, the issue has gone largely unaddressed. Metzenbaum became well-known for his service on the Senate Judiciary Committee, particularly because of his dedicated efforts to keep stringent antitrust laws and his pro-choice stance on abortion.
Metzenbaum devised a different method for filibustering in the Senate by offering scores of amendments to bills in place of talking one bill to death like his Southern colleagues did during the debate for Civil Rights in the 1950s and 1960s.
Metzenbaum was behind several important pieces of legislation, including the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which required warning periods for large factory closures; the Brady Law, which established a waiting period for handgun purchases;[5] and the Howard M. Metzenbaum Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 (MEPA) (U.S. Public Law 103-82), which prohibits federally subsidized adoption agencies from delaying or denying child placement on grounds of race or ethnicity.”
In reporting on his death this morning, an NPR reporter on Morning Edition referred to Senator Metzenbaum as “an unapologetic liberal”. That got my goat.
What conservative has ever been called “an unapologetic conservative”? What does a liberal have to apologize for? Should we apologize because we think that government should be the servant of the little guy instead of the gluttonous corporations that bloat the coffers of the “conservative” party? Should we apologize because we think that it is better to work with people as they are than to find ways to punish them for not being what we want them to be? Should we apologize for wanting to apply tax dollars to social problems instead of to wars? Should we apologize for believing that amassing personal wealth at the expense of the rest of civilization is immoral? Should we apologize for believing that our government should not be a wholly owned subsidiary of the military/industrial complex? Should we apologize for being able to recognize when we are being had by a government bent on sacrificing the country’s future and the lives of our children and grandchildren in the name of amassing more wealth and power?
The right wing has done an excellent job of one thing - the attachment of a completely negative connotation to the tag “liberal”. If liberal politicians were as mean spirited as their opponents maybe they could by now have come up with some way to make people think politicians should have to apologize for being conservative. The fact is, though, that one of the differences between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives believe that it’s their way or the highway while liberals are still trying to be accepting of everyone including their blockheaded colleagues across the aisle.
I, for one, am sick of it. I far prefer being labeled a liberal with all the attempted negative tags the right wing has stuck on it to being called a conservative. The best definition I’ve ever run into for that side of the aisle is a person who can’t enjoy a good meal unless he knows someone else is going hungry.
I’d much rather be known as someone who is willing to do without a meal to feed a person in need.
Don’t you dare ask me to apologize for being a liberal, because I won’t and there is absolutely no reason why I should.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Darth Vader Goes East
In an amazing little story this morning that has to be some kind of dark joke, the newspaper reported that dick Cheney has been sent to the Middle East to as an emissary of peace. They've got to be kidding. Are the Palestinians supposed to look at little dick and see a peace loving man? You could duct tape doves to Darth Vader’s shoulders, too, but nobody would mistake him for Mahatma Gandhi.
This has to qualify as the shortest blog I’ve ever written, but the truth is that I’m goin’ fishin’. I’ll be back Thursday and might even have a fish story or two to share!
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
This has to qualify as the shortest blog I’ve ever written, but the truth is that I’m goin’ fishin’. I’ll be back Thursday and might even have a fish story or two to share!
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Monday, March 10, 2008
The False Threat of Al Qaida
This morning’s NPR news show, Morning Edition, aired a rather lengthy story on the nature of today’s Al Qaida. Essentially what they ended up saying was that the Al Qaida of today is not the monolithic, top-down organization that our government keeps saying they are.
The picture NPR drew was much closer to what Greg Palast of the BBC has been saying for quite some time now than to what our Department of Homeland Security says. (I have never been able to say or write that name without hearing Fatherland Security. It is sooo Nazi Germany.)
Our Fodderland Security department gets more from keeping the populace on the edge of fear than it would from actually providing security, so it persists in holding up a picture of a monolithic terrorist group determined to send more airplanes into more American buildings.
The fact, as NPR reported it this morning, is that Al Qaida is more of a concept than a reality. It is a name for those opposed to Western style economic governance and willing to show that opposition through violence and civil unrest. When the press refers to an Al Qaida cell, the implication is that a cell is a small unit put in place by a central authority, when the truth is that such each cell is autonomous.
That is not to say that bin Laden’s Al Qaida doesn’t exist, but it is to say that the original Al Qaida is more of an inspiration to terrorist cells than a director of their actions. It may well be that bin Laden’s group continues to plan international terrorist acts akin to 9-11, but the fact is that they have not been able to pull one off since 2001, and another definite fact is that very few if any of the groups referred to in the press as Al Qaida cells have any relationship at all to the core bin Laden group.
As Greg Palast said in a recent interview with Amy Goodwin on Link TV’s Democracy Now!, an Al Qaida cell is to Al Qaida what an imitator band with a Mick Jagger look-alike lead singer is to the Rolling Stones.
Over the week-end W offered a list of terrible planned attacks that his eavesdropping program averted, making the Department of Fodderland Security sound effective. But then, W has a long and garish history as bald-faced liar that makes anything he says questionable at best and self-serving in all cases.
The American public needs to take anything the administration says with a block – not a grain – of salt and stop reacting to officially purported risks as though they were true accounts of imminent threat. The correct reaction to the Fodderland scare tactics is guarded skepticism.
We need to just tell the little boy in the Whitehouse to quit shouting big bad wolf and go on about our business as the most secure and powerful nation on earth as though we believed in ourselves; stop allowing the government to listen in on our conversations; tell the communications corporations that they will be prosecuted if they break the law; take an aggressive stance against U.S. authorized torture; and, ultimately, regain our place as a leader among the world’s nations -- a leader that can discern between real and supposed threats; between morality talk and moral action and so can be trusted to use its power only against true threats to its own security and that of the world.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
The picture NPR drew was much closer to what Greg Palast of the BBC has been saying for quite some time now than to what our Department of Homeland Security says. (I have never been able to say or write that name without hearing Fatherland Security. It is sooo Nazi Germany.)
Our Fodderland Security department gets more from keeping the populace on the edge of fear than it would from actually providing security, so it persists in holding up a picture of a monolithic terrorist group determined to send more airplanes into more American buildings.
The fact, as NPR reported it this morning, is that Al Qaida is more of a concept than a reality. It is a name for those opposed to Western style economic governance and willing to show that opposition through violence and civil unrest. When the press refers to an Al Qaida cell, the implication is that a cell is a small unit put in place by a central authority, when the truth is that such each cell is autonomous.
That is not to say that bin Laden’s Al Qaida doesn’t exist, but it is to say that the original Al Qaida is more of an inspiration to terrorist cells than a director of their actions. It may well be that bin Laden’s group continues to plan international terrorist acts akin to 9-11, but the fact is that they have not been able to pull one off since 2001, and another definite fact is that very few if any of the groups referred to in the press as Al Qaida cells have any relationship at all to the core bin Laden group.
As Greg Palast said in a recent interview with Amy Goodwin on Link TV’s Democracy Now!, an Al Qaida cell is to Al Qaida what an imitator band with a Mick Jagger look-alike lead singer is to the Rolling Stones.
Over the week-end W offered a list of terrible planned attacks that his eavesdropping program averted, making the Department of Fodderland Security sound effective. But then, W has a long and garish history as bald-faced liar that makes anything he says questionable at best and self-serving in all cases.
The American public needs to take anything the administration says with a block – not a grain – of salt and stop reacting to officially purported risks as though they were true accounts of imminent threat. The correct reaction to the Fodderland scare tactics is guarded skepticism.
We need to just tell the little boy in the Whitehouse to quit shouting big bad wolf and go on about our business as the most secure and powerful nation on earth as though we believed in ourselves; stop allowing the government to listen in on our conversations; tell the communications corporations that they will be prosecuted if they break the law; take an aggressive stance against U.S. authorized torture; and, ultimately, regain our place as a leader among the world’s nations -- a leader that can discern between real and supposed threats; between morality talk and moral action and so can be trusted to use its power only against true threats to its own security and that of the world.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Friday, March 7, 2008
THE FARC FAKE
The news media (AKA: the American government) is making lots of noise about a memo the Columbian government supposedly found in a laptop computer during a raid into Ecuadoran territory in pursuit of FARC guerillas. The memo purportedly talks about $300 million that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez gave to FARC to support its search for uranium to create an atomic weapon.
To begin at the beginning, the American people are almost entirely ignorant of the conflicts endemic to South America. As a student at Iowa State University in 1962-63, I ran with a group of friends from Colombia. Even then, they talked of the freedom fighters in the mountains. The same group continues to fight against the government. That government is the right wing and nearly aristocratic ally of the right in North America.
Across the borders of Ecuador and Venezuela are governments that strongly disagree with the “free market” (read top down wealth garnering) right wing government of Colombia. Those governments are commonly portrayed in our press as evil because they often act to block our control of their resources and markets. Those governments are certainly not perfect, but their leaders do take the well-being of their citizens seriously and seek to govern at least to some extent in such as way as to use and distribute the wealth of their nations on behalf of the people. Of course, that flies in the face of the right wing belief in keeping the wealth at the top of the pyramid.
So how does the memo fit into all of this? According to Greg Palast, a BBC reporter on a very long leash, it is a completely bogus, but largely successful attempt by the Bush administration to add fuel to the right wing legend of Hugo Chavez, falsely accused as a “dangerous terrorist supporter”.
Palast is one of the voices of world journalism whom I have come to trust. Time and again he has reported the truth of the situation in Iraq. His stories have proven to be accurate and his analyses right on the money time after time. In the lead story on his webpage today, Palast translates the message for us and shows that the reports of its revelation of Chavez’ support for terrorism is completely bogus. (See: http://www.gregpalast.com/ $300 MILLION FROM CHAVEZ TO FARC A FAKE)
So what we have here is yet another cry of “Wolf” from the little boy in the Whitehouse. The sky is falling. There are WMDs under every bed. Send in the troops. Eradicate those horrible enemies, the governments of Venezuela and Guatemala.
Enough. Enough. I’ve had enough of our shallow press acting as shills for the killers we keep electing to lead our country, and I’ve sure had enough of those “leaders”. Show me the way out!!
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
To begin at the beginning, the American people are almost entirely ignorant of the conflicts endemic to South America. As a student at Iowa State University in 1962-63, I ran with a group of friends from Colombia. Even then, they talked of the freedom fighters in the mountains. The same group continues to fight against the government. That government is the right wing and nearly aristocratic ally of the right in North America.
Across the borders of Ecuador and Venezuela are governments that strongly disagree with the “free market” (read top down wealth garnering) right wing government of Colombia. Those governments are commonly portrayed in our press as evil because they often act to block our control of their resources and markets. Those governments are certainly not perfect, but their leaders do take the well-being of their citizens seriously and seek to govern at least to some extent in such as way as to use and distribute the wealth of their nations on behalf of the people. Of course, that flies in the face of the right wing belief in keeping the wealth at the top of the pyramid.
So how does the memo fit into all of this? According to Greg Palast, a BBC reporter on a very long leash, it is a completely bogus, but largely successful attempt by the Bush administration to add fuel to the right wing legend of Hugo Chavez, falsely accused as a “dangerous terrorist supporter”.
Palast is one of the voices of world journalism whom I have come to trust. Time and again he has reported the truth of the situation in Iraq. His stories have proven to be accurate and his analyses right on the money time after time. In the lead story on his webpage today, Palast translates the message for us and shows that the reports of its revelation of Chavez’ support for terrorism is completely bogus. (See: http://www.gregpalast.com/ $300 MILLION FROM CHAVEZ TO FARC A FAKE)
So what we have here is yet another cry of “Wolf” from the little boy in the Whitehouse. The sky is falling. There are WMDs under every bed. Send in the troops. Eradicate those horrible enemies, the governments of Venezuela and Guatemala.
Enough. Enough. I’ve had enough of our shallow press acting as shills for the killers we keep electing to lead our country, and I’ve sure had enough of those “leaders”. Show me the way out!!
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Thursday, March 6, 2008
The Afghan Solution
At last some of our military brass are beginning to sound more like peace network members than BushCo puppets. Sadly, though, it is still always the retired and not the active officers who speak out.
Still, it was encouraging to hear Retired Lieutenant General David Barno speaking out about the situation in Afghanistan this morning on Morning Edition. Since the beginning, my favorite question about our “war on terror” has been this: Who will be the next terrorist, the son whose father we kill or the father whose son we feed?
Here is some info on Gen. Barno from a report by Tom Brokaw: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8246768/)
General David W. Barno is the former senior U.S. commander in Afghanistan. He was responsible for combating al-Qaida and members of the Taliban operating in the south and east of the country. Barno was also responsible for Coalition efforts in most of Pakistan as well as the southern parts of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. In 2004, Barno fended off allegations of prisoner abuse in Afghanistan. He promised to tone down his troops' aggressive search for Taliban-led insurgents and vowed to work with villagers to foster goodwill. Also in 2004, Barno famously predicted Osama bin Laden would be apprehended by the end of that year, saying, "The sands in the hourglass of all of the al-Qaida senior leadership is running out."
Obviously he is not always right, but this morning, Barno was quoted on Morning Edition as saying that there is no military solution to the problems we face in Afghanistan, and I believe that to be 100% accurate. Instead of military action, he said, we need to put 80% of our efforts into political, social, economic and health issues.
The problems are exacerbated, though, by the fact that the Karzai government that BushCo brought in to replace the Taliban constantly impedes any forward progress. There has been no effort made to coordinate reconstruction efforts or to facilitate the delivery of relief efforts to those in need.
To their credit, the Bush administration has backed the U.S. and Nato’s recent attempt to put Paddy Ashdown in place as a “super envoy” in Afghanistan. According to an article in Britain’s leading newspaper, The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/04/washdown104.xml, “The new "super envoy" would have the same rank as the American and British ambassadors in Afghanistan. He would become the principal contact between President Hamid Karzai and both Nato and the UN.”
That sounds good, but Karzai has refused to cooperate. It seems that he is afraid that Ashdown will repeat what he did in the same role in Bosnia, which was to overrule the powers of the government. It is easy to understand why Karzai would be jealous of his power, but perhaps he needs to be reminded who obtained that power for him.
General Barno talks about his contact with local Afghani farmers and workers who have told him about the simple resources and training that they and their children need to be able to work their way back to a comfortable life.
Supporting those people is the kind of effort we need to make not only in Afghanistan, but also in Iraq and around the world. Wherever we encounter unrest, you can be sure that not far beneath the surface lies the inability to live comfortably in the face of political instability or tyranny. The problems underlying that situation are the key to the containment of terrorism. Those agitating for peace have always known that if we could first make the lives of the average citizen satisfactorily secure, we would face a greatly reduced amount of hostility around the world.
Barno has the right idea. If only the rest of the military would pay some attention. If only the rest of America would trade in John Wayne for Mother Teresa. And, if wishes were fishes . . .
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Still, it was encouraging to hear Retired Lieutenant General David Barno speaking out about the situation in Afghanistan this morning on Morning Edition. Since the beginning, my favorite question about our “war on terror” has been this: Who will be the next terrorist, the son whose father we kill or the father whose son we feed?
Here is some info on Gen. Barno from a report by Tom Brokaw: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8246768/)
General David W. Barno is the former senior U.S. commander in Afghanistan. He was responsible for combating al-Qaida and members of the Taliban operating in the south and east of the country. Barno was also responsible for Coalition efforts in most of Pakistan as well as the southern parts of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. In 2004, Barno fended off allegations of prisoner abuse in Afghanistan. He promised to tone down his troops' aggressive search for Taliban-led insurgents and vowed to work with villagers to foster goodwill. Also in 2004, Barno famously predicted Osama bin Laden would be apprehended by the end of that year, saying, "The sands in the hourglass of all of the al-Qaida senior leadership is running out."
Obviously he is not always right, but this morning, Barno was quoted on Morning Edition as saying that there is no military solution to the problems we face in Afghanistan, and I believe that to be 100% accurate. Instead of military action, he said, we need to put 80% of our efforts into political, social, economic and health issues.
The problems are exacerbated, though, by the fact that the Karzai government that BushCo brought in to replace the Taliban constantly impedes any forward progress. There has been no effort made to coordinate reconstruction efforts or to facilitate the delivery of relief efforts to those in need.
To their credit, the Bush administration has backed the U.S. and Nato’s recent attempt to put Paddy Ashdown in place as a “super envoy” in Afghanistan. According to an article in Britain’s leading newspaper, The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/04/washdown104.xml, “The new "super envoy" would have the same rank as the American and British ambassadors in Afghanistan. He would become the principal contact between President Hamid Karzai and both Nato and the UN.”
That sounds good, but Karzai has refused to cooperate. It seems that he is afraid that Ashdown will repeat what he did in the same role in Bosnia, which was to overrule the powers of the government. It is easy to understand why Karzai would be jealous of his power, but perhaps he needs to be reminded who obtained that power for him.
General Barno talks about his contact with local Afghani farmers and workers who have told him about the simple resources and training that they and their children need to be able to work their way back to a comfortable life.
Supporting those people is the kind of effort we need to make not only in Afghanistan, but also in Iraq and around the world. Wherever we encounter unrest, you can be sure that not far beneath the surface lies the inability to live comfortably in the face of political instability or tyranny. The problems underlying that situation are the key to the containment of terrorism. Those agitating for peace have always known that if we could first make the lives of the average citizen satisfactorily secure, we would face a greatly reduced amount of hostility around the world.
Barno has the right idea. If only the rest of the military would pay some attention. If only the rest of America would trade in John Wayne for Mother Teresa. And, if wishes were fishes . . .
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Local Event with International Impact
In a departure from my usual daily diatribe on national issues, I want to tell you about an event of great value that is happening in Springfield this Thursday.
We in Springfield are blessed with the presence of a fine young man in Patrick Mureithi. Patrick is a videographer, a musician/songwriter, and a man of peace who, though now an American citizen, has kept tabs on the pulse of Africa while attending school and working in this country. In the midst of the flood of violence sweeping Rwanda, Patrick spotted an island of calm in a program that brought people from the two rival tribes, Tootsie and Hutu, together in a structured program to talk about their feelings and to try and find some common ground.
He was so struck by the effectiveness of the process involved that he decided he wanted to do a documentary that could be used to spread the program around the country. Immediately, Patrick began work on his project. Patrick is not a wealthy man, and he recognized that the costs would be high. He did as much work on the project as he could here at home while also raising the funds needed to allow him to travel to Rwanda to capture the country and the efforts to reunite it on tape, then came back home to do the rock-hard editing necessary to mold his work into a finished product.
Just last week, he did it. The film is finished, and he will share it with Springfield on Thursday evening at 6:00 in Clara Thompson Hall in a free showing open to all.
Patrick has created a meaningful and valuable contribution to Rwanda’s efforts to heal from the horrible, self-inflicted wounds of its people. Please take the time to stop by Clara Thompson Hall Thursday evening and see this film. I guarantee that you will not only enjoy it, but learn from it and benefit by it. This is a special program presented by a very special young man who deserves our support.
Sad to say, while Patrick was working on his documentary the same kind of violence broke out in his homeland of Kenya. It is so similar to what we are seeing in the Sudan that it all becomes confused in minds so far removed from the actual events. There, two candidates for the presidency were from rival tribes, the Kikuyu and the Luo, and the intensity of their campaign sparked violence between members of those tribes on the streets of the nation. Hopefully his documentary can be seen not only in Rwanda, but in Kenya where Kofi Annan has recently been successful in beginning the healing process there. Perhaps the video will find fertile ground there and enable Patrick to have a strongly meaningful role in bringing peace to his own native land.
I am fortunate enough to be able to call Patrick a friend and so have also been fortunate enough to see some preliminary footage as he was putting this documentary together, so I can tell you honestly that it is stunningly spectacular as well as informative.
Please try to attend. You definitely will not regret having spent the time.
I hope to see you there.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
We in Springfield are blessed with the presence of a fine young man in Patrick Mureithi. Patrick is a videographer, a musician/songwriter, and a man of peace who, though now an American citizen, has kept tabs on the pulse of Africa while attending school and working in this country. In the midst of the flood of violence sweeping Rwanda, Patrick spotted an island of calm in a program that brought people from the two rival tribes, Tootsie and Hutu, together in a structured program to talk about their feelings and to try and find some common ground.
He was so struck by the effectiveness of the process involved that he decided he wanted to do a documentary that could be used to spread the program around the country. Immediately, Patrick began work on his project. Patrick is not a wealthy man, and he recognized that the costs would be high. He did as much work on the project as he could here at home while also raising the funds needed to allow him to travel to Rwanda to capture the country and the efforts to reunite it on tape, then came back home to do the rock-hard editing necessary to mold his work into a finished product.
Just last week, he did it. The film is finished, and he will share it with Springfield on Thursday evening at 6:00 in Clara Thompson Hall in a free showing open to all.
Patrick has created a meaningful and valuable contribution to Rwanda’s efforts to heal from the horrible, self-inflicted wounds of its people. Please take the time to stop by Clara Thompson Hall Thursday evening and see this film. I guarantee that you will not only enjoy it, but learn from it and benefit by it. This is a special program presented by a very special young man who deserves our support.
Sad to say, while Patrick was working on his documentary the same kind of violence broke out in his homeland of Kenya. It is so similar to what we are seeing in the Sudan that it all becomes confused in minds so far removed from the actual events. There, two candidates for the presidency were from rival tribes, the Kikuyu and the Luo, and the intensity of their campaign sparked violence between members of those tribes on the streets of the nation. Hopefully his documentary can be seen not only in Rwanda, but in Kenya where Kofi Annan has recently been successful in beginning the healing process there. Perhaps the video will find fertile ground there and enable Patrick to have a strongly meaningful role in bringing peace to his own native land.
I am fortunate enough to be able to call Patrick a friend and so have also been fortunate enough to see some preliminary footage as he was putting this documentary together, so I can tell you honestly that it is stunningly spectacular as well as informative.
Please try to attend. You definitely will not regret having spent the time.
I hope to see you there.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
