Yesterday I called an old (since before kindergarten!) friend of mine who lives in Arvada, Colorado. I called not only because of the shootings in Arvada this week-end, but also because her husband was teaching at Columbine on their horrible day. I thought all the baggage of these horrors might be weighing a little heavily on Jules, so I just wanted to let her know I was thinking about her.
She seemed okay with it all even though the incident was six blocks from her home, her husband was gone hunting so she was home alone and the police called her to tell her to turn off all her lights, draw her drapes and stay inside.
Of course, we had to get into a dialogue on why it is that our society is riddled with crazies who choose to shoot a few others before they blow themselves away or get the cops to do it for them.
Is it the isolation everybody feels because they’ve spent their lives in front of a TV instead of interacting with human beings? Is it growing up in a culture that constantly sends the message that violence solves problems? Is it being so far removed from reality that the killer doesn’t see his victims as real human beings? Is it ingrown anger rising from neglect – benign or otherwise? Is it a result of the some sad loner feeling like his life is of no value but that notoriety can give it value just like it has for other lost souls who got their 15 minutes of fame on a newscast with a gun in their hand? Is it living in a culture that on a daily basis makes it clear that no other culture (ergo no other being) has value and so can be rubbed out with alacrity? Is it an evolutionary development triggered by thousands of years of existence in the knowledge that at every moment there is some enemy or another out there who has no higher desire than our destruction?
Is it innate in humanity and so to be expected? Is there no way out of it and so we should just accept it and move on?
Or could it be that if we decided to do a cultural about face and quit trying to solve international problems with bombs; begin interacting with one another so that each face had a name and each name a value; and recognize that even those whose skin or eyes don’t look like mine or who choose a different religion from mine or who speak a different language from mine are, even so, human beings of value . . . Could it be that we might begin to evolve into a more sane species? Might it be that these aberrations would reduce in number to the level they used to be when a Columbine or Arvada incident was unthinkable?
Might be, but we’ll never know. As George W. Bush said, we’ll all be in our graves before that happens.
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, December 11, 2007
Monday, December 10, 2007
Misspent Resources
This morning’s paper didn’t even carry the story, but the BBC informed us this morning that a major offensive is going on in Afghanistan where coalition troops are trying to push the Taliban out of an area where they have been regaining more and more control.
The BBC’s interviewer made it abundantly clear that the military representative he was interviewing was being much less open than he usually was when he evaded questions about coalition progress and whether or not any significant Taliban leaders had been killed or captured.
The general picture, though, was that the fighting had initially been intense but had eased off somewhat over the last 24 hours or so and that the coalition was making headway.
I find it ironic that the Bush Administration, here given an opportunity to finally announce some good news about its efforts in the “war against terror”, is offering no word at all about this battle. Why would that be?
Perhaps the spin doctors think that any reference to pushing the Taliban back offers too big an opportunity for opponents to point out that after our invasion of Afghanistan the Taliban should never have had an opportunity to come back at all. They could be right about that.
Maybe they are afraid that someone might say that if we had put into Afghanistan a quarter of the resources we have poured down the rathole in Iraq, we would by now have put the Taliban totally out of commission, found Osama bin Laden, ground Al Qaida into the dust, and probably eased the problems now being faced by Pakistan.
Maybe they fear that someone might point out that the reason we didn’t do that is because Afghanistan lacks Iraq’s oil. Afghanistan offers only a path for us to use to run an oil pipeline from Russia’s Kirghiz fields, while Iraq offers one-third of all the oil the Middle East has to offer.
Perhaps then someone might have drawn the conclusion that BushCo’s war in Iraq really has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein and his WMDs or with the “war on terror” and everything to do with American control of Middle East power and oil.
Believe it or not, I supported Mr. Bush when he announced that we were going to Afghanistan to root out the Taliban and terrorists they supported. Our “war against terror” should have been a war against Osama bin Laden. The Taliban should have been eliminated because of their open support of his hostility, and we should have put our efforts at government building into Afghanistan and not Iraq. We could have dramatically improved the lot of the people of Afghanistan while demonstrating our sensibility to the rest of the world. Instead we have demonstrated our irrational bellicosity and our willingness to trade our humanity for the mask of power. Pray that our next administration will have the sense to turn us around.
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 BBC’s interviewer made it abundantly clear that the military representative he was interviewing was being much less open than he usually was when he evaded questions about coalition progress and whether or not any significant Taliban leaders had been killed or captured.
The general picture, though, was that the fighting had initially been intense but had eased off somewhat over the last 24 hours or so and that the coalition was making headway.
I find it ironic that the Bush Administration, here given an opportunity to finally announce some good news about its efforts in the “war against terror”, is offering no word at all about this battle. Why would that be?
Perhaps the spin doctors think that any reference to pushing the Taliban back offers too big an opportunity for opponents to point out that after our invasion of Afghanistan the Taliban should never have had an opportunity to come back at all. They could be right about that.
Maybe they are afraid that someone might say that if we had put into Afghanistan a quarter of the resources we have poured down the rathole in Iraq, we would by now have put the Taliban totally out of commission, found Osama bin Laden, ground Al Qaida into the dust, and probably eased the problems now being faced by Pakistan.
Maybe they fear that someone might point out that the reason we didn’t do that is because Afghanistan lacks Iraq’s oil. Afghanistan offers only a path for us to use to run an oil pipeline from Russia’s Kirghiz fields, while Iraq offers one-third of all the oil the Middle East has to offer.
Perhaps then someone might have drawn the conclusion that BushCo’s war in Iraq really has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein and his WMDs or with the “war on terror” and everything to do with American control of Middle East power and oil.
Believe it or not, I supported Mr. Bush when he announced that we were going to Afghanistan to root out the Taliban and terrorists they supported. Our “war against terror” should have been a war against Osama bin Laden. The Taliban should have been eliminated because of their open support of his hostility, and we should have put our efforts at government building into Afghanistan and not Iraq. We could have dramatically improved the lot of the people of Afghanistan while demonstrating our sensibility to the rest of the world. Instead we have demonstrated our irrational bellicosity and our willingness to trade our humanity for the mask of power. Pray that our next administration will have the sense to turn us around.
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, December 7, 2007
Politics and Religion
In a locker room conversation the other day, I answered a question from a friend whom I met while working at the polls during the last presidential election. He wanted to know which of the candidates for president I favored.
“One that won’t be elected,” I told him. “Dennis Kucinich. He’s the only one that has consistently stood up and told the truth about what he believes.”
“Yeah,” my friend nodded, “but he’s just too far out there.”
“Right,” I said. “He’s definitely the best administrator in the pack, and he believes we should put as much effort into achieving peace as into making war. With those attitudes in this society, he doesn’t stand a chance.”
Larry just looked at me, but that look said it all. I could see in his eyes, the understanding that there is something fundamentally wrong with a society that is more comfortable with war than with peace and more excited about having a president with good hair, white teeth and a strong personality than one who has demonstrated his ability to run a government but is just a little guy with a bad haircut.
Besides, Dennis has never proven his right to the presidency by telling us how much he believes in Jesus. How could he ever expect to be president!?
In a related vein, I was interested in Romney’s comments about his Mormonism yesterday. As all the media have pointed out, it reminds us of what Jack Kennedy had to say about Catholicism. Maybe it’s just that I’m an old coot and old coots always think the ways of the past were better than those of the present, but of the two speeches, I much preferred Kennedy’s.
The bottom line of Romney’s speech was his call for “deepening the link between faith and political life”. – (Springfield News-Leader, Friday December 7, p1E) The bottom line of Kennedy’s speech was that faith is a personal choice that was best left out of the political arena in order to ensure that the church has no sway over political decision-making.
The trend of requiring politicians to wear their fundamentalism on their sleeve has led to undue influence for people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Charles Dobson, and to voting decisions that brought us the likes of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
It seems to me that we were far better off with Kennedy!
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
“One that won’t be elected,” I told him. “Dennis Kucinich. He’s the only one that has consistently stood up and told the truth about what he believes.”
“Yeah,” my friend nodded, “but he’s just too far out there.”
“Right,” I said. “He’s definitely the best administrator in the pack, and he believes we should put as much effort into achieving peace as into making war. With those attitudes in this society, he doesn’t stand a chance.”
Larry just looked at me, but that look said it all. I could see in his eyes, the understanding that there is something fundamentally wrong with a society that is more comfortable with war than with peace and more excited about having a president with good hair, white teeth and a strong personality than one who has demonstrated his ability to run a government but is just a little guy with a bad haircut.
Besides, Dennis has never proven his right to the presidency by telling us how much he believes in Jesus. How could he ever expect to be president!?
In a related vein, I was interested in Romney’s comments about his Mormonism yesterday. As all the media have pointed out, it reminds us of what Jack Kennedy had to say about Catholicism. Maybe it’s just that I’m an old coot and old coots always think the ways of the past were better than those of the present, but of the two speeches, I much preferred Kennedy’s.
The bottom line of Romney’s speech was his call for “deepening the link between faith and political life”. – (Springfield News-Leader, Friday December 7, p1E) The bottom line of Kennedy’s speech was that faith is a personal choice that was best left out of the political arena in order to ensure that the church has no sway over political decision-making.
The trend of requiring politicians to wear their fundamentalism on their sleeve has led to undue influence for people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Charles Dobson, and to voting decisions that brought us the likes of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
It seems to me that we were far better off with Kennedy!
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, December 6, 2007
Ghosts of Abu Ghraib
Last night a group of conscientious folk gathered at the Library to view a DVD titled Ghosts of Abu Ghraib. Directed by Rory Kennedy, the documentary took us inside Abu Ghraib itself as well as inside the minds of some of the soldiers who were assigned to work there including those who served time for their involvement in the infamous scenes that brought to light that rip in our national moral fabric.
It was a gripping, fact-filled, and rather unpleasant 78 minutes of viewing time. The marines who had served there spoke first of the uses Saddam Hassein had made of the facility. They showed us the gallows where 80 to 100 people were hanged every day under his iron fist. They told us about sleeping in a room that also held crematoriums for the disposal of the bodies. They spoke, as gloomy footage showed us the dank halls of the prison, of their fear of walking those halls at night; their sense of the presence of all those lost souls wandering in anger.
They spoke, too, of the ways their experience as guards at the American run prison somehow twisted them from the caring citizens they were when they arrived into the kind of people who could commit atrocities on other people. Using documents issued by Donald Rumsfeld and the Justice Department, and discussing the attitudes of their officers, these soldiers painted a picture worthy of Van Gogh in his deepest depressions.
Questions that rose in the minds of the viewers included wondering whether, given the same circumstances, they, too, would turn into the kind of merciless robots these fine young men and women told us they had become. How thick (or thin) is the veneer of civilization that keeps us from persecuting one another? What is the psychological vein of sadism that runs not so very deep within the human psyche? Why does it respond to negative leadership as strongly as it does, so that it allows a culture like the Germans of 1939 or the Americans of 2007 to at best ignore and worst approve of the kind of inhuman treatment our soldiers are giving daily to those incarcerated in inhumane prisons of our making around the world?
As the movie made clear, such policies are not created by the boots on the ground. The policies and the attitudes that create or allow them are made by higher ups – the Donald Rumsfelds, dick Cheneys and George W. Bushes of the world.
The pictures that so shocked us in 2004 are no longer at the forefront of our national consciousness. Instead, we have presidential caucuses about to take place in a state (Iowa) where polls earlier this week showed that 80% of the registered Republicans approve of the job being done by Mr. Bush and his administration. Who would ever have thought that such moral decay would overtake the land of the free; the home of the brave; the nation that saved the world from the brutality of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan?
The great irony we discussed last night is that all this has taken place during the era of strong resurgence of evangelical Christianity. I was reminded of Thoms Paine’s imprecation, “You can generally depend upon a good man to do good things, and an evil man to do evil things, but it takes religion to make a good man do evil things.”
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
It was a gripping, fact-filled, and rather unpleasant 78 minutes of viewing time. The marines who had served there spoke first of the uses Saddam Hassein had made of the facility. They showed us the gallows where 80 to 100 people were hanged every day under his iron fist. They told us about sleeping in a room that also held crematoriums for the disposal of the bodies. They spoke, as gloomy footage showed us the dank halls of the prison, of their fear of walking those halls at night; their sense of the presence of all those lost souls wandering in anger.
They spoke, too, of the ways their experience as guards at the American run prison somehow twisted them from the caring citizens they were when they arrived into the kind of people who could commit atrocities on other people. Using documents issued by Donald Rumsfeld and the Justice Department, and discussing the attitudes of their officers, these soldiers painted a picture worthy of Van Gogh in his deepest depressions.
Questions that rose in the minds of the viewers included wondering whether, given the same circumstances, they, too, would turn into the kind of merciless robots these fine young men and women told us they had become. How thick (or thin) is the veneer of civilization that keeps us from persecuting one another? What is the psychological vein of sadism that runs not so very deep within the human psyche? Why does it respond to negative leadership as strongly as it does, so that it allows a culture like the Germans of 1939 or the Americans of 2007 to at best ignore and worst approve of the kind of inhuman treatment our soldiers are giving daily to those incarcerated in inhumane prisons of our making around the world?
As the movie made clear, such policies are not created by the boots on the ground. The policies and the attitudes that create or allow them are made by higher ups – the Donald Rumsfelds, dick Cheneys and George W. Bushes of the world.
The pictures that so shocked us in 2004 are no longer at the forefront of our national consciousness. Instead, we have presidential caucuses about to take place in a state (Iowa) where polls earlier this week showed that 80% of the registered Republicans approve of the job being done by Mr. Bush and his administration. Who would ever have thought that such moral decay would overtake the land of the free; the home of the brave; the nation that saved the world from the brutality of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan?
The great irony we discussed last night is that all this has taken place during the era of strong resurgence of evangelical Christianity. I was reminded of Thoms Paine’s imprecation, “You can generally depend upon a good man to do good things, and an evil man to do evil things, but it takes religion to make a good man do evil things.”
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, December 4, 2007
Yesterday's Question Already Answered
Yesterday I asked if the release of the national intelligence estimate declaring that Iran has not been working toward developing nuclear weapons would stop the BushCo pressure to attack that country.
By the time the evening news carried the story, the answer was already on the street. On the Jim Lehrer News Hour, two government experts were interviewed - David Kay, a past arms inspector, and another whose name I missed. Their assessment sounded like they were talking about an entirely different report. From their perspective the report simply proved that Iran had been developing nuclear arms, that US diplomacy was working to deter further development, and that this all went to prove that Iran truly is an enemy we need to fear.
Additionally, President Bush himself made it clear in a statement to the press that this report was not going to change anything. His logic, if you can call it that was that this report was a warning signal because if Iran had once had a nuclear weapons program but stopped it, they could restart it any time.
He also related Iran's decision to stop its program to effective U.S. diplomacy. To cap it off, Hillary Clinton, in a statement made in yesterday's Iowa Public Radio debate agreed with that statement!
What US diplomacy was it that worked to stop Iran's nuclear development four years ago?!? There was none going on that I'm aware of. The big event of that year was our invasion of Iraq. It seems much more logical to me that Iran looked at that invasion and said, "Saddam's gone. I we won't need the nukes." Friends or not, we had removed their greatest enemy so, by dint of the old saw, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend.",they actually saw the U.S. as a sort of round-about ally. If there is any truth in that scenario, our "diplomacy" at this point becomes an even greater slap in the face than ever before.
To me, all this is like a trip through the looking glass. What is there to fear if we know they have stopped trying to develop nuclear weapons? Why should we continue to consider attacking another nation that is not a threat to us?
Maybe because they are still the threat the administration says they are in Iraq? Or, maybe not . . .
The Los Angeles Times recently ran an article confirming the Asia Times article I cited here a couple of weeks ago about the determination that Iran was not behind the IEDs in use in Iraq, either. Here is an excerpt:
In Iraq, U.S. shifts its tone on Iran
Officials have backed off the accusations of arms smuggling and agreed to talk. It could be each side needs the other.
By Tina Susman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 1, 2007
BAGHDAD -- Not long ago, U.S. military officials in Iraq routinely displayed rockets, mortars and jagged chunks of metal to reporters and insisted that they were Iranian-made arms being fired at American bases. Collaboration between Tehran and Washington on stabilizing Iraq seemed doubtful at best.
In the last two months, though, there has been a shift in U.S. military and diplomatic attitudes toward Iran. Officials have backed away from sweeping accusations that the Iranian leadership is orchestrating massive smuggling of arms, agents and ammunition. Instead, they have agreed to a new round of talks with Iranian and Iraqi officials over security in Iraq. The meeting is expected to take place this month.
The U.S. also freed nine Iranian men last month, some of whom it had been holding since 2004. Iran denied U.S. accusations that many of them had been assisting anti-U.S. militias in Iraq, and had demanded their release in a series of testy exchanges with U.S. officials.
When the U.S. freed them, it did not allude to the Iranian demands. It said only that they no longer posed a threat.
Pentagon officials and analysts cite several reasons for the change, including U.S. concern that provoking Iran could set off a confrontation that military commanders are keen to avoid, and the realization that better relations with Iran would help stabilize Iraq.
So - if they are not a threat in Iraq, either, why would BushCo keep saying that we should attack Iran? -- Because it somehow fits into their grand plan for control of the Middle East. The only other reason I can think of is that it definely fits into the BushCo approach of sticking to its guns no matter what.
This administration is like a three year old kid. It can't see the long term effects of its actions and it will hold its breath and kick and scream until it gets its way. Well, it's time we parents put a stop to this nonsense.
BushCo needs a knot jerked in its tail and it's obvious that Congress isn't going to do it. That leaves it up to you and me. Maybe we can find a small room to lock these brats up in until the tantrums pass. Or maybe we could arrange an extraordinary rendition and give them a taste of their own medicine. A little Syrian waterboarding would probably do them a world of good. These guys don't believe it's torture, so they shouldn't mind.
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
By the time the evening news carried the story, the answer was already on the street. On the Jim Lehrer News Hour, two government experts were interviewed - David Kay, a past arms inspector, and another whose name I missed. Their assessment sounded like they were talking about an entirely different report. From their perspective the report simply proved that Iran had been developing nuclear arms, that US diplomacy was working to deter further development, and that this all went to prove that Iran truly is an enemy we need to fear.
Additionally, President Bush himself made it clear in a statement to the press that this report was not going to change anything. His logic, if you can call it that was that this report was a warning signal because if Iran had once had a nuclear weapons program but stopped it, they could restart it any time.
He also related Iran's decision to stop its program to effective U.S. diplomacy. To cap it off, Hillary Clinton, in a statement made in yesterday's Iowa Public Radio debate agreed with that statement!
What US diplomacy was it that worked to stop Iran's nuclear development four years ago?!? There was none going on that I'm aware of. The big event of that year was our invasion of Iraq. It seems much more logical to me that Iran looked at that invasion and said, "Saddam's gone. I we won't need the nukes." Friends or not, we had removed their greatest enemy so, by dint of the old saw, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend.",they actually saw the U.S. as a sort of round-about ally. If there is any truth in that scenario, our "diplomacy" at this point becomes an even greater slap in the face than ever before.
To me, all this is like a trip through the looking glass. What is there to fear if we know they have stopped trying to develop nuclear weapons? Why should we continue to consider attacking another nation that is not a threat to us?
Maybe because they are still the threat the administration says they are in Iraq? Or, maybe not . . .
The Los Angeles Times recently ran an article confirming the Asia Times article I cited here a couple of weeks ago about the determination that Iran was not behind the IEDs in use in Iraq, either. Here is an excerpt:
In Iraq, U.S. shifts its tone on Iran
Officials have backed off the accusations of arms smuggling and agreed to talk. It could be each side needs the other.
By Tina Susman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 1, 2007
BAGHDAD -- Not long ago, U.S. military officials in Iraq routinely displayed rockets, mortars and jagged chunks of metal to reporters and insisted that they were Iranian-made arms being fired at American bases. Collaboration between Tehran and Washington on stabilizing Iraq seemed doubtful at best.
In the last two months, though, there has been a shift in U.S. military and diplomatic attitudes toward Iran. Officials have backed away from sweeping accusations that the Iranian leadership is orchestrating massive smuggling of arms, agents and ammunition. Instead, they have agreed to a new round of talks with Iranian and Iraqi officials over security in Iraq. The meeting is expected to take place this month.
The U.S. also freed nine Iranian men last month, some of whom it had been holding since 2004. Iran denied U.S. accusations that many of them had been assisting anti-U.S. militias in Iraq, and had demanded their release in a series of testy exchanges with U.S. officials.
When the U.S. freed them, it did not allude to the Iranian demands. It said only that they no longer posed a threat.
Pentagon officials and analysts cite several reasons for the change, including U.S. concern that provoking Iran could set off a confrontation that military commanders are keen to avoid, and the realization that better relations with Iran would help stabilize Iraq.
So - if they are not a threat in Iraq, either, why would BushCo keep saying that we should attack Iran? -- Because it somehow fits into their grand plan for control of the Middle East. The only other reason I can think of is that it definely fits into the BushCo approach of sticking to its guns no matter what.
This administration is like a three year old kid. It can't see the long term effects of its actions and it will hold its breath and kick and scream until it gets its way. Well, it's time we parents put a stop to this nonsense.
BushCo needs a knot jerked in its tail and it's obvious that Congress isn't going to do it. That leaves it up to you and me. Maybe we can find a small room to lock these brats up in until the tantrums pass. Or maybe we could arrange an extraordinary rendition and give them a taste of their own medicine. A little Syrian waterboarding would probably do them a world of good. These guys don't believe it's torture, so they shouldn't mind.
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, December 3, 2007
National Intelligence Estimate
A national intelligence estimate was released yesterday about Iran’s nuclear weapons capability. Their conclusion – Iran dropped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and, if they decided tomorrow to start over, could not possibly produce a weapon before 2012 to 2015.
Why did they decide to make this report – classified since last spring – available to the public? Obviously they wanted enough citizens to be aware of this to create a critical mass that even little dick Cheney couldn’t ignore.
Will it work and stop this megalomaniac this time? It didn't stop them when they were the only ones who had read it. Will public pressure increase and do the trick? Stay tuned.
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
Why did they decide to make this report – classified since last spring – available to the public? Obviously they wanted enough citizens to be aware of this to create a critical mass that even little dick Cheney couldn’t ignore.
Will it work and stop this megalomaniac this time? It didn't stop them when they were the only ones who had read it. Will public pressure increase and do the trick? Stay tuned.
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
Venezuelan Elections – Defeat or Victory?
The US government – notably not just the Bush Administration, but the whole verbose shebang – has long been making nasty comments about Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chavez. To me all that bluster is more of the same vis-à-vis our usual process of demonizing a person or a nation until he or it becomes accepted as an enemy by the man on the street so our government can act against them without American censure.
Not only has Hugo Chavez been obnoxiously confrontational toward US policy and flagrantly pointing at BushCo as a group of international criminals, but he has been making sure that his country’s resources are used for the benefit of the entire spectrum of society in Venezuela with a special emphasis on the poor. For all those things, he has long been a hero of mine.
By a 51-49% margin in yesterday’s vote, the people of Venezuela voted not to grant Chavez the right to hold the presidency as long as he likes, but rather gave him notice that his term of office is limited. While I think that most of what he has accomplished in Venezuela has been beneficial for Venezuelans (and the world in general), I also think that the voters were right.
Those who hold absolute power indefinitely can and usually do build for themselves a vast and bountiful lifestyle that ultimately must be defended by limiting the power of the people. I don’t know about Chavez himself, but his family was beginning to show signs of that deterioration of national interest in favor of personal interests – big houses, new cars, etc. The kind of extravagances the rich gather to themselves everywhere they are permitted to amass so much more than they need and to taste the thrill of power that wealth provides.
It’s too bad because it goes so deeply against what Hugo Chavez has stood for and accomplished over the years, but it is true that absolute power corrupts absolutely, so congratulations to the people of Venezuela for the wisdom they showed in their voting. Now my hope is that Chavez, too, will recognize that wisdom and strive to maintain the efforts at populism that brought equal opportunity to all of his people and show it by being a bit more humble while keeping up his efforts to make sure that everyone benefits and no one is hurt by the power the wealth of his oil producing nation generates.
Viva Chavez. Viva Venezuela. Viva pas.
Would that we had some real populists gaining power in this country and voters with the wisdom of the average Venezuelan
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
Not only has Hugo Chavez been obnoxiously confrontational toward US policy and flagrantly pointing at BushCo as a group of international criminals, but he has been making sure that his country’s resources are used for the benefit of the entire spectrum of society in Venezuela with a special emphasis on the poor. For all those things, he has long been a hero of mine.
By a 51-49% margin in yesterday’s vote, the people of Venezuela voted not to grant Chavez the right to hold the presidency as long as he likes, but rather gave him notice that his term of office is limited. While I think that most of what he has accomplished in Venezuela has been beneficial for Venezuelans (and the world in general), I also think that the voters were right.
Those who hold absolute power indefinitely can and usually do build for themselves a vast and bountiful lifestyle that ultimately must be defended by limiting the power of the people. I don’t know about Chavez himself, but his family was beginning to show signs of that deterioration of national interest in favor of personal interests – big houses, new cars, etc. The kind of extravagances the rich gather to themselves everywhere they are permitted to amass so much more than they need and to taste the thrill of power that wealth provides.
It’s too bad because it goes so deeply against what Hugo Chavez has stood for and accomplished over the years, but it is true that absolute power corrupts absolutely, so congratulations to the people of Venezuela for the wisdom they showed in their voting. Now my hope is that Chavez, too, will recognize that wisdom and strive to maintain the efforts at populism that brought equal opportunity to all of his people and show it by being a bit more humble while keeping up his efforts to make sure that everyone benefits and no one is hurt by the power the wealth of his oil producing nation generates.
Viva Chavez. Viva Venezuela. Viva pas.
Would that we had some real populists gaining power in this country and voters with the wisdom of the average Venezuelan
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)
