On the way home this morning, from one of my forays out into the public (this time it was a trip to the bank, post office, library and grocery store), I was listening to a local talk radio broadcast. Not one of my favorite broadcasts because I don't really care for the mannerisms of the talk show host, but he does occasionally stumble onto an interesting topic. This morning the topic was the increased security measures (demands) forced on us by our great 'protectors of life, liberty and the American way', Homeland Security.
One of the callers stated that Janet Napoiitano, secretary of Homeland Security, says they have adopted the policy of not patting down Arab women dressed in their traditional garb. My immediate question is, why not? If they choose to live in America (or use American aircraft to travel) then they should be subjected to the same rules and inconveniences that the rest of us are.
The other day, I heard Ms Napolitano state that travelers have other options to get around this country and if they choose to use airplanes they are going to be subjected to 'patting down' or 'full-body scans'. That is a very hard-line stance, but I understand it is necessary if we are to respect their authority. The one thing that undermines their authority is to begin allowing unfounded exceptions. Since Arab women have the same travel options as the rest of us, why are they allowed to bypass this very intrusive security measure?
And then, the point came to mind that before September 11, 2001 and the atrocious and despicable attack by a group of Arabs on the World Trade Center, we Americans were not subjected to any security measures. Therefore, it stands to reason that the basis of this nations increased 'need' for security measures at our airports is to prevent a repeat of that awful event or something similar to it. By the way, I agree that security measures need to be taken, and not only at airports.
Anyway, I want to make this point clear, I know for certain that not all Arabs are our enemy. I know for certain that there is a subset of Muslims that are dedicated to destroying Americans and our 'devil' ways.
Now, before you get into an uproar over what I am about to say, before you falsely perceive my next statements as racial profiling, hear me out. The only serious threats to airline travel that we Americans have been subjected to have come from...Arabs. The only actual successful and unsuccessful attacks on American soil has come from...Arabs. The only group of people that have declared war on all Americans have come from...Arabs. It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to see that the US government's primary threat level is coming from...Arabs. So, why is an Arab (woman or otherwise) allowed to bypass the very security measures put into place to protect us? And, how can we be faulted for racial profiling?
I truly wish that the trend in human society would be towards more tolerance and less divisiveness, more class and less snobbery, more equality and less elitism. But this is wishing for fantasy. What is not fantasy is, that a sub-group of Arabs (radical Muslims) are out to destroy our American way of life. This is not being racist, this is not racial profiling, this fact has been well-documented.
Every person who boards an airplane needs to be subjected to the same level of security scrutiny as everyone else. No exceptions.
Irrespective of any religious, racial, or cultural differences, it is my observation is that human society is evolving towards more aggression towards each other. More people are resorting to violence as opposed to conversation to resolve differences. We are trending towards less tolerance. We are becoming less concerned about each others right to privacy or to live peacefully. More of us are preying on each others kindness.
It is becoming easier for people to chose to lie to get what they want. More people are favoring their own selfish needs over what is best for society as a whole.
And because of these ever-increasing threats to our sense of 'personal security and safety' we are isolating ourselves further away from each other, which only exacerbates the problem.
It is unfortunate that increased levels of security are becoming a necessary part of life. We need security measures that are not intrusive while not infringing upon our freedoms.
Until diplomacy and tolerance take their rightful place in the forefront of human evolution we will be forced to depend on technology to protect us, and that means everyone.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Our Fellow Americans are starving
A federal report on hunger in America raises many questions. Questions that many of us already know the answer to. In the report, as presented by CNN, we learn the number of American households fighting off hunger stayed level last year at 14.7%, that’s roughly 45 million people. It’s the old ‘good news, bad news’ report. The bad news is that the hunger rate is high, the good news is that it didn’t get any worse.
It’s no surprise that there is hunger here in America. Anyone who pays attention (and it is easier to not pay attention when you have an abundance of everything), especially around Thanksgiving and Christmas has heard the increase in requests for donations. We have also seen the signs.
The various grocery stores I visit have begun placing a large donation barrel just inside the front door so everyone walks past it as they enter and leave. The barrel is clearly marked as a receptacle for donated food destined for the food bank. Those barrels remain pretty empty. I don’t need to tell you this, you already know.
It’s a sign of the times that those barrels remain so empty so that makes it easier for us to walk past them without dropping anything into them. If everyone drops one can in (preferably stuff that you yourself would serve to your family) then hunger could be cut down at least a little bit for a little while. But I don’t need to tell you that. You already know.
The report really does nothing more than tell us that government programs, supported by our tax dollars are footing the bill for feeding the poor. But I don’t need to tell you that. You already know.
Many of these people are in their situation as a result of decisions they have made. Is this a good enough reason to turn our backs on them? Do we really believe they don’t deserve our help because they alone are responsible for where they are? Is that the reason food donations are so pitifully inadequate?
The causes for hunger are many and run deep. In September 2009, the US Census Bureau reported rising poverty, falling incomes, and growing numbers of uninsured US households. Even by the Bureau's conservative estimates, 39.8 million Americans were impoverished, the highest level since 1960, and 17.1 million lived in extreme poverty at below one-half the official threshold.
A revised October 2009 Census analysis showed 47.4 million (15.8% of the population, including one-fifth of the elderly) below the poverty line, much higher than the above figure and rising.
Despite a growing national crisis, Obama proposed less spending for the poor saying "our fiscal situation remains unacceptable," not growing poverty, homelessness, hunger and despair at levels not seen since the 1930s.
On February 1, he sent Congress a budget freezing social spending for three years, a de facto cut in real terms. At the same time, he lets Wall Street keep pillaging, plans more wealth transfers to the rich, and proposed the largest ever defense and homeland security budgets, leaving little for cash-strapped states and growing millions of desperate people out of luck and on their own.
It's morally reprehensible that we live in the wealthiest nation in the world where so many of our fellow citizens are struggling to make choices between food and other basic services. But I don’t need to tell you that, you already know.
Despite the fact that we decide who gets into office to supposedly represent us, once they get there they turn their backs on us while they sit at tables over-flowing with food. But, you already knew that too.
Since we already know these things why do we allow our fellow citizens to go hungry? Why is there still so much hunger in the wealthiest nation on earth? I wish we knew the answers to these questions and was more willing to do something about it.
It’s no surprise that there is hunger here in America. Anyone who pays attention (and it is easier to not pay attention when you have an abundance of everything), especially around Thanksgiving and Christmas has heard the increase in requests for donations. We have also seen the signs.
The various grocery stores I visit have begun placing a large donation barrel just inside the front door so everyone walks past it as they enter and leave. The barrel is clearly marked as a receptacle for donated food destined for the food bank. Those barrels remain pretty empty. I don’t need to tell you this, you already know.
It’s a sign of the times that those barrels remain so empty so that makes it easier for us to walk past them without dropping anything into them. If everyone drops one can in (preferably stuff that you yourself would serve to your family) then hunger could be cut down at least a little bit for a little while. But I don’t need to tell you that. You already know.
The report really does nothing more than tell us that government programs, supported by our tax dollars are footing the bill for feeding the poor. But I don’t need to tell you that. You already know.
Many of these people are in their situation as a result of decisions they have made. Is this a good enough reason to turn our backs on them? Do we really believe they don’t deserve our help because they alone are responsible for where they are? Is that the reason food donations are so pitifully inadequate?
The causes for hunger are many and run deep. In September 2009, the US Census Bureau reported rising poverty, falling incomes, and growing numbers of uninsured US households. Even by the Bureau's conservative estimates, 39.8 million Americans were impoverished, the highest level since 1960, and 17.1 million lived in extreme poverty at below one-half the official threshold.
A revised October 2009 Census analysis showed 47.4 million (15.8% of the population, including one-fifth of the elderly) below the poverty line, much higher than the above figure and rising.
Despite a growing national crisis, Obama proposed less spending for the poor saying "our fiscal situation remains unacceptable," not growing poverty, homelessness, hunger and despair at levels not seen since the 1930s.
On February 1, he sent Congress a budget freezing social spending for three years, a de facto cut in real terms. At the same time, he lets Wall Street keep pillaging, plans more wealth transfers to the rich, and proposed the largest ever defense and homeland security budgets, leaving little for cash-strapped states and growing millions of desperate people out of luck and on their own.
It's morally reprehensible that we live in the wealthiest nation in the world where so many of our fellow citizens are struggling to make choices between food and other basic services. But I don’t need to tell you that, you already know.
Despite the fact that we decide who gets into office to supposedly represent us, once they get there they turn their backs on us while they sit at tables over-flowing with food. But, you already knew that too.
Since we already know these things why do we allow our fellow citizens to go hungry? Why is there still so much hunger in the wealthiest nation on earth? I wish we knew the answers to these questions and was more willing to do something about it.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
US Government Continues to Hide Truth from the World
No big surprise here. But it still rankles me every time I hear of yet another cover-up. What is it about government servants, our representatives, our ‘protectors’, that allows them to believe we lowly citizens are ‘better off’ not knowing the real truth?
The latest example of our leaders’ misdirected sense of loyalty to keep us in the dark for our own good is classified military documents published on the WikiLeaks site that show the actual civilian death toll of the Iraq war to be 15,000 cases higher than previously reported.
Why keep this number classified? Keeping this number classified only leads to the public wanting to know what is being covered up, who is being protected, and who gains from keeping this number ‘classified’.
The documents show that the vast majority of slain Iraqi civilians were killed by other Iraqis. Why cover this up?
The New York Times says the documents disclosed "many previously unreported instances in which American soldiers killed civilians -- at checkpoints, from helicopters, in operations" and it said there were at least four cases of lethal shootings from helicopters.
Now, this is something I can believe in as the cause for the cover-up. Because the military doesn’t want to admit they made ‘errors of judgment’ that lead to the deaths of civilians. But what if some of these cases were not simply ‘errors of judgment’?
More questions are beginning to surface.
The Guardian said the documents detail torture, summary executions and war crimes. U.S. authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and murder by Iraqi police and soldiers, the documents show, it said.
A lack of action that appears to benefit the U.S. military.
War crimes. Committed by U.S. military. This is a solid reason for a cover-up. After all, our leaders don’t want the American public to have further indisputable evidence that we Americans are a bunch of heathens and will resort to the illegal and immoral use of torture. Haven’t we already been down this road?
History has shown that Americans, as well as all humans, are not above using violence against their fellow man. Not only in war zones, even here at home. Even within our own families. We have all read of reports of people brutalizing their own family members, the ones they supposedly love and cherish. What does this say about mankind?
Civilians don’t need to be shielded from war crimes. We need to know that our leaders actually care about ending the abuse of power over other people. We need to be assured that when we are told we are being protected that it doesn’t mean we are being ‘protected’ from the ‘truth’. This action only deepens the mistrust that is ever present between politicians and the general public.
War crimes need to be prosecuted. And the first step is to bring these acts out into the open, wherever they occur. This step needs to be taken so that we can begin to evolve from our animalistic and brutal ways. Pipe dream, I know, but continued cover-up never really does any good. These are truths that everyone already knows.
WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange said it best: "The attack on the truth by war begins long before war starts and continues long after a war ends". Isn’t it time for a real change?
The latest example of our leaders’ misdirected sense of loyalty to keep us in the dark for our own good is classified military documents published on the WikiLeaks site that show the actual civilian death toll of the Iraq war to be 15,000 cases higher than previously reported.
Why keep this number classified? Keeping this number classified only leads to the public wanting to know what is being covered up, who is being protected, and who gains from keeping this number ‘classified’.
The documents show that the vast majority of slain Iraqi civilians were killed by other Iraqis. Why cover this up?
The New York Times says the documents disclosed "many previously unreported instances in which American soldiers killed civilians -- at checkpoints, from helicopters, in operations" and it said there were at least four cases of lethal shootings from helicopters.
Now, this is something I can believe in as the cause for the cover-up. Because the military doesn’t want to admit they made ‘errors of judgment’ that lead to the deaths of civilians. But what if some of these cases were not simply ‘errors of judgment’?
More questions are beginning to surface.
The Guardian said the documents detail torture, summary executions and war crimes. U.S. authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and murder by Iraqi police and soldiers, the documents show, it said.
A lack of action that appears to benefit the U.S. military.
War crimes. Committed by U.S. military. This is a solid reason for a cover-up. After all, our leaders don’t want the American public to have further indisputable evidence that we Americans are a bunch of heathens and will resort to the illegal and immoral use of torture. Haven’t we already been down this road?
History has shown that Americans, as well as all humans, are not above using violence against their fellow man. Not only in war zones, even here at home. Even within our own families. We have all read of reports of people brutalizing their own family members, the ones they supposedly love and cherish. What does this say about mankind?
Civilians don’t need to be shielded from war crimes. We need to know that our leaders actually care about ending the abuse of power over other people. We need to be assured that when we are told we are being protected that it doesn’t mean we are being ‘protected’ from the ‘truth’. This action only deepens the mistrust that is ever present between politicians and the general public.
War crimes need to be prosecuted. And the first step is to bring these acts out into the open, wherever they occur. This step needs to be taken so that we can begin to evolve from our animalistic and brutal ways. Pipe dream, I know, but continued cover-up never really does any good. These are truths that everyone already knows.
WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange said it best: "The attack on the truth by war begins long before war starts and continues long after a war ends". Isn’t it time for a real change?
Friday, October 30, 2009
Dozens in Congress Under Ethics Inquiry. Transparency Not Allowed
Any surprises here? That some members of Congress are being investigated for ethics violations and Congress does not want the public to know? House ethics investigators have been keeping an eye on more than 30 lawmakers and several aides, according to an ‘accidentally’ released report.
The report was ‘accidentally’ placed on a publicly accessible computer network.
Could we have another ‘deep throat’ in the making? Could this happy ‘accident’ be the work of a concerned individual? Let’s hope so.
The ethics committee is one of the most secretive panels in Congress, and its members and staff members sign oaths not to disclose any activities related to its past or present investigations. And why is this? Why are they sworn to secrecy? If an individual or group is being scrutinized, the public needs to know it. Mainly because it has become abundantly evident that many politicians cannot seem to avail themselves to ethical behavior.
Temptations are always present. It goes with the territory in Washington. As well as in any other seat of power. It is fairly easy to succumb to the seduction of more power and more wealth. Politicians need to be constantly reminded that they are always under the mantel of trust that we the voters and tax payers put on them. A position they themselves openly aspire to.
Ethics is something that should be prized. We should praise those who keep adhere to the higher calling of doing the right thing. And, just as importantly, they should be held out to the public when they commit an act that, while temporarily enriches themselves, ultimately erodes our faith in the system.
The thing about keeping these investigations secret is that we the voters don’t know if they are being actively pursued. Tax payers have witnessed far too many scandals to think that there are none taking place right now. We need to see the finger pointing. We need to know who is being investigated. We need to be reassured that ethics are actually being held to the light and that we are not being taken for another ride.
When the ethics committee holds back results of investigations we see only favoritism being played out. Zoe Lofgren, the House ethics committee’s chairman illustrated this fact when she emphasized that the panel’s activities are preliminary. This is a soft statement with very little meaning. The common currency in political circles. Whomever is being investigated has now been told the investigations are not serious. She basically told everyone under scrutiny that they are safe.
What ever comes of these secret investigations? Typically a private letter of reprimand. A mere slap on the wrist.
Ethics investigations are serious business and their findings should be made public so we the people can decide how to handle the offending party. This wholesale selloff of our government needs to end. And it never will as long as the beneficiaries of handouts and outright bribes are allowed to slink through the halls of Congress unquestioned.
Leo Wise, chief counsel for the Office of Congressional Ethics, declined to comment, citing office policy against confirming or denying the existence of investigations. A Justice Department spokeswoman also declined to comment, citing a similar policy.
So much for Obama’s pledges of “an unprecedented level of openness in Government” and to “establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration.”
The report was ‘accidentally’ placed on a publicly accessible computer network.
Could we have another ‘deep throat’ in the making? Could this happy ‘accident’ be the work of a concerned individual? Let’s hope so.
The ethics committee is one of the most secretive panels in Congress, and its members and staff members sign oaths not to disclose any activities related to its past or present investigations. And why is this? Why are they sworn to secrecy? If an individual or group is being scrutinized, the public needs to know it. Mainly because it has become abundantly evident that many politicians cannot seem to avail themselves to ethical behavior.
Temptations are always present. It goes with the territory in Washington. As well as in any other seat of power. It is fairly easy to succumb to the seduction of more power and more wealth. Politicians need to be constantly reminded that they are always under the mantel of trust that we the voters and tax payers put on them. A position they themselves openly aspire to.
Ethics is something that should be prized. We should praise those who keep adhere to the higher calling of doing the right thing. And, just as importantly, they should be held out to the public when they commit an act that, while temporarily enriches themselves, ultimately erodes our faith in the system.
The thing about keeping these investigations secret is that we the voters don’t know if they are being actively pursued. Tax payers have witnessed far too many scandals to think that there are none taking place right now. We need to see the finger pointing. We need to know who is being investigated. We need to be reassured that ethics are actually being held to the light and that we are not being taken for another ride.
When the ethics committee holds back results of investigations we see only favoritism being played out. Zoe Lofgren, the House ethics committee’s chairman illustrated this fact when she emphasized that the panel’s activities are preliminary. This is a soft statement with very little meaning. The common currency in political circles. Whomever is being investigated has now been told the investigations are not serious. She basically told everyone under scrutiny that they are safe.
What ever comes of these secret investigations? Typically a private letter of reprimand. A mere slap on the wrist.
Ethics investigations are serious business and their findings should be made public so we the people can decide how to handle the offending party. This wholesale selloff of our government needs to end. And it never will as long as the beneficiaries of handouts and outright bribes are allowed to slink through the halls of Congress unquestioned.
Leo Wise, chief counsel for the Office of Congressional Ethics, declined to comment, citing office policy against confirming or denying the existence of investigations. A Justice Department spokeswoman also declined to comment, citing a similar policy.
So much for Obama’s pledges of “an unprecedented level of openness in Government” and to “establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration.”
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
What is the Final Solution in Afghanistan?
Chris Floyd of the blog Empire Burlesque made the observation that militarist nationalism (often called "patriotism") is always, in one way or another, a "Final Solution."
He continues: “Set foot on that road, and you will get there. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not in this generation -- but you will get there. The blood-and-iron logic of domination -- of self-assertion and self-aggrandizement at the expense of all others -- will take you there.
The choice is simple, the choice is stark, the choice is laid upon us all.”
I could not agree more. If we continue on our current path in Afghanistan how can we hope to attain anything other than creating a never-ending treadmill of resentment and lost lives.
The war in Afghanistan has become an aimless absurdity. It began with a reason, to find Osama bin Laden. Or so we were told.
Since then, he ‘may have’ moved into Pakistan. No one knows for certain.
Is it really necessary to continue this seven year long bled letting against a bunch of religious extremists and drug lords many of whom have safe haven in Pakistan, only for the occasional victory? Victories that soon are negated by retaliatory actions of many of the same people we are there to ‘bring into the 21st century’.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s corrupt government skims the very drug trade that funds the indigenous forces NATO forces are fighting against and will therefore never lift a governmental finger to stop it.
The U.S. needs to back away from this messy effort quickly. The lofty goal to create a stable, secure nation-state in hopes of suppressing the spread of the Taliban’s control is miserably implausible. The historical situation is that Afghanistan has been ruled by regional tribal coalitions, often at each others throats, uniting only when a foreign nation enters the fray.
We need to change tactics IF catching Osama bin Laden is truly our goal. And I am willing to bet it is not.
Our troops are dying over an unachievable goal to basically ‘rehabilitate’ a government that refuses to participate in NATO’s game plan. And as long as the leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan are complicit in their harboring of jihadis and continue to profit from the drug trade the idea of this being a ‘winnable’ war is pure folly.
Frederick Douglass once said: “Power concedes nothing without a demand, it never did and it never will.” Our choice is clear, until the citizens of the world stand united in demanding an end to this stalemate and call for an alternative to using the military to force our ideas onto these nations instead of using diplomacy to work out a more stable solution towards peace, the few countries willing to put their citizens in harms way will continue to pay a bloody price with no hopes of achieving anything worthwhile.
He continues: “Set foot on that road, and you will get there. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not in this generation -- but you will get there. The blood-and-iron logic of domination -- of self-assertion and self-aggrandizement at the expense of all others -- will take you there.
The choice is simple, the choice is stark, the choice is laid upon us all.”
I could not agree more. If we continue on our current path in Afghanistan how can we hope to attain anything other than creating a never-ending treadmill of resentment and lost lives.
The war in Afghanistan has become an aimless absurdity. It began with a reason, to find Osama bin Laden. Or so we were told.
Since then, he ‘may have’ moved into Pakistan. No one knows for certain.
Is it really necessary to continue this seven year long bled letting against a bunch of religious extremists and drug lords many of whom have safe haven in Pakistan, only for the occasional victory? Victories that soon are negated by retaliatory actions of many of the same people we are there to ‘bring into the 21st century’.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s corrupt government skims the very drug trade that funds the indigenous forces NATO forces are fighting against and will therefore never lift a governmental finger to stop it.
The U.S. needs to back away from this messy effort quickly. The lofty goal to create a stable, secure nation-state in hopes of suppressing the spread of the Taliban’s control is miserably implausible. The historical situation is that Afghanistan has been ruled by regional tribal coalitions, often at each others throats, uniting only when a foreign nation enters the fray.
We need to change tactics IF catching Osama bin Laden is truly our goal. And I am willing to bet it is not.
Our troops are dying over an unachievable goal to basically ‘rehabilitate’ a government that refuses to participate in NATO’s game plan. And as long as the leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan are complicit in their harboring of jihadis and continue to profit from the drug trade the idea of this being a ‘winnable’ war is pure folly.
Frederick Douglass once said: “Power concedes nothing without a demand, it never did and it never will.” Our choice is clear, until the citizens of the world stand united in demanding an end to this stalemate and call for an alternative to using the military to force our ideas onto these nations instead of using diplomacy to work out a more stable solution towards peace, the few countries willing to put their citizens in harms way will continue to pay a bloody price with no hopes of achieving anything worthwhile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)