The dizzying effects of mass consumption

Check out this great opinion piece in the New York Times by the man who brought you the fantastic book Guns, Germs, and Steel (read it!), Jared Diamond. It is about consumption. It will appeal to anyone interested in environmental matters, the rise of the developing world (especially China), and the wastefulness of the developed world (especially the United States).

The average rates at which people consume resources like oil and metals, and produce wastes like plastics and greenhouse gases, are about 32 times higher in North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia than they are in the developing world. That factor of 32 has big consequences.
...
If India as well as China were to catch up, world consumption rates would triple. If the whole developing world were suddenly to catch up, world rates would increase elevenfold. It would be as if the world population ballooned to 72 billion people (retaining present consumption rates).

Multiculturalism, 'affirmative action', and those darn hyphens

Roger Kimball offers some thoughts on American multiculturalism and the semantics and policies surrounding 'affirmative action'.

What is your favorite bit of Orwellian Newspeak? Near the top of my list is “affirmative action.” It’s such an emollient phrase, so redolent of cheeriness (savor the word “affirmative”) and practicality (“action”). What it really means is “discrimination on the basis of sex, skin color, or some other item in the contemporary lexicon of victimology.” But you can—almost—forget that while the pleasing phrase “affirmative action” echoes in your recollection.
...
But what began as a Presidential Executive Order in 1961 directing government contractors to take “affirmative action” to assure that people be hired “without regard” for sex, race, creed, color, etc., has resulted in the creation of vast bureaucracies dedicated to discovering, hiring, and advancing people chiefly on the basis of those qualities. White is black, freedom is slavery, “without regard” comes to mean “with regard for nothing else.”

You may not wholly agree with Kimball — I don't — but his argument is interesting. I oppose division by skin color or ethnicity and think that a level playing-field is not one of reverse, or 'positive', racism. Then again I see nothing wrong with recognizing one's heritage and I am for a liberal immigration policy. Sometimes it's important to read writing that contrasts with your own views, to help you better understand and develop them.

To Kimball, the hyphen (e.g. African - American) represents the evil of multiculturalism's anti-patriotic sentiment.

Multiculturalism and “affirmative action” are allies in the assault on the institution of American identity.

His liberal-bashing gets a bit old towards the end of the essay as he laments the "rainbow" developed under American multiculturalism, and warns of non-homogeneous bureaucracy like the European Union. The xenophobia card is played when Kimball expresses his distaste for non-English languages in a largely English-speaking country.

Every time you call directory assistance or some large corporation and are told “Press One for English” and “Para español oprime el numero dos” it is another small setback for American identity.

How is the sensible offering of another lingual option on a call menu a foe of "American identity"? Other countries print signs in a variety of languages to make, say, driving easier (not that the translations are always fantastic, as I found out in China). When you're in a country whose inhabitants speak the same language — for the most part — it makes sense to learn enough of that language to get by. However it is also only logical for that country to accommodate to people more familiar with another language, especially when they are present in large numbers. There is room for more than one language in the United States, and those afraid of Spanish becoming the de facto language should know their fears are unfounded anyway.

Whether you're a 'terrorist by birth' or a 'liberal baby' bawling about how bad it is to lose your heritage,* there are always people hoping to generate skepticism of multicultural coexistence to enforce their point: that America is losing its identity.

So again we wonder what it truly means to be American in a country known for its status as a melting pot. If the US removes multiculturalism from its societal fabric, racial/ethnic tensions could skyrocket as the people of an entire nation find their culture and individual identities forcibly homogenized; those who carry on their own way will be outcasts. I would like to see Kimball's idea for a monocultural society — no doubt it would be 'vanilla'.

* — Note: Those phrases are used to illustrate the language of the right-wing viewpoint I oppose. Of course someone cannot be born a terrorist, which is why we should not stereotype and ignore the origins of terrorism. Extreme fear has fueled racism; racism has fueled anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment. The 'liberal baby' part is there because of the aforementioned liberal-bashing by multiculturalism opponents like Kimball.

My opinion on the Meyer taser controversy

Naomi Wolf writes,

Today's news shows a recognizable shock moment in the annals of a closing society. A very ordinary-looking American student -- Andrew Meyer, 21, at the University of Florida - was tasered by police when he asked a question of Senator John Kerry about the impeachment of President George Bush. His arms were pinned and as he tried to keep speaking he was shocked -- in spite of begging not to be hurt. A stunning piece of footage but unfortunately, historically, a very familiar and even tactical moment.
...
[W]hen ordinary people start to be hurt by the state for speaking out, dissent closes quickly and the shock chills opposition very, very fast. Once that happens, democracy has been so weakened that major tactical and strategic incursions -- greater violations of democratic process -- are far more likely. If there is dissent about the vote in Florida in this next presidential election -- and the police are tasering voters' rights groups -- we will still have an election.

What we will not have is liberty.

We have to understand what time it is. When the state starts to hurt people for asking questions, we can no longer operate on the leisurely time of a strong democracy -- the 'Oh gosh how awful!' kind of time. It is time to take to the streets.

I wrote the following comment in response to the rather extreme and overreaching Huffington Post article quoted above.

Andrew Meyer acted out, was warned, was warned again, and did not cease his rebellious behavior. The guy threw a temper-tantrum — and wouldn't stop. Even when pleading not to be tasered he was acting aggressively, arms flailing about as the law enforcement tried to restrain the hot-headed questioner of Sen. John Kerry. The police operated according to procedure; stop politicizing what is essentially not a case of police brutality but of someone disturbing the peace and not stopping — for the sake of his security and the security of those around him — when told to. He was warned; he ignored the warnings.

I agree there should be an investigation into the police tactics used, but this case is hardly a rallying cry for police brutality. If you want police brutality, look at the inner cities, the prisons, and other serious sites of crime and violence. Gruesome as they might be, a University of Florida student bring possibly rightfully administered a shock from a standard-issue law enforcement device, while being filmed on camera, is hardly comparable to the kind of things that go on beyond the lens.

Watch the video and judge for yourself, but it is my opinion that the Meyer case is vastly over-hyped in order to suit the closed-minded, anti-establishment agendas we often see on sites void of expert opinion and full of self-interested ranting like the Huffington Post (Wolf seems to have written it primarily to help sell her book). I'd rather read commentary from people who know what they're talking about — New York Times op-eds and editorials, The Economist, The Guardian's Comment is Free blog — than slanted news items blown out of proportion.

Just because Meyer was speaking out against Bush doesn't mean this is an unjust case of politically-motivated police power. If the guy had been, say, harassing a lady on the street and not ceasing even when the authorities were trying to cuff him, would you still be crying 'injustice!'? He was not silenced because of his political beliefs, but because he acted against the law, and ignored all warnings.

Another thing I'd like to point out was that the cops who stunned Meyer were university campus police — probably not trained enough with their Tasers anyway — not official, US government police. There are plenty of examples of university police misusing their weapons, like in the ridiculous UCLA tasering case, but this University of Florida case doesn't seem to be one of them — at least not at the level of other cases. However this tasering will receive more attention because of pundits wishing to tie it to political bias and the silencing of protesters.

Why Bush doesn't need to veto often

Signing statements — legal clauses the president can put on legislation exempting his office from the law — have come to the public eye more and more thanks to the Bush administration. This has been a source of worry and helplessness for those of us who do not always see eye to eye with the White House; and it makes Congress look even more impotent to the power of the executive.

The New York Times ran an editorial on Friday about this disgrace:

President Bush is notorious for issuing statements taking exception to hundreds of bills as he signs them. This week, we learned that in a shocking number of cases, the Bush administration has refused to enact those laws. Congress should use its powers to insist that its laws are obeyed.

The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan arm of Congress, investigated 19 provisions to which Mr. Bush objected. It found that six of them, or nearly a third, have not been implemented as the law requires. The G.A.O. did not investigate some of the most infamous signing statements, like the challenge to a ban on torture. But the ones it looked into are disturbing enough.

In one case, Congress directed the Pentagon in its 2007 budget request to account separately for the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a perfectly appropriate request, but Mr. Bush issued a signing statement critical of the rule, and the Pentagon withheld the information. In two other cases, federal agencies ignored laws requiring them to get permission from Congressional committees before taking particular actions.

The Bush administration’s disregard for these laws is part of its extraordinary theory of the “unitary executive.” The administration asserts that the president has the sole authority to supervise and direct executive officers, and that Congress and the courts cannot interfere. This theory, which has no support in American history or the Constitution, is a formula for autocracy.

Other presidents have issued signing statements, but none has issued as many, or done so with the same contemptuous attitude toward the co-equal branches of government. The G.A.O. report makes clear that Mr. Bush’s signing statements were virtually written instructions to executive agencies to flout acts of Congress. Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, has said that the report shows that Mr. Bush “is constantly grabbing for more power” and trying to push Congress “to the sidelines.”

Members of Congress have a variety of methods available to make the administration obey the law. They should call the agency heads up to Capitol Hill to explain their intransigence. And they should use the power of the purse, the authority the founders wisely vested in the people’s branch, as a check on a runaway executive branch.

When the Bush presidency ends, there will be a great deal of damage to repair, much of it to the Constitutional system. Congress should begin now to restore the principle that even the president and those who work for him are not above the law.

Kudos to America's best newspaper for the great editorial. I couldn't have written it better myself, which explains why I posted it — I couldn't resist.

"Freedom isn't free"

I recently saw an old foe from long ago. It professed ignorance and a modern excuse for war: to fight for freedom. World War II was a fight for freedom against Nazi repression and invasion in Europe and Japanese imperial aggression in the Pacific; the current Iraq war and the 'war' against terrorism are not fights for America's freedom.

"Freedom isn't free" may sound like an interesting statement out of context. But when overlayed in front of a gun or the silhouette of a soldier, it is a statement of the United States' militancy — in spirit, politics, or action — and an unjustified fear of loosing freedoms at the hands of outsiders when the politicians in charge at home are doing a fine job. In the case of my recent encounter of the saying it was in the form of a bumper-sticker.

In the "war on terror", President George W. Bush and his group have proven to be formidable enemies to American civil liberties, not terrorist Osama bin Laden and his cronies. Freedoms have been quashed in the name of fighting international terrorism. Osama is surely a larger direct threat to US security, but Bush's poor policies at home and abroad have in effect made the United States less secure.

"Freedom isn't free" has become a major statement of Bush-supporters and the right wing in America, as well as the population at large in the patriotic wake of 9/11.

Is the US fighting for freedom in Iraq or Afghanistan? No. By detaining innocent and bad men in Gitmo and elsewhere, is America promoting freedom or even helping its own? No. Freedom might not be free, but it's no reason to give up freedoms in a supposed fight to save them. Not only is that self-defeating, it is caving into the same kind of pseudo-patriotism that has allowed this White House to pursue its "war on terror".

The same people who use the phrase "Freedom isn't free" to justify the gross abuse of power by the Bush administration are probably the same people who ultimately believe 'ignorance is bliss'. I guess by the logic of Bush's supporters — yes, he still has plenty — freedom isn't freedom because it isn't free ('How could something by nature free be free?'), and war is peace (Orwell's 1984 = best novel ever, or at least best political novel).

I understand America has many brave servicemen and women who are fighting for causes — just and unjust — putting their lives at stake in the deadly game of war. Looking at the mass military and civilian casualties of the excursions of the GWOT is not a pleasurable activity. But justifying those many deaths with a catchphrase that mixes misguided, post-disaster patriotism with twisted logic, especially considering phrases like "Freedom isn't free" are often used as an attack on those who do not particularly like the president (e.g. "Support our troops" being used by the GOP against those wishing for withdrawal from Iraq, or those opposed to the White House's war policy; fighting terror with terror or fear), is a poor way to honor the deaths of those people. The fight for defending freedom is actually hurting it. "Freedom isn't free" seems like a justification for such a fight, and is used in such a way. War isn't free either.

What next for Sarkozy?

Change and reform are arguably the underlying topics of this election, encapsulating everything from governmental reform to economic liberalization to law and order and immigration.

Now that he has seemingly won the election, one must hope Sarkozy does not continue to court the far-right. He must actually reform and drop a fair bit of xenophobia, as well as convince France that the EU is not a political demon. He must tackle crime and poverty at home, and the many troubles — such as those in the Middle East — abroad. He must follow through with his promises of liberalizing the economy and opening up the markets; allowing a private sector to flourish while embracing the global economic phenomenon that many other developed countries have used to much success. He must bring France to the forefront of world powers, allowing his nation its rightful place high on the international stage. He must work with the United Nations. Sarkozy must not become too close to the United States for his political sake, but he must also cut through the anti-American mould so attributed to his country. He must open up the bureaucracy, the economic regulations, and the minds of France to a liberalized, multi-cultural, global nation — a member of the UN Security Council, founding member of the European Union, and one of the G8 nations. At the same time he must keep his political capital in check and act appropriately and ethically, unlike some of his predecessors.

Assuming he has indeed won the election, Sarkozy will enter office when Chirac's term expires on 16 May.

technorati tags: nicolas+sarkozy, french+presidential+election+2007, france+election+2007, president+france, chirac, politics, united+states, global+france, sarkozy+reform, EU

Democrats wasting time with Iraq politiking?

Good symbolism on an issue (Iraq) the White House thought it was the only American political power in control of, but it's now time for the Democrats to move on...

AP via Guardian:

A defiant Democratic-controlled Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1, propelling Congress toward a historic veto showdown with President Bush on the war.

At the White House, the president immediately promised a veto.
...
The 51-46 vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage of the same bill a day earlier, fell far short of the two-thirds margin needed to overturn the president's threatened veto. Nevertheless, the legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to send to Bush since they reclaimed control of both houses of Congress in January.
...
The $124.2 billion bill requires troop withdrawals to begin Oct. 1, or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. The House passed the measure Wednesday by a 218-208 vote.

The Democrats have already reached enough benchmarks as far as Iraq war political symbolism goes, isn’t it time to call it a day? Everyone knows the bill requiring withdrawal is going to get vetoed by President Bush. Why not work with the president on issues like alternative energy and immigration, issues the Democrats and president can agree on and accomplish things on, instead of just pushing a legislative agenda only to show Bush what he already must know: the Iraq war effort is going badly and many Americans — Republicans included — are now against it. Executive v. legislature isn't going anywhere also.

I like debate, especially on an issue such as Iraq, but an open debate this is not. It has been muddled by partisan politics, as usual, and the Democrats are not acting that much mature than their Republican predecessors.

Pelosi had her 100 hours of progress and political limelight in the House, but the Dems apparently did not plan much else useful after their initial entrance to office with the exception of political maneuvers: challenging the White House on Iraq and investigating the executive branch’s misdeeds. All together neither of those major actions have been very useful, and real progress needs to be made on issues dealing less with political props and more with bettering America, its people, and the world.

Even on issues the White House and Congress do not agree on — health care, climate change, bioresearch, education, judicial reform, etc. — there can still be compromises, and progress, made. I do not think either branch of the government is out to hurt the American people; I doubt Bush has a strong vendetta against blacks and I doubt the Democrats do not 'support the troops'. However I doubt both party’s abilities to accomplish anything other than filling the political vacuum with baseless political rhetoric, and a bunch of symbolic chess moves on Iraq — moves that are, in Congress' case, only symbolic.

While the White House’s power needs to be checked and its behavior put in line, Congress needs reforms of its own: basic ethics, campaign financing, limit on pork-barrel spending, an end to tacking on unrelated amendments to bills in order to affect — or rather, exploit — the process, and the streamlining of the process, making it more transparent to the people so they can not just cluelessly watch on the sidelines but take action. But knowing this is politics, especially American politics, concessions must be made by all sides. I think this administration’s handling of the Iraq war has been despicable, but little good comes from wasting valuable time and political capitol on an issue that Congress can frankly, in the end, do little about.

Thus far, the president runs the war game, and as nice as it is that that status quo seems to be changing (a political surge?), the Democrats could be doing better things with their majority. They were supposedly elected back in November because of Iraq, now it is time to stop rubbing Iraq in the administration’s face, and start taking action on other issues. Of course Iraq is a major issue, but the president, for better or for worse, gets the final say. He has the veto power over Congress and the Democrats do not have nearly enough votes to override that veto. The Dems should either find a new road to fixing Iraq policy — circumventing the White House, in a way — or put the troop matter on the sidelines and focus on something they can accomplish.

Coincidentally, I am not the only one describing this latest string of questionable, if hasty, Congressional moves on Iraq as 'politiking', the Iraqi foreign minister thinks so too.

As far as investigating pre-war intelligence goes (see the recent Congressional subpoena of Condi Rice), there is no use picking open old wounds. The investigation should continue, but there should also be a focus on, as I said, issues on which real progress can be made. The whole Iraq issue might now even bite back at the Democrats in the 2008 election, contrary to what they believe, because the White House does have more popularity with and respect from the people than Congress. No doubt, however, Iraq will play a large role in the election, but that will not be the only issue, which the Democrats need to grasp.

My message to the Democrats: the honeymoon is well over, you’ve proved your point on Iraq, the people get it, the administration gets it; its alright to continue, but focus on more pressing, realistic topics at hand — and stop acting like your majority will last forever. As Congress locks horns with the Bush administration on Iraq, with gridlock galore, other issues are ignored.

Bottom line: Bush will veto this new bill; and then what?

technorati tags: iraq, congress, democrats, bush, congress+iraq+war

More on Pelosi's diplomacy...

It is highly hypocritical of many observers and the government to be criticizing Pelosi for even talking to Syria, an important player in the Middle East that has been isolated by the United States, leading it to turn to Iran as a close ally.

I still wonder why there was no uproar when politicians visited in the past. Since when can't a US policy-maker make a foreign trip and meet officials? Syria isn't perfect, but it is only an 'enemy' of the US because of Bush's haphazard "axis of evil" inclusion.

She has allowed the Syrians and Israelis to communicate by relaying diplomatic messages. That is a good thing. Also she can take foreign policy trips if she damn well pleases. Republican congresspeople can do the same; I don't mind.

U.S. House members meeting with President Bashar Assad Sunday said they believed there was an opportunity for dialogue with the Syrian leadership.

The U.S. House members, who included Virginia Republican Frank Wolf, Pennsylvania Republican Joe Pitts and Alabama Republican Robert Aderholt, also said they had raised with Syrian officials the issue of stopping the alleged flow of foreign fighters from Syria to Iraq.

In a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, the congressmen said they had talked about "ending support for Hezbollah and Hamas, recognizing Israel's right to exist in peace and security, and ceasing interference in Lebanon."

Wait, isn't Pelosi basically doing the same thing as these congresspeople did, but on a wider scale? (After all, she is also the House speaker, a major position.)

Pelosi is not instating official US foreign policy also, it is just a trip. Just recently three GOP congresspeople went to Syria, why didn't you all attack that? She is helping diplomacy, a good thing considering the White House's failure in Iraq. She is acting as an official does, she is not instituting official policy like Secretary of State Rice or President Bush do.

Pelosi is getting slammed left and right. However, this is much less partisan politics and much more just a congressional visit. Policy makers make official visits all the time. How is this visit different? Pelosi is visiting a country that the US administration doesn't care for. Pelosi is laying foreign policy groundwork; the Bush administration effectively has no real policy with Syria!

I have even heard allegations and cries of 'terrorist' because Pelosi wore a moderate headscarf — people saying she has no right to wear one. It's a headscarf, not a veil! She does have a right to dress in a headscarf if she wants to. What's wrong with dressing differently? I doubt she conformed anyways. She has any right to dress in a headscarf or a suit or whatever so piss off. Those saying things like this — that because she dressed differently or just the fact she visited — are just as bad as many fundamentalists in the Arab world: restricting dialogue by slapping dirty labels on people and saying they do not have the power or right to do something as simple as making a diplomatic visit.

Furthermore, keep in mind the White House's foreign policy record and how Congress has failed to check those policies. Foreign policy does not lie solely under the president.

Both Israel's acting president and prime minister have praised Pelosi; and she has gotten a surprisingly warm reception in the Arab press.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has relayed messages of peace from a nation supposedly the enemy of another. When has Secretary Rice done that in even an official capacity? The United States accuses Syria of destabilizing the Mid-East, but does a fine job of that itself. One reason Syria is making ties to unhelpful countries and groups is because of US isolation — its a look never-ending under the current Bush administration policy.

See this post and this post for background info on Pelosi's visit to Syria and the reaction to her visits.

Politics and patriotism

Isn't it just as, if not more, patriotic and American to stand up to your government on something you believe strongly in rather than comply? Isn't that one of the said areas that the United States is based on: freedom to criticize and change the government. It is not the government hampering people's criticism, although they do deflect it with no backup of their own, it is society. Though no doubt the government does play a role in keeping their policies wishfully un-scrutinized, often the people will help them to accomplish that. For example, people opposing many of the counterterrorism policies used in the 'war on terror' are called unpatriotic, or terrorist-sympathizers. You don't agree with the official government stance? You get shunned as the 'enemy'.

Even the United States government and other heads of state have gone far enough as to say a victory for the political opposition in their country (e.g. Democrats winning in US) is a win for the terrorists. Bush has used the fact he presided over 9/11, and, though the government still uses fear of terrorism to garner voters, there has been no attack since.

In addition, there have been a number of cases where the government hyped up a story about a wannabe terrorist, even if no hard evidence gave that implication. In those cases either the suspect would be detained for an indefinite amount of time, or they would be brought to trial and the charges would be steadily dropped (e.g. terrorism to conspiracy to possession of illegal arms or unregistered firearms). In some recent instances, detainees have plead guilty, but not to a court of law and/or probably not in a fit mental state.

Warping facts and rewriting history: 9/11 conspiracy theories

Even as the American public seem to be getting smarter about politics — albeit slowly — public belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories seems to be on the rise. A partial explanation may be the public’s annoyance with their government, which they could help solve if people took more action in national politics and voted.

These conspiracy theorists think everyone is against them and employ pseudo-fact to support their flawed claims. These people cannot be swayed by verifiable video footage or eyewitness accounts — nothing can stop their irrational conspiracy speculation about what happened on 11 September 2001.

The only 9/11 theory that has any merit is, unsurprisingly, the official version of what happened. Pearl Harbor, no doubt, was also not a conspiracy, but the John F. Kennedy assassination is up for grabs, but no one on either side (official or conspiracy) can garner enough evidence to support their claims.

Yes, there are plenty of accounts to confirm US intelligence services knew of the impending 9/11 attack, but did not take action because of bureaucratic incompetence. Intelligence services did not get the correct data or relay it, and gave the tips of an attack the benefit of the doubt, like what happened with Pearl Harbor (the radar station knew Japanese planes were coming but did not know whether they were Japanese and were not notified to be on the lookout). It was a failure of imagination, as the 9/11 Commission put it, in the US intelligence services. However, they did not ignore data on purpose because they wanted 3,000 people to loose their lives in a massive terrorist strike.

The BBC investigated many conspiracy theories and, eventually, debunked them, including the 9/11 one.

These theories have gotten more media coverage and analysis, some of which has been good, as of late.

A Scripps Howard poll gave some disturbing data:

Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."
…
The poll also found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.

Conspiracy groups for at least two years have also questioned why the World Trade Center collapsed when fires that heavily damaged similar skyscrapers around the world did not cause such destruction. Sixteen percent said it's "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that "the collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings."

Twelve percent suspect the Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists.
…
The level of suspicion of U.S. official involvement in a 9/11 conspiracy was only slightly behind the 40 percent who suspect "officials in the federal government were directly responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy" and the 38 percent who believe "the federal government is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life from other planets."

A Zogby poll found:

People are completely divided on whether they believe President Bush exploited the 9/11 attacks (44%) or justified an attack on Iraq (44%). Approximately one in ten (11%) is not sure.
…
Close to half (48%) agrees the U.S. government and 9/11 Commission are not covering up anything, yet nearly as many (42%) believe the government and 9/11 Commission are covering up. One in ten (10%) is unsure.

Curiously enough, conservatives, according to this poll, gave the media a negative score in its 9/11 coverage. Why is this so interesting? The media was acting patriotic and very loyal in every way to the Bush administration for the weeks following. The media did not sufficiently do its job in the aftermath of 9/11: they did not question what the government was saying, analyze why the attacks happened, report a lot of important news, or challenge Bush in his exploitation of the attacks. This led to an overall media support of the Iraq war as war critics were drowned out and not put on air nearly as much as talking-point ridden war hawks.

I remember nearly every television channel had a flag design at the bottom of the screen, and there was nonstop talk of the war on terror. Most everyone was following along with the government’s policy, a dangerous thing to do when the people are confused and scared and need facts and rationality now more than ever.

Ignorance is ignoring all true evidence and thinking the evil government was the sole perpetrators of 9/11. You know what, deniers of the terrorist attack on US soil on 11 September 2001, it's all going too far. Some people, myself included, lost friends and relatives in 9/11 and don't need people like the 'Truthers' spreading warped and pseudo-factual conspiracy theory views of historical events when there is plenty of evidence to support the mainstream view! They use architectural evidence like they know anything about the topic; how could explosives blow up the towers then? How could they fall the way they did when it was clearly a structural breach when two of the largest commercial aircrafts in existence (at the time) crashed head on into buildings not designed for high-speed air crashes?!

Enough is enough. I see the loss of rationality is as evident in the 9/11-deniers as it is in the followers of the Bush administration's 'war on terrorism'. Both sides are messing with history and fact in order to advance political, ideological motives. Shame on both the 9/11 exploiters (e.g. Bush) and the 9/11 fact deniers (e.g. Truthers). There is a time for reaping political capital, and there is a time to question and attack the mainstream view of things, but with things like 9/11, either action is a dangerous one leading to a slippery slope of exploiting every terror case and holding a revisionist, paranoid attitude of every event.

Some conspiracy theorists think of their spreading of their false notions as their duty to society; their spreading of ignorance and fallacies only hurts society. On the other hand, the spreading of ignorance and possible fallacies by people who believes everything an authority (e.g. the government) says is also produces a negative impact on society.

We must question things presented to us, but not become paranoid and use the same pseudo-facts politicians may be using. 9/11 conspiracies are just as invalid as Iraq prewar evidence: one came from the conspiracy theorists, the other from the government. Those of us stuck in the middle should never cease from questioning what we see and what we are told, but there is a point where people question too much and form a false reality.

I think at least one thing myself and the radical right-wing can agree on is that these 9/11 conspiracy theorists hold false notions and use unbelievably invalid facts to support their almost non-existant argument that the government of the United States of America was the sole perpetrator of the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City, the Pentagon in northern Virginia, and the third, failed, attack (Flight 93) on 11 September 2001.

Just as the conspiracy theorists blame the government, the Bush administration holds the ambiguous general terrorist movement  — as if it were one concrete force — as its scapegoat and poster-child for evil.

technorati tags: 9/11, 9/11+conspiracy, conspiracy+theories, truthers, politics, media, terrorism, september+11th, opinion, arguement, government, bush, news+media, fact, in+the+news, history

Obsessing over Anna Nicole Smith in the US media

When news about Anna Nicole Smith's death first broke, I decided to continue my policy on keeping this blog Anna Nicole-free, along with my denial of over-hyped and frankly insignificant people like the dead JonBonet Ramsey and celebrities. However... An Anna Nicole Smith burial speculation story and look at demented teens bent on killing homeless people and smoking pot both outrank a story on US courts derelicting their duties by allowing what CNN calls “anti-terror laws” put in place by the Bush administration in its policies on enemy combatitants at GITMO. I'm actually not that surprised. Whilst channel surfing, which I don't often do, I noticed all three major cable news networks — CNN, Fox 'News', and MSNBC — all practically ignored important stories and focused on Anna Nicole Smith, including the tiny aspects of her legacy and death. Even when the topic was supposed to be serious matters like politics, science, or headlines these news networks felt it better to focus on celebrity. The likes of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears has also been a major focus, though they hold little significance in the real news. I am afraid the media is not doing its job. Every time any of these people gets a DYI or a different haircut, the mainstream news media is on top of the story with a vigor that used to be reserved only for tabloids.

People may want entertainment, but they have E! and People for that. One of the news media's many jobs is to have a balance between what people 'want' and what they 'need' to be informed in a civil society. So-called infotainment now rules supreme in the chambers of many American news organizations. Between much ineffectiveness over reporting and analyzing fairly US politics — especially caving into Bush's rhetoric on the 'war on terror' — and the rise of pointless information stories and unsourced bias, the state of the US news media: poor. They have failed to give the people what they need; and their standing as one of the pillars of a free and democratic society is in shambles. There are also external problems for the media, like the Bush White House attacking them whenever a story critical, even factual, against the administration is published. Bush must have a warped idea of democracy. By the way, a Google search of "Anna Nicole Smith" returns 25,400,000 results. "Darfur" has less than one-fifth the results of that. It's not only the news media with their priorities mixed.

Read more at this great site on the American news media. See also On the Media and CJR Daily.

Feel free to send in your views on the news media — US and otherwise — as well as what you think of society's prioritization of issues and topics, how some less important issues get drastically less notice, and how celebrity news invasion has effected you. Personally, I find it hard to visit any major news site or go to any public place without seeing or hearing celebrity gibber-gabble.

More posts on the news establishment soon.

technorati tags: anna+nicole+smith, entertainment, infotainment, media, news+media, US+News+media, opinion, bush, democracy

Everything in moderation? A tale of two global problems

Two major topics lately are bird flu (H5N1, aka Avian flu) and climate change (aka global warming). These potential catastrophes have several things in common: they both are at a global scale with vast impact, both are scientific, and both are hyped, in one way or another (downplayed or over-played). More bird flu deaths and spreading have brought that issue back in the headlines and a recent report of notable significance by the IPCC have evermore raised awareness on climate change and its partly human causes.

Some say — or seem to be saying — the demonic West is being selfish about bird flu’s affects on places like Indonesia; some — countries and corporations alike — are controversially commercializing/politicizing a potential pandemic, risking lives for their own profit and selfishness.

Some say rich nations need to work on reducing greenhouse emissions; some are (somewhat) hypocritical for saying other industrial countries are causing all the climate change problems. Some are stating the latest international report on climate change is too rhetoricized and vague (somewhat contrary to the IPCC’s clear standing on the topic, but I get the writer’s point). Some send mixed signals by treating the environmentalism relating to global warming as a new hyped-up religion of sorts and saying nothing in the studies have really changed. Some say the battle against human-caused climate change is a war. Some, including powerful Washington think tank AEI, even offered large sums of money to people in exchange for their disputing the IPCC’s recent report. This kind of scientific corruption is nothing new and some has been linked to the US government and energy corporations like Exxon — whose products promote global warming — in the past.

Me? Well I am worried about bird flu, though I shall not lose sleep over it, and climate change is not the best thing either. Neither are impending doom, a monster that will eat you when you sleep at night, and neither are totally harmless. The sureness about global warming’s impending eventuality, and the fact we know it is already showing its effects, is more than that of bird flu. Bird flu is more chance-related in whether it will be a real danger (i.e. will the disease spread from human to human and in what form).

I think we need to work on climate change by finding alternative energy sources like geothermal power — which could serve ten percent of the United State’s electricity needs by 2050 at minimal cost. Solar-harnessing, as well as sources getting energy from the kinetic movements of wind and water, (solar power, wind power, water power, respectively) are also promising, easy, virtually non-polluting power alternatives that are cost efficient in the long term, especially if they help hamper the economically damaging effects of global warming. While I am not as committed or hyped as Al Gore on the subject, action needs to be taken by citizens, governments, and companies alike.

People, governments, and companies also should be prepared for bird flu. Preparation and preventative measures are fine, they’re moderate; hype, scaremongering, or denial can all lead to great harm, albeit different types of harm, for both the issues of climate change and bird flu. The EU is being tough on both issues, working on the bird flu problem since before it reached Turkey and the Russian Urals — long before the US media finally jumped on the bird flu wagon, although late and with plenty of confusing hype. The EU is not doing a great job with global warming, but it’s a start. They now have proposed arguably the toughest auto emissions standards on the planet. When you really get down to it, bird flu is just another potential pandemic and climate change is coming no matter what, human caused or not. What worries me about the latter is that really humans may be pushing climate change to a dangerous level where its effects will be all too disastrous. What worries me about both is if they are too hyped, it will be like the boy who cried wolf. People, including policymakers, will be tired and confused by the hype and mayhem and any efforts against a real threat would be hampered greatly by such a consequence.

There are the global-warming-is-human-stunted-and-dangerous deniers and the people crying wolf. The latter are promoting and feeding hysteria, for example, saying last summer’s heat and Hurricane Katrina of 2005 were both directly caused by global warming and not just a weather pattern to an extent (then why wasn’t there another Katrina in 2006, I ask). Lastly, there are the people who neither like the hype nor the denial. I am one of those people. It will be easy for those uneducated on these topics, partly by fault of the media and their governments, to be in any of the first two camps and easily switch between them. If there is no unseasonable heat this coming summer I am sure there will be plenty switching from the hype to the denial camp; if there is, I am sure there will be some switching from denial to hype — for the wrong reasons.

Be prepared for global warming; use common sense and preventative measures for bird flu. Don’t buy into the often propaganda hype sometimes utilized by individuals and bodies to promote their causes — whether they are hyping up awareness about bird flu or climate change or playing down either issue. Both are important issues, and one can do more, politically and personally, to work against the inevitable one, human-caused global warming, than the other one.


Songs stuck in my head right now: "I Bet You Would Look Good On The Dance Floor" by the Arctic Monkeys and "Such Great Heights" by The Postal Service.

technorati tags: IPCC, politics, news+media, bird+flu, avian+flu, h5n1, climate+change, global+warming

American or not American... that should not be the question

Who is to decide what is American and not American? What makes something American or un-American? Who is to judge the traits of people in the US, and how they fit into their country, labeling them right or wrong, out of line or in line with their nation's values. The US was built on an assortment of people with an assortment of traits — and that building continues today. Ironically its those people who have been the targets and scapegoats of many campaigns of bigotry in the name of righteous[-seeming] causes, being different is a handicap for many humans. Like with many other nations, the mixing of peoples has created a melting pot of sorts throughout the centuries. We do not need a Senator Joseph McCarthy (former Republican from Wisconsin) — with his paranoid, fear mongering, and outright despicable Cold War-era Un-American Activities Committee — nor do we need another political or religious figure telling us whether our traits and beliefs are American or un-American. There is nothing, besides the fact that the US is not a communist state, making communism un-American; there is nothing making gun control un-American, though the Second Amendment of the Constitution might be brought into play; there is nothing making the death penalty un-American, even if it be inhumane and against much of modern society's standards of human rights. However, more and more groups, especially from the rising fundamentalist religious right, are placing extreme condemnation on anyone from homosexuals to journalists for not being American. The only 'American values' are the ones various demographics and peoples create — in addition to government PR. Much hate speech and polarizing rhetoric is being elevated to a point that makes bigotry sound like too nice of a word (to describe it). Not only is there this wedging of various people, one also has to endure the swaying of a nation from 9/11 and the ensuing fear-mongering for political gains; exploitation in the so-called war on terror. Like with McCarty's crusade, there is this "with us or against us" attitude coming from the government, but much of the work on that front has been done by Americans themselves, being reinforced by the government in their effort to drive out dissenters, as in the Bush administration's "war on terrorism". If one speaks out against Israel, one is labeled antisemitic; if one speaks against the wrongdoings in the so-called war on terror, one is called a terrorist or terrorist supporter. This kind of polarity and labeling is quashing reasoned thought and moderate discourse on important topics in American society. Not only that, but — in many cases — it drives up nationalism, which can only lead the US down the wrong road. Education and a better job by the news media and especially the government (at all levels) may help drive down some ignorance, but most of all, a lot of Americans need to wake up from their sensationalist, ignorant, pop culture drivel-filled attitudes.

technorati tags: mccarthy, bush, society, americans, united+states, usa, nationalism, identity, war+on+terror, fear+mongering, israel, terrorism, education, opinion

Why should Europe have to be buddy-buddy with the US on Iraq?, an article critique

Like in this post, I am going to critique a frequent Slate contributor on her view of Europe's role in and perspective of the American ordeal in Iraq, and what it should be. A while back, I critisized Anne Applebaum for wanting to lay blame for the 'lack of pressure' on North Korea on China and how she cavalierly proposed options for China that would hurt them and the situation in both Koreas (i.e. the entire region). It seemed she was writing from a narrow view, which surprises me because she wrote an exceptional book: Gulag: A History.

This time, I have a smaller bone to pick with Ms. Applebaum's latest article. Number one, maybe I am out of the loop, but what is this "Old Europe" she constantly talks about? Is it Western Europe, because there are plenty of British and other peoples criticizing US policy too. Number two, it is only typical to hear the 'don't critisize, help out!' babble, and this article, with a subtitle of "A New Year's resolution for Europe: Less carping, more helping.", is a good example of that mentality.

She quotes German and French newspapers in her introduction, while they are pretty muich doing their jobs: reporing the news. The newspapers are not supposed to help out, that is not their jobs! She then mixes up what is on the cover of an array of French and German newspapers with the various perspectives European people have of Iraq — if someone did have another plan or idea, it would probably not be on the front page but the op-ed page. As if American papers did not have the --. It is not as much gloating as it is pointing out the fairly obvious about the Bush administration and its plan for Iraq.

On the day James Baker's Iraq Study Group report was published, I gritted my teeth and waited for the well-earned, long-awaited Franco-German "Old European" gloat to begin. I didn't have to wait long. "America Faces Up to the Iraq Disaster" read a headline in Der Spiegel. In the patronizing tones of a senior doctor, Le Monde diagnosed the "political feverishness" gripping Washington in Baker's wake. Süddeutsche Zeitung said the report "stripped Bush of his authority," although Le Figaro opined that nothing Baker proposed could improve the "catastrophic state" of Iraq anyway.

And then, for two weeks … silence. If there are politicians, academics, or journalists anywhere in Germany and France who have better ideas about how to improve the catastrophic state of Iraq, they aren't talking very loudly. There is no question that America's credibility has been undermined by the Iraq war in "Old Europe" as everywhere else. There is no question that America's reputation for competence has been destroyed. But that doesn't mean there are dozens of eager candidates, or even one eager candidate, clamoring to replace us.

In her article, Applebaum also hits a nerve with me when she treats "Old Europe" as if it was one group of people — similar, but much more generalizing, to the steriotypes people put on [so-called] Hollywood-types and African Americans in the US.

Not everyone should have to help everyone else when they are in the doldrums, although it would be nice (and utopian), it is not feasible and is selfish for a country like the US to be already plenty self-centered and expect the whole world to rush to its aid when it makes a mistake. Nor would the US allow help... remember the ensuing aid offers following Hurricane Katrina? The Cold War is over, and no one really gets anything for helping America either, especially when the US is wrong.

A more cold, but still down-to-earth, point against Applebaum would be: why should Europe have to painstaking help fix something it did not cause? The US started the Iraq war and knowingly damaged its reputation for it, why should an unrelated third party swoop to unappreciated assistance?

Presumably, these are the same optimists who used to believe that a Franco-German-British diplomatic team could persuade Iran to stop conducting nuclear-weapons research. Presumably, they didn't notice that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad held a Holocaust denial conference in Tehran last week—not, perhaps, the clearest signal that he wants to make friends with bien pensants Europeans—or that French President Jacques Chirac recently declared that his views on Syria exactly matched those of his U.S. counterpart.

Isn't the cynicism she expresses in the above quote the same kind of stuff she is no-noing Europe for reporting, or, in her view, expressing and "patronizing"?

Maybe the Old Europeans will find inspiration to support and contribute further to the alliance, diplomatically and ideologically, if not militarily.

This is the point where she looses me and talks about NATO — which has basically nothing to do with Iraq.

Applebaum seems to be very supportive of alliances favouring one side, the United States, which, in her perfect world, would make the US like the rock star or popular student and Europe like the US's groupies or staunch followers. She does not make any mention of the United Nations in her article, also something to think about.

Characterizing France and German as the faces of Europe; newspaper headlines as op-ed pieces; and thinking that everyone should always come to the aid of the US while contradicting herself in her own patronizing of Europe are what makes this and the previous article of Ms. Applebaum's I critiqued lackluster insight. As I said in my last Applebaum critique:

she needs to work on her logic in the delicate sphere of international politics, governmental and regional stability, and foreign relations.

Happy holidays everyone.

technorati tags: news, politics, slate, anne+applebaum, applebaum, critique, media, news+media, in+the+news, current, iraq, north+korea, NATO, united+nations, europe, germany, france, united+states, usa, old+europe, international+relations, international, foreign+affairs, opinion, in+perspective, clearthought, article, diplomacy

US Cold War foreign policy and the death of Pinochet, and the GWOT

Pinochet
From BBC News:

Chile's former military leader Augusto Pinochet has died in hospital aged 91.

A Washington Post feature:

Pinochet assumed power on Sept. 11, 1973, in a bloody coup supported by the United States that toppled the [democratically] elected government of Salvador Allende, a Marxist who had pledged to lead his country "down the democratic road to socialism."

First as head of a four-man military junta and then as president, Pinochet served until 1990, leaving a legacy of abuse that took successive governments years to catalogue. According to a government report that included testimony from more than 30,000 people, his government killed at least 3,197 people and tortured about 29,000. Two-thirds of the cases listed in the report happened in 1973.

It seems that many throughout the Americas still have the ignorance of the Cold War. (BBC News)

Despite his human rights record, many Chileans loved him and said he saved the country from Marxism.

And

His supporters argue, as British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once said, that Pinochet "saved Chile for democracy".

They contend that he stepped in when the country was on the verge of chaos that could have led to a Communist take-over and alignment with the Soviet Union.

More like 'saved Chile from democracy'. Anyone ever wonder if he was the one who instigated much of that chaos? Thatcher, as many know, was not too much of a friend of the people, so she shouldn't even talk about democracy, especially when saying that brutal dictatorship is better than democracy. Pinochet cheated the Chilean people by stealing their money, killing and torturing, trampling on human rights, and basically ransacking the government and social structure.

In all irony, Pinochet died on the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights' 50th anniversary.

Cold War
Some of these anti-Communist diplomatic maneuvers used by the United States during the Cold War era were mentioned in the essay I posted on this blog about the Monroe Doctrine:

Throughout the early 20th century, the U.S. sometimes questionably created regime changes in Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and other nations, as well as occupying or invading (and many times running or controlling in some way) Mexico, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Haiti, Cuba, Dominican Republic, and El Salvador, among others. In addition, the CIA and other clandestine agencies also interfered with many Latin American nations from the 1950s through the 1980s (Rosenfelder; Wikipedia). Many of these interferences, including regime changes, the establishing of puppet governments, assassinations, occupations, and embargoes, were done in the climate of fear of communism that encapsulated the Cold War, some of which the legality is disputed and the “claim of self-defense” had “no legal basis” (Hilaire 96). Many times regimes were changed from left-leaning or even moderate democracies or republics to military dictatorships, because of the fear that the democracies or republics could turn to communism.

Chile was one of the nations the US undeniably supported, that is, during the reign of Pinochet.

Counterpoints
On an Oxblog post made by conservative-leaning David Adesnik, I commented

David, you know that the United States was a major force that got Pinochet into power and kept him there, right? (Oh, that Kissinger...) Yes, and he obviously wasn't too great for the Chilean economy; replacing democratically-elected leaders with a coup backed by the US was all too widespread and common during the Cold War.

In a civil and direct response, the author replied

Clearthought, I'm glad you pointed out Kissinger's role in Pinochet's rise to power. An important reminder of what "realism" in foreign policy is all about.

With regard to replacing elected governments with dictatorships during the Cold War, even one instance counts in my book as "all too common", but actually there weren't that many.

Off hand, I can think of Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954 and Chile in 1973. There were also instances in which we didn't do enought to prevent democratic governments from falling to a coup d'etat or other assault.

But the real thing we did is stand by and not complain too much about all of the dictators we chose to collaborate with. Was that the best way to prevent Soviet expansion? I don't think so.

And now we face the same question today. Should we push hard for democracy in the Middle East, or focus on stabilizing pro-Western dictatorships. Strangely, many of those who think we shouldn't have befriended dictators during the Cold War are now calling for exactly that approach to the War on Terror.

"War on terror"
The final thought he presented in Adesnik's reply comment is one to ponder: how are US policy support of governments during the Cold War different than that of this "war on terror" (see this post). One point is that the Cold War was an era, it had an inevitable ending and, although it was not clearly set out the objectives of the War, there was a start and finish to the United States-Soviet Union conflict. In this "war on terror", there is no real start and finish. There has pretty much always been terror; there will always be terror. It's part of our existence, though one may argue the civility of such existence. The "war on terror", like the "war on drugs", is only a metaphorical war, the target is not concrete, and even less is the objective. It is a shame the media did not challenge the wording of the politically-charged words "war on terror" soon after their post-9/11 existence, now this "war" is imprinted into history. As Juan Cole noted in an article for Foreign Policy republished here.

'The war on terror has no end.'

That's the plan. The Bush administration has defined the struggle vaguely precisely so that it can't end; President Bush clearly enjoys the prerogatives of being a war president.

So the administration has expanded the goals and targets of this war from one group or geographical area to another.

If the "war on terror" is indeed all these things, then it could drag on for decades. More likely, the American public will not tolerate such a costly grab bag of initiatives for much longer.

If there is no major attack in the United States, pressure will build on Washington to stop fiddling with the politics of Kandahar and Ramadi, much less those of Damascus and Tehran. At some point, the American public will have to choose between paying for Bush's ongoing wars and Medicare. And that will be the true end of the war on terror.

As far as the popular counter argument about the GWOT and the "clash of civilizations" between the US and Islam, Cole cleans that up too.

'9-11 was a clash of civilizations.'

False. The notion that Muslims hate the West for its way of life is simply wrong, and 9-11 hasn't changed that.

The exhaustive World Values Survey found that more than 90% of respondents in much of the Muslim world endorsed democracy as the best form of government.

If it is not a clash of civilizations, what is it? It is a clash over policy.

The bloody U.S. occupation of Iraq has now created another point of tension: The Muslim world does not believe that Iraq will be better off because of the U.S. intervention.

Autonomy and national independence appear to be part of what Muslims mean by "democracy," and they consider Western interventions in Muslim affairs a betrayal of democratic ideals. Sept. 11 and the American response to it have deepened the rift over policy, but they haven't created a clash of civilizations.

technorati tags: Pinochet, augusto+pinochet, war+on+terror, terrorism, adesnik, oxblog, blog, comment, opinion, news, in+the+news, current+affairs, clash+of+civilizations, foreign+policy, foreign+affairs, politics, united+states, usa, muslim, islam, gwot, 9-11, communism, dictatoriship, government, in+perspective, clearthought, cold+war, history, human+rights, monroe+doctrine, latin+america, chile

Essay on identity, political correctness, and the uncontrollable factors of one's life

Though I consider myself centre-left, liberal in modern, relatively conservative America, I do not believe in affirmative action. Is it not hypocrisy to fill up positions that would be for those possibly better suited for them with people who are minorities — just because they are of “minority” ethnic status? Keep in mind there is no “average American” (you can’t have 2.2 children), though the vast, vast majority of those living in the United States describe themselves as “average”. Another issue I have been dealing with is that of identity. If I were black, or African American, would I care more about African American civil rights in the US, or anywhere with those of African descent? Race is something that is biological. Although the term “race” sometimes makes people forget we are all of the same race; we are all humans… for the sake of this writing, I’ll ignore that semantic aspect.

Traits that are biological are — for the most part — uncontrollable factors by us, as is gender, etc. We have seen what happens when people change the color of their skin or modify the sex of their body, and that receives a usually-bitter response from society in general. If we are to look at each other in a way where we cannot change these biological and uncontrollable traits, and many times it is scientifically impossible to do so, should the fact that I am not black hinder me from caring about the human rights of those who are not of the same close descent as me? Although I think you are what you are, people should be able to do those things to their body unless it is endangering themselves or the livelihood of others.

Since the era of African American civil rights, largely in the 1950s and 60s, all of America seems to be stuck in a time warp. Of political correctness — which is often hypocritical and irrational, like religion —, of viewing others as equal even though many think otherwise, of not questioning how Americans are supposed to look at things and keeping the status quo. Although I am not totally against political correctness, it does stifle free thought and free speech in ways I obviously do not promote. This era of excessive close-mindedness needs to come to an end, as does the one oppressing homosexuals, which is quite tantamount to past oppressions of those of African descent, et al. (See my views on gays in this post and this one, more soon.)

So, my question is this, does someone view the world differently for being different via an uncontrollable factor, e.g. being black instead of white? Even if they are not treated differently (which is sadly unlikely, even in this day in age)? Even if they can dissociate themselves from racial and other uncontrollable factors’ generalization and stereotypical labels from society as a whole?

technorati tags: politically+correct, race, racism, affirmitive+action, identity, society, essay, in+perspective, clearthought, race, gays, thinking, united+states, black, white, african-americans, being, life, sociology, opinion, politics

Cease fire, Israel

This post is a sort of continuance or update to "Israel's disproportionality, defenders and friends".

There is finally a ceasefire agreement between some militant groups (specifically in Palestine) and Israel. This has come after Israel has continually turned ceasefire agreements down — I mean, it's ironic that a militant group like Hamas would jump on the chance of a ceasefire, but the State of Israel scoffs!

Israel has committed all too many human rights offenses, such as the much-reported attack on an area earlier this month, in Gaza, now synonymous with the word massacre: Beit Hanoun. The Israeli government called the Beit Hanoun raid 'defensive' against militant hotspots — and man have we heard that excuse before. Obviously, as I have said, Israel has the right to sovereignly defend itself, but to use the principle of full defense against a lesser, uncertain, and not yet occurring offense. Ironically, this just breeds more violence and terrorism; it makes easier for enemies of Israel to recruit more enemies of Israel, and creates such hate.

Those who use the talking point that Israel is protecting its existence should keep in mind that the Israeli military is one of the strongest in the world, fighting off Arabic nations for decades. Those vagrantly defending Israel's every move should also look to history to remember that Israel was build from those in the Zionist branch who believed that Israel should be created... with violence. Many of these people were what we now call terrorists, striking terror into the existing Arab establishment in the Palestinian area in order to create the state promised but not promised to them by Great Britain. One thing also looked over is that Israel may not only be violating international human rights laws by the actions taken (e.g. cutting civilian power, I guess they forgot guns are not plugged in) during their many offenses, but also from the actual land Israel occupies. Israel is not conforming with the agreed borders that allowed its existence to be overall accepted. Yes, someone of power should speak out on this. Problem being many public officials from various governments and organizations are afraid of criticizing Israel too harshly, for fear of being labeled an anti-Semite.


UPDATE: Read revised version here.

technorati tags: beit+hanoun, hamas, palestine, israel, middle+east, opinion, news, in+perspective, clearthought, zionism, zionist, terrorism, terror, united+states, usa, uk, israeli, arab, human+rights, gaza, 2006, november

Thoughts on homosexuality, part 2

See part 1 too.

There is hard evidence (from studies other than the linked one too) that homosexuality is biological. It is something, like being black (for example), that one cannot essentially control. You are born with it. As I said before, you cannot really tell from how someone looks whether they are gay or not; that does not keep people from scorning gays. It is quite easy to compare the current atmosphere of contempt for gays to Nazi propaganda attacking those of the Jewish faith, see here. Everything from control and wealth to abnormality to un-Biblical/un-Christian arguments were plastered by the Nazis to Jews and my the religious right to homosexuals.

Like in the civil rights era, many sensible Americans are having trouble connecting to how someone can be different from them, and can still receive the same rights. Those who were brought up with contempt for those different feel this way especially so. The truth is, there have been many historical figures that were most likely gay (Leonardo da Vinci, possibly Abraham Lincoln, et al). There is nothing new with being gay, there is nothing wrong with it, homosexuality is not only isolated to the human species, and, while being gay can hinder procreation, maybe that's just how nature intended it. As humans, there are many things we cannot grasp — period. How someone can be gay is not one of them, but why nature created that wired homosexuality in their genes is a conundrum — like multiple dimensions and the finer points of relativity and metaphysical existence — that we can't understand. It will take time for moderate Americans to accept homosexuality, but hopefully the government can give them a push in the right direction, like the (at the time) liberal US Supreme Court did for African Americans in the 1960-70s.

Here and here are two of many Amnesty International reports on human rights abuses to homosexuals. Sadly, it is not hard to find more.

Most of the above can apply to bisexuals too.

Just as a clarifier, I am not homosexual myself, but do know some who are. I was raised to neither like nor hate homosexuals.

"Thoughts on homosexuality, part 3" will most likely be about the politics of homosexuality, in the United States and elsewhere.

technorati tags: gays, lesbians, lesbian, gay, homosexual, homosexuality, biological, biology, lincoln, da+vinci, bisexuality, opinion, society, jews, nazi, nazis, racism, sexism, descrimination, civil+rights, blacks, procreation, human, brain, mind, clearthought, in+perspective

Thoughts on homosexuality, part 1

You learn something new every day, you know.

Well, one of the new things I learned today is that homosexuality is akin to adult bed wetting and fear of flight — put bluntly: gays are still mental cases. Well that is what the Pentagon thinks.

Pentagon guidelines that classified homosexuality as a mental disorder now put it among a list of conditions or "circumstances" that range from bed-wetting to fear of flying.

The new rules are related to the military's retirement practices. The change does not affect the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prohibits officials from inquiring about the sex lives of service members and requires discharges of those who openly acknowledge being gay.

While it is not my view whatsoever, I believe that people — especially in the ethnically (etc.) shifting melting pot of America — seem to always [think they] need someone to discriminate against, attack, and use as a scapegoat, and portray as a symbol of evil. Throughout American history it has been Native Americans, blacks, hispanics — many of which are still discriminated against today. Also, the British, Jews, Germans, Irish, and more have also been discriminated against, but for cultural and national, not biological or color (noticeable), reasons.

Racism, sexism, just content for those different from the supposed norm. Gays, however, stand out. Today they receive arguably the most bad rap in the US than any other group. Just as being black is biological, so, as it has been proven, is homosexuality. One of the problems is you cannot [usually] tell if someone is gay or lesbian from just looking at them. While at least the Pentagon has moved homosexuality from a mental disorder like schizophrenia to a "condition" like bed wetting, it is probably political correctness and superficial beurocracy, not a policy change, that is causing this to happen.

As an example: recently there was a soldier... who was gay. What really made this man, Bleu Copas, important was the fact he could translate Arabic, a skill that is much needed in the US government and military (especially in these times). He was kicked out, pretty much unexplained, from the military. The official story was that he was a danger to his peers and had homosexual lovers. The US military and much of American society in general still holds the notion that gays are lower than them, that they distract easily, are weak, are girly, have stronger sexual attraction to other men than men to to women, etc. By the way, this soldier was outed by a series of anonymous emails.

technorati tags: gay, homosexual, lesbian, opinion, blue+copas, military, united+states, usa, society, news, in+perspective, clearthought, pentagon

Cloned food, stem cells, and the FDA

So in the United States we are allowed to eat cloned meat but not use stem cell and related techniques that are much less severe than the technological and moral implications of cow (etc.) cloning?

From the Washington Post article:

Three years after the Food and Drug Administration first hinted that it might permit the sale of milk and meat from cloned animals, prompting public reactions that ranged from curiosity to disgust, the agency is poised to endorse marketing of the mass-produced animals for public consumption.

There seems to be an indication that the cloned food is OK for humans, but what about the natural balance? Couldn't this create very negative affecting (to consumers and the ecosystem in which cows, etc., interact) result, from things like genetic mutations?

From the Wired News article:

Consumer watchdog groups are skeptical, and say cloned meat should at least be labeled.

Studies have shown differences between cloned and regular animals, including a higher incidence of genetic and physiological abnormalities in clones. But scientists say these differences don't pose a threat to someone who eats cloned meat.

A 2002 National Academy of Sciences report said there was no evidence that cloned meat was dangerous to eat, but more data was needed to be certain.

Discount or no, it would not be practical for farmers to clone all their cattle rather than breed them normally.

It's unnatural and unethical; cloning — I thought that was wrong!?! Haven't all those scientists been saying so? Americans should not be so willing to put so much shit into their mouths, whether it be cloned, genetically modified, or just really fatty and pumped up on preservatives. I am not one of those vegan health nuts — I like food too much — but the FDA needs to be watching out for consumers, not advancing overzealous meat mass-producers' fantasies. Of course, the Food and Drug Administration has already vastly failed on the "Drug" part, and most of the "Food" part, I guess it is just a matter of time until when one sees the FDA stamp, they will know the food is bad. There is a difference between cloned food that is safe for humans to eat, and cloned food that is safe. At this point, the former may be true, but certainly not the latter.

technorati tags: clone, food, health, ecology, stem+cell, stem+cells, biotech, science, technology, news, politics, in+perspective, in+the+news, clearthought, current+affairs, fda, united+states, usa, cloning