Thursday, January 3, 2013
A Picture Worth a Thousand Words
I found this picture on another blog this morning. I don't think much more needs said. If only everyone took the advice--including me. Maybe I will.
Monday, December 31, 2012
Gifts
Here it is the last night of the year, and all the now-done-Christmas-hubbub had me thinking about gifts. A story came to mind.
Some years ago, during an uncharacteristically well-behaved period in my life, I was involved in a women's group. Each Christmas, an older lady I'll call Joan would invite the whole group over to her house for a Christmas party. The highlight of the party was a sort of "Dirty Santa" game, except that Joan provided all the gifts.
Joan loved to shop. She especially loved to bargain shop, and so, throughout the year, whenever she'd see some gifty-type item that was ridiculously discounted, she'd buy it and store it away for her Dirty Santa Party. Some of the gifts were cool, no matter who got them, like a fancily wrapped "tower" of chocolate candy, or a big set of assorted-color dish towels. Some were great, but only if you were into things like that--like a fondue pot complete with little forks and plates or an electric coffee grinder. Some were perhaps a bit less impressive, like a set of kitschy little egg dishes for soft-boiled eggs or a little gadget for taking the tops off of strawberries along with a small serving bowl festooned with painted strawberries. And truthfully, some were a bit tacky. The gifts ran the gamut.
Joan must have spent days wrapping all the gifts with beautiful wrappings, ribbons, bows, and little charms and things on them, and the table itself was decorated to the nines, with greenery and big fluffy bows and artificial snow and lights and ornaments. The gift table at Joan's party was like the Christmas fantasy-land around Santa's throne in a department store of old.
The rules of the game were simple. Everyone drew a number. The person who drew number one would make the first selection from the wondrous gift table piled high with packages. The next person would likewise pick a package and then decide whether to keep her gift or trade it for the gift of number one. This would continue through all the women at the party, with each person able to keep their gift or forcibly trade it for any other gift that had been opened. Then the victim of that forced trade got to keep that gift or make one forced trade of any opened gift except the one she'd just lost. The only limitation was that after the same gift had been taken three times, it stayed put. And the final trade fell to number one, who could open the one last unclaimed gift, or trade for anything in the room that hadn't been traded three times already, or keep the gift she already had.
Believe it or not, this pretty large group of pretty non-homogenous ladies were really into this game. People staked out gifts they wanted, and tried to devise strategies to get them. Sometimes it was by "talking up" something they'd gotten in the hopes that someone would take it and they'd get a shot at the zen candle garden or whatever it was they had their eye on. Sometimes, especially as the night wore on, it was by out and out bribery. By the time you got to thirty-five or forty gifts, the trading activity was spirited. Wine served to most of the ladies made the competition both more fierce and more humorous as the night wore on.
Now, I'm not much on receiving Christmas gifts. At least since turning about 10, I've always enjoyed giving presents more than getting them. And I'm even less into party games. So the Dirty Santa game at Joan's was usually something I watched in bemusement more than having any goal of "winning." I came away from those games at different times with a set of vanilla bath stuff , a grouping of too-sweet-scented candles, and once, a gadget for slicing boiled eggs. Meh.
But one time, I happened into a real find. I had been the number one gift-picker. I don't remember what my first gift was, but it was something good, and I lost it promptly. I had a couple more through the evening, but surprisingly ended with quite a nice thing--a big pasta bowl with very pretty Tuscan-looking designs on it. People with lesser gifts were hooting that I should trade with them. One lady who had a Tuscan-themed kitchen was offering unauthorized bonuses, like chocolate, if I'd trade her for a mini-food-processor. I was considering that, and thinking about trading for a stuffed figure that danced and played Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer, which I knew my mother-in-law would love, and then I looked over at the Last Gift. It was gorgeously wrapped, and quite large. It could be one of those chocolate towers, and it really was intriguing. I felt daring. I traded for it. Joan's face fell.
As the lady with the Tuscan kitchen booed loudly and then started to negotiate animatedly with Joan for the bowl, I tore off the paper and opened the box. Inside was a cookie jar shaped like a chubby black and white cow, seated erect like a dog begging, with all four hooves and a prominent pink udder molded and painted on the front, a tail on the back. There was a collective gasp from the ladies, who thought I had just really gotten the shaft--a beautiful Tuscan pasta bowl traded away for a tacky cow cookie jar.
But I'm not really the Tuscan kind, and the fat little bovine whose head came off to reveal the treasure inside really spoke to me. I liked that cow. I took her home and she became a fixture in our kitchen. She became known as Clovis, the cookie cow. I even bought other tacky cow-themed kitchen stuff like dish towels with Bossies grazing on green, green grass and cow-spotted borders, so Clovis would feel at home. I was fully aware the cows were tacky, but I didn't care, my husband didn't mind, and my girls were little and loved that cow, knowing she would have a treat for them, always. Clovis was our cookie-bearing friend, well-used for years until an unfortunate accident shattered her all over the floor of a subsequent kitchen she adorned.
So, a long story to close out what has seemed like a very long year. We've been through it in spades in 2012. Economic doomsaying, mass shootings, elections, fiscal cliffs, money-laundering, rate-fixing, and now surviving the "end of the world." Wow. There's a lot that needs handled, dealt with, changed, and fixed in this world of ours--and dammit, the end of the world didn't take us off the hook for it. So, you ask, what's the point this New Year's Eve?
Just this: some gifts are fancy; some gifts are plain; some are easily recognized as valuable; and some are pretty darn weird and might only be appreciated by the person to whom fate grants them--like my cookie cow. We all have a place and a role to play in addressing the challenges that will come in this, "the year after the end of the world." Each of us has unique gifts that will help us to do that, in large ways or small. And each of our gifts will only be put to their best use by the one person in the world who's wound up with them. Here's hoping that we each see and appreciate our gifts--even the weird ones--that we embrace them, develop them, and use them fully, uniquely, and with joy to make our own part of the world a better place this coming year. God knows it needs to be a better place.
Happy New Year.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
A Culture Problem
In the wake of the shootings last week at Sandy Hook Elementary, we're hearing a lot. A lot is simple media sensationalism, like the accounts in which children are interviewed, telling of hiding in classrooms and closets as their fellow students were shot. Some is sappy sentimentalism, like the abuse of these children's memories as we relive their birthdays and hear about their favorite toys. And it's possible that some will be worthwhile, although little I've heard yet falls into that category.
As usual, we're hearing how this man was mentally unstable, how he was troubled, a loner, a nut. How someone could have known the guy was a menace if only some set of circumstances would have occurred. How he wasn't like other people. This is how we comfort ourselves. Over and over and over--every time one of "them" mows people down. We convince ourselves that the problem of people murdering kids, or employers, or teenagers, or moviegoers, is someone else's problem--the junction of too many guns (lawmakers' problem,") too little healthcare for the mentally ill (the healthcare system's problem), or an individual case of bad parenting (other parents' problem). At all costs, we avoid the realization that this problem is a culture problem--OUR problem--by making the person who did it not like us.
I'm here today to point out the ways in which shooter Adam Lanza (and Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold, and James Holmes) is just like us. Because until we see that, we'll have mass shootings and massacres come along like buses--regularly--just like we've been having ever since Columbine.
So how is he like us? Well, for starters, he was raised in a diseased culture where males are taught in innumerable ways that the way to be "manly" isn't to be emotionally stable, good at expressing yourself, nurturing of your family, calm and measured, but instead to be a brute--to give less and get more--taking what you want, with force if necessary, whether more means more money, more sex, or more controlling power over others.
This sickness tells boys it's expected that a "real man" crushes his "enemies" on the sports field, or the playground, or the workplace or the battlefield. It says that it's par for the course for men to philander, to kill, rape, beat, or blow up anyone who opposes their desires, no matter how childish, greedy, perverted, unfounded, or unfair. To buck this trend gets one labeled a "faggot," a "wimp," or other charming epithets.
We teach our males, through TV shows, video games, sports, and "boys-will-be-boys" excuses for bad behavior to be Rambo caricatures, blasting their way through life, unaccountable for being brutes, because "that's how men are." Our most recent mass murderer, Adam Lanza, is like millions of young men who are raised to be fearful of life (of women who want to "emasculate" them, or the underclass who will take their due, of Commies, or Muslims, or illegal immigrants, or other tougher men), while convinced that "safety" and "power" come not from strength of character, strength of your argument, goodness, and emotional security, but from forcing another person to do what you want at the point of a gun or after being pummeled, tortured (or should I say interrogated using enhanced techniques), or threatened.
Now, many of you are shaking your heads, saying, "that's not how I raised my boy." And I'm here to tell you that most likely it is, at least in some measure. Because no matter how anti-gun you are, no matter how pacifist and dove-like, you've probably bought into some part of the man-myth, and you probably passed it to your kids.
For example, do you think there's a different standard of behavior for men and women? Is it "ok" for a boy to be loud and rough but not ok for a girl? Are men "only to be expected" to yell, punch the wall, or go off and sulk in a huff instead of talking about a conflict? Is a boy or man who sleeps around a "whore" or a "tramp," or is that honor reserved for females? Do you expect that boys "play differently" than girls--with war games an pounding each other and blowing stuff up standard fare in the boy world and taking care of babies and playing school and pretending to cook more "girlish?" Are men who are mild mannered, kind, and nurturing "wimps," while their loud, competitive, and aggressive counterparts are "men's men?" When people refer to a man being a "good catch," does that mean he's faithful and loving and gentle, or that he's the best at today's most common form of warfare--earning money? Is a man whose wife is the primary breadwinner while he stays home with the kids a good caretaker or a lazy bum? What about in business--a guy who sees what he wants and steps on others to go after it is a "go-getter;" a woman who does the same is a conniving bitch.
There are a thousand examples--and we all go for them at some point or other to some degree. We've systematically made it the standard in our culture that men don't have to be as "nice" as women. Our expectation, collectively, is that a "real man" is, compared to a woman, not just more physically powerful, but also more aggressive (physically, emotionally, or economically), more exploitive, and less capable of handling feelings, non-physical conflict, and communication.
The corollary argument is, "men are just different." We glorify male domination and aggression as not only the way things are but the way they ought to be. Once they were the hunters and the protectors, the story goes, and so aggression, power-mongering, and even violence is "only natural." Well, it might be--if they were animals in the wild. But once a creature is brought to live in a society, those traits are not useful--they're abusive of others. For example, being the biggest and fiercest might have served a dog well in the wild, but when they're living with humans, and a particular animal displays aggressive tendencies, that animal is not allowed to breed. If only it worked that way with humans, but alas.
So here we are again, with 20 barely-more-than-babies and 7 women dead. The problem isn't a gun problem--he could have used a knife or a bomb made of fertilizer or a can of gasoline and a match. The problem isn't a mental illness problem--millions of people have autistic spectrum disorders and mental illnesses and never hurt anyone, and this young man didn't believe he was killing demons or some other psychotic delusion--he knew he was getting back at his mother for some perceived slight. No, the problem is a culture problem--yet another man taught by just about every influence in his life that male aggression is natural, that domination of others is the quickest form of persuasion, and that violence is an acceptable way to deal with disappointment, rejection, fear, or anger. Adam Lanza simply decided, on a grand scale, the same thing that thousands of men decide on a smaller scale every day when they beat their partners or rape their dates or punch out the guy who made a smart remark or torture the prisoner--that violence works. And once again, we're trying to excuse the real causes of the problem, as we do so often when we we cast about looking to lay blame on the weapon, or the "terrorist," or the medical system or the woman who went out where she oughtn't to be in clothes she oughtn't to wear.
So--other than the man himself, what or who is to blame when a man decides that the way to relieve his jealousy, fear, and insecurity is to blast people with high powered weapons or fill a truck with explosives and bomb a building, instead of talking it out or sucking it up or seeing a therapist?
It may be all of us.
UPDATE: I understand that a particularly dense Republican member of Congress appeared on an MSNBC show Friday morning, after my post, and referred to Sandy Hook as a "cultural problem," as he defended the unrestricted sale of assault weapons. I regret that this "gentleman" chose the same words I did, after I chose them. Unfortunately, he is one of the people I'm talking about--one of those who uses fear to justify violence (in his case, encouraging people to use guns to feel "safer"). I disagree with him entirely on the issue of an assault weapon ban.
As usual, we're hearing how this man was mentally unstable, how he was troubled, a loner, a nut. How someone could have known the guy was a menace if only some set of circumstances would have occurred. How he wasn't like other people. This is how we comfort ourselves. Over and over and over--every time one of "them" mows people down. We convince ourselves that the problem of people murdering kids, or employers, or teenagers, or moviegoers, is someone else's problem--the junction of too many guns (lawmakers' problem,") too little healthcare for the mentally ill (the healthcare system's problem), or an individual case of bad parenting (other parents' problem). At all costs, we avoid the realization that this problem is a culture problem--OUR problem--by making the person who did it not like us.
I'm here today to point out the ways in which shooter Adam Lanza (and Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold, and James Holmes) is just like us. Because until we see that, we'll have mass shootings and massacres come along like buses--regularly--just like we've been having ever since Columbine.
So how is he like us? Well, for starters, he was raised in a diseased culture where males are taught in innumerable ways that the way to be "manly" isn't to be emotionally stable, good at expressing yourself, nurturing of your family, calm and measured, but instead to be a brute--to give less and get more--taking what you want, with force if necessary, whether more means more money, more sex, or more controlling power over others.
This sickness tells boys it's expected that a "real man" crushes his "enemies" on the sports field, or the playground, or the workplace or the battlefield. It says that it's par for the course for men to philander, to kill, rape, beat, or blow up anyone who opposes their desires, no matter how childish, greedy, perverted, unfounded, or unfair. To buck this trend gets one labeled a "faggot," a "wimp," or other charming epithets.
We teach our males, through TV shows, video games, sports, and "boys-will-be-boys" excuses for bad behavior to be Rambo caricatures, blasting their way through life, unaccountable for being brutes, because "that's how men are." Our most recent mass murderer, Adam Lanza, is like millions of young men who are raised to be fearful of life (of women who want to "emasculate" them, or the underclass who will take their due, of Commies, or Muslims, or illegal immigrants, or other tougher men), while convinced that "safety" and "power" come not from strength of character, strength of your argument, goodness, and emotional security, but from forcing another person to do what you want at the point of a gun or after being pummeled, tortured (or should I say interrogated using enhanced techniques), or threatened.
Now, many of you are shaking your heads, saying, "that's not how I raised my boy." And I'm here to tell you that most likely it is, at least in some measure. Because no matter how anti-gun you are, no matter how pacifist and dove-like, you've probably bought into some part of the man-myth, and you probably passed it to your kids.
For example, do you think there's a different standard of behavior for men and women? Is it "ok" for a boy to be loud and rough but not ok for a girl? Are men "only to be expected" to yell, punch the wall, or go off and sulk in a huff instead of talking about a conflict? Is a boy or man who sleeps around a "whore" or a "tramp," or is that honor reserved for females? Do you expect that boys "play differently" than girls--with war games an pounding each other and blowing stuff up standard fare in the boy world and taking care of babies and playing school and pretending to cook more "girlish?" Are men who are mild mannered, kind, and nurturing "wimps," while their loud, competitive, and aggressive counterparts are "men's men?" When people refer to a man being a "good catch," does that mean he's faithful and loving and gentle, or that he's the best at today's most common form of warfare--earning money? Is a man whose wife is the primary breadwinner while he stays home with the kids a good caretaker or a lazy bum? What about in business--a guy who sees what he wants and steps on others to go after it is a "go-getter;" a woman who does the same is a conniving bitch.
There are a thousand examples--and we all go for them at some point or other to some degree. We've systematically made it the standard in our culture that men don't have to be as "nice" as women. Our expectation, collectively, is that a "real man" is, compared to a woman, not just more physically powerful, but also more aggressive (physically, emotionally, or economically), more exploitive, and less capable of handling feelings, non-physical conflict, and communication.
The corollary argument is, "men are just different." We glorify male domination and aggression as not only the way things are but the way they ought to be. Once they were the hunters and the protectors, the story goes, and so aggression, power-mongering, and even violence is "only natural." Well, it might be--if they were animals in the wild. But once a creature is brought to live in a society, those traits are not useful--they're abusive of others. For example, being the biggest and fiercest might have served a dog well in the wild, but when they're living with humans, and a particular animal displays aggressive tendencies, that animal is not allowed to breed. If only it worked that way with humans, but alas.
So here we are again, with 20 barely-more-than-babies and 7 women dead. The problem isn't a gun problem--he could have used a knife or a bomb made of fertilizer or a can of gasoline and a match. The problem isn't a mental illness problem--millions of people have autistic spectrum disorders and mental illnesses and never hurt anyone, and this young man didn't believe he was killing demons or some other psychotic delusion--he knew he was getting back at his mother for some perceived slight. No, the problem is a culture problem--yet another man taught by just about every influence in his life that male aggression is natural, that domination of others is the quickest form of persuasion, and that violence is an acceptable way to deal with disappointment, rejection, fear, or anger. Adam Lanza simply decided, on a grand scale, the same thing that thousands of men decide on a smaller scale every day when they beat their partners or rape their dates or punch out the guy who made a smart remark or torture the prisoner--that violence works. And once again, we're trying to excuse the real causes of the problem, as we do so often when we we cast about looking to lay blame on the weapon, or the "terrorist," or the medical system or the woman who went out where she oughtn't to be in clothes she oughtn't to wear.
So--other than the man himself, what or who is to blame when a man decides that the way to relieve his jealousy, fear, and insecurity is to blast people with high powered weapons or fill a truck with explosives and bomb a building, instead of talking it out or sucking it up or seeing a therapist?
It may be all of us.
UPDATE: I understand that a particularly dense Republican member of Congress appeared on an MSNBC show Friday morning, after my post, and referred to Sandy Hook as a "cultural problem," as he defended the unrestricted sale of assault weapons. I regret that this "gentleman" chose the same words I did, after I chose them. Unfortunately, he is one of the people I'm talking about--one of those who uses fear to justify violence (in his case, encouraging people to use guns to feel "safer"). I disagree with him entirely on the issue of an assault weapon ban.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Only Fair
I've been gone awhile from my writing. I guess I haven't had much to say. Today, though, a thought occurred to me, and I did some figuring. I thought I'd share with you the result. Here we go:
We've all heard the statistics. The top 1 percent of wealthiest people in the US hold more wealth than the bottom 90% combined. That sounds pretty ridiculous, but the numbers are so big, it's hard to even focus on what it means. So I spent some time this morning making it accessible.
Here's the scoop. There's around $55 trillion in wealth held in the US. This is wealth, not income. That means that all together, all the stocks and bonds, and cash, and real estate, and boats and cars and 401k plans and houses, and everything that's worth something in the US adds up to that much. It's a BIG number. Such a big number that it means that, if it were equally divided, every single man, woman and child in the US would own about $173,945 worth of stuff, or about $695,780 per family of four. Keep in mind that this is net value, not just assets. That means this is what you have over and above the debt you owe on it--like equity in a home. It's a really big number.
So if we've got so darn much stuff in this country, then why are people struggling? Why are there poor people? Why is it that the GOP got to spend so much time talking about the 47% of people who don't make enough to pay income taxes? Well, here's why.
The top one percent of wealthiest people in America own a bit more than 35% of the total wealth, or about $19 trillion, together. That's distributed amongst about 1.4 million households that make up the 1%, and that's means they have, on average, a net worth of about $13.57 million per household. So, on average, each 1%-household owns almost twenty times the amount that they would own if the wealth in the US were distributed equally, assuming 1%-households of four people each. And that doesn't count the money they're still making and living on, which is also a lot more than regular people have.
Now, here's the thing. If you had a tax that took from those people in the 1% half of their net worth--just half--at some point when it makes sense (like, oh I don't know, an estate tax when they die, perhaps), in just one round of deaths, that would free up $9.5 trillion to do something with. Of course, after another generation, there would be more really rich people, although they probably wouldn't have built up quite so much, but the first $9.5 trillion wouldn't be the last. And it would still leave their heirs with over $6.5 million per family, so they probably won't end up on Medicaid or anything.
So what would $9.5 trillion do? Well, it could wipe out two thirds of the entire national debt, and greatly diminish the interest the fat cat bankers get to charge us on that, which would let more of current taxes go to programs, and not to incurring more debt and debt service. Eliminating two-thirds of the debt would eliminate two thirds of the interest, or somewhere around $275 billion per year that wouldn't get tacked onto our debt. That's one thing, although maybe not the best thing, because that just gives the money back to the big fat bankers that we just took a bunch of it from in the first place. So what else?
It could go to a rebate to everyone in the US. If they took $9.5 trillion and divided it equally, every single man, woman and child in the US could get over $30,000. Most of those people would spend that money fast, paying off debts or buying stuff they need or sending kids to college, and the money would then circulate to someone else in the form of the wages paid to make or sell the stuff they bought or to teach their kids, or whatever. Now, that's not fair, they say, because those people didn't earn it. But, then again, what did the children of the now-dead 1% do to earn it, other than hang around and wait for daddy to kick the bucket? But of course, some people would waste it, so is there a better idea?
Hmmm. You know what else could happen with $9.5 trillion? Jobs. Private jobs, if you lent money to businesses that are wanting to expand but need capital. Public jobs if you spent it fixing roads and bridges and building things we need. In total, $9.5 trillion could pay for 19 million job-years for jobs paying $50,000. That would mean you could make enough jobs to cut our approximately 8 percent unemployment rate in half, to a very nice normal four percent rate, and with all the new work paying well, for more than three years. And of course, those people with jobs would then not need unemployment, food stamps, welfare, medicaid, taking early social security and medicare, etc. And they'd spend that money on crazy stuff like gas and food and clothes, that would keep other people in jobs too. And they'd have to earn it--doing unimportant things like making and building stuff, not nearly as deserving as sticking it in a stock fund and waiting for the checks to roll in, but still.
Or, we could entirely eliminate the estate tax like some propose, and let the 1% accumulate even more. Of course, they're promising that they'll use it all to run businesses that make jobs--or to make fat bank accounts in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands--whichever.
We've all heard the statistics. The top 1 percent of wealthiest people in the US hold more wealth than the bottom 90% combined. That sounds pretty ridiculous, but the numbers are so big, it's hard to even focus on what it means. So I spent some time this morning making it accessible.
Here's the scoop. There's around $55 trillion in wealth held in the US. This is wealth, not income. That means that all together, all the stocks and bonds, and cash, and real estate, and boats and cars and 401k plans and houses, and everything that's worth something in the US adds up to that much. It's a BIG number. Such a big number that it means that, if it were equally divided, every single man, woman and child in the US would own about $173,945 worth of stuff, or about $695,780 per family of four. Keep in mind that this is net value, not just assets. That means this is what you have over and above the debt you owe on it--like equity in a home. It's a really big number.
So if we've got so darn much stuff in this country, then why are people struggling? Why are there poor people? Why is it that the GOP got to spend so much time talking about the 47% of people who don't make enough to pay income taxes? Well, here's why.
The top one percent of wealthiest people in America own a bit more than 35% of the total wealth, or about $19 trillion, together. That's distributed amongst about 1.4 million households that make up the 1%, and that's means they have, on average, a net worth of about $13.57 million per household. So, on average, each 1%-household owns almost twenty times the amount that they would own if the wealth in the US were distributed equally, assuming 1%-households of four people each. And that doesn't count the money they're still making and living on, which is also a lot more than regular people have.
Now, here's the thing. If you had a tax that took from those people in the 1% half of their net worth--just half--at some point when it makes sense (like, oh I don't know, an estate tax when they die, perhaps), in just one round of deaths, that would free up $9.5 trillion to do something with. Of course, after another generation, there would be more really rich people, although they probably wouldn't have built up quite so much, but the first $9.5 trillion wouldn't be the last. And it would still leave their heirs with over $6.5 million per family, so they probably won't end up on Medicaid or anything.
So what would $9.5 trillion do? Well, it could wipe out two thirds of the entire national debt, and greatly diminish the interest the fat cat bankers get to charge us on that, which would let more of current taxes go to programs, and not to incurring more debt and debt service. Eliminating two-thirds of the debt would eliminate two thirds of the interest, or somewhere around $275 billion per year that wouldn't get tacked onto our debt. That's one thing, although maybe not the best thing, because that just gives the money back to the big fat bankers that we just took a bunch of it from in the first place. So what else?
It could go to a rebate to everyone in the US. If they took $9.5 trillion and divided it equally, every single man, woman and child in the US could get over $30,000. Most of those people would spend that money fast, paying off debts or buying stuff they need or sending kids to college, and the money would then circulate to someone else in the form of the wages paid to make or sell the stuff they bought or to teach their kids, or whatever. Now, that's not fair, they say, because those people didn't earn it. But, then again, what did the children of the now-dead 1% do to earn it, other than hang around and wait for daddy to kick the bucket? But of course, some people would waste it, so is there a better idea?
Hmmm. You know what else could happen with $9.5 trillion? Jobs. Private jobs, if you lent money to businesses that are wanting to expand but need capital. Public jobs if you spent it fixing roads and bridges and building things we need. In total, $9.5 trillion could pay for 19 million job-years for jobs paying $50,000. That would mean you could make enough jobs to cut our approximately 8 percent unemployment rate in half, to a very nice normal four percent rate, and with all the new work paying well, for more than three years. And of course, those people with jobs would then not need unemployment, food stamps, welfare, medicaid, taking early social security and medicare, etc. And they'd spend that money on crazy stuff like gas and food and clothes, that would keep other people in jobs too. And they'd have to earn it--doing unimportant things like making and building stuff, not nearly as deserving as sticking it in a stock fund and waiting for the checks to roll in, but still.
Or, we could entirely eliminate the estate tax like some propose, and let the 1% accumulate even more. Of course, they're promising that they'll use it all to run businesses that make jobs--or to make fat bank accounts in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands--whichever.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Yes Indeed
Several weeks ago, in the aftermath of the attack on the supposed consulate in Benghazi, Libya, I disclosed more clearly than ever before that I am one of those people who think that our American government is up to no good and regularly lies to us about what kind of no good they're up to. In the process, I let you in on the secret that, from the moment I heard it, I wasn't buying the "official story" about what happened in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11.
I noted how the story seemed to be growing "curiouser and curiouser" by the moment, and I stated,
The upside is, while the Congress and the State Department and the "Intelligence Community" are all fighting out whose fault it was that there was an attack on Americans in Benghazi on September 11, and who did it, and why, the hearing pretty well outed the fact that the facilities attacked on September 11 were actually an entire CIA operation in Benghazi. This outing occurred on live TV (CSPAN video-all 4+ interminable hours worth, is here). It was accompanied by the admission that between 10,000 and 20,000 shoulder to air missiles have "gone missing" in Libya, and could be in the hands of "extremists." This admission appears just after 1:53 in the video, during questioning by Rep. Dennis Kucinich.
It looks like our "war on terror" has spawned an ancillary conflict: there's a war within our government as State points fingers at intelligence and intelligence points fingers at State, Rs point at Ds and Ds point at Rs, and our presidential and vice-presidential candidates use the latest crappola to whack each other with. And it's still feeling like maybe we don't actually know what we think we know, and maybe we're being screwed with, just a bit.
But it is starting to explain a couple of things that I've been wondering about for about a month now. For example, I wondered why it was that in early reports, people didn't seem to know where the 'consulate' in Benghazi was. Here's a screenshot I took September 18 of a September 12 online article in the UK's Daily Mail, with the map and a prominent red dot where the facility in Benghazi had been attacked. (I know the images are small--just click on them to make them bigger.)
But then here's what the Guardian showed for the location of the consulate from a screenshot of the same day. The white box in the lower center of the photo is supposed to be where it is. Not way up by the water, as shown by the Daily Mail, but in a whole different place. Hmmm.
Not to worry though. They got their story straightened out, and settled on the "compound" in the lower photo. We've seen maps and aerial photos and all those pics of fires and a video of the poor man being dragged out and all that. That initial mix-up had to have just been some poor journalism.
Except...that at the same time, a view of the US State Department website showed no listing at all for any embassy, consulate, or mission in Benghazi, Libya. Here's a screenshot taken that day. Note that under Libya, there's only Tripoli. And for contrast, look over at Iraq. There's a listing of several different cities there. Poor Benghazi.
Ok, well, it could be that some IT guy just didn't get the listing updated. So, I looked for our ill-fated "ambassador." He wasn't some newbie to the State Department. He might have only gone to Libya recently, but according to his "bio" in the news, he'd been in foreign service for the State Department for some time. So let's see what old State had to say about Mr. J. Christopher Stevens.
Hmmm. Sonenshine, Spraden, Stephens, Stern, Stewart, Stock... Huh? No Stevens, J. Christopher?
What about under State's listing for Ambassadors by Country? He's got to be there. Notice at the top of the image that we're under the tab for Libya.
Somehow, the US State Department, in September, 2012, thought that we didn't have an Ambassador to Libya. We had a "Charge d'Affaires" that we've had for quite a long time, since the US' Diplomatic Mission was reopened in 2006. A man named Ali Suleiman Aujali. No Mr. Stevens. No facility in Benghazi.
All right, well, one last stop. Google maps. And a search for "consulate of the United States Benghazi libya" turns up: zip, zilch, nada. Google Maps tells me, "Your search for consulate of the United States near Benghazi libya did not match any locations."
Curiouser and curiouser. Yes indeed.
I noted how the story seemed to be growing "curiouser and curiouser" by the moment, and I stated,
I have the feeling that there is very much more to this story than meets the eye, or the news report, and I'm betting that in the days and weeks to come, we're going to learn a lot that we don't really want to hear.Well, not to say I told you so, but I did tell you so. Last week, in a Congressional hearing, called by Republican Rep. Darrell Issa (chair of the House Oversight Committee), it became clear that the conflicting and ever-changing stories of exactly what happened in Benghazi are still, well... conflicting and ever changing.
The upside is, while the Congress and the State Department and the "Intelligence Community" are all fighting out whose fault it was that there was an attack on Americans in Benghazi on September 11, and who did it, and why, the hearing pretty well outed the fact that the facilities attacked on September 11 were actually an entire CIA operation in Benghazi. This outing occurred on live TV (CSPAN video-all 4+ interminable hours worth, is here). It was accompanied by the admission that between 10,000 and 20,000 shoulder to air missiles have "gone missing" in Libya, and could be in the hands of "extremists." This admission appears just after 1:53 in the video, during questioning by Rep. Dennis Kucinich.
It looks like our "war on terror" has spawned an ancillary conflict: there's a war within our government as State points fingers at intelligence and intelligence points fingers at State, Rs point at Ds and Ds point at Rs, and our presidential and vice-presidential candidates use the latest crappola to whack each other with. And it's still feeling like maybe we don't actually know what we think we know, and maybe we're being screwed with, just a bit.
But it is starting to explain a couple of things that I've been wondering about for about a month now. For example, I wondered why it was that in early reports, people didn't seem to know where the 'consulate' in Benghazi was. Here's a screenshot I took September 18 of a September 12 online article in the UK's Daily Mail, with the map and a prominent red dot where the facility in Benghazi had been attacked. (I know the images are small--just click on them to make them bigger.)
But then here's what the Guardian showed for the location of the consulate from a screenshot of the same day. The white box in the lower center of the photo is supposed to be where it is. Not way up by the water, as shown by the Daily Mail, but in a whole different place. Hmmm.
Not to worry though. They got their story straightened out, and settled on the "compound" in the lower photo. We've seen maps and aerial photos and all those pics of fires and a video of the poor man being dragged out and all that. That initial mix-up had to have just been some poor journalism.
Except...that at the same time, a view of the US State Department website showed no listing at all for any embassy, consulate, or mission in Benghazi, Libya. Here's a screenshot taken that day. Note that under Libya, there's only Tripoli. And for contrast, look over at Iraq. There's a listing of several different cities there. Poor Benghazi.
Ok, well, it could be that some IT guy just didn't get the listing updated. So, I looked for our ill-fated "ambassador." He wasn't some newbie to the State Department. He might have only gone to Libya recently, but according to his "bio" in the news, he'd been in foreign service for the State Department for some time. So let's see what old State had to say about Mr. J. Christopher Stevens.
Hmmm. Sonenshine, Spraden, Stephens, Stern, Stewart, Stock... Huh? No Stevens, J. Christopher?
What about under State's listing for Ambassadors by Country? He's got to be there. Notice at the top of the image that we're under the tab for Libya.
Somehow, the US State Department, in September, 2012, thought that we didn't have an Ambassador to Libya. We had a "Charge d'Affaires" that we've had for quite a long time, since the US' Diplomatic Mission was reopened in 2006. A man named Ali Suleiman Aujali. No Mr. Stevens. No facility in Benghazi.
All right, well, one last stop. Google maps. And a search for "consulate of the United States Benghazi libya" turns up: zip, zilch, nada. Google Maps tells me, "Your search for consulate of the United States near Benghazi libya did not match any locations."
Curiouser and curiouser. Yes indeed.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Churches Get It Right
Those of you who know me know that I believe in God--a God that is the sum total of all things that have ever been or ever will be. A God who holds as its highest value the inevitable oneness of all things and the love for one another that entails. A God who is summed up in the values of the person we call Jesus when he's quoted as saying that all the law and all the prophets hang on two commandments: love god and love each other as we love ourselves.
Those of you who know me also know that, in spite of the above, I don't believe too awfully much in churches. I was raised Roman Catholic, and I found points of considerable disagreement with that church's dogma by the time I was eight years old. Specifically, at that young age, I decided that if my dog and my friend, Lisa (who was Jewish), were not going to Catholic Heaven, I would prefer not to either. This was not a popular position in Catechism class.
Once I was old enough to decide for myself whether "to church" or not, I didn't. I watched what most churches spent their time on (judging and condemning), and what they spent their money on (by far, mostly themselves and their stuff), and I didn't find much value there. Then, I happened upon a church that restored some of my faith in church. As with most things I do, once I got in, I got "all in" and I churched as I do most things--compulsively and with a tenacity that, if I were a dog, would make me a good badger-hunter. Oddly, as time went on, I discovered, it wasn't the church, but the pastor of that congregation, who was one of the smartest people I've ever met, and one of the least steeped in archaic ceremony and dogma and strange conditions that "God" put on loving. But shortly enough, he left that congregation, and I found that the church, without him, was just as dogmatic and just as intolerant and just as conditionally loving as every other church I'd seen. And I left that church. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that church left me--inviting me for all intents and purposes to do something anatomically very difficult to achieve. And I've pretty much refused "to church" since then, although I retain my ability "to believe" just fine.
I've always missed some of what happened when I was part of that church years ago. And I've always hoped that churches, and the usually good folks who comprise them, would eventually decide that if God is love, then God doesn't require from us a bunch of ceremonies and certain songs sung in certain styles on certain days, or blind acceptance of ridiculously unloving positions that someone says are the "word of God," or disliking people who view God through a different lens or who sing different songs or who sprinkle instead of immerse. Rather, I've hoped that, in time, churches would see that, if God is Love, then God requires only that we love. And there's been an event that indicates that we may be moving in that direction, right now, in the midst of some of the least loving times ever known to man. I'm reproducing below the text of a letter that's apparently been sent by group of religious leaders to the members of the US Congress. And, while it's not perfect, I'll be hoping whatever's gotten into them is contagious. Here's the letter:
UPDATE: I should mention the response of the Anti-Defamation League to this letter. It is to take their ball and go home. The ADL has withdrawn from an upcoming conference of religious types where it was intended the parties have "inter-faith dialogue" about prospects for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Here's a quote from Abraham Foxman, the leader of ADL:
Foxman wants other Jewish organizations to take their respective balls and go home as well, urging them to:
"understand the level of disrespect the American Jewish community is being shown here" and to also withdraw from the conference.
In other words, if anyone dares to ask from Israel the same thing Israel is demanding from Iran and other middle-eastern countries (verification that there are not abuses of human rights, offensive actions against neighboring countries, nor abuses of American aid and weapons), they are disrespectful of the "American Jewish Community" and risk being labeled anti-Semitic. I, for one, will take my chances.
Those of you who know me also know that, in spite of the above, I don't believe too awfully much in churches. I was raised Roman Catholic, and I found points of considerable disagreement with that church's dogma by the time I was eight years old. Specifically, at that young age, I decided that if my dog and my friend, Lisa (who was Jewish), were not going to Catholic Heaven, I would prefer not to either. This was not a popular position in Catechism class.
Once I was old enough to decide for myself whether "to church" or not, I didn't. I watched what most churches spent their time on (judging and condemning), and what they spent their money on (by far, mostly themselves and their stuff), and I didn't find much value there. Then, I happened upon a church that restored some of my faith in church. As with most things I do, once I got in, I got "all in" and I churched as I do most things--compulsively and with a tenacity that, if I were a dog, would make me a good badger-hunter. Oddly, as time went on, I discovered, it wasn't the church, but the pastor of that congregation, who was one of the smartest people I've ever met, and one of the least steeped in archaic ceremony and dogma and strange conditions that "God" put on loving. But shortly enough, he left that congregation, and I found that the church, without him, was just as dogmatic and just as intolerant and just as conditionally loving as every other church I'd seen. And I left that church. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that church left me--inviting me for all intents and purposes to do something anatomically very difficult to achieve. And I've pretty much refused "to church" since then, although I retain my ability "to believe" just fine.
I've always missed some of what happened when I was part of that church years ago. And I've always hoped that churches, and the usually good folks who comprise them, would eventually decide that if God is love, then God doesn't require from us a bunch of ceremonies and certain songs sung in certain styles on certain days, or blind acceptance of ridiculously unloving positions that someone says are the "word of God," or disliking people who view God through a different lens or who sing different songs or who sprinkle instead of immerse. Rather, I've hoped that, in time, churches would see that, if God is Love, then God requires only that we love. And there's been an event that indicates that we may be moving in that direction, right now, in the midst of some of the least loving times ever known to man. I'm reproducing below the text of a letter that's apparently been sent by group of religious leaders to the members of the US Congress. And, while it's not perfect, I'll be hoping whatever's gotten into them is contagious. Here's the letter:
Dear Member of Congress,
We write to you as Christian leaders representing U.S. churches and religious organizations committed to seeking a just peace for Israelis and Palestinians. Our organizations have been deeply involved in this pursuit for decades, inspired by the call and promise of Jesus Christ who said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”
In response to our Christian call to be peacemakers, we have worked for decades to support both Israelis and Palestinians in their desire to live in peace and well-being. We have worked alongside our Palestinian Christian sisters and brothers to help build a peaceful and resilient Palestinian civil society by supporting hospitals, schools, clinics, and social service agencies.
These ministries include cooperative efforts with Israelis and Palestinians as well as with Jews, Muslims, and other neighbors here in the United States. Through our presence in the region, and regular visits to our partners there, we see first-hand the impacts of the conflict on both Palestinians and Israelis and hear from them directly about the reality of their lives.
Through this direct experience we have witnessed the pain and suffering of Israelis as a result of Palestinian actions and of Palestinians as a result of Israeli actions. In addition to the horror and loss of life from rocket attacks from Gaza and past suicide bombings, we have witnessed the broad impact that a sense of insecurity and fear has had on Israeli society.
We have also witnessed widespread Israeli human rights violations committed against Palestinians, including killing of civilians, home demolitions and forced displacement, and restrictions on Palestinian movement, among others.
We recognize that each party—Israeli and Palestinian—bears responsibilities for its actions and we therefore continue to stand against all violence regardless of its source. Our stand against violence is complemented by our commitment to the rights of all Israelis, as well as all Palestinians, to live in peace and security.
It is this experience and these commitments that lead us to write to you today to express our grave concern about the deteriorating conditions in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories which threaten to lead the region further away from the realization of a just peace.
Unfortunately, unconditional U.S. military assistance to Israel has contributed to this deterioration, sustaining the conflict and undermining the long-term security interests of both Israelis and Palestinians. This is made clear in the most recent 2011 State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices covering Israel and the Occupied Territories (1), which details widespread Israeli human rights violations committed against Palestinian civilians, many of which involve the misuse of U.S.-supplied weapons.
Accordingly, we urge an immediate investigation into possible violations by Israel of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act and the U.S. Arms Export Control Act which respectively prohibit assistance to any country which engages in a consistent pattern of human rights violations and limit the use of U.S. weapons (2) to “internal security” or “legitimate self-defense.” (3) More broadly, we urge Congress to undertake careful scrutiny to ensure that our aid is not supporting actions by the government of Israel that undermine prospects for peace. We urge Congress to hold hearings to examine Israel’s compliance, and we request regular reporting on compliance and the withholding of military aid for non-compliance.
Examples of specific, systematic human rights violations related to U.S. military support are included as an annex to this letter.
In addition to specific rights violations, we see a troubling and consistent pattern of disregard by the government of Israel for U.S. policies that support a just and lasting peace. Specifically, repeated demands by the U.S. government that Israel halt all settlement activity have been ignored. Since 1967, every U.S. administration has decried Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories as obstacles to peace.
Despite this stance, Israel continues to expand its settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, claiming territory that under international law and U.S. policy should belong to a future Palestinian state. The Oslo peace process, which began in 1993, was publicly promoted as leading Israelis and Palestinians to a just peace based on a two-state solution.
Instead, since 1993, the number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, has more than doubled. Rights violations resulting from Israeli settlement activity include separate and unequal legal systems for Palestinians and settlers, confiscation of Palestinian land and natural resources for the benefit of settlers, and violence by settlers against Palestinians.
According to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, there has been a dramatic rise in settler attacks against Palestinians this year (4). They report that these attacks are often intended to drive Palestinians from areas the settlers wish to take over, and that Israeli authorities have failed to take significant action to stop the violence or hold the perpetrators accountable. We believe that these actions directly undermine peace efforts and threaten, rather than support, Israel’s long-term security interests.
We want to be clear that we recognize that Israel faces real security threats and that it has both a right and a duty to protect both the state and its citizens. However, the measures that it uses to protect itself and its citizens, as in the case with any other nation, must conform to international humanitarian and human rights law.
As Christian leaders in the United States, it is our moral responsibility to question the continuation of unconditional U.S. financial assistance to the government of Israel. Realizing a just and lasting peace will require this accountability, as continued U.S. military assistance to Israel — offered without conditions or accountability — will only serve to sustain the status quo and Israel’s military occupation of the Palestinian territories.
We request, therefore, that Congress hold Israel accountable to these standards by making the disbursement of U.S. military assistance to Israel contingent on the Israeli government’s compliance with applicable U.S. laws and policies. As Israel is the single largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid since World War II, it is especially critical for Israel to comply with the specific U.S. laws that regulate the use of U.S.-supplied weapons.
We also encourage Congress to support inclusive, comprehensive, and robust regional diplomacy to secure a just and lasting peace that will benefit Israelis, Palestinians, and all the peoples of the region, and the world.
With respect and gratitude, we offer you our prayers.
Sincerely,
Rev. Gradye Parsons
Stated Clerk of the General Assembly
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Mark S. Hanson
Presiding Bishop
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Bishop Rosemarie Wenner
President, Council of Bishops
United Methodist Church
Peg Birk
Transitional General Secretary
National Council of Churches USA
Shan Cretin
General Secretary
American Friends Service Committee
J Ron Byler
Executive Director
Mennonite Central Committee U.S.
Alexander Patico
North American Secretary
Orthodox Peace Fellowship
Diane Randall
Executive Secretary
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Dr. A. Roy MedleyRev. Geoffrey A. Black
General Secretary
American Baptist Churches, U.S.A.
General Minister and President
United Church of Christ
Rev. Dr. Sharon E. Watkins
General Minister and President
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Rev. Julia Brown Karimu
President, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Division of Overseas Ministries
Co-Executive, Global Ministries (UCC and Disciples)
Rev. Dr. James A. Moos
Executive Minister, United Church of Christ, Wider Church Ministries
Co-Executive, Global Ministries (UCC and Disciples)
Kathy McKneely
Acting Director
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
Eli S. McCarthy, PhD
Justice and Peace Director
Conference of Major Superiors of Men (CMSM)________________________________
Examples of specific, systematic human rights violations related to U.S. military support:• Killings of civilians – At least 2,969 Palestinian civilians uninvolved in hostilities were killed by the Israeli military between December 29, 2000 and December 31, 2009. This includes at least 1,128 children under the age of 18.5 Many of these deaths are connected to weaponry the U.S. underwrites.
• Suppression of legitimate political expression and protest – U.S.-supplied tear gas has been used by Israel to systematically suppress political protests and dissent in the occupied Palestinian territories. This has led to the deaths of at least 5 Palestinians and the grave injury of many others, including two U.S. citizens.
• Home demolitions and forced displacement – According to the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, approximately 24,813 Palestinian homes in the occupied Palestinian territories have been destroyed since 1967. House demolitions in the West Bank in 2011 forcibly displaced nearly 1,100 Palestinians (over half of them children) from their homes, over 80% more than in 2010, according to the United Nations (UN) Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (6).
• Use of prohibited weaponry in densely populated civilian areas – Israel has used both white phosphorus and flechette shells in Gaza and Lebanon in violation of international humanitarian law. During operation cast lead white phosphorus shells were fired against civilian targets including a UN compound, two hospitals, and private residences causing civilian deaths and injuries. Flechette shells have also been used repeatedly in Gaza since 2001, causing significant civilian deaths and casualties (7).
• Restricting Palestinian movement – Israeli-only roads and more than 500 roadblocks and checkpoints carve up the West Bank, making travel for Palestinians arduously slow or impossible (8). The Wall constructed by Israel in the West Bank deviates considerably from the 1967 lines, confiscating occupied Palestinian territory and water in the process, and severely restricting Palestinian movement. Since 2007 Israel has also maintained a comprehensive blockade on Gaza, restricting not only the movement of Palestinians into and out of Gaza, but also restricting the import and export of goods. The UN and International Committee of the Red Cross have both concluded that this blockade amounts to collective punishment (9), in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
___________________________________1 http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/190656.pdf
2 Weapons in this instance include “crowd control” items such as tear gas. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74) which is included in the US Foreign Military Financing regulations stipulates that “not later than 90 days after enactment of this act and 6 months thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations detailing any crowd control items, including tear gas, made available with appropriated funds or through export licenses to foreign security forces that the Secretary of State has credible information have repeatedly used excessive force to repress peaceful, lawful, and organized dissent.”
3 While this letter focuses on US-Israel relations and the Israel-Palestine conflict, these are laws that we believe should be enforced in all instances regardless of location. All allegations regarding the misuse of US supplied arms should be investigated.
4 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/11/v-print/155813/report-violence-against-palestinians.html For more information see also: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/lambs-to-the-settlers-slaughter-screaming-and-unheard.premium-1.455937
5 Details available at http://www.weaponstoisrael.org/article.php?id=2940 and through original date from B’Tselem at www.btselem.org/statistics.
6 http://www.unocha.org/annualreport/2011/pse
7 http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/israeli-army-used-flechettes-against-gaza-civilians-20090127
8 http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_MovementandAccess_FactSheet_September_2011.pdf
9 http://www.ochaopt.org/gazablockade/
UPDATE: I should mention the response of the Anti-Defamation League to this letter. It is to take their ball and go home. The ADL has withdrawn from an upcoming conference of religious types where it was intended the parties have "inter-faith dialogue" about prospects for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Here's a quote from Abraham Foxman, the leader of ADL:
It is outrageous that mere days after the Iranian president repeated his call for Israel’s elimination, these American Protestant leaders would launch a biased attack against the Jewish state by calling on Congress to investigate Israel’s use of foreign aid. In its clear bias against Israel, it is striking that their letter fails to also call for an investigation of Palestinian use of U.S. foreign aid, thus once again placing the blame entirely on Israel.
Foxman wants other Jewish organizations to take their respective balls and go home as well, urging them to:
"understand the level of disrespect the American Jewish community is being shown here" and to also withdraw from the conference.
In other words, if anyone dares to ask from Israel the same thing Israel is demanding from Iran and other middle-eastern countries (verification that there are not abuses of human rights, offensive actions against neighboring countries, nor abuses of American aid and weapons), they are disrespectful of the "American Jewish Community" and risk being labeled anti-Semitic. I, for one, will take my chances.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
How to Start a War No One Wants
About 10 days ago, a weasel-like lobbyist for the pro-Israel lobbying firm, the Washington Institute for Near-East Policy (WINEP), delivered a talk to a cozy little luncheon held in Washington. You may be aware, if you follow ordinary news, that Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu has been about lately, begging the US and the UN to do something to stop Iran from getting "the bomb." The other day, he even brought a clever little graphic of a very cartoonish bomb to try to make his point more pointedly.
Of course, all of Mr. Netanyahu's histrionics aside, most evidence says Iran is a ways from having the bomb, if they're even developing one, and most of Netanyahu's own public, military, cabinet, and advisors say that attacking Iran would be a bad idea, but Mr. Netanyahu and Israel's Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, for some reason really really really want a war with Iran.
Now, after a decade of war, Mr. Netanyahu is having almost as much trouble convincing the US government to act as he's having at home in Israel. So, to the rescue, that aforementioned lobbyist, A Mr. Patrick Clawson. At his little neo-con luncheon, asked about war in Iran, he's been so kind as to explain how to get the US into a war no one wants. By as he calls it, the "traditional" way the US gets into war--a false flag operation. For those of you who aren't big on this sort of thing, read up on some of the incidents Mr. Clawson mentions in his little talk--here and here in the blog archives. The stories of the others are just as damning, if you take the time to do a little internet research.
So, without further ado, here's how Israel (apparently with the collusion of some pretty heavy hitters in Washington), may be trying to force a war that no one wants.
Ok, so now, I'm just asking that you keep this in mind for the next few months, as we hear on the news about "muslim" uprisings, and internet hack attacks. And at the moment that it looks most like we've been hit hard by our "enemies" in the middle east--take a really hard look at our "friends" before deciding on anything.
Of course, all of Mr. Netanyahu's histrionics aside, most evidence says Iran is a ways from having the bomb, if they're even developing one, and most of Netanyahu's own public, military, cabinet, and advisors say that attacking Iran would be a bad idea, but Mr. Netanyahu and Israel's Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, for some reason really really really want a war with Iran.
Now, after a decade of war, Mr. Netanyahu is having almost as much trouble convincing the US government to act as he's having at home in Israel. So, to the rescue, that aforementioned lobbyist, A Mr. Patrick Clawson. At his little neo-con luncheon, asked about war in Iran, he's been so kind as to explain how to get the US into a war no one wants. By as he calls it, the "traditional" way the US gets into war--a false flag operation. For those of you who aren't big on this sort of thing, read up on some of the incidents Mr. Clawson mentions in his little talk--here and here in the blog archives. The stories of the others are just as damning, if you take the time to do a little internet research.
So, without further ado, here's how Israel (apparently with the collusion of some pretty heavy hitters in Washington), may be trying to force a war that no one wants.
Ok, so now, I'm just asking that you keep this in mind for the next few months, as we hear on the news about "muslim" uprisings, and internet hack attacks. And at the moment that it looks most like we've been hit hard by our "enemies" in the middle east--take a really hard look at our "friends" before deciding on anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)