OBAMA TALKS THE TALK BUT DOES NOT WALK THE WALK...ON SECURITY/GITMO/DRONES.
President Obama in his speech today (May 23, 2013) ladled out some pablum for domestic consumption. His soft rhetorical gruel was designed by his script writers to slow the rising anger and anti-Obama sentiment awash in these first several months of Obama’s second term, events which are screwing up his chances to establish his “legacy”. Perhaps he fears he will go own in the history books as the first black president and the first to kill Americans abroad with no trial or independent oversight and little more. The slop was designed to quell the outrage on the left (and in the world) over torture, (which he finally openly admitted), over the shame of Gitmo, where the nation which calls itself the “bastion of freedom” is now force-feeding, 150 shackled, orange-clothed inmates, most of whom, in an eleven year limbo, are known to be innocent. The speech seems an attempt to tamp down national objections to Obama’s illegal, counterproductive drone operation which may perhaps eventually bring our first Black President a conviction in the World Court, and act nicely as a mantlepiece counter-poise to his Nobel Peace prize. These reputation and legacy-staining events (Gitmo, torture, drones) are raising their ugly heads at a the very same time that the American Right is having a field day counting and recounting the juicy Obama “letter and location” scandals: IRA, AP, BENGHAZI.
The “security” speech was apparently designed to help Obama’s personal-security, rather than expiate and further the nation’s security. It clearly attempts to generate the impression of policy revision, but the speech gives no indication of actual changes to be put into action by the Obama Administration. This President seems unable, even now when he will never face another election, to act forcefully and with determination. Though his rhetoric gives the impression of action, it is a illusion, and none should be expected. The pattern of Obama's speechifying has remained consistent through his first term and this one was no different. After digesting the content and reading the transcript, to be sure, I was reminded of the “troop surge embarrassment” in the early months of his first term when the President was talking the talk (of closing down the Iraq war) but could not or would not “walk the walk”. President Obama has a slick ability to rhetorically dress up the store front window, while he continues in his bad old ways in the back room
The President’s wavering is unfortunately something we have become used to here in the US. Perhaps we have accepted his faltering and cautiousness as a happy alternative to the last occupant's foolhardy blundering. But the most offensive lines of his speech are those where he tries to justify the process of illegal assassination and especially of killing our US citizens (now confirmed at four) abroad, Americans, some as young as 16 years of age, who were blown to bits thousand’s of miles from any recognized battlefield. In addition, his killing of thousands of innocent Iraqi, Yemeni, Afghanistanis, children, women, and elderly as unfortunate “collateral damage” can not be legally or morally justified. The drone policies and kill lists are illegal and a regression into our long-ago unsophisticated past when so called “justice” was meted out in secret meetings, with no independent oversight, at the end of a rope, or gun barrel.
In legal terms, Obama’s (and his predecessor’s) policies have taken us back into the colorful but awful “old west”, when characters such as Judge Roy Bean, known as: “the only law west of the Pecos”, used the butt-end of his six-gun as a gavel to call his West Texas kangaroo court to order. In summer session Bean conducted his court under a great live-oak known as the “hangin’ tree”, claiming the cool dappled shade and the thick, horizontal oak-tree limbs (from which a noose could be easily hung), were an ideal venue for carrying out the brief court procedures and the inevitable sentence. At other times he rapped his gavel in his own saloon, convenient for other purposes. But wherever the court met, it was almost axiomatic that any allegation against the accused (horse thief, hornswoggler, cold blooded murderer, etc., etc.) was immediately accepted as a “fact" (apparently, as is the case in Obama’s inner circle). Roy Bean and our legal-scholar president apparently made no distinction between an “allegation” and a confirmed fact. All of the President’s claims listed in his speech, accusations against purported wrongdoers and "terrorists" and all those he has put to death by drone strikes are all simply unsubstantiated allegations, sincce they were never put to the test of independent, unbiased scrutiny. In those past days of our tumultuous west, allegations were often derived and supported based on circumstances such as proximity to a crime scene, or on the “culprit's” sweaty palms, bulging eyes, nervousness, or “swarthy complexion”. For Judge Bean and his jurymen the latter was a sure sign of guilt and it worked for almost any crime, domestic violence, sex offender, rapist, horse thief, arsonist, you name it. It sure made things simple for the posse and the jury. Sadly, beginning under President Bush and now Obama, we have regressed back to the Judge Bean days of justice.
It should be noted here that the West Texas posse, and jury, were one in the same. This body was generally rounded up from the two most popular saloons in town to ride down and capture the alleged perpetrator. Today, we have no mounted posses. In our day a drone “pilot” sits at a console in an air conditioned trailer on the outskirts of an isolated air base in Arizona or New Mexico to chase down modern day US culprits on the far side of the world. No need to saddle up for the modern posse rider. Judge Bean himself rode at the head of many West Texas posse. Bean also took upon himself the responsibility for tying and snugging up a good tight hangman’s knot around the felon's neck. In Washington today, Obama is said to go over his “kill lists” as scrupulously (by himself--with no independent oversight). Once convinced he is right, with no outside independent input on the matter, our President coldly rains down death on people only “suspected” of criminal intent (and any by-standers or relatives which happen to be near). He has also given his imprimatur to other "kills" in what are called by the CIA, “signature strikes”. One such signature strike resulted in the deaths of eight, 10-15 year old Afghan kids who were innocently scavenging wood early in the morning on a hill-top for their parent’s breakfast fire when someone on President Obama’s orders pulled the trigger on a predator drone overhead.
In similar manner, often only minutes after the start of a West Texas trial, Judge Bean would smartly slap the dusty rump of a jumpy cow-pony upon which the “convicted” party sat, his hands tied securely behind his back and his sweaty neck,collared with a rough hemp rope. Bean always referred to the Mexican-style high-rise pommel and cantle on this cow pony as the "witness box”. Of course Bean swore (just like the President) that he was “doin’ justice” too, and there were “no other options”. But at least Bean went through with the formality of a trail..none of that for us today.
Bean's court in the 1880s had no truck with niceties like the accused being able to examine or confront witnesses arrayed against him or her, or the value of a confrontational setting in which both sides, like prosecution and defense, examine evidence to arrive at a more exact approximation of the truth. They never considered to insure the impartiality of witnesses. No one complained about the validity of statements taken from the accused after he or she was threatened with a hot branding iron, punched and kicked around by the jury, or hog-tied and dragged some miles behind a broom-tail pony. One thing the accused in Bean’s day could expect that the individuals on Mr. Obama’s kill lists could not, was a “timely trial”. But both could expect a ghoulish consistent outcome--death by hanging or being blown to bits. But at least the Texans of that era had some semblance of a “trial” and their relatives had a body to put into a pine box for burial.
Again in this case, our President is attempting to snow us by talking the talk, but don't expect him to walk the walk. Gitmo will not close, nor will drone strikes abate. Obama simply has no real desire to invest his political capital-the little he has--. It's too bad, he had great potential to be a transformational president. But it seems, unlike the nation, his best days are past. His big accomplishment, sad to state, may be that he was the first black man elected to the office and the first to bring us back to Judge Roy Bean style western justice.
Get the picture?
rjk
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
MAY 14, OBAMA'S DIES HORRIBILIS (HORRIBLE DAY)
MAY 14th---OBAMA'S PERFECT STORM or “Dies Horribilis”
Today the refuse hit the fan for Mr.Obama. The President has weathered bad news before. Obama and his birth certificate, his failed promise to close Guantanamo, his minimalist health care solution---still to be implemented, the troop surges and troop deadlines, the drone attacks, the failure to generate gun legislation after the Sandy Hook massacre, his dependency and expansion of distasteful and illegal Bush policies, the assassination of American citizens abroad, and earlier, the Great Recession, unemployment, the economy, Iran, Syria, the Guantanamo hunger strike, etc. etc. etc.
But today, Obama's dies horribilis, the fecal matter hit the fan, when the IRS scandal surfaced (the revelation that IRS was investigating the tax returns of selected groups based on their political leanings), on top of the AP scandal (secret subpoena of AP reporter’s telephone and fax records, ostensibly due to “serious leaks” regarding unidentified foreign policy issues ),on top of the Benghazi scandal, and to top it off, the embarrassing capture and expulsion by Russia of an all-too-obvious-CIA spy (captured wearing a silly blonde wig). The expulsion underscored the fact that the CIA under Obama is more a secret paramilitary organization, rather than an up-to-snuff intelligence gathering arm of the USA. And all these events fell on one day on the White House like the massive building collapse in Bangladesh.
As a result, none of us have left any spare “Obama forgiveness”...or “look-the-other-way-ability” for Obama and his obviously over the top imperialized but inept government. Even the silly charge of Congresswoman Michelle Bachman that the “President costs the nation a billion dollars a year”. That he "employs a dog walker" at taxpayer expense. And employs "five chefs" on Air Force One. These are charges which seem to have “legs”, striking a chord within the public consciousness. Perhaps, it is the public realization that, as it seems now, Mr.Obama is not going to do any better than he has so far. That his presidency is at an end, yet it has some 1300 days and more to go. That his great achievement was a personal one....being the first black president...but he will achieve little to heal his nation. Or perhaps, it has to do with the generalized suffering of our citizenry, who struggle just to put gas in their automobile tanks, stretch to create enough spare time for a second job and search the dark corners of their purses to come up with the necessary cash to buy needed medications. And it all happened within a few months of the President’s great reelection. What happened? Voter and citizen fatigue?
It seems today, some 1300 days before a new election, we as a people no longer believe the Obama myth. To change that public state of mind the President is going to actually have to do something--not half heartedly, or piecemeal, but do something successfully for the nation. Just one thing. To renew our faith in him.
Get the picture?
rjk
Today the refuse hit the fan for Mr.Obama. The President has weathered bad news before. Obama and his birth certificate, his failed promise to close Guantanamo, his minimalist health care solution---still to be implemented, the troop surges and troop deadlines, the drone attacks, the failure to generate gun legislation after the Sandy Hook massacre, his dependency and expansion of distasteful and illegal Bush policies, the assassination of American citizens abroad, and earlier, the Great Recession, unemployment, the economy, Iran, Syria, the Guantanamo hunger strike, etc. etc. etc.
But today, Obama's dies horribilis, the fecal matter hit the fan, when the IRS scandal surfaced (the revelation that IRS was investigating the tax returns of selected groups based on their political leanings), on top of the AP scandal (secret subpoena of AP reporter’s telephone and fax records, ostensibly due to “serious leaks” regarding unidentified foreign policy issues ),on top of the Benghazi scandal, and to top it off, the embarrassing capture and expulsion by Russia of an all-too-obvious-CIA spy (captured wearing a silly blonde wig). The expulsion underscored the fact that the CIA under Obama is more a secret paramilitary organization, rather than an up-to-snuff intelligence gathering arm of the USA. And all these events fell on one day on the White House like the massive building collapse in Bangladesh.
As a result, none of us have left any spare “Obama forgiveness”...or “look-the-other-way-ability” for Obama and his obviously over the top imperialized but inept government. Even the silly charge of Congresswoman Michelle Bachman that the “President costs the nation a billion dollars a year”. That he "employs a dog walker" at taxpayer expense. And employs "five chefs" on Air Force One. These are charges which seem to have “legs”, striking a chord within the public consciousness. Perhaps, it is the public realization that, as it seems now, Mr.Obama is not going to do any better than he has so far. That his presidency is at an end, yet it has some 1300 days and more to go. That his great achievement was a personal one....being the first black president...but he will achieve little to heal his nation. Or perhaps, it has to do with the generalized suffering of our citizenry, who struggle just to put gas in their automobile tanks, stretch to create enough spare time for a second job and search the dark corners of their purses to come up with the necessary cash to buy needed medications. And it all happened within a few months of the President’s great reelection. What happened? Voter and citizen fatigue?
It seems today, some 1300 days before a new election, we as a people no longer believe the Obama myth. To change that public state of mind the President is going to actually have to do something--not half heartedly, or piecemeal, but do something successfully for the nation. Just one thing. To renew our faith in him.
Get the picture?
rjk
Sunday, May 12, 2013
WEST TEXAS FERTILIZER BLAST: NO REGULATIONS, NO GOOD
WEST TEXAS BLAST:TRAGIC REMINDER OF EVILS OF NO REGULATION POLICY
The terrible ammonium-nitrate fueled blast on April 17, 2013, at a fertilizer plant just outside of West, Texas registered a 2.1 magnitude on the earthquake scale and blew out windows in Abbott, Texas 7 miles away. The massive blast and fireball killed fourteen, wounded 200, flattened a good part of the surrounding city and left a 90-foot-diameter smoldering crater. The event, in a town where “fire regulations” are cuss words, is a tragic example of the results of a State’s laissais faire, so-called “business friendly” policy taken to absurd lengths. The events in West make it apparent that living in a “business friendly” zone may marginally increase profits, more money will flow into the hands of the owners, but it can be dangerous (or fatal) to one’s health and well being. Similar policies emanating from the Ayn Randian myths and fuzzy thinking of Republican politicians which resulted in the elimination of long-standing federal banking regulations by the US Senate and House of Representatives (i.e. Glass Steagal Act) clearly fueled the devastating financial disaster of 2008--the Great Recession---which had tragic ECONOMIC consequences for the nation as a whole, circumstances which we all continue to struggle with, now five years later. The tragic blast in West Texas is a sad and tragic reminder of just how dangerous, stupid, and counter-productive the anti-government, anti-regulation, free-for-all, 19th-century-style capitalism is to our nation’s health and economic well-being.
Learning about the blast, one was first saddened at the widespread death and destruction, which some estimate at more than $100 million dollars, but later shocked by the revelation that the dangerous fertilizer plant (producing and storing some 270 tons of the same explosive--ammonium nitrate--that Timothy Mc Viegh used--two tons of the stuff--in 1995 in the Oklahoma City bombing to blow the side off the Murrah building and kill 168 people) was, unguarded, subject to thefts and vandalism, poorly regulated, without outside independent inspections (last inspected in 1988), and all it's safety and maintenance policies left strictly to the whim of the West Fertilizer Company executives who had a financial motive to limit them. Recent information also indicate that the plant executives unwisely permitted the storage of agricultural grains and seeds in bins in proximity to storage areas for flammable ammonium nitrate. The company was originally known as the Adair Seed Company, so seeds and grains were originally stored on site. Federal regulations warn farmers about storing agricultural grains, seeds and hay. If they are inadvertently dampened, biological decay (fermentation) can generate enough heat to cause spontaneous combustion. It is known that the initial fire at the site may have involved the seed bins. Furthermore,the State of Texas which, in its pursuit of business opportunity has few or no zoning laws and thus saw fit to ignore the fact that the plant was situated near residential areas, homes, next to the West Middle School, an apartment building and other occupied buildings. The town of West and the County of McClennon in which the plant is located, proudly boast that they have no fire regulations (an apparent come-on for businesses) and the State officially prohibits towns from enacting such legislation in the State's unwise pursuit of anti-government-intervention purity.
The N Y Times in a May 10 2013, print edition article entitled: “After Plant Explosion, Texas Remains Wary of Regulation” states: "Texas has always prided itself on its free-market posture. It is the only state that does not require companies to contribute to workers’ compensation coverage. It boasts the largest city in the country, Houston, with no zoning laws. It does not have a state fire code, and it prohibits smaller counties from having such codes. Some Texas counties even cite the lack of local fire codes as a reason for companies to move there.
But Texas has also had the nation’s highest number of workplace fatalities — more than 400 annually — for much of the past decade. Fires and explosions at Texas’ more than 1,300 chemical and industrial plants have cost as much in property damage as those in all the other states combined for the five years ending in May 2012. Compared with Illinois, which has the nation’s second-largest number of high-risk sites, more than 950, but tighter fire and safety rules, Texas had more than three times the number of accidents, four times the number of injuries and deaths, and 300 times the property damage costs.” From:NY Times, May 10, 2013, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: After Plant Explosion,Texas Remains Wary of Regulation.
The “no-regulation” culture and raw capitalism of these modern times has led to the tragic loss of life and property in West Texas and the economic tragedy of the Great Recession, but unfortunately both events have brought no soul searching or revision of thought or revised policies. The State of Texas has 44 other fertilizer plants scattered over its counties, many of them literal time bombs located right in the center of some unsuspecting community. Yet the disproved policies of “no regulation” remain unaltered in the minds of the populace and their less-than-astute policy-maker class. In the larger realm, the Federal officials know well and fully that lax banking laws and toothless financial regulations are an open invitation to another banking or stock bubble which can again devastate the financial sector and perhaps cost the taxpayer more trillions in bailout money. But all of our leaders look the other way, ignoring the piles of explosive ammonium nitrate and the economic Mount Soma upon which we all sit, mumbling their outdated, disproved shibboleths of “pure capitalism” over and over to reassure themselves, of their free market purity and unwilling to admit that Soma is a Vesuvius waiting to erupt.
Get the picture?
rjk
------------------------
The terrible ammonium-nitrate fueled blast on April 17, 2013, at a fertilizer plant just outside of West, Texas registered a 2.1 magnitude on the earthquake scale and blew out windows in Abbott, Texas 7 miles away. The massive blast and fireball killed fourteen, wounded 200, flattened a good part of the surrounding city and left a 90-foot-diameter smoldering crater. The event, in a town where “fire regulations” are cuss words, is a tragic example of the results of a State’s laissais faire, so-called “business friendly” policy taken to absurd lengths. The events in West make it apparent that living in a “business friendly” zone may marginally increase profits, more money will flow into the hands of the owners, but it can be dangerous (or fatal) to one’s health and well being. Similar policies emanating from the Ayn Randian myths and fuzzy thinking of Republican politicians which resulted in the elimination of long-standing federal banking regulations by the US Senate and House of Representatives (i.e. Glass Steagal Act) clearly fueled the devastating financial disaster of 2008--the Great Recession---which had tragic ECONOMIC consequences for the nation as a whole, circumstances which we all continue to struggle with, now five years later. The tragic blast in West Texas is a sad and tragic reminder of just how dangerous, stupid, and counter-productive the anti-government, anti-regulation, free-for-all, 19th-century-style capitalism is to our nation’s health and economic well-being.
Learning about the blast, one was first saddened at the widespread death and destruction, which some estimate at more than $100 million dollars, but later shocked by the revelation that the dangerous fertilizer plant (producing and storing some 270 tons of the same explosive--ammonium nitrate--that Timothy Mc Viegh used--two tons of the stuff--in 1995 in the Oklahoma City bombing to blow the side off the Murrah building and kill 168 people) was, unguarded, subject to thefts and vandalism, poorly regulated, without outside independent inspections (last inspected in 1988), and all it's safety and maintenance policies left strictly to the whim of the West Fertilizer Company executives who had a financial motive to limit them. Recent information also indicate that the plant executives unwisely permitted the storage of agricultural grains and seeds in bins in proximity to storage areas for flammable ammonium nitrate. The company was originally known as the Adair Seed Company, so seeds and grains were originally stored on site. Federal regulations warn farmers about storing agricultural grains, seeds and hay. If they are inadvertently dampened, biological decay (fermentation) can generate enough heat to cause spontaneous combustion. It is known that the initial fire at the site may have involved the seed bins. Furthermore,the State of Texas which, in its pursuit of business opportunity has few or no zoning laws and thus saw fit to ignore the fact that the plant was situated near residential areas, homes, next to the West Middle School, an apartment building and other occupied buildings. The town of West and the County of McClennon in which the plant is located, proudly boast that they have no fire regulations (an apparent come-on for businesses) and the State officially prohibits towns from enacting such legislation in the State's unwise pursuit of anti-government-intervention purity.
The N Y Times in a May 10 2013, print edition article entitled: “After Plant Explosion, Texas Remains Wary of Regulation” states: "Texas has always prided itself on its free-market posture. It is the only state that does not require companies to contribute to workers’ compensation coverage. It boasts the largest city in the country, Houston, with no zoning laws. It does not have a state fire code, and it prohibits smaller counties from having such codes. Some Texas counties even cite the lack of local fire codes as a reason for companies to move there.
But Texas has also had the nation’s highest number of workplace fatalities — more than 400 annually — for much of the past decade. Fires and explosions at Texas’ more than 1,300 chemical and industrial plants have cost as much in property damage as those in all the other states combined for the five years ending in May 2012. Compared with Illinois, which has the nation’s second-largest number of high-risk sites, more than 950, but tighter fire and safety rules, Texas had more than three times the number of accidents, four times the number of injuries and deaths, and 300 times the property damage costs.” From:NY Times, May 10, 2013, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: After Plant Explosion,Texas Remains Wary of Regulation.
The “no-regulation” culture and raw capitalism of these modern times has led to the tragic loss of life and property in West Texas and the economic tragedy of the Great Recession, but unfortunately both events have brought no soul searching or revision of thought or revised policies. The State of Texas has 44 other fertilizer plants scattered over its counties, many of them literal time bombs located right in the center of some unsuspecting community. Yet the disproved policies of “no regulation” remain unaltered in the minds of the populace and their less-than-astute policy-maker class. In the larger realm, the Federal officials know well and fully that lax banking laws and toothless financial regulations are an open invitation to another banking or stock bubble which can again devastate the financial sector and perhaps cost the taxpayer more trillions in bailout money. But all of our leaders look the other way, ignoring the piles of explosive ammonium nitrate and the economic Mount Soma upon which we all sit, mumbling their outdated, disproved shibboleths of “pure capitalism” over and over to reassure themselves, of their free market purity and unwilling to admit that Soma is a Vesuvius waiting to erupt.
Get the picture?
rjk
------------------------
Monday, May 6, 2013
GITMO: CLOSE IT, SEND PRISONERS TO BUSH RANCH!
GITMO, BUSH AND CHENEY CRIME, MAKE THEM PAY
A solution to the problem of prisoners at Gitmo just came to me as I listened to a disquieting review on NPR today of the present conditions at our USA Guantanamo Gulag. I thought, “Hey, wait, it was Bush and Cheney's big brain storm to set up Guantanamo”. (But sadly I must add here that Mr.Obama, is also culpable. He was elected specifically to right these wrongs, but has been sitting on his long and gracefully tapering fingers for four long years and not lifted one of his fine digits to alter this situation.) They (the Bush crowd) and their henchmen also decided to use torture to extract information from the detainees so that that any evidence obtained from them was ultimately inadmissible in any court in the world. They also had the great idea to gather information by doling out cash to tribal chieftains, and other locals to make sweeps across Iraq and Afghanistan to arrest “suspicious characters” who were then turned over to and interrogated by the CIA for information. Some were tortured. It is not hard to imagine how readily and likely corruption and malfeasance would occur under such circumstances, with the result that many innocent people were swept up for no good reason except the CIA cash. Bush and Cheney and their underlings made no provisions to ameliorate this problem and innocents were detained, tortured and imprisoned. Now after all these years, these men remain incarcerated, under the harshest conditions, but worse, they are imprisoned with no charges, no habeus corpus, no trials, some having no idea why they were arrested, and no idea when or if they will face their accusers, or be tried, convicted, or released---if ever. Their despair has led them to take part in a hunger strike.
All in all, it is Bush and Cheney who are the war criminals responsible for this fiasco, the war, the massive costs, the hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the pain and suffering of an entire nation as we now face the ugly problem of deciding what to do both legally and morally with these men, the vast majority of whom, have been deemed innocent of any crime, and who have been incarcerated now for a up to a decade. At present, the camp is faced with another problem---a massive prisoner hunger strike, which is being “handled” by the military by brutally force-feeding inmates. By all international standards, forced feeding is just another form of torture.
Like George Bush's unnecessary, counter-productive and expensive wars which will cost the nation three trillion dollars when all is said and done....his concept of incarcerating prisoners has been revealed to be unbelievably expensive too. It is common knowledge now that each prisoner (171 of them) costs the taxpayer annually nearly a million dollars (some estimate the cost more precisely as between $800,000 to $900,000). The average prisoner in a state-side penitentiary costs only 1/50 of that amount, or about $20,000 to incarcerate an individual for a year. Why the huge disparity? The hot climate and need for continuous air conditioning, is one, as well as the fact that because the prison camp was situated purposely in an isolated and secretive place on another nation's island, a nation with which we have no trade relations, so we can not staff the camp or supply it locally. The Bush team knew that the gulag they were organizing was going to function outside of our national laws, thus it had to be located outside of US legal jurisdiction. And perhaps considering what went on there, Bush and Cheney did not want anyone looking over the shoulder of the camp commander. However, that reasoning and decision was a costly one. To service the staff and prisoners in this isolated guglag far from the mainland, every bit of fuel, water, food and even toilet paper must be flown in or transported by ship. The costs are astronomical for a prison camp.
My thinking is this, since Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney generated the underlying causes and the specific circumstances of this mess, they should be held fiscally responsible. The majority did not vote for Bush (the first time), the majority of our citizenry would not have agreed to go to war in Iraq, were they not lied to. The majority certainly did not agree to torture or dream up the disaster of Gitmo. It was Cheney and Bush who were the creators and architects of this mess. Perhaps we should send the problem in the form of a line of shackled prisoners to their homes and ranches where the Cheneys and Bushes would host these men. In lieu of that, I suggest a tax on the Bush and Cheney's estates to help pay for the up-keep of these men on the island where THEY decided they should go. They could well afford it, profiting on the war they way they did. Gitmo is their mess and their shame. They should pay.
Perhaps if we saddle the perpetrators with the costs of their perfidy, future inhabitants of our White House (and Blair House) might be much more circumspect about leading a nation into unnecessary wars, torturing prisoners so we can not try them, leaving us with a bill of near two hundred million dollars a year with no end in sight, and staining the nation's honor with epithet of “torturer” and “human rights violator”.
Get the picture?
rjk
A solution to the problem of prisoners at Gitmo just came to me as I listened to a disquieting review on NPR today of the present conditions at our USA Guantanamo Gulag. I thought, “Hey, wait, it was Bush and Cheney's big brain storm to set up Guantanamo”. (But sadly I must add here that Mr.Obama, is also culpable. He was elected specifically to right these wrongs, but has been sitting on his long and gracefully tapering fingers for four long years and not lifted one of his fine digits to alter this situation.) They (the Bush crowd) and their henchmen also decided to use torture to extract information from the detainees so that that any evidence obtained from them was ultimately inadmissible in any court in the world. They also had the great idea to gather information by doling out cash to tribal chieftains, and other locals to make sweeps across Iraq and Afghanistan to arrest “suspicious characters” who were then turned over to and interrogated by the CIA for information. Some were tortured. It is not hard to imagine how readily and likely corruption and malfeasance would occur under such circumstances, with the result that many innocent people were swept up for no good reason except the CIA cash. Bush and Cheney and their underlings made no provisions to ameliorate this problem and innocents were detained, tortured and imprisoned. Now after all these years, these men remain incarcerated, under the harshest conditions, but worse, they are imprisoned with no charges, no habeus corpus, no trials, some having no idea why they were arrested, and no idea when or if they will face their accusers, or be tried, convicted, or released---if ever. Their despair has led them to take part in a hunger strike.
All in all, it is Bush and Cheney who are the war criminals responsible for this fiasco, the war, the massive costs, the hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the pain and suffering of an entire nation as we now face the ugly problem of deciding what to do both legally and morally with these men, the vast majority of whom, have been deemed innocent of any crime, and who have been incarcerated now for a up to a decade. At present, the camp is faced with another problem---a massive prisoner hunger strike, which is being “handled” by the military by brutally force-feeding inmates. By all international standards, forced feeding is just another form of torture.
Like George Bush's unnecessary, counter-productive and expensive wars which will cost the nation three trillion dollars when all is said and done....his concept of incarcerating prisoners has been revealed to be unbelievably expensive too. It is common knowledge now that each prisoner (171 of them) costs the taxpayer annually nearly a million dollars (some estimate the cost more precisely as between $800,000 to $900,000). The average prisoner in a state-side penitentiary costs only 1/50 of that amount, or about $20,000 to incarcerate an individual for a year. Why the huge disparity? The hot climate and need for continuous air conditioning, is one, as well as the fact that because the prison camp was situated purposely in an isolated and secretive place on another nation's island, a nation with which we have no trade relations, so we can not staff the camp or supply it locally. The Bush team knew that the gulag they were organizing was going to function outside of our national laws, thus it had to be located outside of US legal jurisdiction. And perhaps considering what went on there, Bush and Cheney did not want anyone looking over the shoulder of the camp commander. However, that reasoning and decision was a costly one. To service the staff and prisoners in this isolated guglag far from the mainland, every bit of fuel, water, food and even toilet paper must be flown in or transported by ship. The costs are astronomical for a prison camp.
My thinking is this, since Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney generated the underlying causes and the specific circumstances of this mess, they should be held fiscally responsible. The majority did not vote for Bush (the first time), the majority of our citizenry would not have agreed to go to war in Iraq, were they not lied to. The majority certainly did not agree to torture or dream up the disaster of Gitmo. It was Cheney and Bush who were the creators and architects of this mess. Perhaps we should send the problem in the form of a line of shackled prisoners to their homes and ranches where the Cheneys and Bushes would host these men. In lieu of that, I suggest a tax on the Bush and Cheney's estates to help pay for the up-keep of these men on the island where THEY decided they should go. They could well afford it, profiting on the war they way they did. Gitmo is their mess and their shame. They should pay.
Perhaps if we saddle the perpetrators with the costs of their perfidy, future inhabitants of our White House (and Blair House) might be much more circumspect about leading a nation into unnecessary wars, torturing prisoners so we can not try them, leaving us with a bill of near two hundred million dollars a year with no end in sight, and staining the nation's honor with epithet of “torturer” and “human rights violator”.
Get the picture?
rjk
Friday, May 3, 2013
POLLS: USA ISOLATIONIST--NO JUST USING COMMON SENSE
The New York Times ran a piece (April 30, 2013) entitled:“Poll Shows Isolationist Streak in Americans” (Megan Thee-Brenan). But is this really a case of “isolationism”? Or are Americans being more sensible and realistic than the Washington crowd, their accomplices and echo chamber--the press--and the elements of military-industrial-complex many of whom profit from our adventurism abroad.
The Times lead paragraph states: “Americans are exhibiting an isolationist streak, with majorities across party lines decidedly opposed to American intervention in North Korea or Syria, according to the latest New York Times/CBS poll.”
The author supports her claim with these figures:“Sixty-two percent of the public say the United States has no responsibility to do something about the fighting in Syria between government forces and antigovernment groups, while just one-quarter disagree. Likewise, 56 percent say North Korea is a threat that can be contained for now without military action, just 15 percent say the situation requires immediate American action and 21 percent say the North is not a threat at all.” To me that sounds very reasonable.
The Times would like to call that response “isolationism”. Merriam Webster defines isolationism as: “a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations.” I do not think that definition could remotely Apply to the USA with its more than 900 military bases around the world, millions of men and women under arms, and which is presently fighting major wars in Afghanistan and a secret war in Pakistan, Yemen and parts of Africa, all supported with an earth-girdling Navy and Air Force.
We are not isolationists by any measure. But we are a nation with problems. Our infrastructure and health care system are no longer world class. Today for every three dollars our government takes in in revenue--it spends four. Our national debt equals our annual GDP like some of those nations in Europe we criticize. We are a struggling with an economic depression, with near 8% unemployment, and trying to close down two unnecessary, unpaid-for wars and even today struggling to survive under sequestration and its unimagined and devastating effects. Claiming we may have isolationist tendencies is simply wrong.
Let’s accept the facts. The American public, far from isolationist, simply have digested and understand--perhaps because economic exigencies demand they deal with it each day--the basic facts. We can not afford further unpredictable adventurism abroad. Let’s not call that a “streak of isolationism” but is a fine example of American common sense. We would all be better off with more of that characteristic in Washington and as well in the editor's office at the NY Times.
Get the picture?
rjk
The Times lead paragraph states: “Americans are exhibiting an isolationist streak, with majorities across party lines decidedly opposed to American intervention in North Korea or Syria, according to the latest New York Times/CBS poll.”
The author supports her claim with these figures:“Sixty-two percent of the public say the United States has no responsibility to do something about the fighting in Syria between government forces and antigovernment groups, while just one-quarter disagree. Likewise, 56 percent say North Korea is a threat that can be contained for now without military action, just 15 percent say the situation requires immediate American action and 21 percent say the North is not a threat at all.” To me that sounds very reasonable.
The Times would like to call that response “isolationism”. Merriam Webster defines isolationism as: “a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations.” I do not think that definition could remotely Apply to the USA with its more than 900 military bases around the world, millions of men and women under arms, and which is presently fighting major wars in Afghanistan and a secret war in Pakistan, Yemen and parts of Africa, all supported with an earth-girdling Navy and Air Force.
We are not isolationists by any measure. But we are a nation with problems. Our infrastructure and health care system are no longer world class. Today for every three dollars our government takes in in revenue--it spends four. Our national debt equals our annual GDP like some of those nations in Europe we criticize. We are a struggling with an economic depression, with near 8% unemployment, and trying to close down two unnecessary, unpaid-for wars and even today struggling to survive under sequestration and its unimagined and devastating effects. Claiming we may have isolationist tendencies is simply wrong.
Let’s accept the facts. The American public, far from isolationist, simply have digested and understand--perhaps because economic exigencies demand they deal with it each day--the basic facts. We can not afford further unpredictable adventurism abroad. Let’s not call that a “streak of isolationism” but is a fine example of American common sense. We would all be better off with more of that characteristic in Washington and as well in the editor's office at the NY Times.
Get the picture?
rjk
Monday, April 29, 2013
ISRAEL’S MOSSAD BEHIND SARIN GAS ATTACKS IN SYRIA?
My neighbor up here in the heart of the Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont is a guy I’ll just call “Tony”. He looks and speaks just like Steve Van Zant of the Netflix series “Lillehammer”. Tony, who seems so out of place in the quiet, spruce and fir-robed hills in the “Greens” has lived here for decades. The local IGA even “special order” the herb arugula just for Tony. The locals have always secretly suspected him of being in the Federal Witness Protection Program, though no one knows for sure. But just looking at him it is apparent that he has lived a hard, tough life for most of his sixty plus years. He is a friendly and garrulous guy (one more reason, besides the arugula, he stands out as a stranger in this land of stolid and silent Vermonters) and will without hesitation give you his opinion on any number of subjects. One of his most used phrases in response to the questions of “who did it? or who is responsible?”, is: “It's simple, ya jest follow the money."
Sometime last week, I read a piece in the Israeli journal Haretz, (in English) regarding “new” evidence of Syrian use of poison gas. Soon after, NPR (April 25) reported that our fresh-faced Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, who on his return from a trip to Israel, where he offered the Israelis more cheap armaments, immediately informed Congress that there is “new evidence” that Syria has used chemical weapons against its own citizens. That same day, I bumped into Tony at the Depot and asked him what he thought of these troubling developments. He responded in his typical way, beginning with a silent stare, then, raising his eyebrows and extending his lower lip, he made a head nod and a shrug which just about buried his thick, bull neck.
“First,” he said, using his big, soft hands like a conductor, “Obam was a jerk to put out that “red line”. Dat’s what I think. He got hisself pushed into a corner. He makes his own problems, that guy.”
“Yeah, I knew that,” I said, “but who’s really responsible? Assad? The insurgent rebels? The Israelis? Maybe some right wing elements in the CIA?”
Hey “wallione”, what did I say? You don't remember good? Jes follow the money!”
Later that night, I read in The Daily Kos (April 25, 2013) a story that suggested that events were heating up, and sadly, beginning to reprise events prior to the Iraq war. The administration informed select members of the Senate and Congress with a letter, an excerpt of which appeared in the Kos blog and which I duplicate below.
“Our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin. This assessment is based in part on physiological samples. Our standard of evidence must build on these intelligence assessments as we seek to establish credible and corroborated facts. For example, the chain of custody is not clear, so we cannot confirm how the exposure occurred and under what conditions. We do believe that any use of chemical weapons in Syria would very likely have originated with the Assad regime. Thus far, we believe that the Assad regime maintains custody of these weapons, and has demonstrated a willingness to escalate its horrific use of violence against the Syrian people.
Because of our concern about the deteriorating situation in Syria, the President has made it clear that the use of chemical weapons—or transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups—is a red line for the United States of America. [...]”
The key words here are “varying degrees of confidence”, “on a small scale”...the “chain of custody is not clear”, the Sarin gas exposure is “VERY LIKELY to have originated with the Assad Regime”, and last, the statement, "how exposure occurred and under what conditions” is not certain. This there seems to be a lot of unknowns and inexplicable circumstances associated with this revelation which should make one very wary of drawing firm conclusions too quickly.
The next day, I listened to the “Economist” April 26, 2013 podcast, on Syria and its use of poison gas. It provided some further pertinent information. Apparently, the determination of the presence of Sarin was based on human tissue and soil samples smuggled out of the country. But more importantly, the incidents occurred over a short time and in THREE different places. Robert Fisk of the Independent (UK) reported on Sunday April 28, 2013 that the three “exposures” occurred in Homs, Aleppo, and the outskirts of Damascus. Fisk questions the veracity of the reports. But assuming they are valid, what do they tell us?
Using Tony’s dictum, “follow the money” (or in this case, follow the trail of motivations or perceived strategic advantages), one must wonder why the Assad Regime would use “small” quantities of Sarin gas, in which only a few people were sickened and which resulted in few if any deaths. And why in three different places? What tactical,or strategic purpose could that serve a regime attempting to put down an insurrection? What for? Just to antagonize the international community and bring hovering drones and cruise missiles down on Assad’s palace? An accident or a stray shell striking a storage depot might be the cause of small gas releases except that the evidences were found in three DIFFERENT locations. The facts that we have at hand, if correct, seem to suggest purposeful small releases, perhaps to make sure the evidence became available to a wider audience. The insurgents present an obvious possibility as a source. But there is a need for special expertise and equipment to deploy this gas, these circumstances especially the small controlled releases are unlikely to be within their abilities. If they had the materials and expertise would it not be more likely that they would use it massively against the regime?
With present evidence it seems we must eliminate the possibility of accidental releases. And second there seems no rational motivation for the Assad Regime to use its weapons in the way described. That leaves the possibility of a third party attempting to manipulate the outcome of this tragic conflict.
All the major actors in the Middle East are well aware of Obama’s red line warning to the Syrian regime. I agree with Tony, Obama painted himself (with his own statements) into the box he and his administration find themselves. Why tie your own hands with unnecessary lines drawn in the sand and make the possibility of carefully considered decisions more difficult and politically fraught? Also the drawn sand line sets up the situation where a third party may intervene to precipitate an American response. It was a mistake, but being plagued with the reputation as a weak leader, perhaps Mr. Obama had to blab the way he did prior to to insure his reelection.
But using Tony’s dictum, “follow the money” one must ask who could benefit from such evidence reaching the west and the US press. The data was reportedly unearthed and in the hands of the Israelis, British and French. We can probably eliminate the French and British. Why would they wish to antagonize Obama or press him into a war they do not want either? Our own CIA? That seems a bit of a stretch, more perhaps for a movie script than real life.
But let’s look at the Israeli balance sheet. What would their motivations be? They would gladly like to hold our coat while we pummel Assad into the Stone Age. The small release of Sarin gas in elected locations might be just the means of tripping Obama into a wider engagement in Syria. That would be a positive development in itself for the Netanyahu government. But suppose the US engagement in Syria was to bring Iran (who Israel considers its real enemy) into the fray. Iran and Syria are allies. Would that set up a situation in which Iran might be goaded into actions which could be considered a causus belli by the the US and Israel, who might then use that as an excuse to bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities? This may seem a long shot. But given our present information it is a distinct possibility. Perhaps this hypothesis is more likely than what the President and the US press are presently spouting. The release of Sarin gas in Syria in three different locations in small quantities has all the handprints of a Mossad operation....”jest follow the money”.
Get the picture?
rjk
Saturday, April 27, 2013
OBSERVATIONS ON THE 2013 MASTERS AND GOLF RULES
The 2013 Masters at Augusta was marred on Friday when, Tiger Woods' approach shot to the 15th hit the pin hard, rattled it, ricocheted backward and bounced off the green into a water hazard. Tiger had the right to retrieve his ball, take a penalty-stroke and move back along the line of where the ball entered the water (as far back as he wanted) to take his drop. But as he stated on TV, he looked over the area near the water hazard and decided "it was too wet". Tiger chose instead to go back to the fairway and (Rule 26-1) take a drop from where he hit the errant approach shot. He did, hitting a fine shot up to within three feet of the pin and sunk the hole for a bogey.
An astute observer watching the events at home on TV noted that Tiger had not dropped his ball as close to his "original stroke position as possible", as the Rules of Golf require and texted that information to the Rules Committee. After the game that day, Tiger, still unaware of the text message and the brewing controversy, was interviewed on TV and admitted over the air that he "moved the ball back two yards to take a few yards off the ball". It tells one how Tiger's mind works. Tiger realized it was to his advantage to take his drop and the "replay approach" shot from a position where he knew exactly how far the shot would go, rather than the spot near the water hazard. In fact, he calculated he had to "take a few yards off the shot" to get it up close. Too bad, but that's not exactly how the game is played.
The event seem to underscore that it now unfortunately appears to many fans that there two sets of rules. Tiger's rules and those for the rest of the field. Tiger, must have ( or should have) clearly known he was taking unfair advantage when he decided to "take some yardage off that shot" and took his drop two yards behind his divot (more than the "several feet" the New York Times politely reports). The speed which Tiger's first ball hit the pin (about 1/3 way up from the ground) indicated that had it not hit the pin, it would have flown well over the back side of the green. There must have been a host of players that day who would have been overjoyed to have an opportunity to take a replay shot after they sent "air mail" over the pin. Tiger, the big draw and No 1 player, signed his card that day and got away without a "DQ" or disqualification. But the 14 year old Chinese youngster, Tianlang Guan, "a nobody" to the Rules Committee, was penalized with a penalty stroke, when he took too much time wringing out his golf glove and changing clubs in the rain. Taking too much time and making a concertina out of the foursomes who follow is a common problem at the Masters, but young Mister Guan was the first ever to be assessed a penalty stroke. The Rules Committee has to do better than this. It's main objective should be to maintain the integrity of the world's greatest game, and must at a minimum, sustain the public perception that the deck is not stacked in favor of the big guys who draw the crowds, money and TV cameras like Tiger. Admittedly, it would have been difficult to DQ Tiger, but that's what the rules are for are they not? But letting Tiger slip by and slapping young Guan was too much for some of us to swallow without comment. Some seem to suggest that the Rules Committee members may need a belly putter stuck up their collective backsides to give them some semblance of a spine.
This is one of the many historic events in a Masters, the kind of things fans remember. It may well hang around to haunt Tiger in the future. What I was hoping to see from him was a self-imposed DQ. It would have been the elegant thing to do and would have changed the public"s perception of this great golfer and perhaps even give him a career lift. Remember Bobby Jones who called a penalty on himself in the 1925 match against Walter Hagen? But then, again Bobby was an amateur, and that was a long, long time ago, and far, far away.
Get the picture?
rjk
An astute observer watching the events at home on TV noted that Tiger had not dropped his ball as close to his "original stroke position as possible", as the Rules of Golf require and texted that information to the Rules Committee. After the game that day, Tiger, still unaware of the text message and the brewing controversy, was interviewed on TV and admitted over the air that he "moved the ball back two yards to take a few yards off the ball". It tells one how Tiger's mind works. Tiger realized it was to his advantage to take his drop and the "replay approach" shot from a position where he knew exactly how far the shot would go, rather than the spot near the water hazard. In fact, he calculated he had to "take a few yards off the shot" to get it up close. Too bad, but that's not exactly how the game is played.
The event seem to underscore that it now unfortunately appears to many fans that there two sets of rules. Tiger's rules and those for the rest of the field. Tiger, must have ( or should have) clearly known he was taking unfair advantage when he decided to "take some yardage off that shot" and took his drop two yards behind his divot (more than the "several feet" the New York Times politely reports). The speed which Tiger's first ball hit the pin (about 1/3 way up from the ground) indicated that had it not hit the pin, it would have flown well over the back side of the green. There must have been a host of players that day who would have been overjoyed to have an opportunity to take a replay shot after they sent "air mail" over the pin. Tiger, the big draw and No 1 player, signed his card that day and got away without a "DQ" or disqualification. But the 14 year old Chinese youngster, Tianlang Guan, "a nobody" to the Rules Committee, was penalized with a penalty stroke, when he took too much time wringing out his golf glove and changing clubs in the rain. Taking too much time and making a concertina out of the foursomes who follow is a common problem at the Masters, but young Mister Guan was the first ever to be assessed a penalty stroke. The Rules Committee has to do better than this. It's main objective should be to maintain the integrity of the world's greatest game, and must at a minimum, sustain the public perception that the deck is not stacked in favor of the big guys who draw the crowds, money and TV cameras like Tiger. Admittedly, it would have been difficult to DQ Tiger, but that's what the rules are for are they not? But letting Tiger slip by and slapping young Guan was too much for some of us to swallow without comment. Some seem to suggest that the Rules Committee members may need a belly putter stuck up their collective backsides to give them some semblance of a spine.
This is one of the many historic events in a Masters, the kind of things fans remember. It may well hang around to haunt Tiger in the future. What I was hoping to see from him was a self-imposed DQ. It would have been the elegant thing to do and would have changed the public"s perception of this great golfer and perhaps even give him a career lift. Remember Bobby Jones who called a penalty on himself in the 1925 match against Walter Hagen? But then, again Bobby was an amateur, and that was a long, long time ago, and far, far away.
Get the picture?
rjk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)