The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) just released a decision striking down limits on the actions of corporations in political campaigns. Specifically the new ruling will allow for corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to promote their own candidates and agendas. The result largely dismantles the McCain-Feingold Act and also overturns two prior Supreme Court decisions.
Adding insult to injury the decision is based on the "free speech" rights of corporations. Justice John Paul Stevens writing in dissent referred to the ruling as a "radical departure" from settled law. McCain himself took to the Senate floor to warn against the ruling. Never has free been so costly.
It is noteworthy that the justices who voted to overturn precedent have all spoken against judicial activism. This ruling is the epitome of just that behavior. Throw in the fact that the shaky legal precedent that corporations are people (Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, 1886) lies at the very heart of their ability to even bring the case and this appears to be a sign that the Supreme Court has lost sight of the goals of the Constitution.
In total, this ruling will serve to diminish the free speech rights of individuals as they are drowned in the din of advertising by corporations. This ruling will enshrine tyranny of the corporate world over the individual. The protection of the people has been trampled by providing an inherent advantage to wealthy corporations and organizations.
With this ruling, democracy is done. Corporations will now control the political process. Elections will become advertising campaigns and the only constituents that matter will be those with a Board of Directors. How long before candidates no longer identify with political parties but instead use corporate affiliations?
Today it is bedtime for democracy. Tomorrow we awake to the dawn of corporatism.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Continuing Saga of the Dumb-o-crats
Will Rogers once said that he "belonged to no organized political party," and then went on to say that he was a Democrat. Yesterday, the continued disorganization of the Democratic Party was on full display.
In what should have been a slam dunk, in what is often referred to as the most blue of the blue states, the Dumb-o-crats managed to blow a near sure thing to the Repugnican'ts. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley gave a textbook lesson in how not to run a campaign. Her opponent, Scott Brown, apparently won because he drove a pick-up and actually campaigned.
Coakley, it will be forever noted, took off about three weeks from the campaign during the holidays. Blowing a more than 20 point lead she exemplified the Dumb-o-crats approach to politics - let's try to lose any advantage by stupidity. At a time when the Repugnican'ts have been fully reputed and are on the ropes, only a Dumb-o-crat could lose to one.
But the ultimate stupidity here is that until 2004 there would have been no special election to fill the seat. Up until then the governor would have appointed the replacement. In 2004, however, in a bit of certainty that John Kerry would be elected president the Massachusetts legislature, full of Dumb-o-crats changed the law so that the then Repugnican't governor, Mitt Romney, would not appoint a member of his party. Flash forward six years and now we get the most unlikely of all results - Ted Kennedy's Senate seat goes to a person with almost completely opposite views.
Making matters worse is that the election of Brown imperils health care reform. So after the Dumb-o-cratic leadership spent a whole year trying to screw up health care reform and waste all the time they could on what should have been completed in a month, now they find themselves behind the eight ball again.
In an all too frequent example of the fake news being more on target than the real news, comedian Jon Stewart of the Daily Show points out that the Repugnican'ts got anything they wanted, like tax breaks for the rich with only 51 votes. In fact, as Stewart noted, George Bush seemed able to get anything he wanted with 51 votes.
The fact that the Dumb-o-crats can't get anything done even when they have 60 votes just demonstrates how pathetic they are at politics. Say what you want about the Repugnican'ts, they know how to put their principles in place (and reward their wealthy donors and screw the rest of us) when they are in power. Dumb-o-crats on the other hand always manage to blow it at the worst possible time. Scott Brown is just the latest in a line that includes Bush and Reagan.
In one year the Dumb-o-cratic leadership has managed to waste countless opportunities such as giving us real national health care, bringing the banks under control and providing for infrastructure development among other things. Had they done any of these things they would have destroyed the Repugnican'ts.
Unfortunately, Will Rogers was right. Were it not for the inability of the Dumb-o-crats to get anything done except bicker internally, the Repugnican'ts would be a faint memory.
If the Dumb-o-crats ever hope to get anything right they need to take a page from their opponents play book - act like you know what you're doing and push your legislation. You only need 51 votes as the Bush era taught us. If the Repugnican'ts want to filibuster, let them. For once, play hardball. Let them talk until they collapse, and then have the vote.
It seems like the leadership of the Dumb-o-crats are more interested in playing nice with the Repugnican'ts than in listening to the people who elected them. That's how to lose power, that's how they lost the safest seat in the Senate, that's how they became Dumb-o-crats.
In what should have been a slam dunk, in what is often referred to as the most blue of the blue states, the Dumb-o-crats managed to blow a near sure thing to the Repugnican'ts. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley gave a textbook lesson in how not to run a campaign. Her opponent, Scott Brown, apparently won because he drove a pick-up and actually campaigned.
Coakley, it will be forever noted, took off about three weeks from the campaign during the holidays. Blowing a more than 20 point lead she exemplified the Dumb-o-crats approach to politics - let's try to lose any advantage by stupidity. At a time when the Repugnican'ts have been fully reputed and are on the ropes, only a Dumb-o-crat could lose to one.
But the ultimate stupidity here is that until 2004 there would have been no special election to fill the seat. Up until then the governor would have appointed the replacement. In 2004, however, in a bit of certainty that John Kerry would be elected president the Massachusetts legislature, full of Dumb-o-crats changed the law so that the then Repugnican't governor, Mitt Romney, would not appoint a member of his party. Flash forward six years and now we get the most unlikely of all results - Ted Kennedy's Senate seat goes to a person with almost completely opposite views.
Making matters worse is that the election of Brown imperils health care reform. So after the Dumb-o-cratic leadership spent a whole year trying to screw up health care reform and waste all the time they could on what should have been completed in a month, now they find themselves behind the eight ball again.
In an all too frequent example of the fake news being more on target than the real news, comedian Jon Stewart of the Daily Show points out that the Repugnican'ts got anything they wanted, like tax breaks for the rich with only 51 votes. In fact, as Stewart noted, George Bush seemed able to get anything he wanted with 51 votes.
The fact that the Dumb-o-crats can't get anything done even when they have 60 votes just demonstrates how pathetic they are at politics. Say what you want about the Repugnican'ts, they know how to put their principles in place (and reward their wealthy donors and screw the rest of us) when they are in power. Dumb-o-crats on the other hand always manage to blow it at the worst possible time. Scott Brown is just the latest in a line that includes Bush and Reagan.
In one year the Dumb-o-cratic leadership has managed to waste countless opportunities such as giving us real national health care, bringing the banks under control and providing for infrastructure development among other things. Had they done any of these things they would have destroyed the Repugnican'ts.
Unfortunately, Will Rogers was right. Were it not for the inability of the Dumb-o-crats to get anything done except bicker internally, the Repugnican'ts would be a faint memory.
If the Dumb-o-crats ever hope to get anything right they need to take a page from their opponents play book - act like you know what you're doing and push your legislation. You only need 51 votes as the Bush era taught us. If the Repugnican'ts want to filibuster, let them. For once, play hardball. Let them talk until they collapse, and then have the vote.
It seems like the leadership of the Dumb-o-crats are more interested in playing nice with the Repugnican'ts than in listening to the people who elected them. That's how to lose power, that's how they lost the safest seat in the Senate, that's how they became Dumb-o-crats.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
"We Want Our Money Back"
Proclaiming that "We want our money back," Barack Obama finally echoed the words that millions of Americans have felt concerning the bank bailout. He continued by announcing that fees would be imposed on the largest banks, those with assets greater than $150 billion. These fees will continue for ten years or until the full amount of the taxpayer money spent on the TARP fund are recovered.
These fees do not apply to smaller banks, community banks and the like. In fact, only the largest banks, those that caused the meltdown and then profited from it through the bailout, will be affected.
This measure may at some level be largely symbolic, but it is high time that we begin to end the corporatist policies of the past. Now is that time.
Also, let us give Obama credit for finding a way to undo the give away of the public wealth that Henry Paulson and the Bush (mis)Administration tried to engineer before leaving office. Now if only he'd fire Geithner.
By the way, before the right wing trots out to defend their corporate masters by crying "Socialism," - paying back money you took is hardly socialism. This is how far the debate has been skewed, when banks have to live up to their obligations or operate on a level playing field, they cry foul and play the victim. Watch their despicable behavior over the next few months as they try to figure out ways around the fees, using lawyers and accountants to evade their responsibility for the mess they put everyone in.
These fees do not apply to smaller banks, community banks and the like. In fact, only the largest banks, those that caused the meltdown and then profited from it through the bailout, will be affected.
This measure may at some level be largely symbolic, but it is high time that we begin to end the corporatist policies of the past. Now is that time.
Also, let us give Obama credit for finding a way to undo the give away of the public wealth that Henry Paulson and the Bush (mis)Administration tried to engineer before leaving office. Now if only he'd fire Geithner.
By the way, before the right wing trots out to defend their corporate masters by crying "Socialism," - paying back money you took is hardly socialism. This is how far the debate has been skewed, when banks have to live up to their obligations or operate on a level playing field, they cry foul and play the victim. Watch their despicable behavior over the next few months as they try to figure out ways around the fees, using lawyers and accountants to evade their responsibility for the mess they put everyone in.
Don't Be Evil
Google took a major step today towards living up to its corporate motto: "Don't be evil." In announcing it will no longer continue to censor Internet content in China, Google has taken an important step for free speech and Internet privacy. Stating that it will adhere to this decision even if it means the company is not allowed to do business in China, the company has surprised the corporate world.
This comes after the company and its g-mail accounts, largely those of Chinese human rights activists, were targeted. The attack apparently has a similarity to the attacks uncovered by Canadian researchers at the University of Toronto. In the Canadian case a surveillance system known as "Ghostnet" was used to hack into government computers and scan documents.
In both the Canadian and Google cases it appears that the attacks originate from within China. The logical conclusion as to responsibility for the cyber-espionage is the Chinese government. Working to suppress dissent, the Chinese continue to make a mockery of human rights. Using cyber-crime as a means to do so should not be tolerated.
As I argued in my previous column, the time has come to boycott China. The Chinese government has demonstrated to the world that it does not respect international law through its continued cyber-crimes. They have also repeatedly demonstrated they do not care for human life through their continued production of toxic toys.
Have we become so economically dependent on China that we will continue to look the other way while they trample human rights and crush dissent? Google is trying to live up to its motto. How about us living up to our beliefs in free speech? Spend and extra dollar and buy a product not made in China - if you can find one.
This comes after the company and its g-mail accounts, largely those of Chinese human rights activists, were targeted. The attack apparently has a similarity to the attacks uncovered by Canadian researchers at the University of Toronto. In the Canadian case a surveillance system known as "Ghostnet" was used to hack into government computers and scan documents.
In both the Canadian and Google cases it appears that the attacks originate from within China. The logical conclusion as to responsibility for the cyber-espionage is the Chinese government. Working to suppress dissent, the Chinese continue to make a mockery of human rights. Using cyber-crime as a means to do so should not be tolerated.
As I argued in my previous column, the time has come to boycott China. The Chinese government has demonstrated to the world that it does not respect international law through its continued cyber-crimes. They have also repeatedly demonstrated they do not care for human life through their continued production of toxic toys.
Have we become so economically dependent on China that we will continue to look the other way while they trample human rights and crush dissent? Google is trying to live up to its motto. How about us living up to our beliefs in free speech? Spend and extra dollar and buy a product not made in China - if you can find one.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Boycott China
Damn the effects on the economy. It is clear that we have reached a point that we can no longer risk doing business with China. Their low cost goods are no longer worth it even if they are free.
The Associated Press arranged to have 100 different items tested and found twelve of the items contaminated with cadmium levels above ten percent. According to the Center for Disease Control cadmium is number seven on a list of 275 toxic substances. More shocking is that while cadmium levels are regulated in children's toys they are not in jewelry.
That China would use such a loop hole to pass products into the U.S. is intolerable. Given the number of scandals they have already had with contaminated products form milk to toys to drywall one would think it would be routine to test such products, but that is another matter. What is clear is that the Chinese are more concerned with selling us products than in our health. In fact, maybe we should start to wonder if it is not their goal to sell us contaminated products. Ruining our health and stunting the development of our children would serve their goals well.
Whatever is going on in China that is leading to this repeated poisoning must be acknowledged. The burden must be placed upon them to prove that their products are safe before we accept them into the country. It is easy to dominate the world in sales if you use your toxic waste material as production material while subsidizing your industry and floating your currency.
And we're fighting in Afghanistan?
The Associated Press arranged to have 100 different items tested and found twelve of the items contaminated with cadmium levels above ten percent. According to the Center for Disease Control cadmium is number seven on a list of 275 toxic substances. More shocking is that while cadmium levels are regulated in children's toys they are not in jewelry.
That China would use such a loop hole to pass products into the U.S. is intolerable. Given the number of scandals they have already had with contaminated products form milk to toys to drywall one would think it would be routine to test such products, but that is another matter. What is clear is that the Chinese are more concerned with selling us products than in our health. In fact, maybe we should start to wonder if it is not their goal to sell us contaminated products. Ruining our health and stunting the development of our children would serve their goals well.
Whatever is going on in China that is leading to this repeated poisoning must be acknowledged. The burden must be placed upon them to prove that their products are safe before we accept them into the country. It is easy to dominate the world in sales if you use your toxic waste material as production material while subsidizing your industry and floating your currency.
And we're fighting in Afghanistan?
Friday, January 8, 2010
"No Siege Mentality"
Yesterday Barack Obama spoke about the Christmas Day bombing attempt by Umar Abdulmuttallab. He did something rarely seen in these days by a politician - he took responsibility. Using a phrase borrowed from Harry Truman, Obama stated that "The buck stops with me." He then went on to point out that this was a series of screw ups that culminated in a person already on watch lists being allowed to board a plane with explosives. Pettiness, infighting and human error all seemed to play a part in the act. Since Christmas Day there have been a series of events at various airports that show the generally shoddy nature of security.
But it was not just the taking of responsibility that made this speech noteworthy While stating that "We are at war," Obama also stated that we would be "no siege mentality." In a stark contrast to the previous administration Obama advocated that we not panic and be ruled by fear. In refusing to make our remaining liberties sacrificial lambs in the name of the illusion of safety, Obama has taken a step towards restoring the belief in the values on which the country was founded. It is these actions, taking steps towards restoring our democracy that the last administration so trampled that have been his most important actions since taking office.
By refusing to accept the notion that we must live as we are under siege at all times, Obama also took a step towards the ultimate defeat of al-Qaeda. Turning the country into a military police state and shredding the Constitution in the name of security is not what a strong leader would do. That is what Bush tried to do - he tried to act strong because he felt he was weak. Obama did the converse. By stating that we are going to be true to our values, Obama showed real strength and a confidence in the underpinnings of our nation. A confidence that all of those who supported the Patriot Act and advocated surrendering our liberties in the name of security did not and do not have.
In taking the occasion to further announce that Guantanamo would be closed, he demonstrated a further commitment to the rule of law. This event could have provided a perfect excuse to delay or stop the closing of Gitmo, but instead, he used it as an opportunity to reaffirm a commitment to the legal process. It should be noted that Abdulmuttallab has reportedly been providing a great deal of intelligence completely within legal confines.
This speech is being examined for what it says about security. The truth is, no matter how secure, no matter what we do, something will eventually happen. The important part of what Obama said is that it signaled a change to a view that is consistent with the purported values of our country. In refusing to undermine them, not only refusing to go further, but pulling back on the mentality that sacrifices liberty for security he has already surpassed his predecessor in understanding what it takes for a country to be great.
Let's hope Dick Cheney shuts up and goes back to an undisclosed location.
But it was not just the taking of responsibility that made this speech noteworthy While stating that "We are at war," Obama also stated that we would be "no siege mentality." In a stark contrast to the previous administration Obama advocated that we not panic and be ruled by fear. In refusing to make our remaining liberties sacrificial lambs in the name of the illusion of safety, Obama has taken a step towards restoring the belief in the values on which the country was founded. It is these actions, taking steps towards restoring our democracy that the last administration so trampled that have been his most important actions since taking office.
By refusing to accept the notion that we must live as we are under siege at all times, Obama also took a step towards the ultimate defeat of al-Qaeda. Turning the country into a military police state and shredding the Constitution in the name of security is not what a strong leader would do. That is what Bush tried to do - he tried to act strong because he felt he was weak. Obama did the converse. By stating that we are going to be true to our values, Obama showed real strength and a confidence in the underpinnings of our nation. A confidence that all of those who supported the Patriot Act and advocated surrendering our liberties in the name of security did not and do not have.
In taking the occasion to further announce that Guantanamo would be closed, he demonstrated a further commitment to the rule of law. This event could have provided a perfect excuse to delay or stop the closing of Gitmo, but instead, he used it as an opportunity to reaffirm a commitment to the legal process. It should be noted that Abdulmuttallab has reportedly been providing a great deal of intelligence completely within legal confines.
This speech is being examined for what it says about security. The truth is, no matter how secure, no matter what we do, something will eventually happen. The important part of what Obama said is that it signaled a change to a view that is consistent with the purported values of our country. In refusing to undermine them, not only refusing to go further, but pulling back on the mentality that sacrifices liberty for security he has already surpassed his predecessor in understanding what it takes for a country to be great.
Let's hope Dick Cheney shuts up and goes back to an undisclosed location.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Why We're Doomed
I just saw a news report from the International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. The reporter was hyping a new battery operated bicycle. He referred to this as "cutting edge" technology and trumpeted all that is technology. This upbeat report left me with the distinct feeling that we are doomed.
No, I do not mean that a bicycle is going to destroy the world. Nor do I think that the story was necessarily representative of the products on display. What made me feel we are doomed was the obvious and oblivious excitement the reporter expressed concerning a bicycle he did not need to peddle. It is our endless fascination with gadgets that make me feel that all is lost. No matter how inane, no matter how useless, or no matter, as in this case, how redundant the invention as long as it is dressed up as new technology we line up like lemmings.
Technology comes at a price. That cost, unfortunately, is borne by the natural world. In the present example, even if the battery is solar charged, it still has to be produced and eventually it will require disposal. This adds two environmental costs to the manufacture of the bicycle. It also removes the secondary effect of exercise that this mode of transportation will incur.
Granted, one could argue that riding one of these bikes is better than driving a car, but you can ride a bike with or without a battery. The point is that fascination with technology has led to a denial of the effects of the costs of production of most of the tools of the technological and information age. For example, by all calculations electronic readers have a greater environmental impact than traditional books. Paper, produced in the proper manner with the rights sources (i.e. hemp, not trees), can be a sustainable, renewable crop. The mined material in an e-reader will never be replaced.
The fascination with new technology is akin to a child's desire for a new toy. The fact that it is shiny and new are more important than whether it is necessary or even wanted. A battery operated bicycle and the electric book are not the only examples of this mindset. One of the worst examples of this effort to bring technology where it is not needed has to be the electric trashcans in the Atlanta Hartsfield Airport. Ironically, the writing on the cans boast of the airports efforts at recycling.
This fascination assists in the continual introduction of products to replace and upgrade what is basically the same product. HDTV, flat screen technology, even the advent of color broadcasts have essentially served the primary purpose of getting the consumer to continually buy the same product. The transition from LP's to 8-tracks to cassettes to CD's did little for music but caused the consumer, no matter their preferences, to have to purchase different devices. Now, turntables are making a comeback and LP's have been the rage for years. The iPod is just a Walkman with more bells and whistles. The Walkman in turn was just a glorified transistor radio.
Somehow, all of these things are seen as advances. The slow introduction of one generation of technology after another is causing an acceleration in consumption that is unwarranted by need. Technology may have benefits but it also has costs. These costs are at times significant, as when there are industrial accidents, or the more likely everyday environmental impacts. The more we produce useless products, ignore the costs of technology, accept planned obsolescence and the commodification of information, the closer we come to jumping over the cliffs.
The planet has great problems. One of the major problems that we rarely discuss is the fact that we have a world population approaching 7 billion and growing exponentially but that we have finite resources. Either something has to give or something has to change. Otherwise, there will be conflict. We must change the mindset that views technology as the solution to our problems. Technology is only a tool. If technology was the solution your pencil could do math.
The choice is not between technology or a pre-industrial existence. The choice is between our present system of consumerism and that of sustainability. We can either use it all up or we can make it last. We will not make it last by putting batteries on a bicycle.
A note about lemmings. Contrary to popular belief they do not line up and jump off the cliffs into the sea. This misconception was created by film footage in which they were herded over the cliffs for cinematic effect. Consumerism is based on the herd instinct while advertising is kind of like a sheep dog.
No, I do not mean that a bicycle is going to destroy the world. Nor do I think that the story was necessarily representative of the products on display. What made me feel we are doomed was the obvious and oblivious excitement the reporter expressed concerning a bicycle he did not need to peddle. It is our endless fascination with gadgets that make me feel that all is lost. No matter how inane, no matter how useless, or no matter, as in this case, how redundant the invention as long as it is dressed up as new technology we line up like lemmings.
Technology comes at a price. That cost, unfortunately, is borne by the natural world. In the present example, even if the battery is solar charged, it still has to be produced and eventually it will require disposal. This adds two environmental costs to the manufacture of the bicycle. It also removes the secondary effect of exercise that this mode of transportation will incur.
Granted, one could argue that riding one of these bikes is better than driving a car, but you can ride a bike with or without a battery. The point is that fascination with technology has led to a denial of the effects of the costs of production of most of the tools of the technological and information age. For example, by all calculations electronic readers have a greater environmental impact than traditional books. Paper, produced in the proper manner with the rights sources (i.e. hemp, not trees), can be a sustainable, renewable crop. The mined material in an e-reader will never be replaced.
The fascination with new technology is akin to a child's desire for a new toy. The fact that it is shiny and new are more important than whether it is necessary or even wanted. A battery operated bicycle and the electric book are not the only examples of this mindset. One of the worst examples of this effort to bring technology where it is not needed has to be the electric trashcans in the Atlanta Hartsfield Airport. Ironically, the writing on the cans boast of the airports efforts at recycling.
This fascination assists in the continual introduction of products to replace and upgrade what is basically the same product. HDTV, flat screen technology, even the advent of color broadcasts have essentially served the primary purpose of getting the consumer to continually buy the same product. The transition from LP's to 8-tracks to cassettes to CD's did little for music but caused the consumer, no matter their preferences, to have to purchase different devices. Now, turntables are making a comeback and LP's have been the rage for years. The iPod is just a Walkman with more bells and whistles. The Walkman in turn was just a glorified transistor radio.
Somehow, all of these things are seen as advances. The slow introduction of one generation of technology after another is causing an acceleration in consumption that is unwarranted by need. Technology may have benefits but it also has costs. These costs are at times significant, as when there are industrial accidents, or the more likely everyday environmental impacts. The more we produce useless products, ignore the costs of technology, accept planned obsolescence and the commodification of information, the closer we come to jumping over the cliffs.
The planet has great problems. One of the major problems that we rarely discuss is the fact that we have a world population approaching 7 billion and growing exponentially but that we have finite resources. Either something has to give or something has to change. Otherwise, there will be conflict. We must change the mindset that views technology as the solution to our problems. Technology is only a tool. If technology was the solution your pencil could do math.
The choice is not between technology or a pre-industrial existence. The choice is between our present system of consumerism and that of sustainability. We can either use it all up or we can make it last. We will not make it last by putting batteries on a bicycle.
A note about lemmings. Contrary to popular belief they do not line up and jump off the cliffs into the sea. This misconception was created by film footage in which they were herded over the cliffs for cinematic effect. Consumerism is based on the herd instinct while advertising is kind of like a sheep dog.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
The Tale of Two Green Revolutions
There are two green revolutions underway in the world at present - the one named for the color of the opposition in Iran and the environmental one. Their trajectories represent a study in contrasts.
The Green Revolution in Iran, starting shortly after the rigged election in June has continued nearly unabated since that time. This has occurred despite brutal repression including imprisonment and execution. Leaders have gone into hiding and the spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Montazeri has died, and yet, the fight goes on. The media has been completed suppressed yet the people continue to get images to the world. The government can only hold power through brute force, yet the people continue to take to the rooftops at night and the streets by day, sensing that now is the time.
The other Green Revolution, that of the environmental one, could not be more different. The world summit in Copenhagen ended with a whimper. The general public seems less concerned with the issue than even a few years ago. Lip service is paid in all quarters to the need to respond to the challenges of climate change. Little is being done with the exception of propaganda efforts by big polluters to convince the world there is nothing to worry about. At night, we light up the sky flashing advertising to interstates while by day we burn fossil fuels for convenience sake. This green revolution is dying for lack of warriors.
The people of Iran will be able to look back to this time with pride in a period when they did all they could to change their world. The people of the world will look back to this as a time when we did nothing to save or even help our environment.
Two very different revolutions indeed.
The Green Revolution in Iran, starting shortly after the rigged election in June has continued nearly unabated since that time. This has occurred despite brutal repression including imprisonment and execution. Leaders have gone into hiding and the spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Montazeri has died, and yet, the fight goes on. The media has been completed suppressed yet the people continue to get images to the world. The government can only hold power through brute force, yet the people continue to take to the rooftops at night and the streets by day, sensing that now is the time.
The other Green Revolution, that of the environmental one, could not be more different. The world summit in Copenhagen ended with a whimper. The general public seems less concerned with the issue than even a few years ago. Lip service is paid in all quarters to the need to respond to the challenges of climate change. Little is being done with the exception of propaganda efforts by big polluters to convince the world there is nothing to worry about. At night, we light up the sky flashing advertising to interstates while by day we burn fossil fuels for convenience sake. This green revolution is dying for lack of warriors.
The people of Iran will be able to look back to this time with pride in a period when they did all they could to change their world. The people of the world will look back to this as a time when we did nothing to save or even help our environment.
Two very different revolutions indeed.
Ignorance Based Fear and the Denial of Reality
We've had another attempt to blow up an airplane, this time by a 23-year-old Nigerian named Umar Farouk Abdulmuttallab. He used the same type of explosives as that carried by the attempted shoe bomber Richard Reid. Common features: both men were fanatics and neither of the attacks worked.
Herein lies essential base of al-Qaeda (which translates to "the base"). It has thousands of loyal recruits who are willing to lay down their lives for their cause. In fact, their life circumstances make them ill suited for anything but cannon fodder. Those with any education, military training or political power quickly become leaders within the movement. These leaders, conveniently for them, are too "important" to sacrifice themselves. This by default leaves, by and large, an uneducated and unsophisticated group to actually carry out attacks.
It is this reason, the very poor quality of the attackers, that has prevented the majority of attacks. It is not anything done by any security measures, airline procedures, domestic and international spying, or anything else, it is the sheer incompetency of fanatics. It is also a natural function that as continued suicide attacks occur, the pool of attackers gets closer to the bottom of the barrel with each attack. In fact, suicide attacks in general seem to be just from the point of view of strategy, a product of illogical thinking. It wastes the most fanatical soldiers.
Look at the immediate evidence. The best that al-Qaeda can do at present is Richard Reid and Umar Abdulmuttallab. These guys couldn't even detonate explosives with fire. If this really is the best they can do, then their major operational problem is incompetence.
This is not to say that there will not continue to be attacks by misguided fanatics. There are plenty of Mohammed Atta's, and Timothy McVeigh's out there, and some of them will pull it off. By and large though, it is their own fanaticism that is the best ally of everyone in the world.
Balancing out their incompetence is the false sense of security produced by creating an illusion of safety that involves taking away nail clippers and screening your shoes. However, any one who has flown knows the sham that this process has become. Disinterested TSA agents chatting with each other, an over reliance on technology, and a realistic assessment that the likelihood of an attack is low all make for a typical casualness towards the process that makes it resemble a Kabuki theatre.
Now you can expect tighter security for a few weeks, maybe even months, then everything will settle down. That is what the leaders of al-Qaeda will do. Wait for another lull. The reality is that another attack is already being plotted, another apple is being pulled from the bottom, and after that one there will be another and another. Eventually one will get through. No matter how poor the quality of their members and no matter what is done.
It is not uplifting to think or predict that it will happen again, it is just realistic. It is comforting though to note that even the successful plots carried out have been dwarfed in number by those thwarted. It is also something to keep in mind that a more realistic view of those carrying out fanatical attacks is as a mostly incompetent and illogical lot without the ability to do much more than blow themselves up.
Herein lies essential base of al-Qaeda (which translates to "the base"). It has thousands of loyal recruits who are willing to lay down their lives for their cause. In fact, their life circumstances make them ill suited for anything but cannon fodder. Those with any education, military training or political power quickly become leaders within the movement. These leaders, conveniently for them, are too "important" to sacrifice themselves. This by default leaves, by and large, an uneducated and unsophisticated group to actually carry out attacks.
It is this reason, the very poor quality of the attackers, that has prevented the majority of attacks. It is not anything done by any security measures, airline procedures, domestic and international spying, or anything else, it is the sheer incompetency of fanatics. It is also a natural function that as continued suicide attacks occur, the pool of attackers gets closer to the bottom of the barrel with each attack. In fact, suicide attacks in general seem to be just from the point of view of strategy, a product of illogical thinking. It wastes the most fanatical soldiers.
Look at the immediate evidence. The best that al-Qaeda can do at present is Richard Reid and Umar Abdulmuttallab. These guys couldn't even detonate explosives with fire. If this really is the best they can do, then their major operational problem is incompetence.
This is not to say that there will not continue to be attacks by misguided fanatics. There are plenty of Mohammed Atta's, and Timothy McVeigh's out there, and some of them will pull it off. By and large though, it is their own fanaticism that is the best ally of everyone in the world.
Balancing out their incompetence is the false sense of security produced by creating an illusion of safety that involves taking away nail clippers and screening your shoes. However, any one who has flown knows the sham that this process has become. Disinterested TSA agents chatting with each other, an over reliance on technology, and a realistic assessment that the likelihood of an attack is low all make for a typical casualness towards the process that makes it resemble a Kabuki theatre.
Now you can expect tighter security for a few weeks, maybe even months, then everything will settle down. That is what the leaders of al-Qaeda will do. Wait for another lull. The reality is that another attack is already being plotted, another apple is being pulled from the bottom, and after that one there will be another and another. Eventually one will get through. No matter how poor the quality of their members and no matter what is done.
It is not uplifting to think or predict that it will happen again, it is just realistic. It is comforting though to note that even the successful plots carried out have been dwarfed in number by those thwarted. It is also something to keep in mind that a more realistic view of those carrying out fanatical attacks is as a mostly incompetent and illogical lot without the ability to do much more than blow themselves up.
All For Naught: Don't Believe the Hype
Y2K. Ah, back when the world was simple and all we had to worry about was catastrophic shutdown of everything on the planet. Or so we were hyped. Then nothing happened. The good old days.
Then came the election of 2000, featuring the contrast of wooden Al Gore versus good ole boy George W. At least that was the hype, that was the coverage. Overlooked was that one candidate had rigorously prepared himself for the office, and as it turns out, was the man most suited to tackle the continuing task of confronting global warming. The other man was George Bush, the most unprepared candidate for office in memory, possibly history.
The election, mired by more problems than any democracy should tolerate, ended in a vote of 5-4 by the Supreme court. Democracy prevailed, or so was the hype. Problems concerning voting machines, voter disenfranchisement and overt political meddling in the process continues even as we assure that we can produce fair elections in other countries.
On his first day in office, George W. Bush was briefed by Richard Clarke that a Islamic jihad group led by Osama bin Laden was a threat to the U.S. The USS Cole suffered an attack with explosives in Yemen.
September 11, 2001 was a day that changed the world. Everyone bought the hype. Nothing had changed, terrorists had already hit in the U.S. and al-Qaeda was already fully operational. It's leader, bin Laden, we were told would be caught, "Dead or Alive". He was on the run, his operation was in shambles. Or so was the hype.
Fear of continuing attacks was fanned. Two wars began in quick succession. Domestic spying, suspension of the very rights of which underpin our country, phone taps, email interceptions, all followed in rapid succession. We began to abandon our own principles, jailing without trial, creating Guantanamo, justifying torture, all in the name of security. Alert levels became the measure of our fear.
Richard Reid made us all take off our shoes every time we fly. The TSA began confiscating nail clippers and key chains. This was supposed to make us safe. The whole security apparatus of the United States was reorganized.
Christmas Day, 2009 a 23-year-old Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmuttallab, attempted to blow up a flight from Amsterdam as it descended into Detroit. Abdulmuttallab, schooled and radicalized in Britain, had recently traveled to Yemen. His own father, a prominent Nigerian banker, had personally gone to the U.S. embassy and reported that his son had become a radical jihadist.
Muttallab's attack involved the use of an explosive known as PETN, the same as Richard Reid. The new solution has already been proposed - full electronic body scans. Profiling is also being trumpeted as a necessary element in preventing any new attacks. These things will make us safe, we are told.
The last decade has taught us exactly what we should have expected from a decade that began with a zero and an irrational fear of computers crashing: Naught.
Then came the election of 2000, featuring the contrast of wooden Al Gore versus good ole boy George W. At least that was the hype, that was the coverage. Overlooked was that one candidate had rigorously prepared himself for the office, and as it turns out, was the man most suited to tackle the continuing task of confronting global warming. The other man was George Bush, the most unprepared candidate for office in memory, possibly history.
The election, mired by more problems than any democracy should tolerate, ended in a vote of 5-4 by the Supreme court. Democracy prevailed, or so was the hype. Problems concerning voting machines, voter disenfranchisement and overt political meddling in the process continues even as we assure that we can produce fair elections in other countries.
On his first day in office, George W. Bush was briefed by Richard Clarke that a Islamic jihad group led by Osama bin Laden was a threat to the U.S. The USS Cole suffered an attack with explosives in Yemen.
September 11, 2001 was a day that changed the world. Everyone bought the hype. Nothing had changed, terrorists had already hit in the U.S. and al-Qaeda was already fully operational. It's leader, bin Laden, we were told would be caught, "Dead or Alive". He was on the run, his operation was in shambles. Or so was the hype.
Fear of continuing attacks was fanned. Two wars began in quick succession. Domestic spying, suspension of the very rights of which underpin our country, phone taps, email interceptions, all followed in rapid succession. We began to abandon our own principles, jailing without trial, creating Guantanamo, justifying torture, all in the name of security. Alert levels became the measure of our fear.
Richard Reid made us all take off our shoes every time we fly. The TSA began confiscating nail clippers and key chains. This was supposed to make us safe. The whole security apparatus of the United States was reorganized.
Christmas Day, 2009 a 23-year-old Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmuttallab, attempted to blow up a flight from Amsterdam as it descended into Detroit. Abdulmuttallab, schooled and radicalized in Britain, had recently traveled to Yemen. His own father, a prominent Nigerian banker, had personally gone to the U.S. embassy and reported that his son had become a radical jihadist.
Muttallab's attack involved the use of an explosive known as PETN, the same as Richard Reid. The new solution has already been proposed - full electronic body scans. Profiling is also being trumpeted as a necessary element in preventing any new attacks. These things will make us safe, we are told.
The last decade has taught us exactly what we should have expected from a decade that began with a zero and an irrational fear of computers crashing: Naught.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
