The Fog of War-Think
This effort will help bolster forces of moderation and support a broader strategy to counter the negative influences of Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran.
—Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
“Bolster the forces of moderation” in the Middle East — sounds good. How do we plan to do it? By sending $63 billion in advanced weapons to Israel ($30B), Egypt ($13B), and Saudi Arabia ($20B).
Only minds befogged with war-think (and war-profiteering) could imagine a massive input of killing machines into a region seething with ancient hostilities and current crises as a moderating influence. But, since I’m doing my best to avoid Bush-hate these days, let’s give this new plan the benefit of the doubt. In fact, let’s emulate it!
How about bolstering the forces of moderation in your local high school by sending large quantities of beer and condoms?
Or bolstering the forces of moderation at rock concerts with shipments of pot and ecstasy?
Let’s bolster the forces of moderation in the Congress with large contributions from extremely partisan special interest groups (oops, already doing that one).
Maybe we could bolster a moderation in CEO salaries by granting them huge severance packages even when they totally screw up their companies (ditto).
Better yet: let’s bolster the forces of moderation in America by impeaching the whole Bush-Cheney gang of immoderate tools.
August 2nd, 2007 || PermaLink
Fuel to the Fire
Even for an administration that has set the standard for criminal incompetence, their latest great idea — selling $20 billion in arms to Saudi Arabia and five other Persian Gulf countries — only makes sense to arms dealers who will rake in the profits and rapture freaks who rightfully see this as the fast lane to the global apocalypse of their dreams.
The fact that the Iraq fiasco has demonstrated beyond question that Bush-Cheney have zero understanding of the way things work in the Middle East should count for something in a sane world. Or in a functioning democracy.
But America is neither, and free market capitalism rules the day, so after some mild dithering from a handful of timid Dems, rest assured the deal will go through and we will ship massive arsenals into a region that is just one tiny provocation or simple misunderstanding away from all-out war.
And of course, all of this is added to a policy that forbids respectful conversations or negotiations with those we’ve declared “evil,” or that the supposed evils of the Iranians and Syrians are more than surpassed by the actual evils of the Saudis.
Only one question remains: can the world survive 18 more months of these fools?
July 31st, 2007 || PermaLink
Hating Bush
Last night I watched “Death of a President,” a British-made “docu-drama” that imagines the lead-up to and aftermath of the assassination of George W. Bush. Overall, I found the movie enjoyable and thought-provoking — but this isn’t a movie review. I want to write about hating Bush.
The movie unfolds as Bush is coming to give a speech in Chicago, and the streets are filled with thousands of Bush-hating protestors. I thought the portrayal of the protestors was pretty accurate: a large majority of reasonable people out exercising their rights to speak out against a vile administration, peppered with a handful of individuals so crazy with anger that they seemed doomed to behave every bit as vile as Bush.
What struck me most as I watched the movie was how viscerally repelled I was by the demonstrators — the whole crowd, the reasonable and the anger-crazy — and by their overwhelming hatred for Bush. No matter how utterly justified it is, no matter how much damage Bush has done and how many lives, and whole nations, he has ruined, I just could not side with those consumed with such seething hatred.
This is something I’ve wrestled with for years. During the life of ThinkingPeace.com I’ve received a fair number of comments and emails lambasting me for being filled with Bush-hate. Typically, when I’ve looked back at the writing in question, I’ve considered it entirely reasonable and I’ve dismissed the comment/letter writer as a conservative troll. Though some surely were, I realize now that others just found my overt hatred for Bush repulsive.
So, what’s a basically decent, peace-thinking lefty to do?
On the one hand, George W Bush is a vile, despicably self-centered and self-serving little man who has done incalculable damage to this country and the world. And, just when you think he can’t sink any lower, he does or says something that has you screaming, “I HATE THIS MAN!!” louder than ever.
On the other hand, the emotional energy of hatred poisons the hater, and repulses everyone around him/her.
On the one hand, if we don’t forcefully stand up to tyrants like Bush they’ll only go on doing worse damage.
On the other hand, do we have any evidence of hatred working?
Let’s ask Gandhi what he thinks: “You have to be the change you want to see in the world.”
If we want less hate-inspiring leaders like Bush, first step is to be less hateful.
Doesn’t mean we like him, or agree with him, or will stop working to remove him. Just means we don’t give him the power to fill us with destructive energy.
July 28th, 2007 || PermaLink
Bush Veto a No-Hearter
Why is this country, at this time, the richest in the world, arguing about how few or how many children they can serve? We ought to — this is a no-brainer. The American people want all of its children served. All children deserve health coverage, and I don’t know why we’re having such a hard time getting our president and our political leaders to get it, that children should have health insurance. —Marian Wright Edelman
I believe government cannot provide affordable health care. I believe it would cause the quality of care to diminish. I believe there would be lines and rationing over time. If Congress continues to insist upon expanding health care through the SCHIP program — which, by the way, would entail a huge tax increase for the American people — I’ll veto the bill. —George W. Bush
Pretty much says it all. This man has not the vaguest idea of what it means to be anything other than pampered-from-birth. Doesn’t see any problem with the free heathcare the government provides for him — just doesn’t think it would work out for all those poor children.
July 26th, 2007 || PermaLink
Peak Oil and Healthcare
One of the better examinations of America’s addiction to cheap oil is Jim Kunstler’s blog — Clusterfuck Nation. Author of the book, “The Long Emergency,” Kunstler depressingly outlines the many ways in which American car-culture is doomed as oil becomes more scarce. He cautions that supposed techno-fixes like ethanol will only exacerbate our problems, and that any real solutions must begin with a total rethink of every aspect of American culture.
As Al Gore tried to point out during his run for the presidency (to a big media yawn), our society is now designed to burn oil at every stage: to get us to work and play; to grow, process and move our foods and products to market; to heat our 5,000 sq ft homes and fire up our Hummers; to jet us about the world; and, to run the largest military machine in history, which has as its main purpose — the whole reason we’re mucking up the Middle East — to secure cheap oil into the future.
Even Bush admitted to America’s addiction to oil, though he used the moment to push plant-based fuels, again, not a solution at all.
Now we can add another worry to the “peak oil” list: healthcare. As if there were not already ample problems with American healthcare, Dan Bednarz shows how our fossil fuel dependence is jeopardizing our healthcare system:
Petrochemicals are used to manufacture analgesics, antihistamines, antibiotics, antibacterials, rectal suppositories, cough syrups, lubricants, creams, ointments, salves, and many gels. Processed plastics made with oil are used in heart valves and other esoteric medical equipment.
Petrochemicals are used in radiological dyes and films, intravenous tubing, syringes, and oxygen masks. In all but rare instances, fossil fuels heat and cool buildings and supply electricity. Ambulances and helicopter “life flights” depend on petroleum, as do personnel who travel to and from medical workplaces in motor vehicles. Supplies and equipment are shipped — often from overseas — in petroleum-powered carriers. In addition there are the subtle consequences of fossil fuel reliance.
A recently retired doctor informs me, “In orthopedics we used to set fractures mostly by feel and knowing the mechanics of how the fractures were created. I doubt that many of the present orthopedists could do a good job if you took away their [energy-powered] fluoroscope or X-ray.”
However, just as the shift to more ecologically sound practices is only financially threatening to those too attached to the status quo to move on to something in all ways better, so removing the petrochemicals from our healthcare practices can ultimately result in a better system with better outcomes at a fraction of the cost:
We can avoid collapse, however, by reducing medicine’s present consumption of energy and creating a health-care system that reflects our actual relationship to resources. Ironically, peak oil can be a catalyst for creating a health-care system that is cost-effective, ecologically sustainable, and congruent with a democratic social ethos.
July 24th, 2007 || PermaLink
Addicted to War
We can all be forgiven for looking forward with great optimism to the end of Bush-Cheney and the major policy shifts, at all levels of government, that will occur as the Democrats take over. But we are seriously delusional if we expect that the Dems will replace the war-think that is ruining our world with genuine peace-think.
We should remember that while Bill Clinton was a huge breath of fresh air after 12 years of Reagan-Bush, he engaged in an unhealthy amount of war-mongering, including refusing to sign an international treaty that would have banned the use of land mines and maintaining eight years of sanctions on the Iraqi people that resulted in over a million deaths, which Secretary of State Madeleine Albright deemed “acceptable.”
The current crop of Democratic leaders have displayed similar stumbles into scary and depressing war-think. Most recently, the Senate voted 97-0 in favor of a Joe Bomberman resolution blaming Iran for complicity in the deaths of Americans in Iraq. The very Dems who have strained to distance themselves from yea votes on the 2002 resolution that gave Bush the go-ahead for the Iraq War, simply and without any apparent agonizing opened the door to the next colossal mistake.
The problem is that even if our congressional leaders are opposed to the act of war, they are utterly addicted to the financial benefits of designing, building, and feeding the American war machine. Derrick Jackson provides the numbers:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said the Democrats would “drain the swamp” of Republican corruption and “break the link between lobbyists and legislation.” But the Globe recently reported that Kennedy slid $100 million into the 2008 defense authorization bill for a General Electric fighter engine that the Air Force said it did not need.
It gets worse in a defense budget that is zooming to $648.8 billion. The nonpartisan budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense last month analyzed 309 Senate defense earmarks. Four of the top five “earmarkers” were not Republican hawks but centrist and liberal Democrats.
Levin led the way with 44 earmarks. Clinton was second with 26. Reed was fourth with 23, one behind Republican John Warner of Virginia. In fifth place was Charles Schumer of New York with 21. When asked if she saw any change in defense earmark behavior since the Democrats took back the House and the Senate, senior analyst Laura Peterson of the Taxpayers for Common Sense said over the telephone, “No.”
More proof the swamp is still full is the fact that only four of the top 10 senators in defense campaign contributions in the 2006 election cycle were Republicans. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrats Kennedy, Clinton, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Dianne Feinstein of California, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Democrat-turned-independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut collected 60 percent of the $1.4 million the industry lavished among the top 10.
But, but, but, the Dems say, we’re not for war, we’re just for jobs in our districts and a strong national economy.
This no longer washes when bringing home the bacon fries the rest of the world. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute last year reported that the United States is now responsible for just under half of the entire planet’s trillion-dollar military spending. No other nation accounts for more than 5 percent of the world’s military spending.
The Stockholm report said the United States “is the principal determinant of the current world trend.” With that, it is no surprise that the United States accounted for 80 percent of the increase in global military expenditures in 2005. The United States is also roughly tied with Russia in exporting arms to the rest of the world, together accounting for 60 percent of the total.
The World Policy Institute, an independent arms proliferation watchdog group, reported in 2005 that the United States transferred arms to 18 of the 25 countries in active conflicts. It also reported that 20 of the 25 nations that received arms from the United States in 2003 were classified as undemocratic or as having a poor human rights record by our own State Department.
Fifty years ago, as President Eisenhower was leaving office, he warned against the dangers of the military-industrial-congressional-complex. No one listened, and America is now war-think nation. On this issue at least, Ralph Nader was right: there’s no difference between the parties, they both stand for war.
July 23rd, 2007 || PermaLink
Misleading America
Much as I believe in the importance of “thinking peace,” I find myself increasingly thinking: nothing will ever change in this country because we are being led by a bunch of greedy loons — Republicans and Democrats, politicians and pundits — who have so rigged the system that no matter how awful they perform they never lose power or position.
The Iraq Fiasco has been a huge, never-ending showcase of our problem. Virtually all of the people who created the war are still in charge as President, legislators and opinion-makers; have never admitted to any fault or failings; and are now making statements and proposing solutions that have barely changed in four years of war, despite all of the evidence of wrong-headed thinking and criminal incompetence.
One of the best chroniclers of our problem has been “Salon’s” Glenn Greenwald, who has the patience and stomach to go through the records of various misleaders, making clear their histories of misstatement, miscalculation, and misdirection in stark and unambiguous terms. This morning he tracks the comments of Missouri’s war-mad Senator Kit Bond, who for four years has been assuring us that now we have a winning strategy and success is just around the corner. The whole piece is well worth a visit, but the final paragraphs nail it:
At its core, the history of the Iraq War has been authored by an indescribably deceitful and very intellectually limited political and media elite, perfectly symbolized by Kit Bond. These are people who spent four years hailing the Great Progress the Leader was making in Iraq, claiming we were “clearing and holding” neighborhoods of all the Terrorists, that Freedom was on the March, that anyone who questioned any of this was either brainwashed by the war-hating media or a Friend of The Terrorists.
And now, four years later, with the War plainly having been a failure, and their assurances all exposed as false, what are they doing? Hailing the Great Progress the Leader is making in Iraq, claiming we are “clearing and holding” neighborhoods of all the Terrorists, that Freedom is on the March, that anyone who questions any of this is either brainwashed by the war-hating media or a Friend of The Terrorists. Nothing ever changes. It just plods along with the same idiot slogans and the same people spouting them. And they do it with no shame, no acknowledgment of their own past behavior, and no loss of credibility.
July 22nd, 2007 || PermaLink
previous page · next page
