Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Election 2008: Mitt Romney (R)
Foreign Policy: Encouraged MA to assist tsunami relief efforts. Do what is in the country’s collective best interests – not what people want to hear for political points. Wishful thinking is an irrational strategy. Favors strong but rational foreign policy.
Iraq: Must win in Iraq. George W. Bush offered too little too late. Strategy flawed. Continue in Iraq as long as there is a “reasonable probability of success.” You know you’ve failed if you have a “Red Zone.”
War on Terror: Use diplomacy and military to win War on Terror. Bolster intelligence gathering capability. Only one way to lose War on Terror – Inaction. Support and promote western-friendly Muslim governments.
Taxes: No increase in taxes. Tax breaks for inner city investment. Tax free shopping day in MA. Tax relief for seniors.
Trade: Asia is an opportunity. We need to compete with China for future dominance. Educate our children to compete.
Government: Balance the budget. Favors line-item veto. Cut the pork. Evaluate and reorganize for efficiency. Turned deficit into budget surplus w/o raising taxes. “New American Dream” – Strong families, great schools, health care for everyone, a safe and prosperous nation.
Immigration: Favors English immersion. Educate adult immigrants. Legal immigration is critical to our nation’s survival. Documentation and verification. Secure our borders.
Homeland Security: Intelligence in identifying potential threats is critical to counter-terrorism efforts. Inter-agency communication is key. Increased homeland security funding in MA by $45 million. Anti-terror initiatives on public transit. Developed regional homeland security councils to assess risk, allocate dollars, and plan strategy. Expand benefits for military families.
Economy: Americans should be able to save. Environment tied to economy. Created more jobs in MA. Promotes training and re-education. Favors investment and entrepreneurialism. Prevent job outsourcing. Favors first-time-home buyer grants. Welcomed many large corporations to MA.
Education: Favors charter schools and vouchers. Education is the civil rights issue of our time. Free college education for members of the National Guard. Education is an essential investment necessary to stay ahead. Close the achievement gap. Improve quality of teachers through incentives and training. Adams Scholarship (MA) allows students scoring in the top 25% (by school district) on MCAS to get public university education (4 years) at no cost. Our children must be educated in order to compete on a global level.
Health Care: Favors universal health care. Subsidize low income health coverage. Favors prescription drug coverage for seniors. Banned smoking in public places.
Welfare: Work for welfare. Eliminate homelessness through efficiency and adequate assistance. Provided fuel assistance for poor in MA. Extended jobless benefits in MA. Improved housing accessibility in MA. Create more jobs. Help recipients get on their feet. Supports faith-based programs.
Abortion: Opposed to abortion but keep it legal, keep it safe. Life of the mother, rape & incest.
Civil Rights: Opposes gay marriage. Gays should have the same benefits as married couples. Favors death penalty. No assault weapons. Child locks on guns. Every American deserves equal opportunity.
Energy: Open ANWR to oil drilling. Pursue alternative energy. Enforce regulations. Energy independence is crucial.
Compare Mitt Romney's views with:
Rudy Giuliani
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John McCain
John Edwards
Bill Richardson
Sam Brownback
Newt Gingrich
Joe Biden
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Election 2008: John Edwards (D)
Foreign Policy: Expand NATO. Favors multilateralism. Lead world by hand, not fist. AIDS/Africa should be a priority. Keep U.S. forces under U.S. command in U.N. Favors sanctions on Iran.
Iraq: Voted for invasion – later said it was a mistake. Preemption unwise. Wrong strategy, not wrong war. Saddam Hussein wasn’t an imminent threat. Engage allies/U.N. in Iraq. Halliburton – bad. Engage NATO. Support troops.
War on Terror: Islam is not Terrorism. America needs its allies - international approach. Iraq is not the War on Terror.
Taxes: Opposed Bush tax cuts – rich pay less dollar for dollar. Reduce marriage penalty. Favors estate tax. Favors tax break for tuition. Close corporate tax loopholes. Favors tax cuts for middle class. Tax wealth, not work.
Social Security: No private accounts. No lock-box.
Trade: Favors free-trade with some, not others. Trade with China/Vietnam. Necessitate labor/environmental standards. Protect U.S. jobs.
Government: Pay down national debt. Publicly fund elections. Ban soft money & donations from lobbyists, special interests, unions, businesses. Poverty, education, health care, defense should be higher priorities.
Immigration: Immigrants earn citizenship. Filter terrorists from immigrants.
Homeland Security: Filter terrorists from immigrants. Use National Guard at home. Favors missile defense. Modernize military. Favors nuclear test ban. Improve intelligence & counter-terrorism capabilities.
Economy: Increase minimum wage. Pay down national debt. Regulate CEO pay. Favors unions. Restrict personal bankruptcy. Keep jobs in U.S. Help farmers, not the rich.
Education: Opposes vouchers. Opposes private tutors. Favors smaller classes, more teachers. Increase funding. Increase teacher pay. Improve access to college education.
Health Care: Every child should have adequate health care. Help poor, seniors, kids, not HMOs. Bush doesn’t care about health care for the poor. Favors prescription drugs in Medicare. Favors re-importation of prescription drugs.
Welfare: Working parents should get tax breaks and school assistance. Poverty is a moral issue. People with full time jobs should not have to live in poverty.
Abortion: Favors abortion. Favors partial-birth abortion.
Civil Rights: Every American should be equal under the law. Gun control OK for kids/felons. Gay marriage – let the states decide. Hate crimes based on sexual orientation. Pro- Affirmative Action. Favors death penalty.
Energy: Develop alternative energy sources. Opposes oil drilling in ANWR. Conserve energy. Increase fuel efficiency standards. Voted against funding for renewable energy.
Compare John Edwards' views with:
Rudy Giuliani
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Bill Richardson
Sam Brownback
Newt Gingrich
Joe Biden
Election 2008: John McCain (R)
Foreign Policy: Favors NATO. Don’t deal with Cuba. U.N. needs reform. Favors removal of rogue governments. China needs cautious encouragement. Europe needs more focus on defense.
Iraq: Finish the job in Iraq. Dramatically increase troop levels, don’t redeploy them. Increase funding. Iraq war is just, necessary, noble.
War on Terror: Good vs. Evil. More emphasis on counter-terrorism. Spend more on War on Terror (War on Terror does not equate to Iraq).
Taxes: Simplify taxes (flat tax rate). No charitable contribution deductions. Eliminate tax “loopholes”. Eliminate estate tax. Eliminate marriage penalty. No internet tax. Tax off-shore business.
Social Security: Apply budget surplus to Social Security. Lock Box. Favors private accounts for retirement.
Trade: Favors free trade. Favors free trade. Favors free trade.
Government: Reduce government spending. Balance the budget. Enforce limits on spending. Presidential line-item veto for pork. Campaign finance reform crucial. No soft money. Prohibit gifts from lobbyists…but not all lobbyists ($$$). Corporate welfare BAD. Free market GOOD. Favors term limits on congress. Small government is better government.
Immigration: Favors guest worker and path to citizenship programs. Give Social Security to illegal immigrants. No bilingual education. Opposes welfare for immigrants
Homeland Security: Favors Patriot Act. More emphasis on Intelligence. Favors Missile Defense. Opposes nuclear test ban. Military experience is needed in top levels of civilian leadership. Pork should be eliminated from national security.
Economy: Favors off-shore business. Favors limits on personal bankruptcy. Opposes unions.
Education: Favors charter schools and vouchers. No national testing standards - leave it to the states. Corporations over education ($$$). Favors private tutors for failing students. Favors tax-free education savings accounts.
Health Care: Children deserve health care. Limit but allow tax credits for health coverage. Favors re-importation of prescription drugs.
Welfare: Give HUD homes away. Federal aid for food stamps. Tax breaks for homeless. Overhaul welfare system. Jobs are key. Welfare responsibility should be shared between government and faith based groups.
Abortion: Opposes abortion except in the case of Rape or Incest. Favors alternative measures such as adoption
Civil Rights: Favors cell phone wiretapping. Hate crimes should not include sexual orientation. School prayer should be permitted. 50/50 on affirmative action. Favors death penalty. Opposes gay marriage (let the states decide). Supportive of Hispanic culture. Favors national sex-offender registry. Ban assault weapons.
Energy: Reduce greenhouse gasses. Opposes oil drilling in ANWR. Develop alternative sources of energy. Opposes renewable energy. Opposes ethanol. Opposes drastic reduction in oil consumption. Opposes Kyoto Protocol.
Compare John McCain's views with:
Rudy Giuliani
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Mitt Romney
Bill Richardson
Sam Brownback
Newt Gingrich
Joe Biden
Monday, January 29, 2007
Election 2008: Hillary Clinton (D)
Foreign Policy: Human rights should be key in U.S. foreign policy. Broker Israel-Palestine peace.
Iraq: Iraq is a mess. Supported the war but criticizes strategy. Favors gradual redeployment of troops from Iraq. Criticizes civilian contract awards in OIF and OEF campaigns.
War on Terror: Anti-terror not anti-Islam.
Taxes: Cut taxes if budget permits. Companies should be taxed for on- and off-shore operations. Federal tax dollars should be distributed based on population. Tax cuts should go to students, families w/children, elderly, etc.
Social Security: Support Social Security.
Trade: Favors free trade in some cases but not others. Globalization is overrated.
Government: Pay down national debt. Balance the budget. Opposes soft money contributions. Favors campaign finance reform. Government is not always the answer.
Immigration: Favors guest worker and path to citizenship programs. Give illegal aliens social security benefits.
Homeland Security: Favors nuclear test ban. Supports funding for missile defense.
Economy: People should be able to support their families. Favors minimum wage increases (tie it to congress’ wage increases). Favors stricter rules on bankruptcy. Supports unions.
Education: Promote after school programs. Favors school uniforms. Opposes vouchers. Improve public schools – not degrade them by diverting their funding. Shift corporate tax cuts to education. Increase funding for federal student aid programs. Favors charter schools and school choice. Favors smaller class sizes and more teachers.
Health Care: Supports affordable health care and prescription drugs for all. Cut the fat in health care system. Stronger regulation of tobacco. Families and children are paramount. Permit re-importation of drugs
Welfare: If you work hard, you shouldn’t have to live in poverty. Jobs and affordable housing are critical.
Abortion: Supports Abortion. Supports partial-birth abortion.
Civil Rights: Sexual orientation a basis for hate crimes. Favors cell phone wiretapping. Favors gays in the military. Favors married couple benefits for gay couples. Favors reasonable restrictions on gun access (felons, etc.). Register all handguns.
Energy: Conserve. Favors drastically reducing oil dependence. Increase fuel efficiency standards. Prohibit oil drilling in ANWR. Develop alternative energy vehicle technologies. Favors Kyoto Protocol.
Compare Hillary Clinton's views with:
Rudy Giuliani
Barack Obama
John McCain
John Edwards
Mitt Romney
Bill Richardson
Sam Brownback
Newt Gingrich
Joe Biden
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Election 2008: Barack Obama (D)
Foreign Policy: Favors promotion of human rights, democracy. U.S. Should lead wisely and use its influence prudently to promote liberty and security. Present foreign policy full of missteps and mistakes. Corrective action is gravely needed. U.S. is too friendly with Israel.
Iraq: Strongly criticizes Iraq war. A serious strategic blunder. Important to stabilize Iraq now that we have made the mistake of destroying the stability of the region. Include international community in reconstruction of Iraq. Training and reconstruction in Iraq vital.
War on Terror: Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran all support terror.
Taxes: Favors tax breaks for responsible businesses. Opposes general corporate welfare. Wants to close corporate tax loopholes.
Trade: Trade should directly benefit the U.S. Human rights should precede free trade.
Government: Government should do what is necessary to improve the common good. Citizens want change. Wants campaign reforms and gift prohibitions. Put integrity back in government.
Immigration: Give illegal immigrants access to social security. Give illegal immigrants access to Medicaid. Favors guest worker and path to citizenship programs.
Homeland Security: Improve military training and equipment. Endorses the Patriot Act with the exception of the wiretap provision. Not doing enough to secure our ports and borders.
Economy: Opposes Bush’s economic policies. Favors raising minimum wage. Opposed tighter restrictions and regulations on bankruptcy. Supports labor unions and the middle class.
Education: Improve the education disparity between rich & poor kids. Favors more federal funding for education. Needs based education assessment. Good students should get free higher education.
Health Care: A right, not a privilege. Everyone should have access to reasonably priced health care and prescription drugs.
Welfare: Education and re-education are keys to reducing poverty.
Abortion: Supports abortion. Supports partial-birth abortion.
Civil Rights: Supports affirmative action. Favors ultimate racial equality. Favors gay rights. Opposes gay marriage – favors civil unions. Sexual orientation should not be a basis for discrimination in any forum. Opposes the death penalty. Stricter gun control - no semi-automatic weapons.
Energy: Invest in renewable energy sources. Opposes opening ANWR to oil development. Reduce oil usage. Improve gas mileage standards.
Compare Barack Obama's views with:
Rudy Giuliani
Hillary Clinton
John McCain
John Edwards
Mitt Romney
Bill Richardson
Sam Brownback
Newt Gingrich
Joe Biden
Friday, January 26, 2007
Election 2008: Rudy Giuliani (R)
Foreign Policy: Wants to integrate drug war into foreign policy.
War on Terror: Terrorists can’t be appeased. Supports the war on terror. Said he would personally execute Osama bin Laden for what he did to NYC. The war on terror is a black and white cause, i.e. you either support George W. Bush or you support the terrorists. We don’t need to understand them, just stop them.
Iraq: Supports war in Iraq. Thinks it is an integral part of the war on terror. Thinks we must win or the terrorists win. Don’t withdraw from Iraq. Thinks the U.S. should take over Iraq’s oil to offset OPEC.
Taxes: Favors tax cuts generally. Reduced taxes in NYC.
Government: Less government is better government.
Immigration: Supports guest worker idea. Supports path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and guest workers.
Economy: Jobs good; Unemployment bad. Created several hundred thousand jobs in NYC in his tenure and turned deficit into a surplus. “Revitalized” NYC. Opposes unions.
Education: Has several innovative ideas to improve public schools. Favors charter schools, vouchers, and privatization of failing public schools. Favors smaller administration in school districts and more money to teachers. Favors technology in education.
Welfare: Prefers providing employment over providing welfare. Help the homeless to get them off the streets.
Abortion: Supports abortion. Supports partial birth abortion.
Civil Rights: Favors affirmative action. Favors gay marriage. Favors universal gay rights. Opposes prayer in schools. Opposes government subsidies and grants for offensive material. Supports death penalty. Thinks written exam is necessary for gun ownership.
Energy: Supports oil industry expansion. Favors the free market over government intervention.
War on Terror: Terrorists can’t be appeased. Supports the war on terror. Said he would personally execute Osama bin Laden for what he did to NYC. The war on terror is a black and white cause, i.e. you either support George W. Bush or you support the terrorists. We don’t need to understand them, just stop them.
Iraq: Supports war in Iraq. Thinks it is an integral part of the war on terror. Thinks we must win or the terrorists win. Don’t withdraw from Iraq. Thinks the U.S. should take over Iraq’s oil to offset OPEC.
Taxes: Favors tax cuts generally. Reduced taxes in NYC.
Government: Less government is better government.
Immigration: Supports guest worker idea. Supports path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and guest workers.
Economy: Jobs good; Unemployment bad. Created several hundred thousand jobs in NYC in his tenure and turned deficit into a surplus. “Revitalized” NYC. Opposes unions.
Education: Has several innovative ideas to improve public schools. Favors charter schools, vouchers, and privatization of failing public schools. Favors smaller administration in school districts and more money to teachers. Favors technology in education.
Welfare: Prefers providing employment over providing welfare. Help the homeless to get them off the streets.
Abortion: Supports abortion. Supports partial birth abortion.
Civil Rights: Favors affirmative action. Favors gay marriage. Favors universal gay rights. Opposes prayer in schools. Opposes government subsidies and grants for offensive material. Supports death penalty. Thinks written exam is necessary for gun ownership.
Energy: Supports oil industry expansion. Favors the free market over government intervention.
Compare Rudy Giuliani's views with:
Newt Gingrich
Joe Biden
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
One-child China
Since the early 1980s, when China implemented its “One-child Policy”, an estimated 300 million births have been prevented in China. With the cultural phenomenon of ultimate male child supremacy, however, China’s sex imbalance has become a problem of national security concern.
When a couple reaches its retirement years, it is the son who is responsible to take care of and provide for the aging parents. Female children are not much more than property to be sold to another family’s son to raise up children for that other family. Traditionally, very little is to be gained by producing female children. When the “One-child Policy” was implemented, those families had little incentive to keep their female children, but would instead abort them or otherwise dispose of them (infanticide). After 20 years of this practice the Chinese population is drastically imbalanced with a majority of males. Some official estimates suggest an imbalance of as much as 17 percent or 120 males for every 100 females. With a population of 1.314 billion, that suggests a numerical difference of 40 million more males than females nationwide. In some areas of China the difference is 26-38 percent more males than females.
“Coalitional Aggression,” that’s the term used to describe the behavior of poor surplus male populations that have no chance of doing anything but existing. They resort to violence in order to improve their situations. Not only do they resort to violence, but they band together with other outcast, surplus males, to form violent coalitions by which to accomplish their objectives. Kidnapping, human trafficking, prostitution, HIV/AIDS, and a multitude of other problems, along with crime in general, are becoming rampant and increasing almost exponentially in many areas in China. Just using the imagination should paint a vividly clear picture of the dire circumstances, socially and economically, China will find itself in over the next several decades. Not only China, but many of its neighbors as those surplus males make their way out of China in order to find a better way of life and/or a bride. Potentially China’s dilemma could flow over its boarders and afflict a great number of other countries, the United States included.
The development of “Bachelor Villages,” villages where an enormous number of men are single and unable to find wives, is a growing trend. The first generation born under the “One-child Policy” is just now reaching the age of marriage and the crisis is becoming evident.
The “Population vice Minister” claims that measures are being taken to alleviate much of this crisis. He claims prenatal sex-determination procedures and sex-selective abortions are illegal. What he doesn’t say is they have been for some time and a great many people are able to determine the gender of their baby despite the government’s procedures to eliminate the practices. The Chinese government is implementing other mechanisms as well to eliminate the problem, giving grants, scholarships, subsidies, retirement pensions, etc. to families with female children.
Despite the obvious potential crisis, the “One-child Policy” remains in effect and will continue. The government refuses to relax it and even recently renewed it. They must believe the potential danger of an exploding population exceeds that of the sex imbalance. Perhaps they would prefer to see millions of unmarried men as an advantage militarily, or perhaps that HIV/AIDS will slow their mushrooming population, further accomplishing their eventual goal of fewer Chinese. In any case, the problem does not only belong to the Chinese but to the world. There must be something said for measures such as this and their unintended consequences.
When a couple reaches its retirement years, it is the son who is responsible to take care of and provide for the aging parents. Female children are not much more than property to be sold to another family’s son to raise up children for that other family. Traditionally, very little is to be gained by producing female children. When the “One-child Policy” was implemented, those families had little incentive to keep their female children, but would instead abort them or otherwise dispose of them (infanticide). After 20 years of this practice the Chinese population is drastically imbalanced with a majority of males. Some official estimates suggest an imbalance of as much as 17 percent or 120 males for every 100 females. With a population of 1.314 billion, that suggests a numerical difference of 40 million more males than females nationwide. In some areas of China the difference is 26-38 percent more males than females.
“Coalitional Aggression,” that’s the term used to describe the behavior of poor surplus male populations that have no chance of doing anything but existing. They resort to violence in order to improve their situations. Not only do they resort to violence, but they band together with other outcast, surplus males, to form violent coalitions by which to accomplish their objectives. Kidnapping, human trafficking, prostitution, HIV/AIDS, and a multitude of other problems, along with crime in general, are becoming rampant and increasing almost exponentially in many areas in China. Just using the imagination should paint a vividly clear picture of the dire circumstances, socially and economically, China will find itself in over the next several decades. Not only China, but many of its neighbors as those surplus males make their way out of China in order to find a better way of life and/or a bride. Potentially China’s dilemma could flow over its boarders and afflict a great number of other countries, the United States included.
The development of “Bachelor Villages,” villages where an enormous number of men are single and unable to find wives, is a growing trend. The first generation born under the “One-child Policy” is just now reaching the age of marriage and the crisis is becoming evident.
The “Population vice Minister” claims that measures are being taken to alleviate much of this crisis. He claims prenatal sex-determination procedures and sex-selective abortions are illegal. What he doesn’t say is they have been for some time and a great many people are able to determine the gender of their baby despite the government’s procedures to eliminate the practices. The Chinese government is implementing other mechanisms as well to eliminate the problem, giving grants, scholarships, subsidies, retirement pensions, etc. to families with female children.
Despite the obvious potential crisis, the “One-child Policy” remains in effect and will continue. The government refuses to relax it and even recently renewed it. They must believe the potential danger of an exploding population exceeds that of the sex imbalance. Perhaps they would prefer to see millions of unmarried men as an advantage militarily, or perhaps that HIV/AIDS will slow their mushrooming population, further accomplishing their eventual goal of fewer Chinese. In any case, the problem does not only belong to the Chinese but to the world. There must be something said for measures such as this and their unintended consequences.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
WMD In Iraq
I served 14 months in Iraq back when the Iraqis had visions of sugar-plumbs dancing in their heads, back then they were actually glad we were there. I never had anyone give me flowers but men would come up to me on the street and kiss me, kids followed us around wanting to take a picture with us or get a treat. The women would wave as we went by and we would wave back. Only twice in the hundred or so trips I made out into Baghdad do I remember someone actually doing or saying something disparaging toward us.
Upon my arrival in early 2003, I began work on a SST (Site Survey Team) working for the ISG (Iraq Survey Group) which was responsible for the search for WMD in Iraq and answered directly to Don Rumsfeld. Everyday we would visit two or three sites in Baghdad which had been previously designated by U.S. intelligence as possible WMD related facilities. We made a great many trips out into Baghdad with our convoy of 6-8 vehicles, toting all kinds of detection equipment, chemical detectors, geiger counters and radiation detectors, sniffers, all kinds of protective equipment, forced entry gear, EOD people, medics, intel, security, etc. Every day, for several months, we went out into the city to search for some remnant of Saddam’s notorious WMD program. We never found even a trace of this supposedly lethal and burgeoning WMD program. We were only one out of a dozen teams that were assigned specifically to Baghdad and there must have been a hundred or more other teams all over the country (although I don’t have specific knowledge of exactly what ISG had going on in other parts of Iraq).
We searched hundreds of facilities, office buildings, warehouses and factories. We dug up fields with backhoes following reports that barrels of caustic substances had been buried there, we broke down doors into secret facilities, rummaged through bunkers, dug into rooms 18 inches deep with the ash of burned documents. We never found even a trace of evidence. Neither did any of the other teams. One of the detection experts said once that in a warehouse the size of a football field (and we searched many of them), if we were at one end with our sniffers and there was a piece of paper at the other end with just a single drop of chemical agent, those sniffers would pick it up. Every night we talked about what we had seen, and we saw some pretty amazing things. But, we never found a shred of evidence that Saddam had WMD or production facilities for same.
Later in my deployment I had opportunity to do what I had actually trained most of my military career for, Intel. I was lucky enough to be assigned to the High Value Detainee facility where most of the top 300 or so personalities were being detained for questioning. I was the case handler (head interrogator) for a few of those and got to be in the interrogation booth with several others. Amazingly, their stories all corroborated the evidence I had seen on that SST. Of course we had to ask why Saddam would have kept telling the international community he had no WMD, then wink at the camera, like he was crossing his fingers behind his back. They largely reported that he was afraid of loosing his position as the regional hegemon. He had to keep his neighbors thinking he had WMD to retain his position of regional dominance. Their stories were all the same, “After 1998, we had no WMD or WMD programs. Saddam would have reconstituted them if given the chance but we had none after 1998, and he wasn’t going to try to develop them further until sanctions were lifted and the international community backed off.” Of all those 300 or more detainees who had intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Saddam Hussein's regime, there would have been at least one who saw it in his best interest to spill the beans. But there was none, only broad consensus. No WMD.
Our reports were going up and we would get memos in return from the office of the Secretary of Defense telling us what their assessment was, “now go out and find evidence to support it.” They should have taken the word of David Kay and figured something was up when he resigned. Instead they hired another goon to go in and do what Kay had failed to do. Of course, he failed too. It was about that time the media blitz started, “Oh, we didn’t go into Iraq for WMD, we went there for regime change. Iraq is a much better place now that Saddam is out of power, and Iraq will become a beacon of democracy in the Middle East.” The Right swallowed that line hook and all. The Left rolled their eyes and gagged. About now, many Americans are waking up to the reality; 3,000+ American body bags and 60,000 (apx) Iraqis dead since the invasion. David Kay said in his testimony before congress that the intelligence failure leading up to the Iraq invasion was “most disturbing,” then he said “it’s important to acknowledge failure.”
Wow, Mr. Kay, you’ve really got something there.
Upon my arrival in early 2003, I began work on a SST (Site Survey Team) working for the ISG (Iraq Survey Group) which was responsible for the search for WMD in Iraq and answered directly to Don Rumsfeld. Everyday we would visit two or three sites in Baghdad which had been previously designated by U.S. intelligence as possible WMD related facilities. We made a great many trips out into Baghdad with our convoy of 6-8 vehicles, toting all kinds of detection equipment, chemical detectors, geiger counters and radiation detectors, sniffers, all kinds of protective equipment, forced entry gear, EOD people, medics, intel, security, etc. Every day, for several months, we went out into the city to search for some remnant of Saddam’s notorious WMD program. We never found even a trace of this supposedly lethal and burgeoning WMD program. We were only one out of a dozen teams that were assigned specifically to Baghdad and there must have been a hundred or more other teams all over the country (although I don’t have specific knowledge of exactly what ISG had going on in other parts of Iraq).
We searched hundreds of facilities, office buildings, warehouses and factories. We dug up fields with backhoes following reports that barrels of caustic substances had been buried there, we broke down doors into secret facilities, rummaged through bunkers, dug into rooms 18 inches deep with the ash of burned documents. We never found even a trace of evidence. Neither did any of the other teams. One of the detection experts said once that in a warehouse the size of a football field (and we searched many of them), if we were at one end with our sniffers and there was a piece of paper at the other end with just a single drop of chemical agent, those sniffers would pick it up. Every night we talked about what we had seen, and we saw some pretty amazing things. But, we never found a shred of evidence that Saddam had WMD or production facilities for same.
Later in my deployment I had opportunity to do what I had actually trained most of my military career for, Intel. I was lucky enough to be assigned to the High Value Detainee facility where most of the top 300 or so personalities were being detained for questioning. I was the case handler (head interrogator) for a few of those and got to be in the interrogation booth with several others. Amazingly, their stories all corroborated the evidence I had seen on that SST. Of course we had to ask why Saddam would have kept telling the international community he had no WMD, then wink at the camera, like he was crossing his fingers behind his back. They largely reported that he was afraid of loosing his position as the regional hegemon. He had to keep his neighbors thinking he had WMD to retain his position of regional dominance. Their stories were all the same, “After 1998, we had no WMD or WMD programs. Saddam would have reconstituted them if given the chance but we had none after 1998, and he wasn’t going to try to develop them further until sanctions were lifted and the international community backed off.” Of all those 300 or more detainees who had intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Saddam Hussein's regime, there would have been at least one who saw it in his best interest to spill the beans. But there was none, only broad consensus. No WMD.
Our reports were going up and we would get memos in return from the office of the Secretary of Defense telling us what their assessment was, “now go out and find evidence to support it.” They should have taken the word of David Kay and figured something was up when he resigned. Instead they hired another goon to go in and do what Kay had failed to do. Of course, he failed too. It was about that time the media blitz started, “Oh, we didn’t go into Iraq for WMD, we went there for regime change. Iraq is a much better place now that Saddam is out of power, and Iraq will become a beacon of democracy in the Middle East.” The Right swallowed that line hook and all. The Left rolled their eyes and gagged. About now, many Americans are waking up to the reality; 3,000+ American body bags and 60,000 (apx) Iraqis dead since the invasion. David Kay said in his testimony before congress that the intelligence failure leading up to the Iraq invasion was “most disturbing,” then he said “it’s important to acknowledge failure.”
Wow, Mr. Kay, you’ve really got something there.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Nazi Propaganda
Propaganda was a critical element of the Nazis’ rise to power. Without the emotional aspect of the Nazi campaign, either working crowds into a tizzy of emotional hysteria or just tweaking a person’s psyche as he/she noticed a stark placard while walking down the street, the success of the Nazi party would have been much less extreme if not for the efficient use of propaganda.
The German consciousness was acutely aware of the depravity which daily surrounded it. Prior to The Great War Germany had been a powerhouse; strong, respected, competitive. With the armistice came humiliation on a national scale. Hunger, unemployment, crime, and disease were all rampant and the German consciousness weakened perpetually to an unseen power of disgrace. From the very beginning of his campaign to power, Adolph Hitler seized the advantage over his opponents by preying unceasingly on the humiliation which the whole of Germany felt. Whether truthful or not, Hitler’s slogans, speeches, posters, etc., all gripped at the disgrace which so thoroughly burdened the hearts and souls of the population. His entire focus in his battle for power was to exploit the weakened state of the people to sway them in his favor.
Every aspect of the campaign reeked of emotional manipulation. In his early statements regarding the use of propaganda, Hitler stressed the use of emotional manipulative measures to mold the views of the masses. He repeatedly stressed the importance of aiming propaganda at the masses for he certainly understood that the root of power was held by the majority.
Propaganda was interwoven throughout the whole of Hitler’s campaign. When the SA appeared in public, Hitler ordered that they appear in close formation, marching in cadence, giving the appearance of strength. His use of the SA as propaganda was to demonstrate to the people the contrast between the sickly status quo and the promise of progress and strength via Nazi empowerment. The discussion was made that a person can’t help but feel a sense of pride and vigor when one sees a strong, militaryesque unit marching boldly, cohesively, in unison up a thoroughfare. Repeatedly images of strength and force appeared in Nazi propaganda. Posters reflected men in uniform with strong, square jaws, narrow, focused eyes, and stern directed stares. Banners displayed fists gripped tightly around swords, showing still further signs of strength and force. Declarations of “Will of the People,” “Save the German Family,” “We are strong and will get stronger,” etc., all reached to the core of the German psyche to mold the thinking of that generation.
Another aspect of Nazi propaganda was the use of colors and contrasts to manipulate the subconscious. Hitler ordered the use of propaganda posters which sharply contrasted with those of the opposition in order to draw the public’s attention away from the opposition and toward the Nazis. The colors of red, black and white are as sharply contrasting colors as are at an artist’s disposal and the Nazis used the combination regularly in order to convey striking images, slogans, and representations to the German public in a strong and forceful manner. The Nazi banner of a black swastika in a white disk on a red background is the most evident use of the triad and even today it evokes strong emotion in nearly every individual who understands its meaning.
Action of major players was another keenly utilized form of propaganda for Hitler and the Nazis. Hitler boarded a plane in his trips across Germany in an effort to show the public the difference between the forward looking Nazi party and the backward slogging status quo. At the time commercial air travel was virtually unheard of and Hitler used this new object in an effort to demonstrate to the public what they could expect from this progressive revolutionary, as opposed to the routine ventures, methods and maneuvers of the then present administration.
The Nazis appealed to German voters because they drew new lines for political campaigning and made it known that Germany would never again be the world’s whipping boy if they were brought to power. The party hypnotized the public with images of strength, courage, fearlessness, and forcefulness in a period when society was experiencing humiliation, poverty, and helplessness. The Nazis used propaganda and emotional manipulation to Pied-pipe the German public into unquestionable popular support for Nazi ideas and philosophies.
The German consciousness was acutely aware of the depravity which daily surrounded it. Prior to The Great War Germany had been a powerhouse; strong, respected, competitive. With the armistice came humiliation on a national scale. Hunger, unemployment, crime, and disease were all rampant and the German consciousness weakened perpetually to an unseen power of disgrace. From the very beginning of his campaign to power, Adolph Hitler seized the advantage over his opponents by preying unceasingly on the humiliation which the whole of Germany felt. Whether truthful or not, Hitler’s slogans, speeches, posters, etc., all gripped at the disgrace which so thoroughly burdened the hearts and souls of the population. His entire focus in his battle for power was to exploit the weakened state of the people to sway them in his favor.
Every aspect of the campaign reeked of emotional manipulation. In his early statements regarding the use of propaganda, Hitler stressed the use of emotional manipulative measures to mold the views of the masses. He repeatedly stressed the importance of aiming propaganda at the masses for he certainly understood that the root of power was held by the majority.
Propaganda was interwoven throughout the whole of Hitler’s campaign. When the SA appeared in public, Hitler ordered that they appear in close formation, marching in cadence, giving the appearance of strength. His use of the SA as propaganda was to demonstrate to the people the contrast between the sickly status quo and the promise of progress and strength via Nazi empowerment. The discussion was made that a person can’t help but feel a sense of pride and vigor when one sees a strong, militaryesque unit marching boldly, cohesively, in unison up a thoroughfare. Repeatedly images of strength and force appeared in Nazi propaganda. Posters reflected men in uniform with strong, square jaws, narrow, focused eyes, and stern directed stares. Banners displayed fists gripped tightly around swords, showing still further signs of strength and force. Declarations of “Will of the People,” “Save the German Family,” “We are strong and will get stronger,” etc., all reached to the core of the German psyche to mold the thinking of that generation.
Another aspect of Nazi propaganda was the use of colors and contrasts to manipulate the subconscious. Hitler ordered the use of propaganda posters which sharply contrasted with those of the opposition in order to draw the public’s attention away from the opposition and toward the Nazis. The colors of red, black and white are as sharply contrasting colors as are at an artist’s disposal and the Nazis used the combination regularly in order to convey striking images, slogans, and representations to the German public in a strong and forceful manner. The Nazi banner of a black swastika in a white disk on a red background is the most evident use of the triad and even today it evokes strong emotion in nearly every individual who understands its meaning.
Action of major players was another keenly utilized form of propaganda for Hitler and the Nazis. Hitler boarded a plane in his trips across Germany in an effort to show the public the difference between the forward looking Nazi party and the backward slogging status quo. At the time commercial air travel was virtually unheard of and Hitler used this new object in an effort to demonstrate to the public what they could expect from this progressive revolutionary, as opposed to the routine ventures, methods and maneuvers of the then present administration.
The Nazis appealed to German voters because they drew new lines for political campaigning and made it known that Germany would never again be the world’s whipping boy if they were brought to power. The party hypnotized the public with images of strength, courage, fearlessness, and forcefulness in a period when society was experiencing humiliation, poverty, and helplessness. The Nazis used propaganda and emotional manipulation to Pied-pipe the German public into unquestionable popular support for Nazi ideas and philosophies.
Chavez Again
I had a talk with a good friend about my thinking concerning what I wrote on my last post, “Hugo Chavez?”. I thought I ought to clarify some of my thoughts lest I appear to be a REAL WACKO. No, I don’t endorse or condone Chavez’s behavior toward the United States. My most crucial point was that IF the United States were in the condition of economic and political distress that Venezuela has been in for the last century and a guy like Chavez came along, he would be viewed as a hero in many respects. He seems, however, to be groping for a totalitarian regime, not anything similar to the democracy I endorse.
Chavez snubs his nose at the symbol of world economic and political might and his reasons are his own. However, once again, the American media paints him with a very black brush and so the American public views him in that light. The media has become accustomed to contorting the facts and adding their own political slant in order to accomplish their own political ends, rather than just reporting the facts. The media these days is not interested in reporting the news, it is interested in shaping the way the public views local and international events, the public thinking in general. The media is a tool used by certain power brokers to shape the thinking of the democratic public.
Our democracy is founded on the ability of the public to critically evaluate a set of circumstances and make an educated choice from a set of options. Increasingly, this fundamental of American democracy is being eliminated by Big Media’s control of the information being put out. When I want my child to make a certain choice, I may put forth two virtually identical options, i.e. “do you want to have green beans or green beans with carrots for dinner?”. She then chooses exactly what I wanted her to choose, without necessarily realizing she didn’t have a choice. Some select individuals, perhaps a great many, have taken upon themselves the role of the good parent, supposing the American public to be ignorant and simple-minded enough to just go along with the single option that is put out. They don’t believe the majority of Americans to be intelligent enough to actually govern themselves. The disturbing thing is that the American public is proving them right.
The Nazis, prior to World War II, used propaganda quite extensively to grip the support of the German public. Their propaganda campaign was quite successful and it is clear what the result was. My great fear on this subject is with the grip the media has on the minds of the people, what could an ill-intentioned individual or individuals, with some degree of sway in the media, do with that kind of control over information.
A good example of this is George W. Bush in the lead up to the Iraq war. My economics professor in college (I’ve mentioned him before) said that a democracy would never choose to go to war preemptively. George Bush and his goons had sufficient control over what information was put out that there was very little question in the public mind as to whether or not it was the correct course of action. Even now, with all the evidence contradicting those initial claims much of the public still believes, due to media involvement, that it was the correct thing to do. When will the American public begin to realize it is being duped?
Chavez snubs his nose at the symbol of world economic and political might and his reasons are his own. However, once again, the American media paints him with a very black brush and so the American public views him in that light. The media has become accustomed to contorting the facts and adding their own political slant in order to accomplish their own political ends, rather than just reporting the facts. The media these days is not interested in reporting the news, it is interested in shaping the way the public views local and international events, the public thinking in general. The media is a tool used by certain power brokers to shape the thinking of the democratic public.
Our democracy is founded on the ability of the public to critically evaluate a set of circumstances and make an educated choice from a set of options. Increasingly, this fundamental of American democracy is being eliminated by Big Media’s control of the information being put out. When I want my child to make a certain choice, I may put forth two virtually identical options, i.e. “do you want to have green beans or green beans with carrots for dinner?”. She then chooses exactly what I wanted her to choose, without necessarily realizing she didn’t have a choice. Some select individuals, perhaps a great many, have taken upon themselves the role of the good parent, supposing the American public to be ignorant and simple-minded enough to just go along with the single option that is put out. They don’t believe the majority of Americans to be intelligent enough to actually govern themselves. The disturbing thing is that the American public is proving them right.
The Nazis, prior to World War II, used propaganda quite extensively to grip the support of the German public. Their propaganda campaign was quite successful and it is clear what the result was. My great fear on this subject is with the grip the media has on the minds of the people, what could an ill-intentioned individual or individuals, with some degree of sway in the media, do with that kind of control over information.
A good example of this is George W. Bush in the lead up to the Iraq war. My economics professor in college (I’ve mentioned him before) said that a democracy would never choose to go to war preemptively. George Bush and his goons had sufficient control over what information was put out that there was very little question in the public mind as to whether or not it was the correct course of action. Even now, with all the evidence contradicting those initial claims much of the public still believes, due to media involvement, that it was the correct thing to do. When will the American public begin to realize it is being duped?
Friday, January 19, 2007
Hugo Chavez?
Hugo Chavez is so detested in America because he doesn’t pay obeisance to the American ego (already I demonstrate my American ego by naming the United States – America. Some Latino friends of mine would correct me by saying they too are Americans, inasmuch as they originated in the Americas). Any time someone gives the United States a derogatory gesture, the American public immediately feels derision and contempt. One need only live on foreign soil to see that the United States does the same on a regular basis to every other nation on the planet.
Hugo Chavez has a spotted history. He’s a revolutionary, politician and a socialist, all dirty words to the American public. He makes friends with “The Axis of Evil” and regularly snubs his nose at American hegemony. The classic is when he offered cheap oil to the New England states when there was a terrible cold snap and oil was expensive and in short supply, this only shortly before he called George W. Bush “The Devil” in a speech before the U.N. General Assembly. Nicely done, Hugo (said in sarcasm).
Chavez, however, has done a great many things in Venezuela that G. W. B. has only mocked in the United States. Chavez grew up in poverty. His parents were teachers and he came to prominence through military service. He coordinated and led a failed rebellion in 1992 against a corrupt and cleptocratic government which landed him in jail. Shortly afterward he was pardoned by the newly established president (the one he tried to overthrow was impeached shortly after his failed coup). He ran for president and won in 1998 and became president of Venezuela on Feb 2, 1999.
Nepotism, on the other hand, is George W. Bush’s calling card. He was born to privilege, likely never earned a thing in his life, took full advantage of his nepotitious circumstances by going to the finest schools money can buy, nepotizing his way into the oil business and doing the same in politics, riding his father’s coat tails all the way to the White House (nepotism seems to be the status quo in Washington…Kennedy).
Chavez, a socialist, developed and implemented relatively successful programs to educate the poor and illiterate, built modern and suitable housing for many of the poorest Venezuelans, built medical clinics for the poor by the hundreds, and made available to the poor vaccinations previously unavailable. Since 2003 the economy has grown tremendously to the benefit of those impoverished masses. George Bush would much prefer to line the pockets of his big oil buddies and give tax breaks to the rich than to heed the ever worsening plight of the poor.
Chavez, of course, is no angel but is someone to watch in the sphere of international politics. I read in December, 2006, how he intends to fully nationalize the oil industry (much to the chagrin of Conoco/Phillips and other American oil giants) as well as the utility services in Venezuela. In 2001, he was granted “Rule by Decree” by the national assembly and again in early 2007 (for a period of 18 months). He is also aiming at eliminating presidential term limits, shutting down opposition media, and establishing communal councils. Although Americans shouldn’t get overly emotional about Chavez’s critical outbursts and his blatant disregard for American hegemony, there is legitimate concern that Venezuela may be on a dangerous road toward totalitarianism.
Hugo Chavez has a spotted history. He’s a revolutionary, politician and a socialist, all dirty words to the American public. He makes friends with “The Axis of Evil” and regularly snubs his nose at American hegemony. The classic is when he offered cheap oil to the New England states when there was a terrible cold snap and oil was expensive and in short supply, this only shortly before he called George W. Bush “The Devil” in a speech before the U.N. General Assembly. Nicely done, Hugo (said in sarcasm).
Chavez, however, has done a great many things in Venezuela that G. W. B. has only mocked in the United States. Chavez grew up in poverty. His parents were teachers and he came to prominence through military service. He coordinated and led a failed rebellion in 1992 against a corrupt and cleptocratic government which landed him in jail. Shortly afterward he was pardoned by the newly established president (the one he tried to overthrow was impeached shortly after his failed coup). He ran for president and won in 1998 and became president of Venezuela on Feb 2, 1999.
Nepotism, on the other hand, is George W. Bush’s calling card. He was born to privilege, likely never earned a thing in his life, took full advantage of his nepotitious circumstances by going to the finest schools money can buy, nepotizing his way into the oil business and doing the same in politics, riding his father’s coat tails all the way to the White House (nepotism seems to be the status quo in Washington…Kennedy).
Chavez, a socialist, developed and implemented relatively successful programs to educate the poor and illiterate, built modern and suitable housing for many of the poorest Venezuelans, built medical clinics for the poor by the hundreds, and made available to the poor vaccinations previously unavailable. Since 2003 the economy has grown tremendously to the benefit of those impoverished masses. George Bush would much prefer to line the pockets of his big oil buddies and give tax breaks to the rich than to heed the ever worsening plight of the poor.
Chavez, of course, is no angel but is someone to watch in the sphere of international politics. I read in December, 2006, how he intends to fully nationalize the oil industry (much to the chagrin of Conoco/Phillips and other American oil giants) as well as the utility services in Venezuela. In 2001, he was granted “Rule by Decree” by the national assembly and again in early 2007 (for a period of 18 months). He is also aiming at eliminating presidential term limits, shutting down opposition media, and establishing communal councils. Although Americans shouldn’t get overly emotional about Chavez’s critical outbursts and his blatant disregard for American hegemony, there is legitimate concern that Venezuela may be on a dangerous road toward totalitarianism.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Income Inequality and Wealth Disparity
This guy named Plutarch said, “An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.” We’ve all seen or heard the statistics, the richest 20 percent of Americans account for 50.4 percent of America’s annual income, a little more than what it was just prior to the stock market crash of 1929. The poorest 20 percent account for only 4.2 percent of the nation’s income. It is interesting to note that 80 percent of political contributions come from the richest 1 percent of society. It seems no wonder that congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, favor increasing the wealth disparity in the United States. Money can’t buy you love but it sure can buy you political power. What happened to campaign finance reform? And why does congress spend more time debating their own annual pay raises and the repeal of the estate tax, a tax that only touches those with multi-millions of dollars in assets, instead of debating critical infrastructure shortfalls and the rapid increase in numbers of Americans without health insurance.
Another item worthy of note: Between 1947 and 1973, median family income grew by 104 percent (2.8 percent/year). Since that time, the median American family income has increased at an average rate of .35 percent/year. At this rate it would take 198 years for that income level to double again. Since 1977, the top 20 percent of income earners has increased their after taxes income by 43 percent. The middle 20 percent of income earners increased their after taxes income by 8 percent, while the bottom 20 percent of income earners made a net increase after taxes of -9 percent in income earned. Just as a side note, the top 1 percent of income earners made 115 percent more after taxes than they did in 1977. Corporate CEOs in 1988 earned 93 times what their average employees earned and by 1999 those same CEOs were earning 419 times what their employees made.
Not only is income inequality a problem in the United States but accumulation of assets poses a tremendous problem for the bottom 50 percent of Americans. The median (the point at which half are higher and half are lower, i.e. if there are 100 million units, this is number 50 million) home price in the United States rose to $227,000 as of the end of the second quarter 2006. At the same time the median household income in America was $46,326/year. On this income and with monthly debt payments of $300.00/month (car payment, credit card payments, student loans, etc.), $20,000 cash at closing, an interest rate of 5.625% and terms of 30 year fixed rate, a person would qualify for a home valued at $153,483. Where I’m from that will buy you a 3 bed/2 bath condo built in 1980 with 1,200 square feet.
In the 1980s in Japan there was a real estate boom where home/property values just kept going up. If a person owned property prior to that boom, they were financially set afterward. If someone didn’t own property prior to that boom, they were financially hosed afterward. The same thing is happening here and now, although not quite as rapidly. If a person owns property they put themselves in a good position. What about our children and grandchildren? What if they can’t afford a home because the median household income is increasing at a rate of .35 percent per year while the median price of a home is increasing at a rate of 5-10 percent per year? Will they be stuck in ghetto housing if I'm not able to pass on to them a thick portfolio?
“Plato told Aristotle no one should make more than five times the pay of the lowest member of society. J.P. Morgan said 20 times. Jesus advocated a negative differential – that’s why they killed him.” – Graef Crystal, 1998
Another item worthy of note: Between 1947 and 1973, median family income grew by 104 percent (2.8 percent/year). Since that time, the median American family income has increased at an average rate of .35 percent/year. At this rate it would take 198 years for that income level to double again. Since 1977, the top 20 percent of income earners has increased their after taxes income by 43 percent. The middle 20 percent of income earners increased their after taxes income by 8 percent, while the bottom 20 percent of income earners made a net increase after taxes of -9 percent in income earned. Just as a side note, the top 1 percent of income earners made 115 percent more after taxes than they did in 1977. Corporate CEOs in 1988 earned 93 times what their average employees earned and by 1999 those same CEOs were earning 419 times what their employees made.
Not only is income inequality a problem in the United States but accumulation of assets poses a tremendous problem for the bottom 50 percent of Americans. The median (the point at which half are higher and half are lower, i.e. if there are 100 million units, this is number 50 million) home price in the United States rose to $227,000 as of the end of the second quarter 2006. At the same time the median household income in America was $46,326/year. On this income and with monthly debt payments of $300.00/month (car payment, credit card payments, student loans, etc.), $20,000 cash at closing, an interest rate of 5.625% and terms of 30 year fixed rate, a person would qualify for a home valued at $153,483. Where I’m from that will buy you a 3 bed/2 bath condo built in 1980 with 1,200 square feet.
In the 1980s in Japan there was a real estate boom where home/property values just kept going up. If a person owned property prior to that boom, they were financially set afterward. If someone didn’t own property prior to that boom, they were financially hosed afterward. The same thing is happening here and now, although not quite as rapidly. If a person owns property they put themselves in a good position. What about our children and grandchildren? What if they can’t afford a home because the median household income is increasing at a rate of .35 percent per year while the median price of a home is increasing at a rate of 5-10 percent per year? Will they be stuck in ghetto housing if I'm not able to pass on to them a thick portfolio?
“Plato told Aristotle no one should make more than five times the pay of the lowest member of society. J.P. Morgan said 20 times. Jesus advocated a negative differential – that’s why they killed him.” – Graef Crystal, 1998
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
White Man's Burden: AFRICA
Two weeks ago the Ethiopian Army invaded Somalia on the eastern coast of Africa (who knew where either of these two places were?). Certainly when one mentions Somalia the immediate thought will be of the Hollywood production “Blackhawk Down”. Of course, who knew that for the last few decades Somalia has been without a functional government and has basically been in a prolonged state of anarchy? Ethiopia, the primarily Christian neighbor to the north, determined it to be in its own national security interests to invade Somalia. Backed by a force of Somalis, dubbed the Somali Army and supposedly a remnant of the virtually nonexistent Somali government, Ethiopia quickly put down the Union of Islamic Courts. The UIC is the element of insurrection that had taken control and established some semblance of order in Somalia. This order, based on Sharia or Islamic Law (as was the order in Afghanistan under the Taliban prior to the U.S. invasion in 2002), seemed more troublesome to the Ethiopian government than did the anarchy that prevailed previously.
The Democratic Republic of Congo, independent from French rule since 1960, has in the past 4 decades experienced several government overthrows, political assassinations, civil wars, rigged elections, more violent civil unrest, and over the last few months has survived an insurgency instigated by a prominent Army General named Laurent Nkunda. Today the government negotiated a peace accord in which his militia will be integrated into the Congo’s army and he will be granted asylum in some foreign country. Who Knew? Even the people at CNN don’t even know. In fact, today CNN’s leading Africa headline reads, “Rebels kill, eat endangered gorillas.” How juvenile is that when there is so much more going on in Africa?
An estimate I saw recently said that by 2010 there will be 18 million orphans in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) as a direct result of the spread of AIDS, and a decade from now there will be 42 million AIDS orphans in SSA. 2 percent of the population of the African continent will be orphans by 2010 as a direct result of AIDS, by 2016 more than 4 percent. Right now the number of known AIDS cases worldwide is about 40 million, the number in SSA is 26 million. The number seems to be leveling off but only because of a high rate of death among sufferers. Four countries in SSA are known to have at least 20 percent infection rates among adults; including Swaziland with an adult infection rate of 33.4 percent (1 in 3 adults is currently infected with HIV/AIDS). Only 1 in 10 AIDS cases in SSA are currently treated with antiretroviral drugs.
Rwanda, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Burundi, Liberia; civil wars, military coups and overthrows, assassinations, invasions, genocides, AIDS, corruption and abuse of power; in a nutshell Africa is a basket case. In my view this is largely because of the still prevalent, although publicly shunned concept, “White Man’s Burden”. In other words, “why should we white folks care about the barbaric and less intelligent Negros in Africa?” Even today, Africa is being raped of its natural resources (diamonds, oil, tobacco and cotton among them) by the west and being victimized by innumerable corrupt influences from outside.
Over the next few decades, and as this and future generations of young Africans mature and become the future leaders in Africa, Africa will become the world’s greatest nightmare if the civil(ized) and thinking people in the west don’t sit up and take notice.
The Democratic Republic of Congo, independent from French rule since 1960, has in the past 4 decades experienced several government overthrows, political assassinations, civil wars, rigged elections, more violent civil unrest, and over the last few months has survived an insurgency instigated by a prominent Army General named Laurent Nkunda. Today the government negotiated a peace accord in which his militia will be integrated into the Congo’s army and he will be granted asylum in some foreign country. Who Knew? Even the people at CNN don’t even know. In fact, today CNN’s leading Africa headline reads, “Rebels kill, eat endangered gorillas.” How juvenile is that when there is so much more going on in Africa?
An estimate I saw recently said that by 2010 there will be 18 million orphans in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) as a direct result of the spread of AIDS, and a decade from now there will be 42 million AIDS orphans in SSA. 2 percent of the population of the African continent will be orphans by 2010 as a direct result of AIDS, by 2016 more than 4 percent. Right now the number of known AIDS cases worldwide is about 40 million, the number in SSA is 26 million. The number seems to be leveling off but only because of a high rate of death among sufferers. Four countries in SSA are known to have at least 20 percent infection rates among adults; including Swaziland with an adult infection rate of 33.4 percent (1 in 3 adults is currently infected with HIV/AIDS). Only 1 in 10 AIDS cases in SSA are currently treated with antiretroviral drugs.
Rwanda, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Burundi, Liberia; civil wars, military coups and overthrows, assassinations, invasions, genocides, AIDS, corruption and abuse of power; in a nutshell Africa is a basket case. In my view this is largely because of the still prevalent, although publicly shunned concept, “White Man’s Burden”. In other words, “why should we white folks care about the barbaric and less intelligent Negros in Africa?” Even today, Africa is being raped of its natural resources (diamonds, oil, tobacco and cotton among them) by the west and being victimized by innumerable corrupt influences from outside.
Over the next few decades, and as this and future generations of young Africans mature and become the future leaders in Africa, Africa will become the world’s greatest nightmare if the civil(ized) and thinking people in the west don’t sit up and take notice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)