Blackwater: Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army

Blackwater: Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army

By Jeremy Scahill

These are just some notes on the book so far. If I finish it, I may summarize or review it.

***

I found some people and some policies of confidentiality and secrecy to be reminiscent of The Family. I need to look at the foot notes to see if he references it. So far, he hasn't mentioned them in the text.

P 16 Council for National Policy - started 1981 by Rev. Tim LaHaye to oppose Council on Foreign Relations

***Red flag- this guy is the same LaHaye of the Left Behind novels that promote the false doctrine of premillennialism. Christians would do well to take note and be careful of throwing their support behind such people just because they "appear Christian" or support other right wing causes that Christians tend to support!

Council for National Policy

-Members are told to keep when and where and who attends meetings (before or after) secret from media

-“to strategize about how to turn the country to the right” 102

***Interesting. I have had conservative friends proudly say this is a center right country. Is it that way because people have Republican leanings or because they were manipulated by this and other groups like it that may have politicized and made divisive certain issues or however else they "turned the country to the right"... ?

Erik Prince is unconfirmed as a member of this group, but he has given money to it and is close with other attendees such as: Jerry Falwell, Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed, Holland Coors (beer), Wayne LaPierre (NRA), Richard and Dick DeVos, Oliver North, Grover Norquist, Frank Gaffney, GWB- addressed group in 1999. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bolton, Ashcroft, Dan Senor (top aide to Bremer), DeLay, Frist (given an award by them) - Many of these are in The Family...

***

P18 Chuck Colson (also influential in The Family)

Prison ministry

2002 speech - praised Erik Prince, talked of need for political and religious alliance of Catholics and evangelicals

P. 20 Colson, Richard Neuhaus and others - document Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT)

Common missionary cause “all people will come to faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior”

(This doesn't sound bad- it sound good- but I disagree strongly with where they take it.)

“The document recognized the separation of church and state, but “just as strongly protest[ed] the distortion of that principle to mean the separation of religion from public life…The argument, increasingly voiced in sectors of our political culture, that religion should be excluded from the public square must be recognized as an assault upon the most elementary principles of democratic governance.” “ (p20)

(Again, I agree that separation of church and state shouldn't mean religion is banned in public life, but I also disagree with how much and what kind of religion is put into public life and how it is done. I also take issue with branding those who disagree with the way, say Republicans, aim to use or keep religion in public life, you are un-American, undemocratic and un-Christian)

Religion is “privileged and foundational in our legal order”

Need to defend “the moral truths of our constitutional order”

(This is a religious declaration- or so I thought. What is the constitution doing in it? God doesn't care what type of government we're under. The teachings are the same. This phrase seems to put the Constitution on the level of the Bible in the minds of some or that we should legislate all Bible truth in order to be faithful.)

Abortion was a big topic in ECT- called “culture of death”

(Abortion is murder, but "culture of death"?? This is Bush-style hype.)

Advocates “moral education” - giving future generations our cultural heritage, that is, Christianity and Judaism.

(Why a Christian would put Judaism on the level Christianity is beyond me. Given other moral issues they take a stand on, it seems they would want to make the Biblical distinction that Jews are in the same boat as Muslims today- they need to obey Christ. But, instead, they uphold Israel and it's war crimes as honorable and Muslims as incapable of anything good.)

“We contend for a free society, including a vibrant market economy.”

(Again, I'm fine with a religious statement. I'm not saying I'm going to endorse it, but go ahead if it reduces animosity between Catholics and Protestants. Help people find Christ. That is truly a great goal. Now, what on earth does salvation have to do with the economy???)

“We affirm the importance of a free economy not only because it is more efficient but because it accords with a Christian understanding of human freedom” (also something I can’t wrap my brain around- is there some Biblical example or preference or word on type of government or economy we should advocate for?? Total garbage. The Bible is about teaches one to be faithful and teaching others about Christ) “Economic freedom, while subject to grave abuse, makes possible the patterns of creativity, cooperation, and accountability that contribute to the common good.” (Sounds like more of a nod and help to the billionaires that started The Family, CNP, etc, but putting a Biblical spin on it so everyone else can voluntarily help them stay rich at their own expense.)

“renewed appreciation of Western culture”

(Sounds like a bit of American hubris, but what comes next is much more sinister...)

“We are keenly aware of, and grateful for, the role of Christianity in shaping and sustaining the Western culture of which we are apart.”

“Multiculturalism” most commonly come to mean “affirming all cultures but our own”

(Scary as a similar sort of thing appears in white supremacist type rants. Perhaps black folks are meant to be included in "our culture", but like I said, this is unsettling. Even if this does include African Americans, I disagree with the statement and think adopting a French style culture protection is wrong- especially given that most of us aren't Native American and so don't really have the right.)

The document says that now is the time for Catholics and Evangelicals to be Christians together in a way that prepares the world for the coming of Christ. It is a noble enough goal, but in the context of the political and economic goals also mentioned, it really doesn’t have much to do with this goal. And another issue is the differences in doctrine between the two and more importantly, how much should we in the Lord’s body be involved with these two. Should we use them to the extent that they follow the Bible, or just blaze a new trail?

I vote for the latter since I have no use for either the Republican or Democratic party.

Nisour Square

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/vice-president-joe-biden-us-appeal-blackwater-ruling/story?id=9645950

I hope this is true that Biden will make sure this case is revisited. If we're lucky, it will lead to more investigations and banning or at least making very little use of private security contractors AKA contract killers AKA mercenaries...

I have pretty well been able to keep out of the 'human interest' side, but this week I read the account of the Nisour Square murders. Horrifying. I cannot imagine being those parents. It's bad enough when you just look at the victims' stories, but when you look at the fact that we're not supposed to be in Iraq, Blackwater wasn't supposed to be at that place that day, it was most likely deliberate and not in response to anything. It didn't have to happen.

Here's an exerpt from Scahill's new article about the event:

Blackwater's Youngest Victim

ByJeremy Scahill

January 28, 2010

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100215/scahill

"But this past New Year's Eve, federal Judge Ricardo Urbina threw out all the criminal charges against the five Blackwater guards. At least seventeen Iraqis died that day, and prosecutors believed they could prove fourteen of the killings were unjustified. The manslaughter charges were dismissed not because of a lack of evidence but because of what Urbina called serious misconduct on the part of the prosecutors.

Then, a few days after the dismissal of the criminal case, Blackwater reached a civil settlement with many of the Nisour Square victims, reportedly paying about $100,000 per death.

Blackwater released a statement declaring it was "pleased" with the outcome, which enabled the company to move forward "free of the costs and distraction of ongoing litigation." But Mohammed Kinani would not move on. He refused to take the deal Blackwater offered. As a result, he may well be the one man standing between Blackwater and total impunity for the killings in Nisour Square."

***********
Here is Democracy Now's report, featuring Scahill:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/29/exclusiveblackwaters_youngest_victim_father_of_9

**********

On a similar note....

I still don't know what the most recent news of the Haditha "incident" is. It looks like most of the charges were dropped.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/15/60minutes/main2574973_page6.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Holocaust Day lessons

Should the lesson be attack Iran or Never Again?

After the speeches, I was a little confused.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8483017.stm


I think it is a good thing to remember the Nazi Holocaust and its victims and to vow that nothing like it should ever happen again.

There is, however, a certain irony that is becoming increasingly inescapable- especially with the one year "anniversary" of the Operation Cast Lead (Gaza siege and blockade) last month.

What I found rather strange in reading bits of Netanyahu's speech was that Holocaust Day was used by Israeli leaders speaking that day to stoke anger against Iran. It seemed inappropriate to me. A day to remember suffering (and to vow not to let it happen again) used to incite people to support an attack while oppressing another entire population.

If any comparisons are drawn to the Nazi Holocaust, it should be to Israel's collective punishment of Palestinians or the Nakba or something. Instead of Iran, people should reflect on their nation and what the Occupation is doing to society and democracy. I cannot believe there are Holocaust survivors who have lived to see their own people do similar things to others. Is the slogan 'never again' or 'never again to Jews'? Some Jews do argue that the Occupation is doing far more damage to Israeli society already than anything else.

A quote from the article at the top:

August Kowalczyk spent two years at Auschwitz and survived.

"This place determined who I am today, aged nearly 90," he said.

"I still have one mission - to pass on to the next generation knowledge of what happened here."

It is more than ok to remember Jewish suffering and learn about the Holocaust- for Jews and Gentiles alike. In American schools, we read Anne Frank and do special projects and have guest speakers to learn more about this horrible tragedy. I enjoyed hearing the stories of perseverance myself. I just wonder when it will be ok for Palestinians to talk openly about their tragedy and when others will openly want to learn about it. How long will it take for people to stop calling you a terrorist sympathizer for wondering why Palestinians can't have equal rights and self-determination and aren't entitled to live free and defend themselves? How long will it take for Israeli leaders to acknowledge their role in Palestinian suffering and death and express remorse and sympathy as the leaders embrace, as Germany and Israel do? I wonder when (some) Israelis and others who deny Palestinian suffering or Israeli crimes will be treated as Holocaust deniers are- marginalized and shunned instead of as one presenting valid points to consider.

Maybe you will think me horrible or an anti-Semite to suggest a similarity between Nazis and Israel. It is indeed a sick irony. I don't think I am to blame, though. I read a book last year that told of the intersecting of two lives in the past and present- a Jewish family who came in 1948 and an Arab refugee family who was forced to in 1948. The historic descriptions of the Jewish march to the trains and death camps was so strikingly similar to the descriptions of the Arabs being forced on long marches to one city and then the next, farther and farther from home. In both cases, people died on the way, had babies on the way, the women strapped gold to their bodies in the same way and for the same reasons, and both peoples left with virtually nothing but the clothes on their backs. One group, however, is allowed to remember their dead and prosecute their killers; the other isn't.


Random opinions:


The Jewish left on Holocaust remembrance:

'Holocaust remembrance is a boon for Israeli propaganda'

Finkelstein's book


An Arab opinion:

Arab MK slams Holocaust denial

54 people with guts - thank you!

I often talk junk about Congress people and how they want to keep their jobs so they bow to the Israel lobby, but if just for a day, there is hope.

They used the words "collective punishment." I really am impressed!

Representatives, unlike most senators, won't let you write them unless you are a constituent, so I'll have to thank them here on my turf:

I want to thank you for your letter to President Obama to ask him to help pressure Israel to act according to international law and respect human rights and basic needs of Palestinians. My own representatives have failed miserably in taking this stand (or any on this issue), so I say a special thank you for stepping up in the absence of their moral stand for representing my interests and bringing them before our President.

The right would have us believe that they represent the interests of Christians in supporting Israel unconditionally. On the contrary, such abused and marginalized people as the Palestinians under brutal Israeli control are the very people Jesus went to. As a Christian, I applaud you for taking this stand.

AIPAC has tried to silence voices like ours who desire more balance in our approach to the Israeli Palestinian problem so as a voter (though not in your district) I thank you for risking your seat doing what is right.

Thank you for your courage and your understanding of the real situation in Israel/Palestine.

Please continue to stand for human rights and international law for the betterment ourselves, the country and our security.


Sent January 21, 2010

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama,

Thank you for your ongoing work to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and for your commitment of $300 million in U.S. aid to rebuild the Gaza Strip. We write to you with great concern about the ongoing crisis in Gaza.

The people of Gaza have suffered enormously since the blockade imposed by Israel and Egypt following Hamas’ coup, and particularly following Operation Cast Lead. We also sympathize deeply with the people of southern Israel who have suffered from abhorrent rocket and mortar attacks. We recognize that the Israeli government has imposed restrictions on Gaza out of a legitimate and keenly felt fear of continued terrorist action by Hamas and other militant groups. This concern must be addressed without resulting in the de facto collective punishment of the Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip. Truly, fulfilling the needs of civilians in Israel and Gaza are mutually reinforcing goals.

The unabated suffering of Gazan civilians highlights the urgency of reaching a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we ask you to press for immediate relief for the citizens of Gaza as an urgent component of your broader Middle East peace efforts. The current blockade has severely impeded the ability of aid agencies to do their work to relieve suffering, and we ask that you advocate for immediate improvements for Gaza in the following areas:

* Movement of people, especially students, the ill, aid workers, journalists, and those with family concerns, into and out of Gaza;

* Access to clean water, including water infrastructure materials,

* Access to plentiful and varied food and agricultural materials;

* Access to medicine and health care products and suppliers;

* Access to sanitation supplies, including sanitation infrastructure materials;

* Access to construction materials for repairs and rebuilding;

* Access to fuel;

* Access to spare parts;

* Prompt passage into and out of Gaza for commercial and agricultural goods; and

* Publication and review of the list of items prohibited to the people of Gaza.

Winter is arriving and the needs of the people grow ever more pressing. For example, the ban on building materials is preventing the reconstruction of thousands of innocent families’ damaged homes. There is also a concern that unrepaired sewage treatment plants will overflow and damage surrounding property and water resources.

Despite ad hoc easing of the blockade, there has been no significant improvement in the quantity and scope of goods allowed into Gaza. Both the number of trucks entering Gaza per month and the number of days the crossings have been open have declined since March. This crisis has devastated livelihoods, entrenched a poverty rate of over 70%, increased dependence on erratic international aid, allowed the deterioration of public infrastructure, and led to the marked decline of the accessibility of essential services.

The humanitarian and political consequences of a continued near-blockade would be disastrous. Easing the blockade on Gaza will not only improve the conditions on the ground for Gaza’s civilian population, but will also undermine the tunnel economy which has strengthened Hamas. Under current conditions, our aid remains little more than an unrealized pledge. Most importantly, lifting these restrictions will give civilians in Gaza a tangible sense that diplomacy can be an effective tool for bettering their conditions.

Your Administration’s overarching Middle East peace efforts will benefit Israel, the Palestinians, and the entire region. The people of Gaza, along with all the peoples of the region, must see that the United States is dedicated to addressing the legitimate security needs of the State of Israel and to ensuring that the legitimate needs of the Palestinian population are met.

Sincerely,

Members of Congress

Arizona

* Raul Grijalva D-AZ7

California

* Lois Capps D-CA23
* Sam Farr D-CA17
* Bob Filner D-CA51
* Barbara Lee D-CA9
* Loretta Sanchez D-CA39
* Pete Stark D-CA
* Michael Honda D-CA15
* Lynn Woolsey D-CA6
* Jackie Speier D-CA12
* Diane Watson D-CA33
* George Miller D-CA7

Connecticut

* Jim Himes D-CT4

Indiana

* Andre Carson D-IN7

Iowa

* Bruce Braley D-IA1

Kentucky

* John Yarmuth D-KY3

Maryland

* Elijah Cummings D-MD7
* Donna Edwards D-MD4

Massachusetts

* Michael Capuano D-MA8
* William Delahunt D-MA10
* Jim McGovern D-MA3
* John Tierney D-MA6
* John Olver D-MA1
* Stephen Lynch D-MA9

Michigan

* John Conyers D-MI14
* John Dingell D-MI 15
* Carolyn Kilpatrick D-MI13

Minnesota

* Keith Ellison D-MN5
* Betty McCollum D-MN4
* James Oberstar D-MN8

New Jersey

* Donald Payne D-NJ10
* Rush Holt D-NJ12
* Bill Pascrell D-NJ8

New York

* Yvette Clarke D-NY11
* Maurice Hinchey D-NY22
* Paul Tonko D-NY21
* Eric Massa D-NY29

North Carolina

* David Price D-NC4

Ohio

* Mary Jo Kilroy D-OH15
* Marcy Kaptur D-OH9

Oregon

* Earl Blumenauer D-OR3
* Peter DeFazio D-OR4

Pennsylvania

* Chaka Fattah D-PA2
* Joe Sestak D-PA7

Vermont

* Peter Welch D-VT

Virginia

* Jim Moran D-VA8

Washington

* Jim McDermott D-WA7
* Adam Smith D-WA9
* Jay Inslee D-WA1
* Brian Baird D-WA3

West Virginia

* Nick Rahall D-WV3

Wisconsin

* Tammy Baldwin D-WI2
* Gwen Moore D-WI4

Virginia

* Glenn Nye D-VA2

"Hebrew slogans" and another reason settlements should be razed

Maybe not razed- if they want one secular democratic state where all Jews and all Palestinians everywhere are welcome and have equal rights...


I read a BBC article and they referred to "slogans" written by students (more accurate= suspected terrorists). I mean ynetnews even recognized them as slurs.

The BBC is usually pretty good and brings out points critical of Israel where the US media fails miserably. For example, in many stories, this appears at the end:

"All settlements in the the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this."

This time the BBC was way off.


Anyway- the slogans.

One was "We will burn all of you." A slogan? Really? If this slur is in fact a slogan or mantra, then they've got a terrorist cell on their hands and heads need to roll.

When Palestinians- or anyone for that matter, says these types of things, we call them threats or worse. When accompanied by an attack, such as the arson here, it's attempted murder, except in this case.

I'll go along with "Price Tag" being a slogan (grafitti also defacing the building). Taking into account what it means, though, I'm going to have to go with slur or threat:

"Price tag" is the slogan adopted some months ago by extremist settlers who carry out reprisals against Palestinians in response to the evacuation of settlement structures by Israeli defense forces.

"Rabbi Shapira published a controversial book last year which includes discussion of interpretations of the circumstances under which Jewish law permits Jews to kill non-Jews."

"The rabbi has been condemned for writing a book called "The King's Torah" that says it is permissible to kill non-Jewish children if they pose a threat or as a deterrent for the future. It states that only a Jew who kills a Jew violates the commandment against murder."

Hmmm. Now what do we think of and do with Muslims who teach (or support those who teach*) this type of thing? I probably don't need to tell you.
*=seminary students and a Knesset member were protesting for his release

He refused to cooperate and is suspected of withholding information. He's getting off pretty easy. Ask a Palestinian what happens when they are suspected of knowing anything about a person they suspect might become a suspect. Ask a police officer what they think of someone who refuses to cooperate. I'm guessing they think that is a sign of guilt. Not, here, though.

What are they doing with this guy? Releasing him, of course! If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it must be a cow. Now at least they can say they "looked into it" and we in the US can feel good again about our support for normal life and natural growth in illegal settlements.

3 more reasons why the settlement freeze means nothing

This is news of the recent temporary “settlement freeze”. It is hailed as a great step toward peace by the US and Israel for which the Palestinians are now significantly indebted. Never mind that this is only a partial freeze on something that is completely illegal in the first place…

If there is any doubt that a settlement freeze means nothing, Israeli officials will spell it out for you:


***
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2010-01/25/content_12868104.htm

“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday planted trees in West Bank settlements, in a move which he said sent a clear message that Israel would retain major settlement blocs under any peace deal with the Palestinians.”

The absurdity of that quote blows my mind.

Planting trees means you aren’t giving the land back?? If trees have so much meaning that way, what about those Palestinian olive and fruit trees that were uprooted by Israel to build those settlements?? If the US pushes some settlers out of the way, occupies a hill over there and plants some trees, can we get in on this action, too??

Planting trees in Israel. I've seen the ads. It sounds rather benign and eco-friendly, right? I never thought about it as engaging in breaking international law, but that's what you're doing.

This must be proof that if you say something enough times, it can in fact be true. Gold Meir said there are no Palestinians. Others have said Palestine was uninhabited before 1948. Prime Ministers after her have said, hinted, and acted the same way. The US pretty much believes it, given the way we're letting Israel ethnically cleanse the area.

***

http://www.jkcook.net/Articles3/0446.htm#Top

A new college in the Territories. Should be good news. I'm all for education. Except Palestinians aren’t allowed to attend or go near it. Chances are, they have been pushed off the land it sits on (and the surrounding area needed for Jewish only roads and "security" trenches, barbed wire, guard towers, etc).

The apartheid analogy is looking more valid each time Israel takes action.

It’s just one more thing that makes settlements look less and less temporary or negotiable. The only thing we can hope is that it doesn't sabotage the peace process and Palestinian self-determination. Maybe it will force the binational state idea back onto the table.

***

http://www.imemc.org/index.php?obj_id=53&story_id=57750

Soldiers Get “Free Space In Settlements” For Military Service

Giving soldiers land to thank them for their service. Sounds nice. And it is, given that you’re not the one it’s being taken from to thank soldiers for killing your family and stealing yours and your grandparents land.

Free space indeed! Like the whole land without people for people with no land lie.

“It is the second half of an initiative granting free higher education to soldiers who chose to study in colleges in the Negev and the Galilee.”

If it’s an issue of being able to visit and see the land they view with religious significance, fine. Let them visit. If they want a University or neighborhood on Palestinian soil, they should be paying Palestinians, following Palestinian laws and regulations, asking permission from Palestinians, working with Palestinians and allowing Palestinians access. Anything else is theft and should be a big problem for US-Israel.

kids say...

A few kid things before I forget to write them down...


My daughter is at the stage of 1000 questions- age 4.
Yes, I'd guess that's probably literally thousands.

The most common by far are:
-"Who gave you/me/us that?" - for quite possibly every toy and object in the house
-"What does (fill in the first 100 animals that come to mind) eat?" - I have to admit I've made some answers up...
-"What are we on?" - As in road. I imagine she'll know how to get anywhere in a one or two hour radius from the house, which is more than I could say for myself until at least college!

Next is 'how do you like me, mom?' The correct answer is a lot. I answered her the first time that I love her (I do, that's a good answer, right?) and so the next time she asked, she said, 'you don't like me, you love me?' I said yes, afterward regretting it because that sounds like I don't like her. She continued over the week to ask do you like me or how do you like me, so I said I like you a lot, more than anything, I love you. She eventually told me and her dad that I like you a lot means I love you. That was pretty neat to watch her sort through this problem and come up with something that makes a lot of sense.

Thankfully, "why" is not popular at this time! Can't wait for that one! :)

***

R is two.

At the doctor's, both kids had to get shots and R went first. He was crying and making his sister nervous, so the nurse explained that he was just a little boy, but that she'll be fine, etc and in the middle of sobbing, R yells - I'm - not - little - I'm - big !! The nurse nearly hit the floor laughing.

When I punish him or something doesn't go his way, he tells me he's a little baby, which means he wants extra hugs and kisses, to be carried, etc.

Another pretty entertaining thing about him is when he's describing something in a few sentences (a toy needs a battery, for instance), he looks so serious and expressions cross his face like he's defending his thesis or something.


They are both in a dance class now. R's is mom and tot, so that is interesting... S really likes hers. I wasn't sure if she liked it at first, but maybe she was worn out. When you ask her about it, she smiles shyly. I catch her pointing her toes or doing a little ballet move sometimes. Last week, she told me she was going to show Daddy what she learned, so I think she likes it. R doesn't follow directions as well as the little girls in his class, but he is always ready to go first, unlike the girls (and S at age 2). They all get tired and lose interest at times. R didn't ask me if he could go to sleep during his second class, though. Progress!

The kids like to play together a little now. They will throw a ball to each other, play with their nurf bowling set, or play more abstract things like they're cooking or driving. Most of the time they are "driving" to pick up food at McD's- they always ask me "burgers or nuggets"- that's always our question to them when we go. I try and add 3 or 4 extra things to their "list". They usually remember it all, too!

The kids have always had good verbal skills and were well above the recommended number of words, sentences, etc. This is good and I have always enjoyed it... but they have recently added a wide variety of cuss words, which is mortifying. Of course, as my luck or Murphy's Law would have it, they most like to practice these in worship services. I'm sure everyone thinks I must say these things every other word! Oh well. Maybe they won't be as interested in them when other kids discover them. Or other parents will blame me for their kids discovering them...


We were watching Lord of the Rings and wondering if R was paying attention or if he'd be ok. S was fine with it, but R calls Gollum the bald monkey and doesn't want to watch 'the bald monkey show'.

Similarly, S used to call Yoda a monkey when she was about 2. In a scene where he gets thrown backward and flies through the air, she said "uh-oh monkey".

Denialism

I like NPR, but this segment bothered me:

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=122857703

The topic isn't a bad one. Denialism is apparently when popular opinion goes in the opposite direction from scientific evidence due to emotion or who know s what.

I'll start with what I agreed with. I did like the talk about the actual denialism - organic food, some homeopathic medicine (I did think he was too critical, but to put all your eggs in that basket I'll agree is gambling with your life), all herbs are good, vaccines are bad, etc.

I have been shocked by the number of people who have bought into weight loss gimicks, the idea that it's herbal, therefore it is safe and side-effect free, or all dietary supplements do something and things like that. There is so much evidence that says this stuff is garbage and in some cases harmful, but it still sells. If people listened to scientific evidence instead of emotion or whatever drives these trends, GNC (and many an infomercial product) would be out of business!

I can't really blame people for the herbal supplement thing. The research can be confusing or conflicting. More significantly, most people assume they are regulated by the FDA or under an obligation to tell the truth on product labeling. If you think that, you'd be wrong!



I liked where the guy was going with this:

“Mr. SPECTER: I believe this is an issue for moral debate, and I'm truly really trying to focus on clear-cut scientific lines in the sand about studies and why we use things and why we don't and why we trust things and why we don't. And abortion is something I didn't write about because I don't think it's that kind of issue. I wouldn’t actually call it denialism.”

I thought that was a good approach. It makes sense. … but what these two said and did next annoyed me big time. They didn't go off on creationsts, like I thought they were going to do. People that say they value science over religion have to be the denialists, there, though. The public seems to reject that scientific evidence can or might suggest a higher power at work because of a bias or closely held belief that religion/God is not scientific or not logical or that concepts are either faith based (a guess, a shot in the dark) or science based. I think the more we discover about the earth, the more we'll find evidence of Deity. Back to the abortion thing, though...


OK. Keep in mind what he said:

“And abortion is something I didn't write about because I don't think it's that kind of issue.”

But after this, they tried to get the caller to say that she was against abortion (which she obviously was) and wouldn’t change her opinion if the science stated the fetus definitely couldn’t feel or sense anything and that that would be denialism.

I thought she did a good job of avoiding the trap and moving back to her point which was to say how science could help us understand the debate better (not necessarily solve it)- which is a moral one ultimately (and as such as Specter said, doesn’t fall under denialism!).

***

ELIZABETH: I wanted to thank your guest for the issue. I think denialism is an issue that's pretty important in a lot of social issues, too. And I think in some social discussions where there's a lot of disparity of opinion, denialism kind of derails the discussion on things a lot of the time.

One of the specific examples I was thinking of was related to the discussion over abortion. And one of the examples, I guess, I was thinking of is for years and years, it was thought that the unborn fetus was not aware of the abortion procedure when it was happening. And ultrasounds are already debunking that and illustrating that these unborn children are aware of the abortion as it happens. And I think science is actually going to be pretty useful in the discussion as we learn much, much more about unborn life.

FLATOW: Michael?

Mr. SPECTER: I believe this is an issue for moral debate, and I'm truly really trying to focus on clear-cut scientific lines in the sand about studies and why we use things and why we don't and why we trust things and why we don't. And abortion is something I didn't write about because I don't think it's that kind of issue. I wouldnt actually call it denialism.

FLATOW: Elizabeth, if there was a research to show you that the unborn fetus at those age - at that time that you're speaking about it - was not in the state that you think it is, would you accept that?

ELIZABETH: I think that that - I was just bringing that up as one example of a discussion in which science could be helpful. (unintelligible)

FLATOW: Well, that's why I'm asking. If the science showed you that it was not like you thought it was, would you deny that?

ELIZABETH: I think that he is correct that it's a moral issue, also. But I think that if you bring science to the table, it at least helps to open the discussion and hopefully help people on both sides of the issue find some common discussion areas that could then move it beyond, you know...

Mr. SPECTER: Can I just ask one question?

ELIZABETH: ...whether or not, you know, the baby can feel it, too...

FLATOW: Yeah.

ELIZABETH: ...to the moral issue. But I think science could be very helpful in the discussion.

FLATOW: Good point. Go ahead. You wanted to jump in there, Mike?

Mr. SPECTER: I just wanted to ask a question. If science showed conclusively that an unborn fetus at a particular time couldn't feel anything, would you then change your mind? Because if you wouldn't, you are exactly what I'm talking about.

ELIZABETH: Well, I - what my point - that is an interesting point of view, and I do understand that. I think you're probably right that in moral discussions, people on both sides believe that either the viability of the baby or the rights of a woman would make the decision beyond science. But my point was just that you could bring science to the table to help find some common ground and discuss this as best as possible and lead to some progress.

I think that she was a good example, Michael, of bringing science - she made a point about bringing science to the table, and even bringing science to table didn't sway her one way or the other.

Mr. SPECTER: I mean, you know, I don't want to be rude because I do believe that that is a moral issue and it's very complex. But that really makes that's the example of what I'm talking about.

***

He was rude, though, and contradicted himself!

To be fair, (if I understand this made up term) denialism probably doesn't cover moral or social issues, so the caller really didn't have a point. But- I don't like how they went beyond the first statement on how it doesn't apply to have a conversation in which they tried to get her to say something so they could call her a denialist.

Abbas not as worthless as I thought...on this...

So Abbas's abandonment of common sense and decency this time was the result of a pretty good threat...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1143038.html

At the October meeting in Ramallah, Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin told Abbas that if he did not ask for a deferral of the vote on the critical report on last year's military operation, Israel would turn the West Bank into a "second Gaza."

Maybe he deserves a break on this one. Now, time ot persue the Goldstone Report!

Water and war crimes

There has been much negative talk about the Goldstone report in the US and Israel. It’s biased. So many pages are devoted to Hamas and so many more are devoted to Israel.

Goldstone himself has addressed these wrong interpretations of bias in the report:

(I will get this from one of my blog posts- no time now)


I saw this report about Israel restricting Palestinians’ water resources:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/israel-rations-palestinians-trickle-water-20091027

and thought about the “inordinate” amount of space given to Israeli vs. Palestinian war crimes in that report and in the general conflict. Many organizations (Amnesty International, HRW, the UN) and reports are condemned as biased because so many Israeli crimes are listed and equal space is not used to detail Palestinian crimes. I don’t think the issue is bias, as you can see when you look at the death toll, victims and the different types of crimes on each side.

Palestinian crimes are pretty straightforward. Suicide bombing, rocket attacks. And these done by armed wings of certain groups and not the general population as a whole.

Israeli offenses are myriad and both military and civilian. They don’t stop at militarily attacking when and where they were attacked and gathering intel and targeting those individuals as one would expect in actual self-defense. They are denying Palestinians proper amounts of basic necessities to stay alive- food (embargo, travel restrictions, burning and stealing land), shelter (home demolition, denying permits, raids), work and education. When evil dictators do these sorts of things, we want to sanction and maybe intervene. But when it is Israel, controlling a people it doesn’t or shouldn’t actually have any power over in the first place, we don’t care. They are “doing what they have to do.”

Are they attacking the whole population because any of them could become a militant? There is a similar argument (not generally accepted as legitimate) among some Palestinian militants- compulsory military service means all are military targets. Are they applying pressure on the population to effect democratic reform? This seems not to be the case as Palestinians have had democratic elections and have a legislature, never mind that it can’t do much as Israel is targeting many for imprisonment and Israel’s “security measures” make it nearly impossible to convene… Regardless of if they were trying to achieve democratic reforms or an Israel-friendly govt, it seems this might be the definition of terrorism in some cases. A more likely cause (but one that may get me labeled a conspiracy theorist) is that Israel is trying to force a voluntary transfer, so they aren’t accused of ethnic cleansing. “See? They left on their own!” We’ve heard this one before (1948)… Who knows why they do it. They are getting away with it, however, because when any organization details the crimes to try and hold them accountable, there are complaints: bias, equal space isn’t devoted to Palestinian crimes, little or no mention of Palestinian crimes means they are less wrong, etc.

It makes complete sense that there is far more space devoted to Israel’s crimes. They are doing so many things to the entire population that defy international law, democratic principles, common sense and common decency that have nothing to do with self-defense; while Palestinian crimes are fewer in number with fewer casualties. It doesn’t mean Palestinians are right to resort to violence, but I don’t think it means the report is biased or we should shun Palestinians until they embrace Israeli oppression (no rights, no food) with open arms.

On the other hand, if they did this, we wouldn’t focus on them, a state would disappear from discourse, and Israel may see to their end if certain parties rise to greater power.

A Response to My Conservative Contradiction Observation

This is a response to a comment I got on Facebook from my last post. I'm responding it here so I can manage it better.

Not that so many (or any?) people read this so that I will be getting flooded with confused people emailing me or anything! :)


So, I took a look at the Arthur Brooks links.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258358706104403.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
(Oh no! Not realclear! :) ... Just kidding. )

He tries to appear impartial, but in reading some of the links you gave, he seems to have an agenda after all. He has even said he has registered Democrat and Republican in one decade and is Independent and was raised by liberal university professors in order to distance himself from the right. However, I think he’s more conservative than he lets on…

This quote made me chuckle, but it’s so true. Conservative coming out party.
From : http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

"This book is a call to action for the left, not a celebration of the right," Mr. Brooks says.

“That's a claim that some liberals may have a tough time believing, given Mr. Brooks's withering criticism in the book of liberal icons like Ralph Nader, Mr. Brooks's work for The Wall Street Journal's famously conservative op-ed page, and a promotional tour for the book that reads like a conservative coming-out party. There's a keynote address at a Manhattan Institute for Policy Research dinner, a book signing at the American Enterprise Institute, and an interviews with John Stossel of ABC's 20/20 and radio talk-show host Michael Medved — two people known for conservative views.”

Another quote from the article:

Few economists have focused on philanthropy, he says, leaving plenty of "low-hanging fruit" for a young scholar.

And I would say that there may well be a lot of low-hanging fruit, but it also means this sort of thing won’t have as many studies to challenge it (numbers, method of gathering “data”, which data is selected, etc) either which is quite beneficial for Brooks' message, obviously. I’d like to see how it stands up to future criticism by experts in his field(s), should this field get more focus.

***

Now back to my response to the Brooks links...

You said: "I was thinking about your statement of "...being strongly against other legislation and programs with Biblical support, for example, to help the poor..." and wondered if you were aware of the work of Arthur Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University. Liberals have a well-polished marketing machine duping millions into buying into their "advocacy" for the less fortunate but the numbers don't support it.
(quite a generalization by the way) :)

I suppose it is liberal “advocacy” to some in the same way the Republican party is all about “values”….

A glaring problem is the numbers. I have quite a number of issues with where these numbers are coming from. If they just call people up and they provide a figure and that’s it, I have no confidence in this “data” whatsoever. Not that people are trying to mislead, but they forget, estimate, thought they gave more, etc. If tax deduction info are used, are conservatives just better than liberals about reporting it and getting their tax refund? The tax deduction still leaves out people who give and don’t take the deduction, choose lower paying jobs/careers that help people- nonprofits, providing low cost medical care, etc-. Volunteering and such is in fact touched on, but I’ll go into that in a sec. And what sorts of charities were included? He mentions a symphony orchestra in the WSJ article, but did he include environmental causes or animal shelters? Or were they primarily ones that actually help people like soup kitchens and rescue missions and such? The numbers need to be solid and more comprehensive for this to be anything more than fluff.

***
This is one of my suspicions (highlighted by the quote from this other article), that the high conservative number was due to church offerings and to see how much of that goes to actually helping people in need rather than the building, you’d have to examine thousands of church budgets.

“According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do.”

And to beat you to the punch, the following sentence in the article (possibly refuting it) is this:

“But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.”

Quotes are from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=1&em

And to this I’d have to ask about the numbers again. Did they just ask them or ask for a pay stub or some type of proof? Are the incomes a national average of some sort- hard data or verbal- or specifically for the sample talked about in the piece? Are things like number of dependents, percentage of disposable income, etc accounted for?

***

You said: “Good article on why govt. spending is not a form of charity, as some lefties like to argue:”

Here's the link you were talking about:
http://www.facebook.com/l/3cc63;www.arthurbrooks.net/whoreallycares/excerpt.html

I’m not arguing that, hopefully. Poverty is the problem and some would like to see minimal government help and more private giving and others see a definite role for government in addition to private giving. Corruption will be a problem in govt or private agencies, but shouldn’t stop us from trying to help people however we can. I don't think people are necessarily arguing that govt spending is charity, but rather govt intervention with private giving or a primarily private approach are two different ways to "solve" the problem. Some think there is absolutely and black and white wrong and right on this, but it could be there are just two different approaches. Americans tend to give more than Europeans, but is that because we're more generous (or more religious) or we feel the need to give more because we know the government won't do much of anything compared to Europe's governments.

The link did include some info about accounting for volunteering which I was a question that came to mind, but left the data issue unresolved. Some of the non-monetary "data" was phrased like this: "Liberal young Americans in 2004 were also significantly less likely than the young conservatives to express a willingness to sacrifice for their loved ones: A lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love." That really doesn’t mean much of anything in terms of hard data since what you know you should do and what you do can differ. Maybe liberals would do more than they say and conservatives know what's right but wouldn't do it when push came to shove. Maybe conservatives really are more compassionate. Even with Brooks' work, we still don't know that. I don't know that he asked the right questions, gathered the right numbers, and backed it up with solid proof. I don't even know that this is remotely possible given the number of factors that can influence non-scientific things like this. Maybe your point was that my stereotype of the right was wrong. It could very well be, but I don't think Brooks proved anything one way or the other.

He addresses blood donation and being a member of “organizations” (rotary, ruritan, etc?) and says that conservatives are better at that, too. I’m guessing the latter are clubs that I wouldn’t necessarily consider charitable organizations with a narrow mission to help those in need (like homeless shelters), but they do do some charity work- or some do more than others...

This could be more urban/rural than liberal/conservative differences since small towns (the real America, as Palin liked to say) tend to have more of these types of organizations and community inclusive events sponsored by the organizations in a way larger towns don’t (I can see this difference in Oxford and Durham even though Durham isn’t huge and you can still find things to get involved in in Durham and larger cities; they still aren't as accessible and present, providing the only entertainment in town, in the same way as they are in small towns).

You say the liberals have a well-oiled marketing machine, but due to the lack of solid data this might qualify as just that for conservatives!

People say numbers don't lie, but there are so many ways to compile those numbers that you can make it say what you want, even if you don't really mean to overtly manipulate it. I see plenty of room for error in Brooks' survey, but I will agree that it is interesting. I look forward to more studies on this subject. Maybe.

Another thought...
Trying to uncover who is more generous liberals or conservatives may seem equivalent to trying to figure out who is applying that Biblical principle better. A big problem with this, however, is people actually have to come forth and declare their good works to get the hard data to make a solid report which tramples another Biblical principle - humility... Yet another factor to consider... A conclusive report gets further and further away...

The Family- Ensign affair

The Secret Political Reach Of 'The Family'
NPR, Fresh Air, Nov 24, 2009
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120746516&ps=cprs

With all the affairs and scandal lately with Ensign and others in The Family, Jeff Sharlett was on NPR again.

I may not agree with Sharlett on religion (he's Jewish, for instance) and all of his writings and opinions, but he highlights very nicely some of my concerns with our political system and the intermingling of religion with politics and vice versa.

I have long wondered about the right and Christian right and the contradictions of being against abortion and gay marriage and pressuring constantly for aggressive legislation on these, but being strongly against other legislation and programs with Biblical support, for example, to help the poor or to promote peace as opposed to war. Why be against gay marriage and all things gay and let heterosexuals off the hook who have extra-marital affairs and premarital sex? Another issue for me has been the so-called Biblical capitalism (the belief in and defense of capitalism as though it comes from scripture). I don't understand why some Christians on the right cling so tightly to capitalism and regard anything less than free market fundamentalism as socialist and hence 'of the devil'.

I have to wonder what kind of influence this group has had on the Christian right and these contradictions. The Family can appear to be a defender of Christian values in America- against abortion and gay marriage- and many would- and do- get behind it. The Family may start with good Biblical intentions (though I doubt it), but the message is obviously twisted in the end. Power absolutely trumps love- as in the case of the Ensign affair when Doug Hampton went to The Family for help since Ensign is a "key man", but they paid him off instead of holding Ensign accountable for his actions and promise to keep persuing Hampton's wife. Instead of valuing people like Martin Luther King Jr. or Mother Teresa, they hold up Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot next to Jesus.

Video of Coe - "Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler. Think of the immense power these three men had.”
http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/03/857959.aspx

Doug Hampton on The Family:

The Family, it's not what they say it is. And if I can just quote him, he puts
it very succinctly: He says they - the C Street group, The Family - they think
the consequences don't apply. Those need to be dealt with differently, because
of the responsibility, because of the pressure. Meaning that congressmen have
sort of special rules for them, because of the work that needs to be done. This
is about preserving John, preserving the Republican Party. This is about
preserving C Street. These men care about themselves and their own political
careers, period.

I am suprised that the party that is so willing to paint Obama as a socialist and any government "help" as evil, un-Biblical, un-American, etc is so willing to embrace this group that uses Hitler, Geobbels, and Mao as role models. I guess, though, it's unfair to paint Republicans as the bad guys. The Family's prayer cells reach across the aisle. As a Democrat quoted in the interview said, "Jesus didn't come to take sides; he came to take over." There is plenty of blame to go around.

There is a description of how the Family looks at David. They garner lessons so different than I think were intended. Their emphasis is that David was chosen and God chose to use the imperfect tool; they apply this to politicians, not all people. They think the real gospel is for the powerful and the goodness will trickle down to us nothings.

Besides the theological problems I have with the group, they may be violating our laws about diplomacy as well. Their key men cozy up to dictators and become point men for the US when the US officially stops dealing with them. They then use "prayer cells" to influence everything from social to economic policy. If genocide results, it's "God's will." Simple. Right?

Here's one example from the interview:

Uganga- 'aggravated homosexuality'- proposed law, not yet law

One might say yes, it's great that homosexuals, who are sinning like murderers and the like do, are getting the death penalty. But if homosexuals get the death penalty, why not heterosexuals for sexual sin? Why not drinkers? Gossips? If sin carried the physical death penalty, wouldn't more people think twice before sinning? Even if you agree with that last statement (I don't), you should think twice.

Many will contend, myself among them, that the Bible doesn't forbid the death penalty, but I still don't think we should go nuts with it- even aside from the fact that we in the US have probably executed many an innocent man due to racial prejudice and lack of technology. It's true that nations don't have the accountability that individuals do, but this accountability is what is taken away when you legislate such that all sin gets the death penalty. It completely gets rid of the very Biblical concept of repentance and forgiveness. So, no, I don't want to go down that road.


This is Sharlett quoting Inohofe talking about his 20 missionary trips paid for by US taxpayers. Besides the government paying for missionary trips, "as taught to him by Doug Coe" should be worrisome to all.

And he says what he's there to do is to, quote, promote the political philosophy
of Jesus as taught to him by Doug Coe.

Sharlett's comments on this freelance diplomacy are right on target:

It's - I mean when you take your personal religious convictions or political
convictions, even, and claim to represent the United States, but, in fact, are
representing an organization like The Family as Senator Coburn was in Lebanon,
as Senator Ensign has in Jordan and Israel, as Senator Inhofe has in Uganda, you
are steering foreign policy away from democratic accountability.

I've said this before, but this is the stuff nightmares and crazy conspiracy theories are made of. But it's real.


Link to a blog post about a right wing organization that investigated The Family some:
http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2009/08/18/world-magazine-investigates-the-family/

Palestinian statehood: the chicken or egg conundrum

This is kind of a continuation from:

http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2009/11/terrorists-turned-statesmen.html

The idea expressed by the interviewee that (more than a few) Jews went through a transformation from terrorist to statesmen, but Palestinians are incapable could be why the peace process isn’t going anywhere.

If Israel expects that Palestinians can’t transform, as they did, from terrorist to statesman, then Israel isn’t going to give an inch and will in fact create conditions that breed terrorism as a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don’t know, though, that this mutual understanding and respect has to precede talks and a Palestinian state. This would take forever. If we had waited on prejudice of African Americans to subside some before throwing out slavery and giving them civil rights, we would not have come as far as we have.

It comes down to the chicken and egg. Which are actually final status issues? Should we require a government, certain democratic benchmarks as we have been before a state is “awarded”? Or should a Palestinian state be declared first and negotiate Jerusalem’s international status, dismantling of settlements, removal of the wall, contiguous nature, etc in continuing negotiations? I still think one state should be considered; it would make all the other issues disappear.

Declaring a state first seems more logical to me. If no state is declared, then Israel feels free to continue the brutal occupation indefinitely, which is costly for Israel and obviously unjust and costly for Palestinians. If there is a state and other issues are worked out later, it seems there would be more of a reason for both sides to work things out.

***
Strangely enough, seems the world isn’t ready for this solution (statehood) that it claims in the end game for these negotiations that we always want to jump start. Everyone wants peace in the Middle East. Every head of state wants to assist in negotiations. This means nothing if they aren’t ready for the solution they claim is the goal of all this! Yet another contradiction in this never ending process…

Recognizing Palestinian state premature: EU
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5AG1R720091117

U.S. "would veto" Palestinian state move: Senators
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091116/pl_nm/us_palestinians_israel_usa


The US and EU are saying no to a unilateral decision for Palestinians to move forward with a state. They want to return to negotiations that have stalled due to Israeli insistence on breaking the law and everyone else’s complicity in this crime. I believe that's called aiding and abetting.

A return to negotiations means Palestinians will have to give up more land- as if they had much, if any to give away in the first place. They were lured into negotiations with the US stand for international law that settlements are illegal and the US was going to go for a temporary halt to building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Due to Israeli insistence and certain events on the ground (continuing construction despite any US announcements), the US is falling back into line with Israel. What are the Palestinians supposed to do? Accept the injustice of more of the same or just move ahead with a state? It would be nice to have a bilateral agreement, but those always end up being Israel-US, not Israel -Palestinians anyway and under the circumstances, the latter is the best option. I had always thought leaving refugees, Jerusalem, borders, etc as "final status issues" was backwards anyway. Establishing a state first makes so much more sense than expecting Palestinians to act sovereign while trying to overcome travel restrictions, checkpoints, and other hassles and tragedies Israel imposes on them that make proving themselves or their sovereignty impossible.

I had always thought that everyone supported a Palestinian state. By definition, the much celebrated “two-state solution” demands it. It appears this is only the case under terms Israel agrees with, which will surely cement the status quo of collective punishment, blockade, travel restrictions, terrorism and humanitarian disaster that Israel has established.

And what’s this about Israel planning to retaliate if Palestinians unilaterally declare a state?? What kind of punishment can they throw at Palestinians that they aren’t already?

“Israel reacted quickly, warning that a negotiated peace agreement was the only solution to the conflict, while declaring a state without it would lead to Israeli counter-measures that could include annexation of more West Bank territory.”

Did Israel ask Palestinians' permission before declaring itself a state? Did the Palestinians get to dictate the terms of Israel declaring a state like everyone wants for Israel and the Palestinian state? I think not.

I still believe a single secular democratic state is the real answer, but I don’t guess I really have a say in this.

terrorists turned statesmen?

Some say Jewish terrorists have turned into statesmen and Palestinians terrorists aren't capable of doing the same (despite democratic elections and parliament among other statesmanly things). I wonder if it is possible for a terrorist to turn into a statesman. I think it is. Or perhaps it is all perception. Or maybe it is impossible and Palestinian terrorists will remain that way and the Jewish terrorists aren't really statesmen?

Questions over 1947 terror spectacular

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8007725.stm


So apparently Al-Qaeda wasn't the first terrorist organization to plan to use bombs from the air. A Jewish terrorist group was.

I have often commented on the irony of so many historical and current top political figures in Israel being former terrorists. Lieberman hasn't exactly renounced his group and its ideals, but... what do we care, they are a democracy. Most people probably think I'm misinformed or making it up or whatever to make a point about the legitimacy of the idea of a state for Palestinians-- or because I hate Jews (false, BTW). Jewish terrorist groups are and were real and are in part responsible for the Palestinian holocaust in 1947-48. They also could have been a model for Al-Qaeda's attack. And they say Palestinians invented terrorism.

Anyway, the article reveals a look at the attitude that Jews are beyond reproach, they are capable of bettering themselves, rising above, and creating a democratic state while the same cannot be said of Palestinians (the opposite, in fact).


The interviewer tries quite hard (below) to get agreement on a comparison between Jewish terrorists changing into statesmen and the possibility of Palestinian terrorists changing into statesman, but the interviewee steadfastly resists. According to him, Jews can change and deserve respect, but Palestinians can't and don't.

But the resonances of his father's history are intriguing. Do they suggest that the Palestinian militants of today can become the pillars of the establishment of the future?

Natan Brun laughs and shakes his head.

"Because Menachem Begin (the leader of a Jewish militant group, and later Israel's first right-wing Prime Minister) on 14 May 1948 passed through a transformation from a terrorist to a democrat. In one day.

"The Palestinians - I think - will never undergo this transformation. They are still terrorists... How can we make peace with Hamas?"

Begin's transformation could have been, I suggest, because he got what he wanted: a Jewish state. No, says Brun.

"He didn't get what he wanted. Because he dreamt about a state on two sides of the (river) Jordan. It wasn't his government, but his bitterest rival's, (David) Ben-Gurion and the others. But Begin understood that he had to change his way of life, his ideas, everything."

These kinds of things (below) coming from Palestinians are considered proof of depravity, proof that peace cannot be made with them, and garners condemnation from around the world. From Jewish terrorists, we might see this as heroic, interesting, brilliant. We must or we wouldn't be so accepting of the "legalized" version of their terrorist activity today.

"...a group dedicated to the overthrow of British rule in Palestine, if necessary through violence, in order to create a Jewish state."

He came to Paris and said to the Stern Gang: 'Look - you kill British, you kill soldiers. It's nothing. You have to do something spectacular.'

"To the People of England... This is a Warning... Your government has dipped his Majesty's Crown in Jewish blood and polished it with Arab oil... People of England! Press your Government to quit Eretz-Israel (the land of Israel) NOW! Demand that your sons and daughters return home or you may not see them again."

We accept and celebrate the Jewish state that came to be by the same means Palestinians are trying. Israel is wise to that, though, so they can easily thwart it. Why we buy the whole victim cry is beyond me. I mean, the 4th best military power is a victim??


Another contradiction is here, below. The guy's father of course wasn't involved in violence, though the group he belonged to certainly perpetrated some horrible, murderous, contemptible acts. This explanation today gets Palestinians interrogated (or tortured), "convicted" of terrorism or just sent to jail. (Jail... and the recent talk of Shalit and a prisoner swap makes one think about who is actually in those prisons- probably people who haven't done much of anything if that if they are willing to just release them...) If we were going by Israeli standards, perhaps the interviewee would also have gotten an extended prison stay.

Natan Brun says that his father was never personally involved in violence. He was, rather, an ideologue, a disciple of Zeev Jabotinsky, the hardline Zionist who wanted to see a Jewish state along both banks of the Jordan river.

Good points are made in the comments section of the article- John from San Diego and Poyan from Toronto and others.

Armistice / Veteran's Day

I came across the origins of Veteran's Day this week and thought it was interesting that it was a day dedicated to world peace. I hadn't ever thought of it in that way, I suppose. Today, supporting the troops and veterans is synonymous with supporting war. You have to fight with people to prove that you are for the troops and at the same time against a particular military action or US government policy.

An Act (52 Stat. 351; 5 U. S. Code, Sec. 87a) approved May 13, 1938, made the 11th of November in each year a legal holiday—a day to be dedicated to the cause of world peace and to be thereafter celebrated and known as "Armistice Day."


http://www1.va.gov/opa/vetsday/vetdayhistory.asp

Fort Hood shooting

Some links about the story. I tried to get some differing opitions. You can take your pick or read them all and compare.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/link_in_ft_hood_slay_spree_DxTQPcEWvdr8WBocxSgNUI

And another whopper from NY Post:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/fort_hood_xjP9yGrJN7gl7zdsJ31vnJ
Under reasons Hasan should be considered a terrorist in the article:
*loudly criticizes US policies; (ouch!, I guess I'm a terrorist)
*refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues;
*lists his nationality as "Palestinian" in a Muslim spouse-matching program,

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/12/same_old_same_old_at_fort_hood_99125.html

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/11/10.php#29141

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/9/when_the_war_comes_homes_iraq


I know everyone’s going to think I’m calling Hasan a v
ictim, sympathizing with terrorists, or worse. I just want to say up front that I don’t condone what he did, it was wrong and there should be consequences. That being said (lest I be accused of supporting terrorism, along with Muslims who don't say that every time they open their mouth), I think there are other things that need to be addressed. I'm not dismissing the radical imam link, but that doesn't appear to be as strong as Lieberman wants it to be and there are so many things at play in these types of situations.

I’ve heard a lot of people on the radio and internet complaining that looking at all of the facts and asking why is too PC, that the media, Dr. Phil and Obama are protecting Hasan as a victim, this proves Obama’s a Muslim, just call Hasan what he is, a terrorist, and be done with it already. I have to say something. I'm so tired of this garbage. It's ridiculous.

The facts may still show that his contact with the radical imam was a factor, I’m not saying we should discount that, but there is a huge difference (with consequences) between assuming this and determining this without assumption and by the facts alone. It’s just dumb to focus on the imam (which is far from a smoking gun if I have heard correctly) when there are so many other things to consider.

Many have focused on Hasan’s nationality and religion. They aren’t waiting to see what the contact with the radical imam amounted to, if his religion played any role, if stress and or mental problems played a role- he is Muslim, so that’s why he did it.

Maybe this puts people’s mind at ease. Maybe it helps them deal with the endless questions a tragedy of this sort produces. I think it does far more harm than good.

The most obvious repercussion is backlash to the Muslim community with knee jerk reactions and assumptions such as these. The 'Muslim therefore guilty' mentality is sure to convict the entire Muslim and Arab community and produce irrational questioning of Arab and Muslim Americans’ loyalty. I have already heard people advocating banning Muslims from service. My favorite crime shows always talk about following the evidence. I don’t know that this is reality in the real world of law enforcement; I have no experience there, but I like that. I suppose that’s why I am drawn to science myself- you might have prejudices or ideas, but you don't publish everything you're thinking when you begin the project (before you have done teh experiments) as fact, you publish when you can prove it. The media and general population certainly don’t always check prejudice at the door and just follow the facts when black/white racism or Islam/Christianity or other vs. Arab domestic terrorism is involved.

There is another danger with this line of thinking that may be less apparent or counter intuitive. To close the book at terrorism as the root cause does a huge disservice to our soldiers and “supporters”, though many who actively “support our troops” with banners, bumper stickers, and Facebook groups seem to be more than ready, even eager, to do this. Obama did it himself. He said in his remarks that no faith justifies these acts- as though it had already been determined that he was connected to Al-Qaeda and was being tried for terrorism.

The armed forces are great at breaking people down and building them up into lean mean fighting machines, but so very bad at rehabilitating these men who have endured so much, seen death, caused death, etc on a daily basis. They are thrust back into peaceful society and many aren’t equipped to deal with it. The suicide rate, divorce, domestic violence is higher among soldiers. I have heard reports of the people assigned to “help” these soldiers suffering from PTSD and other disorders relating to their military experience tell them to go kill more terrorists, rather than actually provide medical or other therapy they need. I hope things have improved since I heard that a few years ago. In order to take care of the soldiers and truly support the troops, we need to look at the facts and not just say he’s Muslim, it was terrorism, let’s move on.

What are these other factors besides terrorism that most (or perhaps just the loudest) people think are insignificant? Case load, hearing everyone’s war stories about killing, getting blown up, maybe listening to bad feelings they have toward Muslims due to the wars, etc. Secondary PTSD, like journalists can get, etc could be a possibility. People are sent to him when they are stressed and disturbed, but who helps him when he is overwhelmed? Those medical professionals should have more evaluations or more care taken with their mental state since they deal with such devastation of the human spirit on a daily basis. There are indications that he was sub par in performance, so perhaps he felt shame in this or couldn’t handle the tasks he was given and maybe this played a role.

In addition to the stress and or PTSD and medical issues he may or may not have had, I can imagine it is hard to be a Muslim in our military, especially post 9/11. A relative verified that he was in fact harassed for being Muslim.

Take the PTSD or hearing broken soldiers’ stories, harassment for being Muslim, and then he has to deal with impending deployment where he may have to kill fellow Muslims. He may have felt there was no way out- some commit suicide; others do violence to others. Maybe he couldn’t get conscientious objector status- it is hard to get, I hear. The military paid for his education, so he may have found himself stuck. He went with his profession because he couldn’t stand the sight of blood, I heard on one report, so perhaps he did what he could as the son of immigrants to get an education, but found himself in conflict with his religion and beliefs with no way out.

I just think it is too simple and possibly bigoted to assume that he’s Muslim, therefore he’s guilty, case closed. In cases like the VT shooting, school shootings, suicides there are always so many variables, angles, and perspectives to consider. There are most certainly always unanswered questions. Maybe calling the guy a terrorist serves as closure for some, but I think it is detrimental to many to draw that conclusion without considering the facts.