| Archive Letters |
Commentary
|
| |
Editorials
|
|
|
Are We Alone? Sometimes
I think we're alone.
Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. - R. Buckminster Fuller The Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project is, as its name implies, the ongoing attempt to make contact with intelligent beings on other worlds. This is done by listening for their signals and also by transmitting signals of our own in the hope of eliciting a response. What are its chances of success? Consider our galaxy, the Milky Way: Among its 400 billion (that's 400,000,000,000) stars, it is likely that most of them have at least one planet. Among those billions of planets, it is probable that many are capable of supporting the genesis and the existence of life in some form. We can assume that, wherever conditions are suitable for its genesis, life will exist. And, wherever it exists, it will evolve, because that is the purpose of life -- to adapt to a changing environment and, thereby, to survive and to thrive. However, except for a general tendency towards greater complexity, evolution has no goal, no prescribed direction. It is life's response to the environment -- an environment that is subject to random perturbations and catastrophes. [For example, it was a huge meteor impact 65 million years ago that ended the rein of dinosaurs and enabled mammals to flourish.] We cannot reasonably expect that evolution in any place will replicate evolution in any other place, even if the environments in both places are initially identical, or that evolution will again produce a species like we are, or like one that we might imagine. This means that, despite the expected abundance of life in the Milky Way, the probability of intelligent life elsewhere is very small. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let’s suppose that, at this time, there are a few other technologically adept species scattered throughout the galaxy, species at least capable of receiving and sending radio signals. Because of the great size of the Milky Way, the distances between these special places would have to be tens of thousands of light years. But, suppose that there is one that is only 5,000 light years from us; that's about one sixth of the way from earth to the center of the galaxy. [The smaller the radius the less likely that another technologically adept species will exist within it.] Suppose also that we happen to aim our "hello" directly at it, and that, five thousand years later, when our greeting arrives, the inhabitants (if any remain) reply immediately. The reply would reach us after another five thousand years. Who would receive it? 10,000 years is the time that it has taken for humans to progress from the advent of the New Stone Age, from the very beginning of agriculture and animal husbandry, to the present advanced state. What can be expected in the next ten thousand years? A meteor impact, such as the one that destroyed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, will happen someday. But within the next 10,000 years it's only a maybe. So far we have avoided nuclear annihilation. Can we avoid it for another 10,000 years, or even 1,000 years? It is a principle of biology that no organism can thrive in an environment of its own products. Highly successful species will affect their environments, often in ways that are detrimental to them. A technologically adept species, like we are, is likely to have a very profound effect. It must create vast amounts of energy, most of it by chemical or nuclear processes. It must exploit, use and deplete resources, some of which are necessary for its survival. In the process, it will create new substances, many of them toxic, which must be discarded. These effluents and effusions will, in time, permeate and upset the systems and cycles that support the environment to which it has evolved. A process that may be delayed, but cannot be stopped. Could it continue for 10,000 years or even 1,000 years? After all, it was only about 100 years ago that we earthlings became a "technologically adept" species, according to our definition of it, when Guglielmo Marconi transmitted the first radio message across the Atlantic. See what we have done [http://www.itanjo.com/moloch.html] in that scant time. In short, if there is another technologically adept species somewhere in the galaxy, it will be very remote, in time as well as space, and it will not exist for very long in astronomical terms. Contact is not possible. Visits are pure fantasy. We really are alone. Intelligent Design?
"Intelligent Design (ID)”is a concept proposed by some who are
unable to accept Evolution. They assume
that Life, with its nearly infinite variety, is far too complicated to
be the result of a "series of chance events". That only an intelligent
being could have created Life. And that, since Evolution does not
answer every question
about the genesis and progression of Life, a totally different scenario
should be considered. Although they imagine that the time between the
origin of the universe and the present is only several thousand years,
so far they have not proposed that we dump the other findings of
Physics and Cosmology, just because these disciplines have not answered
every question about the Universe.
In fact, Life is even more complex than it appears to be. In addition to the innumerable obvious differences among life forms, there is a seeming infinity of tiny but crucial characteristics, so obscure that they are only now being discovered. It is difficult to imagine that a Supreme Being, Creator of the Universe, would unnecessarily concern itself with such a plethora of minutia. “Unnecessarily” because there is a process that would automatically result in a system having all of Life’s variety and complexity. That process is 3,500,000,000 years of accumulating adaptations, to varied and changing environments, along millions of divergent lines, each adaptation a potential origin for another line (species). Or, for simpler organisms in the distant past, a potential origin of a more inclusive group, such as genius, family, etc. A system, composed of interacting parts, each of which is essential for the system’s functioning, is said to be irreducibly complex. Without any of these essential parts, the system is useless. ID advocates claim that, since most organisms contain a number, often a large number, of such systems, these organisms/systems cannot have “come into being [evolved] piecemeal”. However, the fact that such systems cannot function without all of their necessary parts is no reason to believe that those parts did not develop concurrently from simpler parts of simpler systems. The evidence supporting this (ignored by Creationist) is plentiful and obvious. ID (actually ersatz Creationism) is based on those three (above) assumptions and on the tsunami of delusional evidence and junk science (like irreducible complexity) produced to back it up. But, all of the observed evidence supports Evolution. Evolution is not only a principle of Biology, it is, in every sense, the purpose of Life, which is to survive by adapting to those different and inconstant environments, i.e. by evolving. ID proponents point to the “order of the universe” as evidence for a creator. Order??!! Black holes, exploding stars, dead and dying stars, cosmic rays, colliding galaxies, dark matter, dark energy, Quantum Mechanics! Most of gravity ‘s effects are orderly; but, except for these, there is no more order in the universe than there is in a house fire! They also argue that the earth is so perfectly attuned to our needs that it must have been created with humans in mind. Perfectly attuned??!! Myriad horrible diseases (infectious as well as DNA errors like cancers, autoimmune & hereditary); plagues and pestilence; parasites & mosquitoes; lethal poverty; famines; “acts of God” such as hurricanes, tornados, droughts, floods, earthquakes, landslides! For much of the world’s population life is "a cesspool of misery and suffering"; it is an infliction not a gift! . One of the obscure characteristics of life mentioned above is found in chromosomes, those incredibly long, slender molecules that carry the DNA instructions for replication of all living things. Except for the simplest, most primitive organisms, for much of their length (over 90% in primates) these molecules contain no instructions at all. Most of this non-coding DNA has packing or regulatory functions. But, between genes there are large sections of repetitive sequences that may be junk; and within genes there are smaller sections called introns that may be obsolete code. Furthermore, the paleontological record is replete with evidence that more than 99% of all species (mistakes?) no longer exist, as well as with evidence of species that have been greatly modified over time. Is this design? Where is the intelligence??? On Scientific Proof Some say
that there is no scientific proof of links
between global warming and specific regional effects. Not too many
years ago tobacco industry officials were saying that there was no
scientific proof of links between cigarettes and lung cancer or heart
disease. The lead industry claimed that there was no scientific proof
that environmental lead was causing neurological damage. And, some AIDS
activists and heads of some governments argue that there is no
scientific proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS. They are all correct.
Here are a few other concepts for which there is no scientific proof: relativity and the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum, the germ "theory" of disease, evolution, Kepler’s laws of planetary motion. Indeed very little, if any, of science rests on proof. What supports science is evidence. Mathematics is based on proof. Given a set of assumptions (axioms) the resulting consequences must be discovered and proved. The assumptions may, or may not, be related to observation. But, once a proof is accepted and verified, there is no reason to challenge it. By contrast, the conclusions of science are based on observations and are usually challenged. Science is like a great set of unending trials in which new evidence is frequently introduced, examined and tested, accepted or rejected, and the verdict adjusted if necessary. Science refreshes itself as it advances. Though it’s inappropriate to require “proof” in science, "no scientific proof" does mean something. As used today it means "don’t believe the evidence". Why do people do stupid things or accept stupid ideas? Because people stupid? Not really. Most stupidities are practiced by ordinary people, by intelligent people, even by exceptionally intelligent people. Furthermore, it’s obvious that no one is either always stupid or always intelligent; and that stupidity depends more upon the subject and the circumstances than upon the individual. For this article, stupidity is an activity or policy that would rationally and obviously be expected to, and does, produce a result that is very different (often disastrously) from the intended result. The definition does not include activities or policies that produce contrary results if, at the time of inception, there was no good reason to expect such an outcome. For example: the aggressive forest fire suppression in western USA which, decades later, caused forest fires to be far bigger and more destructive. When the campaign started, there was no obvious reason to expect that result. Here are some examples that do fit the definition: * In California, three dozen people committed suicide so that they could join a spaceship lurking behind a comet. Subsequently, it was generally accepted that, because of their educational level and because of their imaginative and sophisticated web page, a number of them were probably quite intelligent. * A doomsday sect, believing it could hasten that day, released nerve gas into the Tokyo subway system. Again, it was found that this sect included many well-educated professionals -- doctors, scientist, lawyers -- above average even by the high Japanese standards. * Some activists (in the US and elsewhere) and government officials (in Africa) have advocated against the use of HIV medicine to combat AIDS, believing that the virus not was not the cause of the disease. * Imams in northern Nigeria urged people not to take polio vaccine, believing it to be part of a US plot to reduce the Muslim population by making women sterile. As a result over 600 Muslim children contracted the disease, 15 million people in neighboring countries are at risk, and the World health Organization‘s goal of eradicating polio, which had been on the verge of success, may fail. * And, of course, the best example of all: the Bush-Cheney-Neocon Iraq adventure, conducted in the belief that we could occupy a nation riven by fanaticism and hatred, administer it with a cadre of incompetent party hacks under the direction of pigheaded ideologues and, thereby, inspire peace and democracy in the most troubled part of the world. While there is no evidence of any common sense (i.e. “sound judgment derived from experience”) in such examples, the reasoning process is still intact. In each case the apparent stupidity is quite logical in light of the underlying belief. The common denominator is belief. If we can except lapses of attention (accidents), because judgment is not in play, and, bad decisions based upon insufficient or inaccurate information (as in the case of forest fire suppression, above) from what we consider to be stupid, then what remains, most stupidity is based upon beliefs. Pyramid schemes, televanglists, psychics, effortless weight loss, astrology, faith healing, alien abductions, zombification of cult members such as Branch Davidians and Moonies, etcetera all flourish under the umbrella of belief and lead people to make decisions which affect their lives and the lives of others. How about evil? If belief can impel even the most intelligent people to monumental stupidity, can it also inspire ordinary people to monstrous brutality? Germans of the NAZI era were not intrinsically (genetically) evil. Nor were those Serbs who, more recently, inflicted such gruesome cruelty with such gusto in Bosnia and Kosovo. Nor are those jihadists whose fanaticism has destroyed far more Muslims than hated infidels. For generations, in churches and mosques, in folklore, in political harangues, in classrooms and lecture halls, in print and broadcast media, those peoples have been subjected to torrents of hatred and xenophobia, and to notions of their own superiority, virtue and victimhood. It is by such belief-infused loathing and paranoia, that normal people are made to bomb and torture and burn and kill and kill and kill. Communism was designed, and proselytized, in the belief that it was the way to improve the lives of the "masses". Despite the desperate famines due to its stupid agricultural policies, despite the relocations of whole populations, despite the purges including the slaughter of millions who were perceived to be incompatible with the communist ideology, that belief was widely held for many decades. It still exists among some people. From the Inquisition and crusades of Medieval Europe to the killing fields of Cambodia, Rwanda and Darfur, hideous murders and massacres have been done in the belief that a better world could be had by exterminating a portion of humanity. “Spare the rod and spoil the child” has too often been used to justify child abuse. Inferiority of women, homophobia, holy war, ethnic hatred, etcetera are always justified by belief and have destroyed millions of lives. However, there is a crucial difference. Unlike stupidity, the existence of evil requires no underlying belief; greed, lust and power-hunger are sufficient. But, when evil needs support, beliefs are readily adjusted: * Pedophiles often believe that children are benefited when introduced to sex by an adult. Many men believe that there are many women who, consciously or unconsciously, desire rape. These are not hypocrisies; they are really believed! Some even manage to believe that sex with a virgin could cure their venereal disease (for example syphilis and gonorrhea in Victorian England and AIDS today's Far East). * Slave owners -- in antebellum US and elsewhere -- often convince themselves that their slaves are better off in servitude. * The Conquistadors believed that their exploitation and brutalization of native peoples was justified because they were "bringing Christ to the heathens and saving souls". * In the United States, the "opening of the West" was not just building railroads and simple folk seeking a better life; it was also greed, and resulted in a near frenzy of wanton plunder and murder. We called it "manifest destiny". We said, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian". So we believed, and so we justified the ethnic cleansing of America. We believe for many reasons: convenience, discontent, desperation. And belief enables hope. But belief is so easily controlled by clever instigators, extremists and militants who tap into dreams and fears. EVIDENCE is invented as needed. TRUTH flows from the mouths of the leaders into the brains of the followers. For those who really want to believe, nothing is too absurd! We are exhorted to intensify faith, to purge doubt, to purify thought. In such circumstances fanaticism, foolishness and inhumanity wax; common sense and understanding are abandoned. So, when we’re stupid and often when we’re evil, it’s not because we can't reason or because we can't tell right from wrong, it’s because of what we believe. And belief is the instrument by which demagogues, charlatans and holy men manipulate our minds and our lives. Clearly, to have a world with less stupidity and less evil, we need more critical thinking and healthy skepticism, less gullibility, less faith. Pushing the Culture
of Life upon us is part of a much larger
endeavor: the spreading of fundamentalist ideology. An
example of the absurdity involved in this effort is the statement by
Anne Graham Lotz (daughter of Billy Graham) saying that the
400,000 fertilized human eggs frozen in fertility clinics must be
preserved
because they have the “potential to know Christ”. No mention of whose
uteruses would be assigned to the advancement of that potential!
Another example of the absurdity is the fierce effort to overwhelm science with mythology, replacing biology, geology and cosmology with creationism (also called intelligent design). Like the suppression, by the Church, of Galileo’s thesis that the sun, not the earth, is the center of the solar system; and like Saint Augustine’s admonition: “Good Christians should beware of mathematicians and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the Devil to darken the spirit and confine man to the bounds of Hell.” Why? . . . Because the most fertile soil for fanaticism is ignorance! While they generally agree on life topics, many Culture of Life advocates differ on several doctrinal issues. Among these are: central authority vs. personal volition; the value of celibacy and of withdrawal from secular life (monasticism); the relative importance of good works and grace vs. commitment to Christ for the achievement of salvation. And they compete with each other for adherents and for control. With such blind faith in the rectitude of their respective creeds and such passion, it’s likely that, once they’ve finished with the Secular Humanists and the “liberals”, and inflicted their uncompromising monomania upon us all, and completed the dumbing down of the populace, they’ll then be unable tolerate each other, as they were for more than four centuries of bloodshed in Europe. Surely, there is no greater threat to our society, to our country, to our very civilization than the tyranny of the fanatical! [Aug 05] >>>ToP |
||
|
A Prayer for Deliverance November 2004 Please, O Lord, hear this the plea of we who
praise and adore you. Forgive us for having surrendered to the
temptation that we need not pay for that which we receive. Deliver us
from the mendacity, stupidity and wickedness into which we have been
led, for surely chaos and wretchedness shall befall us and the
ruination of your world is at hand if you hear not our prayer.
The history of our current president [the Third George] is a record of repeated lies, blunders, injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of a plutocracy over these States and hegemony over your world. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has dissolved more international treaties than any other president. He has avowed that he will not permit any nation to become powerful enough to challenge us. He has proposed the development new nuclear weapons. Where once we received the admiration, and after 9/11, the sympathy of the world, we are now a pariah among the nations -- not a leader, but a bully of them. He touts these absurdities as evidence of his skill in foreign affairs. He has used deception (about WMDs and al-Qaeda links) and our fear of terrorism to goad us into war with a cruel and vile but thoroughly emasculated tyrant, who was a danger only to his own people. Who was, in fact, a secular opponent of the religious fanatics who attacked us. This war and other policy blunders have strengthened al-Qaeda worldwide. We are now more alert, but we are not safer. By numbering himself a “strong leader” he puts himself in league with the likes of Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Mao Zedong, &ct. For the first lesson of history is that, with few exceptions, such as FDR & Churchill, strong leaders are usually disastrous, and he is not one of the exceptions. At the behest of the most profitable of our industries, pharmaceuticals (also his biggest campaign contributors) he has forbidden the importation of medications at reasonable cost. And he has forbidden our government from seeking the best price for the Medicare drugs that it purchases from them. He has created a pump to transfer money from our treasury into their pockets. He promised compassionate conservatism but, in your name, he has led us into intolerant rigidity and irrational profligacy. Conservatism has always implied fiscal responsibility. His policies are fiscal insanity. He short changes the poor and overcompensates the wealthy. He has turned a huge budget surplus to an even larger national debt. Squandering the wealth of the nation and the future of our children and our children’s children. It could be decades before we can recover from the economic damage done by this president in just four years. Another four years! We may never recover! He strives to reduce the size of government, with the clear objective of making it the servant of a privileged few. Never before in our history has so much been taken from so many for the sake of so few. This month his followers in the legislature again plundered our treasury (for $136 billion this time) with special new tax breaks for firms that import ceiling fans, operators of NASCAR racetracks, fishing-tackle box dealers, and some of the most profitable US corporations. Of course they call it a “job creation” bill. That’s what they do; they put mendacious names on their works to decieve us. With calumny and vituperation he and his handlers, henchmen and minions attack any and all who oppose him. They lie about the conduct and progress of their Iraq quagmire, lie about weapons of mass destruction, lie about connections to terrorists, lie about compassion and conservatism, lie about their hostility towards our environment, lie about jobs, lie about health care, lie and lie and lie . . . . So it is with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence that we plead, deliver us, O Lord, from the perfidy, arrogance and pigheadedness of the Third George, for yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever and ever. Amen. |
||
| Letters |
||
| To submit
letters: CCC Any subject
will be considered. |
||
On Intelligent Design? Just because you can’t figure it out doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. Obviously God has deliberately planted phony evidence to test our faith. Oswald Orbis, Dallas, Texas (Aug, 03) |
||
| Items are moved to this section only when they are no longer current. | ||
What
to do About “Liberal”
Some years ago, Republicans made “liberal” a dirty word and began using it to smear Democrats. Democrats never responded effectively; instead, recently, they’ve taken to shunning “liberal” in favor of “progressive”, a feeble defense, unlikely to blunt Republican smear campaigns. To fight back Democrats need to respond in kind. Fortunately, the party in power (PiP)-- which gave us George Bush and two dicks (Cheny & Nixon) -- has provided plenty of ammunition: - It attempted to gut social security. - It created an absurdly complex prescription drug program designed by, and mainly for the benefit of, the big drug and insurance companies. - It proposes these cuts: Medicare funding by $36 billion; the education budget by 38%; $600 million from science & technology; $300 million from environmental protection, and $276 million from the Center for Disease Control, while a virulent bird flu pandemic is in the offing. - It has amassed a mountain of national debt that will impoverish our children and grandchildren. - It has "overseen the most dramatic fiscal shift from surpluses to deficits in the nation's history." - All of these while transferring more and more of the nation's means and resources from those who need to those who have. Add the PiP leadership's tricking us into the misguided, disastrous George-Bush-Iraq-adventure plus the totally inept, initially lackadaisical response to Katrina. It is now obvious, to anyone who’s been paying attention, that the most accurate descripton for the Republican Party is “The Screw the People Party”. [Jun. 06] Everything's still going Ariel Sharon's way. The erstwhile "Road Map to Peace" has been replaced by his "unilateral disengagement" plan, which is supposed to result in two independent states -- Israeli and Palestinian. Under this plan the several small, symbolic settlements in the Gaza strip and a few in the West Bank will be abandoned. Nowhere is it stated, nor is there any reason to believe, that expansion of the remaining settlements or the slicing up of the West Bank territory will be curtailed. President Bush supports him about ninety-nine percent. Until four years ago, Sharon's biggest problem was the willingness of most Israelis to accept Palestinian statehood and removal of settlements in return for peace, security and recognition. He could overcome this obstacle by provoking Palestinian rage and terrorism. No one should forget that the spark which set off the current intifada was Sharon's invasion of the Haram al-Sharif (Islam's Holiest site outside of Saudi Arabia) leading a phalanx of Israeli security officers. No one should imagine that he had any other purpose. Israel has an absolute right and duty to protect its people. This requires aggressive action to thwart and discourage terrorism. However, Sharon's methods are crafted more to stoke Palestinian frustration and fury and to undermine any step towards reconciliation than they are to protecting Israelis. They make suicide bombing more difficult and suicide bombers more plentiful. We are told that both sides need peace. Not true! It is only the moderates, a vanishing species, that need peace. The fanatics on both sides need the war, need the violence and 'injustice' that the other side inflicts upon their side. This, more than anything else, inflames them and drives the less committed into their ranks. And never before have such implacable enemies served each other so well. It is impossible to exaggerate the effect of religion on the conflict. Yasir Arafat and his PLO are secular, as are Sharon and his Likud. But the main Islamic terrorist groups are religious organizations, and the most fervid support for Likud comes from the religious parties. Religion is the major source of that rigid, rabid zeal, Moslem and Jewish, which prefers bloodshed to accommodation. It is the sustenance of the extremists. In 1993 the Oslo accord was signed in Washington by Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin. Among Israelis and Palestinians there was relief and optimism. However, Jewish and Moslem hard-liners never accepted the treaty and were determined to trash it. Arafat returned from exile, setup the Palestinian Authority, and began real efforts to curb terrorism. In September 1995 Palestinian self-rule in the West Bank was expanded. Then, at a peace rally on Nov 4, Rabin was murdered by Israeli right-wing fanatic Yigal Amir " . . . for the sake of God." During the campaign for Rabin's replacement, a huge bus bomb killed twenty-five Israelis and wounded dozens. As a result, hard-line Likud Party leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, defeated Shimon Peres. The Netanyahu government ended the freeze on construction in the occupied territories. Sharon, as Minister of National Infrastructure, supervised the establishment of new settlements, provoking clashes between Palestinians and Jewish settlers and shattering Palestinian confidence in the peace process. In 1997 Netanyahu approved a large Jewish housing project in eastern Jerusalem causing new violence; Hamas suicide bombers killed fifteen and wounded 170 in Jerusalem; peace talks were discontinued. In 1998, pressured by President Clinton, a land-for-peace deal was signed in Wye Mills, Maryland by Netanyahu and Arafat. It contained initial steps towards the creation of a Palestinian state. September 13, 2000 was set as the deadline for a final accord. Subsequently, Israeli euphoria over the Wye Mills accord and dissatisfaction with Netanyahu, enabled moderate Labor candidate Ehud Barak to be elected Prime Minister. Israel released 200 Palestinian prisoners and began transferring West Bank land to Palestinian control. In July 2000, with the September deadline approaching, President Clinton moderated a summit between Barak and Arafat. The talks failed when Arafat and the Palestinians rejected Barak's offer for control of almost all of the territory occupied by Israel in 1967. The offer would have more than undone the Netanyahu-Sharon settlement building. Its rejection was the perfect Palestinian gift to Israeli hard-liners--"proof!" that reconciliation efforts were futile. On September 28, 2000 Sharon invaded the Haram al-Sharif, infuriating Moslems and igniting the intifada. As a result, Barak's support vanished. He resigned in December. During the ensuing election, Palestinian terrorists murdered dozens, including many children, thus assuring a landslide victory for Sharon the following February. Sharon said he had gone to the site with "a message of peace"-- an unsurpassable feat of shameless hypocrisy. Arafat is no "partner for peace"; neither is Sharon! Arafat is mercurial, corrupt and inept. He is a spoiler, more interested in his own power than in the welfare of his people. He seems to have blundered into the current mess. He has some influence but no real control over the organizations that sponsor terrorism. If Arafat were removed terrorism would not decrease. Sharon is steadfast and diabolical. He insists that terrorism be completely ended while doing everything possible to provoke it. He has not and will not halt the ghettoization of the West Bank. Clearly, he is choreographing the mess. And he owes most of his success to Arafat and the Palestinian terrorists. (June/04) Update 11/20/04: With the death of Arafat one of the impediments to peace has been removed. All the others remain. President Bush will not put meaningful pressure on Sharon. Expansion of the West Bank settlements and ghettoization of the Palestinians will proceed. Palestinian frustration will augment Palestinian zeal and cause more terrorism. Israel will respond harshly. Little will changed. Wicked Wacky West Wing [Sep 04] One
hand washes the other:
(1) The 9/11 event and the
subsequent advance against terrorism gave a huge boost to GWB’s
approval and political power. This has persisted despite the disastrous
Iraq detour. (2) The
following appeared in The New Yorker (Aug 2, 04) page 44: “The Abu Hafs
al-Masri Brigades, a group claiming affiliation with Al-Qaeda, sent a
bombastic message . . . ‘We are very keen that Bush does not lose the
upcoming elections,’ . . . Bush’s ‘idiocy and religious fanaticism’ are
useful . . . for they stir the Islamic world to action.”
You’re not a liar if you really believe it: This may let GWB off the hook for most of his falsehoods. He probably is too ill informed (or too stupid?) to know that all of his statements about WMDs, the Iran al-Qaeda connection and everything from “compassionate conservatism” to “no child left behind” are not true, even though his handlers (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, etc) certainly do know. However, many times before the Iraq invasion he claimed that war was his last choice. Actually it was his only choice. He was lying and he knew he was lying. Wicked Wacky West Wing [Aug 04] What we're supposed to believe: (1) In April the administration released its "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report and claimed a sharp decrease in terrorism. ". . . evidence that we are prevailing . . ." said Deputy Sec. State Richard Armitage. In June the administration was forced to admit that actually terrorism is at a 20-year high. We are supposed to believe that the original report was wrong because of an error and not because of a deliberate attempt to mislead! (2) Just as we are also supposed to believe that the endlessly repeated "evidence" they used to stoke our fear and goad us into war was the result of faulty intelligence and not due to the administration's insistence that all intelligence support its obsessive drive to takeover Iraq. (3) No doubt we should also believe that "compassionate conservatism" was just a slip of the tongue, repeated over and over and over until no longer needed. Were it not for President Bush: Neocons point out that: (1) Saddam Hussein would still control Iraq and still be a danger to the world. Others may point out that: (1) With a much weakened military and without WMDs or links to Al Qaeda, Saddam was a danger only to his own people; (2) more than 900 US service persons would not be dead & more than 6000 would not have been wounded; (3) we would not be stuck in a quagmire in Iraq; (4) the US would not be the most despised of the major nations; (5) terrorism world wide might not be on the increase (see the foregoing); (6) we would not be about to drown ourselves in an ocean of red ink. See how it's changed. A goal of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, was that "government of the people, by the people and for the people should not perish . . ." A current Republican goal is that government of the people, by deception & subterfuge, for the "haves & the have mores" be established. Wicked Wacky West Wing [Apr 04] Spin doctor: Whatever you may think of her ability as National Security Advisor, one thing is clear: Condolezza Rice would be the consummate used car salesperson. Constipation: (1) GWB is unable to think of any mistakes that he might have made since 9/11. (2) Despite having been warned about it, Donald Rumsfeld is surprised by the worsening chaos in Iraq. (3) Paul Wolfowitz thinks things are improving in Iraq!!?? These are symptoms chronic mental constipation, a condition which occurs when the brain becomes so clogged with ideological feces that it ceases to function. Wicked
Wacky West Wing [Aug 03]
Prowess & Incompetence: It has become apparent that we need to distinguish between the prowess of our armed forces, which has been carefully developed in the years since the Vietnam War, and the incompetence of the current defense department, which is paralyzed by its arrogance and its ideology. Loosing Friends and Alienating Everyone: After more than two years of showing its contempt for the international community, after squandering the good will and sympathy extended towards us after 9/11, after lying to promote its war, our current government is now scrounging for help in managing the mess that it has created in Iraq. Why
Dump Rumsfeld?
"If Janet Reno was not fired for what happened in Waco, Texas in 1993, why should Donald Rumsfeld be fired for what happened in Abu Ghraib?" they ask, putting the entire blame on "a few depraved soldiers". But there is a much better reason to dump Rumsfeld: monumental stupidity and mismanagement. He bears much of the responsibility for putting us into Iraq and total responsibility for making such a mess of the adventure. [May 04] “Tax cuts create investment incentive, investment allows companies to expand, expansion creates economic growth – which, in turn, creates jobs – workers pay taxes and Treasury revenues increase.” So goes the mindless mantra. If only it were so simple! Actually, it depends on the tax cuts. When lots of people who are not wealthy receive some extra cash they buy some things they need. That increases demand, which, after a while, can stimulate investment in the production of goods and services, which, in turn, creates jobs. When wealthy people (people who have everything they need and can afford to buy anything they desire) receive some extra cash the only incentives are to further increase wealth and power. In times of low demand, investments in increased production of goods or services (the kind of investments that create jobs) are not favored. There are much better options for them, for one example, the buying of influence. The recent tax cuts, which went to the less financially fortunate, produced a temporary increase in demand and boosted the economy. But that money has been spent and their stimulative effect will soon have run its course. The future tax cuts go mostly to the afflent. When they take effect, these huge tax cuts will add to the explosive increase of the national debt and the concometant growth of interest rates, which will strangle investment and collapse the economy. They will do a lot to increase the buying of political and economic advantage, very little to increase demand for goods and services. The number of jobs they create will be about the same as the number of WMDs found in Iraq. [Dec 03 ] Lying to the People
Publication of Hillary Clinton’s book has revived condemnation of
Bill Clinton’s lying to the people about his sexual peccadilloes.
Invariably those doing the condemning are the very ones who are the most eager to explain or justify George Bush’s lying to the American people (and the world) about Iraq’s WMDs in order to promote a war, followed by a bungled occupation of an increasingly hostile population. [June 03] On Lying to the People [Responce] It was not just Iraq’s WMDs and links to al Qaeda that the president was lying about. He was also lying every time he said that he had not yet made up his mind on war with Iraq; and he said it a couple of times a week for several months. Clearly, President Bush decided to remove Saddam around the time of his “Axis of Evil” speech. But, no matter how monstrous Saddam was, few people would have supported a war for that purpose. The best way to goad people into war is to stoke their fear. So Bush built his case for war on suppositions of imminent peril; suppositions which were supported by flimsy or even nonexistent evidence. Alistair Abbacco, Chicago, IL (July, 03) |
||
