Random Musings

Hate Crimes

2010-08-29T18:41:00.000-05:00

In New York someone attacked a cab driver, allegedly because the driver was a Muslim. There is a question of whether this is a hate crime.

Michael Enright is accused of attacking cabbie Ahmed Sharif with a knife, supposedly upon learning that Sharif is a Muslim. Sharif sustained serious injuries but survived the attack. Enright is being held at Bellvue Hospital, apparently for psychiatric evaluation.

It is unclear whether Enright actually attacked Sharif because of his religion. Enright says no; Sharif says yes. It will be up to a jury at some point to determine what was in Enright's mind - and I would suggest that not even Enright knows.

But my question is, what the hell difference does it make? If Enright can prove he had nothing but respect for the Muslim people, would that make the crime any less serious? Is anyone going to say, "Oh, you like Muslims, so it's not so serious of an attack?"

A crime is a crime. Violence committed upon a person doesn't vary depending on the attacker's feelings towards a minority.

The guy stuck a knife into the cabbie. It doesn't matter how he felt; he was trying to kill him.

The Trouble With Kids These Days

2010-08-26T18:24:00.000-05:00

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

This quote is attributed to Socrates. It may be spurious, but even if it is it makes an important point. People have been bitching about "kids these days" for a long, long time.

I'm tired of hearing about how awful the kids or young people are these days. They're OK. They're not worse than we are, they're only different. And they're no different than we were when we were their age. Every generation wants to distinguish itself from the one that produced it. The older generation freaks out about it.

Kids are going to be different. Get over it. If you can get past the differences, you can meet some mighty fine people who happen to be young.

Burn a Koran Day

2010-08-25T20:17:00.002-05:00

In Gainesville, Florida, there is a Christian pastor named Terry Jones who plans to hold a "Burn a Koran Day" on September 11. The fun never stops.

If Muslims have the right to build a mosque near Ground Zero, Christians have a right to burn Korans. What Mr. Jones plans is perfectly legal. It is also highly offensive to Muslims.

It is interesting to read some of the objections to Mr. Jones's plans. One of them is that doing this might inspire acts of terrorism. I did not see anyone raise this point when opposing the Ground Zero mosque.

Is Obama a Muslim?

2010-08-23T20:21:00.000-05:00

For reasons that escape my feeble grasp, fully 20% of the people in the United States think that President Obama is a Muslim. I hope these aren't the people who do the voting.

In fact, Obama is a Christian. He attends a Christian church. Moreover, if he were a Muslim, this would have been something his Republican opponents would have harped on during the election.

More importantly, Obama's religion - or lack thereof - is irrelevant. A person is allowed to run for office, to vote, and to be President, regardless of his or her religion.

Ground Zero Mosque

2010-08-15T21:33:00.000-05:00

There has been endless arguing over whether a proposed "supermosque" should be allowed to be built a short distance from Ground Zero. The thinking seems to be that this is some sort of Islamic plot or something. That misses the point.

The point is that there is no legal justification for blocking this project. The law is on the side of the planners. They have a perfect right to build their mosque there, no matter how offended people may be about it.

I agree that these guys are insensitive, perhaps arrogant assholes for choosing this site. There is no earthly reason why their mosque needs to be right there, except to offend. However, they have the right to do this.

I wonder what would happen, though, if someone near this side were to put up a large, offensive picture of Muhammad. This would be perfectly legal, but I imagine the mosque planners would object.

If history is any guide, it is likely that whoever did this would be attacked, as was the cartoonist Lars Vilks. Criticism of Islam tends to result in violence. This is strange behavior for a "religion of peace".

Mayan Calendar

2010-04-11T21:02:00.002-05:00

A lot of people are concerned that the world is going to end on December 21, 2012 (give or take). They reason that the Mayan calendar ends on that day - or perhaps the day before. Once the calendar ends, that's all she wrote. The world comes crashing down around our heads.

This is fucking stupid.

I don't know why I have to point this out, but every calendar comes to an end. That calendar on the wall ends on December 31. When the calendar ends, you get a new one, and the world keeps going.

The Mayans developed a calendar that extended for thousands of years, unlike ours that only go for a year. I suppose when you have to chisel a calendar into stone, you want one that's going to last for a long time. Of course, it's a bitch to hang on the wall... but I digress...

OK, so this calendar has been keeping time for many years, thousands of them. Great. But like all good (and bad) things, it comes to an end. And then, like every other calendar ever devised by human beings, the cycle restarts.

People, get a grip. There's nothing special about the Mayans that they knew the world would end on an exact date and created a calendar to mark off the time. They just made a calendar that had some whopping cycles, and now it's finishing them. That's all.

The world won't come to an end on December 21, 2012.

Put the Commas In

2010-04-05T19:49:00.000-05:00

Journalists, when you're writing largish numbers (that would be numbers with more than four digits), would you *PUHLEEZ* put the fucking commas in? I can't tell the difference between 300000 and 3000000 or even 30000000. Come on, how hard would it be to put in a comma every three digits?

Didn't your teachers ever tell you about that stuff?

Steps to Prevent Foreclosure

2010-03-27T15:15:00.000-05:00

The Obama administration is seeking to find ways to prevent foreclosures among homeowners who have lost their jobs. The feeling is that these homeowners are unable to pay their mortgages through no fault of their own, so should not be penalizsd by losing their homes. A noble, compassionate sentiment, to be sure.

What about me? I don't own a home. I live in an apartment. I am unemployed and unable to pay my rent. Why isn't there some sort of effort to help me keep my apartment? My situation is exactly the same as a homeowner, insofar as being unemployed and unable to pay my monthly fees. The only difference I can see is that I have zero equity in my apartment and derived no tax benefits from paying rent - unlike homeowners, who get all kinds of tax breaks.

Why are we apartment dwellers penalized for not being homeowners?

Don't Be Evil

2010-03-22T17:37:00.001-05:00

The New York Times reports that Google is redirecting Internet traffic in China to uncensored sites, and removing itself from China. Bravo.

Google stands to lose billions of dollars in this move. While it may be argued that this move could have some theoretical long-term benefit, such a case would be untenable. This is a bad business move as judged by just about any criteria. This is a moral decision, not a business one.

I hope that over the long run Google benefits from this courageous act.

A Big Fucking Deal

2010-03-24T00:44:00.001-05:00

The media are all atwitter over a comment made by our Vice President. According to one source, Biden told Obama that the Health Care Reform Act was a "Big [Expletive] Deal". Another source reported that Biden "dropped the F-bomb". Using my superior powers of analysis and deduction, I conclude that Mr. Biden said, "This is a big fucking deal".

To which I say, "big fucking deal". People swear. Even vice presidents swear. Hell, our President probably swears while he's out behind the White House sneaking a smoke.

More Heat Than Light

2010-03-24T22:04:00.000-05:00

The chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, has allegedly said that global warming skeptics should rub their faces with asbestos every morning. I gather Mr. Pachauri is not fond of global warming skeptics.

Earlier this week I received yet another e-mail expressing an opinion about global warming. This one assumed that it was all nonsense, and had some personality "explain" why it wasn't happening.

These two items, though expressing opposing views, have something in common. They are both heavy on opinion but light on facts. Most of the discussions about global warming are like that. They generate more heat than light.

Part of the problem is that we simply don't have enough facts to make a reasonable decision about global warming.

We don't know that global warming would be the world-wide catastrophe some have predicted.
We don't know that there is a thing we can do to stop global warming.
We don't know whether global warming is man-made or natural.
We don't even know whether there is any global warming to begin with.

None of these questions has been answered satisfactorily. Before you start howling that it's "obvious" that global warming [is | isn't ] happening, or that it's man-made, or that we can stop it, or that it's even bad - before you jump on me about this, ask yourself how you know the truth about global warming. What information do you have that settles these questions, that conclusively proves it [is | isn't ] an issue. If you really have such information, I encourage you to share it with climate scientists, since they don't have it yet.

Certain temperature readings suggest that there may be a warming trend in our climate. If this trend exists, some researchers think it may be related to human activity. If that's the case, then some scientist believe that humans will be able to reverse or at least slow down the rate of warming. And if that's the case, some believe we should do it, because the effects of warming would be disastrous. That's a lot of if's. If some of them don't turn out to be true, then much of what we think about global warming will be affected, and possibly completely invalidated.

We can argue endlessly, but this won't help us. We need to gather more information before we have any hope of making an informed decision.

A Ticket For Rush

2010-03-22T18:16:00.000-05:00

A Website called 'aticketforrush.com' is trying to help Rush Limbaugh collect enough money to pay for air fare to Costa Rica. Apparently Mr. Limbaugh said he'd go to Costa Rica if the US ever passed the health reform bill. Now that this bill has passed, the Website has stepped up.

The site's ticket. however, is to be one way. These people may be funny, but they're not stupid.

Openly Gay

2010-02-05T05:01:00.001-06:00

There appears to be a shift in how the military will be viewing gay people. It may be that instead of the "don't ask, don't tell" rule, the military will no longer reject or punish those who are openly gay. This is progress, but it raises a question. What is "openly gay"?

As far as I understand it, being openly gay means not hiding the fact that you're gay. At least, that's a reasonable guess. So OK, gay people in the military may no longer need to hide it. When does this ever become an issue, though?

I suppose you could say that I'm "openly straight", since I don't try to hide my orientation. But the topic of my orientation almost never comes up. When I meet a new person, I don't explain that I am straight. When I start a new job or move into a new apartment, I don't announce my orientation. If I were to join the army, I doubt they'd ask me whether I was gay. So where does this "openly" stuff ever apply?

Ignorance and Arrogance

2010-01-13T17:12:00.003-06:00

Today Haiti had a serious earthquake that has taken the lives of thousands of people. Some estimates go as high as 100,000 lives lost. Whatever the final toll, Haiti is in a world of hurt right now, people suffering and dying, without shelter, food, clean water, or other necessities. Many word governments and organizations are chipping in to help the people of Haiti.

And then you've got that paragon of Christian virtue, Pat Robertson.

While others are rushing to help the victims of the earthquake, Pat is busy reassuring them that their suffering is a judgement by God for their wickedness. He claims that a long time ago, the country made a pact with the devil, and now it's time to pay up. Is this guy a dick, or what?

I'm pretty sure that Jesus would have responded differently. I believe he'd have offered comfort and healing, helped those who suffered, done whatever he could to ease the hurt. When he encountered people who suffered from sickness, injuries, or demonic possession, he didn't sneer at them and tell them they were being punished by God. He healed them.

Haiti suffered this catastrophe because it is on the Pacific Rim of Fire, one of the most seismically active regions on this planet. Compounding this, Haiti is a poor country. Its infrastructure was fragile at best. Buildings were built cheaply and unsafely. They could not withstand the effects of a quake, so many of them collapsed.

Pat Robertson puts the "duh" back into "Fundamentalism".

Why Is Obama 'Black'?

2010-01-28T14:02:00.002-06:00

TV host Chris Matthews is apparently in hot water for making the comment, "I forgot that Obama is Black". I'm not exactly sure what the big deal is. As far as I can see, it's just another case of hysterics when some public figure mentions race. In this case, I agree with Mr. Matthews. It's easy to forget that Obama is Black. In fact, I wonder why he's considered "Black".

I don't question that Obama's father was a Kenyan, an African. I have never seen a photo of this man, but I assume he showed the features and coloration of someone we'd call "Black". Obama's mother was White, however. That would seem to put Obama's "race" at half Black and half White. I may not be the best mathematician around, but as far as I know, 50% Black + 50% White doesn't equal 100% Black.

If someon'e father was, say, German, and his mother was French, you wouldn't call the guy German. You'd say half German, half French. How does having a Black father make you Black? And it's not just the father. Having a Black ancestor any time in the past century apparently miraculously turns you Black somehow.

I don't see that Mr. Matthews's comment makes him a racist. Referring to Obama as 'Black' is the racist part. He'd more properly be called a 'Mulatto', a person who has one Black parent and one White parent. I have never seen Obama referred to as a 'Mulatto', even though this is the proper word. There is also 'Quadroon', a person with one Black grandparent (or one White grandparent); and Octoroon, someone with a Black great-grandparent. A person with three Black and one White grandparents is called a 'Sambo'

These words are offensive. They are relics of the slave trade. You might get away with referring to Mr. Obama as a 'Mulatto', perhaps. Referring to his children as 'Sambos' is unconscionable.

And yet, when we refer to Obama as 'Black', we're making an oblique reference to the fact that one of his parents was Black. It's just a dishonest way of calling him a Mulatto. It is both offensive and incorrect to call Obama 'Black'.

More to the point, it is irrelevant. No one harped on George W. Bush's race. No one referred to him as a 'White' president. No one forgot he was 'White'. No one wondered whether Bush would somehow exert a positive influence on the White kids of America. To my knowledge, not one media whore ever mentioned Bush's race. If it happened, it was rare.

Obama has some African ancestry. He's now President of the United States. Get over it and move on.

Unclear On the Concept

2010-01-28T18:42:00.004-06:00

Scott Roeder is on trial for the murder of George Tiller, M.D. Dr. Tiller was an abortion provider. Mr. Roder claims to be a Christian. He has no regrets at having murdered Dr. Tiller, since the doctor was killing unborn children. Roeder felt he had to take action to save the lives of other unborn children.

According to Mr. Roeder, abortion is wrong. He feels that in the event of the mother's life being seriously threatened by the fetus, an abortion might possibly be justified. Otherwise, not. Even in the cases of incest or rape, abortion would not be justified. As Mr. Roeder said (as quoted by CNN), "It isn't our duty to take life, it's our heavenly father's."

Mr. Roeder felt so strongly about this - that it's wrong to take a life - that he put a gun to Dr. Tiller's head and blew his brains out in a church.

Paying Off the Taliban

2010-01-26T15:59:00.003-06:00

Telegraph.co.uk published an article that discusses how NATO is going to pay the Taliban millions of dollars for some reason. The logic behind this move has so far eluded my feeble grasp. Call me crazy, but I thought that when you're having a war with someone, you weren't supposed to give them millions of dollars.

I've been having trouble following these wars ever since 9/11. Some Saudis hijack American planes and fly them into various buildings, killing thousands of innocent, unarmed civilians. This is certainly a cause for war. In response to this atrocity committed by Saudis, we attack Afghanistan and Iraq, apparently on the theory that one Arab looks much like another; and even though Iraq is not an Arab country, it will do in a pinch. And it has lots of oil. Somehow the fact that it was Saudis who committed this crime was lost on our administration. No surprises there, considering who was running the show at the time.

OK, so we've been having our wars, happily making billions of dollars for Cheney's cronies and various other Republicans. A small price to pay to keep our economy healthy. But for some reason, now we want to pay the Taliban. I suppose that, since we created the Taliban, we may have some sort of paternal feelings towards them. Unfortunately, these feelings have not been reciprocated. Back in the old days we gave them Stingers and other weapons. The ingrates are now shooting down our aircraft and killing our soldiers with those same weapons. And now we want to give those same people money.

Here's a news flash, in case someone missed it. If you're nice to someone, and they try to kill you, chances are that being nice to them again isn't going to make them like you. Especially after you've spent several years killing their relatives and friends. That tends to make people a wee bit testy.

This is like the schoolyard bully beating up some weak kid. Then, after pounding the kid for a while, the bully offers him his own lunch money.

I am reminded of an old movie called "The Mouse That Roared". A tiny country declares war on the US, hoping to lose and be given all sorts of financial aid. Except in this case, we're the ones who declared war. Go figure.

My guess is that by giving money to the Taliban, we're hoping to get them to stop kicking our asses over there. Then we can leave. We're certainly not going to win that war, because there's no one to surrender to us. Afghanistan is mostly God-forsaken rock, with a bunch of warring tribes who have been living almost the same way for thousands of years. Recently they've acquired munitions, but other than that their way of life hasn't changed much. No one's in charge; no one can surrender.

If you want to get out of Afghanistan, then just leave. Go home. You'll accomplish exactly the same thing as paying the Taliban, but it will be way cheaper. No one is going to follow us out of there, chase us home. It's a bunch of guys with Kalashnikovs and maybe a broken down vehicle; probably not even that.

Instead of paying the Taliban, how about using the money to take care of the veterans who have been damaged by the war, physically or mentally wounded? We promised to take care of them when they signed up; but we've reneged on our promises. Shame on us.

So get the hell out of Afghanistan, and leave the tribes to themselves. Use the money to help heal our soldiers. And next time, learn from history before jumping into a stupid, endless war.

Exit the Dragon

2010-01-12T19:58:00.002-06:00

A Washington Post article states that Google is considering discontinuing its services in China. If Google actually follows through with this, it would be the first large company to stand up to China and resist some of its unreasonable demands.

The motivation for this potential move was an apparent attack by someone in China on Google's e-mail servers. The attackers seemed to target the accounts of human rights activists. While the attack was apparently unsuccessful, it was cause for concern.

This is in contrast with the way Yahoo! acted when China asked them for information about activists. At least twice, Yahoo! turned in the activists, who are now serving long sentences in prison. In April of 2005, a dissident was sentenced to ten years in prison. He was convicted on the basis of information that Yahoo! provided the government. In 2003, Yahoo! provided information to help convict another dissident who received an eight year sentence. Yahoo! explained these unconscionable acts as "misunderstandings".

I think I understand. With its billion people, China is a huge economy just ripe for harvesting. Yahoo! and many other corporations are eager to get in there and make as much money as they can. If they have to throw the occasional activist to the wolves, that's a small price to pay for all the money they'll be making.

I'm not sure if Google is bluffing, or whether it will follow through with its decision to pull out of China. If they do, I applaud their courage to face down the Chinese government and refuse to participate in repression. Google stands to lose a lot of money if they walk out of China. Well done, if they do it.

As for Yahoo!, well, shame on them.

The Terrorists Have Won

2010-01-05T21:10:00.002-06:00

If the goal of terrorism is to instill fear into an enemy, then the terrorists have won, no question about it. A recent news article describes an incident in California where a piece of luggage set off an alarm in the baggage screening area. Some bottles of a suspicious-looking liquid were found. Two people who opened the bottles smelled some sort of chemical odor. They became ill and were sent to the hospital. After being checked out, they were released.

Turns out, the bottles contained honey. This is an ongoing problem, our freaking out over mysterious liquids or powders. It is true that some miscreants try to kill people by blowing them up, poisoning them, or infecting them with dreadful diseases. We do need to be careful about what we allow through our airports and onto our planes. However, we also need to avoid panic.

What we've got is an almost useless security apparatus in place. We freak out over honey, shut down the affected airport for hours, delay the owner of the honey, and so on. In the meantime we let some known extremist, about whom we've had warnings, get onto a plane while wearing explosive underpants. That bomber's efforts failed, but only through seer dumb luck. He might well have brought the plane down.

People say that they're OK with the intrusive, humiliating, and inconvenient security checks because they're willing to endure these in order to be safe. But how safe are they? These checks offer an illusion of safety, without actually providing it. The fact that terror threats are extremely rare is the only reason why there haven't been more tragedies. You're more likely to die of the flu, than of a terror attack. You're more likely to suffer a fatal heart attack, than die in a terror attack.

You really can't do much about the terror attacks. You can do much to avoid heart disease. However, most of us spend far more time worrying about terror than about our hearts. We are afraid. That is what the terrorists wanted.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab

2009-12-27T23:19:00.002-06:00

That's the name of the Nigerian man who tried to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day. His father had notified authorities that Umar had become more radical and had disappeared. The father's concerns were ignored. According to authorities, this is not unusual.

Umar's attempt to blow up the plane ended in failure. Apparently he only managed to set himself on fire before other passengers intervened and basically sat on him until the plane landed. This was a matter of luck.

Airport security is a farce. People are subjected to long lines, long delays, humiliating searches, all to provide an illusion of safety. In fact, these searches are ineffective. No doubt they protect us from anyone carrying a nail file or bottled water, but when they're loaded with explosives they are useless.

I'm not exactly advocating making everyone strip naked and submit to a cavity search before boarding a plane, though that would tend to weed out a whole lot of contraband. And travelers, as well. Still, when someone has been identified as a potential terror threat by his own father, it might be a good idea to give that person more than a cursory glance as he boards a plane.

Not long ago I took a domestic flight to and from California. Because I had a beard, I was "randomly" searched for explosives in my shoes on both flights. My carry on was X-rayed, as usual, and I eventually pased muster. When I got home and was unpacking the carry on, I discovered to my horror that some blades from an Exacto knife had gotten into the lining. How was I ever permitted to fly round trip with those in my baggage? I should have spent an uncomfortable couple of hours at O'Hare airport, explaining to the nice DHS men why I was trying to board a plane with razor-sharp blades hidden in my bag. They checked my shoes; why didn't they check my bag more carefully?

Not that I'm complaining, exactly. After all, their carelessness saved me a harsh interrogation and possible trip to jail. Still, if I had been a terrorist, I might have brought down the whole plane with my Exacto blades.

Danger, Falling Ice

2009-12-21T12:29:00.002-06:00

I live in Chicago, where we have cold, snowy winters and some tall buildings. This combination often creates an accumulation of ice and snow on the buildings, which may then fall onto people below. Occasionally, someone is killed.

So far the solution to this problem has been to place signs on the sidewalk warning people that ice may be falling from the building. Apparently the thinking is that if pedestrians are warned, they can somehow dodge the ice as it falls. Or perhaps merely being warned somehow protects them from harm. I'm no expert, but I would guess this doesn't really offer much protection.

What I don't see are any effective measures to protect the pedestrians. I'm sure it's not practical to remove all the snow and ice from each building, each time it accumulates. Fortunately, that wouldn't be neccessary.

All we'd have to do is to build canopies over the sidewalks that run past these buildings. What a concept. At one stroke, the problem is solved. Aside from preventing people from being killed by falling ice, canopies would offer some protection from the elements - rain and snow. People could go about their business in greater comfort, without having to worry about getting drenched as they try to go to lunch or go shopping.

Or we could just leave things as they are, content to lose the occasional pedestrian to a completely avoidable "accident".

Ecoterrorism

2010-01-06T12:07:00.003-06:00

According to published reports, a Japanese whaling vessel collided with a speedboat owned by the environmental group Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS). The speedboat, named the Ady Gil, sustained "catastrophic" damage and may be a total loss. The head of the SSCS, Paul Wilson, complained that his vessel was deliberately rammed by the whaling boat.

Mr. Wilson's tactics involve harassment of whaling vessels by deliberately steering into the path of the vessel, thus forcing them to stop or to veer off course. Wilson's intent is to force the whaling boat to abandon its efforts to hunt whales. Apparently he has succeeded in accomplishing this goal in the past.

Wilson's tactics are illegal and incredibly dangerous. Maritime law require that the more maneuverable vessel must yield to the less maneuverable one. This is common sense. If the boats are heading towards a possible collision, the one that can steer most easily is the one obliged to get out of the way.

Apparently Wilson's group has been playing chicken with larger boats. In the past those boats seem to have managed to avoid colliding with the Ady Gil. In this case, the collision wasn't avoided. While Wilson alleges that the Japanese bot deliberately rammed his speedboat, the evidence is not convincing. It seems at least as likely that Mr. Wilson's group miscalculated and simply got in the way of the other boat and got run over. You just can't keep playing chicken, and expect to emerge unscathed every time. Play chicken with a big boat, and you risk getting creamed.

Some have called Mr. Wilson an "ecoterrorist". I believe this is not true. He is just a terrorist.

According to Wordnet, terrorism is:

terrorism... (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)

While we're used to thinking of terrorists as wild-eyed Muslims killing dozens of innocent people, the word includes those who resort to intimidation of any sort to further some goal. Paul Wilson fits that definition. He is a terrorist.

Wilson has boasted of sinking ten whaling boats, all without loss of life or injury. That being the case, I cannot fathom why he is crying foul now that he's received a taste of his own medicine. Play with fire, get burned.

[Update:] Apparently I was wrong about the right of way issue. It seems that the Japanese vessel was obliged to give way. The crew on that vessel claims that the Adi Gil failed to hold its course and speed, which the crew of the Adi Gil denies. Therefore, it is entirely possible that the Japanese vessel was at fault.

It doesn't much matter. If you continually get in the way of a big boat, eventually you're going to get run over, intentionally or otherwise. If I go play in traffic, the cars all have an obligation to avoid running me over. If they do, they're at "fault". However, I am unlikely to garner much sympathy if I do get hit.

Casualties of War and Peace

2010-01-11T14:46:00.002-06:00

Since the beginning of hostilities in Agfghanistan, we have lost 1,582 soldiers (link). In Iraq, we've lost 4,373 soldiers (link). That's about 5,955 soldiers killed. Let's round it to an even 6,000, in case we've missed some. Six thousand soldiers killed since we began fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. These are the casualties of war, soldiers who gave their lives for their country. This is a tragedy. But we are faced with an even sadder tragedy, the casualties of peace.

In 2005 alone, 6,256 veterans committed suicide (link). We've lost more soldiers each year to suicide, than we've lost to combat since 9/11. Many of these deaths were preventable. We - the American people - are to blame for many of them.

When our soldiers enlist, among the benefits we offer them is health care when they return from service. We agree to care for them if they sustain injuries, to provide ongoing care if they become disabled, to take care of them or their families if they suffer injury or death. Unfortunately, we routinely renege on our promises. The result is that we, the American people, kill more of our soldiers than al Quaeda, Taliban, or other enemy groups. We are telling them, in effect, "thanks for serving your country. Now fuck off and die." And they do. They die because we refuse to treat their psychological injuries.

A country that treats its soldiers so shabbily doesn't deserve them. We should be ashamed of ourselves and of our leaders for permitting such treatment.

Into the Wild Blue Yonder

2010-01-16T13:17:00.003-06:00

On January 14th, a bag of cocaine was found in the hangar where the Space Shuttle lives. As might be expected, this has caused some consternation among NASA officials, as well as the hysterical public.

The focus has been that the drug was cocaine - an illegal, dangerous drug. While I agree that a bag of coke at a high-security facility is worrisome, the worrisome part isn't that it's cocaine, but that it's *any* dangerous drug. That would include alcohol and certain legal, prescription medications as well as coke, heroin, or PCP.

Much is said about the horrors of drugs, how they ruin lives and often kill people, how addicts may turn to crime to feed their habits, yadda-yadda-yadda. Drug dealers are viewed as the worst sort of people, the scum of the earth who feed upon the weaknesses and shattered dreams of their victims.

And yet, throughout this country we have drug dealers carrying out their evil activities openly in many cities, and even small towns. Not only are they not arrested, the police often protect these drug dealers from the violence their drugs may cause, assist in preventing robberies or tracking down those who have committed the robberies, and in general helping the drug dealers stay in business. And it's all perfectly legal, because these drug dealers are known as "bartenders", and the drug they sell is alcohol.

Alcohol alone kills far more people than all the illegal drugs combined. All the horrors of heroin or cocaine addiction apply equally well to alcohol addiction as well.

The point of all this isn't to say that it's OK to do coke on the job. The point is that finding a can of beer would have been just as bad, and should be just as upsetting as finding cocaine. The problem isn't that it was cocaine; the problem is that someone was using (or at least carrying) a mind-altering substance, something that could easily affect his performance, at a job where performance is critical.

Dude, whoever you are, get a grip. You really shouldn't be getting high at work, especially if your job requires you to have it together. That's just asking for trouble. And second, we already know you weren't holding it together, because you lost your stash.

The First Casualty of War

2010-01-28T15:14:00.004-06:00

Reuters reports that Hamas claims it killed Israeli citizens "accidentally", and are therefore innocent of war crimes. Without wishing to burden the discussion with too many technical terms, this claim is bullshit.

Hamas and other Islamist organizations have routinely and almost exclusively targeted civilians throughout their history. To claim that they "accidentally" killed civilians during the Gaza offensive is idiotic. Hamas lobbed missiles into cities without regard to where they might land. It's like me firing a gun into a crowd, and then claiming I didn't mean to kill anyone. I doubt any jury in the world would buy that defense.

The bitter irony here is that when Israel makes a similar claim - that civilian deaths were accidental - public opinion condemns them without hesitation. Israel focuses on military targets, and occasionally - and accidentally - causes civilian deaths. Hamas, as I said, targets civilians deliberately. And yet the world condemns Israel.

Moreover, Hamas deliberately uses civilians as shields, shooting from behind them, compelling Israeli forces to choose between being slaughtered, or risking civilian casualties. Somehow, this detail gets lost in all the anti-Israel hysteria. Hiding behind civilians - even your own - is a war crime.

Hamas has refused to abandon its stated goal of exterminating Israel. That being the case, one can be excused for not believing that the civilian casualties were an accident.