Freedom

Sigh:

We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.

-- Edward R. Murrow

Travel realities

Could be:

The price of gas is going up, funding for Amtrack was cut and airline security is becoming unbearable. Maybe the government just wants all of us to stay put.

-- Zing!

More on those liquids

I continue to be bothered by the liquids ban on flights because I think it's really about making us both afraid and docile. Then I read what Robert Scheer has to say about it on Truthdig in his article entitled "Spinning Old Threats Into New Fears". Take a look:

Government-induced hysteria thrives on public ignorance, which is why President Bush is so confident of turning the British bomb plot to his partisan purposes. Otherwise, how could he dare claim that his policies have made the nation safer?

Consider, first off, that the attack envisioned — smuggling liquid-explosive ingredients onto 10 passenger planes — was outlined in chapter five of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report as a plot first exposed a decade ago. The originator of that planned hijacking of 12 U.S.-bound planes, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was also the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. According to U.S. prosecutors, his nephew, convicted terrorist Ramzi Yousef, even managed to explode such a liquid-based bomb on a Manila-Tokyo flight, killing one passenger, as part of a plot code-named “Bojinka.”

Because checking or banning fluids was not a focus of this administration’s post-Sept. 11 airport security measures, this “coincidence” would suggest either enormous negligence on the part of those charged with protecting us or a ludicrous overreaction this past week. Knowing as we did of Mohammed’s earlier plan, why wasn’t the Department of Homeland Security requiring fliers to dump their bottles of hairspray and mother’s milk before?

Make no mistake about it. They don't want to keep us safe; they want to keep us afraid.

Resilience - not safety

Anna Deavere Smith

Let's get this straight. Nobody is 100% safe. As I'm sitting here in my office at my computer, a helicopter could fall on the building and crush me. Sure, the probability is pretty low but it could happen. I could faint while driving and wreck the car. I could have a stroke with no warning. Some lunatic could burst in the building and shoot the place up. There is no such thing as complete security and our nation's leaders have no business encouraging us to expect that. This point was well made by Paul Campos in an article called "The politics of cowardice". Here's an excerpt:

At this moment Osama bin Laden must be howling with laughter. He's a man with no armies to command or weapons to brandish, except for the most powerful weapon of all: fear. More Americans drown in bathtubs every year than are killed by terrorists - and indeed we've now reached the point where bin Laden doesn't actually have to kill anyone to achieve his goal of promoting military conflict between the Islamic and Western worlds.

Bin Laden and his ilk are merely taking advantage of the politics of cowardice. For example, according to the statement President Bush made on the morning of last week's arrest of terrorist suspects in London, the goal of the war against "Islamic fascists" is to make Americans "completely safe."

That absurdities of this sort still play well in the polls is a sad comment on the state of the nation.

Sunday night I happened to watch the PBS program NOW. The guest being interviewed that evening was playwright and actress Anna Deavere Smith whom I've long admired for her performance on The West Wing. I was fascinated by the whole program (which was about the role people in the arts can play when it comes to social commentary) but the point she made that really captured my attention was about the importance of resilience. We cannot be completely safe and neither should we try. Rather, it is more beneficial and skillful to cultivate the kind of interior resilience that will enable us to meet any occasion of adversity with creativity and equanimity.

The effect of 3 degrees C.

The Guardian has just published another article on global warming in which they report on a new analysis of the effects of likely rises in temperature. The article is called Forecast puts Earth's future under a cloud. Here's part of what it says:

More than half of the world's major forests will be lost if global temperatures rise by an average of 3C or more by the end of the century, it was claimed yesterday. The prediction comes from the most comprehensive analysis yet of the potential effects of human-made global warming.

Extreme floods, forest fires and droughts will also become more common over the next 200 years as global temperatures rise owing to climate change, according to Marko Scholze of Bristol University...
Dr Scholze said the effects of a 2C category were inevitable. This is the temperature rise that will happen, on average, even if the world immediately stopped emitting greenhouse gases. This scenario predicts that Europe, Asia, Canada, central America and Amazonia could lose up to 30% of its forests.
...
A 3C warming could also present a yet more dangerous scenario where the temperatures induce plants to become net producers of carbon dioxide. "As temperatures go up, plants like it better and they start to grow more vigorously and start to take up more carbon dioxide from the air," Dr O'Neill said. "But there comes a point where the take-up is saturated for a given vegetation cover, then the ecosystem starts to respire more than it's taking up."

Dr Scholze's work shows that this so-called "tipping point" could arrive by the middle of this century. His scenarios echo research from the UK's Hadley Centre, a world leader in climate change modelling. In a report published last year called Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, scientists at the centre predicted that a 3C rise in average temperatures would cause a worldwide drop in cereal crops of between 20m and 400m tonnes, put 400 million more people at risk of hunger, and put up to 3 billion people at risk of flooding and without access to fresh water supplies.

I am in pain for the children being born today. What a terrible legacy we are leaving them. They will rise up and curse our name and we will deserve it too.

Peace

Photo by Cynthia Burgess

I want to share something here that I posted over on my other blog, Meditation Matters. It's a saying of the Buddha from the Metta Sutra (Lovingkindness Teaching). This sums up the ethical position on non-violence excellently:

Let none through anger or ill-will
Wish harm upon another.
Even as a mother protects with her life
Her child, her only child,
So with a boundless heart
Should one cherish all living beings;
Radiating kindness over the entire world,
Spreading upward to the skies,
And downward to the depths;
Outward and unbounded,
Freed from hatred and ill-will.

Everybody is somebody's baby. Everyone. If only we would remember that, we would do everything in our power to avoid war. How can I kill you if I cherish you as if you were my only child?

I also want to share with you the words of Archbishop Oscar Romero:

Peace will flower when love and justice pervade our environment.

Love and justice. Simple but not easy. Necessary if we're going to survive as a species.

The liquids ban

I found this in an article called "Joe and Dick and that thirty three percent":

One quick aside about all this: if security officials are worried about these explosive liquids and the consequences should they become mixed, why am I seeing all these confiscated items at the airport being thrown haphazardly into the same trash bin? Just wondering.

-- W. David Jenkins III

It's all theater. The administration is desensitizing us to having our dignity abused and training us to be passively obedient. If the security people were really worried about dangerous chemicals being smuggled aboard, they would never let unknown liquids be mixed like this.

I found the following comment about this on the blog, Pirate's Cove:

This is just all a big political stunt to keep all you Americans in fear. Then you will keep voting the neo-conservatist in and allow them to take more and more of your liberites away. It's just so simple.

That person gets it. It's an election year, after all.

About Republicans

My friend, Charlotte Alexandre, sent me the following:

Things you have to believe today to be a Republican

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, but our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq and now Iran.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart, as do oil companies.

Global warming is junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

Support for hunters who shoot their friends and blame them for wearing orange vests similar to those worn by the quail is expected.

Feel free to pass this on. If you don't send it to at least 10 other people, we're likely to be stuck with more Republicans in '06 and '08.

Friends no longer let friends vote Republican.

Shameless, vicious Republicans

Nothing should surprise me with this bunch, I know, but I'm still incredulous at times with what they come out with. Here's an excerpt from an article entitled "Lamont surprised by tone of attacks":

"My God, here we have a terrorist threat against hearth and home, and the very first thing that comes out of their mind is how can we turn this to partisan advantage. I find that offensive," Lamont said in an interview Sunday with The Associated Press.

After British officials disclosed Thursday that they had stopped a terrorist airline bombing plot, Lieberman warned that Lamont's call for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq would be "taken as a tremendous victory" by terrorists.

Cheney suggested Wednesday that Lamont's victory might encourage "the al-Qaida types" who want to "break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."

Lamont said Lieberman's swipe at his candidacy "sounded an awful lot" like Cheney.

"It surprised me," he said. "It seemed almost orchestrated. It's sort of demeaning to the people of Connecticut. ... I thought the senator and the vice president were both wrong to use that attack (strategy) on the voters of Connecticut."

The Lieberman camp Sunday brushed aside Lamont's comments.

I find Lieberman's and Cheney's remarks offensive too. You know, as I write, I just now realized that I labeled this post "Shameless, vicious Republicans". Lieberman, of course, is not officially a Republican. But he might as well be.

War costs

Think about it:

The cost of the war in Iraq, $400 billion, equals $8,510.64 for each of the 47 million Americans who do not have health insurance.

-- Zing!

More on the timing

As you remember from Friday, I seriously question the timing of the "terrorist bust" that led to a red alert and more intrusive security regulations for air travel. I think the timing of the bust was politically motivated. Well, Matt Huculak has sent me an article that supports that suspicion. It's entitled "Source: U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests". Here's part of what it says:

LONDON - NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.

British officials knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.

In contrast to previous reports, one senior British official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.

The whole thing stinks, if you ask me. If the attack was not imminent then it just makes sense that obtaining more evidence is going to keep us safer in the long run. But the administration is more interested in exploiting the situation for political ends than it is in true security.

Too sensible to be tried

From a comment off of Smirking Chimp:

If you do not spend your days becoming paralyzed with fear about secondhand smoke, guns, traffic or a vengeful god, I suggest you not be scared of a 'terrorist'. The way to combat terrorism is to invest in education, healthcare, and affordable housing. Instead of 150,000 combat troops in Iraq we should have sent 150,000 Peace Corps volunteers. Instead of sending 'Friends of George and Dick' to blow things up, we should have sent President Carter and Habitat for Humanity.

But, of course, the administration does not really want to combat terrorism. They want to keep us afraid and get us accustomed to a police state.

Sunday good news blogging

The news is about apartment buildings designed from an ecologically conscious perspective. The article I want to share with you is from the New York Times and is entitled "It’s Getting Easier to Be Green". Here's part of what it says:

THEY are not yet as ubiquitous as the Toyota Prius, the hybrid car popular among the ecologically minded, but “green” apartment buildings have begun popping up around Manhattan. At least six large buildings designed to meet elevated standards for energy efficiency and for the use of environmentally friendly materials have opened in the last three years, and several more are under construction or being planned.

The green designation is conferred on buildings that incorporate recycled or renewable materials and that slash energy use and water consumption with features like photovoltaic cells, internal sewage treatment systems and roofs covered in soil and vegetation.

Developers say they are building green because they believe in it, but they also expect to gain a competitive edge. If faced with the choice of renting or buying two similar apartments, the developers say, consumers increasingly will opt for the one with green features, even if it comes at a higher price.

“We think it’s important to do, and we think that other buildings that don’t do this will become obsolete, and our buildings will continue to maintain their value,” said Douglas Durst, who built 4 Times Square, a pioneering green office building, in the late 1990’s. He is now building his second green apartment tower.

The not so good news is that the apartments described in this article rent in the neighborhood of $5,000 - $6,000 a month for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments. (But then so do non-green apartments.) That just staggered my mind. Well, I guess salaries in New York are commensurate with the cost of living. Still, it makes me glad I live in Oklahoma!

War documentary

Frank Ford sent me an article called "'War Tapes' doc features soldier footage" that I want to share with you here. It gets started this way:

MANCHESTER, N.H. - The Humvee hits an Iraqi woman crossing a busy road at night. The driver pulls over and turret gunner Spc. Mike Moriarty watches helplessly as supply trucks runs over her, spreading her body parts across the road — and we watch with him.

That is the power of "The War Tapes," a documentary edited from more than 800 hours of film shot by several members of the New Hampshire National Guard in Iraq's deadly Sunni Triangle.

"Watching 10 transport trucks go over her like a rag doll ... hearing the sound of that Humvee hitting her — I'll never forget it," Moriarty said in an interview.

The movie was the brainchild of director Deborah Scranton of Goshen, who got an offer to embed with a Manchester-based company of the 172nd Mountain Infantry Regiment, thanks to a previous documentary she had made about World War II veterans from New Hampshire.

Instead, she persuaded 10 guardsmen in Charlie Company of the 3rd Battalion to take cameras to Iraq and film, while she guided and encouraged them via e-mail and instant messaging. Scranton believes it is the first film directed over the Internet.

Five guardsmen stuck with the project from March 2004 to February 2005, mounting the cameras on their Humvees or interviewing other guardsmen. Several others also contributed footage. Three are featured prominently on camera: Moriarty and Sgts. Zack Bazzi and Stephen Pink. Scranton and her crew also filmed the three and their families during the men's training, their deployment and for 10 months after their return.

Scranton says she had no political agenda: She simply wanted Americans to see the soldiers' experiences, whether good, bad, ugly or heroic.

I don't think I would have the stomach for it but I think we ought to know about this film. You can see a trailer by going to The War Tapes website.

Remember anthrax?

This is off of AMERICAblog:

After September 11, we did get hit again. It was called Anthrax. And Bush still hasn't caught the killer. So next time Bush/Cheney claim we haven't been hit again, ask them what happened to the Anthrax killer.

Then ask them where Osama is.

--John Aravosis

Native American Prayer for Peace

I found this on Opinionated Old Fart:

The Ancestors have told us we are all connected in the Sacred Circle of Life. If this is so, the pain and suffering of our fellow brothers and sisters in the Middle East must also be our pain and suffering. We send our prayers of love and encouragement on the wind to reach their hearts and comfort them. We let our tears fall into Grandmother Ocean that they may reach the shores of our Middle East brothers and sisters to mingle with their tears and let them know they are not alone. We touch our Mother Earth with the desire for peace in our hearts so when our brothers and sisters in the Middle East walk upon our Mother Earth they will feel our desire for peace in their hearts and they will be comforted.

Creator, we acknowledge our common heritage that makes us all related. You are our Holy Parent and we have come forth from you. We each have a song to sing, each song different, each song beautiful as it is sung to you. May our songs that we sing acknowledge the sacredness of all life as we join together in this Sacred Circle.

E-Lah!

E-Lah, indeed.

Words to heed

Why don't we get this?

There never was a good war or a bad peace.

-- Benjamin Franklin

Secrecy and this president

I just read what is, for me, a disturbing article in the Washington Post about the president and journalists. It's entitled "Increasingly, Bush Escapes the Media Pack: Press Cuts Converge With Closed Events" and it starts like this:

GREEN BAY, Wis. -- On one of the scariest days yet in the five-year battle with terrorists, President Bush prepared to make a speech to reassure the American people. But the White House press corps was 1,000 miles away in Texas.

Bush had left his ranch vacation and jetted north for a scheduled closed-door fundraiser. No press plane accompanied him. And so when news broke that Britain had broken up a major terrorist plot, the only ones there to convey the president's reaction were a handful of local reporters and a few pool journalists who ride in the back of Air Force One.

The idea that Bush could travel across the country without a full contingent of reporters, especially in the middle of a war, highlights a major cultural shift in the presidency and the news media. In the four decades since the assassination of John F. Kennedy, presidents traditionally have taken journalists with them wherever they traveled on the theory that when it comes to the most powerful leader on the planet, anything can happen at any time.

But increasingly in recent months, Bush has left town without a chartered press plane, often to receptions where he talks to donors chipping in hundreds of thousands of dollars with no cameras or tapes to record his words for the public. Barred from such events, most news organizations will not pay to travel with him. And so a White House policy inclined to secrecy has combined with escalating costs for the strapped news media to let Bush fly under the radar in a way his predecessors could not.

Now take a look at this observation:

"Go back 20 or 25 years and say we're at war and the president is traveling around the country and there are only, what, three people with him?" asked Joe Lockhart, who was Bill Clinton's White House press secretary. "That would have been unthinkable."

And this one:

Patrice McDermott, director of OpenTheGovernment.org, a coalition formed three years ago that includes groups such as the American Library Association, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and the Society of Professional Journalists, called the changing pattern of coverage "quite disturbing" and part of a "rising tide of secrecy" in Washington.

"It's another way of closing off responsibility and accountability and shutting themselves off from public view," she said. "I think the public would prefer that somebody be in the room who is not there for their own interests to be served."

This is one more way in which Bush clearly would rather be a dictator than the president of a free people. Of course, remember what he said:

If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long as I'm the dictator.

--George Bush, December 18, 2000

If you don't believe he said that, go here for the smoking video. You can see him with your own eyes and hear him with your own ears say those very words.

Good question

I found this on AMERICAblog:

If this is a Red Alert, why is Chimpy still on vacation?