Monday, November 19, 2007

Some news to think about and then letters

Front page and above the fold: Two Civilians killed; U.S. apologizes. This involves an unprovoked attack by the U.S. Military on a civilian convoy. (Thus the apology.) As published in the Spokesman-Review 19 November 2007, the sort of attack that injures and kills Iraqi civilians and threatens to literally undue all the "surge success" that has been ballyhooed by CNN's Tom Foreman on "This Week at War." So the question here is, do our U.S. Armed Forces so love being at war in Iraq that they will now do everything possible to keep it going? Do they so love strengthening the terrorists' hands that they will now further assist terrorists finding justifiable cause to attack innocent peoples in the west? American interests anywhere in the world? As if Abu Ghraib wasn't enough to question what exactly the purpose of the U.S. Military truly happened to be in Iraq, now this. Or indeed, what the U.S. policy vis a vis Iraq really involves. CBS News aired the fact just last week that a percentage of our military men (and women?) are deserting rather than facing another tour of duty in Iraq. PBS "News Hour with Jim Lehrer" had a commentary on the Nevada sited Democratic debate. A Republican (and veteran) didn't like the idea of our eventually pulling out of Iraq and leaving that citizenry vulnerable... How about this latest catastrophe to GW's foreign policy where honorable soldiers begin to behave like thugs and shoot up people who did nothing to them? By the way, did the Republican featured on PBS recognize what the word "sovereignty" is? It also begs the question of whether the incidents as described above have happened more often and the Pentagon, when exonerating the military personnel involved were politically opposed to shining an honest spotlight on a festering problem. At least until the U.S. Military attacks potentially innocent people and the threat is there that it will now blow up in our faces. As a veteran, I was told that we happened to be ambassadors in any country where we were stationed. That meant, obey their rules and laws, treat their people with respect. Since GW, ugly American with the business end of a military weapon. And an assurance that we create more enemies in just this way.

Froma Harrop appearing on the same day to discuss the fact that an international bridge championship that was taking place in China. Some of the bridge players being American, who sang the national anthem and waved flags, nonetheless scribbled a note and held it up to the cameras and internationally declared that they hadn't voted for GW. That led to a political firestorm with e-mails declaring treason and sedition. Harrop then found herself on basically two sides of this issue... This blog is stationed on the World Wide Web, that means anyone from anywhere in the world can stumble on it, read my numerous criticisms of GW, and may in fact begin forming a view of things based on what I say. Quite frankly, I'd love to see some e-mails from the hot-heads yelling treason and sedition because I am declaring on this blog and to a prospective international audience that no, I didn't vote for GW either. I'll also go on to declare that in 2000 and again in 2004, the vast majority of the American public did not vote for GW. That is the vast majority of people who are eligible to vote and don't bother, the 1% that voted for a third party candidate, and the 48% who voted for Senator Kerry. Newspapers and news magazines, especially where they find a spot on the world wide web stipulated this fact. Just as published commentary also having a spot on the world wide web such as at where the columnists go the political range of stridently opposed to GW to what ever is left of his adoring fans. "We didn't vote for Bush" so? We said that in a declarative in China. For the hot heads, now hear this: GW's trade policy vis a vis China has been on lax regulation of products and food that eventually you are expected to buy and make use of. There has not been the funding for inspecting for safety and "up to American standards" of what gets imported into this country. China has been the main source of ill health for the American consumer (source: Lou Dobbs Tonight). GW only now begins to consider some form of regulation because and only because businesses importing cheap and dangerous crap are getting a major hit in the bottom line. "We didn't vote for Bush" who pushes global trade at the expense of the American citizenry is an apt criticism, esp. in a country where GW has done a lot to further the Chinese interests on all possible issues that (Dobbs) brings to the public attention. Were the hot-heads thinking about it, the guy they are defending isn't returning the favor.

Two letters in the last week, one by Michael Nicholl who makes a strange distinction between professing Christians and those "possessed" by the Holy Spirit." Reminds me of Christ's parables as he tried to teach some sense of humility to his following. The self-righteous at the alter praying to God, thank you that I am not this sinner. The sinner at the alter praying, forgive me for being a sinner. Quite frankly, I can't tell the difference between a "professing" Christian and one possessed of a Holy Spirit since you can't apparently get to the one without the other. The obvious ignorance of one's own faith and bible was definitely showing right along with the arrogance that Christ found so abominable.

The second one by Cleopatra Lewis in a Readers Write letter Coeur d'Alene Press of 16 November 2007. Here, she takes the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, the Global War on Terror into a new and apocalyptic level. What are powers and principalities? These are definitions of earthly nations and those who rule them. From the time of the Old Testament, all wars fought by men have been flesh against flesh. Wars of the supernatural (as Lewis tried to declare) are already beyond the realm of men and well outside their control. Which also has to argue, here is another person who doesn't seem to know a lot, doesn't have a clue about what is sitting in front of her, and spouts an equal amount of ignorance in a public format.

Froma Harrop: Some women playing bridge get into trouble for publicly declaring that they didn't vote for GW. The rationale was, that "we" don't like to see anyone criticizing us publicly and to the world especially in another country. The world can also read letters from Nicholl and Lewis and not have a very good opinion about we Americans just because of this. We foolish, radical, ignorant, eccentric Americans. Instead of e-mail from hot heads, how about bravely looking ourselves in the mirror. The web means we are all ambassadors to the world now. How we present ourselves is indeed how international visitors will perceive us.

No comments: