Showing posts with label facts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label facts. Show all posts

Monday, April 4, 2011

Air France Flight 447 Wreckage Found: My Take

When an airliner disappears, and nearby pilots report a bright flash, I think there's a tendency these days to assume that terrorists blew up the plane. Particularly when the names of people linked to terrorism are on the passenger list.

It's 'obvious.' Provided that a writer weaves a tale focusing on terrorism, the names, and that bright flash.

I think the reported flash isn't quite so conclusive, since there were thunderstorms in the area, as well as the missing airliner.

This post is a followup on Air France Flight 447, that disappeared over the Atlantic in 2009.

What's left of the Airbus was found - fairly intact - as well as quite a few bodies. It looks like the airliner was in one piece, and pressurized, when it hit the water:
"Search finds bodies 2 years after mystery crash"
Niki Cook, CNN World (April 4, 2011)

"Nearly two years after an Air France plane mysteriously fell out of the sky, killing 228 people, the bulk of the wreckage has been found with bodies still aboard, French officials said Monday.

"The human remains will be brought to the surface and identified, French Ecology and Transportation Minister Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet said at a news conference.

"Submarines searching for the wreck spotted two engines, the fuselage and landing gear over the weekend, officials said.

"But the flight data recorders have not been recovered, leaving investigators as puzzled as ever about why the plane crashed in stormy weather on June 1, 2009....

"...'The fact that we found various pieces, a lot of pieces of the plane in a quite concentrated area is a good hope for finding the black boxes, but we have no assurance,' she [Kosciusko-Morizet] said.

"It is impossible to tell how many bodies remain in the wreck, he [soon-to-be head of the recovery operation Alain Bouillard] added. Fifty bodies were recovered in previous searches, leaving 178 victims still missing....

"...The debris is dispersed over "quite a compact area" of about 600 meters by 200 meters (1,960 feet by about 650 feet), he said.

"All the wreckage will be brought to the surface and sent to France for study, said Jean-Paul Troadec, head of the French air accident investigation agency, the Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses, or BEA....

"...Studies of the debris and bodies found after the crash led the BEA to conclude the plane hit the water belly first, essentially intact. Oxygen masks were not deployed, indicating that the cabin did not depressurize, the agency said in a 2009 report.

"Automated messages sent from the plane in the minutes before the crash showed there were problems measuring air speed, investigators have said, though they said that alone was not enough to cause the disaster...."
A determined conspiracy theory enthusiast might find the two years it took to find the wreckage sinister. I figure it's because what's left of the airliner and people came down where the sea floor is mountainous. Also that it seems to have drifted from the surface impact point.

Today's news hasn't changed my opinion about what, exactly, caused Air France Flight 447 to come down in the Atlantic: not much, anyway.

Given the condition of the wreckage, and the conclusions that folks who make a career out of drawing sensible conclusions, I think it's now less likely that the Airbus was knocked out of the sky by terrorists. That flash could have been from a bomb on the flight - and the logical consequence of hot jet fuel sprayed into air. Now it looks like those pilots saw - no surprise - lightning in a thunderstorm.

Was it wrong for the pilots to report the flash? In my opinion, no. It was an observation they made - and one more piece of evidence for investigators to evaluate.

Was it wrong for news services to pass the pilots' report along? In my opinion, no. However, I do think that reporters - and more particularly editors - occasionally failed to put the flash in context.

Sure, it's more dramatic without the picky detail about the weather. But I'd like to see 'thorough,' as well as 'dramatic' reporting. I'd also like to see a million dollars, tax-free: and I'm not sure which I'm more likely to get.

My opinion about the cause of A. F. Flight 447's end is still - I have no opinion. There's simply not enough evidence in the public domain yet. It's like I wrote, about two years ago:
"Air France Flight 447 Investigators Find Terror List Names: Suggestive, But Far From Proof"
(June 10, 2009)

"...I might think that finding the names of terrorists on the passenger list was a strong indication of foul play, except for two things.
  1. "In my ten years as a list manager for a small publishing company, I developed an appreciation for how common some names are
  2. "About two years ago, an eight-year-old boy was fingered as a terrorist because his name was on a no-fly list (July 20, 2007)
"Which is why French investigators are looking into birth dates and family connections. ... There are quite a few people in America, for example, who have the same name that I do. But none of them is going to have the same birth date and relatives.

"Air France 447 - My Opinion

"I don't think that terrorists brought down AF 447.

"I don't think that terrorists didn't bring down AF 447.

"I do think that officials investigating the incident don't seem to know what happened, yet.

"I do think that there will be more assertions about what 'obviously' happened: and that the statements will reflect what the writers believe should have happened...."
I think it's one thing to 'not have an opinion' because facts point at an unwanted conclusion. When there's a lack of facts to work with - no opinion can be better than a baseless one.

More-and-less-related posts:
In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Anthrax, the FBI, and Absolute Certainty

The 2001 anthrax attack - or attacks, since quite a few anthrax-loaded items were sent through the mail - is in the news again. Looks like it isn't absolutely, positively, totally possible to pinpoint exactly how anthrax got loose in the mail system: killing a number of people, making more ill, and scaring a fair fraction of the American population.

If this was a show inspired by the X-Files, there'd be at least one sinister conspiracy: and quite likely space aliens. If I was doing the writing, I might be tempted to have those shape-shifting, space-alien lizard men be the heavies.

But we're not in a television drama. This is the real world: and folks who commit heinous acts aren't always obliging enough to leave a clear trail of evidence. Preferably with written notes on what they did. And a confession recorded on video.

The FBI and Absolute Certainty

I've gotten the impression that there are folks who assume that anything FBI agents say is true. I've also gotten the impression that there are others who assume that everything FBI agents say isn't true.

I'm definitely not among the dreadfully earnest bunch who fear the FBI and CIA more than Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or Iran's ayatollahs. I also don't think every branch of the American government is staffed entirely by paragons of virtue and rectitude. I don't even think that everyone on the federal payroll is competent.

What I do think is that folks investigating the anthrax attacks probably discovered where the lethal microcritters came from - originally, at any rate. I also think there's a pretty good chance that the fellow they finally fingered, Dr. Bruce Ivins, actually was responsible for putting anthrax in the mail.

Too bad he (just happened?) to die as the FBI was about to take him in. That sort of thing makes for a rousing good thriller - in fiction. In situations like this, Dr. Ivin's inconvenient - or convenient - death adds more uncertainty to a high-profile terrorist attack.

Like I said, complete notes and a video confession would have been nice.

Fingering the Wrong Man - on Silly Evidence

Remember Steven Hatfill? He's the man that federal investigators tried to pin the anthrax attack on. Maybe that's putting it unfairly. On the other hand, as I wrote back in 2008:
"...The methodical, fact-based, reasoned approach that the FBI has been using lately is a welcome relief from the comic opera antics that led to Steven Hatfill being fingered as suspect number one. In large part, apparently, because he was seen in Charley's Place with a few of a Sultan's bodyguards.

"That Keystone Cops act was an unpleasant reminder of how law enforcement and the news media jumped on Richard Jewel with both feet, after the Olympic Park bombing...."
(September 17, 2008)

Conspiracy Theories, Anyone?

Space-alien lizard men aren't needed for a rousing good conspiracy theory. I could say that a cabal of Rosicrucians and Shriners joined forces with the Girl Scouts in a plot to make everybody wear funny hats. Their original plan was to spread anthrax in cookies - until someone pointed out how easily that'd lead back to the conspirators.

So they used subliminal messages imprinted on latte served in the DC area, to make FBI agents suspect first one innocent dupe and then another - and you get the idea.

The way I put it sounds silly. But I didn't bother to use emotional terms and muddle up the claims I was making.

I really do not think that the Girl Scouts is involved in the anthrax attacks, by the way. Or the Shriners, or Rosecrutians, by the way.

I'm even reasonably certain that Dr Ivins really is solely responsible for the attacks.

Or, maybe he was involved, along with others - who decided to drop that sort of attack after federal investigators worked their way around to Ivins.

Or, and I really do not think this is the case, the Girl Scouts, Shriners and Rosecrutians control the FBI, the CIA, and Turner Network Television. Now that would make a story.

Attention-Grabbing Headline, A Fair Amount of Explanation

From today's news:
"Panel Finds No Conclusive Evidence to Identify Source of 2001 Anthrax Attacks"
Catherine Herridge, State & Local, Politics, FoxNews.com (February 15, 2011)

"Despite the FBI's conclusion that an Army scientist sent anthrax letters sent to Congress and the media in the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, a new report casts doubt on the bureau's findings.

"After a lengthy review, the National Research Council said the source of the anthrax powder could not be definitively identified.

"While evidence supports the FBI's contention that it came from Ft. Detrick, a U.S. Army installation outside Frederick, Md., a report by the NRC released Tuesday found that based on the science alone, no conclusion could be reached.

"The report is a significant blow to the FBI's long-standing case against Army scientist Bruce Ivins, who died of a suspicious Tylenol overdose in 2008..."

"...Among the findings by the congressionally chartered committee released Tuesday:

"* The FBI correctly identified the dominant organism found in the letters as the Ames strain of B. anthracis....
"* Spores in the mailed letters and in RMR-1029, a flask found at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), share a number of genetic similarities consistent with the FBI finding that the spores in the letters were derived from RMR-1029. However, the committee found that other possible explanations for the similarities -- such as independent, parallel evolution -- were not definitively explored during the investigation.
"* Flask RMR-1029, identified by the U.S. Department of Justice as the 'parent material' for the anthrax in the attack letters, was not the immediate source of spores used in the letters. As noted by the FBI, one or more derivative growth steps would have been required to produce the anthrax in the attack letters. Furthermore, the contents of the New York and Washington letters had different physical properties.
"* Although the FBI's scientific data provided leads as to the origin of anthrax spores in the letters, the committee found that the data did not rule out other possible sources. The committee recommended that realistic expectations and limitations regarding the use of forensic science need to be clearly communicated to the public...."
That article also lists some of the evidence the FBI sorted out, including:
  • 10,000 witness interviews
  • 80 searches
  • 26,000 e-mail reviews
  • Analyses of 4 million megabytes of computer memory
Bottom line? I think the least-unlikely explanation for how anthrax wound up in the U. S. mail is that Dr. Ivins put it there. I also think this is going to have folks coming up with imaginative alternatives for decades.

Related posts:
In the news:
More:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Jared Loughner, Sarah Palin, James Eric Fuller, and Getting a Grip

"America: Love it or leave it."

"If you don't like it here, why don't you go back where you came from?"

If you remember when those were familiar parts of American culture, you're about my age or older: or it's being taught in whatever they're calling 'social studies' these days.

I remember the 'good old days' fairly well: and they weren't which is another topic.

As for the 'love it or leave it' thing: I think it's significant that folks are trying to break into America, and that's another topic, too.

Change Hurts, Change Happens

'love it or leave it' and 'back where you came from' reflected, I think, the frustration that some Americans felt when confronted with folks who didn't look like them, or - more to the point of this post - didn't agree with them.

I sympathize, a very little, with the red-white-and-blue-blooded 'real' Americans of my younger days. Their world was changing, fast, and they were rapidly losing the influence and status they'd enjoyed. That sort of thing can be, I think, traumatic.

Politics and Getting a Grip

This isn't, as I've written before, a political blog. Sometimes I discuss politics, since the War on Terror - or whatever the conflict is supposed to be called - is affected by politics.

And although I am generally not on the same page as America's liberals, I'm not, quite, "conservative." But I don't mind when someone identifies me as a conservative.

I think quite a few folks assume that there are only three possible philosophical positions in today's America:
  • Liberal
  • Moderate
  • Conservative
Four, counting apathy. (A Catholic Citizen in America (May 12, 2010) of those three - or four - stances are seen as the only possible options, "conservative" is often the least-unlike my views.1

Even if I was a conservative, moderate, or liberal in the contemporary American sense of the words, I hope I'd still want to make sure that:
  • My assumptions were based on facts
  • The facts were accurate
  • I distinguished between the two

Shooting Victim Arrested?

When I saw that an Arizona shooting victim was arrested - victim, not perpetrator, I thought I might be looking at a proofing glitch.

Upset? Understandable - Nuts? Maybe

Six people were killed and many more wounded in Tuscon, Arizona, Saturday before last. One of the victims of that shooting is under arrest. And undergoing psychiatric evaluation.

The Tea Party is involved.

If you're among those who assume that the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and other 'traitors' are responsible for Gabrielle Giffords being hospitalized, you probably won't like this post.

Happily, Americans who don't agree with the establishment don't have to chose between staying quiet, exile, prison, or execution. That's one of the things I like about this country. And that's not another topic.

Assumptions, Facts, and Telling the Difference

I make assumptions fairly often. I think most folks do. I assume, for example, that when I go to sleep I'll wake up again: generally in about eight hours. So far, that assumption has been a fairly close match with reality.

I try to be careful about distinguishing assumptions from facts. Partly because of my experiences.
Warning! Old Coot Reminiscing
I remember when the 'love it or leave it' bunch ranted about commie plots, rock music, and those 'hippies-college-students-and-flag-burners.' As I wrote earlier, I think some of that came from feelings of frustration. America was changing. A lot.

Time passed. I'm pretty sure that some folks in America are still quite serious when they identify those they don't like as commies. For the most part, though, I think we've moved on. I see no serious indication that America is likely to get caught up in hysterical anti-communism again. Not any time soon.

'Those crazy college students' moved on, too. Some found careers in the business world, some went into politics, and some never left campus. I'll get back to them in a bit.

Growing up in the '50s and '60s, I developed a preference for thinking with my central nervous system and feeling with my glands, not the other way around. Maybe it was all the crazy slogans I heard.

Definition Time

In the context of this post, "assumption" and "to assume" mean:
  • Assumption
    • A statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn
    • A hypothesis that is taken for granted
    • The act of assuming or taking for granted
      (Princeton's WordNet)
  • Assume
    • Take to be the case or to be true; accept without verification or proof
      (Princeton's WordNet)

Arizona, Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Jared Loughner, Facts, and Assumptions

I'm like the fellow who said, 'I only know what's in the papers.' Given what I've read in the news, it seems wildly improbable that Jared Loughner didn't pull the trigger outside that grocery in Arizona. Those dead bodies, and testimony of folks who got the gun away from him, all point to Mr. Loughner being guilty.

That people died after being perforated by bullets is, sadly, a fact. At least, I think it's extremely unlikely that reporters, politicos, and law enforcement officials lied about people being killed.

Until some whacking great piece of evidence - or a plausible alternative explanation for the facts as released - comes along, I'm assuming that Jared Loughner is guilty.

But - and this is important - that is an assumption. I don't know it as a fact.

I've discussed the assumption that conservatives are to blame for the Tucson shootings before.(January 12, 2011)

I've also discussed information gatekeepers; and the degree to which reason is in play when emotions run high:

Sarah Palin Said 'Kill Gabrielle Giffords?!'

Pima County's Sheriff Dupnik isn't the only person who assumes that conservatives - the ones who aren't decently silent about their opinions, anyway - are responsible for a half-dozen people being gunned down.

I think I may understand why so many folks assume that Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and others like them, are rabble-rousing traitors and a threat to America. For that matter, I think I may understand why another lot assumed about the same thing about 'commies, pinkos, and fellow-travelers.'

'Understanding' isn't the same as 'agreeing.'

I certainly do not agree, for example, that Sarah Palin "should be incarcerated for treason for advocating assassinating public officials." But I think I can understand what's behind that remark.

Disagreement isn't Treason

It's very easy, I think, to assume that someone who doesn't agree with you does so out of malice. Particularly if you spend most of your time with folks who do agree with you.

Remember those 'hippies-college-students-and-flag-burners' from the '60s? They're roughly my age - and a fair number have been America's information gatekeepers for quite a while now. As I said elsewhere, "boy, has 'the establishment' ever changed." (A Catholic Citizen in America (January 12, 2010))

I'm sure that there are east coast news editors who occasionally visit places in that vast expanse separating Newark and Las Vegas, Washington D.C. and Seattle. Just as I'm pretty sure that a fair number of college professors listen to something besides NPR.

But I'm also pretty sure that it's been fairly easy for someone with solid liberal credentials to stay inside their comfort zone: associating with like-minded individuals; and reading chiefly those publications with the right - or, rather, left - point of view.

No wonder, in my opinion, it's been so easy for folks steeped in America's dominant culture to "accept without verification or proof" the idea that Sarah Palin is to blame for the Tucson shootings.

Back in the '60s, I learned that someone can disagree with me and not be evil incarnate. As I said in the heading: disagreement isn't treason.

Definition Time, Again

  • Disagreement
    • A conflict of people's opinions or actions or characters
    • Difference between conflicting facts or claims or opinions
    • the speech act of disagreeing or arguing or disputing
      (Princeton's WordNet)
  • Treason
    • A crime that undermines the offender's government
    • Disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior
    • An act of deliberate betrayal
      (Princeton's Wordnet)
It's not always called "treason." Back when political correctness was in flower, disagreement was often labeled as "hate speech" or "intolerance."

That was then, this is now.

America is changing. Just like in the '60s. And, just like in the '60s, folks who have gotten used to things the way they've 'always been' don't like it. In my opinion, anyway.

Not All Liberals are Crazy - In My Opinion

Tempting as it is to claim that James Eric Fuller is a 'typical liberal,' I don't think that's true. I hope not, anyway. He was forced to undergo psychiatric evaluation after making some - remarkable - statements:
"Arizona shooting victim James Eric Fuller remains under psychiatric observation following his arrest Saturday for threatening a Tea Party leader at a town hall meeting....

"...Pima County Sheriff spokesman Jason Ogan told FoxNews.com that Fuller -- who was charged with disorderly conduct and making threats -- is still at an undisclosed facility in Tucson, Ariz....

"...Fuller, ... said Palin and other media figures had 'definitely' had an impact on the Tucson shooting. He also said Palin 'should be incarcerated for treason for advocating assassinating public officials.'

"...'If you are going to scream hatred and preach hatred, you're going to sow it after a while if you've got a soap box like they've got. We've got a surplus of demented dingbats, wackos.'...

"...Fuller appeared to become enraged and allegedly started threatening Tucson Tea Party co-founder Trent Humphries at a town hall meeting being taped for an ABC News special.

"Fuller ... snapped a photo of the Tea Party leader and yelled out, 'You're dead.'..."
(FoxNews.com)2
He also stated that folks at the Tea Party meeting were "whores."

Apparently, at least under current circumstances, law enforcement in Arizona is able to impose a sort of 'time out' for someone who behaves as Mr. Fuller did. Allegedly, as the article put it.

Disagreeing With the President isn't Treason - It's Disagreement

I remember the 'good old days,' when 'regular Americans' often assumed that disagreeing with them was treason to motherhood, flag, and apple pie. A lot has changed since then.

And, in some ways, not much has changed.
"...WALLACE: What do you think of Barack Obama's presidency so far?

"PALIN: He has some misguided decisions that he is making that he is expecting us to just kind of sit down and shut up and accept, and many of us are not going to sit down and shut up. We're going to say no, we do not like this... ..."
(FoxNews.com)2
Not sitting down and shutting like a good little American is not, I think, treason. Even if the person who refuses to be silent doesn't agree with the President of the United States. Or me.

It's disagreement.

And, in my opinion, we're in big trouble when folks who do not agree with the establishment are seen as traitors. I didn't like that attitude in the '60s, and I don't like it now.

Related posts:
News and views:
1I'm a practicing Catholic, which makes me 'obviously' conservative or liberal, depending on the issue: "Conservative? Liberal? Democrat? Republican? No, I'm Catholic," A Catholic Citizen in America (November 3, 2008).

2 Excerpts from recent news and views:
"Arizona Shooting Victim Remains Under Psychiatric Evaluation Following Arrest at Town Hall Meeting"
Jana Winter, The Associated Press, via FoxNews.com (January 17, 2011)

"Arizona shooting victim James Eric Fuller remains under psychiatric observation following his arrest Saturday for threatening a Tea Party leader at a town hall meeting....

"...Pima County Sheriff spokesman Jason Ogan told FoxNews.com that Fuller -- who was charged with disorderly conduct and making threats -- is still at an undisclosed facility in Tucson, Ariz.

"On Friday, Media Matters touted their interview with Fuller, who said Palin and other media figures had 'definitely' had an impact on the Tucson shooting. He also said Palin 'should be incarcerated for treason for advocating assassinating public officials.'

"In the interview Fuller said: 'If you are going to scream hatred and preach hatred, you're going to sow it after a while if you've got a soap box like they've got. We've got a surplus of demented dingbats, wackos.'

"The news program 'Democracy Now' also featured an interview with Fuller who said that after being hospitalized for his wounds, he stayed up most of the night, writing down the words Declaration of Independence to help him try to calm down. The 63-year-old disabled veteran was shot in the knee and back in the shooting.

"But on Saturday Fuller appeared to become enraged and allegedly started threatening Tucson Tea Party co-founder Trent Humphries at a town hall meeting being taped for an ABC News special.

"Fuller -- who was sitting in the front row -- allegedly became agitated when Humphries suggested postponing gun control conversations until after all six shooting victims had been buried.

"Ogan said that Fuller snapped a photo of the Tea Party leader and yelled out, 'You're dead.' Fuller also began ranting, and as he was being escorted out, he addressed the audience as 'whores,' according to Ogan...."
(FoxNews.com)
"TRANSCRIPT: Fox News Sunday Interview With Sarah Palin"
FoxNews.com (January 7, 2011)

"CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS HOST: Governor Palin, welcome to FOX NEWS SUNDAY.

"SARAH PALIN, FORMER VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you so much.

"WALLACE: How do you see yourself as a member of the Tea Party movement or a member of the Republican Party?

"PALIN: Oh, I think the two are and should be even more so merging because the Tea Party movement is quite reflective of what the GOP, the planks in the platform are supposed to be about. Limited government and more freedom, more respect for equality. That's what the Tea Party movement is about, so I think that the two are much entwined and I'm happy about that.

"...WALLACE: You say you are happy to be or proud to be a part of it. Some people think you want to be the leader of the Tea Party movement.

"PALIN: No, I would hope that the Tea Party-ers don't believe that they need some kind of well-oiled machine, some kind of replicate of the GOP or the Democrat Party and instead they remain a movement of the people uprising and saying, listen to us, we have some common sense solutions that we want our politicians to consider and to implement and this is much bigger than a hockey mom from Wasilla....

"...WALLACE: What do you think of Barack Obama's presidency so far?

PALIN: He has some misguided decisions that he is making that he is expecting us to just kind of sit down and shut up and accept, and many of us are not going to sit down and shut up. We're going to say no, we do not like this...

WALLACE: Wait, wait, where's he saying sit down and shut up?

PALIN: In a general just kind of general persona I think that he has when he's up there at, I'll call it a lectern. When he is up there and he is telling us basically, I know best, my people here in the White House know best, and we are going to tell you that yes, you do want this essentially nationalized health care system and we're saying, no, we don't....

"...WALLACE: Let's talk about national security. During the campaign, you said this about Mr. Obama. 'Our opponent is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country.' The president has escalated the war in Afghanistan. He has launched more drone attacks in his first year than George W. Bush did in eight years. Given what he's done as president, do you take back palling around with terrorists?

"PALIN: No, I don't, because his associations with Bill Ayers and with others, he never really has, I think, adequately addressed why in the world he would have a relationship with a type of person like that, who had such disdain for America that he would want to bomb, harm, hurt, kill, Americans.

"WALLACE: But has he done a good job in protecting the country?

"PALIN: So the things that he has done right now as president in protecting the country, more power to him. We appreciate that he kind of went there fully with the commanders on the ground asking for more reinforcements in Afghanistan. Couldn't get there all the way with these guys, but kind of went there. Good, more power to you. And I speak as a military mom, too, saying thank you. You're giving me a little bit more of a secure knowledge that you're looking out for our troops and the things that their commanders are asking for. I'm thinking kind of, of my son in this situation. Thank you for doing that. However, there are many things that he is doing today that cause an uneasiness in many, many Americans, I'm one of those.

"Who looks at the way that he is treating the trials of these terrorists and kind of as gosh, they're on a crime spree right now. No, we are in war. These are acts of these war that these terrorists are committing. We need to treat them a little bit differently than an American who is worthy -- an American being worthy of our U.S. constitutional rights. I don't think the terrorists are worthy of our rights that people like my son fight and are willing to die for....

"...WALLACE: Let's turn to Sarah Palin, because there are some questions quite frankly I've wanted to ask you for a while now.

"In your book, 'Going Rogue,' you said that when you first heard that you were pregnant with Baby Trigg, you wrote this: 'I'm out of town.

"No one knows I'm pregnant. No one would ever have to know.'

"You made the choice to have Trigg, and it obviously -- you were showing me earlier pictures of him -- it was the right choice for you. Why not allow all women to make their own choice?

"PALIN: Well I believe that these babies in our womb have the right to life. And that's what I stand on. And I did. I -- I honestly, candidly talked about that in my book when I said, "I can understand the sensitivity of the issue," because I've been there.

"I've -- I've understood why that fleeting thought would enter a woman's mind.

"And then when I found out that after ultra sounds, after tests, that Trigg would be born with Downs Syndrome, of course that thought occurred to me again. Wow, this is why a woman would be fearful of less than ideal circumstances, and maybe think that a quote, unquote, 'problem,' could just be swept away....

"...I want women to know that they are strong enough, and they are smart enough to be able to do many things at once -- including carrying a child. Giving that child life. And then perhaps if they're in less than ideal circumstances or they're carrying a child while they're trying to pursue career, or avocations, or -- or education opportunities -- less than ideal circumstances.

"Giving that child life which it deserves, and then perhaps looking at adoption, or looking at other circumstances after. But not snuffing out the life of a child....

"...WALLACE: ... with 17 months left in your term. You said, 'I wasn't going to run for reelection. So I was going to be a lame duck.' You said that the state was being paralyzed, because all of your opponents were filing these lawsuits." Didn't you let your enemies -- your opponents drive you from office?

"PALIN: Hell, no. Thankfully I didn't. What's -- what we did was we won, because the state today -- it's not spending millions of dollars to -- to fight these frivolous lawsuits, and -- and frivolous ethics charges. Ethics charges like me wearing a jacket with a snow machine logo on it. And getting charged for an unethical act for doing such a thing.

"Little piddly, petty things like that that were costing our state millions of dollars. And costing me and my administration -- my staff members -- about 80 percent of our time fighting those things. 'No,' we said, 'We're not going to play this game.'...

"...PALIN: I don't think that they think I -- look it. I'm sitting here talking to Chris Wallace today. I think some of them are going, 'Dang, we thought she'd sit down and shut up after we tried to do to here what we tried.'...

"...PALIN: I didn't hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with 'F-ing retards.' And we did know that Rahm Emanuel, it's been reported, did say that. That's a big difference there.

"But again, name calling, using language that is insensitive by anyone -- male, female, Republican, Democrat, it's unnecessary, it's inappropriate and let's all just grow up....

"...WALLACE: Handicap the 2012 GOP presidential race for us. Who's the front-runner?

PALIN: No idea. I have no idea....

"...PALIN: As I say, I could name a whole lot of them but we don't have a whole lot of time. But I'm very impressed with many of the characters, the personalities of those with great intelligence in this party and I can't wait to see who rises to the surface, after hopefully some very competitive, contested primaries.

"I'm all about competition. I'm all about, even on our local level and state level, I want to see contested primaries where we are forced via competition to work harder, produce better, be more efficient and that's what these contested primaries that I look forward to will produce.

"WALLACE: You talk about rising to the top. There's a new poll out this week of Republican voters across the country and it shows someone named Sarah Palin leading the 2012 race by five points over Mitt Romney. Aren't you the front-runner for the nomination?

"PALIN: Nope. Don't know who conducted that poll and I know that polls are fickle and heck, after this interview, Chris, we may see a plummeting in the poll numbers. Who knows. These are fickle. I can't comment on what the poll numbers mean today....

"...WALLACE: I know that three years is an eternity in politics. But how hard do you think President Obama will be to defeat in 2012?

"PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day. Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, I do not think Obama would be re-elected.

"But three years from now things could change if on the national security threat --

"WALLACE: You're not suggesting that he would cynically play the war card.

"PALIN: I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying, if he did, things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies. I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he is today. And there wouldn't be as much passion to make sure that he doesn't serve another four years --

"WALLACE: But assuming he continues on the path that he going on and we don't have that rally around the flag (ph) --

"PALIN: Then he's not going to win.

WALLACE: Not going to win?

"PALIN: He's not going to win. If he continues on the path that he has American on today -- and here's the deal -- that's what a lot of Americans are telling him today and he's not listening. Instead he's telling everybody else, listen up and I'll tell you the way it is.

"Well, we have a representative form of government in our democracy.

"And we want him and we want Congress to listen to what those things are that we are saying. And that's what the Tea Party movement is about, too. It's not a well-oiled beautiful machine.

"It's the people saying, please hear us. Congress, you have constitutional limits and we want you to adhere to those. We have free market principles that built out country. Mr. President, we want you to remember those. We want you to look back on successes in history, like what Reagan did in times of crisis. And, could you repeat those things because they are proven to succeed.

"WALLACE: Word is that you're getting $100,000 for this speech this weekend. True?

"PALIN: I'm not getting it. They're writing a check -- a $100,000 check. And as I've said from Day One on this, I'm turning right around and being able to contribute it back to the cause. That means to people, to events --

"WALLACE: So you're going to use your PAC and contribute it to candidates?

"PALIN: I don't know if it's going to go to the PAC or if it goes to some non-profit or what.

"Bottom line, I'm not personally benefiting from this. And the funny thing is, as I've had a lot of people, including a couple of talented people and talent at FOX say, funny thing about these type of speeches, Sarah you're an anomaly. Nobody ever has asked, are you getting paid for this? Or, what are you going to do with the money?

"But, this is the new normal I think when it comes to me, is people wanting to have me under a microscope and figure out every little detail of my life, including speaking fees.

"Bottom line, Tea Party movement, I'm giving the money back to the cause.

WALLACE: Finally, regardless of whether you ever run for political office or not. What role do you want to play in the country's future?

PALIN: First and foremost I want to be a good mom. And I want to raise happy, healthy, independent children. And I want them to be good citizens of this great country.

And then I do want to be a voice for some common-sense solutions. I'm never going to pretend like I know more than the next person. I'm not going to pretend to be an elitist. In fact, I'm going to fight the elitist because for too often and for too long now, I think the elitists have tried to make people like me and people in the heartland of America, feel like we just don't get it and big government is just going to have to take care of us.

I want to speak up for the American people and say, no, we really do have some good common-sense solutions. I can be a messenger for that...."
I left out quite a bit of the Wallas/Palin interview: including comments about Regan as a role model for Palin.

I can see how this person - this woman - who won't do the decent thing and keep quiet when her views aren't proper: is so heartily disliked. She simply does not know her place. From the establishment point of view, anyway.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Los Angeles Contrail: Missile? Jet? Giant Atomic Ants?

That contrail that hit the news this morning wasn't from a missile launch - it was from a jet. An expert said so.

That makes sense - or is that what They want us to believe?! Or am I one of Them?! I don't mean a giant man-eating ant. You know: one of the Illuminati/Knights Templar/space aliens who 'really' rule the world. Does that 1954 man-eating atomic ants movie still run on television? That's another topic.

If you get the impression that I don't take experts, conspiracy theories, or movies about atomic tests spawning a Godzilla-size ant problem for Los Angeles very seriously - you're right.

Wait a minute! Them showed mega-ants in the drains of Los Angeles. Today's mysterious contrail was sited over the Pacific near Los Angeles - IT ALL FITS TOGETHER!!!!!!!!

Or, not.

I've collected a few photos and news excerpts. The photos have been altered. By me. I used my graphics software to resample them to a width of 400 pixels - so that they'd fit in this blog's format. Apart from that, they're the way they came from KCBS - via two different national news networks.

Los Angeles Contrail and Comparisons


(KCBS/KCAL, via CNN, used w/o permission)
"Video shot by a news helicopter operated by KCBS/KCAL shows a contrail ascending high into the atmosphere"


(KCBS, via FOXNews, used w/o permission)
"A mysterious vapor trail caught on camera has the military scrambling for answers -- but is it just a jet? On the left, a still image from KCBS video of the launch. On the right, a very similar event from Dec. 31, 2009 commonly believed to be an airplane."

The captions are from CNN and FOXNews. Excerpts from the articles:
"Pentagon can't explain apparent mystery plume off California coast"
Michael Martinez and Casey Wian, U.S., CNN (November 9, 2010)

"The Pentagon is unable to explain images of what witnesses took to be a high-altitude rocket launched off the coast of southern California at sunset Monday, officials said.

"But John Pike, a defense expert who is director of GlobalSecurity.org, said he believes he has solved the mystery.

" 'It's clearly an airplane contrail,' Pike said Tuesday afternoon. 'It's an optical illusion that looks like it's going up, whereas in reality it's going towards the camera. The tip of the contrail is moving far too slowly to be a rocket. When it's illuminated by the sunset, you can see hundreds of miles of it ... all the way to the horizon.

" 'Why the government is so badly organized that they can't get somebody out there to explain it and make this story go away ... I think that's the real story,' Pike added. 'I mean, it's insane that with all the money we are spending, all these technically competent people, that they can't get somebody out there to explain what is incredibly obvious.'..."
Please bear in mind that this is CNN, quoting an expert who's not exactly ecstatic over the fed's handling of this situation.

I think there's little doubt that different news services have different points of view. I do not think that one 'always lies about our Dear Leader' or that another 'is the only one telling The Truth.' Moving on.
"Mystery Solved? Missile Launch Could Be a Jet Contrail"
Air & Space, FOXNews.com (November 9, 2010)

"A video that appears to show a missile launch off the coast of California is so far "unexplained" by anyone in the military, a Pentagon spokesman told reporters Tuesday -- but what seems mysterious could be nothing more than an airplane.

"Federal officials do not consider the event a threat. And they aren't the only ones.

"According to a post on ContrailScience.com, the visible exhaust from a jet engine, a trail of condensed water vapor called a contrail, resembles a missile trail when seen from some angles.

"The confusion between a missile launch and a jet plane launch is caused by several common misconceptions, the site notes, explaining that the angle of launch, the direction of flight, and even the shape of the Earth can lead to the illusion. And indeed, when you look at certain images of jet launches, they do look a fair bit like missiles.

"The site's author goes on to note other factors that could connect the unexplained launch to a jet engine. There's no no bright rocket flare, just a few flashes of sunlight, and a sunlit trail. Plus the unexplained craft is incredibly slow, the site notes, while rockets move incredibly fast.

"Meteorologist Kevin Martin of the Southern California Weather Authority is a believer in the airplane theory, too.

" 'We see this often when the flights come at the right time, however, some people are just out to witness it at the right time,' Martin told Examiner.com in Los Angeles. 'We had strong winds up there as well as really cold temperatures from a passing storm system. This also had an area of upper level moisture ... where airliners fly.'

"And a senior military official told Fox News late Tuesday that indications are that the contrail 'was more likely caused by an airplane than anything else because the other possibilities of rockets or missiles are turning up negative.' But officials still aren't 100 percent sure, so the military is taking steps to review its missile inventory and make sure they're all accounted for.

"A similar mystery event took place on Dec. 31, 2009, when a launch in the skies over Orange County mystified people. The Orange Country Register noted a few days later that the event was variously described as a rocket launch or jet contrails. ContrailScience.com argues that both events were simply planes -- seen from an unexpected angle, that is...."
I gave more space to the FOXNews article, because it seemed to me that they gave more interesting details. Much of the CNN article discussed which military people and agencies didn't known what. That's important - particularly for the commanders involved - but doesn't shed much light on the 'what's that contrail' question. In my opinion.

Remember, though: I could be a giant mutant ant in league with the Illuminati and Ron Paul supporters. I'm not: but I'd be hard-pressed to convince someone determined to believe otherwise.

What's the 'Real Story?'

I think Mr. Pike, as quoted in the CNN article, raised an important question:
"...'Why the government is so badly organized that they can't get somebody out there to explain it and make this story go away ... I think that's the real story,'...."
(CNN)
This post isn't, as I've written before, political. Not in the sense that I am committed to saying that one party is stupid and another is smart. I do bring up political matters from time to time, when they relate to the war on terror (which doesn't, officially, exist any more - apparently). (March 30, 2009)

For what it's worth, it's my opinion that the current administration hasn't done anywhere near as badly as I feared might be the case.

So: Do I think that America Is Doomed, or " 'The Army is Unraveling' - Just Like Vietnam!"? No. Not at all.

I do think that a reporter in an aircraft over Los Angeles saw something in the sky, west of the city. And got some pretty good video of the phenomenon. Also, that the American military probably hasn't identified precisely what it is. Also, that the various units of the military which don't know precisely what that news guy saw have said that they don't know.

I also think it's important to draw a distinction between facts and speculation. The facts that we have, so far, is that video was taken of a contrail in the sky west of Los Angeles. Also that the American military hasn't announced a definite, demonstrable explanation for what made the contrail.

Finally, we've got a Federal government which seems - and I stress seems to have done a less-than-ideal job of handling public relations in this matter. That's actually getting very close to being speculation. The 'Federal government screwed up' approach is, I think, more of a value judgment than a fact.

UFOs! Flying Saucers! Intergalactic Pregnancy Tests!

I remember when I could count on seeing a few 'I was abducted by aliens' stories in the grocery checkout each month. At one point, the space aliens seemed inordinately obsessed with giving Earthlings pregnancy tests.

And that's very much another topic. Probably for a blog covering abnormal psychology and/or news media. Or maybe both.

I think this morning's contrail is - in a way - a situation like UFO sightings. It's well to remember that a UFO is an Object that was Flying, and wasn't identified: Unidentified Flying Object. What "UFO" does not mean, outside some fairly specialized literary genres, is "Alien Space Ship From Beyond the Stars" or "Flying Saucer."

So far, it looks like whatever made that contrail is (literally) a UFO. Thank goodness nobody picked up on that, or we'd be knee-deep in space alien stories. Or maybe that sort of thing has gone out of fashion.

Or, maybe that's the angle that editors will take with the next wave of stories on this incident.

Particularly if tomorrow is a slow news day.

Not-completely-unrelated posts:In the news:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, April 18, 2010

President Lech Kaczynski's Undelivered Speech: and a Lesson to Learn

I don't, as a rule, copy my sources in their entirety.

In the case of the late Polish President, Lech Kaczynski's undelivered speech, I'll make an exception.

I've found a number of copies - and versions - of the speech's English translation. Some which seem to have been: "Edited" would be a polite euphemism.

The following copy is on the thenews.pl website: an English-language news site covering Poland. I checked the URL out: it's registered by an outfit in Poland:


AZ.PL Spolka Jawna (AZ.PL General Partnership)
ul. Sosnowa 6a
71-468 Szczecin
Polska (Poland)

A Polish address doesn't guarantee authenticity, of course: but this translation includes material which some non-Polish sources omitted.

Besides, I think people living and working in Poland may be somewhat more likely to understand Polish than, say, an American in Paris. They may also be a bit more interested in accurately transmitting the thoughts of their late president than foreigners would be. For these reasons, I think this translation may be a trifle closer to what the late President Kaczynski intended to say about Katyn.
"President Kaczynski's last speech"
Polskie Radio S.A. (April 12, 2010)

"Below is the text of the speech which Lech Kaczynski, who died on Saturday, was going to deliver at the 70th anniversary ceremony of the Katyn massacre."

" 'Dear Representatives of the Katyn Families. Ladies and Gentlemen. In April 1940 over twenty-one thousand Polish prisoners from the NKVD camps and prisons were killed. The genocide was committed at Stalin's will and at the Soviet Union's highest authority's command."

"The alliance between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union, the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and the Soviet attack on Poland on 17 September 1939 reached a terrifying climax in the Katyn massacre. Not only in the Katyn forest, but also in Tver, Kcharkiv and other known, and unknown, execution sites citizens of the Second Republic of Poland, people who formed the foundation of our statehood, who adamantly served the motherland, were killed."

"At the same time families of the murdered and thousands of citizens of the eastern territory of the pre-war Poland were sent into exile deep into the Soviet Union, where their indescribable suffering marked the path of the Polish Golgotha of the East."

"The most tragic station on that path was Katyn. Polish officers, priests, officials, police officers, border and prison guards were killed without a trial or sentence. They fell victims to an unspeakable war. Their murder was a violation of the rights and conventions of the civilized world. Their dignity as soldiers, Poles and people, was insulted. Pits of death were supposed to hide the bodies of the murdered and the truth about the crime for ever."

"The world was supposed to never find out. The families of the victims were deprived of the right to mourn publicly, to proudly commemorate their relatives. Ground covered the traces of crime and the lie was supposed to erase it from people's memory."

"An attempt to hide the truth about Katyn – a result of a decision taken by those who masterminded the crime – became one of the foundations of the communists' policy in an after-war Poland: a founding lie of the People's Republic of Poland."

"It was the time when people had to pay a high price for knowing and remembering the truth about Katyn. However, the relatives of the murdered and other courageous people kept the memory, defended it and passed it on to next generations of Poles. They managed to preserve the memory of Katyn in the times of communism and spread it in the times of free and independent Poland. Therefore, we owe respect and gratitude to all of them, especially to the Katyn Families. On behalf of the Polish state, I offer sincere thanks to you, that by defending the memory of your relatives you managed to save a highly important dimension of our Polish consciousness and identity."

"Katyn became a painful wound of Polish history, which poisoned relations between Poles and Russians for decades. Let's make the Katyn wound finally heal and cicatrize. We are already on the way to do it. We, Poles, appreciate what Russians have done in the past years. We should follow the path which brings our nations closer, we should not stop or go back."

"All circumstances of the Katyn crime need to be investigated and revealed. It is important that innocence of the victims is officially confirmed and that all files concerning the crime are open so that the Katyn lie could disappear for ever. We demand it, first of all, for the sake of the memory of the victims and respect for their families' suffering. We also demand it in the name of common values, which are necessary to form a foundation of trust and partnership between the neighbouring nations in the whole Europe."

"Let's pay homage to the murdered and pray upon their bodies. Glory to the Heroes! Hail their memory!' (mg)"
[copied from http://www.thenews.pl/national/artykul129342_president-kaczynskis-last-speech.html April 18, 2010. Edited: blank lines between paragraphs were deleted; " ’ " replaced with " ' "]

So What?

A speech that wasn't read by a dead Pole may not seem either particularly important, or relevant to a blog about the war on terror.

I think it's both.

The speech which the late President Lech Kaczynski intended to deliver discusses an atrocity which is of great importance to Poles. The Soviet Union's decision to pretend that the Katyn massacre never happened has gotten in the way of Russia-Poland relations.

In a more general sense, the Katyn cover-up is, I think, a pretty good example of why it's a really, really bad idea to try pretending that embarrassing things didn't happened.

Aside from getting in the way of dealing with people in other countries - who may have at least an inkling of what's being concealed - suppression of inconvenient realities makes it impossible to learn from mistakes.

The American military have been known to make mistakes. When that happens - the mistakes are scrutinized, analyzed, recorded - and made part of officer's training. I think that approach makes sense. (June 30, 2008)

I think one of the strengths of America is not that we make mistakes - everybody does that. It's that, once we recognize that we've done something wrong: we make sure that generations that follow won't forget how we screwed up. Embarrassing, and occasionally over-done: but I'd rather have that, than a nice, well-run country where all the masses hear about is how wonderful their leaders are.

America isn't the only country that's learning to learn from mistakes, of course. I think it's an idea that's catching on globally.

About time, too.

Related posts:In the news:More:
A tip of the hat to deacon_jim, on Twitter, for the heads-up on the Polish president's undelivered speech. (And responding to my query about the origins of the speech on his blog (April 20, 2010))

Normally, I wouldn't copy an entire document. But with so many versions floating around, I wanted at least one copy to come from a Polish source: with links and a citation.

Besides, commercial websites sometimes remove content after it's become 'old news.' I did not want what may well be an adequate translation to disappear.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Fatwa Condemning Terrorism? Apparently

If this is on the level, it's a big step:
"A Muslim scholar has issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, that says suicide bombers are destined for hell.

"Tahir ul-Qadri condemned terrorism and criticized Islamic extremists who cite their religion to justify violence.

"Ul-Qadri's 600-page fatwa is "arguably the most comprehensive theological refutation of Islamist terrorism to date," according to the Quilliam Foundation, a London organization that describes itself as a counterterrorism think tank...."
(CNN)
Sounds nice, and I'd like to believe that what CNN says is the whole story. That's not a criticism of CNN, by the way. Any reasonably short summary of a lengthy document - particularly if the original is in another language, which this fatwa may or may not be - runs the risk of leaving out critical subtleties.

Like the much-vaunted Jihadist reform program run by Saudi Arabia, a few years back. Sure enough: terrorists who went through the program were (probably) convinced that they should renounce terrorism and not commit violent acts. Against the House of Saud. On the Arabian Peninsula.

After those little qualifiers leaked out, we didn't hear quite so much about the program.

In this case, I'd like to believe that the fatwa really says what CNN says it does.

What we read sounds very nice:
"...'Terrorism is terrorism,' ul-Qadri said at a news conference hosted by the foundation. 'Violence is violence. It has no place in Islamic teaching, and no justification can be provided to it ...'..."
(CNN)
Given what we've heard so many times, though: I find it hard to take this at face value.

I hope that "terrorism" is not defined as acts of violence directed against Muslims without the direct approval of an imam; that "violence" is not defined as a destructive act committed by a non-Muslim under the direction of a Muslim - you get the idea.

Am I being overly-suspicious? Maybe. I rather hope so.

I'd prefer to believe that a few Muslim leaders, here and there around the world, are following the example of a mosque in Canada: and stepping into today's society.

For many, whose ancestors had been out of the loop since around the time Abraham moved out of Ur, the change is going to be very difficult. Others, not so much.

I think there is hope that Islam can exist in the Information Age.

That's not just wishful thinking. Quite a few Minnesotans are first- and second- generation Somali immigrants now: going through the same difficult process of putting down roots that many of my ancestors went through, not all that long ago.

Although some have dropped out of sight, to reappear in pieces in Somalia, most are quietly going about the business of making a living and raising a family. Don't expect to read about that in the news, though: that sort of common sense seems to confuse old-school news editors. (More: "Somali-Americans in Minnesota: According to The New York Times" (July 12, 2009))

Related posts:In the news:
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, January 7, 2010

'Everybody Knows' Poverty Causes Terrorism: So How Come - - - ?

Poverty causes crime. 'Everybody' knows that.

Poverty causes the sort of crime that many of the oppressor classes call "terrorism." 'Everybody' knows that, too.

In some circles, everybody really does feel that those 'facts' are real.

Poverty, Crime, Terrorism, and - Excuse Me While I Rant

A blog post in The New York Times started with "Sec. Clinton gave an excellent speech on development today. She has a longtime interest in poverty issues...." (NYT blog)

Apparently Ms. Clinton and the entire very intelligent and caring Obama administration is doing everything it can to end world poverty. That's nice, by the way, in my opinion: the goal, anyway.

And, the blog post continued: "...In contrast, President Bush never seemed very interested in global poverty...."

This is not a political blog, as I've written before.

But, also as before, here in America politics determines who our leaders are - and, to a great extent, politics determines foreign policy. And that does fall within the scope of Another War-on-Terror Blog.

Poverty is Real, and It's No Virtue

Poverty - relative poverty, at any rate - is a part of the human condition. I'm "poor" by some standards: by choice. Lower middle class, at any rate, and certainly not living a 'typical' American lifestyle. (more at "Lemming Tracks: Lower Middle Class and Loving It" (December 14, 2009)) There was a time when I was glad to be living in a nine-by-twelve room with a window, and a lavatory with running water down the hall. My wife and I own the house we live in now, but it's no split-level ranch in the suburbs, or whatever the status house is this decade.

Not that I wouldn't mind having the mean $60,000 or so annual income of your 'average American household. (U.S. Census, 2004) I could even learn to live with owning a private jet, a helicopter, a chalet in Aspen to match the one in St. Moritz, and about a hundred square miles of northern Minnesota.

Like Tevye said, in "Fiddler on the Roof:"
Perchik: "Money is the world's curse."
Tevye: "May the Lord smite me with it. And may I never recover."
("Memorable Quotes for 'Fiddler on the Roof' " IMDB.com)
I think that a person can practice virtue - or vice - while living in poverty. Or, while living with riches. Which gets into ideas like free will - and I'm dangerously close to wandering even more off-topic.

Poverty, Virtue, and What Everybody Knows That Just Ain't So

Assuming that there's a causal relationship between poverty and virtue or vice isn't limited to any one philosophical stance.

At one time, you'd be likely to hear from some goofy preacher that poor people are inherently honest and rich people aren't. That weird little belief went over big, apparently, among some congregations of people from the shallow end of the economic pool.

The flip side of that notion is the "prosperity gospel," which was popular a decade or so back, among another demographic. And was, I think, equally daft. But I'm getting off-topic again.

That's a couple flavors of Christianity in America. The idea that there's a cause-effect link between poverty and inappropriate behavior (not everybody believes that things can be "wrong") shows up in some of the 'better' circles of American culture, too.

I think that the resumes of the 9/11 hijackers and the people involved with the London-Glasgow car bombings helped shake the assumption that poverty causes crime. For a while, though, it looked like we'd have a new stereotype on our hands. ("Cool Heads, Lukewarm Brains, And Dr. Haneef" (July 30, 2007)) Which is yet another topic.

Poverty Causes Crime, Right?

Which is why crime ran rampant across all the land, during the Great Depression.

Wondering why you haven't read about that in your history text? The Great Depression Crime Wave didn't happen. Crimes were committed: but luminaries like "Pretty Boy" Floyd and Bonnie and Clyde (1932-1934) stick out, I think, because they were the exception to the rule. And, arguably, colorful individuals.

There doesn't seem to be some vast right-wing conspiracy to cover up a huge crime wave during the Great Depression. It simply didn't happen.

Implications of the lack of fit between the 'poverty-equals-crime' belief and America's monumental economic slump seem to be sinking in. About seven decades after the fact. ("Experts: Bad Economies Don't Cause Crime Waves," Laura Sullivan, National Public Radio (November 20, 2008))

And that is not getting off-topic.

Poor, Poverty-Stricken Osama bin Laden?!

Osama bin Laden, who put his family on America's cultural landscape back in 2001, probably isn't enjoying an affluent lifestyle right now.

Being intimately involved with an attack on America that resulted in about 3,000 deaths will do that. The fuss over Bonnie and Clyde is nothing, compared to American authorities' response to Al Qaeda.

Osama and his family weren't exactly poverty-stricken at the turn of the millennium.
"...Osama bin Laden is one of more than 50 children of a Yemeni-born migrant who made a vast fortune building roads and palaces in Saudi Arabia and his extended family spans the globe. Many have been educated in the United States and the family has donated millions of dollars to several American universities...."
(CBS News)
Incidentally: there's little-to-no reason to believe that many or most of Osama bin Laden's relatives share his views about killing people who aren't sufficiently Islamic - by Al Qaeda's standards. And, let's remember that the FBI helped many of them get out of America, before red-white-and-blue-blooded American nitwits lynched them.

Stereotypes: Convenient, But Poor Substitutes for Facts

I've run into quite a number of odd beliefs in my time. At various times, I've heard or read that:
  • Commies are behind all problems
  • American imperialists cause all problems
  • All problems are caused by
    • Blacks
    • Whites
    • Chinese
    • Japanese
    • Jews
    • Catholics
    • Religion
      • Especially Christianity
    • Whatever
  • Poverty causes crime
I'm a bit skeptical - to put it mildly - about all of the above. If nothing else, those sincerely-held beliefs paint reality in strokes that are 'way too broad.

Take 'American imperialism,' for example. I'm not happy about the way the Hawaiian Islands were confiscated, and I am happy that the federal government has finally started recognizing treaties it made with the American nations, well over a century ago. But I don't see big, bad Amerika as the imperialist warmonger it's made out to be in some circles.

After all, we recently elected a Hawaiian president: Is that really the act of imperialist oppressors?

And the notion that the way to fight terrorism is to end world poverty is - excessively hopeful, in my opinion.

I think it would be nice to reduce or, if possible, eliminate the root causes of poverty.

I'd also like to see an end to all disease, and live in a world where all women are beautiful, I could eat as much as I like and not gain weight, and cable television is free. Somehow, I don't think that's gonna happen.

But, although I don't think it's possible to eliminate relative poverty - human beings are too individual for that, in my opinion - I also think that trying to reduce or eliminate conditions which inhibit human enterprise are laudable.

Work to End Poverty? Fine! But Get a Grip

I think it would be folly to believe that poverty alone causes terrorism, and to treat terrorists the same way that we treat individuals who commit crimes.

As I wrote earlier this week, terrorists - the leaders, at least - don't seem to be misunderstood street kids who just need a break. And giving them art lessons doesn't seem to make them into nice people.

Acting on the basis of high ideals that were groovy when Woodstock was news might feel good. It would also, in my opinion, get a lot of people killed: people who weren't trying to kill other people who, like myself, aren't sufficiently Islamic. Again, by Al Qaeda's standards.

The War on Terror is a real war. Leaders of the other side won't like us, or even tolerate our existence, unless we embrace their peculiar brand of Islam. Which isn't all that likely, considering how much Americans and others like beer, dogs, and soccer.

More-or-less related posts: Background:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Commie Plots, Cholesterol, Frank Burns, Hugo Chavez, and 2012

In the "good old days," when I was growing up, a vocal portion of the American populace were convinced that commie plots were behind just about everything they didn't like.

By the time I was paying attention, they had a declining influence over the American government's decisions. In my opinion their greater contribution to the culture was a fairly steady stream of gaffes, and being a highly identifiable group for comedians to joke about, satirists to satirize, and writers to use as the basis for memorable - if somewhat two-dimensional - characters like Frank Burns of M*A*S*H.

That was then, this is now. Acid rain, the terrible dangers of electrical transmission lines, and global warming, have replaced "commie plots" as effective rallying cries. Although not for the same people as were swayed by the likes of Wisconsin's Senator Joseph McCarthy, of course. It's hard to imagine a politician building his or her campaign on the claim that there are some number of known communists in the State Department.

Or, if some politico was crazy enough to try - winning a state or national election.

Hugo Chavez, Weather Control, Democracy and All That

This afternoon, discussing western-hemisphere politics and cultural history with my oldest daughter, we ran over the idea that democracy was the only viable, or for that matter, decent, form of government.

The idea died at the scene.

Our conversation ricocheted in another direction: which has even less to do with the general topic of this blog than this post.

The encounter with one of the basic assumptions of many Americans - that democracy is the only "right" way to run a country - reminded me of something I wrote about a year ago:

Military Rule as the Ideal Form of Government

No, I don't really think so, but look at this:
  • Government by Religious Leaders
    Example: Afghanistan under the Taliban
    Result: Terrorism
  • Government by Monarch
    Example: Saudi Arabia
    Result: Terrorists
    • (15/19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis)
  • Government by Elected Leaders
    Example: Somalia
    Result: Terrorists - and pirates
  • Government by Military Ruler
    Example: Guinea
    • Assuming that the elections were as faked as critics claim
    Result: No terrorism (and no pirates, either)
You see?! That 'proves' that military rule is superior to old-fashioned monarchies, theocracies, and constitutional democracies.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

Pretty obvious, isn't it? I carefully selected examples that supported my claim. That can make for effective propaganda, but it's not good reasoning.

As a matter of fact, I don't have the visceral, reflexive revulsion that many Americans have toward the idea of having a country run by military or religious rulers. I think it depends on what individuals are running the show, and which side of the eighteenth century most of the country's people live on.
(December 29, 2008)
Hugo Chavez is the leader of a constitutional democracy. Venezuela's current constitution dates from December 30, 1999 - and President Chavez was elected in 2006 by a respectable margin: 62.9% to 36.9%. The next election for the Venezuelan president is in 2012.1

The Mayan "Long Count," and 2012; and 7138; and 12263; and 17388; and ---

Which brings up the point of this post. Quite a number of people seem to assume that 2012 will be when the world ends.

As a matter of fact, December 21, 2012, is when a "Long Count" cycle of the Mayan calendar will end - assuming that the current Long Count started on August 11, 3114 BC. If it started on August 13 - which is possible - the cycle re-starts on December 23, 2012. It'll also re-start in the spring of 7138, summer of 12263, autumn of 17388, and so on.2

Western civilization's calendar uses a base-ten numeric system, and involves centuries and millennia. We just experienced the end of one of our 'long cycles' - December 31, 1999 - and Y2K went past without an apocalypse. (Yes, there was a real issue with legacy software - which encouraged some long-overdue upgrades and re-engineering.)

I don't expect to influence people who are convinced that:
  • Commie plots are behind every disagreeable event
  • We're all gonna die from
    • Acid rain
    • Cholesterol (high or otherwise)
    • Global warming
    • The end of a Mayan calendrical cycle
On the other hand, I think there's some merit in reminding the rest of us that assumptions are a convenient mental shortcut - and should be re-considered now and again.

Related post: In the news: Background:
Hugo Chavez may, eventually, be the basis of a character as colorful and memorable as Frank Burns. From today's news:
"Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez says he will join a team of Cuban scientists on flights to "bomb clouds" to create rain amid a severe drought that has aroused public anger due to water and electricity rationing.

"Chavez, who has asked Venezuelans to take three-minute showers to save water, said the Cubans had arrived in Venezuela and were preparing to fly specially equipped aircraft above the Orinoco river.

" 'I'm going in a plane; any cloud that crosses me, I'll zap it so that it rains,' Chavez said at a ceremony late on Saturday with family members of five Cubans convicted of spying in the United States...."
(Reuters)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.