Prior to Obama's decision to bomb Libya, I had posted an argument opposing armed intervention (http://blogs.courier-journal.com/pointtaken/2011/03/17/reality-demands-restraint). The argument has grown only stronger in the days since our attack.
As I wrote earlier, sure, Gaddafi's a bad guy. Perhaps he stayed a bad guy even after his "rehabilitation" after he renounced Libya's nuclear ambitions back in 2003. But the fact is there was pretty much nothing of interest coming out of Libya until the wave of protests swept the Middle East this winter.
The problem with the Libyan protest movement is that unlike that of Egypt and Tunisia, Libya's turned violent. It was at this point that Gaddafi and the Libyan military pushed back. No question, Gaddafi's threatening to "burn all Libya" if the protests continued poured much fuel to the fire of humanitarian intervention. The UN Security Council's No-Fly Zone approval certainly considered Gaddafi's penchant for peculiarity as justification for its vote.
However, the UN Security Council is not the United States of America. American attack on foreign nations must have the support of Congress, but they were totally ignored. Perhaps if Congress had truly considered it we would have refused to support an attack on Libya (but as Iraq shows this is no guarantee, not by a long shot).
The President, echoing Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, says the attack was necessary to protect the protestors and that the goal is not removal of Gaddafi, but protection of Libyans. However, surely he knows that mere bombing of airfields and other strategic targets will do nothing to stop Gaddafi’s boots on the ground from doing whatever they want. Also, can Obama guarantee none o four missiles will kill innocents? Indeed, reports are that we have killed non combatants already.
Further, this mission has no end game. Rarely have we blundered into attacking another nation with so little definition—of purpose, of plan, of possible outcomes, etc.
This smells like another neocon end-run using the veneer of humanitarianism as a smokescreen to hoodwink--ONCE AGAIN—an unwitting public. This attack on Libya may not be as bad as the hugely immoral, illegal and counterproductive full scale war in Iraq, but that does not mitigate the wrong.
Richard F. Dawahare 3/21/11
Monday, March 21, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Today's newest superheroes: Japanese workers at Fukushima nuclear power plant
The world's newest superheroes are the Japanese workers risking their lives at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. With radiation levels many times higher than normal, at at time where the Japanese government has evacuated every living soul within 20 miles of the plant, these brave men and women are risking all for their fellow human beings. It is truly breathtaking, this effort, at once as spiritual as it is virtual, by otherwise regular human beings, who for years just went to work and anonymously did their jobs.
Some of these workers were ready to retire, others had no obligation to go. But go they did, the retiree urged on by none other than his wife!
It is said that the Japanese culture inculcates the attitude of collective well being over personal comfort. These living saints are proving it. And no matter the eventual outcome, and with humble attribution to one of my heroes, Winston Churchill, rarely have so few done so much for so many.
Some of these workers were ready to retire, others had no obligation to go. But go they did, the retiree urged on by none other than his wife!
It is said that the Japanese culture inculcates the attitude of collective well being over personal comfort. These living saints are proving it. And no matter the eventual outcome, and with humble attribution to one of my heroes, Winston Churchill, rarely have so few done so much for so many.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
How the hell of Japan will heal the world
Japan. I know you feel the same: lucky we are here, our lives not disrupted by yet another natural disaster, praying for those over there who are, wondering just what we can do to help, especially considering our good fortune to be spared such calamity (flood victims excepted).
Just when it seems that it could not be worse we hear about a possible nuclear meltdown. Maybe the heartfelt concern for them turns into a twinge of worry for ourselves. Some additional thoughts:
1) This natural calamity, like Haiti, Indonesia, New Orleans and many more, show yet again how much more destructive the hand of mother nature can be than that of humanity, at least as to land and property;
2) But unlike human conflict, natural disasters actually build bridges of cooperation, friendship and therefore longer term prospects for peace among nations;
3) Perhaps the most heartwarming, reassuring gesture is the headline I just saw on CNN, "China to send aid to Japan." No country suffered the horrors that China did from Japan during WWII. Chinese leadership still to the present day does not feel that Japan has apologized or made reparations. Many Chinese people do not have warm feelings towards Japan. Yet despite all this, the uniting bond of human compassion is overcoming the pain of an inhuman past; and -
4) So much for "Godless Communism". As JFK said, "-On earth God’s work must truly be our own." Of course, the Chinese weren’t following JFK, most never heard of him. But they were following the Golden Rule, first enunciated by their most celebrated figure, Confucius, around 500 BC;
5) The nations of the world are rushing to help. Hopefully this will be well coordinated. The US should move all resources away from destructive wars and to life saving missions wherever they are needed, starting with JAPAN;
Just when it seems that it could not be worse we hear about a possible nuclear meltdown. Maybe the heartfelt concern for them turns into a twinge of worry for ourselves. Some additional thoughts:
1) This natural calamity, like Haiti, Indonesia, New Orleans and many more, show yet again how much more destructive the hand of mother nature can be than that of humanity, at least as to land and property;
2) But unlike human conflict, natural disasters actually build bridges of cooperation, friendship and therefore longer term prospects for peace among nations;
3) Perhaps the most heartwarming, reassuring gesture is the headline I just saw on CNN, "China to send aid to Japan." No country suffered the horrors that China did from Japan during WWII. Chinese leadership still to the present day does not feel that Japan has apologized or made reparations. Many Chinese people do not have warm feelings towards Japan. Yet despite all this, the uniting bond of human compassion is overcoming the pain of an inhuman past; and -
4) So much for "Godless Communism". As JFK said, "-On earth God’s work must truly be our own." Of course, the Chinese weren’t following JFK, most never heard of him. But they were following the Golden Rule, first enunciated by their most celebrated figure, Confucius, around 500 BC;
5) The nations of the world are rushing to help. Hopefully this will be well coordinated. The US should move all resources away from destructive wars and to life saving missions wherever they are needed, starting with JAPAN;
Rand Paul to get potty training!
Rand Paul is about to get potty trained! In response to his complaint that he could not find a toilet that works, Department of Energy Deputy Assistant Kathleen Hogan, said “I can find you a toilet that works.”
Rand’s rant was part of his longer harangue against government regulations, this time over the 2007 law requiring the phase-in of energy efficient light bulbs and also toilet regs (presumably the 1994 standard of 1.6 gpf, gallons per flush). Paul argues that these regulations restrict consumer choice.
Well, YEAH, that is what all public interest regulations do, restrict certain choices that are on balance harmful to our long term welfare. Yet Paul cannot see through the dark lens of his hard held libertarian ideology. That is why he said private business owners should be able to discriminate. It is why he opposes most all government—EXCEPT when it benefits him, like Medicare/Medicaid, which contributes more than half of his income.
And that is the problem when people in a policy making position see issues only through their ideology. Their egos and biases prevent them from looking rationally at the problems, the root causes and the solutions, most of which come as the result of much research and collaboration among those most qualified to address and resolve the issues—in this case, conserving energy through technology-enabled efficient light bulbs and water conservation through toilet flush limits.
Paul incredibly compared women’s reproductive rights with light bulb choices, asking Ms. Hogan if she was pro-choice. He then said, “"The point is that most members of your administration probably would be frank and would be up front to characterize themselves as being pro-choice for abortion. But you're really anti-choice on every other consumer item that you've listed here."
http://www.kentucky.com/2011/03/11/1666049/rand-paul-rips-energy-department.html.
That is the problem with America: too many people in the top positions of leadership who have no business being there. First, like Paul, they spend time on issues that have already been resolved in a manner that benefits us, yet because of their prejudices (see discussion about ideology, above) they seek to wreck them. Second, they make such illogical arguments designed only to divide and weaken us. Sure, he will score more points with anti-abortionists,, but there is not a hair’s width of relevance to raise the issue in this context.
Maybe he’s just pulling a Charlie Sheen by orchestrating hilarity to get publicity, possibly with an eye (unbelievably!) to the 2012 Presidential race. What’s really sad is that what works for screen entertainers—who operate in a true make believe world—may end up working in politics, where people like Paul use “make believe” to not only get elected, but make policy.
Hmm, Paul may be right after all about toilets, it’ll take two flushes to get that stink away.
Rand’s rant was part of his longer harangue against government regulations, this time over the 2007 law requiring the phase-in of energy efficient light bulbs and also toilet regs (presumably the 1994 standard of 1.6 gpf, gallons per flush). Paul argues that these regulations restrict consumer choice.
Well, YEAH, that is what all public interest regulations do, restrict certain choices that are on balance harmful to our long term welfare. Yet Paul cannot see through the dark lens of his hard held libertarian ideology. That is why he said private business owners should be able to discriminate. It is why he opposes most all government—EXCEPT when it benefits him, like Medicare/Medicaid, which contributes more than half of his income.
And that is the problem when people in a policy making position see issues only through their ideology. Their egos and biases prevent them from looking rationally at the problems, the root causes and the solutions, most of which come as the result of much research and collaboration among those most qualified to address and resolve the issues—in this case, conserving energy through technology-enabled efficient light bulbs and water conservation through toilet flush limits.
Paul incredibly compared women’s reproductive rights with light bulb choices, asking Ms. Hogan if she was pro-choice. He then said, “"The point is that most members of your administration probably would be frank and would be up front to characterize themselves as being pro-choice for abortion. But you're really anti-choice on every other consumer item that you've listed here."
http://www.kentucky.com/2011/03/11/1666049/rand-paul-rips-energy-department.html.
That is the problem with America: too many people in the top positions of leadership who have no business being there. First, like Paul, they spend time on issues that have already been resolved in a manner that benefits us, yet because of their prejudices (see discussion about ideology, above) they seek to wreck them. Second, they make such illogical arguments designed only to divide and weaken us. Sure, he will score more points with anti-abortionists,, but there is not a hair’s width of relevance to raise the issue in this context.
Maybe he’s just pulling a Charlie Sheen by orchestrating hilarity to get publicity, possibly with an eye (unbelievably!) to the 2012 Presidential race. What’s really sad is that what works for screen entertainers—who operate in a true make believe world—may end up working in politics, where people like Paul use “make believe” to not only get elected, but make policy.
Hmm, Paul may be right after all about toilets, it’ll take two flushes to get that stink away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)