July 28, 2004 ev

Well let it be said that as far as a Daily Rant goes this is obviously not updated daily. Time is one constraint that is not easily overcome. I am currently unemployed however I am a partner in a business and a stay at home Dad. One would think I have all the time in the world. Not true. I am afflicted with a case of obsessive/compulsive disorder. I am as my children affectionately call me ‘a neat freak’. I cannot get in the proper spirit for work until my environment is tidy. This is difficult; because I do not live alone and it seems my wife and children are working against me in some grand conspiracy. So much of my time is spent cleaning, organizing, or pondering how things could be better organized.

I decided to keep this entry a little light-hearted. It suits my current mood, although I am currently bordering on frustration for no apparent reason. I am hoping this entry will release some of that frustration and it serves as a productive use of time. This is, of course, open to interpretation because not everyone thinks writing (typing) your thoughts is productive. If it doesn’t pay then it is not productive, say some. I am not a big fan of money. I grew up with none. I have recollections of my mother, brother and myself surrounding our kitchen table counting change to make the mortgage payment. We had ripped clothing and I even got hand me downs from the teacher’s children, thank you Mrs. Levy (although for future reference it may be detrimental to a student’s social interaction when the class knows, just some food for thought). I am not a big fan of capitalism either. It seems that capitalism is a big lie. How can we all be rich? We can’t! Capitalism is, in reality, a modern version of a caste system. Capitalists, it would seem, have seized the reigns of our government. If you think this is a foolish opinion of mine, and I do have plenty of foolish opinions, then ask yourself why are all of our politicians wealthy? Every single member of this current administration is a millionaire, at least! Is that truly representative of WE THE PEOPLE? Do they represent us, the majority? I do not think they do. It is no secret that this administration is entrenched in the oil industry, even Condi Rice worked for Chevron. So when they relax environmental laws, what gives them the right? Hopefully this planet will exist long after we have outgrown our dependence on fossil fuels. Are we not all equally trustees of this planet? So how can a government which “represents” all of the people, sacrifice environmental safeguards in the name of corporate interests for a few?

I tried to keep it light-hearted. What we all must focus on is a solution. I do understand, rather well, that change cannot be made until we are honest regarding what is wrong. This is America. I love this country and what it stands for. But we are not perfect. We have problems. I used to think that we should stop all foreign aid until we fixed all the problems here within our own borders. I do realize that foreign aid is, in some cases, beneficial to WE THE PEOPLE. We have problems. Let us work as a nation united to resolve these issues. Partisan politics is one of our problems. We are a country of many diverse ideas, how can any sane individual lump us into one of 2 categories? Most people are not even clear on the difference between the parties. We all have opinions. We should have the benefit of well informed viewpoints, each decision carries with it a benefit and a sacrifice. Anyone who seeks to misinform is an enemy of any democracy, and has an ulterior motive. I myself am not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice. Why would you force someone to have a child that does not want one, or is not capable of caring for one? All of those Americans voicing their opinion of anti-abortion, pro-life…go adopt a child. Enter into a binding contract with someone seeking an abortion, to care for their child. No it is not your responsibility, you did not create the life. But aren’t you forcing your religious views on another? Isn’t this why we left England so many years ago? I myself am pro-drug use; however I comply with my local laws because I value this democracy. It seems the majority do not agree with me. My opinion of drug use is that all drugs should be legalized. Yes ALL! If someone commits a crime while under the influence, criminalize that activity. Any thing can be both bad and good. A razor blade can serve bad and good purposes. Should it be outlawed?

So let Americans decide for themselves. Even in this issue corporate interests have manipulated policy that does not benefit WE THE PEOPLE. If you doubt this, look into the Partnership for a Drug Free America. Look into who were the largest sponsors: Phillip Morris and Anheuser Busch. Do you wonder why? Do you know you could never take enough marijuana to kill yourself? You can with Nicotine or Alcohol! Think about it. It is the first step. Thank you for reading. BTW, just so you know, personally I LOVE beer and have NEVER smoked…..cigarettes.

July 5, 2004 ev

I began this idea of typing, online, my thoughts; as a test of my capacity to, on a daily basis, record my thoughts. I have, and continue (though not DAILY) to keep, a journal of personal experiences. This presentation, however, was intended to be a sort of editorial. An online journal of my opinions, related to current events, shared for the world to scrutinize. After I, as knowledgeable as I believe myself to be, am limited by what I know.

This entry I shall focus on Israel.

Some personal background first:

I grew up with an uninformed viewpoint of this tiny country (according to the CIA’s website; smaller than New Jersey (a state which I have called home since before I could speak)). I learned it was the hotbed of much controversy and much violence. I remember wondering, “Why would anyone claim responsibility for such heinous acts?” With that I am referring to the Palestinians and the phenomena of suicide attacks. Before I start this diatribe I ask you, specifically you American readers, what image is conveyed by the word “Israeli” or “Palestinian”? What image comes to mind? I will share my opinion but truly, consider what image comes to mind? This is important because it actually sheds some light onto the problem as it is portrayed in the American media. I have since changed those images mentally, but I used to see “Israelis” as clad in military green fatigues, whereas the “Palestinians” always conjured up an image resembling something like the “Sand people” of Star Wars. Now this is only my impression and I sincerely hope others have a more accurate image come to mind.

I have made it a point to inform myself a bit. I learned that Israel was actually formed by the UN in 1947, in order to create a state for the many Jewish people expatriated by WWII. I shall not at this time delve into the issue of holocaust denial, and the individuals who were the target of Nazi aggression that were not Jewish, and history shows there were many. Certainly we could not expect the jewish people to return home, when it seemed they were not welcome. I was not pleased to find out that upon the defeat of Germany we, the United States of America, did not simply free the inhabitants of the many concentration camps. No, we actually kept the detainees prisoners for some length of time. General George Patton actually scribed this gem into his journal:

“George Patton received a report written by Earl G. Harrison about the way the Jews in Germany were being treated by the US Army after the war. Patton wrote about the report in his diary on 15th September, 1945.

One of the chief complaints is that the DP (Displaced Person) are kept in camps under guard. Of course Harrison is ignorant of the fact that if they were not kept under guard they would not stay in the camps, would spread over the country like locusts and should eventually have to be rounded up after quite a few of them had been shot and quite a few Germans murdered and pillaged.

The brilliant Mr. Harrison further objected to the sanitary conditions. Again being ignorant of the fact that we frequently have to use force in order to prevent the inmates - Germans, Jews and other people - from defecating on the floor when ample facilities are provided outside.

Evidently the virus started by Morgenthau and Baruch of a Semitic revenge against all Germans is still working. Harrison and his associates indicate that they feel German civilians should be removed from houses for the purpose of housing Displaced Persons. There are two errors in this assumption. First, when we remove an individual German, we punish an individual German while the punishment is not intended for the individual but for the race. Furthermore, it is against my Anglo-Saxon conscience to remove a person from a house, which is a punishment, without due process of law. In the second place, Harrison and his ilk believe that the Displaced Person is a human being which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews who are lower than animals. I remember once at Troina in Sicily, General Gay said that it wasn't a question of the people living with the dirty animals but of the animals living with the dirty people. At that time he had never seen a Displaced Jew”.

Clearly not a very compassionate statement, and perhaps indicative that another homeland is desirable. So what next? Well the decision was to create, from Palestine, a land for both the native Palestinians and the expatriated Jews from Europe. There was some dispute as to the fairness of the imposed rule. Here is the plan in 1947:

1947 - Great britain withdraw & the UN partition plan

Exhausted by seven years of war and eager to withdraw from overseas colonial commitments, Great Britain in 1947 decided to leave Palestine and called on the United Nations (UN) to make recommendations. In response, the UN convened its first special session in 1947, and on November 29, 1947, it adopted a plan calling for partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem as an international zone under UN jurisdiction; the Jewish and Arab states would be joined in an economic union. The partition resolution was endorsed by a vote of 33 to 13, supported by the United States and the Soviet Union. The British abstained.

Here is what happened a year later, in 1948:

So in a nutshell, these DP (Displaced Persons) were relocated to a land the smaller than the size of New Jersey, but let’s say for arguments sake (literally) it was New Jersey. Here we are having, imposed by a foreign authority, that our state be shared, and in certain respects disproportionately; but then, the following year, we are overrun militarily. No longer at home (in say Marlboro), but expatriated, forced to live in refugee camps (in say Camden). All in the name of, what, a Jewish State? Ethnic Cleansing! Retaliation? For what, the Palestinians? What had they done? I thought the Nazis were to blame for the atrocities of WWII. So the Palestinians did not have a gripe with Israel previous to 1947? Is there some underlying reason why the Germans and the Palestinians have such difficulty dealing with the Jewish people? This is not my personal opinion. This is fact. Here is the leading authority position on the matter. Israel is in violation of these resolutions:

• 1955-1992:
• * Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
• * Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
• * Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
• * Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
• * Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
• * Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
• * Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
• * Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
• * Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
• * Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
• * Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
• * Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
• * Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
• * Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
• * Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
• * Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
• *Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
• * Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
• * Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
• * Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
• * Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
• * Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
• * Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
• * Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
• * Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
• * Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
• * Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
• * Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
• * Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
• * Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
• * Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
• * Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
• obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
• * Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
• * Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
• * Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
• states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
• * Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
• * Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
• two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
• * Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
• council's order not to deport Palestinians".
• * Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
• by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
• * Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
• * Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
• claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
• * Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
• Palestinian mayors".
• * Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
• nuclear facility".
• * Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
• Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
• * Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
• * Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
• * Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
• * Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
• allow food supplies to be brought in".
• * Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
• and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
• * Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
• * Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
• * Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
• in attack on PLO headquarters.
• * Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
• its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
• * Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
• at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
• * Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
• denying the human rights of Palestinians.
• * Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
• requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
• * Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
• * Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
• * Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
• * Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
• at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
• * Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
• Nations.
• * Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
• Palestinians.
• * Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
• calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
• * Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
• * Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
• and calls for their immediate return.

And had it not been for the power of the veto, courtesy of the US, would also be in violation of these other resolutions (strange how we scoffed that any superpower would dare to criticize our proposed resolution dealing with Iraq, on account of the wealth of well-documented evidence we presented; wait, in hindsight, maybe its not so strange):

Of the 248 vetoes recorded by the five Security Council members since the inception of the United Nations, the United States has cast 73 - the vast majority of them related to the Middle East.
Here is a list of the US vetoes, in addition to 25 US abstentions on S. C resolutions that are condemning
Israel alone which are 25 out of 71.

While the vetos are 38.

Vetoes cast by the United States to Shield Israel from criticism by the UN Security Council

Until the Nixon administration, the United States had never employed its veto power in the UN Security Council. The first U. S veto was cast on March 17, 1970, over Southern Rhodesia. The second veto came two years later when
Washington sought to protect Israel from a resolution condemning Israel for one of its attacks on its neighbors. Since then, the United has cast its veto a total of 38 times to shield Israel from Council draft resolutions that condemned, deplored, denounced, affirmed, endorsed, called upon and urged Israel to obey the world body.

1. 10 Sep. 1972 Condemned Israel's attacks against southern Lebanon and Syria. Vote: 13 to 1 with 1 abstention
2. 26 Jul. 1973 Affirmed the rights of the Palestinian people to self determination, statehood and equal protections.                  Vote: 13 to 1 with China absent
3. 08 Dec. 1975 Condemned Israel air strike and attacks in southern Lebanon and its murder of innocent civilians.
Vote: 13 to 1 with 1 abstention
4.  26 Jan. 1976 Called for self-determination of Palestinian People. Vote:  9 to 1 with 3 abstentions
5. 25 Mar. 1976 Deplored Israel's alteration of the status of Jerusalem, which is recognized as an international city by most of world nations and the United Nations. Vote 14 to 1
6. 29 Jun. 1976 Affirmed the Inalienable rights of the Palestinian People. Vote 10 to 1 with 4 abstention
7. 30 Apr. 1980 Endorsed self-determination of Palestinian People. Vote 10 to 1 with 4 abstention
8. 20 Jan. 1982 Demands Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Vote 10 to 1 with 4 abstention
9. 01 Apr. 1982 Condemned Israel mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza strip and its refusal to abide by the Geneva Conventions Protocols of civilized nations. Vote: 14 to 1
10. 02 Apr. 1982 Condemned an Israeli soldier who shot 11 Moslem worshipers in the Haram al Sharif near Al Aqsa mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem. Vote: 14 to 1
11. 08 Jun. 1982 Urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Lebanon. Vote: 14 to 1
12. 26 Jun. 1982 Urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Beirut, Lebanon. Vote: 14 to 1
13. 06 Aug. 1982 Urged cut-off economic aid to Israel if it refused to withdraw from its occupation of Lebanon. Vote: 11 to 1 with 3 abstention
14. 02 Aug. 1983 Condemned continued Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, denouncing them as an obstacle to peace. Vote: 13 to 1 with 3 abstention
15. 06 Sep. 1984 Deplored Israel's brutal massacre of Arabs in Lebanon and urged its withdrawal. Vote: 14 to 1
16. 12 Mar. 1985 Condemned Israeli brutality in southern Lebanon and denounces Israeli "Iron Fist" policy of repression. Vote: 11 to 1 with 3 abstentions
17. 13 Sep. 1985 Denounced Israel's violations of human rights in the occupied territories. Vote 10 to 1 with 4 abstentions
18. 17 Jan. 1986 Strongly deplored Israel's violence in southern Lebanon.Vote: 11 to 1 with 3 abstentions
19. 30 Jan. 1986 Deplored Israel's activities in the occupied Arab East Jerusalem, which threaten the sanctity of Muslim holy sites. Vote: 13 to 1 with 1 abstention
20. 06 Feb. 1986 Condemned Israel's hijacking of a Libyan airplane on Feb. 4, Vote: 10 to 1 with 1 abstention
21. 18 Jan. 1988 Strongly deplored Israeli attacks against Lebanon and its measures and practices against the civilian population of Lebanon. Vote: 13 to 1 with 1 abstention
22. 01 Feb. 1988 Called on Israel to abandon its policies against Palestinian uprising that violate the rights of occupied Palestinians, to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and formalize a leading role for the U.N. in future peace negotiations. Vote: 14 to 1
23. 15 Apr. 1988 Urged Israel to accept deported Palestinians, condemned Israel's shooting of civilians, called on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention and called for a peace settlement under U.N. auspices. Vote: 14 to 1
24. 10 May 1988 Condemned Israel's May 2 incursion into Lebanon. Vote: 14 to 1
25. 14 Dec. 1988 Strongly deplored Israel's Dec. 9 commando raids on Lebanon. Vote: 14 to 1
26. 17 Feb 19.89 Strongly deplored Israel's repression of the Palestinian uprising and called on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians. Vote: 14 to 1
27. 09 Jun. 1989 Strongly deplored Israel's violation of the human rights of the Palestinians. Vote: 14 to 1
28. 07 Nov. 1989 Demanded Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and allow a fact                finding mission to observe Israel's crackdown on the Palestinian  uprising. Vote 14 to 1
29. 31 May 1990 Called for a fact-finding mission on abuses against  Palestinians in Israeli occupied lands. Vote 14 to 1 . United States casts the lone veto to block a Security Council fact-finding mission to report on abuses of Palestinians in land Israel captured in war.
30. 04 Apr. 1992 Condemned Israel for the killing of four Palestinians and  injuring 50 more, 10 of them seriously, in Rafah.
Vote: 14 to 1.
31. 04 Dec. 1993 Urges Israel to allow the return of 101 Palestinian Deportees.  Vote: 14 to 1.
32. 17 May 1995 Condemning Israel's intention of confiscating 134  Acres of land in East Jerusalem.    Vote: 14 to 1. United States blocks a resolution that declared invalid Israel's expropriation of Arab-owned land in east Jerusalem.
33. 15 Apr. 1996 Condemns Israel's closure of the occupied territories. Vote: 14 to 1.
34. 25 Apr. 1996 Condemned Israel for bombing UN quarters in Qana, South Lebanon, and the continuous Israeli attacks.
Vote: 14 to 1.
35. 28 Sep. 1996 Condemned Israeli settlements in Ras Al Amud in Jerusalem. Vote: 14 to 1.
36. 07 Mar. 1997 Called for Israel to stop plans to build settlements in Jabal Abu Ghuneim (Har Homa) in Jerusalem.
Vote: 14 to 1. United States vetoes resolution calling on Israel to refrain from east Jerusalem settlement activity.
37. 21- 22 Mar. 97 Condemned Israeli settlement in Jabal Abu Ghuneim.
Vote: 14 to 1.   United States blocks resolution demanding Israel's immediate cessation of construction at an east Jerusalem settlement.
38. March 27, 2001: United States vetoes resolution backing a U.N. observer force to protect Palestinian civilians.

Not a pretty picture! Considering Iraq only had 16 resolutions, someone might deduce that Israel stands, by comparison, as a less compliant state than Iraq ever was. One little fact that I’d like to interject, for fear that it go unnoticed, is the discussion US Ambassador April Glaspie had with President of Iraq Saddam Hussein, at the command of US president at the time George H W Bush Sr. At which time our envoy to Iraq reveals that we are concerned with oil:

“You are right. It is true what you say that we do not want higher prices for oil. But I would ask you to examine the possibility of not charging too high a price for oil.” April Glaspie to Saddam Hussein July 1990.

And not any future action against Kuwait:

GLASPIE to Hussein: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

Even Bush senior seems a bit more focused on oil, more so than Peace.

Ah but I digress. Back to Israel. That country smaller than New Jersey. The one that gets more than a third of all the foreign aid the US supplies the entire world with. Talking about this much money:

Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997) Foreign Aid Grants and Loans $74,157,600,000 Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid) $9,047,227,200 Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments $1,650,000,000 Grand Total $84,854,827,200 Total Benefits per Israeli $14,630

Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S. Aid to Israel Grand Total $84,854,827,200 Interest Costs Borne by U.S. $49,936,680,000 Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers $134,791,507,200 Total Taxpayer Cost per Israeli $23,240

So, all of this, gets me thinking. I always wondered how anyone could consider sacrificing their life for something they believe in. Really? Strapping a bomb to ones chest and walking on to a bus with the intent of killing yourself and others, for any cause is unfathomable. It is a heinous act to be sure. So what could drive someone to such ends? Some would have us believe that the Palestinians believe if they commit such an act they will be rewarded in the afterlife, receiving 70 virgins even! Well I cannot for one believe that they are all so under the spell of religion that they all commit these acts with that goal fixed in their mind. Also consider that not all suicide bombers are male. We are told how Islam is cruel and demeaning to women, so I ask; ever consider if a girl suicide bomber gets the same royal treatment. If not, then what goal do they seek to fulfill? Is it some satisfaction they are harming a cruel occupying force? A literal example of David versus Goliath? This activity couldn’t be the first choice for these disgruntled Palestinians, could it? Well they had tried the diplomatic approach, as evidenced by the United Nations, numerous times, all to no avail. There land was furthered confiscated in another aggression in 1967. A war which actually cost US lives thanks to an “accidental” attack on the USS Liberty, in which Israel jammed our distress signal and proceeded to use unmarked aircraft and naval vessels to attack our large aircraft carrier, thinking it was instead a Egyptian horse carrier, which is by comparison, less than half the size. Well I can’t go on…Stay tuned however for a series on Israel. (Jonathon Pollard, 60 spies arrested here in the US in connection with 911 which was subsequently classified, the dancing Israelis, Vanunu, and more…)

July 1, 2004 ev

While arguing with a friend, it came to my attention that I prefer to take the “road less traveled”. In this case, that road is the one of “Skepticism”. I do not believe all that is fed to me, informationally speaking, is correct. I acknowledge that most, if not all, information presented to me is done so in a biased fashion. I am aware of this especially because I do consider input from all perspectives, and consider each valid. Consider this; we all perceive “matter”, but it is our unique perception of said “matter” that becomes real to us. If we only see a friend’s better side, do we truly know them? Do we think we do? So informing ourselves is not only important, it is our duty.

Currently the issues monopolizing my mind are issues of foreign affairs. Our government is acting in a fashion contrary to my “perceived” ideal of what is American.

Before it escapes me let me state the reason I began typing this:

What is a proper gauge of truth? Truly? If one makes the statement “we are safer now”, by what criteria do they make that claim? Is one to consider, perhaps, lives lost as a possible gauge? Whichever period, then or now, has the most death is consequently the most dangerous? Or perhaps the number of attacks in any given place is a true guide as to the safety of a location? Is it possible the truth is open to perception as well? Some may perceive only the danger that is before them, carrying on in a happy-go-lucky fashion. Maybe others consider dangers that go mainly unrealized by the masses. Should we “trust” or be “skeptical”?

A government functions as an extension of the “will” of the people. It, in itself, is merely the vehicle by which the people conduct their collective “will”. So for proper evolution of this macrocosmic entity, the government, it must act in a manner that benefits “the people”. If it does not, it becomes a parasite, feeding off of the fruits and the labors of “the people” for its own gain and not, as it should, by sustaining or forming a symbiotic relationship with “the people”.

What concerns me, regarding the current state of affairs, is the obvious manipulation (in my “perception”), by this administration, of the “truth”. We were told that a country was a threat to us. We were assured we would get evidence. We did not. We were told lies and deceptions and half truths. We were shown satellite images supposedly “confirming” a threat, yet could not demonstrate whether this information was credible. Even worse, we couldn’t use this information in a manner that considered the cost of life. Well it was portrayed that we did, but what became obvious was not our compassion; but our bigotry. How we minimized the value of a “Muslim” life. In this current situation it seems that the deception was not for the good of us Americans, but for the good of certain “ruling class” individuals, and their associates. Our money and our children are being sacrificed for a more positive business climate for a few of the elite ruling class. This is most troubling but it is a case of humanity. The self preservation instinct is strong in all class of being. So the “ruling class” continues to keep the masses in check, through fear and disinformation, while benefiting themselves to the detriment of their constituents.

Politicians escape unless they get caught, just like a “tick” might escape with his fill, if it can remain undetected. The “tick” does this by hiding in areas where its treachery is less noticeable, like our scalps, or in folds of skin. A politician, or at least my “perceived” view of politicians, is much like a parasite. Does it have to be this way?

How is it not possible in this day and age to let the people decide? What would they require? A simple (yes I concede that “the people” are not the most inclined to completely inform themselves and bear the responsibility for their own well-being) explanation of the possible advantages and disadvantages of any given decision, would help matters. An explanation that is free from partisan politics or corporate agendas. How much will it cost? What is the benefit to me? What will I be sacrificing? This is what a democratic voting society needs. One who seeks to cloud the mind, perhaps through trickery (deception, veiled truths, outright lies, etc…), is an enemy of any democratic state.

I have my own opinions on certain issues. I understand not all share my beliefs. If I truly believe in democracy I must accept what the majority of “the people” decide upon. Then live within the rules established by that democracy, a government of the people and by the people and for the people. If I do not agree with the decision of the majority I either leave, or accept it and realize any of my actions that conflict with the law are acts of willful disobedience and are punishable by the law of the land. By staying I imply that I recognize the authority of the land.

If I use the example set by the current “Ruling class”, perhaps I should influence the masses to favor my position, I may threaten, intimidate, misinform, or pay others to agree with me. Is that what I should do? If I had the power to gather the minorities of other areas and include their vote with mine, to both simultaneously strengthen my position and weaken that of my opposition, is that what I should do? Is that really what I should do? My “perception” of the American way is contrary to that. Every one of us is equal. Some may argue that if it is a condition of humanity, self-preservation, then it is excusable. To them I say America is not a condition of nature. It is not based upon the law of the strong. On the contrary it grants to even the least of its citizens, the same equal rights. That is not “the strong will survive”. More accurately is that the mouse shall exist in harmony with the lion.

How do these “ruling class” come to power? We elect them. We decide upon a small number of candidates and select from them our leader(s). This seems fair. Yet why is it that those candidates are selected? Is it perhaps due to their wealth that they are able to promote themselves? Would a middle class average earner have the same ability, and equal right, to hold that office? Are the elected truly representative of “the people”? I do not have any statistics in front of me but I can say with certainty that the majority of Americans are NOT millionaires. Perhaps maybe 2% of all Americans qualify as millionaires. So what percentage of the Bush administration or Congress are millionaires??? 4%? 10%? C’mon 50%? More?? Could it really be 100%?

If that is the case how could any rational citizen trust that the decisions made by this group, the clear minority, will benefit the majority? It may be that they do? Perhaps some of the time? Perhaps none of the time? Perhaps most of the time? Can you really leave it to chance? Or would one best be suited by questioning everything?

Skepticism?