The Mexican-American border dispute has reached a new height of hypocrisy. Arizona passed a law, that took effect on the New Year, which punishes employers who knowingly hire workers without valid legal documents to work in the US. In response, a delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson saying that Arizona's new employer sanctions law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state.
For Mexican officials to point their fingers across the border without acknowledging their own responsibility in this economic situation is not only hypocritical but also arrogant. Their first duty is to create an economic infrastructure in Mexico which would give the Mexican people a decent standard of living. But Mexico, as my friend so aptly put it, is a kleptocratic oligarchy. That would mean the Mexican elite would have to stop hoarding all of Mexico's vast wealth for themselves and invest it instead in their people and their country's future. If they did that, the Mexican people would not want to come to the US in the first place.
America owes the same duty to her people that Mexico owes to hers. That includes maximizing the opportunity of employment for American people. Arizona's move could only serve to reduce the rate of unemployment in the state. The Arizona people should be proud of this legislation, regardless of Mexico's response.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Everyone thought there were WMDs
President George W. Bush has repeatedly maintained that everyone thought there were WMDs in Iraq before he invaded her. But even back in 2005, I wasn't the only one connecting the dots to discover there was widespread disagreement before the invasion regarding the existence of the supposed WMDs. The arms inspectors were already coming up empty-handed in their inspections for WMDs in Iraq around the 2003 New Year.
A recent study found that Bush made 232 false statements about Iraq and former leader Saddam Hussein's possessing weapons of mass destruction, and 28 false statements about Iraq's links to al Qaeda. Conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism, the study states unequivocally that, following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
The study was based on a searchable database compiled of primary sources, such as official government transcripts and speeches, and secondary sources -- mainly quotes from major media organizations. It found that president Bush and his top seven aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001. The study concluded, "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."
It was not important to Bush what the intelligence community thought or even what he thought, it was important to Bush that the American people believed Iraq had WMDs. To make them believe this without any evidence by conducting a campaign of deceit should be grounds for impeachment.
A recent study found that Bush made 232 false statements about Iraq and former leader Saddam Hussein's possessing weapons of mass destruction, and 28 false statements about Iraq's links to al Qaeda. Conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism, the study states unequivocally that, following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
The study was based on a searchable database compiled of primary sources, such as official government transcripts and speeches, and secondary sources -- mainly quotes from major media organizations. It found that president Bush and his top seven aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001. The study concluded, "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."
It was not important to Bush what the intelligence community thought or even what he thought, it was important to Bush that the American people believed Iraq had WMDs. To make them believe this without any evidence by conducting a campaign of deceit should be grounds for impeachment.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Federal budget deficit
President Bush is touting his plan to eliminate the budget deficit by 2012. Sure, he'll have to cut many programs to do so, but Bush wants to keep America focused on the end result in 2012.
Why does Bush stay focused on 2012? Perhaps because he'd prefer America doesn't know about what his budget will do in the next fiscal year. Under his plan, the budget deficit will increase almost 150% to $400-billion.
That's just shy of the record $413-billion deficit Bush racked up in 2004. Nonetheless, it seems that with such a substantial increase over last fiscal year, the budget deficit is heading in the wrong direction. With a record like this, how can anyone take the GOP presidential candidates seriously when they talk about the "tax and spend" Democrats?
Why does Bush stay focused on 2012? Perhaps because he'd prefer America doesn't know about what his budget will do in the next fiscal year. Under his plan, the budget deficit will increase almost 150% to $400-billion.
That's just shy of the record $413-billion deficit Bush racked up in 2004. Nonetheless, it seems that with such a substantial increase over last fiscal year, the budget deficit is heading in the wrong direction. With a record like this, how can anyone take the GOP presidential candidates seriously when they talk about the "tax and spend" Democrats?
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Taking annual inventory of the war in Iraq
Another year has passed since I last took a tally of the war in Iraq. Back then, the talk was about launching a 'surge.' Since then, Bush launched the surge and is now talking about withdrawing it.
The surge met with moderate success, squelching the sectarian violence in spots in Iraq. Unfortunately, it has not been successful at achieving the one key objective of the surge: creating an environment where political reconciliation can occur in Iraq. Moreover, according to the latest Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Quarterly Report to the United States Congress (12 MB PDF download):
2007 is shaping up to be the deadliest year for American troops in Iraq. We know that 3,874 of them have been killed in Iraq since the war started. However, that count does not include the numerous severely wounded troops who were evacuated from Iraq and subsequently died of the wounds they sustained in Iraq while under medical care in places outside of Iraq like the Ramstein Air Base in Germany.
It's not so clear how accurate the number of casualties reported by the military is. While it reports over 30,000 troops injured in Iraq, there are at least 20,000 American troops who sustained brain injuries in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan who are not counted among the wounded. It took Freedom of Information Act filings to force the military to release the information which uncovered this 'oversight.' Does it make a difference that there are actually over 50,000 American casualties of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than 'just' 30,000? While it doesn't to their commander in chief, who stubbornly sticks to his same losing strategy in Iraq, it does to the families and friends of those 20,000 unrecognized wounded veterans.
Meanwhile, the "coalition of the willing" is falling apart. Although their presence in Iraq was never substantial in the first place, nineteen countries have withdrawn from the Coalition. Even America's staunchest ally in the Coalition, England, reported in February that it would be withdrawing 2,100 of its 7,200 troops from Iraq. This will have little impact on America's commitment to the war since US troops have comprised around ninety percent of the Coalition all along.
Probably the most significant impact on the war in Iraq in the past year is what has not happened. President Bush has established no new policies to guide our action in Iraq. He has undertaken no new strategy for fighting the war (the surge was not a new strategy, it was just throwing more troops at the old one). And he hasn't come up with a new justification for the war this year -- Bush still claims it's the "front in the war on terror." This lack of addressing the failures of the war in Iraq means that America will continue to languish in the quagmire for at least another year.
The surge met with moderate success, squelching the sectarian violence in spots in Iraq. Unfortunately, it has not been successful at achieving the one key objective of the surge: creating an environment where political reconciliation can occur in Iraq. Moreover, according to the latest Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Quarterly Report to the United States Congress (12 MB PDF download):
notwithstanding this important progress on the security front facilitated by the surge, the overall security situation in Iraq still hampers recovery and reconstruction efforts. Attacks on infrastructure continue to adversely affect the availability of essential services.Subsequently, the withdrawal of the surge does not mean success, it means switching to Plan B ... except that the Bush administration does not have a Plan B.
2007 is shaping up to be the deadliest year for American troops in Iraq. We know that 3,874 of them have been killed in Iraq since the war started. However, that count does not include the numerous severely wounded troops who were evacuated from Iraq and subsequently died of the wounds they sustained in Iraq while under medical care in places outside of Iraq like the Ramstein Air Base in Germany.
It's not so clear how accurate the number of casualties reported by the military is. While it reports over 30,000 troops injured in Iraq, there are at least 20,000 American troops who sustained brain injuries in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan who are not counted among the wounded. It took Freedom of Information Act filings to force the military to release the information which uncovered this 'oversight.' Does it make a difference that there are actually over 50,000 American casualties of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than 'just' 30,000? While it doesn't to their commander in chief, who stubbornly sticks to his same losing strategy in Iraq, it does to the families and friends of those 20,000 unrecognized wounded veterans.
Meanwhile, the "coalition of the willing" is falling apart. Although their presence in Iraq was never substantial in the first place, nineteen countries have withdrawn from the Coalition. Even America's staunchest ally in the Coalition, England, reported in February that it would be withdrawing 2,100 of its 7,200 troops from Iraq. This will have little impact on America's commitment to the war since US troops have comprised around ninety percent of the Coalition all along.
Probably the most significant impact on the war in Iraq in the past year is what has not happened. President Bush has established no new policies to guide our action in Iraq. He has undertaken no new strategy for fighting the war (the surge was not a new strategy, it was just throwing more troops at the old one). And he hasn't come up with a new justification for the war this year -- Bush still claims it's the "front in the war on terror." This lack of addressing the failures of the war in Iraq means that America will continue to languish in the quagmire for at least another year.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Tightening the belt of the Defense Department
Congress finally did something right this week. They failed to appropriate more funding to the war in Iraq without a commitment by the commander in chief to withdraw the troops from there soon. After approving half a trillion dollars of "emergency appropriations" with no strings attached since the invasion, thereby perpetuating the war in Iraq, congress is finally responding to its constituents and leveraging more pressure to redeploy the troops.
Secretary of defense Robert Gates responded to the failure to fund the Iraq war with a threat to furlough as many as 200,000 civil servants and defense contractors this winter. This could potentially force the Defense Department to close dozens of domestic military bases. Gates couched his threat with a claim that the furloughs would be "the least undesirable" alternative to the lack of funding.
But Gates failed to acknowledge one very desirable way to respond to a lack of funding: an immediate and orderly withdrawal of troops from Iraq. That would save the Pentagon nearly $2-billion per week. Certainly that must be far more money than it costs to pay the 200,000 civil servants and defense contractors Gates threatened to furlough.
More importantly, this is how the American people want the Pentagon to tighten its belt. In fact, with the redeployment of the troops from Iraq, president Bush would not even need the $189-billion supplemental appropriation he's asking for in the first place. Congress did approve the Pentagon's $470-billion base budget, so no one can claim that it does not support the troops.
Secretary of defense Robert Gates responded to the failure to fund the Iraq war with a threat to furlough as many as 200,000 civil servants and defense contractors this winter. This could potentially force the Defense Department to close dozens of domestic military bases. Gates couched his threat with a claim that the furloughs would be "the least undesirable" alternative to the lack of funding.
But Gates failed to acknowledge one very desirable way to respond to a lack of funding: an immediate and orderly withdrawal of troops from Iraq. That would save the Pentagon nearly $2-billion per week. Certainly that must be far more money than it costs to pay the 200,000 civil servants and defense contractors Gates threatened to furlough.
More importantly, this is how the American people want the Pentagon to tighten its belt. In fact, with the redeployment of the troops from Iraq, president Bush would not even need the $189-billion supplemental appropriation he's asking for in the first place. Congress did approve the Pentagon's $470-billion base budget, so no one can claim that it does not support the troops.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Atheists in the army
Freedom of religion in the USA is supposed to include freedom from religion. The Establishment Clause is supposed to apply to all Americans, including the troops. This is a basic right granted by the Constitution.
Ironically, the troops are the people making the greatest sacrifices in the name of freedom. Yet, the army is becoming a place of evangelizing to Jewish and Islamic troops. God forbid one be an atheist!
Last summer, US Army Specialist Jeremy Hall got permission to post fliers at Speicher base in Iraq announcing a meeting for atheists and other nonbelievers. When the meeting got underway, Hall's Army major supervisor disrupted the meeting and threatened to retaliate against Hall, including blocking his reenlistment in the Army. Earlier, he had been publicly berated by a staff sergeant for not agreeing to join in a prayer.
This intolerance in the military is not restricted to the Army and aimed only at atheists. In the 1990s, the Air Force published a Little Blue Book of core values highlighting religious tolerance. Nonetheless, it was discovered in 2004 that some faculty and staff at the Air Force Academy (AFA) in Colorado Springs, Colo., had significant problems with evangelizing cadets. It was reported that Lt. Gen. William Boykin visited churches in uniform and gave inflammatory speeches. Speaking of a Muslim warlord he had pursued, Boykin said, "I knew my God was a real God and his was an idol," and our enemies "will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus."
Among those feeling the heat was the son of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation's (MRFF) founder, Michael Weinstein, a former Air Force judge advocate and assistant counsel in the Reagan White House. His son, a Jew and a cadet at the AFA, was subjected to Christian evangelizing. Another alumnus of the AFA, Col. David Antoon (ret.), took his son to an orientation at the AFA in 2004. His son, Ryan, experienced an overt evangelistic approach during part of the orientation.
So what's a more tenable situation: to be a Jew or a Muslim in the US military? It seems that neither one is. But when it comes to being an atheist in the Army, you'd best follow the policy for gays: 'don't ask, don't tell.'
Ironically, the troops are the people making the greatest sacrifices in the name of freedom. Yet, the army is becoming a place of evangelizing to Jewish and Islamic troops. God forbid one be an atheist!
Last summer, US Army Specialist Jeremy Hall got permission to post fliers at Speicher base in Iraq announcing a meeting for atheists and other nonbelievers. When the meeting got underway, Hall's Army major supervisor disrupted the meeting and threatened to retaliate against Hall, including blocking his reenlistment in the Army. Earlier, he had been publicly berated by a staff sergeant for not agreeing to join in a prayer.
This intolerance in the military is not restricted to the Army and aimed only at atheists. In the 1990s, the Air Force published a Little Blue Book of core values highlighting religious tolerance. Nonetheless, it was discovered in 2004 that some faculty and staff at the Air Force Academy (AFA) in Colorado Springs, Colo., had significant problems with evangelizing cadets. It was reported that Lt. Gen. William Boykin visited churches in uniform and gave inflammatory speeches. Speaking of a Muslim warlord he had pursued, Boykin said, "I knew my God was a real God and his was an idol," and our enemies "will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus."
Among those feeling the heat was the son of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation's (MRFF) founder, Michael Weinstein, a former Air Force judge advocate and assistant counsel in the Reagan White House. His son, a Jew and a cadet at the AFA, was subjected to Christian evangelizing. Another alumnus of the AFA, Col. David Antoon (ret.), took his son to an orientation at the AFA in 2004. His son, Ryan, experienced an overt evangelistic approach during part of the orientation.
So what's a more tenable situation: to be a Jew or a Muslim in the US military? It seems that neither one is. But when it comes to being an atheist in the Army, you'd best follow the policy for gays: 'don't ask, don't tell.'
Islam in the 21st century
My father used to pose two questions about the Jewish sabbath to me for pondering. The sabbath begins Fridays at sunset and end the next day at sunset. If a Jewish person were to live exactly at the South Pole and use the clock to time when to begin and end observing the sabbath, which time zone would he choose? If he were to instead time the sabbath using the actual setting of the sun, a single sabbath would last for months instead of hours in the winter.
Space travel creates a similar dilemma for Muslim astronauts. With the start of Ramadan, Islamic astronauts must fast from sunrise to sunset. That's only ninety minutes in orbit. And the praying postures -- standing, bowing, kneeling, and prostrating -- are a challenge in zero gravity.
To address such issues, the Department of Islamic Development in the Malaysian National Space Agency (MNSA) held a two-day conference in 2006. The conference produced A Guideline of Performing Ibadah at the International Space Station (ISS). The solutions they came up with for Ibadah seem quite arbitrary. It's as if religious symbolism is suddenly irrelevant when it's inconvenient.
For example, if the schedule on the ISS conflicts with the daily prayers, Muslim astronauts could perform them "in Jamak (combined) and Qasar (shortened), without the need to Qadha' (compensate) the prayer." It's as if the Department of Islamic Development prioritizes the ISS mission over Islamic duty. "Using the eye lid as an indicator of the changing of postures in prayer" is their solution to prayer in zero gravity. You can't make this up, folks! Insofar as determining the direction of Qibla (facing Mecca during prayer) is concerned, if you don't choose one of their first three options, you can face "wherever."
The timing of the prayers and fasting are both dealt with the same way. The Muslim astronaut calculates it according to a 24-hour cycle based on the time zone of where they launched off the planet. Although a pragmatic approach, what does this say of the validity of the religious symbolism behind the Earth-based rules?
A Muslim must perform ritual washing before worship. They can't get away with it on the ISS because the only thing more precious than water is oxygen. Instead, they perform tayammum (dry ablution) "by striking both palms of hands on a clean surface such as wall or mirror." Again, I'm not making this up!
Pork and alcohol are prohibited in the Muslim diet. If there's any question as to whether or not the food served on the ISS is halal (anything permissible under Islamic law), the Muslim astronaut is permitted to eat on a "basis of not to starve." That's very thoughtful of the MNSA. Visits to the ISS typically last well over forty days.
We also learn from the Department of Islamic Development that, "according to Islam, traveling to space is encouraged." Apparently, Mohammed had foresight centuries ahead of his time. I'm curious to know on which passages of the Q'uran this edict is based.
So the next time you think the Amish have it tough in contemporary American society, try being faithful to Islam in the 21st century.
Space travel creates a similar dilemma for Muslim astronauts. With the start of Ramadan, Islamic astronauts must fast from sunrise to sunset. That's only ninety minutes in orbit. And the praying postures -- standing, bowing, kneeling, and prostrating -- are a challenge in zero gravity.
To address such issues, the Department of Islamic Development in the Malaysian National Space Agency (MNSA) held a two-day conference in 2006. The conference produced A Guideline of Performing Ibadah at the International Space Station (ISS). The solutions they came up with for Ibadah seem quite arbitrary. It's as if religious symbolism is suddenly irrelevant when it's inconvenient.
For example, if the schedule on the ISS conflicts with the daily prayers, Muslim astronauts could perform them "in Jamak (combined) and Qasar (shortened), without the need to Qadha' (compensate) the prayer." It's as if the Department of Islamic Development prioritizes the ISS mission over Islamic duty. "Using the eye lid as an indicator of the changing of postures in prayer" is their solution to prayer in zero gravity. You can't make this up, folks! Insofar as determining the direction of Qibla (facing Mecca during prayer) is concerned, if you don't choose one of their first three options, you can face "wherever."
The timing of the prayers and fasting are both dealt with the same way. The Muslim astronaut calculates it according to a 24-hour cycle based on the time zone of where they launched off the planet. Although a pragmatic approach, what does this say of the validity of the religious symbolism behind the Earth-based rules?
A Muslim must perform ritual washing before worship. They can't get away with it on the ISS because the only thing more precious than water is oxygen. Instead, they perform tayammum (dry ablution) "by striking both palms of hands on a clean surface such as wall or mirror." Again, I'm not making this up!
Pork and alcohol are prohibited in the Muslim diet. If there's any question as to whether or not the food served on the ISS is halal (anything permissible under Islamic law), the Muslim astronaut is permitted to eat on a "basis of not to starve." That's very thoughtful of the MNSA. Visits to the ISS typically last well over forty days.
We also learn from the Department of Islamic Development that, "according to Islam, traveling to space is encouraged." Apparently, Mohammed had foresight centuries ahead of his time. I'm curious to know on which passages of the Q'uran this edict is based.
So the next time you think the Amish have it tough in contemporary American society, try being faithful to Islam in the 21st century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)