More on the drone wars

I'm sick of the undeclared drone war that the U.S. (led by President Obama) is waging against thousands people in the Middle East who have not been shown to be guilty of anything at all. Who are all these people we are killing? The Obama Administration says "Trust Us," but I don't. I'm tired of hearing the U.S. claim that these drone attacks are killing "insurgents" while more reputable sources show the bodies of civilians and children. This reckless use of drones is causing millions of people to HATE the United States. The drone wars are thus contrary to our national interest. Even if you very much prefer Obama to the insane GOP alternative this November, please speak up against the drone wars. The following cartoons were drawn by a friend of mine, Ray Gregory, who is no fan of the drone wars. -- ---------------

Continue ReadingMore on the drone wars

Military Voting Philosophy

I remember the presidential election of 2004, during which the armed services were flooded with the message that it was seditious to speak out against your Commander in Chief, and certainly bad to consider voting against your own commander. Luminaries of the time like Ann Coulter published the principle that anyone who casts doubt on ones president is a traitor. This was a solidly accepted conservative plank. But the message fed to members of the armed forces has changed for the 2012 election: Not My President This image has been going around on Facebook, among other sources. I suspect that the message they receive about their Commander in Chief is different than before. There also is a busy meme insinuating that Democrats are busily working to deny military members their right to absentee vote. Does this mean that the military is a Republican organization? Or does it cleave to one of the Three Tea Party branches?

Continue ReadingMilitary Voting Philosophy

Mitt Romney: Certified and Dangerous Chickenhawk/Prevaricator

It would be hypocritical for those who spoke out in favor of the Vietnam War to have taken multiple steps to avoid going to Vietnam as a member of the military. Yet this was the situation of young Mitt Romney, pro-Vietnam War but unwilling to go there, and then he spins a wild lie in an attempt to cover his tracks. That is the news story told by Steve Benen at the Maddow Blog:

Many years later, in 1994, Romney said, "It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft." That wasn't true -- he took several steps to remove himself from the eligibility pool.
Romney is certainly not the first chickenhawk to run vie for high political office. We've seen it before, and every time I see it, it reminds me of the words of Chris Hedges (who wrote War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning), and I think to myself, "If he had fought in a war he wouldn't be nearly so willing to start yet another war." To me, the word "chickenhawk" is not a mainly an insult because I can respect the fact that people avoid going to war. To me, the importance of the term is that it refers to a dangerous psychological profile of many people who seek powerful political positions. It refers to a type of reaction formation. It is a common tactic of those who are willing to sacrifice American soldiers so that they can feel a psuedo-manly inner glow. The fact that one is a certified chickenhawk, as Mitt Romney is, should disqualify him for office. American voters just don't seem to "get it," however. We should run from politicians who bellow pro-war platitudes after having avoided war. What kind of candidate would be trustworthy on matters of war? Those who actually fought, or equally, those who avoided war when of military age and continue to avoid war now.

Continue ReadingMitt Romney: Certified and Dangerous Chickenhawk/Prevaricator

Eisenhower must be turning in his grave

At Truthdig, Bill Boyarsky reminds of of the words of Dwight Eisenhower, a man who both experienced war and understood the urge to go to war. Boyarsky offers this Eisenhower quote:

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberty or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

We've been warned, but we have not heeded the warning, according to Boyarsky:

Even in the face of this warning, we have become complacent. A small, insular group of security advisers and State and Defense Department officials, working out of public view and supervised by President Obama, are waging cyberwar in Iran and drone war in other countries. Behind them is a huge commercial apparatus of arms manufacturers, private security and logistics contractors and others who have an economic interest in war. Oversight is impossible; stiff penalties await leakers or whistle-blowers.

Continue ReadingEisenhower must be turning in his grave

The real risk of an American dying in a terrorist attack

Comedy Central’s Indecision presents some rather unsurprising statistics that need to be read by every member of Congress. What is an American’s likelihood of dying from a terrorist attack?

According to government statistics, roughly as many Americans are killed annually by unstable furniture and falling televisions as are killed in terrorist attacks.
What else is more dangerous than a terrorist attack? 16 oz. sodas, inconvenience of going through TSA security at an airport (which discourages many people from flying, causing them to die on the highways), use of your bathroom, texting, autoerotic asphyxia, alcohol and tobacco, weather, suicide, hospital infections and doctor errors and stress. One more thing: What is the risk of an American dying in a terrorist attack? Ronald Bailey of Reason suggests a very liberal estimate (an estimate assuming death to be more likely) would be 1 in 1.7 million, and he offers these additional statistics:
Taking these figures into account, a rough calculation suggests that in the last five years, your chances of being killed by a terrorist are about one in 20 million. This compares annual risk of dying in a car accident of 1 in 19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000. In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist.
This same article indicates that the U.S. spends $400 million dollars per life saved in antiterrorism security measures (cost$1 Trillion since 2001), but this number doesn’t include military expenses by the United States. It's also important to keep in mind that the U.S. spends more on maintaining a military than the rest of the world combined. Perhaps if Americans weren't so afflicted with innumeracy, we could accept the true (miniscule) risk of dying from a terrorist act, and focus on preventing much more likely forms of death. Perhaps we could spend a significant chunk of that "anti-terrorism" money to combat innumeracy.

Continue ReadingThe real risk of an American dying in a terrorist attack