28 December 2015

"Palestinianism" as Defined Derogatoriy in a Nonsensical Article

Here we have a characterization of the word "Palestinianism" in an article by an apparently dedicated ideological political Zionist - a word which it is his intent to use derogatorily:  "Palestinianism" based on his characterization is  a load of irritating drivel (i.e. B.S.) intended to be damaging to Palestinians; intended to place unwarranted blame on Palestinians for the political Zionist occupation of Palestine which continues to be carried on through illegal means.

For many people, salvation is not of the Jews but of the Palestinians by Richard Mather   

A short excerpt: 
"No, Palestinianism in its fullest sense is a wide-ranging quasi-religious ideology that appeals to all faiths and none. It appeals to Christians, Muslims, and even some Jews. It appeals to hardcore communist atheists and religious fanatics alike. It is the belief system of anti-Semitic movements like BDS and the International Solidarity Movement. It is a unifying belief system that blames all the world’s problems on the Jews and promises salvation by promising to eradicate Zionism and establish a State of Palestine between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea."

Mathers then launches into an a tirade about anti-Semitism (specifically anti-Jewish anti-Semitism) as if that has something to do with being Palestinian. 

The religion of Judaism, and indeed the ethnicity of being Jewish, are entirely different than the ideology of being political Zionist.  Political Zionism is the "entity", primarily in the form of the modern day Israeli government as ring leader, that knowingly and consistently creates anti-Jewish sentiment in folks who don't know the difference between a political identity, and an identity that is religious and/or ethnic; then blames Palestinians for the anti-Jewish sentiment created by the criminal injustices of political Zionism.  It is an invalid assumption, and never a given that someone Jewish (religion and/or ethnicity) is a political Zionist.  Not even all Israelis are political Zionists.  Nor is embracing the ideology of political Zionism exclusive to folks who are Jewish.  In fact many Christian Zionists are more vile in their misleading claims about Palestinians. 

So how did this blog article come to my attention?  It was suggested as a "related link" for a post about a new Kairos Publication: Life with Dignity (downloadable).  Related?  Ha!  I think not.

Clearly young Mr. Mather misses the boat about what it means to be Palestinian by presenting a convoluted hasbara explanation about what being Palestinian is NOT.  Thus his comment becomes a limiting effort based on describing what political Zionists want the world to think being Palestinian is.  Shame, shame. 

And of course he also takes unwarranted hasbara pot shots at the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement (BDS) and International Solidarity Movement (ISM).   Clearly he wasn't paying attention, once he reached the age of responsibility, to the worldwide process of South Africa being persuaded by worldwide boycott, divestment, and sanctions, to end apartheid.

Any of his comments that could vaguely ring true (like "oppression of women and minorities in a Palestinian state, the imprisonment of journalists and dissidents, and the political legitimisation of far right Islamist groups like Hamas") are a direct result of the government of Israel's criminally illegal ongoing occupation.  Equating the currently Israeli occupied Palestinian territory and people, collectively, with an independent self-determined nation of Palestine is nonsense.  Brutally occupied nations are not self-determined independent nations.  
"The sooner Zionism and the Israeli state pass into history, say the Palestinianists, the sooner there will be peace in the Middle East. Despite the obvious drawbacks to this scenario, such as the oppression of women and minorities in a Palestinian state, the imprisonment of journalists and dissidents, and the political legitimization of far right Islamist groups like Hamas, Palestinianists remain zealous in their commitment to the creation of a twenty-third Arab state."
As far as I have ever known in my numerous decades as an American who has been paying close and on-going attention to these issues since before my age of majority, and after having done historical research necessary for understanding, the only political ideology I could honestly say has ever truly and universally been associated with being Palestinian is "end the occupation" (other than live and let live which is not political, and a generosity of spirit which is an inseparable part of being Palestinian, and  . . . well, the good list of Palestinian characteristics goes on and on).  Other than that a Palestinian is someone who lives in the region that has been known as Palestine for millenia before the ancient Kingdom of Israel existed, and during the times when the region of Palestine was a part of other ancient empires.  Its geographical position makes it a unique region, more geographically unique than many nations.  Clearly the region of Palestine has always been a desirable piece of real estate for numerous reasons primarily because of its propinquitous geographical location to neighboring regions.  Control of the region and it's people has long been wanted by those who were not native to the region of Palestine.

As a discussion, "end the occupation" with its numerous related sub-topics has unlimited potential for resolving the issues, including issues of regional violence (and has had since Israel declared itself a nation in 1948) - were it not for the efforts of ideological political Zionism to prevent and silence civil and factual discussion among people, organizations, and nations, about how to realistically end the occupation.

Mather also wants to complain about the region of Palestine being between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea . . . as it always has been.  Yes,  Palestine has been recognized as that region for millennia.  We find it carved in stone in Ancient Egypt in numerous historic records.  We find it recognized as such in the Encyclopaedia Judaica in modern times.  What incredible arrogance considering the ideology of political Zionism wants to claim the territory of modern day Israel as being "from the Nile to the Tigris-Euphrates".  As such it seems that modern day Israel is still competing with what was once the territory of ancient Babylon which at one time also included the region of Palestine.

And, yes, ancient Israel also existed for a relatively short period of time in the region of Palestine . . . before the internecine divisiveness that lead to a division of land resulting in a smaller kingdom of Israel and an additional kingdom of Judah, both for another relatively short period of time. 

Mather's territorial complaint is a bad case of trying to rewrite history in its efforts to blame occupied Palestinians for Israel's crimes, and a bad case of projection i.e. "the pot calling the kettle black", through his characterization of what he deludes himself into imagining is "Palestinianism" - and worse what he wants everyone else to imagine.

17 November 2015

"Thousands of corporations are using forced arbitration clauses to deny the rights of ripped-off consumers."

In today's e-mail I received a notice of a petition to congress regarding the Arbitration Fairness Act (S. 1133 and H.R. 2087) which looks like an issue that needs attention from we, the people.  The sponsoring organization, Public Citizen, is an organization founded by Ralph Nader in 1971 "dedicated to protecting health, safety, and democracy."  The request asks of us:  "Tell Congress: Ban Forced Arbitration Congress Should Restore Consumer Rights by Passing the Arbitration Fairness Act." 

Most of us recognize that corporations have far more power in relation to we, the people, than is healthy for our nation.  As such, this petition is about legislation that prevents corporations from turning the screws tighter with a "rigged system of private arbitration" by the use of 'corporations’ handpicked arbitrators instead of impartial judges".

Myself, I like to read the actual legislation before signing anything because I have encountered petitions that are misleading about the legislation of concern because after reading the bill it became clear the problem cited by the petition request was not actually a problem.  In fact I have found petitions that are not related in any way to the pending bills cited! 

I also like to read articles and opinions about pending legislation prior to signing petitions advising our elected and appointed officials.  It is not difficult to get a good idea about this particular issue at the petition site because it provides useful information links.  The petition, itself, is one brief sentence, direct and to the point. 

The links at the petition site lead us to a New York Times Editorial, also to a blog of the organization sponsoring the petition in which a three part series in New York Times is cited, part 1 being from 31 October.  I included those links, below.  
The legislation is referred to as "the Arbitration Fairness Act" (S. 1133 and H.R. 2087) so I plugged in "Arbitration Fairness Act" at the Library of Congress THOMAS website search.  Bill numbers can be used to search, also.  The THOMAS website is "in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, legislative information from the Library of Congress". 

THOMAS produced House and Senate versions of the bill: 

 1. H.R.2087 : Arbitration Fairness Act of 2015
Sponsor: Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] (introduced 4/29/2015)      Cosponsors (74)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 6/26/2015 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial And Antitrust Law.

2. S.1133 : Arbitration Fairness Act of 2015
Sponsor: Sen Franken, Al [MN] (introduced 4/29/2015)      Cosponsors (18)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 4/29/2015 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Sometimes THOMAS links go to Congress.gov.  Actually THOMAS and Congress.gov  are two different federal government websites, but Congress.gov states: "Congress.gov is replacing THOMAS.gov. The retirement date of THOMAS will be announced in early 2016." 

It looks like THOMAS links provide more details associated with the legislation than GovTrack.  But it is possible to formulate an opinion without all the associated legislative details associated with process.  I also plugged in "Arbitration Fairness Act" at the GovTrack "Search for Legislation" which also produced the House and Senate versions of the bill. 

H.R. 2087: Arbitration Fairness Act of 2015
Sponsor: Rep. Henry “Hank” Johnson [D-GA4]
Introduced: Apr 29, 2015
Referred to Committee: Apr 29, 2015

S. 1133: Arbitration Fairness Act of 2015
Sponsor: Sen. Alan “Al” Franken [D-MN]
Introduced: Apr 29, 2015
Referred to Committee: Apr 29, 2015

Let us remember that Ralph Nader started successfully leading the charge associated with consumer rights decades ago and has stayed with it, consistently, all these years.  When Public Citizen is advocating for an issue I consider it is worth my attention because Nader's work for consumer rights and safety has been and continues to be of immeasurable value to we, the people, collectively. 

If you know about this issue and think we should be advising our Congress people of our wishes then, hopefully, you will take a moment to check out the petition link, and if it seems reasonable sign the petition requesting of Congress that it ban forced arbitration by restoring consumer rights with the passing of the Arbitration Fairness Act.  If you are not familiar with the issue then, hopefully, you will make use of the links to look further into the issue, then sign if it seems reasonable.

"Thousands of corporations are using forced arbitration clauses to deny the rights of ripped-off consumers.

These clauses block ripped-off consumers from holding corporations accountable in court.  Instead, consumers are routed into the rigged system of private arbitration, where decisions are in the hands of corporations’ handpicked arbitrators instead of impartial judges.

It’s time for Congress to step up and stop these unconscionable clauses once and for all."

13 November 2015

Our Electromagnetic Spectrum Problem Children: EMF, EMR, ELF and ES

Today I checked out a page with many articles in the Electromagnetism Category, including: 
1.  International Scientists Appeal to U.N. to Protect Humans and Wildlife from Electromagnetic Fields and Wireless Technology
2.  Student Science Experiment Finds Plants Won’t Grow Near Wi-Fi Router
3.  Spectacular Documentary On The Health Implications of Mobile Phone Technology
4.  Neurosurgeon Shows How Low Levels of Radiation Such As Wi-Fi, Smart Meters And Cell Phones Cause The Blood Brain Barrier To Leak 
5.  Environmental Physicians Issue Stern Warning on Biological and Health Effects from Electromagnetic Field Exposures (full document only available in pdf) 

These article are about a saturation with a high level of low to mid-frequency radiation known as Extremely Low Frequency (ELF).  To get a good idea of differences and similarities among Electro-magnetic Fields (EMF), Electro-Magnetic Radiation (EMR), ELF (which is also EMF/EMR), and Electromagnetic Sensitivity (ES)  there is a brief article about Electric and Magnetic Fields from National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences with useful graphs and links to more information and related topics.

Clearly there are many concerns which have become much more pressing due to the ELF from increasingly wide-spread wireless coverage, access, and exposure.  One of my own biggest concerns is the utility company deciding to go wireless with Smart Meters.  Granted, Electro-magnetic Fields (EMF)/Electro-Magnetic Radiation (EMR) are everywhere around us, but there is a very high level of ELF at homes with Smart Meters.  The location of the meters has a lot to do with the "unexplained" symptoms of many people which are actually symptoms of Electromagnetic Sensitivity (ES). 

Excerpt from number five, above:  Environmental Physicians Issue Stern Warning on Biological and Health Effects from Electromagnetic Field Exposures (full document only available in pdf)

  1. •Headaches •Nausea •Brain Fog •Memory Problems • Fatigue
  2. •Dizziness •Insomnia
  3. •Heart Pain/Palpitations •Swollen Lymph Nodes
  4. •Intestinal Disturbances •Eye Pain •Dry Eyes •Vision Problems
  5. •Night Sweats •Excessive Thirst
  6. •Increased Allergies/Sensitivities
The wireless-for-everyone-all-the-time era started becoming universal, in part, at first because of the "coolness" factors of "keeping up with the Jones' " and "peer pressure" and merchandise "deals" available ONLY via phones and tablets.  I got myself a pay-as-you-go cell phone in the early days for emergency use only while driving cross county.  Now, with the convenience of being able to call, text, be online anytime, anywhere, which is sometimes mandated by employers for accessibility, most folks choose not to look at the big picture associated with Environmental Health.  Yet, a big picture exists of which all should be aware.  It will get much worse before it gets better with precedent setting environmental health issues and legislation as indicators.

For example, lets compare the ELF issue to the second hand smoke issue which, through the years, was found to create as many or more health issues in people who do not smoke, because they were being exposed to the second hand smoke of those who do.  Needless to say, but I'll say it anyway, children were the most vulnerable victims.  Eventually, after many decades we have finally seen changes in levels of exposure to second hand smoke.  They are associated with laws having been formulated to protect the health of unwitting victims of second hand smoke - then laws being enforced.  Laws on the books are useless unless they are enforced.  And it has not been unusual that we, the people, have needed to put the pressure on so that laws actually are enforced, appropriately. 

This ELF and ES issues are little different in theory than the second hand smoke issue all the way around to include the need for policy making.  They have a wide-spread and increasingly consistent negative effect on huge populations, and seem somewhat imperceptible given that most of the symptoms can also be stress related, and are also symptoms related to numerous other health issues, thus are almost always discounted at first as being stress related. Thus, it becomes simply a matter of how long the collective "lowest common denominator" who chooses to ignore and deny the health problems from ELF,  will jeopardize everyone's health including their own, for the habit of convenience, as Electromagnetic Sensitivity (ES) increasingly affects larger populations. 

This concern is nothing new, actually.  There have been studies for many decades about the effects of EMF on folks who live near power plants, transformers, and high power transmission lines.  FYI:  Electricity Transmission (not the research, only information on how electricity moves, brief and well presented).  And of course there has been broadcasting of radio for over a century, also electric lights and appliances, later t.v., satellite, and microwave for at least 3/4 of a century.

Clearly with wireless having become a universal "addiction" (as in "need"), it would seem that shielding is the only answer.  But would that work?  And how might it work?  How could protecting everyone from a range of EMF not be a huge debate that industry will avoid and try to minimize as long as possible, because of shielding costs.  But, again how would shielding work, since wireless access is all about widely broadcasting ELF?  I don't know.  But it is something we all need to consider, wonder about, then find pertinent information and inform our elected and appointed government officials of our valid and pressing concerns.

Would all buildings and vehicles need to be shielded along with the equipment that broadcasts EMF?  Or would individuals need to shield themselves . . . . and how would that work?   How about routers, and modems in one's home?  Broadcasting ELF signals is how they work, the same as ELF being broadcast outdoors.  Is there actually a shielding solution?  I don't know.  What I do know is that my own home and equipment are wired - my preference.  But I have no choice about the ELF all around that is going to and from my neighbors' homes, nor the ELF in every public place, nor do I have a choice about the Smart Meters that have been installed. 

Long before I learned of the symptoms Smart Meters cause, I was experiencing some of them. Until I read more about Smart Meter ELF I didn't make the connection.  Then I did make the connection because in retrospect problems with sleeping in my bedroom manifested not long after the installation of Smart Meters.  It is to the point that I don't sleep well in the bedroom.  Apparently it is Electromagnetic Sensitivity (ES) which increases over time because of exposure to ELF.

What recourse is there for mandatory Smart Meters?  Unless and until people get with it and figure out what is happening there will continue to be no recourse.  As usual, it is up to we, the people, to start talking about this issue with our elected and appointed government officials at all levels.  And, as usual, we will need to provide credible research, and if necessary sit with them to read pertinent sections, or whole studies, until they get on board and can be trusted to take the health issues and research, seriously; once medical personnel start to recognize and admit that stress related symptoms are also being caused by ELF.  There is a lot of work to be accomplished not the least of which is getting the health industry on board.

We have a serious electrosmog problem, people.  We can continue to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, or we can have the courage to actually care about posterity, if not ourselves, then learn enough to understand the problems and do our jobs of addressing the issues with our elected and appointed government officials.

"The "electrosmog" that first began developing with the rollout of the electrical grid a century ago and now envelops every inhabitant of Earth is responsible for many of the diseases that impair or kill them.
During the past 100 years, we have methodically filled in the electromagnetic spectrum far beyond what occurs in nature."  From:  Cell Phone are Dangerous, But This May Be Far Worse. . .

The article addresses electrosmog, including pervasive "dirty electricity".  It is a  by-product of energy-efficient electronics.  There are also details about what happens to DNA because of it.  We are, after all, electrical beings.  And the issue here is EMF as an environmental toxin. 

My intention is not "fear-mongering", even though reading about the problems admittedly is on the scary side.  Why would I want to contribute to that?  There are way too many efforts all around us to manipulate our emotions for the benefits of others which usually is associated with greed for money and power (like in political leverage).  Simply consider advertising - and electioneering; also consider news reporting, to the point of obsession that concentrates on. thus "glorifies" catastrophe and crime. 

Whatever else it also is, our modern world is too often experienced as a vicious cycle of emotional manipulation which of course creates stress.  We need to choose our battles wisely.  And a myriad of battles exist all around us vying for the priority attention of responsible citizens of our nations and the world.  Ordinarily folks do not recognize the need to prioritize a variety of pressing issues until their lives are personally affected in some way or another by both recognized and unrecognized issues which become overwhelming problems. 

To embrace an attitude of prevention requires foresight and a good grasp of the big-picture regarding cause and effect, plus the ability to adequately communicate and discuss problems that will develop and are developing.  And it requires being detail oriented with skill in creating processes associated with desired outcome for the purpose of formulating effective plans for crisis management when the problems do develop - and they will develop.  We all have a vital part to play but first we must recognize the problems that do exist.

27 October 2015

Anger: Process It and Release It!

Today, 27 October, I was reading a comment on getting angry about the tragedies in our lives, which also stated that anger is a good thing as a vehicle of release. 

It brought to mind how I learned in my young adult years to appreciate anger as a cathartic release rather than a destructive force.  Somehow or another, thank God,  I developed the ability to productively control my own anger and rage, instead of being controlled by it.

Taking out our anger on those who do not deserve it, because of our own personal emotional pain, is never permissible.  But everyone  has been the target of other people's anger because of their emotional pain which had nothing to do with us.  Yet, we still ended up on the receiving end of anger being directed at us, simply because they had not processed unresolved anger, then risen above the pain they were allowing it to cause in their lives while also inflicting it on others. 

The best reasons to adequately process anger, then be able to release it, are self respect and  respect for others who mean us no harm.  But also if we allow unresolved anger to manifest for  long periods of time in our lives, it becomes an entrenched foundation upon which medical conditions and ill-health develop.

I learned, decades ago, that when we truly have made peace with our own anger, we can let go of it and can choose to pay it forward in an ongoing labor of love, rather than allowing it to be an unchecked destructive force in our own lives and the lives of others.

We all know that person, those people, whose unresolved  chaotic angry energy can be felt from miles away.  Their dislike is palpable, sometimes to the point of feeling like overwhelming hate.   They don't  need a reason to dislike us, they simply do.  Folks projecting unresolved chaotic angry energy often assume those who they observe experiencing joy, contentment, peace of mind have not endured hardships even though they may have endured and are still enduring hardships they experience as being unbearable.

Some people with overwhelming unprocessed unresolved anger seem to believe that if they can not experience good feelings, then no one else should be  able to either. The predominate feeling they project is animosity aimed at joy in the lives of others who allow them into their lives.  At that point we need to realize that people with unresolved anger issues have become extraordinarily emotionally needy destructive people who are unable to process their own anger and rise above the damage it does to themselves and others.  They need professional help.

Because the unprocessed anger of others is  something we can do little about, we would do well to recognize that problem and not allow the  on-going  unresolved anger of another which is causing them emotional pain, to also create unwarranted collateral damage in our own lives.

We are all capable of rising above the suffering anger can create, that our own egotistical self-interest has a bad habit of trying to superimpose onto our own lives, and by extension unnecessarily onto the lives of others, also.

When we care about people we don't want to walk away when they seem unable to make progress, especially when we have contributed a tremendous amount of good energy to encourage and support their progress, and know that others have too.  But recognizing that we must walk away at some point, setting a limit and being prepared to walk away, is the best thing we can do for ourselves and those who project damaging unresolved anger at us.  It is best to do so before allowing the unresolved destructive chaos to do irreparable  damage.  And, if possible without creating additional problems by doing so, the best we can do at that point is to advise seeking professional help. 

Corollary to this would be that when we, ourselves, need to process unresolved anger to prevent it's destructive energy from needlessly being broadcast as we work on rising above our own anger, it is advisable to avoid exposing others to it while we are still working through it in an effort to refuse to accommodate the emotional suffering it has the potential to inflict.

When we get to the point of feeling anger in ways that release us from experiencing destructive emotional pain, thus from broadcasting it in a way that also inflicts it on others, then anger can be released, often to be replaced by sorrow;  sorrow, not depression, not sadness, but cathartic sorrow as a result of feeling compassion for those who have intended to do harm, and those who have done harm because of having  been victims of  harm; sorrow because of compassion for self too, when we are able to step outside of self and view situations with objectivity;  and sorrow that is associated with the necessity of setting and enforcing limits that no longer allow those who harm us, knowingly and unknowingly, to have damaging influence in our lives.

addendum:
 I read a short report today (28 October), in TIME online about a "study" on anger, that concluded men are not plagued by inner anger, but women are, thus when women are angry they cry and do the "helpless woman routine", but men's anger is expressed as "situational conviction".  Why Angry Men Are More Influential Than Angry Women

The "study" was entirely based on interacting through typed responses on a screen and the "anger" (computer generated), was expressed in CAP LOCK and exclamation points.  However a second report from Terra Daily, Study: Being an angry white male is key to being influential, though being more detailed does not mention the computerized approach nor that the angry responses to which the study participants reacted were computer generated rather than from real people with simply the gender of the response being changed, rather than the content.   

I laughed while reading the first short article but was soon aghast imagining that it might be intended to be taken seriously! (No, my exclamation point does not indicate anger . . . it indicates being humorously aghast and highly dubious about the results, mostly because of the method used in the study.)  I considered the second longer article to be misleading because of omitting the methodology which made the study seem more credible.  Questions arise: Why not do a study of real life juries, instead?  And draw conclusions based on reality - at least the reality of the juries in time and place that are studied?  I remain dubious about the tentative conclusions drawn about gender based on perception of gender.

Here's why.  Plenty of men are plagued by inner anger. And the anger of plenty of women is expressed as situational conviction.  Myself, I don't consider the difference to be related to gender, as much as it is related to how long anger is allowed to "fester" and become pain before it is "processed". That is the sort of painful anger that builds up when neither "fight nor flight" is possible.  It is the type of painful anger that can be unprocessed from childhood incidents that need to be processed as an adult; and from other times in life when neither fight nor flight is possible.

Some people process anger quickly rather than internalize it. Those folks tend to control anger by experiencing it, processing it and moving on, rather that allowing anger to control them by allowing it build up internally without it being adequately processed.

Internalized unprocessed anger is the type of anger that also becomes a problem for others. And the problem is that it creates emotional pain, until a person realizes it is something to be angry about and in being angry is then able to rise above the pain.

It is never too late to take control of one's anger. Emotional pain can be transformed into productive anger as a release which can be used to motivate problem solving.

However, the longer pain is allowed to fester and create the type of sometimes uncontrollable anger it can cause, the more likely a person is to require professional guidance to be able to come to terms with the pain.  By defining it, becoming angry about cause, in a healthy way, it is then possible to transcend painful anger, and move on.

18 October 2015

What Right Does Israel Have to Reject a Request for International Observers?


The linked article, below, says "Israel has rejected a proposal by France to send international observers to monitor the situation near the al-Aqsa Mosque compound in East al-Quds (Jerusalem)."

Israel rejects international monitors in East al-Quds

So what!  Let Israel NOT want to accept the request.  That is not the same as the United Nations allowing Israel to reject the request . . . is it?

And . . . but of course.  This "news" is as predictable as the day is long.  The political Zionist government of Israel has been refusing to allow International Observers for decades.  Every request has been denied with no rationale explanation.

How reliable are Palestinian and Israeli news sources?  Well, clearly, Israel reporting on its own offenses is typical of a "fox in the henhouse" scenario.  It is a matter, also, of "the pot calling the kettle black".  Thus it is far less credible than the scenario the government of Israel has concocted over the decades, by working long and hard trying to convince that Palestinian sources are not reliable.  Fortunately, that has not dissuaded the needed crop of Palestinian Journalists, Photographers, and Photojournalists, professional and otherwise, who have not been as prolific in decades past.  They are on the scene to provide us with necessary details that almost always expose the corrupt prevaricated claims of Israel's political Zionist government when it comes to the illegal way it manages the unresolved occupation of Palestinian Territory and Palestinian people whose home oPT is.
 
Anyone who is rational would simply want to avoid all the drama of "credibility issues" that unnecessarily redirects attention, and instead also have International Observers in place to rely on for needed details.  Chances are there would then be little doubt in anyone's mind about who is and is not reliable were they present.  Thus, Palestine has been requesting International Observers (read objective observers) for decades.  And the government of Israel has been denying the requests as frequently, for as long. 

But Israel should NOT be allowed to forbid, at Palestinian request, or any other request like this one from France, the presence of International Observers in Palestinian Territory which includes al-Aqsa Mosque. So . . . who allows Israel to reject what it has no right to reject?  We answer that and we find where the problem lies. 

According the the article cited above, which does not provide much detail . . . apparently, it is the UN Security Council doing the rejecting.  Does that mean that once again, as usual, the U.S.A. has vetoed objectivity when it comes to Israel/Palestine?  So it would seem.

24 August 2015

The Problem of Corporate Advertisers Abusing our Internet Technology

Hmm . . .  Facebook (FB) doesn't remove many of my posts . . . but my short post about being absent from FB for a rather lengthy period of time because of computer issues, has been removed.   Wondering why, and the inconvenience of S-L-O-W loading has fueled my inner problem solving nature.  I know why the loading is slow and it is equipment problems on my end that I can resolve.  But there are issues beyond equipment problems.  Those I can not resolve - they are problems that can only be resolved collectively.

I don't always rant, but when I do it's because it will get worse for everyone before it gets better.  This is a case of that, as much or moreso than it is about my own computer escapades.

I needed to reinstall Windows 7.  But first needed to get the old XP up and running properly.  Haven't used it for a long time, also needed to do a reinstall on the XP.  Windows does a truly lousy job of uninstalling programs which results in the registry filling up with unnecessary trash and left over unnecessary junk files strewn around in a variety of directories and folders.  So it is good to do a reinstall periodically.  Not having had the storage space to do much in the way of creating backup and recovery I sprung for an external drive for that purpose to avoid all the updating and configuring that takes so much time, otherwise, when doing an operating system (OS) reinstall.  I need a stable dependable system to do some online courses and am simply not willing to commit then have the system screwup and become inefficient, dysfunctional, and/or unusable.

I've really missed the old XP which doesn't have all the "permission" problems of 7.  What a joke 7 is for that reason!  It prevents the simplest of reconfigurations for ease of use, even on a one-owner/user personal computer!  People say Windows  8 is worse!  Does the problem remain with Windows 10 or has microsoft come to its sense and created an accessible, secure but user friendly environment for home users with 10?  We'll see.  

Of course using the XP to access the internet is problematic because it is over a decade old with much less memory and storage than the 7.   It is minimally doable though not without a heavy time commitment . . . doable that is until trying to access FB . . . or any social website for that matter . . . actually almost all websites.

If anyone needs a reminder of how many resources advertising uses (bandwidth and computer resources) try accessing FB with less than a Gig of memory!  Doing so is an overwhelming reminder.  Current versions of tablets and phones are more powerful all the way around (processors, storage, memory) than the old XP.

The XP is useful and necessary because of numerous programs (including some games of course!) which simply will NOT run on 7 and above.  It can even be configured to do a good job with 98 and earlier software.  Anyone with the Home edition of 7 installed knows there are several missing programs which could otherwise be used to *perhaps* solve the problems of using older programs, not solved by any of the "compatibility" choices. 

There is no room in my 7 compact case to add the hard drive from the XP or I would have done so long ago.  At this point it is easier, and entails less fooling around, to simply connect them - at least for now, until I decide whether or not to get a larger case and move everything from the compact case.  For research and writing I find it necessary to have and use a desktop.  Without a full sized keyboard (ergonomic) and screen, research and writing is near to impossible.  The dual tablet/computer is tempting . . . but I don't need it, and don't want it either until or unless a full sized ergonomic keyboard is standard issue with it.  Then . . . we'll see what, if anything, it might offer that fills a need not already being filled.

The 7 machine hardware is still powerful enough to not be upgraded for a long time which was the intention when upgraded.  But recent experience using the XP online has reconfirmed a problem assuaged in the past few years by use of the more powerful 7 -  that of the internet being overwhelmed with advertising, a problem that is becoming increasingly worse.  Of course it is the typical vicious circle of interrelated issues associated with corporate profits at cost of the public being gouged.  Most folks ignore the problem of overwhelming internet advertising that controls internet resources. 

I ignore the ads too, though it is difficult to do when some pages serve up more ads than content.  (Don't let me  get me started on the types of stereotypical "targeted ads" one's age generates!)  However, if enough people would ever wake up and get on the FCC's case to do something about preventing unwanted advertising from taking priority bandwidth on the public airwaves, then everyone's computer resources would be adequate - almost indefinitely - and would not need upgrading to keep up with the resources used and abused by advertisers.  Not everyone can afford to purchase a "bigger and better" computer every other year or so because of the internet being overwhelmed with advertising!  And not everyone who can afford to wants the inconvenience of fooling around with a so-called "new and improved" version of an OS that is more trouble than it's worth. 

Who profits from the unwanted spam/advertising that is served on almost all websites?  Well, all the companies which manufacture computer hardware and software because of the need users have for upgrading to more powerful systems for the purpose of handling all the cr_p that bogs down macro and micro computers (from industrial size to cell phone size and smaller).  ISPs also profit.  The symbiotic relationship between ISPs and corporate spammers/advertisers is profitable for both.

That brings us to "The Cloud" which is a joke as far as I'm concerned.  Are there corporate cloud server companies not engaged in overwhelming the internet with advertising (as requested by ISPs and businesses with a web presence)?  Not likely.  I avoid the cloud as much as possible, even though there is little or no opportunity for anyone to avoid it.  It serves a proxy function with the priority function of all corporate cloud servers being to serve ads.  Ad serving always takes priority to serving useful content on webpages.  But the kicker is that companies which offer cloud services started out as some of the most notorious servers of internet spam (back in 90's).  In their new incarnations they are now profitable corporate entities.  It seems foolish to imagine priorities have changed when, demonstrably, they have not.  Instead cloud corporations have became more sophisticated about manipulating internet providers, and companies with a web presence, into using their services.  Doing so frees up resources for ISP servers and businesses doing business on the web.  However, because the priority of the cloud corporations is to serve up spam/ads before serving webpage content, there is an increased demand on personal computers/tablets/phones resources that leaves the consumer, as usual, paying a high price for corporate success that is not of useful value to the consumer.  As a result we see a pervasive increase in spam/ads everywhere online because the cloud uses and abuses the resources of everyone's personal tech to load all the spam/ads before loading webpage content!  

So what do we do about it (other than using browser Ad Blockers)?  We haven't been doing anything effective; nothing cost effective, nothing that conserves resources.  Instead we buy into a superimposed "need" to buy bigger and better tech.  The process of "commercialized America the lazy" has been a long, slow, and painful journey visible all around in every aspect of our lives.  "New and improved" is not always better except for corporations that fleece a public which either naively knows no better, or can afford to choose perceived "convenience", does so, then buys stock in the corporations that are fleecing the public! 

We see all around us, in every aspect of our lives, the results of what allowing the abuse of technical resources has done to our nation . . . to the world of nations.  It extends far beyond the internet.  For example the use of wireless utility meters, and of course phones, tablets, gps, t.v., . . . ad infinitum.  You name it.  If wireless access doesn't exist today for a piece of equipment, it will tomorrow.  There has always been a problem, collectively, for those who have access to new technology, associated with learning to use new technology ONLY in appropriate non-damaging peaceful ways . . . a problem that has probably existed at least since the time humanity first mastered the use of fire.  But if we thought today's issue of inadequately researched GMO/GE was a problem prior to efforts that have foisted GMO produce on an unsuspecting public since the 90s, how about the EMF problem which has been inadequately researched for a much longer time prior to increasingly widespread usage that has us all connected wirelessly one way or another in so many aspects of our life with and without our knowledge whether or not that is our choice.  Credible, useful research is ignored by a combination of government/corporate interests . . . at negative cost in many ways, to we the people.  We are talking evolution (and devolution) over time here folks, because of environmental influences that are damaging to dna.  Is is absolutely a matter with huge potential to increasingly affect posterity in a myriad of negative ways.  But posterity, it seems, is no longer of interest to most, including government which has become much more short-sighted with a seeming inability to look at the entire big picture in realistic and practical ways.    

The public and corporate obsession with every new electronic gadget in the computer age, that has online access, is all hijacked, steered, and fueled in some way or another by advertisers with priority access to the internet.  That has changed the quality of life in our nation all the way around for both good and bad - truly.  Some of us still long for the days when only the military, government, and universities had internet access, before browsers and commercialization.  Can we clean up the internet to that point?  It's doubtful.  But at some point we must make it a priority to work at minimizing and eliminating the bad opportunistic and corrupt abuse of online wired and wireless technology so the good use is able to, and can continue to thrive.  That point was yesterday rather than tomorrow.

So, that's it - why I have not been online much for a while.  With limited memory on my XP, many pages simply do not load because the advertising that is served first uses up all available resources . . . and IF the content does show up it's like "molasses in january" before it does.  Thus, I found myself unwilling to remain silent about the underlying problem of bandwidth and computer resources being hijacked by the corporate spammers/advertisers used by ISPs, and blessed by government (still worshiping at corporate alters).  So I've said my piece.

Now I must finish up getting my machinery squared away and on the same page so it works for me rather than creating extra work by being obnoxious!  It's necessary to do it right, and that takes time.  Whenever I have to do an OS reinstall I acquire much more sympathy for the folks who do it for a living.  It is tedious and time consuming work.  I suppose it is not so bad when it is one's source of income, and puts food on the table.  And surely it is easier with all the extra hardware and software resources the pros use.  (Hoping that access is NOT via "the cloud"!)

18 July 2015

Negotiations with Iran: Hasbara Dictated by AIPAC for U.S. Congress to Promote.

Today's item is in the double standards category or "do as I say not as I do".

"Negotiations with Iran" is a set of four one-pagers from AIPAC (lobbying on behalf of Israel even though foreign lobbies are illegal in U.S).  Three are so-called "Fact" Sheets, one a Press Release, all of which are hasbara (i.e. a negative propaganda effort) intended as "guidance" for U.S. Congress.  In other words it is negative propaganda in the form of talking points from an illegal Israeli lobby, dictating to Congress what it "must" promote about the Iran agreement.

Each of the four one-pagers can be read with their accompanying brief details (not provided here) by clicking on the links.

Substitute "Israel" for "Iran" in every instance mentioned and to some it might become clear that  Iran's nuclear efforts followed Israel's lead.  The result:  Israel is highly agitated about Iran wanting to do what Israel did . . . develop a nuclear capability it intended to keep secret.  That Israel succeeded at it's clandestine effort, for decades, does not justify Israel's nuclear program.  That Israel wants to point the finger of blame (before the fact) at Iran for everything Israel is at fault for (after the fact) renders AIPAC's "Negotiations with Iran" an offensive double standard effort to dictate U.S. policy.

1.  Analysis:  An Unacceptable Deal

Five Points 
1.  Inspections and Verification
2.  Possible Military Dimensions
3.  Sanctions
4.  Duration
5.  Dismantlement

Israel's nuclear capability was clandestine until 1986, then after an unadmitted "open secret" to avoid complying with the Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which it still refuses to do.  
 
2.  6 Unacceptable Consequences

This item is the hasbara talking points the illegal Israeli lobby is dictating to U.S. Congress that it "must" promote about the Iran agreement.  Clearly, Israel is projecting it's own attitudes and policies onto Iran based on the consequences of Israel's nuclear program (what it has done for Israel) but according to Israel the same consequences are unacceptable for Iran.

1. Legitimize Iran As A Nuclear Threshold State
2. Raise The Prospect Of War
3. Spur A Nuclear Arms Race
4. Increase Iranian Support Of Terrorism
5. Strengthen The Iranian Regime
6. Undermine And Threaten Regional Allies

3.  Press Release: AIPAC Statement on Proposed Iran Nuclear Agreement

Again, substitute Israel and Tel Aviv for Iran and Tehran and the problem with Israel's nuclear program becomes clear, as well as Israel's double standard hasbara effort.

4.  Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions: Unanswered Questions

And again, substitute Israel for Iran and the problem with Israel's nuclear program becomes clear - except the "what do we know" section at the bottom given that Israel still does not want to divulge information about it's nuclear program to the IAEA.  Anyone who has been paying attention is well aware that Israel is every bit as demonstrably untrustworthy (or moreso) as it accuses Iran of being. And again Israel's double standard hasbara is clearly demonstrated.

1. Program Management Structure
2. Procurement Activities
3. Covert Acquisition of Bomb Fuel
4. Uranium- 235 Metal Core
5. Detonators
6. Bomb-Firing Test
7. Explosive Lenses
8. Computer Modeling
9. Neutron Initiator
10. Fuel Compression Experiment
11. Re-Entry Vehicle
12. Fusing, Arming and Firing System

Each of the above so called "Fact" Sheets (3) and the Press Release can be found at the AIPAC website with accompanying brief details (not included here).  (They were on the front page of the website at the time this was posted.) 



*One of many articles for background information:  The truth about Israel's secret nuclear arsenal And another: Pentagon's declassified document  from February 2015 about Israel's nuclear capability (blank spaces are redacted portions).

18 June 2015

Another Home Grown Terrorist Attack

9 dead in shooting at black church in Charleston, S.C. 
This is brief USA Today coverage in the form of a video and an article.

I feel the loss like everyone else who is offering condolences about the senseless terrorism.  But my anger, for numerous reasons, is currently stronger than my sympathy - admittedly a way of avoiding pain.

Once again the media suggests that a young white guy who opens fire on a group of people has committed a hate crime.  For God's sake what is wrong those whose job is journalistic oversight . . . the editors?  A good reporter will get it right, and if he of she doesn't then a good editor will.   Of course the crime was motivated by hate.  That is a given.  But it is actually a terrorist act.  And the person who commits a terrorist act is commonly referred to as a terrorist.

Apparently the brand of hate that motivated the terrorist was racism.  Notably, the type of heinous terrorist crimes that have too often been perpetrated on Americans by Americans are being committed by young white males, not all of them motivated by racism.  But journalists have not taken it upon themselves to bring that pattern to public attention for scrutiny and debate.

Used to be only Arabs were considered terrorists simply because of being Arab.  That still happens but it has morphed more fully into Muslims being considered terrorists simply because they are Muslim, which covers a lot more territory than simply blaming Arabs for being terrorist because they are Arab.

We all know that if the person who entered that church to kill worshipers had been a Muslim he or she would immediately have been, if not referred to as a terrorist, considered to have most likely had ties to Muslim terrorists as part of a worldwide Muslim plot to terrorize the world - which is the basic unwarranted assumption that has been cultivated politically and in the media, about Muslims in general, for decades.  Never mind that the beliefs of the bad guy Muslims don't bear any resemblance to folks who embrace the character of Islam.   Never mind that so many non-Muslims have no interest in understanding what Islam means to Muslims.  They prefer to imagine and accept the media spin.  A criminal who is Muslim is an excuse for media to try to limit Islam to being the psychopathic criminal's definition of Islam.  It is not considered that the Muslim criminal is trying to blame Islam in an unacceptable dishonest way as an excuse for committing crimes.  Conversely, any criminal not Muslim, or not African American, is considered psychopathic as if "the devil made him do it", like we are being invited to be sympathetic because he had no control over his actions. 

It is past time for that double standard to end.  The less than objective attitudes of media often reflected and perpetrated by too many government officials, are too pervasively damaging for the attitudes not to be recognized as the serious problems they are, nationally.  It does no good to associate perpetrators of crimes with whatever religions they may have chosen, or whatever ethnicities they may have been born into (other than, or in addition to being American).  Doing so merely feeds into what have become overt political efforts to blame entire religions, ethnicities, and races for the crimes of individuals.  Religious, ethnic, and racial labels hung on terrorists only shine a light on the prejudices being perpetrated by media and government . . .  and on the prejudices of whatever industries are currently financing  media outlets by purchasing advertising which in turn buys unobjective prejudicial reporting intended to seem innocuous.

At issue here is the media, once again and still, trying to soft peddle an act of terrorism by a homegrown terrorist.  They want to label it only as a hate crime.  Of course it was motivated by hate.  Again, that is the motivation for most crimes and a given no matter why the hate exists or in what form it is perpetrated.  But what journalists need to report is exactly what it was: an act of terror perpetrated by a home grown terrorist.  We used to be able to depend on the fourth estate to tell it like it is.

Of course the compulsory search for any sort of connection to Muslims surely has already been put into motion; the compulsory searches for addictions, treatment for mental problems, abusive childhood, connection to military service, also.  But what is wrong with the media that it does not refer to the crime as a terrorist act perpetrated by a terrorist BEFORE whatever details, if any, the investigation will lead to as motivation for the crime?  If true to form we are likely to be subjected to overly sympathetic justification for a white boy's "crime" instead of his terrorism.  Is there some unwritten s.o.p. being promoted by government that dictates we are supposed to label terrorism by one of our own a "hate crime" instead?  It seems so.

Journalists do not need to know a person's race, creed, color, motivation or connections to others before labeling the crime and the criminal, appropriately, as a terrorist act perpetrated by a terrorist.  Yet we allow journalists to get away with prejudicial editorializing in place of being objective - and government as well.  What is wrong with us that more of us do not speak up about that problem?

Farooq, who drew my attention to the link, up top, has this to say with much more brevity, about the lack of journalistic integrity:

Black shooter = Gangsters!
Muslim shooter= Terrorists!
Professional shooter = Hero!
White shooter = troubled loner.

Below is President Obama's comment.  He does such a good job of addressing the crux of any issue at many levels.  Here, he certainly speaks my mind as he expresses the sympathy and sorrow that I dare say our entire nation is experiencing.   I truly admire our president for the articulate manner in which he expresses himself on our nation's behalf, particularly when he must comment on another overwhelming sorrowful tragedy.

But I still want to know why a terrorist act is being presenting merely as a hate crime.  Perhaps if we recognized home grown terrorism for what it is and prosecuted it as such the problem would not be reoccurring.

President Obama Delivers a Statement on the Shooting in South Carolina


01 May 2015

"America's policing and racial relations problems"

I put on CCTV * news earlier this week and heard this comment: "America's policing and racial relations problems."

Own it folks.   Own what has become our "ugly American" reputation worldwide.  Given our not so distant past when we financed and excelled in  education and innovative technology, it would seem we should be able to get it straight, as an entire nation of people, about our foundation priorities like ethics, equality, and equal opportunity, for starters . . . all of which are basic needs that promote and nurture peaceful coexist, domestically and internationally.  Without a functional degree of peace in our nation, continuing academic excellence is near to impossible and when our academic excellence erodes so does our nations potential.  

Truly, minds are terrible things to waste (thank you UNCF).  Efforts by a few create societal problems, and are exacerbated by others creating confusion for the purpose of victimizing many, with the result of everyone becoming "collateral damage" in some way or another.   And that created unrest, folks, redirects our valuable attention, time, and energy away from personal peace which in turn interferes with all other aspects of our lives, including educational endeavors; not to mention it highly interferes with our joy in life as is the intent of those who work to create divisive societal problems.

Consider how much worse "America's policing and racial relations problems" have become because of outside agitators some of whom have become part of our nation's police forces, trained to be aggressively and illegally militarized.  Agitators are like a "match"; and a gathering of righteously angry people is like gasoline.  One spark ignites the crowd . . .and it becomes a riot which justifies police action becoming a vicious circle that continues pitting we, the people, and the police against one another with each "side" insisting they are justified.  Part of the problem is that not enough folks are wary of "outside agitators" who make it their job to create confusion and divisiveness, be they police, or part of the crowd. (I say "job" meaning either voluntary support of an ideological belief or a paid position, at some level, in some way, by a political ideology's management structure).

Agitators are always attracted to highly emotional issues about which people are passionate, and they often organize demonstrations about the issues or advise others they have encouraged to be leaders to organize them.  Highly emotional crowds encourage agitators to create a chaotic frenzy . . . then everyone loses at the first sign of violent behavior, no matter from whence it comes.  There are good reasons our Constitution's Bill of Rights states "the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" . . . emphasis on peaceably.  Our freedom of speech is to be tempered by respectful peaceable behavior, particularly when assembled.  And as citizens we need to make it our business to present our grievances to government in ways that lead to them being resolved.  Assembly that is not peaceable is not one of the ways.

The article cited below refers to the police as "outside agitators", rightfully so because of hires having been primarily from outside the city, then tasked to work within the city far from the communities in which they live.  But with or without a "police problem" that creates unrest, riots are also ordinarily caused by outside agitators on the demonstration side, and Baltimore has been no exception.  All it takes is one incident - one person to fire that shot, or light that match, or get up in that cop's face and be belligerent - and a riot is considered to have started because it is no longer a peaceable assembly.

Consider the following from a recent article by :
"While the Baltimore Police Department recruits its manpower outside city limits, its leadership is regularly junketed to training tours in Israel, the occupying power whose hyper-militarized settlers act as some of the Middle East’s most aggressive outside agitators. In September 2009, members of the Baltimore PD “toured [Israel] and met with their Israeli counterparts to exchange information relating to best practices and recent advancements in security and counterterrorism,” according to the trip’s sponsor, Project Interchange. A separate Israel tour organized by the neoconservative Jewish Institute for National Security saw members of the Baltimore PD “begin the process of sharing ‘lessons learned’ in Israel with their law enforcement colleagues in the United States.”

Back in Maryland, the rate of citizens killed by police officers is skyrocketing. A report by the ACLU has found that 109 people died after encounters with Maryland police between 2010 and 2014, that almost 70 percent of those who died were black, and that over 40 percent of them were unarmed. In Baltimore alone, the city was forced to pay $5.7 million in lawsuits by suspects who accused police officers of beating them brutally and without cause."  from:  "You’d be surprised who the outside agitators in Baltimore really are"

It should not be necessary for anyone to point out that it would be more appropriately realistic and honest for the Jewish Institute for National Security, JINSA, to refer to itself as ZINSA (replacing "Jewish" with "Zionist in it's name") instead of trying to blame Judaism for the undue foreign influence on policing in America.  Instead, it is a result of Israel's Zionist political ideology and it's henchmen, the illegal "Israel First" lobbies which represent Israel's interest to U.S. government at all levels, in preference to what is in America's best interests.

And consider this from an article by
"For some, dispatching American police to train in a foreign country battered by decades of war, terror attacks and strife highlights how dramatically U.S. law enforcement has changed in the 13 years since al-Qaida airplane hijackers crashed into New York’s World Trade Center. In many places, the image of the friendly cop on the beat has been replaced by intimidating, fully armed military-style troops. And Israel has played part in that transition.

As these trips to Israel became more commonplace, the militarization of U.S. law enforcement also was driven by the creation of various homeland security initiatives and billions of dollars of surplus military-grade equipment donated to local departments through the 1033 program after 9/11."  from:  "US police get antiterror training in Israel on privately funded trips"

Our nation is designed to be ethical and equitable.  Ethics, equality, and equal opportunity are all a main focus of the values that are addressed in our Constitution, for God's sake.  So folks whose attitudes prevent them from getting with that program need to get out of the way of those who are dedicated to it.   Especially we need the duds to get out of the way in government and law enforcement at all levels, to make room  for folks who, instead of being greedy for income and power at the expense others, want to serve our entire nation's best interests; want to improve and sustain the quality of life for all - but not at the expense of victimizing some in the myriad of ways in which the the greedy "feed" off of those they consider less than equal, like vultures feed on carrion.

There are too few elected and appointed government folks who are not motivated by greed and control issues; too few who are not swayed by the corruption that is extortion from corporations, lobbies, and exorbitant "donations" all of which intend to buy votes and actually do so in too many cases.  Many of the corporations, lobbies, and donors dance to the tune of foreign influence.  If that were not the case, then the decent folks in government would speak up instead of too meekly allowing themselves to be badgered by the bullies whose philosophy is "any means to an end" at damaging expense to the American people. 

Along with the too few trustworthy elected and appointed government officials, are military folks primarily the only other people who take to heart our nation's stated mission and the path to achieving it; with their "reward" from government and we, the negligent people, being to become frontline cannon fodder?

News flash folks.  The all volunteer military does not volunteer to be front-line cannon fodder.  Individuals volunteer to support and defend the our nation's constitution.  Trusting our government to make good decisions about appropriate use of our military comes with the territory of volunteering.   And sometimes being front line cannon fodder also comes with that territory . . . but
"sometimes" has increasingly become too unnecessarily often in recent past decades.   And contrary to what has become misinformed popular opinion, prior military folks who join a police force are no more inclined to become a corrupting influence in a police force than anyone else is.  And they are less inclined to be political agitators with violent double-standard attitudes who imagine themselves to be anti-war and pro-peace while promoting conflict and revolution. 

Consider that our nation has actively been involved in military conflict for the entire life of our young adults who will soon be coming of age.  What is wrong with the parents and grandparents of these young folks who have allowed this unacceptable ongoing life of military conflict to become our young adults' norm?  Who do they imagine benefits from this circumstance and how?  Those who can answer that question know who is pulling the puppet strings of ongoing military conflict in which our U.S. troops are involved.  It's complex . . . and it sure ain't purty.

Our system of government is designed to make armed revolution unnecessary when we, the people do not neglect our responsibility to actively be participatory citizens in the self-governing process with which we are empowered.  To be negligent of that responsibility means we have not embraced the revolutionary spirit that is our inheritance as citizens.  That inheritance demands of us that we continue to be vigilant about the potential that exists for all the rights that were originally won in our Revolutionary War to be usurped.  It demands of us that we continue to fight for those same rights when they are being usurped, by using our system of government as it is designed to be used.  We have been empowered to fight peaceably to keep our freedoms and we are obligated to do so - for posterity and for all the generations before us who have died trying. 

In other words, a successful revolution does not end.  Instead it evolves for the better so that violence is not necessary to achieve needed change.  Those who refuse to evolve in the direct of that envisioned peaceful coexistence are part of "America's policing and racial relations problems" which includes but is not limited to both government policy makers and law enforcement.  

Yes, of course it is only some individual cops who seem to be determined to give all police officers a bad reputation - but clearly there have become far more of those "bad apples", nationwide, than many knew of, until violent reactions made that evident.  Something is seriously wrong with that picture.  What's wrong is the result of neglect on the part of too many Americans.  I suggest those who didn't know have not been being vigilant about the potential usurpation of our rights.  Governments will always evolve toward dictatorship unless prevented from doing so.  We, the people, had our sacred honor pledged long ago for the purpose of preventing that from happening. 

But the first line of defense against our problematic cops is the decent officers - on behalf of we, the people, and themselves also.  Just like there is a mandate for the decent folks in government to speak up against corrupt folks in positions of trust in government, there is a mandate for good cops to speak up and inform the appropriate "powers that be" about problem cops.  Period. End of sentence.  If they can not or will not then they are part of the problem which is earning their profession the bad reputation of being untrustworthy, and in turn contributing to the process of actively eroding our rights.

It is vitally important for our elected and appointed government officials, and our first responders including law enforcement, to be trustworthy.  We need to get to know those who serve;  shoot the breeze with our local cops on the beat;  vote for candidates who are trustworthy, regardless of their personal political viewpoints.  Otherwise the negligence of we, the people when it comes to being empowered to self-govern, will continue to come home to roost in increasingly damaging ways.

Those police officers and government officials who do not make themselves accessible to we, the people and instead dance to the tune of 1) corporations  2) lobbies 3) and other donors all  buying their opinions, votes, and divisive victimizing through the use of "ism"s (like like racism, among others) can not be trusted to have in mind the best interests of the people in their communities or in our nation. 

As it now stands law enforcement training and personnel problems seem to be the most obvious symptom of racist damage that has been recurring.  I say recurring because America's "racial relations" are primarily an institutionalized problem, rather than a problem among we, the people, collectively, who for the most part long ago moved beyond the institutionalized prejudicial attitudes still demonstrably to be found in local police forces, nationwide.  A few untrustworthy cops on a police force give the entire force a bad name.  A few cities with law enforcement policies ill equipped to promote, mandate, and enforce ethical attitudes and behaviors in their officers give law enforcement, nationwide, a bad name. This is nothing new.  So why are we allowing the appropriate people who are responsible for stopping it, to continue to allow it to occur?

We don't need a "new" revolution folks, because if we're doing it right we are still participating in the one we started that gained us political independence over two centuries ago.   Those who suggest we do are merely "tools" - agitators dedicated to a political ideology that is not our nation's.  What we need is to continue to fight the revolution we originally started via the evolving path that was laid out for us in our Declaration of Independence, and after the Revolutionary War continued on in our Constitution.  Both, along with all that occurred between the time that each was adopted, are why and how we are enabled as citizens to continue our revolution without violence  . . . when we take the responsibility we have to one another to do it right, by using our system to improve our system as necessary. 

Part of what we ALL need to do right, truly, is to question the issues of hiring and training of law enforcement personnel which have resulted in unacceptable, damaging, and dangerous law enforcement policies at local, state, and national levels.  We need to question those who make the dysfunctional policies.  When individuals in those positions refuse to improve hiring and training standards, and refuse to rigorously enforce established good standards, then we need to replace the individuals in those positions of trust with people who are capable of doing so.   We need to put an end to government by political favors,  neoptism, and all the other relationships people feel extorted by and use as excuses to be incompetent and/or to intentionally do damage, selectively, by virtue of holding positions of trust they can not be trusted to hold.
                
                                                                       ###

* CCTV, for those who do not know, is an excellent China news channel which presents world news in English.

03 March 2015

Boehner is a Bully and a Hypocrite

There are numerous articles and videos of Israel's Prime Minister speaking in our U.S.A.  House of Representatives.  This is one of many and it also includes a video of the performance: 
The Gross Hypocrisy of Benjamin Netanyahu 
Don’t pretend Bibi didn’t mean to offend Obama. He is a bully and a liar.
by William Saletan.  

Yes, indeed.  Netanyahu is clearly  a bully and a hypocrite, typical of his political ideology of Zionism. So is Boehner.  Is he an ideological Zionist too?  It's looking that way.  But what really needs to be pointed out and recognized is that ALL of Bibi's complaints and fear-mongering about Iran, and what he states Iran will do, in a classic demonstration of projecting, are offenses and crimes that Israel has committed and continues to commit. 

All of them! 

Every last one of them. 

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black . . . and as usual threatening to attack (Iran in this case) if America does not agree to Israel's bullying and to do it's bidding.  Of course that guilt trip has worked, repeatedly, because folks in U.S. are subject to the fear-mongering extortion, imaging all hell would break loose in the region if Israel did attack . . . in this case, Iran.  So Israel provides choices to the U.S., as usual,  when it is trying to bully U.S.A. into doing it's bidding:  Choice 1) Israel threatens military action (against Iran is this case) if U.S.A. does not do Israel's bidding. Choice 2)  U.S. chooses to do Israel's bidding so U.S. can "manage" the situations Israel creates, and prevent Israel from attacking (in this case Iran).  It's an established pattern.  A very obvious established pattern.

Those are the same two choices Israel and it's U.S. PACs always provide U.S. regarding Israel's neighbors.  So far that pattern of choices has resulted in our nation being embroiled in military conflict in some way or another with  most of Israel's neighbors, and/or in establishing numerous bases, so that Israel does not attack it's neighbors, and in turn be attacked by all of them together.  That is what U.S. is repeatedly bullied into "preventing" - this time with Boehner's "blessing" as the "Israel First" dupe that he has proven himself to be.  Nope.  Huh uh.  No.  Nothing so unAmerican in my name, Speaker Boehner using mouthpiece Netanyahu. 

I watched the "circus" in the House on t.v. earlier in the day but missed the introductory remarks, so at first thought it was Bibi's address to AIPAC, instead of his performance in the House.  No wonder!  The gallery was full of rabble rousing  "Israel First" PAC folks leading all the cheering . . . congressional "sheep" following along;  but of course, because those same Israel First PAC folks will work hard to get someone else elected if they don't "follow along".  Having witnessed his performance it was clear that Bibi's message, openly delivered to the American people, was that "Congress is clearly an occupied territory of Israel." 

The message Boehner sent is that he believes Israel should have the privilege extended of being considered to be the same as a 51 state of our union.  However, no state has been extended the privileges that have been extended to Israel.  For example, consider "The Staggering Cost of Israel to Americans" from If Americans Knew.

click to enlarge and read

Susan Rice talked about American policy prior to Bibi's performance.  She said that we can not hold out for "unachievable" outcomes, such as getting Iran to fully end domestic enrichment.  "As desirable as that would be, it is neither realistic nor achievable."   Truly.   

But Israel is trying to dictate a different policy for America.  The Israeli government keeps Israel in crisis mode so that it always has a crisis reason for trying to dictate to U.S. what we SHOULD do for Israel, by the method of predictably using the extortion of threats; in this case if U.S. doesn't do Israel's bidding, Israel, alone, will attack Iran. 

But of course American policy is not the same as what Israel wants America to do for Israel's benefit, without regard to any other nation other than Israel.  That Boehner apparently thinks so  too does not justify him, as Speaker of the House, inviting a head of state to speak in the House of Representatives, along with a full retinue of cheering Israel Firsters, to openly try to extort congress into doing Israel's bidding. 

Rice actually speaks for the administration when she points out that unachievable outcomes are unrealistic.  And they are foolish also.

So why didn't Boehner tell the Israeli PAC people and Bibi about choices the U.S. is willing to give Israel instead of inviting Bibi to try to openly extort American policy?  Why didn't he say that U.S. policy will be the same regarding a nuclear Israel as it is in regarding a Nuclear Iran?  The American policy choices for Israel:  Choice  1) If Israel wants an non-nuclear Iran, then Israel will need to go non-nuclear.  (But how realistic is that since Israel secretly went nuclear decades ago . . . and still has not agreed to accept oversight as a responsibility of being  a nuclear nation?)  Choice 2) U.S. policy will accept a nuclear Iran and a nuclear Israel, but does not accept either being able to weaponize.  The second choice would be realistic and advisable for Israel to accept.  But then when have bullies ever been realistic and open to being advised, especially when they believe they are "more equal"? 

What remains is U.S. policy that does not support a nuclear weaponize Iran.

Boehner does not seem to understand that he, himself, is not THE head of state of our nation.  He may be number three in line, but he needs to fulfill the obligations of his own job description and stop trying to fulfill the duties of our president's job description.

Although John Boehner may have been pressured by Bibi and AIPAC to invite Bibi to speak, Boehner was wrong to invite a head of state to speak in the House of Representatives.  

Wrong.

Boehner will always be remembered for his disdain and disrespect of the president.  Why else would Bibi imagine it is his place to dictate to U.S. Congress that American policies should be based on what Israel wants.  Not only is it offensive and rude, it is unrealistic like Susan Rice stated.  Again, all of Bibi's complaints and fear-mongering about Iran are offenses and crimes Israel has committed and continues to commit.  As usual it is the double standard attitude that creates and exacerbates problems, causing more unwarranted trouble all the way around which truly does create obstacles on the road that must be taken to arrive at world peace.

Could it be that American's are unaware of the way in which Israel repeatedly extorts Congress, behind the scenes?  If Boehner thinks so then perhaps there was "method to his madness" so he manipulated Bibi into doing so openly in Congress?  It's doubtful.  But perhaps Boehner believes more in the astuteness of we, the people, than we know.   Except that he repeatedly displays so much disdain for our president is it difficult to imagine he has no less disdain for we, the people.

How fortunate we are that President Obama does not take intentional insults personally.  Very clearly Boehner's insults say far more about his own egotistical bullying - and Bibi's -  or course, than they say about our president - and none of it is good, none of it.

13 February 2015

Declassified 1987 report tells of US aiding Israel's nuclear bomb development

The information is from a recently declassified report.  Here is one of the many articles reporting on it:  Admitted: US helped Israel build the Bomb

The accessible redacted report is entitled:  IDA MEMORANDUM REPORT M-317 - CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN ISRAEL AND NATO NATIONS

Additionally, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) provides detailed history about the development of nuclear capability in Israel. no longer "officially" a secret since last year.   The FAS report entitled "Nuclear Weapons", listed under "Israel",  was posted in 2007.

As usual, it is the application of a "double-standard" which creates problems.

Faisal Merchant has provided the timeline information, below, of Israel's complaints about Iran through the decades during which time (all the while) Israel was denying and prevaricating about (how about simply outright lying about) it's nuclear capability, as were all the nations that helped Israel achieve the capability.
Here’s a timeline of Israeli warnings on Iranian nukes (via Opinio Juris)

1984: West German intelligence sources claim that Iran’s production of a bomb “is entering its final stages.” US Senator Alan Cranston claims Iran is seven years away from making a weapon.

1992: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon.

1995: The New York Times reports that US and Israeli officials fear “Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought” – less than five years away. Netanyahu claims the time frame is three to five years.

1996: Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres claims Iran will have nuclear weapons in four years.

1998: Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claims Iran could build an ICBM capable of reaching the US within five years.

1999: An Israeli military official claims that Iran will have a nuclear weapon within five years.

2001: The Israeli Minister of Defence claims that Iran will be ready to launch a nuclear weapon in less than four years.

2002: The CIA warns that the danger of nuclear weapons from Iran is higher than during the Cold War, because its missile capability has grown more quickly than expected since 2000 – putting it on par with North Korea.

2003: A high-ranking Israeli military officer tells the Knesset that Iran will have the bomb by 2005 — 17 months away.

2006: A State Department official claims that Iran may be capable of building a nuclear weapon in 16 days.

2008: An Israeli general tells the Cabinet that Iran is “half-way” to enriching enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon and will have a working weapon no later than the end of 2010.

2009: Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak estimates that Iran is 6-18 months away from building an operative nuclear weapon.

2010: Israeli decision-makers believe that Iran is at most 1-3 years away from being able to assemble a nuclear weapon.

2011: IAEA report indicates that Iran could build a nuclear weapon within months.

2013: Israeli intelligence officials claim that Iran could have the bomb by 2015 or 2016.

09 February 2015

Christian Zionism. Why is it vital for everyone to understand it's development?

Reverend Dr. Stephen Sizer is an expert on Christian Zionism.  It was the subject of the Ph.D. dissertation he earned and was working on during the 90's. 

There are currently many reports about a brouhaha associated with a link Reverend Sizer posted, with comment, on a social networking site.  This is only one of the many articles:  "Church bans pro-Palestinian cleric from talking about Middle East"


"A Church of England vicar who posted a Facebook link questioning if Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks has been banned from speaking, writing, tweeting or blogging on the Middle East by the Church of England."

Apparently it was considered far worse than a faux pas for him to state about the link he posted that "it raises questions".  But the purpose of all conspiracy theories is to raise questions, no matter how off base or on target they may be.  However, we must keep in mind that his expertise on Christian Zionism already has him being watched more closely and carefully for the purpose of criticizing his work.  Sizer did apologize for offending by posting the link and comment during the commemoration of the WWII Holocaust.   I consider his timing of that post to be similar to the Texas government's faux pas of holding Muslim Capitol Day at the state capital during the annual commemoration of the WWII Holocaust.  It should have been understood that the Zionists in the Texas State government would be offended at the timing.   The hate-mongering that focused on Muslims was inexcusable of course, but perhaps it could have been avoided . . . or not . . . by having scheduled Muslim Capitol Day at a more suitable time.  Were the haters Christian Zionists?  Maybe, maybe not.  Basically those who support the ideology of Zionism are Zionists.  But it is vital, especially for Americans, to understand how the theology of Christian Zionism evolved into a political crusade because of our separation of church and state which is intended to protect government from religion, and to protect religion from government.  [
Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.]

Whatever Stephen Sizer's personal political views, his theological work on Christian Zionism must be and is clarified within the history of the politics of the government of Israel's ideological Zionism.  In that clarification it can become clear to anyone that the politics of ideological Zionism is the problem that created what today we consider to be the Israel/Palestine issues.  It also clarifies how our American government become duped into becoming so intertwined with Israel's territorial ideology of political Zionism - in large part due to the religious beliefs of American Christian Zionists.   And because of the American government's support of the government of Israeli's  Zionist ideology, America is also unconstitutionally politically supporting the specific theological tenets of Christian Zionists in America because of our established policies regarding Israel . . . like continuing to provide over $3Billion a year of military aid to Israel.  It is in violation of our own laws, because of the use to which Israel puts that aid which violates international laws of occupation. 

Some would say the complexity of political issues associated with ideological Zionism is as sure a verification as any of Marx' claim of religion being the opiate of the people.  Be that as it may, what it demonstrates to me is that professing a religion without a scholar's knowledge of the religion is a dangerous business.  Many are born into a religion that is a habit of belief, attitude, and behavior often as familial as it is religious.  But to avoid having one's professed religion being used as an unholy political weapon it is advisable to learn the history of the development of it's theology which must be within the context of history.  "Unholy political weapon" although seemingly strong language, is quite apropos due to the fact that nearly every conflict in history has some sort of religious dimension, either as cause or as a weapon of justification for military conflict.  The unholy political weapon is politics masquerading as religion.

Surely world history demonstrates how vitally important it is to truly understand what we profess to belief so that it can not inadvertently be used against us
as a means to a political end, because of our own ignorance.  Because "separation of church and state" is at the foundation of our nation's establishment, this vital understanding should be a natural part of the American character.   So why does it not seem to be?  And why is it not reflected in our nation's policies?

Because Stephen Sizer is currently in the news it would be a good time to understand the expertise he is able to share about the theology of Christian Zionism.  I offer the 1 hour 15 minute video of Dr. Sizer discussing his book  "Christian Zionism Road-map to Armageddon?" published by InterVarsity Press, www. ivpress.com, presented by the author and the Bishop's Committee on Justice and Peace in Israel/Palestine, Episcopal Diocese of Olympia (USA), at Trinity Parish Church in Seattle Washington 25 June 2007.



Keep in mind the presentation is directed toward a Christian audience, and it IS theological and historical.  But it can be a learning experience
for anyone about the political chaos and complexity that is a result of the theology of Christian Zionism which supports the government of Israeli's ideological political Zionist form of government.  The problems Sizer discusses in 2007 are as current today as they were then. For those concerned about the group of people in Congress who work to superimpose a mix of religious dogma onto political decision making, Sizer's lecture can add some clarity to what is motivating it. [Note:  I did said "religious dogma", meaning tenets of a specific religious belief which in effort to superimpose them on government policy-making becomes unconstitutional.  Of course the religious values and principles which are common to all religions and philosophies informed our government from the start and continue to do so.]

An excerpt from the 2007 video presentation:

"While not all Christian Zionists endorse an apocalyptic future, the movement as a whole is never-the-less leading the west and the church with it into a confrontation with Islam using biblical terminology to justify a preemptive global war against the axis of evil; merely reinforces stereotype, fuels extremism, incites fundamentalism, and increases the likelihood of a nuclear holocaust. From a theological perspective to offer a critique of Christian Zionism is not anti-Semitism. We should repudiate any form of racism, any form of hatred of a people group be they Jews or Muslims."

The above from a 2007 presentation, after this understanding was common knowledge among those paying attention to these issues, some for a decade, some for many decades. 

The first 58 minutes are primarily history.  It may be labor intensive to listen and understand but it may be one of the most educational 58 minutes of insight worth understanding that some have engaged in recently.  Sizer briefly comments, personally, before the 15 minute Q and A.

Zionists, no matter what religion or philosophy they embrace support all the illegal atrocities the nation of Israel engages in as an occupier of the people who live on the land the government of Israel wants to claim as greater Israel.   Some feel badly about the suffering
directed at the occupied Palestinian people because of the institutionalized terror policies of the Israeli government's ideological Zionism.  But feeling badly is not a solution.  Zionists continue to support those policies because they are ideological Zionists using religion as a political weapon.  Stephen Sizer teaches how theological Christian Zionism developed as a political movement that some Christian Zionists are unwittingly a part of without realizing it.  My question:  If good, decent Christians knew would they continue to knowingly support the atrocities associated with the government of Israel's territorial land-grab which uses and abuses religions as a weapon to achieve it's ends?