BAD FOOD

If you'll Google "metabolic syndrome" you'll
discover that it is now epidemic in the U. S.,
and puts one in major risk for diabetes and
heart disease. In fact, you probably have the
syndrome if you have three or more of these
risk factors: abdominal obesity, high triglyce-
rides, low HDL cholesterol, high blood pressure,
and/or elevated blood sugar.

A book by Gary Taubes, Good Calories, Bad
Calories presents abundant scientific evidence
that the standard American diet (SAD), which
is low-fat and high in carbohydrates feeds and
in fact accelerates the metabolic syndrome, and
with it, obesity, heart disease and diabetes. Those
three killers have, of course, kept increasing
steadily over the past 30 years that our government
and the commercial food giants have been pushing
the low-fat diet to fight heart disease. Taubes is a
science reporter who has spent years studying the
research on this subject. He convincingly challenges
the 40 year-old hypothesis (never proven) that cho-
lesterol itself is the critical component in heart dis-
ease, and cites research implicating triglycerides
and the kinds of molecules known as lipo-proteins
that carry cholesterol through the blood. Both of
these, he writes, are effectively regulated by the
carbohydrate content of the diet, rather than by
saturated fat.

Dr. Atkins (the cardiologist of diet fame) showed
that a low-carb diet can safely ignore saturated fats
and still lower triglycerides while raising HDL, the
healthy cholesterol. Atkins' views on that have now
been confirmed by studies at Duke, Stanford, the
Univ. of Pa., and by sixty four million Frenchmen
who love real butter, cheese and eggs, and cook in
lard. They have the same cholesterol level that we
do, but less than half as much coronary heart disease.
How is that possible, if cholesterol is a main cause
of heart disease? Oh, and it's not just the French:
Austrians, Belgians, and Finns show similar eating
habits with similar health results. And it's not
because the French drink a lot of wine. They do,
and die of liver cirrhosis twice as much as we do,
but the latest research shows that more than two
alcoholic drinks per day don't help your heart; it
hurts it. Incidentally, French consumption of
sugar is less than half the 160 lb.s per person that
we eat each year. Connect the dots!

The Inuits' diet is 60% saturated fat. They have high
cholesterol and zero heart disease until refined carbs
came to them in Cokes and Hershey bars. Now dia-
betes is rampant among them. The Masai (E. Africa)
diet is 90% animal products (an extreme Atkins), they
have the lowest cholesterol found anywhere, and no
heart disease. It's the same with at least thirteen
other preliterate tribal societies all over the world.
Remember our own Plains Indians?

If you'll google the cholesterol controversy, you'll
find there's a sizable time lag between medical
research and medical practice. Always has been.
Anywhere from ten to thirty years. Most research
points to inflammation and free radical damage
(oxidation) as the main causes of heart disease.
Cholesterol doesn't cause either of these, and in-
creasingly is seen by researchers as a marginal
risk factor. And only then when it is the small,
dense particles, and only when oxidized. (At least
seven different kinds of cholesterol have been
identified.) Antioxidants in your blood will prevent
free radical damage to the arterial walls that allows
plaque formation to build up. About 5% of that
plaque is cholesterol. The rest is calcium, lead,
cadmium, and several lipo-proteins, including
triglycerides. Has your doctor ever talked to you
about antioxidants, and which ones are needed,
and why? Mine hasn't. When asked, he said:
"not proven." That research has only been going
on for 60+ years! Still "not proven."

A medical doctor in Sweden named Uffe Ravnskov
(who also has a Ph. D. in bio-chemistry) has spent
his life researching and writing about the supposed
heart disease/cholesterol connection. He doesn't
find any, and has traced what only amounts to a
series of assumptions, back to defective research.
If you'll Google him you'll find his book: The Cho-
lesterol Myths and other writings. More and more
doctors critical of main-stream medicine are finding
the cholesterol scare may be based on bad science
and commercial hype. Lowering cholesterol is a
$30 billion a year take for drug companies, and a
huge source of TV revenue! It has done nothing to
reduce the number of heart attacks or metabolic
syndrome.

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

AMNESIA, OR JUST PLAIN INSANITY?

We Americans are like children: short memories
and an even shorter attention span. Like children,
we want everything NOW. We are not prepared
to hunker down for the long haul, especially if the
final outcome is in doubt, as it very much is in
both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iraq is now (in reality) a dictatorship, in that the
Maliki gov't (Shiite) we have backed from its be-
ginning refuses to accept the last election and
turn over control to the winning coalition of com-
bined Sunni, Shia, and secular groups.

After years of preaching democracy, we need to
put our money (and troops) where our mouth is
and back the transfer of power in Iraq to the
coalition that won the election. That, of course,
may open old wounds and result in fresh fighting.
That can't be avoided in any case, if the M. gov't
is determined to stay in power, which appears to
be the case. It will have to crush its main oppo-
sition, and is now arresting and holding leaders
in that opposition, and cooking up false charges
of past sins of others to justify harsh measures
in the future. We need to cut off funds to M.
until he recognizes and obeys election results.
We continue to pour a lot of money down that
rat hole, as we have been doing for years.

And speaking of rat holes, we turn now to
(surprise!) Afghanistan. Increasing numbers of
folks here are advocating cut and run there. But
not me! If you'll Google "ethnic map of Afghani-
stan" you may see why it's neither necessary nor
prudent to give up entirely in that country and walk
away as suggested by some.

The non-Pashtun part of that country (the Tajiks,
Uzbeks, Hazara, Turkmen, etc.) that made up the
"Northern Alliance" vs. the Soviets successfully
resisted Taliban rule right up to 9/11, and can do so
again, plus adding Kabul within their perimeter of
protection, with our help. (They like us, and want us
to stay.)

This would not require a large force on our part, as
most of the Afghan army we are training and equip-
ing now are Tajiks and Uzbeks. Nor would it take
a lot more money than we have already invested.
It is probably the best we can realistically hope for
at this point. Besides, our domestic politics won't
allow for us to just walk away and forget it. Too
many of ours have died there, to let it all go now.

Here's an additional ethnic note: Northern Afghan.
was under the Persian Empire for 400 yrs. The
Persians prized education and spread it throughout
their realm. That had lasting results. There are
strong cultural and commercial ties between Iran
and northern Afghan. They speak a common lan-
guage (called Dari in Af.). Education is more wide-
spread in northern Af. than in the south, and more
prized. They are also less religious and more secular
in outlook, and more cosmopolitan. They are com-
fortable with foreigners, and welcome them. India
has strong commercial ties in the north, but is not
welcome in the south.

In fact, the Pashtuns in the south are a whole dif-
ferent story! Mostly rural and very religious (fund-
mentalist, in fact), they are also mostly illiterate.
They are often hostile to foreigners and intolerant
of other religions (including fellow Muslims, such as
Shia and Sufis). They make up half the Afghan
population, and 100% of the Taliban. There are 35
million more of them across the border in Pakistan.
They are fierce fighters, and have never been con-
quered or ruled by outsiders. The Pakistan gov't
respects that and leaves theirs alone. We should
do likewise, in my view.

President Karzai (a Pashtun himself) is probably
correct when he says he doesn't think the Taliban
can be defeated. We can kill huge numbers of them
with "overwhelming firepower" as people like Sen.
Mc Cain advocate, but that will kill large numbers
of civilians as well. That does the opposite of "win
hearts and minds." What's the point? What good
will that accomplish, either there, or internationally?

What is it, exactly, that we're trying to do? Is it
doable at all? There are 3 billion Muslims, remember.
Are we going to kill them all? Or just keep fighting
them forever? Repeating the same behaviour over
and over and expecting a different result is insanity.
Freud said that. I say amen!


What do you say?

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

SLIM AND NONE

Those are the chances for a just and equitable settlement
of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict anytime soon, or per-
haps ever. Why? The evil axis (U.S.-Israel) doesn't
want a settlement. They just want to keep chipping away
at Palestinian land and people until there's nothing left.
But evil? Yes, we've aided and abetted in these crimes to
the tune of more than $100 billion over the years. That's
money from our taxpayers' pockets that could have gone
to our crumbling infrastructure or universal health care.

Here's Juan Cole (www.juancole.com/) 6/12/2010:
"'Gaza' is an abstraction to most Israelis, including [parti-
sans of Israel like] Sen. Charles Schumer of New York.
A majority of the 1.5 million Gazans is not even from
Gaza. but rather is from what is now Israel. Americans
do not know, and perhaps do not care, that 68% of Ga-
zans are refugees living in 8 refugee camps, who
were ethnically cleansed and violently expelled
from their homes in 1947-48, in what is now
Israel. And no, they were not combatants, just civil-
ians caught up in a civil war of sorts. They lost massive
amounts of property and their homes, which would now
be worth billions, but never received a dime from the
Israelis in reparations or compensation. Then in winter
of 2008-2009, the Israeli military (with our weapons
and help) destroyed one in every eight Palestinian
homes, rendering even more people homeless."

Here's Noam Chomsky: "The most significant acts to
undermine a peaceful settlement are the daily US-backed
actions in the occupied territories, all recognized to be
criminal: taking over valuable land and resources and
constructing what the leading architect of the plan, Ariel
Sharon, called 'Bantustans' for Palestinians -- an unfair
comparison because the Bantustans were far more viable
than the fragments left to Palestinians under Sharon's
conception, now being realized. But the US and Israel
even continue to oppose a political settlement in words,
most recently in December 2008, when the US and
Israel (and a few Pacific islands controlled by the US)
vote against a UN resolution supporting 'the right of the
Palestinian people to self-determination' (passed 173 to
5, US-Israel opposed, with evasive pretexts).

The Israeli party line is that anyone and everyone who
criticizes their behaviour "hates Jews," so should be ig-
nored. And any Jew (like Chomsky) critical of Israel is
a "self-hating Jew," so everything they say is false.
Actually, according to polls in the Israeli press, around
40% or so of Israelis disapprove of what their govern-
ment has done or is doing to the Palestinians. One of
them, who was born and educated there, and is now a
history prof. in the U. K. has written: "When the Zionist
movement started its ethnic cleansing operations in
Palestine, in early Dec. 1947, the country had a "mixed"
population of Palestinians and Jews. The indigenous
Palestinians made up the two thirds majority, down from
90% at the start of the (Br.) Mandate (in 1919)" (From
Ilan Pappe: The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.) He
went on to write: "The ethnic cleansing included the
destruction of more than 400 villages, 11 towns and the
expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians. The Israeli state, as
a political entity, has to acknowledge the ethnic cleans-
ing. Until today it has failed to do so, and it should be
made accountable for its deeds and offer compensation
for the people it wronged."

In a recent interview, after discussing the racial discrimi-
nation and segregation experienced daily by Arabs living
in Israel proper, Pappe went on to say: "The situation
in the occupied territories is far worse. House demoli-
tions, expulsions, killings, torturing, land confiscation
and daily harassment at will of the population has been
going on from the first day of the occupation in 1967: it
did not start because of suicide bombs which appeared
for the first time in 1995 as a very belated response for
more than 25 years of occupation." (For the rest of this
last quote, Google Ilan Pappe and look for "A Conver-
sation With Ilan Pappe.)

Here's what some people have written about Pappe's
book: "Ilan Pappe has written an extraordinary book
of profound relevance to the past, present, and future
of Israel/Palestine relations."
--- Richard Falk, Prof. of Int'l Law and Practice,
Princeton University

"This is an extraordinary book -- a dazzling feat of
scholarly synthesis and Biblical moral clarity and
humaneness." -- Walid Khalidi, Former Senior
Research Fellow, Center for Middle Eastern
Studies, Harvard University

"An instant classic. Finally we have the authorita-
tive account of an historic event, which continues to
shape our world today, and drives the conflict in the
Middle East. Pappe is the only historian who could
have told it, and he has done so with supreme com-
mand of the facts, elegance, and compassion. The
publication of this book is a landmark event."
---Karma Nabulsi, research fellow at Nuffield
College, Oxford University

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

DEAD IN THE WATER

That's the Obama presidency. Whether you are
talking about Afghanistan, or the oil leak, or the
economy. As Bob Herbert observed today in a
NYT op. ed.: "Far more concern is being expressed
for the wildlife threatened by the oil gushing into
the Gulf of Mexico than for the G. I.s being blown
up in the wilds of Afghanistan." He went on to say:
"Ultimately the public is at fault for this catastro-
phe in Afghanistan, where more than 1,000 G. I.s
have now lost their lives."

We're at fault because we are allowing it to continue,
like a losing poker player who keeps raising his bets
and piling in his chips, hoping to bluff his opponent
into folding. The opponent knows we'll run out of
chips before he does: after all, he is holding the best
cards! He lives there and belongs there. We don't.
He is the right religion, we aren't (for that part of the
world.) He speaks the language and understands the
culture. We don't. It's true that the Taliban is hated
by many (if not most) Afghanis, but so are we. He
isn't wiping out wedding parties and funeral crowds
with mistaken drones, or breaking down doors of
people's homes in the middle of the night and dragging
young men out to be imprisoned at Bagram. We are.

President Karzai has read the writing on the wall. He
is quoted in today's NYT as saying he doubts that the
Taliban can be defeated. He should know. He's a
Pashtun, like most, if not all of the Taliban. His half-
bro Walid is a wealthy warlord in Kandihar, the heart
of Taliban country. Wally, who is on our CIA's payroll,
obviously thrives in close association, if not cahoots
with, the Taliban.

Our forces recently captured (and destroyed much of)
Marja, a Pashtun town in Taliban country. We then
brought in government administrators from Kabul
who are Tajiks, from northern Afg. They don't speak
Pashto. (There is no Afg. language.) The Pashtuns
and Tajiks have been enemies from time immemorial.
Tajiks and Uzbeks control the new Afghan. army we
are training, so it doesn't attract many Pashtuns, who
may enroll for the signing bonus and then go AWOL
and sell their rifle to the Taliban! The few who stay
complain of discrimination by the Tajiks. Whose
orders do you suppose the Pashtun soldiers will follow?

One of many major mistakes we made in Viet Nam
was underestimating the determination of that people
to resist at any cost domination by a foreign power,
whether us, the French, or the Chinese. We are re-
peating that mistake in Afgh. The Pashtuns are 40
million strong (more living in Pak. than Afgh.) and
have never been conquored by anyone (Including
Alex. the Gr., the Brits (twice), the Soviets, and
Karzai doesn't believe we have the will or the wit to do
the job either. I'm afraid he may be right. We aren't
making any progress. We may be dead in the water.

(By the way, I've dealt with the ethnic divisions in
Afgh. in earlier blogs. If you need more, I suggest that
you Google them.)

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

GROUNDLESS BASE FOR ISLAMAPHOBIA

Ignorance and fear of Islam are widespread in this
country, and dangerous, because they lead to tragic
mistakes (like Iraq) that are costly and destructive.
"Islam is an evil religion," said Franklin Graham, the
influential evangelist. He was blaming Islam for the
actions of a few terrorists as typical of that religion.
That is like blaming Christianity for the Crusades, or
the Inquisition, or the Hundred Years War in Europe.

Another leading preacher, Pastor John Hagee of a
16,000 member church in San Antonio, in an interview
with Terry Gross on NPR in 2006, said that all Muslims
are programmed to kill and we can never negotiate with
any of them. TG: "If you use the Bible as the basis for
policy, is there any room for compromise? And if you
use the Bible as the basis for policy, should Muslims use
the Koran as the basis for their policy, and then again,
what possible basis is there for compromise at that point?"
Pastor Hagee: "There is really no room for compromise
between radical Islam --" TG: "I'm not talking about
radical Islam. I'm just talking about Islam in
general." Hagee: "Well Islam in general -- those
who live by the Koran have a scriptural mandate to kill
Christians and Jews."

That of course is totally false: there is no such teaching
anywhere in the Koran. Read it for yourself. The Koran
tells us to "live at peace with your neighbor. Do not ini-
tiate hostilities against him. God does not like the aggres-
sor." And "Permission to fight is given only to those who
are oppressed." And "there is no compulsion in religion."

Terrorism violates the fundamental teachings of Islam
just as clearly as the use of torture violates the teachings
of Jesus. Mainstream Islam's leading authorities agree
on this point. In 2005 King Abdullah II of Jordan con-
vened in Amman a conference of 180 of the world's top
Islamic scholars and religious authorities. They repre-
sented all 17 of the different groups, sects, and "schools"
of interpretation in Islam, and together issued a fatwa
summed up by the King: "Muslims from every branch
of Islam can now assert without doubt or hesitation that
a fatwa calling for the killing of innocent civilians -- no
matter what nationality or religion: Muslim or Jew, Arab
or Israeli -- is a basic violation of the most fundamental
principles of Islam."

For a brilliant discussion of the Koran, its origin and
interpretation, and the history and teachings of Islam,
see No god but God, by Reza Aslan. He is an American
Muslim born in Iran and educated in the U. S., and a
professor of religious studies at Univ. of California at
Riverside. His book has been translated into thirteen
languages, and has been recognized by many experts
as the definitive work in English on these matters. He
points out that Muslims are often confused themselves
about what is in the Koran, and what it means, just as
many Christians don't know what the Bible actually says.

In the case of Islam, the hadith (oral sayings and tra-
dition) remembered from speeches and conversations
of Muhammud and written down later, are often mis-
takingly attributed to the Koran. Professor Aslan says
this about that: "The hadith, insofar as they addressed
issues not dealt with in the Quran, would become an
indispensable tool in the formation of Islamic law. How-
ever, in their earlier stages, the hadith were muddled
and totally unregulated, making their authenticaton
almost impossible . . . in less than two centuries after
Muhammed's death, there were already some seven
hundred thousand hadith (emphasis mine) being circu-
lated throughout Muslim lands." He adds that most of
these were fabricated by people who wanted to legiti-
mize their own particular belief or practice. It is easy to
see how almost anything can be advocated or justified
by finding a suitable quote from the "sayings" of the
Prophet.

(To be continued)

NONSENSE ABOUT HEALTH INSURANCE

Here is a letter I wrote recently to the local paper:

Jenni West writes (Mailbag, 3/25/10) that some
San Francisco restaurants add a surchare to custo-
mers' bills to cover health insurance costs for their
help. She forgot to mention that San Franciso is the
only city in the U. S. that has real universal health
care for every single citizen, and has had it since 2007.
Obamacare will now help those restaurants (and all
small business) with substantial tax relief and other
help in providing insurance for their employees. So
they won't need a surcharge to do it! Jenni's fears
that our local supermarkets will start adding a sur-
charge, even though most of them have covered their
employees for years, are probably unfounded (and
alarmist.)

In the same Mailbag, Chuck Mills "was overcome with
grief at such a major step (in health insurance) in giving
up personal freedom as well as the workings of the free
enterprise system." (Sounds like Rush or Glenn, doesn't
it? Don't feel so sad, Chuck: That mean free enterpise
system was bankrupting millions of people with way
over-priced inferior coverage and leaving millions more
unprotected. So something had to change. Was it the
right change? Beats the hell out of me! But as the edi-
torial (same day) said, we'll have to see.

As for the freedom you lost, which one specifically was
that? Was it the freedom to be turned down or can-
celled because of a pre-existing condition? Or maybe
the elimination of the life-time cap on coverage? Was
it the tendency of insurance companies to cancel poli-
cies when a serious illness shows up? Most of us are
happy to see these gone, along with vanquishing bank-
ruptcies due to illness.

I know Fox Noise has been telling you this is govern-
ment takeover of health care. That's hogwash of course,
like most of the nonsense they peddle. The insurance
companies are still in control, siphoning off $billions in
profits as always. It wouldn't be much different if the
government did run health care, becasue --hello! -- the
banks and insurance companies run the government!
This couldn't have happened without their okay. They
knew something (or someone) had to give. We all knew
that would be us! We also know that power corrupts
and great power corrupts greatly. Deal with it.

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

BANGING ON KARZAI

The President has been in Afghanistan recently,
urging and warning that country's president to
clean up the corruption there. Obama is wasting
his time. What he is doing is like beating a dead
horse: any power K. has is derivative and extremely
limited. Karzai serves only with the permission and
backing of the warlords, and because he is the conduit
of money from the U. S. to said warlords. One of
them is his own brother, who is also on the U. S.
payroll and enrolled in the booming herion trade
as well. He is reputed to own a high-rise office
building in Dubai. Corruption is the way of life (and
death) in Afghanistan -- part of the air they breathe.
Karzai, although not known to be personally corrupt,
rides the wave of corruption there, and is helpless to
stop it. We are carrying our precious water there in an
extremely leaky bucket over a very long road indeed!

THE PRESIDENT'S GAMBLE

Of course no one can predict with any assurance the
outcome of Mr. O's decision to up the ante and step
up the violence in Afghanistan. What we know for
sure is that more people (of all kinds) will be dying.
As Jon Meacham wrote in the Sept. 14 Newsweek:
"Local Afghans, of course, quickly resent our widening
footprint, as it leads to frequent Taliban attacks and
the planting of mines and IEDs everywhere, not to
mention the insurgents' use of indiscriminate suicide
bombings. The U. S. gets blamed for these, not the
Taliban. The logic: if the U. S. weren't there, the
Taliban wouldn't be attacking. So if the Afghans can't
step up, and so far they haven't and won't, then what's
the point?"

So it's a poker game: "we'll raise 30,000." "We'll see
that raise and re raise you whatever it takes -- after
all, there are only 1.3 billion Muslims we can draw on."
And "the more of our Muslim people you kill, the more
are motivated to replace them. The math is against you,
as is the logic."

They have a point: how can you fight al Qaeda in Afghan.
if al Qaeda isn't in Afghanistan? (In more than token
numbers). The Pres., in his speech, spoke as if the Taliban
and al Qaeda are all the same "enemy." He does this
because he is going back to 9/11 as the whole reason for
our action there. But the Taliban was not involved in
9/11, and probably didn't know anything about it before
the fact. So his rationale is faulty, and he is fundamentally
mistaken in lumping the groups together. Qaeda can
strike us from anywhere. They don't need Afghan. They
are Arab led and mostly Arab manned. The Taliban are
Pashtuns. There are 41 million Pashtuns, most of whom
live in Pakistan. That's part of the reason why Pakistan
is the key to any success in Afghan. But 15 million Pashtuns
live in Afghan. and make up the ethnic majority there. No
outsider has ever ruled them, and Pakistan doesn't even
try to rule theirs. They are ruled by warlords, as is the
rest of Afghan.

The Pashtuns are great fighters, and we aren't going to
whip them in 18 mo.s (or 18 yrs.), but we may drive
enough of them into Pakistan next door to destabilize
that already shaky government. Then the fat is really
in the fire! People in Pakistan already dislike us. That's
an understatement: in spite of $bns. in aid to them, we
are more hated there than anywhere else in the Muslim
world. That's partly because we back India in its
brutal occupation of 80% Muslim Kashmir, and refusal
to obey the U. N.'s long-standing order to hold a plebiscite
there.

In addition to our refusal to back democracy for Kashmir,
we are terrorizing Pakistan's population via CIA drones.
To assassinate one Qaeda kingpin hiding in Pakistan took
16 separate strikes over 14 mo.s. The first 15 strikes
missed him, but killed bystanders. By the time he was
liquidated, a reported 538 other folks had been killed in
"collateral damage." As far as Pakistanis are concerned,
this is simply terrorism on our part. They see no moral
difference between what we do, and the suicide bombings
by Muslim radicals. (If you want more information about
CIA activities in Pakistan, see a recent article about that
by Jane Mayer in The New Yorker.)

David Bromwich writes about these drone attacks (and
holes in the logic of Obama's speech) in an article ("The
Afghanistan Parenthesis") in The Huffington Post (12/2/09).
In the article he observes: ". . . from the president's West
Point speech, one would not guess that he has reflected
what our mere presence in West Asia does to increase the
enchantment of violent resistance and to heat the anger
that turns into terrorists people who have lost parents,
children, cousins, clansmen, and friends to the Americans.
The total number of Muslims killed by Americans in re-
venge for the attacks of September 11th now numbers in
the hundreds of thousands. Of those, few were members
of Al Qaeda, and few harbored any intention, for good or
ill, toward the United States before we crossed the ocean
as an occupying power."

So no, we probably won't be getting a lot of help and
genuine cooperation from Pakistan. And as Fareed
Zakaria wrote recently in Newsweek: "If the problem
with Pakistan cannot be solved, the war in Afghanistan
cannot be won." To recap the president's speech: On the
one hand, our very survival depends on defeating the
Taliban and wiping out al Qaeda. On the other hand,
we'll give Afghanistan 18 mo.s to cure corruption and
get their army up and running; then we'll start leaving!
It's highly unlikely that any of the good stuff is doable.
There is not now and never has been a strong central
government in Afghanistan capable of doing these things.
The country has always been run by powerful warlords.
Mr. Karzai serves only with their consent and backing.
They have the security contracts from our government
to protect our truck convoys supplying our troops. They
do so by paying the Taliban to lay off our convoys. (See
a recent issue of The Nation for details.) Between the $
the Taliban gets from us for not attacking our trucks, and
the money they (and the warlords) get from poppy sales,
and other rackets, they are able to pay their fighters and
bide their time. They live there, and aren't going anywhere.
Our patience is running out.

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

COMPOUNDING FAILURE

This from the Charleston, WV Gazette (10/29/09):

Quagmire: Afghan war futility

"Fourteen U. S. troops were killed in Afghanistan
Monday, followed by eight more Tuesday, bringing
the October toll to 55, the worst monthly loss. This
painful tally is doubly tragic because most Americans
now realize that the costly U. S. sacrifices in the wild
mountain land accomplishes little. . ."

"Today the Afghan struggle is futile, according to a
gung ho U. S. officer who worked hard in a combat
region, then decided it was pointless. Former Marine
Capt. Mathew Ho, who fought in Iraq, went to sou-
thern Afghanistan as a State Dept. operative against
Taliban insurgents. Now he has quit, submitting a
damning letter of resignation, which was leaked in
Tuesday's Washington Post."

Capt. Ho wrote that primitive fundamentalist Afghan
tribes are fighting simply because they consider U. S.
soldiers to be foreign intruders in their country --
just as they previously considered Russian occupiers
in the 1980s.

"Like the Soviets, we continue to secure and bolster
a failing state, while encouraging an ideology and
system of government unknown and unwanted by
its people," his letter said.

Afghanistan is a feudal patchwork of "tribes, valleys,
clans, villages and families," he wrote. Recurring
conflict "has violently and savagely pitted the urban
educated, secular and modern of Afghanistan against
the rural, religious, illiterate and traditional," he said.
The latter segment of backward people drove out
Russians two decades ago, and now they fight to
expel Americans.

"I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency
fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but
rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and
taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in
Kabul," Capt. Ho wrote.

The departing State Dept. agent said Washington
misunderstood the Afghan enemy -- and sent young
Americans to die for bungled reasons. If Washing-
ton really intends to attack places where al-Qaida
breeds, he wrote, it "would require us additionally to
invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan,
Yemen, etc." -- as well as Western Europe, where
Muslim fanatic cells proliferate. (Remember that
9/11 was planned in Hamburg, Germany.)

The ex-Marine captain likened the U. S. role in Af-
ghanistan to that of King Sisyphus, who was con-
demned to push a boulder up a hill, from whence it
endlessly rolled back down and had to be pushed up
again. "We are mortgaging our nation's economy on
a war which, even with increased commitment, will
remain a draw for years to come," he said.

Following is my response to a letter to the editor of
the local paper, who wrote that Obama is stupid for
not just listening to his military, and giving them
anything they want:

WHY IT'S A FOOL'S ERRAND

Soviet generals looking back on that war regret not
taking into account the following demographics and
history. Obama was a law professor for eight years
and is certainly bright enough to understand this.
But campaign rhetoric has painted him into the
same corner LBJ was in on Vietnam, and he can't
figure out how to change direction now.

We are trying to do what the Soviets failed to do:
install a viable central government. It can't be done
by any number of troops because: Afghanistan is
not now and never has been a "nation." It has never
ever had an effective central government. There is
no Afghan language. What it is and always has been is
a territory peopled by diverse, warring and culturally
separate ethnic groups. They are governed by war-
lords, if at all. Each group has their own language
and ethnic loyalties: the Uzbeks to the 25 million
Uzbeks to their north, the Tajiks to Tajikistan, and so
on.
The largest ethnic group, and historically the dominant
one, is the Pashtuns. There are 41 million of them,
and they have never been ruled by anyone outside
that group, going back to Alexander the Great! While
most of them live next door in Pakistan, about 12
million or so live (mostly) in southern Afghanistan.
As you have just heard from Capt. Ho, they just want
to be left alone. They speak their own language, Pashto.
From their membership comes the Taliban, but they
not all support or agree with the Taliban, tho many do
to varying degrees. If we send more troops, many more
of them will join or help the Taliban. It's like a deadly
poker game that we can't win because they hold the
best cards.

There are 14 or 15 million Tajiks in the region. Half of
them live in Afganistan. They are traditional enemies
of the Pashtuns, and particularly hate the Taliban.
They lead the Northern Alliance, a loose association
of neighboring ethnic groups that used to be rivals but
our CIA (with lots of $ for their warlords) got them to
join in fighting the Soviets. They now back the U. S.
and the Karzai government in Kabul, which includes
corrupt warlords in their cabinet. That government
has made no effort to reconcile with the Pashtuns.
Until that comes about (which isn't likely as long as
the U. S. discourages it), it's really a civil war with
little chance of anyone winning, particularly the
brutal, corrupt, and ineffective central government
we are backing. That part is a replay of Vietnam.
We already know how it comes out. For a fuller
insight on that, see Google News on Capt. Mathew
Ho. He lived with those people, and knows them
well.

jgoodwin004@centurytel.netl

COSTS OF THE FUTURE

As Noam Chomsky has eloquently shown, this country,
like most, often places profits ahead of people. But profits,
examined closely, turn out to be illusory, in fact nonexistent.
So wrote Peter Drucker, the management guru, in Post
Capitalist Society: "There is no such thing as 'profit.'
There are only costs: costs of the past (which the accoun-
tant records) and costs of an uncertain future. And the
minimum financial return from the operations of the past
that is adequate to the costs of the future is the cost of
capital."

What are some of the future costs that we face? We'll take
a longer look at future environmental costs, but first I'll
mention briefly some of the others: 1) neglected and crum-
bling infrastructure desperately needs at least $1.6 trill.
in repairs, for starters. That estimate is from the Amer.
Society of Civil Engineers.

2) Our federal debt is close to $12 trillion and growing at
one trillion plus per year. Total debt, private and public
of all kinds in the U.S. exceeds $57 trillion! Interest we pay
on all types of federal debt will run $383 billion this year.
It was $451 last year, and $430 billion the year before.
And so on. That's money down the toilet.

3) Our neglected and ailing education system is costly in
undeveloped potential. In a global labor market, many
European and Asian countries are ahead of us in training
young people for high tech careers. But those are and will
be the bulk of well-paying jobs. Young people without high
quality education are permanently handicapped, and tend
to fall through the cracks.

4) Military waste and redundancy in planes, ships and
other hardware continue to cost multi-billions. Also, we
have spent over a trillion dollars on Iraq, and will spend
another $165 billion there this year. We are due to be there
another year. Afghanistan is warming up. We've spent
$65 billion there so far this year, and it's growing.

5)Environmental destruction over the past years is truly
incalculable as is the cost. I'll skip the damage from logging,
over-fishing, chemical, factory-farming and other kinds of
pollution, and just focus on environmental damage from
mining: There we find acid mine drainage formation, wide-
pread erosion and sedimentation, cyanide and other chemi-
cal releases, fugitive dust emissions, habitat modification,
surface and ground water contamination, mountain top
removal in Appalachia, environmental problems created
by abandoned mines in the West, and on and on. Mining
creates 96% of arsenic omissions. Other toxins released
are mercury, cyanide, selenium and lead. On site tailing
dams often fail dumping stored toxins. There are 79 tons
of mine waste for every ounce of gold extracted.

1872 mining law allows companies to extract $ billions
worth of precious metals from public-owned lands, pay no
royalties, and frequently avoid liability for environmental
damage and lost federal revenue. Congress refuses to end
the giveaways, even when we are running $ trillion deficits,
and can't afford truly universal health care, quality educa-
tion or repair of our infrastructure. Instead, congress re-
wards them with substantial tax subsidies. I guess we get
the government we deserve!

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

PLAYING "WHACK-A-MOLE" IN AFGHANISTAN (Cont'd)

In the last blog I talked about some of the history and
demographics of Afghanistan (Af.). I will turn now to
current U. S. policy there. In the latest Newsweek
(10/12/09), Jonathan Alter wrote about "Six lessons
of Vietnam." After reviewing the lessons, he went on
to say "Vietnam analogies can be treacherous." If that
is so, why is he using them? Of course, any analogies
can be misused, as he goes on to demonstrate: "Unlike
the Viet Cong, the much-despised Taliban aren't au-
thentic Afghan nationalists." That's true: they are
Pashtuns first and foremost. The same for the Tajiks,
the Uzbeks, and so on. What the Taliban are, that the
others aren't, is fanatical Islamists. They are as dedi-
cated to Islamic fundamentalism as the Viet Cong were
to nationalism! Where's the difference? A difference
that makes no difference is no difference (Wm. James).
He goes on to add: "And unlike Vietnam, where U. S.
national security was not at stake, safe haven for Al
Qaeda could lead to another attack." This too is com-
plete nonsense: al Qaeda won't attack us again unless
and until they have a "safe haven" in Afghanistan?
Aren't they (unlike the Taliban) international? Don't
they have strong groups in Yemen and Somalia, to name
a few? This is the false premise, pushed by Gen. Petra-
eus, and bought hook, line, and sinker, by Obama, that
Af. is somehow crucial to our security from Qaeda. Pet-
raeous likes to point out that "the origins of 9/11 were in
Kandahar." So as long as we keep them out of Kandahar,
we're good? They can't do plotting anywhere else? And
this passes for strategic thinking, endorsed by pundits?
(And parroted by the neo-cons?) God help us!

Henry Kissenger (HK) wrote a more informative and bet-
ter reasoned review of our situation in the same (10/12/09)
issue of Newsweek. He wants us to give Gen. McCrystal
the additional troops he is requesting. And he has no pro-
lem using analogies from Vietnam. He says "the prevailing
strategy . . . is based on the classic anti-insurrection doc-
trine: to build a central government, commit it to the im-
rovement of the lives of its people, and then protect the
population until the government's own forces are able."

But then HK has to admit we are pouring our water into an
extremely leaky bucket, with a long, long ways to go! Af.
is not now and never has been a nation, except in maps
drawn by the Brits in 1893. Never, ever. "Afghanistan has
been governed, if at all," says HK, "by a coalition of local
feudal or semi-feudal rulers." (They're called "war lords",
Henry.) "In the past," he continues, "any attempt to endow
the central government with overriding authority has been
resisted by established local rulers. Now here's the clincher
from HK that spells doom for the current strategy (which,
remember) he himself supports: "That (the resistance by
local rulers) is likely to be the fate of any central govern-
ment in Kabul, regardless of its ideological colorization,
and perhaps even its efficiency . . . Can a civil society be
built on a national basis in a country which is neither a
nation nor a state? (emphasis mine.)

Here HK ably explains the flaw in the strategy he supports!
He supports it, he says, because all other options are equally
bad. He doesn't mention the endemic corruption in the
country, or the opium money feeding it and the Taliban and
the war lords, or that the people being trained in the national
army, when push comes to shove, will remain loyal and obedi-
ent to family, tribe, ethnic group and war lord over a national
government they regard as weak and corrupt and dependent
on foreign powers that keep blowing up wedding parties from
drones overhead.

In short, as numerous experts have opined, the Taliban pro-
bably can't be defeated by any number of foreign troops.
They are natives. They know the language, the culture, the
terrain, the people, and they have a safe haven across the
border in Pakistan. As Fareed Zakaria has said, "Unless
the problem with Pakistan is solved, the war in Afghanistan
can't be won." Don't hold your breath!

Let me hear what you think!

Jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

PLAYING "WHACK-A-MOLE IN AFGHANISTAN

"I'm not against all wars. I'm against dumb wars."
--- Candidate Obama

"We are going to lose the war in Afghanistan, and it will
bankrupt us." --- Chalmers Johnson

This is a dumb war, unwinnable, and hence the question
of whether it is necessary or not, is moot. You can't carry
water very far in a leaky bucket. Afghan. is an extremely
leaky bucket, and the journey will be long indeed. I will
attempt here to show some of the reasons why.

The Durand Line between Afghan. and Pakistan was es-
tablished by the Brits in 1893 by the foreign secretary at
the time, Lord Durand. It has never been accepted by the
natives there, the Pashtuns, who are not governed by
anyone, and live on both sides of the Durand Line, but
most of the 41 million Pashtuns live in Pakistan. About
12 or 13 million of them live in Afghan. and control their
section in the south of that country. They are legendary
warriors, and have successfully resisted any and all tries
to conquer them, going back to Alexander the Great, and
including Genghis Khan, the British (3 times), the Soviets,
and Pakistan, who has learned to leave them alone. That's
a lesson we will learn in time, but the question is when?
Tuition for that lesson is costly, as the Brits and Soviets
finally learned.

Most of the Taliban (practically 100%) are Pashtuns who
were trained and armed by Pakistan (with U. S. $) to fight
the Soviets. It cost us about $3 bn., and now we are conv-
inced that we have to fight them! The tragedy is that the
Soviets were doing nation building, the job we are trying to
do now under heavy attack from the Taliban that we armed.
Yes, what is not well known here is that the Soviets were
building schools, roads, health facilities and infrastructure in
a fairly peaceful setting until our CIA (under the Carter
admin.) started paying warlords to fight the Ruskies. The
CIA was able to unite the tribes in the north into the North-
ern Alliance. Those tribes had been enemies, historically,
and bitter enemies of the Pashtun. (They still are.) They
will not be beaten by the Taliban as long as we help them
by paying their armies for them.

The Taliban, of course, can keep fighting us as long as they
have refuges in Pak. with their fellow Pashtuns. Elements
of the Pak. intelligence service (ISI) that trained the Taliban
initially still maintain close ties with them. That is one rea-
son why the T. can't be defeated by us: the ISI doesn't
want them defeated. The Northern Alliance maintains
close ties with India, and the Pakistani army is much more
worried about India than it is Afghan. The U. S., by way
of its new aid bill for Pak. (Kerry-Lugar) is trying to curtail
or "guide" Pakistan army relations with the Taliban. Of
course the P. army is not having a bit of that, as they see it
as an attack on P. sovereignty. Google Pak. newspapers if
you're interested in the debate. The Pak. gov't wants the
moola ($7.5 bn.) but their army (the real power in the
country) says no, no, no.

Now understand: the Pak. army is fighting against the
Taliban in Pakistan, and suppressing it there, while their
ISI is helping the Afghan. Taliban, which is a whole different
outfit. Our CIA, likewise, does things our army would
oppose if they knew about it, but they don't.

The (mostly secret) cooperation between Pak.'s ISI and
and the Afghan. Taliban is one reason that Taliban can't
be defeated by us or anyone else. Pak. doesn't want them
defeated. Another is the forbidding terrain which they
use so effectively. Another is the family and tribal ties
with fellow Pashtuns, who may not want Taliban rule,
but also do not want them wiped out. Pashtuns are the
largest ethnic group in Afghan. by far, and have always
been the dominant force in a perennial struggle with other
groups such as the Tagiks, the largest ( 7 million) part of
the Northern Alliance. The enmity for centuries between
Pashtuns and Tagiks rivals that of the Sunnis and Shia in
Iraq. The Tagiks speak Farsi, not Pashtoon. Karzai, a
Pashtun, was opposed in the recent election by a Tajik.

(TO BE CONTINUED)

SOCIALISM MISREPRESENTED

Parents are easily frightened these days. Some of them
pulled their kids from school when the president spoke
there, lest their tender ears be seduced by "socialism"!
What there is in hard work, self respect, goal setting and
pride of accomplishment that is socialistic remains a mys-
tery. Isn't that what capitalism is about? Has Obama
ever said anything in favor of socialism? Please tell me
me what and where. I've missed it.

He has rejected out of hand single payer health insurance.
But even Canada's single payer plan isn't socialism. It
works with private doctors and private hospitals. In
socialism, the government owns and operates the hospi-
tals and employs doctors and nurses. That's not advo-
cated by anyone here for our general population.

Our VA hospitals are government run and highly rated
for cost efficiency and medical excellence. That, of course,
is socialism, as is our mail service, military establishment,
government run schools, fire departments, police and so on.
All of them work O. K. when properly funded and managed.
Medicare isn't socialism, but it is single-payer health care,
well run and well liked. It needs some re-working and better
funding.

If Obama was for socialism, he wouldn't have saved the big
banks. He would have nationalized them like Paul Krugman,
Joe Stiglitz and other top economists urged him to do. Ditto
for GM.

Obama is a communitarian, as are most Democrats. People
are confusing that with socialism. It's a confusion aided and
abetted by Obama haters like Rush, Beck and Hannity. They
equate liberals with everything vile and un-American they
can dream up. Actually, half our population is liberal when
it comes to government help for the needy. Does that make
half the country socialists? No, it makes them communitarians
that believe the common good (general welfare) as a political
goal must take precedence over private gain and advantage.

Most Republicans are economic libertarians. They are not all
social conservatives. Barry Goldwater, who got the libertarian
movement rolling politically, was for choice on abortion, and
for gays in the military. Libertarians are social Darwinists (SDs).
They believe it's a jungle out there, and the fittest will survive
and prosper. Losers must serve the winners on the latters'
terms. That's just the way it is!

Communitarians prize what nurtures and promotes communi-
ty well being for all. It applauds individual success insofar as
as that benefits the community. It usually does. That results
in the common good.

Social Darwinists (SDs) prize freedom to excel and enjoy the
rewards of that success above concern for the less privileged.
It's "survival of the fittest." The big fish eat the little fish. SDs
usually deny there is inherent conflict between the common
good and individual success. "A rising tide lifts all boats," they
claim. Look around you! Is that happening? The stock mar-
ket is recovering. Are the homeless? The jobless? They don't
have boats. They're drowning. Communitarians say "that's
wrong." SDs say, "that's life." And "life isn't fair, so why
should we try to be?"

So there you have it: Obama is a communitarian (liberal).
His detractors are confusing that with socialism because
they don't know the difference, but are sure it's anti-
American. That's why they depict him as a foreigner,
Marxist, Muslim, whatever vile they can think of.

They also don't know that all the great religions, including
Secular Humanism, are communitarian. They all teach
that we have a primary responsibility for the welfare and
concerns of our fellow human beings. They all tell us, in
fact command us to do unto (for) others as we would have
them do for us. Religious people who are not communi-
tarians, and support social darwinism instead are not
properly instructed in the basic teachings of their faith.
To understand this, the writings of the current Pope and
the Dalai Lama are good places to start.

Let me hear what you think!

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

UNNECESSARY TRAGEDY

"Relying on the use of force as a centerpiece of our global
strategy, as we have in recent years, is economically,
strategically and politically unsustainable and will result
in unnecessary tragedy -- especially for the men and
women, and their families, who serve our country"
---former Sen. Chuck Hagel

Since my last blog (Aug. 25) several prominent colum-
nists and political leaders have come out strongly against
escalating our military efforts in Afghanistan. Among
the most persuasive articles I have seen are those by Geo.
Will (in WaPo), Bob Herbert (NYT) and Malou Innocent
of the Cato Inst., writing in the Huffington Post. That, of
course includes the article quoted above from former
Sen. Hagel (in WaPo).along the same lines. Vice Pres.
Biden is known to be making similar arguments within
the inner councils of the administration.

All of the above reject the "war of necessity" argument
being put forward by the Obama administration. Mathew
Yglesias ( whom I'll always read, on any subject) quotes
Helene Cooper, who wrote: "Administration officials say
privately that they believe that they have 12 months to
show significant progress in Afghanistan before they totally
lose public support." Yglesias says of Cooper's report: "I
wish one of our crackerjack reporters here in D. C. would
try to get these 'administration officials' to explain how this
interacts with their recent embrace of 'war of necessity'
rhetoric. I can see a few possibilities:

---Since this is a war of necessity, they intend to keep
fighting it even if there's no progress after 12 months, so if
there isn't progress they'll try to mislead the public into
thinking there is." (That, of course, is just what happened
with other unnecessary wars in Iraq and Viet Nam.)

---(Still quoting Yglesias:) "If there's no progress after 12
months, they'll bow to public pressure to withdraw even
though that would mean 'losing' a 'war of necessity.'

---The same officials who privately say the war effort may
collapse in 12 months also 'privately' know that this talk
about a 'war of necessity' doesn't make sense, but they're
using the rhetoric anyway in order to bolster public support
right now.

---The relevant officials are supremely self-confident about
their own abilities, and just haven't bothered to think about
Plan B in case they're unable to deliver significant progress
over the next 12 months."

Bob Herbert (about increasing our troop numbers there:)
"These will be troops heading into the flames of a no-win
situation. We're fighting on behalf of an incompetent and
hopelessly corrupt government in Afghanistan. If our ulti-
mate goal, as the administration tells us, is a government
that can effectively run the country, protect its population
and defeat the Taliban, our troops will be fighting and dying
in Afghanistan for many, many years to come."

Malour Innocent (in 9/4/09 Huffington Post regarding
nation building there): "First, Afghanistan has yet to de-
monstrate the capability to function as a cohesive, modern,
nation state, with or without us -- and perhaps never will
(that's my own belief). Many tribes living in rural, isolated
and sparsely populated provinces have little interest co-
operating with 'foreigners,' a relative term considering the
limited contact many have with their country's own central
government.

Second, arguments supporting a multi-decade commitment
of armed 'nation building' --the words of another civilian
advisor to the mission, Anthony Cordesman -- overlook
whether such an ambitious project can be done within costs
acceptable to the American public. Our attempt to trans-
form what is a deeply divided, poverty stricken, tri-
bal-based society -- while our own country faces
economic peril -- is nothing short of ludicrous,
especially since even the limited goal of creating a
self-sufficient, non-corrupt, stable electoral democ-
racy would require a multi-decade commitment --
and even then there'd be no assurance of success."
(Emphasis mine.)

That pretty much covers it!

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

UNNECESSARY WAR

Richard Haass, pres. of the Council of Foreign Rela-
tions wrote in NYT op-ed (8/21/09): "If Afghanistan
were a war of necessity, it would justify any level of
effort. It is not and does not. It is not certain that
doing more will achieve more." (emphasis mine).

In the article he argues convincingly that the war is one
of choice (our choice) and not one of necessity. He writes:
"It is not obvious that Afghans can overcome ethnic and
tribal loyalties, corruption and personal rivalries. No mat-
ter who is declared the winner, the (recent) election is al-
most certain to leave the country even more divided."

Here's the skinny on the above-mentioned divisions:
Afghanistan has about 37 million people. 40% of them are
Pashtuns living in the S. E. part of the country. There are
25 million more of them across the border in western Paki-
stan. Remember, the Brits set the boundary (the Durand
Line) back in the 19th century without regard to ethnic or
tribal lines. The natives have always ignored the line.
Pashtuns in both countries regard each other as one united
people. While not all Pashtuns are Taliban (Karzai is Pash.),
virtually all Taliban are Pashtuns.

Over the centuries, as the majority group in Afghanistan,
Pashtuns have wielded political power most of the time.
But tribal people in the north of the country still maintain
ethnic connections across national boundaries with people
to their north: Uzbeks look to Uzbekistan as their home-
land, Tajiks to Tajikistan, Kyrygs to Kyrygzstan, and Turko-
men to Turkistan.

Together, these various ethnic (and linguistic) groupings
make up the "Northern Alliance" which was armed and
equipped (and brought together) by our CIA to drive out
the Soviets. They are fiercely anti-Taliban, and even when
Taliban ruled the rest of the country, they were never
successful in conquering the northern forces. The anti-
pathy between Tajiks and Pashtuns goes back for centu-
ries and is a major hurdle against the kind of national
unity the U. S. is trying to foster. In intensity it is some-
thing like the Kurd-Arab split in Iraq (or the Sunni-Shia
one, take your pick.)

Another major barrier against unity is the fact that each
region in the country is run by one or more warlords.
These guys (naturally) are for the most-part corrupt, and
involved in the drug trade and doing business with the
Taliban. Many also remain on the CIA payroll, and funnel
useful information to our people. They go along and get
along with everyone! Some of them also serve in the Karzai
government! They are more interested in personal power
than they are in national unity. Their system runs on crime,
corruption, dope and violence.

Efforts by the U.S, its allies, and its Afghan clients to clean
up the corruption, curb the drug trade, and control depre-
dations by the Taliban are so far (after eight years) still
unsuccessful. The Taliban are gaining, reported our top
military honcho, Adm. Mike Mullen. Our situation is "de-
teriorating" (his words). The military says we are going to
have to supply more troops there, probably a lot more.
That will, of course, escalate the resistance and hence the
violence, and hence the suffering and enmity of the popula-
tion.

Governor Massoud, of Helmand province said he personally
admires the Marines there, from the Second Light Armored
Reconnaissance Battalion, but he said many people "just
don't want them here." He estimated that two of every
three local residents supported the Taliban, mostly because
they make a living growing poppy for the drug trade, which
the Taliban control. Others support them for religious
reasons or because they object to foreign (non-Muslim)
forces. The Taliban receives over $200 million a year from
the drug business.

As violence increases, and more civilians are killed, the
alienation of the people grows, like it did in Viet Nam and
Iraq. And, by the way, on-going flareups in Iraq indicate
that nothing was settled there. 95 people were killed there
and 600 wounded in explosions in the past two weeks. We
imposed a Shia government on them that is still unwilling
to share power or oil revenue with the Sunnis and Kurds.
That means more trouble, not less. Nothing has been
learned!


jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

DISCUSSION OF DEATH AND THE DEATH OF DISCUSSION

We are witnessing the death of reasonable discussion
in open forums like town meetings. Noisy thugs are
claiming that "free speech" entitles them to trump
others' right to listen, learn and reason together in a
civilized manner and atmosphere. What we are being
robbed of is not only the sacred privilege of civil discourse,
but also the sense and practice of community.

Disruption of deliberative discussion is one of the first
tactics employed by antidemocratic forces throughout
history. Naomi Wolf has documented in The End of
America how thuggery has been used in the early
stages of mass movements in Germany, Italy, Chile
and innumerable other societies to disrupt and take
over public gatherings and then use them for propaganda
purposes to take over the government.

Another tactic used to cause confusion and disruption is
the invention and propagation of outright lies. One of the
leading ones at the moment is "socialism." "Government
takeover of the health system" is a variation of this lie.
To be socialism, the government would have to own the
hospitals and employ all the doctors, nurses and support
personnel. That is not being advocated here by anyone!
Under Obama's plan, private doctors practice, private
hospitals flourish, and private insurance companies con-
tinue to do their thing. That's not socialism, folks. Not
even close.

Part of the lying going on equates our health reform plan
with the National Health Service in England. Sen. Grassley
(who gets his misinformation from Glen Beck) remarked
that Sen. Kennedy would be refused treatment for his
brain tumor in England because of his age. "That's just
wrong," retorted a British Health Department spokesman,
who went on to say "The NHS in England provides health
services on the basis of clinical need, irrespective of age or
ability to pay." The British public approves of their health
service at a much higher rate than our people approve of
ours. They wouldn't if they didn't see it as fair and equitable.
Actually, truth be told, there is very little that can be done
by conventional medicine anywhere for advanced brain tumors.
Dr. Burzynski in Houston has had considerable success with
brain tumors, but the FDA has tried for years to shut him
down. He doesn't jump through their hoops or do chemo,
so big Pharma hates him and wants him out of business!
Google him if you are interested in that story.

And we won't have living will information paid for in the
new plan, thanks to Sarah Palin and her lie (repeated by
Glen Beck and Sen. Grassley and others) about "death
panels." Many people, particularly in their later years,
want to make plans about end of life matters. They want
peace of mind and do not want to be kept alive by extra-
ordinary measures when terminally ill. Currently, we
already have death panels: they are called insurance
companies. By deciding what treatments they'll pay for,
and what they refuse, they are deciding life and death
decisions all the time. They are also rationing. After
taking people's money for years, the first serious illness
may result in a "rescission" by your insurer. They may
now go back and discover you had a pre-existing con-
dition (perhaps a childhood illness) you had forgotten
to tell them about when you signed up. That makes your
insurance null and void, per fine print in the contract.
Have a nice day!

DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE?

"We've become a society in which the big bucks go to bad
actors, a society that lavishly rewards those who make us
poorer." So writes Paul Krugman (PK) in a NYT op. ed.
of 8/3/09. He had in mind Wall St. and the financial in-
dustry gamblers that "plunged us into economic crisis"
(his words) and were then rescued by taxpayers' money
to the tune of $1 trillion or so.

PK goes on to explain "high speed trading," where big
firms use super fast (and super expensive) computers to
act ahead of other investors by a millisecond to reap huge
profits by buying or selling a stock before ordinary inves-
tors can. Of course that's an unfair advantage, and should
be illegal.

The super fast computers also secure "insider information"
by anticipating by split seconds what the price of a parti-
cular stock will do. Trading with insider information not
available to the general public is illegal. But it is done with
impunity. There are cops, but they are blind! Who do you
suppose arranges that?

Making us poorer to enrich a few unscrupulous gamblers is,
of course, at the very heart of lais-sez-faire capitalism. They
play and the public pays. Twas ever thus. St. Jerome, one
of the early church Fathers, said: "The Gospel rightly calls
riches unjust because they have no origin other than injus-
tice, and nobody can own them without another losing them."

An arm of Citigroup that speculates in oil and other com-
modities has made so much profit (according to PK) that
their star broker is entitled to a $100 million bonus! Citi,
you will recall, is into us taxpayers for $45 billion. Where's
our bonus?

The finance wizards continue to move investment (and
therefor jobs) overseas, where the action is: China's GDP is
growing at 8% while ours has "improved" from -8% to
"only" -1% this quarter. But it's still minus, and unemploy-
ment continues to rise.

In the meantime, our manufacturing base continues to
shrink as more of those firms go out of business or out of
the country. The remaining jobs will be either in well
paying hi-tech areas (not enough of those) or in lower
paying service areas (most employment, actually.) The
latter do not enable families to flourish as the working
class once did. The underclass becomes enslaved by debt,
poor health, lack of education and underemployment. To
deal with it many turn to crime or recreational drugs.
Confucius (500 B. C.) said: "When poverty is widespread
the bold (among them) become robbers." Well, isn't that
what the richest among us become as well? And how
about their enablers is Congress? James K. Galbraith
has written about that brilliantly in The Predator State.

Tertullian, another influential church Father, said that
Jesus, who had no material possessions, always defended
the poor and condemned the rich. We've come a long
way, haven't we? But in which direction?

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net

AYAAN HIRSI ALI: THE INFIDEL

The above named author (of The Infidel) is famous
and gifted and appears often on TV. Time Magazine
listed her as one of 100 of the "most influential"
people of the world. Born in Somalia, she grew up
there and in Kenya, with brief stopovers in Saudi
Arabia and Ethiopia. So she has had sufficient ex-
posure to a variety of Muslim cultures to be convinced
that she doesn't want any part of any of them, or the
religion they represent.

She makes no difference between the religion itself
and the many distinct cultures, with their baggage,
who claim to follow its doctrines. It's all equally bad,
so why try to sort it out? She also sees little, if any,
difference between moderate Muslims and extremists:
they are all equally to blame for the bad stuff (in her
view) that flows from a bad religion.

When asked on NPR whether she sees any positive
sides to Islam, she said, "that's like asking if I see posi-
tive sides to Nazism, communism or Catholicism." She
doesn't. She wants to see it stamped out -- by force if
necessary. She would like to see all Muslim religious
schools closed and banned, because they spew out poison.

Her hatred for Islam is powerful, and fully understandable,
when you read her life story. But it clouds her judgement
and blocks her vision, causing exaggeration and twisting
of the truth. For example, she said in an interview: "When
Pres. Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust we may consider
him crazy. But the concept that Jews are vermin is accep-
ted throughout the Muslim world." That, of course is to-
tal hogwash! While Jews may be persona non grata in
Saudi Arabia and many if not most Arab countries, that
is not the case in non-Arab countries like Indonesia, Turkey,
and Iran. The latter two have sizable Jewish communities
going back to Biblical times, who live in peace and worship
without opposition or persecution.

When Ferdinand came to power in Spain in 1492, he be-
gan driving Jews out of that country by forcing them to
convert to his idea of Christianity. Since Jews were wide-
ly persecuted in other parts of Europe, they had no place
to go. The Ottoman Empire thereupon invited them to
find homes there, and treated them with hospitality.
Jews there often became doctors and other professionals
and were treated with dignity and respect in that Muslim
society. Iran also has about 25,000 Jews living and wor-
shipping freely in Tehran. They are patriotic Iranians,
and their religion is not an issue. So Ms. Hirsi's generali-
zation is incorrect and misleading.

A more serious lack of knowledge on her part was re-
vealed in an interview with Guernica Magazine. In it, she
said: "I tried to explain in the book that I used to be a
member of the [Muslim] Brotherhood movement. And
listening to bin Laden, and listening to al Qaeda, listen-
ing to all those extremists the only reason these people
win from the moderates is because what they are saying
is in the Qu'ran and what the prophet wanted and how
they are acting is all consistent." (Emphasis mine.)

To know that this is completely false, and is nonsense,
all one has to do is read the Qu'ran! It clearly and un-
equivocally forbids the killing of non-combatant civilians
of any stripe or description. I'm not an expert on Islam.
Nor is Ms. Hirsi, although she presents herself as such.
Her training is in political science. A genuine expert on
Islam, who has written the definitive treatment on its
teachings, is Reza Aslan, who wrote No God But God.
In there he explains point by point how the extremists
err and why.

Further proof Ms. Hirsi doesn't know what she's talking
about: In 2005 King Abdullah II of Jordan convened in
Amman a conference of 180 of the world's top Islamic
scholars and religious authorities. They represented all
17 of the different groups, sects, and "schools" of interpre-
tation in Islam, and together issued a fatwa summed up
by the King: "Muslims from every branch of Islam can
now assert without doubt or hesitation that a fatwa calling
for the killing of innocent civilians -- no matter what na-
tionality or religion, Muslim or Jew, Arab or Israeli -- is
a basic violation of the most fundamental prin-
ciples of Islam." (Emphasis mine.)

That's what the vast majority of Muslims in the world
actually believe, regardless of what any of the Islamo-
phobes claim in their ignorance. You can take that to the
bank (if it's still in business). It's astounding and inexcu-
sable that Ms. Hirsi continues to peddle her nonsense to
the contrary. Either she doesn't know or she doesn't care!

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net