25 January 2008
Now I didn’t lead you astray on Stardust or Amazing Grace did I? Here is another for you – The Hunting Party. Yes, yes, we all are aware that I adore Richard Gere, more for his real-life work than his films, but all said he still looks pretty good in a towel ladies. Terrence Howard (of Crash) is the co-star, and is amazing. This is a film that brings to light the evil (no other word applies here) deals that OUR political leaders make with war criminals worldwide, in this specific case, Serbia.
I mean really, think about it, Radovan Karadzic was indicted in 1995 (that’s THIRTEEN YEARS). In that time he has published two books, a play, and recently a book of poetry!!!
In an orgy of savage violence Radovan Karadzic's forces slaughtered tens of thousands of Muslims in the Bosnian war. He called it ethnic cleansing. After being indicted by the UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague he went into hiding and, "despite a massive international manhunt, has evaded capture for the past 12 years". Oh yes?
He has been a fugitive from a supposedly rigorous search effort by the intelligence services and soldiers of the West. Karadzic - with his military counterpart, General Ratko Mladic - were indicted and are wanted for genocide and a bloody litany of war crimes against innocent civilians during the tempest of mass murder, massacre, mass rape, concentration camps and 'ethnic cleansing' (a term Karadzic himself devised) they unleashed against the Bosnian Muslims and Croats in 1992. A tempest that continued for three years until the Srebrenica* massacre of 8,000 men and boys over five days in 1995.
*Human Rights Watch recorded the testimony of one eyewitness to the gendercidal massacres at Nova Kasaba. The Serbs, he said,
picked out Muslims whom they either knew about or knew, interrogated them and made them dig pits. ...During our first day, the Cetniks [Serbs] killed approximately 500 people [men]. They would just line them up and shoot them into the pits. The approximately one hundred guys whom they interrogated and who had dug the mass graves then had to fill them in. At the end of the day, they were ordered to dig a pit for themselves and line up in front of it. ... [T]hey were shot into the mass grave. ... At dawn, ... [a] bulldozer arrived and dug up a pit ..., and buried about 400 men alive. The men were encircled by Cetniks: whoever tried to escape was shot." (Quoted in Mark Danner, "The Killing Fields of Bosnia", New York Review of Books, September 24 1998.)
A great many of the men who had sought to flee through the hills to Tuzla were doomed as well. The Bosnian Serb commander, Gen. Radivoj Krstic, in a radio transmission intercepted by western eavesdroppers, told his forces: "You must kill everyone. We don't need anyone alive."
In 2006: "The chief U.N. war crimes prosecutor told the Security Council on Wednesday that no one is actively searching for its most wanted suspect, former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic."
What?! How hard can we be looking? Supposedly the U.N. forces, the Americans (with limitless resources if one goes by how much they have thrown away on the war in Iraq), and “all Western clandestine forces” are looking for him. Really? I did some research and now, even I know where he is! He pays visits to his publisher for crickey sake!
The word on “the street” is that a deal was done – he would step down from power and the “powers that be” would let him be. Let’s review those statistics of raped, mutilated, displaced and murdered victims of his shall we? Do you think he is not still spreading his poisonous rhetoric to disciples and the next generation? Mercy me!
I will tell you this, what a film or words cannot convey about the killing fields of any conflict is the upclose horror, the smell of violent death, and the waste. See the movie do.
Now, in an opinion that I am sure is to be at odds with those that count for such – I didn’t care for Atonement by Ian McEwan or the film with Keira Knightley (albeit, yes! I loved the green dress). This comes no doubt from my own prejudice – I hate waste – not in that oh that’s unfortunate manner but in a visceral, passionate way. I’ve seen too much of it. Waste of precious time when people don’t say what they mean, or what they need to because of fear or pride, and then waste years that could have been spent with love. You really have to decide how much you want to be right you know? Waste of food, when there is so much hunger in the world. Waste of space when we really don’t need that much do we? I try not to use more of the world’s resources than I need, though of course I do because my standards of survival are western and way above necessary. I’m not saying that’s wrong or bad, don’t get me wrong; I’m saying it’s a personal decision, but it bothers me when I have seen the waste of life and the potential of those lives from real die-the-next-day-from-hunger-poverty, illness, and murder.
The reason it bothers me, is because it is a lie! There is no shortage of food, or water, or space on this planet! The fact that we have hunger, and people dying for lack of simple vaccine or shelter is worse than atrocious to me. There is no excuse for Dafur and the child soldiers in Africa. We are all responsible. I believe that. It is our world, we are here, we have education, access, and power. We are responsible.
So back to the book and movie. Not to say I thought the book awful, not by any means – lovely use of language, but what for meaning? For me, I saw no hope in this story. I’m very big on hope. And it didn’t work for me (trying not to give away anything here) that she changed the story to make it nice, it was a lie.
Oh my, I really have to post a lighter subject matter soon. Everyone adjourn over to Dulwichmum for fun fare, my favourite fluff and affectation site. I mean that in the best way possible.
Ciao
Friday, 25 January 2008
Wednesday, 23 January 2008
are we inside or outside the box? or - are we the box?
This is outrageous to me and I don't apologize for saying it. It is one of the most demonstrable cultural practices where the only purpose is to suppress women.
I do agree with this view:
Nonetheless, as Western awareness of female genital cutting has grown, anthropologists, policy makers and health officials have warned against blindly judging those who practice it, saying that progress is best made by working with local leaders and opinion-makers to gradually shift the public discussion of female circumcision from what it’s believed to bestow upon a girl toward what it takes away. “These mothers believe they are doing something good for their children,” Guarenti, a native of Italy, told me. “For our culture that is not easily understandable. To judge them harshly is to isolate them. You cannot make change that way.”
In that vein I think we in the West cannot allow this to take place in our countries. It is the law of the land and should be enforced. If immigrants or citizens do not wish to abide by those laws, I think they should leave. This is a basic right - not to be altered physically, or abused as a child when you have no control. If women believe they want this procedure, then do it when you are old enough to make your own decision. But the greater challenge is to take away the idea of being socially unacceptable if you do not have the procedure done. In this vein we who are not Muslim can help I think - by education and the art of gentle persuasion. We should write about it, blog about it, and talk about it. If you are a woman it is your concern, if you are a husband, a father, or a brother - it is your concern. The world is a small place now and we are responsible for each other. Now more than ever, the well being of ourselves and our families depends on the well being of our neighbors.
This leads me to another train of thought - How much of what we do is because it is 'the right thing to do'? How much of that is conditioning? The mothers who take their daughters for genital mutilation are doing it so they will be accepted, so they can have a good marriage and a good life; not out of some tendency toward child abuse. They in turn would think us cruel for leaving our children in a day care situation, or with a nanny - anyone who is not family. How can we determine ethics outside of cultural conditioning?
I am NOT saying we can't condemn the acts of another culture as cruel because it is their 'norm', but I am saying it calls for a deeper understanding of motives. I don't believe you can change the mind of an individual or a culture by violence or force - we cannot enforce democracy or compassion. It's been tried, the Crusades anyone? And failed - Iraq comes to mind. We can see how to make those changes by observing our own cultures in last few decades. I can remember when wife beating, drunk driving, child abuse, and smoking were all pretty much "too bad but that's life". By making these issues unacceptable socially as well as legally, and bringing them to the harsh light of facts and scrutiny of the public, they are now taboo.
What makes us ethical? Fear? Goodness? Lack of imagination? Hope for a better future or afterlife? These are questions that drove Kant and Nietzsche cuckoo (I mean really, have you read Critique of Pure Reason or Beyond Good and Evil?) The Dzogchen tackled the subject in a non-sectarian manner of the Tibetan Buddhist, along with Socrates and Aristotle who were looking at these issues when the world was small.
I’m not at all sure there is a definitive answer, or that the point is to find a neat and tidy solution in a package where one size fits all, but rather that the answer is in the questions and that we continue the search, continue to question ourselves. Tricky business eh?
Soon I shall write of shopping! Ciao.
I do agree with this view:
Nonetheless, as Western awareness of female genital cutting has grown, anthropologists, policy makers and health officials have warned against blindly judging those who practice it, saying that progress is best made by working with local leaders and opinion-makers to gradually shift the public discussion of female circumcision from what it’s believed to bestow upon a girl toward what it takes away. “These mothers believe they are doing something good for their children,” Guarenti, a native of Italy, told me. “For our culture that is not easily understandable. To judge them harshly is to isolate them. You cannot make change that way.”
In that vein I think we in the West cannot allow this to take place in our countries. It is the law of the land and should be enforced. If immigrants or citizens do not wish to abide by those laws, I think they should leave. This is a basic right - not to be altered physically, or abused as a child when you have no control. If women believe they want this procedure, then do it when you are old enough to make your own decision. But the greater challenge is to take away the idea of being socially unacceptable if you do not have the procedure done. In this vein we who are not Muslim can help I think - by education and the art of gentle persuasion. We should write about it, blog about it, and talk about it. If you are a woman it is your concern, if you are a husband, a father, or a brother - it is your concern. The world is a small place now and we are responsible for each other. Now more than ever, the well being of ourselves and our families depends on the well being of our neighbors.
This leads me to another train of thought - How much of what we do is because it is 'the right thing to do'? How much of that is conditioning? The mothers who take their daughters for genital mutilation are doing it so they will be accepted, so they can have a good marriage and a good life; not out of some tendency toward child abuse. They in turn would think us cruel for leaving our children in a day care situation, or with a nanny - anyone who is not family. How can we determine ethics outside of cultural conditioning?
I am NOT saying we can't condemn the acts of another culture as cruel because it is their 'norm', but I am saying it calls for a deeper understanding of motives. I don't believe you can change the mind of an individual or a culture by violence or force - we cannot enforce democracy or compassion. It's been tried, the Crusades anyone? And failed - Iraq comes to mind. We can see how to make those changes by observing our own cultures in last few decades. I can remember when wife beating, drunk driving, child abuse, and smoking were all pretty much "too bad but that's life". By making these issues unacceptable socially as well as legally, and bringing them to the harsh light of facts and scrutiny of the public, they are now taboo.
What makes us ethical? Fear? Goodness? Lack of imagination? Hope for a better future or afterlife? These are questions that drove Kant and Nietzsche cuckoo (I mean really, have you read Critique of Pure Reason or Beyond Good and Evil?) The Dzogchen tackled the subject in a non-sectarian manner of the Tibetan Buddhist, along with Socrates and Aristotle who were looking at these issues when the world was small.
I’m not at all sure there is a definitive answer, or that the point is to find a neat and tidy solution in a package where one size fits all, but rather that the answer is in the questions and that we continue the search, continue to question ourselves. Tricky business eh?
Soon I shall write of shopping! Ciao.
Monday, 21 January 2008
articles of concern
"Matthew knew he shouldn't be taking his AK-47 to the 7-Eleven," Detective Laura Andersen said, "but he was scared to death in that neighborhood, he was military trained and, in his mind, he needed the weapon to protect himself."
In the end, one gang member lay dead, bleeding on the pavement. The other was wounded. And Sepi fled, "breaking contact" with the enemy, as he described it. With his rifle raised, he crept home, loaded 180 rounds of ammunition into his car and drove until police lights flashed behind him.
"Who did I take fire from?" he asked. The diminutive young man said he had been ambushed and then instinctively "engaged the targets."
He shook. He also cried.
"I felt very bad for him," Andersen said
Three-quarters of these veterans were still in the military at the time of the killing. More than half the killings involved guns, and the rest were stabbings, beatings, strangulations and bathtub drownings. Twenty-five offenders faced charges for murder, manslaughter or homicide for fatal car crashes resulting from drunken, reckless or suicidal driving.
To compile and analyze its list, The Times conducted a search of local news reports, examined police, court and military records and interviewed the defendants, their lawyers and families, the victims' families, and military and law enforcement officials.
This reporting most likely uncovered only the minimum number of such cases, given that not all killings, especially in big cities and on military bases, are reported publicly or in detail. Also, it was often not possible to determine the deployment history of other service members arrested on homicide charges.
The Times used the same methods to research homicides involving all active-duty military personnel and new veterans for the six years before and after the present wartime period began with the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001.
This showed an 89 percent increase during the present wartime period, from 184 to 349 cases, about three-quarters of which involved Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. The increase occurred even though there have been fewer troops stationed in the United States in the last six years and the homicide rate in America has been, on average, lower.
Decades of studies on the problems of Vietnam veterans have established links between combat trauma and higher rates of unemployment, homelessness, gun ownership, child abuse, domestic violence, substance abuse - and criminality. On a less scientific level, such links have long been known.
"The connection between war and crime is unfortunately very ancient," said Dr. Jonathan Shay, a psychiatrist for the Department of Veterans Affairs in Boston and the author of two books that examine combat trauma through the lens of classical texts.
The army has recently developed a course called "Battlemind Training," intended to help soldiers make the psychological transition back into civilian society. "In combat, the enemy is the target," the course material says. "Back home, there are no enemies."
This can be a difficult lesson to learn. Many soldiers and marines find themselves at war with their spouses, their children, their fellow service members, the world at large and ultimately themselves when they come home.
"Based on my experience, most of these veterans feel just terrible that they've caused this senseless harm," Shay said. "Most veterans don't want to hurt other people."
The above excerpts are from an article concerning soldiers returning from Iraq and committing homicide or being involved in other violence. I, like many I'm sure, was concerned when I saw this. However as we all know, all writing - books, newspapers, all press - has a bias; all of us do, which is why we must read with care, looking further than the words. We must take note of who wrote the piece, when, and in what political and cultural environment. I have no doubt, and a great deal of concern, that some of this is true and needs our attention.
However - there is another side. I am fortunate to have as a friend, a young man (and yes ladies, he is hunky just like the ads, only better) who is a Marine Special Forces officer. The following is an article he sent me. A response to the article above. I think we need them both to have an informed point of view. I must say on a personal level, I do not agree with the Post anti-Times rant; which is why I read the Times. I fear I have seen too much violence in my life not to know for certain that violence begats violence - it becomes the easy solution. And I know from experience as well, that combat does affect our soldiers, each of them in different ways for sure, depending on the person they were going in. I know for certain, that being against the continued war in Iraq and being concerned about the soldiers when they return home is NOT BEING UNPATRIOTIC - quite the opposite. It is the DUTY of a citizen in a republic or a parliamentary democracy to question war and to see to the well being of our armed forces.
Also, contrary to the Post's ranting - the above article is from the International Herald Tribune, also printed in the New York Times.
New York Post
January 15, 2008
Smearing Soldiers
The Gray Lady's Killer-GI Lie
By Ralph Peters
THE New York Times is trashing our troops again. With no new "atrocities" to report from Iraq for many a month, the limping Gray Lady turned to the home front. Front and center, above the fold, on the front page of Sunday's Times, the week's feature story sought to convince Americans that combat experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan are turning troops into murderers when they come home.
Heart-wringing tales of madness and murder not only made the front page, but filled two entire centerfold pages and spilled onto a fourth.
The Times did get one basic fact right: Returning vets committed or are charged with 121 murders in the United States since our current wars began.
Had the Times' "journalists" and editors bothered to put those figures in context - which they carefully avoided doing - they would've found that the murder rate that leaves them so aghast means that our vets are five times less likely to commit a murder than their demographic peers.
The Times' public editor, Clark Hoyt, should crunch the numbers. I'm even willing to spot the Times a few percentage points (either way). But the hard statistics from the Justice Department tell a far different tale from the Times' anti-military propaganda.
A very conservative estimate of how many different service members have passed through Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait since 2003 is 350,000 (and no, that's not double-counting those with repeated tours of duty).
Now consider the Justice Department's numbers for murders committed by all Americans aged 18 to 34 - the key group for our men and women in uniform. To match the homicide rate of their peers, our troops would've had to come home and commit about 150 murders a year, for a total of 700 to 750 murders between 2003 and the end of 2007.
In other words, the Times unwittingly makes the case that military service reduces the likelihood of a young man or woman committing a murder by 80 percent.
Yes, the young Americans who join our military are (by self- selection) superior by far to the average stay-at-home. Still, these numbers are pretty impressive, when you consider that we're speaking of men and women trained in the tools of war, who've endured the acute stresses of fighting insurgencies and who are physically robust (rather unlike the stick-limbed weanies the Times prefers).
All in all, the Times' own data proves my long-time contention that we have the best behaved and most ethical military in history.
Now, since the folks at the Times are terribly busy and awfully important, let's make it easy for them to do the research themselves (you can do it, too - in five minutes).
Just Google "USA Murder Statistics." The top site to appear will be the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics. Click on it, then go to "Demographic Trends." Click on "Age." For hard numbers on the key demographics, click on the colored graphs.
Run the numbers yourself, based upon the demographic percentages of murders per every 100,000 people. Then look at the actual murder counts.
Know what else you'll learn? In 2005 alone, 8,718 young Americans from the same age group were murdered in this country. That's well over twice as many as the number of troops killed in all our foreign missions since 2001. Maybe military service not only prevents you from committing crimes, but also keeps you alive?
Want more numbers? In the District of Columbia, our nation's capital, the murder rate for the 18-34 group was about 14 times higher than the rate of murders allegedly committed by returning vets.
And that actually understates the District's problem, since many DC-related murders spill across into Prince George's County (another Democratic Party stronghold).
In DC, an 18-34 population half the size of the total number of troops who've served in our wars overseas committed the lion's share of 992 murders between 2003 and 2007 - the years mourned by the Times as proving that our veterans are psychotic killers.
Aren't editors supposed to ask tough questions on feature stories? Are the Times' editors so determined to undermine the public's support for our troops that they'll violate the most-basic rules of journalism, such as putting numbers in context?
Answer that one for yourself.
Of course, all of this is part of the disgraceful left-wing campaign to pretend sympathy with soldiers - the Times column gushes crocodile tears - while portraying our troops as clichéd maniacs from the Oliver Stone fantasies that got lefties so self-righteously excited 20 years ago (See? We were right to dodge the draft . . .).
And it's not going to stop. Given the stakes in an election year, the duplicity will only intensify.
For an upcoming treat, we'll get the film "Stop-Loss," starring, as always, young punks who never served in uniform as soldiers. This left-wing diatribe argues that truly courageous troops would refuse to return to Iraq - at a time when soldiers and Marines continue to re-enlist at record rates, expecting to plunge back into the fight.
Those on the left will never accept that the finest young Americans are those who risk their lives defending freedom. Sen. John Kerry summed up the views of the left perfectly when he disparaged our troops as too stupid to do anything but sling hamburgers.
And The New York Times will never forgive our men and women in uniform for their infuriating successes in Iraq.
Ralph Peters' latest book is "Wars of Blood and Faith."
It is up to all of us to read the data and form an opinion, take a stand, and express our view. These men and women are part of the generation that will form our history to come. If we send them to fight for us, I think we owe it to them to see them out of the combat and back into their lives.
Ciao.
In the end, one gang member lay dead, bleeding on the pavement. The other was wounded. And Sepi fled, "breaking contact" with the enemy, as he described it. With his rifle raised, he crept home, loaded 180 rounds of ammunition into his car and drove until police lights flashed behind him.
"Who did I take fire from?" he asked. The diminutive young man said he had been ambushed and then instinctively "engaged the targets."
He shook. He also cried.
"I felt very bad for him," Andersen said
Three-quarters of these veterans were still in the military at the time of the killing. More than half the killings involved guns, and the rest were stabbings, beatings, strangulations and bathtub drownings. Twenty-five offenders faced charges for murder, manslaughter or homicide for fatal car crashes resulting from drunken, reckless or suicidal driving.
To compile and analyze its list, The Times conducted a search of local news reports, examined police, court and military records and interviewed the defendants, their lawyers and families, the victims' families, and military and law enforcement officials.
This reporting most likely uncovered only the minimum number of such cases, given that not all killings, especially in big cities and on military bases, are reported publicly or in detail. Also, it was often not possible to determine the deployment history of other service members arrested on homicide charges.
The Times used the same methods to research homicides involving all active-duty military personnel and new veterans for the six years before and after the present wartime period began with the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001.
This showed an 89 percent increase during the present wartime period, from 184 to 349 cases, about three-quarters of which involved Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. The increase occurred even though there have been fewer troops stationed in the United States in the last six years and the homicide rate in America has been, on average, lower.
Decades of studies on the problems of Vietnam veterans have established links between combat trauma and higher rates of unemployment, homelessness, gun ownership, child abuse, domestic violence, substance abuse - and criminality. On a less scientific level, such links have long been known.
"The connection between war and crime is unfortunately very ancient," said Dr. Jonathan Shay, a psychiatrist for the Department of Veterans Affairs in Boston and the author of two books that examine combat trauma through the lens of classical texts.
The army has recently developed a course called "Battlemind Training," intended to help soldiers make the psychological transition back into civilian society. "In combat, the enemy is the target," the course material says. "Back home, there are no enemies."
This can be a difficult lesson to learn. Many soldiers and marines find themselves at war with their spouses, their children, their fellow service members, the world at large and ultimately themselves when they come home.
"Based on my experience, most of these veterans feel just terrible that they've caused this senseless harm," Shay said. "Most veterans don't want to hurt other people."
The above excerpts are from an article concerning soldiers returning from Iraq and committing homicide or being involved in other violence. I, like many I'm sure, was concerned when I saw this. However as we all know, all writing - books, newspapers, all press - has a bias; all of us do, which is why we must read with care, looking further than the words. We must take note of who wrote the piece, when, and in what political and cultural environment. I have no doubt, and a great deal of concern, that some of this is true and needs our attention.
However - there is another side. I am fortunate to have as a friend, a young man (and yes ladies, he is hunky just like the ads, only better) who is a Marine Special Forces officer. The following is an article he sent me. A response to the article above. I think we need them both to have an informed point of view. I must say on a personal level, I do not agree with the Post anti-Times rant; which is why I read the Times. I fear I have seen too much violence in my life not to know for certain that violence begats violence - it becomes the easy solution. And I know from experience as well, that combat does affect our soldiers, each of them in different ways for sure, depending on the person they were going in. I know for certain, that being against the continued war in Iraq and being concerned about the soldiers when they return home is NOT BEING UNPATRIOTIC - quite the opposite. It is the DUTY of a citizen in a republic or a parliamentary democracy to question war and to see to the well being of our armed forces.
Also, contrary to the Post's ranting - the above article is from the International Herald Tribune, also printed in the New York Times.
New York Post
January 15, 2008
Smearing Soldiers
The Gray Lady's Killer-GI Lie
By Ralph Peters
THE New York Times is trashing our troops again. With no new "atrocities" to report from Iraq for many a month, the limping Gray Lady turned to the home front. Front and center, above the fold, on the front page of Sunday's Times, the week's feature story sought to convince Americans that combat experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan are turning troops into murderers when they come home.
Heart-wringing tales of madness and murder not only made the front page, but filled two entire centerfold pages and spilled onto a fourth.
The Times did get one basic fact right: Returning vets committed or are charged with 121 murders in the United States since our current wars began.
Had the Times' "journalists" and editors bothered to put those figures in context - which they carefully avoided doing - they would've found that the murder rate that leaves them so aghast means that our vets are five times less likely to commit a murder than their demographic peers.
The Times' public editor, Clark Hoyt, should crunch the numbers. I'm even willing to spot the Times a few percentage points (either way). But the hard statistics from the Justice Department tell a far different tale from the Times' anti-military propaganda.
A very conservative estimate of how many different service members have passed through Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait since 2003 is 350,000 (and no, that's not double-counting those with repeated tours of duty).
Now consider the Justice Department's numbers for murders committed by all Americans aged 18 to 34 - the key group for our men and women in uniform. To match the homicide rate of their peers, our troops would've had to come home and commit about 150 murders a year, for a total of 700 to 750 murders between 2003 and the end of 2007.
In other words, the Times unwittingly makes the case that military service reduces the likelihood of a young man or woman committing a murder by 80 percent.
Yes, the young Americans who join our military are (by self- selection) superior by far to the average stay-at-home. Still, these numbers are pretty impressive, when you consider that we're speaking of men and women trained in the tools of war, who've endured the acute stresses of fighting insurgencies and who are physically robust (rather unlike the stick-limbed weanies the Times prefers).
All in all, the Times' own data proves my long-time contention that we have the best behaved and most ethical military in history.
Now, since the folks at the Times are terribly busy and awfully important, let's make it easy for them to do the research themselves (you can do it, too - in five minutes).
Just Google "USA Murder Statistics." The top site to appear will be the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics. Click on it, then go to "Demographic Trends." Click on "Age." For hard numbers on the key demographics, click on the colored graphs.
Run the numbers yourself, based upon the demographic percentages of murders per every 100,000 people. Then look at the actual murder counts.
Know what else you'll learn? In 2005 alone, 8,718 young Americans from the same age group were murdered in this country. That's well over twice as many as the number of troops killed in all our foreign missions since 2001. Maybe military service not only prevents you from committing crimes, but also keeps you alive?
Want more numbers? In the District of Columbia, our nation's capital, the murder rate for the 18-34 group was about 14 times higher than the rate of murders allegedly committed by returning vets.
And that actually understates the District's problem, since many DC-related murders spill across into Prince George's County (another Democratic Party stronghold).
In DC, an 18-34 population half the size of the total number of troops who've served in our wars overseas committed the lion's share of 992 murders between 2003 and 2007 - the years mourned by the Times as proving that our veterans are psychotic killers.
Aren't editors supposed to ask tough questions on feature stories? Are the Times' editors so determined to undermine the public's support for our troops that they'll violate the most-basic rules of journalism, such as putting numbers in context?
Answer that one for yourself.
Of course, all of this is part of the disgraceful left-wing campaign to pretend sympathy with soldiers - the Times column gushes crocodile tears - while portraying our troops as clichéd maniacs from the Oliver Stone fantasies that got lefties so self-righteously excited 20 years ago (See? We were right to dodge the draft . . .).
And it's not going to stop. Given the stakes in an election year, the duplicity will only intensify.
For an upcoming treat, we'll get the film "Stop-Loss," starring, as always, young punks who never served in uniform as soldiers. This left-wing diatribe argues that truly courageous troops would refuse to return to Iraq - at a time when soldiers and Marines continue to re-enlist at record rates, expecting to plunge back into the fight.
Those on the left will never accept that the finest young Americans are those who risk their lives defending freedom. Sen. John Kerry summed up the views of the left perfectly when he disparaged our troops as too stupid to do anything but sling hamburgers.
And The New York Times will never forgive our men and women in uniform for their infuriating successes in Iraq.
Ralph Peters' latest book is "Wars of Blood and Faith."
It is up to all of us to read the data and form an opinion, take a stand, and express our view. These men and women are part of the generation that will form our history to come. If we send them to fight for us, I think we owe it to them to see them out of the combat and back into their lives.
Ciao.
Sunday, 20 January 2008
just a low key presidential tour - not!
your tax dollars at work on democracy and the problem of world hunger? I think not...
Read here oh do.
Read here oh do.
Friday, 18 January 2008
the random meme
Rob Clack has tagged me to do this meme:
Here are the rules: Link to the person that tagged you and post the rules on your blog. Share seven random and/or weird facts about yourself. Tag seven random people at the end of your post, and include links to their blogs. Let each person know they have been tagged by leaving a notification on their blog.
1) I have a volatile temper but a verrrry long fuse. The sure way to see me explode and resort to violent language and perhaps physical intervention are any kind of child abuse, and racial, cultural, or religious prejudice in action.
2) I am a dental white knuckler. I am terrified of the dentist. I go, but I am afraid. After seeing “Marathon Man” it took me a year to have my teeth cleaned, when I normally go every four months! This may…. may I say, have something to do with my control issues (which I, of course, do not regard as “issues”).
3) I adore a huge comfy bed. I can conduct my life for days at a time from my bed – I can read there, eat there, write there, watch movies there, and spin tales there.
4) I love to read crime novels about serial killers. And yes I do worry a teeny bit about what that says about me.
5) I have the collector gene, but I only like to collect objects I can use. I used to collect teacups, but since going back on the move I now collect fans. When I was wee I collected rocks. I figured they were useful in case someone stormed the castle I could position myself over the gate and stone the invaders.
6) I love opera but I always get angry at the stupidity of Othello, and I always cry when Violetta dies.
7) According to my child I have a “rescue complex”. As I look over my life so far, I must say I think she may have something there. And it has landed me in some sticky situations as I have found not everyone wishes to be "rescued".
I am going to use Rob’s method and make my tags by going from jmb’s favorite bloggers list to the next, and the next…
Jmb,
gunt doc (who does not have a blog list! so back to jmb)
cathy's place
the view from here
EuroTrippen
just this side of normal
Betty Western
I must say the random clicking was fun.
Ciao.
Here are the rules: Link to the person that tagged you and post the rules on your blog. Share seven random and/or weird facts about yourself. Tag seven random people at the end of your post, and include links to their blogs. Let each person know they have been tagged by leaving a notification on their blog.
1) I have a volatile temper but a verrrry long fuse. The sure way to see me explode and resort to violent language and perhaps physical intervention are any kind of child abuse, and racial, cultural, or religious prejudice in action.
2) I am a dental white knuckler. I am terrified of the dentist. I go, but I am afraid. After seeing “Marathon Man” it took me a year to have my teeth cleaned, when I normally go every four months! This may…. may I say, have something to do with my control issues (which I, of course, do not regard as “issues”).
3) I adore a huge comfy bed. I can conduct my life for days at a time from my bed – I can read there, eat there, write there, watch movies there, and spin tales there.
4) I love to read crime novels about serial killers. And yes I do worry a teeny bit about what that says about me.
5) I have the collector gene, but I only like to collect objects I can use. I used to collect teacups, but since going back on the move I now collect fans. When I was wee I collected rocks. I figured they were useful in case someone stormed the castle I could position myself over the gate and stone the invaders.
6) I love opera but I always get angry at the stupidity of Othello, and I always cry when Violetta dies.
7) According to my child I have a “rescue complex”. As I look over my life so far, I must say I think she may have something there. And it has landed me in some sticky situations as I have found not everyone wishes to be "rescued".
I am going to use Rob’s method and make my tags by going from jmb’s favorite bloggers list to the next, and the next…
Jmb,
gunt doc (who does not have a blog list! so back to jmb)
cathy's place
the view from here
EuroTrippen
just this side of normal
Betty Western
I must say the random clicking was fun.
Ciao.
Thursday, 17 January 2008
Wednesday, 16 January 2008
feeling freaky today?
Just in case the whole mystery of life question has become too easy for you, consider The Boltzmann brain problem. These theories state the possibility of you as a disembodied brain floating in space, “a momentary fluctuation in a field of matter and energy out in space where your memories and the world you think you see around you are illusions.” And you thought The Matrix was scary!
An article in the New York Times today explores the cosmologists and the theories this has spawned; because nothing is as easy as 2 + 2, you know – not in a universe of negative numbers and parallel universes, dark matter, and the possibility of the death of space time. Questions such as why can’t you unscramble an egg? Why does time only run forward? Why can’t you remember if the Yankees will be in the World Series this year?
It’s one more reason to doubt our smug little theories that we are the center of the universe. Remember Copernicus? And thinking that our existence is endless – through some god form or reincarnation. The possibility of an asteroid slamming into the earth and wiping us out is very real science, look here. The possibility of that happening in 2036 is documented; and for you Stargate fans the rock is named Apophis! The cosmologists in an attempt to spoil everyone’s fun have also named the date for the end of the universe. Good to have something to look forward to eh? May as well let those flood insurance policies go and use the money for a holographic projector.
Of course with the data staring us in the face (metaphorically, as we may have no face..) that we have a limited existence there is also the very real possibility that we simply need better instruments.
“…the cosmologists say the brain problem serves as a valuable reality check as they contemplate the far, far future and zillions of bubble universes popping off from one another in an ever-increasing rush through eternity. What, for example is a “typical” observer in such a setup? If some atoms in another universe stick together briefly to look, talk and think exactly like you, is it really you?
“It is part of a much bigger set of questions about how to think about probabilities in an infinite universe in which everything that can occur, does occur, infinitely many times,” said Leonard Susskind of Stanford, a co-author of a paper in 2002 that helped set off the debate. Or as Andrei Linde, another Stanford theorist given to colorful language, loosely characterized the possibility of a replica of your own brain forming out in space sometime, “How do you compute the probability to be reincarnated to the probability of being born?”
The gist is that it is much more likely, scientifically speaking, for something strange to happen than something ordered and logical. Interesting eh? This due to the law of entropy and the fact that energy, like water, takes the easiest course.
“In an interview Dr. Linde described these brains as a form of reincarnation. Over the course of eternity, he said, anything is possible. After some Big Bang in the far future, he said, “it’s possible that you yourself will re-emerge. Eventually you will appear with your table and your computer.”
Another possibility is that dark matter will decay in time for the universe to stop its expansion and “fade to black”. What Dr Page calls “the most humanely possible execution”, as everything would cease to exist as the laws of physics are universally changed. This would eliminate the Boltzmann brain problem, as there would be no fluctuating matter to form the floating brains… Cheery eh? Rather like picking your poison.
Of course there is always (always!) another view – that the number of new bubble universes being hatched at any moment is always growing and we can’t see, measure, or even intuit what is going on in those universes as we can’t see or even know for certain they exist. so we could still, or in the future, or the past - exist there.
“If you are reincarnated, why do you care about where you are reincarnated?” he asked. “It sounds crazy because here we are touching issues we are not supposed to be touching in ordinary science. Can we be reincarnated?”
“People are not prepared for this discussion,” Dr. Linde said.”
And there I leave it to ponder… Now am I pondering in Morocco or somewhere out beyond the Milky Way? Are you reading this or I have sent it to a parallel universe where some bi-brained being that resides in a mud of silicon and nitrous is shaking his/her/its head at my naiveté?
Ciao.
An article in the New York Times today explores the cosmologists and the theories this has spawned; because nothing is as easy as 2 + 2, you know – not in a universe of negative numbers and parallel universes, dark matter, and the possibility of the death of space time. Questions such as why can’t you unscramble an egg? Why does time only run forward? Why can’t you remember if the Yankees will be in the World Series this year?
It’s one more reason to doubt our smug little theories that we are the center of the universe. Remember Copernicus? And thinking that our existence is endless – through some god form or reincarnation. The possibility of an asteroid slamming into the earth and wiping us out is very real science, look here. The possibility of that happening in 2036 is documented; and for you Stargate fans the rock is named Apophis! The cosmologists in an attempt to spoil everyone’s fun have also named the date for the end of the universe. Good to have something to look forward to eh? May as well let those flood insurance policies go and use the money for a holographic projector.
Of course with the data staring us in the face (metaphorically, as we may have no face..) that we have a limited existence there is also the very real possibility that we simply need better instruments.
“…the cosmologists say the brain problem serves as a valuable reality check as they contemplate the far, far future and zillions of bubble universes popping off from one another in an ever-increasing rush through eternity. What, for example is a “typical” observer in such a setup? If some atoms in another universe stick together briefly to look, talk and think exactly like you, is it really you?
“It is part of a much bigger set of questions about how to think about probabilities in an infinite universe in which everything that can occur, does occur, infinitely many times,” said Leonard Susskind of Stanford, a co-author of a paper in 2002 that helped set off the debate. Or as Andrei Linde, another Stanford theorist given to colorful language, loosely characterized the possibility of a replica of your own brain forming out in space sometime, “How do you compute the probability to be reincarnated to the probability of being born?”
The gist is that it is much more likely, scientifically speaking, for something strange to happen than something ordered and logical. Interesting eh? This due to the law of entropy and the fact that energy, like water, takes the easiest course.
“In an interview Dr. Linde described these brains as a form of reincarnation. Over the course of eternity, he said, anything is possible. After some Big Bang in the far future, he said, “it’s possible that you yourself will re-emerge. Eventually you will appear with your table and your computer.”
Another possibility is that dark matter will decay in time for the universe to stop its expansion and “fade to black”. What Dr Page calls “the most humanely possible execution”, as everything would cease to exist as the laws of physics are universally changed. This would eliminate the Boltzmann brain problem, as there would be no fluctuating matter to form the floating brains… Cheery eh? Rather like picking your poison.
Of course there is always (always!) another view – that the number of new bubble universes being hatched at any moment is always growing and we can’t see, measure, or even intuit what is going on in those universes as we can’t see or even know for certain they exist. so we could still, or in the future, or the past - exist there.
“If you are reincarnated, why do you care about where you are reincarnated?” he asked. “It sounds crazy because here we are touching issues we are not supposed to be touching in ordinary science. Can we be reincarnated?”
“People are not prepared for this discussion,” Dr. Linde said.”
And there I leave it to ponder… Now am I pondering in Morocco or somewhere out beyond the Milky Way? Are you reading this or I have sent it to a parallel universe where some bi-brained being that resides in a mud of silicon and nitrous is shaking his/her/its head at my naiveté?
Ciao.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)