Imagine That
Arguably the most (and perhaps the only) insightful comment in The 911 Commission Report was that a systemic “failure of imagination” kept U.S. officials from understanding the Al Qaeda threat before the attacks on New York and Washington.
A failure of imagination presumably prevented the neocon leaders in the U.S. government from seeing what tens of millions of people around the world saw before the invasion of Iraq: That Saddam had no huge stockpiles of WMD nor any ongoing WMD program, that Saddam and Al Queda were not allies, and that a U.S. invasion of Iraq was going to be a quagmire at best and would likely precipitate a civil war.
Similarly, there is little reason to believe that the “Beltway insiders” (James Baker, Lee Hamilton, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Edwin Meese III, Sandra Day O'Connor, Leon E. Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb, and Alan K. Simpson) presently laboring over completion of the Iraq Study Group Report will distinguish themselves by producing any imaginative conclusions regarding the U.S. misadventure in Iraq.
What the authors of the Iraq Study Group Report will almost certainly not imagine is that the Middle East is now at a point of optimal opportunity for longstanding peace because at this moment U.S. and Israel’s prestige and Muslim’s sense of humiliation are all near or at their historical nadirs.
If only U.S. representatives who publicly opposed Bush’s now-discredited “foreign policy” agenda from the outset entered into wide-ranging discussions with humility and in a true spirit of compromise with leaders in the Middle East can the unimaginable finally be made possible, and the unthinkable be avoided.
America is the strongest, most dominant nation since ancient Rome, and what we do affects the entire world. The tone we Americans set for how conflicts get resolved will bring the world happiness or grief in proportion to the courage we have to think holistically, and to act nonviolently.
With that in mind, try to imagine the following imaginative scenario:
1. Congress impeaches and removes President Bush and Vice President Cheney for lying to the U.S. public in order to get their war of choice in Iraq. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearl, etc. are brought to The Hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity.
2. President Nancy Pelosi revokes the policies of “regime change” and “preemptive war” and nominates for U.S. Secretary of State Noam Chomsky who makes a public and detailed declaration of apology and offer of reparations for U.S. foreign policy misdeeds; Dennis Kucinich is selected to head the newly-created U.S. Department of Peace; The U.S. pledges to reduce its WMD stockpiles and overall “defense” spending by 50% and to increase U.S. humanitarian assistance abroad by 1,000% in one year; The U.S. pledges to fund R&D on wind and solar energy commensurate with the goal of achieving 50% renewable energy consumption in the U.S. by 2020 (matching the Danish government’s actual goal.)
3. President Pelosi appoints Randall Robinson and Ralph Nader to coordinate efforts between the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Central America, Cuba, the Caribbean and South America to create the Western Hemisphere Rights of Citizens Convention guaranteeing universal health care, free education from pre-K through college, a living wage, and a safe working environment including the right to unionize, etc.
4. President Pelosi appoints Wangari Maathai and Desmond Tutu to coordinate efforts in Africa to promote sustainable and equitable economic development, sends funds to help stand-up a U.N. force to end the genocide in Darfur, and sends sufficient money and medicine to help end the AIDs crisis in Africa.
5. President Pelosi appoints Arundhati Roy and Vandana Shiva to coordinate efforts in India and Pakistan to promote sustainable and equitable economic development and to take initial steps towards eliminating their nuclear weapons programs.
6. President Pelosi appoints Rabbi Michael Lerner and Scott Ritter as “Special Middle East envoys” who negotiate a “two-states” solution to the Israel/Palestine crisis in which Israel gives up its nuclear weapons and programs, and Jerusalem becomes an international city, a “Mecca” for peace-loving people around the globe, the new headquarters of the new democratic U.N., with the Dalai Lama as mayor.
7. Working with our newly-energized partners in the Middle East, Europe, Africa, the Western Hemisphere, and Asia, the U.S. supports the U.N.- organized referendum in Iraq on whether an international military force should be put in place in Iraq, and for now long. The referendum also includes a vote on whether or not to partition Iraq into separate Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite states.
8. The U.S. signs a global nuclear non-proliferation agreement to eliminate all nuclear weapons stockpiles in ten years.
9. The U.S. supports a U.N.-sponsored one-year moratorium on the manufacture, sale and transportation of all weapons outside of the U.S., with mandatory life sentences for the owners of the weapons – related companies who are caught breaking the moratorium.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
November 8, 2006 - An Election of “Firsts”
This election brought a number of remarkable “firsts.”
The U.S. House of Representatives will be led by the first woman speaker (Nancy Pelosi); the U.S. Senate will induct its first socialist member (Bernie Sanders); the first Muslim-American was elected to Congress (Keith Ellison from Minnesota); for the first time ever the majority of Americans voted on electronic “black box” voting machines; and here in Maryland a “third-party” candidate for a statewide race was able to participate in (most of) the debates (the Green Party’s senatorial candidate Kevin Zeese.)
But of all the “firsts” perhaps the best is that for the first time since 911, a majority of the national electorate cast their votes out of hope and not fear.
The U.S. House of Representatives will be led by the first woman speaker (Nancy Pelosi); the U.S. Senate will induct its first socialist member (Bernie Sanders); the first Muslim-American was elected to Congress (Keith Ellison from Minnesota); for the first time ever the majority of Americans voted on electronic “black box” voting machines; and here in Maryland a “third-party” candidate for a statewide race was able to participate in (most of) the debates (the Green Party’s senatorial candidate Kevin Zeese.)
But of all the “firsts” perhaps the best is that for the first time since 911, a majority of the national electorate cast their votes out of hope and not fear.
November 8, 2006 - The “Gingrich Revolution” and Rovian Dreams of a “Permanent Republican Majority” are Dead!
This election revealed that in its current incarnation the Republican Party has devolved into a Southern extremist sect whose core members are primarily motivated by their hope of turning the U.S. into a Christian theocracy.
Voters abandoned the Republican Party in droves not because their leaders failed to live up to their supposed conservative ideology, but because in the wake of Enron, 911 and Katrina, the ideology of unrestrained corporate greed and ineffective government has no potency.
But in the final analysis this election was mostly about the rejection of Karl Rove’s politics of fear and demonization, which is bound to fail when an arrogant, incompetent and scandal-ridden party employs it.
Voters abandoned the Republican Party in droves not because their leaders failed to live up to their supposed conservative ideology, but because in the wake of Enron, 911 and Katrina, the ideology of unrestrained corporate greed and ineffective government has no potency.
But in the final analysis this election was mostly about the rejection of Karl Rove’s politics of fear and demonization, which is bound to fail when an arrogant, incompetent and scandal-ridden party employs it.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
October 29, 2006 - Cheney and Torture: Do Unto Others
Vice President Cheney’s approval of “dunking a terrorist in water” is a chilling reminder of how shortsighted and amoral are some of the leading members of the Bush administration (“Cheney comment lands White House in hot water”, 10-27.)
I wonder if Mr. Cheney has really thought through the implications of his policies because history is replete with examples of leaders who, having created the machinery of state terror were later consumed by it.
And in a global war without end, even Mr. Cheney himself could conceivably be deemed an “enemy combatant” by some future President, and could face “extraordinary rendition” and its associated terrors.
I think Cheney should watch the 1966 film “A Man for All Seasons” and seriously listen to the speech screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Sir Thomas More: “This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast-man's laws, not God's-and if you cut them down-and you're just the man to do it-d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
I wonder if Mr. Cheney has really thought through the implications of his policies because history is replete with examples of leaders who, having created the machinery of state terror were later consumed by it.
And in a global war without end, even Mr. Cheney himself could conceivably be deemed an “enemy combatant” by some future President, and could face “extraordinary rendition” and its associated terrors.
I think Cheney should watch the 1966 film “A Man for All Seasons” and seriously listen to the speech screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Sir Thomas More: “This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast-man's laws, not God's-and if you cut them down-and you're just the man to do it-d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
October 29, 2006 - Public Utilities Should Be Publicly Owned
I am frankly bewildered by Tony Ondrusek’s comment that the collapse of the Constellation Energy and Florida Power deal represents a “disgrace” to the residents of Maryland (“Democrats’ dithering doomed the merger”, 10-29-06.)
What I find disgraceful is the record-high profits of the oil and utility companies who are gouging consumers with record-high rates-- Constellation Energy recently declared a 75% increase in third-quarter profits, and even larger profits are expected as the 72% rate increase is phased in.
This is money coming out of the pockets of working people and going into the bank accounts of fat cat CEOs.
Far from being a disgrace, the failed merger represents the best opportunity Marylanders have to take back BGE and set affordable rates because public utilities should be publicly owned and run in the interest of the consumers.
What I find disgraceful is the record-high profits of the oil and utility companies who are gouging consumers with record-high rates-- Constellation Energy recently declared a 75% increase in third-quarter profits, and even larger profits are expected as the 72% rate increase is phased in.
This is money coming out of the pockets of working people and going into the bank accounts of fat cat CEOs.
Far from being a disgrace, the failed merger represents the best opportunity Marylanders have to take back BGE and set affordable rates because public utilities should be publicly owned and run in the interest of the consumers.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
October 22, 2006 - Bush HAS changed his stated goals for Iraq
President Bush claimed, “our goal hasn’t changed” in Iraq (“Bush willing to shift tactics to win in Iraq”, 10-21) but the truth is his administration’s stated goals have continuously changed.
First Bush said the goal was to rid Iraq of its (nonexistent) WMDs, then the goal was to remove Saddam and his sons, then the goal was to establish a demonstration model of Arab democracy, and most recently the goal seems to be the imposition of order and stability, perhaps by installing another “strongman” like Saddam!
On the other hand, Bush’s unstated goal probably hasn’t changed: To control Iraqi oil by establishing a huge permanent military presence near the epicenter of the world’s largest oil deposits.
Regardless of his stated and unstated goals, the wheels long ago flew off Bush’s foreign policy wagon.
In one sense this is a very good thing because no nation should ever benefit from a war of aggression.
First Bush said the goal was to rid Iraq of its (nonexistent) WMDs, then the goal was to remove Saddam and his sons, then the goal was to establish a demonstration model of Arab democracy, and most recently the goal seems to be the imposition of order and stability, perhaps by installing another “strongman” like Saddam!
On the other hand, Bush’s unstated goal probably hasn’t changed: To control Iraqi oil by establishing a huge permanent military presence near the epicenter of the world’s largest oil deposits.
Regardless of his stated and unstated goals, the wheels long ago flew off Bush’s foreign policy wagon.
In one sense this is a very good thing because no nation should ever benefit from a war of aggression.
October 22, 2006 - Who IS Michael Steele?
While I am sure the Sun’s recent article about Senatorial candidate Michael Steele will be decried by Republicans as another “hit piece”, it struck me as a much-needed and sobering reminder that after four years in the spotlight, Mr. Steele’s past, present and future plans are still largely unknown (“A personality for politics”, 10-22).
Like President Bush, Steele seems to have an affable demeanor and a questionable history that the candidate, his campaign and his former employers are unable or unwilling to shed any light on.
Like Vice President Cheney, Steele seems to exclude relevant parties from participating in the process of developing policy recommendations; Steele has made much of his concern for listening to all the voices in the room—but what happens when the voices are not even invited into the room?
Like Senator John McCain, Steele seems to have a penchant for delivering proposals that are “all show and no go” like his three-year study on the death penalty that concluded that another study group should be formed!
Like former President Nixon’s famous “Checkers” TV address, Steele used a dog as a straw man to counter a fictitious charge while he ignored the fair criticism being leveled against him.
Finally, like the fictional character in Jerzy Kosinski’s “Being There”, Steele seems to have been induced by party elites (like Karl Rove) to win high office through a strategy of employing a “folksy” charm-based campaign in the hope that his vaguely reassuring comments would be mistaken for good judgment.
My question for Maryland voters is: Do they really want another leader with a dubious past and no detailed agenda, a leader who apparently believes in opaque government and who evidently favors the unalloyed rule of party and corporate elites?
Like President Bush, Steele seems to have an affable demeanor and a questionable history that the candidate, his campaign and his former employers are unable or unwilling to shed any light on.
Like Vice President Cheney, Steele seems to exclude relevant parties from participating in the process of developing policy recommendations; Steele has made much of his concern for listening to all the voices in the room—but what happens when the voices are not even invited into the room?
Like Senator John McCain, Steele seems to have a penchant for delivering proposals that are “all show and no go” like his three-year study on the death penalty that concluded that another study group should be formed!
Like former President Nixon’s famous “Checkers” TV address, Steele used a dog as a straw man to counter a fictitious charge while he ignored the fair criticism being leveled against him.
Finally, like the fictional character in Jerzy Kosinski’s “Being There”, Steele seems to have been induced by party elites (like Karl Rove) to win high office through a strategy of employing a “folksy” charm-based campaign in the hope that his vaguely reassuring comments would be mistaken for good judgment.
My question for Maryland voters is: Do they really want another leader with a dubious past and no detailed agenda, a leader who apparently believes in opaque government and who evidently favors the unalloyed rule of party and corporate elites?
Sunday, October 15, 2006
October 15, 2006 - Microcredit Can Work in Baltimore as Well as Bangladesh
It was inspiring and instructive to read about Noble Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, the pioneer of “microcredit” in which small loans “unleash the entrepreneurial talents of people who had historically been written off” (“Small-loan pioneer wins peace prize”, 10-14-06.)
I believe that in this new millennium, governments, institutions and corporations will be judged by how well they promote social justice, grassroots democracy, ecological wisdom and nonviolence.
The example of Yunus should be repeated elsewhere—even here in Maryland— as a practical method of finally breaking the recurring cycle of poverty amongst our own “permanent underclass.”
I believe that in this new millennium, governments, institutions and corporations will be judged by how well they promote social justice, grassroots democracy, ecological wisdom and nonviolence.
The example of Yunus should be repeated elsewhere—even here in Maryland— as a practical method of finally breaking the recurring cycle of poverty amongst our own “permanent underclass.”
October 15, 2006 - Four on the Ballot but Only Two in the Debate?
The Sun again neglected to mention that although there are four candidates on the ballot in Maryland for governor, only two of them were allowed into the debates Saturday (“Two rivals clash with two styles”, 10-15.)
In addition to the Republican and Democratic candidates, voters in November will also see Green Party candidate Ed Boyd and Populist Party candidate Chris Driscoll’s names on the ballot.
Wouldn’t it be a good idea if voters knew something about these candidates before they entered the polling booth—in other words, isn’t it the responsibility of the Sun to cover ALL of the candidates on the ballot?
I can only assume that Boyd and Driscoll were denied their just places beside Ehrlich and O’Malley because of the shellacking Green Party candidate for Senate Kevin Zeese gave Ben Cardin and Michael Steele at their first Senatorial debate.
The fact that third-party candidates may outclass their ossified competition is good reason for Republicans and Democrats to try to keep them out of debates, but it is a lousy reason for the Sun to decline covering these serious and exciting campaigns.
In addition to the Republican and Democratic candidates, voters in November will also see Green Party candidate Ed Boyd and Populist Party candidate Chris Driscoll’s names on the ballot.
Wouldn’t it be a good idea if voters knew something about these candidates before they entered the polling booth—in other words, isn’t it the responsibility of the Sun to cover ALL of the candidates on the ballot?
I can only assume that Boyd and Driscoll were denied their just places beside Ehrlich and O’Malley because of the shellacking Green Party candidate for Senate Kevin Zeese gave Ben Cardin and Michael Steele at their first Senatorial debate.
The fact that third-party candidates may outclass their ossified competition is good reason for Republicans and Democrats to try to keep them out of debates, but it is a lousy reason for the Sun to decline covering these serious and exciting campaigns.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
October 10, 2006 - Bush’s foreign policy blunders
Observing President Bush’s foreign policy is like watching an immanent train wreck: You can see looming disaster from a mile away but there is not a damn thing you can do about it.
Critical observers knew that the reasons for war on Iraq were all lies and that the resulting invasion would be an unmitigated catastrophe for the U.S. and the Iraqi people.
Similarly, critical observers knew that Bush’s doctrine of military “preemption” coupled with Bush’s short list of countries ripe for “regime change” would accelerate Iran and North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs.
And now, as predicted, we have North Korea announcing “publicly for the first time that it had nuclear weapons” (“Failed tactics leave U.S. policymakers facing ‘rough go’", 10-10.)
How is it that in the span of six years the U.S. has gone from being the “indispensable nation” to being a country that is reviled by its allies and disregarded by its enemies?
The short answer is that our chief executive is totally out of his depths with regard to foreign policy: The man is truly a “Bush league” president.
Critical observers knew that the reasons for war on Iraq were all lies and that the resulting invasion would be an unmitigated catastrophe for the U.S. and the Iraqi people.
Similarly, critical observers knew that Bush’s doctrine of military “preemption” coupled with Bush’s short list of countries ripe for “regime change” would accelerate Iran and North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs.
And now, as predicted, we have North Korea announcing “publicly for the first time that it had nuclear weapons” (“Failed tactics leave U.S. policymakers facing ‘rough go’", 10-10.)
How is it that in the span of six years the U.S. has gone from being the “indispensable nation” to being a country that is reviled by its allies and disregarded by its enemies?
The short answer is that our chief executive is totally out of his depths with regard to foreign policy: The man is truly a “Bush league” president.
October 10, 2006 - Implement Instant Runoff Voting
Implementing Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), would instantly eliminate the “spoiler effect” that has trapped many voters like Robert A. “Buzz” Kerr who said he “support[s] the views of the Green Party” candidate Kevin Zeese, but is likely to vote for Ben Cardin because he “think[s] it’s real important for the Democrats to take control of Congress” ("Running hard – uphill”, 10-9.)
Under instant runoff voting, voters rank the candidates: a 'one' for their favorite candidate, a 'two' for their second favorite and so on. Votes are then counted for the top-ranked candidate on each ballot. After counting these ballots, if no candidate has a majority of the vote and thus no candidate had won, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and the ballots of that candidate's supporters are counted for their next (second) choice, etc. until a candidate wins with a majority of the vote.
Since IRV eliminates the spoiler effect, saves time and money by eliminating the need for a primary election, ensures that the winner of race has the support of a majority of the voters, and brings more voices and choices into the election, why hasn’t the Democratic Party- controlled legislature in Maryland enacted IRV?
The answer is simple: most Democratic leaders in Maryland are fundamentally anti-democratic. In fact, not much has changed in this regard since the early 1900s, when Baltimore Democratic political boss Arthur P. Gorman denounced the possibility of third-party success as being “more objectionable even than Republican success.”
Under instant runoff voting, voters rank the candidates: a 'one' for their favorite candidate, a 'two' for their second favorite and so on. Votes are then counted for the top-ranked candidate on each ballot. After counting these ballots, if no candidate has a majority of the vote and thus no candidate had won, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and the ballots of that candidate's supporters are counted for their next (second) choice, etc. until a candidate wins with a majority of the vote.
Since IRV eliminates the spoiler effect, saves time and money by eliminating the need for a primary election, ensures that the winner of race has the support of a majority of the voters, and brings more voices and choices into the election, why hasn’t the Democratic Party- controlled legislature in Maryland enacted IRV?
The answer is simple: most Democratic leaders in Maryland are fundamentally anti-democratic. In fact, not much has changed in this regard since the early 1900s, when Baltimore Democratic political boss Arthur P. Gorman denounced the possibility of third-party success as being “more objectionable even than Republican success.”
Friday, October 06, 2006
October 6, 2006 - Blame Both Parties for International Terrorism
I think Mr. DeCicco is wrong on a number of points in his letter that criticized former President Bill Clinton (“Democrats lack will to win war on terror”, 10-6.)
First of all, there is no “war on terror” and there cannot ever be a war against a tactic; Mr. DeCicco falls into a trap when he accepts this false premise.
Secondly, Mr. DeCicco got it wrong when he argued that Clinton was, “overly concerned about his sexual misdeeds.” In fact Clinton was regrettably cavalier about his sexual affairs before he was caught, and it was the Republicans who were, for purely political motives, fixated on Clinton’s sexual misdeeds after they came to light.
Thirdly, like many other “conservatives”, Mr. DeCicco seems to decry the “rewriting” of history but as every good historian knows, history is not a dead thing but must continuously be revisited in light of the appearance of new facts and changing perspectives.
An example of this “rewriting” principle is that now we can see there is plenty of blame to go around among both Democratic and Republican leaders for the advent of global terrorism. I for one chiefly blame President Jimmy Carter for allowing his National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski to talk him into the insane program of funding, recruiting, training, and arming young Islamic fanatics from all over the world.
It is important to remember that, from Carter through President George H.W. Bush, a majority of Democrats and Republicans supported the development of an international jihad against the West.
First of all, there is no “war on terror” and there cannot ever be a war against a tactic; Mr. DeCicco falls into a trap when he accepts this false premise.
Secondly, Mr. DeCicco got it wrong when he argued that Clinton was, “overly concerned about his sexual misdeeds.” In fact Clinton was regrettably cavalier about his sexual affairs before he was caught, and it was the Republicans who were, for purely political motives, fixated on Clinton’s sexual misdeeds after they came to light.
Thirdly, like many other “conservatives”, Mr. DeCicco seems to decry the “rewriting” of history but as every good historian knows, history is not a dead thing but must continuously be revisited in light of the appearance of new facts and changing perspectives.
An example of this “rewriting” principle is that now we can see there is plenty of blame to go around among both Democratic and Republican leaders for the advent of global terrorism. I for one chiefly blame President Jimmy Carter for allowing his National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski to talk him into the insane program of funding, recruiting, training, and arming young Islamic fanatics from all over the world.
It is important to remember that, from Carter through President George H.W. Bush, a majority of Democrats and Republicans supported the development of an international jihad against the West.
October 6, 2006 - Zeese Cleaned Cardin & Steele’s Clocks!
I want to thank the Sun for covering the first Senatorial debate (“Senate hopefuls launch tough talk”, 10-4.)
However, there are two important points that were missing from the report.
The first is that Maryland political history was made at the debate when Kevin Zeese became the first “third party” candidate to appear in a debate for a statewide office.
Secondly, I think readers who were not at the debate should have been informed that Zeese clearly won the debate, a fact acknowledged even by debate moderator Doni Glover.
If Zeese is allowed to participate in a statewide-broadcasted televised debate, and if he again routs Michael Steele and Ben Cardin as he did Tuesday night, then the Maryland senatorial contest really will become a three-way race.
In short, if Ben Cardin truly believes in democracy and agrees to another debate that includes Zeese, Maryland voters will be treated to one of the most exciting and widely covered races in the nation this year!
However, there are two important points that were missing from the report.
The first is that Maryland political history was made at the debate when Kevin Zeese became the first “third party” candidate to appear in a debate for a statewide office.
Secondly, I think readers who were not at the debate should have been informed that Zeese clearly won the debate, a fact acknowledged even by debate moderator Doni Glover.
If Zeese is allowed to participate in a statewide-broadcasted televised debate, and if he again routs Michael Steele and Ben Cardin as he did Tuesday night, then the Maryland senatorial contest really will become a three-way race.
In short, if Ben Cardin truly believes in democracy and agrees to another debate that includes Zeese, Maryland voters will be treated to one of the most exciting and widely covered races in the nation this year!
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
October 3, 2006 - Marylander's Need to Vote by Mail
I agree with Dick Tatlow’s recommendations in support of Maryland adopting a vote-by-mail system in order to “increase voting, decrease fraud, [and] increase accuracy” (“Let everyone vote through the mail”, 9-28.)
Oregon’s vote-by-mail system has proven to be a success with 81% of Oregonians preferring it to voting at polling stations; Oregon has consistently higher voter “turnouts” than the national average; Oregon has evidently had no claims of fraudulent election results since they implemented their vote-by-mail system.
In addition to voting by mail, I also support two other voting reforms: automatic voter registration based on state income tax filings and drivers license registration, and the inclusion of representatives from all political parties with candidates on the ballot (Democratic, Green, Libertarian, Populist, Republican, etc.) to monitor the counting of ballots at each county election board headquarters on election day.
Oregon’s vote-by-mail system has proven to be a success with 81% of Oregonians preferring it to voting at polling stations; Oregon has consistently higher voter “turnouts” than the national average; Oregon has evidently had no claims of fraudulent election results since they implemented their vote-by-mail system.
In addition to voting by mail, I also support two other voting reforms: automatic voter registration based on state income tax filings and drivers license registration, and the inclusion of representatives from all political parties with candidates on the ballot (Democratic, Green, Libertarian, Populist, Republican, etc.) to monitor the counting of ballots at each county election board headquarters on election day.
Friday, September 29, 2006
September 29, 2006 - Dave Goldsmith for MD House of Delegates, Dist. 11
Quote: "I am fed up with being ripped-off by BGE; of the skyrocketing cost of health care; of corporate-sponsored politicians and lobbyist-written legislation; of gerrymandered districts designed to thwart political competition; of ‘two-party’ gridlock in Annapolis; of inadequate schools; of environmental degradation in Maryland; of a growing divide between the rich and the rest of us. I want honest government, a fair economy, and a just society. How about you?"
Dave Goldsmith was born in Brooklyn, NY in 1956. He attended Baltimore County Public schools (Woodmoor Elementary, Woodlawn Junior High, Milford Mill Senior High) and received a Bachelors Degree in History and a Masters Degree in U.S. History from the University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC.) Since 1987 Dave has owned and operated a small computer consulting company (PC Hardware & Software, Inc.) in Baltimore County. Dave married Lisa Goldstein MA, DTR in 1996 and in 1999 their daughter Skye was born. In 2002 they purchased their house in Granite/Woodstock, Maryland.
Dave joined the Maryland Green Party (MGP) in 2000 and was a MGP spokesperson on local radio during the 2000 election; in 2002 he became the coordinator of the Baltimore County Green Party (BCGP.) Since the lead-up to the Iraq War, Dave has maintained a political weblog at www.usgreens.org and his political “Letters to the Editor” have been routinely published in the Baltimore Sun. This is Dave Goldsmith’s first time running for political office. This campaign is centered on: Public Ownership of Public Utilities (BGE), Single-Payer Universal Health Care, and Instant Runoff Voting (IRV.)
Endorsed by: MD Universal Health Care Action Network (MD UHCAN.)
I support: Voters For Peace
BGE/Energy: “Take Back BGE”— community ownership of public utilities; Promote conservation and alternative energy.
Education: Free, high-quality Pre K-College; Merit pay for teachers; Charter schools and homeschooling; Teach citizenship & nonviolence.
Public Funding for Campaigns: Public funding, free airtime, inclusion in debates for all ballot-access candidates; Verified Voting; Instant Runoff Voting.
Health Care: Universal Single- Payer Health Care system to promote prevention and reduce costs (MD UHCAN Plan.)
Housing: Affordable housing for renters & affordable home ownership for all; “Green" building construction; Hire union & worker-owned building contractors.
Redistricting: New districts developed by nonpartisan and independent experts from U. of MD Political Science departments.
Land Use: Plan based on recommendations developed by a non-partisan commission, a majority of whose members are conservationists.
Transportation: Fund expansion of mass transit, bike and walkways; Fund better upkeep of existing roads and bridges; Increase tax breaks for hybrid cars.
Dave Goldsmith was born in Brooklyn, NY in 1956. He attended Baltimore County Public schools (Woodmoor Elementary, Woodlawn Junior High, Milford Mill Senior High) and received a Bachelors Degree in History and a Masters Degree in U.S. History from the University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC.) Since 1987 Dave has owned and operated a small computer consulting company (PC Hardware & Software, Inc.) in Baltimore County. Dave married Lisa Goldstein MA, DTR in 1996 and in 1999 their daughter Skye was born. In 2002 they purchased their house in Granite/Woodstock, Maryland.
Dave joined the Maryland Green Party (MGP) in 2000 and was a MGP spokesperson on local radio during the 2000 election; in 2002 he became the coordinator of the Baltimore County Green Party (BCGP.) Since the lead-up to the Iraq War, Dave has maintained a political weblog at www.usgreens.org and his political “Letters to the Editor” have been routinely published in the Baltimore Sun. This is Dave Goldsmith’s first time running for political office. This campaign is centered on: Public Ownership of Public Utilities (BGE), Single-Payer Universal Health Care, and Instant Runoff Voting (IRV.)
Endorsed by: MD Universal Health Care Action Network (MD UHCAN.)
I support: Voters For Peace
BGE/Energy: “Take Back BGE”— community ownership of public utilities; Promote conservation and alternative energy.
Education: Free, high-quality Pre K-College; Merit pay for teachers; Charter schools and homeschooling; Teach citizenship & nonviolence.
Public Funding for Campaigns: Public funding, free airtime, inclusion in debates for all ballot-access candidates; Verified Voting; Instant Runoff Voting.
Health Care: Universal Single- Payer Health Care system to promote prevention and reduce costs (MD UHCAN Plan.)
Housing: Affordable housing for renters & affordable home ownership for all; “Green" building construction; Hire union & worker-owned building contractors.
Redistricting: New districts developed by nonpartisan and independent experts from U. of MD Political Science departments.
Land Use: Plan based on recommendations developed by a non-partisan commission, a majority of whose members are conservationists.
Transportation: Fund expansion of mass transit, bike and walkways; Fund better upkeep of existing roads and bridges; Increase tax breaks for hybrid cars.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
September 28 - Proposed BGE-FPL Merger SHOULD Fail!
I welcome the news that the proposed BGE- FPL merger may fail because, unlike what is reported in the Sun, the merger does not offer a “promise of rate relief” for Maryland electric customers—it comes with a 72% rate increase! (“BGE merger in Danger, FPL warns”, 9-27.)
From what I can tell, leaders of both of the major parties have taken campaign contributions from BGE and, perhaps not coincidentally, they favor the merger that will cost Maryland electric customers millions of dollars.
Alternately, there are 18 candidates for public office in Maryland who are opposed to this “Enron-ization” of BGE and who call for the “Maryland-ization” of our public utilities, including: full public (community) ownership of our public utilities; the use of “eminent domain” to take back BGE; return of the “stranded costs” taxpayers have paid to BGE for decades; the creation of a Public Service Commission (PSC) that looks out after the interests of the taxpayers; making sure all Marylanders can afford the power they need to live; and moving Maryland to the forefront of the affordable, renewable energy and conservation movements.
On November 7, Marylanders who are sick of being ripped off by BGE should vote for Green Party candidates who will “Take Back BGE” from the fat cat CEOs and their political cronies in Annapolis.
From what I can tell, leaders of both of the major parties have taken campaign contributions from BGE and, perhaps not coincidentally, they favor the merger that will cost Maryland electric customers millions of dollars.
Alternately, there are 18 candidates for public office in Maryland who are opposed to this “Enron-ization” of BGE and who call for the “Maryland-ization” of our public utilities, including: full public (community) ownership of our public utilities; the use of “eminent domain” to take back BGE; return of the “stranded costs” taxpayers have paid to BGE for decades; the creation of a Public Service Commission (PSC) that looks out after the interests of the taxpayers; making sure all Marylanders can afford the power they need to live; and moving Maryland to the forefront of the affordable, renewable energy and conservation movements.
On November 7, Marylanders who are sick of being ripped off by BGE should vote for Green Party candidates who will “Take Back BGE” from the fat cat CEOs and their political cronies in Annapolis.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
September 15, 2006 - Bush's terror bill is bad idea
[Listen to mp3]
At his press conference today President Bush defended the use of torture by saying we must, "provide our military and intelligence professionals with the tools they need to protect our country from another attack ("Bush urges Congress to back terror bill," 9-15-06.)
The bad news is that Bush is unable or unwilling to absorb the lesson about the inherent unreliability of “intelligence” gathered through torture from his experience with pre-war intelligence failures relating to Iraq’s nonexistent WMDs and nonexistent ties to Al Queda.
The other piece of bad news is that Bush also seems not to understand that U.S. intelligence agencies had gathered, evidently entirely through lawful means, all the information needed to prevent the 911 attacks, had Bush and national security advisor Condoleezza Rice thought that the looming danger in July, 2001 was worth delaying Bush’s month-long summer vacation to coordinate a response to.
The good news is that since, finally, senior Republicans like John McCain, John Warner, Lindsey Graham and Colin Powell have stood up to Bush, Congress might actually be able to have a frank debate about at least one aspect of U.S. defense and foreign policy without opponents of the president being scared to speak their mind for fear of being accused of treason or of always “blaming America first!”
At his press conference today President Bush defended the use of torture by saying we must, "provide our military and intelligence professionals with the tools they need to protect our country from another attack ("Bush urges Congress to back terror bill," 9-15-06.)
The bad news is that Bush is unable or unwilling to absorb the lesson about the inherent unreliability of “intelligence” gathered through torture from his experience with pre-war intelligence failures relating to Iraq’s nonexistent WMDs and nonexistent ties to Al Queda.
The other piece of bad news is that Bush also seems not to understand that U.S. intelligence agencies had gathered, evidently entirely through lawful means, all the information needed to prevent the 911 attacks, had Bush and national security advisor Condoleezza Rice thought that the looming danger in July, 2001 was worth delaying Bush’s month-long summer vacation to coordinate a response to.
The good news is that since, finally, senior Republicans like John McCain, John Warner, Lindsey Graham and Colin Powell have stood up to Bush, Congress might actually be able to have a frank debate about at least one aspect of U.S. defense and foreign policy without opponents of the president being scared to speak their mind for fear of being accused of treason or of always “blaming America first!”
September 12, 2006 - Reducing terrorism is not a job for the military
President Bush’s five-year commemoration speech suggests he has learned nothing since 911, as he once again repeated the same fallacious arguments that have become the hallmark of his misguided presidency (“On somber day, Bush urges unity”, 9-12.)
Bush was wrong when he repeated the discredited claim that Saddam Hussein's regime "posed a risk that the world could not afford to take" because nearly the entire world was prepared to take the “risk” and the world was proven right. Before the U.S. invaded Iraq, Saddam was contained, he had no WMDs or ties to Al Queda, but Bin Laden, the presumed mastermind of 911, was loose—and due in large part to Bush’s Iraqi misadventure, Bin Laden is still free five years after 911!
Bush was also wrong when he stated that the Iraq war will "set the course for this new century”. It is understandable that Bush would try to elevate to a central place in history an enterprise in which he was the central actor, but the dominant paradigm-shifting force of this century is not likely to the sweep of democracy throughout the Middle East, but rather something Bush is evidently still in denial about: global warming and its associated “disruptions.”
When compared to global warming, terrorism is a second-level threat. But terrorism can be effectively managed only after the American president admits that invading Iraq was a mistake, apologizes to the U.N. and the Iraqi people, and begins to earn the international trust and cooperation needed to capture terrorists and dry up the “sea” of discontentment in which terrorists now safely swim.
Finally, Bush got it all wrong when he stated, "Winning this war will require the determined efforts of a unified country.” We simply will never be able to unite around a false premise—there is not and cannot be a war against a tactic (terrorism.) In short, regardless of what Mr. Bush says, reducing the threats from global terrorism is primarily a political and “intelligence” undertaking, and does not lend itself to military solutions or martial rhetoric.
Bush was wrong when he repeated the discredited claim that Saddam Hussein's regime "posed a risk that the world could not afford to take" because nearly the entire world was prepared to take the “risk” and the world was proven right. Before the U.S. invaded Iraq, Saddam was contained, he had no WMDs or ties to Al Queda, but Bin Laden, the presumed mastermind of 911, was loose—and due in large part to Bush’s Iraqi misadventure, Bin Laden is still free five years after 911!
Bush was also wrong when he stated that the Iraq war will "set the course for this new century”. It is understandable that Bush would try to elevate to a central place in history an enterprise in which he was the central actor, but the dominant paradigm-shifting force of this century is not likely to the sweep of democracy throughout the Middle East, but rather something Bush is evidently still in denial about: global warming and its associated “disruptions.”
When compared to global warming, terrorism is a second-level threat. But terrorism can be effectively managed only after the American president admits that invading Iraq was a mistake, apologizes to the U.N. and the Iraqi people, and begins to earn the international trust and cooperation needed to capture terrorists and dry up the “sea” of discontentment in which terrorists now safely swim.
Finally, Bush got it all wrong when he stated, "Winning this war will require the determined efforts of a unified country.” We simply will never be able to unite around a false premise—there is not and cannot be a war against a tactic (terrorism.) In short, regardless of what Mr. Bush says, reducing the threats from global terrorism is primarily a political and “intelligence” undertaking, and does not lend itself to military solutions or martial rhetoric.
September 10, 2006 - Negotiation, not war
In Michael P. DeCicco’s recent letter to the editor (“War makes progress by killing terrorists”, 9/9) the writer argued that, since “diplomacy and negotiations with terrorists don't work,” and despite the fact “Nobody really knows how many terrorists and radical Islamists have been exterminated,” Mr. DeCicco thinks that “when our commander in chief believes that we have killed a sufficient number” of terrorists, our soldiers can leave Iraq as victors because he “trust[s] President Bush's judgment on this matter.”
I think there are at least four major problems with Mr. DeCicco’s analysis.
Firstly, many countries have negotiated with terrorist organizations: Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin (himself a former member of the Irgun Jewish terrorist organization) negotiated a peace deal with Yasser Arafat, the head of the PLO terrorist group; the British negotiated with Sinn Fein to end the terrorism of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) in the U.K.; the GAM terrorist group signed a comprehensive peace accord with the Indonesian government; most recently, sanctions followed by British and U.S. diplomacy seem to have ended Libyan state-sponsored terrorism, etc.
Secondly, overthrowing Saddam Hussein was a reckless act that turned Iraq into a major terrorist recruitment center and a proving ground for terrorist tactics that have already been exported elsewhere (Madrid, Afghanistan, Beirut, etc.) As with the mythical Hydra, the U.S. military may be creating two new terrorists for every one it kills, and at a price tag of perhaps tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per dead terrorist, eventually the “war on terrorism” could consume the entire American GDP!
Thirdly, and tellingly, Mr. DeCicco called for only “a sufficient number” of terrorists to be killed in the so-called “war on terrorism” instead of demanding total victory against terrorism. Could anyone imagine, for example, FDR declaring that WWII would be fought until “a sufficient number” of Nazis were killed? The question answers itself: there can be no “war on terrorism”; there can be no final “victory” against terrorism; terrorism cannot be defeated through violence; violence encourages more terrorism.
Lastly, I think Mr. DeCicco’s trust in President Bush is entirely unmerited: Bush has no honor, he is neither trustworthy nor competent, and it is hard for me to understand how anyone who has witnessed the disaster that is the Bush presidency (Bush v. Gore, reneging on the Kyoto Agreement, the longest presidential vacation in history followed by 911 and the appointment of ultimate-insider Henry Kissinger to head the 911 investigation, the appointment of ex-felon John Poindexter to head the “Total Information Awareness” citizen-surveillance program, the unsolved anthrax attacks and the dubious color-coded terror alerts, the cynically-named “No Child Left Behind” and "Help America Vote" and “Patriot” Acts and the establishment of the Nazi-sounding Department of “Homeland” Security, the Orwellian-named “Healthy Forest” and “Clear Skies” Acts, the war in Afghanistan and the escape of Bin Laden and the return of the Taliban, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and the extraordinary renditions and the secret torture prisons, the false WMD allegations leading to the Iraq war and ensuing quagmire, the rejection of U.S. foreign policy by nearly the entire world, the warrantless wiretaps, the Medicare Drug Benefit bill sold to Congress with a false price tag, tax cuts leading to record budget deficits, the cowardly refusal to speak to Cindy Sheehan or to attend the funerals of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, the misguided Bernard Kerik and Harriet Myers nominations, support for Michael “Brownie” Brown and the mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina, the use of signing statements to circumvent Congress and the law, the Dubai Ports deal, the amnesty for illegal immigrants plan, the development of North Korean nuclear weapons and the ongoing Iranian nuclear program, the elevation of fear and faith and rhetoric over reason and science and reality, etc.) could place any faith in the man.
I think there are at least four major problems with Mr. DeCicco’s analysis.
Firstly, many countries have negotiated with terrorist organizations: Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin (himself a former member of the Irgun Jewish terrorist organization) negotiated a peace deal with Yasser Arafat, the head of the PLO terrorist group; the British negotiated with Sinn Fein to end the terrorism of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) in the U.K.; the GAM terrorist group signed a comprehensive peace accord with the Indonesian government; most recently, sanctions followed by British and U.S. diplomacy seem to have ended Libyan state-sponsored terrorism, etc.
Secondly, overthrowing Saddam Hussein was a reckless act that turned Iraq into a major terrorist recruitment center and a proving ground for terrorist tactics that have already been exported elsewhere (Madrid, Afghanistan, Beirut, etc.) As with the mythical Hydra, the U.S. military may be creating two new terrorists for every one it kills, and at a price tag of perhaps tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per dead terrorist, eventually the “war on terrorism” could consume the entire American GDP!
Thirdly, and tellingly, Mr. DeCicco called for only “a sufficient number” of terrorists to be killed in the so-called “war on terrorism” instead of demanding total victory against terrorism. Could anyone imagine, for example, FDR declaring that WWII would be fought until “a sufficient number” of Nazis were killed? The question answers itself: there can be no “war on terrorism”; there can be no final “victory” against terrorism; terrorism cannot be defeated through violence; violence encourages more terrorism.
Lastly, I think Mr. DeCicco’s trust in President Bush is entirely unmerited: Bush has no honor, he is neither trustworthy nor competent, and it is hard for me to understand how anyone who has witnessed the disaster that is the Bush presidency (Bush v. Gore, reneging on the Kyoto Agreement, the longest presidential vacation in history followed by 911 and the appointment of ultimate-insider Henry Kissinger to head the 911 investigation, the appointment of ex-felon John Poindexter to head the “Total Information Awareness” citizen-surveillance program, the unsolved anthrax attacks and the dubious color-coded terror alerts, the cynically-named “No Child Left Behind” and "Help America Vote" and “Patriot” Acts and the establishment of the Nazi-sounding Department of “Homeland” Security, the Orwellian-named “Healthy Forest” and “Clear Skies” Acts, the war in Afghanistan and the escape of Bin Laden and the return of the Taliban, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and the extraordinary renditions and the secret torture prisons, the false WMD allegations leading to the Iraq war and ensuing quagmire, the rejection of U.S. foreign policy by nearly the entire world, the warrantless wiretaps, the Medicare Drug Benefit bill sold to Congress with a false price tag, tax cuts leading to record budget deficits, the cowardly refusal to speak to Cindy Sheehan or to attend the funerals of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, the misguided Bernard Kerik and Harriet Myers nominations, support for Michael “Brownie” Brown and the mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina, the use of signing statements to circumvent Congress and the law, the Dubai Ports deal, the amnesty for illegal immigrants plan, the development of North Korean nuclear weapons and the ongoing Iranian nuclear program, the elevation of fear and faith and rhetoric over reason and science and reality, etc.) could place any faith in the man.
September 5, 2006 - What do you mean ‘us’ Mr. Bush?
President Bush’s unintentionally revealing comment that “we get oil from some parts of the world and they simply don't like us," (“Bush touts alternative energy”, 9-4) reminded me of the old Bill Cosby joke about the Lone Ranger who, surrounded by hostile Indians, turns to Tonto and says, “This looks bad for us,” to which his sidekick replies, “What do you mean ‘us’, paleface?”
The top sources of US crude oil imports are Mexico, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela, which are all countries where the majority of citizens like Americans generally, but despise Bush.
In fact Bush has placed himself in the unique position of not only being loathed by a majority of Americans, but also by the majority of the citizens in the countries that have long been America’s allies.
Having recently returned from Europe I can attest to the fact that it is not “us” they hate but Bush; its not “us” they are reluctant to partner with in order to solve international problems but the Bush administration which is widely perceived to be untrustworthy, unserious, corrupt and incompetent.
Neither Richard Nixon during Watergate nor Bill Clinton during his impeachment was reviled by as many people as Bush, and Bush evidently knows it.
It is rumored that Bush now pins his hopes on the favorable judgment of history. But at the rate he is going Bush will probably be remembered as being less like the unfairly maligned-in-his-time Harry Truman and more like Warren Harding—a frivolous man completely out of his depths: literally a “Bush-league” president.
The top sources of US crude oil imports are Mexico, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela, which are all countries where the majority of citizens like Americans generally, but despise Bush.
In fact Bush has placed himself in the unique position of not only being loathed by a majority of Americans, but also by the majority of the citizens in the countries that have long been America’s allies.
Having recently returned from Europe I can attest to the fact that it is not “us” they hate but Bush; its not “us” they are reluctant to partner with in order to solve international problems but the Bush administration which is widely perceived to be untrustworthy, unserious, corrupt and incompetent.
Neither Richard Nixon during Watergate nor Bill Clinton during his impeachment was reviled by as many people as Bush, and Bush evidently knows it.
It is rumored that Bush now pins his hopes on the favorable judgment of history. But at the rate he is going Bush will probably be remembered as being less like the unfairly maligned-in-his-time Harry Truman and more like Warren Harding—a frivolous man completely out of his depths: literally a “Bush-league” president.
September 3, 2006 - DO Abandon Iraq!
I think that Douglas Koerber’s recent letter to the editor (“Don't abandon Iraq before job is done”, 9-3) is wrong on almost every point.
When Mr. Koerber writes “If the United States continues to follow through, we will look back on this war a decade from now and see a free and stable democratic Iraq” he is guilty of promoting a faith-based foreign policy; in truth there is little reason to believe that “staying the course” for ten more years or even a hundred more years will force most Iraqis to acquiesce to the Christian (read “pro-Zionist”) occupation army on their soil.
When Mr. Koerber writes “the United States occupied West Germany for decades . . . Many Europeans . . .protested that presence” his comparison is hardly apt because not a single U.S. solider was killed by German resistors, insurgents, or “terrorists” during the entire postwar occupation.
Finally, when Mr. Koerber writes “If America were to withdraw from Iraq now, the deaths of our fallen heroes would be for nothing” he repeats the chestnut which is the last refuge for defenders a failed military adventure—if we heeded this advise the U.S. might still be stuck in Vietnam today!
When Mr. Koerber writes “If the United States continues to follow through, we will look back on this war a decade from now and see a free and stable democratic Iraq” he is guilty of promoting a faith-based foreign policy; in truth there is little reason to believe that “staying the course” for ten more years or even a hundred more years will force most Iraqis to acquiesce to the Christian (read “pro-Zionist”) occupation army on their soil.
When Mr. Koerber writes “the United States occupied West Germany for decades . . . Many Europeans . . .protested that presence” his comparison is hardly apt because not a single U.S. solider was killed by German resistors, insurgents, or “terrorists” during the entire postwar occupation.
Finally, when Mr. Koerber writes “If America were to withdraw from Iraq now, the deaths of our fallen heroes would be for nothing” he repeats the chestnut which is the last refuge for defenders a failed military adventure—if we heeded this advise the U.S. might still be stuck in Vietnam today!
September 2, 2006 - Extremism takes many forms
[Listen to mp3]
In his letter to the editor (“Islamic extremism takes many forms”, 9-2) Iver Mindel criticized “the hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims all over the world who do not speak out vehemently against such [terrorist] violence and the targeting of innocent civilians, which is supposedly done in the name of Allah.”
I have no idea how many Muslims oppose terrorism but I do know that many Muslims live in countries where there is little freedom of speech-- including countries like Egypt which receives a billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer’s money each year.
By contrast, Mr. Mindel lives in a country where freedom of speech is still allowed; does he exercise his right to speak out against the terror his own country creates?
Was Mr. Mindel among the millions of peaceful Americans who protested against the illegal and immoral war in Iraq, did he condemn the torture at Abu Ghraib, did he speak out against the rape and murders by U.S. soldiers in Mahmudiya, etc., all of which are done by supposed Christians?
Or, does Mr. Mindel find excuses for U.S. terror (“bad things happen in war”, etc.) just as some Muslims justify Islamic terrorism (“give us Cruise missiles and we’ll stop using suicide belts”, etc?)
In other words, as the Bible reminds us, it is so much easier to see the mote in your brother's eye than to see the beam in your own eye.
In his letter to the editor (“Islamic extremism takes many forms”, 9-2) Iver Mindel criticized “the hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims all over the world who do not speak out vehemently against such [terrorist] violence and the targeting of innocent civilians, which is supposedly done in the name of Allah.”
I have no idea how many Muslims oppose terrorism but I do know that many Muslims live in countries where there is little freedom of speech-- including countries like Egypt which receives a billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer’s money each year.
By contrast, Mr. Mindel lives in a country where freedom of speech is still allowed; does he exercise his right to speak out against the terror his own country creates?
Was Mr. Mindel among the millions of peaceful Americans who protested against the illegal and immoral war in Iraq, did he condemn the torture at Abu Ghraib, did he speak out against the rape and murders by U.S. soldiers in Mahmudiya, etc., all of which are done by supposed Christians?
Or, does Mr. Mindel find excuses for U.S. terror (“bad things happen in war”, etc.) just as some Muslims justify Islamic terrorism (“give us Cruise missiles and we’ll stop using suicide belts”, etc?)
In other words, as the Bible reminds us, it is so much easier to see the mote in your brother's eye than to see the beam in your own eye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
