Posts filed under 'Essay'

Let’s Not Mince Words, This War is Not About Freedom

by Jason Price
Website | August 21, 2006

 
A friend of mine recently posted a blog on myspace entitled ‘Let’s say thanks’, which gives a web address (www.letssaythanks.com) allowing its viewer to thank our very brave soldiers in Iraq. I disagree with such a website because it misleads the public, much like our government has on this war, into believing that the current war in Iraq is about democracy, freedom, and the American way of life. Therefore, thanking the troops is a bit wrong too. Why should I thank them? For creating new terrorists? For murdering innocent civilians in the thousands? For showing the world that we are ignorant, violent and blood-thirsty? Before I write any futher, let me just say that I wish the troupes well and pray for their safety, but I cannot support their mission. Below I have provided some facts that I think might surprise more than a few of you.

1) Over 50,000 Iraqis have died violently since 2003. Proportionately, that is equivalent to 570,000 Americans being killed nationwide. 18,933 were from military action. Most of the casualties were women, children and other civilians. (LA Times, 25 June 2006). For the record, Bush has stated that 30,000 Iraqis “more or less” had died since 2003.

2) In 2001 there were 121 terrorist attacks world-wide. Following Bush’s “War on Terrorism” (which had a strong focus on Iraq…keep in mind, none of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqis, or even connected to Iraq), there were 175 new terrorist attacks in 2003. This number continues to grow. In 2004 alone there were 655 significant attacks. So, how valuable is this war on terror? Clearly, we are creating more enemies by our totalitarian foreign policy (or should I have said democratic foreign policy…hardly). (The American Propsect 5 January 2005).

3) The cost for the War in Iraq is about to topple over into trillion dollar figures. Analysts say that it could very well cost the US somewhere around $1.27 Trillion dollars by the time it’s all said and done. Put it like this: to pay that figure back, you would need to pay $1 million dollars a day for the next 2,737 years. In other words, if we started paying it back now, we could have it paid off by the year 4,743. (American Prospect July 2006). Do you know what we could do with that sort of money?

Well, let me tell you:

Secure health care for all 11 million uninsured children in the US for the next five years.

pay student fees for 400,000 students for 123 years; there are as many students from low income families who cannot afford to go to college.

provide each child on the planet with enough food and basic medicare for 3 1/4 (according to UNICEF)

pay 2,100,000 physicians or teachers for one year; in poorer countries in the world, this figure could be multiplied by 20.

I think you get the idea.

4). bin Laden did not attack America because of the way we live or the freedom we enjoy. The Bush administration continues to say this, but they have never bothered to check a single one of bin Laden’s manifestos which indicate his ‘problems’ with America. So why does he hate us so much? The answer is simple: our foreign policy. More specifically “US support for corrupt regimes [like Saudi Arabia and Israel] in the Islamic world and the US military presence in the Islamic Lands of the Persian Gulf” (American Prospect 5 January 2006). Despite the repetition of these issues via video and written manifesto, the Bush adminstration would rather confuse the public so that they can use more military action. Which, in turn, creates more terrorists.

That’s enough for now, there’s loads more, but I feel that this is probably enough to get people thinking.

Our troops are at war for a lie. There were no weapons of mass destruction. None at all. Nearly 3,000 of our troops have died for a corrupt, dishonest administration and I think it’s time we brought them home. So, rather than thank our troupes and their families, I offer my condolences. These troupes did not die defending our freedom, but have helped spotlight the US as a vengeful, dishonest superpower which has subsequently helped to breed the next batch of terrorists.

Thank you.


1 comment August 23rd, 2006

Get Pluto out of Here!

by Jeffrey Kluger
TIME.com | August 28, 2006

History has no record of Grover Cleveland and Grover Cleveland ever sitting down together. That’s odd, since the two Presidents occupied the Oval Office just four years apart–Cleveland from 1885 to 1889, and Cleveland following him there in 1893. Had it not been for the four years Benjamin Harrison served as President between them, the country could have transitioned from one Cleveland to the other without even changing the monogrammed bathrobe in the White House residence.

Had Cleveland and Cleveland ever spoken, it would have been a decidedly one-way conversation, since they were the same man. But you wouldn’t know it from American history books. Right there in the great march of Presidents, from Washington at No. 1 to Bush at 43, is Cleveland clocking in at 22 and then again–like a presidential whack-a-mole–at 24. We’re a country with 43 Presidents, but only 42 men have held the job. The two President Bushes affectionately refer to each other by the nicknames 41 and 43, but the fact is, they’re really 40 and 42.

It was last week’s coverage of the controversy concerning the planet Pluto that brought Cleveland to mind (and, no, not because of his physique; that was Taft). Much the way 19th century pundits no doubt fought over which numeral to assign the inconveniently nonconsecutive Cleveland, astronomers have spent the past few years debating whether or not Pluto is in fact a planet or whether new findings place it in a family of smaller, humbler objects. The problem is more complex than just firing a planet and downsizing the solar system from nine to eight. If you keep your definitions loose enough to retain Pluto, then you have to award the planet label to at least three similar objects in our solar system. Think Congress gets into a slapfest over the problem of immigrant workers? That’s civil compared with astronomers’ catfights over immigrant worlds.

So let’s be clear: Pluto has to go. Clean out your locker, turn in your playbook and go see the coach. Oh, and on your way out, tell the other walk-ons and wannabes that the roster is frozen. We’re sticking with the original eight.

There’s sound scientific reason to return the solar system to what it was before Pluto the poseur was discovered in 1930. True planets form in roughly the equatorial plane of the sun, occupying specific, permanent orbits. That’s not Pluto. It is a tiny joyrider from the rubble stream surrounding the solar system that broke free and orbits the sun in a tilted, elongated orbit.

But astronomers don’t see things so simply. Instead, they’ve appointed a committee that met in Paris in June and July and drafted a proposed solution that defines a planet by shape, center of orbital gravity and more. Committees and clarity don’t go together, and the proposal is just what critics feared: science as tax code, with the cosmos codified in such elaborate ways that, never mind nine planets, we could end up with dozens.

It’s this kind of overthinking that leads not just to the cosmic sloppiness of a crowded solar system but also to the existential absurdity of counting Cleveland twice. You don’t have to be a stickler to want to heed the dictum of William of Ockham, the 14th century monk who famously declared, “Things should not be multiplied unnecessarily,” which is how they said “Less is more” back then. So in honor of Ockham, let’s dispense with a few other stubborn, definitional problems once and for all.

Europe: you’re not a continent; you’ve never been a continent. I know, it would be galling if a raw cowboy island like Australia retained its glittery Continent label while you were downgraded to Midsize Peninsula of Western Asia. But hello? Look at a map. Besides, these days you’ve got the euro, which is currently trading at about a buck thirty against the dollar. Don’t be greedy.

Y: a vowel? Please. Y gets plenty of work as a consonant without having to moonlight in a job it wasn’t designed for. Someone needs to show some guts and either change the spelling of problem words (what’s wrong with fli, cri, cript?) or relax the rule about every word having to have at least one vowel in it. Either way is fine, but the whole “sometimes y” thing has always smelled like a dodge.

Panda: raccoon or bear? Seems the lesser known red panda has a scrap of raccoon in him, which has thrown the whole panda clan into question. I say split the difference: go with bears for the white ones, raccoons for the red ones, and do it quick. (These are biologists we’re dealing with, not astronomers. Give them too much time, and they’ll start dissecting things.) And if we ever find yet another type of panda out there, just call it Grover Cleveland. There are plenty of those to go around.

Article written for TIME Magazine by Jeffrey Kluger | Illustration by Rob Dunleavy

Add comment August 23rd, 2006

Next Posts