Dispatches From The Edge | Afghanistan: Of Bumps & Foolishness

Kabul, Afghanistan-American and allied forces in Afghanistan are strengthening a layered defense along the border with Pakistan to seize Haqqani network militants as they try to make their way to Kabul to carry out spectacular attacks, according to senior military officers---New York Times, 8/1/11

Okay, New York Times, time for a little geography lesson, with a few bits of history thrown in.

Let’s start with that old Rand McNally three-dimensional map of the world that formerly graced the walls of grammar schools across the country (I happen to have one in my closet). It has low spots to demonstrate deep-sea trenches and bumps for mountain ranges. Among the biggest set of bumps are the Hindu Kush (the western extension of the Himalayas) that corresponds to the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The highest of those bumps is Mt. Noshaq (24,580 ft).

This is also a very long border, 1,510 miles more or less (more on that later). Think of the distance between Portland, ME and Miami, FL, New York City and Dallas/Fort Worth, or London and Moscow. It is mostly really big bumps, (except some lower ones on the western edge of the border), so it is not only long, it contains some of the most formidable terrain on the planet.

In fact the “official” border is marked from Sikaram Peak to Laman Peak. It is always a bad idea to fight a war where you measure the battlefield by the distance between peaks. If there are general rules of war, certainly one of them is: “Do not fight in places that the Rand McNally three-dimensional map puts lots of bumps.”

This is also not a border, in the normal sense of word, with the striped guardhouses and border checks. For one thing, the Afghans and the Pakistanis had nothing to do with establishing it. That was done—with considerable mischief in mind— in 1893 by Sir Mortimer Durand, then England’s lead colonial officer in India (Pakistan did not yet exist).

His plan was to split up the Pashtuns—an ethnic group who have populated the region since at least the fifth century BC—so that they would not constitute a majority in either region. Pashtuns make up about 42 percent of Afghanistan and about 15 percent of Pakistan. The Pashtuns have never recognized the Durand Line, and neither has the government in Kabul. This makes Pakistan nervous, because aside from India, one of the things Islamabad fears most is ethnic dismemberment: the establishment of an independent Pashtunistan.

Pashtuns on both sides of the border are bound by a common language, culture and kinship system, so independence is hardly out of  the question.

Pashtuns are among the most hospitable people in the world, but they don’t like being invaded or occupied, which no one has successfully managed to do, although many have tried. A 19th century British general remarked that when one gets ready to invade the area, the first thing to do is plan a line of retreat, the inevitable course followed by all militaries.

So now, let’s look at “layered defense along the border,” as well as American pressure on the Pakistani military “to cleanse their border of militants.”

First, from the Pashtuns’ point of view, Pakistan’s military is just as much a foreign intruder as were the Greeks,  Buddhists, Mongols, Muslims, and British, and Islamabad’s army would have just about the same level of success as all those other invaders. Second, any attempt to “cleanse” the border would stir up major hostilities among the tribes and clans in both countries and feed Pashtun nationalism, which is exactly what Islamabad does not want to do.

But even if Pakistan was to decide to actually try to “cleanse” the border, Islamabad has neither the manpower nor the money to do so (even if it were possible, which history argues it is not). Pakistan has some 1.4 million men under arms, but only a little over 600,000 of those are regular troops. The rest are reserves or border police and local paramilitaries. And most of those troops have to be kept on the border with India, with which Pakistan has fought three wars.

Pakistan’s military is currently engaged both in fighting its own domestic Taliban in South Waziristan and maintaining troops in North Waziristan, but the North West Frontier and Federally Administered Tribal Areas—the part of the world we are talking about—are vast tracts of terrain, and “pacifying” them is quite beyond the capabilities of any army in the world, let alone Pakistan’s.

The situation is not much different on the Afghan side of the border. The combined NATO forces are about 132,000, of which 100,000 are Americans (although 4,000 are headed home in the next few months). However, with the exception of the British, Canadians and Australians, most of the allied troops are not involved in active combat, so the actual number of troops available is closer 110,000. And not all of those troops fight. Some drive trucks, some handle supplies and logistics, some man bases. The final number of fighters? Maybe 60,000.

The Afghan Army is somewhere between 150,000 and 171,000—the exact number is hard to pin down because so many desert within the first few months—of which only several thousand—two brigades— are capable of fighting on their own. There are also134,000 Afghan police, but they don’t fight. In fact, according to most Afghans, they mostly extort.

You can’t put all those U.S., allied, and Afghan troops on the Pakistan border, particularly since the Taliban have spread their attacks to formally “pacified” areas of the country, in the north, east and west. And. in any case, the Afghan Army is still training (although it is curious that while the Taliban soldiers receive virtually no training, they are able to hold their own in battle with the most sophisticated and well-trained military force in the world).

For arguments sake, let’s say you could put a mix of 40,000 troops on the border, a border of massive mountains and deep valleys, a border filled with passes, trade routes and goat trails, a border that stretches 1,510 miles. With 20,000 troops, the British Army could not seal the 224-mile border between southern and Northern Ireland.

The Taliban are mostly Pashtun, although not all Pashtun are Taliban. Polls indicate that about 12 percent to 15 percent of the Pashtun support the group. But the vast majority of Pashtuns recognize that sooner or later, the Kabul government and the U.S. will have to sit down and make a deal with the Taliban for some kind of coalition government. The lack of support for the insurgents does not mean the Pashtun will betray them. Since the Haqqanis are Pashtun, they can cross this border virtually anyplace, and, as the last few weeks have illustrated, the Taliban and their allies can strike almost anywhere.

The problem with all this nonsense about “thickening the Afghan border” is not the “senior military officials”— generals lie, it’s part of their job description—but that the New York Times would print this blather.

It is not only silly, it feeds dangerous illusions at a time when clear thinking is called for. As Gareth Porter of IPS News reports, “The Taliban leadership is ready to negotiate peace with the United States right now if Washington indicates its willingness to provide a timetable for a complete withdrawal.” According to Porter, the Taliban are willing to break any ties with al-Qaeda and won’t even demand a withdrawal date. The only thing they will insist upon are no U.S. bases.

So why isn’t the Times reporting this breakthrough instead of peddling foolishness?

Could Rick Perry Become Our Next “Rock Star” President? Part I

Am I the only one who is not surprised that Rick Perry zoomed up to the top of the polls as the GOP nominee for president?  It’s the hair.  The camera loves him.  Billy Bob voter don’t need no more than that.  Throw in a nice smile, a manly voice, and a kick-their-ass swagger when he talks about Washington, D.C. and you got all the ingredients for the next man in cowboy boots to sit in the Oval Office. Overnight it appears that Rick Perry has zoomed to the top in the polls. Even before he announced his intentions to run.  With those early polls putting at the top of the GOP heap, his nomination seems a certainty.  The GOP is running scared to get anybody at all to defeat Barack Obama for a second term.  Is it possible Perry could be our next rock star president? He isn’t the first politician with good hair and a sound delivery on camera to make it to the White House.  Take Ronald Reagan.  He was the all-American boy, the Gipper.  He won our hearts long before on the Silver Screen, then later on television as the Old Ranger.  The familiarity of Reagan’s face to American voters got him elected governor of California.  His face was recognizable in the long list of movies Reagan starred in, e.g., “King’s Row”, “Bedtime for Bonzo”, and “The Knute Rockne Story.”   Then later, on television, Reagan hosted Death Valley Days, the General Electric Theater, and other prime time programs.  Face recognition.  Nothing like it.  You see the face, your lizard brain says “good” and you pull the lever in the voting booth.  No one would ever know that you never did any research on who Reagan was before and after he took office as president of the United States.  You just like the way he carries himself and smiles, right?  But here are a few reminders (milestones) about who the man behind the face and the wink and a smile truly was. Some of Reagan’s legacy.

Just between us voters, oftentimes Billy Bob don’t have time to research the candidate beyond the TV screen.  You are too busy raising children, working hard to put bread on the table, commuting, you know the drill.  So your lizard-brain assessment of a candidate’s qualifications tends to be almost 100% subjective.  No time to research his voting record.  But would you like to have a beer with him?  That’s the ticket.  Got Bush II elected.  Or was that Antonin Scalia (bite my tongue)?  Only got time to watch him on television and see how good he talks on camera.  Issues don’t really matter.  The country’s financial future hit the wall when Reagan convinced American voters that borrowing and spending 3 trillion dollars during peacetime was the right thing to do.  After all, he said, the Evil Empire (Russia) was a real threat to democracy, Christianity, and life as we knew it.  Americans saw the twinkle in his eye on camera and bought into it.  And the ongoing interest on the extra $3 Trillion in debt he plunged us into since he left office in 1988.  Like in 23 years X say 3% X $3,000,000,000,000.00.  Then you compound the interest and it becomes even more double trouble.  Where were the Tea Bagger Police when you really needed them?  And how come they all gone all lock-jawed on talking about the massive borrowing and spending that occurred at the hands of GOP? Guess they caint count or cipher the truth all that well.

Now John Boehner and Paul Ryan never mention Reagan’s borrowing and spending to get us ready for a showdown with Mother Russia.  Isn’t that what led us to the present financial disaster America now faces?  So why don’t these indignant Tea Baggers bust Reagan’s butt for all the trillions he borrowed and spent in PEACE TIME?   Can you say HYPOCRITES?  Can you say $640 toilet seats?  $500 hammers?  Billions of dollars for an aircraft carrier?  Grand Theft Country?  I mean would anybody in their right mind be able to justify having our dear Uncle Sam pay $640 for one toilet seat when you can buy one at Wal-Mart or The Home Depot for $14.95?

Has any conservative, Republican, or Tea Bagger, including Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman, ever brought up the Trillions of dollars borrowed and spent by GOP presidents and their lapdog congresses?  In the interest of the Tea Party’s hard line stance to stop spending, why do they put Social Security on the operating table and never, never, never mention the borrowing and spending on wars and military buildup of planes and ships and maintaining over 5,000 military bases all over the world?  Does being a Tea Bagger mean you naturally got a terminal case of the Arithmetic Dumbass Virus?  Heck, Bush II borrowed and spent $4 Trillion dollars more during his 8-year term in office.  But that’s another story, and to this day nobody seems to care that much.  Certainly not John Boehner, Sarah Palin, Grover Norquist, Sean Hannity, Paul Ryan, or Glenn Beck.  You know, all them fiscally “responsible” people who got working people and poor people government programs in their country club crosshairs?  I don’t know why not, but it would be fun to see them asked the question on “Face the Nation” someday.

Many American voters, though they can’t recall much that Reagan did or did not do as president, think that Reagan made us feel good again as Americans.  Unless you were union.  He literally destroyed unions when he fired the Air-Traffic Controllers who went on strike for more benefits.  He attacked Grenada (Yeehaw).  You hardly ever saw him in an impromptu setting unless he was walking from the helicopter to the White House.  And for the camera he always pointed to his ear to indicate he could not hear the reporter’s questions for all the ‘copter engine noise.  Now that is a real inconvenient truth (sorry Al Gore).  In truth, Reagan had no prepared script to read from, but the camera loved his face each time, his smile, his All-American boy charm, even after he grew old.  And America excused him for being an old dumbass.  And we paid dearly for it.  But hell, he looked good on camera and made us feel good again.  Right?

Then came the Terminator.  Arnold Swartzenegger ran in a special recall election against the governor of California, Gray Davis, and won.  It was swift.  And neat. Arnold came in the front door while Davis barely made it out the servants’ entrance with dirty shirt sleeves hanging out of his bags.  Lordy, how did that happen?  Everybody in California smoking weed or what?  Anyway, it happened.  Arnold Swartzenegger pulled it off.  He was a recognizable face from the movies and television.  The Terminator.  Conan.  Kindergarten Cop.  That’s all it takes to get Billy Bob voter to pull the lever.  How can you argue with results?  Actors with good looks and hair and clever little lines are much more qualified to lead and govern the state of California, right?  Sigh.  But wait. The Terminator gave a stirring speech at the 2004 Republican Convention.  Who could forget the “Don’t be a girlie man” reference to Democrats and John Kerry?  That was at the Republican National Convention of 2004 when delegates wore tasteless Band Aids with Purple Hearts on their cheeks to denote that Kerry’s medals were given to him for little scratches he received while commander of a Swift Boat in the Mekong River Delta.  Kerry volunteered, Bush avoided combat duty thanks to Poppy and Houston businessman Sid Ager.  And Ahnald never served in a war except on a movie set.  But it all effectively crushed Kerry.

So Ahnald got to play a new role as governor of California for years.

Hollywood is everything when it comes to the American voter.  Rick Perry has all the basic characteristics to win.  Like Reagan and Ahnald, the camera loves him.  He has good hair.  And the Billy Bob American voter don’t give a rat's ass no how.  About issues.  Or researching voting records.  Or whether a presidential candidate advocates seceding from the Union, the United States of America.  You know, the country he wants to be the leader of?  Has America gone mad?

So can anyone really tell me why Rick Perry could leap to the top of the polls right after he entered the race as a GOP candidate for president?  Does anyone really know or care about his record on issues?  Why would he leap up to the top of the GOP roster with Bachman and Romney?  Anybody have an opinion on that?  Other than the camera loves him?  And our lizard brains need to embrace illusory heroes that don’t exist or never did?  Did Rick Perry really say that Ben Bernanke should be tried for treason if he kept on printing money?

With Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush’s iron fist on America for a long 16 years combined we saw a borrowing and spending spree that totaled over $7,000,000,000,000.00.  That additional IOU we racked up and added to our National Debt PLUS compounded interest on that DEBT is the chief reason we are beyond bankruptcy as a country in 2011.  Countries like China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia who are holding the bag on that debt are getting nervous.  Obama cannot stop the dam from breaking.  All he knows to do is to tell Bernanke to print more dollars while he rides the fence in hopes that Republicans will be nice to him and favor some of his policies.  But in the process, Obama puts Social Security and Medicare on Boehner’s chopping block just as smooth as you please while saying he will never do it.  Yeah, right.  Reagan and Bush and their TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH have decimated our National Treasury even beyond the borrowing and spending for false wars and protection from bogey man Evil Empires.

But Rick Perry could be the worst of them all when it comes to butchering and killing most all the social programs the working men and women have.  In Part II to follow in 2 weeks we will dissect Rick Perry the man in a little mini-biography in an attempt to show who he really is, and reveal who is behind the mask of Governor Goodhair.

I confess to cutting and pasting a bit when it comes to movies and how you would like them to be characterized.  For instance, remember the Star Wars movie where Luke Skywalker fought his father, Darth Vader?  Well when Vader took his black helmet off, in my mind I fantasized that the face I saw was that of Dick Cheney. That would be poetic justice of sorts.  But what’s behind Perry’s mask feels more blood-curdling. I picture Perry as the alien in the movie “Independence Day.”  You remember, the one who the president asked, “What do you want us to do?”  “Die.”  the alien replied.  With the vehemence and bile that lets Perry openly say that Social Security and Medicare is unconstitutional, Perry has to know that many thousands, perhaps millions of people will die if these programs suddenly came to an end.  Does Perry care?  I don’t think so.  And you know that if elected, he’s going after those programs.

The Republican Dream

In the 30s Republicans dreamed of destroying Franklin Delano Roosevelt while dismantling all social, banking and labor programs that were helping the country recover from Republican-born Depression.

Eighty-years later, Republicans dream of destroying Barack Obama while dismantling all social, banking and labor programs implemented by Democrats over 80 years that prevented the country from falling into Republican-born depressions like the 30s.

Republicans have always despised “safety-nets” because they believe only free-loaders and parasites partake. The unemployed stay in that condition only when granted support, they claim, and their favorite slur for a food-stamp recipient is “welfare queen.”

Everyone should know by now – Republicanism is an illness, not a cure.

Enough rant; it has long been determined the root cause of this century’s pending Great Depression – the final product of Republican politic. But what’s it like living the Republican dream (as opposed to the American)? It is now time to understand how to survive; past time to analyze why – as if no one knows except media bent on establishing false equivalency.

Let’s take ourselves into the near future to maybe get assimilated.

Republican America is one of declining wealth, dwindling resources, poor to no services, and dead or nearly dead industries resembling salvage yards. High interest rates are charged to the few approved. It’s a nation of freeways deteriorating to gravel pocketed by privatized toll booths, of collapsed bridges, and flights reserved only for the very rich. It’s a country of urban blight, one-third homeless, rusting factories, and boulevards boasting tattoo parlors, casinos, and check-cashing scams. Businesses are boarded on Main Street, skyscrapers crumble, while millions of homeless live on streets lined with empty houses.

Survivors in Republican America are forced to compete for vanishing commodities, resulting in riots, looting, theft, and murder. It’s simply the natural progression anyone could have predicted. With only scarce supplies and no mechanism to enforce rations, what other aftermath could result? Rightwing America is a very unsafe, unstable, and violent place where even the upstanding must compromise principle to survive and put food on the table. It deteriorates to the classic primitive contest – survival of the fittest where only the most brutal bring home the bacon.

Republican America flaunts unpaid, non-credentialed teachers, run-down schools, vacant colleges, and volunteer firemen and police. There are no unions; they’ve been decertified and busted. There are no student loans. Only a fraction seek higher education – and then only from wealthy families.

Textbooks are written and published by Christian right organizations. Subjects discarded are evolution, labor history, climate change, and sex education. Inserted are Judeo-Christian heritage and how devoted the founders were to Christ and church. Ronald Reagan is deified more than the framers, and “American exceptionalism” is the daily lecture.

Republican America, like Walker’s Wisconsin, restricts voting to citizens with government-issued photo IDs and “active” bank accounts, but makes certain these are almost impossible to obtain, especially in Africa-American and Latino districts.

Only white, evangelical precincts are favored. (One can catch a glimpse of future voting by observing Republican legislation in states captured by the Tea Party in ’10.)

In Republican America, fundamentalist Christian “morals” are legislated while crime skyrockets to historic levels. The more rightwing laws, the more crime. Gun violence runs rampant; still gun owners are protected. In fact, every citizen is encouraged to carry a weapon, and the right to carry concealed firearms is ensured federally across state lines.

Gay marriage is banned; all former marriages and state laws legalizing same-sex contracts are annulled. Indeed, gay sex is criminalized [like it was in the good ol’ days]. Thus, gays are again routinely victims of violence and unpunished murder. (The ultimate transgression is “justifiable” in the name of Jesus to eradicate evildoers, they assert.)

Abortion is banned. Roe v. Wade is overturned. (Meanwhile, wealthy Republicans send daughters, wives and lovers to Europe, Asia and South America for the “procedure.”)

Republican America is a police state. Except the “police” are no longer local, but poorly-paid federal troops. Major violence erupts first in urban centers, then spreads across the country. The Republican government feels compelled to suppress the outbreaks, then eventually suspends all civil liberties and elections.

Republican America, in the literal, is Third World.

Republican America paves the road to revolution, for which true libertarian Tea Partiers achingly lust so they can try out their precious weapons on “undesirables.”

The religious right will never believe Republicans brought America to its knees. Neither will characters like Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Frank Luntz. But, of course, they are all major contributors to the fall.

Question is – How are we going to genuinely survive? Really?

Perry, Bachmann and Reason: How Fundamental Dysfunctions of the Human Brain Make the Candidacy of these Republicans Possible in the 21st Century

Michael Shermer has written an interesting book about reason and the human brain. Entitled "The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies - How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as True," Shermer portrays the brain as a "belief engine" that drives its owner on pattern-seeking trips. The brain's processing capacity, regrettably, is not so good at reasoning. Early education, often infused with toxic, ludicrous beliefs, are not easily weeded out later in life. Once beliefs about the nature of reality are formed, decisions large and small are processed accordingly.

I found this perspective helpful while trying to make sense of Rick Perry's candidacy and enthusiasm for it by poor and middle-class followers. That anyone not already enmeshed in a fundamentalist Christian Republican Party worldview would not be appalled by Perry, as well as sister leading Tea Party lights like Bachmann, Palin and that ilk, calls out for a biological explanation.

J.M. Keynes defined capitalism as the extraordinary belief that "the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all." Perry and the fundies love capitalism as practiced in the U.S. for the richest one percent of the population. That this vile man would also be embraced by non-rich Americans after doing little or nothing on their behalf for a decade as governor in Texas boggles the mind. Prayer leader Perry, the darlin of a fundamentalist cult called, "the New Apostolic Reformation," stands ready to lead a faith-based army seeking a "kingdom of God" - in this life, not just an imagined eternal existence that starts after death.

Listen to Perry and you can add separation of church and state to the causes of our economic meltdown, along with abortion, uppity women and gay marriage. Elect Perry and the Federal government will deal with "Jezebel" (a biblical whore), "Saul Structures" (an invisible pagan network of evil), demons, liberals, union members, anyone pro-choice or sympathetic to gays/lesbians/bisexuals or transgendered folks, anti-war activists, environmentalist or, god-forbid, anyone lacking a serious crush on Jesus. Perry considers Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid unconstitutional programs, "Ponzi" schemes bankrupting the country. Then there's that well known threat, expressed on several occasions, to lead Texas out of the Union. An awkward idea for someone who wants to lead that Union, presumably that includes Texas.

I believe it was R.D. Laing who observed, "It is no measure of mental health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society."

According to Shermer, we find reasons to support existing beliefs and resist evidence to the contrary. The smarter we are, the better our rationalizations.

What better explanation than Shermer's can explain a sitting governor who is not a member of any clergy using his secular office to address a religious congregation as follows: "Father, our heart breaks for America. We see discord at home, we see fear in the marketplace, we see anger in the halls of government. And as a nation, we have forgotten who made us, who protects us, who blesses us."

Whose father is he talking about? How did he determine that "our" hearts break for anyone or anything? Has there not always been discord at home, fear in the marketplace, anger in Congress? Who did make us, besides our parents? Who protects us from what, when and under what conditions? Isn't that what the police are for, if not the Armed Forces? Blesses us? What's a "blessing," anyway, and how does that work? This is all meaningless religious babble - it's conventional for high priests of all sects to go on like this, but it's dangerous folly when perpetrated on the public by an elected public official. We ought to be outraged. Well, some of us ARE outraged, but why not Republicans?

Shermer's ideas about pattern seeking and pattern protection offer an explanation. His concepts deserve the attention of REAL wellness promoters and everyone else. Shermer offers lots of evidence for his own assertions and cities studies that explain why inconvenient truths actually strengthen bogus beliefs founded on crappy ideology. No absurdity is too preposterous for the Republican faithful, as the latest Iowa straw poll suggests. Imagine - Bachmann for president! It boggles the mind. No wonder Borowitz wrote that Standard and Poor's took the "unprecedented action of downgrading Iowa's IQ." But Michele can't celebrate - Borowitz also predicted "tough sledding ahead ... a new poll shows Bachmann losing support to Texas Governor Rick Perry among voters who describe themselves as morons."

Shermer notes, as did Eric Hoffer in "The True Believer," that fundamentalist/ extremist/fanatics ignore contradictory evidence, and cherry-pick data for anything that supports existing beliefs. Hoffer did not have the studies of brain functioning available to Shermer, but he did have good intuition, as reflected in comments such as this: "An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything in to an empty head."

In a review of Shermer's book published in this magazine, fellow columnist "Science Junkie" writes: "We are now experiencing in this country a veritable epidemic of science/reality denial. I sense growing hordes of ideologues rejecting reason and evidence in favor of spin, propaganda, dogma, and lies ... the reality-based community and concerned scientists are at a huge disadvantage trying to combat opponents who hold no respect for the constraints of reason and evidence...the challenge is to persuade people to listen to contradictory evidence and evaluate their own beliefs accordingly."

Shermer would endorse a wellness focus on reason, as he favors education that teaches people how to recognize and thereby resist malevolent snake-oil salesmen like Perry, Bachmann and Palin who poison the nation's atmosphere. To date, reason has not been a prominent element in wellness education on a par with fitness or nutrition, but we better learn to exercise common sense if we hope to overcome the patterns of nonsense laid down in the formative years and reinforced ever since.

But wait! Maybe common sense is overrated, or at least misinterpreted. Shermer's writing about the brain puts the focus on the importance of science and reason. "Common sense," as interpreted, can and often does lead us astray. After all, common sense is what the Tea Partiers think they have. John Dewey wrote, "Common sense is that which tells us that the earth is flat." Common sense -- the way people naturally think -- is what Shermer want us to try to overcome; critical thinking based on reason and evidence is uncommon sense. Uncommon sense requires training and discipline.

Good luck. Don't let me discourage you. Do what you can to stay well, fit and focused - and look on the bright side of life

THE FIRE THIS TIME: Rioting in English Cities

“Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.”

Frederick Douglas Speech on the
24th anniversary of emancipation,
Washington DC, 1886

At the time of writing, (August 12), rioting by thousands of young people on the streets of English cities, which first exploded last weekend, appears to have died down. The relative quiet of the past three nights may be no more than the lull before another storm. As the circumstances that gave rise to the rioting and looting have not changed and are unlikely to change, it is probable that before long there will be further outbursts. But for the time being, a greatly increased police presence and the threat of water cannon and rubber bullets seems to have prevented a repetition of disturbances on the scale witnessed on the first three nights. What has caused these riots?

Not surprisingly, opinions about the causes, and attitudes towards the riots themselves, differ wildly. For the Tories and the news media that support them, the explanation is simple: those responsible are simply asocial mindless thugs, ignorant and indolent, products of dysfunctional families. They have no sense of social responsibility or morality. The only way to deal with them is to bring them to justice and lock them up. Such a view rests upon no sophisticated causal explanation about the presence of so many hardened criminal elements in our midst. That is the way they are and any attempt by bleeding-heart liberals and deluded leftists to seek explanation or excuse for such behaviour, amounts to complicity in their criminality. According to Prime Minister David Cameron, the root cause is “mindless selfishness and complete lack of responsibility in our society.” It’s worth pondering that phrase.

The financial crisis that broke in 2008 saw the near meltdown of the banking system. Those responsible had for years indulged in a bonanza of profligate multi-billion pound risk-taking based on the accumulation of ever increasing volumes of debt. When their antics brought the system to the brink of collapse, catastrophe was only avoided by bailing out the banks, deemed “too big to fail”, at taxpayers’ expense. The draconian austerity measures introduced by the Con Dem government are a direct consequence of the gross irresponsibility of the bankers. Now the bailed-out banks are back in business as usual and the bankers are paying themselves the same mega-bonuses as before. But they have not been accused by the government of mindless selfishness and complete lack of social responsibility. The consequences of their selfishness and irresponsibility are incomparably greater than the damage done on Britain’s streets over the past couple of days. The global operation of finance capital over which they and their kind preside has not recovered from the crisis into which they have plunged the economy. The casualties of their dysfunctional system are numbered in ever-growing millions throughout the world.

There is a connection between the deepening financial and economic crisis which is rapidly assuming global proportions, and the riots on Britain’s streets. It is not one that representatives of the ruling class in Britain are keen to admit, but to those with eyes to see, it is inescapable. Britain is one of the most socially unequal countries in the developed world. In terms of inequality of income, Britain rates 20^th amongst 23 affluent states. Only the USA, Portugal and Singapore are more unequal. In a 2010 study of social inequality in Britain (Injustice: Why Britain’s Social Inequality Persists. Polity Press, 2010) Danny Dorling wrote: “In countries like Britain, people last lived lives as unequal as today measured by wage inequality, in 1854, when Charles Dickens was writing ‘Hard Times’.” As this inequality gap has grown, the super-rich have accumulated record levels of wealth.

To treat the riots that exploded on the streets of London, Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester as though they had nothing to do with this grim and growing social inequality can only be regarded as willful blindness. Yet the leaders of the three main parliamentary parties have done just that. Parliament was recalled from the summer recess. Party leaders and London’s mayor rushed back from their holidays. They all spoke from the same script. This was pure criminality and the crack-down would come swiftly and sharply. Magistrates’ courts are already handing down stiff custodial sentences. The only dispute between the government and opposition parties is about the policing of the riots. Labour leader Ed Miliband is leading the demand to abandon the proposed cuts to police numbers. In this he clearly has the support of the Metropolitan Police themselves.

So, not surprisingly there are no signs of serious analysis from that quarter. How then, is this sudden upsurge of looting and burning to be explained? Some sections of the left beyond the Labour party seem to have a simple answer. The riots, they believe are “an explosion of bitterness and rage” by a “lost generation created by the Tories.” The disturbances are described as “struggles” by those who have been pushed to the wall and are now fighting back. Such a view, while apparently addressing the social deprivation at the heart of the unrest, is hopelessly romantic and simplistic. Only by the wildest stretch of the imagination can the activities of the rioters be considered “struggles”. The term has a long and meaningful pedigree on the left. It is used to refer to the ongoing conflict between classes, between oppressor and oppressed. The “class struggle” referred to by Marx and his followers, refers primarily to the politically conscious engagement of the working class and other subordinate classes against the exploitative rule of capital. To say the least, the term “struggle” is not appropriate to describe the upsurge on the city streets last week. The rioters were not the harbingers of revolution.

At the outset, on Saturday August 6, the riots were sparked by the fatal shooting by the Met of Mark Duggan. What had started as a peaceful protest and demand for information outside Tottenham police station, soon escalated into much more serious disturbances. In communities blighted by high levels of unemployment, and subjected to heavy-handed police stop-and-search operations targeting young black men, the fact that there is deep-rooted resentment of the police comes as no surprise. The shooting of Duggan and what seems certain to have been a false claim by the police that he had fired at them, was certainly the spark that lit the tinder box. The combustible material was waiting to explode. However, to claim, as some on the left have done, that all that happened subsequently was a conscious reaction to Duggan’s shooting, is to give the events a political character they do not deserve. Certainly the rioting has political significance, but this is primarily in the sense that the sheer scale and bravado of the thousands of young people involved is symptomatic of the terrible alienation and desperation that scars their lives. It would be encouraging if this class of culturally, educationally and materially impoverished young people, casualties of a brutal system that has given them no hope, had been enrolled in a political movement capable of challenging the system that has blighted their lives. But they have not. So their inchoate rebellion can only express itself in terms of the destructive, anti-human norms of the dominant culture of rampant consumerism and possessive individualism. And if they behave violently it should come as no surprise, given the violent imagery that surrounds them - both real in the form of a decade of wars, and simulated in the video games that many watch compulsively.

This is the inescapable reality. Every waking hour of their lives – indeed of all our lives – is saturated with images encouraging them to consume endlessly. Myriads of commodities are “must have” and “to die for.” The value of life is measured in brand names. Built-in obsolescence compels them to possess only the latest technological gadgetry. “I shop, therefore I am” is the unspoken motto of the age. But for so many of those who took to the streets to loot last week, so many of the commodities they want, so much of what they are encouraged to believe is essential to establish their identity and command respect, is unattainable. They do not have the means to purchase the inessential things they have been persuaded are absolutely essential.

One of the most depressing and alarming aspects of the rioting was the extensive damaging done to shops, houses and cars, and to other members of the community who tried to stop the rioting. This included physical attacks on innocent people which resulted in five deaths. Hundreds of people have been burned out of their homes, losing everything. It is worth recalling a few details because some of the reporting on the left has failed to mention, let alone deal with this. Three young Asian men, seeking to protect their property were deliberately mown down and killed by a car. A 68 year old man in London who tried to put out a fire that had been lit, was beaten to the ground by several young people. He later died from his wounds. Another man was shot in the head at point blank range as he sat in his car. In another case, caught on CCTV, a young Malaysian student who had been beaten was helped to his feet by rioters who then went on to rob him. The fact that these instances were widely publicized and no doubt used to demonize all the rioters, in no way detracts from the brutal callousness of such acts. One left-wing journal argued that the rioting and looting was not an attack on the community as the shops looted and burned were chains such as J.D. Sports and Curry’s. This won’t wash. One store was burned out despite being located beneath an apartment block. Everyone living there lost their homes. Small shops were attacked; in one part of London the waiters in Turkish restaurants defended their workplaces with baseball bats.

This is mentioned not to reinforce the rightist agenda which seeks to deflect attention from the underlying causes of the rioting, but to counter the evasiveness by some sections of the left who seem reluctant to face up to the alarming behaviour of some of those who took part in the riots. Likewise, there seems to be reluctance to acknowledge the extraordinary community spirit of those hundreds of people, from all ethnic groups and backgrounds, who came together with brooms, on the morning following the last of the riots in London, and began to clear up the mess.

Unless the underlying conditions of alienation and impoverishment that gave rise to these events are confronted and dealt with, they will recur and the government will use them to turn different communities against each other and prevent the growth of a united popular opposition to the cuts they are trying to impose. Dealing with those conditions will require the mobilization of just such a mass movement, capable eventually of confronting the power of the state. Romanticizing an inchoate upsurge of rioting and looting by disenfranchised and alienated youth will not help to build such a movement.

The Divisive Misuse of a Religious Symbol, An Act Both Obnoxious and Irrational

Helen Thomas turned 90 last week. I wonder what she thinks about the destroyed remnant of a t-joint rubble beam hoisted as a centerpiece of the World Trade Center (WTC) Memorial in New York?

Well, I hope someone asks the good lady. I have an idea what she would say about the intrusion of religion into a public event that belongs equally to all Americans, of all religions and no religions.

Here is an exchange from a line of questioning Ms. Thomas had with the president at George W. Bush's first press conference in 2002:

Helen Thomas: "Mr. President, why do you refuse to respect the wall between the church and the state? And you know that the mixing of religion and government for centuries has led to slaughter. I mean, the very fact that our country has stood in good stead by having the separation-why do you break it down?"

Pres. Bush: "Helen, I strongly respect the separation of church and state..."

Thomas: "Well, you wouldn't have a religious office in the White House if you did . . . You are a secular official. And not a missionary. Atheists pay taxes, too."

Just so. And besides paying taxes, atheists (and Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, etc.) also died with Christians on 9/11. All died when 19 faith-based fanatics hijacked passenger planes to get to their blind dates with 72 virgins. Every one of these devout martyrs was hell-bent seeking eternal bliss. A bonus was the chance to exact a good measure of revenge against those with different ideas about religions different from theirs (i.e., "infidels").

But, the bogus Christian symbol, bogus because it is no more a sign of anything from the great beyond than the likeness of a god or goddess seen by some true believers in cookies, cloud patterns or the aftermath of tornado rubble. ("Look - the steeple remains. It's a sign from above. Praise Jesus.")

Ellery Schempp, a champion of the First Amendment who was instrumental in the protest against compulsive prayer in public schools leading to a Supreme Court ruling against the practice in 1963, stated that "public prayer is not intended to promote religious values but to enhance the authority of some churches and some political views over others.  (Speech at the convention of the Freedom from Religion Foundation annual meeting, Oct. 13, 2007.)

Some, including John Steward of "The Daily Show," a prominent liberal non-Christian, believe objections to the Christian cross at ground zero are ill advised. Why make a big deal of it? "Hey, it gives people comfort. Don't make waves. Let it go."

Well, that's what many advised Ellery Schempp and his parents to do. We are better off, I believe, that he and others through the years and continuing to this day, do not think much of this advice. We are fortunate, I think, that many like Mr. Schempp take separation of church/state seriously, and are willing to make waves and discomfort the faithful who insist in trying to push their religions into our faces. To put a stop to it, we must step forward and say, "no thanks."

Staying quiet and meet, making no objection to keep the peace is certainly an option. However, it seems unwise. A lot of non-Christians suffered from 9/11 events, including believers and freethinkers who favor reason over revelation. What does a cross contribute to their thoughts and feelings about the tragedy? What if another faith group were involved, say, Islamists who also lost family and friends at the memorial site? How would the Christian cross enthusiasts feel about a crescent and star t-beam (Islam) or a Shinto beam? Actually, because Jewish people have political power in New York, a Star of David (man-made, not plucked ready made from beam rubble), has been added. Why stop there? Would it not be more appropriate to give all religions representation or, to keep things simple and clean, none at on public land using public funds? Why not represent all faiths - or none - equally?

A 9/11 memorial should be religion neutral. Let's have the focus on the event and some symbol of recovery from it, not on religion, which inspired the disaster in the first place.