Ranting Against the Status Quo

Are We the Martians of the Twenty-First Century? by Tom Engelhardt



Shared via AddThis

Yet another thoughtful piece on our involvement in Afghanistan. I highly recommend you take the time to read this.

Aside from its references to War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells, it also reminds me of an old Star Trek episode, where a world being visited by the crew of the Enterprise is at war, but without the use of actual weaponry. The war is being waged by computers, and based upon the outcome of each "attack", members of the population who live in the area attacked are scheduled for termination, which they accept without question. The reasoning by the powers that be is this: by conducting war in such an antiseptic way, they avoid the messiness of the war spinning out of control, since both sides have accepted the rules of engagement, which include verification the targeted population actually capitulated to being terminated.

The system breaks down when the visiting Enterprise crew members happen to be among the targets that are hit, but refuse to allow themselves to be terminated, and in the end, destroy the machines conducting the war. In many ways, Gene Roddenberry was visionary (and no, I wouldn't consider myself a Trekkie); in this case, he was able to extrapolate out the end result of what happens when we begin to wage war remotely, to avoid "unnecessary" casualties on our side.

Unfortunately, war is supposed to be ugly and messy. It needs to be so abhorrent that people will consider every other alternative before engaging in it. When we choose to wage it by proxy with unmanned machines, we become just as soulless as our weapons. War becomes just another video game.

Taliban say they're no threat to other countries

I saw this article, through a link on the Drudge Report, yesterday. When placed in tandem with this article, it inspired me to offer up a few thoughts on our involvement in Afghanistan. While I initially supported our involvement there, because there seemed to be adequate justification and a clear objective, my opinion has changed over time. I now believe our continued presence there is no longer justified. This aligns me with both the hard left and the libertarian antiwar crowd, which is a very strange place to be.

If anything reported in a mainstream media outlet can be believed (and that's a HUGE if, given the agenda-driven nature of modern mass communications), our troops no longer have a clear objective for their continued presence in country. The above cited articles in and of themselves are questionable, when considering the sources. More interesting was the fact I found them linked through what I would consider "right-wing" outlets: the first, through Drudge Report, and the second, through WorldNet Daily (since I started writing this morning, Drudge has also linked the article on troop demoralization). I have to question why these outlets would link these particular articles, since it's a safe assumption they are as agenda-driven as their "liberal" mainstream brethren. Do they actually believe it's time to withdraw, is it seen as proof of the need to increase troop deployments, or is it just "blood in the water", an opportunity to count political coup against Barack Obama? Rule number one for anyone attempting to objectively navigate the media waters: always assume an agenda, and interpret why you're reading a particular "news" story in light of that agenda.

The present administration has no coherent policy for our continued presence in Afghanistan, and certainly no exit strategy. We appear to be like the raccoon trying to get the pebble out of the milk bottle: we have no good reason to continue the effort, but we're hanging on, can't get out and can't let go. On one hand, we are told our continued presence in necessary to prevent the Taliban from once again overrunning the country, and becoming a breeding ground for Al-Qaeda activity. Therefore, we have to stay until the government and country are stable and mature enough to resist the onslaught. On the other hand, we get reports of government corruption, which promotes distrust among a people already disdainful of any centralized authority, and gives the impression we're propping up one more tinpot dictator.

History is not on our side in Afghanistan. From Alexander the Great to the Soviet Union, there have been numerous attempts to conquer and subdue the tribes, without any long-term success. The Soviets attempted conquest in order to obtain a warm-water port; they were harassed to the point of withdrawal by "freedom fighters" supported covertly by the U.S. Now that it's our turn, they don't seem to appreciate our presence any more than anyone else. We justify our mission because it's different from previous incursions: we only want to get rid of the "bad guys" who threaten us and everyone else. The problem is, we apparently can't tell the bad guys from the rest of the populace, as evidenced by recent troop losses at the hands of an Afghani thought to be a member of their militia-one of the "good guys."

My conservative brethren would say I've fallen for the liberal codswollop thrown out there by the lapdog media to prop up President Obama's stated intention to end an "unjustified" war on terrorism. They would tell me that we never hear about the good outcomes our presence produces, and how destabilizing our withdrawal would be. How we haven't had any further terrorist attacks on our soil since this all started, and how we risk them if we pull out now. How establishing a democratic form of government will inspire a people longing for freedom to turn their backs on the religious tyranny of the Taliban. How it is necessary to increase troop deployments in order to "finish the job." For them, I have a few questions.

How interested (REALLY) in freedom and democracy are people who have been killing each other for hundreds of years as a religious rite? For our part, aside from the Patriot Act and the hopelessly monolithic Department of Homeland Security , which arguably increased federal governmental power over our lives to a significant degree, what other "protections" have we put into place here at home? Have we suddenly tightened our immigration policy, or strengthened our borders? What are we doing, aside from trading liberty for a false sense of security, to defend ourselves? Since we have enough firepower to eradicate pretty much the entire planet, how much of a threat is any country in the Middle East? Why is it necessary for us to maintain a military presence all over the world; is it to protect our national interests and alliances, or are we truly the 'world's policeman", or just another nation lusting after empire? Since neither Democrats or Republicans have shown any inclination toward taking care of security measures at home (immigration and borders), but are willing to send troops anywhere else for any threat, real or imagined, one would have to lean toward empire building, irregardless of arguments about security or national interests. The only interests our rulers seem to be pursuing are those which would solidify their power.

George Washington warned us of "foreign entanglements" over 200 years ago, which we seem to have forgotten or ignored to our peril. And we all remember what happens to those who choose to ignore history. 

Green Is Red by William Buppert



Shared via AddThis

One more argument for the real agenda of the Green Movement: to control your life, and tell you how to live it, based on "junk science" and an appalling ignorance of how things really work.

Politics as a War Against Life by Butler Shaffer

Shared via AddThis
More food for thought for my friends who still think that Washington D.C. exists for our benefit.

One of the positive things (in fact, about the only one) about being home on a sick day is the opportunity to indulge my need for reading and reflection. Yesterday, having succumbed to another of my immune system's failure to adequately adapt to a change in environment and climate, I spent a fair amount of time lying around. While my body needed the idleness, my brain would have none of it.

As my wife would quickly tell you, I am an information junkie; not so much trivial, pop culture type, more on the level of discussion of deeper, more meaningful topics and ideas. Perhaps it is a function of my particular age group, or possibly having been raised in a fairly conservative family background, but my interest has turned to where we began as a nation, how we ended up here.

I doubt that I would get serious argument from any quarter that our current federal government is vastly different than what was envisioned by those we call the Founding Fathers. The arguments start when the discussion turns to: a) whether this is a good or bad thing; b) whether the direction we have travelled is positive or negative; and, c) what we are to do about it, or  if anything can be done. The answers to those questions are vitally important, and seem to be based primarily on where along the political spectrum the questioner finds themself.

Over the past couple of days, I have read a number of articles written by those who call themselves libertarian. They subscribe to the theories of the Austrian school of economics, posit the idea that Abraham Lincoln, rather than being the Savior of the Union, was one of the architects of our present overbearing federal government, and are generally viewed as "crackpots" by those who consider themselves "mainstream." What I found was this: if you begin with their position that the writers of the Constitution had something very different in mind than the federal government that either major political party now espouses, you will find their defense of that position to be very thought-provoking.

The real value of the articles I read was in the stimulation of thought which challenged several preconceived assumptions based on history I had always taken at face value. Of particular interest were several articles by Thomas DiLorenzo which expostulated the rather controversial view that Abraham Lincoln was actually more interested in consolidation of federal power than preservation of union or abolition of slavery. Whether or not there is truth to be found there, the fact remains that since Lincoln's presidency, the power and scope of the federal government has grown beyond the control of either the states or the governed.

That's the reason why I consider these articles to be important. There are citizens who blindly accept the notion that only the federal government can solve our problems, and provide for our needs and desires. We have given up large chunks of our freedom and liberty for "security". We have accepted the idea that the government should have broad rights to monitor every aspect of our lives, because they are "protecting" us. We bought the notion we are incapable of providing for our basic needs without some form of government intervention.

We have sunk from a nation of citizens who once defied the mightiest nation on earth in the name of liberty and freedom, into a collection of lazy, uninformed sheep whose biggest concerns are the contestants on American Idol or which movie can be found at the video store. If we even bother to vote, the contest usually comes down to which politician is going to give us the most goodies. The average American has no idea what the Constitution actually says, much less how divisions and limits of power among the various levels of goverment are delineated. We cannot learn from our history, because we've not taken it upon ourselves to discover the truth about it. Our ignorance will become our doom.

If you have the courage and desire to challenge your thinking, go to www.lewrockwell.com. You probably won't agree with everything; I certainly don't. But if you're honest enough to at least consider a different viewpoint, you may find some value there.