Bad Behavior: Barkley and ARod

Poor Chuck... like Nelly said, if the head right he come back every night!!!

At least he was honest and polite with the cop, and didn't pull a Mel Gibson.

http://nba.fanhouse.com/2009/01/01/charles-barkley-dui-update-oral-sex-and-its-got-to-be-your-bu/

--------

I still remember getting the Contra Costa Times' "Golden Pen Award" for my letter to the editor bashing the mainstream media for cutting away from the 1996 Olympics' opening ceremonies to interview Chuck about the Dream Team's prospects... God Bless Charles Barkley - without him, I would not only be short a Golden Pen but would be, at any given moment, hard up for a joke about spitting, gambling, head, a DUI and an ass tattoo. Anyone care to comment on which is the biggest contributor to the perceived value of sports in our society - the NBA, the NFL, or the MLB?



Also, isn't Sir Charles married with a daughter - WTF? Chuck's "honest" reasons for his behavior got me thinking... although society's collective consciousness probably associates Democrats with marital infidelity (think Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards) the Republicans have a storied (and arguably more diverse) record of bad behavior when it comes to relationships (which, I should note, extends beyond soliciting sex in public bathrooms and texting congressional pages):


http://www.amazon.com/Rush-Limbaugh-Big-Fat-Idiot/dp/B001O9BXXY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234040877&sr=1-1



Here's another thing to consider: Is it conceivable that what we associate with improper conduct has more to do with media coverage and recency of transgression than it does with actual behavior (let alone intentions)? Is getting "caught" really the gold standard for measuring who is a fuck-up and who is not? Should it be? If traditional media companies become even more desperate for profits and new media companies become even more aggressive about capturing short attention spans then we're all doomed: there will be no private life in America and there will no such thing as "behind closed doors"; our frog of a society will become a caricature of itself before anyone even notices the water is boiling (God forbid it already is). Is anyone else pissed off that economic recovery and healthcare reform have more to do with who is a tax cheat and less to do with who is best suited to solve our problems? HECKUVA JOB BROWNIE!!!


PS: For the record: Sir Charles used to be (or consider himself, if you like) a "conservative" but recently (2006) changed his mind as demonstrated by his objective (i.e. not racially-motivated) support of Barack Obama in the last election. He has stated that he intends to run for governor of Alabama as an Independent in 2014 (once he establishes residency) though I do wonder whether his antics (gambling, DUI) would be more closely associated with Republicans, Democrats, or just overlooked...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Barkley

--------

Haha, seriously I don't care if A-Fraud makes a deal with the Devil, just as long as he kicks Bonds off all the record books!

So does Marc Ecko still have the Bonds record HR ball? In his online poll, they voted to give it to Cooperstown with an asterisk on it. I'd love to see that in the Hall!

Baseball's just a joke anyway.

For Chuck, I just think he looks silly because he is always dissing the younger players like AI and Bron for doing their childish stuff, and now he's a middle-aged father acting like an idiot. But seriously, that chick must have had some mad skills to make him do all this. Maybe she was even better than Spitzer's escort!

-------

Well, at least Pay-Rod was a man about it and didn't deny the roids allegations. Though he kept his secret for 4+ years. What I find worse is how he could want to bang old-ass Madonna!!!

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-rodriguez-steroids&prov=ap&type=lgns

The roids situation is funny. I know the sports reporters say that guys like Clemens, Bonds, and Rod think they're the best (well, they are) and try to get every edge possible to stay the best. They can't accept not being dominant. But those guys would be awesome players with or without juice. The stuff just keeps them in the game longer, and able to lift more weights per week. But that affects stats/records more than W-L for their teams. A 40-year-old Bonds isn't going to help any team get to the promised land. He just sells tickets and makes the SC Top Plays from time to time. So if you can't stop them from cheating, or can't make them admit it, just take away their stats (or downgrade them with a *). Then they have nothing to cheat for. If they want to abandon their families well into middle age, to hang around 2 or 3 more seasons to get 20 HR or 12 wins a year, just to set records, that is just gay.

So we know Bonds and Rod are a pitcher's nightmare regardless of what they're taking. It's not like roids are making them great. And frankly, I doubt there are many players in the pros who are such marginal talents that roids is the only thing keeping them in the big league. Maybe I'm wrong, what do you think? Sucky players will still suck with roids. Roids helps moderate or great players play a little better, but won't really help them win championships or perform in clutch moments. Again, maybe I'm wrong but I hope not.

--------

The way I figure is that roids takes the physicality out of the equation. You can be extremely talented and coordinated but not have the genetic composition of usain bolt. Roids takes care of that pretty nicely.

I think I remember the glarg monster mentioning a while back that the people who have the most to gain from roids is not a hitter/fielder but a pitcher. Throw more innings, recover faster and throw more games a week, longer effective career. I think that pitchers are the least likely to be able to play into old age in general right?

---------

Yeah good points. I mean roids helps no doubt, but I am not sure how much of a boost it gives you, say vs. a really good trainer or sports diet. Well it surely is a psychological boost, esp. for wife beating!

As you said, maybe fastball pitchers have the most to gain. Roids might build and help muscle heal, but it doesn't really affect connective tissue because that stuff has few cells and doesn't repair well. So if a guy like Rocket bulks up and can keep throwing 90 into his 40s, I wonder if his joints take such a beating that they're not supposed to, he'll actually wear out sooner? Obviously it wasn't the case with Rocket, but I guess the analogy is like putting nitrous in a Yaris. Though I guess their expert trainers give them all sorts of supplements and exercises to protect their joints too?

-------

I think there's a big problem with getting into the personal lives of athletes to determine who is "cheating" and who is not... Think about it - what is the MLB/NFL/NBA going to do once gene therapies and DNA modification are no longer the province of science fiction? Are you going to have two leagues, one for the "John the Savage" types (a la Brave New World) and another for the modified players? Where will the line be drawn? By whom? Testing for steroids (and even other drugs) is (in my humble opinion) an invasion of privacy and deeply flawed; if a player has a moral objection do they have any recourse other than peeing in the cup? Each of the respective professional leagues is a market monopoly with absolutely no check on its power and thus in a position to dictate behavior regardless of whether the mandates themselves are well-reasoned or even fair.


Also, why does it matter whether A-Rod (or anyone else) uses steroids (or anything else)? A person's body is his/her own business and (in our society, anyway) the measure of what you're free to do is whether your actions cause harm to others or not. While there may be some indirect harm to family, fans, etc. as a result of getting caught making the case that harm is caused by their actions alone is inordinately more difficult. It's worth keeping in mind that, if the leagues didn't have substance abuse policies, there would be nothing to get "caught" about - and of all the discussion I've ever heard about why drugs should be illegal I've yet to hear a single one which reasons steroids are a societal harm due to their second order effects (i.e. what their manufacture, trade, and use ultimately do to a population). Hell, in theory steroids could be made safe and beneficial to society if there was a will to make them so. I realize most people would argue that steroids are banned because they make competition "unfair", but hey - so is having 4x the budget of a competitor!!! I mean, come on - it's professional sports - it's naive to assume that it's fair at any level (and perhaps even more naive to think of it as anything more than a business).


Also, with respect to the point about performance, I think you're right - roids are not going to make you great. The saying "talent is common - discipline is rare" definitely applies to sports as weekend courts are filled with folks who probably could have made it had the stars aligned in their favor. I'd even go so far as to say that the real dividing line between good and great players has everything to do with focus, awareness, and mental fitness as it does physical prowess... and roids probably aren't gonna help you with that.


In short, I don't think it's funny - I think it's tragic that anyone who is larger than life (like A-Rod, Bonds, etc.) would feel the need to have to use steroids; I also think that it's even more tragic that we (the public) would tolerate witch-hunts and media circuses of the highest order which center upon absurd black and white divisions of right & wrong. Your $50 ticket to a game entitles you to watch, not to play King Of All Sports. I mean, WTF - Congress - get back to work!


PS: Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!?!?!?!


PSS: Madonna is still hot.

--------

Well I get what you're saying, but some basic rules have to be enforced. Employers have the right to drug test for illicit substances in your pee, because maybe drug users aren't the most reliable workers they want around. Plus you can get around drug tests, as many pro athletes have (or tried too... Wizzinator!). Call it an invasion of privacy, call it good business. And let's remember that "privacy" is not a god-given right like liberty. It is not written anywhere in our Constitution (at least before 1900). It is an interpreted right by the Supreme Court. Anyway, privacy is a sham if you consider what companies and the government already know about us, especially in the wired age (voting, shopping habits, TV ratings, credit scores... they can basically predict our behavior already). I would prefer to err on the side of privacy than not (warrantless wiretaps, etc.), but we can't be so naive to think that actions such as using illegal drugs are totally of the private domain and don't affect others.

Roids might seem innocuous, but they do cause behavioral and hormonal problems that can result in violence or illness for the user, which costs the user, the employer, and society (not to mention the moral message we are sending to condone chemical assistance to overcome physical limitations). I agree that it's impossible to have a law you can't enforce, so with corrupt MLB maybe it's easier to just open the floodgates on roids and scrap the record books. Maybe you can argue that tobacco is worse, yet still legal. And of course some roids are legal, or legal with a prescription. Contraband roids (like back-alley abortions) are also not regulated and inspected for safety. My company makes therapeutic HGH, and in 2006 one plant worker was skimming some of the rejected material and selling it to his relative who worked at a gym. They made tens of thousands, but he was eventually caught of course. If that stuff was contaminated or at the wrong dosage, it could have really messed up an ignorant user. Well, maybe that fits into your argument to legalize the stuff and make things more transparent!

I wouldn't say that pro sports organizations have absolute power. They have a ton of power, but there are also the players' unions, of which MLB's is the strongest. They have fought testing from the get-go, and only now agreed to minimal testing. A-Rod's positive test was supposed to be "confidential" to the public, as MLB was just "testing its testing" at the time. To me, I have no problem with WWE using roids, or other jobs where supernatural looks and strength might be needed as part of entertainment (not competition). As you said, the fairness argument might be a joke when NYY's payroll is over 3X OAK's, but at least we have to have some sort of preponderance of fair play, otherwise what's the point of sport? The public has to have some sort of trust in the integrity of the competition, or they won't spend their money (not to mention all the sports betting!). It does set an impossibly high bar for impressionable, obsessive youth to measure up to, if they aspire to be physically great in their careers (check out "The man whose arms exploded": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj3De6s3ZjQ). US soldiers are even using roids, meth, and other drugs in battle, to be stronger and more alert. If it keeps them alive I'm all for it, but if it affects their judgment, it might do more harm than good. If there was a roid that made women's boobs bigger and their butts rounder, I'd support that too.

Oh yeah, and as my coworker said about the recent CA Prop. to give more money to children's hospitals.... F DA CHILDREN!!

Oh, forgot to mention C - you are right, of course the media are going bonkers over nothing. That is what they do. It is sad as you said, but I wouldn't say tragic. No one is dying at least. I don't feel bad for A-Rod or others; after all, they're still rich.

--------

Dude it's not just about the records, it's about the lifestyle. About being "the guy," a pro baller. No one wants to give that up.

Take the example closer to home. Just imagine if the media, your friends, your family, all started telling you it was time to hang up your spurs. No more ragging on pro sports, no more hatorade, no more puns out of pro's names. Would you just pack it in?

Hell no! Bring on the juice! HATER LIFESTYLE BABY!! HATE HATE HATE!!!

-------

Well that is kind of a poor analogy but I'll indulge you. First of all, Rod, Bonds, and others started to juice long before they were washed up (ARod still hasn't even begun to decline). In fact they juiced near the peak of their careers. So I doubt it was out of fear of the fall. I guess they really loved being the man and wanted to stay that way, especially with hacks like Sosa and McGwire on their tails (and getting plenty of media attention). Even Brady Anderson hit 50 HR. They're celebrity whores I guess.

But no one forced them to quit once they couldn't perform at peak level. Because of their big names, Rocket or Bonds could play for most teams into their 40s without roids, even if they kind of suck and were injured half the season. They still can make money and lift their team's prestige. So I don't think it's a valid excuse to say that they clung to the juice as the only way to stay in the game. They would still collect big paychecks and make the highlight reels now and then. They just couldn't stand not being the best. And frankly, I don't know who would have the moxie to tell big egos and supercompetitors like Rocket or Bonds that they should hang it up, to their face. Probably people were begging them to keep playing. If you think you can still play, and no one is stopping you from playing, then who cares what other people say?

Lifestyle? I think they can still live pretty well being a "washed up" baller. Maybe they won't get the curtain calls and the media attention, but they'll still get a lot of love at the clubs with the hoochies. They'll still do the commercials, autographs, and maybe make guest appearances on TV or at ceremonies. If that wasn't enough, and the juice could give them more, well then they made their choice.

So that is a flimsy claim to say that the haters and doubters compelled people like Bonds to juice and prove them wrong.

-------

Heh thx for the reply Chopes. I agree with what you're saying about roids and safety. The only exception I can think of are strong roided-up football players may be more likely to injure each other, so in that case it's a safety problem (and a profits problem). Or even in baseball, faster hurlers can bean batters harder and break their wrists (it has happened plenty). Or bulked up guys colliding will cause more injuries, which loses money for everyone.

The ARod report reminds me of the Nixon tapes - why the F didn't they destroy them when they had the chance!?!

Heh, yeah it is sad how some students resort to "performance enhancement". Plenty of pay websites offer pre-written essays or even answers on the GMAT (http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/mba/2008/09/05/gmat-scandal-expands-to-6000-students.html). Students are taking meth (or tons of Red Bull) to stay up later and study. The problem is much worse in East Asia. Here, usually the rich just buy their way to academic performance by loading up on tutors/test prep/internships for their kids, and the poor don't even get their GED, partly due to socioeconomic pressures. I guess it boils down to competition: it's out of control in developed nations. So many people want what so few can have. The irony of the American Dream is it's just a dream to many Americans, yet we somehow believe that it's "available" to all. We all can't be middle class (or rich); the Earth couldn't take it. We don't know how to share... it's just mine, mine, mine and F the rest of y'all. We are taught to admire the people at the top, the "winners", and the other losers are inconsequential. But in some cases, success is just a nice way of sugar-coating greed.

Wired for War

http://wiredforwar.pwsinger.com/
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/author-pov-wired-for-war.htm

One of Obama's campaign advisers for defense issues (P. W. Singer of the Brookings Inst.) recently published a book called Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century. In an interview on "Fresh Air", Singer described the technological, political, strategic, and moral implications of this new evolution of warfare. Namely, do the "conveniences" that robotics/automation bring to modern combat affect how easily our leaders decide to wage war? Also, how wise is it to rely so heavily on this technology - what are the repercussions when it malfunctions and innocents die? Maybe due to social-ideological shifts or manpower shortages, it appears that the Pentagon has rushed to integrate automation into the military without really taking all the risk considerations into account. But that's nothing new for them, and boys will always be impatient to show off their new toys.

In rugged theaters like Afghanistan, remote-controlled Predator drones are critical for reconnaissance and air strikes. In Iraq, robots diffuse bombs, scout, and do many other tasks. Robot/drone missions in Iraq increased from zero in 2003 to 12,000 in 2008. The US military owns over 17,000 drones (5k air, 12k ground). By 2010, the Pentagon expects to spend $4.3B on such unmanned systems.

Every major technological advancement since the wheel has modified the ways that humans kill each other, so of course electronics and automation will create drastic changes. Robots can overcome some human limitations (fatigue, irrationality, variable performance, physical vulnerabilities). This can be a real help in some situations, if those robots function properly. Besides the more sci-fi models like Predator or TALON (think WALL-E with a machine gun), the majority of military automation is meant for information processing (where robots excel most over humans). Real-time, high-resolution battlefield data feeds allow decision-makers (or bureaucrats) thousands of miles from the war zone to micromanage a fight or overrule commanders on the ground. This of course creates a lot of tension and resentment among the soldiers who are risking their lives on the front lines, and the "soldiers" who watch them from afar (and may even render life-death decisions upon them without consultation).

We don't even realize how much of our national defense is already automated. Via our satellite network, computers survey and identify potential targets for attack worldwide. But the system does err, and we have ordered air strikes on what appeared to be high-value enemies (even Osama) that were actually innocent bystanders. In some cases, computers decide to shoot nearly autonomously. On-board B-52 targeting computers do 99% of the work, and the pilot just presses a button. He can't see the target on the ground and can't control the flight of the ordinance, but instead just trusts the computer. Our warships equipped with AEGIS defenses are designed to identify threats and defend the ship in case vital crew members are killed or incapacitated. But what about non-threats? One of our AEGIS ships erroneously shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in the Persian Gulf in 1988. The investigation concluded that the ship's crew misinterpreted or manipulated the AEGIS data feed tracking a commercial airliner, making it appear to be an attack plane. I know that a device is only as good as the people using it, but it's hard to believe that our trained sailors would be so trigger-happy in a sensitive conflict zone without some cause. Maybe trust or overconfidence in AEGIS provided that last bit of impetus to act on their paranoia.

Well, I guess it was cheaper to dismiss the incident as human error rather than call into question a multi-billion-dollar system deployed on over 80 US warships. But how much are robots augmenting, influencing, or outright replacing real-time human decision-making, and how will that trend grow in the coming years (especially with control of nuclear weapons)? Much sci-fi fiction involves machines, trusted with vital duties too important to be left in human hands, that end up going haywire. While we haven't had to battle a renegade Skynet or HAL2000 in real life, minor incidents have happened (read on). Our militaries will have to delicately balance the delegation of critical decisions among human and computer actors. If an Air Force bomber mistakenly transported nuclear warheads across the Midwest in 2007, obviously it couldn't hurt to add more automated failsafes and human-executed security procedures. But when is a computer allowed to override a human's decision in the interests of "national security"? Guide dogs are trained to disobey and protect their masters in cases of obvious harm, for example when a blind person wants to enter an intersection when it is not clear. Sadly, there is a thin line between protection and harm. But dogs, like computers, just act in accordance with their programming. If Asian hackers can crack most versions of Windows and crash the Microsoft website in their spare time, how can we trust programmers to design safe software that manages vital defense infrastructure? In an effort to make Windows Vista a more secure OS for our computers, Microsoft has made it nearly impossible for even experienced users to enact system changes to their own property. And there we see the trade-off with defense computing: it needs to be secure enough to resist enemy tampering, but it shouldn't be locked up so tight that humans can't "hit the kill switch" in time during a malfunction. Mistakes on either end could potentially spell doom.

New technologies completely redefine what it means to be a soldier, as well as the associated psychological burdens. Now a 19-year-old high school dropout in Nevada can contribute more to the Iraq war effort than a commissioned officer and veteran pilot stationed on a carrier in the Gulf... and they do. The author mentioned one unnamed soldier fitting that profile who became such an expert Predator pilot that he is now an instructor. He joined the military wanting to repair helicopters, but was found to be unqualified, so instead they sat him in front of a computer and he became a drone "ace". The author jokes that the military might now prefer to recruit computer nerds with sturdy bladders, rather than a jock with 20/20 vision and a 6-minute mile time. Needless to say, this change is not well received with the cocky Top Gun crowd in "traditional" pilot circles. For a military that is supposed to function as an integrated, cooperative unit, these new divisions and culture clashes cannot be overlooked.

The emergence of the Predator has also changed the military lifestyle. Drone pilots can literally work their craft as an 8-to-5 job, then come home to their families. "RC" soldiers don't even have to live with each other on a base, maintain off-duty discipline, and most importantly, don't have to get shot at or lose friends in battle. But this convenient duality is not as perfect as it sounds. The rate of PTSD among such drone pilots is actually higher than the average military, possibly due to the mental challenges of taking life one minute, then taking their kids to soccer practice the next. You can't just turn it on and off like a switch. There is inherent conflict between the civilian and military aspects of a citizen-soldier, and at least in a combat theater you can forget "the world", your comrades can support you, and also empathize with your problems. A Predator pilot can't really complain about his bad day to the wife and neighbors, without really freaking them out. And domestic problems or general busyness might be very bad distractions for inexperienced young men charged with huge responsibilities.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/flying-drones-f.html

Of course the military says that nothing can ever replace a brave, skilled American pilot. Tom Cruise's Maverick should be their recruiting poster boy, not Steve Urkel. But in this age of streamlining and reducing loss of (American) life, if our automated systems are performing about as well as human pilots, then why would the military continue to risk manned missions? But if they do decide to rely more heavily on RC drones or fully-automated fliers, they had better plan for the human consequences as well. As we all know, technology meant to make our lives easier often produces the opposite effect, or even introduces new problems.

Ever-increasing computing power has really blurred or destroyed the line between war games and warfare. Instead of video game makers tailoring their entertainment systems to simulate real warfare, the military is actually designing its new training and combat systems to emulate video game platforms! Maybe they figure that Sony and Microsoft have already done extensive ergonomics and performance research for their products, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Think I'm exaggerating? It's already happened: the company iRobot (makers of the cute Roomba vacuum) also make the PackBot for military scouting and IED disposal. It can be transported in a soldier's pack (hence the name), assembled/deployed in a few minutes, and literally controlled by an Xbox 360 controller. I guess if it's already available and validated, no need to reinvent the wheel.

The controller used with the latest Pacbot is modelled after video game controllers, making the system easier to use.

As we all know, automation and advanced electronics do fail. And for the more complex systems that are charged with life-death capabilities, failures are very costly. Our forces in Iraq are using machine gunner robots nicknamed "R2-D2" to shoot down incoming insurgent RPGs/mortars. During an early test, it accidentally fired on a US helicopter, but fortunately missed. In South Africa, they weren't so lucky. An anti-aircraft robot (with a 35 mm cannon that can literally vaporize human flesh) experienced a "software glitch", started shooting wildly, and killed 9 soldiers. And then what about the legal aftermath? What if the victims are civilians/foreign nationals? Prosecute the designers or the administrator? Or is it just tough luck?

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki.html

Another problem with increased use of military automation by the US is our allies/enemies will invariably follow suit. And our enemies will surely be hard at work to develop countermeasures to our robots. Since many of them are remote-controlled, our adversaries could potentially turn our weapons against us. Like torture, we can't let the genie out of the bottle and expect other nations or stateless militants to refrain. And unlike Star Wars or nuclear weaponry (WMDs that the US feels entitled to maintain a permanent advantage), robotics are much more cheaper, portable, and accessible. Already US companies are selling them to foreign governments. So an arms race of this nature would be much harder to control and stay ahead of the pack. Even the Lebanese militant group Hizbullah used simple robotics in its 2006 war with Israel (the first time in history when 2 sides used robotics against each other in a war). Just imagine how automation can change the way that "suicide attacks" are carried out.

In addition, how will enemies and neutrals perceive our increased use of robotic weapons? Western powers already take a lot of heat for "cowardly" air strikes and artillery barrages that often kill bystanders. While insurgents seek to level the field and confront our forces in small arms urban fighting, they can't do anything against our bombing. They die but we don't. They don't even get to see the whites of our eyes. It makes strategic sense, but appears quite dishonorable to some who still believe in a warrior code. We "hide" behind our technology and project our force from afar. But then again, the majority of US military deaths since 9/11 are from IEDs, which are equally cowardly by those standards. Bottom line, the more we rely on robotics (for dirty jobs or innocuous ones), the more we play to the stereotype of cold, militaristic Americans. But some of this could be mitigated with better PR and disclosure. Unfortunately most armed forces are not very skilled in those areas.

-------------

The over-arching danger of high-tech war is that it builds on a trend making it less and less of a moral-social burden to wage war. Historically, war maims and kills scores of people, shatters families, destroys cities, disrupts economies, bankrupts treasures, and causes massive trauma that takes years to repair. But if robots can remove some of that stink, does war become a more desirable option? And Obama has followed Bush's example by maintaining that "all options are on the table".

Walking the streets of any American city today, a foreigner could hardly tell that our nation was at war (in 2 places). Compare that to Congo or Sri Lanka, where it's abundantly obvious. I suppose that is the nature of foreign wars, and why Bush said that it's better to fight our enemies overseas than in our backyards. But despite our haste to oust Saddam, our inflammatory bombings in Pakistan, and the many terrible episodes in American militarism, I hope that war can be a very solemn, serious decision for our current and future leaders. If the Pentagon told Obama that a Predator thinks it has OBL in its bombsights, but there's a chance that it's a false positive, and children are in the area - what is he going to do? High-tech war thrusts these rapid, difficult decisions on flawed, emotional people, and therein lies the danger.

Many ordinary people are not feeling the effects of our wars, which is both a blessing and a danger. Out of sight, out of mind. Yes we're losing international goodwill and hemorrhaging tax dollars in the War on Terror, but the sting from that will be hard to directly notice back home, and probably further down the road. The lowest of our society are the ones dying and enduring 15-month tours, while the middle-upper classes keep consuming obliviously (or fretting about the economy). Mostly our exposure to war is just some fancy graphics and press conferences on CNN. When war is so "painless" to wage, what is holding us back from engaging in it? Violence seems to be such an easy "solution" to the various frustrating tensions around the globe, but the costs are profound and enduring. Just because we can do something, and do it swiftly and efficiently, doesn't mean we should.

Since WWI, industrialization has permitted soldiers to kill each other from afar without even seeing each other, and now we're taking it to another level. Modern wars for resource control, imperialism, or proxy power struggles tend to be fought on third party battlegrounds with little damage to the instigating parties' homelands. And after the expiration of selective service, our modern "professional army" is mostly comprised of the poorer, minority, and uneducated demographics. The rich and powerful monopolize the decision to go to war, but now they can totally divorce themselves and their loved ones from enduring the direct suffering of war. Outliers like Pat Tillman and Beau Biden aside, no privileged American should ever want or need to fight for their country, except maybe out of machismo or aspirations for a future political career, both of which are not necessarily in our military's best interest. Some hawkish Americans like to ridicule Europeans for being wimps and appeasers when it comes to modern conflicts and terrorism. But today's Europeans are children of the WWII ashes, and many of their states still mandate military service. They understand war suffering better than us, and if they do have to fight, it hurts everyone from the top down.

We also have the Rumsfeld-advocated (but he is not the only one) approach of "sleek war", with a minimal number of boots on the ground and a huge reliance on technology to dominate asymmetrical wars. Yes technology can improve our military capabilities, increase efficiency, and reduce the loss of life. But for now, robots can't kick down doors, protect VIPs, and escort convoys through IED-mined highways, so we hire Blackwater mercenaries to fill that need, as a previous email described. We have so few "regular" soldiers now (plus recruiting shortages), that we use contractors to prepare meals, do laundry, maintain equipment, and fill dozens of other tasks that enlisted people used to do a generation ago (in addition to fighting). But when we outsource our military effort to for-profit corporations, how can we expect loyalty and commitment when things go bad? Will they sacrifice for the good of the nation as an oath-bound soldier would? The same can be said of automated systems. They are designed and marketed by companies following their own agendas that are not beholden to any national goals or set of principles. All they care about is selling the maximum number of units and service plans, not winning or preventing wars.

Defense is obviously easier for richer nations, who can afford the most advanced weapons. But what is to prevent the haves from menacing the have-nots who stand in the way of their strategic objectives? Like easy credit and the housing bubble, convenience can lead to irresponsibility. Readily available resources are often abused, especially if the abusers won't suffer direct consequences for their actions. Sometimes the only thing stopping bullies in the schoolyard is their fear of picking the wrong fight and losing. When it doesn't hurt us to hurt someone else, what is left to keep the peace? The whole rationale behind the nuclear deterrent was to make it too costly to attack a nuclear nation (or their friends), but how can a superpower be deterred? Hopefully our laws and political system serve that purpose, but still Congress voted overwhelmingly to invade Iraq in 2003. Well, one method of deterrent is disarmament, and refraining from developing new weapons. The chicken-hawks of the privileged class need to know that war isn't just about the victory parades and "Mission Accomplished" banners. And even if they do succeed, like the amazingly one-sided Operation Desert Storm, their glory was purchased by others' blood. "War as last resort" has now become an insincere political cliche, but it should still apply just for the rare circumstances where not fighting means catastrophe. And I think we will be hard pressed to come up with even a handful of historical examples where a conflict could only be resolved through war.

Israel refuses to extradite its own in the event of war crimes indictments

Sorry to keep harping in this, but an interesting development:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7850085.stm

So after WWII, militant Jews hunted down suspected Nazi war criminals overseas, with little to no regard for the laws of other nations and the chain of evidence. Sometimes they brought them to Israel to stand trial, other times they assassinated them on the spot. The same can be said later for Arab-Palestinian terrorists. In some cases, they killed the wrong person. Like during the "Operation Wrath of God" retribution murders after the Munich massacre, Mossad agents killed a waiter in Norway, mistaking him for Black September honcho Ali Salameh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillehammer_affair). Israel never claimed responsibility for the murder, but 6 of its agents were captured and convicted in Norway, and later the government paid almost $500k to the victim's next of kin.

But now, PM Olmert has vowed to refuse extradition of any Israelis participating in the Gaza invasion who may be found guilty of war crimes by international courts. The government has also blocked the Israeli press from publishing the names of any squad commanders of Gaza forces, in the event that others want to build cases against them. Olmert said that no son of Israel will face trial for defending their country. So I guess if IDF soldiers gun down an unarmed civilian, or bomb a hospital, they did it out of love for country, so it's permissible and they're not accountable to anyone else?

But what about the Nazis and Arabs who were following their own extreme nationalistic, ethnocentric impulses when they carried out their atrocities against Jews? When the Allied tribunal or international courts declare the enemies of Israel as war criminals, by all means they are guilty as sin, and Israel has the green light to circumvent official channels. They bring them to justice on their terms, even if they have to break laws and kill the wrong people in the process. And Israel denounces any nation daring to harbor those fugitives as accessories to the crime. But with the shoe on the other foot, Israeli war criminals are immune to any outside punishment, and it's perfectly fine for Tel Aviv to protect them. Though of course with US diplomatic cover (plus America's disdain for the ICC or any other sort of cooperative European entity is already well-known), probably no Israeli will ever be charged with war crimes in our lifetimes. But I suppose it's anti-Semitic if anyone else dares to accuse an Israeli of a crime while carrying out the sacred duty of defending Israel. "Israel has the right to defend itself," by any means necessary.

Israel has attacked the UN more than Al-Qaeda

Last year, Al-Qaeda's #2 Zawahiri denounced the UN as the "enemy of Islam" for helping create and legitimize the state of Israel in the past, as well as condoning Western militarism in Muslim lands. We know that Al Qaeda in Iraq attacked the UN headquarters in Baghdad in 2003, killing 22 (including the special envoy to Iraq). After that, the UN withdrew completely from Iraq for years. More recently, Qaeda also claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing at a UN compound in Algiers that killed 41 (of them, 18 UN staffers) in 2007. These acts against defenseless victims were of course barbaric and cowardly.

http://www.fao.org/world/Regional/RNE/UNNews/news123_en.htm

But strangely, it is actually the Israeli military that has attacked the UN more times since 9/11, albeit less "deliberately" and with fewer casualties.

[The Israeli Defense Forces] don't care if they kill a UN man or anybody on the Lebanese side. For them, their own life is sacred, their own troops are sacred. They have a mission, and if the UN gets in the way of their efforts over there, if the UN gets hit, so be it.

- Timur Goskel, professor at Notre Dame Univ. and former UNIFIL advisor (UN peacekeepers in Lebanon), 2006

Maybe you remember during the Israel-Lebanon War in 2006, then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan chastised Israel for what appeared to be a deliberate targeting of a legally sanctioned UN observation post in South Lebanon that killed 4 neutral observers. The UN has been there since the first Israel-Lebanon war decades ago. The maps haven't changed and that outpost never moved. There were no Hizbullah fighters in the vicinity, yet the IDF decided to fire. But of course PM Olmert demanded than Annan retract his outrageous accusation.

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/7/26/kofi_annan_says_israels_fatal_attack

And earlier this month in the Gaza war, Israeli armor allegedly fired on a UN aid convoy, killing a truck driver (a Palestinian contractor hired by the UN). This incident took place during an agreed-upon 3-hour cease fire. The UN had informed Israel of the aid convoy's scheduled trip, and were given the green light to proceed. Their vehicles are clearly marked with UN blue, and the IDF was given its GPS coordinates. However, Israel claims that it was actually a Hamas sniper that killed the truck driver, possibly in an attempt to set up the IDF for a bad PR incident (as if the IDF needed any outside help in that regard). Even giving Israel the benefit of the doubt here, what resulted was the UNRWA mission suspending all aid shipments into Gaza since then (they are set to resume tomorrow). So needy people continued to go without. If a neutral third party is "aiding" your enemy, would you fire at them as deterrence? Did the IDF want to send a message to the UN, and did the Lebanon incident have a similar purpose? So are their wars against all Palestinians/Lebanese, or just the terror groups?

A few days later, it got worse. Israel attacked UN-run elementary schools at 3 separate locations over 36 hours. One site was vacated, but the others housed hundreds of terrified Gaza residents seeking refuge from the fighting. Over 40 died. Again, these buildings are clearly-marked and the UN gave Israel their GPS locations long ago. The IDF attempted to justify its actions by stating that they observed Hamas mortar fire originating from inside one of the UN schools. UN officials on the ground said that they were 99.9% sure there were no Hamas there and no mortars were fired (and they have no reason to lie for Hamas). Laughably, the IDF further tried to defend the attack by releasing video of Palestinian militants firing a rocket from one of the schools and then fleeing. However, the video was from 2007! In that case, we better bomb Saudia Arabia, because we have past video of Osama bin Laden walking the streets of Riyadh. Even if Hamas was there, how can they defend their attacks? It is a neutral site, off limits like an embassy. For that matter, what if Hamas militants were alleged to be hiding in a US consulate building? Would the IDF still bomb? Technically that is a violation of international law and an act of war.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtStEng.jhtml?itemNo=1053455&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&title='UN+rejects+IDF+claim+Gaza+militants+operated+from+bombed-out+school'&dyn_server=172.20.5.5

The Israeli army however said the school was being used to store weapons, and the casualties were as a result of secondary explosions caused by the the munitions stored in the building. After a brief investigation this story changed. The army did admit the Israel Air Force targeted the school, but said it was returning fire. It had no comment on the fact that several hundred refugees had taken shelter at the school.
- IsraelNews.net

Israel scorns Hamas and Hizbullah for being so dastardly to hide behind civilian shields, and they're right. If only we could divorce combatants from populated areas, but in the post-Cold War world, most if not all conflicts will be asymmetrical and urban. When you decide to wage war (and let's look past the BS about being "forced" into war - it's always a conscious, voluntary choice), you have to know that many innocents will suffer (especially children), so hopefully that can serve as a deterrent. They should have learned all this at the military academy, but maybe as Prof. Goskel claims, the problem is that Israel just doesn't give a damn. Israel says they're being being set up to take the blame for civilian deaths as part of the propaganda war. But no one forced the IDF to pull the trigger. They know civilians are there, and yet they choose to fire anyway, just to maybe kill a few insignificant foot soldiers, or at best some "high value target" that will just get replaced by an even meaner SOB, as depicted in the film "Munich". They could apprehend and convict them through established legal channels, or wait to attack until their targets are in the clear, or if that doesn't happen then just let it go - because the cost of killing innocents (thereby creating much backlash and future terrorists in the process) is always higher than letting one bad man go free. Therefore, they don't get to blame anyone else for their murders. Not surprisingly, in 2003 27 elite Israeli pilots/officers had enough of their leaders' immoral tactics, and published a formal protest refusing to take part in assassination missions over urban zones where civilians will invariably get hurt (see article at end).

And just today, Israeli artillery fire near the UN Gaza headquarters (housing over 700 refugees) started a blaze that destroyed their food/fuel storage warehouse. This time, they openly acknowledged that it was a "mistake", though again insisted that Hamas fire came from the area. It is suspected that phosphorous incendiary rounds were used, which easily cause fires to spread in cities (and therefore their use in urban zones is prohibited). Tons of vital aid supplies went up in smoke. A Red Cross/Crescent hospital was also hit, and the Palestinian death toll rose above 1,000 dead/5,000 wounded. Israeli losses still stand at 13, with 4 dead from friendly fire.

The belief is that Israel is stepping up military operations ahead of agreeing to a ceasefire in the days immediately before Tuesday's inauguration of Barack Obama as U.S. president.
- The Daily Mail

So once again, it seems like politics trump decency. Isn't an escalation of violence prior to a ceasefire defeating the very purpose of that ceasefire? I guess they just want to get those last shots in, and probably Hamas will too (well, does the fact that Hamas still launches rockets at the end of the war signify the folly and failure of the war?). And I guess Israel wants to make a good impression on the new president by pausing its war for his inauguration. How thoughtful.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1117144/Israels-strike-UN-headquarters-Gaza-indefensible-says-Gordon-Brown.html

So if the gunmen and thugs under Milosevic, Haitian/Somali warlords, and even Hamas, Hizbullah, and the Taleban can mostly respect UN neutrality in their conflicts, then what is Israel's problem? After all, they are the most democratic and technologically advanced nation in the Middle East. Pretty much the only other places in the world where UN staff are under such direct assault are Congo and Sudan. Ignominious company for sure. And in those nations, UN soldiers are authorized to actually engage local forces to protect civilians, so they have chosen to be part of the fray. No UN worker ever fired a shot at an Israeli.

-----
27 Israeli pilots refuse raid duty
Question morality of hitting civilians
By Dan Ephron, Boston Globe Correspondent, 9/25/2003
JERUSALEM -- Twenty-seven Israeli air force pilots, who are considered the most elite servicemen of the Israeli Defense Forces, pledged in an open letter published yesterday that they no longer would take part in raids on Palestinian population centers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, describing them as "illegal and immoral."
The letter, published on the websites of several Israeli newspapers, appeared to give new impetus to the movement of several hundred soldiers who refuse to serve in the West Bank and Gaza Strip on moral grounds. It also marked the first time a group of air force pilots, who could face ouster or military trials, have banded together to take such a stand.
Among those who signed were a brigadier general who took part in Israel's 1981 raid on an Iraqi nuclear facility, two colonels, and four lieutenant colonels. About half of them fly warplanes and attack helicopters in reserve duty, while the rest are inactive, according to a senior air force officer.
Military officials described the letter as politically motivated and insisted that the Israeli military goes to great lengths to avoid harming civilians, even when Palestinian militants hide in their midst. One analyst said the letter carried symbolic weight, but would be significant from an operational standpoint only if dozens of other pilots refused to serve.
"We veteran and active duty pilots . . . are against carrying out illegal and immoral attacks of the kind that Israel is conducting in the territories," the letter reads. "We . . . refuse to take part in air force attacks on civilian population centers.
"We [pilots], who feel that the Israeli Defense Forces and the air force are an integral part of us, refuse to continue attacking innocent civilians," said the letter, which also condemns Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
Several pilots who signed the letter could not be reached for interviews.
Air force pilots have had a large role in the fighting between Israelis and Palestinians that erupted three years ago, most controversially in track-and-kill missions against key militants. Israel has assassinated scores of militants in missile strikes and bombing missions in crowded areas of the West Bank and Gaza, but scores of innocent civilians have also been killed and wounded in the raids.
In one particularly devastating attack in July 2002, Israel dropped a 1-ton bomb on a building in Gaza where Salah Shehadeh, a top member of the Islamic militant group Hamas, was hiding. He was thought to have orchestrated attacks that killed dozens of Israelis. The bomb killed Shehadeh, his wife and daughter, and 12 other civilians.
Reuven Pedatzur, a former fighter pilot who is now a defense analyst for the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, said the Shehadeh assassination was a turning point for Israeli pilots. "I think that was the moment many pilots began asking questions about what they're doing and why civilians are being killed," he said.
Pedatzur said the letter was significant because air force pilots are the military's "cream of the crop" and because pilots have never protested collectively in such a manner. But a top air force commander said that the protesters represented a small minority of fighter pilots and that most of them had not been taking part in missions during the past three years of fighting.
Ido Nehushtan, an air force brigadier general, said pilots participating in missions against Palestinian militants had the complicated task of trying to thwart terrorists who operate in civilian centers. He said that pilots have the authority to abort missions if they believe civilians might be harmed, but that the air force could not live with a situation in which individual pilots decide not to take part in a whole category of operations.
"I can tell you with full confidence that we do everything possible to avoid harming civilians," Nehushtan said late yesterday, hours after the letter was published.
He said the pilots published their letter in the media without first presenting it to their commanders.
Pedatzur said the Air Force must decide between ousting the pilots from their units or trying them for insubordination. Military judges have jailed dozens of reservists in ground forces who have refused to serve in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
"This is a serious dilemma, because these aren't just privates in regular units; they're air force pilots," Pedatzur said. "If you put them on trial, the atmosphere in the air force could become very sour, and this wouldn't be good for the military in general."
In the Gaza Strip, meanwhile, a 16-year-old Palestinian boy was killed in an early morning gun battle between Palestinians and Israeli troops searching for weapons-smuggling tunnels along the border between Egypt and the Gaza Strip.
The firefight erupted when 20 Israeli tanks and armored bulldozers entered the Rafah refugee camp. Mohammed Hamdan, 16, was killed in the clash, hospital officials told the Associated Press, and more than a dozen Palestinians were wounded. Palestinian witnesses said troops razed two houses.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

BART police "execution"

I was out of town when this happened, but friggin' A...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKy-WSZMklc

That is some messed up NYPD shit there. Who the heck is in charge of training BART cops anyway? Are they even subject to oversight and IA like the other cops? I guess they're one step up from Blackwater. But the video clearly shows the 2 other officers had the young man pinned down, he wasn't struggling (at the time of the shooting), and didn't seem like a danger to anyone. But the third just takes out his weapon, aims, and fires point blank in the back - for no valid reason that I can discern. It doesn't appear accidental. What was he thinking with all the witnesses around? My coworkers said that the BART police confiscated as many cell phones/cameras as they could find on people in the vicinity, supposedly for "evidence" (or cover-up?). But moot point, since some leaked to the press anyway.

And we wonder why urban minorities don't really trust police.

--------

http://www.ktvu.com/video/18426902/index.html

Take a look at this video. I looks as if one officer was off to the side talking on the radio, while officer Mehserle (the shooter) and another officer pinned the young man down. It is evident that the officer pinning the young man near his head moved up and away before the shot was fired as if expecting a stun gun shot and moving clear so as not to be secondarily tased. You can see the stupid look on Mehserle's face immediately after the shot, as he looks up and down at what had just happened.

I agree there's no valid reason to shoot the guy, even stun gunning the guy seems excessive. I disagree with your assertion that this does not appear to be accidental.

Now I'm not gonna defend this in anyway shape or form aside from saying this looks accidental. It's poor judgment anyway you cut it. It's bad protocol to have officers have stun guns near their firearms... most departments have them place it opposite their pistol on their non dominant side facing the opposite direction. As far as taking cameras from witnesses... hell who knows what standard operating procedure is on that one, but it does look suspicious.

This incident certainly doesn't help police win over urban minorities, but this incident looks like officer incompetence, lack of training, and poor protocol rather then the "white cop kills urban/minority youth" reaction this is getting on the streets of Oakland.

--------

But as far as I know, isn't a stun gun much lighter than a handgun? It's like reaching for a wood pencil at your desk and accidentally picking up a Mont Blanc - you should know the difference. I guess in the "heat of the action", maybe he just got confused. But I'm not sure if that "excuse" makes it any better, since there is an ongoing controversy about police over-use of stun gun submission that actually turns out to be more lethal that the manufacturers or cops claim.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/06/11/national/a114135D39.DTL

-------

Yeah, I mean I agree with Juan that it was probably accidental and the cop wasn't looking to whack the kid. But you know in the navy how the officers repeat orders all along the chain of command to make sure that it was correct before executing? Isn't that to make sure the end result is proper and intentional? Captian: all ahead full, 2nd in command: all ahead full roger, helmsman: roger all ahead full, and then finally he puts the boat in gear. I believe surgical teams do similar stuff in hospitals, obviously because mistakes are too costly (and yet they still happen, but anything to reduce them is desirable). So would it have been so hard for Mehserle to tell his partners, "I am planning to tase the suspect, I am drawing my taser now, I am preparing to fire." And the onlooking cop could actually verify that he was holding his taser and not his Glock, instead of just looking away and hoping for the best.

I have no idea what the effed up "rules of engagement" are for cops (or BART rent-a-cops), but maybe there needs to be some major overhaul to verify the use of force before actually using it. I know if a perp draws a weapon on you or other emergency situation, your life comes first and you just have to react based on your training (seen "Burn After Reading"?), but if the officers are in no hurry and under no immediate threat, one person shouldn't unilaterally have the right to use his weapons when and how he/she wants. That is a violation of the public trust, because obviously we are unarmed and at their mercy.

The PR war in Gaza

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/31/israel.youtube/index.html

Apparently the Israeli government is so desperate for PR cover for their Gaza war that they have turned to Twitter and YouTube as marketing vehicles. Certainly an academic tool like Twitter facilitates high-level discussion of such a challenging issue, for example one of the Israeli consulate's responses to a user question: "we R pro nego...we talk only w/ ppl who accept R rt 2 live".

They have even compiled footage from their bombing runs ("Shock and Awe: The IDF's greatest hits!" ... but what about the misses that kill kids?). As if favorable coverage by most major US TV news org's wasn't enough, I guess they wanted to connect to the plugged-in generation. Why bother really - since most young people are too busy or don't care about conflicts half the world away anyway. And apparently the bloodshed in eastern Congo is 10X more gruesome than Gaza. But John Travolta's son died - priorities!

From the BBC on the propaganda war:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7809371.stm

Israel released video of an air attack on 28 December, which appeared to show rockets being loaded onto a truck. The truck and those close to it were then destroyed by a missile. This was clear evidence, the Israelis said, of how accurate their strikes were and how well justified. A special unit it has set up to coordinate its informational plan put the video onto YouTube as part of its effort to use modern means of communications to get Israel's case across. The YouTube video has a large caption on it saying "Grad missiles being loaded onto the Hamas vehicle." As of Saturday morning UK time, more than 260,000 people had watched it.

It turned out, however, that a 55-year-old Gaza resident named Ahmed Sanur, or Samur, claimed that the truck was his and that he and members of his family and his workers were moving oxygen cylinders from his workshop. This workshop had been damaged when a building next door was bombed by the Israelis and he was afraid of looters, he said. The Israeli human rights group B'Tselem put Mr Sanur's account on its website, together with a photograph of burned out oxygen cylinders. Mr Sanur said that eight people, one of them his son, had been killed. He subsequently told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz: "These were not Hamas, they were our children... They were not Grad missiles.".

The Israeli response was that the "materiel" was being taken from a site that had stored weapons. The video remains on You Tube. But the incident shows how an apparently definitive piece of video can turn into something much more doubtful.

It is reminiscent of an event in the Nato war against Serbia over Kosovo in 1999. In that case, a video taken from the air seemed to show a military convoy which was then attacked. On the ground however it was discovered that the "trucks" were in fact tractors towing cartloads of civilian refugees, many of whom were killed.
Major Avital Leibovich [of the IDF], said: "Quite a few [media] outlets are very favourable to Israel."

Israel has bolstered its approach by banning foreign correspondents from Gaza, despite a ruling from the Israeli Supreme Court. But the absence of reporters from major organisations has meant, for example, that Mr Samur's story has not been as widely told as it probably would have been, or his account subject to an on-the-spot examination.

Meanwhile Israel has received good coverage of the threats and damage to its own towns and communities.The problem is that foreign correspondents cannot get in to establish the exact situation for themselves.

----------
And below is a 2008 time line of the Gaza conflict, so you can see which side was more prone to violating the ceasefire. Hamas attacks on Israel are in red (not very many, though for the record the website is Iranian). As you can see, it wasn't much of a ceasefire at all, but the rockets did stop for much of the second half of 2008. And when rockets were fired, they were in response to an Israeli incursion and not spontaneous/unprovoked. The BBC said that while Hamas was generally standing down this fall, Israel maintained and even strengthened its blockade, so millions continued to starve within Gaza, with few foreign journalists permitted to enter and document the suffering. Yet a stipulation of the June truce was that Israel would ease its embargo to give the Gazans some relief! So who really violated the agreement? The Bush White House and much of the US media claim that Hamas "started" this war by re-launching rockets. But actually it was an Israeli military operation in Nov. to destroy a smuggling tunnel that set Hamas off. Whether that attack was justified is another story, but it's not like Hamas was eagerly waiting for the truce to expire and then launched all its rockets. Neither side is innocent.

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=79964§ionid=3510304

June 19: An Egyptian mediated ceasefire begins between Hamas and Israel. The Palestinian movement agrees to stop firing rockets as Israel accepts to gradually ease its embargo on the Gaza Strip.

July 27: Israel kills Shihab al-Natsheh, a senior Hamas fighter, in his house in the West Bank city of al-Khalil.

August 2: Three Hamas police officers and six pro-Fatah gunmen are killed in factional fighting in the Gaza Strip, the worst of such since June 2007.

October 8: Israel prevents Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) from entering the embattled Gaza Strip.

November 5: Israel raids houses in the Hamas-controlled region and arrests seven Palestinians.

Israel attacks areas inside Gaza, killing at least six Palestinians. Ghassan el-Taramse, a nineteen-year-old Palestinian activist, is killed in an Israeli air raid in the northern parts of the coastal sliver.

Palestinians fire several dozen rockets and mortar shells at western Negev in Israel in retaliation. No casualties or property damage is caused, but three women are treated for shock.

November 8: Israel violates the ongoing truce as its tanks and bulldozers cross the southern border of the Gaza Strip.

November 14: Hamas fires a barrage of homemade rockets at the city of Ashkelon. Four rockets are also fired into western Negev after Israeli air strikes wounded two people in Gaza.

November 15: Israeli air strike kills two Palestinians in the town of Beit Hanoun in Gaza.

November 18: Israeli tanks backed by a bulldozer and a military jeep roll half a kilometer into Gaza. The Israeli army claims the incursion is "a routine operation to uncover explosive devices near the border fence in the southern Gaza Strip."

November 20: An Israeli tank fires shells, killing a Palestinian fighter east of Gaza City.

November 23: The Israeli army wounds two Palestinian residents while shelling homes in various cities in the strip.

November 28: Israeli forces backed by tanks enter the southern parts of the coastal region and kill two Palestinians.

November 29: Projectiles fired from the Gaza Strip wound eight Israeli soldiers in an army base in the town of Nahal Uz.

December 02: The Israeli army launches air strikes into southern Gaza and kills at least two civilians and wounding four others.

December 17: Five Qassam rockets fired from the Gaza Strip injure two Israelis in the southern town of Sderot.

December 18: A Palestinian man is killed in Jabaliya as Israeli aircraft target metal workshops in the towns of Jabaliya and Khan Yunis in the Gaza Strip. The Israeli military claims the targets are used to manufacture rockets.

December 19: The six-month truce officially ends.

December 20: Israeli launches air strikes on the northern Gazan town of Beit Lahiya, killing one Palestinian and wounding two others.

December 21: Palestinian fighters fire rockets into Sderot and Negev and one Israeli is wounded.

December 22: A twenty-four hour truce is declared between Israel and armed Palestinian factions at the request of Egyptian mediators.

December 23: The twenty-four hour truce expires.

Clashes between Israeli forces and Palestinian resistance fighters leave three members of the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades dead along the border fence in northern Gaza.

Six Qassam rockets are fired into western Negev. The rocket attacks do not hit any targets in Israel.

December 24: Gaza fighters fire two dozen mortar shells at three different targets inside Israel.

An Israeli air raid kills a Palestinian and wounds two others in southern Gaza.

December 27: Israeli F16 bombers and apache helicopters carry out at least 30 simultaneous raids on various targets across the Gaza strip. The operation kills at least 230 and wounds hundreds of Palestinians.

Hamas responds with rocket fire from Gaza and kills one Israeli in the southern town of Netivot.

December 28: Israel begins a fresh wave of air strikes. Israel deploys tanks and troops along the Gaza border. Tunnels in and out of Gaza are bombed.

A Hamas missile strikes near the largest city in the south of the occupied lands, the deepest reach into Israel to the date.

Global protests against the Israeli attacks begin.

Palestinian death toll rises to 296; 900 are injured.

December 29: The third day of attacks on the strip brings the death toll to 340. At least 1,400 Palestinians are wounded.

Muslim world announces day of mourning.

Two more Israelis are killed and one is injured.

December 30: Israeli air operations continue as Tel Aviv declares the area around Gaza a 'closed military zone'.

Israeli floats the idea that a ground invasion of Gaza is imminent.

Palestinian casualties rise to 360 dead and 1,500 injured.

December 31: Israel continues tunnel attacks and civilian casualties increase.

Hamas says Gaza will be victorious.

The UN and Arab League find no solution to end the crisis.

Palestinian death toll rises to 400 with 1,600 injured.

January 1: Israeli bombardments continue; first senior Hamas official dies in air attacks.

Israel denies a 48-hour request for humanitarian aid to enter Gaza by rejecting an EU truce.

Hamas calls for Palestinian protests; it rockets hit several positions.

417 Palestinians and 6 Israelis dead.

January 2: Curfew imposed on West Bank and foreigners are told to leave Gaza.

Top Israeli ministers discuss ground invasion into the Gaza Strip. The United Nations condemns Israel and describes situation in Gaza as "appalling".

Kadima, Israel's ruling party, losses ground in polls ahead of elections.

Death toll continues to rise.

Obama's silence on Gaza

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/dec/31obama-silence-on-gaza-angers-arabs.htm

"Obama silence on Gaza angers Arabs"

Maybe all that aloha over Xmas made him forget who he is. Obama can try to hide behind the excuse of "one president at a time" all he wants, but we all know the world is looking to him for real leadership when Bush is obviously one foot out the door (and a staunch Israel partisan anyway). What Obama says may carry more weight than the Pope or UN Sec. Gen. right now. One president at a time? You don't have to be president to speak out against an injustice. You don't have to be president to do the right thing. He spoke out against the Iraq War when he was a lowly state senator, didn't he? And it helped get him to Washington! He spoke out against Rev. Wright's extreme comments, but only when he needed to. He and Biden had a 3-page pdf document on their campaign website professing their strong support for Israel. I don't think anyone will challenge that stance (especially with Hillary as his SoS nominee) if he dares to call a spade a spade on Gaza. Or is he still wary of being mislabeled as an Arab-Muslim? Well I don't care what faith you practice or where your parents came from, but you can't run from the obvious. Women and kids who pose no threat to Israel and never committed a crime in their lives are being maimed and killed by Israeli weapons, just because they have the horrible misfortune of living where they live. It's true that he's not the POTUS. He's not in a position to conjure up and implement a magical solution that has eluded the last 8 presidents. He doesn't even have to denounce Israeli aggression, but at least show some concern for the dead - on both sides. We've heard Obama's inspiring speeches for months now, though unfortunately his silence this week is speaking even larger volumes to Muslims who had the audacity to be hopeful.

Obama's November victory gave the US an ounce of goodwill in the angry Muslim World, and it would be a shame if it's squandered due to his Gaza indifference. Or maybe he doesn't care that civilians die in the name of an ally's "self defense", like all the other presidents before him. In the words of Bill Clinton's SoS Madelaine Albright regarding the thousands of Iraqi children who died as a result of US-imposed trade sanctions, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it" (60 Minutes, 1996). Maybe I'm being premature here and Obama's people will broker a breakthrough settlement in 2009, but I doubt it. Only a full-fledged occupation has a chance of stopping the rockets (but at what political cost, and do they even have the manpower?), so in that case maybe Israel should have never pulled out of Gaza in 2005. The Palestinians won't just forgive the murder of 400+ of their people. Even the pro-Fatah people in the West Bank are enraged and clashing with Israeli police.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98931442&ft=1&f=1001

So the IDF is now bombing residences and mosques just because they are supposedly storing "weapons". But where does it end? What if a building contains 5 rockets and 50 school kids? Is it still a valid target? What about 50 rockets and Gilad Shalit (the kidnapped Israeli soldier)? He took an oath and is prepared to give up his life for his country. Would they sacrifice him to stop those rockets from potentially harming other Israelis? Where do you draw the line? Why not bomb Palestinian maternity wards too, since some of those infants might grow up to fight for Hamas? I'm not sure that they thought this all through when they decided to proceed down this treacherous path.

How much collective punishment is acceptable for self defense? The one major Jewish uprising against the Nazis during WWII took place in the Warsaw ghetto in 1943. They got a hold of some small arms and put up a valiant month-long resistance against the Nazis, who were planning on shipping all the ghetto residents to Treblinka. So in response to this "security threat", German troops fought their way in and even gave the starving, outgunned, and outnumbered Jews a chance to surrender. They bravely declined, so the Germans razed the ghetto, killing over 10,000 (either from direct combat or the conflagration that ensued). The survivors were sent to the camps.

Armed resistance against foreign aggression/occupation is permissible in the rules of modern warfare. Whether you call it resistance or terrorism is purely political semantics. So if we honor the Warsaw Jews who dared to resist their Nazi oppressors, then it's only fair that Israelis accept some resistance due to their oppressive policies. And if the violent Nazi crackdown on the Jewish rebellion was morally and legally unacceptable, then the wanton bombing in Gaza (even in the name of security) is also reprehensible. Yes, we can argue 'till the cows come home about how Hamas is a terror group and not legitimate resistance, namely because they call for the destruction of Israel. But didn't the Jewish resistance also want the destruction of the Third Reich? Though debating all that nationalistic rhetoric about an enemy's destruction probably won't get us anywhere. Yes it's true that the Nazis wanted to exterminate the Jews (or at least deport them from Europe), but if the Israelis have cut off most food, fuel, and medical shipments to Gaza for a year (the poorest place on Earth outside of Africa and Afghanistan), isn't that genocidal too?

By no means am I equating the two regimes, but instead merely showing some similarities in the rationale behind their security practices. Bottom line: a lot of Israel's victim rhetoric falls flat, because they have chosen to enact some controversial policies that surrender the moral high ground (if they ever had it in the first place). And it's scary that the President of the US can't even wrap his head around that or publicly admit it.

No silent nights in the Holy Land this winter

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7801657.stm

We know that Israel and Hamas-controlled Gaza have been hostile for some time over cross-border rocket fire, embargo, and retaliatory attacks. Israel, the US, and Fatah have done all they can to oust Hamas, yet they doggedly continue to hold power (could it be that some suffering Gazans actually prefer them to the corrupt Western crony alternatives?). Tired of the bloodshed that seems to accomplish nothing, Israel and Hamas agreed to a truce in June that persisted more-or-less violence-free until December. But now hostilities have resumed, with Hamas firing dozens or hundreds of rockets into southwest Israel, and the IDF launching a devastating bombing campaign that will probably preceed a ground incursion.

As usual, Israeli casualties total a whopping 1 civilian, and Palestinian deaths are 225 (plus 700 wounded), including some women/children. Gaza is one of the most densely-populated areas in the world. Hamas compounds are situated near hospitals and apartments; there's no way around it. Unless you're using a scalpel, you are going to kill innocents when you strike. Israel knows this, but insisted on such heavy bombing. Aid workers say they haven't seen such carnage in Gaza since the 1967 War. But I suppose that hundreds of poor Muslim lives don't count as much as a single Israeli. Speaking of that, did you find it strange that during the Mumbai terror attacks, the 6 Jewish victims seemed to get 80% of the press coverage vs. the hundreds of South Asians that also died? Most US news outlets even listed them by name, paying more respect than is customary even to American soldiers who have died in Mideast combat. Fair and objective for sure.

As Arab states used the Yom Kippur holiday to mount a sneak attack on Israel, maybe now Israel has chosen this Christmastime to destroy Gaza, while the West is preoccupied with gift wrapping and doorbuster sales. Plus the transitioning US government (the few left who aren't on holiday) is too busy with the economy and administration succession to do anything. And we all know they would just diplomatically shield Israel anyway, Obama included. The double-standard exceeds even the most paranoid, anti-Zionist expectations. Just imagine if we punished Israeli aggression to even a fraction of how we routinely deal with Arab dictators! To show that he was tough on foreign policy, Clinton breached the UN mandate and bombed Baghdad after a supposed "plot to kill former president Bush" surfaced. Dozens died. A while ago Israel razed Lebanon to the Stone Age, last year they bombed an alleged Syrian "nuclear site" without imminent threat or evidence, and this week they are laying waste to an already starving and suffocating Gaza. All we get from Washington and the UN is a "plea for calm". Or if anything, they blame Hamas rockets for instigating the whole mess (Hamas is not innocent, but Israel does account for over 90% of deaths in this war). Basically, the official State Department stance is: there can only be peace when Hamas/Palestinians lay down their arms and agree to all Western conditions. To them, peace equals surrender - brilliant diplomacy as usual.

And this isn't really about Hamas rockets, anyway. If it was, there would be no point for the IDF to bomb Hamas political offices on the Mediterranean coast (the part of Gaza furthest from Israel and not cointaining rocket sites), which they are doing. Additionally, there is a huge election coming up in Israel next month. The current ruling party is trailing in the polls to the more hardline oppostion led by ultra-right hawk Benyamin Netanyahu. Some Israelis are demanding tougher action on the panic-driven rocket threat. Yet others worry that Israeli attacks can't stop the rockets anyway, and may even provoke harsher Hamas retaliation. And that is true; no matter how many buildings they bomb and how tightly they squeeze the Gaza border, somehow people will find a way to smuggle in and launch rockets, because they are that pissed off and fanatical (Israeli policies made it so). But regardless, the scandal-plagued Olmert regime is trying to do something desperate to deflate Netanyahu's charge. It's just sadistic that they choose to end hundreds of lives in order to score some political points. But being an American, who am I to talk?

Private security firms

Mercenaries a.k.a. "private security contractors" (I'll abbreviate them as PSCs) in the Middle East:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/19/steve_fainaru_on_big_boy_rules
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002216.html

Although the first indictment of mercenary misconduct is pending (6 Blackwater Worldwide employees accused of slaughtering 12+ Iraqi civilians in the 2007 Nisour Square incident), the private security industry in the Middle East is thriving. The people from Blackwater may get off the hook as well, since they worked for the State Dept., not DoD. This was probably deliberate, because no laws exist to regulate State Dept. contractors overseas. Plus at the time, the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement gave private US contractors legal immunity in Iraq (which has now been nullified for 2009-2012), so they didn't face local punishment, and were probably whisked out of the country before anyone in government could respond. While PSCs have committed illegal killings probably every year of the Iraqi occupation, no previous incidents have made it to court due to the ambiguity of jurisdiction and challenges in procuring evidence. But the Nisour case, like the Marines at Haditha, was so blatant and publicized (especially among outraged Iraqis), that some heads have to roll. The accused have turned themselves in to authorities in Utah (one has already reached a plea bargain, probably to testify against others), hoping that they will get a more favorable, conservative-leaning trial than in DC.

We already know that the Bush administration has been the most prolific in terms of hiring private contractors to do government work, even crafting policy. And the Iraq War has been the most privatized war in US history. Part of that is due to the "sleek occupation" approach championed by Rumsfeld and Co., and an unwillingness to implement a military draft to make up the manpower shortfall. PSCs have fought in the Third World for decades, and were even involved in several successful or failed coups d'etat. But Iraq heralded their golden age (industry insiders gleefully refer to the "Iraq bubble"). Similar to the dot-com or housing bubbles, there are now tremendous demands and opportunities for their services. And with the gradual drawdown of US military forces in Iraq planned through 2012, PSCs will happily fill the void. Depending on how you measure, PSCs and non-combat support staff comprise a fighting force even larger than the Iraqi Army. They have their own helicopters, medics, explosives, and turreted armored vehicles (the poorer outfits like Crescent Security just use pickups with scrap metal plating). So really the US taxpayer is funding two armies (with very different priorities as well).

Some regular soldiers accept this with disdain. While they may earn under $30k/year putting their lives on the line for Uncle Sam, PSCs make $7-20k PER MONTH (higher-ups may make $200-300k/year). Plus the death/disability benefits for PSCs are much better than enlisted personnel, though it is unclear how many PSCs have actually been wounded/killed in Iraq because the companies are not required to disclose anything to the public. While PSCs do risk death on the job (and get in firefights on a near-daily basis), it's not like they have to do the grueling, tedious, confrontational work of uniformed soldiers like directing traffic, patrolling neighborhoods, and conducting counterinsurgency missions. PSCs mostly guard VIPs, Green Zone checkpoints, and vehicle convoys (that often come under attack, but again it's hard to estimate the frequency since companies don't release data). So they're paid nearly 10X an enlisted person's salary to do less work. No wonder Army recruiters are having difficulties reaching their quotas.

In addition, uniformed soldiers are bound by military discipline, Geneva Conventions, and the rules of engagement, while PSCs basically operate by the law of the jungle with practically zero oversight. Soldiers took an oath to defend the country (maybe all of them don't faithfully execute their commitments 100% of the time, but at least it's on their mind), while PSCs only have to answer to company management. A US soldier goes through hell to protect fellow Americans, the Constitution, and the interests of our country (yes, that includes access to oil). Bringing dishonor to the uniform is as unpalatable as defeat. They want to win wars cleanly, expediently, and then go home. PSCs have other priorities in mind, such as thrill seeking (seriously). In fact, it may be in the best interests of PSC firms to drag out wars indefinitely, which means a constant guaranteed paycheck. Despite the patriotic propaganda (PSCs are serving their country too... if the price is right), one has to question their loyalties. That is a big reason why it's always a risk to rely on mercenaries, dating back to Roman times. The Iraqis hate PSCs more than any other Westerners in their country. Probably the insurgents do too, which accounts for the higher number of kidnappings and other incidents.

Yet despite all this, many Iraq vets want to become PSCs after their service is completed. Some have trouble adjusting to civilian life (PTSD, etc.). Others were discharged from the military, but are addicted to adrenaline and miss the action. Though for most it's the money. With little education, it might be the highest-paying career they can get, and many military families endure significant financial hardships when a member goes abroad to serve. So they have little choice but return to the suck. Do we really want to leave our national defense and foreign policy objectives in the hands of people who are mostly concerned with profit, thrills, and may be mentally unstable? Again it's unclear, but there are at least 25,000 PSCs in Iraq, and the total could be as high as 50,000. That is larger than an entire military division. Apparently PSCs are paid out of the Iraq Reconstruction fund, not Pentagon coffers. The Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction estimates that they've paid out over $6B to PSCs since 2003, about 12% of the total reconstruction budget meant for roads, schools, utilities. But really they have little clue about the true financial burden of PSCs, not to mention the secondary costs of cleaning up their negative incidents and bad PR with Iraqis.

http://www.propublica.org/article/audit-us-fails-in-tracking-cost-of-iraq-contractors#When:17:30:00Z

PSCs are becoming as ubiquitous as conflict itself. During the Cold War, they were used by the CIA to train militants like the Nicaraguan Contras, or protect pro-US strong men like Augusto Pinochet. Besides Blackwater, other big outfits are DynCorp and AEGIS. Sourcewatch.org lists over 140 private security firms in total, and 77 have been used in Iraq. They are often based in British Commonwealth nations and tend to outsource to Third World conflict zones, where they can hire for less pay. They even operate within our borders: Blackwater USA trigger men were dispatched by DHS to New Orleans during Katrina to "maintain order" (I'd be unruly too if I went without food and water for days). Blackwater is also lobbying Washington to have its men patrol the Mexico border. So for the 500,000+ Americans who have lost their jobs this fall, maybe they should pick up a weapon and join an industry that is growing faster than health care or education. They pay is great and you might even get to kill a Muslim.

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/20/blackwater_the_rise_of_the_worlds

Thailand airport protests

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7775749.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7584005.stm
http://www.france24.com/en/20081125-bangkok-airport-closes-protest-turns-violent-thailand

Dear Newsweek,

I suppose your "Conventional Wisdom" section is more meant for eye-catching than delivering concrete news, but I disagree with the comment that the Thailand airport protests were peaceful and pro-democratic. Even your own article titled "Thailand Slides Toward Civil War" (by Wehrfritz and Seaton, Dec. 6 issue) refutes those claims. While it is true that the pro-Thaksin regime was corrupt in some ways, the opposition movement People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) has anything but democracy in mind. PAD is directed by Thailand's rich and privileged (military officers, upper classes, royalists), so obviously they were threatened by Thaksin's populism. During his five years in office, Thaksin reformed government to reduce bureaucratic inertia and become more results-oriented. His initiatives increased social services, economic opportunities, and political representation for the poor, rural majority. Thaksin and his successors - all wealthy men as well - were neither saints nor tyrants, but their main political transgression was daring to upset the elite-friendly status quo.


As your own reporters noted: The PAD [...] advocates the transformation of Parliament to one dominated by appointed lawmakers because, as PAD leader Sondhi Limthongkul told NEWSWEEK a few months ago, the rural masses "lack intelligence and wisdom" to vote responsibly. The group's guards carry guns, knives and explosives and have fought pitched battles with riot police. [...] Pavin Chachavalpongpun, a foreign-policy specialist at Singapore's Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, says the PAD vision for Thailand is "scarily analogous" to the political system Burma's generals are constructing to perpetuate their own monopoly on power. Rural Thais resent it so viscerally that they're rallying around Thaksin's allies as a point of pride.

And as further proof that the airport protests were not peaceful, France24 reported that PAD supporters opened fire on rival pro-government protesters and assailed them with metal poles (eleven were injured).

Zimbabwe/Mugabe history you probably don't know about

We all know that Robert Mugabe is a stupid man and worse dictator. Zimbabwe, once the breadbasket of southern Africa, is now starving. Terrible mismanagement, corruption, and crackdowns/abuses by the Mugabe regime have crippled the country. Inflation was at 10,000% in 2007 and higher than 200M% today (yes, that is 200,000,000%), so now a 10M bank note is worthless. And to make matters worse, thousands are now dying from preventable cholera, which is spreading to neighboring nations via waterways. That is partly why Zimbabwe's neighbors are finally starting to denounce formerly revered African nationalist Mugabe. The health care and clean water systems have broken down, so now cholera, which usually kills just 1% of infected, is now killing 10-40% in some areas. It's a horrible situation, yet some in Harare claim that the epidemic is "under control". But others are secretly or publicly begging for more foreign aid.

Zimbabwe's political dysfunctions have been well documented. Here is the State Dept's take: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/16501.htm. Clearly the catastrophic Mugabe regime would prefer to blame the West for national ills rather than actually address them. Bordering on Rev. Wright territory, the Mugabe government has even accused the UK/US of deliberately infecting people with cholera/anthrax.

But Mugabe wouldn't have risen to power if he was all bad. Like Mandela, he protested against the white minority rule in British Rhodesia, and was imprisoned 11 years for his efforts (while jailed he earned 3 advanced degrees, including law). His 4-year-old son died while he was behind bars, and his jailors wouldn't even allow him to attend the funeral. Maybe that contributed to his disdain for whites and the West. In 1980 he came to power in a shady fashion (like many post-colonial nations), and adopted a pseudo-Maoist political platform. But while in power, he actually did some good and Zimbabwe thrived. According to a 1995 World Bank report, from 1980-1990 infant mortality/child malnutrition rates were nearly halved and immunizations tripled. Life expectancy rose 8 years, and Zimbabwe was above average on many social metrics vs. other developing nations. But short on cash in 1991, Mugabe began to print more cash, land reform backfired, foreign investment dried up, economic problems worsened, and things spiraled downward to present conditions. But it wasn't totally his fault.

Contrary to what we might expect, it was not Mugabe or other black revolutionaries who resisted British colonial rule and established an independent state. Zimbabwe was not an Algeria. Actually it was Ian Smith, the UK-appointed white leader of colonial Southern Rhodesia, who broke off ties with London and declared independence in 1965. Though the UK pushed for international sanctions, and Rhodesia was never officially recognized. Smith's Rhodesia implemented minority white rule and enforced apartheid (blacks couldn't vote and whites owned most of the usable land), which contributed to the rise of black nationalism resistance from groups like ZANU (Zimbabwe African Nat. Union) and UANC (United African Nat. Council), the former which Mugabe belonged to. The whites and blacks waged war from 1971-9 until the UK brokered the Lancaster House peace agreement that created Zimbabwe and launched Mugabe's political career.

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1196912834.59/

Surprisingly, relations between Mugabe and the UK were quite warm in the 1980s and early '90s under Thatcher/Major, and Britain invested heavily in the Zimbabwean military and public works projects. The UK even cooperated in Mugabe's land reform initiatives, buying back over 40M pounds worth of land from whites so Mugabe could redistribute it to blacks. But things changed overnight when Tony Blair became the new PM. Blair's government decided to cancel his predecessor's verbal promise to continue the land program, angering Mugabe. Things "seemed" to be going well between whites/blacks and the UK/Zimbabwe, but Blair unilaterally decided to change course. Partly because of this, Mugabe adopted a harder political line (and became more racist/xenophobic too), cracked down on his opponents, and forcefully seized white land instead. He believed that the Blair regime was supporting his political rivals to undermine and oust him, so in a sense, Blair pushed Mugabe into becoming a bigger tyrant. The Bush administration also got on board (maybe as quid pro quo for Iraq?), and the US/UK lobbied the UN for sanctions and foreign divestment from Zimbabwe. I guess it's not paranoia if some people really are out to get you.

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/63020/Western-sanctions-hurt-the-poor-Zimbabwe-central-bank-report-says

The US/UK claim that they just want to punish the Mugabe regime and won't hurt poor Zimbabweans. They want him out of power so Zimbabwe can fix its economy and move towards democratic reforms. That's all fair and good, but "targeted sanctions" are like smart bombs - more humane in principle but not so in practice. Yes it is true that despite soured relations, Western agencies have continued to pour millions of aid dollars to help Zimbabwe with HIV, hunger, and other problems. But official and unofficial sanctions have crippled the Zimbabwean economy. They have a harder time exporting their goods overseas in a competitive manner, and have to accept grossly unfair prices for the imported raw materials that they need. At least Saddam had "Oil for Food".

It's a vicious cycle: foreign divestment makes Zimbabwe poorer and lowers its economic appeal/credit rating for investors, which forces Zimbabwe to pursue riskier sources of capital or even print new money to try to balance its books, which further lowers its economic health. Foreign direct investment/donor grants fell from $240M/year in the 1990s to $60M in 2006. The WHO closed its Harare office, and the IMF/World Bank cancelled its loan programs (loans that literally kept the nation afloat), probably at the behest of the US/UK. There were many "legitimate" reasons for those org's to cut off Zimbabwe, but political foul play was obviously involved as well. Because if the IMF applied the same scrutiny of Zimbabwe's loans to other developing nations, they'd have to remove dozens more countries from their books too. But I guess their patience for Mugabe is particularly low? The Zimbabwe central bank is not full of idiots; they are printing all that money and suffering record inflation because they don't have a choice (they can't get funds from anyone else). Surely governments and companies have the right to withdraw investments as a form of political protest, but we shouldn't deceive ourselves into thinking that innocents won't be hurt in the process. Hospitals can't afford drugs/equipment, schools can't buy new books/computers, and infrastructure projects languish without funding. It's partly Mugabe's doing, but ultimately we let it happen.

Mugabe has a lot of blood on his hands and will go down in history as a failure, but we shouldn't overlook the West's role in Zimbabwe's suffering too (even if the media and history books do).

A new crime wave in Japan

By senior citizens...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/3213349/Japan-struggles-with-elderly-crime-wave.html

Japan struggles with elderly crime wave

Police in Japan are struggling to control a crime wave carried out by the most unlikely of criminal fraternities: the elderly.

[Me:] A portent of things to come in the US? In Japan, one of the top nations by measure of longevity, 20-25% of the country is over 60, and the US/Europe are on that path. NPR was discussing this too, and they said that one elderly lady stabbed a younger woman just because she was homeless and wanted the police to care for her (or at least put a roof over her head in jail). It reminds me of poor Palestinian youth deliberately committing minor crimes to get "street cred", and also to live more comfortably in Israeli jails for a while (hot meals, TV, safety). Though unlike Palestine, Japan is the #2 economy and a traditionally low crime, orderly country. It's really shocking that things have come to this, though Japan is a peculiar case study in social dynamics on many levels. The traditional family support network has broken down, and younger generations either don't care to help the old, or are too busy trying to survive in the world themselves. And it's amazing how unsympathetic, and even pejorative, the center-right Aso government is to the seniors' plight (plus, it's not like the leaders in Tokyo are spry young guys either). They prefer to build new prisons for them rather than improve their crumbling safety net. I don't know how much of Japan shares that attitude though. I guess to some Japanese, seniors are just temperamental and burdensome. Old people will always be burdens, but so are kids, wounded veterans, and the handicapped, and we don't cut them loose (usually). It's up to the society or family to decide how to treat them, and I am not sure if Japan has age discrimination laws like the US. Well, kids represent the future, so investing in them is more justified, but the old have apparently outlived their usefulness.

I am sure all of us have horror stories of our elderly relatives acting out and being a pain. Sometimes they can't help it (Alzheimer's, dementia, irritability over chronic pains etc.). Sometimes they do it to get attention, or maybe they are just crabby SOBs. I guess some older Japanese take it to another level (crime), partly because of economic desperation and partly due to their frustration over their irrelevance and neglect. Like terrorism, we have to analyze why some seniors would choose to resort to criminal acts in order to make a statement or strike out at society. That generation worked like hell to bring Japan out of the WWII ashes and into a premier industrial power, but for what? A piddling pension and social disdain/alienation? Not only are they not respected and appreciated (as they were taught to do... filial piety Confucian/Shinto values and such), they are cast aside like chaff. Apart from helping seniors with basic essentials as the costs of Western living continues to rise, I think many of the disgruntled elderly would appreciate some moral support too. The past is prologue, and much of what we now are is because of them, for better or worse. How we think of and treat our elderly is a reflection on how we feel about ourselves. Would it hurt so much to show them a little more inclusion and gratitude? It's one of those social problems where everyone is guilty, so no one is, and therefore nothing gets done. I am sure many seniors hate being old more than we may ever know, and maybe some would prefer to end their lives than feel useless and unwanted by their family/country. It's not their fault that they continue to live. It's up to us to decide what kind of life our societies will provide for them, or what kind of life we would want if we were in their shoes.

I know some of you have lived in or studied about Japan, so would love your input. The same story is unfolding in China, Russia, and parts of the West. At least for poorer, developing countries, their excuse is economic limitations precluding better senior care. But in the US, how are we faring?

------------

Article text:

While the majority of crimes committed by older Japanese involve petty theft, cases of murder, assault and violence are on the increase.

"There has been a huge change in the last 10 years," said Tomomi Fujiwara, author of the book "Bousou Rojin" ("The Elderly Out of Control").

"It can be a question of money for some of these people, but that is not the main reason we're seeing this problem now," he said.

Mr Fujiwara blamed the changing face of Japanese society for the spike in crime. "In the past, elderly people were revered and cared for in Japanese society, living in the same homes with their children and families. That has gone now and they don't recognise their own neighbourhood or the people living around them."

Cases of the elderly becoming involved in crime include a 79-year-old woman stabbing two young women with a fruit knife in Tokyo after leaving a shelter for homeless people; a terminally ill 85-year-old man strangling his wife because he did not want her to go on living after his own death and a man in his 70s robbing a store in Nagoya at knife-point.

Japan has traditionally enjoyed low levels of crime and government statistics show that overall figures are falling, except among the elderly. The number of people aged 65 or older convicted of a criminal offence stood at 13,739 in 1998; by last year that figure had risen to 48,597 cases. That number accounted for one in seven of all reported crimes and included 150 murder charges. The Japanese government is spending Y8.3 billlion (£39 million) on constructing three new prison wards that are specifically designed to cater to the rising number of elderly inmates. Many are repeat offenders who commit another minor crime shortly after their release simply to get back into a community where they are comfortable, warm, fed and have friends of their own age.

Mr Rujiwara also said many elderly people have abandoned politeness and understanding - values for which the Japanese are renown - and are now rude, demanding and threatening. "I've seen it happen myself," he said. "I watched this man shouting at a member of staff in a supermarket and then he went into the bank and did exactly the same thing again," he said. "I had never seen anything like it before."

As well as the dislocation from society and their families, Mr Fujiwara said the elderly were increasingly concerned about who will care for them when they become frail. Japan's pension system is disarray, with thousands of workers' records lost, causing fears among the elderly that they will not receive any financial assistance. "Society has already changed and now we have more economic problems, so I really don't see this situation getting any better in the near future," said Mr Fujiwara. "In fact, I'm sure it will get much worse."