Perhaps ABC news is trying to redeem itself with this story.
Regarding the so-called threat from the Iranian boat, the U.S. Navy spokesperson said, “It could have come from the shore, from another ship passing by. …”. I don’t suppose it could have come from the U.S. Navy itself?
Here is another plausible explanation from the Navy Times.
Firedoglake posits some reasons for the Iraqi soldier’s killing of U.S. soldiers while they were on a joint mission. I will be watching the news to see how this story ends up.
If the U.S. media is indeed leaving out the important facts, it will not instill confidence in their reporting on the so called Iranian provocation in the Gulf of Hormuz.
Richard H. has found another interesting piece. If this keeps up, I may have to put him on the staff.
This New York Times column by Nicholas D. Kristof discusses the rising tide of religious belief in the United States compared to the rest of the industrialized countries.
He compares some aspects of this trend to what he has seen when he has been with mullahs and imams of the Islamic world.
I think I begin to understand the common factor. The United States is seeing unprecedented economic competition from the rest of the world. People in this country are seeing signs of the possible end to U.S. economic domination. We may have a strong military, but we may not have the economic resources to keep it in the field against all the adversaries we are facing.
On the Islamic side of the world, there has been a general failure of most citizens in Islamic countries to realize any economic gains from the rising price of oil. The Palestinians’ living conditions have not improved due to any concessions that the Arab world has made in negotiations with Israel. What few Islamic countries have seen any progress toward democracy have not seen any benefit for the lives of the average resident.
The common factor between these two sides is fear. Add in global warming and you just get more fear. I think there is a tendency to turn toward unquestioning religious faith in times of fear and stress. No rational action has seemed to make things better. Perhaps some savior will step in to rescue us.
Another common factor is the presence of people seeking power who take advantage of the fear that the population is feeling.
I realized the other day that I am actually a believer, too. I have faith that basing personal and political actions on rational and intelligent analysis of the situation is the best hope of humanity. We can figure out what has gone wrong with previous policies, and we can choose better policies. I also have faith that technological innovation, with some of which I have been involved since 1961, can make our lives better if used carefully.
Another tenet of my faith is that making life altering decisions based on beliefs that seem to contradict rational evidence is not a wise thing to do. As an engineer, I was always having to make decisions based on incomplete knowledge. However, an engineer does have the responsibility to gather as much information as is feasible before making those decisions.
If there is a God, would she have given us a brain if she didn’t want us to use it?
A Muslim woman persuades her husband that their family would be happier if they left the West Bank and moved to America. They do, and things are good…until September 11. After that, the elementary school their daughter goes to begins using a textbook that says Muslims want to kill Christians. This and other stories of what happens when Muslims and non-Muslims try to communicate, and misfire.
My most loyal lurker, Richard H., heard a rebroadcast of this old This American Life. He found it deeply disturbing. He wondered if it were worthy of being posted on my blog.
The part that Richard H. found most disturbing was This American Life – Shouting Across the Divide Act One. Act One starts at minute 7 of the broadcast.
What do you think?
For a neutral debate moderator, Charles Gibson is amazingly good at spewing the Republican Party line.
He spends 15 minutes of the debate on the worst problem that America faces which he claims is that of a nuclear bomb exploding in this country. Then in the next 15 minutes he chides all the candidates for not agreeing that the surge is working and that we should spend more effort in Iraq. He makes no connection to the fact that this would undermine our efforts to concentrate on what he just said was the biggest problem America faced.
Of course no one on the panel connected our concentration on Iraq instead of Afghanistan to the troubles in Pakistan. What about the fact that Turkey is now attacking the Kurds in northern Iraq. Perhaps our surge has just shifted the theater of battle to someplace else. So if the surge was so good, why is the overall situation on the verge of collapse. Those nuclear bombs exploding in our cities might very well come from Pakistan because the situation there went out of control.
It’s like George Bush put a big thumb in the middle of a bowl of Jello. Everyone notices that there is now a big depression where he put his thumb. Pay no attention to the mountain of Jello rising behind you.
Later the questioners state that two-thirds of the economy has been driven by consumer spending. They want to know what the candidates are going to do to help the consumer. When the candidates say they will give tax breaks to the middle class and pay for those breaks by taking away some of the breaks for the wealthy, Gibson starts spewing out a defense of rich people’s tax breaks. Did he not remember that the conversation started when he and his cohort brought up the need for consumer spending? It is very well known that the rich are more able to set aside some of their wealth in savings and investment instead of spending it than are the people who are struggling to pay the mortgage and the credit card bill. If you need to stimulate consumption, then you need to give the tax breaks to the people most likely to spend it.
Of course there was the old saw about when Clinton was President nothing was different. For a news anchor, Charles Gibson is mighty ignorant of the news going on around him. I guess huge deficits to huge surpluses and back again is no difference. I suppose recession to boom and back to recession is no difference. I guess going from being respected in the world as upholder of human rights to being a world supporter of torture is no difference. I suppose even Ralph Nader couldn’t tell the difference between Al Gore’s support of the environment and George Bush’s. So Gibson is in good company there.
The candidates certainly failed to get their message through to Charles Gibson if he still thinks nothing has gone wrong since George Bush took office.
This is the ad that Dennis Kucinich would like to run during tonight’s ABC debate in New Hampshire.
I am of two minds on the debate issue. On the one hand, it would be nice to focus on the major candidates. On the other hand, Dennis Kucinich helps to shift the debate in an interesting direction.
I think Kucinich’s problem may be that he says extreme things to get attention. His extremism may scare some people.
In the end, he has to decide if he only wants attention or if he also wants to win an election. If all he wants to do is exert some influence, then maybe his tactics are working. Although that is certainly debatable.
Please feel free to use the phrase “Negotiate if I can, fight if I must.”
I have been a long time fan of both Barack Obama and John Edwards.
John Edwards started rising in my interest when he honed his message to show that he was not only interested in fighting for the poor, but in also fighting for the middle class.
He started sinking when he indicated that fighting was the only possible strategy, and that adversaries would laugh at him for offering to negotiate. If he took all his cases to trial and never tried to negotiate, then I don’t think he was representing the best interests of his clients.
I think my introductory phrase sums up the Obama position. If you could start to be more explicit about that, I think it would be very helpful.
Obama talks with Roland S. Martin, host of the Roland S. Martin Show on WVON in Chicago to discuss his Iowa Caucus win on Jan. 3, 2008.
This is another good interview with Barack Obama.
The price of oil in terms of U.S. dollars could be a deceptive thing to follow given that the value of the dollar is dropping with respect to other currencies. I decided to look at the price of oil in terms of Euros.
The price of oil at the beginning of 2007 was $51.57 or 39.64 Eur. The price of oil at the end of 2007 was $85.52 or 58.12 Eur.
The price of oil rose 66% in dollars, but only 47% in Euros. We were paying a $9.71 per barrel premium because of the mishandling of our economy. This is the extra cost over the uncertaintly premium that we pay because we chose to fight a war.
At George Bush’s inauguration the price of oil was $23.59 or 25.25 Euros. To the end of 2007, it has risen 263% in U.S. dollars and 130% in Euros.
George Bush said he would not raise taxes. He did not say that he would not raise the price of oil.
Obama’s Iowa victory speech has been posted on YouTube.
Not only was it a great win but this is a great speech.
Barack Obama is clearly setting himself for more than winning an election. He realizes that he will have to be able govern the country after he wins.
Perhaps he has the right mix of negotiate if you can and fight if you have to.