War’s End – Really??

            A couple days ago marked the end of NATO’s involvement in the War in Afghanistan that had been raging for 13 long years. But is it really over?

            The United States is leaving 10,000 troops of about 13,000 troops overall in Afghanistan. These troops are supposed to act as teachers and assistants for the Afghan military.

            This continues long standing tradition of U. S. involvement is war for the past 70 years. The U. S. fights a war and leaves troops ad infinitum. Germany, South Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and now Afghanistan. We have left troops in all of them. I, for one, fail to understand the need to keep troops in these countries, especially after some of them become our allies. For a short while maybe, but for what amounts to forever?

            Aside from the perpetual presence of the troops, there is also the staggering cost of keeping them there throughout time. Stopping this would save money which could be put to better use at home.

 

            Message to the government: please don’t tell us the way is over when you maintain troops where the war was fought.

What Took So Long Reverend?

            After the senseless assassination of two policemen in Brooklyn, Rev. Al Sharpton finally spoke out against the violence connected to the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown.

One quote from him said: “Any use of the names of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, in connection with any violence or killing of police, is reprehensible and against the pursuit of justice in both cases”.

I have one question for him. Where were you during the riots the occurred throughout this country in the wake of the two non-indictments? I may be wrong, but I do not recall you speaking out to end the violence.

Further, I do not see anything in his statements that refer to the officers not being black. This one admission would bring him into more positive feelings for Caucasians.

So Reverend, I ask you again, what took so long to come forward and state that the violence after the grand juries decisions that violence is the wrong way to go?

Poorly Planned Cinematic Idea

            When I first heard about the new Seth Rogan / James Franco movie, “The Interview”, on Real Time with Bill Maher a couple months ago, I thought it an interesting concept, but I could foresee the dangers in a movie of this type.

            The basic outline of the film is such that Rogan and Franco are journalists who are recruited by the CIA to post as reporters to get close enough to North Korea leader Kim Jong Un to assassinate him. Just hearing this set off bad vibes in my mind.

            Number 1, bad idea to use a real leader, especially one on the level of Kim Jong Un. A fictional leader would have made a better choice. Who knew at the time if North Korea might undertake and kind of reprisals for even suggesting slaying its ruler? The cyber hacking of Sony Pictures might be just such a reaction.

            Number 2, the idea of using reporters to get to be alone with a leader in order to assassinate him or her, could lead to the end of direct interviews. Interviews may soon be held by webcams.

 

            Number 3, the methods shown in the real world either in war, crimes, gadgets or terrorism are barbaric enough. Leave Hollywood script writers to devise new ways of fighting wars, create more violent crimes, design new contraptions to carry out their plans, or more brutal and sickening forms of terrorism. One example is in the movie “The Dark Night” when the Joker had a live bomb placed into living body. A few months later we started hearing that terrorist organizations might be using this very same method.

            Number 4, would it not be considered that we are the terrorists for wanting to kill another world leader. Does this mean that we our philosophy is “We can do something, but no one else is allowed to”? Poor philosophy, at least, one to which I am opposed.

            Returning to the cyber hacking for a moment, if a warning was issued at attacking any cinema which showed the movie, does it make any sense to pull all of the screenings for fear of an attack on any one or more of the theaters? We were told rightly just thirteen years ago not to bow to terrorists’ demands in the wake of 9/11. But Sony Pictures caved in. Could you imagine that North Korea or any other foreign or domestic entity getting the scripts for new movies through hacking, hating them enough to decide to threaten the studios with reprisals if they are released?

 

            To me, this type of movie falls into the category or ‘could we’ or ‘should we’ produce it. The answer is the latter, and the answer is no, not the way it was designed. It was a decent enough idea, but with all the various parts, it was a dangerous script in today’s world.

Next Financial Bubble Responsibility

            In the aftermath of the financial meltdown a few years ago, everyone was clamoring for someone to be sent to prison. Everyone wanted those people in the big banks who created it to serve time.

            Unfortunately, I don’t see how anyone could pinpoint the guilty party. It was due to the types of investments being made. This was found in the research and investigation on what caused it.

            One big result was the creation of the Dodd-Frank law. In part it restricted certain types of investments. One item concerns derivatives trading by big banks that receive taxpayer backing, or bailouts, can use swaps which are high-risk financial instruments (swaps push-out rule).

            One big bank drew up a proposal a few years ago which was left for dead. The proposal was the elimination of the swaps push-out rule. But it was resurrected at the 11^th hour and included into the budget thanks to Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase.

            Should there be another financial meltdown thanks to the inclusion of this item, we know exactly who to blame and demand justice – all of the Congressmen and Senators who voted for the budget with its inclusion as well as the President who agreed with the CRomnibus.

Torture’s Misleading Results

           The torture report was released a few days ago. We had all been hearing what had been done to the prisoners for a long time, but we did not know the extent. The report showed that it was worse than we thought. But regardless, although torture may result in some results, by and large, it is unreliable.

            The Spanish Inquisition, which started in the late 15^th century, run initially by Tomas Torquemada, utilized brutal forms of torture. They used thumbscrews, boots, the rack, scourging, lashing, flogging, burning of the feet, the garrucha (binding the hands behind the back and lifting the person off the floor) and water torture. There were different reasons for the inquisition. They included religion (find the true Catholics), witchcraft, sodomy, and blasphemy. Torture continued and changed until either the person torture confessed or died. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabela allowed the Inquisition to commence and continue as did the papacy. The Spanish Inquisition continued until the middle of the 19^th century.

            Present day torture was the result of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York City. The goal was to get information on future terrorist attacks of any kind, anywhere. Methods included, sleep deprivation, rectal feeding, threats against the detainees’ families, operating power tools beside the detainees, forced nudity, extended periods of isolation, and waterboarding (same as the Spanish water torture). In addition, the entire program was badly mishandled on various levels, including a complete lack of oversight which allowed these tortures to continue unabated. More information on the Torture Report can be found here.

            In both cases, the torturers continue until they get the answer they want to hear, whether it is true or not. The tortured get to the point that they will say anything to get the torture to stop. This is what makes it unreliable. In both instances, some truth may come, but more will likely be false.

 

            One other point to make. Unlike during the Spanish Inquisition, in the 20^th and 21^st century, torture is a violation of international law. It was wondered how much President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney knew. It has been charged by various people, including Karl Rove, a staunch Republican supporter, that they both knew and approved it. Cheney even said that he would do it again in a heartbeat. The Bush administration even went so far as to say that they did not consider waterboarding as torture. In the five centuries since the Spanish inquisition it was considered torture. As this is a violation of international law, should they not be tried by the Hague for war crimes against humanity?

Questionable Accuser of Cosby

            The statements made by P. J. Masten, a former Playboy bunny, smell of inconsistencies. Not only is she using the same m. o. as the other women who accused Bill Cosby, but her allegations are sound contradictory.

            First she says that she was given liquor and does remember anything after that. That could be a sign of being drunk. (I’m not saying conclusively that she was drunk; I state it as a possibility.) When she woke up she said she was beside a naked man and that she did not remember anything after the drink. She claimed absolutely that she knew she was raped. That sounds conflicting. If she doesn’t remember anything after the drink, how can she be so definitive that it was rape? When someone is drunk, they do not remember what they did, and they are doing it of their own free will and may very well not be recalled.

            She is also the same woman who accused Marv Albert. If she was so definite about Cosby, how could she allow herself to get into the same situation with someone else?

            She decided to say speak about Cosby after 15 year old Judy Huth accused Cosby about a sexual assault at the Playboy Mansion in 1974. This one is really hard to believe because a 15 year old should be at the Playboy Mansion in the first place.

            Then she said that there are at least a dozen other former bunnies with similar stories. This could very well be a comment where the accuser just picked a number and made it large.

            This is one accusation that I cannot believe. Sounds like someone jumping on the bus trying get away with another copycat accusation. I’m not making an absolute conclusion. This is just an opinion based on the accuser’s comments and I am not making a judgment.

Refusal to Accept Grand Jury Decision

            It’s been a week or so since the grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri, decided not to indict the Officer Darren Wilson who killed Michael Brown.

            I mentioned in a previous post that I am not agreeing with either side because I was not there as a witness not was I privy to the evidence, or lack of evidence, given to the grand jury. It may be possible that there was too much contradictory evidence and testimony for the grand jury to believe that an indictment was possible. This is the way the court system works.

            Yet the fallout from the decision is continuing and it is getting worse instead of better.

            I had said that Brown’s mother wanting a country where all black people can live without the color being an issue. Sounds like someone who wanted calm. But his step-father may now be arrested and charged with incitement to riot.

            Then again, there is the hands’ up gesture saying “Don’t fire”. I believe this is a symbol indicating that the people are absolutely positive that the officer was wrong and Brown was trying to surrender. These people refuse to accept the grand jury’s decision. This gesture has been used by the public, by five members of the St. Louis Rams, and now, unbelievably, by members of Congress on the floor!!
 

            In my opinion, this is a gesture that thumbs its nose at the judicial system. The people are saying they know better than the grand jury. How many of these people actually saw the incident? Probably only a couple. Everyone else got their information from second, third, or fourth hand sources. So how can they know better? I find it disrespectful of the judicial system and the members of Congress should know better. I think this also borders on racism.

            It may be that the gesture is a sign that people are tired of police violence and believe that the criminal system is broken. But this is a case of a grand jury sifting through what they are given and coming to a conclusion based on what they are given. Is police violence getting out of hand? probably. But that is a discussion for another post.

            If you will remember the case of O. J. Simpson, the white populace did not riot or perform some kind of body language when he was acquitted. The judicial process continued and Simpson was eventually found guilty.

            Like it or not, these expressions are wrong. It is serving only to divide this country and it intensifies racial split in society. If there is to be another trial, and I strongly believe there will be one, let judicial process advance. Hopefully, at that time, the evidence will be more conclusive and definitive.