Quote Of The Week
"No Child Left Behind" is firmly cemented as President Bush's failed education experiment."
-Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association, on January 8,m 2009, responding to President Bush's visit to an elementary school in Philadelphia, Pa. to tout the educational program he foisted on the nation's parents, schoolchildren, and teachers
Friday, January 09, 2009
The Republican Media- No. 19
Two articles this week by the the Associated Press' White House correspondent Jennifer Loven reflected a bias, the first toward conservative ideology and the second toward the Republican Party.
On January 8 Loven, commenting on the President-elect's statement the previous day regarding entitlement programs, wrote that Obama plans next month in his initial budget message to indicate how his budget plan "extends to the ballooning and so-far unsolvable fiscal problem presented by the Social Security and Medicare programs."
That would not be "extends to the Social Security and Medicare programs" but rather "ballooning and so-far unsolvable fiscal problem" etc. That slant would still be a slant but at least an accurate one, were it not so far off the mark. But as the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, and the Social Security trustees themselves demonstrate, Social Security is not in "crisis" (and the problems with Medicare are most easily resolved by addressing the health care crisis).
And in a piece on January 9 about Barack Obama's comments at George Mason University in Virginia, Loven and David Espo of the AP write "Second-guessing came from the left and the right: While some Democrats said the proposed tax cuts were too small, Republicans warned against excessive new spending." Democrats merely "say," give their opinion; Republicans, however, "warn" us about what we are assured is "excessive" spending. Apparently, while Congress hasn't decided yet, the Associated Press has assured us the spending proposals are excessive.
The "liberal media?" Only if one is looking at it through a mirror.
Two articles this week by the the Associated Press' White House correspondent Jennifer Loven reflected a bias, the first toward conservative ideology and the second toward the Republican Party.
On January 8 Loven, commenting on the President-elect's statement the previous day regarding entitlement programs, wrote that Obama plans next month in his initial budget message to indicate how his budget plan "extends to the ballooning and so-far unsolvable fiscal problem presented by the Social Security and Medicare programs."
That would not be "extends to the Social Security and Medicare programs" but rather "ballooning and so-far unsolvable fiscal problem" etc. That slant would still be a slant but at least an accurate one, were it not so far off the mark. But as the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, and the Social Security trustees themselves demonstrate, Social Security is not in "crisis" (and the problems with Medicare are most easily resolved by addressing the health care crisis).
And in a piece on January 9 about Barack Obama's comments at George Mason University in Virginia, Loven and David Espo of the AP write "Second-guessing came from the left and the right: While some Democrats said the proposed tax cuts were too small, Republicans warned against excessive new spending." Democrats merely "say," give their opinion; Republicans, however, "warn" us about what we are assured is "excessive" spending. Apparently, while Congress hasn't decided yet, the Associated Press has assured us the spending proposals are excessive.
The "liberal media?" Only if one is looking at it through a mirror.
Bush Is Right!
Sometimes President Bush is right- although as his administration thankfully draws to a close, let us remember that he was virtually always "right" and rarely correct.
But when Bush spoke at an elementary school yesterday in Philadelphia, he was accurate (though not exactly as he implies) when he boasted that the No Child Left Behind Act "forever changed America's school systems."
Here is one example, as The News Blog of The Council of Higher Education reported on February 14, 2008:
A recent study of the impact of Texas’ public-school accountability system, which served as a model for the federal No Child Left Behind Act, found that it directly contributed to lower graduation rates in the large urban districts examined by creating incentives for schools to welcome the early departure of academically troubled students.
The study, by researchers at Rice University and the University of Texas at Austin, found that the loss of growing numbers of students actually led to improvements in how public schools were rated by the state. That’s because most of the students who left schools were low-achieving — and a disproportionate share were black or Hispanic, or spoke English as a second language — which meant that their departure led to an increase in the schools’ average test scores and created the appearance that the school was closing the test-score gap between white and minority students.
As school personnel became increasingly focused on the potential positive or negative impact students would have on their institutions’ ratings, they took steps, such as holding back students, which helped raise test scores but also increased the likelihood the affected students would drop out, the study found.
The director of the Center for Education at Rice concluded "high stakes, test-based accountability" (the linchpin of the NCLB concept) "leads to avoidable losses of students." But, presumably, good test scores, always a greater priority for Governor Bush of Texas and President Bush of the United States.
Sometimes President Bush is right- although as his administration thankfully draws to a close, let us remember that he was virtually always "right" and rarely correct.
But when Bush spoke at an elementary school yesterday in Philadelphia, he was accurate (though not exactly as he implies) when he boasted that the No Child Left Behind Act "forever changed America's school systems."
Here is one example, as The News Blog of The Council of Higher Education reported on February 14, 2008:
A recent study of the impact of Texas’ public-school accountability system, which served as a model for the federal No Child Left Behind Act, found that it directly contributed to lower graduation rates in the large urban districts examined by creating incentives for schools to welcome the early departure of academically troubled students.
The study, by researchers at Rice University and the University of Texas at Austin, found that the loss of growing numbers of students actually led to improvements in how public schools were rated by the state. That’s because most of the students who left schools were low-achieving — and a disproportionate share were black or Hispanic, or spoke English as a second language — which meant that their departure led to an increase in the schools’ average test scores and created the appearance that the school was closing the test-score gap between white and minority students.
As school personnel became increasingly focused on the potential positive or negative impact students would have on their institutions’ ratings, they took steps, such as holding back students, which helped raise test scores but also increased the likelihood the affected students would drop out, the study found.
The director of the Center for Education at Rice concluded "high stakes, test-based accountability" (the linchpin of the NCLB concept) "leads to avoidable losses of students." But, presumably, good test scores, always a greater priority for Governor Bush of Texas and President Bush of the United States.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Danger Lurking
The New York Times reports that at his press conference on Wednesday, President-elect Barack Obama said
that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be “a central part” of his administration’s efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs....
Speaking at a news conference in Washington, he provided no details of his approach to rein in Social Security and Medicare.... But he said he would have more to say about the issue when he unveiled a budget next month.
As Tasini notes on dailykos, during his campaign for President, Senator Obama spoke of an alleged "crisis" in Social Security but also adamantly opposed privatization and supported requiring FICA payments on the portion of annual incomes above $200,000, a progressive and fairly bold position. It appears now, however, that Obama's worse angels have taken hold of him and he is mimicking the the spin of Establishment Washington and Establishment Media that extols "reform" of a system which brings in more than it pays out. (Some of the excess goes to sustain the deficit of the general budget.)
Dean Baker of The Center for Economic and Policy Research wrote in June, 2005 a Briefing Paper entitled "Things That Will Happen Before Social Security Faces a Shortfall." That, according to projections by the Congressional Budget Office, would be in 2052, when the Social Security trust fund will be able to pay only 80% of scheduled benefits. These intervening challenges include:
- health care, which would see a per capita increase in annual spending of almost $5,000;
- prescription drugs, on which per capita spending would increase $1000 annually;
- housing (which already has occurred);
- the falling dollar, which would add 2.0 percentage points to the annual rate of inflation;
- the criminal justice system, wherein a jump in the number of individuals incarcerated would result in expenditures of an additional 3.1% of GDP;
- relationship of the U.S.A. to mainland China, whose economy probably will have grown to twice that of the United States and whose defense spending is likely to be four to six times as great;
- relationship of the U.S.A. to India, whose economy will grow to one-and-a-half times that of the U.S. with defense spending three times greater;
- animal and plant extinctions (tens of thousands); and
- climate change, the world temperature rising 1.0 to 4.0 degrees.
Admittedly, there could be a crisis in Social Security eventually, a few decades into the future. (But then, in the long run, we're all dead.) Before then, not only do we have more severe crises to face, but any "crisis" of Social Security and Medicare can be solved in a more progressive, humane, and practical manner than sabotaging two of the most popular and successful governmental programs ever.
The New York Times reports that at his press conference on Wednesday, President-elect Barack Obama said
that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be “a central part” of his administration’s efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs....
Speaking at a news conference in Washington, he provided no details of his approach to rein in Social Security and Medicare.... But he said he would have more to say about the issue when he unveiled a budget next month.
As Tasini notes on dailykos, during his campaign for President, Senator Obama spoke of an alleged "crisis" in Social Security but also adamantly opposed privatization and supported requiring FICA payments on the portion of annual incomes above $200,000, a progressive and fairly bold position. It appears now, however, that Obama's worse angels have taken hold of him and he is mimicking the the spin of Establishment Washington and Establishment Media that extols "reform" of a system which brings in more than it pays out. (Some of the excess goes to sustain the deficit of the general budget.)
Dean Baker of The Center for Economic and Policy Research wrote in June, 2005 a Briefing Paper entitled "Things That Will Happen Before Social Security Faces a Shortfall." That, according to projections by the Congressional Budget Office, would be in 2052, when the Social Security trust fund will be able to pay only 80% of scheduled benefits. These intervening challenges include:
- health care, which would see a per capita increase in annual spending of almost $5,000;
- prescription drugs, on which per capita spending would increase $1000 annually;
- housing (which already has occurred);
- the falling dollar, which would add 2.0 percentage points to the annual rate of inflation;
- the criminal justice system, wherein a jump in the number of individuals incarcerated would result in expenditures of an additional 3.1% of GDP;
- relationship of the U.S.A. to mainland China, whose economy probably will have grown to twice that of the United States and whose defense spending is likely to be four to six times as great;
- relationship of the U.S.A. to India, whose economy will grow to one-and-a-half times that of the U.S. with defense spending three times greater;
- animal and plant extinctions (tens of thousands); and
- climate change, the world temperature rising 1.0 to 4.0 degrees.
Admittedly, there could be a crisis in Social Security eventually, a few decades into the future. (But then, in the long run, we're all dead.) Before then, not only do we have more severe crises to face, but any "crisis" of Social Security and Medicare can be solved in a more progressive, humane, and practical manner than sabotaging two of the most popular and successful governmental programs ever.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Still Targeting Social Security
Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard met with President Bush on January 2 and reported
On domestic policy, Bush was asked if he made progress in some areas for which he hasn't and probably won't get credit. Topping his list was his unsuccessful drive in 2005 to reform Social Security. Bush said his effort showed it's politically safe to campaign on changing Social Security and then actually seek to change it.
He also said it was important to have raised private investment accounts as an attractive option in reforming Social Security.
Three days later, Bush was interviewed by Cal Thomas and suggested that it would have been wiser politically to secure immigration/illegal immigration reform prior to tackling the politically difficult issue of Social Security, but again defended his effort to destroy- uh, er, reform- the program.
Partial privatization of Social Security, however, would be, at best, risky. As a study by the Center for American Progress Action Fund found
A person with a private Social Security account similar to what President George W. Bush proposed in 20054 that was invested in stocks retiring on October 1, 2008 after saving for 35 years (since 1973), would have seen a negative return on their account—an effective -0.6 percent net annual real rate of return—and lost $26,000 on the market.
And take a look at what happened in Italy when it recently privatized part of its social security system. Bloomberg.com notes
The global market meltdown has created losses for those who agreed to shift their contributions from a government severance payment plan to private funds meant to yield higher returns.
One of the inevitable problems with privatization of the system in the United States would be the inevitable disruption which would ensue when the market dips, resulting in a drop in benefits to recipients. In Italy,
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s administration is now considering ways to compensate as many as 1.2 million people who made the switch, giving up a fixed return for private plans linked to financial markets. It’s also letting people delay redemptions on retirement funds to avoid losses after Italy’s benchmark stock index fell 50 percent in 2008, destroying 300 billion euros ($423 billion) in wealth.
“The reform didn’t help anyone,” said Gabriele Fava, who heads the Fava & Associati law firm in Milan and writes about labor law. “Not the government, which was hoping everyone would make the switch to take the strain off its coffers, nor the workers who have not resolved the problem of needing a supplement to their social security pensions.”
Although the drive on the right here in the U.S.A. to chip away at Social Security took a blow on November 4, vigilance is necessary, as conservatives have resumed propagating the myth that all our problems have been caused by government, while all is well with American capitalism.
Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard met with President Bush on January 2 and reported
On domestic policy, Bush was asked if he made progress in some areas for which he hasn't and probably won't get credit. Topping his list was his unsuccessful drive in 2005 to reform Social Security. Bush said his effort showed it's politically safe to campaign on changing Social Security and then actually seek to change it.
He also said it was important to have raised private investment accounts as an attractive option in reforming Social Security.
Three days later, Bush was interviewed by Cal Thomas and suggested that it would have been wiser politically to secure immigration/illegal immigration reform prior to tackling the politically difficult issue of Social Security, but again defended his effort to destroy- uh, er, reform- the program.
Partial privatization of Social Security, however, would be, at best, risky. As a study by the Center for American Progress Action Fund found
A person with a private Social Security account similar to what President George W. Bush proposed in 20054 that was invested in stocks retiring on October 1, 2008 after saving for 35 years (since 1973), would have seen a negative return on their account—an effective -0.6 percent net annual real rate of return—and lost $26,000 on the market.
And take a look at what happened in Italy when it recently privatized part of its social security system. Bloomberg.com notes
The global market meltdown has created losses for those who agreed to shift their contributions from a government severance payment plan to private funds meant to yield higher returns.
One of the inevitable problems with privatization of the system in the United States would be the inevitable disruption which would ensue when the market dips, resulting in a drop in benefits to recipients. In Italy,
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s administration is now considering ways to compensate as many as 1.2 million people who made the switch, giving up a fixed return for private plans linked to financial markets. It’s also letting people delay redemptions on retirement funds to avoid losses after Italy’s benchmark stock index fell 50 percent in 2008, destroying 300 billion euros ($423 billion) in wealth.
“The reform didn’t help anyone,” said Gabriele Fava, who heads the Fava & Associati law firm in Milan and writes about labor law. “Not the government, which was hoping everyone would make the switch to take the strain off its coffers, nor the workers who have not resolved the problem of needing a supplement to their social security pensions.”
Although the drive on the right here in the U.S.A. to chip away at Social Security took a blow on November 4, vigilance is necessary, as conservatives have resumed propagating the myth that all our problems have been caused by government, while all is well with American capitalism.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Rush And Rush On Race
In the 1980s, then-(Republican) Governor Tom Kean of New Jersey, in a bid to increase tourism, would go on television and proclaim "New Jersey and You: Perfect Together."
Similarly, there are what at first appear to be odd political couples, but hardly odd at second glance.
Take the Rushes- Bobby Rush and Rush Limbaugh. As Politico reported on December 30, U.S. Representative Bobby Rush of Chicago has argued that Roland Burris, selected by (arrested but not indicted) Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to replace Mr. Obama in the U.S. Senate, should be seated in part because he would be the "only black" in the upper chamber. Rush- the only individual ever to defeat Barack Obama (that for the U.S. House)- brazenly injected race into the issue, declaring "I would ask you not to hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointor."
The African-American Rush has been taken to task by what Repub pundits, talk show hosts, and politicians, unrestrained by a sense of reality, refer to as the "liberal media." But he is not the only Rush who has used the face-off between Senate Majority Leader (and the Democratic caucus) Harry Reid and Blagojevich/Burris to wallow in the muck of racial division and fear.
Rush Limbaugh, predictably, has gotten into the act (both figuratively and literally). On his syndicated radio program today, Limbaugh huffed
As I said earlier today, Mr. Burris, if Harry Reid will not seat you, go to Denny's. They will seat you if Harry Reid will not. Try this. Harry Reid calls Blagojevich, and Blagojevich then spills the beans, and Harry Reid is now calling Blagojevich a liar, so is Dick Durbin. Reid calls Blagojevich, says, (paraphrasing) "I don't want Burris, I don't want Jesse Jackson Jr. and I don't want Emil Jones," the godfather of Obama. They all happen to be black. This is a seat occupied by a black, Obama, although an inauthentic black, according to David Ehrenstein of the Los Angeles Times and others. And so Dingy Harry says, "I don't want these three guys." If a Republican called a governor and said, "Don't give me three people who are black," can you imagine? I want Tammy Duckworth or I want Lisa Madigan, I want a white woman in there, said Dingy Harry. And Dingy Harry made a ridiculous, humorous attempt to show that he's not racist on Meet the Press yesterday by saying, (paraphrasing) "Hey, I searched high and low to find a black woman to make a federal judge," and he lied about that.... This is Democrats denying a black man duly appointed by a sitting governor in the state of Illinois, a seat in the United States Senate. Once again it's Democrats engaging in blatant racism.
Leave aside- at least for now- 1)the cheap shot at Denny's Restaurant chain, which has implemented an aggressive affirmative action program as a settlement for their now-discarded practice of avoiding serving black patrons; 2) the "Dingy Harry" cheap shot, a characterization which presumably appeals to his "dittoheads," who proudly proclaim their disinterest in independent thought; and 3) the suggestion that if the GOP similarly showed what Limbaugh argues is disfavor toward a black, that it would be roundly condemned- yet another example of "us poor, put-upon Republicans" donning the cloak of victimhood.
Limbaugh has charged Democrats with "blatant racism" and Reid with basing on race his opposition to seating Burris. Is it even conceivable that it would have escaped Rush's attention that Reid might be thinking not race, but electability? That the Senate Majority Leader has an intense interest in maintaining for his party a majority in the chamber he heads? No, it is not conceivable.
Had Harry Reid agreed to lend his support to seating Mr. Burris, would Rush Limbaugh have commended him- or even neglected to criticize him? If Blagojevich not been under investigation and selected Jesse Jackson Jr. or Emil Jones to serve as Illinois' junior United States Senator, would Limbaugh have avoided the temptation of criticizing the nomination as that of an ultra-liberal from scandal-ridden Chicago politics? But with the Democratic majority in the United States Senate balking- thus far- at seating Roland Burris, Rush is given an opportunity to pose, however transparently, as an opponent of racism, even with no evidence for the charge.
Disingenuousness has always been the stock-in-trade of Rush Limbaugh, and it is only fitting that he and a former prominent Black Panther have now linked arms in the dishonest and divisive muck of race-baiting.
In the 1980s, then-(Republican) Governor Tom Kean of New Jersey, in a bid to increase tourism, would go on television and proclaim "New Jersey and You: Perfect Together."
Similarly, there are what at first appear to be odd political couples, but hardly odd at second glance.
Take the Rushes- Bobby Rush and Rush Limbaugh. As Politico reported on December 30, U.S. Representative Bobby Rush of Chicago has argued that Roland Burris, selected by (arrested but not indicted) Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to replace Mr. Obama in the U.S. Senate, should be seated in part because he would be the "only black" in the upper chamber. Rush- the only individual ever to defeat Barack Obama (that for the U.S. House)- brazenly injected race into the issue, declaring "I would ask you not to hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointor."
The African-American Rush has been taken to task by what Repub pundits, talk show hosts, and politicians, unrestrained by a sense of reality, refer to as the "liberal media." But he is not the only Rush who has used the face-off between Senate Majority Leader (and the Democratic caucus) Harry Reid and Blagojevich/Burris to wallow in the muck of racial division and fear.
Rush Limbaugh, predictably, has gotten into the act (both figuratively and literally). On his syndicated radio program today, Limbaugh huffed
As I said earlier today, Mr. Burris, if Harry Reid will not seat you, go to Denny's. They will seat you if Harry Reid will not. Try this. Harry Reid calls Blagojevich, and Blagojevich then spills the beans, and Harry Reid is now calling Blagojevich a liar, so is Dick Durbin. Reid calls Blagojevich, says, (paraphrasing) "I don't want Burris, I don't want Jesse Jackson Jr. and I don't want Emil Jones," the godfather of Obama. They all happen to be black. This is a seat occupied by a black, Obama, although an inauthentic black, according to David Ehrenstein of the Los Angeles Times and others. And so Dingy Harry says, "I don't want these three guys." If a Republican called a governor and said, "Don't give me three people who are black," can you imagine? I want Tammy Duckworth or I want Lisa Madigan, I want a white woman in there, said Dingy Harry. And Dingy Harry made a ridiculous, humorous attempt to show that he's not racist on Meet the Press yesterday by saying, (paraphrasing) "Hey, I searched high and low to find a black woman to make a federal judge," and he lied about that.... This is Democrats denying a black man duly appointed by a sitting governor in the state of Illinois, a seat in the United States Senate. Once again it's Democrats engaging in blatant racism.
Leave aside- at least for now- 1)the cheap shot at Denny's Restaurant chain, which has implemented an aggressive affirmative action program as a settlement for their now-discarded practice of avoiding serving black patrons; 2) the "Dingy Harry" cheap shot, a characterization which presumably appeals to his "dittoheads," who proudly proclaim their disinterest in independent thought; and 3) the suggestion that if the GOP similarly showed what Limbaugh argues is disfavor toward a black, that it would be roundly condemned- yet another example of "us poor, put-upon Republicans" donning the cloak of victimhood.
Limbaugh has charged Democrats with "blatant racism" and Reid with basing on race his opposition to seating Burris. Is it even conceivable that it would have escaped Rush's attention that Reid might be thinking not race, but electability? That the Senate Majority Leader has an intense interest in maintaining for his party a majority in the chamber he heads? No, it is not conceivable.
Had Harry Reid agreed to lend his support to seating Mr. Burris, would Rush Limbaugh have commended him- or even neglected to criticize him? If Blagojevich not been under investigation and selected Jesse Jackson Jr. or Emil Jones to serve as Illinois' junior United States Senator, would Limbaugh have avoided the temptation of criticizing the nomination as that of an ultra-liberal from scandal-ridden Chicago politics? But with the Democratic majority in the United States Senate balking- thus far- at seating Roland Burris, Rush is given an opportunity to pose, however transparently, as an opponent of racism, even with no evidence for the charge.
Disingenuousness has always been the stock-in-trade of Rush Limbaugh, and it is only fitting that he and a former prominent Black Panther have now linked arms in the dishonest and divisive muck of race-baiting.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
The Value of Life
Glenn Greenwald of salon.com today attacks supporters of the Israeli military action in the Gaza strip, arguing
Those who giddily support not just civilian deaths in Gaza but every actual and proposed attack on Arab/Muslim countries -- from the war in Iraq to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon to the proposed attacks on Iran and Syria and even continued escalation in Afghanistan -- are able to do so because they don't really see the Muslims they want to kill as being fully human.
Personally, I don't support the deaths of civilians, and even less "giddily" so. And the implication that the war in Iraq= Israeli invasion of Lebanon= proposed attack on Iran= proposed attack on Syria= continued escalation in Afghanistan is extraordinarily simplistic, and disappointing in someone like Greenwald usually advancing arguments well-reasoned.
Most significantly, however, is the implied charge that the most enthusiastic- and in Greenwald's view (though my words) blood-thirsty- supporters of the attack on Hamas are motivated by a refusal to recognize "the Muslims they want to kill as being fully human."
Consider this:
1985: Lebanaon releases three (3) Israeli soldiers in return for 1,150 prisoners;
1998: South Lebanese Army releases remains of one Israeli soldier in return for 65 prisoners and remains of 40 Hezbollah guerillas;
2004: Hezbollah releases one (1) Israeli businessman, one Israeli soldier, and the remains of three Israeli soldiers in return for 30 Lebanese prisoners, 400 Palestinians prisoners,and remains of 59 Lebanese militants and civilians
2008 (July): Hezbollah releases bodies of two (2) Israeli soldiers in return for one notorious terrorist, four other Lebanese prisoners, and the "bodies of 1999 combantants and infiltrators from Lebanon."
According to Wikipedia (in an entry made between the incidents of 2004 and 2008),
Over the last 30 years, Israel has released about 7,000 prisoners to secure freedom for 19 Israelis and to retrieve the bodies of eight others. A number of diplomatic efforts have been made to secure the release of Israeli IDF personnel following their capture by enemy forces.
I don't believe Muslim life is less than fully human, or less human than any other. Neither, obviously, does Greenwald, nor you. But if actions speak louder than words, here is the statement of the terrorist: in exchange for approximately 7,000 of ours, we'll turn over 27 of yours. A ratio of 7,000 to 27- approximately 259:1. And that is the dilemma of the Israelis, to whom a human life is a human life. To their adversaries- Arab terrorists, not Muslims nor Arab civilians- a human life is something less.
Glenn Greenwald of salon.com today attacks supporters of the Israeli military action in the Gaza strip, arguing
Those who giddily support not just civilian deaths in Gaza but every actual and proposed attack on Arab/Muslim countries -- from the war in Iraq to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon to the proposed attacks on Iran and Syria and even continued escalation in Afghanistan -- are able to do so because they don't really see the Muslims they want to kill as being fully human.
Personally, I don't support the deaths of civilians, and even less "giddily" so. And the implication that the war in Iraq= Israeli invasion of Lebanon= proposed attack on Iran= proposed attack on Syria= continued escalation in Afghanistan is extraordinarily simplistic, and disappointing in someone like Greenwald usually advancing arguments well-reasoned.
Most significantly, however, is the implied charge that the most enthusiastic- and in Greenwald's view (though my words) blood-thirsty- supporters of the attack on Hamas are motivated by a refusal to recognize "the Muslims they want to kill as being fully human."
Consider this:
1985: Lebanaon releases three (3) Israeli soldiers in return for 1,150 prisoners;
1998: South Lebanese Army releases remains of one Israeli soldier in return for 65 prisoners and remains of 40 Hezbollah guerillas;
2004: Hezbollah releases one (1) Israeli businessman, one Israeli soldier, and the remains of three Israeli soldiers in return for 30 Lebanese prisoners, 400 Palestinians prisoners,and remains of 59 Lebanese militants and civilians
2008 (July): Hezbollah releases bodies of two (2) Israeli soldiers in return for one notorious terrorist, four other Lebanese prisoners, and the "bodies of 1999 combantants and infiltrators from Lebanon."
According to Wikipedia (in an entry made between the incidents of 2004 and 2008),
Over the last 30 years, Israel has released about 7,000 prisoners to secure freedom for 19 Israelis and to retrieve the bodies of eight others. A number of diplomatic efforts have been made to secure the release of Israeli IDF personnel following their capture by enemy forces.
I don't believe Muslim life is less than fully human, or less human than any other. Neither, obviously, does Greenwald, nor you. But if actions speak louder than words, here is the statement of the terrorist: in exchange for approximately 7,000 of ours, we'll turn over 27 of yours. A ratio of 7,000 to 27- approximately 259:1. And that is the dilemma of the Israelis, to whom a human life is a human life. To their adversaries- Arab terrorists, not Muslims nor Arab civilians- a human life is something less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Party Of Deception The Huffington Post, gushing about the Kennedy memorial service in Boston last night, exclaimed that Senator Orrin Hatch...
-
In April, President Donald Trump asked French President Emanuel Macron "why don't you leave the EU?" The same month,...
-
Since the Obama Administration, a few voices on the right lamented the apparent erosion of the concept of the USA as a nation of laws a...
