Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (94879)	1/9/2007 3:29:14 PM
From: SiouxPal	Respond to of 361019

How the World Will See the Surge by John Brown There has been much press commentary in recent days concerning the administration’s planned surge of American soldiers in Iraq. According to The New York Times, this “rapid influx of forces … could add as many as 20,000 American combat troops to Baghdad.” The domestic consequences of what some media are calling a military escalation have been widely analyzed. But US pundits, reflecting our widespread national assumption that Iraq is essentially about ourselves, have not sufficiently commented on the possible international reactions to the President’s latest initiative overseas. Below are speculations, based on what polls and foreign media have been saying about the U.S. in recent years, about how some public opinion abroad, taken as a composite, will look at this latest Bush foreign-policy move. 1. The surge is yet another expression of US unilateralism. The Americans do what they want when and how they want, no matter what non-Americans -- including Iraqis -- think. They are not bothering to get international support or approval for their surge. The rest of the world be damned. 2. The Americans say one thing and do another. They proclaim peace as their goal in the Middle East but use military force whenever things don’t go their way. While they love to boast about their wholesome values, they brutally kill innocent civilians in Baghdad neighborhoods in a surge to restore “stability.” Their public diplomacy, whatever they say it is, is no more than blatant, hypocritical propaganda. 3. Elections in the U.S. don’t really matter. Americans in November didn’t vote for more troops in Baghdad, but their president is doing precisely that. The so-called opposition party in the U.S. is just part of an American imperialistic system that wants to dominate the rest of the planet, including its oil reserves, and that allows the White House carte blanche in carrying out aggressive military operations like the surge anywhere, any time. 4. The U.S. is under the control of an anti-Muslim, anti-Arab lobby. The White House is in fact controlled by a coterie of ideologues that wants to redraw the map of the Middle East in favor of Israel. The surge is their latest effort to accomplish this. 5. The American international media, both private and US government-supported, are not to be trusted. Their coverage of American military actions, with its traditional neglect of civilian victims, will try to show the surge in the best of lights. As for USG-funded outlets like Alhurra, they don’t offer the real news. For more accurate reports, better to turn to the BBC or Al Jazeera. 6. The surge will result in more US casualties, but that’s the Americans’ own fault. They are bringing disaster after disaster upon themselves because they refuse to understand or negotiate with the world outside their own borders. The Americans have no idea of the real situation in Iraq, where they are occupiers, not liberators. 7. The surge is further evidence of sheer American incompetence. US efficiency, planning, and management are far overvalued. Simon Jenkins, The Times (January 7): “I have not heard one remotely plausible game plan for the 'Battle of the Surge.'” 8. The U.S., like ancient Rome, has overextended itself. The more it tries to control the world through the force of arms, the less successful it is in doing so. The surge, per se a minor military move, is yet another illustration of America’s imperial decline caused by its hubris. How can American soldiers possibly “clean up” Baghdad neighborhoods, when their own cities are marked by incessant crime and violence? 9. The surge, while historically of limited significance, gives added evidence that the future no longer belongs to the U.S., which has become desperate in finding ways to influence events. The American era -- the twentieth century -- is just about gone forever, and another Bush military push in Iraq won’t bring it back. 10. Any “superpower” that thinks it can “win” a universally condemned war with an additional 20,000 troops is certainly not a model to follow. Forget about the made-in-Hollywood American “dream.” America is now producing one nightmare after another. It’s become a mortal danger, not a universal hope. Published on Tuesday, January 9, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (94879)	1/9/2007 3:32:06 PM
From: SiouxPal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361019

When the Weatherman Plays Dumb by Monica Collins The anchorman was in a dither. "The weather is downright weird," exclaimed Ed Harding of WCVB-TV (Channel 5) on a night when high temperatures broke records up and down the East Coast. Harding reported more heavy snow in Denver, no traditional lake effect snow in Syracuse where golfers teed up on greens, and a record 63 degrees in Boston. "What in the name of weather is going on?" Harvey Leonard, the station's weatherman, could offer little insight, except to blame an errant jet stream and promise there will be a "price to pay later on." He also cracked a joke about Harding golfing in Syracuse. Actually, he made two golf jokes. The tone turned serious during an unsettling story about dolphins stranding themselves inexplicably along the Cape Cod shoreline. Down the dial at WHDH-TV (Channel 7), Pete Bouchard, resident meteorologist, showed a pretty picture of a flowering plum tree in Jamaica Plain. On CBS4, anchor Lisa Hughes declared, "Oh my gosh, this is unbelievable," about the record high temperature, but she presented the pleasant prospect of a "beautiful" Patriots playoff forecast while Ken Barlow, station weather guy, referred to the immediate outdoor conditions as "mind-boggling." Spot on. The weather has been weird, unbelievable, mind-boggling, or whatever adjectives you want to toss around. This winter has been an endless hybrid of October and March, with occasional reminders of November and May. In the Boston Public Garden, the willows weep new green and trees bud and flower. On local TV, don't expect an explanation beyond the astonishing qualifiers. By design, the weathercast is a temperate zone, a bastion of prognosticative bromides without any controversy. Weatherpeople tell you to watch out for drizzle during the morning commute. This has been the extent of their cautionary role. They are promotional tools, teasing their forecasts throughout prime time. They are encouraged to chat chummily with the anchorpeople in calm periods and go into full froth during blizzards, thunderstorms, and other disturbances. Each local TV meteorologist presents the image of a weather jockey who loves the ride in severe conditions. Perhaps that explains why Kevin Lemanowicz of WFXT-TV (Channel 25) sneered about all this "boring" weather. Boring only if you don't want to contemplate the freaky plum blossoms in Jamaica Plain in January. Something's going on. Even while rollerblading or picnicking on the Feast of the Epiphany, outdoor enthusiasts had to worry about global warming or climate change. Just don't expect to hear those fears spoken aloud by the local TV weathercasters. Only Channel 4's Barlow has reported on global warming, but he does not integrate the theme into his daily weathercasts. Barlow presented a hard-hitting story last fall in which he put the environmental crisis in context. "Global warming is happening," he said in a story still posted on the station's website. "Consider these two recent findings: the planet is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years; and this past summer was the warmest in a generation. By historic standards the earth is in fact getting hotter. Readings were up one full degree in the past century. Although that might not sound like much, it really is significant." Barlow also offered some practical things you can do to stem greenhouse emissions, including turning off appliances. Since these include TVs, Barlow's admonition seemed all the more brave. Still, education about global warming need not be an anomaly for a TV forecaster. It should become part of the routine, when the weather is strange, to remind us that our fragile planet is in peril. To neglect to do so and fall back on the over-the-top adjectives and pictures of plum blossoms seems a foolish disservice. To acknowledge global warming is not an act of treason, or a kiss-up to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" -- despite what right-wing pundits would have us believe. In these times, you do need a weatherman to tell which way the wind is blowing. TV meteorologists are uniquely positioned to make sense of what's happening outside our windows. They have the tools to put the weather into climatic context. With global warming an omnipresent threat, their role becomes more crucial. Playing Mickey or Minnie the Dunce with the anchorman doesn't cut it for an audience whose nagging fear has become the change in the weather. Published on Tuesday, January 9, 2007 by the Boston Globe