Listen Liberal by Thomas Frank – Understanding Democratic Party
Noam Chomsky on Anarchism by Noam Chomsky – Understanding Anarchism- roots, Chomsky, being critical
Who Rules the World? by Noam Chomsky – Foreign Policy and Global Economics
Indefensible 7th myths of the Global Arms Trade by Paul Holden – Arms Trade Globally and Security
A peoples History of the US by Howard Zinn – US History through Working-Class People
Breaking through Power by Ralph Nader – US politics
War is a Racket by Smedley Darlington Butler – Why all wars are connected to Banks
Troops, Trolls, and Troublemakers: A Global Inventory of Organized Social Media Manipulation by Samantha Bradshaw, University of Oxford – How Social Media Influences Politics
Viking Economics: How the Scandinavians Got It Right-and How We Can, Too by George Lakey – Progressive Economics applied the world’s happiest/most productive Workers
The article highlights some of the major issues and ideologies in 2020.
2020 will likely be the most important election in American history, what do people care about?
Healthcare remains a major concern, people want lower cost and more coverage. Healthcare cost has more than doubled since 2008.
Corruption, people are upset that money buys election and want deep solutions instead of small ones.
Debt, Americans are in more debt individually than anytime in history, people want a solution to student and regular debt that is trapping them.
Affordable living, people can’t afford to pay rent, many American lost their homes in 2008 and % of renters has gone up to record levels. Developers keep building luxury housing when thaey are not needed.
Wages, people want higher wages for low-medium income workers, a raise in wages along with a higher tax rate on people making over 100 million dollars a year. This is tied to the 99% vs. 1%.
Women Issues, sexual assault, rape and mistreatment of women have become a huge talking about over the last couple year it will bring many women to the polls.
Climate Change/Quality Environmental standards, we see climate change driving up among the young and others in priority. People are also tired of hearing that the government cant fix Flint or something other.
Plymouth Rock vs. Jamestown, Plymouth Rock was a bunch of religious people in a community, coming together to survive in the middle of winter. James town was a bunch of mercenaries, businessmen all looking to get rich quick, for gold! Trump embodies Jamestown, Bernie Sanders embodies Plymouth Rock. That will be a large part of 2020.
Technocratic vs experienced poor, the idea of experts is very divisive, more than most would think, but the idea an expert can always find a solution is a key part of modern liberalism and that largely the poor cant be leaders and or cant understand the problems. We see this in many ways with the breaking up of unions, the questions journalist ask and the lack of real democracy.
Race is also a factor, many feel deep institutions need to change for systematic violence on largely poor minorities. That would cover things like private prisons, mass incarceration, legalization of marijuana and immigration which is probably the most divisive issue in America. Additionally, President Donald Trump’s vile and bigoted rhetoric and policies have effectively reversed all the gains made by African Americans and other ethnic minorities during the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. As such, the next President needs to focus heavily on turning back the tide of white supremacy and bringing about equal justice and opportunity for all Americans regardless of race.
The story begins with a young lad of 20, who’s hand is a puppet dressed in a pirate hat and hook. His hand proclaims himself, the Big Don. The lad’s name is Danny. Danny’s hand wants to run for town council in Hazlet. Danny would begin his campaign by gathering papers on the statistics of his down and local corruption stories of incumbent Republicans. Danny began his campaign with a series of door knockings in his neighborhood. He would knock on the door and his hand would introduce them both. Danny is a solid 5 feet tall, a hand as a pirate politician and skipped around instead of walking. He came to the door wearing a suit and a pirate hand running for the council. He would yell at people who asked him too many questions and skip away yelling insults in Arabic and screams at people who come to close.
Many people are asking if the Democrats will take back the House of Representatives in 2018? I suspect they will make significant gains. Upsets in Pennsylvania and elsewhere have shown a weakened Republican party. The Republicans across the state have been slowly eaten by the Tea Party movement and even the Bannon movement where they have been running candidates and working hard to get rid of “moderates”, meaning centrists Democrat types like Bob Mendez (NJ) or others modern neo-liberal Democrats. What the media has been ignoring is “insurgents” candidates across the country that have been chipping away at the Democratic Machine.
In America, money almost always determines victory in an election, but since the Sanders Movement during the 2016 elections we saw an underfunded candidate nearly take over America’s major political party (the Democratic Party). He created a group OUR Revolution which has affiliates in every state in America. Even Puerto Rico! America politics have just been changed forever and people don’t seem to understand it. Sanders victory would not have been winning the presidency, I don’t think he had the political muscle to get anything significant done, the Democrats hate him, the Republicans would have controlled congress, what could he have really done but slow down the de-funding of government? Another debate for another time. Now he goes around, traveling across the country, talking to the American people while Clinton goes on book tours trying to sell her book. He has built the infrastructure for a new style of American Democracy not seen since the 1960s. He has the largest support among millennial’s, now the largest voting block in America. He has a fairly good history on most issues and being on the right side of history except foreign policy (Sanders is relatively weak on anti-war policy). He should have won the black vote but the churches are so establishment-controlled that he couldn’t break through. The only thing Sanders needs is the backing of religious zealots who are progressive and can destroy the notion that Republicans are the only people who talk to God. Over time I doubt those groups will disappear, you’re looking at a long drawn out civil war on both parties, but worse off for the Democrats. You have a long history of political corruption in some states more than others and you have the truth. Its simple enough to pull up statistics and see that the percentages for big companies donating to Democrats or Republicans can be evenly split.
The single-payer idea is the only rational policy and then you have the Democrats being unable to support it because their being funded by the same people destroying American healthcare. Over time with reforms, you could see insurgent candidates stay in power and continue to build stronger power bases for more “working class heroes” or Bernie Sanders-esque politicians. Where Ralph Nader failed in 2000, Sanders succeed in 2016, with many of the same issues, just different microphones. A graph I did personally at Monmouth University showed the vast majority of young MU college students under 50,000 support Sanders, even many in the upper income brackets, but as people get poorer because of the global economy and poor policies that increase poverty, will we see the rise of a new party growing inside the old? A party that is Democratic, a party that fails for a few years and then starts to rebirth the Democrat party? I think so, its the right time in America, unless there is a war where many troops are used then we could see the process speed up, as wars often do to these things. The Our Revolution groups have nowhere to go but up, the mainstream parties battling each other and the ‘insurgent’ candidates can really only become more unpopular as they fail to get real policy in place and start to bring in people who traditional aren’t in the process or haven’t been accepted as a decision maker. We see similar politics in the UK with labor changing under Jeremy Corbyn. We are seeing infrastructure for the Sanderist movement grow, where communication and cooperation between different groups are growing. They are running decent candidates, many of which will lose this time, but will be able to run again, and again, and again. The 2020 election is where everything will likely start to break down. Sanders is the Henry Wallace of his time, although this time labor is set for a huge victory, its the speed that is hard to figure out.
Throughout human history, war has often been a method for different governments, nation-states, as well as organizations, to control resources. These wars have become bloodier and more collectivized over the last 150 years. What do I mean by collectivized? The entire population is gearing up to destroy another nation and now legitimately the enemy of another “nation.” Carl Von Clausewitz’s theory of “Total War” reshaped warfare starting in the 1800s. Total war is defined as “war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded.” The concept of “total war” has lead to extreme policies by nations such as strategic bombings, commerce raiding, collective punishment, forced labor for military, targeting of agriculture, Scorched Earth policy, Ethnic Cleansing, prolonged sieges that starved cities and nations, use of nuclear weapons, chemical warfare, Free Fire Zones and many more. These extreme policies carried out resulted in the idea that soldiers have a “moral duty” to resist, disobey and refuse to join the military of a nation, usually a draft. The paper will examine the actions of Soldiers who refused to fight wars, deserted the military, and in some cases turn on command, during the Vietnam War.
What was the goal of the Vietnam War carried out largely through the United States?
The Vietnam War was primarily fought over Vietnamese Independence from the “West” (Britain, France, the United States and other “allies” of the United States). After World War II, the Vietnamese wanted independence from France, because it had largely remained a French colony prior to the war and during the war under the Japanese who further devastated the country. The Vietnamese had fought off the Japanese with US support and had planned a constitution modeled after the US constitution. The country was split by a UN mandate in 1954 which split Vietnam into North and South regions. In 1955, the planned democratic elections were halted in the South over fears they would vote to unify with North Vietnam and that the so-called ‘communist” Ho Chi Minh would win. The US, in turn, installed a puppet dictator, Ngo Dinh Diem, a wealthy business owner, staunchly anti-communist, and a Catholic in charge of a largely Buddhist nation. Diem brutally persecuted Buddhists and become so unpopular that he was assassinated by the CIA in October of 1963 and replaced by his brother. From 1950 to 1975, the US waged a war to control formerly French Indochina via, military aid (up to 90% of French fighting with US dollars until they lost in 1954), also during and after with “military advisors”, constantly increasing until the US openly intervened in Vietnam in 1964, in which it consistently increased troop deployments until 1975, when the war finally came to an end.
Nearly three million Americans would ultimately serve in Vietnam over the next 20 years (Wardog). Many Americans did not agree or even understand why the US was involved in Vietnam. The US lied about the “Gulf of Tonkin” incident in July of 1964, where a US ship was falsely attacked so President Lyndon B. Johnson could gain more war powers and the result had been a major escalation of the war. The Americans did not find out about this event until nearly ten years later. David Duncan, formerly a Green Beret in Vietnam, was one of the first military trainers in Vietnam. After his tour of duty, he came back and told people the war was a lie. “I was really proud of what I thought I was doing. The problem I had was realizing that what I was doing was not good. I was doing it right but I wasn’t doing right” (Sir!NoSir!). He took a stand openly against the war and resigned from the military. The war took a long time to end, it was pushed with starch anti-communism and what Einstein calls the “measles of mankind”, nationalism.
Other soldiers such as Dr. Howard Levy refused to perform their military duties to help the war effort. The ideas of personal responsibility made many people not only question the war, hate the war, but also actively try to stop it or refuse to participate in it. Soldiers created underground newspapers in military barracks, ships and cafes across the country to spread the anti-war news. These would often become ban by the military officers and that banning of it would ironically arouse interests by more troops in what was being printed, almost a metaphor in a way for the drug war. Troops on aircraft carriers were literally signing petitions not to go to Vietnam, over 1,200 sailors signed it.
From April 18 to April 23, 1971, some 900 Vietnam veterans were involved in a massive anti-war rally in Washington, DC. The events included lobbying Congress, “Guerilla Theater” in the streets and keep in mind this was during the 1971 investigation into war crimes, with “150 vets testifying from firsthand experience” (VVAW). This helped the organization Vietnam Veterans Against the War, formed in 1967, became a national organization. The April events were considered one of “the most powerful anti-war demonstration held up to that time”(VVAW). It scared President Richard Nixon so much that he received hourly reports on the demonstration (VVAW). 50 veterans even took over the office of Senator James Buckley (R-NY) after he refused to meet with them. The last day of the demonstration the veterans each individual made a statement against the war and then threw their medals over the White House fence protesting against the war. One Veteran from the demonstration famously stated that “If we have to fight again, it will be to take these steps.”
The famous May Day Protests in 1971 saw, according to Chief Jerry V. Wilson, some 12,000 to 15,000 protestors block streets, throw “chicken shit” to mock the colonels, block government buildings and marching in protest of the war (Halloran). Most of the protesters were a mix of students and veterans. These people believed that serving the war effort was deeply wrong and that the war would end when soldiers refused to fight the wars. In the 1980s, under the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, much of this history of the anti-war movement was swept under the carpet and myths of the “hippies” who spat on soldiers started.
Many sailors, pilots, and San Diego residents even joined the anti-war movement. Sailors on the USS Coral Sea, at first signed hundreds of petitions then thousands of them signed it. On Sept. 13, 1971, they wrote a petition to Congress stating that a majority of the sailors do not believe in the Vietnam War and asking that their ship not return to Southeast Asia. Before the petitions could be sent to Congress they were ripped off by the lifers and are now being held by the ship’s executive officer. He said the petition was legal but ignored attempts by the crew to get it back. So the crew ignored the executive officer and started a new petition. Over 300 men signed the first one and were pissed off when it was ripped up (Good Times/Vol. IV No. 29/OCT. 1, 1971). When the ship sailed out the Golden Gate on Monday for a two-week trial run, there were thousands of leaflets with the text of the petition and places for signatures.
The naval carriers and pilot crews often had little combat casualties and dealt severe damage to the civilians across Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, especially when President Richard Nixon started slowly withdrawing troops in 1969, it meant more bombing and higher civilian deaths. Veterans started focusing on actively persuading people that the war was wrong. Saying things like I was there, I did terrible things and we shouldn’t be there, things like that are a lot more persuasive when you can say you fought in that war. Soldiers also did symbolic things like wear black armbands to say they support a protest at home. The Vietnam War is also where you see the “black power” movement start to emerge and groups like the black panthers. Where are legitimate questions asked why are black people fighting for a country that doesn’t provide them with equal rights? Famous athletes like Muhammad Ali refused to fight the war, perhaps modern day Kaepernick could be said as a mini Ali.
Soon after their return home from Vietnam in 1971, a group of 236 GI’s from the 173rd Airborne Brigade made the following statement: “Throughout our time in the service we’ve seen minority group GI’s discriminated against. In Vietnam, that’s been evidenced by higher casualty rates. Other times it takes the form of slower promotions, higher penalties for rules violations, and the worst job assignments. We feel that the Army fosters racism and has purposely avoided dealing with the day-to-day problems of minority groups”(Boyle).
To briefly address it I will reference what’s in Richard Boyle article not far below the previous quote,
“Many white officers and NCO’s made a practice of harassing Black GI’s about their Afros which didn’t conform to “military regulations.” While right-wing soldiers were allowed to fly confederate flags on Martin Luther King’s birthday and could generally count on getting away with making open racial slurs, Black GI’s were given sentences of up to 6 months for giving the clenched fist salute and “dapping” (a brotherly greeting)”(Boyle).
During the 10 years of the Vietnam War according to figures by the Pentagon, 500,000 deserted (Woolf). A large anti-war movement actively protesting, the Vietcong (a “determined enemy”), a military on collapse, Nixon announced the policy of “Vietnamization” making the Vietnamese takeover the efforts which completely failed and people knew it would fail in the 1970s.
“By every conceivable indicator, our army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and noncommissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near mutinous”(Heinl).
THE COLLAPSE OF THE ARMED FORCES
By Col. Robert D. Heinl, Jr.
North American Newspaper Alliance
Armed Forces Journal, 7 June 1971
The US military had become almost self-governing in a way, even outside of its officers. Soldiers refusing to go on missions, people on drugs everywhere, especially heroin, officers being killed for given orders; to put it bluntly it was a circus. Because of the drug addiction and disapproval of the military, there was now an “epidemic of barracks theft”. This theft is even more devastating for moral where you have soldiers unable to trust each other, especially when in combat.
“Soldier muggings and holdups are on the rise everywhere. Ft. Dix, N.J., has a higher rate of on-post crime than any base on the East Coast. Soldier muggings are reported to average one a night, with a big upsurge every pay-day. Despite 450 MP’s (one for every 55 soldiers stationed there – one of the highest such ratios in the country) no solution appears in sight (Heinl). Armed Forces Journal
There are more military police than ever and still, the situation cannot be dealt with. The military was in a state of active revolt.
“Crimes are so intense and violent in the vicinity of an open-gate “honor system” detention facility at Ft. Dix that, according to press reports, units on the base are unwilling to detail armed sentinels to man posts nearby, for fear of assault and robbery”(Heinl). Armed Forces Journal
So bad that the military can’t even protect a gate so they have to have a bullshit system to protect themselves from looking weak. These issues are some of many that build up an identity of the military at war with itself that can’t maintain itself, in a war it doesn’t want to fight, unrest at home and a country trying to find itself. Toward the end of the war things got so bad a term “fragging” was given to the time when US soldier in Vietnam would attack their commanders for giving those orders to fight or go on missions.
“Shortly after the costly assault on Hamburger Hill in mid-1969, the GI underground newspaper in Vietnam, “G.I. Says”, publicly offered a $10,000 bounty on Lt. Col. Weldon Honeycutt, the officer who ordered(and led) the attack”(Heinl).
Several attempts were made on that soldier’s life although he went home alive. But even the brashness to publish something about killing an officer in a newspaper with a bounty shows how bad the situations were. This did affect judgments by leaders, “Another Hamburger Hill is definitely out “said one Major (Heinl). The problem of soldiers refusing to fight is evident throughout the end of the war, notable by two examples, the entire units of 196th Light Infantry Brigade publicly sat down on the battlefield and 1st Air Cavalry Division refused going down a dangerous trail (Heinl). When soldiers actively don’t believe in the “value” of the war serious consequences happen to the nation’s military.
Briefly, I will talk about the problems of historically armies in World War 1, World War 2, Iraq, Afghanistan 1980s and Modern, while touching back to Vietnam. During WW1, over 240,000 British and Commonwealth soldiers were court-martialed (Hinke). World War II saw 1.7 million US courts-martial, “one-third of all American prosecutions”, and around 21,000 desertions (Hinke). During the Afghan War, 60,000-80,000 ethnic Soviet border troops from the Muslim Central Asian regions deserted (Hinke). 85,000 Afghan national troops also deserted during this period (Hinke).
2001 to Today
“Pentagon estimates more than 40,000 troops have deserted from all branches of military service. In 2001 alone, 7,978 deserted” (Hinke).
All these problems of desertion relate to poor morale, belief in conflict, in some instances pay, the requirements of troops and length of the conflict. These conflicts are all about domination of regions, resources and/or competing for national interests. The Vietnam War adds up to a cumulative discontent with soldiers disbelief in the value of the conflict and actively trying to end the war. This dislike by the US soldiers does not mean that the Vietcong were just in their actions, who often killed, tortured, overtaxed and committed numerous atrocities, but as the song For What it’s Worth says, “Noboy is right if everybody’s wrong”.
Examine the Vietnam War
Examine the Opposition to the War in the Military(Army)
– How they applied refusing to fight philosophy
-Social Problems of the time (small)
-US Military on verge of Collapse?
Presentation
Present – Stop video at 5:23 mins (https://search.alexanderstreet.com/view/work/bibliographic_entity%7Cvideo_work%7C1786515/sir-no-sir)
(Ask Questions
Question 1: What do you think about the idea “if people refuse to fight the wars can’t continue”?
– Quick Facts:
More than 21,000 American soldiers were convicted of desertion in World War Two
Since 2000 estimate of more than 40,000 troops deserted from all branches of the military.
In 2001 alone, 8,000 deserted the US military.
More than 5,500 desertions 2003-2004
Any guesses to how many deserted during the Vietnam War 10 year period? 500,000!
-Question 2
Was what they did right for refusing to fight what they perceived as an unjust war?
-Quick Facts
How many people if there was a draft implemented tomorrow and require you to show up at your local town hall would do so, to prepare for a military conflict against China and North Korea?
Images and further Readings
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/viet-nam-veterans-against-the-war-demonstrate-against-the-news-photo/526094756#viet-nam-veterans-against-the-war-demonstrate-against-the-war-in-picture-id526094756 ( March in DC Arlington Cemetery)
24 May 1969: Senior US officers say the strategic location of Hill 937 – ‘Hamburger Hill’ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/24/troops-count-cost-vietnam-hamburger-hill-archive-1969
References
(2009). From US War Dogs : http://www.uswardogs.org/new_page_18.htm
Between Hitler and Stalin . (n.d.). From UCRDC: http://www.ucrdc.org/HI-SCORCHED_EARTH_POLICY.html
Boyle, R. (1973). GI Revolts The Breakdown of the US Army in Vietnam. From Richard Gibson : http://richgibson.com/girevolts.htm
Col. Robert D. Heinl, J. (1971, June 7). THE COLLAPSE OF THE ARMED FORCES. North American Newspaper Alliance. From https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/Vietnam/heinl.html
Col. Robert D. Heinl, J. (1971, June 7). THE COLLAPSE OF THE ARMED FORCES. From Montclair University : https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/Vietnam/heinl.html
Drooling on the Vietnam Vets. (2000, May 2). From Slate : http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2000/05/drooling_on_the_vietnam_vets.html
Halloran, R. (1972). 7,000 Arrested in Capital War Protest; 150 Are Hurt as Clashes Disrupt Traffic. From http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0503.html
Turse, N. (2017, September 28 ). The Ken Burns Vietnam War Documentary. From The Intercept: https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/the-ken-burns-vietnam-war-documentary-glosses-over-devastating-civilian-toll/
United Nations Office of Genocide Prevnetion and The Resposiblity to Protect . (2017). Ethnic Cleansing . From United Nations : http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/ethnic-cleansing.html
VVAW. (1977, Apirl ). Vets’ History: Operation “Dewey Canyon III”. From Vietnam Veterans Against the War: http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=1656
Woolf, C. (2015, March 26). From the Revolution to Bowe Bergdahl, desertion has a long history in the US. From PRI: https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-03-26/revolution-bowe-bergdahl-desertion-has-long-history-us
Zeiger, D. (Director). (2005 ). Sir!No Sir! [Motion Picture].
Links if need be
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/total_war
One of the most significant political theorists in recent memory is Noam Chomsky. Noam Chomsky is known for his contributions to linguistics, philosophy, history, and political discourse. Most notably, Chomsky is a proponent of the political ideologies of Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism, which are critical of centralized governmental and societal institutions and call for decentralized power structures. Chomsky was influenced by many sources ranging from philosophers such as William Goodwin to political theorists and economists such as Karl Marx. Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism are two political theories that are not widely explored by mainstream political theorists and philosophers. Despite the lack of understanding behind both theories, Noam Chomsky continues to have an influence on politics at all levels and is widely considered to be one of the most influential political theorists of the last few decades.
Noam Chomsky was born in Philadelphia on December 7, 1928. Chomsky grew up during the depths of the Great Depression alongside his younger brother David in a middle-class family. During his upbringing, Chomsky witnessed massive worker strikes and substantial political reform pushed forward by the government at all levels. His mother, Elsie Chomsky had been involved in the radical politics of the time and was a noted political activist within their community. Chomsky attended a progressive school and wrote a well-researched paper on the Spanish Civil War at the age of 10. Additionally, Chomsky was influenced politically by his uncle, who owned a newsstand where politics were frequently discussed.
At the age of 16, Chomsky graduated high school and soon enrolled at the University of Pennsylvania, where he excelled in classes in diverse subjects such as linguistics, philosophy, and mathematics. During his time at the University of Pennsylvania, Chomsky read works by figures such as Nathan Fine, Nelson Goodman, and W. V. Quine. These experiences made Chomsky come to the conclusion that human language was innate in every human’s mind and that language is influenced by the environment and evolves accordingly. Chomsky’s master’s thesis The Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew focused on the evolution of language. Chomsky eventually received his Ph. D from the University of Pennsylvania in 1955 and began teaching at MIT a year later. During this period, Chomsky became known for works such as the Aspects of the Theory of Syntax and several linguistic theories such as “extended standard theory”, “generative” and “transformational” theories.
Noam Chomsky, circa 1967, in an interview discussing The Responsibility of Intellectuals.
By the 1960s, Chomsky began to make his mark as a political activist due to his opposition to US involvement in the Vietnam War and staunch support for the Civil Rights Movement. In his 1967 essay The Responsibility of Intellectuals, Chomsky denounced the aggressive nature of American foreign policy throughout the world and spoke of the need for the intellectual community to come together to challenge the status quo American foreign policy. Additionally, Chomsky is further known for his book Manufacturing Consent, in which he criticizes American Media as biased and siding with US power structures. Chomsky’s criticisms of the American political system are rooted in the fact that the distribution of power within the US is biased in favor of the wealthiest and most powerful individuals. As a result of such factors, Chomsky has made his life’s work to side with the oppressed and focusing on how different factors such as media coverage impact this unequal balance of power. Chomsky is still active in worldwide political discourse and is frequently interviewed on a diverse array of topics, ranging from political theory to linguistics, to philosophy.
Human Nature
The early 20th Century Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin is one of the main figures who influenced Noam Chomsky’s political philosophy.
Noam Chomsky’s view on human nature is unique in the realm of philosophy. Chomsky believes that humans are innately linked with the natural work. Additionally, Chomsky believes that genes influence any organism, just like bees or geese, and that there are outside factors that enter into any organisms growth and development. Three important factors being the genetic composition, environmental effect, and lastly the way the laws of nature work. Chomsky also notes that there are fundamental roots in human nature and cites the idea of mutual aid. As discussed by the Russian philosopher Peter Kropotkin in the 1902 book Mutual Aid A Factor of Evolution, mutual aid is the voluntary exchange of resources and services for mutual benefit. Chomsky applies this concept to humans to explain why individuals build communities to help each other survive and defend ourselves from outside threats. Chomsky also discusses how many people form their view of human nature from religion and how that can mislead in the fact that we just don’t know have much certainty in human nature. Chomsky believes there must be some kind of framework for mortality and altruism as a base. Chomsky follows and favors the Humboldtian concept of how language forms and how it is a generative process which people use words in an “infinite use of finite means.” This concept views language as more plastic and changing all the time. The change is how we view words and how we interpret our lives with language.
Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism?
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon is one of the founders of Anarchist political thought.
Noam Chomsky is known for his views on Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism. Anarchism is the idea of being free and separated from a large federal government. The founder of Anarchist political thought is considered to be Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a 19th-century French political writer, and socialist. Proudhon argued that the real laws of society have nothing to do with authority but rather stem from the nature of society itself. Additionally, he foresaw the eventual dissolution of authority and the emergence of a natural social order.” Proudhon thinks of a society that is organized on an egalitarian basis, with difficult tasks diffused throughout society. This society would also be based on decentralized communities of worker associations and small communities. Decisions and other activities are done in cooperation and common interest rather than laws. Proudhon also rejected Parliamentary systems as ineffective. Another contributor to Anarchist political theory is William Goodwin, an English philosopher active during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Goodwin argued that governmental authority inherently goes against human nature and that social evils exist solely because people cannot act according to reason. As a solution to this predicament, Goodwin feels that a decentralized society of small communities is far more effective in promoting societal peace and stability.
The Israeli kibbutz system is considered to be a possible societal model according to Noam Chomsky.
Noam Chomsky explored this theme in his book On Anarchism. In the book, Chomsky discusses the concept of the kibbutz, a communal form of living seen in many Jewish communities in Israel, where people are highly interdependent and live communally in small villages. The problems of isolation and huge social stigma if you do something wrong on the kibbutz is terrible. It will destroy you if you stray to much from the community. But in Chomsky’s view, it is not perfect and needs to be worked out. Despite his view that collectivism is in many ways beneficial to society as a whole, Noam Chomsky is critical of Marxist political thought. Although Chomsky views Marxism as enabling individuals to reach the point in which they can solve their problems in an effective manner, he also feels that Marxism is, at times, an authoritarian ideology that directly against the ideas of Anarchism such as opposition to centralized power.
Here is an interesting quote discussion Chomsky’s view on Marxism:
“Actually, I’m not a great ethousists of Marx, but what he one comment he made seems appropriate here. I’m quoting him… but somewhere or other he said: socialism is an effort to try to solves man’s animal problems, and after having solved the animal problems, then we can face the human problems..socialism is an effort to get you to the point where you can face human problems”.
Throughout his writings, Noam Chomsky shows contempt for the modern system of capitalism, viewing it as an imperfect and flawed system, Much like with all systems and societal structures, Chomsky feels that the capitalist system can be improved through experimentation, but that a system based on Anarchism is perhaps the system that should be the goal of society to eventually move towards. William Goodwin, an English Anarchist, makes classical anarchist arguments that authority is against human nature and that social evil exists because people cannot act according to reason which is why a decentralized society of small communities is more natural and more effective. Chomsky belief of working inside the system (liberal reform) and radically changing the system (Marxist), can be confusing and at times hard to understand.
The Economic, The Political and the Social
Noam Chomsky is a self-described Anarcho-Syndicalist and is sympathetic to many of the ideas promoted in Libertarian Socialism. Chomsky wrote On Anarchism which discussed many of his thoughts on Anarchism, as well as the ideas unique to his own political philosophy. Chomsky’s works have been influenced by many different political perspectives, ranging from the more radical perspectives such as Marxism to Libertarianism. Chomsky was highly influenced by Anarchist theorists such as Goodwin and Proudhon. Chomsky does not believe there is a contradiction between pursuing certain reforms such as social welfare programs and single-payer health care systems that expand state power but benefit the public, to long-term implementation of increasingly Democratic institutions over time that gives workers more power until the point of system overthrow. The view held by Chomsky is that power is inherently evil in nature and that the federal government, while holding much power and often being illegitimate in terms of its overall structure, serves the purposes of protecting people from rampant, unregulated capitalism. An example of this philosophy could be the EPA stopping General Motors from poisoning rivers in Michigan, it would be very difficult for average citizens to undertake that. While the federal government structure, a tyranny in itself might be illegitimate, a private tyranny is worse and can only be checked by the power of a strong and active federal government.
In order to illustrate this point, Noam Chomsky uses an interesting metaphor:
“I’m not in favor of people being in cages. On the other hand I think people ought to be in cages if there’s a saber-toothed tiger wandering around outside and if they go out of the cage the saber-toothed tiger will kill them. So sometimes there’s a justification for cages. That doesn’t mean cages are good things. State power is a good example of a necessary cage. There are saber-toothed tigers outside; they are called transnational corporations which are among the most tyrannical totalitarian institutions that human society has devised. And there is a cage, namely the state, which to some extent is under popular control. The cage is protecting people from predatory tyrannies so there is a temporary need to maintain the cage, and even to extend the cage”.
Chomsky points to a broad range of examples for a basic moral philosophy that seems self-evident to people around the world on issues that directly affect them. This is a very bare bones again, not a judgment on human nature as good but having some kind of structure. Something similar to the golden rule appears in many societies and a conceptualization of right and wrong that does not allow for some level of abuse. An example could be small peasant farmers in Guatemala condemning Nestle for buying up their water supply, which results in water shortages and an angry. He would say that is a human reaction to something perceived as an unfair use of resources that belong to the community. Chomsky often points on examples of corporate greed in his works and how people believe it is immoral. A company like Exxon spilling thousands of barrels of oil into the ocean and getting to write it off for taxes and some years not paying taxes, as one of the largest corporations of the world, he would say humans naturally believe something like that is inherently unfair and wrong.
Chomsky has largely favored worker coops and companies like the Mondragon Corporation in Spain which came out of the period of Spanish Civil War in the 1930s. Chomsky views worker coops, or worker councils, workers managing the company and often owning the company equally as a style of capitalism to push as a short-term solution. Gar Alperovitz is considered similar where he has been helping create worker coops in Ohio. Chomsky is not in favor of capitalism nor is he in favor of markets. He often cites the fact that true markets do not exist and that when markets do exist, companies are often heavily subsidized or there is little to no competition. An example of this in the realm of international politics would be third world nations being prevented by larger powers from developing and having to rely on outside powers to subsidize them and provide them only a meager existence. Chomsky is critical of Neo-liberalism and its policies across the globe, noting that these politicians do little more than enrich the power elite at the expense of poor and vulnerable people. Instead, Chomsky favors a model based in part on Contemporary Liberalism because it does far more to help ordinary people throughout the world and helps to equalize the distribution of power and resources.
Here is an example of Noam Chomsky discussing the negative effects of Neo-liberal economic policies after the 2008 economic crisis:
“So, for example, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, at the time when he was still “Saint Alan” – hailed by the economics profession as one of the greatest economists of all time (this was before the crash for which he was substantially responsible) – was testifying to Congress in the Clinton years, and he explained the wonders of the great economy that he was supervising. He said a lot of its success was based substantially on what he called “growing worker insecurity”. If working people are insecure, if they’re part of the precariat, living precarious existences, they’re not going to make demands, they’re not going to try to get better wages, they won’t get improved benefits. We can kick ’em out, if we don’t need ’em. And that’s what’s called a “healthy” economy, technically speaking. And he was highly praised for this, greatly admired”.
As noted above, “worker insecurity’ is the main theme in Chomsky’s philosophy, where you cannot always seek perfect solutions you seek better ones than neoliberal policies. Authors like Naomi Klein who wrote The Shock Doctrine emphasizes a similar philosophy of how neoliberalism uses various tools to unfairly rig markets to favor often the rich and powerful people. The book emphasizes how neoliberal policies are used to smash economies and push in policies that normally wouldn’t be put into place through “shock and awe”. She brings up the takeover of charter schools after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, where “The Friedmanite American Enterprise Institute enthused that “Katrina accomplished in a day … what Louisiana school reformers couldn’t do after years of trying”, meaning privatize the school systems, which was largely against what the public had previously wanted. Chomsky has seen the transitions from the New Deal to the Clinton years of NAFTA, which he views as very different forms of capitalism requiring different approaches to understand.
Chomsky gives a definition of patriotism that states:
“For those whose instincts are democratic rather than totalitarian, “patriotism” means commitment to the welfare and improvement of the society, its people, its culture. That’s a natural sentiment and one that can be quite positive. It’s one all serious activists share, I presume; otherwise why take the trouble to do what we do? But the kind of “patriotism” fostered by totalitarian societies and military dictatorships, and internalized as second nature by much of intellectual opinion in more free societies, is one of the worst maladies of human history, and will probably do us all in before too long”.
Noam Chomsky views patriotism (depending on the tendency of individuals) as having the potential to do good, often in democratic and local levels, rather than the national level. The view he has of nationalism is highly critical of American foreign policy, which is what he calls jingoistic, especially in the post-9/11 world. Foreign policy should be more measured in Chomsky’s opinion and less focused on the use of force for private gain and instead more on cooperation. Many anarchists and Marxists leaning philosophers have had similar sentiments on war and many were locked up during World War I, the most famous being the 1912 and 1920 Socialist Party Presidential candidate Eugene Debs.
In conclusion, Noam Chomsky is one of the most influential political theorists and philosophers in recent memory and is a leading intellectual force on many different topics. Chomsky is known for promoting the political theories of Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism, which are critical of state power and favor a more decentralized power structure based in part on voluntary institutions. Chomsky holds a philosophy that brings truth to power, stands up for the oppressed, and is rooted in diverse intellectual traditions. Noam Chomsky promotes his ideas through numerous writings on topics such as economics, philosophy, American foreign policy, and political theory. Moreover, Chomsky’s political views were shaped in part by events such as the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement, and the rise in Neo-liberal economic policies during the last few decades of the 20th Century. Chomsky’s political philosophy still remains influential to this very day in the realm of Anarcho-syndicalism and will continue to influence future generations of political scientists and activists alike.
Bibliography
Albert, Michael. “Science, Religion & Human Nature – The Chomsky Sessions – (2).” YouTube. February 2010. Accessed March 01, 2018.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f02gcRrdK2I.
Chomsky, Noam. “A Conversation with Noam Chomsky on Organizing for a Next System.” TheNextSystem.org. March 24, 2016. Accessed March 01, 2018. https://thenextsystem.org/conversation_with_noam_chomsky.
Chomsky, Noam. Chomsky on Anarchism. New York City, NY: The New Press, 2013.
Chomsky, Noam, and Carlos Peregrín Otero. Language and politics. Edinburgh: AK Press U.K., 2004.
Chomsky, Noam. “Noam Chomsky on Patriotism.” Noam Chomsky on Patriotism. November 11, 2002. Accessed March 01, 2018. http://www.serendipity.li/wot/nc_patrio.htm.
Chomsky, Noam. “Old Wine in New Bottles: A Bitter Taste Noam Chomsky.” Old Wine in New Bottles: A Bitter Taste. June 1996. Accessed March 01, 2018.https://chomsky.info/199606__/.
Chomsky, Noam. “Plutonomy and the Precariat: On the History of the US Economy in Decline.” France Al Jazeera. May 16, 2012. Accessed March 01, 2018. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/201251114163762922.html.
Chomsky, Noam. The Responsibility of Intellectuals. New York: The New Press, 2017.
Clark, John P. The Philosophical Anarchism of William Godwin. Princeton: Princeton Legacy Library, 2015.
Clark, John P. “What is Anarchism?” Nomos 19 (1978): 3-28. http://bluehawk.monmouth.edu:2083/stable/24219036.
Edgley, Alison. Social and Political Thought of Noam Chomsky. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2013.
Miller, Martin A., George Woodcock, Arif Dirlik, and Franklin Rosemont. “Anarchism.” Encyclopaedia BritanGeorge nica. December 20, 2017. Accessed March 01, 2018. https://www.britannica.com/topic/anarchism.
Noland, Aaron. “Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: Socialist as Social Scientist.” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 26, no. 3 (1967): 313-28.http://bluehawk.monmouth.edu:2083/stable/3485528.
Noland, Aaron. “Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: Socialist as Social Scientist.” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 26, no. 3 (1967): 313-28. http://bluehawk.monmouth.edu:2083/stable/3485528.
O’Neill, Ben. “On “Private Tyrannies” .” Mises Institute. January 22, 2009. Accessed March 01, 2018. https://mises.org/library/private-tyrannies#_ftn12.
Sofroniou, Andrea. International Law, Global Relations, World Powers. S.l., NY: Lulu Com, 2017.
“The Shock Doctrine.” The Shock Doctrine: An Excerpt From the Introduction Naomi Klein. 2008. Accessed March 01, 2018. http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/excerpt.
President Trump has now appointed a new cabinet, member Bill Coal of Ann Arbor, Michigan. Bill Coal is a former sex offender who was caught molesting four children in front of the Oakland GOP offices where he was previously attempting to bolster support for a future run for governor. Bill Coal was key for Trump in Michigan, for not only rallying voters for Trump but also encouraging younger voters to erect Republicans. Coal will now head the nation’s federal Child Protection Agency, tasked with protecting over 30 million children from negligence, abuse, and rape. Coal said, “I am fully committed to making sure I lick the problems that affect those kids. To make sure their parents are kept busy with employment and to nail down a hard solution to our nation’s problems.”
Coal has also been known to pay bribes, and an FCC court ruled he was in violation of Code 345 section E-W, preventing corporations from donating money to businesses to donate to political campaigns. The business in question was a candy store that was known for its lollypops and ice cream. Coal paid a fine of $50,000 dollars and has reportedly made no comment since, although our investigative reports have seen his trash full of lollypop wrappers, which mysteriously stopped after becoming head of the agency. Trump has said, “Bill Coal is a man who can get things done and he’s a guy I would trust to take care of my own kids.” Coal was last in Michigan at a farm he owned bragging about how big his cock was days before his term begins, see image below.
He is quoted as saying “I can’t wait to have kids come over and see my cock as part of my job. I am very proud to be an American today and can’t thank the President enough for allowing me to bask in his erect oral victory. Amen.”
Bill Coal and his cock in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
For more fun see…
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Sexual_innuendo
Have you ever tried to organize a college event? Did you get frustrated by issues of planning and attendance?
College is a stressful environment often characterized by heavy workloads and important deadlines to meet. Planning a successful college event can be most successful by following certain guidelines to maximize your potential. Finals/Midterms times and prior to are the worst time to hold events. Here are some tips to help you set up a successful event:
1. Early Bird gets the worm
First-time Political leaning or educational events, in my opinion, are always best to be done in the first 2-3 weeks of school. Before Midterms and before homework starts getting overwhelming.
2.Time Time Time
Make sure the event isn’t at a time when most people are in class but perhaps “college hour,” or a time when people want to have some pizza after class.
3. Who’s Who?
Figure out who are the Demographic most likely to attend. Figure out how to attract them, like LGBTQ attract them by telling them about the issue and how it’s important in their life. How they should come and will benefit. Then figure out how to attract large segments of the student or other population.
4. Monopoly MOFO
Making sure your event has a monopoly over the time/date is important so other events don’t drain from your audience. If a more “liberal” socially- (not economically that word is misused today), then figure out what other events that draw people in that realm may be happening or run by and inform them of your event beforehand to make sure you have a leg up on them. Something as simple as saying “hey come to my event” and “save the date.” Informing the faculty who are “experts” in that field your event is on can help spread the word as well.
5. Art Bitches
Make sure you have an attractive flyer to catch someone’s eye to the event. This should also include online postings like on Instagram/Facebook which are drawing more attention these days. A picture is worth a thousand words so keep it relative to the event.
6. Munchies!
Having Pizza at the event can go a long way where people who aren’t generally as interested now come to the event and want a piece of that action. So food is a way to lure people just make sure you try to gauge the attendance with food supply otherwise it will take away from an event. Refillable cups is advised along with water to reduce plastic use and make your event more environmentally friendly.
7. Songs of the time (EXTRA)
Having a musician play relevant music at the end of the event can lure more people- his or her friends to attend- and ends an element that there will be a musician playing at the end. Try to keep the music almost relevant to the event. For example, if the event discusses healthcare policy, include a song that talks about health care or if the event is about immigration feature a song about immigration. Try to keep the music it a genre you think people will like. Solidarity Singers in NJ are known for political songs and is a good source for political events.
Early in Semester
During a right day of week/Time
Figuring out the target group
Making sure the target group has only your event to attend
Posters that are well designed
Some food at the event
(Extra)Perhaps music performance at the end or start
(These are lessons I have learned from my failed events-XOXO )
Everyone is shocked oil has gone down in the last few years when it was close to $4 a gallon now under $3. Why has gas dropped so low in the US and worldwide?
In the United States under the Obama Administration, an increased amount of “fracking” occurred where they increased domestic production to reduce dependence abroad. The strong U.S. dollar has been the main driver for the price decline of crude oil over the last few years. In fact, the dollar is at a 12-year high against the euro, leading to appreciations in the U.S. dollar index and a reduction in oil prices. This puts the market under a lot of pressure because when the value of the dollar is strong, the value of commodities falls. Global commodity prices are usually in dollars and fall when the U.S. dollar is strong. For example, the surge in the dollar in the second half of 2014 caused a sharp fall in the leading commodity indexes (Evan Tarver Investopedia). More reason are that OPEC has been unwilling to stabilize oil prices and is actively competing with the US. But also higher fuel efficient US/EU (somewhat due to Obama) has resulted in less demand for oil. The Iran Nuclear Deal also help Iran sell more oil on the market lower prices.
The reason oil and many other industries are likely to die is simple, they require to much water. It takes 2-7 barrels of water to create 1 barrel of oil. Varies based on method. Let’s talk fracking!
“Water use and wastewater production are two of the chief environmental concerns voiced about hydraulic fracturing,” said Avner Vengosh, professor of geochemistry and water quality at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment. (Duke Staff)
So to get oil, it requires the intense use of water and dumping of the dirty water back into areas which can create more water problems.
Kondash said. “Drilling a single well can require between 3 to 6 million gallons of water, and thousands of wells are fracked each year. Local water shortages could limit future production.”Finding ways to treat and dispose of or recycle the large volume of chemical-laden flow back water and brine-laden wastewater that is produced over the lifetime of an unconventional oil or gas well also poses challenges, the researchers stated.“Given the high levels of contaminants these waters contain, it’s startling that the amount of wastewater being produced from hydraulic fracturing in the United States is nearly on the same level as the amount of water used to frack the wells in the first place,”(Duke Staff).
So if you following me here, there will be a major shift in the use of petroleum because profits are declining, the benefits are being reduced and the dollar value of clean water will only continue to increase. This does not way in regulations like a carbon tax or other taxes likely to take affect in the next 20 years. Almost all countries are Earth will have water problems in the next 15 years. The only direction to move is away from oil production and into new energy sources. Electric cars, a proper transit system, solar, tidal and other technologies that have a lower impact on the environment and aren’t as resource heavy. To speed it up, a good plan would be to increase taxes or higher standards to speed up the process.Another good way is to encourage divestment from oil producers/heavy use things like cars and into more community-based technology like transit. The only problem with that is the World currency is the US dollar. The US dollar is based on Petroleum. A collapse of Petroleum could have ripple effects that most economists probably don’t have the wherewithal to predict. Looks like the sun is setting on the future of petroleum.
Read more: 4 Reasons Why the Price of Crude Oil Dropped
Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/102215/4-reasons-why-price-crude-oil-dropped.asp#ixzz4wwjh8qem
We are coming to you live from Belmar New Jersey with some new money making slogans, of-course profit and charity mixed together for the perfect balance.
We have a company’s designs coming up so buckle up and put on your helmet folks it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
Our First contender is coming to you from Charlottesville, VA, Bob Wanhana
His idea is to use the current political climate to start a venture capital company to give people surprise visits from across the country.
The company name is called, “Make a punch foundation”, the idea according to Bob was inspired by make a wish foundation, which help’s dying kids under 18 make a wish before they die, be aware you can age out of the program. Bob wants a new program available to people of all ages and economic backgrounds except gays. Bob is currently in the fundraising portion of his enterprise where he hopes to raise $30,000 to get things started.
M: So Bob how are you going to get that money?
Bob: Well M, I plan on soliciting every group I can that wants to see people punched and asking for donations to help people out there who want to be punched, but have just be down on their luck.
M: Well how do you planning on using these funds to help those in need?
Bob: I plan on using some of the money to help settle a case with my ex-wife, using another few thousands to light money on fire in front of poor blacks in Haiti and then paying someone to punch our first lucky winner.
M: Now now Bob, you can’t get the audience roused up like that and not tell them who your first wish will be.
Bob: Well M, I like to keep the people in a state of awe and finding out before it happens can really mess things up like spoiling game of thrones for a friend by telling them that everyone dies.
M: I understand you will be listed as a non-profit so all donations are tax deductible, is that right Bob?
Bob: That’s right, if you donate money to my foundation it’s less money going to your government to slaughter innocent people in other countries, I am all for keeping the money in the country and won’t move my company overseas.
M: I am sure you have won the crowd on that one Bob, outsourcing is out this season. How do you feel about punching Nazi’s?
Bob: I am not against the idea if they are on my lawn or even if small children are in my yard, I say it’s a waste of capital to punch people who might be expecting it soon. There are plenty of people out there who are more desperate and in need. Cops that rape children on duty, politicians who lie and break their promises, a banker, wealthy arms dealers, you know, all sorts of people from different backgrounds and walks of life.
M: Well you make a compelling argument there Bob, we’re out of time will have to leave it at that, Thanks, Bob! (shakes hand).
He has words, not common words, but words meant to cut, cut the fabric of the soul.
Words meant to entangle his victims in the anxiety and ego of modern life.
The words he speaks are not common, yet spoken with passion and hate.
The words walk on their own throughout my mind, planting seeds of infidelity in my self belief.
My belief in self remains unscathed and yet, I can feel the words of his, slip and slide down my ear. Like pollution bleeding from a factory wall it erodes my soul like an acid.
The word, the word is weakness, the topic, the man, the result, a short temper, a quicker reaction, a fiery hell burning the insides of my soul.
The house may be burning down, but the foundation remains the same. The windows covered in smoke, the foundation remains the same. The floor bending from the heat, the foundation remains the same.
And of the mighty words which weakness we do praise, another crawls out, and its here to stay. The word is alone. How long are you going to stay alone before you cut the vines of weakness, before you machete the epic failures of your masculinity away? He asks. A reply?
Slow, methodical, violence on the self. In perpetuity.
here is the propaganda video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIHCczsbJo
Neo-Con propaganda; The US lied about Nuclear weapons and the invasion was a war crime. The US government killed a million people in Iraq and leave it out of the video? Fucking monsters. The US destroyed Iraq multiple times and armed in multiple times. Who sold Saddam the chemical weapon he used to gas the Kurds? How about the fact that there was no Al Qaeda presents in Iraq before the US invaded in 2003? Left that out too. How about the fact that it was all doubted by the entire world that there anything but oil in Iraq? How about the fact the troops that left Iraq went to Afghanistan which was falling apart? The war crimes he mentioned, the US destroyed the city of Fallujah in Iraq, where the New general Mattis “Mad Dog” covered it up. How about the giant waste and fraud committed by American contractors? Left that out too? “It was President George W. Bush who signed the Status of Forces agreement in 2008, which planned for all American troops to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.”The US occupation of Iraq was illegally, immoral, a war crime and most Iraqi’s saw them as occupiers. Iran is not the mortal enemy of the US, the US overthrow a Democracy and they are still angry about it- it lead to many deaths. Iran is the enemy because the US is allied with Saudi Arabia Wahhabi’s instead of Iran Shiite’s. How can you say they secured Iraq after destroying its military and creating the power vacuum in the first place?
https://represent.us/about/ (passing city wide anti-corruption laws)
https://volunteer.represent.us/chapters
Wolf PAC (Money out of Politics) via constitutional amendment
https://vimeo.com/278195786
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/02/11/19283/here-are-interests-lobbying-every-statehouse -COVANTA HOLDING CORP. FIRSTENERGY CORP. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL INC. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORP.) Top Industries lobbying NJ(2014)!
http://www.arboraesthetics.com/blog/category/tree-planting
http://urbanforestrynetwork.org/benefits/aesthetic.htm
http://www.gardenaesthetics.com/
http://gardenpool.org/diy-projects – creating sustainable living in US and Abroad
http://phe.rockefeller.edu/ -Research focuses on long-term trends relevant to the environment, including changes in population,
http://www.lead.org.au/fs/fst29.html – Getting lead out of drinking water
https://www.nrdc.org/ – Protecting US Environment
http://www.vrg.org/- Vegetarian resource group
(From NJ Future Website)-http://designyourtown.org/places/ – Can look at town designs
Peace & International Conflict Resolution Humanitarian Law Project (Fight for Human Rights) Veterans for Peace (For International Peace and Nuclear Disarmament)
https://www.peacecoalition.org/ – For International Peace and Nuclear Disarm
http://worldbeyondwar.org/who/ -World Beyond War is a global nonviolent movement to end war and establish a just and sustainable peace.
Internet Issues, Cyber Security, Freedom of Information
https://civic.mit.edu/ – Goal :sign, create, deploy, and assess tools and processes that support and foster civic participation and the flow of information between and within communities.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/DETOC/assoc/bowling.html – Talks about fragmented communities need to understand to get into modern US politics especially NJ
https://www.edx.org/school/harvardx – Getting very cheap Education for high level information like government/peace/science topics…etc
https://www.coursera.org/- Getting Free Education for high level information like government/peace/science topics..etc
https://www.khanacademy.org/ – Mostly free highschool
http://www.njamistadcurriculum.net/about – Teach about African American Historyhttps://www.njsba.org/about/membership/membership-school-board-members/school-board-candidacy/- Run for School Board
http://www.njcul.org/- New Jersey League of Credit Unions
List of Labor Unions
https://www.manta.com/mb_44_F0277_31/labor_unions_and_similar_labor_organizations/new_jersey
Information on Area to help make decisions
https://datausa.io/
http://www.bestplaces.net/state/new_jersey
Reliable News Organizations
https://centerforcooperativemedia.org/ – Montclair NJ- Help start new state wide local media coverage via coop model
https://hudsoncountyview.com/ -Hudson County NJ News
(Intro)Film the Myth of the Liberal Media by Noam Chomsky : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8oHl3ooeZo&feature=share WikiLeaks – Truth to Power AirWars – Military news Democracy Now! – World/ US News DC Reporting – US News- Washington- Big Shots The Real News Network – World/US News
https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/wjp-rule-law-index/wjp-rule-law-index-2017%E2%80%932018 – Has Rule of Law Report(global decline of law)
https://www.projectcensored.org/- News Stories that the media misses
https://usawatchdog.com/bio/ – US news and Corruption The Intercept – In-depth News, mostly foreign Policy, in depth on domestic issues Chapo Trap House – Young People on Policy
Traveling back to 1945, an era where World War II had wiped tens of millions off the face of the Earth, resulted in genocide and mass murder on an unimaginable scale, we find the world plunged into darkness for nearly 6 years. By the time the Germans had surrendered, the war with Japan was also coming to an end(May 1945). The atomic bomb was a poker hand play by President Truman to force the Soviet Union into submission on deals across Europe and Asia. By doing so, the US could maintain its hegemony over the entire world and expand its influence into Eastern Europe.
President Harry Truman himself wrote after the Potsdam conference that “We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world.” Six out of seven Five Star Generals during World War II were against the use of the devastating weapon on Japan because they knew Japan was going to surrender and that the use of such weapon could not be undone. Here is some direct information discussing why some high ranking military officials were against the use of the atomic bomb:
In his “third person” autobiography (co-authored with Walter Muir Whitehill) the commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated “The President in giving his approval for these [atomic] attacks appeared to believe that many thousands of American troops would be killed in invading Japan, and in this he was entirely correct; but the dilemma was an unnecessary one, for had we been willing to wait, the effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials.”
The use of nuclear weapons did not bring Japan closer to surrender. The Japanese had wanted to reach peace with the Allies as early as March of 1945, but also be able to have their Emperor and Prime Minister have a role in determining military decisions, which was something the Truman administration would not accept.
General Carl “Tooey” Spaatz, who in July 1945 commanded the U.S. Army Strategic Air Force (USASTAF), recalled in a 1962 interview that he gave “notification that I would not drop an atomic bomb on verbal orders–they had to be written–and this was accomplished.” Spaatz also stated that the dropping of the atomic bomb was “done by a military man under military orders. We’re supposed to carry out orders and not question them.” In a 1965 Air Force oral history interview, Spaatz stressed that the bombing “was purely a political decision, wasn’t a military decision. The military man carries out the order of his political bosses.”
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not about winning a war, it was about testing a new weapon on an enemy many people believed to be subhuman (the Japanese). The bombings targeted civilians populations like modern terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Those left alive from the atomic bombs suffered a cruel death from radiation poisoning and severe burns. Estimates of killed and wounded in Hiroshima (150,000) and Nagasaki (75,000) considered over conservative by the Children of Atomic Bomb project.
General Douglas MacArthur, the US commander in the Pacific, thought that the use of such bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view. General Curtis “Demon” LeMay, a staunch anti-Communist who gained notoriety after being selected as segregationist candidate George Wallace’s running mate in the 1968 Presidential Election said that “Even without the atomic bomb and the Russian entry into the war, Japan would have surrendered within two weeks. The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war.”
Douglas MacArthur was an American five-star general and field marshal of the Philippine Army. He was Chief of Staff of the United States Army during the 1930s and played a prominent role in the Pacific theater during World War II.
In every US history class, we are told the opposite, in that the use of the atomic bomb on Japan saved lives and resulted in a speedy victory against Japan. That statement is unequivocally false. The US didn’t have to invade the Japanese mainland or use the atomic bomb. The United States could have ended the war sooner without unconditional surrender and many people paid the price of politics of the war with their lives. The atomic bomb was a political weapon more so than a military one. The atomic bomb now poses a threat to wiping out the human species, as nuclear weapons have become significantly more powerful with the new Hydrogen Bomb and now numbers in the thousands across the globe. Currently, the US and Russia hold 90% of world stockpiles and the stakes for war between both countries are much higher than they were during the height of the Cold War (roughly between 1955 and 1963) because of US troops on Russian borders and other areas like North Korea.
The scientist and people who developed the Manhattan project circulated a petition with over a 70 people signing it against the use of such a bomb. The petition stated that“If after this war a situation is allowed to develop in the world which permits rival powers to be in uncontrolled possession of these new means of destruction, the cities of the United States, as well as the cities of other nations, will be in continuous danger of sudden annihilation. All the resources of the United States, moral and material, may have to be mobilized to prevent the advent of such a world situation. Its prevention is at present the solemn responsibility of the United States — singled out by virtue of her lead in the field of atomic power.”
The US had a moral responsibility to prevent the use of the weapon and make sure others weren’t pushed to pursue it. The Truman Administration failed to realize the long-term problems of using nuclear weapons. Because he used them the Soviets put tons of time and energy into developing the technology. Truman not considering the advice from the scientist ignored warnings that the rest of the world would catch up, specifically the Soviet Union, which the scientists claimed could lead to a Cold war and destroy human civilization. An accidental mishap could mean triggering a nuclear war, which has come close to happening during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and a few other times, most notably in 1979, 1983, and 1995. It should be known that these weapons aren’t safe and that mistakes have been before, where atomic weapons have almost been set off. For example, unarmed nuclear weapons were accidental dropped by the US Air Force in South Carolina in 1958 and North Carolina in 1961. Luckily neither incident resulted in the detonation of the bombs. Another time a maintenance worker while fixing things around a nuclear warhead accidental armed it with his tool belt. These are just a few instances of how a weapon endangered the lives of countless people. There are also the nuclear weapons that are missing not to ruffle your feathers.
A world without nuclear weapons is a safe one and the United Nations just passed a resolution to ban Nuclear Weapons with many European countries and the US abstaining. The resolution goal is to hold a conference in March 2017 to negotiate a “legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination”.
Bullet Points
Japan was going to surrender just under terms it felt would allow them to keep their Emperor.
Most high-level military Generals were against the use of Atomic weapons.
Hundreds of thousands of civilians killed.
Bombs had no military or strategic importance.
Truman made decision to drop bomb not experts.
US leaders failed to understand they would lose nuclear monopoly in the future(20 years later).
Scientists who developed the bomb were against its use.
UN resolution to ban Nukes on table recently.
For those less tech savoy words highlighted in blue if clicked link to sources.
I recommend watching the video below, it is graphic but shows the horrors of nuclear attack on Japan.
The symbol originally designed for the British nuclear disarmament movement. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament symbol, designed by Gerald Holtom in 1958.
Some Images
http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/g_l/levine/bombing.htm
Supplemental Materials
Oliver Stone Untold History of the US (Season 1 Episode 3) Goes into detail on Atomic Weapon Use and why it was Immoral
Conversations with History: Kenzaburo Oe University of California Television (UCTV): Japanese man who lived through Bombings/Outspoken against nuclear weapons
http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230009.html
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm
http://www.deseretnews.com/top/2605/0/13-times-the-US-almost-destroyed-itself-with-its-own-nuclear-weapons.html
TrumpCare- Rich people stay rich and the poor get less medicine, it’s win-win folks
TrumpCare- Fixing everything you thought was wrong with the healthcare system without doing a damn thing to address it
TrumpCare- Taxes are too high! Give me a break!
TrumpCare- Make America Sick Again.
TrumpCare- T Trump, who build hotels and makes lots of money! R is for repeal- R is for replace ObamaCare!!! WHo HA! WHO HA! U is for uninsured! M is for major disaster for the sick!!Unless you’re rich like me!! P is for penalty when you’re sick, which means you go bankrupt! C is for critical which means you’ll die!Unless you are rich like me! A is for affluence which I’ll gain through Tax cuts Tax cuts! Hora! R is for Repeal and R is for Replace! E is for everyone!!Everyone getting F-U-C-K fucked! Unless you’re rich like me! 1% Hey! 1% Ho! Screwing Americans out of Healthcare lets go go go!
Medicare For All- People Have Value
TrumpCare would cut 800 billion to Medicaid which delivers health to millions of low-income Americans.
News Break folks, the newest fashions are in. Walking on poor people is the new style. In China, Ivanka Trump’s factory has been sighted for labor violations in a country with little labor laws. If you like poor people to suffer, expensive shoes and human misery, this brand is for you!
The shoes if you like stomping on poor people
http://www.zappos.com/p/ivanka-trump-liah-4-medium-pink-satin/product/8874792/color/53362?ef_id=V3XHhwAAAQ9QyjQo:20170623043121:s
You are good at many things. But please stay away from Foreign Policy. The US invaded Iraq to gain strategic control of oil supplies. This much is certain and has been stated over the last 50 years. The key interest of the US in the region is to gain control of oil supplies. You also left out how the country of Iraq was created by the British after World War I. The British split up Iraq in a way to put the minority Sunni in power over the majority Shi’a populations. This is just one of many examples of how Imperialism works.
You also talk about Assad starting the war; that is untrue. Much like with Iraq, Syria was divided by the British and the French as a way to place the minority Shi’a in power over the majority Sunni populations within the country. The US supported protests in the country as a way to foster regime change. As a result of their support of opposition groups, terrorists flooded Syria during the time period creating more problems and more terrorism. The US has supported these “groups” to destabilize the region to put someone they favor in power.
The US is also making a killer profit on weapon sales. The US killed somewhere around 800,000 civilians in its invasion of Iraq in 2003, but somehow no mention in the video, must not be important. ISIS is an organization that has received weapons and training from the US and Saudi Arabia (among other countries) to overthrow Assad.
The idea of US withdrawal from Iraq is a common misconception. The US had a treaty that said it would leave Iraq at a certain time. Many of these troops did not withdraw but were instead redeployed to Afghanistan, located between Iran and Pakistan. Many of the arms the US brought into Iraq went to insurgent groups, freedom fighters, terrorists (whatever you want to call them).
Stop supporting state propaganda and instead mention correct facts in this post-fact era.
Stop selling weapons, stop derailing peace, and stay out of other people’s regions.
Whats relationship between racial hierarchies and class consciousnesses in America/in general?
Do an art ski on international politics taking place at the DMV, US attacking Iran and DMV mediating
https://www.facebook.com/ezraklein/videos/676725529181719/?autoplay_reason=all_page_organic_allowed&video_container_type=0&video_creator_product_type=0&app_id=273465416184080&live_video_guests=0
Selling violence to kids in America(on tv)/Culture?Why? To recruit for military-push violence-pentagon tell people cant make if negative about military, book Hollywood vs Hardcore,
Piracy laws bs(500,000 fine)
Spraying DDT to kill a Nat=Metaphor
Movie called this Film has not yet been rated.
Censorship in US =youtube video 90% revenue to any politcal videos- way to silence disidence,
Belmar
Make Image on sign/poster Keep our Beachs Clean on 16-17th Ave and 8th
Breaking News the Democratic Primary winner is Phil Murphy. After a long tough race, Murphy outspending all of his appoints by millions managed to skate by with an election victory. John Money-Pants Johnson was at the scene, “I thought he wasn’t going to be able to buy the election, we were really scared. But thanks to the American election system we won fair and square with millions of dollars.”
Phil Murphy A smile that could bite your head off
Phil Murphy Wall Street Executive, Gold Man Sachs Whore, fonderly off all things money, spent 20 million dollars to win the Democratic Primary. A wallet so thick it will make your head spin and your pants fall off.
John Money-Pants Johnson, a well-known supporter of Murphy, left with their campaign slogan going forward” Phil Murphy, Money, Power and Screwing the Public. Yes, WE can.”
Kim Guadagno the Republican Nominee lagged far behind spending only 8 million dollars to rob her primary away from whoever else was in there.
This year’s election seems to be the race to see who can burn as much money as possible while chanting “Fuck the Poor”. It’s going to be an interesting race folks. Murphy has an advantage with his stacks of cash being much higher.Microphones will be distributed. It’s noteworthy to say you should not underestimate the resolve of a Republican woman who is more than ready to put on a strap on and literally fuck the poor. Back to you Matt.
http://www.njpen.com/2017-primary-election-results-no-surprises-low-turnout/ (less then 20% of NJ Registers Democrats or Republicans Voted)
What is Universal Basic Income?
The idea that every citizen of a state should receive a basic income to survive. Instead of work 9-5 regular job, you would only need to if you want extra then bear minimum in society.
Who is proposing Universal Basic Income?
Right now many people see a future of automation as a destroyer of “jobs” for people to survive in the current monetary society. Major captains of industry have come out supporting it. Like who? Elon Musk -Mark Zukeburg Sam Altman, Andrew Ng, Bill Gross, Ray Kurzweil and more. You can find an introduction to the people on a link below.
The How, What and Why?
As robots replace human labor what is to become of the workforce? How will society coop with men not operating jobs that maintain and produce capital? Well as the narrative goes, they are supposed to be good little workers and accept what society hands them. If people fight for the Universal basic income then it can become their right to have it. If they don’t get it, they have to accept it. But is universal basic income anything but to keep the fundamental restructuring of society and to keep the management of “production” out of the hands of the average man? The leaders of industry clearly see a time where the work is 95% machine driven and people really won’t have a place in the type of society it will create. It is saying there are no losers just above the tide people and people above the floor of desuetude. But it neglects to address the fundamental arguments of inequality, power, and egalitarianism. Who gets a say in what gets done? Who gets a say in what’s made? Who gets a say in how we do things? Fundamentally a society with and or without Universal basic income still presents a serious dilemma. Wealth in most societies like the US, influence, determines and often changes elections against the “popular” consensus of society. So Elon Musk is willing to give you a basic house, with solar panels and probably other essentials but it should not be mistaken men like him do this to keep his big house, expensive car and the mob off his company. Jean Ziegler a former UNO Special Rapporteur said it best when he said,
“The agriculture of the world could feed 12 billion people with no problem. A child that starves to death today is murdered.”
The human potential to feed everyone is possible, it’s the governments and large companies that prevent them from doing so because they would lose money-“capital”. Proposing that we feed everyone is a good start but asking why they are hungry is a better one.
“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.” Dom Helder Camara, a Brazilian Archbishop
The quote by the Brazilian Archbishop echoes a truth, the reason people starve is because we let them. The reason people let it happen is because small groups of generally wealthy American men find it immoral to lose a profit even though someone loses a life. Distribution of resources is a key area here that is not well discussed in Universal Basic Income. Yes, everyone in the state would theoretically receive an income to survive, but what they would not receive is real opportunities to climb out of that zone, lets call it climbing the ladder. With wealth concentration, monopolization of industry, patenting of technology it would become increasingly difficult for individuals to climb up to a substantially higher level of “wealth” or up the ladder.Currently, economic mobility is at its lowest point in a very long time in the US and around the world. Could UBI fix this? It remains to be scene with it not addressing the monopolization of wealth and industry. Why should one man own more than 90 or 100 million? There is no good answer to that, especially with the result of it, the concentration of power. Regardless of your stance on any political issue, who argues that one man should be a king when he has no right to be a king?It is not divinely ordained. It is not because of merit or intelligence, its is largely the result of being born at the right place at the right time to the right circumstances. Under an increasing non-competitive, low labor society we could see worse inequality rise. I am not applying that historically competition was strong because it has usually been the opposite, but it will likely become worse. You have 400 families controlling half the world’s wealth today. Under Universal basic income will that change? I am not sure. But a great doubt hovers the minds of many on the issue.
Dangers
What could evolve is an exacerbation of the current problem, dumb, bullshit pass time crap. I am talking about wasting 3 hours a day watching sports when it has no “value” whatsoever. In the days of the Romans, they built Colosseum’s like the Circus Maximus, not just because they wanted to see people cut each other heads off for fun, but to keep people entertained and not thinking too much. It is important to constantly question the hierarchy and establishments of power in current human civilizations. Fuck apes. Society has the potentially to become an even more trapped and detached human consciousness with the increase of technologically development in virtual reality. Today we have an intense focus on entertainment while the world falls apart, environmental destruction, the potential for nuclear holocaust, drug epidemics, disease, famine, deep poverty and more. Many of these things will not be addressed by simply giving a “citizenry” Universal Basic Income. Be Weary my friends and stay thirsty for knowledge. For without the thirst we lose our humanity.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” Socrates
Jean Zieglar
https://www.theguardian.com/world/poverty-matters/2012/oct/05/jean-ziegler-africa-starve
Circus Maximus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circus_Maximus
Said something about Apes?But here is some fun aside from it
http://www.consumepopculture.com/#/make-america-apes-again/
Why will Universal Basic Income become the future? Understanding Automation, video somewhat neo-liberal perspective
I see more courage and dignity in the eyes of those who have not everything, but nothing. I see men who wear many clothes, the finest money can offer and those that wear less. I see more character in the ones with less to wear and more worn on the strapping of their heart. I see a nation staring at itself in the mirror and the images cracks, it is not a pretty picture and yet it is not the only picture that can be. Men can write history which ever way they want, when they want, for who they want, but it is the poor man that will write the future. It is the men who say I demand change, not those who ask for it, a wise former slave who proclaimed himself Fredrick Douglass once wrote, “Power concedes nothing without demand”. I am not here for you to follow me on an endless journey, but to plant the seeds for you to begin your own. Money does not make might, money does not make one’s character and might does not make right. We have growing problems in this world we have been given. We have the tools to solve those problems. We have technology to solve many of those problems yet we resist. The resistance does not shoulder the burden on the backs of the wealthiest or strongest among us, but the weakest. People who are too poor to make sure food isn’t an issue this week, or next week or a year from now. People who are plagued with disease, rising costs, who shoulder the burden our society puts on them. Drugs, violence, food, shelter, these are not the problems of a man in a golden tower. But the problems of a man who is tasked with changing his reality.
We do not seek conflict on our own, but others order us toward that conflict. We do not lust for blood or gold by nature but are commanded to it by a culture of lust. Lust for silver, lust for more goods, things you don’t need, you don’t want and by the time you get it, it breaks down and ends up in the trash next week. Where are the saviors of this world? Are they the men who speak the words of injustice? Or the men who hear and see the injustice and commit themselves to ending it? This speech is not giving you a guide to ruling the world, instead, it says look inward. Be the person you want to admire, be the change you wish to see in the world. Don’t utter words of compassion, offer arms of embrace. Don’t give money to write problems off, act to solve them. IF You die tomorrow or five minutes from now, what will you say at your own funereally? Will you quote Caesar and say “I came, I saw, I conquered”. Or will you be bold solve the ills of the worlds before you die only to realize that in solving those problems you never really died? A man who cures cancer lives on forever. A man who cares for a small boy and makes a positive difference in that one child’s life lives forever. My advice to you is not to go out a fight in some war somewhere or to pick up a pitchfork and or to bath in the ease of common life. My advice is simply, Live Forever.
“Healthy Meals for the hungry, in an easy way, as the mind devours the recipe, the stomach is filled.”
Sauteed Spinach
Takes 5 mins of Cooking, ingredients on the link and fairly simple.
Spinach is an excellent source of vitamin K, vitamin A (in the form of carotenoids), manganese, folate, magnesium, iron, copper, vitamin B2, vitamin B6, vitamin E, calcium, potassium and vitamin C. It is a very good source of dietary fiber, phosphorus, vitamin B1, zinc, protein, and choline.
Marco’s Banana Bread
Get Bread, Toast it, slice up Banana, cover in Cinnamon, you’re done. (I would recommend Organic Banana because of pesticides in normal ones).
The banana is an edible fruit, botanically a berry, produced by several kinds of large herbaceous flowering plants belonging to the genus Musa. In some countries, bananas used for cooking may be called plantains, in contrast to dessert bananas.
Organic Milk combined with Almond Butter Sandwich (or Peanut Butter Sandwich, Your Choice)
Bread(suggest Rye), Spread Your choice butter, Make Sand-which- milk helps it go down smooth and is packed with protein.
Red Bell Peppers and Egg
Combine the Two for a good taste, cut up the pepper small and cook somewhat before the egg, then mix in when egg half cooked, can also add potato if you want a greater taste. Also good for a sandwich.
Bagel (get week supply to eat all week)
Cheap. Toast, garlic salt and Olive Oil( healthier than butter).
Ritz Crackers and Guacamole
Chip it and dip it!
Dr. Praegers veggie burgers
Easy to make after you buy the burger just hit that up for 6 mins on each side on a skillet and your good to go! Healthy and info on the link
Other Tips
Drink water. It is cheap, free and probably better than its bottled form, drink from the tap. You can google your town’s water quality report. Also, buy a reusable water bottle to save money.
Buy things like peanut butter in bulk sets so you get a better price and they last awhile.
Eat less meat, you’ll live longer. Thrown in chicken every once in a while though.
So tired of rice, so don’t expect it on the list here.
Marco Palladino is a 22-year-old running for public office to represent his idea of equality justice and a pursuit of a better American Society. His pursuit is for simple ideas to be incorporated into public policy and to get the fat cats on a diet. Marc believes in cutting inefficient and bad policy spending program that don’t benefit the American people
Quick Resume
Intern for Monmouth University Peace Corp Prep
Intern for New Jersey Universal Health Care Coalition
Intern for Food and Water Watch
Economics and Social
https://www.facebook.com/ezraklein/videos/676725529181719/?autoplay_reason=all_page_organic_allowed&video_container_type=0&video_creator_product_type=0&app_id=273465416184080&live_video_guests=0
Supporting Strong Credit Unions
Living Wage
$15 wage is necessary for people to survive in today’s world.
Universal Health Care
Increase Taxes on people making over $500,000 and adding higher estates taxes which only affect 0.001 of the population.
Prison Reforms
Mandate possession of any drug must be in high quantities in order to become a crime unless under the age of 16 where minors should be assigned a social worker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wg6_hqu2Ck Environmentally Policy
A ban on Pesticides should and is a top priority statewide to protect NJ residents for cancer and other health issues. It is also an issue of keeping the eco-system alive, keep pesticides out of the water we drink and the animals drink. A ban on pesticides and a mandate for using other techniques will be key to kill pesticides be they weeds or insects.
Sustainable Farming Habits combined with crop rotation will dramatically reduce the need for pesticides. Crop rotation show pesticides are less worrisome has been a historical tactic as well as large scale indoor farming.
An example? How about giving Exxon tax credits for cleaning up their oil spill? To Marc that doesn’t make sense, they shouldn’t be fined on basic numbers but percentages of their global income. Marc is from New Jersey, a place with the most Superfund sites in the country. A Superfund site is a site so toxic the federal government has to step in. Public officials, private officials have failed to solve this problem sometimes because of will, but often because long tedious legal battles that end up sucking money from actually solving the problem. A recent example X, where the state won but most of it was put toward the legal fees. It is a dire need to reduce costs and to get to action when cleaning up toxic waste that makes NJ less healthy.
Why everyone should be an environmentalist
Ban on Pesticides or other toxic Chemicals
Using pesticides is a way to generally get rid of weeds we do not want or even insecticides for insects.What has been shown over time is that these products are not only ineffective because over time plants or bugs build resistance but that they are a danger to the users. We need to reform how we use toxic chemicals, a metaphor for this is like using a shotgun instead of a flyer swatter. We do not need to use these chemicals and often we have the natural solutions available. Before I get into them, it’s worthy make note that many farms use them too much and risk their health and the public’s’ health to do such. We can systematically reduce risk and increase human health but first reducing consumption of goods by high taxes and training courses on sustainable none pesticide use agriculture. Organic agriculture reduces the use of toxic chemicals of which end up in the water supply of which the affects are severe in certain places more than others. The question we should ask ourselves is always is it worth it? With contamination of water, huge determent to human health(cancers) for workers and for regular townsfolk, is it worth it?
Simple solution to chemicals
A common found around the house weed killer is actually vinegar, it is known to kill many plants and is not toxic to human health! Don’t be dumping 200 pounds in a yard though.
Another good idea is to plant certain types of plants around the house to keep bugs out!
https://www.facebook.com/homeyhomeTV/videos/153265455214383/?autoplay_reason=all_page_organic_allowed&video_container_type=0&video_creator_product_type=2&app_id=2392950137&live_video_guests=0
Carbon Cutting on Public Policy of State/Government
We need to cut all the excess carbon out of the air that we are producing with our machines, agriculture, and technology. One of the ways we begin to do that is by auditing the carbon output of different areas and after that data taking steps to cut it which should create tons of environmental and engineering jobs around the tri-state area. Right now the US military is one of the biggest polluters, making sure they are accounted for and making smart public policy choices that not only improve public health but create a more sustainable future. It’s why military barracks all over are getting solar on them which is a great choice.
Investment in Research and Development as Share of GDP to Increase
We must increase our military and generally spending on technologies that are likely to benefit public. Over the last decade spending has been cut in research and development, the United States is the only country to do such and will suffer long term shortfall unless its a leader in technology.
Investing in Energy Infrastructure in all homes and other efficient devices to reduce energy and water waste.
Investing in clean solar and Wind energy where its most efficient will be key to pushing NJ to Marc’s goal of 100% renewable by 2035.
Cooperating and making non-profits a part of the conversation like Food and Water Watch remain key for a more policy-focused future.
Offshore Wind
Solar
International Conflict Resolution
“Call it peace or call it treason, call it love or call it reason, I aint marching anymore.”- Phil Orchs
Funding Art
http://www.nj.gov/state/njsca/dos_njsca_about.html
Water Conservation
We are running out of clean water and doing on road to serious trouble by 2020. Investing in clean long term public water systems is critical for the future of New Jersey and doing it in key areas. Changing prices systems based on use/income and setting limits so people get charged after they go over a certain amount. Upgrading age-old water infrastructure will be important for maintaining health, especially in high-density areas. Forcing a water tax on consumers to promote lower water use and to also build centers all over the state in ideal locations for high-cost effectiveness. Also planting the right type of tree, native to the region, could have the affect of promoting more sustainable water system.
Corruption
Corruption is a plaque on the American political system, the American economy and the ability to have a “democracy of maximums and plutocracy of minimums. We need to work on banning money from different groups who have the least interest in the health of the American society. Killing corruption via banning lobbying, making corporations with historically lobbying power pay an additionally tax for a public defender against the companies interests to level the playing field. First by going for limbs than buying going for the centrally nervous system.
Corruption is a bug to be killed by concerned and active citizens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdrjzE1SE58
Wolf-Pack – Helps fight corruption
Serious Economic Viability Schemes-Reduce-Reuse- Recycle
Turning foreclosure into a benefit for small business and entrepreneurs will be key to upgrading areas and making use of already available resources. Fixing old malls up and converting them to tech hubs and vertical farms will create strong industries to the public benefit.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/5/9/15183330/america-water-crisis-affordability-millions
Reforming agriculture is another way to cut water consumption as a significant portion of water use goes to agriculture.
Converting Office Buildings into productive community spaces.
http://www.useful-community-development.org/adaptive-reuse.html
https://www.fastcompany.com/3041551/unconventional-ideas-for-using-empty-office-buildings
Building Transportation hubs that makes sense and to have a 100 year plan.
Convicted Felonies should have the right to vote after they serve their sentence. They served their time in jail and should not have the right to vote taken away from them.
Take the Pledge to support
Universal Healthcare
Clean Energy
Nuclear Disarmament
Human Rights
Free Speech
Civic Education
Higher Clean Drinking Water Standards
Universal Suffrage for All
Marc Has a desire
“Weapons of Mass Dissent”-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngOchfbbgz0
Bitcoin? Not sure
http://www.ontheissues.org/Background_War_+_Peace.htm
https://uselections.com/m/sites/view/OnTheIssues
By Marco Palladino 4/4/17-Creative Writing
It was the Mayor’s first day in office after a blurry campaign, his adversaries remained like specs in the eye toward an unforeseen victory. The Mayor would start his first day in office by flirting with his secretary, who at first he had mistaken for a coat rack. He came into his office with a blindingly bright pair of blue pants. He would make it to his desk only to find that someone had un-wheeled his chair so when he sat down, it was lopsided and made him look at people bent with a goofy stare at the ceiling. He would sign his first bill with a pink pen with a little Hawaiian girl holding a ukulele on top. The Mayor was on the front page of the newspaper with the pen, the bill covered in pink ink, his intern smiling with his forearm crutches and a shirt that read I am with the fool-hearted and blind.
The Mayor loved listening to rap music loudly in his office, specifically Biggy Smalls. When people would visit him, the music continued to play loudly because the Mayor couldn’t find the right knob to turn it down. The public works administrator would usually leave the room saying racial slurs and something or other about the niggerizing of American music. The Mayor would also play games on his interns by sneaking up on them at night when the office lights were dim. These games usually ended up with an intern having a near heart attack, falling and flapping out of their chair like a drunk baby out of a car seat. He would sometimes scare them by making growling noises and then let his dog Midget loose. Midget was a short and heavy bulldog who had a habit of gnawing on the intern’s leg, enough to rip their pants and slobber all over their new clothes. The intern with crutches would be used to fending off the dog like a David versus Goliath battle, with the dog weighing nearly double the interns’ weight. He would whack the dog repeatedly, quoting Shakespeare in the process. “All was lost, But that the heavens fought,” the intern said.
The intern would get back at the Mayor by calling as fake people about fake problems, while making fun of his blindness. He would call with strange names like Partially Sighted and Juno No See-alot. He would call as a Republican to ask him to support Trump’s Wall, the Mayor would reply “I don’t understand why we need a wall, I can’t see it anyway.” The intern would call as a Democrat to push healthcare, he would reply “I am blind” and hang up. After a few hours of prank phone calls, the intern would begin to get some work done having kept the Mayor busy for a while. The Mayor would also ride into town with a cowboy hat on with his secretary and spend taxpayer money on lavish lunches and dinners for himself and his wife Jenifer.
The Mayor would love to go to lunch with people in town, spending 2 to 3 hours eating and talking to the locals. He was often seen consuming large amounts of alcohol during lunch time and would ride back to the office on a two-person bike with the secretary on the front. The Mayor was known for making obscene and lewd comments toward police officers on the ride back. Sometimes he would have conversations with red fire-hydrates and insult them calling them red faced and no good. He was also caught going to cockfights downtown with illegal Mexicans. These fights are well known and the police remain unable to stop them. Often there is gambling and prostitution, it’s thought to be managed by former Nazis. How long can our City remain vigilante against crime when the mayor clearly can’t see the problem?
Don’t let the “Blind Cowboy” bike Oklahoma City off the Cliff. Don’t let the Mayor create blind justice. Go to www.NotSeeMayor.com
Paid for by the Women Against “The Blind Cowboy”: Mayor Thomas Gore. Sponsored by the Oklahoma Republican Party- We Need a Mayor that can see the future. Vote for John W. Harreld, A man who’s vision is impeccable.2020.
This story is dedicated to my Grandmother: Jean T Bonanno who lived with blindness later in her life and struggled with it. December 15, 1929 – April 20, 2014.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gore
The book They Die Strangers: A Novella and Stories from Yemen is a fiction book written by Mohammad Abdul-Wali and published in 2002. The book is a series of thirteen short stories which cover a range of topics that are unique to Yemen. The stories showcase the struggles that the average Yemeni goes through daily. The book also includes sections that describe the author and some history of Yemen, which illustrates the overall context of the short stories shown throughout the book. Some of the themes in They Die Strangers: A Novella and Stories from Yemen include deep poverty, civil conflict, police, culture, masculinity, among others. This paper seeks to explore several of the sections and discusses the major themes that they address.
The book begins by discussing the North Yemen Civil War, which lasted from 1962 to 1970, and how the country was divided because of the war. This historical background is relevant today due to the current Civil War in Yemen and the fact that the war is fought along religious lines between the Sunni-dominated Yemen government and the Houthis, a Shi’a rebel group that seeks to put in place a new government in Yemen. The book also gives some background on the author, who was born in Yemen but lived in Ethiopia for most of his life and how he was viewed as an outsider in Ethiopian society. The theme of the individual’s being perceived as outsiders and as disconnected from their culture is shown throughout his writings. The opening chapter also talks about the fact that the divide between religion in both Yemeni politics and the author’s own personal life. The author also mentions being married to a Swedish wife, having an administrative position as director of the aviation authority, and spending two years in jail for political activism. As such, one can conclude that the author attempts to tell his life story in an indirect way through fictional story-telling.
One of the more notable parts of the book was entitled The Last Class. The Last Class follows the story of a group of young students who had a passionate, young, and energetic teacher in his 20’s who inspired them to expand their knowledge and take an active interest in what was being taught in school. The teacher would come in, and the students would always be excited about everything that he discussed in their lesson because he taught with such passion and brought the school lessons to life. For example, the teacher would go over lessons not included in the curriculum such as the history of Yemen, which is often ignored by the government and glossed over by the media and society of Yemen. The writing in The Last Class was very realistic even for a work of fiction and left a personal mark on the reader.
Another section called The Slap is about how a small boy gets disciplined by his father through physical punishment. The boy gets hit once in the side of his face, and his cheek turns bright red. His father says that he hits him because that is the only way that he will learn right from wrong. Additionally, a man with tuberculosis is depicted in this section, which is a disease that was all but eliminated in the developed world during the latter half of the 20th Century. This portrayal makes one remember that much of the world remains under-developed and poor to the point in which diseases considered to be eradicated in the developed world are still present and represent an existential threat to the lives of numerous people.
Abu Rupee is another interesting passage in the novel. It follows a boy who talked with an old man who ran around painting people as donkeys or dogs. It is an amusing section and can be applied to society today how people are afraid to speak together, so people are forced to mock each other through art. Abu also discussed how the papers only care to print lies to make money and support the rich. That is akin to how the media slants news stories in the Western world and similar to the themes discussed in Noam Chomsky’s film The Myth of the Liberal Media which details how the media is only there to serve corporate interests. The man would go around painting pictures of people and talk about returning to Yemen and how it important his homeland is to his identity. Abu Rupee takes place in Ethiopia and then back to Yemen. The man in Abu Rupee eventually went to back to live in Yemen, and the people there would call him “Madman.” Even though he would speak the truth about how things were, he was regarded as crazy. The man made the young boy want to become an artist instead of a businessman. Abu Rupee is one of the better stories he wrote which shows class issues, poverty, and the migration of Yemeni residents to other countries, which has only increased in recent years.
In conclusion, They Die Strangers: A Novella and Stories from Yemen was a well-written book despite being primarily fiction. Many of the themes Mohammad Abdul-Wali touches upon in this work include rampant poverty and inequality, civil conflict, masculinity issues, and the role of government in society. The main strength of the novel is that is mirrors the daily lives of people in an increasingly important area of the world and gives them a voice that they would have lacked otherwise.
Afghanistan, the United States, the Soviet Union, And Illegitimacy PS 401: Seminar in Political Science
Fall 2016
Marco Palladino
(Work In Progress citations not cited properly due to format of blog- can submit original copy if needed(word doc)
Abstract
Intervention in a failed state is not an effective counterterrorism tool when it is reliant on military power to prop up a perceived illegitimate government. Additionally, foreign hegemonic forces are often viewed as invaders even if that does not represent the underlying goal of the intervention. This study will focus on the policies implemented by the US and the Soviet Union over the courses of their interventions in Afghanistan, which is at the forefront of America’s failed counter-terrorism campaign in the Middle East and North Africa. Afghanistan has a history of being invaded and pushing invaders out. For example, Greece, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union all invaded Afghanistan at various points in time, but their efforts ultimately ended in a resounding defeat. All these unsuccessful invasion help give Afghanistan the nickname of “The Graveyard of Empires.” This paper seeks to explore what are the likely results of an intervention by foreign hegemonic forces in a failed state to install and maintain an illegitimate government. The methods measured include casualty rates, economic indices, military spending on intervention by hegemonic power and results of such interventions, and various social indices. Examining the long-term effects of war and insurgency will be critical to determine the effectiveness of foreign intervention against terrorism.
Introduction
The ongoing “War on Terrorism” has been a major foreign policy challenge over the past decade and a half.
A major foreign policy issue in recent years has been the ongoing War on Terror, which is an international effort to destroy groups, organizations, and affiliates that are a threat to the United States or its Allies. The War on Terror began as a response to the 9/11 Attacks by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which includes the United States, France, United Kingdom and Germany. Even though NATO was set up as a military and political alliance during the Cold War era, its focus has shifted towards intervention in numerous failed states and has conducted many aerial bombings in attempting to combat “terrorism” and to implement governmental change.
According to the Global Political Forum, a failed state is “a government that can no longer provide basic functions such as education, security, or governance, usually due to fractious violence or extreme poverty”. Using United Nations data on casualty rates, stability, corruption, and social well-being will determine if the country is moving forward or backward. Military spending will also factor in the results if the amount of money invested was spent wisely and has had a noticeable positive effect on national progression. Is there a lack of diplomacy or willingness to negotiate that could be reducing possible results?
This paper will examine the effects of foreign intervention by hegemonic forces and their role in exacerbating the problems in “failed states” such as Afghanistan. The hypothesis is that a heavy reliance on military intervention in a country to prop up a perceived illegitimate government will have largely negative results. This paper will also look at the robust strategic patterns of the United States and the lack of ensuing results through military intervention in failed states in addition to general campaigns in Afghanistan and their correspondence to the objective of the reduction of terrorism and increasing stability in the nation-state. This paper focuses on Afghanistan, which has been considered the epicenter for global terrorism and had large-scale intervention by foreign hegemonic forces. The result of the intervention in many states has been largely negative for the population in question. The cases study will look at Afghanistan as a whole and the large-scale military intervention by NATO in the last few year’s outcomes. The case study will look at spending habits and how they factor into the successful elevation of suffering and counter-terrorism in a failed state. The final area will be how diplomacy factors into resolving a crisis in a failed state.
Originally part of Iran, Afghanistan received its independence in 1709 after a successful revolt against the Iranian government, then under the leadership of Shah Sultan Husayn, a member of the Safavid dynasty which ruled Iran from 1502-1722. Over the ensuing centuries, Afghanistan was characterized by conflicts with European powers such as Great Britain and the Russian Empire. By 1919, Amanullah Khan was finally able to remove British influence from Afghanistan and began to pursue an independent foreign policy. Over the next few decades, Afghanistan was led by Mohammed Zahir Shah, who ascended to the throne in 1933. Mohammed Zahir Shah shares some similarities with Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi of neighboring Iran in that he sought to increase economic modernization and secularism within Afghanistan. Additionally, Mohammed Zahir Shah was generally a far less repressive leader than Pahlavi and allowed a much higher level of political freedom overall in Afghanistan than in Iran.
Beginning in 1955, the Soviet Union provided large amounts of military training and materials to Afghanistan that gradually increased over the next two decades. For example, 1 out of every 3 members of the Afghan military was trained on Soviet soil by the early 1970s. The major political event to note during Mohammed Zahir Shah’s rule was the creation of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) in 1965. The PDPA ultimately split into two factions, the Khaliqis led by Noor Taraki, and Parachamists led by Babrak Karmal. The Khaliqis has a base of support in rural areas and among the Pasthuns. The Parachamists primarily had support from urban areas and were the reformist political faction within Afghanistan. In 1973, Prime Minister Mohammed Daoud peacefully overthrew Mohammed Zahir Shah. The Khalq faction never fully recognized Daoud’s leadership, viewing his overthrow of the King as a plot to gain power.
On April 28, 1978, Afghani soldiers supportive of the Khalq faction killed Mohammed Daoud and his family in his presidential palace, thus allowing Noor Taraki to become Prime Minister and Babrak Karmal to become Deputy Prime Minister. The Carter Administration viewed the overthrow of Daoud as a communist takeover. Internal Afghan politics complicated the US and Soviet influence during this period. Hafizullah Amin, an ally of Taraki received word that Karmal was planning a Paracham plot to overthrow the Taraki regime. Amin executed many Parchasmists to reinforce his power. The overthrow damaged the communist revolution that was attempting to spread across the country. The communist governance was now by the winter of 1978 met with armed insurgency across the country. Amin and Taraki signed a treaty allowing direct Soviet military assistance against any insurgency threatening the regime.
In mid-1979, the Soviets began to sends advisers to Bagram Air Base outside Kabul. In response, the Carter Administration started supplying non-lethal aid to Afghan Mujahideen, a Sunni Islamic insurgent group. Amin believed the Soviet intervention was designed to strengthen Taraki at his expense. As a result, Amin ordered the death of Taraki in October of 1979, earning the ire of the Soviets. Additionally, Islamic fighters were defeating the Afghan army and the Soviets were forced to either lose their foothold in Afghanistan. As such, the Soviets invades Afghanistan on December 26, 1979, and initially sent in motorized divisions and Special Forces. The Soviets killed Amin and installed Barak Karmal as head of Afghanistan. President Carter subsequently stepped up aid to the insurgents and announced his own doctrine to protect Middle Eastern oil supplies from encroaching communism. Washington wanted to make the Soviet occupation as painful and as brief as possible. The Soviet war in Afghanistan ended up lasting 10 years and millions of lives lost. The Soviets spent $50 billion dollars and lost 15,000 men in addition to a strong uprising emerging in Afghanistan, this igniting a civil war.
After the Soviets left in 1989, Afghanistan was destabilized and was characterized by various political groups vying for power. The Taliban, an Islamic fundamentalist group, ultimately took power by 1992. The Taliban would later allow Osama bin Laden to establish training bases in Afghanistan beginning in 1996. Their rationale behind this decision was to make Afghanistan an outpost for Wahabbi Islam and to ultimately attack Iran, which is majority Shi’a and strongly opposed to radical Islamic ideologies.
Afghanistan would subsequently suffer from major social, political, economic, and governmental problems following the 2001 invasion by the United States. The result of the invasion would be the exacerbation of all the problems in Afghanistan from food shortages to increased levels of violence precipitating the region and more complex problems arising. Before the invasion, millions of people were on the edge of starvation and many aid groups had to leave before the invasion because it wasn’t safe. The number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan is increasing every year. A United Nations Assistance in Afghanistan report states ” During the time covered by this report, 157,987 Afghans were displaced because of the war. This brings the estimated total number of conflict-induced displacement Afghans to 1.2 million.” All this is indicative of 40 years of intervention by NATO in a conflict-prone area increasing casualties and failing to solve the problem through the use of diplomacy.
Methodology
The paper will use various variables relating to the state of Afghanistan, either progressing further into or out of a “failed state” that help demonstrate government legitimacy. The United State’s relation to that progression or regression will be key in the country. Such variables like civilian deaths per year (graphs/charts, including deaths from violence), drug production levels (estimated # of tons), internal/external displaced populations (note population displacement is hard to calculate and numbers often conservative, Afghans are the 2nd largest refugee population in the world).
The fiscal problems facing the Afghan government include a small GDP and a heavy reliance on foreign money from the United States. Looking at insurgent attacks over the last decade will help paint a picture of future violence. The goal of the gathering of these statistics is to map out where the future of Afghanistan is headed and to provide an overview of the growing problems in the country. In relation to these problems, the United States & Soviet Union’s role in the country may be positive or negative. What has been the effectiveness of the United States at legitimizing through solving these problems? Examining basic areas of spending patterns will support understanding on if investments proved worthwhile long-term (10-15 year period).
There are some limitations to this analysis, however. One such issue is the measurement of insurgent members in Afghanistan. Finding this data is difficult due to the fact that many attacks are unreported because the government of Afghanistan does not have effective record-keeping procedures. As such, the level of casualties is used to help blanket insurgent levels. Looking at micro use-spending habits could also prove difficult to uncover and total spending habits also may be hard to figure out, as a result of how certain projects are classified. Examples could include, weapons programs being tested, use of special forces, the cost of technology, soldiers with PTSD or other medical issues that encompass US Spending in Afghanistan. The numbers keep growing and examining simpler terms would provide a better overview of the situation rather than smaller difficult programs to map out the impacts. Determining the number of munitions dropped by the US in Afghanistan alone is an impossible task for the research to dive into because there is a lot of shock and awe tactics (where large sums of bombs are dropped quickly). The cultural, linguistic, and religious variables that affect Afghanistan will not be included. A 14-week schedule makes an analysis of a wide variety of data difficult at best. The motivation behind the methodology is to look at simpler variables to construct a conceptualization and overview of Afghanistan at present as well as its future. The research is by no means to suggest solid claim of Afghanistan future but merely a roadmap in the direction in which the country is heading.
Literature Review
Carl Von Clausewitz was one of the earliest philosophers who studied the notion of warfare.
The philosophy of war has a long and arduous history ranging from the Ancient Greeks to the modern members of Congress that make military decisions. The literature review will focus on contemporary theorists in the philosophy of war. One of the earliest theorists was Carl Von Clausewitz, a 19th Century Prussian general, and military theorist. Primarily influenced by the Napoleonic Wars and Frederick the Great, Clausewitz focused on the moral and political aspects of war and said that “War is the continuation of politics by other means.” According to Clausewitz, the US war in Afghanistan would be considered an unideal and unjust war due to the fact that the US has been indiscriminate in harming civilians and other non-military targets.
On the other hand, John Keegan has the opposite perspective and is referred to in political science as the anti-Clausewitz. His perspective is that modern wars like Vietnam were not immoral and instead fought the wrong way. Essentially, Keegan is saying that it is not the crusade that was wrong but the way the crusade was carried out. According to Keegan, the War in Afghanistan would be perfectly moral and flawed only due to the fact that the US did not entirely commit itself to fight the war successfully. Keegan would suggest that the US should dramatically expand its presence in Afghanistan and not hold back in its efforts to prosecute the war to a successful conclusion.
it is not the crusade that was wrong but the way the crusade was carried out
Neorealism is another well-known theory in international relations.
Kenneth N. Waltz, Patrick James, and David Fiammenghi are proponents of neorealism. The neorealist theory states that international politics is defined by anarchy, and by the distribution of capabilities. As such, there exists no formal central authority and that every sovereign state is formally equal in this system. The states, in turn, act according to the logic of self-help, meaning they seek their own interest and will not subordinate their interest to the interests of other states. Additionally, the security dilemma in realism states that a situation in which actions by a state intended to intensify its security, such as increasing its military infrastructure or building alliances, can lead other states to respond with similar measures, producing increased tensions that create conflict, even when neither side desires it.
Charles L. Gaster is a proponent of the concept of the security dilemma and illustrated the political consequences of military strategies within individual countries. Gaster stated that “The first focused on military capabilities and implicitly assumed that the basic goals of the Soviet Union were fixed; its central concern was to determine what military capabilities the United States required to deter or defeat the Soviet Union. The second component focused on what I term political consequences the effect of U.S. policy on the basic goals of the Soviet Union and on Soviet views of U.S. resolve. Sharp disagreements about political consequences played an important role in dividing the American cold war debate over military policy.”
Another theory in realism is the prisoners’ dilemma. As described by Robert Jervis and R. Harrison Wagner in a January 1978 World Politics journal article, the prisoners’ dilemma shows why two completely rational individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears to be in their best interests to do so. An example could be the dynamic between Iran and Russia on one hand, and the US on the other hand regarding the Syrian Civil War.
Defensive Realism is the theory that aggressive expansion as promoted by offensive neorealists upsets the tendency of states to follow to the balance of power theory, thus decreasing the primary goals of the state, namely ensuring their security. Kenneth N. Waltz considered the founder of defensive realism as a theory, explains his perspective on international relations after the cold war by stating that the “one condition for success is that the game is played under the shadow of the future. Because states coexist in a self-help system, they may, however, have to concern themselves not with maximizing collective gain but with lessening, preserving, or widening the gap in welfare and strength between themselves and others. The contours of the future’s shadow look different in hierarchic and anarchic systems ”
Offensive Realism holds the anarchic nature of the international system responsible for aggressive state behavior in international politics. John Mearsheimer is one of the first who explored this theory in his 2001 book “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.” Offensive Realism depicts powerful states as power-maximizing information control entities, that force others to fight while they are on the sidelines, overbalancing strategies in their ultimate aim to dominate the international system. Contributing theorists include Glen H. Snyder, Eric J. Labs, Fareed Zakaria, Colin Elman, Randall L. Schweller. Steven E. Lobell writes, “According to offensive realism, security in the international system is scarce. Driven by the anarchical nature of the international system, such theorists contend that states seek to maximize their security through maximizing their relative power by expansionist foreign policies, taking advantage of opportunities to gain more power, and weakening potential challengers. The state’s ultimate goal is hegemony. How a state will go about expansion will vary from nation to nation (due to geography, military tradition, etc.)—offensive realism does not predict the same security strategy for every state. ”
Is there an offensive-defensive theory of realism? According to Sean M. Lynn-Jones, “Offensive-defense theory argue that there is an offense-defense balance that determines the relative efficacy of offensive and defensive security strategies. Variations in the offensive-defensive balance, the theory suggests, affects the patterns of intentional politics.”
The Neo-Classical realist perspective is closer to the defensive realistic perspective, the actions of a state in the international system can be explained by systemic variables, the distribution of power capabilities among states, as well as cognitive variables, such as the perception of systemic pressures, other states’ intentions, or threats and domestic variables such as state institutions, elites, and social actors within society, affecting the power and freedom of action of the decision-makers in foreign policy. While holding true to the neorealist concept of balance of power, neoclassical realism further adds that states’ mistrust and inability to perceive one another accurately, or state leaders’ inability to mobilize state power and public support can result in an under expansion or under balancing behavior leading to imbalances within the international system, the rise and fall of great powers, and war.
Gideon Rose states that “Neoclassical Realism argues that the scope and ambition of a country’s foreign policy are driven first and foremost by the country’s relative material power. Yet it contends that the impact of power capabilities on foreign policy is indirect and complex because systemic pressures must be translated through intervening unit-level variables such as decision-makers’ perceptions and state structure.”
Noam Chomsky is a critic of the idea of American Exceptionalism.
Relative material power brings the discussion to the United States with its exceptional power over other nations. American Exceptionalism is the idea that American is unique and superior to other nations, Marilyn B. Young, a Harvard scholar on American Foreign Relations, says “There’s an arrogance born of power”. In here view America has become very deceptive in how a leader in government talk about, how the military reacts to war and the lack of transparency in some areas. Noam Chomsky depicts the United States as a country which goal of its foreign policy is to create more open societies where the United States can expand control of politics and the market.
In contrast, Neo-Conservatives think that the military is there for the United States to use it. Essentially we have the power so we need to use it to push our way into practice by force. Senior officials in the Bush Administration such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are prominent followers of this ideology which is an extension of American Exceptionalism. Former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick is another neoconservative who criticized the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter, who endorsed de-escalation of the Cold War.
Another component of neoconservatism is the Bush Doctrine, which holds the idea of a preemptive attack on perceived enemies of the US. William Kristol, a supporter of the Bush Doctrine, wrote in 2002 that the “world is a mess. And, I think, it’s very much to Bush’s credit that he’s gotten serious about dealing with it. … The danger is not that we’re going to do too much. The danger is that we’re going to do too little. ” Neo-Conservatives hold true the idea of policing the world as a way to ensure political peace and stability and would argue that intervention in Afghanistan by the US is an appropriate step for this goal.
Current Problems Facing Afghanistan
The decade-long Soviet intervention in Afghanistan left 15,000 Soviet military personnel and nearly a million Afghani civilians dead. The war was a proxy for the United States against the Soviets in which the United States used “our gold and their blood” (referring to Afghani civilians). During the war, the CIA encouraged Islamic extremists to join in the war to defend Islam against an invasion by the “godless Communists.”. Much of the weapons in Afghanistan today were paid for by either the United States or the Soviet Union and left there an estimated total of 45 billion dollars in arms/ammunition. The mass amounts of weapons would aid the conflict of the civil war that plagued Afghanistan from 1989 to 1996. The Taliban came to power in the ruins of the civil war and ruled Afghanistan as an Islamic state based largely on the ideology of Wahhabism. Bin Laden would later find refuge there where he helped the government fight off the Soviets in the 1980s and was largely viewed as an honorable man within Afghanistan due to the fact that he successfully repelled a foreign imperialist invader who sought to install an illegitimate government into power.
The United States invaded Afghanistan on October 7th, 2001 in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban government did not provide any material support or personnel (mostly Saudi Nationals) for the attacks on 9/11, though they allowed Osama Bin Laden to have a safe haven. The Taliban refused to release Bin Laden to the United States and said they would give him to a neutral 3rd party. The United States rejected their offer. The Taliban also asked for evidence and the US declined their request. According to the UN and aids groups, prior to the invasion, it was thought there would be a mass famine where millions would starve because of Afghanistan’s dependence on foreign food. After the United States bombed Afghanistan for 2 months, the Taliban government ultimately surrendered in December of 2001. The United States would install a government that Afghani civilians view as illegitimate, corrupt, and weak. Displacement of the population is one of the biggest problems in Afghanistan and the Middle East from war and conflict.
Afghanistan has one of the worst population displacements problems in the world. Afghans make up the 2nd largest refugee population in the world and it is estimated that 3.7 million Afghans have been displaced by the conflict in the last decade or so. That is a daunting number no government or institution can handle alone to manage. One million are estimated to have fled to Iran, another 1.5 million into Pakistan. From a 2014 report, 700,000 are expected to be displaced in Afghanistan itself. Every year the numbers get worse and worse, more death and more casualties beating the last year. There is a variety of reason for this but many civilians die in either ground engagements or through IEDs that are leftover or part of the current war. The surge under President Obama, which was the deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, did not make Afghanistan safer and their withdrawal has not reduced the casualties rates. Killing members of Taliban have only created more instability and turned various areas of the country into a devastated war zone. In this climate, these policies undermine government legitimacy constantly because the government cannot provide basic necessities. Additionally, this policy has the government of Afghanistan largely taking orders from NATO and the US, which have large cultural differences and questionable understanding of the country. For example, Afghanistan is predominantly Muslim (~85-93% Sunni and ~7-15% Shi’a) and the main languages spoken are various dialects of Farsi (an Iranian-based language which is not widely taught in the West).
Heroin usage and production is a major problem facing Afghanistan, as it produces 80-90% of the world’s supply of Heroin. The Taliban profits nearly a billion dollars a year from the trade, namely by exporting opioids to other countries. It is estimated that there are around 1.6 million drug users in Afghan cities and another 3 million in the countryside. Unfortunately, the opium production has helped fuel severe problems with addiction to opium which has worsened the situation in Afghanistan. In 2001, The Taliban government issued a fatwa forbidding heroin use, which essentially put a stop to the problems of its use in Afghanistan. The US invasion that same year and the subsequent installation of Hamid Karzai as the Afghan President saw the prior ban go away and thus opium production skyrocket starting in 2002.
The US invasion had multiple coalitions of groups such as the Northern Alliance in Northern Afghanistan and the Puston Warlords in the South-East who also played a major role in the trafficking in Heroin which would result in it’s come back largely in Afghanistan. The whole story isn’t told there, “The drug trade accounted for most of its tax revenues, almost all its export income, and much of its employment. In this context, opium eradication proved to be an act of economic suicide that brought an already weakened society to the brink of collapse. Indeed, a 2001 U.N. survey found that the ban had “resulted in a severe loss of income for an estimated 3.3 million people,” 15% of the population, including 80,000 farmers, 480,000 laborers, and their millions of dependents”. As such, banning opium, which was largely pushed by Westerners, was a severe miscalculation on the part of the Taliban-led government. Ideally, it would have been smarter to have a transition period meant to phase out opium production and allow those whose livelihood depends on its production to developing alternative sources of income.After the invasion in 2001, the Taliban went back to selling heroin to fund the insurgency but there are other segments that sell and control opium distribution.
Prior to the Soviet-Afghan war (1979-1989), opium production in Afghanistan and Pakistan was directed to small regional markets. There was no local production of heroin. The CIA helped design the Afghan Narcotics economy to fund the Taliban and launder money during the War against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Currently, the problems of heroin fuel the insurgency and corrupt the government while increasing drug usage both inside and outside the country. The US would later spend 7.6 billion to eradicate opium in Afghanistan and in every measurable way they have failed. Instead, it helps fuel the insurgency by upsetting locals and fueled government corruption. Again undermining the legitimacy of the government while pushing cultivation practices that they have helped start in the first place. That 7.6 billion wasted in opium eradication is just the tip of the iceberg with unsustainable spending patterns.
The financial problems facing the Afghan government, such as a small GDP and reliance on foreign money from the United States and others present serious problems. The reliance of foreign money make long-term success difficult and, if foreign money is withdrawn from the economy, the government would collapse. Corruption is also a major problem in Afghanistan. Many hands are taking money out of the government coffers for personal gain. The corruption isn’t something that is only on the local level but stretches all the way to the top. It’s difficult to measure the level of corruption but there are key findings to support the idea that the Afghan government has serious corruption problems which undermine the government as an institution and waste precious money needed to support the Afghan people. In 2012, nearly half of Afghan citizens paid a bribe while requesting a public service and the total cost of bribes paid to public officials amounted to $3.9 billion US dollars. This corresponds to an increase of 40 percent between 2009 and 2012. So the government abuses its position which increases the cost for the people who pay taxes and then pay again to get something done. A snapshot of Afghan culture is that bribery is embedded in social practices, with patronage and bribery being an acceptable part of Afghan culture. These practices of bribery are also in other regions without government.
Non-governmental groups like village associations and the Taliban have patronage systems. Bribery usually occurring in government to change police or judicial results or provide governmental services faster. The bribes can undermine government institutions which are flooded with money. Examples of government corruption can be to keep a family or relative from going to jail by paying the judge or police off. An instance of corruption is the people put in power, namely family relatives, for example, the director of Education was put in power because of his relatives but could not read or write.
These problems are worsened by the uncertainty of how long the US will stay and fight. If one thinks they’re leaving next week or not here to stay then obviously you’re going to abuse the money that comes in. You have elections where they have large accusations of voter fraud and reinforcement of the idea that Afghanistan looks like a “tin-pot dictatorship”. It costs somewhere around $12 billion dollars a year to train Afghan security forces and neither the US nor the Afghan government can sustain that figure. So in no way is the situation an economically manageable one, especially with record numbers of security forces being killed and high levels of desertions. “Between October 2013 and September 2014, more than 1,300 Afghan army troops were killed in action and 6,200 were wounded”. Senior US Officers have called that “unsustainable”. Desertion is a problem but there are poor numbers on this so it’s just important to mention it as a problem. The Taliban have been killing more and more people in the security forces and expanding their territory.
Growing insurgency problem across the countries level of violence grows worse.US Policy may appear to be helping reinforce insurgency numbers. The basic premise of counter-insurgency strategy is you’re only as good as the government you represent. The government that represents Afghanistan lacks legitimacy with Afghan people and it can’t even hold the Taliban at bay. While the US in for example in 2011, was killing 360 insurgent leaders in a 90 day period using Special Forces, there were more attacks against coalition forces and no reduction in overall violence. Basically, it goes back to the old adage of “if you hit me, I hit you.” Abdul Hakim Mujahidin, the Taliban Envoy to the UN from 1998 to 2001 said” They consider that the continuance of the war in this country is not for the benefit of their people. But in practice, they are using their military against the Taliban. They are forcing the Taliban to respond militarily”. Osama Bin Laden was not part of the Taliban but Al Qaeda and his objective were to drive the US into Afghanistan to shatter will at home and push US and Allies to get out of the Islamic world. The war in Afghanistan is now the longest war in US history and the US government has still been unable to ensure Al Qaeda’s come back into Afghanistan. Some reports show drone strikes are counterproductive and other say they are. It’s hard to tell productive ones from unproductive ones when they target high-ranking leaders but when they kill innocent civilians or low-level combatants they can help fuel an insurgency.
What has the US Invested For Afghanistan’s Success? The United States is spending too much money on Afghanistan, so much so that the numbers are often unknown or hard to pin down. Many different sources provide different estimates for costs on different things, but to figure out the total and cost year by year is simply too long of a process. For instances, some institution will say the cost of Iraq X and others Y. From Pew, it was shown that the US is spending around $16-17 billion dollars a year on counter-terrorism. What exactly does that cover? Again hard to pin down what exactly all these funds are being spent on. You also have heightened violence which is going to require more mobilization of the military to things like Veterans health which are extremely costly. These costs are often stuck with other wars. Here are some estimates on the spent money in key areas, reconstruction, $110 billion dollars, the largest portion of that is $60 billion being spent on training Afghan security forces.But this may not be accurate because many costs are left out of such reports so it’s better to give a bulk total of 4 to 6 trillion on the costs then try to micro-manage every cost exactly into the bill. Again this is unsustainable spending and if the US pulls out tomorrow and loses everything much of that investment could prove worthless, which is why many are reluctant to do so.
At the same times it getting harder for members of Congress to justify trillions of dollars spent for a deteriorating situation. The government gives aid to Pakistan and sometimes that aid is used to train the Taliban and other groups while fighting against Al Qaeda. Pakistan has received military aid from the US since 1948. Since 2001, the US has given Pakistan roughly $2 billion per year in military and assistance some of which has been used to support insurgent groups.This aid has gone up and down and appears to have no effect on reduction of violence in Afghanistan or Pakistan. These failures undermine the US influence in Muslim countries and appear to not give the Afghan government more legitimacy. Instead, it is akin to throwing money down a drain and hoping that something sticks.
American Exceptionalism
American Exceptionalism is the idea that America is unique, just and always on the side of good. The idea of American Exceptionalism date back to the founders, but has become largely ingrained in American Society and Politics in the 21st century following World War II. The American Military is a manifestation of this Exceptionalism and when it does something with the use of force it is always to protect our Democratic system and protect our national interests. An example of this is the perception of the Iraq where US citizens perceived the invasion of Iraq to be freeing the people of Iraq and keeping the world safe for democracy. The truth tends to be different from the perception by the American public. There is the problem of Amnesia, where people forget what the US had done wrong like people will say the government did that in the past or not remember it at all.
People also preach the perceived values of the US even if their false and the idea the US has the right to break the rules to enforce the appropriate world order. This type of clouded perception of US intervention has helped lead to two costly wars, namely, Iraq and Afghanistan. The Idea that the US was on the side of right when it invaded allowed it to label others as the bad guys versus the good guys which is one of the biggest reason for the strategic blunder. The biggest mistake the Bush Administration admits too is not differentiating the Taliban from Al Qaeda. That mistake has helped continue years of bloodshed which looks like a result of that clouded perception by the US mindset and no victory coming closer. Again this idea of American Exceptionalism is a weakness Osama Bin Laden used to push the US to invade Afghanistan and undermine its legitimacy has a hegemonic power.
The United States repeated and made the same mistakes the Soviets did in Afghanistan such as invading the country and installing/propping up an illegitimate government. There is also a large disillusion that the problems could be solved in a few months where it would appear they cannot t be solved in 16 years. Both the Bush Administration and the Soviet Union thought they would have victory in Afghanistan relatively quickly, but long-term insurgency never seemed to be defeated completely. They would kill tens of thousands and there would be a battle the next day. There was also this feeling that once the Soviets got in, the fight was about “National Prestige”(Vietnam Syndrome)(much like American Exceptionalism). If they left they would shame their country, so the Soviets stayed for 10 years and then got kicked out. There was a very large disconnect between the Afghan culture, language and the invaders (US/Soviet). There continues to be a problem that stems very much from Afghanistan, Jihad to protect Islam whether or not it’s true it is an idea that has spread. There was the idea that both the Soviet Union and the US had about creating stability even though their actions did the opposite (referencing actions of Soviets in the 1980s vs the US today). In Afghanistan, they were almost always high casualties largely taken by poor farmers who felt they were defending their country or pro-government forces caught between tribal disputes. There is still consistent aid and travel by the Taliban in and out of Pakistan. There is also the problems of people deserting the Afghan army which the hegemony supports. Both countries become involved in a war they thought they won in weeks but ended up turning into something like the Sopranos where everyone is killing everyone and the hegemony is caught in the middle.
Possible Options To Increase The Legitimacy Of The Government Of Afghanistan *Gain control of opium production and put it under some form of governmental control. The government needs the money and many of them are already involved in the opium trade it’s a legal barrier of just legitimizing it to gain more secure control of the country. It always puts a lot of people to work and helps many people to make a living, after Afghan is more built up its possible to move it away from there after large improvements are made.
* Make peace with large portions of the Taliban and allow them to govern more legitimately (in the eyes in the Afghan people). This policy is difficult to implement and will require much work, negotiation, and large term forward-thinking on the part of policymakers in the US.
*Reduce bombing campaigns to be more strategic and at all costs reduce refugee populations
* Figure a way to build large housing developments in a cost-effective manner and again working with the Taliban to make a safer country long term. These policies would help alleviate problems of population displacement and allow the people of Afghanistan to live in safety.
*Work heavily with Iran, Russia, Pakistan, and other neighboring countries to improve stability within the Middle East. Some of the ways include increased military cooperation, political planning, and population management. Another solution is to partition Afghanistan between Iran and Pakistan. Iran would gain the primarily Shi’a Western regions of Afghanistan, whereas Pakistan would get the Sunni-dominated regions in Eastern Afghanistan. The key to this proposal is to implement it democratically through an UN-sponsored referendum. If this step is not done democratically, it can further embolden insurgents and make the already difficult situation in Afghanistan much worse.
*Governance should be looked at a provincial level rather than a Federal state (small self-governing provinces). Tribalism playing a role here.
*There needs to be a transition from a strategy of killing Taliban and Al Qaeda Leaders to legitimizing Afghan government, as key counter-insurgency means.
*Increase and incorporate region cultural understand, natural, economic and political problems as the heart of counter-insurgency.
What does Trump mean for the future of Afghanistan? President Donald Trump has made many negative and inaccurate statements about Islam, which does not do any good to help the image of the legitimacy of the Afghan government. Trump is appointing neoconservatives which are generally more hawkish than Neo-liberals such as President Obama or Bill Clinton. A more hawkish approach would be to increasing militarizing the situation by increasing bomb campaigns which will likely worsen the situation. Trump’s view of the conflict with terrorism as an ideologically struggle against where the enemy is 110% evil echoes the same problems the Bush Administration pushed where they failed (even Obama), a reasonable understanding of the situation is crucial to success. Trump seems to display a profoundly ignorant understanding of the conflict.
Trump has also spoken in favor of a hardened US policy towards Iran for the nuclear reason, which is largely rooted in ignorance and misunderstandings of the sorts. If a war was launched against Iran, it would ensure that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups become stronger than ever. Iran borders Afghanistan and conflict in the area would make both countries less safe. Trump’s dislike for NATO could mean the United States occupies Afghanistan alone and increases the requirements for more troop deployments. Trump embodies the idea of American Exceptionalism in a negative way. Trump’s position on Russia was formerly stable, but his advisers pushed him away from that stance into a more confrontational one due to the issue of Syria. Trump has already reneged on many campaign promises so it’s hard to tell what the policy will be but he has surrounded himself with the people who lead the country into Iraq.
Conclusion
The United States and NATO need to refocus on why they are in Afghanistan and the plans for the future. If they plan to continue fighting heavily in Afghanistan they need a new long-term strategy. The United States needs to increase accountability with aid and better keep track of resources in order to maximize efficiency. Increasingly high casualties taken by civilians and security forces undermine government legitimacy. A record number of refugees destabilize the region where countries like Iran, Pakistan, and others taken in millions of refugees. The new administration coming in needs to make sure it uses forces to find a political solution and not to defeat the insurgency because ultimately Afghanistan will be solved by a political solution whether it be dividing Afghanistan up or other solutions like negotiating heavily with the Taliban. If the government wants to become more legitimate curbing corruption is a major hill to climb as well as developing a proper narcotics strategy that makes sure the Afghan people are put first. Poor results have been shown to develop with high levels of violence, high population displacement, high corruption, and war. Perhaps it’s impossible given the problems to remove the label from Afghanistan of Failed State under the next administration.
Citations
Abramowitz, Morton, James Holmes, Seth J. Frantzman, and Ashton B. Carter. “How American Exceptionalism Dooms U.S. Foreign Policy.” The National Interest. The National Interest, 22 Oct. 2012. Web. 12 Dec. 2016.
“Afghan Refugees.” Afghan Refugees | Costs of War. Watson Institute, Apr. 2015. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
“Afghanistan: Record Level of Civilian Casualties Sustained in First Half of 2016 — UN Report.” UNAMA. United Nations, 25 July 2016. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Afghanistan War Documentary. Dir. Andrew Mackay. Perf. David Cameron. Afghanistan: The Lessons of War. BBC, 2016. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Atal, Nishant. “More Harm Than Good?” World Report. US News, 25 Nov. 2015. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Chomsky, Noam. “The War In Afghanistan.” The War In Afghanistan. Z Magazine, 1 Feb. 2002. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Chossudovsky, Michel. “The Spoils of War: Afghanistan’s Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade.” Global Research, Jan. 2015. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
DeSilver, Drew. “U.S. Spends over $16 Billion Annually on Counter-terrorism.” Pew Research. Pew Research Center, 11 Sept. 2013. Web. 4 Dec. 2016.
Dharapak, Charles. “The Man Who Keeps Tabs On U.S. Money Spent In Afghanistan.” NPR. NPR, 15 May 2015. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
France-Presse, Agence. “US Afghan Army Suffers Heavy Combat Losses.” Defense News. Defence News, 3 Mar. 2015. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Gall, Carlotta. “An Afghan Secret Revealed Brings End of an Era.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 31 Jan. 2009. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Jolly, David. “Afghanistan Had Record Civilian Casualties in 2015, U.N. Says.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 Feb. 2016. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Lodin, Azizullah, Jean-Luc Lemahieu, and Sandeep Chawla. “Corruption in Afghanistan:Recent Trends.” Islamic Republic of Afghanistan High Offi Ce of Oversight and Anti-Corruption (2012): 1-40. 2012. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
McCoy, Alfred. “Tomgram: Alfred McCoy, Washington’s Twenty-First-Century Opium Wars (February 21, 2016).” Academia.edu – Share Research. Academia, Feb. 2016. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Micallef, Joseph V. “How the Taliban Gets Its Cash.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 14 Nov. 2015. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
“Milestones: 1977–1980 – Office of the Historian.” U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State, n.d. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Pamela Constable. “Heroin Addiction Spreads with Alarming Speed across Afghanistan.” The Washington Post. WP Company, 8 Jan. 2015. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Pike, John. “Military.” Peace Operations in an Insurgency Environment. Global Research, 1997. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Pike, John. “Military.” The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan- 1979-1989. GlobalSecurity.org, 2016. Web. 12 Dec. 2016.
Roy, Arundhati. “‘Brutality Smeared in Peanut Butter’” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 22 Oct. 2001. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Scahill, Jeremy. The Assassination Complex: Inside the Government’s Secret Drone Warfare Program. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2016. Print.
Simon, Roger. “Down the Opium Rathole.” Down the Opium Rathole. Politico, 29 Oct. 2014. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Soviet War in Afghanistan 1979-1989. Perf. Http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/01/cp.03.html. Afghanistan. CNN, 23 Nov. 2014. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Thompson, Mark. “The True Cost of the Afghanistan War May Surprise You.” Time. Time, 1 Jan. 2015. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
“‘US Drone Attacks Are Counter Productive and Terrorise Civilians’” The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, Sept. 2012. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.
Literature Review Citations
“Assessing the Bush Doctrine”, in “The war behind closed doors.” Frontline, PBS. 20 February 2003.
Mores, Bill, and Marilyn B. Young. “Marilyn B. Young on the War in Iraq BillMoyers.com.” BillMoyerscom. May 11, 2007. Accessed October 18, 2016.
Glaser, Charles L. “Political Consequences of Military Strategy: Expanding and Refining the Spiral and Deterrence Models.” World Politics 44, no. 4 (1992): 497-538.
Gideon Rose, “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy,” World
Politics 51, no. 1 (October 1998), pp. 144–77.
Jervis, Robert. “Cooperation Under Security the Dilemma.” World Politics 30.2 (1978): 167-214. Social Sciences UCLA. Social Sciences Division UCLA, 1978. Web. 5 Dec. 2016
“Lawrence AS Theory.” Lawrence AS Theory. Accessed October 18, 2016. https://lawrencemediatheory.wordpress.com/2016/09/.
LOBELL, Steven E. “War is Politics: Offensive Realism, Domestic Politics, and Security Strategies.” Security Studies 12.2 (2002): 1-30. 2002. Web. 17 Oct. 2016. Sean M. Lynn-Jones, “Offensive-Defense Theory and Its Critics.” Security Studies 4 (Summer 1995): 660-91
Waltz, Kenneth N. “Structural Realism after the Cold War.” International Security 25, no. 1 (Summer 2000): 5-41.
Tackling the topic of humor is a particularly difficult area because it can be extremely subjective. A joke might be funny to one person or group of people but considered not funny to a different individual or group. Is it proper to make jokes about pain and suffering? Well yes. Many jokes in the realm of satire are explicitly mocking something or stating something that is obviously false to be funny. Without knowing it people like politicians or leader or even ordinary people can say something seriously and people can misconstrue it as a joke. An example of this was when President Donald Trump said: “No one cares about black people more than I do.” While many laugh at this because it an obvious fallacy he didn’t intend it to be a joke. Now for people who tell jokes, it is different because they set up the context to make jokes funny. George Carlin explains this very well below.
He goes more into words themselves rather than jokes, but he makes a good point, its the context that matters. People who make jokes about racism often don’t do it to put different ethnic groups down but, in fact, to shine a light on problems in society. Historically if you look at people like (history of Satire on wiki link below) Johnathan Swift jokes about eating babies in his work “A Modest Proposal”(http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html) where he talks about killing kids and selling them for food. The work is meant to shine a light on the fact that there are children everywhere who can barely eat who often starve or face death and disease without help. The church at the time, of course, didn’t do great things advocating against condom use, but that’s a topic for another time. Sometimes jokes have little purpose(to change society) and are just funny. If you say eating children jokes are wrong (Modest Proposal) then you often put yourself in a box where you have to declare everything else immoral because its “wrong”. If a rape joke is wrong because it can encourage a culture of more rape then that’s an argument that must be defended. I don’t have a defense for it here, but when you try to change the way people talk all you end up doing is marginalizing large groups of people without fixing the root of the problem. It’s not Swifty making jokes about treating children inhumanely in his work that pushes that culture to do such, but indeed society’s lack of moral itself. If rape was absent in a society would it be moral to make a joke about it?
Also, this seems very much like a gendered issue. A teacher of mine, need not be named, said its ok to make jokes about men getting rape but not women. That statement itself sets itself up for failure. If you’re going to make the argument about rape culture than you shoot yourself in the foot especially if you live in the United States. The United States is the only country to record more male rape than female rape in an area because of the massive prison populations we have(not entirely true link below to shed light).Male rape is never talked about and when it is not much is done about it. Why?The saying goes “MEN CAN TAKE IT”. Feminist can’t argue about female rape jokes and leave men out. Because rape in prisons still happening at high rates- population of prisoners still high and little political will to change it. But again these conversations are land minds because you will just keep getting bogged down more until you come to the conclusion a jokes a joke. It can be more, it can be less. I am not defending jokes that attack people(direct personal attacks), I am defending jokes that shine a light on issues. At the end of the day, words are just words and we shouldn’t ruffle our feather if someone makes a bad joke(or an even shittier one.
Other Topics
Male Rape – Look at Ancient Greeks/ Look at Military gay sex history(sailors/army…etc)
Female Rape- Highest in Middle East/ Dress has nothing to do with the probability of rape. Machines will lower it(sex robots).
Child Rape- Seems to be High among elites-PizzaGate/Australian Boy Sex crack down/Hard to stop men in high places.
Sex- Church historically against condom use, which has killed many.
Hunger- Yemen Starving, US-led, Saudi-Led, World Hunger Can be Ended, You’re to Blame
(Disclaimer not edited, RAW)XXX
Some Jokes/Satire…etc
“Don’t Drop the Soap”
“What the difference between a cop and a robber? Cops have badges.”
How many cops does it take to shoot a black man? One.
Whats the difference between bombs and healthcare? One is paid for.
Whats the most dangerous kind of black man? A black man who can vote.
Data extraction facility- Hand
Data storage facility- my balls
Why couldn’t the blind Nazi read? Because he could notsee.
Every Heard of Ethiopian food? Neither have they?
Famous Comedians
Bill Hicks- Grade A
George Carlin Grade A
Daniel Tosh
Anthony Jeselnik
Rick and Morty Cartoon Grade A
Satirical Works
Modest Proposal Johnathan Swift
Cannibal Cars – Mark Twain
Photo: “Non-Violence”, Carl-Fredrik Reuterswärd, 1988, United Nations
The short answer to the question is “maybe,” the shorter answer is “fuck no.” Why do I say that? Well, let’s look at the record. How did the US respond to the “attack” by Assad (unverified by UN/independent)? Well, they shot missiles because that will teach them a lesson not to commit war crimes. So the US Government (Trump Administration) launched 60 cruises missiles roughly (59) the result of such was destruction to fighter aircraft and actually the destruction of some villages accidentally hit. So you respond to the killing of innocent people by killing more people so the government will stop killing innocent people even though in the process you killed innocent people. Do you see the hypocrisy? Furthermore, the attack is a violation of international law (not that I support laws) and violation of the Nuremberg principles. I do not recognize the right of one Nation to use force against another in anything other than a purely defensive matter, meaning directly attack or invasion on sovereign soil (embassies don’t count). Why does the United States get involved in “conflicts” that present no direct threat to the United States?
There are plenty of reasons that answer that question but let’s focus on a few of them. Is the United States a nation that cares about the loss of human life or the wants to reduce it to a sheer minimum? Short Answer No, real answer once in a while. What is the easiest way to end the Syria Proxy war? Cut off arms to both sides, have they done this?(NO), Well Obama had a chance to do such in 2012- it didn’t work out because they thought Assad would fall quickly like Libya (Failed State). So if we look large in the Middle East (MENA) has the United State done everything to minimize deaths? Well, there is a major famine in Yemen (minor in other places as well but mostly Yemen) then we see the US is not only cutting aid to humanitarian assistance worldwide but also helping create the famine with the aid of Saudi blockade of the country(Yemen Imports 90% of its food). It should be noted the Houthi rebels are also causing starvation of own people on a smaller scale- just increasing desperation of the conflict.
Costs
Can the United States save millions of lives in the next year by changing its budget? In the United States alone 45,000 people die every year from lack of health insurance(medical treatment). By creating a single-payer health care system you can likely saved most of those people while also distributing better quality care to large portions of the populations- preventive care and direct care. Reasons for the US not switching? Money would be lost by large corporations, health insurance companies, doctors salaries might decrease and loan companies that give people loans(borrowed money) would make less cash. So we see the monetization of the need to make a profit and keep embedded systems in power(political/economic/social). How many people starve to death every day? Wide variation on that answer but one estimate is a person every 4 seconds. That’s 21,000 a day. The Tomahawk Missiles cost about a million dollars each(500,000 for production solo but at a link below it explained why that’s not so simple{WebArchive}). How many people could 60 million dollars feed? That’s a research topic and I don’t have the answer for you here but here’s a link that describes what money can be put toward and you can do the math on your own.
“Compared to the cost of living in the United States, the cost of eradicating hunger is minimal. For example, it costs just $10 USD to feed a boy in Kenya’s refugee camps for 3 weeks – this is less than the cost of lipstick in Manhattan.(1) It costs only $50 USD to feed a school-aged girl for an entire year in many developing nations.(2) It costs only 20 cents to feed one child a nutrient-rich serving of Plumpy’Sup®, a nutritional food supplement.(3) In 2003, the FAO estimated that an additional $24 billion in public funding each year would be needed to reach the goal of halving global hunger by 2015 (with inflation, the figure becomes $36 billion in 2008 dollars
Isene Dagelaish
4/12/17
The Village in the Forrest
I live in a small village in India. Every day I walk two miles to provide fresh water for my family. I carry two buckets on a pole. My shoulders buckle as I hike up the mountain. Our village is far from any remnants of civilization. We have no electricity or running water. Everyday my grandfather wakes me up early to get water for the family. I want to go to school like my brother, but I need to get water for us. Water is life.
My body aches from the heavy pails of water I carry. The trip gets longer in the summer when the sun stays in the sky all day. The hot sun makes tiny beads of sweat fall off my head and bounce off my feet as I traverse the rough terrain. The sun rises early and sets late, the sun makes my skin hot like our pan that cooks the chicken for supper. I dream of a day when I can rest or sleep in late.
I love reading. I try to read the book my brother brings home, but I don’t know all the words, I get stuck a lot. He says I am a girl, and I shouldn’t read. I run to my room, and my eyes flood my pillow with tears. But it’s ok now. Soon papa will return from farming and get the water for us. Soon I will be the one reading. Soon I will be the one sleeping in late. Soon…
Under the new Trump Administration, we seem to see a popular rise against the banning of Muslims from the United States. What does that mean? Does it mean the average American is starting to have a moralizing opinion about the world’s Muslim population? Maybe. Muslims, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, have been the largest victims of draconian US foreign policy under the past two administrations, namely, Bush and Obama. The US foreign policy has killed thousands of innocent Muslims and yet much of this has gone on with very little objection from large populous movements.
Among the many examples are the bombings in Afghanistan with a history of hitting civilian targets and perpetuating a misunderstood war. The war, with no end in sight, continually breaks records for civilian deaths every year, with 2016 being the highest year on record. High casualties come from an inability to find peace and significant casualties from a declining security situation. There are also increased numbers of insurgents according to government documents showing the number the number of people in the Taliban has gone up significantly since the US invasion in 2001. The media paints a false narrative of Afghanistan, as Obama doubled down on a failed strategy when he deployed 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and still couldn’t defeat the Taliban. Now they are stronger than anytime before the invasion and the country is more unstable than ever. Additionally, Obama switched to a Drone war that seems to bring back less dead American soldiers but still ineffective at winning the war. You can’t bomb yourself out of the situation and diplomacy is only way out.
Libya, where the US is increasingly committing forces after it led the campaign to overthrow Gaddafi in 2011 and is followed by increasing instability, has also been an area of particular gruesome casualties. Libya is known for the situation of Benghazi where a US raid killed a tribal leader by accident leading to an attack on the US Embassy where Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was killed. Libya is becoming a failed state after US intervention and continues to fall victim to insurgents leaving the country ungovernable.
Lastly, the battle for Yemen is another example of a flawed and destructive US foreign policy. Yemen has witnessed US drone strikes over the past decades in order to take out suspected Al-Qaeda operatives. Obama cited Yemen as an area of victory in the “War on Terror”. In reality, the US policy in Yemen contributed to the development of a civil war in which the Saudis are now backing Al-Qaeda groups against the Houthis and other Shi’a rebels (look up the 1962-70 Yemen Civil War for better insight into conflict). Today we see increasing US support for the Saudi-led intervention that is targeting agricultural production in what is being accused of “genocide”. Yemen is at risk of mass starvation from the US and Saudi-led intervention. With an estimated population of 25 million on the brink. Yemen is predicted to have nearly 58% of its population suffer from food insecurity. In December 2016, the U.N. stated Yemen may be facing an impending famine. Many news organization leave out these facts and underplay the Western role in conflicts.
Will the average person’s position on US military intervention shift with the number of people standing against the immigration ban currently seen at places like JFK airport? Or, will it be another blob in the history books?
What gives government right to rule?Is it law? Or is it reason? Perhaps consent? All of these things have elements mixed in the current government(20 year period), some more than others. Every man has a right to prosperity under the most ideal conditions a state can provide. But is the state providing those conditions or allowing them to flourish? The answer is clearly no. The government is largely maintained through simple power dynamics that have recognizable effects on the prosperity of men’s lives. Why will there be more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050?
Well you have your answer – power and government. Not at the whims of the common man but of the man who holds the green tickets on the ride of injustice. Where do you stand? Well, it is likely you stand more with the common man than the common thief. If you ask why don’t Americans have healthcare, it is not about resources, it’s not about money, it’s about power.
The definition of power is a complex one and will evolve throughout this post. The current power is with the green tickets that allow the government roller-coaster to twist and turn at their will. The 2nd type of power is true power, which is the type of power that is hidden from the common man. The power for men to gather and make decisions en masse and enforce those desires, needs, or what have you on the state. If that power is not answered, if men do not demand justice from the first type of power, then power gives nothing without demand. If left unchecked, then men will remain peasants under feudal rule of gods and kings. It doesn’t take much for a man to realize he is not free when his teeth fall out. Meanwhile, the politician on the stage proclaims “we are for freedom.” Where is his freedom when tooth by tooth his teeth decay, wary of that evil word, that word used to manipulate the masses, the flock. “Freedom,” they say; well freedom they shall never achieve. Because freedom is really the ability to choose, not between red or blue, but between feudalism and freedom, the kind of choice you probably don’t have.
My advice to you is not to support politician via automatic weapons, but to support them via mass mobilization on common issues that all man agree on such as free speech and healthcare, human rights for all, even minorities. You must proclaim your independence and freedom. “But divide ye fall” proclaimed Julius Caesar as he conquered Gaul. As Benjamin Franklin eloquently stated in 1754, “Join or Die.”
