 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
What They Thought August 14, 2005 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
||||||
In the midst of our desire to see a happy outcome in Iraq, we must never lose sight of the ability of Arabs to reject every opportunity to join the modern community of nations, i.e., the industrialized West and those in Asia who are working toward a more peaceful, integrated worldwide marketplace. Much hinges on the fate of Iraq. As Bahram Saleh, a Kurdish leader, has said, “Iraq is the nexus where many issues are coming together—Islam versus democracy, the West versus the axis of evil, Arab nationalism versus some different types of political culture. If the Americans succeed here, this will be a monumental blow to everything the terrorists stand for.” Thomas L. Friedman, the New York Times columnist, perhaps said it best back in January 2003, writing of the American victory in Iraq. “Congratulations! You’ve just won the Arab Yugoslavia — an artificial country congenitally divided among Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, Nasserites, leftists and a host of tribes and clans that can only be held together with a Saddam-like fist. Congratulations, you’re the new Saddam.” A bit cheeky to be sure, but Friedman perhaps knew that the last thing the Bush administration wanted was to occupy and rule Iraq as we had done for many years in Japan and Germany after WWII. The US wanted out as fast as possible. The US wanted to liberate and leave. The US discovered, however, an Iraq in which the national infrastructure that had been neglected for decades by the Saddam regime, opposition to occupation even by a liberating military, and an army and police force that had been utterly debased and corrupted by the former gangster government and economy. Little wonder the first instinct of Iraqis was to loot anything that was not nailed down. Since the end of World War I and the subsequent fall of the Ottoman Empire, we have allowed ourselves to believe there was a nation called Iraq. When French and British diplomats drew lines on the map of the Middle East, Iraq emerged despite the fact that it was home to several very distinct ethnic and religious groups. The present post-Saddam Iraq is a Humpty Dumpty sitting on the narrow edge of a proposed new constitution in a place where the rule of law has never really existed, let alone notions that include the equal status of women or even the concept of private property. Property rights in Iraq have always been a matter of custom, not law. Without real property rights, there can be no democracy and no modern capitalist economy. Consider what John Zogby, an Arab-American of Lebanese descent and noted pollster, had to say in April 2003 regarding the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq. “I know my people. We are an ungovernable people. I’m sorry.” He was not alone. Egyptian-born Sherine El-Abd, president of a Women’s Republican Club in Middlesex, New Jersey, had serious doubts Iraq’s diverse population of 25 million people could make the transition to a unified nation. “In addition to the fact that they don’t trust anything America stands for, people who have lived under suppression don’t trust any figures in authority. A lot of Arabs who have immigrated to the United States and lived here for 20 or 30 years don’t even participate in the system here.” Of course, we do have the evidence of the many Iraqis who came out and voted in the elections to begin the process toward democracy. Some remain optimistic. Samer Shehata, an Egyptian-American assistant professor of Arab politics at Georgetown University notes that democracy requires institutional structures such as an independent judiciary, a free press, and a culture of political participation. Wisely he warns that this is not a process that can occur in a few months. Nor is progress toward democracy aided when neighboring nations such as Syria and Iran are totally opposed to it, funding and arming anyone who will fight to destroy a new, free Iraq. Add to that pit of vipers, the former Baath Party members. They may never believe they have been or can be defeated. Though only about fifteen percent of the population, the Sunnis are the backbone of the insurgency and, as Andrew Apostolou, director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, pointed out in December 2003, “The party’s ability to rise from the grave is legendary. The Baathists believe that they never suffered true defeats.” None of this is helped by talk from local US commanders and out of Washington, DC about “timetables” to pull our troops out. That kind of thing only encourages those waging war on the barely birthed new Iraq and its constitution. It reminds Shiites of promises made and abandoned that got thousands of them killed after Washington encouraged an uprising against Saddam. It reminds Kurds of the losses they incurred in their long struggle to establish themselves as an independent region and political entity. Indeed, the most amazing thing about Iraq is the fact that its interim president is a Kurd. Jalal Talabani, who along with his sometime rival, Mas’ud Barzani, saw the vacuum of power in Baghdad after Saddam’s overthrow and left their strongholds to establish a presence there. Some observers think that, if things don’t go well for the new government, the Kurds will decide it is time to carve out a big chunk of Iraq and other nations in the area to declare the nation of Kurdistan. It would include northern Iraq, plus parts of eastern Syria, southeastern Turkey, and northwestern Iran. You can bet that’s what the leaders in those nations are thinking too. The Kurds, though, have enjoyed a decade of real autonomy in Iraq and joining with other groups to establish a new Iraq may appeal to them if for no other reason than to hold onto the wealth generated by the oil reserves around Mosul and Kirkuk. So, before we get to celebrating too long or too hard about Iraq’s new constitution, let’s remember we are dealing, for the most part, with Arabs. They don’t like us. They don’t like each other. There isn’t a single Arab nation that is a democracy. They have never really known anything but kings, despots, civil wars or coup d’etats. The job of the United States is to drag and push the Iraqis and the rest of the Middle East into the 2lst century. Otherwise, this region is going to continue to produce bombers and other horrid people for a long time to come. We may well have to invade a few other nations or at least send the occasional cruise missile to let them know that we are displeased. Recent polls suggest Americans are losing interest in the war. One thing’s for sure. If we lose our nerve in Iraq, the Jihadists will win. |
||||||
|
No column this week. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
Men learn a lot of things when they get married. I know because I’m a man and I got married a year ago. The way I see it, marriage is a totally awesome institution. There’s nothing better than two people who love each other pooling their time, energy, and resources together in an effort to make life better for both of them. But I guess with divorce rates being what they are in this country, some people just don’t see it that way. If you ask me, the problem with marriage is a lot of people think their wedding is supposed to be the high point of their love. They don’t realize marriage is an adventure full of learning experiences. I don’t know who to blame for this, but my gut says it has something to do with Jennifer Lopez. Either way, in an effort to make marriage easier for future generations, here’s a list of five things every newlywed guy should expect to learn. 1. Marriage doesn’t change anything. It’s impossible to “feel married.” The only thing that changes the day after your wedding is you don’t have to plan a wedding anymore. That, and there’s an off chance you’ll break down crying during the climactic “Somebody’s Getting Married” scene of The Muppets Take Manhattan. For this reason, I don’t recommend living together before marriage. The way I see it, living together is the only thing marriage can physically change. Without it, your wedding is just an excuse to refurnish your apartment with gifts from the bridal shower. 2. There are other channels on cable besides ESPN. Most of these channels bear simple, non-intimidating names—like Lifetime and Style. If you’re not careful, you may have to watch them. Style, for its part, is usually harmless. Most of its programming consists of Elizabeth Hasselbeck walking through a mall. But Lifetime’s a bit more insidious. Other than the Golden Girls, the entire station seems to exist as an answer to the question: “Whatever happened to Meredith Baxter-Birney after Family Ties?” Real men know they don’t want to know the answer — which is, she dropped the Birney and assumed the role of a woman scorned in no fewer than 6,000 made-for-TV movies. (I’m not even kidding about this. She actually played the lead in a movie called A Woman Scorned: The Betty Broderick Story. She even filmed its sequel: Her Final Fury: Betty Broderick, the Last Chapter.) Marriage is all about compromise and sacrifice. If you absolutely must watch Lifetime, at least watch baseball during commercials. 3. Sometimes staying in on a Friday to watch 20/20 won’t sound so bad to you. Sometimes you won’t even stay up late enough to watch 20/20. I used to laugh at the scene in Old School where the kids at the party ask Will Ferrell to drink from the funnel and he says no because he has a big day ahead of him tomorrow (going to Home Depot to pick out some flooring, maybe Bed Bath & Beyond if he has enough time). But I cringe now when he takes that drink because I know from experience BB&B is infinitely less fun when you’re hung over and nowhere near the pillow aisle. The fact is, marriage shuffles your priorities. Strange things become important to you. Things like duvet covers. (If you have to ask, don’t.) That’s when you stop hearing from your single guy friends. For them, fun is going out and getting trashed on a Friday evening. For you, it’s drinking a beer over dinner and passing out at 9:30 after doing the dishes and watching Dateline. I know this sounds depressing, but don’t let it give you cold feet. There’s something oddly satisfying about the skeletal nature of Stone Phillips’ head. 4. Marriage doesn’t mean the end of dating. If anything, your life on the dating scene is just getting started. Only now, instead of singles matches, you’re working the tag team circuit. That’s right: Once you get married, you have to find other married couples to go out with. And while it may sound like an exaggeration, I can assure you that this process absolutely resembles ordinary dating in every conceivable way. My wife and I met a nice couple at the neighborhood pool a week after moving in. We agreed to get together for happy hour the following Wednesday, and three Wednesdays later it finally happened. They seemed like very nice people. Both of them were scientists. We enjoyed light conversation and drinks at a local brewery. Afterwards, I told my wife I really liked them. But then something happened. We invited them over and they said they had to pass. Then they stopped returning our phone calls. And now we haven’t seen them in months. I think about them sometimes. Were we too pushy? Was it something we said? My wife swears: “We’re too good for them.” But if we’re too good for them, why won’t they go out with us? 5. You will no longer have to subsist strictly on pizza. In fact, you won’t be allowed to. Women like pizza, but they don’t like pizza every night. They want variety. And pepperoni one night, meat lover’s the next won’t cut it. Basically, you won’t have a choice but to familiarize yourself with the kitchen. Occasionally, Hamburger Helper will ride to the rescue. But after that, all bets are off. Soon you’ll learn about these neat contraptions called ovens. Did you know there’s a box in your house that can cook things up to 500 degrees… safely? Me neither. But then I got married. And then I learned. And if you get married, you’ll learn, too. Soon ordering pizza will make you feel like Roberto Duran when he said “No mas” and quit on his stool. You’ll start bookmarking recipe websites—researching salads and world-beating marinades with the same veracity of unmarried men looking up porn. Dinner will become the focal point of every day in your life as a newlywed. You’ll enjoy dinner like you’ve never enjoyed dinner before. This lasts until you have your first kid, at which point—from what I understand—you never enjoy a single meal for the rest of your life. So there you have it. Marriage in a nutshell. It’s pretty cool, actually. You just have to learn to get used to it. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
I feel compelled to share an epiphany I recently had regarding employment. I really like the idea of being self employed and working as an independent contractor. Although I've only just begun trying to wholly support myself in this manner, I like being in control over what services I will provide, for how long, and at what cost. It really simplifies the relationship between the employer and the employee. This has led me to ponder why teachers are forced to have a union bargain on their behalf? I am absolutely convinced that the union does not have a teacher's best interest at heart. As a matter of fact, I'm inclined to believe that the contracts unions negotiate favor administration. Granted, unions negotiate higher pay scales and pension benefits but they don't negotiate a supportive work environment. Contractual obligations are all about what the teacher will be expected to do. They don't require administration make available any and all resources to optimize the educational environment. They don't require a supportive atmosphere. They ensure that there will never be a collegial professional relationship between administrators and teachers. Instead, teachers are on the bottom rung of a hierarchy that elevates administrators and ensures only lateral mobility unless a teacher leaves the classroom. If a teacher decides that a particular school isn't providing the best work atmosphere, it is difficult to leave because the longer you teach, the higher your pay scale. Even if a teacher is willing to work for reduced wages, this is a sticking point. Another problem is that tenure isn't transferable. Teachers often stay at a school where there is tenure because it is job stability. Teachers who aren't feeling satisfied in their work environment will find it harder to motivate. That is just a fact. Moreover, teachers who want to excel at their craft get no more recognition than the teacher who just wants to get by. If teachers were able to negotiate their own contracts and could be more mobile, I think we'd solve the problem of merit pay raises and it would be easier to dismiss those teachers who are just waiting for their 20 years. At the risk of sounding like Andy Rooney, Why is it that there is so much attrition with newer teachers? From everything that I've read, it is more cost effective for a school to mentor a teacher than to not renew a contract. Yet I keep reading that most teachers drop out of the field before they have achieved tenure. Are the graduates of educational colleges that unqualified to take on a classroom? What is it they are doing or not doing that schools don't bother to retain their services? I'm wondering how many non-tenured instructors have been given the option of resigning rather than have to apply to a new school and say there wasn't a contract offered for the following school year. If teachers could negotiate their own contracts, they could strive to teach at schools known for particular expertise or programs or innovation. Teachers could negotiate bonuses for bringing test scores to certain levels. Teachers who work overtime to help kids excel would see their efforts pay off monetarily, as well. Unions could exist but for different reasons. Teachers could voluntarily join unions who negotiate benefits and pensions through private insurance agencies and investment companies. Teachers could pay directly for these benefits, or not as the case may warrant. Taxpayers wouldn't have to bear the responsibility for meeting pension obligations. Now that would be something. Teacher unions spend a lot of dues extorted from teachers campaigning for or against candidates who want to be elected to office. Money spent is to ensure that true educational reform doesn't actually have to occur. True reform would allow for privatization in education. Schools would actually have to compete for students. And if the influence of unions was taken out of education, schools would have to work –to retain the best teachers. In the words of Herbert Hoover, "Competition is not only the basis of protection to the consumer, but is the incentive to progress." Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
Just as the greater the lie, the bigger the theft - the easier it becomes. Now that the troops are coming home, the spoils of war can be integrated into the big picture. Back in the 1950’s a favorite program was named “The Big Picture” which presented the significance of a particular news event. How those events fit into the cultural viewpoint was seen as a valid approach for understanding the issues of the day. Hollywood took the slant that entertainment, even in a war comedy flick, could spoof a basic human flaw - greed. Recruiting a squad of likable soldiers and characters, and offering an opportunity for a real pay day, we get to watch the human condition play out a reoccurring plot. “Kelly's Heroes” is an amusing tale of robbery, tongue-in-cheek humor and wartime action. Who doesn’t have a little larceny running in their blood, especially when 14,000 gold bars are the prize? Rescuing such loot from Nazi safekeeping surely is a noble cause! Even an ‘Oddball’ tank commander and character who enjoys imitating a fearless general, can’t redeem the theft from anything more than a scheme for personal avarice. Hell isn’t just for bizarre heroes, ordinary servicemen want a piece of the action. So why should anyone be surprised when U.S. military officials say that about $900,000 was taken by American soldiers from a cache of about $600 million in U.S. currency found in Baghdad palace complexes. Officials say most of the money has been recovered. Five soldiers are under investigation. Surely it isn’t too much of a wonder that an engineer for Fox News Channel, Benjamin James Johnson, allegedly took 15 paintings and assorted Iraqi government bonds. He worked for an organization where fair and balanced is their motto. Nor should anyone be too startled that gold-plated firearms and ornamental knives were seized at airports in Washington, Boston and London; isn’t the victor deserving of souvenirs? What shock when military units recruit foreign nationals, modern day Hessians, to serve with the promise of future citizenship. What awe when mercenaries set out on their own personal missions! Officials said more charges could be brought and more seizures of stolen items are expected in what is being dubbed "Operation Iraqi Heritage." Hey, this is heritage that is really worth fighting for . . . almost makes one want to emulate George Clooney, one more hero, on another search for Iraqi gold during the first Gulf War. How nice it would be to become one of the Three Kings. But this is just the sideshow. The big picture has a treasure far more valuable than a few tacky velvet Elvis portraits. The gold sought is black and drives the military machine worldwide to monopolize the international economy. While that may be the hoard that motivates, the hordes that march under the whores who command, following orders from the heinous globalists that lust for total control, is the real “Big Picture”. The “Big Joe” in this equation is not a simple platoon commander, looking to cash in on stolen booty. No, those who are behind this robbery are in the mold of “Uncle Joe”, mere totalitarians that pursue their imperial deception which becomes an ordeal for the rest of the world. The plunder that is packaged in staged images of deliverance, resembles a block party paid for with the graft from extortion. The arguments that purport that the Iraqi War was inspired for liberating a country is a lie. Just look at the kind of imposed government that is being forged. Wait and see what will happen when internal factions rebel against the junta that will be seated by the coalition cabal. When will the brigades of Kelly’s Heroes find all those weapons of mass destruction? How nice and neat to avowal that they were all moved to the next target for the ‘Hessian Regiment’, after the Hussein campaign. Assuredly, some traces of WMD can be found with the help of the engineers for Fox News Channel? Nonetheless, the best argument for theft is always the most elementary. Let’s use the Iraqi oil to pay for the cost of liberation! Certainly, this one will carry the day for most ethically crippled empire worshippers. The natural resources of a subdued enemy are fair spoils for recouping the expense of salvation. Sounds like not only the supply-man ‘Crapgame’, but all the other avid speculators with OPM - other people’s money - are so eager to scam the pillage as just rightful tariff on a newly conquered colony. Finally, the analogy really hits the mark, when our archetype gangsters reveal their real name. Yes, it’s the ‘Likudnik Heroes’ that assembled the armies for a greater Israel, and protection of the motherland. Hey, a socialist apartheid is OK when the clerics are kosher. Just don’t let those fundamental Islamic’s make a theocracy out of Iraq! Only approved plutonium can be stored in our region, while the swelling of U.S. foreign aid is their cut from the heist. Not much humor in this screenplay . . . The Big Picture is much different from the petty greediness of a bank robber. Why burglarize the vault when you control and manipulate the printing presses? Just pay the foreign legion enough and allow them to a few slim pickings and the good old boys will be singing Dixie! Isn’t this American Foreign Policy - Global Imperial Colonization - and we are owed something for our efforts? Yep, GIC is good! “Greed Is Cool” and we want to kool off from all that time in the desert, because we are the heroes . . .
|
||||||
©2004-2005 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
||||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Sunday, August 21, 2005 6:46 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
||||||
