2015 Global Peace Index

Is the world becoming more peaceful?

Tesla unveils solar-batteries for homes | Tech News

"What we're talking about tonight is a fundamental transformation about how the world works." Elon Musk presents this concept with a very low-key delivery. My reaction was somewhat less low -key - "HOLY SHIT!"

Pixels - Official Trailer (HD) - Summer 2015

Hey 80s gamers!

Time to save Earth!

Save Social Security

OK. So a guy who will retire on $88,000 a month wants to cut my Social Security? 
I have two words for him and they aren't "Happy Birthday".

'Missing Oil' from 2010 BP Spill Found on Gulf Seafloor

'Missing Oil' from 2010 BP Spill Found on Gulf Seafloor

This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate - Book Trailer

In case you haven't seen this trailer/promo for "This Changes Everything," the new Naomi Klein book, I thought I'd share.

Our Land, Our Business (English)

Princess Rose

Our son Todd was walking around the neighborhood with several friends on a particularly warm and wonderful summer night in August 2013. On a street about a half mile from our house, a kitten pranced out of nowhere to greet them. After everyone said "how cute" and "awww" and "oooo", they walked away with kitty following. She followed them all the way to our house and up onto the back deck. Attempts to pet her or pick her up only sent her scurrying under a chair or the table or off the deck onto the lawn. Food enticed her back onto the deck for a while. She had a voracious appetite and consumed as much food as our big cat Tigrr (a.k.a. Bunky).

She settled into a spot on the cement between the Bilco basement door and the area under our porch. She was still there in the morning.

We fed her again and she gobbled it all up, but she was still stand-offish. For example, every time you reached for her, she would scurry under the porch. We kept telling her that it was nasty under there - spiders and other bugs for company, dirt floor, etc. But she wouldn't listen.

As you can tell from the pictures, she did come inside eventually. At first she checked out the kitchen and dining room and then headed out the porch door again. But as soon as we closed the door, we heard this mournful meow. When we opened the door, she just looked at us as if to say, "That wasn't me." 

About the third or fourth time wandering around the house, she found a spot that suited her under the dining room table and settled in for a nap. She was home.

We didn't know if it was a good idea to have her in the house with Bunky. She could have fleas, a disease, worms, or who knows what. But we couldn't bring ourselves to put her outside again. So I made an appointment with the wonderful Paris Hill Cat Hospital (http://www.parishillcathospital.com/). They checked her thoroughly, told us she was a little girl,  gave her a worm treatment, which she swallowed like a good kitty, gave her a flea treatment, clipped her nails, and weighed her - a whopping two pounds and one ounce. They also determined she was about 10 weeks old giving her a birth date of about June 18. 

When the vet asked us for the kitten's name, we said, "We don't know yet because we don't know the kitty's gender." So her first visit was as "No Name", certainly not suitable for such a noble creature. While the veterinarian was handling her, she said, "Oh, she's such a princess." On the way home, it all clicked and Shirley named her "Princess Rose".

She has been with us since then and is thriving and driving Bunky crazy. We joke that she isn't really a cat but a "chow hound" because she is constantly foraging. 

We will update soon with pictures and more stories about the adventures of Princess Rose and Bunky. 

MAD AS HELL

This is the famous rant from the 1976 movie "Network". While some of the references are dated, like "banks are going bust," it is still mostly pertinent 38 years later. That in itself is frightening. We are still battling the same political demons, attempting to scale the same economic and social ramparts to equality.
But we can still get angry!
Read and enjoy.

TV Anchor Howard Beale: I don't have to tell you that things are bad. Everybody knows that things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work, or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street. There's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat. We sit watching our TV's while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be. We know that things are bad -- worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy. So we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller. And all we say is, "Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone." 

Well, I'm not going to leave you alone. I want you to get mad! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot. I don't want you to write to your Congressman, because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the streets. All I know is that first, you've got to get mad. You've got to say, "I'm a HUMAN BEING, Goddamnit! My life has VALUE!"

So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now, and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

I want you to get up right now! Sit up, go to your windows, open them, stick your head out and yell - "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" Things have got to change. But first, you've got to get mad! You've got to say, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first, get up out of your chairs, open the windows, stick your head out and yell! Say it! "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

Oh Lord, Stuck in Charlotte

Oh Lord, stuck in Charlotte

(Sung to the tune of Creedence Clearwater Revival’s “Oh Lord, Stuck in Lodi Again”)

Fourteen people missed the flight tonight. That’s eleven besides me, Shirley, and our grandson Anthony. And that’s just one flight – US Airways flight 2036 from CLT to SYR (Charlotte, NC to Syracuse, NY), January 5, 2014. The reason? Fog. Once before in my 46 years of flying was I unable to see the ground until seconds before we landed. That was in November 1979 on a flight from Dallas to Denver. We landed in a blinding snowstorm and the landing strip appeared out of the whiteness.

Now I’m sitting in a rocking chair in the Charlotte Douglas International Airport people watching and waiting for the next flight to ‘Cuse. Some folks stride through, some saunter, and some sprint. I want to tell them to take their time because the flight they’re rushing to probably left already. One man was in such a hurry he almost got run over by a shuttle. After he stopped short for that, he started his mad dash again only to trip over a lady’s luggage.

Another observation – pilots and flight crews. They are a fascinating, eclectic bunch. I watched young and mature, clean cut and bohemian, business-like, techie, and “It’s-a-living” types. One young pilot had a portable guitar as part of his luggage but most had the standard carry-on baggage. I did not see one woman in the cross section I observed.

I’m also having thoughts about my choice of travel. I’ve flown five times, six counting this time, in the past year. We drove from Utica to Columbia one time in February 2013 and that was a grueling non-stop drive that left everyone worn out and ill. Two earthy looking folks passed me a few minutes ago in a rush. They looked terribly unhappy like they wished they were catching a train instead of a plane or riding in their electric car or bicycling to their destination. I’m thinking seriously about taking a train for my next trip South. Yes, it’s slower and I will lose some time with my grandchildren, but it is much more environmentally friendly and relaxing that an airplane.

I know there are some destinations that you must fly to, like international or cross country. But I haven’t taken a journey like that in years. On the other hand, I think I would love to drift on an ocean liner to a European or South American country.

Happy Trails to You!

Who is electable?

This morning I shared a Robert Reich post on Facebook about enforcing new financial regulations with this lead-in --

"Especially note the reference to 'Bill Clinton' regarding the evisceration of the Glass-Steagall Act - and people think Hillary would make a good president?"

My friend Ildikó added the following comment --

"HC is not and would not be a reformer. She would not advocate a paradigm shift in politics."

It got me thinking. Does anyone see a candidate for 2016 who is electable who would advocate a political, social, and economic paradigm shift?
I can remember presidential elections as far back as Eisenhower versus Stevenson in 1952. My Aunts Sylvie and Gertrude were huge, very vocal fans of the intellectual Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson. He was an outstanding orator and a popular governor of Illinois. Sylvie and Gertrude fed my young brain with Democratic propaganda and gave me a bumper sticker for my room. The propaganda stayed with me for many years. I wish I still had the bumper sticker; it would fetch a good price on eBay. Eisenhower was a war hero and the world was deep in the Cold War - he won by a substantial margin.

Political discussion was part of my life from then on. Much of the discussion centered around who was electable. Politics is a strange game. The Electoral College makes it even stranger. Add to that the disparity in political philosophies across the USA and the job of finding an electable candidate becomes extremely difficult. Many people think a good candidate must appeal to a broad range of people. The blander the candidate, the better. This gave rise to candidates making promises to gain favor with segments of society, promises they would not keep after getting elected.

I became disillusioned with most political parties and candidates and registered as a Green Party member several years ago. No matter the name of the party I registered with, I never voted a party line. I always tried to see a shred of honesty in a candidate regarding an issue or issues that were important to me.

See? Right there - "important to me." That's the problem candidates have. I wonder if a truly honest person could be elected president. They want Mark's vote so they will embrace an issue that Mark supports. On the other hand, Joe (fictitious character) has a different opinion, but the candidate wants the votes from Joe and his like-minded citizens. So candidates walk a political tightrope trying not to be too pinned down to any one point of view.

Some of the people in the U.S. political process who I admire will probably never run for president because of the trade-offs they would have to make. I'm thinking of Bernie Sanders (Independent), Elizabeth Warren (Democrat), and Alan Grayson (Democrat). There are many folks who are not politicians with ideas that could radically transform this country like Robert Reich and Bill Moyers, to name a few.

In spite of the interest in a viable third party, the Green Party candidates for president and vice-president in 2012, Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala, only managed to garner about 400,000 votes, less than 0.4% of the total. A Libertarian (Republican?) candidate, Gary Johnson, managed almost 1%.

So, who do you think will run? Who do you think can win? Is it Hillary Clinton? How about Joe Biden? Does any Republican have a chance in 2016? Will Green Party, Libertarian, and Tea Party candidates expand the process beyond the two-party rut we're stuck in?

How About a Nice Game of Chess?

"It's not about: can we do it? It's should we do it, and what are the opportunity costs?" ~ General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff

This was the warning given in testimony before the US Senate in March 2012 from the most senior military adviser to the president regarding military intervention in Syria. Another voice of reason being ignored by the president and Congress. 

Dempsey was nominated for a new term as chairman of the joint chiefs. His appointment was delayed in the Senate last month because pro-war senators wanted "fuller advice about Syria". In other words, agree with us or we will hold up your renewal as chairman.

In a strategic move of overkill, similar to a scene from War Games (see attached video), Dempsey provided military options from limited strikes to US intervention à la Afghanistan and Iraq. His conclusion? Every option was risky and expensive. He also emphasized something a good general knows full well - once a country starts a military action, getting the hell out of Dodge is difficult at best. The only winning move is not to play.

"Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next," Dempsey wrote to the committee on 19 July. "Deeper involvement is hard to avoid."

Jon Stewart returned to The Daily Show with some excellent commentary regarding the situation in Syria. He played a variety of news network tape of various so-called experts claiming that military action against Syria is necessary because the US would look weak if they stood back and did nothing.

"Oh, right," he said. "We have to bomb Syria because we're in the seventh grade."

One more voice of reason and one of the people writing on the Internet who has my highest respect is Robert Reich (http://robertreich.org/), who was Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997. In a recent blog he made the following statement (in a very long sentence) -

Time and again over the last half century American presidents have justified so-called “surgical strikes” because the nation’s “credibility” is at stake, and because we have to take some action to show our “strength and resolve” — only to learn years later that our credibility suffered more from our brazen bellicosity, that the surgical strikes only intensified hostilities and made us captive to forces beyond our control, and that our resolve eventually disappears in the face of mounting casualties of Americans and innocent civilians — and in the absence of clearly-defined goals or even clear exit strategies.

With all this expert advice, the president and secretary of state continue to press for limited strikes against Syria. Why? Money? Politics? Power? My advice to the president of the United States — how about a nice game of chess with the president of Syria.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NHWjlCaIrQo

What's Up With Syria?

It's the hot topic for MSM "news". Even people like Donald Rumsfeld are coming out with their opinions. Of course, he got it wrong again. Or did he? Who cares?

Bashar al-Assad crossed the mythical "red line" that president Obama drew several months ago. Secretary of State Kerry made bold, militaristic statements. There are surveys galore and endless petitions to sign.

I get email messages from Representative Raul Grijalva, a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. He wrote the following with Michael Shank, director of Foreign Policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation. It makes more sense to me than just about anything else I've read.
==========================================================

Prevention better than punitive in Syria
August 29th, 2013

The Americans don’t want it. The Germans don’t want it. And the Brits don’t want it. The overwhelming consensus of public opinion in the Western world is that a war with Syria would be a bad idea. This now gives President Barack Obama some flexibility to back away from his red line, save political face, and do what’s necessary to prevent further violence in Syria.

But before spelling out ways we can help bring peace to Syria, it’s worth first identifying some problematic trends in America’s tack towards war. This is not unique to President Obama and was visible in past presidents’ penchant for war. There is a precedent here.

First, the idea that America can be “precise” and “limited” and “strategic” while attacking another country is completely misplaced. It inevitably leads to further or escalated violence.  It always has.  We wanted to be brief, precise and strategic in Iraq by bombing Baghdad, thinking “shock and awe” would intimidate the country and its recalcitrant leader into submission. This is not dissimilar to how we are now thinking that a “punitive” strike on Syria would send a stern message that President Bashar al-Assad, one to which he would be responsive.

Never mind the fact that al-Assad has made it clear that he’s not operating from a rational place, and would never respond rationally to punitive measures – there is no way that a strike on Damascus would last only three days, as the Pentagon has predicted. The responsibility for the ensuing chaos – from scores of civilians dead to increased likelihood of chemical weapons use – would fall on the United States.  We would be embroiled in an unraveling that would beckon more missiles, more troops, and more air and sea support. Observe every major U.S. intervention over the last 15 years. This is exactly what happened, despite the rhetoric of precise, limited, strategic and brief action.

Second, the idea in Washington that an attack, strike, or punitive action, is not an “invasion”, is an absolute fallacy. This is a relatively new definition promulgated by Washington’s defense community, and the think tanks that support it.  It’s a convenient semantic reframing so that America is not perceived as the “evil Western invader” – or part of some, to quote President Bush, “crusade” – but rather seen as a short-lived intervener, a savior who will exercise discretion while quickly getting in and getting out.

The problem with this attempt at a reframe is that the rest of the world – especially those being bombed by America – doesn’t consider it anything less than an invasion, whether by air, sea or land. Boots on the ground is not the only kind of invasion. There are air invasions, with air raids (see Iraq) or drone strikes (see Yemen or Pakistan or Somalia).  There are sea invasions, with Tomahawk missiles launched from ship (see Libya and the same plan for Syria).  And there are ground invasions, with massive troops on the ground (see Afghanistan).

Third, the idea that we must act in haste, and bomb quickly without Congressional approval or authorization, is a dangerous undermining of the checks and balances instituted by our founding fathers. Most presidents, when planning for war, impress upon the American people the urgency of now, of invading immediately, because we don’t have time for Congressional oversight. Syria is an excellent example of this. With some 100,000 dead over nearly a two year time span we’ve had plenty of time for talk between the executive and legislative branches. The estimated 355 dead from the alleged chemical weapons attack, while absolutely deplorable, shouldn’t have created a new urgency that wasn’t already there.  We should have been talking about preventing mass atrocities years ago, not after the house of Syria was nearly burnt down.

So what to do now? Invasion is the wroOpinion Article on CNNng course because it merely inflames the violence further, both within Syria and without. We must exhaust the following paths first before seeking a military course of action.  Convene all the stakeholders who have a say with Syria’s al-Assad and who can put pressure on the president. That means more than just Russia, our go-to on the Geneva II peace talks. That means everyone from Iran, Lebanon, and Hezbollah, to the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. These are the entities that have entry into the Syrian president’s inner circle. If we truly want al-Assad to act differently, we have to talk to those who have sway.

Then, if the diplomatic track fails to work, and after it has solidly been exhausted, we must engage the U.N. Security Council in a conversation about the International Criminal Court and an indictment of Assad for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.  This path is consistent with America’s support of international law and the ethical frameworks undergirding the Geneva Conventions.

Throughout this process, we must continue work with the United Nations to not only ensure weapons inspections are executed properly over the coming weeks, and weapons flows and arms trafficking are stopped or slowed, but that we ramp up humanitarian aid for the millions of refugees inside Syria and in neighboring countries. This is essential if we care about saving Syrians.


This is the path we must pursue and the only way forward. It is time for something preventive before we press play on the punitive.

Monday Evening Walk (August 19, 2013)

A walk around the block can be pretty exciting if you keep your awareness high. Shirley and I walked around one block tonight and found two things worth sharing.

One of our neighbors has adopted a baby turkey. He doesn't go "Gobble! Gobble!" yet but he makes a pretty good racket when you walk by. I think he may be a watch-turkey. 

I really hope he isn't being fed and nurtured for Thanksgiving dinner but I have my suspicions. 

Now I wonder what happened to their watchdog.

On the next block we found this beautiful flowering bush. Anyone know the name of this variety?

See y'all tomorrow!

Parking Lot Gallery (corrected)

Many of my friends and acquaintances are taking gorgeous photographs and adding them to their blog. The following aren't gorgeous but they capture some of the creativity of the people who stop by our house frequently.

I found some sidewalk chalk and started scrawling on the pavement in our parking lot --

A welcome "Hello!" at the back entrance to our house

Our cat Tigrr, who somehow got nicknamed BUNKY, wandered by --

Tigrr, a.k.a. Bunky

I admit - there is a certain je n'est ce qua of kittyness missing from this portrait, but it's a pretty good likeness from a wannabe artist.

My better half, Shirley, has adopted half a dozen squirrels in the back yard. "My squirrels," she calls them. We go through a bag of peanuts a week. I decided they deserved to be acknowledged and protected --

Squirrel Crossing

I admit that this is a terrible squirrel likeness, but you gotta love the lettering.

My granddaughter Kristine and her friend Amber stopped over, grabbed some chalk, undoubtedly inspired by me, and started adding to the gallery --

2 Nana - ♥ Amber (dedicated to Shirley)

Kristine's Peace Symbol

You have to realize that Kristine is genetically predisposed to be a hippie. She inherited the hippie gene from her Papa (me) and Nana (Shirley). NOTE -- The 60s hippie pictures will appear in a future blog.

Our next visitor was our son Todd's excellent friend Nate Sergio, who is a talented artist and photographer. During the Renaissance he would have been sponsored by the Medici family, the Sforza family, or the like. His additions to the gallery are epic --

Superhero by Nate

I attributed the Sun, Moon, and Clouds piece to Nate but found out later that it was the lovely Connie DiGennaro who drew it. She is another wonderful creative person who we don't see often enough.

Sun, Moon, and Clouds

I decided our car needed a dedicated parking spot --

POS Parking Spot

I found some more chalk in different colors and, while this is as yet unfinished, I believe it will be my Pièce de résistance --

Singin' Da Blues

Score to follow.

SnagIt is My Timesaver

OK. I admit that I'm a shameless opportunist. This blog entry is an attempt to win some cool stuff from TechSmith, the manufacturers of SnagIt, a screen capture utility. But I have to add that SnagIt is one of the best software investments I ever made and that I pay for the major upgrades as soon as they are available (and as soon as I have enough money). It transformed the way I captured and edited graphics for technical manuals and Web content. Even simple instructions in an e-mail become elegant documents using SnagIt graphics.

It was some time in 1994 when I first tried SnagIt. As a Technical Writer, I needed screen captures to illustrate features in the software the company I worked for was developing. The engineers were giving me huge files with all sorts of extraneous junk on them. I was trying to make useful graphics out of them in a graphics editing program, which was time consuming. I think it was the Webmaster who first suggested SnagIt when he saw my frustration with the process. "Hey, you can download a free trial for 30 days," he told me. I must have sold at least 100 copies of SnagIt with the same line since then. As soon as I tried it, I was hooked. I had my requisition in for my own copy after the first week of the trial period.

What makes SnagIt so cool is the cost versus features factor. For a very reasonable outlay, you get one of the most function-filled applications on the market. It's really easy to set it up and to figure out how to capture a window, a region of a window, or a full screen. Saving one file or multiple files is a snap. Through the years, TechSmith has added more and more excellent, useful features to make graphics capture and editing easier and easier.

If I could total the hours the application has saved me - well, let's just say I was able to get more done in way less time leaving me more time for fun stuff outside the office. Not that using SnagIt isn't fun. I've used it to make birthday cards and invitations, add some kooky features to photos, and just scan through piles of graphics quickly to find the right one for the occasion.

So, should you run right out and download a free trial of SnagIt? Yes! Then enter the contest and maybe you will win an iPad or iPod Touch. Sorry, I've got dibs on the MacBook Pro.

Ecological & Health Consequences Of The Oil Spill (Infographic)
Via: Travel Insurance

Can You Pass The Iran Quiz?

I'm posting this quiz by Jeffrey Rudolph because I believe the rhetoric about Iran in the mainstream media desperately needs clarification. We do not need another fiasco like Iraq, fed by false, misleading information (disinformation) from the "intelligence" community and military commanders who are only interested in job security.

Here is the quiz with a short introduction as it was posted on Countercurrents.org -

What can possibly justify the relentless U.S. diplomatic (and mainstream media) assault on Iran?

It cannot be argued that Iran is an aggressive state that is dangerous to its neighbors, as facts do not support this claim. It cannot be relevant that Iran adheres to Islamic fundamentalism, has a flawed democracy and denies women full western-style civil rights, as Saudi Arabia is more fundamentalist, far less democratic and more oppressive of women, yet it is a U.S. ally. It cannot be relevant that Iran has, over the years, had a nuclear research program, and is most likely pursuing the capacity to develop nuclear weapons, as Pakistan, India, Israel and other states are nuclear powers yet remain U.S. allies—indeed, Israel deceived the U.S. while developing its nuclear program.

The answer to the above-posed question is fairly obvious: Iran must be punished for leaving the orbit of U.S. control. Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, when the Shah was removed, Iran, unlike, say, Saudi Arabia, acts independently and thus compromises U.S. power in two ways:

i) Defiance of U.S. dictates affects the U.S.'s attainment of goals linked to Iran; and,

ii) Defiance of U.S. dictates establishes a “bad” example for other countries that may wish to pursue an independent course.

The Shah could commit any number of abuses—widespread torture, for example—yet his loyalty to the U.S. exempted him from American condemnation—yet not from the condemnation of the bulk of Iranians who brought him down.

The following quiz is an attempt to introduce more balance into the mainstream discussion of Iran.

Iran Quiz Questions:

1. Is Iran an Arab country?

2. Has Iran launched an aggressive war of conquest against another country since 1900?

3. How many known cases of an Iranian suicide-bomber have there been from 1989 to 2007?

4. What was Iran's defense spending in 2008?

5. What was the U.S.'s defense spending in 2008?

6. What is the Jewish population of Iran?

7. Which Iranian leader said the following? “This [ Israel's] Occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”

8. True or False: Iranian television presented a serial sympathetic to Jews during the Holocaust that coincided with President Ahmadinejad's first term.

9. What percentage of students entering university in Iran is female?

10. What percentage of the Iranian population attends Friday prayers?

11. True or False: Iran has formally consented to the Arab League's 2002 peace initiative with Israel.

12. Which two countries were responsible for orchestrating the 1953 overthrow of Iran's populist government of democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, primarily because he introduced legislation that led to the nationalization of Iranian oil?

13. Who made the following address on March 17, 2000? “In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.”

14. Which countries trained the Shah's brutal internal security service, SAVAK?

15. Does Iran have nuclear weapons?

16. Is Iran a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?

17. Is Israel a signatory of the NPT?

18. Does the NPT permit a signatory to pursue a nuclear program?

19. Who wrote the following in 2004? "Wherever U.S forces go, nuclear weapons go with them or can be made to follow in short order. The world has witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all. Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy. Though Iran is ruled by Islamic fundamentalists, most commentators who are familiar with the country do not regard its government as irrational.... [I]t was Saddam Hussein who attacked Iran, not the other way around; since then Iran has been no more aggressive than most countries are. For all their talk of opposition to Israel, Iran's rulers are very unlikely to mount a nuclear attack on a country that is widely believed to have what it takes to wipe them off the map. Chemical or other attacks are also unlikely, given the meager results that may be expected and the retaliation that would almost certainly follow.”

20. What percentage of Iranians in 2008 said they had an unfavorable view of the American people?

21. What percentage of Iranians in 2008 expressed negative sentiments toward the Bush administration?

22. What were the main elements of Iran's 2003 Proposal to the U.S., communicated during the build-up to the Iraq invasion, and how did the U.S. respond to Iran's Proposal?

23. True or False: Iran and the U.S. both considered the Taleban to be an enemy after the 9/11 attacks.

24. Did the U.S. work with the Tehran-based Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq both before and after the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq?

25. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, who said the following? "The Iranians had real contacts with important players in Afghanistan and were prepared to use their influence in constructive ways in coordination with the United States."

26. Who wrote the following in 2004? “It is in the interests of the United States to engage selectively with Iran to promote regional stability, dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, preserve reliable energy supplies, reduce the threat of terror, and address the ‘democracy deficit' that pervades the Middle East …”

Iran Quiz Answers:

1. No. Alone among the Middle Eastern peoples conquered by the Arabs, the Iranians did not lose their language or their identity. Ethnic Persians make up 60 percent of modern Iran, modern Persian (not Arabic) is the official language, Iran is not a member of the Arab League, and the majority of Iranians are Shiite Muslims while most Arabs are Sunni Muslims. Accordingly, based on language, ancestry and religion, Iran is not an Arab country. (http://www.slate.com/id/1008394/)

2. No.

-According to Juan Cole, the Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan, Iran has not launched such a war for at least 150 years. (Juan Cole; Engaging the Muslim World; Palgrave Macmillan; New York: 2009; p.199.)

-It should be appreciated that Iran did not start the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s: “The war began when Iraq invaded Iran, launching a simultaneous invasion by air and land into Iranian territory on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes, and fears of Shia insurgency among Iraq's long-suppressed Shia majority influenced by the Iranian Revolution. Iraq was also aiming to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Iraq_War)

3. Zero. There is not a single known instance of an Iranian suicide-bomber since the end of the Iran-Iraq War in 1988. (Robert Baer; The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower; Crown Publishers; New York: 2008.)

-According to Baer, an American author and a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, it is important to understand that Iran has used suicide bombers as the ultimate “smart bomb.” In fact, there is little difference between a suicide-bomber and a marine who rushes a machine-gun nest to meet his certain death. Therefore, while Iran had used suicide bombers for tactical military purposes, Sunni extremists use suicide bombing for vague objectives such as to weaken the enemy or purify the state.

4. $9.6 billion. (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25279.htm)

5. $692 billion. (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25279.htm)

-There is also little doubt that Israel could defeat Iran in a conventional war in mere hours. (Juan Cole; Engaging the Muslim World; Palgrave Macmillan; New York: 2009; p p.206-7.)

6. 25,000. It is one of the many paradoxes of the Islamic Republic of Iran that this anti-Israeli country supports by far the largest Jewish population of any Muslim country. After the 1979 Islamic revolution, thousands of Jews left for Israel, Western Europe or the U.S., fearing persecution. But Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran's first post-revolutionary supreme leader, issued a fatwa, upon his return from exile in Paris, decreeing that the Jews and other religious minorities were to be protected, thus reducing the outflow of Iran's Jews to a trickle. (http://www.sephardicstudies.org/iran.html)

7. Ruhollah Khomeini. (Juan Cole; Engaging the Muslim World; Palgrave Macmillan; New York: 2009; p.201.)

-This wasn't a surprising statement to come from the leader of the 1979 Revolution as Israel had been a firm ally of both the U.S. and the Shah.

-According to Cole, Ahmadinejad quoted this statement in 2005 yet wire service translators rendered Khomeini's statement into English as, “Israel must be wiped off the face of the map.” Yet, Khomeini had referred to the occupation regime not Israel, and while he expressed a wish for the regime to go away, he didn't threaten to go after Israel. In fact, a regime can vanish without any outside attacks, as happened to the Shah's regime in Iran and to the USSR. It is notable that when Khomeini made the statement in the 1980s, there was no international outcry. In fact, in the early 1980s, Khomeini supplied Israel with petroleum in return for American spare parts for the American-supplied Iranian arsenal. As both Israel and Iran considered Saddam's Iraq a serious enemy, they had a tacit alliance against Iraq during the first phase of the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. It should also be noted that Ahmadinejad subsequently stated he didn't want to kill any Jews but rather he wants a one-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. While Ahmadinejad's preferred solution is a non-starter, Israel's refusal to pursue a comprehensive peace creates space for Arab hardliners whose agendas do not include a realistic peace with Israel.

8. True. Iranian television ran a widely watched serial on the Holocaust, Zero Degree Turn, based on true accounts of the role Iranian diplomats in Europe played in rescuing thousands of Jews in WWII.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJljqWQAqCI&feature=related)

9. Over 60%. (M. Axworthy; A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind; Basic Books; New York: 2008.)

-In fact, many women—even married women—have professional jobs.

10. 1.4%. (M. Axworthy; A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind; Basic Books; New York: 2008.)

11. True. In March 2002, the Arab League summit in Beirut unanimously put forth a peace initiative that commits it not just to recognize Israel but also to establish normal relations once Israel implements the international consensus for a comprehensive peace—which includes Israel withdrawing from the occupied territories and a just settlement of the Palestinian refugee crisis. (This peace initiative has been subsequently reaffirmed including at the March 2009 Arab League summit at Doha.) All 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, including Iran, "adopted the Arab peace initiative to resolve the issue of Palestine and the Middle East... and decided to use all possible means in order to explain and clarify the full implications of this initiative and win international support for its implementation." (Norman G. Finkelstein; This Time We Went Too Far: Truth and Consequences of the Gaza Invasion; OR Books; New York: 2010; p. 42.)

12. The U.S. and Britain. (Stephen Kinzer; All The Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; New Jersey: 2008.)

-According to Kinzer, Iranians had been complaining that the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) had not been sharing profits on Iranian petroleum with Iran fairly; and Iran's parliament (Majles) had tried to renegotiate with the AIOC. When the AIOC rejected renegotiation, Mossadegh introduced the nationalization act in 1951. In response, Britain and the U.S. organized a global boycott of Iran that sent the Iranian economy into a tailspin. Later, the military coup was orchestrated that reinstalled the shah. (One irony is that Britain itself had nationalized several industries in the 1940s and 1950s.)

13. Madeleine Albright: U.S. Secretary of State , 1997 -2001. (Stephen Kinzer; All The Shah's

Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; New

Jersey: 2008; p.212.)

14. According to William Blum, a highly respected author and journalist, "The notorious Iranian security service, SAVAK, which employed torture routinely, was created under the guidance of the CIA and Israel in the 1950s. According to a former CIA analyst on Iran, Jesse J. Leaf, SAVAK was instructed in torture techniques by the Agency. After the 1979 revolution, the Iranians found CIA film made for SAVAK on how to torture women." (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Torture_RS.html)

-According to Reed College Professor Darius Rejali, one of the world's leading writers on the subject of torture and the consequences of its use for modern society, “[T]he Iranian revolution of 1978-1979 was the revolution against torture. When the Shah criticized Khomayni as a blackrobed Islamic medieval throwback, Khomayni replied, look who is talking, the man who tortures. This was powerful rhetoric for recruiting people, then as it is now. People joined the revolutionary opposition because of the Shah's brutality, and they remembered who installed him. If anyone wants to know why Iranians hated the U.S. so, all they have to do is ask what America's role was in promoting torture in Iran. Torture not only shaped the revolution, it was the factor that has deeply poisoned the relationship of Iran with the West. So why trust the West again? And the Iranian leadership doesn't.” (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002387)

(NOTE: I highlighted the text.)

15. No.

-"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program …” “ We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.” (U.S. National Intelligence Estimate Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities November 2007 http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf)

-According to U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency Chief Lt. Gen. Ronald Burgess, "The bottom line assessments of the [National Intelligence Estimate] still hold true, " … We have not seen indication that the government has made the decision to move ahead with the [nuclear weapons] program." (http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100115_1438.php)

16. Yes. (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/04/18/world/AP-ML-Iran.html)

17. No. (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/04/18/world/AP-ML-Iran.html)

18. Yes.

-According to Juan Cole, The NPT specifies that “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” Therefore, as long as Iran meets its responsibilities under the NPT and continues to allow inspections by the IAEA, it is acting within its rights. The sorts of research facilities maintained by Iran are common in industrialized countries. The real issue is trust and transparency rather than purely one of technology. Yet, Iran has not always been forthcoming in fulfilling its obligations under the NPT. The Ford administration of the mid-1970s produced a memo saying that the shah's regime must “prepare against the time … when Iranian oil production is expected to decline sharply.” Iran's energy reserves are extensive, so that fear was misplaced. But Iran already uses domestically 2 million of the 4 million barrels a day it produces, and it could well cease being an exporter and even become a net importer in the relatively near future. (This helps explain Iran's focus on nuclear energy. Yet the desire for nuclear weapons isn't irrational either.) Ford authorized a plutonium reprocessing plant for Iran, which could have allowed it to close the fuel cycle, a step toward producing a bomb.

In the 1970s, GE and Westinghouse won contracts to build eight nuclear reactors in Iran. The shah intimated that Iran would seek nuclear weapons, without facing any adverse consequences beyond some reprimands from the U.S. or Western Europe. In contrast, Khomeini was horrified by the idea of using weapons of mass destruction, and he declined to deploy chemical weapons at the front in the Iran-Iraq War, even though Saddam had no such compunctions and extensively used mustard gas and sarin on Iranian troops. (Juan Cole; Engaging the Muslim World; Palgrave Macmillan; New York: 2009)

19. Martin van Creveld: Distinguished professor of military history and strategy at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/21/opinion/21iht-edcreveld_ed3_.html)

-It should not be surprising that Creveld would deem it rational for Iran to want nuclear weapons.

"For more than half a century, Britain and the US have menaced Iran. In 1953, the CIA and MI6 overthrew the democratic government of Mohammed Mossadegh, an inspired nationalist who believed that Iranian oil belonged to Iran. They installed the venal shah and, through a monstrous creation called SAVAK, built one of the most vicious police states of the modern era. The Islamic revolution in 1979 was inevitable and very nasty, yet it was not monolithic and, through popular pressure and movement from within the elite, Iran has begun to open to the outside world – in spite of having sustained an invasion by Saddam Hussein, who was encouraged and backed by the US and Britain. At the same time, Iran has lived with the real threat of an Israeli attack, possibly with nuclear weapons, about which the ‘international community' has remained silent.” (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=8533)

20. 20%. (Juan Cole; Engaging The Muslim World; Palgrave Macmillan; New York: 2009; p.197.)

21. 75%. (Juan Cole; Engaging the Muslim World; Palgrave Macmillan; (New York: 2009);

p.197.)

-One wonders what the percentage of Canadians—or Americans—held the same view?

22. According to the Washington Post, “Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces, an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups. But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran …” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727_pf.html)

23. True. According to Ali M. Ansari, Professor of Iranian history at the University of St. Andrews, “[K]hatami, moved quickly to offer his condolences to the US President [after the 9/11 attacks]. … [T]he Iranians soon recognized the opportunity that now confronted them. The United States was determined to dismantle Al Qaeda, and in the face of Taleban obstinacy decided on the removal of the Taleban. Nothing could be more amenable to the Iranians, who had been waging a proxy war against the Taleban for the better part of five years. … The collaboration which took place both during and after the war against the Taleban seemed to inaugurate a period of détente between Iran and the United States … It came as something of a shock therefore to discover that President Bush had decided to label Iran part of the ‘Axis of Evil' … Now it appeared that the [Iranian] hardliners within the regime had been correct after all; the United States could not be trusted …” (Ali M. Ansari; Modern Iran: The Pahlavis and After Second Edition; Pearson Education; Great Britain: 2007; pp. 331-332.)

24. Yes. (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_bush_created_a_theocracy_in_iraq)

-One wonders what the Bush administration thought the party name entailed. Would it have been unreasonable to assume it had good relations with Iran and might support an Islamic Revolution?

-In 2007, the party, showing good public relations, changed its name to the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.

25. Flynt Leverett: Senior director for Middle East affairs in the U.S. National Security Council from March 2002 to March 2003. He left the George W. Bush Administration and government service in 2003 because of disagreements about Middle East policy and the conduct of the war on terror. (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=8590)

26. A task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and chaired by two prominent members of the American foreign policy establishment, former CIA director Robert Gates and former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, recommended “a revised strategic approach to Iran.” Their report included the above statement. (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2005/mar/24/clouds-over-iran/?pagination=false)

Jeffrey Rudolph, a college professor in Montreal, was the Quebec representative of the East Timor Alert Network, and presented a paper on its behalf at the United Nations. He prepared the widely distributed, “Can You Pass the Israel-Palestine Quiz,” which can be found at http://www.countercurrents.org/rudolph180608.htm (Comments or questions concerning these quizzes should be emailed to Israel-Palestine-Quiz@live.com.)

The Containment of ISMs

After President Obama's speech last night, someone commented, "It's about time... Reinforcements were needed months ago! Just do what's needed to get the job done and then get out."

But what IS "the job"? Is it "the end of terrorISM? Does "terrorISM" live in Afghanistan? Therein lies the rub. No matter how many troops we throw into Afghanistan, no matter how long we stay, no matter how many more lives we sacrifice in that country, those of our soldiers and Afghan civilians, "terrorISM" will still exist in the world. Can we wipe out the "threat of terror" with more terror?

In Vietnam, we were supposed to "contain CommunISM". It didn't work. "ISMs" cannot be contained or wiped out. They are philosophies not physical entities that you can kill or build a wall around. Yes, physical beings carry out those philosophies, sometimes in ways that we find horrible, but for every Communist or terrorist that we kill or imprison, 100 more take his or her place.

What finally brought the USSR to an end was not the containment of Communism, because lord knows that still exists in China, Russia, and many of the other countries that once made up the USSR. What brought that nation down was military failure in Afghanistan.

This is the sad lesson that President Obama and all his advisers are ignoring. They have the benefit of a historical perspective and the insight of many great minds who have studied the Middle East for decades - but they continue to resort to military tactics that are doomed to fail.

My friend replied, "My father gave his life to our Country for Vietnam. I know the costs & I know the gains of our foreign / military policies. The job is to defeat or keep occupied those that would like to repeat 911. As a former policy maker & student of cold war history, I've considered the pros and cons... the war against terrorism is a war that we must win! ... The beauty of America is that we're able to have disagreements (which was not the case in places like Iraq & Afghanistan) prior to 2002. Obo should have authorized the full troop request without a timetable for withdrawal. I'm not for staying forever, clear goals should be set and accomplished. This can only be done with sufficient resources. It is also time to hold the parties involved responsible for their own freedom as well as demand that the rest of the globe (who always benefits from our sacrifice) start equally sharing the burden in either blood or treasure. I've said my peace. God bless our troops!"

Clearly he and I disagree on the way forward and it is terrific that we can do so.

So many young men sacrificed their lives in Vietnam. My heart goes out to him and all the families of the fallen, many of them close friends of mine. The lessons from that war should teach us about the futility of continuing to wage war for years in Afghanistan to end up at the same place we began, or worse.

My friend believes that Iraq and Afghanistan are better off than before US involvement when he says, " The beauty of America is that we're able to have disagreements (which was not the case in places like Iraq & Afghanistan) prior to 2002." But the people in those countries are NOT better off. Human rights violations in Afghanistan have increased under Karzai's regime, which the US created and continues to support. Free speech is rewarded with imprisonment or death.

The people of Iran are handling their government crisis better. They are protesting in the streets for better government. They do not need the US to come in and "save" them.

Finally, I asked my friend, why do you think "the rest of the globe" is not jumping in to "start equally sharing the burden"? Because they understand the futility of the Afghan conflict.

Ani DiFranco at The Egg, November 17, 2009

I fell in love with Ani DiFranco last night. It's not a leave-your-wife-and-become-a-groupie type of love or a physical thing, although she is a Righteous Babe (her record company's name). It's love for an artist who is sincere and a singer, songwriter, and guitarist extraordinaire. I knew very little about Ani except for a few YouTube videos I watched and that my 20-year-old nephew was a huge fan of her music. But last night at The Egg, when she walked on stage with a slightly out-of-tune baritone ukelele and sang a heartfelt song about anarchy, socialism, and the woes of our economy that began with the "evil Reaganomics", I was hooked. She is a courageous feminist, socialist, and anarchist and one hell of a singer. The energy that came from her on stage electrified the room. At one point, one of my fellow ushers said, "Now THIS is a concert!" The front of the stage was jammed with enthusiastic fans waving their arms and singing along with her. It didn't hurt that she also said, "I like this room a lot," referring to The Egg, its great acoustics and the very appreciative crowd. "You're all kind of enclosed in apostrophes," she said waving at the room.

Regarding her older, more personal songs of heartbreak and relationships, Ani said, "But I'm looking for new stuff to sing about." She's an avid environmentalist, and as I said before, a populist voice in a world that desperately needs one. Plenty of material there.

I hesitate to use the word performance to describe her show because she is a sincere woman on a mission to save Mother Earth. Reflecting that mission was the simple stage setting – Persian rugs on the floor and a ruffled drape as a backdrop that reflected the various colored lights designed to match the mood of each song. Also, the sparse band; Ani on guitar, backed by a drummer and double-bass player. Then, of course, there were numerous mentions of saving energy and lightening our carbon footprint on Earth.

At one point in the evening, I wandered out in the lobby where I spoke with a woman who is a backstage caterer for some of the acts that perform at The Egg. Her unsolicited comment was, "Ani is the nicest person I've ever worked with. She's real, approachable. I'm going to go buy her CDs!" And with that she headed for the merchandise stand.

Ani mentioned that she got married "to a boy" last December and went to Hawaii on honeymoon where she wrote a love song that she proceeded to play. It was a great song but sounded like a dirge. I'm not sure if it was intentional but it was very effective considering some of her statements on stage about mistakes she has made in relationships.

She also played a song for Utah Phillips, a folk singer, tax evader and self-proclaimed anarchist who seems to have had considerable influece on Ani's politics. Another political activist selection was Pete Seeger's "Which Side Are You On" that she performed at his 90th birthday party at Madison Square Garden. The fact that a thirty-something woman from Buffalo was invited to perform at the 90th birthday party of an American legend says quite a lot about Ani's acceptance as one of the great folksingers of our age. And regarding her song selection, I was thrilled to hear someone supporting things aloud in front of 1,000 people in our state capital – things like support for socialism and anarchy that have been hushed for many years now. I was reminded of Jim Hightower, another famous populist who says, "It's not about left or right; it's about top and bottom." Ani refers to "the top feeders" disparagingly in another of her songs.

Lastly, I learned another important thing last night – her fiirst name is not Annie, it's ANI (pronounced AH-nee). Remember that! I will never forget it nor will I forget the first time I saw Ani DiFranco live. I don't expect it will be the last.