Maybe the Islamic protesters have a legitimate complaint.

Military bases the U.S. currently has in the Middle East

Military bases the Middle Eastern countries have in the U.S.

[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

This is what our brave soldiers are dying for in Afghanistan . . .

 

When remembering and honoring our brave men and women in uniform who have given their lives and continue to die in Afghanistan __ American and coalition deaths now exceed 3000 __ it is important to know what they are dying for.

For a full-size, more legible map, please click here.

Do you think the corporations who will be extracting the precious minerals, coal, gas and oil, and banks like JP Morgan Chase who are underwriting this monumental plundering, will share with the families of the deceased the gargantuan profits they will be making?   Or give assistance to the tens of thousands maimed in the war or suffering PTSD?

I doubt it.

They won't even send flowers.


[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

“Free as a butterfly in a hurricane.”

Give me your tired, your poor
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
The wretched refuse of your teaming shore
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me
I say lift thy skirts, lo! come to my door
I embrace thou even as a common whore
'Tis the illusion of freedom you implore?
Here you have it, you shall seek no more

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act on December 31, 2011.

Happy New Year!

[ The title of this blog is a quote from my recent novel 12-12-12. Visit http://jdrachel.com/12-12-12 ]

The Right To Bear Nuclear Arms

My lovely Japanese wife frequently asks me about gun ownership in America. In Japan, it's difficult, if not impossible, to buy a gun. So when there are incidents of gun violence in America __ and there have been many recently __ she understandably questions the prudence of having so many guns around.

I explain that written in the U.S. Constitution __ specifically the Second Amendment __ is a clause which protects the right of U.S. citizens to possess and use all sorts of guns for a variety of commonly accepted purposes, hunting and self-defense chief among them.

She has several times asked me, "Is it really that easy to buy a gun there?"

I came across this article:  "Amazon ships assault rifle instead of television".

Apparently it's not only easy, it's actually difficult to not buy a gun. This guy just wanted a nicer screen to watch TV and movies and ended up with a full-blown assault weapon.

I got to thinking about the whole thing and came to a surprising conclusion. The rationale for having so many weapons at our itchy fingertips springs from the powerhouse argument contained in this pithy gem of philosophical analysis . . .

Guns don't kill people. People kill people!

Since this is irrefutable logic, I began to wonder why it has been applied so narrowly. The truth is, guns are just one form of lethal entertainment. Thanks to the amazing advances in science and technology, there is a cornucopia of devices which fit the legal definition of "arms" as referred to in our Constitution. It seems to me, the legal framework and the rationale would apply equally to nuclear weapons.

Now, narrow interpreters of the Bill of Rights might say:  "There's nothing in there about the right to bear nuclear arms."

I say:  "So what? There's nothing in there excluding them!"
Conservatives argue that government should be about increasing the options of its citizenry, or at least staying out of the way so that all of the options are on the table. Normally, I'm not one to agree with people on the right end of the political spectrum. Grudgingly I admit the wisdom of their arguments here is just too overwhelming.

So let's go for it! After all . . .

Hand grenades don't kill people. People kill people!

Stinger missiles don't kill people.  People kill people!

Cluster bombs don't kill people. People kill people!

Predator drones don't kill people. People kill people!

Nerve gas doesn't kill people. People kill people!

Nuclear weapons don't kill people. People kill people!

Just think about how much fun we can have if we're not restricted to only using sawed-off shotguns and assault weapons! It'll be awesome! And finally, hunters will regain the upper hand from those pesky critters out there who have been outwitting them and managed to keep from being slaughtered into extinction. We'll show 'em who's boss around here!

Understandably there have to be a few controls in place. You can't just have anybody and everybody driving around with WMDs in the trunk of their SUV or family station wagon. But with some reasonable waiting period and background check, I don't see why this couldn't work. Permits could be issued as they now are with handguns . . .

The bearer of this permit, offering appropriate corroborative identification, is entitled to possess and use within applicable limits and restrictions, explosive nuclear devices up to 50 kiloton explosive equivalency, as defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

It's time to claim our rights under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and realize the profound wisdom of the founding fathers.

It's time that we be able to put in that munitions cache which has become the hallmark of a safe and happy American home, all of weaponry available today, including nuclear bombs.

It's time to assert our constitutionally protected right!

The right to bear nuclear arms.


[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]


 

100 People

 

In Japan there is a beautiful story which is taught in schools to elementary students called "100 People". Here is a link to the version posted online (you have to scroll  down to see it in English).

This is the gist of it (I am quoting) . . .

If we could shrink the earth's population to a village of precisely 100 people, with all the existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look something like the following.
There would be:
57 Asians
21 Europeans
14 from the Western Hemisphere, both north and south
8 Africans
52 would be female
48 would be male
70 would be non-white
30 would be white
70 would be non-Christian
30 would be Christian
89 would be heterosexual
11 would be homosexual
6 people would possess 59% of the entire world's wealth
and all 6 would be from the United States.
80 would live in substandard housing
70 would be unable to read
50 would suffer from malnutrition
1 would be near death; 1 would be near birth
1 (yes, only 1!) would have a college education
1 would own a computer

So, American reader, picture yourself living in this village with 99 other people.

You'd have a computer, be able to read, have plenty of food to eat, live in a nice house. How about those others? Look at them. Half of them skin and bones from starving. Most of them darkies or Asians. 4 out of 5 living in hovels, shanties, lean-to structures made out of corrugated metal or cardboard. That would suck. Talk about messing with the property value of your splendid home.

If you found yourself in the uncomfortable position of having to stand in a line with nine others, odds would have it one of them would be a homosexual. Hey! Maybe it's you and you didn't know.

If you are a heterosexual male, things look good. There are a few extra women around. Unfortunately, if you wrote them a love letter, most of them couldn't read it.

Are you the one lucky enough to have a college degree? No. Then it's probably your American neighbor living next door in that tacky McMansion with all of the electrified barb wire on top of the high stone walls. Wonder if they need to borrow your computer.


It wouldn't be very crowded in that Presbyterian church you go to. A third of you would either be on the altar or in the choir. There would be a mixture of languages being spoken, but mostly English and various European tongues.

When you left church, above the filth and human excrement you'd probably smell a lot of incense. Those Buddhists and Hindus really love their incense.

Wait! What's with that guy laying in the middle of the road? Is he the town drunk? It looks like he's barely breathing. And what about that woman squatting over by the tree? There's water on the ground in front of her. Is that a kid about to squirt out from between her legs?


Anyway, you get the picture.


What makes this story amazing is the perspective it offers to us in the West, particularly those of us who live in "Christian" America. It is convenient to think that everybody is the same, that everyone looks pretty much the way we do, thinks the way we do, lives the way we do, worships the same way we do.

I've been traveling for over six years. 21 countries on three continents. Not to sound racist or glib, but from what I've been seeing, most people in the world don't have our "round" eyes. Most do not have our fair skin. Most don't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior or believe He was the Son of God.

Do we have a right to condemn these folks?

For example, you fundamentalist Christian blowhards and you homophobes. Do you really want to exterminate all of the gay people in the world? Doing the math, you're looking at killing about 770,000,000 people. It seems like your trigger finger would get tired after the first 100,000,000 or so.

Doing more math, are you Christian evangelists and missionary types serious about imposing your religion on almost 5 billion people who seem pretty darn determined to worship whoever they now worship, who just happens to not be God or Jesus? You might want to think twice. You're vastly outnumbered. You don't want to piss off that many people, no matter how strongly you believe yours is the only way to go.

The story line for "100 People" continues and again I am quoting.

The following points are also something else to ponder:
If you woke up this morning with more health than illness ...
you are more blessed than the million who will not survive this week.
If you have never experienced the danger of battle, the loneliness
of imprisonment, the agony of torture, or the pangs of starvation ...
you are ahead of 500 million people in the world.
If you can attend a church meeting without fear of harassment, arrest, torture, or death ...
you are more blessed than three billion people in the world.
If you have food in the refrigerator, clothes on your back,
a roof overhead and a place to sleep ...
you are richer than 75% of this world.
If you have money in the bank, in your wallet,
and spare change in a dish someplace ...
you are among the top 8% of the world's wealthy.
If your parents are still alive and still married ...
you are very rare.
If you can read this message, you just received a double blessing in that someone was thinking of you, and furthermore, you are more blessed than over two billion people in the world that cannot read at all.

What's the lesson here?

The obvious one is how privileged we "westerners" and particularly we Americans are. That I am writing this and you are reading this on a computer, using basic instructional tools and intellectual skills which we take for granted, alone puts us in a very small elite class. That we have choices __ what clothes to wear, what car to drive, where to live, what church or synagogue to attend __ and the freedom to make those many choices is itself an immeasurable blessing. That most of us don't have to worry about where our next meal is coming from is a gift which borders on miraculous. Do you know that 33,000 people die every day of starvation?

But there is a dark side to the conclusions we often draw as well.

Many of us view this as evidence of our superiority, or more to the point, evidence of the inferiority of others less privileged. We easily dismiss those who are less fortunate as less deserving. It evolves into the unstated but firmly entrenched judgment that those who are substantially different must be primitive, less than human, or not human at all. In war the enemy is a savage beast who must be extinguished, tracked and killed like animals.

Maybe it's time to grow up. Maybe it's time to reach out to those others in the village, learn about them, find commonalities but respect the differences, and most of all realize that all of this affluence we take for granted is an extremely tenuous arrangement. In terms of the entire historical record, the bounty and excess now shared among the tiny minority of us in America and the European nations represents only the tiniest blip of time. It's really an anomaly and could quickly disappear. We could very quickly find ourselves asking our fellow villagers tips on making a nice lean-to or finding edible roots for dinner.


The vast wealth that we in the West take for granted is a positive thing. It is good fortune and a luxurious road for us to venture our way through our enviable lives.

But it's not a license to dismiss, condemn, or destroy others who don't have what we have. And it's certainly not a mandate to build military bases and more McDonald's wherever our blind ambition points us.

I solicit any and all comments on this article.




[ This originated a the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

“It’s too complicated.”

 

There's a smugness that has overwhelmed our political system.

 It's the patronizing, know-it-all, self-congratulating, self-important smugness of our elected officials. 

We want to know why they vote the way they do. Their reply . . .

"It's complicated."

There are huge majorities of Americans, crossing all party lines and affiliations, who agree on a number of issues:

•    End the war in Afghanistan and bring the troops home
•    Reduce the military budget
•    End oil subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare
•    Make the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes
•    Eliminate tax loopholes and incentives for sending jobs overseas
•    Leave Social Security alone
•    Leave Medicare alone
•    Include the public option in our health care delivery system

Yet, consistently our elected representatives __ on both sides of the aisle __ vote against these things. Or judging by what we read in the press are obviously considering doing so.

Why?

"We are professionals. You see, when drafting legislation there's so much to consider. There are things you folks out there don't know. It's too complicated."

Sorry. I don't buy it.

Here's what I say to this blather:

"Mr. Elected Official, I'll tell you what's complicated. Voting for YOU is complicated."

"You say one thing and do another. You make all sorts of high-sounding, pleasant enough speeches when you want my vote. You make me believe you are actually going to do the job I am electing you to do. Then, you vote the opposite. You vote the way some rich corporate donor, some big-money Wall Street executive, some lobbyist who showers you with favors and campaign contributions, you vote the way THEY want you to vote."

"So, Mr. Elected Official, don't ask me why I didn't vote for you this time around. Don't come crying and pleading for an explanation."

"It's too complicated."


[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

Repo Man vs. Retro Man

                                                   A race to the bottom in reverse.

There's speculation that the recent devastating disclosures about Mitt Romney will force him to either withdraw or be withdrawn from the presidential race at the upcoming Republican convention.

My immediate reaction?

Awesome!

Maybe the GOP will succumb to their most extreme theater-of-the-absurd impulses and put up a ticket of Michele Bachmann and Ted Nugent.

Then I read that the only other Republican candidate with a significant number of delegates is Ron Paul.

Okay. Not quite as interesting as a Bachmann/Nugent ticket. But right up there. It would be an entertaining, if not altogether ridiculous spectacle.

Repo Man vs. Retro Man.

Obama, the slick hustler who is foreclosing on the American Dream for all his Wall Street buddies, running against Paul who with a straight face wants to return America to the glorious days of the 19th Century.

America would be glued to their TVs to watch this battle of the prestidigitators, one with the charm and charisma of David Copperfield who is making the Middle Class disappear, the other who would invite us all to join him in his Time Machine as he jams it into reverse.

Would the voting public finally wake up to what a sham these elections have become?

Nah! Probably not.

They'd just hit that snooze button for four more years.


[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]