-How many US plus NATO and other nation’s troops are in Afghanistan right now?
ANSWER: 65,000 US + 38,000 NATO and other nations
-How many more US troops has President Obama committed to send there?
ANSWER: 30,000
-How many more NATO and other nations troops have been committed to Afghanistan?
ANSWER: 7,500
-What will be the total troop strength of US/NATO and other nations in Afghanistan?
ANSWER: 140,500
-How many fighters does the Taliban have in Afghanistan?
ANSWER: 25,000 (US Govt. report 10/2009)
-Say again?
ANSWER: 25,000
-What are the main weapons of the 25,000 Taliban?
ANSWER: small arms (rifles) and IEDs
-What exactly are IEDs?
ANSWER: homemade bombs
-What are the main weapons of the US and NATO forces?
ANSWER: a full range of all the most modern and most expensive weapons of war including advanced technology, artillery and the latest in fighter aircraft, both fixed-wing and helicopters, plus unmanned drones capable of dropping bombs computer/satellite guided in real-time from US bases 8,000 miles from the target.
-How much does all this cost the US?
ANSWER: billions of dollars a year
-How much does it cost the Taliban to keep its fighters in the field?
ANSWER: nobody knows
-How long have we (the US & NATO) been training the Afghans to defend themselves?
ANSWER: 8 years
-How much money has the US spent training the Afghans to “stand up”?
ANSWER: tens of billions
-Are the Afghans ready yet to “stand up” and defend themselves?
ANSWER: no
-When will the Afghans be ready?
ANSWER: nobody knows
-How much money does the Taliban spend training its forces?
ANSWER: there is no record or evidence of any Taliban training
- If the US has been funding and training the Afghans, which nations have been funding and training the Taliban fighters and where do they do this?
ANSWER: there is no record or evidence of any Taliban training or any funding
-Without a nation/sponsor or known funding, how then are the Taliban able to conduct a war for 8 years against the US and NATO?
ANSWER: nobody knows
-How much does it cost the Taliban to fight every year?
ANSWER: nobody knows
-Where does the Taliban get its money? (It has to have some money, doesn't it?)
ANSWER: supposedly from the Afghan drug trade - heroin
-But… isn’t the biggest “drug lord” in Afghanistan the President’s own brother?
ANSWER: yes
-Is President Karzai’s brother or perhaps President Karzai himself helping the Taliban?
ANSWER: good question
-What about the "real enemy" al Queda – how many of them are in Afghanistan?
ANSWER: according to the US Government there are maybe 100 of them there
-Wait a minute! Did I miss some zeros in the last answer? 100? Really?
ANSWER: no missing zeros – only about 100 al Queda still in Afghanistan
-Why can’t 140,500 of the world's best-equipped military troops defeat 100 al Queda and 25,000 Taliban insurgents armed with rifles and homemade bombs who use donkeys, not helicopters, for transportation?
ANSWER: you tell me… nobody seems to know
-Why are we still in Afghanistan – and increasing our multi-billion dollar military presence there?
ANSWER: according to President Obama, we are there to stabilize Pakistan
-What? Are you sure that’s what he said?
ANSWER: yes, that’s what he said
-When will the last US soldier die in Afghanistan and all US troops come home?
ANSWER: nobody knows
Friday, December 4, 2009
Monday, November 30, 2009
GEORGE ORWELL AND THE BCS
In his 1945 novel “Animal Farm” George Orwell wrote: “All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others…”
Today this is the guiding principle behind the National Championship of College Football’s Division I FBS. Div I FBS consists of the schools in 11 conferences plus 3 independents making a total of 131 colleges and universities that have Division I FBS football programs. None of the 11 conferences is designated as being better or deserving of higher ranking than any other and no individual school is predetermined to be a lesser member of Div I FBS than any other member institution. Nevertheless, some college football teams are apparently created more equal than others.
No other organized sport has such a consideration when it comes to naming its championship team. In the last Baseball World Series the Yankees were not diminished by their regular season victories over the American League’s weaker teams like Baltimore, Kansas City or Cleveland and neither were the Phillies downgraded after beating up on the National League’s lowly Washington Nationals or the Pittsburgh Pirates. Any win over a Major League opponent is equal to any other win. Likewise in the National Football League, the NBA and even in the NHL, no team is ranked as better or worse based upon which other teams they scored victories over during their regular season schedules.
But somehow this sense of fair play – not to mention reason - just doesn’t apply to college football. This season, of the 131 Division I FBS teams only 6 have played their season undefeated. All 6 have won every game they played. None of the remaining 125 teams have only 1 loss. The best record outside the undefeated teams is 2 losses. Thus, it would appear reasonable to say that only these 6 all-winning teams should have a shot at being crowned National Champion. Yet, since there is no playoff system, only 2 of the 6 can be matched in the so-called and self-proclaimed National Championship Game. What then of the other 4? What is the best way to pick the 2 teams to vie for the title and eliminate from consideration 4 others?
The 6 undefeated teams are: Florida, Alabama, Texas, TCU, Cincinnati and Boise State. This is the order in which these teams are now ranked by the BCS, which is the official ranking body that picks the 2 teams to play in the National Championship Game. Since the BCS ranks the Top 25 teams each week, how do the schedules of the 6 undefeated teams look against other ranked opponents?
Of the top 6, only 2 have played more than 1 opponent that also ranked in the Top 25. Texas (ranked #3) played and of course defeated 4 ranked teams – Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Nebraska, Oklahoma – while TCU (ranked #4) played and beat 2 ranked opponents – Clemson and BYU.
The #1 and #2 teams, Florida and Alabama only played 1 ranked team each. Both of them played and beat the same team, LSU. Still, Florida is ranked #1 and Alabama is #2. The #5 ranked team, Cincinnati, has only a single ranked team on its schedule, West Virginia.
The most alarming schedule analysis has to be that of #6 Boise State. While Boise State only met 1 other team ranked in the Top 25, how important should it be that the 1 team was the #7 ranked team, Oregon? After the 6 undefeated teams, the official college football rankings list Oregon as the next best team in the whole country. And Boise State beat them. If Boise State beat Oregon, and none of the other 5 undefeated teams has beaten any team so highly ranked, why is Boise State #6 behind all 5 of the others? That doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense, does it?
Some analysts say that many teams prop up their record by playing weak teams outside their conference – and that’s been true. This year, Boise State played Bowling Green and it is fair to hold that up when evaluating them. Cincinnati also played a game against a very weak non-conference team, Southeast Missouri State. TCU, however, did not pad its schedule with any of the weaker non-conference teams, not one of them. Texas (remember they also played 4 ranked teams) only had one game against a traditional weak team, Central Florida.
But, look at the schedules for the #1 and #2 Florida and Alabama teams. Not only did they each play their only ranked opponent against the same LSU team, but also each of them added multiple weak teams to their non-conference schedules. Alabama, the #2 team in the nation, played and beat teams from Florida International and Tennessee-Chattanooga. The #1 ranked team, Florida, did even worse than that. Like Alabama, they also scheduled Florida International, plus they added outrageous patsies like Charleston-Southern and some school no one's ever heard of called Troy.
So, Florida the #1 ranked team played 25% of its games against the worst teams in college football. That would be like the Yankees, who won 103 games and lost only 59, playing 40 of their regular season games against Washington, which won only 59 and lost 103. Of course, the Yankees did not play any games at all against Washington, but had that actually happened, it’s unlikely anyone would have seriously considered the Yankees as the #1 team in baseball.
In the real world, #1 Florida Gaitors and #2 Alabama Crimson Tide meet next week in their own conference championship game and the winner of that game will play against Texas in the BCS National Championship Game. Based on who and how these teams have played this season, it doesn’t matter who wins. Texas should easily beat either one, Florida or Alabama. But that will still leave probably the best team in the nation, the real #1 college football team, Boise State, out in the cold.
All Div I FBS teams are created equal, but some teams are more equal than others…
Today this is the guiding principle behind the National Championship of College Football’s Division I FBS. Div I FBS consists of the schools in 11 conferences plus 3 independents making a total of 131 colleges and universities that have Division I FBS football programs. None of the 11 conferences is designated as being better or deserving of higher ranking than any other and no individual school is predetermined to be a lesser member of Div I FBS than any other member institution. Nevertheless, some college football teams are apparently created more equal than others.
No other organized sport has such a consideration when it comes to naming its championship team. In the last Baseball World Series the Yankees were not diminished by their regular season victories over the American League’s weaker teams like Baltimore, Kansas City or Cleveland and neither were the Phillies downgraded after beating up on the National League’s lowly Washington Nationals or the Pittsburgh Pirates. Any win over a Major League opponent is equal to any other win. Likewise in the National Football League, the NBA and even in the NHL, no team is ranked as better or worse based upon which other teams they scored victories over during their regular season schedules.
But somehow this sense of fair play – not to mention reason - just doesn’t apply to college football. This season, of the 131 Division I FBS teams only 6 have played their season undefeated. All 6 have won every game they played. None of the remaining 125 teams have only 1 loss. The best record outside the undefeated teams is 2 losses. Thus, it would appear reasonable to say that only these 6 all-winning teams should have a shot at being crowned National Champion. Yet, since there is no playoff system, only 2 of the 6 can be matched in the so-called and self-proclaimed National Championship Game. What then of the other 4? What is the best way to pick the 2 teams to vie for the title and eliminate from consideration 4 others?
The 6 undefeated teams are: Florida, Alabama, Texas, TCU, Cincinnati and Boise State. This is the order in which these teams are now ranked by the BCS, which is the official ranking body that picks the 2 teams to play in the National Championship Game. Since the BCS ranks the Top 25 teams each week, how do the schedules of the 6 undefeated teams look against other ranked opponents?
Of the top 6, only 2 have played more than 1 opponent that also ranked in the Top 25. Texas (ranked #3) played and of course defeated 4 ranked teams – Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Nebraska, Oklahoma – while TCU (ranked #4) played and beat 2 ranked opponents – Clemson and BYU.
The #1 and #2 teams, Florida and Alabama only played 1 ranked team each. Both of them played and beat the same team, LSU. Still, Florida is ranked #1 and Alabama is #2. The #5 ranked team, Cincinnati, has only a single ranked team on its schedule, West Virginia.
The most alarming schedule analysis has to be that of #6 Boise State. While Boise State only met 1 other team ranked in the Top 25, how important should it be that the 1 team was the #7 ranked team, Oregon? After the 6 undefeated teams, the official college football rankings list Oregon as the next best team in the whole country. And Boise State beat them. If Boise State beat Oregon, and none of the other 5 undefeated teams has beaten any team so highly ranked, why is Boise State #6 behind all 5 of the others? That doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense, does it?
Some analysts say that many teams prop up their record by playing weak teams outside their conference – and that’s been true. This year, Boise State played Bowling Green and it is fair to hold that up when evaluating them. Cincinnati also played a game against a very weak non-conference team, Southeast Missouri State. TCU, however, did not pad its schedule with any of the weaker non-conference teams, not one of them. Texas (remember they also played 4 ranked teams) only had one game against a traditional weak team, Central Florida.
But, look at the schedules for the #1 and #2 Florida and Alabama teams. Not only did they each play their only ranked opponent against the same LSU team, but also each of them added multiple weak teams to their non-conference schedules. Alabama, the #2 team in the nation, played and beat teams from Florida International and Tennessee-Chattanooga. The #1 ranked team, Florida, did even worse than that. Like Alabama, they also scheduled Florida International, plus they added outrageous patsies like Charleston-Southern and some school no one's ever heard of called Troy.
So, Florida the #1 ranked team played 25% of its games against the worst teams in college football. That would be like the Yankees, who won 103 games and lost only 59, playing 40 of their regular season games against Washington, which won only 59 and lost 103. Of course, the Yankees did not play any games at all against Washington, but had that actually happened, it’s unlikely anyone would have seriously considered the Yankees as the #1 team in baseball.
In the real world, #1 Florida Gaitors and #2 Alabama Crimson Tide meet next week in their own conference championship game and the winner of that game will play against Texas in the BCS National Championship Game. Based on who and how these teams have played this season, it doesn’t matter who wins. Texas should easily beat either one, Florida or Alabama. But that will still leave probably the best team in the nation, the real #1 college football team, Boise State, out in the cold.
All Div I FBS teams are created equal, but some teams are more equal than others…
Friday, November 6, 2009
GO YANKEES! "HOW MUCH DID YOU SAY THAT IS?"
Wait a second. Isn’t the astronomical increase in costs, seemingly unstoppable over time, one of the biggest problems we face in healthcare? Aren’t doctors and other service providers clamoring for higher reimbursement agreements, complaining about low payments from Medicare and insurance companies? Don’t we keep hearing the drug companies and medical equipment manufacturers warning us that a national healthcare program – apparently any kind of national healthcare at all – will drive them either into market-share disaster or outright bankruptcy?
Has anyone seen a hospital bill lately? Have you visited an Emergency Room? Have you been admitted, sent to a regular room on a regular hospital floor? Have you spent a couple of days as an in-patient? If you have you know how quick and easy it is to run up a hospital bill of $10,000 or $20,000. And if you’ve been really sick, you certainly are familiar with how fast those charges add up to a hospital bill of $100,000 plus, even $500,000 or more. Not sure I'm right? Go ahead, get cancer – have a heart attack or heart surgery. You’ll see.
Meanwhile these same hospitals call themselves non-profit organizations and constantly talk about the difficulties they face in terms of their costs – not yours – but theirs.
So, explain this - In today’s national edition of The New York Times, the full-page that follows the end of Section B – the part of the paper with the Sports section – is completely taken up with an advertisement saluting the World Series Champion New York Yankees – and that full-page ad is sponsored and paid for by “New York-Presbyterian OFFICIAL HOSPITAL OF THE YANKEES.” Imagine that, the Yankees have an “official hospital.” That’s not some kind of socialism, is it? I sure hope not.
No one can be absolutely sure what the cost of ad space is in The New York Times. The newspaper has fallen on hard times. Who knows what they’ll take for an ad these days? Things are so bad they’re even talking about bankruptcy. They must be starving, right? Ad revenue reported for The Times’ latest quarter is down from last year. This year it was only $570 million. Don’t you wonder how they managed to make it on about three-quarters of a million dollars – a day?
Most industry reports indicate that the full-page ad they bought probably cost about $189,000. Of course, New York-Presbyterian made a point – an expensive one too since it costs extra – of buying the “national edition” rather than just the local New York City edition of the paper.
What were they thinking? More out-of-town patients? Perhaps they’re counting on me telling the next ambulance that picks me up in an emergency to… “take me to New York-Presbyterian, and step on it, buddy!”
Last year, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, a non-profit, tax exempt 501 C-3 entity with multiple websites showing how many ways you and I can give them our tax deductible “gifts” – in 2008, this hospital pulled in $2,833,500,000 in patient revenue. Count the zeros. That’s more than $77 million dollars a day, 365 days a year. Puts The New York Times to shame. Cha-ching! Cha-ching!
Hey, what’s a measly hundred and eighty-nine grand to congratulate “Our Yankees”?
And one more question – What do you suppose it means to be the OFFICIAL HOSPITAL OF THE YANKEES?
I don’t know about you, but I sure feel better knowing we don’t have any sort of universal, socialized national healthcare. And I’m sure all the tax-exempt 501 C-3 doctors at New York-Presbyterian are doing a wonderful job treating all patients who are in need of medical services, right? Well, I don’t want to be one to tell you, but consider this – a report today in the publication American Thinker says that of the 93 doctors affiliated with New York-Presbyterian in the specialty of Internal Medicine, only 37 of them accept Medicare. Maybe the other 56 internists have to find a way to pay for their season tickets.
Go Yankees!
Has anyone seen a hospital bill lately? Have you visited an Emergency Room? Have you been admitted, sent to a regular room on a regular hospital floor? Have you spent a couple of days as an in-patient? If you have you know how quick and easy it is to run up a hospital bill of $10,000 or $20,000. And if you’ve been really sick, you certainly are familiar with how fast those charges add up to a hospital bill of $100,000 plus, even $500,000 or more. Not sure I'm right? Go ahead, get cancer – have a heart attack or heart surgery. You’ll see.
Meanwhile these same hospitals call themselves non-profit organizations and constantly talk about the difficulties they face in terms of their costs – not yours – but theirs.
So, explain this - In today’s national edition of The New York Times, the full-page that follows the end of Section B – the part of the paper with the Sports section – is completely taken up with an advertisement saluting the World Series Champion New York Yankees – and that full-page ad is sponsored and paid for by “New York-Presbyterian OFFICIAL HOSPITAL OF THE YANKEES.” Imagine that, the Yankees have an “official hospital.” That’s not some kind of socialism, is it? I sure hope not.
No one can be absolutely sure what the cost of ad space is in The New York Times. The newspaper has fallen on hard times. Who knows what they’ll take for an ad these days? Things are so bad they’re even talking about bankruptcy. They must be starving, right? Ad revenue reported for The Times’ latest quarter is down from last year. This year it was only $570 million. Don’t you wonder how they managed to make it on about three-quarters of a million dollars – a day?
Most industry reports indicate that the full-page ad they bought probably cost about $189,000. Of course, New York-Presbyterian made a point – an expensive one too since it costs extra – of buying the “national edition” rather than just the local New York City edition of the paper.
What were they thinking? More out-of-town patients? Perhaps they’re counting on me telling the next ambulance that picks me up in an emergency to… “take me to New York-Presbyterian, and step on it, buddy!”
Last year, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, a non-profit, tax exempt 501 C-3 entity with multiple websites showing how many ways you and I can give them our tax deductible “gifts” – in 2008, this hospital pulled in $2,833,500,000 in patient revenue. Count the zeros. That’s more than $77 million dollars a day, 365 days a year. Puts The New York Times to shame. Cha-ching! Cha-ching!
Hey, what’s a measly hundred and eighty-nine grand to congratulate “Our Yankees”?
And one more question – What do you suppose it means to be the OFFICIAL HOSPITAL OF THE YANKEES?
I don’t know about you, but I sure feel better knowing we don’t have any sort of universal, socialized national healthcare. And I’m sure all the tax-exempt 501 C-3 doctors at New York-Presbyterian are doing a wonderful job treating all patients who are in need of medical services, right? Well, I don’t want to be one to tell you, but consider this – a report today in the publication American Thinker says that of the 93 doctors affiliated with New York-Presbyterian in the specialty of Internal Medicine, only 37 of them accept Medicare. Maybe the other 56 internists have to find a way to pay for their season tickets.
Go Yankees!
Friday, October 23, 2009
"THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO FEAR..."
Copied below is an amazingly arrogant assessment of Iran's current nuclear situation. It comes from official Israeli governmental sources, Defense Minister, Ehud Barak. Basically, Israel would deny Iran any nuclear rights whatsoever. This, from a country which is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty; a country that does not allow international nuclear inspectors, or abide by IAEA policies.
Is there a serious person anywhere in the world who does not acknowledge that Israel not only has nuclear weapons but also a nuclear weapons arsenal? Western intelligence sources - backed by Israelis themselves who have worked on their country's nuclear facilities - estimate the size of Israel's nuclear arsenal at between a low of 150 weapons and a high of 500. Compare this with the estimate most experts have for North Korea - 4 to 6 weapons, or Pakistan - about 20, or India - approximately 50. Yes, none of these nations, even Israel, matches the tens of thousands of nuclear weapons possessed by the United States or Russia, or the sizable amounts - though way fewer than tens of thousands - thought to be held by England, France and China.
Nevertheless, Israel is an unquestioned nuclear world power - and Iran has no nuclear weapons at all. None. Not a single one. In fact, no one has yet produced anything more than a “fear” that Iran even has a nuclear weapons program. No proof at all. And still, Israel (fundamentally a nuclear outlaw nation) demands that Iran halt all enrichment of uranium. Why? Because they “fear” an Iranian nuclear weapons program - a fear they and others express without a shred of evidence that such a program exists. Does Iran enrich uranium? Yes. And they do so - just like some dozen and a-half other countries do around the world - for the purpose of supplying fuel for atomic reactors - reactors designed not to blow anything up but to provide electric power.
There is nothing new or unique about this. The world already has some 531 such reactors in use or under active construction and they are spread across the globe, located in 31 different countries. We, here in the US, have 104 nuclear power reactors and not a single one of them is connected to our nuclear weapons program. France has 59. Japan has 53 -and no one’s accused the Japanese of having nuclear weapons. In fact, there has never been any claim that any of the world's 500+ electricity generating nuclear reactors is a threat to the nuclear weapons peace. All they make is - electricity!
If nuclear power plants presented a weapons threat, the world’s major powers would not be the United States, Russia and China. Instead they would be ABB Construction Engineering, General Electric and Westinghouse.
Why is nuclear electric power not a threat to world peace? It's simple. Uranium enriched for use in making electric power cannot be used to manufacture nuclear weapons. It just can't. Much as your Honda or Subaru doesn’t scare the folks at NASCAR, so too nobody is going to make bombs from uranium enriched in Brazil, Australia or any of the 31 nations with nuclear power reactors.
It is exactly like nuclear medicine. We've all seen the signs in hospital corridors – “Nuclear Medicine.” Are you afraid? Of course not. Nothing used in nuclear medicine has any applicable usage in nuclear weapons. So, go ahead - do all the heart scans you wish. Nobody's in danger of being blown-up.
My opinion is that no reasonable and rational person would, ipso facto, deny nuclear electric power to anyone. Why would they? Would they deny food or water? Clean sanitation? Roads, dams, tunnels, airports? Of course not. Isn't everyone - no matter where they live - entitled to the use of modern technology for a better life? Can we enjoy all this and refuse to let others do the same?
And yet now officially, Israel would deny Iran any nuclear capacity of any sort whatsoever. Yes, a country that stockpiles nuclear weapons, with contempt for all world nuclear accords, is demanding that another country be denied modern electric power. Draw your own conclusions.
______________________________________________________
THE NEW YORK TIMES
October 23, 2009
Israel Signals Concern on Iran Talks
By ISABEL KERSHNER
JERUSALEM — The Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, said on Thursday that Iran must cease all uranium enrichment, a statement that reflected Israeli concern over a draft agreement taking shape in Vienna, where earlier this week Iran took part in nuclear talks with the United States, Russia and France.
Under the agreement, about three-quarters of Iran’s known stockpile of nuclear fuel would be shipped to Russia for enrichment to levels suitable for a peaceful nuclear reactor but too low for weapons. Such a deal would delay Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon for about a year, buying more time for President Obama to search for a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff.
In the first response by a senior Israeli leader, Mr. Barak said what was necessary was “the cessation of enrichment by Iran, and not just the removal of the enriched material.” Speaking at a conference hosted by Israel’s president, Shimon Peres, in Jerusalem, Mr. Barak urged “all the players” that “under no circumstances should any option be removed from the table,” meaning that the threats of tougher sanctions and military action should remain.
The emerging deal with Iran, while not yet approved, is generally being treated here with caution and suspicion
One former Israeli official with intimate knowledge of the nuclear issue said that it was better to have the fuel shipped out than left in Iran, but that there may be more nuclear fuel reserves in covert facilities in Iran.
Iran is openly and vehemently hostile to Israel, but insists that its nuclear program is intended for civilian purposes only. Israel is believed to have a large nuclear arsenal but maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity, neither confirming nor denying its status as a nuclear power.
Earlier Thursday, Israeli officials confirmed that Israeli and Iranian envoys participated in discussions at a recent multilateral forum on nuclear issues in Cairo, but they said the two representatives held no private meetings and played down the significance of the event.
A spokesman for Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization also denied that any separate meetings took place between the Iranian and Israeli delegations on the sidelines of the gathering, according to the Web site of Iran’s state broadcasting authority.
The regional meeting took place over two days in the Egyptian capital from Sept. 28 under the auspices of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, a forum of experts established at the initiative of the Australian and Japanese governments. Israel was represented by Meirav Zafary-Odiz, director of policy and arms control for the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, and Iran by Ali Asghar Soltanieh, ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
“There was a conference,” said Yael Doron, a spokeswoman for the Israel Atomic Energy Commission. “She was there and he was there, but there was no direct contact or dialog between them.”
Several other Middle Eastern countries took part in the discussions, including Saudi Arabia, which, like Iran, has no diplomatic relations with Israel.
The gathering was held behind closed doors, but details emerged last week in the Australian newspaper The Age.
The paper reported breathlessly that Australia had “helped accomplish the seemingly impossible — bringing Israel and Iran into the same room for high-level talks on nuclear weapons.”
The Web site of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on Thursday published more details of the meeting.
But Israeli officials said it was not unusual for Israeli and Iranian officials to be in the same room and present their positions at international bodies and forums. The Iranian delegate, Mr. Soltanieh, has attended at least one such informal gathering with Israelis in the past.
The timing of the Cairo meeting may have added import, however, with the growing concern both in Israel and internationally over Iran’s nuclear program and a sense in Israel that time to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons may be running out.
In a separate development, Israel’s Supreme Court ruled for the first time Thursday in a case regarding a West Bank road where Palestinian traffic is prohibited by military order. Saying the measure caused disproportionate harm to the local Palestinian population, the court instructed the state to come up with alternative arrangements for the road — a thoroughfare south of Hebron — in the next three months.
The state argued that Palestinians were barred from using the road for the past eight years for security reasons, to protect the 150 or so Israeli residents of a Jewish settlement and an unauthorized outpost in the area. An Israeli human rights organization, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, petitioned the court in 2006 on behalf of 22 Palestinian villages with a combined population of some 45,000.
Several cases involving other so-called segregated roads in the West Bank are pending in the Israeli court.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Is there a serious person anywhere in the world who does not acknowledge that Israel not only has nuclear weapons but also a nuclear weapons arsenal? Western intelligence sources - backed by Israelis themselves who have worked on their country's nuclear facilities - estimate the size of Israel's nuclear arsenal at between a low of 150 weapons and a high of 500. Compare this with the estimate most experts have for North Korea - 4 to 6 weapons, or Pakistan - about 20, or India - approximately 50. Yes, none of these nations, even Israel, matches the tens of thousands of nuclear weapons possessed by the United States or Russia, or the sizable amounts - though way fewer than tens of thousands - thought to be held by England, France and China.
Nevertheless, Israel is an unquestioned nuclear world power - and Iran has no nuclear weapons at all. None. Not a single one. In fact, no one has yet produced anything more than a “fear” that Iran even has a nuclear weapons program. No proof at all. And still, Israel (fundamentally a nuclear outlaw nation) demands that Iran halt all enrichment of uranium. Why? Because they “fear” an Iranian nuclear weapons program - a fear they and others express without a shred of evidence that such a program exists. Does Iran enrich uranium? Yes. And they do so - just like some dozen and a-half other countries do around the world - for the purpose of supplying fuel for atomic reactors - reactors designed not to blow anything up but to provide electric power.
There is nothing new or unique about this. The world already has some 531 such reactors in use or under active construction and they are spread across the globe, located in 31 different countries. We, here in the US, have 104 nuclear power reactors and not a single one of them is connected to our nuclear weapons program. France has 59. Japan has 53 -and no one’s accused the Japanese of having nuclear weapons. In fact, there has never been any claim that any of the world's 500+ electricity generating nuclear reactors is a threat to the nuclear weapons peace. All they make is - electricity!
If nuclear power plants presented a weapons threat, the world’s major powers would not be the United States, Russia and China. Instead they would be ABB Construction Engineering, General Electric and Westinghouse.
Why is nuclear electric power not a threat to world peace? It's simple. Uranium enriched for use in making electric power cannot be used to manufacture nuclear weapons. It just can't. Much as your Honda or Subaru doesn’t scare the folks at NASCAR, so too nobody is going to make bombs from uranium enriched in Brazil, Australia or any of the 31 nations with nuclear power reactors.
It is exactly like nuclear medicine. We've all seen the signs in hospital corridors – “Nuclear Medicine.” Are you afraid? Of course not. Nothing used in nuclear medicine has any applicable usage in nuclear weapons. So, go ahead - do all the heart scans you wish. Nobody's in danger of being blown-up.
My opinion is that no reasonable and rational person would, ipso facto, deny nuclear electric power to anyone. Why would they? Would they deny food or water? Clean sanitation? Roads, dams, tunnels, airports? Of course not. Isn't everyone - no matter where they live - entitled to the use of modern technology for a better life? Can we enjoy all this and refuse to let others do the same?
And yet now officially, Israel would deny Iran any nuclear capacity of any sort whatsoever. Yes, a country that stockpiles nuclear weapons, with contempt for all world nuclear accords, is demanding that another country be denied modern electric power. Draw your own conclusions.
______________________________________________________
THE NEW YORK TIMES
October 23, 2009
Israel Signals Concern on Iran Talks
By ISABEL KERSHNER
JERUSALEM — The Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, said on Thursday that Iran must cease all uranium enrichment, a statement that reflected Israeli concern over a draft agreement taking shape in Vienna, where earlier this week Iran took part in nuclear talks with the United States, Russia and France.
Under the agreement, about three-quarters of Iran’s known stockpile of nuclear fuel would be shipped to Russia for enrichment to levels suitable for a peaceful nuclear reactor but too low for weapons. Such a deal would delay Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon for about a year, buying more time for President Obama to search for a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff.
In the first response by a senior Israeli leader, Mr. Barak said what was necessary was “the cessation of enrichment by Iran, and not just the removal of the enriched material.” Speaking at a conference hosted by Israel’s president, Shimon Peres, in Jerusalem, Mr. Barak urged “all the players” that “under no circumstances should any option be removed from the table,” meaning that the threats of tougher sanctions and military action should remain.
The emerging deal with Iran, while not yet approved, is generally being treated here with caution and suspicion
One former Israeli official with intimate knowledge of the nuclear issue said that it was better to have the fuel shipped out than left in Iran, but that there may be more nuclear fuel reserves in covert facilities in Iran.
Iran is openly and vehemently hostile to Israel, but insists that its nuclear program is intended for civilian purposes only. Israel is believed to have a large nuclear arsenal but maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity, neither confirming nor denying its status as a nuclear power.
Earlier Thursday, Israeli officials confirmed that Israeli and Iranian envoys participated in discussions at a recent multilateral forum on nuclear issues in Cairo, but they said the two representatives held no private meetings and played down the significance of the event.
A spokesman for Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization also denied that any separate meetings took place between the Iranian and Israeli delegations on the sidelines of the gathering, according to the Web site of Iran’s state broadcasting authority.
The regional meeting took place over two days in the Egyptian capital from Sept. 28 under the auspices of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, a forum of experts established at the initiative of the Australian and Japanese governments. Israel was represented by Meirav Zafary-Odiz, director of policy and arms control for the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, and Iran by Ali Asghar Soltanieh, ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
“There was a conference,” said Yael Doron, a spokeswoman for the Israel Atomic Energy Commission. “She was there and he was there, but there was no direct contact or dialog between them.”
Several other Middle Eastern countries took part in the discussions, including Saudi Arabia, which, like Iran, has no diplomatic relations with Israel.
The gathering was held behind closed doors, but details emerged last week in the Australian newspaper The Age.
The paper reported breathlessly that Australia had “helped accomplish the seemingly impossible — bringing Israel and Iran into the same room for high-level talks on nuclear weapons.”
The Web site of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on Thursday published more details of the meeting.
But Israeli officials said it was not unusual for Israeli and Iranian officials to be in the same room and present their positions at international bodies and forums. The Iranian delegate, Mr. Soltanieh, has attended at least one such informal gathering with Israelis in the past.
The timing of the Cairo meeting may have added import, however, with the growing concern both in Israel and internationally over Iran’s nuclear program and a sense in Israel that time to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons may be running out.
In a separate development, Israel’s Supreme Court ruled for the first time Thursday in a case regarding a West Bank road where Palestinian traffic is prohibited by military order. Saying the measure caused disproportionate harm to the local Palestinian population, the court instructed the state to come up with alternative arrangements for the road — a thoroughfare south of Hebron — in the next three months.
The state argued that Palestinians were barred from using the road for the past eight years for security reasons, to protect the 150 or so Israeli residents of a Jewish settlement and an unauthorized outpost in the area. An Israeli human rights organization, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, petitioned the court in 2006 on behalf of 22 Palestinian villages with a combined population of some 45,000.
Several cases involving other so-called segregated roads in the West Bank are pending in the Israeli court.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
IS THIS A JOKE?
Is this a joke?
Where is Barack Obama? Where is the mandate he won at the polls last November? Where is the Presidential leadership on healthcare reform? Why has Barack Obama abandoned his campaign pledges and promises on single payer, universal healthcare reform?
Four questions – all with the same perplexing answer: “I don’t know.”
Barack Obama got almost 70 million votes from the American people. He received more votes for President of the United States than any candidate who has ever run for that office. His personal mandate is both unquestioned and politically secure. This is especially true following a President who actually lost the popular vote in his first election and won a second term with questionable results. On top of Obama’s personal victory in 2008, his political party won huge majorities in both the House and Senate. In a partisan political system, the partisan debate has been settled. The Democrats won. The Republicans lost. Didn’t they?
Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have an obligation to those who voted them into office. They have a duty to lead not to conciliate.
If Obama and the Democratic Party are nowhere to be found on healthcare reform, who then is driving this policy question, forming this legislation, forging the future direction for the entire country on this literally life and death public issue?
That answer is sadly obvious: Senator Max Baucus and Senator Olympia Snowe. A senator from Montana. And another one from Maine. What about the rest of the United States of America? What about the will of the people as expressed in the democratic act of electing a President and a Congress?
The President represents all the states and all the people. The senators from Montana and Maine represent a tiny constituency. Baucus and Snowe each received fewer votes than Fernando Ferrer. Who’s he, you ask? Ferrer ran for Mayor of New York City – and LOST! But he got 503,219 votes. The winner in New York’s Mayoral election received more votes than Senators Baucus and Snowe combined. Why not let Bloomberg and Ferrer decide what sort of national healthcare we should have. All in favor raise your hands.
Again, I ask – Is this a joke?
Take a look at Obama’s mandate and compare it with the electoral voice Senators Baucus and Snowe speak with:
President Barack Obama 69,456,897
Senator Max Baucus 348,289
Senator Olympia Snowe 402,598
If this is a joke, the joke’s on us.
Where is Barack Obama? Where is the mandate he won at the polls last November? Where is the Presidential leadership on healthcare reform? Why has Barack Obama abandoned his campaign pledges and promises on single payer, universal healthcare reform?
Four questions – all with the same perplexing answer: “I don’t know.”
Barack Obama got almost 70 million votes from the American people. He received more votes for President of the United States than any candidate who has ever run for that office. His personal mandate is both unquestioned and politically secure. This is especially true following a President who actually lost the popular vote in his first election and won a second term with questionable results. On top of Obama’s personal victory in 2008, his political party won huge majorities in both the House and Senate. In a partisan political system, the partisan debate has been settled. The Democrats won. The Republicans lost. Didn’t they?
Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have an obligation to those who voted them into office. They have a duty to lead not to conciliate.
If Obama and the Democratic Party are nowhere to be found on healthcare reform, who then is driving this policy question, forming this legislation, forging the future direction for the entire country on this literally life and death public issue?
That answer is sadly obvious: Senator Max Baucus and Senator Olympia Snowe. A senator from Montana. And another one from Maine. What about the rest of the United States of America? What about the will of the people as expressed in the democratic act of electing a President and a Congress?
The President represents all the states and all the people. The senators from Montana and Maine represent a tiny constituency. Baucus and Snowe each received fewer votes than Fernando Ferrer. Who’s he, you ask? Ferrer ran for Mayor of New York City – and LOST! But he got 503,219 votes. The winner in New York’s Mayoral election received more votes than Senators Baucus and Snowe combined. Why not let Bloomberg and Ferrer decide what sort of national healthcare we should have. All in favor raise your hands.
Again, I ask – Is this a joke?
Take a look at Obama’s mandate and compare it with the electoral voice Senators Baucus and Snowe speak with:
President Barack Obama 69,456,897
Senator Max Baucus 348,289
Senator Olympia Snowe 402,598
If this is a joke, the joke’s on us.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
PROPAGANDA
Propaganda was invented by the Catholic Church. Yes, it was. It was a long time ago - 387 years to be exact - in1622, when then Pope Gregory XV decided the Church needed a special section, a unit or body to institutionalize the dissemination of the “message,” to handle training of foreign missions. Five years later, Pope Urban VIII created the Collegium de Propaganda. A lot has happened in the last 400 or so years, but propaganda hasn’t changed much. Those in power use public information – that which we now generally refer to as “the media” – to further their agenda via the spreading of false or misleading information. The power of propaganda is unchallenged. It can be employed to murder millions or to shape the thinking of hundreds of millions – all with little or no regard for the facts.
In the last couple of centuries we have seen how the American Indians, European Jews and Gypsies, and various ethnic groups in the old Soviet Union have suffered the effects of propaganda campaigns. Many others have suffered too, albeit away from the attention of most Americans. Today it appears that propaganda is being employed on a widespread basis against Muslims in particular and others who have been cast as enemies – temporary or long-term – of entrenched western powers – the Axis of Evil threatening western civilization.
For example: Although there are nearly 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, the actions of only 19 of them on a single day, September 11, 2001, have thrown the western world into two wars and a fit that has already lasted more than 8 years. The West has entered into a never ending “War on Terror.” We are afraid of shadows, if those shadows have the glint of Islam about them. By comparison, no one seems at all concerned about young, blonde, white men – despite Oklahoma City, April 19, 1995. Most recent news reports are all about a supposed nuclear weapons program feverishly underway in Iran… dangerously, even precariously close to fruition. Condoleezza Rice’s vision of “a mushroom cloud” virtually haunts the airways.
Another example: In today’s newspapers, and on TV around the western world, we are being dealt the propaganda about North Korea testing missiles. Oh, my God! You can see the images on television – not of the missile tests in question (because no one has TV footage of those!) but stock video of awful and dangerous missiles being fired from… somewhere and of course designed to hit… something.
Propaganda.
Remember, propaganda is false and/or misleading information. Consider the nuclear “situation” in Iran. No one has produced or presented any evidence or proof that Iran really has a nuclear weapons program or that any structural facilities Iran may have or may be building are intended for that purpose. What we have instead are claims, accusations and fearful conclusions – i.e., propaganda.
There is a story in today’s New York Times about the current budget crisis in the Iranian Parliament. Did you think we were the only country fallen on hard economic times? While we spend our tax dollars bailing out Wall Street and the banks, Iran is faced with spending 30% of its national budget on fuel subsidies so people can heat their homes this winter! That’s almost one-third of all their money just to keep themselves alive through the coming cold months. What’s left to spend on nukes? Don’t ask because that doesn’t fit the model for our newest campaign of propaganda.
And what to make of North Korea, you ask? No one denies they did fire a total of 5 test missiles the other day. We know they did because like other nations that also test missiles, the North Koreans issued an international advisory telling naval ships to avoid the area where the missiles were being fired. No secrets here. There are no laws against testing missiles. Many countries do it. And, you’re supposed to warn naval traffic – just like the North Koreans did. The question is: just how “dangerous” were these missiles? Why would we be so worried? Why would we even report it? You had to read through all the propaganda to find out. The range of the North Korean test missiles was… 75 miles. Yes, 75 miles. No, not 7,500 or even 750 miles. Only 75!
If the North Koreans mean to attack New York City with this equipment they better find a way to stack-up their rockets across the bay somewhere on the Connecticut shore or maybe launch them from someplace out in the Hamptons on Long Island. How likely is that?
Be afraid! Be very afraid! And while you’re at it – watch out for the propaganda.
In the last couple of centuries we have seen how the American Indians, European Jews and Gypsies, and various ethnic groups in the old Soviet Union have suffered the effects of propaganda campaigns. Many others have suffered too, albeit away from the attention of most Americans. Today it appears that propaganda is being employed on a widespread basis against Muslims in particular and others who have been cast as enemies – temporary or long-term – of entrenched western powers – the Axis of Evil threatening western civilization.
For example: Although there are nearly 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, the actions of only 19 of them on a single day, September 11, 2001, have thrown the western world into two wars and a fit that has already lasted more than 8 years. The West has entered into a never ending “War on Terror.” We are afraid of shadows, if those shadows have the glint of Islam about them. By comparison, no one seems at all concerned about young, blonde, white men – despite Oklahoma City, April 19, 1995. Most recent news reports are all about a supposed nuclear weapons program feverishly underway in Iran… dangerously, even precariously close to fruition. Condoleezza Rice’s vision of “a mushroom cloud” virtually haunts the airways.
Another example: In today’s newspapers, and on TV around the western world, we are being dealt the propaganda about North Korea testing missiles. Oh, my God! You can see the images on television – not of the missile tests in question (because no one has TV footage of those!) but stock video of awful and dangerous missiles being fired from… somewhere and of course designed to hit… something.
Propaganda.
Remember, propaganda is false and/or misleading information. Consider the nuclear “situation” in Iran. No one has produced or presented any evidence or proof that Iran really has a nuclear weapons program or that any structural facilities Iran may have or may be building are intended for that purpose. What we have instead are claims, accusations and fearful conclusions – i.e., propaganda.
There is a story in today’s New York Times about the current budget crisis in the Iranian Parliament. Did you think we were the only country fallen on hard economic times? While we spend our tax dollars bailing out Wall Street and the banks, Iran is faced with spending 30% of its national budget on fuel subsidies so people can heat their homes this winter! That’s almost one-third of all their money just to keep themselves alive through the coming cold months. What’s left to spend on nukes? Don’t ask because that doesn’t fit the model for our newest campaign of propaganda.
And what to make of North Korea, you ask? No one denies they did fire a total of 5 test missiles the other day. We know they did because like other nations that also test missiles, the North Koreans issued an international advisory telling naval ships to avoid the area where the missiles were being fired. No secrets here. There are no laws against testing missiles. Many countries do it. And, you’re supposed to warn naval traffic – just like the North Koreans did. The question is: just how “dangerous” were these missiles? Why would we be so worried? Why would we even report it? You had to read through all the propaganda to find out. The range of the North Korean test missiles was… 75 miles. Yes, 75 miles. No, not 7,500 or even 750 miles. Only 75!
If the North Koreans mean to attack New York City with this equipment they better find a way to stack-up their rockets across the bay somewhere on the Connecticut shore or maybe launch them from someplace out in the Hamptons on Long Island. How likely is that?
Be afraid! Be very afraid! And while you’re at it – watch out for the propaganda.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
THE CULT OF PERSONALITY... "AND THE WINNER IS-"
Know who any of these guys are? Ever hear of any of them?
Charles Gobat – Ernesto Moneta – Alfred Fried – Fridtjof Nansen – Arthur Henderson – John Mott – Arthur Lutuli – David Trimble
Can’t say that you have? Well, they’re all men, aren’t they? How about a woman? Okay, let’s throw in Betty Williams? You know her, don’t you?
Still nothing?
They’re all Nobel Peace Prize winners. Every one of them. Sure, some of them won their Prize many years ago, but not David Trimble. He won the Prize in 1998. Almost yesterday, and he’s English too. Looks like us. Speaks our language. But you don’t know who he is or who they are. Some prize, huh? Really important. Marks a man’s life forever, right? Hey, it is the Nobel Peace Prize.
How much do you know about the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Martti Ahtisaari? Not much? Maybe nothing at all? Ahtisaari, who’s from Finland, was the key negotiator in the Namibian independence agreement from South Africa in 1990. In 1999, Ahtisaari was credited with convincing the Serbian leadership to call it quits in Kosovo. And six years later, in 2005, he successfully negotiated a settlement between Indonesia and the rebels in Aceh Province. He won the Nobel Prize – now you know why - and you’ve still never heard of him.
Perhaps you are familiar with these men - Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho. Who hasn’t heard of the likes of Russia’s Gorbachev, the Israelis Rabin and Peres, and of course Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat? A fine group of dictators, terrorists, insurrectionists, warmongers… even an international war criminal in this bunch. Surely none of them could be a Nobel Peace Prize winner. It is a "peace" prize. Right? Wrong. They all are. Everyone’s a winner. And only Le Duc Tho, from North Vietnam, had the good manners and common decency to decline the honor.
So, what’s the “Big Deal” about Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize this year? The Golden Globes are just around the corner. Can the Oscars be far behind? Don’t they have something called the Teen Spirit Award? Doesn't country music have some kind of winners? When is the Miss America Pageant?
Charles Gobat – Ernesto Moneta – Alfred Fried – Fridtjof Nansen – Arthur Henderson – John Mott – Arthur Lutuli – David Trimble
Can’t say that you have? Well, they’re all men, aren’t they? How about a woman? Okay, let’s throw in Betty Williams? You know her, don’t you?
Still nothing?
They’re all Nobel Peace Prize winners. Every one of them. Sure, some of them won their Prize many years ago, but not David Trimble. He won the Prize in 1998. Almost yesterday, and he’s English too. Looks like us. Speaks our language. But you don’t know who he is or who they are. Some prize, huh? Really important. Marks a man’s life forever, right? Hey, it is the Nobel Peace Prize.
How much do you know about the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Martti Ahtisaari? Not much? Maybe nothing at all? Ahtisaari, who’s from Finland, was the key negotiator in the Namibian independence agreement from South Africa in 1990. In 1999, Ahtisaari was credited with convincing the Serbian leadership to call it quits in Kosovo. And six years later, in 2005, he successfully negotiated a settlement between Indonesia and the rebels in Aceh Province. He won the Nobel Prize – now you know why - and you’ve still never heard of him.
Perhaps you are familiar with these men - Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho. Who hasn’t heard of the likes of Russia’s Gorbachev, the Israelis Rabin and Peres, and of course Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat? A fine group of dictators, terrorists, insurrectionists, warmongers… even an international war criminal in this bunch. Surely none of them could be a Nobel Peace Prize winner. It is a "peace" prize. Right? Wrong. They all are. Everyone’s a winner. And only Le Duc Tho, from North Vietnam, had the good manners and common decency to decline the honor.
So, what’s the “Big Deal” about Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize this year? The Golden Globes are just around the corner. Can the Oscars be far behind? Don’t they have something called the Teen Spirit Award? Doesn't country music have some kind of winners? When is the Miss America Pageant?
Saturday, September 26, 2009
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD REPORTING AND HARDLY REPORTING AT ALL
What’s the difference between good reporting and hardly reporting at all? Look at this comparison of two different reports from the same newspaper printed on the same day – The New York Times for Saturday, September 26, 2009:
In The Arts Section, there is a review of the new ABC-TV drama “FlashForward.” No, that’s not a typo. ABC wants it printed as a single word despite the double capitalization. This is a futuristic, science fiction thriller, a drama with many more questions than answers, a plot rife with ambiguity and subject to varying interpretations from reasonably intelligent people with reasonably different points of view. As a brand new TV show the main question about it is – Will viewers be shown the answers by the season’s end? Look carefully at how The Times’ reviewer writes about this.
“… the producers (of “FlashForward”) have said repeatedly that almost all of the questions posed in the first episode – “virtually” all of them, Mr. Goyer said – will be answered by the end of the first season. Virtually? It is an important caveat.”
Now, that’s good reporting. Why? Because the reporter recognizes a caveat, a qualification when he hears one. And furthermore, the reporter clearly understands his obligation to point out the implications of such a statement. There is doubt there – about the show’s outcome - and the reader knows it because The New York Times has done a good job of reporting.
So much for popular culture.
What about the really important stuff? What about the life-and-death matters of today’s perilous world situation? How does The New York Times report on such weighty affairs of state?
The #1 issue of the day – today’s front-page story - is the disclosure of Iran’s newest uranium enrichment plant. “Deception” cries The Times’ 5-column wide headline, together with a photo of the US President backed by the serious faces of the French President and the British Prime Minister. The New York Times story begins its second paragraph this way:
“In a day of high drama…”
No reader could possibly doubt the seriousness of the situation, which is to say the nuclear threat posed by Iran. After all – no nuclear threat… no “day of high drama” … no frowning faces from the traditional Great Western Powers.
Then… buried a little deeper in the article we find this tidbit:
“American intelligence officials say it will take at least a year, perhaps five, for Iran to develop the full ability to make a nuclear weapon.”
Unlike the reviewer of ABC’s “FlashForward” The Times’ front-page reporter fails to see the caveat, the qualification or the possibility for doubt. Anytime someone uses the phrase “at least” don’t they lose the high ground when measurement is in question? What does “at least” mean? Not to mention the inclusion of “perhaps five (years).”
Which is it – one year or five? That’s some “at least,” some leeway don’t you think. Four years! And if not one, “perhaps five” - why not six or seven or eight or nine… or fifteen? How many years must pass before any reasonable focus is completely lost? We’ll never know because The New York Times doesn’t bother to mention it.
And what do they mean by “full ability to make a nuclear weapon” – huh? What exactly is “full ability?” And does the phrase “to make” mean they “will” make? Does it mean they already “have made?” … or what? If some 31 nations already have operating nuclear power plants and some 14-18 countries openly admit to enriching uranium, right now, today – does that means that they all have the “full ability to make a nuclear weapon” while Iran does not?
Later in the same story, The Times reports this questionable logic about the Iranian enrichment plant’s supposed purpose:
“Moreover, its location (the enrichment plant still under construction), deep inside an Iranian Revolutionary Guards base about 20 miles from the religious center of Qum, strongly suggested it was designed for covert use in weapons, they (intelligence officials) said.”
Where’s the caveat here? Where is the qualification or the reasonable explanation?
Imagine that you were about to build something – something beneficial to yourself but harmless to others – something that many others all around the world already have in operation without controversy – and imagine that the Vice President of the most powerful country on earth publicly favored bombing you and the “something” you wanted to build. Imagine too that your near-neighbor (itself a nuclear power!) also wanted to launch a “preemptive attack” against you. Now, imagine where you might decide to build this “something.”
Does deep underground, perhaps even on a military base, begin to make any sense?
Does that “strongly suggest” a weapons use? Or does it just suggest you might want to keep your “something” from being blasted to smithereens by the mightiest military power on the planet, a country that was already bombing and occupying your most immediate neighbors on both sides of you? If you didn’t put your “something” underground, you’d be pretty stupid, wouldn’t you?
Imagine one more thing – imagine if the front-page story about Iran had been written by the reporter who reviewed the new television show “FlashForward” while the TV review had been written by the front-page reporters for The New York Times.
Then you would know the difference between good reporting and hardly reporting at all.
In The Arts Section, there is a review of the new ABC-TV drama “FlashForward.” No, that’s not a typo. ABC wants it printed as a single word despite the double capitalization. This is a futuristic, science fiction thriller, a drama with many more questions than answers, a plot rife with ambiguity and subject to varying interpretations from reasonably intelligent people with reasonably different points of view. As a brand new TV show the main question about it is – Will viewers be shown the answers by the season’s end? Look carefully at how The Times’ reviewer writes about this.
“… the producers (of “FlashForward”) have said repeatedly that almost all of the questions posed in the first episode – “virtually” all of them, Mr. Goyer said – will be answered by the end of the first season. Virtually? It is an important caveat.”
Now, that’s good reporting. Why? Because the reporter recognizes a caveat, a qualification when he hears one. And furthermore, the reporter clearly understands his obligation to point out the implications of such a statement. There is doubt there – about the show’s outcome - and the reader knows it because The New York Times has done a good job of reporting.
So much for popular culture.
What about the really important stuff? What about the life-and-death matters of today’s perilous world situation? How does The New York Times report on such weighty affairs of state?
The #1 issue of the day – today’s front-page story - is the disclosure of Iran’s newest uranium enrichment plant. “Deception” cries The Times’ 5-column wide headline, together with a photo of the US President backed by the serious faces of the French President and the British Prime Minister. The New York Times story begins its second paragraph this way:
“In a day of high drama…”
No reader could possibly doubt the seriousness of the situation, which is to say the nuclear threat posed by Iran. After all – no nuclear threat… no “day of high drama” … no frowning faces from the traditional Great Western Powers.
Then… buried a little deeper in the article we find this tidbit:
“American intelligence officials say it will take at least a year, perhaps five, for Iran to develop the full ability to make a nuclear weapon.”
Unlike the reviewer of ABC’s “FlashForward” The Times’ front-page reporter fails to see the caveat, the qualification or the possibility for doubt. Anytime someone uses the phrase “at least” don’t they lose the high ground when measurement is in question? What does “at least” mean? Not to mention the inclusion of “perhaps five (years).”
Which is it – one year or five? That’s some “at least,” some leeway don’t you think. Four years! And if not one, “perhaps five” - why not six or seven or eight or nine… or fifteen? How many years must pass before any reasonable focus is completely lost? We’ll never know because The New York Times doesn’t bother to mention it.
And what do they mean by “full ability to make a nuclear weapon” – huh? What exactly is “full ability?” And does the phrase “to make” mean they “will” make? Does it mean they already “have made?” … or what? If some 31 nations already have operating nuclear power plants and some 14-18 countries openly admit to enriching uranium, right now, today – does that means that they all have the “full ability to make a nuclear weapon” while Iran does not?
Later in the same story, The Times reports this questionable logic about the Iranian enrichment plant’s supposed purpose:
“Moreover, its location (the enrichment plant still under construction), deep inside an Iranian Revolutionary Guards base about 20 miles from the religious center of Qum, strongly suggested it was designed for covert use in weapons, they (intelligence officials) said.”
Where’s the caveat here? Where is the qualification or the reasonable explanation?
Imagine that you were about to build something – something beneficial to yourself but harmless to others – something that many others all around the world already have in operation without controversy – and imagine that the Vice President of the most powerful country on earth publicly favored bombing you and the “something” you wanted to build. Imagine too that your near-neighbor (itself a nuclear power!) also wanted to launch a “preemptive attack” against you. Now, imagine where you might decide to build this “something.”
Does deep underground, perhaps even on a military base, begin to make any sense?
Does that “strongly suggest” a weapons use? Or does it just suggest you might want to keep your “something” from being blasted to smithereens by the mightiest military power on the planet, a country that was already bombing and occupying your most immediate neighbors on both sides of you? If you didn’t put your “something” underground, you’d be pretty stupid, wouldn’t you?
Imagine one more thing – imagine if the front-page story about Iran had been written by the reporter who reviewed the new television show “FlashForward” while the TV review had been written by the front-page reporters for The New York Times.
Then you would know the difference between good reporting and hardly reporting at all.
Friday, September 25, 2009
NUCLEAR POWER - THE DOUBLE STANDARD
The Western/Christian/Jewish fear of nuclear power in the hands of Muslims is a great threat to world peace and an offense against reason and clear thinking.
The Presidents of the United States and France, together with the Prime Minister of Great Britain, appeared this morning to admonish and warn Iran about something they called Iran’s “secret nuclear facility.” But, it was hardly a secret. Everyone knew about it already. The US and other western intelligence agencies are quoted freely in today’s press and on worldwide TV about their knowledge of the this “secret Iranian nuclear facility” - for as long as three years – or since construction of it was commenced. So, apparently it wasn’t a secret at all. Not ever.
As well, the Iranians themselves advised the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the facility in a letter on Monday, four days before the Presidents and the PM made their dramatic TV appearance this morning from Pittsburgh.
Let’s set the record straight – so far as we know it. The Iranians are presently building this facility to enrich uranium. They have been constructing it for at least three years and completion is “at least” another year away. Who knows how long “at least” means or how long it will be before the enrichment facility is ready to actually produce enriched uranium? It seems nobody knows? But, then, despite this morning’s dire warnings, nobody is claiming this nuclear plant is anywhere near ready, or will be finished anytime in the near future.
President Obama did say that the facility’s “configuration and size” were not consistent with the peaceful use of atomic energy. What evidence did he produce regarding the facility’s “configuration and size”? – none, absolutely nothing. I am not saying President Obama is wrong. I am only asking for some proof. If he’s right, he should have such proof, shouldn’t he? How else could he make such a charge? If Iran has any capability to make weapons-grade enriched uranium, let’s see some evidence of it.
Has Iran violated the IAEA rules about disclosure? It seems they have. If they began construction three years ago, they were obliged to disclose that. They failed to do so. Is Iran unique in this failure? Have other countries done the same thing Iran has done? Sure, we all know about Israel, but forget about them for a moment. You might be surprised at who else rejects their legal obligations to the UN and to the IAEA. Countries you may never think of have failed to comply. But the response to those nations was nothing like it is today.
For example… On October 22, 2004 Brazil refused entry to IAEA inspectors at their nuclear construction site in Brazil. Did George Bush and Tony Blair go on worldwide TV to warn Brazil? What was Brazil building? A nuclear facility to enrich uranium. Did Brazil eventually allow the IAEA in? Of course they did. So, they gave in, right? And when did they do this? When did Brazil allow the IAEA inspectors inside?
In February 2009.
It took Brazil four and a-half years to comply with the IAEA rules for inspection. Do you recall the Presidents of the United States, France and the Prime Minister of Britain holding a press briefing in October 2004 to admonish and warn Brazil? No? I didn’t think so. What about 2005 or 2006 or the year after that? Or 2008? Or ever?
About a dozen and a-half countries openly enrich uranium to feed their nuclear reactors and those of other nations as well, reactors that make electricity for consumer and commercial consumption. The latest figures show there are currently 484 working nuclear power reactors in the world producing electricity in 31 different countries around the world. 104 of them are in the United States. France is second with 59. Japan has 53. Russia has 31 and South Korea has 20. A total of 26 other nations also have working nuclear reactors. There are also 47 nuclear reactors now under construction. China, which has 11 active reactors, is building 13 new ones. India, which has 17 active nuclear reactors, is building 6 more. In the years to come, China and India will have as many nuclear facilities as France and someday they will rival the number here in the United States. Almost a third of the world’s people live in China and India. Barely 5% live in the US. So, it makes sense that someday – maybe soon – they will have more nuclear power plants than we do.
Although more than 21% of the world’s population lives in Muslim countries, instead of those nations having about 100 nuclear power reactors (which would equate to statistical equality), they only have 2, both in Pakistan – That’s only 2 of 484. The IAEA is on record showing that 1 nuclear power reactor, for the purpose of producing electricity, is under construction in Iran. It has been under constant monitoring and evaluation. Iran has cooperated with the IAEA on this.
Of the total of 531 nuclear plants, active and/or under construction around the world, the new one being built in Iran would bring the total in the Muslim world to 3, or about one-half of one percent of all the world’s nuclear reactors. There are almost 1.5 billion Muslims. How long can they be denied the benefits of nuclear power?
The irrational fear of peaceful nuclear power – for the purpose of making electricity – in the hands of Muslims has gripped the non-Muslim western world – the Christian and Jewish western world – It holds tight like a powerful wrench ready to turn on a tiny screw. Except we are not talking about a wrench or a screw. We are talking about the mightiest nations on earth preparing a possibly violent reaction to something that seems so normal and so acceptable in 30 other – non-Muslim – countries.
The nuclear power double standard is more than simple hypocrisy. It is a danger to world stability; to peace among nations; and it is an affront to common sense.
The Presidents of the United States and France, together with the Prime Minister of Great Britain, appeared this morning to admonish and warn Iran about something they called Iran’s “secret nuclear facility.” But, it was hardly a secret. Everyone knew about it already. The US and other western intelligence agencies are quoted freely in today’s press and on worldwide TV about their knowledge of the this “secret Iranian nuclear facility” - for as long as three years – or since construction of it was commenced. So, apparently it wasn’t a secret at all. Not ever.
As well, the Iranians themselves advised the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the facility in a letter on Monday, four days before the Presidents and the PM made their dramatic TV appearance this morning from Pittsburgh.
Let’s set the record straight – so far as we know it. The Iranians are presently building this facility to enrich uranium. They have been constructing it for at least three years and completion is “at least” another year away. Who knows how long “at least” means or how long it will be before the enrichment facility is ready to actually produce enriched uranium? It seems nobody knows? But, then, despite this morning’s dire warnings, nobody is claiming this nuclear plant is anywhere near ready, or will be finished anytime in the near future.
President Obama did say that the facility’s “configuration and size” were not consistent with the peaceful use of atomic energy. What evidence did he produce regarding the facility’s “configuration and size”? – none, absolutely nothing. I am not saying President Obama is wrong. I am only asking for some proof. If he’s right, he should have such proof, shouldn’t he? How else could he make such a charge? If Iran has any capability to make weapons-grade enriched uranium, let’s see some evidence of it.
Has Iran violated the IAEA rules about disclosure? It seems they have. If they began construction three years ago, they were obliged to disclose that. They failed to do so. Is Iran unique in this failure? Have other countries done the same thing Iran has done? Sure, we all know about Israel, but forget about them for a moment. You might be surprised at who else rejects their legal obligations to the UN and to the IAEA. Countries you may never think of have failed to comply. But the response to those nations was nothing like it is today.
For example… On October 22, 2004 Brazil refused entry to IAEA inspectors at their nuclear construction site in Brazil. Did George Bush and Tony Blair go on worldwide TV to warn Brazil? What was Brazil building? A nuclear facility to enrich uranium. Did Brazil eventually allow the IAEA in? Of course they did. So, they gave in, right? And when did they do this? When did Brazil allow the IAEA inspectors inside?
In February 2009.
It took Brazil four and a-half years to comply with the IAEA rules for inspection. Do you recall the Presidents of the United States, France and the Prime Minister of Britain holding a press briefing in October 2004 to admonish and warn Brazil? No? I didn’t think so. What about 2005 or 2006 or the year after that? Or 2008? Or ever?
About a dozen and a-half countries openly enrich uranium to feed their nuclear reactors and those of other nations as well, reactors that make electricity for consumer and commercial consumption. The latest figures show there are currently 484 working nuclear power reactors in the world producing electricity in 31 different countries around the world. 104 of them are in the United States. France is second with 59. Japan has 53. Russia has 31 and South Korea has 20. A total of 26 other nations also have working nuclear reactors. There are also 47 nuclear reactors now under construction. China, which has 11 active reactors, is building 13 new ones. India, which has 17 active nuclear reactors, is building 6 more. In the years to come, China and India will have as many nuclear facilities as France and someday they will rival the number here in the United States. Almost a third of the world’s people live in China and India. Barely 5% live in the US. So, it makes sense that someday – maybe soon – they will have more nuclear power plants than we do.
Although more than 21% of the world’s population lives in Muslim countries, instead of those nations having about 100 nuclear power reactors (which would equate to statistical equality), they only have 2, both in Pakistan – That’s only 2 of 484. The IAEA is on record showing that 1 nuclear power reactor, for the purpose of producing electricity, is under construction in Iran. It has been under constant monitoring and evaluation. Iran has cooperated with the IAEA on this.
Of the total of 531 nuclear plants, active and/or under construction around the world, the new one being built in Iran would bring the total in the Muslim world to 3, or about one-half of one percent of all the world’s nuclear reactors. There are almost 1.5 billion Muslims. How long can they be denied the benefits of nuclear power?
The irrational fear of peaceful nuclear power – for the purpose of making electricity – in the hands of Muslims has gripped the non-Muslim western world – the Christian and Jewish western world – It holds tight like a powerful wrench ready to turn on a tiny screw. Except we are not talking about a wrench or a screw. We are talking about the mightiest nations on earth preparing a possibly violent reaction to something that seems so normal and so acceptable in 30 other – non-Muslim – countries.
The nuclear power double standard is more than simple hypocrisy. It is a danger to world stability; to peace among nations; and it is an affront to common sense.
Friday, September 18, 2009
THE EVILS OF SOCIALIZED MEDICINE... A SHORT LESSON IN COSTS
I have a heart transplant. Yes, the cost of the transplant itself was enormous. And yes - here in America many people who need one can't get one because they simply have no way to pay for it. The Internet is full of "bake sales" and other fundraisers trying to raise enough cash to get people on the waiting list for a heart transplant. You see... you can't even get on the waiting list unless you can prove - in advance - that you can pay for the operation. The US is the only place in the civilized world where this happens.
And then, what is often neglected, hardly reported on at all in our national press, is the plight of those who actually get a new heart and later die because they cannot afford the lifesaving immunosuppressant drugs they must take daily for the rest of their lives. Yes, after paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for a heart transplant, some successful transplant patients suffer and die without the necessary maintenance drugs. I take two such drugs. They are Cellcept and Prograf. Cellcept is manufactured by Roche Pharmaceuticals, a company based in Switzerland. Prograf is made by Astellas Pharma Inc., a Japanese corporation.
A 90-day supply at my dosage level costs more than $5,400 for Cellcept and a mere ten bucks less than $7,300 for Prograf. A small price to pay for staying alive - if you have it. A $12,700 death warrant for those who don't.
In England - where they also do heart transplants and where they have socialized medicine - a 90 day supply of Cellcept costs less than $100 US or 1/54th the cost for a patient here in America. You read it correctly - less than a hundred dollars for three months. In France where they also do heart transplant operations and where they still have private doctors and hospitals but a highly regulated healthcare system, the same 90-day supply of Cellcept costs half of what the English pay - only $51 US.
So, that's $5,400 here in the US. $100 in England. Only $51 in France. Makes you want to stand up and cheer, doesn't it? USA! USA!
Prograf, the other immunosuppressant drug I take every day costs $7,291.22 in the United States for a 90-day supply. The same prescription in England costs $517.50 and in France it only costs $284.62.
Neither Roche nor Astellas refuse to sell their products in the countries where universal, highly regulated or outright socialized medicine exists. Nor do they claim to lose money there. Look closely at those dollar costs again and decide for yourself if the cost of selling these drugs in America can possibly be so much more than they are in England and France.
Numbers can be dull and boring... unless your life depends upon them. Regardless of income or assets, a citizen of France can get a heart transplant when and if they require one, and the cost of staying alve afterward is $3.72 per day. In the United States of America only those who can prove in advance they can pay for it get a heart transplant and then their cost of survival is about $141.02 per day. That's a hundred and fifty bucks yesterday, today, tomorrow and every day for the rest of their lives.*
* If there was the usual small print disclaimer here - the kind often seen in drug company print advertising - it would have to say that these prices are based on today's costs in 2009 and are not guaranteed to remain the same - because we all know drug prices never remain the same. They go up. They increase in price. They do not - ever - go down. So, who can say what it will cost to stay alive next year and the year after that, and the year after that? Every heart transplant patient in the US worries about this. Our compatriots in the Rest of the Civilized World live under no such stress.
And then, what is often neglected, hardly reported on at all in our national press, is the plight of those who actually get a new heart and later die because they cannot afford the lifesaving immunosuppressant drugs they must take daily for the rest of their lives. Yes, after paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for a heart transplant, some successful transplant patients suffer and die without the necessary maintenance drugs. I take two such drugs. They are Cellcept and Prograf. Cellcept is manufactured by Roche Pharmaceuticals, a company based in Switzerland. Prograf is made by Astellas Pharma Inc., a Japanese corporation.
A 90-day supply at my dosage level costs more than $5,400 for Cellcept and a mere ten bucks less than $7,300 for Prograf. A small price to pay for staying alive - if you have it. A $12,700 death warrant for those who don't.
In England - where they also do heart transplants and where they have socialized medicine - a 90 day supply of Cellcept costs less than $100 US or 1/54th the cost for a patient here in America. You read it correctly - less than a hundred dollars for three months. In France where they also do heart transplant operations and where they still have private doctors and hospitals but a highly regulated healthcare system, the same 90-day supply of Cellcept costs half of what the English pay - only $51 US.
So, that's $5,400 here in the US. $100 in England. Only $51 in France. Makes you want to stand up and cheer, doesn't it? USA! USA!
Prograf, the other immunosuppressant drug I take every day costs $7,291.22 in the United States for a 90-day supply. The same prescription in England costs $517.50 and in France it only costs $284.62.
Neither Roche nor Astellas refuse to sell their products in the countries where universal, highly regulated or outright socialized medicine exists. Nor do they claim to lose money there. Look closely at those dollar costs again and decide for yourself if the cost of selling these drugs in America can possibly be so much more than they are in England and France.
Numbers can be dull and boring... unless your life depends upon them. Regardless of income or assets, a citizen of France can get a heart transplant when and if they require one, and the cost of staying alve afterward is $3.72 per day. In the United States of America only those who can prove in advance they can pay for it get a heart transplant and then their cost of survival is about $141.02 per day. That's a hundred and fifty bucks yesterday, today, tomorrow and every day for the rest of their lives.*
* If there was the usual small print disclaimer here - the kind often seen in drug company print advertising - it would have to say that these prices are based on today's costs in 2009 and are not guaranteed to remain the same - because we all know drug prices never remain the same. They go up. They increase in price. They do not - ever - go down. So, who can say what it will cost to stay alive next year and the year after that, and the year after that? Every heart transplant patient in the US worries about this. Our compatriots in the Rest of the Civilized World live under no such stress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
