I miss Communism

I miss Communism.

I kind of miss the "Cold War."

Back when there was the big, bad, ugly Russian Communists, we knew who our enemies were and it was "them." Now, we don't know who our enemies are as well so we attack one another. We attack fellow Americans.

It was far less Republicans vs Democrats and "Left" vs "Right."

We've stopped talking to one another, we've stopped discussing our problems and possible solutions, instead attacking one another.

Now we attack opposing political stances, gays, blacks, Hispanics, Mexicans, Muslims, you name it. All fellow Americans but we attack 'em.

It's crazy.

This is no way to run a nation.


I miss it when we were all Americans, when we were all on the same side.

From the "You have to be kidding" file

Did you see the article in the Star yesterday about the secret test spraying in the "projects" of St. Louis (and San Antonio, it should be pointed out)? (Link at bottom):

Secret testing in St. Louis was no health risk, Army says

Clandestine experiments were conducted in poor and mostly black areas during the Cold War era.

ST. LOUIS | -- An Army investigation into secret chemical testing in impoverished areas of St. Louis during the Cold War era has corroborated three previous studies that the testing posed no health risk to those who lived in the areas, according to a letter from a top Army official.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the Army used motorized blowers atop a low-income housing high-rise, on schools and in other locations to spray zinc cadmium sulfide, a fine fluorescent powder, into the air. The testing was part of a biological weapons program and St. Louis was chosen because it bore some resemblance to Russian cities that the U.S. might attack.

Right.

And what were they going to say? That sure, they did it and it was wrong and it likely screwed people up? You think they're going to 'fess up to any problems here?

So what are they basing their claim on, anyway, the Army? That no one was effected by this negatively in any way? Ever? At all?

If this isn't an example of both racism and classism at its worst, I don't know what is.

One last question.

If this wasn't going to bother anyone, why didn't they do it in the wealthy areas of these cities?

Link: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/11/04/3900164/secret-testing-in-st-louis-was.html

One more reason the world can no longer afford the luxury that is war

"In this increasingly interdependent world, we have few pure “enemies” anymore: Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Al Qaeda, the Taliban. But we have many “frenemies,” or half friends/half foes. While the Pentagon worries about a war with China, the Commerce Department is trying to get China to buy more Boeing planes and every American university worth its salt is opening a campus in Beijing; meanwhile, the Chinese are investing in American companies left and right. President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela is the biggest thorn in America’s side in Latin America and a vital source of our imported oil. The U.S. and Russia are on opposing sides in Syria, but the U.S. supported Russia joining the World Trade Organization and American businesses are lobbying Congress to lift cold war trade restrictions on Russia so they can take advantage of its more open market."

--Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/opinion/its-mitts-world.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120905

On Vaclav Havel's passing

Yesterday, Czechoslavakia's "shy and bookish" former leader died. As he was both a reluctant leader and a person who pushed his country to be humanitarians and helped end the Cold War, it reminded me, yet again, of the famous quote from Margaret Mead: "A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." May he rest in well-earned peace. Link: http://news.yahoo.com/havel-hero-anti-communist-revolution-died-140546433.html Link: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/margaret_mead.html#ixzz1gxRvXwF1

On Ronald Reagan, the man and the big myth

Reality deserves an airing. I found the following on The Huffington Post, earlier today: Firstly, let’s keep politics out of this. Whatever your affiliation, Reagan just doesn’t deserve all that hype! He was always a popular President, but he has since been recast (mainly by conservative historians) as a great one as well. Yes, you can easily place him on that pedestal. You would merely need to ignore the Iran-Contra scandal, the huge budget deficits, his environment ignorance, his do-nothing reaction to the looming AIDS epidemic, his courting of Saddam Hussein, and numerous other blunders. “Reagan was truly a great president whose achievement rivals that of Franklin Roosevelt,” wrote conservative author Dinesh D’Souza, in his 1997 reappraisal where he credited Reagan for everything from the strong Clinton economy (go figure) to world peace (while somehow forgetting to mention Iran-Contra anywhere in the book). But Reagan belongs in this slideshow for one thing in particular: his reputation as the man who ended the Cold War. D’Souza and others have suggested that Reagan’s arms build-up was a cunning ploy to bankrupt the USSR, which is a relief, because I always thought it was a cunning ploy to risk everyone’s life. Reagan showed little sign of burying the hatchet with the “evil empire” (as he called them) until the reformer Mikhail Gorbachev became Soviet leader in 1985. Even then, he was very uncooperative in peace talks with Gorby until, facing scandal and low approval ratings, he was willing to do anything – even something crazy like helping to save the world. As for Russia’s bankruptcy… The war in Afghanistan started in 1979. Reagan was still in California. Oh, and if you don’t think I can talk about US Presidents because I’m not American… then you’re a dope. Even Australians can do their research. Link to original post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-juddery/overrated-people_b_688237.html#s129497

Who is the "war monger", anyway?

There is a fascinating new study of the former Soviet Union's population out right now, that shows its population is decreasing, and strongly, by the millions.

I heard of it this morning on NPR but after doing the most rudimentary search on the internet, I found--quickly and easily--that this has been going on for some time.

I'll get into some data in a second but what this means is, I think, that we can and should stop "fighting the last war"--the Cold War--and start thinking in new, intelligent, positive, current-moment ways. If we did and do, I think it's painfully obvious we can--and again, should--decrease our military budgets and spending.

After all, it's the military budgets of the former Soviet Union that was, in part, to blame for its collapse, if we'll remember.

That data:

"Russia's population has fallen by 6.6 million since 1993, despite the influx of millions of immigrants, according to a U.N. report released last year, and by 2025 the country could lose a further 11 million people."

"Recent Kremlin efforts to reward women for having more babies have caused a surge in the birth rate, the U.N. has said, but won't make much difference in the long term."

"Population levels in many developed countries have stagnated and are expected to fall by 2025, but Russia's population, currently around 142 million, has been in retreat since 1992. Russia's mortality rate is among the highest in the developed world, with average life expectancy for males at barely 60 years."

"For reasons that are not fully understood, Russians suffer very high levels of cardiovascular disease. But most experts blame the country's overall high death rate on alcohol. Drinking has been linked to everything from liver disease to Russia's high number of murders, suicides and fatal accidents."

Oh, and here's a beauty. Does the following sound familiar, ladies and gentlemen?

"The U.N. has also urged Russia to overhaul the health system to provide more efficient care..."

It surely sounds as though we have a lot more in common with these people--our former enemies--than we think.

The fact is, I think we could and should work with these people, yes, for the betterment of their country for peaceful, humanitarian goals and put little American flags on everything we do.

If we would tie ourselves in their minds to bettering their country, they would see us in a new, positive light.

The additional fact is, our country grossly overspends our GNP and GDP on military hardware.

It's obscene.

It's stupid.

The military industrial machine has taken over our government and our country and we need to wean ourselves off this section of our production.

The US, folks, spends $623 billion per year (as of FY08) on our military budget.

The entire rest of the world spends $500 billion.

Is this not insanity?

Who, exactly, is the "war monger" here?

The number 2 position is China, sure, and as of what must be the latest, most accurate data--FY04--they spent $65 billion.

$65 billion vs. our $623 billion.

You know what this means?

This means China is far more able to spend on infrastructure and on business and--here's a novel idea--their people than we are because they aren't filling warehouses with guns and bombs.

Who do you think will be better able to succeed, financially, in this scenario? The country stockpiling weapons or the nation bettering their country?

Let me suggest we get a heck of a lot more rational and merely cut the military budget in half--down to a mere $300 billion dollars--and put the balance into oh, I don't know, how about health care and schools and roads?

And while we're at it, could we look into finally get out of Germany and Italy, too?

Doesn't that seem to make a heck of a lot more sense than the insanity we're perpetrating now?

Link to stories:
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-03/2006-03-08-voa62.cfm
http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/russiapop.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113490614
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm