I'm a news junkie, always have been, but lately the press seems to confuse news with junk. As a sometimes-journalist myself and a member in good standing of the National Press Club, I am embarrassed by what passes for news these days. For instance, enough already about birthers! Donald plays his Trump card and ignites a feeding frenzy to give him air time, news headlines and countless interviews. Let's face it, he's never going to run for president, but who can blame him for stoking up publicity to benefit his reality TV show and black hole of an ego. He is smart enough to know that no one cares about his opinions on the federal deficit or the Middle East, but if he caters to the birther 'movement'? Duh...Winning!
What does that say about us? The decision makers behind major media know that whether we love or despise birthers, we will watch anything to do with them. Unlike the other 'major' news story of the day, William and Kate's wedding, birther news attracts women AND men (as Jay Leno pointed out, two billion people were expected to watch the wedding, of which 175 would be men).
The purpose of television news, of course, is to sell products and for the past two years we haven't been buying as much. Hence, birthers 'Trump' real news. Let's face it, no one is going to watch people being slaughtered in Libya and go out to buy a car. And if you think the controversy is over because Obama produced yet another document to prove he was born in this country, Trump is demanding to see his college grades. I think that's a mistake though since many of us cringe at the thought of revealing our own college grades.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
Three cups of controversy
Craig Mortensen, who wrote the best selling book, THREE CUPS OF TEA, is finding himself steeping in controversy these days. He visited Vero Beach on one of his book tours and created a lasting impression of his efforts in Afghanistan to bring education to the country's impoverished children, especially girls.The only reason I am writing about this now is that back when he visited our area, he insisted that no one else could duplicate what he has done because of his special relationship with the people of Afghanistan. That was a red flag to me.
Although I have never visited Afghanistan, I have spent plenty of time in Africa and the Middle East, especially with tribal people, to know that they are just like people anywhere. They are suspicious at first of people who come to 'help' them, but once they get to know you are sincere, you are welcome like family. I have two friends here locally who served in Afghanistan, one a medic, the other a soldier, who could not say enough about the friendliness of Afghanis, especially when they feel you are sincere in your efforts on their behalf.
So as to Craig Mortensen's alleged position that only he could develop this relationship, I can only surmise he was doing something he didn't want widely known. This past week we found out the possible explanation. A segment on last Sunday's SIXTY MINUTES news program presented numerous conflicting accounts of Mortensen's accomplishments, including questions about the finances of his charity, the Central Asia Institute as well as the claim he was kidnapped by the Taliban back in the 90s. These allegations and Mortensen's defense of them can be found by googling his name and/or THREE CUPS OF TEA, so I won't repeat them here.
The point is that in today's shrinking world, people can travel just about anywhere and see for themselves how people live. If they don't travel, they can still find out anything they want to know by clicking on to the internet. There are a billion cell phones in the world, all capable of filming life as it really happens and uploading it to YouTube, Facebook or even blogs like this one.
So my advice to Mr. Mortensen and others who achieve fame and fortune: be careful because we are watching you.
Although I have never visited Afghanistan, I have spent plenty of time in Africa and the Middle East, especially with tribal people, to know that they are just like people anywhere. They are suspicious at first of people who come to 'help' them, but once they get to know you are sincere, you are welcome like family. I have two friends here locally who served in Afghanistan, one a medic, the other a soldier, who could not say enough about the friendliness of Afghanis, especially when they feel you are sincere in your efforts on their behalf.
So as to Craig Mortensen's alleged position that only he could develop this relationship, I can only surmise he was doing something he didn't want widely known. This past week we found out the possible explanation. A segment on last Sunday's SIXTY MINUTES news program presented numerous conflicting accounts of Mortensen's accomplishments, including questions about the finances of his charity, the Central Asia Institute as well as the claim he was kidnapped by the Taliban back in the 90s. These allegations and Mortensen's defense of them can be found by googling his name and/or THREE CUPS OF TEA, so I won't repeat them here.
The point is that in today's shrinking world, people can travel just about anywhere and see for themselves how people live. If they don't travel, they can still find out anything they want to know by clicking on to the internet. There are a billion cell phones in the world, all capable of filming life as it really happens and uploading it to YouTube, Facebook or even blogs like this one.
So my advice to Mr. Mortensen and others who achieve fame and fortune: be careful because we are watching you.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Burn Baby Burn
If there's no such thing as bad publicity, proof lies in the actions of a small town Florida pastor who decided to burn a Koran, the Islamic holy book. If you recall, this same 'man of the cloth' threatened to burn a Koran last September on the anniversary of 9-11. He withdrew his threat when practically the entire world pleaded with him not to do it, adding that he would never again consider burning the Koran.
"Never" lasted about six months. We don't know for certain why he did it, but when word of the action reached Afghanistan, it set off rioting and killing (primarily of western aid workers) that is still continuing today, three weeks after the incident.
He apparently did not do it in retaliation for Afghanis burning the Holy Bible, because Muslims consider the Bible holy to them as well. I don't think he read the Koran and was so shaken by what he read that he decided it must be burned, like when the Nazis burned books in 1930s Germany. Chances are he never opened a Koran and if he did, I doubt he actually read it.
So we are left with the most obvious reason for burning the holy book of one billion people -- publicity. The first time he threatened to burn it, he became world infamous. Possibly he gained some new church members. So, if it worked before it would probably work again.
I want to believe that this small town pastor (I refuse to dignify him by repeating his name) suffered through a moral dilemma before deciding to go ahead and burn the Koran. Clearly, this action would hurt and inflame the people who consider it holy, in an area of the world where many US soldiers are currently risking their lives to befriend the locals. That would have to be balanced against the benefit to his congregation and Christian principles.
On second thought, I do not believe a moral dilemma was involved. It was more likely a case of old-fashioned bigotry with the side benefit of free publicity.
"Never" lasted about six months. We don't know for certain why he did it, but when word of the action reached Afghanistan, it set off rioting and killing (primarily of western aid workers) that is still continuing today, three weeks after the incident.
He apparently did not do it in retaliation for Afghanis burning the Holy Bible, because Muslims consider the Bible holy to them as well. I don't think he read the Koran and was so shaken by what he read that he decided it must be burned, like when the Nazis burned books in 1930s Germany. Chances are he never opened a Koran and if he did, I doubt he actually read it.
So we are left with the most obvious reason for burning the holy book of one billion people -- publicity. The first time he threatened to burn it, he became world infamous. Possibly he gained some new church members. So, if it worked before it would probably work again.
I want to believe that this small town pastor (I refuse to dignify him by repeating his name) suffered through a moral dilemma before deciding to go ahead and burn the Koran. Clearly, this action would hurt and inflame the people who consider it holy, in an area of the world where many US soldiers are currently risking their lives to befriend the locals. That would have to be balanced against the benefit to his congregation and Christian principles.
On second thought, I do not believe a moral dilemma was involved. It was more likely a case of old-fashioned bigotry with the side benefit of free publicity.
Friday, April 1, 2011
sanitize insanity
The first human meat eaters did not have the benefit of gas or electric ovens. For that matter, they didn't even have fire. (Fire was only discovered when young human children started playing with matches.) Seriously, the first humans were scavengers and ate raw road kill. I imagine many of them died, but those who survived had the benefit of developing an immunity to the bacteria in decaying flesh. That strain of humans, the meat eaters, went on to dominate the world because meat was the best source of protein (Read GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL by Dr. Jared Diamond for a fascinating explanation of how this process worked).
If you ever watch the TV show BIZARRE FOODS with Andrew Zimmern, you probably exercise your gag reflex as he devours bugs and x-rated animal parts with relish. Speaking from experience, in many parts of the world the chief source of protein comes from those bugs and animal parts routinely discarded in this country or used in hot dogs. I visited a Samburu tribe in Kenya that lived exclusively on blood and milk from their herd of cattle. There were flies everywhere and when I asked the chief how he could stand living this way, he answered, "What flies?" "You see," he told me, "an abundance of flies means we have plenty of food, so it is a sign of prosperity."
The point of all this is that we humans are capable of eating just about anything under the most unsanitary of conditions (besides dealing with flies, the Samburu live in huts made out of cattle dung). That ability comes from those first humans who ate road kill. They passed on our body's natural ability to process anything as food so long as it contains protein, carbohydrates or fat. They also passed on our body's natural ability to thrive in this world filled with germs, bacteria and cat fur.
But alas, we have figured out a way to negate the accomplishments of all our ancestors in one or two generations by sanitizing ourselves. We sanitize our food, our hands, the air we breathe, and worst of all, we take antibiotics. These wonder drugs clear cut their way through our body's natural defenses in the name of saving us from a specific germ. Ironically, that germ will eventually develop its own ability to resist the antibiotic trying to kill it just as we did when we started eating road kill.
Why do you think that in the span of a few generations, we have developed allergies to foods and conditions where allergies never before existed? Why do so many Americans go to foreign countries and routinely suffer from fluid lower tract ailments when the locals have no problem with them? It's all because we systematically reverse the accomplishments of thousands of generations by destroying the very gift our ancestors suffered and died for so that we may live long and prosper.
One of my pet peeves is traveling with people who take "preventative" antibiotics like Cipro to "protect" them against Montezuma's revenge and other lower tract problems. In the process of "protecting" us, these antibiotics are killing all bacteria in our system, good and bad. Of course, the body will fight back against this onslaught by developing an immunity to Cipro, so when you really need it, it won't work anymore .
I take the opposite approach. My answer to preventing those liquid diseases is the same tactic our military uses when it invades a country and then starts to lose it. I call this strategy "the surge." I increase the amount of bacteria in my system instead of destroying it with antibiotics. How? By eating active culture yogurt, a cup a day for ten days, before leaving on a trip overseas. As it turns out, most countries I visit include yogurt as a mainstay of their diets (gee, I wonder why), so I can continue to eat it throughout my trip.
By the way, I always eat what the locals eat - you know, all those disgusting things that are great sources of protein. Just remember that your stomach only recognizes three things - protein, carbohydrates and fat. It's your mind that allows T-bone steaks past your taste buds, but forbids Mopani worms.
If you ever watch the TV show BIZARRE FOODS with Andrew Zimmern, you probably exercise your gag reflex as he devours bugs and x-rated animal parts with relish. Speaking from experience, in many parts of the world the chief source of protein comes from those bugs and animal parts routinely discarded in this country or used in hot dogs. I visited a Samburu tribe in Kenya that lived exclusively on blood and milk from their herd of cattle. There were flies everywhere and when I asked the chief how he could stand living this way, he answered, "What flies?" "You see," he told me, "an abundance of flies means we have plenty of food, so it is a sign of prosperity."
The point of all this is that we humans are capable of eating just about anything under the most unsanitary of conditions (besides dealing with flies, the Samburu live in huts made out of cattle dung). That ability comes from those first humans who ate road kill. They passed on our body's natural ability to process anything as food so long as it contains protein, carbohydrates or fat. They also passed on our body's natural ability to thrive in this world filled with germs, bacteria and cat fur.
But alas, we have figured out a way to negate the accomplishments of all our ancestors in one or two generations by sanitizing ourselves. We sanitize our food, our hands, the air we breathe, and worst of all, we take antibiotics. These wonder drugs clear cut their way through our body's natural defenses in the name of saving us from a specific germ. Ironically, that germ will eventually develop its own ability to resist the antibiotic trying to kill it just as we did when we started eating road kill.
Why do you think that in the span of a few generations, we have developed allergies to foods and conditions where allergies never before existed? Why do so many Americans go to foreign countries and routinely suffer from fluid lower tract ailments when the locals have no problem with them? It's all because we systematically reverse the accomplishments of thousands of generations by destroying the very gift our ancestors suffered and died for so that we may live long and prosper.
One of my pet peeves is traveling with people who take "preventative" antibiotics like Cipro to "protect" them against Montezuma's revenge and other lower tract problems. In the process of "protecting" us, these antibiotics are killing all bacteria in our system, good and bad. Of course, the body will fight back against this onslaught by developing an immunity to Cipro, so when you really need it, it won't work anymore .
I take the opposite approach. My answer to preventing those liquid diseases is the same tactic our military uses when it invades a country and then starts to lose it. I call this strategy "the surge." I increase the amount of bacteria in my system instead of destroying it with antibiotics. How? By eating active culture yogurt, a cup a day for ten days, before leaving on a trip overseas. As it turns out, most countries I visit include yogurt as a mainstay of their diets (gee, I wonder why), so I can continue to eat it throughout my trip.
By the way, I always eat what the locals eat - you know, all those disgusting things that are great sources of protein. Just remember that your stomach only recognizes three things - protein, carbohydrates and fat. It's your mind that allows T-bone steaks past your taste buds, but forbids Mopani worms.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Who started all this trouble in the Middle East anyway?
If you have ever seen the great movie, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, you know the primary source of our problems in the Middle East today. Essentially, the Ottoman Turks conquered all of what we know as the Middle East and subjected it for about 400 years. When World War I started, the Ottomans sided with Germany. The British sent T. E. Lawrence, an Arabic scholar, to organize the local Arab tribes in a revolt against the occupying Ottomans. In return, the Arabs were promised freedom and self rule. After the Arabs and Lawrence of Arabia routed the Ottomans, they went to Damascus to form a new free government. The British and French however, had already decided to divide up the Ottomans' former territory (the Sykes-Pecot Agreement) and prevented the Arabs from proceeding. All the Middle Eastern countries we know today - Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon - were created in 1922 as a way for the French and British to divide the spoils. The British also created Afghanistan in 1823 and Pakistan in 1947. Thank you very much.
Apparently, when Mr. Sykes and Monsieur Pecot drew up their map they were more interested in geography than sociology. Iraq, for instance, was cobbled together to include Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunnis, three groups not inclined to share a tent, much less a country. The Kurds are a separate ethnic group, yet the British and French gave them no country of their own, instead dividing them up into Iraq, Turkey and Iran, where they have caused constant trouble for those three governments ever since. The Shi'ites and Sunnis have fought for 700 years, so there was no reason to expect they would stop arguing as a favor to the British who forced them to share a common border. The British had all kinds of problems in Iraq as a result, successive governments with successive coups. The only time in its short history that Iraq existed in relative peace was under Saddam Hussein. He figured correctly that fearing him would keep them from fighting each other. When we went into Iraq and successfully removed Saddam, well, you know the rest.
Afghanistan? The brilliant British cartographer who laid out that map must have suffered from geographical dyslexia with its 20 some odd nationalities, languages, rivalries and only 12% arable land, most of which is used to grow poppies for export as heroin to the US and Europe. Actually, the best chance Afghanistan ever had to succeed economically was when the country extended south to the Indian Ocean. But again, in their infinite wisdom, when the British gave India its freedom they had to resolve the long-standing conflict between Indian Hindus and Muslims, so they created Pakistan as a Muslim homeland. Only problem was, they created it out of southern Afghanistan, eliminating its only route to the sea and insuring that Afghanistan, Pakistan and India would never share so much as a cup of sugar.
The proverbial last straw in this successful effort to alienate forever Arabs everywhere goes to the United Nations. Not satisfied with betraying the Arabs and just about every other ethnic group in the Middle East after World War I, The UN "graciously" agreed to give the Jewish people a homeland after World War II and created the State of Israel. Of course, Israel was created out of the existing Palestinian Arab homeland.
So there you have it folks, the mess we call "The Middle East," brought to you by two of our closest allies. With friends like that we don't need enemies, but unfortunately, we have those too.
Apparently, when Mr. Sykes and Monsieur Pecot drew up their map they were more interested in geography than sociology. Iraq, for instance, was cobbled together to include Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunnis, three groups not inclined to share a tent, much less a country. The Kurds are a separate ethnic group, yet the British and French gave them no country of their own, instead dividing them up into Iraq, Turkey and Iran, where they have caused constant trouble for those three governments ever since. The Shi'ites and Sunnis have fought for 700 years, so there was no reason to expect they would stop arguing as a favor to the British who forced them to share a common border. The British had all kinds of problems in Iraq as a result, successive governments with successive coups. The only time in its short history that Iraq existed in relative peace was under Saddam Hussein. He figured correctly that fearing him would keep them from fighting each other. When we went into Iraq and successfully removed Saddam, well, you know the rest.
Afghanistan? The brilliant British cartographer who laid out that map must have suffered from geographical dyslexia with its 20 some odd nationalities, languages, rivalries and only 12% arable land, most of which is used to grow poppies for export as heroin to the US and Europe. Actually, the best chance Afghanistan ever had to succeed economically was when the country extended south to the Indian Ocean. But again, in their infinite wisdom, when the British gave India its freedom they had to resolve the long-standing conflict between Indian Hindus and Muslims, so they created Pakistan as a Muslim homeland. Only problem was, they created it out of southern Afghanistan, eliminating its only route to the sea and insuring that Afghanistan, Pakistan and India would never share so much as a cup of sugar.
The proverbial last straw in this successful effort to alienate forever Arabs everywhere goes to the United Nations. Not satisfied with betraying the Arabs and just about every other ethnic group in the Middle East after World War I, The UN "graciously" agreed to give the Jewish people a homeland after World War II and created the State of Israel. Of course, Israel was created out of the existing Palestinian Arab homeland.
So there you have it folks, the mess we call "The Middle East," brought to you by two of our closest allies. With friends like that we don't need enemies, but unfortunately, we have those too.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Why should we care about Libya?
I've never visited Libya, though it is not my fault. First of all you might ask why I would even go there. Well, if you are interested in ancient history as I am, there are numerous World Heritage sites there. I am also interested in World War II, and Libya is where Rommel (The Desert Fox) and Montgomery fought several key battles of the war (Tobruk, Benghazi). I am also interested in the Middle East generally and have visited most countries in the region, so Libya was definitely on my bucket list.
I was scheduled to fly from Cairo to Tripoli but the flight - and the tour - were cancelled as I sat in the airport hotel waiting for my ride to the terminal. I called the US embassy because the rumor was that Ghaddafi's son was denied a US visa so he retaliated by barring Americans traveling to Libya. Something as eccentric as that was not outside the realm of possibility for those who knew Ghaddafi. The duty officer called me back after talking to the US embassy in Tripoli to say there was no problem they were aware of. In fact, there were 30,000 Americans in Libya at that moment who had come to see the solar eclipse days earlier. So it turns out, Ghaddafi had nothing to do with my cancelled trip. It was the Libyan tour operator who decided to keep our money (I was traveling with six other people) and use it for something other than our trip. That's an example of how Quixotic doing business in Libya can be.
So why care about what's happening in Libya now? Ordinary citizens are revolting all over the Middle East, encouraged by what happened in Tunisia and Egypt. Every country in that region is ruled by autocrats trying to reign in their citizens who are fed up with the corruption, fear, unemployment and general stagnation resulting from autocracies in an age of free enterprise and democracy. The most violent revolt has been in Libya, where the mercurial Ghaddafi has no problem killing thousands of his own people to maintain power. In Tunisia and Egypt, their armies refused to fire on fellow citizens. That's not the case in Libya, where Ghaddafi maintains his fiefdom with billions in oil revenues, paying soldiers loyal only to the paycheck he provides. The bottom line is this -- if Ghaddafi succeeds in putting down this rebellion without the US or any other industrialized nation helping the rebels, it sends precisely the wrong message to people and governments in the neighboring autocracies -- if your people revolt and you do nothing, they will succeed. If you massacre your people, we and the rest of the world will do nothing and you will succeed.
If we do nothing in the face of these massacres, the rebels, having lost hope, will turn to fundamentalist groups for help in ridding them of their discredited leader. These groups, supported by Iran and other countries friendly to terrorists, will gladly supply weapons and bombs to get rid of Ghaddafi and other Arab autocrats. They will then turn Libya and other countries into little Irans, where we will have no influence and a heightened risk of terror within our own borders. The people of Libya know this is the risk. They would much prefer to be free of tyrannical regimes and prosper in western style capitalistic societies. But even a fundamentalist regime to them is preferable to their current regime and worth the risk.
So, fellow Americans, if you liked the Middle East under Ghaddafi-like dictators, you will love the Middle East filled with terrorist states bent on our destruction.
I was scheduled to fly from Cairo to Tripoli but the flight - and the tour - were cancelled as I sat in the airport hotel waiting for my ride to the terminal. I called the US embassy because the rumor was that Ghaddafi's son was denied a US visa so he retaliated by barring Americans traveling to Libya. Something as eccentric as that was not outside the realm of possibility for those who knew Ghaddafi. The duty officer called me back after talking to the US embassy in Tripoli to say there was no problem they were aware of. In fact, there were 30,000 Americans in Libya at that moment who had come to see the solar eclipse days earlier. So it turns out, Ghaddafi had nothing to do with my cancelled trip. It was the Libyan tour operator who decided to keep our money (I was traveling with six other people) and use it for something other than our trip. That's an example of how Quixotic doing business in Libya can be.
So why care about what's happening in Libya now? Ordinary citizens are revolting all over the Middle East, encouraged by what happened in Tunisia and Egypt. Every country in that region is ruled by autocrats trying to reign in their citizens who are fed up with the corruption, fear, unemployment and general stagnation resulting from autocracies in an age of free enterprise and democracy. The most violent revolt has been in Libya, where the mercurial Ghaddafi has no problem killing thousands of his own people to maintain power. In Tunisia and Egypt, their armies refused to fire on fellow citizens. That's not the case in Libya, where Ghaddafi maintains his fiefdom with billions in oil revenues, paying soldiers loyal only to the paycheck he provides. The bottom line is this -- if Ghaddafi succeeds in putting down this rebellion without the US or any other industrialized nation helping the rebels, it sends precisely the wrong message to people and governments in the neighboring autocracies -- if your people revolt and you do nothing, they will succeed. If you massacre your people, we and the rest of the world will do nothing and you will succeed.
If we do nothing in the face of these massacres, the rebels, having lost hope, will turn to fundamentalist groups for help in ridding them of their discredited leader. These groups, supported by Iran and other countries friendly to terrorists, will gladly supply weapons and bombs to get rid of Ghaddafi and other Arab autocrats. They will then turn Libya and other countries into little Irans, where we will have no influence and a heightened risk of terror within our own borders. The people of Libya know this is the risk. They would much prefer to be free of tyrannical regimes and prosper in western style capitalistic societies. But even a fundamentalist regime to them is preferable to their current regime and worth the risk.
So, fellow Americans, if you liked the Middle East under Ghaddafi-like dictators, you will love the Middle East filled with terrorist states bent on our destruction.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Is Spam getting a bad name?
When I first tried to eat Spam as a youngster I hated it. My parents didn't like it either, and I knew that before I tried it, hence the reason I hated it. As an adult, I began to appreciate Spam as kind of a delicacy, a low class tinned meat made from mystery meats but with a storied past. I still don't like it though. Well, there are now two different kinds of Spam, the brand name food product and the lower case internet kind.
I am really tired of internet spam. It's like being forced to eat Spam every day for every meal. Now, just since yesterday afternoon, I have emails from unintelligible sources telling me they were referred by a friend, the ubiquitous business proposals from foreign governments, requests from companies I do business with telling me they need me to re-enter my financial information, survey opportunities with big rewards, money making schemes that are just a click away and the usual prurient offers to make your body into something it isn't. It's kind of like buying a can of Spam expecting a medium rare T-bone steak inside. The difference is that you can eat Spam and imagine it's a steak without getting sick, but if you click on promising spam emails, what it does to your computer WILL make you sick.
I am really tired of internet spam. It's like being forced to eat Spam every day for every meal. Now, just since yesterday afternoon, I have emails from unintelligible sources telling me they were referred by a friend, the ubiquitous business proposals from foreign governments, requests from companies I do business with telling me they need me to re-enter my financial information, survey opportunities with big rewards, money making schemes that are just a click away and the usual prurient offers to make your body into something it isn't. It's kind of like buying a can of Spam expecting a medium rare T-bone steak inside. The difference is that you can eat Spam and imagine it's a steak without getting sick, but if you click on promising spam emails, what it does to your computer WILL make you sick.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Gov Scott warns 'Don't laugh...you're next!
Our new governor is doing more to unite Republicans and Democrats than he ever imagined. His latest impulse decision was to reject $2.3 billion of a 90% federal stimulus grant for establishing high speed rail service on Florida's east coast that would create up to 100,000 jobs over the next ten years. It's admirable that he stands up for his political principles, but couldn't he do that AFTER he accepts the $2.3 billion? He did, after all, promise to create 700,000 jobs if elected and this would be 15% of that promise handed to him on a silver platter (actually nickel-plated copper since it is from the federal government).
True, there are the questions of whether Florida is ready for high speed rail and where to find the $230 million matching state funds with a budget swimming in red ink. But my take on it is with traffic already out of control in South Florida, the rising price of gas and airfares going through the terminal roof, maybe it's time for an alternate mode of transportation. I can remember when the auto industry said no one wants small, fuel efficient cars to replace their gas guzzlers. Now, when you see a 60s or 70s era car on the road it looks sadly out of place. As far as where to find the $230 million of matching funds, just forget the tax cut. We need the jobs.
I'm a fiscal conservative, but isn't this rejection of high speed rail funds kind of like buying a winning lottery ticket and refusing to take the money because it is funded by taxpayers? If that's the way you feel, please send me your winning ticket.
Governor Scott, after proposing to gut the education budget (after all, why bother funding education when Florida's school system is already ranked as one of the nation's worst), eliminating Enterprise Florida, whose sole purpose is to bring more jobs to Florida (no point in trying to bring jobs when the biggest complaint of prospective companies is our poor education system) and now rejecting billions in stimulus money that will only go to other states, reminds me of an old joke.
It's about the simple-minded fellow who comes home to catch his wife in bed with another man. He pulls out a gun and aims it at his own head, causing the two in bed to break out in peals of laughter. His angry response was, 'Shut up - you're next!'
Governor Scott has put the gun to his head in an attempt to scare away any future contenders for his job, but it is only resulting in peals of laughter and groans of dismay from fellow Republicans who must now push his suicidal agenda through the legislature.
True, there are the questions of whether Florida is ready for high speed rail and where to find the $230 million matching state funds with a budget swimming in red ink. But my take on it is with traffic already out of control in South Florida, the rising price of gas and airfares going through the terminal roof, maybe it's time for an alternate mode of transportation. I can remember when the auto industry said no one wants small, fuel efficient cars to replace their gas guzzlers. Now, when you see a 60s or 70s era car on the road it looks sadly out of place. As far as where to find the $230 million of matching funds, just forget the tax cut. We need the jobs.
I'm a fiscal conservative, but isn't this rejection of high speed rail funds kind of like buying a winning lottery ticket and refusing to take the money because it is funded by taxpayers? If that's the way you feel, please send me your winning ticket.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Global warming -- fact or fiction?
Two harsh winters in a row would seem to give global warming deniers plenty of ammunition to rebut the work of scientists on the subject. What is it about science that fosters so much distrust and debate? I don't even want to get into the argument because I know that when people believe something to be true, no amount of factual information can ever sway them.
Without getting into the argument, let's just say the rash of cold weather we have endured in this country and in Europe can be explained by a weather phenomenon more to do with ocean currents than global warming. It's called La Nina (Neenya) and originates in the Pacific Ocean. La Nina doesn't affect weather around the globe whereas global warming does. To put it simply, let's say it's 90 degrees outside and you have no air conditioning inside your home. La Nina is like opening the refrigerator door and sticking your head in the meat department. Global warming deniers are inclined to say, 'hey, there's no heat wave in here!' It's kind of like sticking your head in the sand so you don't have to worry about the world around you.
Without getting into the argument, let's just say the rash of cold weather we have endured in this country and in Europe can be explained by a weather phenomenon more to do with ocean currents than global warming. It's called La Nina (Neenya) and originates in the Pacific Ocean. La Nina doesn't affect weather around the globe whereas global warming does. To put it simply, let's say it's 90 degrees outside and you have no air conditioning inside your home. La Nina is like opening the refrigerator door and sticking your head in the meat department. Global warming deniers are inclined to say, 'hey, there's no heat wave in here!' It's kind of like sticking your head in the sand so you don't have to worry about the world around you.
Egypt update Feb. 12
When you think about it, 18 days of protesting is all it took to rid Egypt of a 30-year dictator. I have been going to Egypt since 1992 listening to complaints about 'the regime' and nothing happened. I guess it's because Facebook had not been invented!
Now comes the hard part -- creating a multi-party system when all opposition has been systematically crushed for those same 30 years. This neonatal democracy will depend for its existence on the military, not a typical standard bearer of democratic ideals. The Egyptian military has produced all three of the country's ex-presidents as well as many of its appointed and 'elected' officials. The top military brass own at least 20% of the country's major private companies. How they shepherd the country through this period is anyone's guess at this point.
The primary concern of average working class Egyptians is having good paying jobs and a future for their children. Whatever it takes to make that happen is acceptable to them, even if the military runs the show. For young adults however, college educated with no jobs, democracy means having a say in how government operates and having leaders who think the same way. The average age in Egypt, and for that matter in the Middle East as a whole, is late teens or early 20s.That is who started this revolution and they are intent on seeing it through.
Now comes the hard part -- creating a multi-party system when all opposition has been systematically crushed for those same 30 years. This neonatal democracy will depend for its existence on the military, not a typical standard bearer of democratic ideals. The Egyptian military has produced all three of the country's ex-presidents as well as many of its appointed and 'elected' officials. The top military brass own at least 20% of the country's major private companies. How they shepherd the country through this period is anyone's guess at this point.
The primary concern of average working class Egyptians is having good paying jobs and a future for their children. Whatever it takes to make that happen is acceptable to them, even if the military runs the show. For young adults however, college educated with no jobs, democracy means having a say in how government operates and having leaders who think the same way. The average age in Egypt, and for that matter in the Middle East as a whole, is late teens or early 20s.That is who started this revolution and they are intent on seeing it through.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Egypt's more serious problem is...
Regardless of how the situation in Egypt turns out, unless the country addresses it's most serious problem, things are bound to get worse. That problem is overpopulation. In 1961, Egypt had 10 million hectares of arable land and 15 million people. They were a net exporter of foodstuffs. (Egypt had been the breadbasket of the Roman Empire and its successors.) Today, Egypt has 11 million hectares of arable land and 80 million people! That number continues to grow at the rate of about a million every nine months. And where are those people going to live? There are laws preventing construction on farmland (unless you have the money to bribe a government official), so the only option is for people to build on their existing homes. Keep in mind that 95% of Egypt is the Sahara Desert and 95% of the population lives on 5% of the land. The country is now a net importer of grain and other staples, so much of their cash goes to feeding its people. Not only that, the bread Egyptian bakeries bake from that grain is government subsidized so the people pay about a penny a loaf.
History has shown that the only way to slow population growth is to provide education and good paying jobs. Having a large family was acceptable, even necessary when farmers needed plenty of help growing and harvesting crops. You don't need a large family cramped up in a small apartment in a Cairo slum with one wage earner bringing home enough money each day so the family can eat that day.
'Be fruitful and multiply' might be a Bible directive (and yes, Muslims have the same Bible), but back when the Bible was written, world population of humans amounted to about 100 million. Now it's seven billion. Let's not be so fruitful.
On the positive side, the Egyptian people have a great deal of national pride. They are the only nation in the Middle East intact for 6,000 years while most other nations were created by the British or French in the 20th century. They love American culture and people (not so much the American government), they are industrious (I have rarely run into people looking for handouts) and highly family oriented. But deep in Cairo's morbidly overcrowded slums, where poverty and hopelessness abound, the promises of religious fundamentalism can override any sense of pride. The question to ask there is what kind of economic miracle in this desert country could generate the jobs these million new residents need every nine months.
History has shown that the only way to slow population growth is to provide education and good paying jobs. Having a large family was acceptable, even necessary when farmers needed plenty of help growing and harvesting crops. You don't need a large family cramped up in a small apartment in a Cairo slum with one wage earner bringing home enough money each day so the family can eat that day.
'Be fruitful and multiply' might be a Bible directive (and yes, Muslims have the same Bible), but back when the Bible was written, world population of humans amounted to about 100 million. Now it's seven billion. Let's not be so fruitful.
On the positive side, the Egyptian people have a great deal of national pride. They are the only nation in the Middle East intact for 6,000 years while most other nations were created by the British or French in the 20th century. They love American culture and people (not so much the American government), they are industrious (I have rarely run into people looking for handouts) and highly family oriented. But deep in Cairo's morbidly overcrowded slums, where poverty and hopelessness abound, the promises of religious fundamentalism can override any sense of pride. The question to ask there is what kind of economic miracle in this desert country could generate the jobs these million new residents need every nine months.
Where is Egypt now?
A lot has happened since my last entry, or possibly nothing at all. First, let me set the stage. Egypt is and has been for more than 50 years a military dictatorship. The three presidents who have ruled Egypt since 1952 (when Gamal Nassar kicked out King Farouk) were all generals. The cabinet positions today are at least half filled with former generals.Of the country's 17 governates (like states in the US), 80% of the governors are ex-generals. While that may sound ominous when compared to our civilian government, each president has done good things for Egypt and as I have said before, if they simply retired after two terms like here, things would be much better for Egyptians today. Unfortunately, any government official in office more than 8-10 years ends up making decisions designed to keep him in power. That usually includes bribery, patronage, intimidation, etc.
So here's the situation now. Former general Suleiman, named vice president by former general Mubarak, is taking the lead to come up with a package of reforms designed to satisfy the Egyptian people - free and fair elections (as long as it keeps the military in control), free press (except for those who disagree with the military), multi-party dialogue (without any strong opposition it is just that -- talk), etc.
Of course, Suleiman (and by extension, Mubarak) is now aided and abetted by the western powers (US, Britain, France, Germany), who agree with Suleiman that the Mubarak regime must be gradually replaced so as not to cause chaos (like the chaos already created by the regime). That takes away the significant pressure for change brought on by the protestors, who have in some cases sacrificed life and limb to achieve their one goal, getting rid of Mubarak immediately. We have not created many friends in the protest movement by supporting the status quo. Time will tell if anything new and different occurs between now and the September elections. Keep in mind that the people are not looking for an American style democracy. They are quite satisfied with the military government IF it can deliver on jobs, a better standard of living, better education and opportunity for those who are educated. There is another, more serious problem, that will ultimately determine Egypt's future.
So here's the situation now. Former general Suleiman, named vice president by former general Mubarak, is taking the lead to come up with a package of reforms designed to satisfy the Egyptian people - free and fair elections (as long as it keeps the military in control), free press (except for those who disagree with the military), multi-party dialogue (without any strong opposition it is just that -- talk), etc.
Of course, Suleiman (and by extension, Mubarak) is now aided and abetted by the western powers (US, Britain, France, Germany), who agree with Suleiman that the Mubarak regime must be gradually replaced so as not to cause chaos (like the chaos already created by the regime). That takes away the significant pressure for change brought on by the protestors, who have in some cases sacrificed life and limb to achieve their one goal, getting rid of Mubarak immediately. We have not created many friends in the protest movement by supporting the status quo. Time will tell if anything new and different occurs between now and the September elections. Keep in mind that the people are not looking for an American style democracy. They are quite satisfied with the military government IF it can deliver on jobs, a better standard of living, better education and opportunity for those who are educated. There is another, more serious problem, that will ultimately determine Egypt's future.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
The world according to Milt Thomas
I just googled my blog and discovered there is another 'The world according to Milt.' So, I've changed the title of my blog to 'The world according to Milt THOMAS.' In the scheme of things, this has little significance when compared to the world's problems, but it is MY name and these are MY thoughts and opinions, not the thoughts and opinions of some other Milt.
Uh oh. I just googled 'Milt Thomas' and sure enough, there are other Milt Thomas's too! That doesn't surprise me because I am actually Milt Thomas JR, named after my father. I didn't appreciate being named Milton, especially since that wasn't my father's real name.
His mother (my grandmother) decided to call him Milton because of some dispute with HER mother-in-law. Thomas wasn't his real name, either. It was the last name of her second husband (she had four husbands altogether). She changed it because of the same mother-in-law dispute.
Now, my great-grandmother Leah, the source of all this confusion affecting my blog, was probably a decent person. I know her daughter-in-law, my grandmother, wasn't. She had a wide array of skeletons in her closet, and had disputes with many different people, including my father.
You know, I am beginning to feel like I'm in that Microsoft Bing commercial where everyone goes into a mindless stupor quoting information from Google searches. So, on that note I will leave Milt enough alone.
Uh oh. I just googled 'Milt Thomas' and sure enough, there are other Milt Thomas's too! That doesn't surprise me because I am actually Milt Thomas JR, named after my father. I didn't appreciate being named Milton, especially since that wasn't my father's real name.
His mother (my grandmother) decided to call him Milton because of some dispute with HER mother-in-law. Thomas wasn't his real name, either. It was the last name of her second husband (she had four husbands altogether). She changed it because of the same mother-in-law dispute.
Now, my great-grandmother Leah, the source of all this confusion affecting my blog, was probably a decent person. I know her daughter-in-law, my grandmother, wasn't. She had a wide array of skeletons in her closet, and had disputes with many different people, including my father.
You know, I am beginning to feel like I'm in that Microsoft Bing commercial where everyone goes into a mindless stupor quoting information from Google searches. So, on that note I will leave Milt enough alone.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Egypt update
Egypt is still at a boiling point and hopefully a tipping point. This has been simmering for years. On my first trip to Egypt in 1992, Mubarak was referred to as "The Laughing Cow," not exactly a term of endearment. He is not likely to survive this if the army sides with citizens. The army is the force in Egypt and very popular with the people, and is unlikely to shoot at its own citizens. All the scenes of protest on TV are taking place in very familiar places. I have often walked on the street along the Nile in Cairo and have visited Alexandria often. My friends out near Benha City are not experiencing any of these troubles and life goes on there as before. Glad to be right here watching it on TV.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Muslims taking over the world?
Anyone who lived through the 60s (and can remember doing so) recalls race riots, black power, burning cities and the general chaos that existed throughout our land. At the time, many white people worried they would be swept over in a rising tide of black nationalism. The disparity in birth rates between whites and blacks was interpreted by some to mean that blacks would soon be the majority and whites the minority.
Of course, that never happened. In fact, what did happen is that black people were finally integrated into American society as equals, no longer second class citizens. Today we even have a semi-black president. As is so often the case, we tend to demonize that which we don't know, including ethnic groups, races and religions. Amazingly, once we get to know people and find out they are just like us on the inside, it is difficult to see any demons.
What evolved with African-Americans, will also evolve with Muslim-Americans. It will also happen much faster than it ever will in Europe. Europe's Muslim-phobia is the result of so many people from Muslim countries (usually the countries once colonized by those same Europeans), coming to Europe for a better life. The latest expression of that phobia is the fear that the Muslim population is growing so fast, there will soon be more brown-skinned Muslims than white Christians.
Sounds like the 60s all over again. Part of the problem is that in Europe, like America in our recent past, immigrants are not well integrated into society. In Europe, they tend to collect in Muslim ghettos and typically can only find work in lower end jobs. There, they struggle with poverty and anger at their situation.
The Muslim population in Europe could well double over the next 10-20 years, but even then, they will still be a minority. The facts also seem to indicate that the birth rate among Muslims is slowing down, to the point it is not much higher than our average birth rate in the US, and the trend is for the birth rate to decrease further. In Western societies, as people became more educated, women were incorporated into the workforce and opportunities improved, the birth rate decreased. That will also happen in the Muslim world if given the chance (see my other new post).
Here in the States, Muslims have always integrated into our society well (check out the number of medical professionals in our community with Muslim names). It is only since 9-11 that Muslims have been demonized is some quarters. Those who go on TV and talk about burning Korans, terror babies, Shari'a law replacing our constitution and other nonsense, sound just like those guys in the white hoods who warned of the 'black takeover' 50 years ago. It's best to ignore the wingnuts and treat people the same as we want to be treated.
Unrest in Egypt
Sorry for being 'off the air' so long. Too many other commitments.
But since most of you reading this know my association with Egypt, I want to comment on the situation there and in other Arab countries, including Tunisia. I have visited Egypt almost every year since 1992 and have many friends there. It is a country with many strengths and weaknesses. Anyone who has visited the country knows one of its important strengths lies in the people of Egypt. If you look back over its 6,000 years of continuous history, Egypt has existed under the control of many different governments, from Greeks and Romans to French and English. These people are experts at living under all sorts of regimes and one reason they have been so adaptable is their family orientation.
They are used to presidents who consider the job a lifelong appointment. Since 1952 they have had only three presidents -- Nassar, Sadat and Mubarak. In each case -- if we compare it to the American system -- these men were good for the country during their first eight years in office. If those three had served their two terms and then stepped aside, Egypt could have been a first rate democracy. But the power of the ring (to borrow a Tolkein vehicle) was too compelling.
Too much of Egypt's budget goes to keeping Mubarak in power -- allowing his buddies to enrich themselves in exchange for loyalty, paying for ever-increasing security, and when the people get too restless, bribing them with raises (government is the largest employer other than farming) or subsidized bread. To keep everyone employed, the government simply created three faux jobs out of every real job and divided that one job's salary into three salaries. As they say in Egypt, 'the government pretends to pay us and we pretend to work.'
Now Mubarak is 82, in office for 30 years, and by most independent accounts, in failing health. He is grooming his son to take over as president. But the people have had enough. After all, they all get satellite TV and see how we live. With rising prices, little opportunity (half of college graduates cannot find work) and an oppressive government, the people do not want another Mubarakacrat in office.
This unrest all began last month in Tunisia. I was in Tunisia several years ago and, though small, it is the most prosperous North African country. The average income of $8,000 is highest in the Arab world. It is entirely Muslim, but very secular. It does all its international business with Europe to the point that the workweek in Tunisia is the same as Europe, Monday-Friday. So why the angry protests? President Ben Ali, both the country's savior and its scourge, would also have left a positive legacy if he stepped down after eight years, but instead was forced to flee the country after 23 years in power. Tunisians are more middle class on average than other Arab people, but they too are tired of a self-serving government using its resources primarily to remain in power.
Where will it all end? From my perspective, it will eventually end with new leadership, brought to power by the will of the people, who will then overstay their welcome by decades and history will repeat itself in another 30 years.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
I hope this is an isolated Pat Robertson fan
No sooner had I written about Pat Robertson's latest attack of foot- in-mouth disease and my concern about who might actually agree with him, when the answer came in the form of a letter to the editor in the Press Journal. The author of this letter was commenting on Carl Hiaasen's column about the Robertson incident entitled, YAMMERING FOOL IS AT IT AGAIN. The writer complains that Hiaasen "has concern for homosexuals, abortion activists, feminists and the American Civil Liberties Union." And "he could be listening to atheists." This same writer claims that atheists, "have managed to set up a whole new set of laws and rules for us to follow," including, I presume, "the 'theory' of evolution is being taught in public schools." The writer concludes by saying that "Mr. Hiaasen should have done more research in the Bible" and "he does not seem to be very well informed in this area."
All I can say is Thank God he isn't more informed in this area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
