Google Earth

If you haven't done so already, you have to download at least the free version of Google Earth. This is an incredible tool. It is the ultimate globe. You can spin the earth around and then zoom down to the surface and see your house. It's funny -- I looked at my parents house, and I could see my car in the driveway. The satellite must have taken that picture when I was visiting them. It is not the case that the whole surface of the globe is detailed, but msot of the important cities and features are mapped out in detail using satellite photos.

You can also tilt your point of view. So instead of always looking straight down, you can look up, so to speak, toward the horizon. This is good because many US cities have their buildings rendered in 3D. So if you tilt your point of view (so that you can see the horizon in the distance) you can view the cityscape and the buildings as if you were flying in an airplane. The buildings recede into the distance. You can fly over them or even between them. It is amazing. Further, the terrain is mapped out so one can look at mountains and other land features. One can go to the Grand Canyon, tilt the persective, and fly into it.

It is a fantastic educational experience. See the Sphinx and the Pyramids. See Paris, Tokyo, and the Alps. I always wondered what Havana looked like. All roads can be marked, too. Other things can be marked on the map, like restaurant locations.

It doesn't require too much in terms of system requirements, but you need to have broadband.

Closed Internet: The End of Open-Access Architecture

Here is an article by Elliot Cohen (Web of Deceit: How Internet Freedom Got the Federal Ax, And Why Corporate News Censored the Story). It explains how a (sadly under-reported) recent Supreme Court decision has grave implications for our current democracy friendly, open-access Internet. Here is a bit about the decision:

On June 27, 2005, in a 6 to 3 decision (National Cable & Telecommunications Association vs. Brand X Internet Services) the United States Supreme Court ruled that giant cable companies like Comcast and Verizon are not required to share their cables with other Internet service providers (ISPs). The Court opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, was fashioned to serve corporate interests. Instead of taking up the question of whether corporate monopolies would destroy the open-access architecture of the Internet, it used sophistry and legally-suspect arguments to obscure its constitutional duty to protect media diversity, free speech, and the public interest.

The central problem is that the corporations controlling the major nodes of the Internet will no longer have to allow independent ISPs onto their systems. The law had required these corporations to do that ("common-carriage" law). So now companies like Verizon and Comcast can begin to monopolize the Internet. The only ISPs available will be their ISPs. Smaller independent ISPs will not be able to compete. The large cable companies will then have control over what you have access to. The end of open-access Internet is upon us. You will not have access to non-corporate controlled, independent sources of information. What you will have access to will be up to these corporations -- a private decision -- guided, of course, by their private interests. They will be able to filter what you have access to. Take a look at what China is doing right now with the Internet, and you will get an idea of what could happen to us.

It is very sad that there has been very little media coverage of this, if any. A very important decision has been made about the architecture of the Internet, and there has been no significant public debate about it. That is sad because the decision could have extremely negative consequences for our democracy.

So what will you do when you see these private corporations slowly closing the open-access architecture of the Internet?

GOP Opportunity Zone in New Orleans: Naomi Klein Article

Naomi Klein gives a picure of what Bush (and company) would like to do to rebuild New Orleans. There seems to be a good opportunty to clean out New Orleans of undesireable elements and make it more corporate friendly, and more friendly to those with money. It will be easier to do that when the right people are in the city. Anyway, the first item that follows is a bit from a DemocracyNow! interview with Naomi Klien where she talks about some points in her article. Her article can be seen here (The Nation): Purging the Poor The second item that follows is a list of actions that the Republican Study Committee would like to do in New Orleans. Some of the actions are odd, like "Allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," or "Make the entire affected area a flat-tax free-enterprise zone." I'm sure that you can figure it out for yourself. (A link to this list is at The Nation web site at Naomi's article.)

Part of a DemocracyNow! intereview with Naomi Klien:

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah. There are two key documents that people should really take a look at. We're going to have them up on The Nation website and I'm sure we can have them up on Democracy Now! as well. There's two documents. They come from the same people, and they're connected. The first one comes from the Republican Study Group, which is the caucus of Republican lawmakers in Congress, headed by Mike Pence. It is called the “Pro Free Market Ideas for Responding to Hurricane Katrina and High Gas Prices.” It comes out of a meeting that took place at the Heritage Foundation on September 15th, where people from the Heritage Foundation and other right-wing think tanks got together with the Republican Study Group members, and they brainstormed thirty-two policy demands to package in as hurricane relief. And we have already seen several-- this is why I think it should be taken extremely seriously, is that the first of the demands is automatically suspending Davis-Beacon prevailing wage laws in disaster areas.

So it's pretty clear that the people making this list have a direct line to President Bush. Because that's already been adopted by presidential decree. The second is to make the entire affected area “flat tax-free enterprise zone”. This is Bush's “Gulf Opportunity Zone” idea, making the whole region a sort of “Club Med” for corporations to have every tax break they have ever dreamed of. But it goes on. This is where we, I think, need to get ready.

They use the excuse of Katrina to talk about everything from opening up drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to subsidizing -- this is an incredible, incredible one of their demands -- they want to subsidize oil exploration, saying that the corporations won't fund this themselves. And then there's things that we have heard about like they don't want money to be going directly to public schools for displaced children who are affected by the hurricane. They want it to go into school vouchers. This is already happening.

So it’s a transfer of wealth from the public realm, a huge transfer of wealth from the public realm into private hands. So you have this on the one hand. They issued this on September 13. It's already being adopted into law on several levels. And then they come up with another document that actually just came out yesterday, which is the Republican Study Committee's ideas of how to pay for all of these corporate subsidies that they have demanded.

They say, “look, we cannot do this -- we cannot pay for so-called “hurricane relief,” and it has very little or nothing to do with the families that were affected by the hurricane; in fact, it's going to hurt those families.) They say, “the only way we can afford this is if we make some radical cuts to the budget.” They issue another document, the “RSC Budget Options for 2005”, which says “here's where we are going to make the cuts”. Once again, you have the radical re-victimization of the very people who the money was intended for.

Their demands are things like: suspend Medicaid's prescription drug coverage. But more than that, you know, I mentioned the thing that got me was -- I mentioned the fact that they're demanding subsidization for Big Oil for exploration that they won't pay for. In this other document where they talk about how they're going to find the money for all of this corporate welfare, they say that they should cut all programs, all federal research programs, into sustainable energy sources. So, here you have the issue that's really at the core of this disaster, which is global warming and fossil fuels. They're subsidizing big oil and cutting funding to any alternative energy source research.


posted September 23, 2005
GOP Opportunity Zone
Naomi Klein
This is a list of "Pro-Free-Market Ideas for Responding to Hurricane Katrina and High Gas Prices," circulated by the House Republican Study Committee. Attributions included where available.


Automatically suspend Davis-Bacon prevailing wage laws in disaster areas. (Reps. Marilyn Musgrave, Colorado, Tom Feeney, Florida, Jeff Flake, Arizona)

Make the entire affected area a flat-tax free-enterprise zone. (Rep. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin)

Make the entire region an economic competitiveness zone (comprehensive tax incentives and waiving of regulations). (Rep. Todd Tiahrt, Kansas)

Immediate, first-year business expensing in lieu of depreciation for all assets, both personal property and structures (buildings) in the affected areas.

Allow net operating loss carry-backs for affected residents and businesses going back as many years as is needed to actualize the NOL.

For residents and businesses located or investing in the affected area, their 2005 and 2006 capital gains and dividends rate should be zero.

Individuals in the affected area should have a Section 911 (overseas earned income) exclusion that is uncapped.

Waive the death tax for any deaths in the affected area between August 20, 2005-December 31, 2005.

Provide limited liability protection for construction contractors who voluntarily provide services or equipment before a government contract is finalized. (Rep. Gary Miller, California, Rep. Tom Cole, Oklahoma)

Repeal or waive restrictive environmental regulations, such as NEPA, that hamper rebuilding. (Heritage Foundation)

Waive penalties for early withdrawals from tax-advantaged savings (like IRAs and 401k accounts). (Heritage Foundation)

Eliminate any regulatory barriers and other disincentives that block faith-based and other charitable organizations from engaging in the recovery and reconstruction process. (Orthodox Union, Heritage Foundation)

Increase the amount of rehabilitation tax credits by 30 percent in census tracts where the greatest poverty exists, and for smaller projects where raising capital for reconstruction is the most difficult, and where there is the most critical need for housing and neighborhood reinvestment. (Rep. Phil English, Pennsylvania)

Allow non-itemizers to deduct chartable contributions to disaster relief. (Rep. Ron Paul, Texas)

Give school-choice vouchers for displaced children. (Rep. Ted Poe, Texas)

Provide tax (and other such) incentives to lenders if they provide funding for school and other construction.

Reduce, suspend, or eliminate tariffs on Canadian lumber, Mexican cement, and other materials used for new construction.

Permit an additional advance refunding for all governmental bonds issued by or on the behalf of entities contained in the disaster area as declared by the president.

Eliminate the volume cap for private-activity bonds in the disaster area and permit the use of private-activity bonds for all transportation-related infrastructure in the disaster area.

Eliminate the income and home price limitation for mortgages funded by tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds for a five-year period.

Allow a non-profit corporation to issue tax-credit bonds--which provide a return in the form of a federal tax credit--and allocate the proceeds for school rehabilitation and reconstruction.

Streamline the environmental hurdles to building new oil refineries. (Rep. John Shadegg, Arizona)

Make it easier for small refineries to increase capacity. (Kansas's Tiahrt)

Allow more offshore oil drilling. (Texas's Poe)

Pay the royalties for new offshore oil drilling to the local governments nearest to shore. (Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, California)

Allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Temporarily suspend the gas tax. (Arizona's John Shadegg)

Permanently reduce the gas tax.

Waive or repeal gas formulation (e.g. oxygenation) requirements under the Clean Air Act and related regulations. (Heritage Foundation)

Encourage the production of renewable fuels (biodiesel, ethanol.)

Encourage private-market projects to recover usable energy from oil shale.

Strengthen the existing investment tax credit for Enhanced Oil Recovery (using modern technology improvements to extract oil from previously unavailable sources) in section 43 of the IRS Code.

Oil Profit Margins: Still Unjustified Subsidies to the Oil Industry

When debating oil profits, one should keep in mind the difference between oil profits and profit margins. Those defending the oil industry's profits will refer to profit margins, not profits. I'm not an expert in economics, but, as I try to explain, even if one talks about profit margins, the oil companies are making out outlandishly well. Their profit margins are soaring, too, which means that their costs are not going up. Still the White House has given them billions in tax breaks to encourage oil development. In the past, like in 1980, after a rise in oil prices and company profits, Congress approved a windfall profits tax on oil companies. But no such tax is on the agenda now. Tax breaks are on the agenda.

Despite the fuel crisis and the fact that consumers are seeing record-high gas prices, oil companies are now enjoying record-high profits. In fact, ExxonMobil just made the most profit for any quarter for any company ever. For example, this is on the Democracy Now! web site:

ExxonMobil Sees Record $10B 2nd Quarter Profits
Oil giant ExxonMobil is expecting to report profits of over $10 billion over the past quarter -- making it the most profitable single quarter for any company ever. This means ExxonMobil averaged making over 4.5 million dollars every hour for the past three months. During that same period gas prices shot up to record highs. Meanwhile the Energy Department is warning consumers in the Northeast to expect their winter heating bills to jump over 30 percent.

Also, here is a bit from a Boston Herald news item:

Exxon's $10B fill-up: Cashing in on crunch
By Brett Arends
Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - Updated: 04:27 PM EST
Oil companies came under new fire yesterday when it emerged that ExxonMobil's profits are likely to soar above $10 billion this quarter on the back of the fuel crisis.
That's $110 million a day, and more net income than any company has ever made in a quarter. It's also a stunning 69 percent increase over the same period a year ago and a 34 percent jump from the $7.6 billion Exxon made just last quarter.
``Do you realize President Bush has just given a tax break to ExxonMobil?'' thundered Rep. Ed Markey (D-Malden). ``Of all the companies in the history of the world that needed a tax break, this month, ExxonMobil should be at the bottom of the list.''

But those defending the industry's high profits will point out that one must look at profit margins, not profits. According to them, profit margins (measured roughly as net income or profit divided by sales or total revenue) provide a more relevant and accurate measure of a company or an industry's health, and also provide a useful way of comparing financial performance between industries large and small. Profit margins tell one how much profit a company makes on a dollar of sales. So, for example, a 5% profit margin says that the company makes 5 cents in profit for every dollar in sales.

Profits reflect the size of an industry, but they're not necessarily a good reflection of financial performance. The profit margin falls when company costs go up and eat into revenue (sales). The oil industry is probably the world's largest industry. Its revenues are large, but so are its costs, both the cost of finding and producing oil and the costs of refining, distributing and marketing it. It turns out that the oil industry's profit margins are usually about average compared with all other industries. I have found that the typical profit margin for ExxonMobil is about 5%-6%. The profit margins of banks and the pharmaceutical industry, for instance, is much higher, like 20%.

The oil industry is termed a "capital intensive" industry because so much of its work requires the expenditure of millions and sometimes billions of dollars even for a single project. Here are some examples based on actual costs compiled by the American Petroleum Institute:

$1.5 billion for a deep-water offshore platform.
$2 billion for offshore and onshore natural gas project facilities.
$400 million for a refinery modernization or revamping.
$1 million for a new service station.
$2 million for a large aboveground distribution terminal storage tank.
$1.1 million per mile of new pipeline constructed on land.

For some info from the oil industry, see:
Conoco Philips site on oil profit margins

So the debate about oil profits should be put in terms of profit margins. But profit margins have about doubled for ExxonMobil. Exxon Mobil had a profit margin of about 10 percent. As I understand it, they usually make around 5%-6%. So it seems that even in terms of profit margin, the oil companies are doing outlandishly good.

In light of great profits margins, it seems that there needs to be a justification for giving oil companies billions of dollars of tax breaks for oil production. High profit margins mean that oil companies have the money to boost oil production on their own. The last thing they need are tax breaks, especially if you believe in free market capitalism. Instead, we seem to get a shining example of corporate welfare.

Lawmakers who opposed the recent tax legislation said that the oil profit reports are evidence that the subsidies are not needed. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said oil companies are asking for subsidies at the same time they're "shaking money from out of (consumers') pockets at the gas pump." "I'm sure that they are chuckling at the continued support that they receive from the Republicans on these subsidies," Markey said.

But supporters of subsidies said that oil prices eventually will fall and the energy legislation is designed to encourage production even when that happens. "Profits aren't always up," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. "There are lots of times the oil market is different and the profits are down or non-existent."
(See A recent Washington Post article)

So the reason for the subsidies is that they are necessary for times when profits are down or non-existent. But this hardly seems like a good justification for the subsidies. The fact that profits may go down in the future is not a good reason for giving subsidies now, when profits and profit margins are soaring. Their view seems to be that no time is a good time not to give big subsidies to the oil industry.

The Corporation: Jeremy Rifkin

Regarding the movie, The Corporation, the second CD has 40 interviews on it. This makes the movie a great educational experience. The interviews cover a wide range of individuals. They range from reformers to revolutionaries and to those who are just in the thick of things. There are very familiar people like Milton Friedman, Noam Chomsky, and Michael Moore. But the interviews introduced me to many people and ideas that deserve serious attention. One such person seems to be Jeremy Rifkin (fellow at the Wharton School's Executive Education Program at the University of Pennsylvania and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington, DC). He was a very articulate speaker in the movie and in his interview. His ideas were very thought provoking. So I looked him up, and he has about 16 books out, some of which are best sellers. One of his latest (international) best selling books is The European Dream. In it he gives a historical and philosophical account (but a very concrete account) of what he calls the "American dream" and how the "European dream" is slowly eclipsing it. I'm in the middle of reading that now. Anyway, Rifkin has good ideas, and he seems able to explain his thoughts in a commanding and straightforward way.

He seems to have some other informative books, especially one about the hydrogen economy called The Hydrogen Economy, which I have not read. Apparently, the US government is moving to help develop hydrogen power. I have to do more work on this one, but Bush has signed into law legislation putting billions of dollars into hydrogen development. The great thing about hydrogen power is that it does not pollute (because water is its side product). Activists are upset because Bush mainly is pursuing what they call "black hydrogen," which is hydrogen that is produced through dirty technologies, like through fossil fuels and nuclear power. Instead, activists like Rifkin want to pursue what they call "green hydrogen," which is hydrogen that is acquired through clean, non-polluting, non-nuclear, and non-fossil-fuel technologies (like biomass). Anyway, one should keep in mind this hydrogen revolution. I don't know much about it. I know that there is much going into the development of hydrogen fuel cells. Some buses in London (as an experiment) were run on hydrogen with great success. Also, there has been much talk (you have to look for it) about mining the moon because there is a tremendous amount (for an almost endless supply) of hydrogen on the moon (in the form of H3). Anyone who can get this hydrogen will be the next Saudi Arabia, I guess. When it comes to the moon, there is the problem of private property and ownership. There is talk about the moves that have to be made to undermine treaties so that massive private profits can be made off of the moon.

The Corporation: The Documentary

The Corporation is a great documentary by Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott, and Joel Bakan. Joel Bakan also wrote a book called "The Corporation." The book complements the movie. Achbar was one of the creators of Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media. (Manufacturing Consent is a classic film. Everyone should see it.) The Corporation investigates the genesis, nature, problems, and realities of the modern corporation. The movie has good visuals. The creators hardly ever just let scenes go by without doing something clever and creative with the visuals. The content of the film is great, dealing with what I think is one of the most important issues of our time: corporate power. One of the main points that has stuck with me is that, through a series of questionable maneuvers, corporations have acquired the status of legal persons, having more rights than real people. Also enshrined in law (the details of which I am ignorant) is that these immortal legal persons must put the interests of their stockholders above all other concerns. In other words, the corporation must, by law, put the pursuit of profit (for its stockholders) above, say, the common good. So the stockholders can prevent a CEO from putting, say, environmental interests or community interests, over profits. As the economist Milton Friedman says, the corporation has no social responsibility at all. It has a legal responsibility, however, to maximize profits for its owners. Those who run the corporations may be nice people, very moral people, but in their instututional role they are required to act like egoists, doing whatever maximizes the corporation's interests. And that often means that their institutional role requires them to act like monsters. One bad consequence of this egoism is that, if the cost benefit analysis shows that the expected utility of breaking a law pays more than following the law, then the correct business decision is to break the law. It is easy to understand why there is an incredible amount of corporate crime. Another thing to realize, though, is that this corporate structure is not a law of nature. The existing corporate structure exists because we have willingly (more or less) created it. Corporations exist by the consent of the people. If we want to change the structure, then we can do it. If a corporation deserves the death penalty, then we can and should revoke its charter.

George Lakoff: The Framing Revolution

George Lakoff (cognitive scientist at UC) has a small book out (Don’t Think of an Elephant, with a forward by Howard Dean) and a video that goes with it. It is about framing (the idea of framing has a more technical meaning for the cognitive scientist) in politics and gives a (shortened) version of the stunning ideas he presents in his book Moral Politics. It is a call for progressives and democrats to do what the GOP has done over the past 30 years. He explains that conservatives have spent billions of dollars (on conservative intellectuals, think tanks, media operations, training centers, etc.) developing and learning how to frame every issue in terms of (what he calls) their “Strict Father” metaphorical structure. (Lakoff gives a truly brilliant analysis of conservative and liberal political talk and thought, and if you are not familiar with his views, you are missing something incredible.) The GOP now has a huge and extremely well-organized infrastructure for imposing this frame on the political scene. This is one reason that the GOP has been so successful recently. Lakoff explains that the goal of the GOP is to impose their frame on America and the rest of the world (that just goes with their Strict Father conceptualizing structure). Lakoff warns that it will be impossible to challenge the GOP without a proper framing response. Frames are embodied in our brains, so that changing one's frame changes one's brain. GOP framing is literally changing people's brains. (What I have said here about Lakoff's views is very superficial and barely scratches the surface.)

Lakoff is leading the current move (with progressives and democrats) to develop their own think tanks and research into framing. As Lakoff puts it, progressives need to know how to frame every issue in terms of what he calls the “Nuturant Parent” worldview. (Again he derives this worldview from an analysis of the metaphors that liberals and progressives use in the political arena.) Lakoff says that science is on the side of the Nuturant Parent worldview, and it is possible to catch up with the GOP with only a fraction of the time and money that the GOP has spent. (According to Lakoff, the Strict Father and Nuturant Parent worldviews are competing frames that have developed historically over thousands of years.)

The only progressive think tank on framing is the Rockridge Institute. Here is the site.
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/

On this page, PoliticalStrategy.org’s Framing Project gives some of the latest material on Lakoff’s ideas and a presentation of some of Luntz’ stuff for conservatives:
http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001118.php

Frank Luntz is a main thinker and political strategist for the GOP. He runs a highly respected business that does research and trains conservatives how to think and talk. He has manuals on a variety of issues, but generally they are not made public. Luntz’ work is like a play book for the GOP. Here is his site.
http://www.luntz.com/index.htm

Thomas Friedman: Don't Dare Think about Causes of Terrorism

In his article The Rise Of The Democratic Police State, John Pilger writes:

The other day Blair said, "We are not having any of this nonsense about [the bombings having anything] to do with what the British are doing in Iraq or Afghanistan, or support for Israel, or support for America, or any of the rest of it. It is nonsense and we have to confront it as that." This "raving", as the American writer Mike Whitney observed, "is part of a broader strategy to dismiss the obvious facts about terror and blame the victims of American-British aggression. It's a tactic that was minted in Tel Aviv and perfected over 37 years of occupation. It is predicated on the assumption that terrorism emerges from an amorphous, religious-based ideology that transforms its adherents into ruthless butchers."

Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago has examined every act of suicide terrorism over the past 25 years. He refutes the assumption that suicide bombers are mainly driven by "an evil ideology independent of other circumstances." He said, "The facts are that since 1980, half the attacks have been secular. Few of the terrorists fit the standard stereotype... Half of them are not religious fanatics at all. In fact, over 95 per cent of suicide attacks around the world [are not about] religion, but a specific strategic purpose - to compel the United States and other western countries to abandon military commitments on the Arabian Peninsula and in countries they view as their homeland or prize greatly... The link between anger over American, British and western military [action] and al-Qaeda's ability to recruit suicide terrorists to kill us could not be tighter."

So we have been warned, yet again. Terrorism is the logical consequence of American and British "foreign policy" whose infinitely greater terrorism we need to recognize, and debate, as a matter of urgency.

It is worth reading the whole thing, but here is a little more. Pilger says something interesting and disturbing about Thomas Friedman's latest ideas about how to control terrorism. We have to control thought about the causes of terrorism. Pilger writes,

Thomas Friedman is a famous columnist on the New York Times. He has been described as "a guard dog of US foreign policy". Whatever America's warlords have in mind for the rest of humanity, Friedman will bark it. He boasts that "the hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist". He promotes bombing countries and says world war three has begun.

Friedman's latest bark is about free speech, which his country's constitution is said to safeguard. He wants the State Department to draw up a blacklist of those who make "wrong" political statements. He is referring not only to those who advocate violence, but those who believe American actions are the root cause of the current terrorism. The latter group, which he describes as "just one notch less despicable than the terrorists", includes most Americans and Britons, according to the latest polls.

Friedman wants a "War of Ideas report" which names those who try to understand and explain, for example, why London was bombed. These are "excuse makers" who "deserve to be exposed". He borrows the term "excuse makers" from James Rubin, who was Madeleine Albright's chief apologist at the State Department.

Is this a fair characterization of Friedman's views? Well, here is the relevant part of Friedman's article, Expose the Haters. Friedman writes:

Sunlight is more important than you think. Those who spread hate do not like to be exposed, noted Yigal Carmon, the founder of Memri, which monitors the Arab-Muslim media. The hate spreaders assume that they are talking only to their own, in their own language, and can get away with murder. When their words are spotlighted, they often feel pressure to retract, defend or explain them....

We also need to spotlight the "excuse makers," the former State Department spokesman James Rubin said. After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed. When you live in an open society like London, where anyone with a grievance can publish an article, run for office or start a political movement, the notion that blowing up a busload of innocent civilians in response to Iraq is somehow "understandable" is outrageous. "It erases the distinction between legitimate dissent and terrorism," Rubin said, "and an open society needs to maintain a clear wall between them."

There is no political justification for 9/11, 7/7 or 7/21. As the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen put it: "These terrorists are what they do." And what they do is murder.

Finally, we also need to shine a bright light on the "truth tellers." Every week some courageous Arab or Muslim intellectual, cleric or columnist publishes an essay in his or her media calling on fellow Muslims to deal with the cancer in their midst. The truth tellers' words also need to be disseminated globally. "The rulers in these countries have no interest in amplifying the voices of moderates because the moderates often disagree with the rulers as much as they disagree with the extremists," said Husain Haqqani, author of the new book "Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military." "You have to deal us moderates into the game by helping to amplify our voices and exposing the extremists and their amen corner."

Every quarter, the State Department should identify the top 10 hatemongers, excuse makers and truth tellers in the world. It wouldn't be a cure-all. But it would be a message to the extremists: You are free to say what you want, but we are free to listen, to let the whole world know what you are saying and to protect every free society from hate spreaders like you. Words matter.

It seems to me that Friedman doesn't understand that explanations for an action may not justify it morally at all or make it more reasonable in some positive sense. Also, there is the disinction between description and evaluation. There is a crucial difference between an explanation that justifies an action morally, and an explanation that aims to merely describe the causes of an action or the motivating factors for an action. The latter sort of explanation can be given with no concern at all for the worth of the action. In fact, even an explanation that justifies an action morally could be understood without any concern for what it implies about the worth, reasonableness, or morality of the action. Furthermore, one may want to understand the causes of a action so that one can evaluate the causes, especially if one suspects that the causes are bad and undesireable. One may want to eliminate bad causes if the effects of those causes are also bad. An explanation of causes may tell us something important about our world that needs to be changed.

Words matter, and so it is important not to confuse things by covering over these important distinctions. Anyone who values democracy and wants to maintain and promote basic problem-solving and critical-thinking strategies will want to do whatever he or she can to keep these distinctions clear -- in their minds and in the minds of their fellow citizens.

Rejecting such crucial and basic distinctions, Friedman seems to think that all attempts to seek out explanations for terrorist actions are attempts to make these actions look reasonable or attempts to place some positive moral light on them, or to remove some negative evaluation of them. And he thinks that when it comes to terrorist actions, all attempts to seek out causal explanations for them are dangerous and morally outrageous attempts to put these actions in some positive light. Friedman's view seems to be that to seek out the motivational causes behind terrorist actions is always to promote or put some approval on them.

Or just as bad, Friedman seems to think that the only relevant explanation for terrorist actions is that terrorists are simply killers guided by radical religious ideology. But knowing whether this claim is true or false requires a thorough investigation into all of the facts and possible causes of their actions. This also requires (at minimum) looking carefully and critically at what the terrorists actually say are the reasons for their actions. This sort of investigation is what Friedman does not allow us to do. Friedman's proposal prevents us from listening to anyone or entering a constructive debate with anyone who articulates an explanation that differs from and challenges Friedman's favored belief. Friedman's own claim assumes what he denies, unless he has some mystical or other privileged access to the truth that does not require robust empirical inquiry and debate regarding the facts.

There may be reasons for Friedman's misconceptions and apparent errors. I suspect that what motivates Friedman to say these things is that he wants to stop any sort of investigation into the grievances and complaints of the terrorists. One plausible reason for this is that such an inquiry may ultimately lead to an investigation into the foreign policy of the US and its impact on Muslims and others around the world (and terrorist groups). Such an investigation, because it ultimately leads to understanding and exposing American foreign policy, may lead Americans to evaluate these policies. It may then lead to negative judgments about American foreign policy and the globalization that it often promotes. Such judgment may lead people to question America's policies. People may come to understand, not that terrorism is justified in some positive sense, but that American policy is seriously flawed and has to be changed. And that could harm the interests of corporate power that guides many of those policies. But such possibilities must be crushed for the sake of those interests. American policy is what must be kept hidden and never exposed.

But more than ever, a very bright spotlight needs to be placed on that.

Coca Cola, India, and Water

Here is one current example of the struggle between corporate power and those fighting for democratic control of their resources.

From Democracy Now!
43 Arrested at Coke Protests in India
In India, police have arrested 43 people during a protest march outside a Coca Cola factory. Organizers reported four activists were hospitalized with severe head injuries after police charged the demonstrators with batons. Coke has faced widespread protests throughout India. "Basically the issues are that Coca Cola is extracting too much groundwater from the groundwater resource and it's leaving the communities without any water all across India," said Amit Shirvasli of the India Resource Center. "And the pressure on Coca Cola company continues to grow in India and it's become one of the most formidable community-led campaigns in the world today." The Coke protest on Monday came on India's 58th anniversary of independence from British rule.

More news:
Police attack, injure Coca-Cola protesters

Plachimada, India: Close to 100 activists from Yuvajana Vedi, youth wing of the CPI(ML), and their allies marched to Coca-Cola's factory gates in Plachimada in Kerala in southern India, demanding that the bottling plant shut down permanently.

The protesters were stopped about 100 meters from the factory gates, and the heavy police force resorted to a violent lathi charge (baton charge), severely injuring four activists who had to be hospitalized with severe head injuries. Another 43 activists were held in custody, including a 16 year old girl who has been transferred to juvenile home.

The march was held on August 15, 2005, India's 58th anniversary of independence from British rule.

The march started in Kannimari and culminated in Plachimada, was led by Yuvajana Vedi state president, Mr. Provit and inaugurated by CPI(ML) State secretary K.C. Sivaraman.

Representatives from the local community, including Vilayodi Venugopal of the Anti-Coca-Cola Struggle Committee, also addressed the rally.

"We condemn the violence used by the police," said Vilayodi Venugopal. "We are committed to ensuring that this plant never opens again."

Mr. R. Ajayan, convener of the Plachimada Solidarity Committee, has called for a demonstration at district headquarters on August 17 to protest the police action.

The Coca-Cola bottling plant in Plachimada, one of the company's largest in India, has been shut down since March 2004 because of local community pressure. The community is experiencing severe water shortages as well as a polluted groundwater resource and soil- directly as a result of Coca-Cola's operations.

The state government of Kerala has announced that it will challenge Coca-Cola's right to extract groundwater in the area, and the panchayat (village council), which initially refused to renew Coca-Cola's license, has now offered a 3 month temporary license with 13 conditions.

In a related development, the Kuttiady panchayat (village council) in Kerala declared its area to be a Coke-free zone, and received the support of shopkeepers as well as political parties, in a show of solidarity with the people of Plachimada.

The Coca-Cola company is the target of many communities across India that are experiencing water shortages and polluted water and soil.

Source: India Resource Centre

Also see this news article:
Indian water case pits village against a giant

The Central Issue of Our Time (or close to it)

The central issue of our time is the issue of corporate power vs. democractic self-government. For those on the side of democracy, it is the issue of how to bring existing huge corporate power under democratic control and eliminate its reckless pursuit of profit and natural resources, a pursuit that now aims to secure permanent enormous global benefits for those within the sphere of corporate power and privilege, at the terrible, criminal, and unjust expense of the legitimate interests and lives of everyone else, including the life of the planet.

In one sense, this is not an issue at all because it has been kept out of the arena of general public debate. The fact that it is not seriously discussed (except in the alternative world of activists) is a sign of the true dominance of corporate power. It is in the interests of corporate power to keep such an issue out of the larger public mind, and they have succeeded in doing that.

In large part, terrorism is a reaction to corporate power and its abusive policies. But those behind terrorism are not worried about democratic self-government. For them, the issue is different. It is about corporate power vs. Islamic life. It is about the struggle to maintain a public life that follows God's law and His plan. It is about attaining the freedom that comes by following the word of God.

Those who believe in democratic self-government demand that dominating ideas be subjected to serious discussion, so that society can avoid error and get closer to the truth. They do not believe that one can know that certain privileged beliefs are true without subjecting those beliefs to empirical critical evaluation and analysis. And they hold that everyone should be allowed to contribute to the debate since different points of view will help ensure that important ideas and criticisms are not missed and that errors will be avoided. Also, it will help ensure that ideas will not treat some as means to the ends of others without their free, informed consent.

Al-Zawahri Tapes and Reasons for Al-Qaida Terrorism

There are new tapes from al-Zawahri, al-Qaida's second in command, they say. One probably is not going to find a complete transcript of what al-Zawahri says. The best and largest amount of translation is probably at Al-Jazeera. I'll give you the quotes from the Al-Jazeera site below. But even Al-Jazeera said that they only showed about 10 percent of the tape. They showed about 5 minutes of the tape. Taahir Hoorzook, of the media relations department in Al-Jazeera, said: "The content of the rest of the tape which we didn't air, is the usual rhetoric, speaking about the Islamic lands occupied and stuff like that which we found not newsworthy." It may be newsworthy for the US because the US has never, or hardly ever, seen any of that "usual rhetoric." But the US big media certainly has a lot of its own rhetoric when it goes about interpreting what the tape is about and what al-Zawahri says. Most of what the media has been saying seems very dubious and slanted to follow what the US administration puts out as doctrine.

Unfortunately, what Bush has to say about the content of the tape seems to be the most dubious. For instance, he keeps pushing the oversimplified view that we are faced with a clash between freedom and tyranny without making any effort to understand or explain these issues in the present context. Bush's main approach is to characterize al-Qaida's philosophy as being dark and backward, and then he promotes the idea that they want to impose this dark tyranny on the whole world. So Bush's idea is that al-Qaida hates freedom and democracy (and they "do not appreciate women"), and because the US is pushing freedom and democracy (and respect for women) in Muslim lands, al-Qaida wants to push the US out of these lands. Bush claims that they want to push the US out so that they can first impose their tyranny on the Middle East and then ultimately on the whole world. Bush suggests that Al-Qaida and its leaders are on a par with the Nazis and Hitler in the sense that they are trying to control the whole world by imposing their tyrannical ideology on it. Bush suggests that the US is fighting a Hitler-like challenge and will bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East (and the whole world). There is a lot that can be said in criticism of Bush's view. But for now the following mentions only a couple of things.

A much different picture of the situation emerges if one reads what al-Qaida leaders say. Bin Laden and al-Zawahri, and others, almost always point to unjust and destructive US policies, which have, for instance, resulted in US crimes against Muslims, US support of Israel's oppression of Palestinians, and US theft of oil and resources. Also, there is no indication of al-Qaida's plan to impose their Muslim rule on the whole world. They focus on being allowed to govern themselves without outside interference.

Also, there is no indication that al-Qaida hates freedom. In fact they say that they love freedom. It is just that freedom for them means, in part, being able to live according to Islamic law, which is to live according to God's law. It is interesting to note that al-Zawahri discusses this issue of freedom in the tape, and these comments appear especially in the second Al-Jazeera news article given below. What is incredible is that there will likely be no discussion at all in the US media about this very interesting and important issue. In fact, it would almost a joke to suggest such a discussion. To discuss it would definitely go against the official doctrine that Bush promotes.

What one sees is that al-Qaida leaders are able and willing to think about and discuss important issues in a somewhat rational and realistic way -- which should be a virtue of democratic citizens. As a result, they end up making claims that deserve serious consideration and critical reflection. In contrast, US leaders (and media) seem entirely unable or unwilling to reach that level of critical discussion and understanding. One can make a safe guess that this is so in part because it is not in US interests (or rather US corporate interests) to do so, especially when you can impose your will on others by force.

The following are quotes, and some commentary from the latest al-Zawahri tapes as presented at Al-Jazeera in several different news articles. Lines separate the articles.
________________________________

Al-Jazeera news articles on the al-Zawahri tapes

Al-Qaida would continue to launch deadly attacks until US troops quit all Muslim countries.

"Blair's policies brought you destruction in central London and will bring you more destruction ... ," al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, said in a tape aired on Aljazeera.

Truce offer

"What you have seen in New York, Washington and Afghanistan, are only the initial losses and if you (United States) continue the same hostile policies you will see what will make you forget those horrors," he said in reference to the 11 September 2001 attacks.

Zawahri said the London bombs were a result of Blair's policies.

He said bin Laden had offered a truce to Western countries asking them to pull out their armies from Iraq and Afghanistan in order to live in peace.

"To the people of the crusader coalition ... our blessed Shaikh Osama has offered you a truce so that you leave Muslim land. As he said, you will not dream of security until we live it as a reality in Palestine, and until all your infidel armies leave Prophet Mohammad's lands," he said.

"Our message to you is clear, strong, and final: There will be no salvation until you withdraw from our land, stop stealing our oil and resources, and end support for corrupt rulers," al-Zawahri added.

Vietnam comparison

Zawahri, who in the footage appeared to be standing outside with an assault rifle at his side, also warned the Americans of horrors worse than the war in Vietnam.

"There will be no salvation until you withdraw from our land, stop stealing our oil and resources, and end support for corrupt rulers"

"The Americans... will see horror that would make them forget the horror they saw in Vietnam," he said.

"The truth that (President George) Bush ... hides from you is that there is an exit from Iraq except through immediate withdrawal. Any delay will mean only more dead and losses.

"If you do not leave today, you will inevitably leave tomorrow,
but only after (you suffer losses) of tens of thousands of dead and many more injured."

______________________________

Freedom

Al-Qaida's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has condemned the American concept of freedom in a taped speech broadcast by Aljazeera.

Aired on Thursday, the audiotape message said the freedom sought by millions in the Islamic world was "not the freedom to destroy others ... it is not the freedom that allows [America] to support oppressive regimes".

Al-Zawahiri said he could not accept Washington's continued promotion of "Israel's freedom to annihilate Muslims".

The comments were first issued on 2 February on the internet, but were aired for the first time on Thursday.

Al-Zawahiri also slammed what he called "fraudulent elections held under occupation", in a reference to last month's polls in Iraq.

Details

Liberty as construed by the Americans, he said, was based on "usurious banks, giant companies, misleading media outlets and the destruction of others for material gain".

Real freedom was "not the liberty of homosexual marriages and the abuse of women as a commodity to gain clients, win deals or attract tourists," al-Zawahiri added.

"It is not the freedom of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib," it said, referring to US-run prisons in Cuba and Iraq where serious allegations of torture have been levelled.

"Our freedom ... and the reform that we are seeking depends on three concepts - the rule of Sharia [Islamic law] ... freeing Islam from any aggressor ... and liberating the human being."

No to occupation

In the Islamic world, the people had the "right to choose its leader, hold him to account and criticise him ... I do not think that we can achieve reform while we are under American and Jewish occupation."
_________________________

Aljazeera has aired excerpts of a new video from al-Qaida number two Ayman al-Zawahri in which he criticises the US concept of reform, as well as assaults on female protesters in Egypt last month.

Al-Zawahri's message is particularly critical of the Pakistani, Saudi Arabian and Egyptian governments.

"Driving out the invading crusader forces and Jews from our Muslim homes cannot be realised solely through demonstrations and speaking out in the streets," he said.

"Reform and expelling the invaders from Muslim countries cannot be accomplished except by fighting for the sake of God."

Al-Zawahri said any reform must be based on Islamic Sharia (law) and that Muslim countries should be free to govern themselves without foreign interference, or the presence of foreign troops.

"We cannot imagine any reform while our countries are occupied by crusader forces which are spreading throughout our land," he said.

Al-Zawahri referred to protest-demonstrations in Cairo last month against the Egyptian constitutional referendum in which female protesters and several female reporters were allegedly molested by plain-clothed ruling party supporters.

Reforms

"Driving out the invading crusader forces and Jews from our Muslim homes cannot be realised solely through demonstrations and speaking out in the streets."

Al-Zawahri, considered to be Osama bin Laden's second in command, criticised what he said were violations of women's rights during the Egyptian protests.

On the Palestinian issue, he cast doubt on the possibility of effecting change through peaceful demonstrations. He warned the Palestinians against what he called attempts to drag them into the election game in order to extract legitimacy for the Palestinian Authority.

In his previous tape - which Aljazeera aired on 20 February - al-Zawahiri warned the West it faced defeat in what he termed its new crusade against the Islamic world.

In that message, which he said was to mark the third anniversary of the internment of Muslims at the US military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, al-Zawahri had hit out at US plans for reform in the Arab and Islamic world.
___________________________

Al-Qaida's number two has said governments cannot stop its attacks and that the West's security depends on respect for Islam and an end to aggression against Muslims.

Ayman al-Zawahri said in a videotape broadcast by Aljazeera on Sunday that the "new Crusader campaign" would end in defeat as others had in the past.

Al-Zawahri, wearing a white turban and seated with a machine gun next to him, said his comments came three years after the first prisoners were taken from Afghanistan to the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"If you Western nations believe that these cartoon governments will protect you from our responses, then you are deluded. Your real security lies in cooperating with the Islamic nation on the basis of respect and ending aggression," al-Zawahri said.

"Your new Crusader campaign will end, God willing, in defeat as did those that preceded it but after the deaths of tens of thousands, the destruction of your economy and exposing you in the pages of history," he added.

Democracy exposed

Al-Zawahri said US calls for democracy in the Middle East were a farce after allegations of abuse of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and in Guantanamo Bay, which holds hundreds of suspects detained during the 2001 US-led war to oust al-Qaida and the ruling Taliban from Afghanistan and in other operations.

"It has been three years since the first group of Muslim prisoners were sent to Guantanamo prison... One may ask why all this interest in Guantanamo when our countries are filled with a thousand Guantanamos under US observation," he said.

"It is because it exposes the truth of reform and democracy that America claims it aims to spread in our countries.

"The reform which emerges from US prisons like Bagram, Kandahar, Guanatanamo, Abu Ghraib, and from the launch of cluster bombs and rockets and the appointment of the likes of [Afghanistan's President Hamid] Karzai and [Iraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad] Allawi," he said.

The last videotape from al-Zawahri - aired in November - warned that al-Qaida would continue to attack the US until Washington changed its policies towards the Muslim world.
___________________________________

Al-Qaida number two Ayman al-Zawahri has forecast a US defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan, in a videotape aired on Aljazeera television.

"The American defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan has become just a question of time, God willing," he said in the tape telecast on Thursday.

"In the two countries, the Americans are between two fires: if they remain there they will bleed to death, and if they withdraw they will have lost everything."

The mujahidin are in a strong position in Afghanistan and have turned US plans in Iraq "head over heels", al-Zawahri said.

In Afghanistan, the mujahidin have driven US forces to "hide in their trenches", he said.

On the Darfur conflict, he said it was an example of US desire to split the Arab and Muslim world.

In the tape, shown two days before the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the US, he said: "East and south Afghanistan have become an open arena for the mujahidin. The enemy is limited to the capitals."

He added: "The Americans are hiding in their trenches and refuse to come out to face the mujahidin, as the mujahidin shell and fire on them, and cut roads off around them. Their defence is only to bomb by air, wasting US money as they kick up dust."

"The Americans are hiding in their trenches and refuse to come out to face the mujahidin."

Al-Zawahri was last heard in March when Aljazeera aired a recorded message in which he called on Pakistanis to overthrow the US-allied Pervez Musharraf government.
__________________________________

Usama bin Ladin's right-hand man Ayman al-Zawahri has condemned French moves to ban the Muslim headscarf in government schools.

"This is a new sign of the Crusader hatred which Westerners harbour against Muslims while they boast of freedom, democracy and human rights," al-Zawahri said on the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television channel on Tuesday.

The French parliament this month voted to ban religious emblems in state schools, a measure Paris says will keep tensions between Muslim and Jewish minorities out of public classrooms, but which Muslims around the world have said targets Islam.

"France is the country of freedom which defends freedom to show the body, and to be immoral and depraved.

In France you're free to show yourself but not to dress modestly," said al-Zawahri, who is thought to be hiding, along with bin Ladin, somewhere in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"This is a campaign planned by the Crusader Zionists (Israel supporters) with their agents in Egypt, Turkey and Tunisia and other Islamic countries," al-Zawahri said, in an attack on Muslim countries which have made moves to secularise their societies along Western lines.

Terrorism and Targeting Innocent Civilians: Part II

When people at the ends of the earth, Japan, were killed by their hundreds of thousands, young and old, it was not considered a war crime; it is something that has justification. -- bin Laden

This is the second part of my reflections on the sort of terrorism that targets civilians. The first part argued that it is not obvious that targeting innocent civilians can never be justified and that one should look at the specific case at hand. To take one example, American history seems to show that there can be a justification or excuse for targeting and killing innocent civilians. In past conflicts, America has used a concept of strategic bombing that included the intentional targeting and killing of innocent civilians. The US military has been very successful at intentionally killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Many Americans, including presidents, senators, and other political leaders and thinkers will claim that such killing has been justified. Also, there seems to be possible scenarios in which the intentional killing of innocent civilians can be justified, especially cases in which the killing of innocent civilians is necessary to counter the unjustified killing of a significantly greater number of other innocents. If the preceding is correct, then there are possible cases in which the intentional killing of innocent civilians (even enormous numbers of innocent civilians) can be justified. Consequently, one cannot know a priori that any particular case of such killing is not justified. One has to look at the specifics of the situation to determine whether the killing is justified. Al-Qaida has intentionally targeted innocent civilians. But is this justified? One must examine the specifics of the situation.

It may be that some of the terrorism against innocent civilians that Al-Qaida and bin Laden have committed is justified, but there is another reason for examining the circumstances behind terrorism, even if such terrorism is not justified. The goal is to find a way to eliminate or reduce terrorism, and this goal will likely be very much harder to attain without understanding the reasons and causes behind terrorism. Even if there is no justification for the killing of innocent civilians, we have an interest in understanding the causes of terrorism, just as we would want to understand the causes of violent crime in our cities. If we can understand the causes of terrorism, then it may be possible to remove these causes. If terrorism is justified, then we have even more reason to remove or correct the circumstances that generate terrorism, but we still have a strong reason to understand terrorism even if we find that terrorism that kills innocent civilians is not justified.

The late activist Eqbal Ahmad gives an interesting account of some reasons for political terrorism, the sort of terrorism that bin Laden is engaged in:

Normally, and there are exceptions, there is an effort to be heard, to get their grievances recognized and addressed by the people. The Palestinians, for example, the superterrorists of our time, were dispossessed in 1948. From 1948 to 1968 they went to every court in the world. They knocked on every door. They had been completely deprived of their land, their country, and nobody was listening. In desperation, they invented a new form of terror: the airplane hijacking. Between 1968 and 1975 they pulled the world up by its ears. That kind of terror is a violent way of expressing long-felt grievances. It makes the world hear. It’s normally undertaken by small, helpless groupings that feel powerless. We still haven’t done the Palestinians justice, but at least we all know they exist. Now, even the Israelis acknowledge. Remember what Golda Meir, prime minister of Israel, said in 1970: There are no Palestinians. They do not exist.

They damn well exist now.

Political terrorists normally turn to terrorism in an effort to be heard, to get their grievances recognized and addressed when all other means have failed. Also, terrorism may satisfy the need for retribution against a perceived injustice (which could include the injustice of having legitimate grievances ignored). Ahmad states:

Secondly, terrorism is an expression of anger, of feeling helpless, angry, alone. You feel like you have to hit back. Wrong has been done to you, so you do it. During the hijacking of the TWA jet in Beirut, Judy brown of Belmar, New Jersey, said that she kept hearing them yell, “New Jersey, New Jersey.” What did they have in mind? She thought that they were going after her. Later on it turned out that the terrorists were referring to the US battleship New Jersey, which had heavily shelled the Lebanese civilian population in 1983.

In addition, Ahmad includes the feelings of betrayal, which is connected to the tribal ethic of revenge, something that applies to bin Laden. According to Ahmad, Bin Laden feels that America betrayed him when US forces occupied Saudi Arabia (the land of the kaba, the sacred site of Islam in Mecca) for the Gulf War but then refused to leave. There had never been foreign troops in these holy lands. Since America did not keep its word, bin Laden, following tribal ethics, sought revenge. Ahmad also points out that people who have been victims of violent abuse often become violent people.

One interesting point that Ahmad makes is that the absence of revolutionary ideology (of the Marxist kind) in our time has been central to the spread of terrorism. Marxists argued that true revolutionaries do not resort to assassination. They rejected terror as a viable tactic of revolution. Instead of isolated acts of violence, social problems require social and political mobilization.

Now let’s look at the grievances in bin Laden’s “Letter to America”:

Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
a) You attacked us in Palestine:
(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its price, and pay for it heavily.
(ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.
When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islam, the religion of all the Prophets peace be upon them. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes in all the Prophets of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) - and we make no distinction between them.
(iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You must know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone.
(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.
(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;
(i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.
(ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a large prison of fear and subdual.
(iii) These governments steal our Ummah's wealth and sell them to you at a paltry price.
(iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them most of Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the dismembered limbs of their own people.
(v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you.
(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.
(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.
(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.
(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it.
(2) These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!
(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:
(a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.
(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.
(c) Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this very same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against us.
(d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us.
(e) This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us.
(f) Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge. Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back. Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we have the right to destroy their villages and towns. Whoever has stolen our wealth, then we have the right to destroy their economy. And whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs.
The American Government and press still refuses to answer the question:
Why did they attack us in New York and Washington?
If Sharon is a man of peace in the eyes of Bush, then we are also men of peace!!! America does not understand the language of manners and principles, so we are addressing it using the language it understands.

To be continued in Part III….

Michael Scheuer Has It Right: US Policy Should Be Examined

What Michael Scheuer (see Wikipedia) has to say about the Iraq war and Islamic terrorism is correct. But what he has to say has to be ignored or viciously attacked because it leads one to focus on (and then perhaps question) US foreign policy and on what the US does around the world (largely, if not entirely) for corporate interests. That sort of inquiry can't be allowed, and so it has to be kept out of the American mind -- for sure. So instead of Scheuer's views, Americans hear other things: for instance, they hear that there cannot be any reason for terrorism, other than the idea that terrorists simply hate America, that they are ruthless killers, and that they hate American freedom and democracy. One can hear the same very misleading ideas after the London bombings. But the truer story is that bin Laden and others hate specific US policies. That's one reason why it is important to read bin Laden's "Letter to America," which sets out a list of grievances that can be connected to specific US policies.

A QUOTE from Scheuer:

I think the most basic thing for Americans to realize is that this war has nothing to do with who we are or what we believe, and everything to do with what we do in the Islamic world. Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush before Mr. Clinton -- they all identified Islamic militancy as being based on the hatred of Western democracy and freedom, and that’s clearly not the case. They surely don’t like our way of life, but very few people are willing to die to keep us from having primary elections or because we have freedom of the press.

Universally in the Muslim world, at least according to the most recent polling data, American foreign policy in several specific areas is hated by Muslims. Majorities of 85-90 percent are registered as hating or resenting American policies, towards our support for Israel, our ability to keep oil prices low, or low enough to satisfy Western consumers, our support for Arab tyrannies from Morocco to the Indian Ocean, our support for Putin in Chechnya.
--Michael Scheuer

Terrorism and the Targeting of Innocent Civilians: Part I

The purpose of the following, which will come in parts, is to discuss critically bin Laden’s “Letter to America” and other terrorist sources, and the US (and its allies) response to terrorism. It argues in part that a proper response to terrorism includes Americans' reflecting critically on all the specific circumstances that seem to motivate terrorism, which includes thinking critically about US foreign policy and US actions that have impacts on Muslims. It is important for all Americans to address and think critically about these issues so that we can understand, stop, and reverse those policies and actions (and the consequences of those policies and actions) that are unjustified and that motivate violent retaliation against us in the form of terrorism.

Can there be no justification or excuse for the intentional killing of innocent civilians? One often hears that there can be no justification or excuse for it. Right after the terrorist bombings in London one could hear in the news a community leader or government official saying that there is no justification or excuse for targeting innocent civilians. But no one ever hears an argument for this claim. It is taken as given, assumed uncritically as something that is obviously true. One can sense that it would be an outrage even to bring up the issue for public discussion. But the real outrage would be to silence debate about this crucial issue. The reality is that it is not obviously true. Reasonable and thoughtful people can disagree on this issue. Given the evidence and history of recent warfare, one could even say that many western nations, especially Americans and the US government, have never embraced the idea that there can be no justification or excuse for the intentional killing of civilians.

Many Americans including those in the US government have held that the intentional targeting of innocent civilians can be justified, that there can be an excuse for it, and that there has been justification for it in the past. For instance, consider that central to the development of the concept of strategic bombing in the 20th century was the inclusion of the idea of intentionally targeting and killing civilians. This was an important result of the idea of total war. Such strategic bombing aims in part to kill civilians and civilian infrastructure in an effort to destroy a nation’s ability and will to wage war. It has been argued that the targeting of civilians developed from two distinct theories. The first theory was that if enough civilians were killed, factories could not function. The second theory was that if civilians were killed, the country would be so demoralized that it would have no ability to wage further war.

In both World War II and the Vietnam War the US military used strategic bombing and intentionally targeted civilians. The US was very successful at killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in both of those wars. Those who supported the US bombing of Japan, South Vietnam, and Cambodia thought that the intentional targeting of civilians was justified, that there was an excuse for it. In WWII, Japan lost many hundreds of thousands of civilians, and most of those were casualties of US firebombing. Set aside the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. The US pursued a long campaign of strategic firebombing in which aircraft dropped incendiary bombs on over 60 cities in Japan. (There is an interesting documentary dealing in part with this called “The Fog of War” with Robert McNamara.) Tokyo was one of the first cities to be firebombed, and it has been estimated that 100,000 civilians died in one night as a result of one of those early firebombing raids. But Tokyo was just one in over 60 cities that the US firebombed with the intention, in part, to kill innocent civilians. There are other examples. In 1969, the US began secret (and illegal) B-52 carpet bombing operations in neutral Cambodia. By 1972, some estimate that 50,000 tons of bombs per month were being dropped on the countryside (with the unstated intention of targeting innocent civilians), which probably left about 4 million people homeless and perhaps up to 500,000 civilians were killed. Unfortunately, no one knows the true numbers, but the civilian deaths were enormous. The bombing of South Vietnam is another case. Of course, we can always refer to the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which intentionally targeted innocent civilians and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese, including children and women.

So the US has intentionally targeted and killed at least hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and many believe that these killings were justified. It seems far from obvious that there can never be a justification or excuse for the targeting of innocent civilians. In fact, this seems like a controversial view that requires an argument. Ultimately, it would be best to give up this sort of absolute view. It would be better to look critically at the specifics of each particular situation that comes along and determine on the basis of those specific circumstances whether the targeting of innocent civilians is justified or not. It may be that in practice we never find a justification for targeting innocent civilians, but we should admit that we have to look first and critically evaluate each situation as it comes along. In taking this course, we also have to admit that circumstances may arise where the targeting of innocent civilians is justified.

It will be helpful to distinguish two positions. First, one could hold the Absolute Claim that there can never be a justification or excuse for the intentional killing of innocent civilians, no matter what the circumstances. In other words, the Absolute Claim says that there are no possible circumstances that can ever justify the intentional targeting and killing of innocent civilians. Second, one could hold the Conditional Claim that there are possible circumstances when it may be justified to intentionally target and kill innocent civilians. The Absolute Claim is going to be difficult to maintain because it seems that one can easily undermine it with counterexamples, especially those that emphasize the idea that targeting innocent civilians can be justified if it is necessary to prevent the unjustified killing of other innocent civilians. Anyone maintaining the Absolute Claim would have to consider such counterexamples, and one can maintain the Absolute Claim only if one’s considered and accepted intuitions about such counterexamples do not imply that the Absolute Claim is false. So, for example, imagine that the only hope for stopping a nation (let’s say, Germany) from conquering the world and subjecting your country (let’s say, England) to decades of tyranny and death camps (that may kill millions of innocent English civilians) would be to strategically bomb Germany’s innocent civilians and its civilian infrastructure. Assuming the specifics of this scenario (or some other scenario like it), probably the intuitions of most people would lead them to say that the targeting of innocent civilians would be justified (in this case, to save the lives of innocent civilians). Those who agree would have to reject the Absolute Claim.

Those holding the Absolute Claim face a dilemma. Either our considered intuitions about certain situations that lead us to reject the Absolute Claim are always wrong or irrelevant, or they are not. On one hand, if these intuitions are always wrong or irrelevant, then there has to be a plausible explanation for why they are always wrong or irrelevant. But it is difficult to produce such an explanation. One would have to guard against ad hoc explanations, which reject our intuitions for no other reason than to save the Absolute Claim. Perhaps one could give the following religious argument. God commands that we should not kill innocent people, so there can never be a justification or excuse for intentionally targeting and killing innocent civilians. The argument here is that we should follow God’s commands and His plan. But people have different religious views. Bin Laden, for instance, believes that God commands (as stated in the Quran) that Muslims have a right to defend themselves by doing to their attackers what the attackers do to them, and this leaves open the possibility that targeting innocent civilians can be consistent with God’s commands. If we assume freedom of religion, then it will be best not to appeal to specific religion-based arguments for the Absolute Claim.

On the other hand, if our intuitions about cases can be correct and relevant for deciding what to do, then one must reject the Absolute Claim. The reason is that one will have to admit that in specific circumstances the targeting of innocent civilians may fit our considered moral intuitions, and this may provide a justification for targeting innocent civilians in those circumstances. In short, if our intuitions about cases can be correct and relevant for deciding what to do, then we must abandon the Absolute Claim.

The discussion about terrorism that follows assumes that our intuitions about cases can be correct and relevant for deciding what to do, and that the Conditional Claim is the more plausible claim. The Conditional Claim opens the possibility of critically evaluating cases. It leads us to admit that we cannot know a priori that the targeting of innocent civilians will always be wrong. We will have to look at each case and critically evaluate each situation as it comes along. We will also have to admit that circumstances may arise in which the targeting of innocent civilians will be justified. We cannot exclude that possibility a priori.

Terrorists like bin Laden assume the Conditional Claim, although he argues that there are no “innocent” American civilians because they support the US policies and military that harm Muslims. One should be careful about this argument. When in the context of total war, Americans could justify the bombing of Japanese civilians in the same way. They could say that there really were no “innocent” Japanese civilians because they all contributed in some way to Japan’s ability to make war, and so it was justified to target civilians to destroy Japan’s ability to wage war. But this makes justifying the killing of civilians too easy. If one assumes this total-war view of civilians, then there are rarely ever any “innocent” civilians. For the purposes that follow, one can leave this total-war view of civilians aside for the moment and assume that terrorists are targeting civilians who are innocent in the morally relevant sense. (I might note here that it may be too restrictive to say “in the morally relevant sense” because civilians may not be causally innocent of the offending actions, and there may be cases when it is justified to kill those who are morally innocent but not causally innocent. So the issue of causal innocence or guilt may come up, but one could hold that the only causal guilt that is relevant is that which also undermines the moral innocence of the civilian.) If one rejects this total-war view of civilians, then one can first see whether bin Laden has a case for terrorism that targets innocent civilians. From now on, the term “civilian” stands for “innocent civilian,” or those civilians who are innocent in the morally relevant sense. In those cases when the difference needs to be maintained, there will be an explanation to alert the reader.

End of part I.

The Reasons for Terrorist Attacks: According to Bin Laden and Al-Qaida

But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real cause and thus the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred. --Osama bin Laden

I flew into London the day after the terrorist bombings took place there. These suicide bombings killed dozens of civilians. Again, these terrible events elicited discussion about the causes and motivations behind terrorism. Unfortunately, there continues to be almost no discussion at all about what bin Laden and other terrorist leaders have actually said regarding their central substantive reasons for doing what they do. It is amazing that the media (and our leaders) seem to be completely incapable of reporting and dealing with the actual claims of the terrorists. For instance, it is amazing that Americans are not aware of bin Laden’s “Letter to America.” As members of a democracy, we need to analyze and discuss critically what these people actually say (see what journalist Harley Sorensen says about needing to know our enemy). If we do this, then we will be in a better position to deliberate about what actions to take and what policies to support in response to terrorism.

To understand Al-Qaida’s reasons for doing what they do, one should read the following, or at least bin Laden’s “Letter to America”:

Bin Laden’s “Letter to America” (2002)
Abu Ghaith’s (Al-Qaida spokesperson) “Why We Fight America”
Bin Laden’s “Speech” (2004)
Bin Laden "Interview" (1998)

I'll comment on these later. But what is the central reason for terrorist attacks? What is the central complaint? America and its allies have inflicted suffering, death, injustice, and humiliation on Muslims.

The Academic Bill of Rights and Academic Freedom

The web site for the Committee for the Defense of Professional Rights of Philosophers can be found at the web site for The American Philosophical Association (the professional association for philosophers). This Committee has some very good information at a page dealing with the Academic Bill of Rights -- a page that can be found at this link. The Academic Bill of Rights, which is the invention of David Horowitz, may be coming to a state near you.

One should oppose this bill because although it looks good, it actually undermines academic freedom as we currently know it. Faculty and researchers should be self-governing, and their academic standards should be the basis for determining students' competence and what should be taught. The Academic Bill of Rights shifts responsibility for determining proper pedagogical standards away from the faculty and researchers to the administration or the courts. In other words, other criteria, like political criteria, not sound academic criteria, will determine what should be taught in schools and what will count as criteria for judging student competence. If you care about academic freedom, then you should oppose this bill if it ever appears in your state or in Congress.

Tiger Woods and the Rules of the Game

The following begins with some simple comments about rules and the integrity of games and ends with some very limited reflections about the integrity of the game of golf.

Every sport or game has a set of rules within which players must perform. One could call these the constitutive rules of the game (to distinguish them from rules or general principles that direct one on how to play the game well). Constitutive rules often determine the size of the playing field, the requirements for equipment (like balls and rackets), and numerous other details for scoring and playing the game. Without constitutive rules, there would be no game at all to play.

The rules determine the conditions under which players must perform or act, and the players' performances and actions determine the value, quality, and meaningfulness of the game. To make a good game, the rules must in some way accommodate the natural abilities of human beings so that the performances of the players have value and meaning. What exactly is this value, quality, and meaning? It is not necessary to have precise definitions. Let's just use our intuitions and say that a valuable and meaningful game at least tests the physical or mental abilities of the players in some specifically significant and interesting ways and enables a fair comparison of performances.

One way in which the integrity of a game may be challenged is when human abilities change so that the rules of the game can no longer guarantee the same kind of (or same level of) value, quality, and meaning in players' performances. For instance, one can imagine how the integrity of tennis could be undermined. Imagine that certain training techniques and strategies have been developed that allow tennis players having certain physical endowments the ability to serve aces almost everytime. Imagine that this becomes repeatable so that many top players in the game now have this ability. Matches among top players would soon become pointless and tiresome serving demonstrations. Such a situation would be intolerable. The constitutive rules of the game no longer set up conditions for meaningful and valuable comparisons among competitors. To restore integrity, the rules of tennis would have to be changed in some way to eliminate the endless perfect serves. Perhaps the service area would have to be changed.

The integrity issue is a real concern for some sports. In baseball and other sports, there is a concern with performance enhancing drugs. Such drugs can undermine the value of the game, especially the fairness of the game. In part because of the deep opening theory available, professional chess has a problem with the high number of drawn games. These days, the integrity of golf is being challenged in part because of new technology that allows players to hit the golf ball so much farther than ever before. Augusta National, the home of the Masters golf tournament, is currently changing the length of several of its holes (again) in order to make the course play as it did in the past. In the case of golf, changing the course is not really a change to the rules of the game, but the USGA is considering a rule change. It is considering making some of the equipment (like the balls) standard issue for all players.

I believe that golf has some special issues that it must deal with to ensure its integrity. The case of Tiger Woods brings up some interesting points. I watched Woods play in the Western Open (July 2005). He hit a drive that almost reached the green of a 380-yard par 4 hole. Woods was swinging as hard as he could because he was trying to catch the leaders on the final day of competition. His ball ended up about 10-yards from the green. At the tee box, spectators stood almost in silence, as they simply could not believe what they saw: voices simply said, "Oh, my God." Shortly before, Woods almost hit a 600-yard par 5 in two. His second shot was a fairway 3-wood that went 300 yards into the left green-side bunker. On another par 5 on the same back nine, Woods hit the green in two using a 9-iron from the rough for his second shot. There was something unsettling about seeing this sort of performance from Woods. It seemed that his length simply undermined the value and quality of the game. Woods did not seem to be playing the same sort of game that everyone else was playing. Something seemed wrong. Is Woods' abilities undermining the integrity of golf?

I believe that if there is one person playing golf like Woods, where his distance radically changes the character of the courses on which he plays, then there is little case for the view that the integrity of golf is being undermined. Changes should not be made to accommodate one outstanding player, or perhaps even two or three outstanding players. The abilities that Woods exhibits will undermine the integrity of golf if his abilities become repeatable by many others. Players should not be able to hit par 5's in two strokes, except in unusual circumstances. Players should not be able to almost drive par 4's.

Unfortunately, this is becoming the case. More golfers seem to be able to copy Woods. As one golf observer writes: "By spending more hours at the gym, visiting their sports psychologists religiously and applying every bit of technology that club and ball manufacturers have developed in recent years, the pack chasing Woods have neutralized his distance advantage." If this is the case, then the integrity of the game of golf is in jeopardy and the rules (if not the courses) need to be changed.

Michael Moore and Bush's Iraq Speech (July 05)

MichaelMoore.com recently asked readers to comment on George Bush's speech (July 2005) about the Iraq war. The White House spokesperson (Scott McClellan) had said several times before the speech that Bush was going to "talk in a very specific way" about his strategy for Iraq. Seeking to expose Bush's lack of any specific strategy for success in Iraq, Moore's web site asked readers to find and then comment on the so-called specific strategy in Bush's speech. They would then post some of the comments.

I read the text of Bush's speech very carefully. I then answered Moore's query, giving what I thought were Bush's specifics. It is clear that Bush gave specifics in his speech and that he talked in a very specific way about his strategy for Iraq. By doing this interesting little exercise, I learned something about the aministration's ideas on Iraq. I set aside the question about whether these specifics are irrelevant, insufficient, or incorrect for dealing with the problem successfully. I first just tried to take the time to understand Bush's specific strategy.

Although I applaud Moore's site for setting up this great little challenge, I was a bit dissappointed to see that Moore's site hardly addressed anything that Bush actually spelled out in his speech. Unfortunately, the site's interesting little exercise hardly produced any reasoned argument for thinking that any specific thing in Bush's speech was inadequate or incorrect. There was no effort at all to understand any specific thing that Bush said. The only comments that Moore's site posted were those that simply lampooned Bush's speech.

Instead of this unthinking Bush bashing, it would have been better to actually see some analysis of what Bush actually said -- to see detailed and specific criticisms of some of the specific things that Bush spelled out in his speech. Instead of assuming that Bush gave no stategy worth thinking about, it would be good to show it through some fair criticism of what he actually said. By forcing on its readers the mere assumption that Bush said nothing specific in his speech, Moore's site undermined the value of the whole exercise by promoting unthinking knee-jerk sarcasm and the worst sort of uncritical political bashing, exactly the sort of thing that Moore would accuse those on the far right of doing.