A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Since 1945 - by Isao Hashimoto

 Voltaire wrote:

Sucking Up to the Military Brass
Generals Who Run Amuck, Politicians Who Could Care Less, an “Embedded” Media... And Us

Few things have characterized the post-9/11 American world more than our worshipful embrace of our generals. They’ve become our heroes, our sports stars, and our celebrities all rolled into one. We can’t stop gushing about them. Even after his recent fall from grace, General David Petraeus was still being celebrated by CNN as the best American general since Dwight D. Eisenhower (and let’s not forget that Ike commanded the largest amphibious invasion in history and held a fractious coalition together in a total war against Nazi Germany). Before his fall from grace, Afghan War Commander General Stanley McChrystal was similarly lauded as one tough customer, a sort of superman-saint.

Petraeus and McChrystal crashed and burned for the same underlying reason: hubris. McChrystal became cocky and his staff contemptuous of civilian authority; Petraeus came to think he really could have it all, the super-secret job and the super-sexy mistress. An ideal of selfless service devolved into self-indulgent preening in a wider American culture all-too-eager to raise its star generals into the pantheon of Caesars and Napoleons, and its troops into the halls of Valhalla. (...)

Canceled Nukes Meeting: A Setback for Obama?
The president took office with nuclear non-proliferation as a priority, but has little to show for it thus far.

The day after Thanksgiving, when Americans were still digesting on La-Z-Boys and watching football, the State Department quietly announced that the 2012 conference for a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons had been canceled by the United States. It doesn't quite qualify as inconvenient news deliberately dropped over a holiday weekend (Israelis and Palestinians were probably watching the news, not sleeping off turkey), but it comes close. 

The cancelation doesn't reflect well on President Obama, who had made nuclear non-proliferation a priority in his administration. In 2009, shortly after his inauguration, he appeared in Prague and presented an ambitious plan to achieve a world without weapons of mass destruction. Since then, he has continued to work towards that goal—holding nuclear summits in Washington and South Korea—with mixed results. The summit in Seoul for example, dissolved into squabbles between the US and Russia, and did little to advance a nuclear weapons-free agenda. (The New York Times called it "a most undiplomatic pileup.") Reports early this year indicated that Obama was considering reducing the US nuclear arsenal, but likely not until further talks with the Russians some time in 2013. (...)

 RichardPrins wrote:

That was interesting, Richard. Thanks. I think it might have been preaching to a choir, though.

The change begins within. I don't think that means to fill one's life with artificial attitudes that hide how you really think on things. I never try to lighten peoples woes by telling them they'll get over it. Some things we just can't get over. Time may heal the wound, but there is oft times a scar. I think to get over the death of a loved one and just forget them is kind of psychopathic in it's own right.

I would have liked to ask Jiddu how one reconciles the lunatics that just like to kill and hurt people and break things? You could create a collective of horse-loving pacifists, fine and dandy, but the principle of polarity says that a collective of war-mongers would also form and eventually they'd decide they wanted your horses. You would then be in a position where you must defend your equines as well as yourself and loved ones. Also, showing weakness to some folks is just inviting their wrath, no matter how kind you are.

I often wonder if human beings will ever escape their innate bestial nature. It's easy to claim to be something and then through action prove it all a lie. Inventing supreme superheroes (gods) hasn't worked, laws haven't worked, even kindness hasn't worked. We have created a world that protects it's weak and stupid and encouraged psychopathic personalities to thrive. Then we tell them it's wrong to kill, while warring with other nations and hero-worshiping the killers.

It's an entirely unleveled battlefield. Either we establish morality on a level field and stick to it or what's the point? If our leaders are always solving their problems with violence, how are we to have proper role-models? Oppression seems a short way off from anarchy. The pressure builds and then there's a story about some guy shooting people in a movie theater or school.

I wonder if peace can ever really exist. We're all too petty.
 

 Umberdog wrote:
Something I saw today, sort of echoes it: The Wisdom of Insecurity

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~ Bertrand Russell

I've often found this guys thoughts interesting.

J. Krishnamurti on The Causes of War

"To put an end to outward war, you must begin to put an end to war in yourself."

War is the spectacular and bloody projection of our everyday life, is it not? War is merely an outward expression of our inward state, an enlargement of our daily action. It is more spectacular, more bloody, more destructive, but it is the collective result of our individual activities. Therefore, you and I are responsible for war and what can we do to stop it? Obviously the ever-impending war cannot be stopped by you and me, because it is already in movement; it is already taking place, though at present chiefly on the psychological level. As it is already in movement, it cannot be stopped- the issues are too many, too great, and are already committed. But you and I, seeing that the house is on fire, can understand the causes of that fire, can go away from it and build in a new place with different materials that are not combustible, that will not produce other wars. That is all that we can do. You and I can see what creates wars, and if we are interested in stopping wars, then we can begin to transform ourselves, who are the causes of war.

Continued... http://www.rainbowbody.com/newarticles/krishnawar.htm

Behind the "Support the Troops" Rhetoric
Micro Militarism
by MICHAEL SCHWALBE

My ATM receipts now tell me, beneath my checking account balance, that the North Carolina State Employees’ Credit Union SUPPORTS THE TROOPS!  The classical music station I listen to runs a dedication to “the men and women of our armed forces, who work so hard to protect us; without their sacrifices, none of our freedoms would be possible.”

When I browse for information about public universities in North Carolina, an ad pops up showing a young man in camouflage combat fatigues, holding a laptop computer.  The text of the ad reads, “Advance Your Military Career with an MBA.”  The ad is for an online MBA program at the University of North Carolina.

A few months ago the home page of my university, NC State, greeted viewers with an image of a young man in the cockpit of a U.S. air force fighter jet.  The text, as I recall, was to the effect that NC State is training tomorrow’s leaders today.  The fall issue of the university’s alumni magazine ran an adoring profile of army general Ray Odierno, a 1986 graduate.

The local weekly independent newspaper, which fashions itself as alternative and leftish, runs a feature called the “social activist calendar.”  Events are grouped under headings such as Community, Environment, Politics, Government, and LGBTQ.  In a recent issue, four events were listed under Troop Support.

Though the requests have abated lately, for a time earlier this year cashiers in grocery stores and gas stations consistently asked if I wanted to donate a dollar to support the troops.

The above are examples of what can be called micro militarism: pro-military practices squeezed into small cultural spaces.  Any one such practice might seem trivial.  Yet on the whole micro militarism does much to normalize militarism on a large scale. (...)

To maintain support for militarism on a large scale, people must be propagandized.  They must be made afraid of alleged enemies abroad; they must be told, as often as possible, that the U.S. is, unlike all other empires in history, concerned only about promoting freedom and democracy when it uses military force; they must be led to see military service—of which the essence is obedience, not courageous independence—as noble and heroic.

Some of the cultural practices through which this management of consciousness occurs are easy to see.  The martial-spirited national anthem is sung en masse before sporting events.  Military jets are flown over crowded stadiums.  College basketball games are held on air force bases and aircraft carriers.  Films and TV shows (e.g., “Stars Earn Stripes”) celebrate the skill and virtue of U.S. soldiers.  G.I. Joes and other military toys fill whole aisles in big box stores.

Micro militarism is harder to see.  An individual instance can look like nothing more than an expression of support for people who have given several years of their lives, and perhaps their entire futures, for national service.  The intentions behind many acts of micro militarism are good.  But intentions do not determine consequences. (...)

 helenofjoy wrote: 
and true

would work for shackles too

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Powerful

by BLU

Rethinking the 'Just War,' Part 2

 hippiechick wrote: 
we had a chance to do that on nov 6th

the two wings of the war party continue to rule

peace

Rethinking the ‘Just War,’ Part 1
By JEFF MCMAHAN / The Stone

Can war be justified? Is there such a thing as morally proper conduct in war?

(...) The Stone is featuring recent work by Jeff McMahan, a philosopher and professor at Rutgers University, on “just war theory” — a set of ethical principles pertaining to violent conflict, whose origins can be traced back to Augustine, that still influence the politics and morality of war today. The work will be published in two parts on consecutive days — the first dealing with the background and history of the traditional just war theory, and second consisting of the author’s critique of that theory.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Thank you for posting this. If I had done it, I would have gotten piled on like the guy with the football. 

We must just stop fighting wars. Young people must stop enlisting. No one wants war but the bankers, the politicians, and the war machine manufacturers.  

There is no reason for us to have a base in almost every single country in the world. Really, Germany??? 

For Veterans Day, the best thing we could do is demand to stop the wars. 

Paul Atwood: Veterans’ Day 2012: a Meditation

Every November 11 the nation pretends to observe Veterans’ Day. This charade parallels the ubiquitous yellow bumper stickers that avow “We Support Our Troops.” Yes, indeed, all the way to the cemeteries, and amputee and paraplegic wards, as well as to lifelong psychic and spiritual distress! If we really were concerned not to impose such curses on our fellow citizens, and horror on many civilians, we wouldn’t allow wars to be waged in the name of lies. While a clear majority wants the troops home, polls declare, this has not resulted in any public demonstration of demand to achieve this result, so the death toll creeps up inexorably every week, while almost nothing is said of the maimed, though the indifference to the toll on Muslim civilians taken by our drones in many countries appears to indicate approval of high tech murder if that might keep our own casualties lower.

Consider the outraged coverage of the shooting of the young Pakistani teen who advocated education for girls. Our bombs and now drones have been shredding and torching children for generations. No problem with that! There is no equivalent today of the chant of yore “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today.” Many 19 year olds in uniform at that time felt this mantra should have taken them into account too. (...)

Greenwald: Petraeus scandal is reported with compelled veneration of all things military
The reverence for the former CIA Director is part of a wider religious-like worship of the national security state.

(...) First, military worship is the central religion of America's political and media culture. The military is by far the most respected and beloved institution among the US population - a dangerous fact in any democracy - and, even assuming they wanted to (which they don't), our brave denizens of establishment journalism are petrified of running afoul of that kind of popular sentiment.

Recall the intense controversy that erupted last Memorial Day when MSNBC's Chris Hayes gently pondered whether all soldiers should be considered "heroes". His own network, NBC, quickly assembled a panel on the Today Show to unanimously denounce him in the harshest and most personal terms ("I hope that he doesn't get more viewers as a result of this...this guy is like a – if you've seen him...he looks like a weenie" - "Could you be more inappropriate on Memorial Day?"), and Hayes then subjected himself to the predictable ritual of public apology (though he notably did not retract the substance of his remarks).

Hayes was forced (either overtly or by the rising pressure) to apologize because his comments were blasphemous: of America's true religion. At virtually every major sporting event, some uber-patriotic display of military might is featured as the crowd chants and swoons. It's perfectly reasonable not to hold members of the military responsible for the acts of aggression ordered by US politicians, but that hardly means that the other extreme - compelled reverence - is justifiable either.

Yet US journalists - whose ostensible role is to be adversarial to powerful and secretive political institutions (which includes, first and foremost, the National Security State) - are the most pious high priests of this national religion. John Parker, former military reporter and fellow of the University of Maryland Knight Center for Specialized Journalism-Military Reporting, wrote an extraordinarily good letter back in 2010 regarding why leading Pentagon reporters were so angry at WikiLeaks for revealing government secrets: because they identify with the military to the point of uncritical adoration:

"The career trend of too many Pentagon journalists typically arrives at the same vanishing point: Over time they are co-opted by a combination of awe - interacting so closely with the most powerfully romanticized force of violence in the history of humanity - and the admirable and seductive allure of the sharp, amazingly focused demeanor of highly trained military minds. Top military officers have their s*** together and it's personally humbling for reporters who've never served to witness that kind of impeccable competence. These unspoken factors, not to mention the inner pull of reporters' innate patriotism, have lured otherwise smart journalists to abandon – justifiably in their minds – their professional obligation to treat all sources equally and skeptically. . . .

"Pentagon journalists and informed members of the public would benefit from watching 'The Selling of the Pentagon', a 1971 documentary. It details how, in the height of the Vietnam War, the Pentagon sophisticatedly used taxpayer money against taxpayers in an effort to sway their opinions toward the Pentagon's desires for unlimited war. Forty years later, the techniques of shaping public opinion via media has evolved exponentially. It has reached the point where flipping major journalists is a matter of painting in their personal numbers."

(...)

Holy cow...

Stephen M. Walt: Do Americans love the military too much?

With so much attention riveted on Election Day, some important contributions to our discourse are bound to get less attention than they deserve. Case in point: yesterday's NYT op-ed by Aaron O'Connell on the "permanent militarization of America." It's an excellent piece, and I just hope his arguments don't fall into the memory hole while we're all breathlessly awaiting the outcome in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, or wherever.

Greenwald: Who is the worst civil liberties president in US history?
Where do the abuses of the last decade from Bush and Obama rank when compared to prior assaults in the name of war?

The following interesting question arose yesterday from what at first appeared to be some petty Twitter bickering: who was the worst president for civil liberties in US history? That question is a difficult one to answer because it is so reliant upon which of many valid standards of measurement one chooses; it depends at least as much on the specific rights which one understands the phrase "civil liberties" to encompass. That makes the question irresolvable in any definitive way, but its examination is nonetheless valuable for the light it sheds on current political disputes. (...)