Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan--Our Lasting Legacy of Hate

When the Al Qaeda terrorists hijacked Us passenger aircraft and struck US targets killing over 3,000 civilians our country responded by attacking Afghanistan where we now have been at war there for over 9 years. The country of Afghanistan whose population is about 33 million has suffered over 3,000 civilian deaths caused by air-borne bombs and missiles and untold numbers from ground fire according to published information. The total number of civilian deaths will only be etched in the hearts of survivors whose loved ones died as so-called collateral damage. These civilian deaths are actually much larger in number than the published information since the real count of civilian corpses cannot ever be established.But if we use only the estimated lower count of 3,000 this is equivalent to about .01% of the total population. If the same proportion of our population were to perish as a result of collateral killing of civilians the number of dead men, women, and children would equal at least 30,000. The number of indirectly affected people would exceed 300,000 if surviving family members and friends are included, let alone co workers and distant relatives. Our country would demand immediate response to stop the murders of innocent civilians.

Yet, as the war in Afghanistan continues and now more than 1,000 NATO troops have died in combat we continue to kill civilians at an escalating rate using drones that shower bombs with little or no discrimination of combatants and civilians who are treated alike by bombs and missiles. alike. When this war finally stops we will be remembered as the killers of innocent civilians and hatred and revenge will permeate the Afghanistan survivors. The ultimate result of this senseless war will be the growth of anti USA feelings and the innocent people of Afghanistan will be easily manipulated by terrorist groups to seek revenge.

The irony of all this senseless killing is that the original attacks by Al Qaeda were not conducted by Afghani's but mainly by Saudi Arabian citizens who had usurped land in Afghanistan for training purposes.

The result of this continuing war that keeps killing Afghanistan civilians and our troops alike will be more hate against us and more, not less terrorism. We must stop the combat and help the Afghanistan people regain their country and their own governance system.

President Obama's Reconciliatory Way or Constitutional Failure and Dictatorship??

Yesterday President Obama announced that he appointed a White House lawyer, Rashad Hussain, to be his special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. This announcement highlights how much he values reconciliation and understanding in an effort to solve problems. This characteristic of President Obama is atypical of contemporary American presidents. We Americans have been conditioned to expect antagonistic approaches by our Presidents and we are puzzled by a President who really is trying to change the ways things are done in Washington. Both the Congressional Democrats and Republicans seem to be unable to get on board and work to change our political climate. President Obama has constantly tried to engage the Republicans in Congress without success.

The Senate Republicans have succeeded to block virtually every legislative act by imposing a filibuster that allows a minority to stop any legislation by demanding a super majority of 60 votes to pass anything.The filibuster is a Senate rule (that could be overturned by the Senate) that was enacted by the then Senate, over 150 years ago, to permit a minority to stonewall legislation indefinitely. Early uses of the filibuster included actions to prevent laws preventing slavery in new US territories or new states from being enacted. Then, Southern Democrats often filibustered to preserve slavery. Republicans and Whigs were generally opposed to slavery.

Now the Senate Republicans filibuster everything President Obama and the Congressional Democrats attempt to legislate, and our country suffers. Seems odd to me that the use of the filibuster has generally been used to block social and human right legislation by both parties when they were minorities in the Senate. The House of Representatives does not have a filibuster rule and the majority usually prevails and compromise is often achieved between opposing views. Our Constitutional Founders never believed that our Senators would act as dictators within our elected government. But, so it is. We have not escaped from the dictatorial powers of the Monarch that sparked our American Revolution and our Declaration of Independence from the dictatorial King of England and his regime.

The Senate filibuster rule requires 60% of the Senators to pass any legislation that the minority can block indefinitely by demanding use of the filibuster rule. Consequently, President Obama, who believes that consensus and reconciliation among different views is the best approach to governance in a Democratic Republic that is the USA, and generally our Constitution has worked when legislators reach consensus as our Founders intended. Our Constitution was a masterful work of collaboration and consensus between very different ideas for our basic foundation as a nation. Our Constitution should be a remainder for all of us that great results are attained by compromise and reconciliation. Our country would not exist as a Constitutional Republic without reconciliation among our Founders.

Everyday, we now hear clamoring talking heads and enraged politicians and activist groups yelling that our government is broken. No it is not our Government that is broken, it is the abusive use of the Senate filibuster rule that has been enacted more times in the first year of the Obama administration than in any full term Administration in our history. What is needed is a Constitutional Amendment that prevents the use of the Senate filibuster and affirms our Constitutional purpose that a simple majority vote is all that is required, except for an Amendment to our Constitution. Therein lies the Catch 29. Such an Amendment would be filibustered to death.

Are we doomed by the filibuster rule in the Senate to perpetual stalemate? If so our Government is certainly obsolete and our Constitution meaningless. President Obama is acting responsibly when he tries to collaborate and bring disparate views together to achieve beneficial legislation for the American people. There is no option to governance if we want to continue to operate as a Constitutional Republic where the good of all citizens counts, and exclusive beliefs and interests must be compromised and not demanded if our Constitution is to survive. Otherwise we will return to dictatorial rule as was our fate before the American Revolution. The choice is ours. Speak out!

Good Greed, Bad Greed, and the Grand Old Party of Corporate Greed

The word "greed" is generally used to denote undesirable self-centered behavior or at least behavior that most individuals claim they are not engaged in on a regular basis since they excuse their own greed as necessity. Perhaps we forget that greed is a vital reason for human behavior in certain instances but not for many other reasons.

Billions of humans barely live from day to day in parts of the world where survival is a day-to-day challenge. Potable water, essential quantity of food, and adequate shelter are some needs that billions of humans struggle to obtain to survive. They may seek these essentials to supply themselves and their immediate family and be very reluctant to share anything with other needy people. Such behavior may be termed greedy, but is it greedy to provide essential sustenance for yourself and loved ones rather than share with others and thereby jeopardize survival of your family members? If you were someone who rummaged through garbage remains for morels of food, and drank water from polluted waterways, and lived under pieces of cardboard or rags to survive could you consider your opposition to share an act of greed? Such unfortunate but necessary behavior is not a manifestation of greed, merely doing what is necessary to survive instinctively. Under such circumstances the actions taken to survive can be nothing but good, under horribly bad conditions.

However, most manifestations of greed are not from necessity. They are individual actions of we humans to seek self-satisfaction based upon our own self-centered motives. Self-centered behavior pervades our society and many parts of the world where humans have more than enough to survive from day-to-day, but who think and behave as if they need much more and cannot be satisfied without. What is prompting such behavior if not pure greed. By the phrase "pure greed" I mean that whatever is sought is for self-centered reasons only. Whether the item sought is materialistic or intangible matters not. What defines "pure greed" is the self satisfaction that is generated in the seeker, and that shows the external world how superior the seeker is to acquire that sought.

Chronically greedy humans fundamentally care about nothing else other than their own well being and recognition. They are morally corrupt or can twist whatever moral inclinations they possess into a shape that mollifies there angst. Such greedy humans use others to foster their own status while dismissing them as useless after reaching their desired interim pinnacle. Often the greediest individuals in society seek political or corporate power to allow their dominance over others to prevail consistently. Such people after reaching their pinnacle of power will virtually do anything to sustain it.

Nations paralyzed by brutal dictators use terror and murder to sustain their power as necessary. They will have all opposition eliminated as long as they are able. Power is also attained by self-centered greedy people attracted to politics in democratic forms of societies or in those societies where so-called elections are faux, or in English, fake.. Tow party political systems such as that in our country are often greed-breeding machines whose political representatives sole purpose become the retention of political power. In other words many American politicians are nothing more than self-centered greedy individuals whose sole purpose is tho discredit the other parties opposition to assure their own continuance of power. To accomplish this they cater to the local power brokers in and out of politics to obtain the financial resources to continue to get re-elected. Why is so disturbing to the general public at large to accept this as normalcy? Or if not normalcy the reason to step in line with the purveyors of greed and align politically with one or the other side. The saying ,"Like begets Like" suggests that greedy people are attracted to other greedy people. It then becomes understandable that whichever USA party possesses more self-centered greedy politicians in office will attract disproportionately more greedy, self-centered individual voters to their side.

Historically, in our country the Republican Party has and is the party of special corporate interests that have the greatest financial power. Such financial concentration favors self-centered behavior aimed at increasing the power and influence of the corporations and the executives that control them. The Republican Party has since its founding more than two centuries ago been the part of big business. Their have been many attempts to disguise the Republicans individually as freedom fighters, and opposed to big government while behind their words is their purpose to have big business control our country with the Republican Party at the helm of the ship of plenty for their self-centered greedy vessel laden with special corporate pork.

The Democratic Party has historically worked in behalf of the workers of our country in contrast to the Republican corporate-centered Party of Greed. The Democratic Party and Democratic Presidents supported and enacted legislation that provided Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment benefit legislation. The Republican Party opposed all of these, and most Republican politicians still do. The Voter's Right legislation and Civil Right legislation were enacted under Democratic Presidents as was the elimination of racial segregation in the US. Military services. Dwight Eisenhower, a moderate Republican President, enforced the abolition of school segregation. However most civil rights legislation has been enacted and rigorously enforced under Democratic Presidents.

Todays political climate is not surprising if we examine our recent history. The Republican Party has and continues to oppose all social legislation as it has historically. Opposition to any Health Care reform affirms their long-term opposition to all social legislation. Why? They are on the side of corporate power and in this situation the very powerful Health Insurance Corporations who will do anything to protect their profits, executive pay, and bonuses that diminishes the money available for actual health care. The Health Insurance Corporation's lobbyists spend hundreds of millions of dollars to essentially buy the votes of congress members to vote against any health care reform. Why? Simply that any reform is against the prime objectives of the Grand Old Party of Corporate Greed----self centered power for themselves and their power brokers, the self-centered Corporate Giants and their purveyors of greed.