By
Tom Molloy
In my opinion, middle class Americans are being screwed by their government. Over the next few months, I intend to write a series of blogs concerning the “Screwing of America”. The focus of this blog is the lousy health care system we have, the reasons we have it, and what we can about it.
Our elected representatives are bought and paid for by those special interests that contribute to their campaigns. Although many middle class Americans are aware of the power of special interests, most have lapsed into a state of apathy. The attitude seems to be: “You can’t fight city hall”.
”
I just read a synopsis of a three-year old World Health Organization report that evaluates the delivery of health care in participating countries. According to this report, France is the best in the world at delivering health care to its citizens and Italy is in second place. The UK is 18th and the United States is 37th. Yes, you read it right, 37th. This report presents an array of medical facts and figures. Some of these, such as infant mortality rate, life expectancy, and post-operative infection rates are easy for a layperson to understand. No country received a perfect score. WHO found deficiencies in every country’s delivery of health care, but when you compare the US delivery to the delivery of the top five countries, it is embarrassing.
We are the richest country in the world and we are rated 37th in the delivery of health care. Why aren’t we in first place? There are two serious impediments to our ability improve the delivery of health care. First, there is the insurance industry which makes billions in profits from providing health insurance. Second, there are the right wing ideologues who fanatically oppose any further government involvement in health care. The right wing disinformation campaign has led Americans to believe government involvement in health care leads tO failure.
The insurance industry pours money into congressional coffers to maintain the status quo. Mind you, this is perfectly legal. Corporations can legally contribute to political campaigns. I am told that there is a legal distinction between a campaign contribution and a bribe, but I have difficulty distinguishing between the two. It all boils down to:”You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours. The middle class had better start scratching because the eight wingers are giving away the country to the super rich at bargain prices.
It is a national disgrace that 46 million Americans do not have health insurance and no one knows how many others have inadequate health insurance. I believe we are the only industrialized nation that does not have universal health insurance. Middle class Americans are increasingly finding themselves without health insurance and live in fear of the day illness strikes One of the leading causes of bankruptcy in our country is inability to pay medical bills
Whenever a representative proposes any government intervention to give all Americans access to quality health care, the right wing ideologues, willful or unwitting shills for the insurance industry, swing into action. The Fox News talking heads launch a disinformation barrage. They immediately hurl the ugliest words in their lexicon at the proponent. “Socialist” and “liberal”, they cry!” For right winger ideologues, this ends the argument.
But for those of us who are too obtuse to see the nexus between socialism and the proposal (That is to say, we know the definition of socialism), they whip out anecdotes. It seems that almost everyone at Fox News knows someone who has been subjected to horrendous treatment at some medical facility in Europe or Canada. The Fox News talking heads tell us how hordes of Canadians, distrusting their system, escape to seek treatment here. I have gone out of my way to ask Canadians how they like their health care system. They express satisfaction with it. Many Europeans and Canadians think we are barbarians because we don’t have universal health insurance.
The ideologues, somewhat disingenuously, aver that everyone in America has access to health care. They do and they don’t. When illness strikes, the uninsured frequently have to avail themselves of a hospital emergency room. Typically, unless it is a matter of imminent life or death, they leave the emergency room with the minimum treatment necessary so they can see their private physician. They might also leave with a diagnosis and a prescription. They definitely get a whopping bill. If they need surgery or prolonged treatment, they can try one of the hospitals or clinics that treat the indigent. Good luck with their open heart surgery.
Here is a true anecdote. I lived in Germany for three years. One morning I went to throw out the garbage. I got my foot got caught in a crevice in the thick ice on the road and fell with my ankle stuck in the crevice. It turned out I had to have surgery to repair the ankle and had to stay in the hospital for 8 days because my doctor was afraid blood clots could develop. From the ambulance ride to the hospital until day I left the hospital, I received outstanding care. I was in a two-person room that was comfortable and squeaky clean. The doctors, nurses and technicians were thoroughly professional and the food was remarkably good.
When I got the bill, I was astounded. The total was $2600 My US insurance covered the cost. They did ask for an itemized bilk and got a lecture from the German administrator about how wasteful itemization was. She said it was too expensive to itemize. She explained there were two basic charges; surgery and hospital stay. A day’s hospital say was a fixed price. There were three categories of surgery, each with a fixed price.
I am not an accountant, but it sounds as if great savings could be wrung from such a system.
One evening in Germany, my wife had a nose bleed which wouldn’t stop. We went to the local hospital emergency room and they stopped the bleeding, but the doctor suggested that my wife be transported to the big Munich Ear, Nose and Throat Hospital for tests. She spent about five days and the treatment was fantastic. The cause of the bleeding turned out to be nothing serious. The total bill was about $1200
But, we the right wing bombards us with negative comments about such health care systems. As for government involvement, in some European countries, the governments are the insurer and you can choose any doctor you want. In other countries, the government is the insurer and provider of health care. In these latter countries, generally choice of doctors is more limited.
Let’s look at the heath care delivery system from the perspective of the Europeans and Canadians. Why wouldn’t they jump at the chance to adopt our system that costs twice as much and excludes a large number of their citizens?
Wake up, America!
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Friday, December 22, 2006
The War against Terrorism
by
Tom Molloy
A Red Herring Beginning to Smell like Rotten Fish
The attack on 9/11 was a wake up call, but we are still asleep. Instead of punishing the terrorists and their supporters, we are punishing ourselves.
Our President declared war on terrorism and then initiated actions that were more detrimental to the United States than to the enemy. It’s as if we are puppets and the terrorists are pulling the strings.
This so-called war on terrorism is a red herring. It will lead to our defeat, not to victory over the terrorists.
Let’s review the record. In response to 9/11, we occupied Afghanistan and we created a massive homeland security apparatus. We declared victory in Afghanistan, a country in which we may be bogged down for the next century. Our claims of victory are belied by mounting casualties and calls for more troops and more money. As for homeland security, we have spent billions of dollars and have learned that, no matter how much money we spend, we are still vulnerable. We haven’t even scratched the surface of our vulnerability.
Then there is the invasion of Iraq, a fiasco of colossal magnitude, costing around half a trillion dollars. I really don’t understand why we invaded Iraq. Whatever the rationale, the war in Iraq is an enormous financial burden. Moreover, this war is not making us more secure; on the contrary, Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorists.
The common thread among our actions in response to terrorism is that each one costs a lot of money—money we don’t have. We are spending money as if it were confetti and, if we don’t stop hemorrhaging money; the value of the dollar will approximate that of confetti.
So after spending enormous amounts of money, what have we accomplished? Are there fewer terrorists? No, there are more. Are we in less danger of being attacked by terrorists? No, many experts think that we are in greater danger of a terrorist attack than we were before we declared war on terrorism. Moreover, anti-Americanism is rife in every corner of the world.
We have little or nothing to show for the massive amounts of money we have spent. According to some economists, we are on the road to insolvency and according to others we have already arrived.
There isn’t enough money in the world to protect us against terrorism. I have no doubt that Al-Qaeda is jubilant that we are spending so much for little. Terrorism will not be defeated by our money, but by resolute, decisive, draconian action.
The day we spent the first extra dollar on homeland security after 9/11 was the day that we started to lose the war. The very fact that we are diverting billions of dollars from important needs to establish an enormous security apparatus is a major victory for the terrorists. Education, health care, and defense are being short –changed while we flush money down the toilet.
Uncle Sam has become Uncle Sap. Is there some moral imperative that says we have to permit ourselves to be abused by these cheeky bastards? Or, are we moral cowards because we won’t face up to what we have to do to rid ourselves of this scourge called terrorism?
Up to this point, Hollywood has not been writing the script for the war on terror; Riyadh, Damascus, and Tehran have. Our declaration of war was an acceptance of an invitation to play by their rules. We don’t need “no stinking war”. It’s time for us to rewrite the script.
The new script should read like this:
The United States of America wishes to make the following announcement.
The war on terrorism is over. We have won.
We simply will not tolerate any more terrorist attacks. We will bomb the snot out of any country that supports terrorism.
In the event of another terrorist attack, we will annihilate entire cities in the country that supported the attack. (We will not employ nuclear weapons. There are some marvelous new weapons in our inventory that you really don’t wan to meet)
In the event that we do not know which country funded the act of terrorism, we will bring devastation to all those countries that are suspect. Our reaction will be swift and sure. There will be no warnings or negotiations. There will be only devastation on a scale that the world has never witnessed.
Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria are now funding terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. They will desist immediately or they will cease to exist. If their governments do not comply with our wishes, citizens of these countries should evacuate the cities or they will die.
Forget threats and talk of oil embargos. We simply will not put up with you or your crap anymore.
We regard citizens of countries that support terrorism as enemy combatants.
We now urge countries that trained terrorists to eliminate them before they become the cause of your destruction.
Have a nice day!
Tom Molloy
A Red Herring Beginning to Smell like Rotten Fish
The attack on 9/11 was a wake up call, but we are still asleep. Instead of punishing the terrorists and their supporters, we are punishing ourselves.
Our President declared war on terrorism and then initiated actions that were more detrimental to the United States than to the enemy. It’s as if we are puppets and the terrorists are pulling the strings.
This so-called war on terrorism is a red herring. It will lead to our defeat, not to victory over the terrorists.
Let’s review the record. In response to 9/11, we occupied Afghanistan and we created a massive homeland security apparatus. We declared victory in Afghanistan, a country in which we may be bogged down for the next century. Our claims of victory are belied by mounting casualties and calls for more troops and more money. As for homeland security, we have spent billions of dollars and have learned that, no matter how much money we spend, we are still vulnerable. We haven’t even scratched the surface of our vulnerability.
Then there is the invasion of Iraq, a fiasco of colossal magnitude, costing around half a trillion dollars. I really don’t understand why we invaded Iraq. Whatever the rationale, the war in Iraq is an enormous financial burden. Moreover, this war is not making us more secure; on the contrary, Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorists.
The common thread among our actions in response to terrorism is that each one costs a lot of money—money we don’t have. We are spending money as if it were confetti and, if we don’t stop hemorrhaging money; the value of the dollar will approximate that of confetti.
So after spending enormous amounts of money, what have we accomplished? Are there fewer terrorists? No, there are more. Are we in less danger of being attacked by terrorists? No, many experts think that we are in greater danger of a terrorist attack than we were before we declared war on terrorism. Moreover, anti-Americanism is rife in every corner of the world.
We have little or nothing to show for the massive amounts of money we have spent. According to some economists, we are on the road to insolvency and according to others we have already arrived.
There isn’t enough money in the world to protect us against terrorism. I have no doubt that Al-Qaeda is jubilant that we are spending so much for little. Terrorism will not be defeated by our money, but by resolute, decisive, draconian action.
The day we spent the first extra dollar on homeland security after 9/11 was the day that we started to lose the war. The very fact that we are diverting billions of dollars from important needs to establish an enormous security apparatus is a major victory for the terrorists. Education, health care, and defense are being short –changed while we flush money down the toilet.
Uncle Sam has become Uncle Sap. Is there some moral imperative that says we have to permit ourselves to be abused by these cheeky bastards? Or, are we moral cowards because we won’t face up to what we have to do to rid ourselves of this scourge called terrorism?
Up to this point, Hollywood has not been writing the script for the war on terror; Riyadh, Damascus, and Tehran have. Our declaration of war was an acceptance of an invitation to play by their rules. We don’t need “no stinking war”. It’s time for us to rewrite the script.
The new script should read like this:
The United States of America wishes to make the following announcement.
The war on terrorism is over. We have won.
We simply will not tolerate any more terrorist attacks. We will bomb the snot out of any country that supports terrorism.
In the event of another terrorist attack, we will annihilate entire cities in the country that supported the attack. (We will not employ nuclear weapons. There are some marvelous new weapons in our inventory that you really don’t wan to meet)
In the event that we do not know which country funded the act of terrorism, we will bring devastation to all those countries that are suspect. Our reaction will be swift and sure. There will be no warnings or negotiations. There will be only devastation on a scale that the world has never witnessed.
Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria are now funding terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. They will desist immediately or they will cease to exist. If their governments do not comply with our wishes, citizens of these countries should evacuate the cities or they will die.
Forget threats and talk of oil embargos. We simply will not put up with you or your crap anymore.
We regard citizens of countries that support terrorism as enemy combatants.
We now urge countries that trained terrorists to eliminate them before they become the cause of your destruction.
Have a nice day!
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Iran Back in its Box
By
Tom Molloy
Iran has been a pain in the ass since the 1970’s and is now in the process of becoming lethal. I have been reading so-called experts’ comments about Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. There seems to be a consensus among the experts that there is no viable military option to thwart Iran’s entrance into the nuclear club. Although most experts recommend diplomacy and, if necessary, sanctions. I get the impression that few, if any, believe that diplomacy or sanctions will be effective.
Our sanctimonious European allies, taking the word "peace” in vain, have forged lucrative business connections with Iran. They accuse us of being warmongers. Could it be that these paragons of rectitude are just greedy, short–sighted profiteers? At any rate, we can’t count on many of our European allies to support any aggressive policy toward Iran. With respect to the Russians and Chinese, they have profitable commercial ties with Iran and are not all interested in severing these ties. It is obvious that the UN Security Council is not gong to take any action strong enough to deter the Iranians from developing nuclear technology
Although I am not an expert on Iran, I spent about a year and a half there before and during the revolution that brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power. I was impressed by the determination and resolve of those who overthrew the Shah. I also came away with the impression that Khomeini and his disciples were nuts.
The issue is not just what Iran intends to do, but what it is doing. Iran is providing total support to the Shiites in Iraq. That is to say, it’s complicit in killing American soldiers. The Bush administration seemingly chooses to ignore this problem.
In my opinion, the time for action has come. I disagree with the experts about the possibility of a viable military solution. In fact, I think there is an obvious military option that will put Iran back in its box. Just who am I to disagree with experts? I am someone who thinks that, if we listen to the experts in this instance, we are going to lose the war on terrorism. I think it’s important to stop the Iranians now. These guys are resolute, defiant and demented. They are supporting all forms of terrorism and sooner or later they are going to fund a devastating terrorist attack on the United States.
Given the resources, think how easy it would be to shoot down a dozen planes in one day with shoulder fired missiles or to plant ten nuclear suitcase bombs in the downtown of 10 major cities. The guys running Iran hate us and they have the money to express this hatred in unspeakable ways. Now they are developing nuclear weaponry and our response is to engage in illusory diplomacy. No one believes that diplomacy per se will effect the desired changes in Iran’s behavior. These lunatics are going to going to bring about a terrorist act that is going t make 9/11 a footnote in the history books. Unless Iran knows that failure to change its behavior will result in awesomely severe consequences, diplomacy is a fool’s errand.
One of President Bush’s often stated bromides for continuing the Iraq campaign is: “We are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.” This is one of the cardinal tenets of the administration’s disinformation campaign. The implication is that the bad guys can’t spare 20, 50, or 100 guys to come over here and cause trouble. This, of course, is nonsense. I would accuse Bush of demagoguery, except that I really think he is dumb enough to believe what he is saying. We are not going to get a solution to the Iranian problem from an administration that thinks we are winning in Iraq.
The Iranians have turned the tables on us. The United States, the greatest power on earth, is desperate for crumbs from the negotiating table while the Iranians feast on our impotence. There is something very wrong with this picture.
What is the solution to the Iranian problem? How about overwhelming, devastating brute force? Let me suggest one option for the use of military force that would work.
Give the Iranians a list of instructions (note: instructions, not requests) and tell them that if they fail to comply with these instructions, we are gong to destroy a city (name the city) on a given date. Suggest that they evacuate the city. Tell them that, after this demonstration of power (no nuclear bombs, thank you), we are going to give them a week to comply. Lack of compliance will result in the loss of anther city each week. The catch is that we will not announce in advance which city will be the “City of the Week.” It will just be “Now you see it; now you don’t”. Inform the Iranians that any act of reprisal on their part will result in annihilation of their country. Iran will either comply with our instructions or there will be no more Iran. There will just be millions of people inhabiting piles of rubble. We might rename the country “Rubblestan”.
Can you imagine the entire Iranian urban population abandoning the cities? Total chaos. The Iranian government will cease to exist. The last thing on their minds will be developing nuclear weapons. If they want to be martyrs, let us help them on their way. They had better put in an order to paradise for a lot of virgins.
Now I ask the experts, “Is this a military option that will work? Damn right it will.
And just what will the rest of the world say? Most nations, including our Western and Asian allies, will hem and haw. You see, according to their rules, we must wait for Iran to take out a dozen of our cities with suitcase nuclear weapons before we react. Nevertheless, after the initial shock, I think these nations will feel a sense of relief that the Untied States assumed a leadership position. They will also feel a sense of relief that the United States has begun to enforce the “Pax Americana.”
In short, we have to make terrorism clearly inimical to Iran’s interests. As long as they think terrorism is in their interests, they will continue to support it. For the sake of my grandkids, the time has come to beat the snot out of these guys.
By
Tom Molloy
Iran has been a pain in the ass since the 1970’s and is now in the process of becoming lethal. I have been reading so-called experts’ comments about Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. There seems to be a consensus among the experts that there is no viable military option to thwart Iran’s entrance into the nuclear club. Although most experts recommend diplomacy and, if necessary, sanctions. I get the impression that few, if any, believe that diplomacy or sanctions will be effective.
Our sanctimonious European allies, taking the word "peace” in vain, have forged lucrative business connections with Iran. They accuse us of being warmongers. Could it be that these paragons of rectitude are just greedy, short–sighted profiteers? At any rate, we can’t count on many of our European allies to support any aggressive policy toward Iran. With respect to the Russians and Chinese, they have profitable commercial ties with Iran and are not all interested in severing these ties. It is obvious that the UN Security Council is not gong to take any action strong enough to deter the Iranians from developing nuclear technology
Although I am not an expert on Iran, I spent about a year and a half there before and during the revolution that brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power. I was impressed by the determination and resolve of those who overthrew the Shah. I also came away with the impression that Khomeini and his disciples were nuts.
The issue is not just what Iran intends to do, but what it is doing. Iran is providing total support to the Shiites in Iraq. That is to say, it’s complicit in killing American soldiers. The Bush administration seemingly chooses to ignore this problem.
In my opinion, the time for action has come. I disagree with the experts about the possibility of a viable military solution. In fact, I think there is an obvious military option that will put Iran back in its box. Just who am I to disagree with experts? I am someone who thinks that, if we listen to the experts in this instance, we are going to lose the war on terrorism. I think it’s important to stop the Iranians now. These guys are resolute, defiant and demented. They are supporting all forms of terrorism and sooner or later they are going to fund a devastating terrorist attack on the United States.
Given the resources, think how easy it would be to shoot down a dozen planes in one day with shoulder fired missiles or to plant ten nuclear suitcase bombs in the downtown of 10 major cities. The guys running Iran hate us and they have the money to express this hatred in unspeakable ways. Now they are developing nuclear weaponry and our response is to engage in illusory diplomacy. No one believes that diplomacy per se will effect the desired changes in Iran’s behavior. These lunatics are going to going to bring about a terrorist act that is going t make 9/11 a footnote in the history books. Unless Iran knows that failure to change its behavior will result in awesomely severe consequences, diplomacy is a fool’s errand.
One of President Bush’s often stated bromides for continuing the Iraq campaign is: “We are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.” This is one of the cardinal tenets of the administration’s disinformation campaign. The implication is that the bad guys can’t spare 20, 50, or 100 guys to come over here and cause trouble. This, of course, is nonsense. I would accuse Bush of demagoguery, except that I really think he is dumb enough to believe what he is saying. We are not going to get a solution to the Iranian problem from an administration that thinks we are winning in Iraq.
The Iranians have turned the tables on us. The United States, the greatest power on earth, is desperate for crumbs from the negotiating table while the Iranians feast on our impotence. There is something very wrong with this picture.
What is the solution to the Iranian problem? How about overwhelming, devastating brute force? Let me suggest one option for the use of military force that would work.
Give the Iranians a list of instructions (note: instructions, not requests) and tell them that if they fail to comply with these instructions, we are gong to destroy a city (name the city) on a given date. Suggest that they evacuate the city. Tell them that, after this demonstration of power (no nuclear bombs, thank you), we are going to give them a week to comply. Lack of compliance will result in the loss of anther city each week. The catch is that we will not announce in advance which city will be the “City of the Week.” It will just be “Now you see it; now you don’t”. Inform the Iranians that any act of reprisal on their part will result in annihilation of their country. Iran will either comply with our instructions or there will be no more Iran. There will just be millions of people inhabiting piles of rubble. We might rename the country “Rubblestan”.
Can you imagine the entire Iranian urban population abandoning the cities? Total chaos. The Iranian government will cease to exist. The last thing on their minds will be developing nuclear weapons. If they want to be martyrs, let us help them on their way. They had better put in an order to paradise for a lot of virgins.
Now I ask the experts, “Is this a military option that will work? Damn right it will.
And just what will the rest of the world say? Most nations, including our Western and Asian allies, will hem and haw. You see, according to their rules, we must wait for Iran to take out a dozen of our cities with suitcase nuclear weapons before we react. Nevertheless, after the initial shock, I think these nations will feel a sense of relief that the Untied States assumed a leadership position. They will also feel a sense of relief that the United States has begun to enforce the “Pax Americana.”
In short, we have to make terrorism clearly inimical to Iran’s interests. As long as they think terrorism is in their interests, they will continue to support it. For the sake of my grandkids, the time has come to beat the snot out of these guys.
Arab-Israeli Conflict: Let's End It
By
TOM MOLLOY
I have always been a strong supporter of Israel’s right to exist, but it sometimes appears as if Israel is leading us around by the nose. I wonder if we were consulted before the recent invasion of Lebanon? I assume we were. If so, did we give our consent? Are we nuts? If we weren’t consulted or didn’t give our consent, are we letting Israel know in no uncertain terms that this aberrant behavior is unacceptable?
I don’t think this invasion of Lebanon was Israel’s finest hour. I don’t understand exactly what Israel wanted to gain from this stunt. At any rate, every country in the world assumes that we were complicit in this lunacy and we share the opprobrium equally with Israel. Whatever else the invasion was or wasn’t, it was a tremendous public relations coup for Israel’s opponents.
The Arabs vilify the USA because it is a strong supporter of Israel, but the USA does more to help the Palestinians financially than they do. It appears that Arab governments are more interested in exploiting the tension between the Israelis and Palestinians to divert attention from the lassitude, venality, corruption, and gross incompetence of their own regimes. I do not believe that these governments really desire a resolution of this conflict any more than Al Capone wanted an end to prohibition.
This whole Arab-Israeli conflict has become tedious and onerous for the United States. The world perceives us as supporters of Israel and enemies of the Palestinians. We should move heaven and earth to ensure that the Israelis and Palestinians reach a fair agreement. We must ensure that neither side obtains an unfair advantage over the other.
The time has come for Israel to sit down with Palestinians and reach an agreement. Unfortunately, Hamas doesn’t recognize Israel’s right to exist and refuses to negotiate. The Palestinians have a knack for choosing bad leadership. The worst enemy of the Palestinians is not Israel; it’s their own leadership. Arafat turned down the Clinton plan cold. This plan was close to being as good as it gets. The Palestinians launched the Intfada. There was no chance that the Intifada would succeed in changing Israel’s position. No Israeli government could give the appearance of giving into to terrorism. Killing Israelis was just an end it itself. It may have been gratifying to the Palestinian hoi polloi, but by the end of the Intifada, the per capita income of the Palestinians had plunged from about $3500 to $300.00. The Palestinian people bore the brunt
The Palestinian people, seemingly ever in pursuit of misery, then elected Hamas to govern them, thereby ensuring further impoverishment. The United States and other Western countries, not thrilled at the prospect of funding Hamas, an avowedly terrorist organization, drastically cut funding for the Palestinians.
Reportedly, a good deal of the money the US and European nations contributed to the Palestinians over the years was diverted by venal officials and squirreled away in foreign bank accounts. I have read that Arafat himself (a salaried civil servant) had socked away a princely sum. While the Palestinian people did without, the leadership gorged itself at the foreign aid trough. Mrs. Arafat’s shopping sprees in London became legendary. Reportedly, the money spent during one shopping spree far exceeded Arafat’s annual salary.
Israel has to either destroy the power of Hamas or compel Hamas to negotiate. Hamas is currently conducting frequent rocket attacks on Israel. In my opinion, Israeli responses to these attacks have been too feeble to dissuade Hamas from making these rocket attacks. Presently, Israel is responding proportionately to terrorist attacks. A rocket lands in Israel and Israel reacts by destroying a military facility or killing a Hamas leader or two. Each side is using enough force to irritate the other side, but not enough to dissuade the other side from using force. In fact, each application of violence strengthens enemy resolve and provokes the other side to employ more violence. This approach to the application of violence is futile.
Israel has the power to force Hamas to stop the attacks. It is time that Israel used this power. I would suggest that, to dissuade Hamas from using violence, Israel will have to engage in cumulative, disproportionate response (CDR). How does CDR work? First, Israel will have to divide up Palestinian occupied territory into large destructible units (LDUs) consisting of contiguous residences, factories, bridges, roads, power plants, schools, hospitals, shops etc. Israel should show the LDUs to the Palestinians and explain that each act of violence will result in the total destruction of one or more LDUs. If a suicide bomber kills 15 Israelis, Israel should respond by destroying a disproportionate number of LDUs--perhaps, the equivalent of a third of a city. The Palestinians have to understand that each terrorist act results in devastation. Of, course, the effect is cumulative. It won’t take the Palestinians long to figure out that, if they continue to launch terrorist attacks, they will be sitting on a pile of rubble. This would exert intolerable pressure on Hamas to negotiate.
At the same time, Israel has to be prepared to negotiate and reach an agreement. We should insist that the Israelis make a fair agreement with the Palestinians. Ultimately, this conflict has to end. It enormously complicates our relations with countries in the Middle East. We should, if necessary, dictate the terms of the agreement to the Israelis.
TOM MOLLOY
I have always been a strong supporter of Israel’s right to exist, but it sometimes appears as if Israel is leading us around by the nose. I wonder if we were consulted before the recent invasion of Lebanon? I assume we were. If so, did we give our consent? Are we nuts? If we weren’t consulted or didn’t give our consent, are we letting Israel know in no uncertain terms that this aberrant behavior is unacceptable?
I don’t think this invasion of Lebanon was Israel’s finest hour. I don’t understand exactly what Israel wanted to gain from this stunt. At any rate, every country in the world assumes that we were complicit in this lunacy and we share the opprobrium equally with Israel. Whatever else the invasion was or wasn’t, it was a tremendous public relations coup for Israel’s opponents.
The Arabs vilify the USA because it is a strong supporter of Israel, but the USA does more to help the Palestinians financially than they do. It appears that Arab governments are more interested in exploiting the tension between the Israelis and Palestinians to divert attention from the lassitude, venality, corruption, and gross incompetence of their own regimes. I do not believe that these governments really desire a resolution of this conflict any more than Al Capone wanted an end to prohibition.
This whole Arab-Israeli conflict has become tedious and onerous for the United States. The world perceives us as supporters of Israel and enemies of the Palestinians. We should move heaven and earth to ensure that the Israelis and Palestinians reach a fair agreement. We must ensure that neither side obtains an unfair advantage over the other.
The time has come for Israel to sit down with Palestinians and reach an agreement. Unfortunately, Hamas doesn’t recognize Israel’s right to exist and refuses to negotiate. The Palestinians have a knack for choosing bad leadership. The worst enemy of the Palestinians is not Israel; it’s their own leadership. Arafat turned down the Clinton plan cold. This plan was close to being as good as it gets. The Palestinians launched the Intfada. There was no chance that the Intifada would succeed in changing Israel’s position. No Israeli government could give the appearance of giving into to terrorism. Killing Israelis was just an end it itself. It may have been gratifying to the Palestinian hoi polloi, but by the end of the Intifada, the per capita income of the Palestinians had plunged from about $3500 to $300.00. The Palestinian people bore the brunt
The Palestinian people, seemingly ever in pursuit of misery, then elected Hamas to govern them, thereby ensuring further impoverishment. The United States and other Western countries, not thrilled at the prospect of funding Hamas, an avowedly terrorist organization, drastically cut funding for the Palestinians.
Reportedly, a good deal of the money the US and European nations contributed to the Palestinians over the years was diverted by venal officials and squirreled away in foreign bank accounts. I have read that Arafat himself (a salaried civil servant) had socked away a princely sum. While the Palestinian people did without, the leadership gorged itself at the foreign aid trough. Mrs. Arafat’s shopping sprees in London became legendary. Reportedly, the money spent during one shopping spree far exceeded Arafat’s annual salary.
Israel has to either destroy the power of Hamas or compel Hamas to negotiate. Hamas is currently conducting frequent rocket attacks on Israel. In my opinion, Israeli responses to these attacks have been too feeble to dissuade Hamas from making these rocket attacks. Presently, Israel is responding proportionately to terrorist attacks. A rocket lands in Israel and Israel reacts by destroying a military facility or killing a Hamas leader or two. Each side is using enough force to irritate the other side, but not enough to dissuade the other side from using force. In fact, each application of violence strengthens enemy resolve and provokes the other side to employ more violence. This approach to the application of violence is futile.
Israel has the power to force Hamas to stop the attacks. It is time that Israel used this power. I would suggest that, to dissuade Hamas from using violence, Israel will have to engage in cumulative, disproportionate response (CDR). How does CDR work? First, Israel will have to divide up Palestinian occupied territory into large destructible units (LDUs) consisting of contiguous residences, factories, bridges, roads, power plants, schools, hospitals, shops etc. Israel should show the LDUs to the Palestinians and explain that each act of violence will result in the total destruction of one or more LDUs. If a suicide bomber kills 15 Israelis, Israel should respond by destroying a disproportionate number of LDUs--perhaps, the equivalent of a third of a city. The Palestinians have to understand that each terrorist act results in devastation. Of, course, the effect is cumulative. It won’t take the Palestinians long to figure out that, if they continue to launch terrorist attacks, they will be sitting on a pile of rubble. This would exert intolerable pressure on Hamas to negotiate.
At the same time, Israel has to be prepared to negotiate and reach an agreement. We should insist that the Israelis make a fair agreement with the Palestinians. Ultimately, this conflict has to end. It enormously complicates our relations with countries in the Middle East. We should, if necessary, dictate the terms of the agreement to the Israelis.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
ENGLISHCIDE
By
TOM MOLLOY
I hope I am not becoming a curmudgeonly old fuddy-duddy, but the misuse of language by some media professionals irks me. Specifically, I am accusing some Talking Heads of attempted Englishcide. Talking Heads make their living through the use of the English language. One would think the networks and local stations would insist on proper English usage.
TV’s Talking Heads are seemingly engaged in a conspiracy to assassinate our mother tongue. The Talking Heads on the local stations are the worst offenders, but those on the network and cable news programs are not far behind. Bring back Walter Cronkite!
I am going to point out three of the most common weapons in the arsenal of the Talking Heads assaulting my mother tongue.
1. Misuse of Copulative (Linking) Verbs.
When I was in elementary school, my 5th grade teacher, Sister Mary Tarcissia, introduced us to copulation (grammatical, not physical). We learned that some verbs, called copulative or linking verbs are followed by adjectives rather than adverbs.
Examples:
ADJECTIVE ADVERB
The food smells delicious. (The food smells deliciously).
John is becoming handsome. (Jack is becoming handsomely)
Jack grew weary. (Jack grew wearily
Even the hard-core Talking Heads probably wouldn’t utter any of the sentences with the adverbs because, aside from incorrect, they just don’t sound right.
However, there is one copulative verb that Talking Heads frequently abuse. Look at the short dialogue below.
Mary: How are you today?
Talking Head: I feel badly.
This usage seems to be growing. Does it sound familiar? The Talking head erroneously used a copulative verb followed by an adverb. Talking Heads who want to put on airs tend to use it. They radiate a sense of one-upmanship as they roll the /ly/on their tongues. Ironically many of these offenders are prone to utter sentences such as:
He plays bad.
When I hear someone say “I feel badly”, I ask,”Did you hurt your hand? ”This generally evokes quizzical looks.
2. Misuse of Pronominal Objects of Prepositions.
This increasingly common error usually occurs with the substitution of the fist person singular subjective pronoun “I” for the objective pronoun “me” Talking Heads who commit this atrocity often seem to have an attitude. It’s as if they are defiantly saying: “I’s got English and you doesn’t. ”
Occurring less frequently is the substitution of the third person subjective pronoun “he” for the objective pronoun “him” Those who maim English in this way apparently think that subjective pronouns don’t sound as sexy as objective pronouns. Maybe there is a metaphor here in the preference for objective pronouns. After all, it is the subject who has to initiate action: The object just has to sit back and receive it. Below are examples of these erroneous usages.
ERRONEOUS: Talking Head: It was a shock for Jack and I to hear the rumor that Bill O’Reilly is a closet Marxist.
CORRECT: It was a shock for Jack and me to hear the rumor that Bill O’Reilly is a closet Marxist.
ERRONEOUS: Talking Head: This was a great opportunity for he and I to tour the White House.
CORRECT: This was a great opportunity for him and me to tour the White House.
The objective of a preposition in English should be in the objective case.
3. Misuse of Conditional Sentences.
I have noted that some of my friends from such states as Wisconsin and Minnesota habitually use “would” in both clauses of unreal conditional sentences. I am not sure whether to label this as an error or as a feature of a dialect. At any rate, this usage is not standard educated English. This usage is also rampant among Talking Heads when they ad lib. I think Talking Heads should stick to Standard English.
NON-STANDARD: I would have come if would have told me.
STANDARD: I would have come if you had told me.
4. Closing Comments: I haven’t researched this, but my general impression is that schools of journalism are competing with schools of education to recruit the academic bottom feeders. I think many Talking Heads would benefit more from elementary school than a school of journalism. Of course, because of the massive and inexorable dumbing down of the curricula in our schools, copulative verbs, object pronouns and conditional sentences may now be taught in graduate school rather then 5th grade. Based on news reports, it appears that teachers are now enthusiastically teaching physical copulation to their eager students. How times have changed! News reports have not mentioned grammatical copulation.
I just discovered Fox and Friends, the Fox Network early morning show. I was going to assess their usage of the English language, but I became captivated by the vacuous comments made by the three Talking Heads who moderate the show. You can almost hear the air whistling in one ear and the other. I have to watch them again. I may do a separate piece about that show,
TOM MOLLOY
I hope I am not becoming a curmudgeonly old fuddy-duddy, but the misuse of language by some media professionals irks me. Specifically, I am accusing some Talking Heads of attempted Englishcide. Talking Heads make their living through the use of the English language. One would think the networks and local stations would insist on proper English usage.
TV’s Talking Heads are seemingly engaged in a conspiracy to assassinate our mother tongue. The Talking Heads on the local stations are the worst offenders, but those on the network and cable news programs are not far behind. Bring back Walter Cronkite!
I am going to point out three of the most common weapons in the arsenal of the Talking Heads assaulting my mother tongue.
1. Misuse of Copulative (Linking) Verbs.
When I was in elementary school, my 5th grade teacher, Sister Mary Tarcissia, introduced us to copulation (grammatical, not physical). We learned that some verbs, called copulative or linking verbs are followed by adjectives rather than adverbs.
Examples:
ADJECTIVE ADVERB
The food smells delicious. (The food smells deliciously).
John is becoming handsome. (Jack is becoming handsomely)
Jack grew weary. (Jack grew wearily
Even the hard-core Talking Heads probably wouldn’t utter any of the sentences with the adverbs because, aside from incorrect, they just don’t sound right.
However, there is one copulative verb that Talking Heads frequently abuse. Look at the short dialogue below.
Mary: How are you today?
Talking Head: I feel badly.
This usage seems to be growing. Does it sound familiar? The Talking head erroneously used a copulative verb followed by an adverb. Talking Heads who want to put on airs tend to use it. They radiate a sense of one-upmanship as they roll the /ly/on their tongues. Ironically many of these offenders are prone to utter sentences such as:
He plays bad.
When I hear someone say “I feel badly”, I ask,”Did you hurt your hand? ”This generally evokes quizzical looks.
2. Misuse of Pronominal Objects of Prepositions.
This increasingly common error usually occurs with the substitution of the fist person singular subjective pronoun “I” for the objective pronoun “me” Talking Heads who commit this atrocity often seem to have an attitude. It’s as if they are defiantly saying: “I’s got English and you doesn’t. ”
Occurring less frequently is the substitution of the third person subjective pronoun “he” for the objective pronoun “him” Those who maim English in this way apparently think that subjective pronouns don’t sound as sexy as objective pronouns. Maybe there is a metaphor here in the preference for objective pronouns. After all, it is the subject who has to initiate action: The object just has to sit back and receive it. Below are examples of these erroneous usages.
ERRONEOUS: Talking Head: It was a shock for Jack and I to hear the rumor that Bill O’Reilly is a closet Marxist.
CORRECT: It was a shock for Jack and me to hear the rumor that Bill O’Reilly is a closet Marxist.
ERRONEOUS: Talking Head: This was a great opportunity for he and I to tour the White House.
CORRECT: This was a great opportunity for him and me to tour the White House.
The objective of a preposition in English should be in the objective case.
3. Misuse of Conditional Sentences.
I have noted that some of my friends from such states as Wisconsin and Minnesota habitually use “would” in both clauses of unreal conditional sentences. I am not sure whether to label this as an error or as a feature of a dialect. At any rate, this usage is not standard educated English. This usage is also rampant among Talking Heads when they ad lib. I think Talking Heads should stick to Standard English.
NON-STANDARD: I would have come if would have told me.
STANDARD: I would have come if you had told me.
4. Closing Comments: I haven’t researched this, but my general impression is that schools of journalism are competing with schools of education to recruit the academic bottom feeders. I think many Talking Heads would benefit more from elementary school than a school of journalism. Of course, because of the massive and inexorable dumbing down of the curricula in our schools, copulative verbs, object pronouns and conditional sentences may now be taught in graduate school rather then 5th grade. Based on news reports, it appears that teachers are now enthusiastically teaching physical copulation to their eager students. How times have changed! News reports have not mentioned grammatical copulation.
I just discovered Fox and Friends, the Fox Network early morning show. I was going to assess their usage of the English language, but I became captivated by the vacuous comments made by the three Talking Heads who moderate the show. You can almost hear the air whistling in one ear and the other. I have to watch them again. I may do a separate piece about that show,
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
A Perspective on the Abortion Imbroglio
By
Tom Molloy
Abortion is one of the most contentious issues of our time. The two camps, the Right to Life and the Right to Choose, can seemingly find no middle ground. Each camp believes it occupies the moral high ground. If any issue sparks another civil war in America, it could be abortion.
The Right to Choose Camp has so far won the legal battle. The Supreme Court in the Roe vs. Wade decision discovered in the Constitution a woman’s right to privacy and right to choose. I can’t find any reference to either of these rights in the Constitution, no matter how many times I read it. I am brimming with admiration for the perspicacity of the justices who were able to find these rights in the Constitution. Quite a feat of legerdemain. Bravo!
At any rate, although the justices found a woman’s right to choose and right to privacy legally pivotal in deciding the abortion issue, these rights are not logically germane to the legitimacy of abortion. Not being a lawyer, I am not trained to decipher the hidden nuances in the Constitution. Therefore, I am not going to make many comments about the decision. Suffice it say that the decision reeks of what I call “Shuddabinism.” According to this legal, activist doctrine, if a judge thinks a right should be in the constitution but isn’t, the judge rules the missing right is now constitutionally protected. After all, it shuddabin in the Constitution. I believe a woman’s right to choose and right to privacy are products of “Shuddabinism”.
But let’s forget the law and hold abortion up to the light of logic. I had the good fortune to have a course in logic taught by a brilliant Jesuit. I realize that logic is not a la mode, and I risk being called an anachronism the by hip deconstructionists. Be that as it may, when you apply logic to the Roe Vs Wade decision, the inanity of the decision becomes manifest.
When we apply logic, we don’t begin with the rights of the woman who wants to abort; we begin with the rights of the fetus. The key to the abortion issue is the answer to the question, “When does the fetus become human--at conception or some time during the gestation period?” If the answer is “at conception”, then, ipso facto, the Constitution protects its right to life. Neither a woman’s right to choose nor a woman’s right to privacy are germane. Killing another human being, unless it is in self-defense, is a criminal act.
If the answer to the question is that the fetus is not human at conception, but becomes human sometime during gestation, we must ask other questions. The first question: “Does the human potentiality of the fetus grant it, from the moment of conception, the constitutional right to life?” I would argue that the human potentiality of the fetus would certainly suffice to extend to it the constitutional right to life.
If one argues perversely that the human potentiality of the fetus is not sufficient to extend to it the constitutional right to life, at what point in its development does it become human life and enjoy the constitutional right to life?
I think the answer is “at conception”.
These are the questions to ask to apply logic to the problem. I would argue emphatically that the fetus is human at the moment of conception. If it isn’t human, what is it? The fetus is a stage in human development.
You may not agree with my conclusion; nevertheless, this is the logical framework in which the legitimacy of abortion can be discussed. In this logical framework, we did not once invoke a woman’s right to privacy or her right to choose. Neither concept is relevant to the logical examination of abortion. Ultimately, a fetus either has the right to live or it doesn’t. There is no need to invent special rights for the mother.
In fact, the logical time for a woman to exercise her right to privacy and her right to choose is before she engages in sexual activity that can result in pregnancy. Yes, I know that rape victims can’t exercise these rights, but rape victims are a very small percentage of women who have abortions. Most abortions are performed because they are expedient.
As you have divined, my personal conviction is that the fetus is a human being and its life is constitutionally protected. However, although I am opposed to abortion, I am also opposed to passing laws to ban it. Too many people, not all of them monsters, do not believe that the fetus is a human being whose right to life is constitutionally protected.. Passing laws banning abortion will just create tens of thousands of “criminals”. Law or no law, women will continue to have abortions. Let God judge them. We really don’t need to add inmates to our prison population. Punishment is not the answer. I think those of us opposed to abortion should try to convince our fellow citizens that it is a vile practice.
Tom Molloy
Abortion is one of the most contentious issues of our time. The two camps, the Right to Life and the Right to Choose, can seemingly find no middle ground. Each camp believes it occupies the moral high ground. If any issue sparks another civil war in America, it could be abortion.
The Right to Choose Camp has so far won the legal battle. The Supreme Court in the Roe vs. Wade decision discovered in the Constitution a woman’s right to privacy and right to choose. I can’t find any reference to either of these rights in the Constitution, no matter how many times I read it. I am brimming with admiration for the perspicacity of the justices who were able to find these rights in the Constitution. Quite a feat of legerdemain. Bravo!
At any rate, although the justices found a woman’s right to choose and right to privacy legally pivotal in deciding the abortion issue, these rights are not logically germane to the legitimacy of abortion. Not being a lawyer, I am not trained to decipher the hidden nuances in the Constitution. Therefore, I am not going to make many comments about the decision. Suffice it say that the decision reeks of what I call “Shuddabinism.” According to this legal, activist doctrine, if a judge thinks a right should be in the constitution but isn’t, the judge rules the missing right is now constitutionally protected. After all, it shuddabin in the Constitution. I believe a woman’s right to choose and right to privacy are products of “Shuddabinism”.
But let’s forget the law and hold abortion up to the light of logic. I had the good fortune to have a course in logic taught by a brilliant Jesuit. I realize that logic is not a la mode, and I risk being called an anachronism the by hip deconstructionists. Be that as it may, when you apply logic to the Roe Vs Wade decision, the inanity of the decision becomes manifest.
When we apply logic, we don’t begin with the rights of the woman who wants to abort; we begin with the rights of the fetus. The key to the abortion issue is the answer to the question, “When does the fetus become human--at conception or some time during the gestation period?” If the answer is “at conception”, then, ipso facto, the Constitution protects its right to life. Neither a woman’s right to choose nor a woman’s right to privacy are germane. Killing another human being, unless it is in self-defense, is a criminal act.
If the answer to the question is that the fetus is not human at conception, but becomes human sometime during gestation, we must ask other questions. The first question: “Does the human potentiality of the fetus grant it, from the moment of conception, the constitutional right to life?” I would argue that the human potentiality of the fetus would certainly suffice to extend to it the constitutional right to life.
If one argues perversely that the human potentiality of the fetus is not sufficient to extend to it the constitutional right to life, at what point in its development does it become human life and enjoy the constitutional right to life?
I think the answer is “at conception”.
These are the questions to ask to apply logic to the problem. I would argue emphatically that the fetus is human at the moment of conception. If it isn’t human, what is it? The fetus is a stage in human development.
You may not agree with my conclusion; nevertheless, this is the logical framework in which the legitimacy of abortion can be discussed. In this logical framework, we did not once invoke a woman’s right to privacy or her right to choose. Neither concept is relevant to the logical examination of abortion. Ultimately, a fetus either has the right to live or it doesn’t. There is no need to invent special rights for the mother.
In fact, the logical time for a woman to exercise her right to privacy and her right to choose is before she engages in sexual activity that can result in pregnancy. Yes, I know that rape victims can’t exercise these rights, but rape victims are a very small percentage of women who have abortions. Most abortions are performed because they are expedient.
As you have divined, my personal conviction is that the fetus is a human being and its life is constitutionally protected. However, although I am opposed to abortion, I am also opposed to passing laws to ban it. Too many people, not all of them monsters, do not believe that the fetus is a human being whose right to life is constitutionally protected.. Passing laws banning abortion will just create tens of thousands of “criminals”. Law or no law, women will continue to have abortions. Let God judge them. We really don’t need to add inmates to our prison population. Punishment is not the answer. I think those of us opposed to abortion should try to convince our fellow citizens that it is a vile practice.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Let's Put Iran Back in its Box
By
Tom Molloy
Iran has been a pain in the ass since the 1970’s and is now in the process of becoming lethal. I have been reading so-called experts’ comments about Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. There seems to be a consensus among the experts that there is no viable military option to thwart Iran’s entrance into the nuclear club. Although most experts recommend diplomacy and, if necessary, sanctions. I get the impression that few, if any, believe that diplomacy or sanctions will be effective.
Our sanctimonious European allies, taking the word ‘peace” in vain, have forged lucrative business connections with Iran. They accuse us of being warmongers. Could it be that these paragons of rectitude are just greedy, short–sighted profiteers? At any rate, we can’t count on many of our European allies to support any aggressive policy toward Iran. With respect to the Russians and Chinese, they have profitable commercial ties with Iran and are not all interested in severing these ties. It is obvious that the UN Security Council is not gong to take any action strong enough to deter the Iranians from developing nuclear technology
Although I am not an expert on Iran, I spent about a year and a half there before and during the revolution that brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power. I was impressed by the determination and resolve of those who overthrew the Shah. I also came away with the impression that Khomeini and his disciples were nuts.
The issue is not just what Iran intends to do, but what it is doing. Iran is providing total support to the Shiite insurgents in Iraq. That is to say, it's complicit in killing American soldiers. The Bush administration seemingly chooses to ignore this minor pecadillo. If the American people understood that the Iranians are responsible for the deaths of so many of our sodiers, they would demand that the administration do something. This administraton's hugely successful strategem has been to divert attention from problems by changing the subject.
In my opinion, the time for action has come. I disagree with the experts about the possibility of a viable military solution. In fact, I think there is an obvious military option that will put Iran back in its box. Just who am I to disagree with experts? I am someone who thinks that, if we listen to the experts in this instance, we are going to lose the war on terrorism. I think it’s important to stop the Iranians now. These guys are resolute, defiant and demented. They are supporting all forms of terrorism and sooner or later they are going to fund a devastating terrorist attack on the United States.
Given the resources think how easy it would be to shoot down a dozen planes in one day with shoulder fired missiles or to plant ten nuclear suitcase bombs in the downtown of 10 major cities. The guys running Iran hate us and they have the money to express this hatred in unspeakable ways. Now they are developing nuclear weaponry and our response is to engage in illusory diplomacy. No one believes that diplomacy per se will effect the desired changes in Iran’s behavior. These lunatics are going to bring about a terrorist act that is going to make 9/11 a footnote in the history books. Unless Iran knows that failure to change its behavior will result in awesomely severe consequences, diplomacy is a fool’s errand.
One of President Bush’s often stated bromides for continuing the Iraq campaign is: “We are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.” This is one of the cardinal tenets of the administration’s disinformation campaign. The implication is that the bad guys can’t spare 20, 50, or 100 guys to come over here and cause trouble. This, of course, is nonsense. I would accuse Bush of demagoguery, except that I really think he is dumb enough to believe what he is saying. We are not going to get a solution to the Iranian problem from an administration that thinks we are winning in Iraq.
The Iranians have turned the tables on us. The United States, the greatest power on earth, is desperate for crumbs from the negotiating table while the Iranians feast on our impotence. There is something very wrong with this picture.
What is the solution to the Iranian problem? How about overwhelming, devastating brute force? Let me suggest one option for the use of military force that would work.
Give the Iranians a list of instructions (note: instructions, not requests) and tell them that if they fail to comply with these instructions, we are going to destroy a city (name the city) on a given date. Suggest that they evacuate the city. Tell them that, after this demonstration of power (no nuclear bombs, thank you), we are going to give them a week to comply. Lack of compliance will result in the loss of another city each week. The catch is that we will not announce in advance which city will be the “City of the Week.” It will just be “Now you see it; now you don’t”. Inform the Iranians that any act of reprisal on their part will result in annihilation of their country. Iran will either comply with our instructions or there will be no more Iran. There will just be millions of people inhabiting piles of rubble. We might rename the country “Rubblestan”.
Can you imagine the entire Iranian urban population abandoning the cities? Total chaos. The Iranian government will cease to exist. The last thing on their minds will be developing nuclear weapons. If they want to be martyrs, let us help them on their way. Supposedly, martyrs, after killing women and children, are rewarded with a gift of 72 virgins upon their arrival in paradise. I suggest they crank up production of vrigns; they may need a lot of them..
Now I ask the experts, “Is this a military option that will work? Damn right it will.
And just what will the rest of the world say? Most nations, including our Western and Asian allies, will hem and haw. You see, according to their rules, we must wait for Iran to take out a dozen of our cities with suitcase nuclear weapons before we react. Nevertheless, after the initial shock, I think these nations will feel a sense of relief that the Untied States assumed a leadership position. They will also feel a sense of relief that the United States has begun to enforce the ”Pax Americana.”
Unfortunately, the Muslim nations will probably continue to believe that we want war with Islam. Many don't seem to recognize that a lot of people who call themselves Muslims are trying to kill us. I keep hearing from Muslim friends that the terrorists are not good Muslims. Well, I 'll let Muslims sort out who the bad guys and good guys are.. Meanwhile, I advocate killing anyone, Muslim or otherwise, who is trying to kill us.
Friday, May 05, 2006
IT'S THE STUPID TEACHERS, STUPID
BY
TOM MOLLOY
There is a mass of evidence that our primary and secondary schools are colossal failures in educating our children. I can't begin to present the evidence here, but to readers who want an overview of the scope of the US education disaster, I recommend reading "Inside American Education" by Thomas Sowell and the "Conspiracy of Ignorance" by Martin L. Gross.
To me the most shocking revelation is not that our schools are failing to educate the average student, but that the academic achievement of our best and brightest lags so far behind that of the best and brightest of other countries.
When my two sons were in elemenatry and secondary school, they would often bring home notes from school administrators and teachers. The cheery notes with happy faces couldn't hide the fact that semi-literate teachers infested the schools. I used to be appalled at the numerous grammatical errors. Often I would correct the errors in red ink and send the corrected copy back to the originator. Not surprisıngly, I never received a word of thanks or any feedback whatsoever. Then one evening at a PTA meeting, the PTA president, herself a practitioner of fractured English, told me that the faculty and administrators were "indigent" at my corrections. I told her it was the parents, not the teachers, who should be "idignant" because there were so many illiterates on the faculty. Then, I suggested that, if the PTA were doing its job, it would be insisting that illiterate teachers be removed from their positions.
The educationist establishment, in moments of candor, admits there are problems with the quality of schools. In fact, it wages a brilliant disinformation campaign, asserting that the principal problem is the lack of sufficient money to achieve excellence. Yet, when we compare results of our public schools with those of parochial schools with a lot less money, the "money" argument seems to dissolve. Comparing public and parochial schools, one might argue that the amount of money is inversely proportional to the degree of success. The Washington D.C. schools are a fiscal black hole, sucking in scads of money per student with little or nothing to show for it. If money were the key to success, the typical graduate of the Washington D.C schools would be a Rhodes scholar. In reality, the typical graduate lacks the literacy skills to fill out a job application without assistance.
Fellow citizens, I am convinced that the poor quality of our schools is primarily attributable to the overall poor quality of teachers. I believe a self-serving educationist establishment, consisting of the teachers' unions, university education departments, and school district superintendants is threatening our democracy and our prosperity by perpetuating a teacher certification system that vitually ensures academically handicapped teachers. To be certified, would-be teachers have to subject themselves to the intellectual debasment of hour after vacuous hour of education courses. Everyone with a room temparature IQ who has taken an education course knows that these courses are a sham.
Students majoring in education are the academic bottom feeders. Their average SAT score is well below that of students with other majors. They are the academic dregs. How can we expect our schools to produce academic excellence when so many of the teachers have never attained any academic distinction?
So, why does the educationist establishment insist that would-be teachers subject themselves to ed courses--a compendium of half-baked theories, psycho babble, anti-intellectualism, egalitarian mischief, mutlicutural schlock and disasterous pedagogical fads--in order to achieve certification? There are two reasons: Money and money. First, ed courses are a cash cow for the universities. Because of the lack of serious content in ed courses, university education departments can offer these sterile courses to dullards. Universities deliberately set very low standards for education majors so they can tap into this lucrative, but illicit market. That is, they extract tuition out of students who, were it not for the low standards, would be asking,"Lettuce on that burger, sir? Second, the requirement to take these junk courses deters smart individuals from becoming teachers. For academically gifted indivduals ed courses are an outrage. The insipidness of the course content and the intellectual torpor of fellow students combine to deter intellectuals from pursuing a career as a teacher. This deterrence creates an artifical teacher shortage, forcing teacher salaries up.
If you have an MA in mathematics from MIT, you can't get a job teaching high school without taking the required number of education courses. Yet, in many states, the teacher with 18 or 21 hours of "mathematics for teachers" (the appelation "for teachers" is code for "dumbed down") courses, is considered qualified.
One can be fooled by glitzy catalogs of courses offered in education departments. Look at the following three graduate courses offered at a university near my home:
Advanced Approaches to Interdisciplinary Learning
Social Policy for Families and Children
Instruction in Early Childhood and Elementary Education
If you are impressed with these pretentious titles, let us recall that many of the students who take and pass these courses are semi-literate. They are the ones who graduate and write ungrammatical, unintelligible notes to parents. The lack of substance in ed courses is the reason that dullards take refuge in this intellectual wasteland. One dirty little secret about ed courses is that graduate ed courses are no more diffucult than undergraduate ed courses. You can get an MA in education without ever having taken a single undergraduate course. All the courses are bullshit. There is no beginning and no end, no real corpus of knowledge. Try taking graduate courses in chemistry, mathematics, Latin or most other academic disciplines without having taken undergraduate courses.
Perhaps the real tragedy is that many of the would-be teachers have never experienced the sublime joy that comes from studying the great works of history, literature, economics and philosophy; have never gained an insight into the pure wonder of mathematics and science; and have never experienced the thrill of speaking in a foreign language. The very concept of academic achievement is alien to many of these would-be teachers. To them school is drudgery.
To be sure, many of the would-be teachers lack the mental acumen to enjoy inellectual pursuits, but those who do have the acumen are victimized by the requirement to take stultifying ed courses. While would-be teachers are studying such weighty topics as how to cut out paper dolls and how to arrange a bulletin board, they are unable to study the ideas of humankind's greatest thinkers.
The time has come to clean up the mess and close all education schools and departments of education. I suggest we offer amnesty to all professors of education rather than punish them. We could also offer them vocational training so they could learn some useful skill. Some of my friends have suggested reeducation camps to rehabiliate these imposters. I disagree. I think we should treat these culprits with compassion despite the horrific legacy they have bequathed us. Years ago I coined the following definition of a professor of education: "One who can take a bikini idea, and bundle it in a snowsuit so no one wants to look anymore".
Let's establish meaningful certification standards for teachers.. Elementary school teachers should be required to obtain a real liberal arts degree. Secondary school teachers should be required to have a degree with a minimum of 40 semester hours in their subject area.
To thwart the inevitable diploma mills that would proliferate, teachers should be required to take a State certfication exam to confirm their knowledge.
All newly hired teachers should be on probation for a year. Those who demonstrate pedagogcal excellence would be retained; the others should be dismissed. I estimate that given high standards, the attrition rate for newly hired teachers would exceed 50 percent.
If we don't act to energize our schools, our children are going to be flipping hamburgers, digging ditches, doing laundry, and cleaning yards for the affluent Indians, Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans, who do have schools that produce excellence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)