We must all act as sovereign individuals; ultimately, and always

On 25 January, 2013, John Kiriakou was sentenced to 30 months in prison for exposing torture in Guantanamo Bay. He served every day of that 30 month sentence.  He is the only man who ever went to prison because of the CIA torture program.

At the time, General David Petraeus (a man of no great moral authority), who was then CIA director, stated "This case ... marks an important victory for our Agency, for our Intelligence Community, and for our country. Oaths do matter, and there are indeed consequences for those who believe they are above the laws".

That's the argument that was used by the defendants at the Nuremberg trials ... that their oath of allegiance to the State, and to serve as an instrument of that state, absolved them of responsibility for their own actions.  They were hanged anyway ... the judgement of the court being that we are all, individually, responsible for our own actions.  Not the State, the Marine Corps, the First Baptist Church, or the Boy Scouts of America.  

Moral autonomy is having the freedom and possessing the courage, and the will, to make moral decisions on one's own, individually.  It's standing on one's own two feet; and sometimes that requires sacrifice.

Moral autonomy is at the root of what is termed "character."  Character is always individual.  You don't display character by joining a group.  Moral autonomy is the ability to choose the right course of action, by oneself, without any outside pressure or influence.

Our first allegiances, as men and women of characters, should always be to our principles, and to our families, those who depend on us, not to some oath of allegiance to a State.   To put the powerful above our principles is to act as a tool of an authority that seeks only to enrich and empower itself at our expense; in other words, to act as a slave, rather than a man. It is not just a choice to act amorally, giving over our moral choice to another; it is moral cowardice to refuse to do what we believe is right, using our "oath of allegiance" to excuse that choice.

(that is Nuremberg Principle IV)

Ironically, it was under US leadership that the Allies prosecuted not only leaders of the Nazi Party but also industrialists, doctors, and prison commandants. The Americans and Soviets also wanted to prosecute the people who had created the legal framework for the Nazi regime, but British and French leaders objected. Consequently, the United States, acting on its own, convened a separate Nuremberg tribunal to try lawyers, judges, and legal policymakers. In doing so, it established the principle that anyone who violated international laws against harming prisoners in wartime could be prosecuted as war criminals, no matter how many internal memos they had written to the contrary or how much they claimed they were "only doing their jobs."

The precedent for dealing with war crimes was set by Americans.  And they're fully prepared to walk away from that precedent now.  It is not only a glaring hypocrisy to the whole world ... it is a demonstration of weakness.  And a clear indication of how far the nation has fallen, morally. 

My verdict on war resisters like Justin Colby, Kimberley Rivera, Dean Walcott, Edward Snowden:  heroes, by virtue of retaining their autonomy as human beings when all around them capitulated and chose to pretend they had no choice but to act as helpless tools of authority. 

Orwell's "1984" ... no longer a mere "warning"

The last time I read the George Orwell's 1984 (which was first published, by the way, in 1949) was in August 2014.  

I try to read that book every 3-5 years.  I actually have 4 copies, my favourite is a tattered paperback that my wife used in college.  The next time I read it, it will certainly be a digital text.

I first read 1984 some 45 years ago ... it seemed like a dystopian fantasy then, and it frightened me to think that such things could actually, some day in the distant future, become reality.  Every time I've read the book (and that has been many times), it seems closer to reality than ever.  Now, the propaganda and surveillance state (which, by the way, in Orwell's book is perpetually at war) that the book depicts is actually less frightening than what has actually been done since 2001.  

For example, part of the state control Orwell described was to have "telescreens" present at all times, even in people's houses ... the object was not to watch everyone, all the time.  It was to make everyone know that they could be watched anywhere at any time.  It was a mind-control device.

And, today, if you have a cell phone and a smart tv, especially an Amazon Alexa or Google Home device, information about you is being collected.  In all likelihood, it will never be used against you (except to make money), but ... it's better keep your ass in line. 

Conform.  Keep your ass in line.  And, I know you do.

So do I.  :-)

Lawrence G. McDonald and my own story

Lawrence G. McDonald in his book about the failure (in September 2008) of the firm he traded for (Lehman Brothers), wrote of the hyper-inflated housing market:

In times past, buying a home required sufficient personal capital to make a sizable down payment, usually 20 percent, sometimes a little more. It also required the person to sit right down in front of the banker or mortgage executive and prove beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt annual income, job, and prospects of remaining employed. In many cases people were asked what they proposed to do about the mortgage if for any reason they became unemployed. And honesty was a watchword, because the local banker was an integral part of the community, a familiar figure, who shared schools, sports, and friendships with many of his clients. These were the standards of American banking, and they had stood the test of time, the pivotal issue being in every case the reliability of the customer and his ability to repay the money his home had cost.

But as the year 2004 drew to a close, there was a brand-new culture in real estate. The mortgage broker was no longer the lender, because he was about to unload the whole package, one thousand mortgages at a time, to Lehman Brothers or Merrill Lynch for the now-well-established parceling-out process, masterminded by the ratings agencies, Fitch, Moody’s, and S&P. So the brokerage house did not care what happened after that, because they no longer had their own capital on the line. And those bodybuilder salesmen, those affable Californians, were free to run amok among lower-middle-income earners and sell them anything they darned pleased. There were no standards, no consequences, no responsibilities, and no recriminations. Because, and I stress this once more, nobody cared. There was no need. The brokerage firms could sell any and every mortgage they wrote, sell it on to Lehman Brothers or Merrill Lynch, or any other major U.S. bank, on faraway Wall Street.

-- Lawrence G. McDonald, 
A Colossal Failure of Common Sense: The Inside Story of the Collapse of Lehman Brothers (2009)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Colossal_Failure_of_Common_Sense

Right, nobody cared, because they were all getting their share.

Mortgage lending was no longer a simple legal contract between a lender (of his own money) and a borrower who invested something of his own in the bargain (like a down-payment).  A mortgage was no longer a contract, made in good faith, between two people who shook hands and made each other a promise.  An old-fashioned notion, right?  I know it is; that doesn't make it wrong.

I've told this story before, my own story, but it bears repeating:

In 1995, I completed the construction of my first and only newly-built home, and went "mortgage shopping." And it really was "shopping". It was my first and only home mortgage. I evaluated the options, including two of the most-advertised Internet mortgage lenders of the day (one of those was Countrywide Financial, which financed 20% of all U.S. mortgages in 2006). The Internet was an attractive option to me; I was comfortable with it, the rates were very competitive, and it seemed the easiest and quickest way to get approved. I asked friends and coworkers who financed their homes if they could offer advice on selecting a lender.  They all suggested one of the easy financing options with an ultra-low "teaser" rate.

We weren't shopping for a refinance, or a no-down-payment mortgage, or a negative amortization loan (in which the principle grows) or a reverse mortgage, or a no-documentation mortgage, or an adjustable-rate mortgage, or a balloon mortgage, or a cash-back mortgage.  We weren't interested in any of the sales gimmicks from any of the new mortgage lenders who were not even banks (like Countrywide),   We weren't interested in any of those fancy new easy-money mortgages.  These were all "shadow banks" to begin with.  They weren't real banks with depositors and carefully managed money to lend.  They didn't hold mortgages as assets.  They packaged and resold them to investors in far-away places.  They weren't proper banks, because they didn't have any money.  They were lenders who had to borrow money in order to make mortgage loans.  They were lending money that wasn't their own on easy terms because they got it themselves on easy terms.

In 1995, we wanted a conventional 30-year fixed-rate mortgage.  Just as conventional, straight-down-the-line as possible, thank you very much.  Don't try to confuse us with your marketing BS.  That's why we chose a well-established statewide bank (Amsouth Bank was founded in 1873) with a local branch in my hometown. My wife and I met with the bank's Loan Officer, we arranged for a property appraisal, we read and understood all the documents before we signed them. We made an appointment, we went and sat down with a bank manager, we shook hands on the deal. I felt really good about it.  We formed a long-term business relationship.

Several months later, we received a notice in the mail from some company I had never heard of that told us our loan had been "purchased" and we would be issued new payment books. The payment amount and schedule would not change, we'd just be sending our checks to a different company each month.

I was furious. I called my bank for an explanation and was told that my mortgage had been sold. "It's a very standard practice," the loan officer told me. "Not with my loan, it isn't!" I replied.  I was outraged.

I didn't choose my local branch of Amsouth Bank arbitrarily. I chose their bank because I wanted a relationship, based on mutual trust, that would last the 30 years of my loan, hopefully longer. And that bank, its officers, took my trust, my confidence, my goodwill, and they sold it to the highest bidder.  They sold my trust.  

What they did is called "securitization", and since the 1970's, it has become a common practice in the banking/mortgage lending business. My mortgage was packaged along with many others, and put on the market as a "Mortgage-Backed Security" (MBS); it was bid on and purchased by a company that wanted it for a cash-flow investment. Amsouth Bank, like many other banks today, was no longer in the business of "portfolio management", they had no intention of holding my mortgage, or retaining me as a customer; they sold us both for what the market would bear.

They called it "standard practice." In the sense that it is a common practice in their industry, and a completely legal practice, I suppose that it is "standard practice". But I call it bad business. Furthermore, it represents a profound change in the process of mortgage lending.

Ok, I know I'm old school, and my entire notion of doing long-term business with an established bank in my hometown; that whole notion of mutual trust and loyalty between me and my hometown banker, the handshake and the promise; it's quaint, and it's obsolete. The Bailey Building and Loan Association closed its doors a long time ago.

I admit, I'm the one who was wrong.  I am the one who was under the misconception that Amsouth Bank and I had a two-way contract which neither of us could break without the consent of the other.  I am the one with the "quaint old-fashioned notions" of hometown banking, of responsible lending, and responsible borrowing, of debt as a contract between two parties acting in mutual good faith.

These big corporate banks want a system in which trust, openness, honesty, mutual respect, and loyalty have no relevance.  And, it would appear most Americans agree with them (as long as they see profit in it for themselves).

That's fine for others ... but I chose to live my life differently.  I'm satisfied with my own choice.  And I'll watch the success or failure of the debt-based economy from the sidelines, thank you very much.

I'm out of this game.  I would like to add, though, that many others would've been wise to get out sooner.  The number of people I know, personally, who have been forced to postpone their planned retirements tells me that's true.

Behold, the Mighty Hoover Dam (83 years old)

America's Hoover Dam was dedicated in a formal ceremony on September 30, 1935, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Nearly eighty-three years ago. 
Hoover Dam, which forms Lake Mead, once one of the US's largest water reservoirs, was constructed over a five-year period (1931–1936) during the Great Depression.  The total cost of the dam was $49 million dollars when it was built, which would translate to $900 million if we tried to build something like it today.  

For perspective, consider that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost, to date, $

5,600

 billion. [source]  Those wars cost the Americans 

6,000

 Hoover Dams.  

Maybe Americans could simply build 

6,000

 Hoover Dams (

120

 in every US state) and then blow them all to bits; Americans seem to like doing that with their wealth.  

Lots of things come to my mind, though, when I think of what Americans could do with that money.  I wonder why it never occurs to some Americans that they're simply flushing their treasure down the crapper.

My mother used to say, whenever I would spend my entire allowance on bottle rockets and firecrackers, "Son, you're just burning up your money."  Yeh, point conceded, but how I loved to watch it burn!  I guess some people just like a lot of noise and pretty sparks, huh?  :-)

The wars were wars of choice; no one forced Americans into them; Americans chose war over what they could have had instead.  It was a bad choice, an unwise choice, but it was also a choice they made with their eyes wide open. My dad always used to tell me:  "if you want to know what a man's priorities are, watch how he spends his money." People always find a way to afford the things they really want most.  Always.

Americans chose war.  Americans want war.  Lots of it.  By their actions; they demonstrate that. 

Not gonna criticize Americans.  We all know they're God's chosen people!  I'm not questioning that.

But I do think Americans would be far better off, after 17 years of war, to have built 

those 6,000

 Hoover Dams.  Just sayin', Millennial.  It'll soon be YOUR choice!

Canadians revere Nelson Mandela because of who WE are

I immigrated to Canada from the United States in October 2005.  I enjoyed getting my morning coffeeat Timothy's café in downtown Moncton. Timothy's had a whiteboard on which they posted the "question of the day"; the first ten people to answer the question correctly won a free coffee.  I was usually pretty good at it, if the question was related to science, technology, or American history and if the question related to American geography. I often drank coffee for free.

 

One morning the question of the day was, "Who voted for the first time in his life in the election that brought him to power?" I didn't have a clue ... but what surprised me was that all the Canadians around me had the answer.  "Oh, that's easy."  Yeh?  Who is it?  "Well ... it's Nelson Mandela, right? It has to be."

 

I had heard the name, of course, but I could tell you nothing about the man ... I probably knew only that he was black African leader.  Beyond that, I didn't know or care.

 

I discovered two things that day:  Nelson Mandela is a hero to Canadians, in a way he will never be to Americans, and Canadians are far more interested in the world outside North America.  

 

But those Canadians weren't recognizing Nelson Mandela because he was a prominent newsmaker; they were recognizing something that affected them profoundly nearly 15 years earlier; an act that meant far more in Canada than it did in the States.  Indeed, the system of apartheid in South Africa was an affront to Canadians, a violation of their value system, in a way that Americans can't even understand, because it happened in Africa, to people of colour, and to a people who essentially were of little value to Americans.  

 

But that day, I saw something in a group of Canadians who were total strangers to me, that I admired greatly.  They were able to feel strongly, passionately, about someone and something that didn't affect them directly; but affected them nonetheless, because of the value system they held.

 

Mandela went to law school; he was the first democratically-elected black president in his nation's history; he was a man who had the respect of some of the world's most powerful leaders, as supporters and as friends.  But it was none of these things that make Nelson Mandela great.

 

It was the display of an unassailable moral courage that made Mandela great. It was his indomitability.  He could be imprisoned for life, tortured, even killed, but he could not be forced to abandon his principles.  

 

There are two ways of looking at it. Many people have told me, over the years, "What good are your precious principles, Charles, if you're dead?" My answer to that: "Of what value is a life without principle, without honour?  Of what value is a life lived without principle?"

 

Have you ever faced a situation where the easiest choice of all was to put your principles aside for a moment and to do what was most epedient? To take the path of least resistance? You found reason enough to justify that "temporary" abandonment of principle.  Most of us have.

 

Nelson Mandela is great because he never did that.

 

Nelson Mandela (1918–2013)

Prince Edward Island's Confederation Bridge (a wise investment)

Whenever ​we visit the neighbouring province of Prince Edward Island (PEI), we cross the 8-mile long Confederation Bridge between the mainland in New Brunswick and the island, across the Northumberland Strait (which ices in the winter, incidentally).

That bridge cost Canada $1 billion, and took almost 5 years to build (1992-1997)​.  ​It was the fulfillment of a promise made to PIE just before Canada became a sovereign nation (in 1867) to connect PEI to the mainland.

That bridge gave thousands of people jobs.  I know men who worked on that project; and have their names enshrined in the brick paving at the PEI welcome centre.​

For perspective, consider that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost, to date, ​at a very conservative minimum, ​$1,​700 billion.   Those wars cost the Americans​ the equivalent of​ 1,​700 Confederation Bridges. Or, since they probably don't need more than ​100 or so Confederation Bridges ​(that would be 2 per US state), maybe they could use the other $1,​600 billion for something else.

​What could a country choose to do with $1,600 billion?  Any ideas come to your mind?

​

Or maybe they could build 1​,700 Confederation Bridges (​that would be 34 in every US state) and then blow them all to bits; ​Americans seem to enjoy doing that with their wealth.  

​But ​1,​700​ 8-mile long bridges?  ​That's kind of silly. No, build one that's 13,600 miles long!  ​Americans: you can do it (if you choose)​ ... the rest of the world will be really impressed!​

Lots of things come to my mind, though, when I think of what I could do if I had ​1,700 Confederation Bridges.  I wonder why it never occurs to some Americans that they're simply flushing their treasure down the crapper​?​

My mother used to say, whenever I would spend my entire weekly allowance on bottle rockets and firecrackers, "Son, you're just burning up your money."  Yeh, point conceded, but how I loved to watch it burn! I guess some people just like a lot of noise and pretty sparks.

The wars were of choice; no one forced Americans into them; Americans chose war over what they could have had instead.  It was a bad choice, an unwise choice, but one they made with their eyes wide open. My dad always used to tell me: if you want to know what a man's priorities are, watch how he spends his money.  People always find a way to afford the things they really want most. Always.

Americans chose war.  Americans want war. Lots of it.  By their actions; they demonstrate that.

I’m criticizing Americans or that choice.  We all know they're God's chosen people, and I'm not questioning that.

But I do think you'd be far better off with 1,​700 Confederation Bridges. ​ They’re nice to have!

The G7 summit is a real-life example of The Prisoner's Dilemma

​​

Leaders of the G7 

​(the seven largest developed economies in the world) ​

will gather on June 8-9 at the 

​​

Fairmont Le Manoir Richelieu, in La Malbaie, in the beautiful Charlevoix region of Québec, Canada.

One of my co-workers referred to it as the G6 + 1, as one of the seven participating nations has acted antagonistically towards the other.  That nation has been singled out for special attention at the summit.  The other six nations want to know WHY that nation has acted, as it has, in a hostile manner toward the others.

So it's not 7 nations, its 6 

​against 

1.   There are

​ really two groups

, and this is a real-life version of what is known in game theory as "The Prisoner's Dilemma", which explains why it is not in the best interest of the six to ignore the actions of the other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
The G7 was formed because all of those nations agreed to act as 

​​

friends.  The decision that six

​ of them​

 now face is whether they should consider the seventh friend or foe.

The issue is protectionist trade tariffs.  One of the nations in the G7 acted aggressively toward the others in imposing 

​trade tariffs on imports from the others, 

in the expectation, probably, that those nations would not retaliate in kind.  To do so would mean a loss for everyone.  But here's the thing:  game theory would say that 

​failing 

to retaliate would mean

​ that​

 the one nation who acted as a foe of the other six will pick up ALL the money on the table

​, and emerge the ONLY winner of the game.​

​

​

However if, at this summit, all parties agree to co-operate 

​ ​

in dropping 

​

tariffs, instituting free trade, they

​ ​

​​

all 

​will ​

reap benefits from

​ ​

that free

​ ​

trade.

​  ​

The one nation that has decided to act like an enemy of the others is betting that timidity will keep those other nations from calling this what it really is, hostility, and from calling that nation what it is, an enemy.

​Which is why this summit is so important.  Will six defer to one, or will they stand united against the rogue nation?

Fairmont Le Manoir Richelieu

La Malbaie, Québec

5 years ago: June 6, 2013. A day that changed world history

A passage from Glenn Greenwald's 2014 book No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the Surveillance State:

At 5:40pm [June 6, 2013 in Hong Kong], Janine sent me an instant message with a link, the one I had been waiting to see for days. “It’s live,” she said.

NSA Collecting Phone Records of Millions of Verizon Customers Daily, the headline read, followed by a subhead: “Exclusive: Top Secret Court Order Requiring Verizon to Hand Over All Call Data Shows Scale of Domestic Surveillance Under Obama.”

That was followed by a link to the full FISA court order. The first three paragraphs of our article told the entire story:

​​

The National Security Agency is currently collecting the 

telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, 

one of America’s largest telecom providers, under a top 

secret court order issued in April.

The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, 

requires Verizon on an“ongoing, daily basis” to give the NSA 

information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the 

US and between the US and other countries.

The document shows for the first time that under the 

Obama administration the communication records of millions of 

US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – 

regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing.

The impact of the article was instant and enormous, beyond anything I had anticipated. It was the lead story on every national news broadcast that night and dominated political and media discussions. I was inundated with interview requests from virtually every national TV outlet: CNN, MSNBC, NBC, the Today show, Good Morning America, and others. I spent many hours in Hong Kong talking to numerous sympathetic television interviewers—an unusual experience in my career as a political writer often at odds with the establishment press—who all treated the story as a major event and a real scandal.

In response, the White House spokesman predictably defended the bulk collection program as “a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats.” The Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, one of the most steadfast congressional supporters of the national security state generally and US surveillance specifically, invoked standard post-9/11 fear-mongering by telling reporters that the program was necessary because “people want the homeland kept safe.”

But almost nobody took the government's claims seriously.

– Excerpt from

​ ​

Glenn Greenwald's No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the Surveillance State  (2014)

Edward Snowden remains the best example of courage, manhood, and character I've seen in 20 years.

America is a fundamentally good country. We have good people with good values who want 

to do the right thing. But the structures of power that exist are working to their own 

ends to extend their capability at the expense of the freedom of all publics.

___

Edward Snowden, Hong Kong interview, June 6, 2013

https://youtu.be/rB9L1PD7Cpo

What was the real reason Afghanistan was invaded?

There was a lot of international pressure on the political leaders of Afghanistan to hand over a suspected planner of the WTC tower attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. That man was Osama bin Laden, a former mujaheddin fighter against Russian forces occupying Afghanistan in the 1980's. Bin Laden was the founder and leader of a tiny extremist group called al-Qaeda, which was opposed to the Taliban leadership of Afghanistan. The CIA estimated the strength of this tiny band ​at ​about 200 fighters. 

No more than 200 men.

When Afghanistan's Taliban government refused its demands, the United States decided they would use their armed forces to overthrow the country's government and eliminate al-Qaeda. In October 2001, the USA began bombing Afghanistan. They targeted bin Laden's al-Qaeda fighters and also the Taliban government of Afghanistan.

The war's public aims were to 1) dismantle al-Qaeda and 2) to deny it a safe base of operations in Afghanistan by removing the Taliban from power.

The War in Afghanistan became the longest war in United States history (now 16 years and ​8 months).

​It was a monumental mistake.​

​​

Behold the mighty Hoover Dam, 83 years old

America's Hoover Dam was dedicated in a formal ceremony on September 30, 1935, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Nearly eighty-three years ago.

Hoover Dam, which forms Lake Mead, once one of the US's largest water reservoirs, was constructed over a five-year period (1931–1936) during the Great Depression.  The total cost of the dam was $49 million dollars when it was built, which would translate to $700 million if we tried to build something like it today.

For perspective, consider that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost, to date, $3,689 billion. [source]  Those wars cost the Americans 5,270 Hoover Dams.  

Maybe Americans could simply build 5,270 Hoover Dams (105 in every US state) and then blow them all to bits; they seem to like doing that with their wealth.  

Lots of things come to my mind, though, when I think of what Americans could do with that money.  I wonder why it never occurs to some Americans that they're simply flushing their treasure down the crapper.

My mother used to say, whenever I would spend my entire allowance on bottle rockets and firecrackers, "Son, you're just burning up your money."  Yeh, point conceded, but how I loved to watch it burn!  I guess some people just like a lot of noise and pretty sparks, huh?  :-)

The wars were wars of choice; no one forced Americans into them; Americans chose war over what they could have had instead.  It was a bad choice, an unwise choice, but it was also a choice they made with their eyes wide open. My dad always used to tell me:  "if you want to know what a man's priorities are, watch how he spends his money." People always find a way to afford the things they really want most.  Always.

Americans chose war.  Americans want war.  Lots of it.  By their actions; they demonstrate that. 

Not gonna criticize Americans.  We all know they're God's chosen people!  I'm not questioning that.

But I do think Americans would be far better off, after 17 years of war, to have built 5,270 Hoover Dams.  Just sayin', Millennial.  It'll soon be YOUR choice!

Iran: No credible threat

On Monday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed documents that he claimed prove that Iran lied to the world about its nuclear program for years, even after the 2015 nuclear deal with the world.  Netanyahu claimed an advanced secret Iranian nuclear weapons program that does not exist.

Within one day, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)  issued its own assessment (Tuesday) addressing those allegations of a "secret" Iranian nuclear program. Their assessment:  There are "no credible indications of any Iranian activities after 2009."

The IAEA, therefore, agrees with all 16 US intelligence agencies that have affirmed and reaffirmed that Iran abandoned interest in nuclear weapons years ago ... declaring that nothing has changed since the last National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's "Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities" in November 2007, which declared that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon capability.  US intelligence agency officials have stated that they continue to believe that Iran had not restarted its weaponization program, which the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate said Iran had discontinued in 2003. 

Iran's offensive military capacity has not changed since 2007.  Benjamin Netanyahu is way out in left field on this one.  He  tried to present old research as new evidence, and then claims even more secret activities that are still on-going. 

The reaction seems to be the general consensus across most of the world that Netanyahu's lying.  Again. This time, "Bibi's" latest preposterous claims have been met with the ridicule they deserve (and I find that delightful).

https://www.theonion.com/netanyahu-provides-stunning-new-evidence-that-iranians-1825694150

Iran hasn't launched an aggressive military attack on another country in over 200 years.  Other than empty rhetoric, Iran poses no immediate threat of doing so now; certainly not with nuclear weapons.  How do I know that?  I don't  ... but I have that on the authority of 16 U.S. Intelligence agencies.  All 16.  No immediate threat. [verify it]

Of course, I also have the wisdom of experience and the benefit of hindsight, and so do you.  We (you and I) know better than to believe unfounded claims to the contrary.  Lies.

Yet, I'm often asked, "how can you be so sure you're right about that?"  Because of what I've witnessed with my own eyes.  And, those eyes, I trust.

Recall that, immediately after the November 7 2016 US Presidential election, Israel massed tens of thousands of heavily-armed troops along the Gaza border and waited for the green light from Washington.  They were testing the resolve of President Obama.  That green light never came.  Instead, President Obama told Israel to stand down. His brokered "cease fire" was a way for them to save face.  Without a firm US commitment of support for the use of those troops, Israel stood down. And I was astounded.  I fully expected a war on Iran by that year's end.  President Obama prevented it.

President Obama, under relentless pressure from the government of Israel, the neoconservative warhawks in Congress and the AIPAC lobby, refused to give the Israelis the satisfaction of having the United States kiss their boots. President Obama is the first US President since George H. W. Bush (41) who hasn't made himself an instrument of Israel's policies of aggression.  And that took guts.

Benjamin Netanyahu was absolutely beside himself in fury.  He and his Likud Party were forced to stand down after the US refused to become involved in Israel's conflict in Gaza.

Netanyahu thinks Trump is his bitch now.  And that's what the world is waiting to find out ... is he right about that?

 

All I need to know about Julien Assange and WikiLeaks

There's been a renewed attempt (by both of America's political parties) to discredit Wikileaks.  Why?

What was Wikileaks' crime?  Exposing the truth about America's wars.

All I need to know about WikiLeaks is that if it wasn't for WikiLeaks, we would never have known about the US military attempt to hide an incident in which civilians (including two journalists) were machine-gunned from helicopters while the gunners laughed.  That attack occurred three years before WikiLeaks released the "Collatoral Murder" video.  For three years it remained hidden.   There was absolutely no possibility that it would eventually have been revealed if not for the courage of Chelsea Manning and Wikileaks. 

If not for WikiLeaks, that airstrike would have been completely covered up.  In true Orwellian fashion, it simply would never have happened.  It would have ceased to exist as a truth. Because the government would have decided that it was a truth we were best kept from knowing.  Given their way, reality or history will always become what they choose it to be, and nothing more.  They will determine reality for us.  

"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past"

___

George Orwell, 1984

If not for the brave people who have risked everything to bring truth to light, we would never have known about the 2009 Granai Airstrike in which as many as 140 civilians (mostly children) were killed, we would never have known about Abu Ghraib, the waterboarding of detainees, the secret prisons in which people are held indefinitely without legal recourse, the program of secret renditions, Guantanamo Bay.  Hell, go further back ... we would never have know about the massacre at My Lai in 1968.

Sometimes willful ignorance is not a suitable choice.  And it is never an honorable one.  Should it really require a major act of courage simply to accept the truth and to deal with it?  Something is terribly wrong in a society that prefers lies to the truth. Vast stockpiles of WMD, anyone? 

Why has the United States government tried so hard to discredit WikiLeaks?  To prevent more embarrassing releases?  Yes, of course. Protect corporate secrets?  Yes.  Frighten truth-tellers into silence?  Yes.  All of these things, yes; but mostly the US government wants to preserve its control over our access to the truth.  They want the power to make the truth whatever they choose it to be.  They want to control reality (or our perception of it, which is the same thing).  Does that sound sinister?  Paranoid?  Then so be it.  Because it's also the truth.

If the U.S. government is successful in silencing WikiLeaks; they will have struck a blow at truth.  Ultimately, though, they want to strike a blow, not at those who would publish truth ... but at those who would read it.  People like you and me.  They want you to choose ignorance.  Ultimately, their target is a public that is empowered and informed by the truth.  That's why they are dead serious about assaulting your right to know.  What about you?  How serious are you about defending it?

All I need to know about WikiLeaks is that we need it.  We need it badly. Because choosing to live by lies is shameful.

Courage is contagious.  And that's all I need to know.

Are you an "Oath Keeper"?

I was surprised to learn that Oath Keepers (founded nine years ago) still exists.  The group was founded in March, 2009 by Stewart Rhodes, a lawyer and former US Army paratrooper, coincidentally with the inauguration of President Obama.  Oath Keepers organizes former and current military and police to be prepared to resist all unconstitutional orders. As a result, they have been attacked by everyone from Bill O’Reilly on the right (who called them "anarchists") to Bill Clinton on the left (who linked them with "terrorists").

The "Oath" in Oath Keepers refers to the oath military servicemen and servicewomen and police take to defend the constitution. Stewart Rhodes claims he founded OathKeepers to help "defend the constitution from its enemies," most of whom, he believes are in or around the government.

Rhodes thinks neither liberals nor conservatives recognize the need to limit government to Constitutional bounds. "Picture a Venn diagram with 2 overlapping circles," he says. "People in each circle only object to what's going on when they are not in power. But there is a third section that, no matter who is in power, they care about the constitution and distrust those in power. My goal is to grow that third part of the population.” Among the "consistent Americans," Rhodes includes feminist author Naomi Wolf, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, and Congressman Ron Paul.  Two of them are liberals, the third a Libertarian; none of them are rightwing. Oath Keepers isn't partisan.

That all sounds great.  "We're not a political organization!" they claim loudly, "We champion liberty, American values, and upholding the Constitution, regardless of which political party is power."

Oath Keepers' lists Ten Orders We Will Not Obey. These include: "We will not obey orders to disarm the American people, conduct warrantless searches, detain American citizens as 'unlawful enemy combatants' or to subject them to military tribunal, impose martial law or a 'state of emergency' on a state, or invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty."

But wait.  Wait.  Just hold on a minute ... aren't these the very things the US began doing, in the name of its "War on Terror", 8 years before this organization was conceived?  Then why was this group founded only after the political party in power shifted?

The are the very same rightwing "patriots" who meekly and submissively accepted a major shift toward a police state 17 years ago.  They were silent about all of these things ... completely silent:

• presidential claims of unlimited executive power
• limitless imprisonment with no legal recourse
• warrantless intrusive searches
• warrantless wiretaps
• creation of massive databases on citizens
• repudiation of habeas corpus
• redefining cruel and unusual punishment as "enhanced interrogation"
• suppression of dissent
• arbitrary no-fly lists
• endless overseas wars

Isn't it ironic that this group was perfectly ok with all of these things as long as they were being done by a large, powerful, and growing federal government that was in the control of "their" political party?  Then, suddenly, after a change of power, they discovered their principles?  Just like that?  Or did they only oppose all these actions by the federal government because they don't like the political party in control?  That would make their motives political, not principled. That's loathsome.  They think all these things are fine, when they are being done to "others."  But if they think they're the ones who might be the targets, then, and only then, they choose to be upset?

These are people, who love to stroke each other at silly flag rallies where they talk about the right to own assault weapons.  But at a time when they needed to take a stand; at a time when true courage and principle were required; they stood down, and remained silent.  Compliant.  Submissive to authority.

When it took courage to stand up and oppose the actions of a runaway government; they were silent.  When public opinion was against those of us who opposed America's perpetual series of wars; they were silent.  When it took guts to oppose the things they claim to oppose; they remained gutless.

These aren't patriots at all; and they are certainly not leaders; these are weak followers of authority; the tools of that authority.

And now they want our respect NOW?   I don't think that's gonna happen.

Respect has to be earned; it's not a right.  And that, friend, is a true American principle.

 

Oath Keepers and True Patriots, 1941

 

 

 

A demonstrated weakness of character is hard to redeem

The United States once set a high standard for the rest of the world to aspire to.  You remember that, right?

And a tremendous amount of American power (influence) was due to that high moral standard.  Call it admiration or respect, whatever, much of the world (the developed world, certainly) let the US lead in nearly all great matters: war, technology, business, industry, because of the high standard Americans demonstrated to others.

It is my belief that, by changing themselves, by demonstrating an inability to stand by their own stated principles when it mattered most to do so, Americans demonstrated a huge weakness.  A weakness of character.

Forget America's abuses of others ... the real abuse is of those things that, for so long, defined "American".  

Americans betrayed their own stated principles – Americans betrayed themselves – before they ever waterboarded a single prisoner in a secret CIA prison or killed women and children in a robotic drone strike.  Before they ever betrayed another living soul, they betrayed themselves. And that is what other nations (like Canada) are trying to avoid.  Canada is trying to remember what being "Canadian" means.  To abandon that, without strong justification, is simply too expensive.  It's too high a price to pay.  Americans (and this is, really, just my own opinion) will realize that there is no reward worth the price they have paid to have their fears assuaged. To be stroked by liars.

The damage Americans did to their own nation's credibility abroad has been immeasurable, literally incalculable, and the loss of respect is irredeemable.

Suck it up.

10 Years Ago: Dick Cheney's astonishing pro-war campaign

From ABC News, 3/24/08:
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/story?id=4513250&page=1

Cheney on Iraq: 'It's Important to Win'

Vice President Discusses Grim Milestone of 4,000 U.S. Dead in
Five-Year Iraq War

By MARTHA RADDATZ, ELY BROWN and JENNIFER PARKER

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Vice President Dick Cheney
was asked what effect the grim milestone of at least 4,000 U.S. deaths
in the five-year Iraq war might have on the nation.

Noting the burden placed on military families, the vice president said
the biggest burden is carried by President George W. Bush, who made
the decision to commit US troops to war, and reminded the public that
U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan volunteered for duty.

________________________________________________

That really is one astonishing interview.  In that one short interview, Dick Cheney managed to tell the American people that their opinions mean absolutely nothing to him.  In the same interview, he said that the 4,000 American Iraq war dead were all of volunteer soldiers.  They knew what they were getting into when they signed up, right?  It's their own faults. One week before, Cheney had answered "So?" when he was informed that 2/3 of the American public say the war was not worth fighting.  [verify it]

Ten years ago, in multiple interviews, US Vice-President Dick Cheney essentially told the American people to take their opinions and shove 'em you-know-where.

And he had the nerve to state that "the president carries the biggest burden for the war."  Not the 4,000 American soldiers who had died, or the 35,000+ who had been wounded, or their families ... no, it was the President who had sacrificed and suffered.  It was the President who lied his nation into this now 15-year-long war that Americans should all be concerned about; it was the pain and suffering of President George W. Bush that mattered most.

What an utterly contemptuous attitude that was.   I believe Americans show no self-respect when they're willing to allow leaders like this to keep their country involved in a war like Iraq.

As for Dick Cheney ... I'll call him what he is.  He's a gutless, draft-dodging, coward. 

He's a chickenhawk.  And he's a war criminal.

And Americans who accepted leaders like that are no better than he is.