By William Markiewicz
(As other short items may follow, I've decided to group them together.)
We are like children learning from our monumental errors (4/22)
A Canadian radio commentator said recently: "Why are we in Afghanistan (and Iraq)? To defend women's rights? There are other countries where women suffer. Who are we? Social workers with guns?"
In Iraq women are now enslaved in comparison to the times of Saddam Hussein.
Any ideas? (4/22)
At the risk of appearing naive or uninformed, I would like to launch a general question: why are Sunni & Shia slaughtering each other in Iraq? You don’t create a huge system just to express hatred; there must be a goal. What, precisely, is the goal? Separation? Sunni don’t want it because they want their share of the country’s natural wealth, mostly oil. Union? They don’t want that either. Then what do they want? Both sides are too well organized, too powerful, to accept any domination that equals oppression.
A propos West Virginia -- pleading for self-defence (4/17)
I suppose everybody would agree that total safety is socially impossible; gun control may diminish but not eliminate the risk of killings. On the other hand, we eliminate the self-defence of potential victims by forbidding the possession of arms. In Switzerland, where arms at home have been a tradition for ages, violent crimes were committed with knife, axe, but rarely with fire-arms. In restrictive provinces like Ontario, the number of drunks didn't increase when it became easier to obtain alcoholic beverages. In fundamentalist countries, alcoholics and other ‘sinners’ didn't become less numerous, only smarter. The human spirit progresses toward freedom amidst forbidding rules.
"It's worse than a crime; it's a mistake" Talleyrand (4/14)
Kevin Potvin, the Green Party candidate who hailed 9/11, should remember that uninvolved civilians should not be used as pawns in political struggles. In war the only logical targets are politicians and the military.
British sailors imprisoned by Iranians (3/31)
If the sailors confessed to obtain faster release, Iranians may now have more reason than ever to keep them; once free, the sailors can declare it was all forced on them. And the fact that they ended their statement by discussing the foreign policy of their country politicises the issue and greatly distances them from their immediate goal of freedom for themselves.
Canadians as invading do-gooders (3/27)
We learn in the media that the Taliban increases attacks on Canadian soldiers who are more and more involved in construction and reconstruction in the Kandahar region.
Politics vs Business (3/27)
I’ve written several times in "Vagabond" about our Darwinian Universe where peace prevails among ethnically homogenous populations. This is confirmed in clashes among the mixed groups cohabiting in various European countries. The adversaries of foreign immigration remind politicians and voters that "I told you so". The politicians and voters reply or think: you may be right but we cannot live without them. In other words, let’s do what we have to do now and let’s bear the consequences later. And that’s how it goes; it’s irrelevant who is right or wrong. In Democracy you can’t plan the future of societies without infringing on individual freedoms. Politics and business must make mutual concessions.
How did one man get the power to muzzle millions? (3/20)
On the first page of today’s New York Times: “Bush urges patience on war’s anniversary.”
Kurds and Americans (3/20)
Shortly after the Americans leave Iraq, the Turks will attack the Iraqi Kurds from the West and Shia and Sunni will attack from the south. The Americans remain the only allies of the oil-rich Kurds.
Materialism vs Spirituality (3/18)
I assisted in a debate among friends about materialism and spirituality. Materialism means to be happy with your material prosperity while spirituality is usually connected to generosity, clemency, material abnegation. Animal attitudes are called instincts. The difference between instinct and mental decision is that in the instincts one has no choice. So, the instincts are nature's decision. Humans know what they are doing, and their decisions are motivated genetically by character and/or introduced through upbringing. At the level of conscious decision, not of acts, comes the differentiation between the "spiritual" and the "materialistic" mentality. Appearances may sometimes deceive; brutality may be spiritually motivated (burning at the stake to save the victim's soul), and tolerance, generosity, may be materialistically motivated (tribal solidarity). We don't see any change in animal instincts, while extreme changes of behaviour, spiritual or materialistic, may be triggered in humans by some mental shock. For materialists, an individual can be simultaneously spiritual and materialistic. So spirituality is a matter of ignorance; biologists may be materialists in biology and spiritual in astronomy; astronomers may be materialistic in astronomy, and spiritualist in medicine. Both sides may be wrong: the materialists may trust too much in what they know, the spiritualists may dream too much about what they don’t know. Only animals caged in their instincts remain unchanged, leaving the arguing humans to reign over the universe.
National ID Card in England (3/11)
They really must be scared of the terror they created themselves by invading Central Asia. It’s normal that Western Powers wanted to catch Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan but localised operations in the mountain range bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan would have been more effective. You don't occupy a big country filled with an archaic population to force the blessings of 21st Century Western Democracy on it. As for invasion of Iraq, it also was not only unnecessary but totally disastrous for the invader as well as the invaded one. Concerning “terror” itself, it has been localized up to now in the invaded countries, and more and more the word ‘terror’ is replaced by "insurgency." As for world terrorism it’s in the range of probability; still sufficient to waste the nerves, the billions, and provoke the “Big Brotherhood” illustrated by the planned National ID card in Britain.
The East is not dangerous -- only rich (3/01)
The war that the West focused on Iraq and Afghanistan risks spreading to Iran and Syria while Pakistan remains problematic. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban stay definitively on the defensive and don't seem inclined to spread terrorist attacks inside the powerful West. Peace could be installed soon. The revenge for 9/11 and "Muslim fanaticism" are not the issues; wars for revenge are fables, and the West could not care less what the fundamentalists do to their women. The true issue is oil, and the East is too weak to defend its riches. Those who push for war claim that victory in Asia is vital for the interests of the USA, which is not true, because oil is cheaper bought than conquered.
Back to the index of the Vagabond
William Markiewicz