Alice Walker Says Israel and U.S. are Great Terrorist Organizations

At some point each day I find myself reading the new articles, interviews, and blogs available online at Foreign Policy.  There are usually some good ideas, thought provoking articles and blogs.  Today is no different, except in what almost immediately caught my eye:  Alice Walker on Why Israel and the U.S. Are Terrorist States

Now, I make no claim at literary expertise and grew up in the deep south, as such I do not believe anyone would want to read nor believe my comments on The Color Purple.  So my first thought is why should anyone care what Alice Walker thinks about Israel and the U.S.?  She won a Pulitizer for her literature, but does she have any real expertise in terrorism, foreign policy, the Middle East?  She married a Jewish law student during the late 1960s and became an advocate of the Palestinians in the 1970s.  Great, I am an advocate for removing watermelon and returning lime to the green lifesaver candy.  She is as qualified as an activist who advocates for any group.  So on my first question, I'll give it another so what?

But what really struck me as I read this interview were two points.  One, she admits that she does not know what is on board ships in a flotilla she will travel with to attempt to break Israel's blockade of Gaza.  Personally, I take no trip without having some clue what is on board the vessel of travel if that vessel is potentially traveling in harm's way.  Not very bright of a Pulitizer winner to not know if these ships are carrying items of concern for the safety of Gaza or Israel.  The second is her statement the U.S. and Israel are "great terrorist organizations themselves."  Again showing the naivety of many leftists still out there in our world, there is no cogent reasoning, just feeling and bluster to the statement.  At least most left leaning academics I know would make a cogent argument to support such a claim. 

If we are a terrorist organization here in the U.S., may I ask you a question Alice Walker?  Why do you continue to support this terrorist organization by claiming citizenship, paying taxes, and living here?  Ok, wait, I am being emotional about this now just like she is about the cause of the Palestinians.  So, I return to my first point, what qualified her to speak on the subject?  At least I am just blogging.

The First, "What?" Ending of the Year

Ok. I watch too much TV, I'll admit it.  But my TV watching is still low compared to most people outside of the Grove City College, Christians and intellectuals should not watch so much TV crowd.  So, I like many viewers in the world have tuned in at 10 pm (ET) for the last few months to watch season one of The Killing.  We have all watched and tried to guess, from at least episode three, who killed Rosie Larsen?  I pegged councilman/mayoral candidate Richmond from episode two (he was a little too smug and self-righteous for my taste, so I figured if he is guilty I get a little more pleasure from the show).  The last two episodes led everyone who was not already on my side against Richmond to believe he was the killer.  Then we find out detective Holder cooked the evidence and watch as Belko pulls the revolver out and puts it right up near Richmond (we are left to decide for ourselves whether Belko pulled the trigger, anyone believe he did not pull the trigger?).  So, was Richmond the killer?  Or, was I wrong from episode 2 to the end? 

Turkey or Ottoman Empire

Tayyap Erdogan's AKP won a sizable majority of the the seats in the Turkish parliamentary election on June 12, 2011.  Erdogan promptly proclaimed in his victory speech

"Believe me, Sarajevo won today as much as Istanbul, Beirut won as much as Izmir, Damascus won as much as Ankara, Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin, The West Bank, Jerusalem won as much as Diyarbakir."

Sun-Tzu said that an empire once destroyed cannot be rebuilt (Art of War, Chp. 12).  Apparently Erdogan did not read this part of Sun-Tzu, or he did not read Sun-Tzu at all.  Of course with recent comments such as those by Tariq Ramadan (grandson of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood) that "democratic Turkey is the template for Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood," and Syrian Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Tayfur "We don't consider the Iranian model at all. For us, and other Arab countries, Turkey is the model," (Karmon, Longitude May 2011, p. 62), perhaps Erdogan does not need to remember his Sun-Tzu.  Clearly Erdogan is trying to establish a measure of leadership for Islamic solidarity, particularly in the Middle East, but also in areas that were part of the expansive Ottoman Empire of the 15th to 19th Centuries.

Of course, some will point out, and correctly so, that the political rhetoric used here is not new.  After all, Barrack Obama himself implied in his early speeches of a victory for the world as much as for Washington, DC.  But, Obama offered no exact and particular pairings of victory for X as much as Y.

One of the particulars of Erdogan's speech caught my attention (and that of some other bloggers out there like J.E. Dyer).  Erdogan's pairing of Diyarbakir with Ramallah and Jerusalem is interesting considering Diyarbakir is in the predominantly Kurdish area of Turkey and the site of great unrest leading up to the Turkish elections.  Several Kurdish leaders were jailed when they attempted to run for parliament in Turkey and I seriously doubt that Kurds consider the AKP victory as a positive occurrence in their lives.  Can you paint a similar picture in Ramallah and Jerusalem?  If so, who is in the role of the Kurds and who is in the role of the AKP?

Overall the list given names four modern national capitals that were once controlled by the Ottoman Empire.  So, is there an underlying message.  I think we should all watch and carefully weigh Turkish actions and words in the coming months.

War Movies

One of the great things about holidays like Memorial Day is the airing of war movies for several days on cable channels.  Some channels invite you to rank war movies.  So, I'll take a shot at my top 10.  Before embarking on my top 10, a little on my rubric for selection is in order.  First, war movies--with the notable exception of Patton--should not be about a particular person (I realize all stories and movies focus on characters, but it is more important to note the characters role in the particular conflict than to focus on the character).  Second, war movies do not have to be gory affairs.  Blood, severed limbs, guts hanging out may add "reality" whatever that means, but dead is dead whether you show me the dying persons internal organs or just show me soldiers falling down or being blown up, etc.  Third, the good guys do not have to win, but it helps.  Fourth, good casts make good movies regardless of what type of movie. 

10) The Horse Soldiers.  There must be at least one John Wayne movie (probably will be more).  But don't forget the supporting cast.  William Holder and Constance Towers were great. 

9) They Were Expendable.  Robert Montgomery, John Wayne and Donna Reed.  Almost a fun movie, but good action, and great acting.

8) The Great Raid.  Not quite authentic to the actual raid on Cabantuan, but it is a story about heroes--as any POW is a hero, and anyone who goes on a rescue mission of this type is a hero.  First thing with Benjamin Bratt in it that I actually enjoyed.

7) Gettysburg.  Great ensemble cast, good recreation of the details of the battle.  Being a Southerner, I cried. 

6) Letters from Iwo Jima/Flags of Our Fathers.  A tie here as these movies tell the tale from both sides of the fight.  Valor and honor and courage on display from both the Japanese and U.S. forces.  Clint Eastwood directed both and are in my humble opinion his best directorial efforts.

5) In Harm's Way.  John Wayne, Kirk Douglas and Patricia Neal.  Great movie with good casting.

4) All Quiet on the Western Front.  The 1930 version, not the remake from the 1980s.  We all will do well to remember that war is nasty.

3) A Bridge Too Far.  Monty's plan did not work out the way it should on paper.  The British lost a large portion of their paratroops, and the allies did not make it to Berlin by Christmas 1944.  Attenborough did a fine directing job.  Sean Connery and Ryan O'Neil were particularly good in this movie.  One question, does anyone buy Gene Hackman as a Polish paratroop commander?

2) We Were Soldiers.  One of the best film adaptations of a book about war that I have ever seen.  Like or dislike Mel Gibson, this movie is fine work about a battle in a war that still causes tensions in the hearts of citizens of the U.S.

1) Patton.  Ok, so he is one of my favorite generals of all time.  George C. Scott did his finest acting ever.  The opening monologue is great (actually it is from 5 speeches made between 1935 and 1942).  This one breaks my caveat about war movies not being about particular characters.

The effort to make a top 10 is challenging.  There are a dozen more war movies that are as good as any of these.  I will, however, stand by my top 10.  What movies make your top 10 war movies list?

NSF and Buying a House

My last blog was the morning of May 16.  I began a week at Maxwell AFB, AL that day for the National Security Forum (NSF).  Great thanks and good times with the officers of Seminar 6, ya'll put up with a mixed group of civilians asking some silly questions and wanting your responses in detail.  By the way, it may surprise many of the civilians in the world to learn that most of the participants in Seminar 6 do not personally support the operations in Libya, but will do their jobs as demanded of them by the civilian leadership of the country.

A few observations about my time at the NSF.  Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley is not a very dynamic speaker and did not say much that anyone could not have gleaned from reading a few newspapers.  General Norton Schwartz, Chief of Staff U.S. Air Force, on the other hand is a dynamic speaker who in answering questions posed to him by civilians and officers in attendance provided blunt assessments and straight answers.  Apparently a growing group of national security experts are focusing on the threat of biological and chemical attacks on civilian targets within the United States.  Of course, we should be concerned about these types of potential attacks as anyone in my generation who took 8th grade chemistry already knows how to build basic explosive and pyrotechnic devices that can be the catalyst for chemical and biological attacks.  Plus, you do not have to try to smuggle the chemicals and biologicals into the country, you can make them locally.  Credit for a wonderful program goes to Lt. General Peck, Maj. General Kane, and Lt. Colonel Gunn.  Finally, "Dutch" Holland, thanks for hosting me and making the beer and pizza run for the cigar smokers, best to you as you retire and embark on your academic program at the Bush School at Texas A&M.

Some other neat things about NSF should be noted.  I got to play in an F-22 simulator, an F-35 simulator, and an F-16 simulator.  I crashed the F-16, did ok in the the F-35, and taxied the F-22 into a row of parked aircraft.  Thanks goes out to the 908 Airlift Wing, great show for us on the training flight--watching a cargo drop from inside a C-130 is pretty neat stuff.

Finally, I did have to come home from NSF.  Of course, coming home meant one week to pack and prepare for closing and moving.  My wife and I just purchased a house here in Grove City, PA.  I am now a plumbing repair expert--it is called "mighty putty".

Not much for me to get upset with in the world--it all seems to be going as usual, which means death and mayhem continue, people still buy and sell commodity futures, etc.

Why Do We Pay This So Much Attention?

I start this by openly stating that I am a Christian and believe that lifestyle is a choice.  Thus calling yourself homosexual is a choice, not a necessity of genetics.  Also, while I believe that those who choose a homosexual lifestyle are sinning before God, I hold no truck with those who would do harm or denigrate as human beings those who have chosen this lifestyle.  If this seems contradictory to some, I believe that love the sinner, hate the sin is in true keeping with the teachings of Christ to his followers.

So, what am I finding under my skin today?  I have a simple question, why are we spending so much time focusing on less than six percent of our population?  Do not tell me this is about fixing the wrongs of society done to a minority until you want to talk about Asian-Americans and Native Americans.  Homosexuality is lifestyle, it is not ethnic or national identity.  Civil Rights considerations have always based on racial and ethnic identity and there is no reason for this to change today.  This factor is why I do not understand the issue of same-sex unions/marriages.  If homosexuals want to enter same-sex unions, so what.  Of course, marriage is between one man and one woman in accordance with my faith.  But there is a kicker in all of the considerations of rights of homosexuals (again, this very consideration is silly to me), can you force chaplains in the military to officiate over homosexual union ceremonies?  This issue is under consideration right now in the U.S. 

If we say that we must protect the lifestyle choice of one group, how can we not protect the faith choice of another group?  While there are a few proclaiming Christians who say homosexuality is acceptable and homosexual unions are acceptable, these are only one view among Christians, and it is a hotly disputed view that has led to splits in denominations regarding the proper consideration of scripture and proper application of its teachings.  So, it is impossible to argue that Christians should be required to support and officiate same-sex unions.  What about the rights of the Christians? 

Well Done, finally.

In case you have not paid the slightest attention to any news outlet in the last day, Osama bin Laden is dead--at least according to the U.S. military and President Obama.  You can read about the raid and Osama's burial at sea here.  I do have a bee in my bonnet though, actually two, that need to be considered.

One, is Obama really dead?  Will we get to see photographs that give any conclusive proof?  Or do we have to take the word of the U.S. Government.  I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I trust in God, others must provide convincing evidence and data.

Two, to the thousands of U.S. citizens that I saw dancing in streets and partying outside the Whitehouse in reaction to the news of bin Laden's death I say, "grow up, show some maturity, act like we have accomplished our goals before."  There is no joy to be had in the death of a human, not even in the death of our enemies.  I would gladly have pulled a trigger on bin Laden.  I will not dance in the street at his death.