x
johnkozy
#
Killing Isn't Winning

I'm old enough to remember World War II and I served in the infantry in the Korean War. I don't remember the Pentagon's regularly issuing body counts during those conflicts. Then came the war in Vietnam. In order to make the American people believe that we were winning, the Pentagon began issuing almost daily body counts. Given the total number of Vietcong the Pentagon claimed were being killed, it was hard to believe we could lose. Yet we lost!

 

Despite that, the Pentagon has continued the practice of issuing body counts. In Iraq, we killed huge numbers yet we lost. In Afghanistan we have killed huge numbers too; yet it appears we again are going to lose.

 

The Israelis have killed huge numbers of Palestinians in Gaza. That will not bring them victory. No, killing is not equivalent to winning.

No replies - reply
 
#
Shooting Fish in a Barrel

Ah, those Israelis!

 

Get a barrel. Fill it with water and as many various sized carp as you can. Then tell the fish in the barrel to take cover because you're going to start shooting into the barrel in three minutes. Tell the world that you're only targeting the big carp. And when lots of little fish get killed blame the deaths on the fish for not finding cover after being told when the shooting would begin.

 

No one asks how the fish got in the barrel. Why? Because the shooter and his friends don't want anyone to remember that it was he.

 

Gaza is a small place filled with people who were displaced by the Israelis. It is Israel's barrel. To the Israelis, the Palestinians are no better than fish.

No replies - reply
 
#
Restarting
For several months I have concentrated on longer articles published on both www.globalresearch.ca and www.jkozy.com. But I've recently felt the need for a place to publish shorter comments about current events.So here goes:

Israeli officials claim that Israel doesn't target Palestinian civilians while Hamas deliberately targets Israeli civilians; yet Hamas kills almost no Israelis while Israel kills hundreds of Palestinians. Is it reasonable to accept that? Does the IDF kill hundreds of people it doesn't target? Can't the IDF shoot straight?

The Israeli's also claim that their killing is done to protect the lives of Israeli citizens. Does it? I can understand how shooting down rockets fired from Gaza protects Israelis but how does killing a Palestinian child in his home protect the life of a single person anywhere? What Israeli's life is saved by killing that child?

Liars can always concoct lies to attempt to cover up their guilt.

 
#
What should be done with illegal immigrants?

That this question is even being asked reveals something about ourselves. How would you answer it if you were an illegal immigrant? Perhaps you've never heard of the Golden Rule. The rule may not be the best guide to moral behavior but asking yourself how you'd answer the question if you were an illegal immigrant forces you to put yourself in her/his place, for only when you put yourself in someone else's place can you know what she/he feels like. Knowing that is called empathy.

Illegal immigrants are, after all, people, human beings, just like you and me, and they should be treated as such.

Governments that have immigration problems cause the problems themselves. A nation that does not want illegal immigrants need only control its borders. If a government chooses not to control its borders, it creates an obligation to treat the people who cross them humanely. Of course, that's difficult to do by governments that don't even treat all of their own citizens humanely. But what governments do and what they should do are two different things.

In today's world, it is often difficult to determine why governments exist. The Constitution says that our government exists "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

Has our government done that? Well, it should, and anyone in a country, whether legal or not, should be treated just like everyone else. So yes, the bill of rights applies to illegal immigrants, too? The Constitution never distinguished between legal and illegal residents. It only mentions people.

Why do people study if not to benefit mankind? It has been said that, “The proper study of Mankind is Man.” Why? To improve mankind's condition, and mistreating people doesn't do that.

©2011 John Kozy
No replies - reply
 
#

Oh my, oh my! The economists have gotten it wrong again, and they're catching it. But they've always gotten it wrong. So what's different this time? Well, even journals committed to the orthodox economic viewpoint are asking questions.

In July, The Economist published two pieces (The other-worldly philosophers, What went wrong with economics) which posed penetrating questions but then became mealy mouthed about them. Subsequently, the magazine published a guest article by Robert Lucas, the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, that attempted to rebut the criticisms. This article was then followed by a group of responses posted in the Lucas Roundtable. Since then numerous pieces have appeared in various places, and Richard A. Posner, an attorney whose views are much respected in matters of public policy, posted a piece titled, Will Economists Escape a Whipping?, which brought howls from economists who resented criticism from someone outside the profession, which, of course, is a form of an ad hominem argument.

Readers of this seemingly ending thread of posts who expect to learn something new will be disconcertingly disappointed. The content consists of the same old banal, hackneyed, and trite claims and counter-claims that economists have been making for more than a century. But that doesn't mean that the thread doesn't yield a valid conclusion.

The first thing a judicious reader notices is how much disagreement exists among economists on almost every, perhaps every, matter. Then it becomes clear that much of this disagreement is acrimonious. Some of these people appear to hate each other. Now ask yourselves, how likely would it have been that man would have stepped on the moon if as much disagreement had existed among physicists?

After noticing the extent of this disagreement, one begins to wonder just what these economists know. Apparently very little, if anything. For some time now, while reading posts on Economist's View, I have taken to counted verbs and their associated parts of speech, and I counted them in the Luca Roundtable. The results are enlightening. "Believe/belief" occurs 27 times. "Think/thought," used as "believe/belief" occurs  33 times. "View" in expressions such as "my view" occurs 15 times, and "opinion" in expressions such as "my opinion" occurs five times.

On the other hand, "know/known/knowledge" occur only ten times in the following contexts, none of which is substantive:

It is . . . possible . . . to know

It is not . . . possible to know

because of a lack of knowledge

even after it was known where the economy was headed

I don't know

when it is commonly known among all investors

each individual investor does not know

If Mr Lucas now says that Ben Bernanke and company know

I don't know

, you know,

What can be inferred from this is that economics, contrary to the claims of economists, is a mere creedology. So economists need to tell us why we ought to pay any more attention to their creeds than we do the creeds of Islam or Astrology. What credence can we have in these creeds in the face of the economic system's regular failures? Why is their creed any better than any other?

©2011 John Kozy
No replies - reply
 
Recent Visitors

July 28th
robot2
morte
google

July 27th
rv1501

July 26th
google

July 24th
google

July 22nd
google

July 20th
google

July 17th
google

July 16th
google

July 15th
google

July 14th
google

July 13th
google

July 12th
google

July 10th
google
Calendar

July 2014
12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031

February 2011
12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728

April 2010
123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930


Older