I am still undecided about MAPS 3. Today I watched Flashpoint on KFOR, which was a “debate” about MAPS 3. It wasn’t much of a debate.

There was one guy, Porter Davis, who clearly is not for MAPS 3. Arrayed around him were three fervent MAPS 3 supporters, Kirk Humphreys, Mike Turpen, and Ron Norick.

Davis tried to make points about what he thought was wrong about MAPS 3. While the other side also tossed out rebuttal, there were also a lot of personal attacks, particularly from Humphreys. He did make a couple valid points pertaining to statements made by Davis about Humphreys land ownership interests, and Davis admitted he had bad information, but Humphreys kept repeating “you were wrong” probably five or six or more times. Humphreys also made a personal attack on Davis pertaining to Davis moving out of Oklahoma to live somewhere else due to concerns about Y2K. About what I would expect of him.

Even Mike Turpen got into the personal attack mode, demanding to know if Davis had visited the MAPS stuff already built, and talking about how many investment dollars had been spent in response to the public money that have been spent.

I don’t know Davis, for that matter I don’t know that I know anyone who knows him. But I think he got the shaft on KFOR this morning. And good for him to go on that program, and know that was going to happen.

Davis mentioned his website this morning (http://killthemapstax.com/). I visited the website, and find that some of the information on it seems to make sense.

I’m going to read the election ballot today and come to a decision about how to vote. I am really not happy about how some of MAPS 3 is happening, but I do want OKC to advance and grow some. I don’t know that we need to spend somewhere between $300M and $500M for Myriad/Cox Convention Center replacement. But maybe as a corporate jobs program, or a local stimulus package, that’s OK. Except that the main benefactors are going to be the already-monied corporate interests.

I’ll update later.

I would like to point out to the news media in general: It’s Not News If It Happens All The Time

Examples of this:

This is all filler, as far as I am concerned. It is not news.

Όταν ο λοχίας James Bondsteel έπαιρνε το παράσημο της τιμής από τον πρόεδρο Νίξον για την ανδραγαθία που επέδειξε στον πόλεμο του Βιετνάμ, σίγουρα δεν φανταζόταν ότι η μεγαλύτερη στρατιωτική βάση των ΗΠΑ που ιδρύθηκε έκτοτε θα έπαιρνε το όνομά του, τιμής ένεκεν.

Πράγματι, το τεραστίων διαστάσεων και υπερπολυτελές Camp Bondsteel, (που συναγωνίζεται τη βάση Anaconda στο Ιράκ), στο ανατολικό Κόσσοβο – ένα μέρος του οποίου εκτείνεται και στη FYROM – στεγάζει τα τέσσερα πέμπτα του στρατού που διατηρούν οι ΗΠΑ στα Βαλκάνια, αλλά και το αρχηγείο της πολυεθνικής δύναμης KFOR, που προστατεύει το νεοσύστατο κράτος του Κοσσόβου. Απέχει 149 χλμ. από τα ελληνικά σύνορα και 26 χλμ. από την πόλη των Σκοπίων. Σε έκταση 10.000 στρεμμάτων, πάνω από 300 κτίρια φιλοξενούν 9.000 στρατιωτικούς κι έναν απίστευτο στρατιωτικό και νοσοκομειακό εξοπλισμό, ενώ το εσωτερικό της οδικό δίκτυο εκτείνεται σε μήκος 25 χλμ.

Λόγω του όγκου, της έκτασης και του εξοπλισμού του, ωστόσο, δεν μοιάζει να έχει αποκλειστικό σκοπό την επιτέλεση ειρηνευτικών αποστολών στη νότια Σερβία, μια αποστολή που – όπως είχε διαβεβαιώσει ο πρόεδρος Clinton – δεν θα είχε διαρκέσει πάνω από έξι μήνες και που ο πρόεδρος Bush, στην προεκλογική του εκστρατεία, είχε πει ότι θα ανακαλούσε.

Η κατασκευή του πραγματοποιήθηκε από την εταιρεία Halliburton (μέσω θυγατρικών), της οποίας διευθύνων σύμβουλος είχε διατελέσει ο «πρίγκιπας του σκότους», Dick Cheney, πριν γίνει Υπουργός Αμύνης και αντιπρόεδρος των ΗΠΑ. Ας σημειωθεί εδώ ότι η εν λόγω εταιρεία είναι ταυτόχρονα και ανάδοχος του τεράστιου ενεργειακού αγωγού ΑΜΒΟ (Albanian, Macedonian, Bulgarian Oil), που θα τροφοδοτεί την Ευρώπη και την Αμερική με πετρέλαιο της Κασπίας και ο οποίος φαίνεται ότι είναι και ο κύριος λόγος υπάρξεως του στρατοπέδου Bondsteel στη συγκεκριμένη περιοχή.

Καθώς οι ΗΠΑ ανησυχούν για την εισαγωγή πετρελαίου που κάνει η Ευρώπη από τη Ρωσία η οποία ανέρχεται στο 33% του συνόλου των εισαγωγών της, προσπαθούν να δημιουργήσουν άλλους αγωγούς, όπως τον ΑΜΒΟ, προκειμένου να προκαλέσουν αντιπερισπασμό στην ενεργειακή εξάρτηση της γηραιάς ηπείρου από τη Μόσχα.

Το στρατόπεδο βρίσκεται πάνω στη διαδρομή του μελλοντικού διαβαλκανικού πετρελαιαγωγού κι έτσι οι ΗΠΑ θα μπορούν να ελέγχουν την ποσότητα πετρελαίου που προορίζεται για άλλες χώρες. Δεν είναι τυχαίο άλλωστε, ότι στην κατασκευή του γιγαντιαίου AMBO συμμετέχουν με κεφάλαια οι αμερικανικοί κολοσσοί Exxon, Mobil και Chevron.

Μετά από όλα αυτά νομίζω, πως είναι πλέον προφανής ο λόγος για τον οποίο  η γειτονική FYROM και το Κόσσοβο έχουν έναν πολύ ισχυρό σύμμαχο στην άλλη πλευρά του Ατλαντικού, την ώρα που ο ενεργειακός πόλεμος μαίνεται αμείλικτος, με την Ρωσία και Ιταλία να θέλουν περισσότερο ρωσικό φυσικό αέριο στην Ευρώπη μέσω South Stream, (όπου προσχώρησε και η Ελλάδα), με την Αμερική να προσπαθεί να αναχαιτίσει τα ενεργειακά ανοίγματα της Μόσχας, προτάσσοντας ITGI και Nabucco και την Ελβετία και Νορβηγία να θέλουν να περάσουν το φυσικό αέριο στην Ιταλία από Θεσσαλονίκη και Αλβανία.

Έτσι, το Camp Bondsteel, «η Μεγάλη Κυρία», («Grande Dame»), όπως το αποκαλούν με καμάρι οι Αμερικανοί, έγινε πλέον ο χωροφύλακας των Βαλκανίων και ο τοποτηρητής των αμερικανικών συμφερόντων στην περιοχή. Φαίνεται τελικά, πως είναι μια βάση απ’ αυτές που ο γνωστός οικονομολόγος Galbraith χαρακτήρισε «στρατο – πετρελαϊκό σύμπλεγμα» και του οποίου ο Cheney επάξια μπορεί να διεκδικήσει την πατρότητα.

Και μέσα στον ξέφρενο αυτό χορό των εκατομμυρίων, εμείς οι ταλαίπωροι αγωνιζόμαστε για το όνομα!

Πού πάμε ξυπόλητοι στ’ αγκάθια; Πού πάμε;

What were you doing on a late fall afternoon on 3 November 1962?

Me and 35,500 of my closest friends were packed into Nebraska’s Memorial Stadium in Lincoln Nebraska to watch Bob Devaney’s  7^th game as the Cornhuskers played Missouri. Hence, the total fan count was 35,501. I was in the knothole section (the south end zone today) in my Boy Scouts’ uniform. Boy Scouts helped people find their seats AND we got into the games for free! That tradition continues today.

Most people paid $4 for a ticket, those in the knothole section paid 50 cents. Missouri upset Nebraska that day 16-7 on Homecoming. But something special – very special – started that cloudless day 0n the plains. Me and my fellow Nebraskans sold out the stadium.

In the five years prior to Devaney’s arrival, NU won just 15 games – and only 26,139 fans showed up to see Oklahoma 2 days after Thanksgiving in 1961,

The team went on to post a 9-2 in Coach Devaney’s first year and were rewarded with a bid to the Gotham Bowl (New York City – no sh-t!), only the 3^rd bowl game in NU’s history. AND its first bowl victory – a 36-34 win over the George Mira-quaterbacked Miami Hurricanes.

Why is selling out the stadium (way) back in 1962 so important America? Don’t you get it? Come on…

The stadium has been sold out every game, every year, every decade, through every coach (great, good, bad, and great again), through 3 Heisman trophies, numerous Lombardi and Butkus winners, and a nation-leading number of academic All-Americans since!!! A week from Saturday, on 26 September, 2009, that same stadium, much bigger and fancier today, will be sold out once again — for the 300^th consecutive game. 300 Man! Whoa, dude…

Do you remember the script font on the jerseys? No names of course. Do you remember the team? Bob Brown? Dennis Claridge? Larry Kramer? 40 of the 59 players listed on the 1962 roster have been located (remember, freshman were not listed). Many are coming to the game on the 26^th AND attending a reunion dinner Friday night. The Devaney family will be there as well.

Do you really remember 1962?

France transfers sovereignty to new republic of Algeria on 3 July.

On 3 August 1962, following negotiations with the United States and at the request of the RVN, 30 Australian Army training advisers arrived in South Vietnam to join US Army advisers in what later became Military Assistance Command Vietnam (MACV). Their tasks primarily were to assist in training RVN ground forces in jungle warfare, village defense and related activities.

James H. Meredith, escorted by federal marshals, registers at University of Mississippi on 1 October.

Pat Brown defeats Richard Nixon in the California gubernatorial race.

Do you remember that our nation came closer to nuclear war than any other time in our history — The Cuban Missile Crisis?

Check out http://www.ussmullinnix.org/1962Cruise.html and http://www.ussmullinnix.org/1962Pictures.html for a THRILLING look back.

Check out http://www.ussmullinnix.org/ShipCrew62.html to see some of the brave sailors that saved our ass!

Do you remember Miss America, Maria Fletcher? Do you remember Avis Kimball, Playboy’s Playmate of the month (Nov 1962)? In October, 1962 Johnny Carson took over as host of The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson. Remember?

In 1962, you couldn’t get a can of Coke – cans didn’t exist. Did you every eat a Big Chef Burger? Do you remember Dick and Bill on KFOR Radio?

300 consecutive sellouts? How many wars have their been since the streak started? Unfortunately, I’ve lost count. How many Presidents? How many kids have you had? Grandkids? Dude, this streak started 7 years before Woodstock!!!

Do you have your tickets? I do – thanks to my son Rob. He paid through the nose for them but, heck, who cares. You know why? If you do have trouble remember. Please, please, please — remember just this one thing:

GO BIG RED!!! GO BIG RED!!! GO BIG RED!!! GO BIG RED!!!

Drink one for me,

Woody

Finlandia e Svezia sono, soprattutto la seconda, i più celebrati Paesi neutrali d’Europa. Nell’ultimo anno e mezzo, pressioni vieppiù intense sono state esercitate, sia all’interno che all’esterno, per integrarli pienamente nella NATO.
La piena integrazione di Finlandia e Svezia nel dispositivo militare atlantico pone naturalmente una minaccia ancora maggiore alla Russia, ormai circondata da un “cordone sanitario” occidentale che prevede crescenti dispiegamenti aerei, navali, terrestri, missilistici e di spionaggio dai mari di Barents e Baltico fino al mar Nero.
Russia e Finlandia condividono un confine di 1.200 chilometri, con la Finlandia posta di fronte o vicino a tre mari – Baltico, di Barents e Norvegese – che ospitano regolari sorvoli aerei NATO, i Battaglioni Nordici dell’Unione Europea (legati alla stessa NATO) ed altre formazioni militari, di recente costituzione, che guardano a est verso la Russia ed a nord verso il nuovo campo di battaglia dell’era globale, l’Artico.
Nell’autunno 2007, il ministro della Difesa finlandese Jyri Hakamies, in visita negli Stati Uniti, ha pubblicamente affermato che la più grande sfida alla sicurezza del suo Paese è rappresentata dalla “Russia, Russia, e Russia! E non solo per la Finlandia, ma per tutti noi”. Chiaro.
Finlandia e Svezia – entrambe con truppe inviate in Afghanistan – sono state cooptate nella NATO direttamente od attraverso meccanismi come il Consiglio Nordico (una struttura di cooperazione militare avviata dopo la seconda guerra mondiale insieme a Danimarca, Islanda e Norvegia), i già citati Battaglioni Nordici dell’UE e la crescente integrazione fra i ruoli militari di NATO ed Unione Europea. Nel gennaio 2008, il segretario generale del Consiglio Nordico Jan-Erik Enestam, in un articolo di stampa, ha sostenuto l’opinione secondo cui “la NATO è l’unica importante organizzazione internazionale della quale la Finlandia non sia membro. Potrebbe essere che siano maturi i tempi per l’adesione. Nel frattempo sarebbe importante stabilire una cooperazione più stretta nel campo della difesa con Svezia e Norvegia. Quest’ultima, dopo tutto, appartiene alla NATO”.
A partire da quel momento, una successione ininterrotta di dichiarazioni – ed azioni, per fare il paio – è stata rilasciata dalle bocche e dalle penne dei più importanti esponenti governativi e di partito finlandesi e svedesi, suscitando il gradimento dei funzionari della NATO e del governo statunitense. In maniera rapida ed inesorabile, la NATO ha ormai preso il controllo completo della politica estera dell’Europa e del suo apparato militare, senza lasciare spazio a nessun caso di neutralità. La fine della neutralità militare della Scandinavia ha un importante significato in sé stessa, ma ancora di più rispetto a ciò di cui è esempio. L’integrazione atlantica di Finlandia e Svezia è il dettaglio finale di un “grande” paesaggio composto da nazioni europee – grandi e piccole, occidentali ed orientali, continentali ed insulari – tutte incorporate in un blocco militare in espansione globale controllato da una potenza di un altro emisfero.
Nel marzo 2008, in relazione al dispiegamento di truppe finlandesi nel quadro di ISAF in Afghanistan, il Comando Centrale del Pentagono ha assicurato la fornitura regolare di informazioni riservate all’alleata Finlandia ed un riassunto settimanale circa la situazione militare delle aree di responsabilità del Comando Centrale stesso (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia fra gli altri). Pochi giorni dopo il parlamento finlandese ha destinato un contingente di truppe alla NATO Response Force (NRF).
Lo stesso mese, il ministro degli Esteri svedese Carl Bildt ad un incontro dell’Unione Europea ha annunciato che, dopo la decisione della Finlandia, si aspettava che anche la Svezia si unisse alla NRF quale ulteriore passo nella crescente cooperazione con la NATO. Del resto, il collega Sten Tolgfors, ministro della Difesa, nel precedente mese di febbraio aveva dichiarato che l’adesione alla NATO è un passo “naturale” per la Svezia…
Negli stessi giorni, Kurt Volker – allora membro del governo USA, oggi ambasciatore statunitense presso la sede della NATO a Bruxelles – si trovava in Scandinavia per assicurare il contributo di Finlandia e Svezia al teatro afghano ed alla NRF. Contemporaneamente, venivano svolte esercitazioni al largo delle coste settentrionali norvegesi con la partecipazione di forze provenienti da dieci Paesi, tutti membri NATO tranne la Svezia. Si aggiunga, infine, che in quel periodo la Finlandia ha ospitato un corso a livello di ufficiali, per personale NATO, con tema la pianificazione e la gestione delle “missioni per il mantenimento della pace”. E’ stata la prima volta che un corso della scuola NATO di Oberammergau in Germania si è tenuto in un luogo diverso.
Dato che l’opposizione pubblica all’adesione alla NATO rimane forte sia in Finlandia che in Svezia, pressoché contemporaneamente in entrambe i Paesi è partita una campagna di stampa favorevole all’opzione atlantista. Così, a maggio 2008, il già citato Jyri Hakamies – parlando al Consiglio Atlantico di Finlandia – ha detto che con le altre nazioni nordiche già parte della NATO, l’adesione di Finlandia e Svezia renderebbe il blocco scandinavo una forza d’influenza all’interno dell’alleanza, aggiungendo “rispetto al potere crescente della Russia”. Nello stesso mese, insieme al collega Tolgfors, è stato autore di un articolo apparso su una rivista svedese per perorare la causa della partecipazione dei due Paesi alle operazioni di sorveglianza aerea svolte dalla NATO.
A giugno 2008, la Finlandia ha ospitato la più grande esercitazione internazionale mai tenuta nel Paese, con circa mille soldati da 25 Paesi membri o associati NATO. Il nuovo ministro degli Esteri Alexander Stubb si è poi incontrato con il Segretario Generale De Hoop Scheffer, in vista del cambio al comando della forza NATO in Kosovo (KFOR), contestualmente al quale il numero dei militari finnici ad essa assegnati è salito a 500.
Ad agosto, il Pentagono ha annunciato l’apertura del suo primo ufficio di rappresentanza in Finlandia. A settembre, giunge la dichiarazione di Martti Ahtisaari – ex negoziatore per il Kosovo prima dell’aggressione NATO alla ex Jugoslavia del 1999 – secondo cui il fatto che alcuni Paesi che affermano di appartenere alle democrazie occidentali non siano parte di tutte le relative organizzazioni sarebbe una stranezza, riferendosi poi esplicitamente alla non ancora pervenuta adesione di Svezia e Finlandia alla NATO. Nel successivo mese di ottobre, Ahtissari si è visto assegnare il Premio Nobel per la Pace, il che è molto eloquente circa il Comitato del Nobel piuttosto che riguardo la figura del premiato.
Di lì a poco arriva anche un rapporto governativo finlandese che, per la prima volta nella storia del Paese, presenta l’adesione alla NATO in una luce positiva. Sono gli stessi giorni in cui Finlandia e Svezia diventano gli unici Stati non appartenenti all’Alleanza Atlantica a sottoscrivere un accordo con altri dieci Paesi membri (Bulgaria, Estonia, Ungheria, Lituania, Olanda, Norvegia, Polonia, Romania, Slovenia e Stati Uniti) per l’acquisto e l’utilizzo congiunto di tre vettori per il trasporto aereo Boeing C-17 Globemaster III.
A novembre 2008, quarantaquattro esponenti della cultura e politica svedesi firmano un appello comparso sul quotidiano Svenska Dagbladet che mette in guardia rispetto al tentativo, concertato ma coperto, di trascinare la Svezia nella NATO. Essi lanciano un monito: “Il processo è così maturo che i suoi sostenitori possono dire che ormai la Svezia è già un membro al 90% e che quindi rimane da fare soltanto l’ultimo passo per una piena adesione”.
Ad ulteriore consolidamento del puntello scandinavo-baltico della NATO, a dicembre è diffusa la notizia secondo cui gli Stati baltici sarebbero interessati ad avviare colloqui con i Paesi nordici al fine di gettare le basi per una strategia comune di difesa regionale, rispettosa degli accordi che gli stessi Baltici stanno prendendo con la NATO nel campo della difesa aerea.
A gennaio 2009, la Finlandia rende pubblico l’impegno a raddoppiare l’impiego di truppe in Afghanistan. Essa annuncia anche di stare sostituendo i propri sistemi di difesa contraerea di produzione russa, acquistati solo una decina di anni fà, con missili USA per assicurare l’interoperabilità in ambito NATO. Il Primo Ministro Matti Vanhanen afferma testualmente: “Obiettivi, compiti ed obblighi della NATO corrispondono alle finalità di politica estera e di sicurezza della Finlandia e dell’Unione Europea. E’ e sarà fortemente il caso di valutare l’adesione della Finlandia alla NATO nel futuro. La Finlandia considera la NATO la più importante organizzazione per la cooperazione nel campo della sicurezza militare”. Il titolare degli Esteri Stubb, dal canto suo, propone una scadenza molto ravvicinata per l’adesione, il 2011.
Ed a metà marzo, la NATO ha svolto un’esercitazione nel nord della Norvegia alla quale hanno partecipato 7.000 soldati, simulando un intervento dell’alleanza nei confronti di un tentativo di invasione da parte di un fittizio Stato del Nord, in uno scenario la cui descrizione suggerisce che si possa trattare della Russia.
Gli unici Paesi partecipanti a non essere già membri della NATO sono stati, guardacaso, Finlandia e Svezia.

Almost every media outlet this afternoon has reported on the Presidents speech to schools today. Most of the reporting (I think the vast majority, like “all”) has focused on the “controversy”.

I would dispute that there was even any controversy.

One of the local stations (KFOR) has a segment they call “The Rant”, where a topic is identified and people call and email opinions about it. Here is what I sent in:

There never was any “controversy” about the Presidents speech to schoolkids, just a lot of paranoid, mindless whining by people before they ever read the speech. It’s terrible when people fear a man so much that they heap abuse on him constantly no matter how he tries to do what he said he would try to do.

I fully believe that controversy arises from differences of opinion on a subject. In this case, there was a lot of paranoid fear, from one side, the “right” (and just some of those on the “right”), but none from the “left”. These people never looked at the speech (I spread it around some after it was published, and I know others did as well), and were all freaked out by a line in a draft of the teaching materials that spoke about kids thinking something to the effect of how they could help the President (which in general is not a bad idea, service to the country).

In a more general sense, why are people so afraid of Obama? Last year, a kid I know was so freaked out by the results of the election that he was literally hysterical at school the next day. What was found out by talking to him was that his very highly conservative Republican parents were telling him constantly about all the bad things Obama was going to do the country, and the kid was scared spitless. It’s borderline abuse, in my opinion.

It’s not just the speech to kids. The constant references to Hitler/socialism, the accelerated purchases of guns and ammo, and many other things are all results of people being afraid of the President, with no basis for being so.

We talk to our kids about politics, but we talk about all sides of the issue, in an age-appropriate way. When Bush did something right (not a frequent occurrence), we talked about that also.

I’ve written before about how the true hatred being sprayed in the country is almost exclusively from the right. This episode is another example. It is far worse now than when Kerry was running (the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were completely without honor). Gore in 2000 wasn’t too bad, but I was even surprised at how badly vitriol was directed against Clinton in 1992. I firmly believe that conservatism is increasingly non-relevant today, and all that the political arm of conservatism has left is lies, smears, distortion, and innuendo.

Conservative Americans need to take a close look at their reasons for being conservative, and how the far right wing of their group acts, and maybe pull out their holy books and read the parts about loving their neighbors.

I just heard a guy being interviewed on CNN who claimed that the President’s speech was changed after “the word got out” about it. After being pressed, he admitted that he had no evidence that the speech was changed, but he had no proof. I would not even have interviewed a guy like that. If he had some evidence that the speech was changed, that would probably be newsworthy. For some nut to say he was sure it was changed, but had no proof, he should not have been interviewed – there was no controversy since there was no evidence.

Web 2.0-Boheme hin oder her, Chloe, der Widerspruch in Person, liebt Postkarten! Mit ihre Neigung zur anachronistischen Kommunikationsplattform bombardiert sie bei jeder noch erdenklichen Gelegenheit Mayas Briefkasten. Ob auf Mailändischen Toiletten oder überteuerten Schweizer Bergstationen, in der Regel findet sich immer ein Motiv, das nur darauf wartet, auf der Rückseite von mir bis zum Äußersten mit Worten vollgekritzelt zu werden. Manchmal male ich auch oder lasse – seit eine blöde Tabakladenbesitzerin in Leipzig meinen Filmstreifen als Bahngleise interpretierte – besser für mich zeichnen.

Als ich beim letzten Besuch bei meinem Bruder 37 Briefmarken kaufte, schüttelte dieser nur den Kopf über meinen Fetisch. Chloe chonnte das so nicht stehen lassen und chonterte:

Und wenn ich eines Tages sterben sollte, dann habe ich zumindest tausende von Postkarten in aller Herren Schubladen hinterlassen! Das ist mein Lebenswerk !!!

Aber auch in meinen Schubladen liegen diverse Zeitreisezeugen. Letzte Woche bekam mein Haufen Ansichtskarten abenteuerlichen Zuwachs! Und da ich immer noch so begeistert bin von Text und Reiseort, anbei die Worte.

Tung Chloe,

natürlich helfen wir der KFOR dabei die letzten kommunistischen Zellen zu reaktivieren, denn nach dem Crash der Finanzmärkte haben selbst die Vereinten Nationen begriffen, dass der einzige Weg in eine blühende Zukunft nur über den Sozialismus führen kann. „Leute hört die Signale / auf zum letzten Gefecht / die Internationale / erkämpft das Menschenrecht“ (gezeichnete Note im Anhang).

Grüße aus Prizren

Da lacht doch mein marxistisch-leninistisches Herz! Dies ist ferner die zweite Postkarte, die ich aus meinem Migrationshintergrundssprachraum erhalten habe. Die erste sandte mir MoMa aus der albanischen Stadt Vlore. Auch er war weltverbesserisch unterwegs und brachte in Tirana zukünftigen Störenfrieden das Karikieren bei. Vermutlich bastelt einer seiner Jünger schon an Miss Schkipetäria.

KFOR (Channel 4) in Oklahoma City has a political show called “Flashpoint” on Sunday mornings at 0900. The format is a moderator, and a commentator from the right and a commentator from the left. Occasionally, a guest or two will show up. The current commentators are Mike Turpen (Democrat) and Kirk Humphreys (Republican). I’ve been watching Flashpoint for about five years.

The more I watch, the more representative I find Flashpoint to be of the national political “debate”. Turpen is clearly left of center in his views, but also makes note of things that the right-of-center does that he finds approval of. He even said today that he has voted for Republicans on occasion.

Contrast that with Humphreys. He reflects the national Republicans perfectly. He cannot find anything that a Democrat has done to be acceptable at all, he will make a snide comment or drag out innuendo about the President (for example today “[Obama] has turned over his Administration to Nancy Pelosi”, factually and in concept just flat wrong), he parrots the same talking points that the rest of the Republican robots mindlessly repeat, and in general, he does not add any intelligence to the debate. He loves to talk about Bill Clinton (who was a much better President than either of the Bushes), and anything that Bush II did is right and good.

I used to be a Republican, but I voted for Democrats and independents, Libertarians, and even a Green once. The Republican Party is way too far to the right, supports torture and surveillance of Americans, and a police state. Republicans are expected to follow The Party, and frankly, they are getting as bad as the stories told about the Communist Party during Cold War (total obedience, or be attacked and purged). The Republicans have way to much interest in peoples private life, and acts like a a wholly-owned subsidiary of big business and some parts of christianity. There is no debate, no discussion, no “big tent” of divergent opinions.

Flashpoint is a microcosm of this. One side is open to debate, reflection, and discussion. The other isn’t.

As a bit of background, a couple weeks ago a couple people went into a pharmacy here to rob it. The pharmacist shot one robber in the head, but didn’t kill him. The pharmacist ran out pursuing the other robber, then came back in, got a second gun, and emptied it into the wounded and unconscious robber on the floor, killing him.

The pharmacist is rightly charged with murder, but that’s not what this post is about.

I watched the KFOR news at 1800 this evening. KFOR reported that the station had hired an attorney to request that TV cameras be allowed to show the pharmacists trial. OK, I thought, pretty good.

Tonight at 2200 I watched the KWTV news. They ran a similar story, and the name of the attorney seemed to be the same as the KFOR attorney.

I checked both stations websites and saw no mention of this news item on the websites. Then I checked the KOCO website; there was a story there, and it reported that all three OKC stations (and one in Tulsa) had agreed to go in together request that the judge allow them to use cameras in the trail.

This smells a bit to me. Although I am all for cameras in the trial (and others), I think that KFOR and KWTV should have the integrity to mention that it is a coordinated effort.

Late news: Kelly Ogle of KWTV just did a “My Two Cents” about the issue of cameras in the trial. He said at least twice “our lawyers”, and he also said something like “we filed a motion,,,”.

It’s not a sign of integrity that the two stations are not being up front about this.

For the record, I think all trials should be televised or recorded. That helps maintain the integrity of the proceedings.

While doing some research on ISAF last week, I noticed that it has recently passed a significant barrier – with now more than in 60.000 soldiers involved, it has become the largest NATO operation in history, surpassing both IFOR in Bosnia-Herzegovina (app. 57.000) and  KFOR in Kosovo (app. 50.000). Of course, Afghanistan as a country is larger both in population and in geographical size, but this small comparison shows how far ISAF has come from being a rather small operation with 5.000 soldier in 2002 to its current size.

But how does ISAF fare among these three large NATO-operations?

• In the almost eight years since its initial deployment, troop numbers in ISAF had to be increased continiously, especially since it was expanded from Kabul region to the North (2004), the West (2005), the South (2006) and the East (2006). Already most of the participating European armed forces are speaking of overstretch, while the Obama administration and military commanders calls for even more soldiers. For instance, British commanders recently called for a further increase of 2.000 for the stressed forces in Helmand province. In both Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo on the other hand, troop levels peaked early and, as the situation improved, were decreased steadily.
• In official terms, all three operations fall under the label of stabilisation. In practice, KFOR and IFOR fulfilled the characteristics of stabilisation operations, as the forces mainly served as deterrents against local forces resorting to violence and – largely successful – provided the security for civilian actors to improve the situation. In most parts of Aghanistan, however, ISAF-forces are almost daily under attack by insurgents, turning it largely into a combat operation.
• Due to the geographical distance to any NATO-country, the lack of civilian infrastructure and the determination of the insurgents to combat ISAF with assymetric tactics, for a long time already ISAF has been the militarily most challenging operation conducted by the Alliance so far.

Lastly, ISAF is probably also the most unpopular military operation conducted by NATO, EU or the UN among European publics. With the next one to two years regarded as crucial for success in Afghanistan, it begs the question whether NATO will be able to turn the tide and reach the point where Afghanistan is so stable that it start reducing troops again.

WikiCommons altered, author: Bosonic dressing

Since the downfall of the Yugoslavia, Kosovo has been through a lot. In 1989, Serbia annexed the territory which led to conflicts and eventually war. In 1999, NATO intervened against the Milosevic Regime in Yugoslavia. After 11 weeks of bombardments, the despot agreed to a peace plan for Kosovo, ending the genocide against the mainly Albanian population. Ensuing negotiations with Serbia eventually failed. As a result, the small country declared its independence from Serbia in February of 2008. Until today, 58 nations have recognized Kosovo as a sovereign state.

Since the independence, things have changed significantly. Reconstruction and political transition have been going so smooth, that Kosovo was accepted as member of the IMF and the World Bank yesterday [1]. Today, the situation in Kosovo is more stable than it has been in a long time. Therefore, NATO announced this June that they plan to reduce the number of KFOR soldiers stationed in the country until the end of the year. Currently, 14.000 troops are securing approximately 2 million mainly Albanian inhabitants. In 2010, only 10.000 will remain [2]. As of tomorrow, Kosovo will officially be regarded as a “secure” country [3].

Congratulations, and keep going, Kosovo!

Sources:
Swissinfo, Spiegel, OE24, Auswärtiges Amt