Forgotten History-The Belgian Congo

I had the opportunity to travel to Europe recently. Most of my time was spent in Brussels. I wandered around to get to know the city, walking through Leopold Park (a few views here), and observing impressive statues, such as the one near the Trone metro station (see here).

Frequently the statues are of King Leopold II. Apparently this guy built a few structures out of his own personal fortune, such as the Cinquantenaire. Must have been a pretty impressive guy, right?

And he is. In the same way that Hitler is impressive. A staggeringly successful genocidal maniac. I'm just shocked to have walked around the city with all of the streets and parks named after this guy not knowing who he is only to find out that he killed about 10 million innocent Congolese. Here's a two hour long documentary from the BBC on him.

In sum Leopold wanted a colony of his own and settled on the Congo. After his annexation rubber was suddenly in high demand with the invention of the inflatable tire. And the Congo had plentiful amounts. So he basically had quotas for the natives to meet in their harvesting of rubber. To encourage them to meet their quotas his henchmen would kill anyone that failed, or perhaps burn a village if the village as a collective didn't harvest enough. This went on for a few decades. Lots of hand chopping as well. Today the Belgian kings retain the wealth acquired by Leopold. And other important resources have been found in the Congo and so fighting continues in an effort to acquire gold, diamonds, and other natural resources. A story related to the more recent suffering was recently published in the New York Times here.

The Congo has undergone a couple of holocausts. One under Leopold. Another more recently. It's strange how some atrocities receive so much attention while others are unknown.

What Do You Expect Iran To Do?

I just watched Jon Stewart on O'Reilly. There's an unedited version here in mp4 format. That's the on I saw.

It's an interesting interview. One question that O'Reilly raised concerned Iran. He wants to know Stewart's thoughts. Is he scared of Iran? Should we consider violence against them to curb their nuclear capacity?

Stewart's reply is basically there are a lot of scary places in the world and we don't have the resources to go in and stop them forcefully. O'Reilly seemed to agree.

My view is a little different. I definitely don't want to see Iran with nuclear weapons. Iran is comprised of people that are amongst the most extreme of Islamic fundamentalists. No sane person wants nuclear weapons in the hands of such people. On the other hand there are immediate things that can be done to reduce the likelihood that they will acquire weapons.

Take a look at this map of the Middle East and note which countries are on Iran's borders. Among them are Iraq, where the U.S. has removed the previous government and installed a client regime, and in the process killed probably hundreds of thousands of people at a minimum. Then there's Afghanistan where the U.S. has removed the previous government and installed a client regime, and further wrecked an already wrecked country. Also there is Pakistan which had been ruled by a U.S. backed military dictator since 1999. Since then there have been "elections." Without going in to the details I'll just say that it's another puppet regime. Despite this Obama has expanded U.S. aggression in Pakistan.

So what would you expect a regime like what is in Iran to do if they want to sustain their grip on power when they are frequently being threatened by a state that has conquered many of the nations at it's borders? If they are sane they will probably attempt to acquire as many powerful weapons as they can. Our violence on their borders would quite naturally be their primary motivation to acquire these dangerous weapons.

O'Reilly is concerned about Iran. I am too. But Iran hasn't committed an act of aggression against another state in hundreds of years, unlike the United States and Israel. Lost among O'Reilly's spin is the fact that recently the IAEA passed a resolution calling on Israel to join the IAEA and open up it's nuclear weapons facilities to safety inspections for stability in the Middle East. Iran is a member. Iran has opened up it's nuclear sites to IAEA inspectors. Israel refuses. If it makes sense to threaten Iran, which doesn't have the aggressive history, why doesn't it make sense to threaten Israel, which does have an extremely aggressive history and in fact today occupies foreign territory by force?

Their Responsibilities and Ours

When it comes to terrorism there are those demands that the U.S. government places on others and then there are the standards to which the U.S. government holds itself.

Jose Posada Carriles is quite a prolific terrorist. He bombed a Cuban civilian airliner in Venezuela, but this is among the least of his crimes. Far more horrendous was his involvement in arming the Nicaraguan Contras. Terrorist action against Nicaragua was condemned by a World Court decision, a U.N. General Assembly Resolution, and Security Council resolutions if you ignore the U.S. veto.

He managed to escape a Venezuelan prison and enter the U.S. illegally. Venezuela requested his extradition. But this was a problem for the U.S. as explained in the "liberal" Boston Globe.

After his escape from a Venezuelan prison, Posada Carriles was hired by US covert operatives to direct the resupply operation for the Nicaraguan contras from El Salvador. Extraditing him for trial could send a worrisome signal to covert foreign agents that they cannot count on unconditional protection from the US government, and it could expose the CIA to embarrassing public disclosures from a former operative. It also would infuriate some members of Florida's Cuban exile community who gave George W. Bush crucial support in both his presidential election victories.

Tough choice. On the one hand you've got a terrorist. On the other you don't want to discourage CIA covert action (more terrorism). What to do? Well, the courts decided to reject Venezuela's request. Today Carriles lives in Miami with his wife.

A day following the court's decision FBI director Robert Mueller asked Europe to speed their extradition process. Here is how it is reported in the Financial Times.

“We are always looking to see how we can make the extradition process go faster,” Mr Mueller told the FT. “We think we owe it to the victims of terrorism to see to it that justice is done efficiently and effectively.”

Look to International News

I believe we Americans are very much submerged within a news structure that is very popagandistic. It's worthwhile to look to international sources. Here's a sampling of some news not covered in the U.S. that is important.

The first is important not just because of the seriousness of the issue, but also because it is has been widely covered in foreign press. There is reason to believe that U.S. personnel were responsible for a huge atrocity in Afghanistan that is comparable to 9-11. Perhaps thousands of Taliban fighters that had surrendered were killed in a horrific way and buried in mass graves. This incident in captured in a documentary called Afghan Massacre: Convoy of Death. You can watch the film online. An early screening was shown at European Parliament in Brussels. The final screening was broadcast in a variety of countries. The film was not screened in the U.S. and has received no media coverage here.

The claim is that these Afghans were loaded into containers extremely tightly. The containers were closed as the trucks sat in the sweltering heat. The men cried out for air and the response was to riddle the containers with bullet holes, killing those near the sides. They rode in these containers for hours. Apparently they resorted to biting one another and licking sweat from skin in order to get fluids. When the containers were finally opened the stench of vomit, feces, urine, rotting flesh, and blood were released. Most inside were dead. Those that weren't yet dead were shot in the head. The corpses were dumped in mass graves. This was the fate of thousands.

Other more recent foreign news is that U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan are at record levels. Of the 12 that occurred in January 10 went wrong and failed to hit their targets, killing 123 people. The remaining 2 killed 3 Al Qaeda leaders. The increase is apparently due to the suicide attack that killed 7 CIA agents. Interestingly the suicide bomber was motivated by a U.S. drone attack that had killed a TTP chief. What should we expect will happen as drone attacks are increased?

Canada is talking about some news. On The Fifth Estate they revealed that there is no reason to believe the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters. The claim was made by Ted Olsen. Olsen is known for being the lawyer that argued before the Supreme Court in Bush v Gore. He was Bush's attorney. He said that he received a call from his wife, Barbara Olsen, while she was aboard the plane that hit the Pentagon. I personally watched his description of the calls, which I believe I saw on CNN. Now it turns out those calls never happened. Olsen was either duped or he was lying. This means nothing as far as 9/11 conspiracies in my mind, but I'd think it would be newsworthy in the States. It hasn't been covered to my knowledge.

Here's a story that did get some U.S. coverage, but have you heard of it? This AP article suggests Pat Tillman may have been murdered. I'm making no claim one way or the other, but notice the lack of coverage.

How To Dissappoint a Creationist

The cover looked promising. The article though would be a let down.

More Thoughts on Free Markets

It goes without saying that it's important to try and get more than one side of any debate. Recently I've been absorbing what might be called "leftist" thinking by reading Noam Chomsky and listening to his lectures.

I know it's unwise to accept claims at face value. Checking claims is critical. In this post I want to present Chomsky's thesis regarding such people as Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman offered here and then offer the results of the checks I've made regarding those claims.

First of all let me offer a basic free market claim that Chomsky would criticize, and I'll say that I came to understand this from Sowell. The claim is with regards to division of labor.

Suppose I'm an engineer and I put myself through college working in food processing. Suppose I was pretty good at food processing and could produce 10 lbs of food per day. But now also I'm an engineer and let's just say that I can output 2 designs per year.

Contrast me with a poor laborer. He can't do engineering at all. Suppose he can process food, but not as well as me. So one might think he's in really bad shape if we were to engage in trade. Let's assume if he had to design something it would take him 4 years with all of the errors and corrections that would be required, whereas he can process 5 lbs of food in a day.

Let's compose a hypothetical economy in a country called Jonistan. Jonistan is composed of 100 workers just like me. Good at processing food. Good at engineering. We have another country called Nicolombia. Not as good at either.

Let's suppose Jonistan needs to accomplish the production of 50,000 lbs of food every year to keep the population fed. The rest of the available time is devoted to engineering projects that improve technology and make life better. Here's how it would work assuming 200 working days in a year.

Jonistan would put 25 people to the task of producing food. 25 people x 10 lbs/day x 200 days/yr is 50,000 lbs of food per year. This leaves 75 people available for engineering. 75 people x 2 designs per year means 150 designs per year.

Suppose Nicolombia also has 100 workers and needs 50,000 lbs of food a year. They'd put 50 people to work on food (50 people x 5 lbs/day x 200 days/yr is 50,000 lbs of food). 50 would be available for engineering. They'd make 12.5 new designs/yr (50 persons x 0.25 designs per person/yr = 12.5 designs per year).

Total output is as follows:

Jonistan: 50,000 lbs of food, 150 designs.
Nicolombia: 50,000 lbs of food, 12.5 designs.
Total output: 100,000 lbs of food, 162.5 designs.

Now let's alter the work and assume Jonistan and Nicolombia engage in free trade. Let's put all Nicolombians to work producing food and all Jon's in Jonistan to work on engineering. A total of 100,000 lbs of food is required to feed both countries. But watch what happens.

Total output in Jonistan: 100 people x 2 designs per year = 200 designs/yr.
Total output in Nicolombia: 100 people x 5 lbs/day x 200 days/yr = 100,000 lbs/yr.

Everyone gets fed, everyone still works, but the total output has gone up from 162.5 designs to 200 designs. Nicolombia exhanges in free trade with Jonistan and offers 50,000 lbs of food for 25 new designs. Both sides are very happy and have more than they would have had if they hadn't engaged in free trade and exploited the comparative advantage. Free trade is really great, right? Who would oppose such things as NAFTA? Who would oppose WTO? This is the beauty of free markets that the Reaganites and Friedman types think is so important.

And now for Chomsky's response. Chomsky claims that in fact Reagan was a President that violated the above free market principles to a degree unsurpassed by any President since Herbert Hoover. When Reagan was President the Japanese were far more efficient at automobile production. Reagan saw that they could destroy the U.S. auto industry. So he simply enacted enormous tariff's on Japanese products while U.S. auto was instructed in the efficient Japanese methodologies. These actions destroy the beneficial effects of the free trade principles defined above. Yes, by pursuing a comparative advantage total output is increased TODAY. But what if I don't want to be a food manufacturer for all eternity? What if I would rather sacrifice output temporarily while I develop the technology that makes me a skilled laborer rather than an unskilled laborer? Should I let Japan destroy this important industry? Absolutely not. I will block them for now, then re-open trade when I've recovered.

But this is not how we treat others. Do we allow Mexico to block U.S. subsidized agri-business corn? No. We flood their market by force. And when a million poor farmers find themselves out of business we direct them to U.S. factories just across our border in Mexico that are paying pennies per hour. They make our flat screen TV's, which continue to drop in price while they live in homes made of card board boxes.

According to Chomsky this is a process repeated over and over. Take a country like Honduras. Prior to U.S. "free market" imposition this place is totally self sufficient. They make plenty of food and feed their population. But then free markets are imposed and they become a country that exports snow peas and beef to the U.S. due to their comparative advantage. GDP is up. Profits are up. And now child malnutrition is soaring and the population is generally starving. It's not acceptable when the free trade model would affect us badly, as in Japanese car imports. But it is imposed on others by force.

Chomsky made a couple of claims in this lecture that I wanted to check. The first was that Reagan was a protectionist. The second was that what Chomsky calls the "neo-liberal" economic policies of Friedman and others began to be imposed around the 1975 timeframe, and that the evidence is pretty clear by all economic measures that for the average American this is the time when things took a dramatic turn for the worse. Not for the wealthiest in America, but for the poor. So I checked these claims. Here's what I have dug up.

Was Reagan a protectionist? This source says yes.

What about economic indicators from 1975 onward for average Americans? Check the following:

• top 1% share of total wages here
• median family income here
• productivity vs median family income here
• income growth by quintile here
• income ratio here
• low, middle, and high income growth here
• bottom 99.5% share of total income here

What I've been able to check appears to be accurate. Something bad happened around 1975. What was it?

Natural Causes for Haiti's Problems

Steve Hays may not be blaming God for the problems in Haiti like Pat Robertson does. I suppose it's good that he looks to natural causes. However that doesn't make his thinking any less repugnant. He's basically blaming the tortured people of the land. They're "on the dole" and need to "seize control of their national destiny." For the moderately informed this is kind of disgusting.

Let's review some of the basic facts. Way back in the early 20th century Woodrow Wilson demanded that Haiti adopt some measures that were wanted by the U.S. business community. When the Parliament refused he sent the Marines. He disbanded parliament and a referendum was then passed adopting a new Constitution (written by FDR). It passed with a whopping 99% of the vote (only 5% of the population was permitted to vote). Now the U.S. business interests had what they needed. Wealth would be exported. Poverty would reign in Haiti.

The U.S. military remained and ruled Haiti for the next couple of decades. They left in 1932 and left behind a series of brutal U.S. backed dictators, including the infamous Papa Doc Duvalier.

But something strange happened in 1990. Popular grass roots movements swept into office a priest from the slums of Haiti. This was Jean Bertrand Aristide. This completely caught the U.S. off guard as he soundly defeated the U.S. backed candidate. It was a surprising display of democracy in a land that had been long been tortured.

Unfortunately for the people of Haiti this did not last long. He was soon removed by military coup. Ultimately he was re-installed under Clinton on the condition that he adopt the policies of the candidate he had soundly defeated years earlier. This he did and the people of Haiti resumed suffering as before.

Haiti, Nicaragua, Colombia, Bolivia. All of these countries have suffered immensely over the years. Robertson would have us believe that in Haiti's case it's their "deal with Satan." But the others are Christian. What explains their suffering? Incidentally these are the countries that have experienced the vast majority of U.S. intervention in our hemisphere.

So I wonder what Steve means with "on the dole". If a foreign government backs a brutal dictator that slaughters with impunity and exports the wealth of your nation, does the support provided by that foreign government make you "on the dole"?