Bernanke speaks from the right of where his critics are

PAUL KRUGMAN titles his editiorial "The Intimidated Fed,' and goes on to write:

Instead of addressing the dismal unemployment picture during Wednesday’s press conference, Ben Bernanke bent to the inflationistas.

Like always, the readers know best:

Bill Pieper
Taiwan

Why should the Fed be any different than the rest of Washington? The Fed is after all, like our Congress and courts, owned by Wall Street - in the Fed's case this is literal.

With real unemployment rates at depression levels, one would think that a society that labels itself democratic would give this urgent crisis top priority. Instead we have Congress in a tizzy over debit card fees or steroid use among millionaire athletes and a mainstream press talking about manufactured controversies. Meanwhile the middle class is being destroyed and an entire generation of young workers are looking at a future of low paying service jobs with no benefits, no job security and no hope of anything better.

No one in positions of leadership in any of society's institutions are actually providing valuable leadership or even a vision of how things might be different. Big business, government, political organizations, academia, religions, etc. have all failed the American people, and failed miserably. There are plenty of solid and proven ideas and policies that could change this, change them quickly and dramatically. There are plenty of unmet needs in the economy and society that can only be adequately addressed through some sort of collective action since the sacrosanct free market does not even recognize them, yet decade after decade, these needs remain unfulfilled. We have huge looming questions about how we are to proceed in an economy completely dependent of hostile foreign sources of oil, the market again, is failing to adequate address this in a timely fashion. But even acknowledging these problems would force our "leaders" to break out of the ideological prisons they have created and see the world as it truly is, not how their dogma (or lobbyists) tell them it is.

I think the only way at this point to overcome the empathy gap that exists between vulnerable, beleaguered working and unemployed Americans and their failed leadership is for those Americans who are working and care about their fellow Americans, to join the unemployed on a specified day, in other words, a national general strike. Of course, Americans don't do strikes. Strikes and civil disobedience is something for those lazy Europeans and union "thugs", but not hard working Americans. Enjoying lives with much more meaning, fulfillment, satisfying living arrangements and better quality of living is just too unAmerican.

After generations of indoctrination, the American sheeple have become unquestioning, uncomplaining, blinkered, frightened, obedient workers and loyal consumers. They no longer deserve or even want to be called citizens as citizenship requires effort and vigilance. Nonetheless, Americans need to understand that there will be no help whatsoever coming from Washington, not from the Fed, Congress, the White House or the courts. If this sad fact is not clear to them by now, they will never learn. If Americans want to change this system they will have to self-organize and do something dramatic, something unAmerican. The only thing Americans have that the oligarchy cares about is their labor and their consumer dollar. If Americans withhold these in a coordinated fashion, perhaps the plutocrats, their loyal servants and enablers in DC will actually listen. Sadly though, I think things will have to get much worse before Americans are motivated to change their sorry state.
Recommend Recommended by 411 Readers



Karen Garcia
New Paltz, NY

The Bernanke press conference was just more political theater, and pretty dull theater at that. I tuned in to watch it on C-Span, partly to escape the coverage of royal nuptials and royal pains (Trump). I was kind of hoping a "Rolling Stone" magazine reporter in blue jeans would be there in the sea of suits to jump up and ask Bernanke about the Real Housewives of Wall Street, and their no-interest Fed loans. I wanted to know about those Fed loans to Bahrain and Mexico that were only uncovered through the efforts of Senator Bernie Sanders and an Act of Congress. I was waiting for somebody - anybody - to really challenge the guy on jobs. Like any politico, Bernanke "regrets" the unemployment picture. QE 2 was meant to stimulate businesses to provide more jobs, but putting pressure on corporations is not in the Fed's job description. It's doesn't seem to be in the job description of anybody in the Beltway, come to think of it.

Meanwhile, real unemployment is somewhere between 20 and 25 percent -- close to Great Depression levels. As Paul Krugman states, many people -- the 99ers -- just aren't counted in the statistics any more. Longterm jobless people give up hope and lose skills. It is estimated that only nine percent of those still seeking work after one year will ever find a job. And to add insult to injury, the right-wing Republicans demonize these people for being in need and are striving mightily to shred what is still left of our social safety net.

When you have a government that cares more about the confidence of the markets and the value of the almighty dollar than it does about human beings, you have a government in serious decline. Let's hope the 99ers can gather enough momentum to become a force to be reckoned with. The warm weather is here, and we're long past due for another Bonus Veterans-style tent city of protesters in full view of The White House.

http://kmgarcia2000.blogspot.com/
Recommend Recommended by 232 Readers



Roger Strassburg
Oberpframmern, Germany

I think President Obama deserves much of the blame for this.

When Obama entered office, many hoped that he'd be a new FDR and that he'd create a new New Deal. The country saw where the speculative, deregulated free-wheeling of the past three decades had gotten us. The country was ready for sweeping change, and it was Obama who had the opportunity to bring about that change. He had the majorities he needed to do it, and he possessed the rhetorical ability to rally public support for it. He had everything on his side.

So what did he do? He tried to be nice to his enemies - people who would oppose Obama even if he were offering them universal prosperity, world peace and a pony. He offered them compromises before they even asked for them. He did too little, because his opponents were accusing him of doing too much - too much being defined as anything that involved any attempt of the government to boost the economy whatsoever.

And what was the result? The Republicans won the midterm elections, and now Obama doesn't have the majorities he needs in order to what needs to be done. Now the onus is on the Fed, but because of the Republican surge in the midterm elections, the bullies from the right have more power to intimidate the Fed, as well.

Obama lost for losing, and the danger is that he'll lose even more in 2012.

And then we'll all lose.
Recommend Recommended by 208 Readers



Winning Progressive
Chicago, IL

And it is not just the 14 million unemployed that are being harmed by the elite conservative obsession with imaginary inflation.

It is also the undermployed, which when added with the unemployed, totals more than 15% of Americans.

And it is the people who are so frustrated that they have given up looking for work. For example, the employment to population ratio remains stuck at less than 59%, which is far below the 1999 peak of nearly 65%, and the lowest since just after the recession of the early 1980s. In addition, while with the early 1980s recession the employment to population ratio quickly escalated after the recession ended, now the ratio is remaining under 59% more than six months after the official end of the Bush Recession.

And it is also the people who have managed to find jobs again, but who are being paid less and receiving fewer benefits for their labor because the jobs being created are lower quality, on average, than those that were lost.

And what are we getting in exchange for all of the economic pain caused by the continuing effects of the Bush Recession? Well, conservatives are getting protection from the mythical inflation monster that is apparently hiding under their beds. The rest of us, however, are getting nothing except the fear of not being able to find jobs or of losing the ones some of us are lucky enough to have.

http://www.winningprogressive.org

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Winning-Progressive/195682780442236
Recommend Recommended by 177 Readers



Marie Burns
Fort Myers, Florida

One thing Mr. Bernanke doesn't seem to be very good at is figuring which way the wind is blowing. While I will warrant that Bernanke's is a quasi-political job, even though we like to pretend the Fed is an "independent" body (and what a big joke that is!), he should have read someplace -- since virtually every single newspaper and news magazine in the U.S. has covered the story -- that jobs are the American people's biggest worry, even if they aren't the biggest worry of Mr. Bernanke's friends in Washington & on Wall Street.

That is, the political wind is blowing What Washington and Wall Street Want out the door. People want jobs, they want the social safety net we have enjoyed (such as it is) for decades, and they want the federal and state governments to have sound fiscal policies, even if they have no earthly idea what a sound fiscal policy would be. Bernanke should be reminded that his real clients are the American people, not the big banks, and not Ron Paul.

Ron Paul may be chair of the House subcommittee on monetary policy, but not even Ron Paul takes his own positions seriously. He really doesn't think, for instance, that he's going to be moving us to a gold standard any time soon, even though for reasons beyond reason he thinks that would be a great idea. And Bernanke, who is a trained economist, instead of bending to real or imagined pressure from Ron Paul or others in the Congress, should be giving Ron Paul and his crackpot ideas what-for, in a nice, polite manner, of course.

Bernanke's job, in effect, is not to bend to the will of Congress or the President, but to counteract the dumb stuff the Congress and Executive do. He also should be trying to teach elected officials what makes sense since they surely can't figure it out on their own. Ben Bernanke is not doing his job. Period. If we could, we the people would fire him.

The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com
Recommend Recommended by 155 Readers



JKM
Minneapolis

Let's see if, as a historian, I have this right. Beginning in the 1970s the Western industrial world was stuck with stagflation, meaning high inflation and high unemployment. Margaret Thatcher came along to solve the problem. She got inflation down but unemployment shot up. So is the current US solution to our economic crisis, as pursued by Mr. Bernanke at the Fed, a policy of keeping inflation low--very low according to some economic calculations, despite hikes in energy and food prices that are basic problems for ordinary Americans, while accepting what appears to be a long term, structurally high unemployment or underemployment rate? Are we to experience the lengthy high unemployment rates of 10+% for the foreseeable future--a kind of Thatcherism bis? Europe experienced these levels for over two decades but with social safety nets that ameliorated the difficulties, a safety net that we do not have and, such as it is, will be even further reduced of the deficit hawks prevail in Washington and the state capitols.
Recommend Recommended by 131 Readers



David Gutting
St. Louis

The history of this country has been a long, drawn out battle between the proponents of tight money (usually the people who have money) and the proponents of easy money (usually the people who don't have it). In this latest chapter, the hard money people--who are the hard core adherents to free market orthodoxy--can't face up to the reality that they've been pretty much wrong about everything they have said, done, or predicted about this economy in a very long time.

But, here's the thing: these folks own pretty much anything that matters. They own the banks, they own the corporations, they own the media that's operated by those corporations, and--most important of all--they own the Congress and the Administration.

So yes, the Fed is intimidated. They can't stand up to their bosses.
Recommend Recommended by 109 Readers


hen3ry
New York

What are is Congress waiting for? There are no miracles here. People need jobs to pay their bills, to buy food, to live. Unless we go back to bartering and find a way to survive without using money we all need jobs. It has become more apparent that whatever social contracts existed between companies and employees, citizens and their government, in this country at least, are not working for citizens and employees. The companies have money, the government that we elect works for the companies. The Republicans can carry on all they want about socialism, fascism, and communism but unbridled capitalism and unregulated free markets are no better.

To quote Hubert Humphrey: Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism. Since all of us will at some point need help, suffer some unfortunate events, we ought to keep that in mind as we listen to the plans to cut or not even begin programs that can help our fellow citizens keep food on the table, a roof over their heads, and their health.
Recommend Recommended by 78 Readers




Jake Wagner
Santa Barbara, CA

Krugman makes several points, several of them excellent. For example, he is absolutely right to focus on unemployment as the most serious economic problem facing the nation. Put simply, the problem is this: When 8.8% of Americans are unemployed, the US is producing fewer goods and services that might lift the general standard of living of Americans. Some of those unemployed are teachers who are losing their jobs as states and local communities give pink slips because they don't have enough money to balance their budgets. Another group of unemployed are the construction workers who could be building a high speed rail network, connecting LA to SF and Chicago to New York and New Orleans to Atlanta. It is these moderate length routes at which electric rail is more energy-efficient than air travel that relies on oil, a gradually dwindling resource.

More jobs would also boost government revenues, since workers pay taxes, and would stimulate small business workers, because employed teachers and construction workers can buy American-made appliances or shop in American stores.

But Krugman is wrong when he criticizes Ben Bernanke. There are two ways of stimulating the economy, monetary or fiscal policy. And with short-term interest rates at essentially zero, monetary policy has lost its traction. Quantitative easing is a second-best approach to stimulating the economy and since it deals with medium term interest rates, its harder to turn around if inflation starts to climb. Moreover, although quantitative easing has boosted stock market indices which indirectly stimulates the economy, it does not directly produce American jobs. That is partly because we now live in a world economy. McDonald's gets much of its profits from overseas. And corporations with money to spend can build factories in China and India where labor costs are lower, and the economies are in danger of overheating.

That's why fiscal policy is so important in a continuing employment crisis such as the one now afflicting the US. Hoover and FDR made some mistakes, but they also did some things right. For example, faced with declining revenues as unemployment climbed towards 25%, Hoover supported a raise in the highest income tax rates from 25% to 63%. FDR raised rates further still and introduced numerous programs to create jobs from rural electrification to the building of the Golden Gate Bridge. His WPA employed actors, writers and artists who were able to rebuild American art to be the envy of the world when the first Great Depression came to an end.

We need such leadership now. But Obama has not even kept up his campaign promise to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy now that the US confronts deficits of $1.6 trillion per year. Krugman takes the easy way out. You don't have to pay for monetary policy. Unfortunately, preventing a Second Great Depression will require sacrifice. And even the progressive wing of the Democratic party sees sacrifice as something to be avoided.

Meanwhile, over 40 million Americans are now on food stamps. And the inflation that worries many in the markets is commodity inflation. Gold and silver are soaring, oil prices are climbing back to their July 2008 level, and food inflation is being felt not just in foreign countries, where it contributed to the unrest in Egypt, but also in the US. Faced with higher prices for beef and for grains, the American worker must just do with less because the high unemployment gives him no leverage to ask for higher wages. So yes, food prices do not permeate into the core CPI, but the suffering of America's poor is just as real.

So Krugman is also ever so slightly wrong about inflation. Bernanke is right to be bringing quantitative easing to an end. Bernanke has achieved what was possible with monetary policy, which unfortunately not a lot because of what Krugman calls the zero interest rate lower bound. Too bad we have no leader in the White House who can call us to the only policies that could do the heavy lifting in bringing unemployment down, the higher taxes couples with government jobs that would put millions of Americans back to work.
Recommend Recommended by 76 Readers




Tom McMahon
Millis Ma.

The dynamics of the workplace have changed with the crash of the economy in October of 2008. Companies have learned to do without many personnal they had prior to OOct 2008 who were laid off yet never to return. The same scenario is played out over and over again accross the nation. Without massive government stimulus directed and clean energy technologies the United States will end up as the #2 economy in the world behind the Chinese should we fail to act. The fact is, the country that leads the way to clean buring bio fuels will be the economic powerhouse of tomorrow. The internal combustion engine is here for a while still, until a battery is developed that can power a car for eight hours or 400 miles between charges, and those charges must be able to recharge the battery in minutes not hours. If the United States and their technical know how can do this, we will continue as the leading economic superpower, if we fail, we are indeed in a huge hole economically. Clean energy technologies and infrastructure spending, both will make us stronger economically and help bring down unemployment. Inflation right now should be the least of our worries, getting America back to work, increasing the size of our workforce thus our tax base. Right now all the thinking is bass ackwards. Those who think they know show they don't know much, that is how to rebuild an economy, you start with your infrastructure, increase your tax base, then increase taxes on the upper 20% which will show fiscal disapline keeping interest rates low. Fail to do so will result in higher interest rates which in turn will use a greater % of our gross revenue and we will still have deficit problems which will keep us going in circles, going nowhere fast.

Thomas McMahon
Millis Ma
Recommend Recommended by 68 Readers





Tom Richards, Citizen
North attleboro, MA

Paul, You are wrong. It is not the Fed's job to cure unemployment. it is he Fed's job to avoid a runaway inflation. It is Obama's job to lead in reform of the ruinous policies which have gotten us not this mess of loss of jobs to overseas. He needs to lead to: Allow the Bush tax cuts for wealth to expire; Apply import fees on nations that are out of trade balance with us; squelch the military/industrial complex by ending three prolonged costly wars; End deductions, except for interest on a primary residence; End those favorable treatments for agriculture and oil; Raise the age of entitlements for social security; Raise the tax on estates of over $5-million, Raise the marginal tax on incomes of over $2-million to what they were in better times under Eisenhower; Add $0.50 per gallon every three years to the tax on gasoline to curb usage and raise revenue, allowing a deduction for milage to and for work. But the Fed must avoid runaway inflation!
Recommend Recommended by 54 Readers



Paul '52
New York, NY

In the period from 1981 - 1983, Ronald Reagan proved that the American people are happier with high unemployment than they are with high inflation; Especially when it' s oh so easy to castigate lazy people who don't want to work and whose sole interest is collecting benefits. So Reagan hiked unemployment from 7.5 to 10.8, a much bigger increase than we've seen under Obama, and then taxed unemployment benefits.

And he got 60% of the vote two years later.

Sadly, that's the lesson that counted.
Recommend Recommended by 52 Readers




Bill Appledorf
San Francicso

Monetary policy alone cannot create jobs. Fiscal policy is the other half of the equation, and just when Washington should be spending on infrastructure repair, green technology, education, health care, and other programs that would put dollars in working people's pockets, the Republicans are on a rampage to "cut spending" (in quotation marks because the only spending they are cutting is the 2% of the federal budget that provides needed services to children, the poor, and the sick).

And "Obama's stimulus" the Republican's rail against as a total failure (again in quotes because 2/3 of what the Republicans allowed in 2009 was tax cuts for the rich and tax cuts for corporations) was a total failure because they wouldn't allow a real stimulus to be passed.

Yes, there was a shortage of money circulating during the Great Depression, as Mr. Bernanke knows from his scholarly perspective, but there was a dearth of private sector employment then as now, as the Republicans can't seem to or do not want to understand.
Recommend Recommended by 40 Readers



Locus
Mars

Here we go again! In the wake of the Russian default and Long Term Capital Management crisis of 1998 the Fed lowered interest rates to "help the economy". Unfortunately much of the new liquidity flowed into Inter-Nut stocks and the tech bubble expanded. When that bubble burst in 2000 the Fed again responded by cutting rates and creating even more liquidity to "help the economy". And as before the money found its way into speculative flights of fancy, this time providing the funding for a whole host of new "investments" like subprime mortgages, CMOs and CDOs. And all the while the Fed was blowing those last two bubbles there was a slew of Very Serious Economists who assured us that the Fed's actions were completely safe because the CPI showed that there was no danger of inflation.

Dear Paul, may I gently suggest to you the notion, as evidenced by recent history, that the world can be going to Hades in a handbasket and you'd never see a problem in the CPI? The last two times the Fed turned on the money spigot full-blast we ended up in crisis, so why shouldn't we be worried now?

The Fed's balance sheet has exploded into the trillion range in recent years and yet employment remains stubbornly high. Krugman contends that the Fed needs to do even more. I would suggest that the reasonable conclusion is that the Fed can do very little to affect employment but the Fed can very easily ignite another speculative frenzy that ends in an even larger panic.

With apologies to the Bard,

"By Bernanke's printing of all these sums, something wicked this way comes"
Recommend Recommended by 35 Readers





Rade Musulin
Sydney Australia

Dr. Krugman, I respectfully disagree with your analysis of the Fed's position. The problem is not with the Fed, it is with Congress. As you correctly point out, the Fed's mission is to provide short term corrections. It can be effective in doing so, provided that Congress and the Administration behave like adults and confront the nation's dire fiscal situation in a sober manner.

The prescription to reduce unemployment in the US is fairly simple. You raise taxes on frivolous consumption, wasteful use of energy, and high income earners; then invest the savings in US job creating infrastructure, education, and technology. The Fed cannot take those actions.

By pursuing a cheap money policy while Congress refuses it to its job, the Fed simply fuels back door tax increases on working people through unemployment, inflation, and a dropping dollar. Washington needs adult supervision, not more cheap money created by Fed monetary tricks.
Recommend Recommended by 29 Readers





pdxtran
Minneapolis

Despite some (e.g., ed connor) claims, I know plenty of college-educated people with extensive work experience who cannot find full-time work or any jobs at all. Unemployment is NOT a problem only for the less-educated.

Unemployment is, however, associated with age. These long-term unemployed all lost their last jobs after the age of 50 and have not worked full-time since.

And here the "serious" people in Washington are telling them that they shouldn't be able to draw full Social Security benefits until age 70. Instead, they're supposed to "save"--on a part-time income while selling first their house and then their car to survive.

I would love to see the long-term unemployed of each city hold highly visible demonstrations in front of their communities' major financial institutions, or even better, in front of their communities' largest TV stations.

This economy will not recover as long as millions of Americans are struggling and falling behind and forced to buy only the items most necessary for survival.
Recommend Recommended by 23 Readers




Tom Krebsbach
Washington

I would hesitate to blame Mr. Bernanke too much on this issue.

First, he has taken extraordinary measures, QEI and QEII, that were never before attempted in this country. The fact that we had a Fed president in power who was well versed in the causes of the Great Depression and understood measures needed to counteract a similar occurrence was quite fortuitous for America. If he is hedging slightly at this point in the game, I wouldn't blame him too much.

Second, the main means of attacking unemployment should be fiscal policy. Funds dispersed by the government to put people to work are the most effective way of attacking unemployment. The fact that the federal government will no longer consider outlays to fight unemployment rests totally at the feet of Republican congress members. One cannot blame Bernanke if unemployed Americans are too stupid to understand this and end up voting in Republicans to control part of congress. Sorry, people, you get what you vote for. Next time think before you go into the voting booth.

Third, it is very likely that the recovery is now self-sustaining and that further increasing the money supply would have diminishing returns as far as reducing unemployment. The gains in employment have been fairly decent the last couple of months, and we are likely to see continuing gains in the months ahead.

Fourth, I would not blame Bernanke if he is hesitant to do exactly the opposite of what certain people are calling for. The fact that he has to answer to these people in congress and, to a certain extent, consider their demands places him in an untenable situation.

Fifth, I assume he does not formulate policy all by himself at the Fed. Other Fed governors, who now have voiced a fair amount of concern over inflationary pressures, certainly must have a good amount of input into the final policy prescriptions of the Fed.

All in all, I think Mr. Bernanke has done a pretty fair job. If there is blame to be placed in dealing with unemployment, it rests squarely on the shoulders of members of congress, primarily Republicans.
Recommend Recommended by 22 Readers



Jack Shef
Boston

"Quantitative Easing": Where the government buys back the same bonds its selling to finance itself using electronically created funds (no actual printing is involved, just moving numbers around). The goal is to increase the money supply and the typical effect is to reduce the yield on the bonds. Originally used by the Japanese in 2001. Didn't work so well for them.

I'd love to read a good argument for why this is the most effective tool for the Fed to use if the goal is to reduce long term unemployment.
Recommend Recommended by 20 Readers



ed connor
camp springs, md
April 29th, 2011
12:52 am
Do you really think the Fed can materially improve the unemployment rate?

Unemployment is primarily a phenomenon of high school or less educated workers. Unskilled labor is far cheaper overseas than here. That will not change. We also have an increase in high school drop out rates, now approaching 30% of high school age youth.

The government may be of some help, but, ultimately, the families of these young men (they are predominantly men) have to prevail upon their sons that poor, uneducated and stupid is not a viable life plan in the 21st century.

Glenn Greenwald: By Definition, A Public Intellectual, or Rara Avis

• Glenn Greenwald: Life Beyond Borders
  BY FRED A. BERNSTEIN
  With his provocative columns and scathing political commentary, the journalist has never shied away from controversy. We step into his complicated world.
  
  

With his conservative suits, white shirts, and narrow ties, Glenn Greenwald looks more like a Mormon missionary than a political commentator who can bring opponents to their knees -- and then get in a good kick while they’re down. In one memorable TV appearance last fall, he reveled in an on-air shouting match with Lawrence O’Donnell (the Senate staffer and West Wing producer turned pundit) over what had caused the Democrats to bungle the midterm elections. O’Donnell seemed to blame progressives; Greenwald made a strong case that it was the Blue Dog Democrats -- timid, Republican-imitating centrists -- who had doomed the party. On air, Greenwald called O’Donnell’s contentions “absurd,” but that wasn’t enough. Over the next few days, on his popular Salon blog, he attacked both O’Donnell’s demeanor (“adolescent”) and substance (“trite,” “superficial,” and “empirically false”).

And yet, since January, when O’Donnell’s show on MSNBC moved to a prime spot, Greenwald has been one of his most frequent guests. Perhaps it’s because he can speak authoritatively on almost any subject, and with such sincerity that it’s hard not to forgive his excess. Picture Watson, IBM’s Jeopardy-winning supercomputer, as a political commentator, and you picture Greenwald: laden with an endless supply of facts and astonishing recall, yet blissfully unaware of the rules of the game.
Like Watson, Greenwald, 44, seems hardwired to best his opponents. Just six years after he wrote his first blog entry, he is consistently listed among the most influential pundits in the country (by mainstream media outlets like Forbes, The Atlantic, and New York). And, as a sign of his audience’s loyalty, two of his three books -- supplements to the thousands of words he produces for Salon each day -- have become New York Times best-sellers. (The fourth, With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful, will be out in October.)

Given Greenwald’s intellectual fecundity and argumentative ferocity, being gay may be the least interesting thing about him. But even Greenwald doesn’t claim that his sexual orientation doesn’t matter. After all, if he were straight he would be living in Manhattan, his home for most of the last 20 years. Instead, he lives in Rio de Janeiro, barred from moving to the United States with his Brazilian boyfriend, David Michael Miranda.

“Brazil recognizes our relationship for immigration purposes, while the government of my supposedly ‘free,’ liberty-loving country enacted a law explicitly barring such recognition,” says Greenwald, referring to the Defense of Marriage Act with the disdain he typically shows for policies he believes are eroding Americans’ freedoms. Greenwald’s attacks on the powerful make him a tempting target for reprisals. So it’s no surprise that, soon after he started blogging, critics sometimes tried to out him in a game of “gotcha”. But what upset Greenwald was the implication that he had been closeted in the first place. “There was nothing to out,” he says. “I’ve been as out as I can be since I was 20.” 

In Rio, Greenwald and Miranda rent a house in the Gávea neighborhood, where, he says, he resents having to wear anything more formal than shorts and T-shirts. He also likes the fact that, in his far-below-the-Beltway existence, “My network of friends and associates are not media and political figures,” which lets him resist the practice -- for which he skewers other journalists -- of currying favor with sources.

The downside to living in Brazil is that he has to decline frequent offers to appear on U.S. television. Instead, he makes half a dozen trips a year to New York City, during which he swaps the shorts for the Mormon missionary attire -- and squeezes in as many TV spots as possible, with side trips to speak at universities and pick up the journalism awards he’s collecting just six years into the profession.

On his blog and in his books, Greenwald focuses on America’s three overreactions to 9/11: the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and the war against personal liberty in the United States. There, he says Obama has been a disaster -- not only exerting powers Bush never claimed (including the right to assassinate a U.S. citizen who hasn’t been charged with a crime) but also giving “liberal” cover to policies that were considered Republican aberrations when Bush was in the White House. Obama, Greenwald says, “has converted what had been seen as divisive, radical right-wing assaults into bipartisan consensus.” If you think that’s too strong a statement, you’re probably not a regular reader of Greenwald’s blog, where he marshals mountains of evidence—and rigorous logic -- to make his left-of-center views seem like indisputable truths.

On the subject of why the United States is the target of terror attacks, Greenwald mocks commentators who pose the question with faux naïveté. “Isn’t Muslim culture just so bizarre, primitive, and inscrutable?” he asks. “As strange as it is, they actually seem to dislike it when foreign militaries bomb, invade, and occupy their countries” and “kill hundreds of thousands of Muslim children.”

Greenwald is a fan of Julian Assange, the embattled founder of WikiLeaks, and Bradley Manning, the 23-year-old army intelligence analyst who last year sent thousands of classified Iraq war documents to WikiLeaks. Ratted out to military authorities by Adrian Lamo, a publicity-seeking blogger, Manning is now in a military prison, awaiting trial. Manning is gay, which may have led him to Lamo, who is active in the LGBT community, and possibly caused him to let his guard down during online chats with Lamo. And it has also enabled critics to depict him as unstable -- a typical antiwhistleblower technique. In fact, Greenwald says of Manning, “When he talks about his motivations, he’s extremely politically insightful, astute, and thoughtful.” 

Greenwald believes Manning might have been less likely to reveal government secrets if he were straight: Gay people, because they’re already “outside the sphere of comfort,” have a “huge advantage in being willing to challenge authority,” he says, speaking from experience. 

Greenwald’s first exposure to activism was at the side of his grandfather, who ran for city council in a Fort Lauderdale suburb “as the rebel candidate, accusing everyone else of corruption.  It got nasty and personal,” he recalls. At 18, Greenwald himself ran for the city council, but lost. In college, he became a keen debater. 

In 1992, the Colorado legislature, in the infamous Amendment 2, barred local governments from treating gays and lesbians as a protected group. Greenwald, then a second-year student at NYU Law School, demanded that the faculty ban Colorado law firms from conducting job interviews on campus. Given the importance of interviews to budding lawyers, some activists were worried about a backlash. “There was this fear that it was going to turn the entire law school against lesbian and gay students,” he says.  But Greenwald pressed on, motivated not just by the possibility of victory (the faculty eventually voted for the ban), but by the chance to make his purported allies put up or shut up -- as he says, “take a stand in defense of the principles they claimed to believe in or expose themselves as hypocrites.”
By the third year of law school, he was working for a large law firm. But realizing that representing Goldman Sachs would have destroyed him psychologically, he set up his own firm, which represented several neo-Nazis and other unpopular clients.

When he and his former boyfriend, Werner Achatz, an Austrian-born lawyer, tried to lease an apartment, they were told they couldn’t aggregate their incomes. “They said they only do that for married couples,” Greenwald recalls. “We said we were a married couple.” When that didn’t fly, Greenwald became his own lawyer, suing the landlord for sexual orientation and marital status discrimination. 

By 2004 he had tired of litigating, and was also at the end of an 11-year relationship with Achatz.  He rented an apartment in Rio de Janeiro, expecting to remain there for two months. Emotionally drained, he says, “The last thing I was looking for was another relationship. Especially in Rio.” But on his first day on the beach, he met Miranda.

 

The couple soon moved in together, adopted a series of stray dogs (“I’m almost a member of the pack of dogs,” he says). To build a career from his new base in Brazil, Greenwald switched from law to journalism. (In 2007, his blog, called Unclaimed Territory, became part of Salon.)  The “only gringo” in the Gávea neighborhood, Greenwald says he is now 100% fluent in Portuguese, and he has even begun making appearances on Brazilian TV. Miranda has learned English (and is now studying advertising and communications at the Escola Superior de Propaganda e Marketing), but even so, he says, there’s no way he can read everything Greenwald produces. “Are you kidding?” Miranda asks. “He’s a fucking machine.”

Although Brazil does not yet permit same-sex marriage, the country, which was a military dictatorship until 1985 and has the largest Catholic population in the world, offers same-sex couples privileges that aren’t available in the United States. That, Greenwald says, is a sign of how far the U.S. has fallen in its embrace of human rights. Greenwald occasionally writes about the unconstitutionality (not to mention inhumanity) of the Defense of Marriage Act, although not as often as some gay readers might like. But when he does take on the cause close to his heart, it isn’t, he insists, special pleading. “Gay issues are about the same fundamental issues as other civil liberties questions -- the rights of the individual,” he says. “If you think of gay issues as being discrete and separate, you’re doing the cause a disservice.”

In his early days as a blogger, Greenwald supported Democratic candidates who shared his pro–civil liberties views. But events of the last two years -- in both the White House and Congress -- have changed his mind. “I just don’t think meaningful change is possible through piecemeal reforms in either of the two political parties,” he says. As for the Democrats themselves, he can barely contain his disgust. “The Republicans,” he says, “have long lived by what they call the Buckley Rule: always support the furthest-right candidate who can plausibly win. That’s because they believe conservatism will work and want to advocate for it. Democrats [by contrast] prop up the most centrist or conservative candidates -- i.e., corporatists -- on the ground that it’s always better, more politically astute, to move to the right.”

One of his hopes for 2012 is that candidates will emerge to take on the red and the blue teams -- he is keeping an eye on Gary Johnson, a two-term Republican governor of New Mexico, who is pro-gay and antiwar, and who could run with a Democrat like former Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold. He would also be happy to see a billionaire run without the help of either party, to “disrupt the two-party stranglehold.” 

Greenwald believes the same manipulation of the two-party system is essential in the fight for gay rights. He says he is encouraged by the rise of the Log Cabin Republicans—not because he likes a thing the GOP endorses, but because “it sends a signal to Democrats that they can’t keep using gay voters as an ATM machine.”

“I think gay voters have been too gullible,” he says of their unwavering support for politicians who fail to keep promises. Being predictable, he says, offering advice to the gay community and an unwitting summary of his career, “is the best way to guarantee you’re ignored.”

 

How They Met 
Greenwald: I was drinking a guarana tea on Ipanema beach; he was playing beach volleyball. His towel was near mine, and we started talking. I was 38; he was 19. I was established in my career; he was poor. I grew up in a South Florida suburb; he grew up an orphan in a Rio de Janeiro slum. So I was sure, especially in the beginning, that everyone assumed it was the classic midlife crisis type of relationship. But our love kept growing, and that made any concerns about what other people thought irrelevant.

Over time, we learned to turn the age difference into an asset, something that keeps our relationship vibrant and mutually stimulating. He prevents me from getting old, cranky, set in my ways, stagnant, and unspontaneous, and I keep him focused on career, future, responsibilities, and avoiding at least some of the bad mistakes of youth. It translates into this: I end up playing video games with a bunch of 23-year-olds until 3 a.m., and he ends up reading the Nietzsche I give him. Being young and from Rio, he’s still way ahead of me in the hedonism department. But I’ve been learning to give up control and be more spontaneous—something you can only do if you have absolute trust in the other person.

Miranda: I was playing volleyball with friends, and he was reading on the beach, and the ball almost hit him. I apologized, and from then on I was looking at him and he was looking at me. We talked after the game. I didn’t speak much English, and he only knew a few words of Portugese, but we communicated everything important. When you meet the right person, you know it, and we knew it in that moment.

I think it took one week until we moved in together. I had dated men before Glenn, but not many; I’m a guy who likes to settle down. We’ve been together five and a half years. I used to go everywhere with him, but now that I’m studying, I sometimes have to stay in Rio when he travels. That makes me uncomfortable. He exposes himself to so much hate, and there are a lot of crazy people in the world. He has to do what he has to do. But when he travels without me, something’s not right for me. I hope we will have children. I never knew my father, and my mother died when I was 5, but I was always around my cousins’ kids. Kids bring so much joy to life, and I want Glenn to have that experience, too. I think he’s going to be a great father. 

RESTREPO

87 of 93 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars A stunning piece of film, October 28, 2010
By
Michael A. Duvernois
This review is from: Restrepo (DVD)
Ninety minutes of the Afghan Korengal Valley, with no talking heads, no interviews, just the soldiers there in the valley. Named after an output named after a medic killed in the line of duty. This ties in rather strongly with WAR (Junger's War) which is also coverage of the same area of Afghanistan. It's an emotional film that tells the story of the soldiers posted there but leaves any and all interpretations to the viewer. It's one small, but very dangerous, piece of the war and needs no additional plot, or subplots, other than the daily life in the field.

I left the movie saying, "oh my, fifteen months." It's nearly inconceivable to me, fifteen months in such a place. A place few Americans could find on a map, and far fewer could explain the importance of. It's a must-see movie regardless of your politics.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews



K. Vue says:
Wow no interviews huh? Oh really ....how about the interviews with the soldiers themselves? This part really adds to the overall emotional experience in the film. Yes the place would be extremely rough going especially with the rugged terrain they had to ruck, live, and fight on. Having served in Iraq myself, I was lucky to not have to climb those mountains and fight under those cicumstances. This film will remind the young men in this country that have not serve in the armed forces to STFU about petty complains at their jobs and daily lives.

12 of 19 people think this post adds to the discussion.



Travis J. Harlev says:
I completely agree,I'm an iraq vet myself-11B-4th ID and most people have no idea how great they have it!

3 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.




Buck Field says:
Hi Michael,

The sentiment that Restrepo is "an emotional film that...leaves any and all interpretations to the viewer" was baffling at first.

But technically, your claim is true.

After the Pentagon vetted the the film-makers, reviewed their past work for ideological correctness, and made support for the film conditional upon the "proper" viewpoints, dialog, and portrayals in the final cut, then it is safe to leave "any and all interpretations to the viewer" as you suggest.

I suppose if I'm interested in making sure elephants are regarded as thin and I have the power, I can blindfold journalists, block their ears, nose, and mouth, and place them where they can only touch the elephant's tail. Then I can urge them to do the most exhaustive and open documentary on the nature of elephants in what we call a win-win scenario: it demonstrates my unparalleled commitment to freedom of the press, unbiased investigation, and even my noble support for such open, free speech and willingness to let people make up their own minds, regardless of politics.

3 of 14 people think this post adds to the discussion.

T. Holland says:
I thought this documentary was really good.I also served in the military USAF until late 2003 and I spent my last tour at Ramstien AB in Germany just down the road from Landsthul Reginal where most all wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan stop at on their way home.I worked on the flight line every day so I saw these wounded guys first hand and it made me do my maintenance work until my hands bleed because I knew the harder I and the members of my squadron worked the faster the Army and Marines on the ground would get the gear they needed and the wounded would get to a good medical facility faster.

Most civilians have no clue just how hard it is for guys who are front line combatants what they go through it is really tough.I think every American should see Restrepo so they can get a glimpse of what an American in direct combat goes through.

And every vet should watch it as well as it wil make you want to extend a hand to fellow vets in need.

2 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion.



[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion.
Hi T. Holland.

What would you say to those who (like me) believe in the golden rule, and that most important consideration is whether military conquests are immoral crimes?

2 of 10 people think this post adds to the discussion.



T. Holland says:
I would say to you that you are very clearly trolling around Amazon posts because you have nothing better to do with your time and wanting to show off you belief in the "golden rule". What ever that is.There could be 100 different golden rule to 100 different people.For example a drug dealers golden rule would likely be "Sell drugs to kids to get them buying from me for life." a pacifists golden rule might be "Never harm another person even when they might want to harm me." a pastors golden rule might be "come to church often so that your soul is safe."

Also according to military law a member of the military is obliged to follow all lawful orders and seeing as I was never ordered to commit a war crime like purposefully killing a civilian I can honestly saw that I never did anything immoral.I am obviously aware that at times bad things happen to innocent people in wars and what not but I suppose that is part of being part of the human race.

If your goal was to some how make me feel bad about my time in the military you have horribly failed.Also I never said that I agreed or disagreed with any conflict fully that my country was involved in while I was in the military.

8 of 8 people think this post adds to the discussion.


Buck Field says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion.]
Hi T. Holland,

I'm sorry to have given the impression of trolling. I'm using the "maxim of reciprocity" form of the golden rule that Christians find in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31, but it is common in most religions and ethical systems.

What I'm interested in is that military conquest of countries is illegal and for most people immoral. I would not want China attacking us if we did not hand over someone they suspected was in the U.S. and that this person had led Tibetan terrorists. If they made this demand without evidence like we did to Afghanistan, it would seem especially illegal. Lack of U.N. authorization would be another important thing I would count against them, and would think China should be taken to the world court, punished, and be forced to pay reparations.

I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad, I'm just trying to understand how enthusiastic supporters of military action consider Iraq and Afg. legal or moral, especially considering the massive death and suffering caused.

1 of 7 people think this post adds to the discussion.

T. Holland says:
I think honestly that you a bit outside the realm of this site Buck. Honestly this is a site which sells things and allows people to post reviews on products offered.Your comments have nothing directly to do with this with this purpose seeing as you are in no way talking about this film yourself.I doubt you have even seen it.Since you have not posted anything about this film specifically. You seem in fact to be completely missing the point of the film which at least for me is what a a small group of soldiers go though during a tour of duty.The film does not attempt to convince the viewer of any point of view this is left to to the viewer.

There are many forums on the web which would much better suit what you are trying to discuss perhaps you should go to them instead.I am not going to provide further responses on this.

5 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.



Buck Field says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion.]
I'm sorry you're unwilling to discuss or consider what it seems are very important issues relating to the film and the wars.

Regrettably, this is what seems to be almost a litmus test for irrational beliefs: the inability to discuss real world facts contrary to the belief, or one's internal concepts which would bring incompatibility to conscious awareness, where it might be examined.

You rightly point out that my comments are an attempt to understand your and others attitudes rather than discussing the film which I will do now in light of your withdrawal. My observations are that emotional attachment to opinions can cripple normal cognitive function. This crippling is the purpose of indoctrination, which we may plausibly conclude this film does according to reviews and the studio summary. How can it do that?

Media indoctrination occurs by choice of topic and framing. The Nazi's produced an economic miracle during the worst of the depression along with other notable achievements, but we would consider it unacceptable for a documentary to focus only on this while ignoring the harm and crimes committed in the process.

With Restrepo, or more generally any film: if it does not give equal time at least to those on the receiving end of apparently criminal violence, it certainly seems we may plausibly regard it as biased, as we would if any other country produced it.

1 of 7 people think this post adds to the discussion.



Rebeca Argiro says:
Buck Field
My husband is a medic with the 54th Engineer Batallion currently serving in the same region that Restrepo documents. We have a 2 year old daughter.
We have no time to discuss if the war is ethically moral or not. We are only concerned with him making it back home alive.
How dare you even compare what our brave young men and women are doing over there to Nazi war crimes.
-Supportive Army Wife



D. Townshend says:
I have a question for you. What are these so called war crimes that you are referring to? Also, have you been to either country or just sit behind your computer in your comfortable home? Have you ever served in the military? I have been to both countries, I have served in the military. I saw no war crimes committed in either country. I can tell you this, without ever being there and seeing the people of those countries. Hearing there stories and what they went through. You will never understand. You can ask members of the military all the questions you want. They will not give you the answer you want to hear, why you might ask? Because even if they do, you will never understand. Instead of comparing the military actions in both wars to Nazi war crimes(which clearly shows you have no idea what you are talking about), you should just tell them thank you and be on your way. Have a good day Buck Field and I hope one day you can get out of this hateful life you lead.

2 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion.




Buck Field says:
Hello Rebecca,

I think we would agree that taking the time to discuss films, read reviews, and respond to comments indicates your claim to have "no time" is untrue - a common and obvious self deception.

In contrast, I believe your claim that your only concern is getting him back alive is more or less true, in the sense that you believe it.

My judgment is that you are as sincere as German wives who were in a similar situation and felt identical to you is "how I dare" to compare them. Surely they felt a duty to be "supportive army wives" as well. How would you judge the wife of a Nazi soldier who was patriotic and loyal, and ignored evidence that might cause her to reappraise the family's support for illegal foreign occupations, for example.

If such a wife were your friend or cousin, what might you say to try to reach her? Presumably we agree that if we care, we should try to make her aware, to warn her somehow...to do or say something, even if we failed.

0 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.



Buck Field says:
Hello D. Townsend,

Before answering, I think we need to agree on what is a crime. If we agree on the definitions in the U.N. charter and General Assembly Resolution 3314, U.S. conquest and occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, (and many others) qualify as international aggression, although it seems possible to defend the position that they may only qualify for the less serious crime of international terrorism. This distinction is what the lawyers in a functioning World Court would have to decide.

I believe some of my advantages (well-off family, good schools, jobs, etc.) are best used by me to keep people like Rebecca's husband (and my best high school friends) from being turned into murderers or corpses primarily for corporate profits and political advantage.

0 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.




D. Townshend says:
You are a coward in life and will never be able to look past his own paranoia. And you and your trolling ways on amazon will be ignored. Cause you didn't even answer any of my questions, and really hope you die a slow agonizing death, you know a cowards death. Anyone can sit from behind a keyboard and act like there smart, but in the end they are still a bitch......like you Buck Field.

0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.




Rebeca Argiro says:
My husband is a medic. He is obligated to save lives of U.S. military, U.N. forces, civilians, contractors AND the Taliban/Al-Qaeda.

Please explain to me how this is similar to Nazi war crimes; i.e. the torturing and killing of millions of innocent people?

Afghan Police Force

Furthermore, in reference to the no time comment: are you assuming that the 10-20 minutes a week I get to speak with my husband should be spent discussing morals? I work full time, do an internship for my graduate degree, do schoolwork AND I'm a single parent. Literally, I do not have time to go find a group of concerned citizens on the ethics of why our government chose to be involved in the Middle East. It is what it is.

I just hope that the friends I have down-range make it back. They are fathers, brothers, sons and I know their wives and children.

Perhaps if you actually knew some of the soldiers, marines, and air men that were there and what its like, you wouldn't be so quick to judge.

3 of 3 people think this post adds to the discussion.



Buck Field says:
Hello Rebecca,

As I indicated, some of my dearest friends from high school were soldiers, marines, and/or air men who I'm not inclined to judge. They were, (in my opinion) largely criminally misled to believe that the U.S. was threatened by WMD's. Hundreds of times they were told that an attack "any day" could "come in the form of a mushroom cloud" by leaders who knew this to be a lie. Friends left Texas as as patriotic, fun-loving, adventurous friends and team-mates, coming back (if alive) full of guilt and sorrow for the killing they did for a lie, and in physical pain from broken bones, in one case a crushed spine, and as often as not: addicted to prescriptions or illicit drugs. Like you, I want everyone back safely, my argument is not against the victims of this scam. The view that the US is "savior of the world" makes us a laughingstock around the world.

It is the untouchable leaders who amass fortunes while "the little people" die for their lies that is the similarity. It wasn't "Germany" who lost in WWII, it was those who died and the families that were ruined who lost. Top Nazis were snatched to the US by elites or ensconced in positions of power in Germany in exchange for making sure reparation funds and other advantages flowed into the proper pockets. The same is going on now, and I believe it should be fought now, just as it should have been fought then.

We cannot allow those who own society to lie and deceive, causing vast suffering for political and financial gain to profit from their crimes. I believe we should resist, if we can. Perhaps your family cannot now, and if that's your choice - I respect it, with the hope that you will find such an opportunity in the future.

I appreciate that you seriously consider my opinion and respond seriously, for which you have my thanks.

1 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Rebeca Argiro says:
Buck -
You keep referring to the "lies" that the government have been feeding us. I will not argue that by the time information reaches the general public, it is never going to be the top secret material they discuss in the pentagon.

Do I believe we went to war for WMDs? No. I believe we went to war because of numerous reasons - none of them having to do with oil which is what a majority of the American people believe.

I can say that I believe Iraq to be in a better spot without their tyranical leader in office.

My husband did not join the Army because he wanted to go find WMDs. He had an overwhelming sense of need to serve his country, in any capacity that he was needed. He is almost done with his 4 years, he will get out. He will be a better person with all of the things he has learned and experienced, courtesy of the U.S. Army.

May I also mention that I was also apart of the Army at one point. I joined because I felt proud and lucky to have grown up in the US. I love this country and I wanted to do my part.

Its not always about believing the conglomorant that is the U.S. government - but getting back to basics and just doing your patriotic duty. Our soldiers are not over there murdering Afghans - they distribute food and clothes, they build building, they help with getting clean drinking water. In fact, as part of the counterinsurgency program - our soldiers are FORBIDDEN to engage in any combat if there is a chance that a civilian may be in the way.

2 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion.



Buck Field says:
Hi Rebecca,

If we both agree that the US did not go to war for WMD's, do we consider those positive WMD claims to have been lies?

0 of 3 people think this post adds to the discussion.




Rebeca Argiro says:
I do not think they were lies on the part of our president. I feel like someone in the network that is our government, made up bad intel, and thats how we ended up in that predicament.

1 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.



Buck Field says:
Hi Rebeca,

I certainly agree with the contributory causes you mention, but I don't think they preclude criminality. Just because someone else makes up bad intel, it has no basis on whether I commit some crime or other, it only means I have a potentially better excuse.

If evidence indicates "bad intel" resulted from administration pressure, deliberate manipulation, coordinated deception, and apparently: intentional ignorance, I think we might want to reject the ignorance defense, wouldn't we?

Example: Jon claims that he wants to kill Bill, and begins following Bill to and from work. Jon draws Bill's driving routes with times at several intersections labelled "poss. collision spot". One intersection is circled.

In a few weeks Jon is driving his car and has "an accident" at the circled intersection, killing Bill. A tox test reveals Jon was impaired on prescription drugs while at the wheel of the vehicle.

Jon's defense is that he was impaired, had no intent to kill Bill, and should not be held responsible for murder. He admits mistakenly taking a prescription improperly, but claims anyone could have made such an oversight based on the doctor's complex instructions.

Based on Jon's actions prior to the accident, can we infer intent to harm Bill regardless of the medicine and doctor's instructions?

If we care about justice, law, and the evidence demonstrates motive, intent, and opportunity beyond a reasonable doubt, I believe citizens in a democracy have an obligation to make a determination and take appropriate action for the good of the country as best we can.

What do you think?



Rebeca Argiro says:
Your definition of justice and law does not apply when fighting an enemy who doesn't play by the rules.

I don't think we can hold the soldiers them selves accountable for the mistakes of our government. I think that the sacrifice those people make are much more than you and I ever will. So for me, I know that the ends justifies the means. I know that the reason the gov't gave to go to war was inaccurate,however, I still believe that we needed to go to war; just for different reasons.

So who exactly do you feel should be punished for the inaccuracies of going to war? The president? His advisor? My husband? I don't see why it matters; it is a known fact that the middle east harbors terrorists that have violated the United States and killed our citizens. Reason enough to go to war; they didn't need to fabricate anything about WMD's.



Buck Field says:
Hi Rebeca,

Since I provided no definition of justice, I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with.

No one advocates holding soldiers responsible for mistakes of government, not even Osama bin Laden. He holds all invaders, (and Americans generally), accountable because we live in a democracy and failed to use our democratic power to stop the violent conquest of muslim countries, and stop US Govt. support for brutal tyrannies in the region, like Mubarak's Egypt, Hussein's Iraq, the Shah's Iran, the Saud's Saudi Arabia, and so on. He fought Soviet invaders for the same reasons.

I would ask this question: Do you really want the most evil (who "don't play by the rules) to control our morals? I don't. If we set our own morals to determine how to respond to evil, (perhaps using Christ's teachings), the world would be a better place.

Unless we are going to be unethical, we have to say that not only just for the U.S., but rather: if _anyone_ violates and kills people in another country, that country has "reason enough to go to war".

In other words: if it is wrong for them, it is wrong for us. Osama's justification for the NY attacks was that the U.S. has been killing and crushing Muslims in those countries for many decades.

Regrettably, that accusation had merit, just as it did against the Russians. If nations (and people) always claim self-defense, (even the Nazi's), how shall we respond to threats? As Jesus did, or like Hitler did?

0 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.



Rebeca Argiro says:
Unless we are going to be unethical, we have to say not just for the U.S., but rather: if anyone violates and kills people in another country, that country has "reason enough to go to war".
-How can this be Osama's justification? What did our citizens directly do to the people of Afghanistan that should warrant that sort of action? I hate to suggest it, because I know you trying to play devils advocate, but you sound like a Bin Laden supporter.
Regrettably, that accusation had merit. I don't think either of us thinks "war" is a proper response, do we?
-I think that after 9/11 we had every reason to go to war. I supported that decision, and I still do. As I remember, I was a junior in college and watched in the student union as unknown enemies flew the 2nd plane in to the one of the WTC towers. The terror and sadness of that day will never go unforgetten for me. I wish that the government hadn't tried to sell us on their WMD campaign. I would have supported them if they had told us that they were going to get the SOB's who killed our citizens on American soil.
failed to use our democratic power to stop the violent conquest of muslim countries, and stop US Govt. support for brutal tyrannies in the region, like Mubarak's Egypt, Hussein's Iraq, the Shah's Iran
-we got Hussein finally! we needed allies in the middle east to accomplish that! Honestly answer that you believe Osama killed a bunch of our citizens because he was mad we didn't stop tyranical leaders? Osama is a tyranical leader of an outlaw organization. They kill, rob and opress the people in their populous regions.
Do you really want the most evil to control your morals?
-I control my own morals. I choose who to support. I do believe that we should be given MORE options for things that we could support...(i.e. more than the repubs and dems).




Buck Field says:
Hi Rebecca,

You state after 9/11, "we had every reason to go to war" with the goal of getting "the SOB's who killed our citizens on American soil".

If Muslims believe they "have every reason to go to war" to get those responsible for killing Muslims in Muslim lands, was it wrong for them to support Osama's terrorist war against brutal Soviet conquests in the 1980's?

0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.




Winter says:
Hi Buck,

Interesting conversation BTW.

There is a lot of geopolitical factors that affect the reasons why nations go to war. Since you touched on the issue of the "brutal" Soviet conquests in the '80s here are some of the reasons why the countries involved in the Soviet-Afghan War fought.

Pakistan: they wanted a bulwark and, to a greater extent, use the Afghan jihad against India. They were not against Soviet intervention but they realized that they can benefit from the weapons and training being given by the USA (through the CIA) on the jihadists and use that "training" (i.e. trained guerrilla fighters) against a possible future conflict against India.

Soviet Union (Russia): they saw a communist regime being threatened by Islamist fundamentalism. At first they thought that Najibullah (then the endorsed Soviet ruler of Afghanistan) could defeat the insurgency but when it became apparent that he cannot, the Politburo decided to intervene.

USA: we saw the Afghan conflict as a way to give the Russians a taste of their own Vietnam (it is a fact that Russian Spetznaz and military advisers helped the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War).

There are a lot of factors that affect why nations go to war with morals being the least of them.

As for me, I simply wanted to know whether this was a good film or not.

Cheers!

Dotting the landscape are UNHCR tents, which are used to house the many refugees in the region.

From wikipedia: "Over 1 million Afghans were killed. 5 million Afghans fled to Pakistan and Iran, 1/3 of the prewar population of the country. Another 2 million Afghans were displaced within the country. In the 1980s, one out of two refugees in the world was an Afghan.  Along with fatalities were 1.2 million Afghans disabled (mujahideen, government soldiers and noncombatants) and 3 million maimed or wounded (primarily noncombatants)." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ These tents may or may not actually house refugees, as the tents have become popular with the Kuchis, a large nomadic tribe that forms the backbone of goat trade. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuchis

Buck Field says:
Hello Winter,

I would agree that some people in the countries you list wanted, saw, and/or thought in the way you describe. My belief is that if we don't understand the philosophy we are using to select one theory or explanation over another, we cannot improve our thinking.

This is what I'm trying to address with comparative questions in disagreement with Rebecca's apparent belief that we can simultaneously be ethical, in favor of killing others, and outraged when "our" people are killed. This seems more clearly inconsistent when, for example, the long history of US killing in Afghanistan, Arabia, Iran, here in Chile, and elsewhere seems completely unknown to US residents who advocate for reckless mass killing in a manner hard to distinguish from revenge. Note the language of R's justifications. There exist many statements by Nazi generals justification for death camps which are more measured and restrained. In the US however, such ferocious, radical "arguments" typically raise little if any concern, especially in military families, and for well-known reasons. My best friend led a SF team in Haiti decades ago, and the myths he believed about that country's history were as shocking as the vast ignorance which went with it.

Films like Restrepo provide a comforting mythology which I think dangerous to our national interest. People are told, for example that "faith" (not thinking critically) is morally good. God and country are merged in a patriotic religion very similar to those of other imperial examples. This theme recurs from the empires of the Romans, Spartans, Aztecs, Chinese, Japanese, Persian, Napoleonic, British, and continues on with the American Empire.

So long as our population remains blinded, kept in ignorance of history, the current structure of our society, and critical thinking skills needed to understand and plan good responses, hard collapse is inevitable. I don't want to see the US go through (or commit) the violence, misery and suffering that has resulted every time empires have been in our situation.

This is why Restrepo, and the vast amount of similar propaganda distresses me so. For the same reason I can't consider Restrepo a "good" film any more than I could consider "Der ewige Jude" a good film - discussing the details of cinematography or sound editing, ignores vastly more important issues with which intelligent patriotism and simple human morals are concerned.

0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.



Nursing with compassion says:
Buck you need to read more as you seem more comfortable assessing and judging the events of war from the safety of home. You don't know of what you speak except from a biased view point from a book. Read Inside the Revolution or the Epicenter. It will give you an insight into why we are fighting this war. You are spouting off diatribe that has been handed you from a copysheet on public radio or public news.





Buck Field says:
Hello Nursing,

Yes, it is true I am more comfortable assessing and judging events from safety rather than in dangerous environments. Insinuations to the contrary indicate dishonesty.

You are also correct asserting I am biased, as is everyone. Beliefs that infallibility is accessible to humans (e.g.: via deities) is foolish and dangerous. The importance of philosophy is that it provides tools to choose biases. Those who do not choose their biases have them imposed upon them without their knowledge, often by organized groups.

The fact that you consider biases in favor of rational, critical thinking to be "spouting off" while advocating guidance from Rosenberg is disappointing. He is deeply committed to belief in magic, spirits, and the notion that stone age semi-literates are better able to inform us about reality and living well than science and basic human compassion. He justifies this with a "faith" that is indistinguishable from delusion.

In this way, he is similar to Junger & Hetherington, directors of Restrepo. They choose one particularly narrow view, (American) and tell a compelling story which lacks greater, more compelling problems because of this viewpoint. Rosenberg chooses an even narrower view, (Christian Evangelical American) and tells compelling stories of personal tragedy and triumph, but which lacks any reference greater, more compelling problems because of this viewpoint.

Perhaps if you knew more of the history of U.S. intervention, and the history of Christianity better, you might criticize my position meaningfully. This is actually a hope I explained to my daughters yesterday: that the tough critic is an opportunity to learn. Sycophantic praise tells one nothing and similarly, general criticism like yours offers no opportunity to explore that comes from well-researched factual details applied via a well-formed analytical method. Your post lacks these - but if you (or anyone) offers specific, well-supported criticism, I would be happy to have that opportunity to grow, reconsider my opinions, and learn something.


Michael T. Heider (Gainesville, FL United States)

This documentary, more than any other film, has convinced me of the coming downfall of our great nation. It shows an occupying army in a vast wilderness, a wilderness where countless armies have gone to die in the past. A culture vastly different than ours is ignorantly expected to join "our side" to vanquish a depraved enemy called the Taliban. We do not see any Taliban the whole movie. What you do see are murdered civilians. (Collateral damage in Army speak.) You also see immature soldiers, both enlisted and officer alike. In one scene an arrogant, cocky captain promises schools, hospitals, roads to the local elders in exchange for their support. Promises from an army captain who will be long gone, along with the occupying army, before any such projects are completed.

In another scene, an Afghani's cow is shot by American troops. When the local asks for fair compensation, he is given the weight of the cow in foodstuffs, not a replacement cow. Some system of law and equity. But such is the unilateral rule of government, and the US government is no different. Perhaps it is worse because we proclaim to stand for freedom and individual rights.

The US has succeeded in spending trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that is the sole objective. As it was in Vietnam, Korea and all the other conflicts that our war based economy has sold the American people.

As Celine said: "We've no use for intellectuals in this outfit. What we need is chimpanzees. Let me give you a word of advice: never say a word to us about being intelligent. We will think for you, my friend. Don't forget it." I wish more of the members of the US military would wake up and think for themselves. They are not protecting our liberties, but instead they are giving our country massive debts that surely will lead to our demise in the near future. Tolstoy put the blame of the Napoleonic invasion of Moscow on the individual soldier who followed his orders, and I do too. It is not brave to fail to think, it is foolishness.


Ronald S. Rivas says:
i bet you where one of those liberal coward hiding under his desk during 9/11 .lets also mention korean war because korea would be better of under communism right (`and the military is civilian controlled you lib keep watching bill maher and micheal moore because they all ways tell the truth and have no agenda right')


Michael T. Heider says:
First off, your capitalization, spelling and grammar are sorely lacking. But I will try to reply to your post in a coherent fashion. As for my political affiliation, I am as far right (libertarian) on the spectrum as you can go without reaching total anarchy (not chaos mind you, anarchy). That means my contempt for the wealth redistribution, criminal / confiscatory policies of Moore and Maher is infinite. But what I can't understand is why Republican/conservatives don't see the use of force via the military as being as evil as say abortion (which I oppose as a violation of a child's rights)? Certainly S Korea is much better off due to our intervention. But the Millions of dead are not better off. Where is their voice? And what about Cuba? Congo? Why not invade these places? China also violates civil rights, shall we fight them? I can assure you I would take being alive under the Taliban to being dead under Karzai. But I digress, my point of reviewing the film was simply to state I walked away from the film disgusted on how ignorant and disrespectful the soldiers were in the film. We don't belong in Afghanistan, and we will one day leave having accomplished nothing as in Vietnam. And I was not scared on 9/11, as I know America is amazingly strong because of our individualism and rugged self reliance. We will only be brought down by enemies in our own Government who continue spending us into destruction.



zos56 says:
I think you are a little confused. Amazon reviews are meant to provide comment on a particular product (in this case a documentary) not American foreign policy in Afghanistan (or anywhere else for that matter). If anything, it seems to have been very successful in its intent by your own reckoning. So why one star?


Michael T. Heider says:
Why five stars by the numerous reviewers? The message it was conveying was a very poor one, in my opinion. On a side note, the film lacked any sort of plot or character connection. Besides, a 5 star review, based on your rubric, would be much less likely to be read.



K. Nielson says:
So why don't you just leave the United States and live in another country? Wherever you go, i'm sure you will find an imperfect political system called government for you to annoy. In a democratic society, law is what is most beneficial to the majority of the population. Understand that it is your brain that cannot see the rationalism (frontal lobe) expressed by that majority.