For 9-11, To “Learn From History” Means Understanding Motivation Of World Trade Center Attackers

This 24.5 feet 3 ton twisted steel structure was once part of the World Trade Center destroyed on September 1, 2001 and is now in a memorial park in Beavercreek, Ohio. War memorials are generally sedate and thoughtful. The idea they should contain wreckage must be something different. But the war on terrorism is a different war than America has ever fought, because after 10 years it is on-going. Imagine WW2 going on interminably -- maybe, after ten years, communities would have displayed some of the awesome wreckage caused by the December 7, 1941 attack, as a memorial to those who lost their lives, but, also, as a constant reminder of the motivation for continuing war.

Sunday, Beavercreek dedicated a memorial — a 3 ton 24.5-foot high piece of rusted and twisted steel — in remembrance of 9-11. The DDN today published a large portion of the remarks given at the dedication from the featured speaker, Mark Marderosian,  “Freedoms That We Share Are Priceless.”

Mr. Marderosian started with the familiar quote from George Santayana, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it,” and said, “Every American has a sacred obligation to remember history and to teach their children that history.” He asserted that for Americans “most important of all, we have freedom,” and said that those who attacked the Twin Trade Towers were “determined enemies of those freedoms … cowards so contemptuous of free thought and open debate, so frightened by the innate yearning of the human spirit, that they would rather die than live in the world where some disagrees with them.”

A key part of learning form history, of course, is understanding the motivating forces in history. It’s an important question: “Why were we attacked?”

Marderosian seems to take a view of history that is the same as Republican presidential candidate, Rick Santorum, who in the last debate (see you-tube below) said, “We were attacked because we have a civilization that is antithetical to the civilization of the jihadists. And they want to kill us because of who we are and what we stand for, and what we stand for is American Exceptionalism. We stand for freedom and opportunity for everyone around the world, and I am not ashamed to do that.”

A very different view of history was given by Ron Paul’s response to Santorum: “As long as this country follows that idea, we are going to be under a lot of danger. This whole idea that the whole Muslim world is responsible for this and they are attacking us because we are free and prosperous, that is just not true. Osama bin Ladin and al Qaeda have been explicit. They have been explicit. And they wrote and said that we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians a fair treatment, you have been bombing … [loud audience boos] … I didn’t say that, I am trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing….  We had been bombing and killing hundreds and thousands of Iraqis for 10 years. Would you be annoyed? If you are not annoyed, then there is some problem!”

In a post on his web-site, “Learning Nothing from 9/11,” Paul quoted former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit Michael Scheuer as saying, “Our growing number of Islamist enemies are motivated to attack us because of what the U.S. government does in the Muslim world and not because of how Americans live and think here at home.”

Yes, it is important that Americans understand history, but history is not as simplistic as Marderosian and Santorum would have us believe. They offer comforting thoughts, but give a view of history that refuses to hold us accountable for any consequences of our own bad actions or our one-sided and unwise policies.

I agree that in this dangerous and crucial time, it is of key importance that Americans must learn from history. The question is, “whose view of history?” If we are not willing to study history to find authentic answers to difficult questions, according to the insight of George Santayana, we are “doomed.”

Posted in Local/Metro | 6 Comments

Progressive Democrat Bill Conner May Run For Congress From The Newly Formed 10th District.

Note: After writing this post, in response to my message urging his candidacy, I received this Facebook message from Mr. Conner: “ Mike,Sorry for the slow response. I was in Hillsboro laying brick. Thanks for the confidence. I would rather support another good candidate in 2012. I’ll run if no one who I can support steps forward. Bill”

The good news for Dayton Democrats is that it appears that Bill Conner. — the progressive Democratic candidate who opposed Steve Austria — will now live in the new 10th district. It appears Conner will offer a high quality choice for 10th district Democrats to select as their congressional candidate. According to his web-site Conner intends on seeking the Democratic nomination. I’ve tried to reach him by home to confirm his intention, but have not spoken with him yet.

The information on Mr. Conner’s web-site is impressive. And his facebook comments are impressive too. He shows thoughtful progressive positions on issues and he has great credentials and a great life story. My own judgment is that voters are ready to hear a progressive candidate and the Democrat for the 10th district should speak boldly. I like the fact that Mr. Conner has the guts to say, “Class Warfare Is Here.”

The 3rd Congressional District used to be Democratic. Dayton Democrat, Tony Hall, represented Dayton in congress from 1978 to 2000. But, after the 2000 census, the Republicans controlled the redistricting process and redrew the 3rd District to include heavily Republican areas — Clinton, Highland, and Warren Counties. So, for the last five elections, (2002 – 2010) the 3rd District has been owned by Republican Mike Turner.

The Democratic Party has had trouble fielding a good candidate. In two of those elections — 2006 and 2010 — the original Democratic candidate withdrew and a special election was required to field another candidate. The last special election resulted in the nomination of an especially nonviable candidate, a 25 year old student, Joe Roberts.

 

Posted in Special Reports | 2 Comments

In Coming Primary Battle, New Redistricting Map Appears To Give Austria Advantage Over Turner

It seems mathematical. According to the proposed redistricting plan, Republican Mike Turner’s 3rd Congressional District is merging with Republican Steve Austria’s 7th District and the new District will be Ohio’s 10th Congressional District. The current 10th District — Cuyahoga County — is represented by Dennis Kucinich.

It looks like the new 10th district will have more Republican voters from Austria’s old 7th district than Republicans from Turner’s old 3rd District, so, it appears that Austria will have the advantage in the coming primary battle between the two Republicans.

The proposed new map puts more more Montgomery County Democrats into John Boehner's 8th District. This makes it possible to put even more Republicans in the new 10th District. I'm thinking Austria has an advantage because I'm guessing the number of Republicans in the new 10th District in Montgomery County, that currently are in Turner's 3rd District, must be a smaller number than the combined number of Republicans currently in Austria's 7th District -- in Green, Fayette, Pickaway and Fairfield Counties.

This is how the districts currently look. In the proposed new map, Turner loses the Republicans in Highland, Clinton, and Warren Counties. Austria loses the Republicans in Perry and Clark Counties.

This is the proposed new map -- most of the districts are really wildly shaped, bizarre. It is so shamelessly gerrymandered as to be funny. The logic of this design was to produce a map that would send as many Republicans to Washington as possible and the new map should produce 12 Republican congressman and 4 Democratic congressman. Our democracy allows politicians to choose voters, rather than vice versa. Republicans are counting on controlling 75% of Ohio's congressional caucus, regardless that the state votes only about 55% Republican, or less, in congressional contests.

Posted in Special Reports | Leave a comment