Teaching Algebra II The Right Way: By Applications! (2)

3. Simple Machines

We continue examining more applications to elicit student interest in Algebra II. The great thing about these applications, to do with simple machines, is that most can easily be constructed by the teachers to achieve a hands on effect.  We look first at a simple pulley system:

The pulley shown in 3(a) is a single movable pulley, in contrast to the Atwood machine which is a single fixed pulley. In operating such a pulley, say to lift a weight w, the force applied (F) must move twice as far as the weight w = mg. The mechanical advantage (assuming no friction) is s/d -  which is the displacement (s) of the applied force, how much it moves, divided by the distance (d)  the weight is moved. Since for Fig. 3(a) if the weight w is moved 1 m then the force F is moved 2 m. Thus, s = 2' and d = 1' so: w/F = s/d or F = wd/s = ½ w.

Example: A student sets up a pulley system using a mass of 0.5 kg which moves 0.5m. What is the displacement for an applied force F = 4N? (Take g = 10 ms^-2  )

In this case, the weight w = mg = (0.5 kg) (10 ms^-2  ) = 2 N
One needs to make the displacement s, the subject, from the equation F = wd/s.

Then: s = wd/ F  =   (2N) (0.5m)/ 4N  =   1.0 N-m/ 4N  =  0.25m

In Fig. 4A below, a variant of the earlier pulley system (a bit more complex) is depicted, called the "wheel and axle" (A) and we see also grouped pulleys (C) and multiplied strings(B). The wheel and axle is of particular interest in that it makes use of two different radii, an inner small one, r and a larger outer one R. If the depicted wheel (Fig. 4(A)) moves through one complete revolution, the distance the force will move is just d = 2πr. Meanwhile, the distance the force moves will be s = 2πR. If we take the mechanical advantage: M.A. = s/d = (2πR)/ (2πr) = R/r, then:

mg/ F = w/F = R/r and so: F = (r/R)w which is the law of the wheel and axle.
Example problem: In the wheel and axle device (Fig. 4 (A)) the radius r = 1 cm and R = 23 cm. Find the mechanical advantage and the applied force needed to lift a load of 80 N.
Solution:

In any verbal algebra problem (I or II) it is essential to identify the unknowns. In this case, we seek the applied force, F and the mechanical advantage, M.A. We also need to identify what we already know: thus load = weight = mg - 80N. R = 23 cm, and r = 1 cm.

Since: M.A. = s/d = (2πR)/ (2πr) = R/r, then:
M.A. = R/ r =  23 cm / 1 cm = 23

The applied force F can then be obtained via the ratio relationship:

w/F = R/r  =  23

Or:  F = w/23   = 80 N/ 23 = 3.47 N


Lastly, we come to perhaps the most famous machine of all, the lever. Archimedes, the ancient Greek physicist and mathematician, is quoted as saying: "Give me a lever long enough and I will move the Earth!". A basic depiction of a workable lever is shown in Figure 5.

The lever principle is applicable to everything from figuring out where two people ought to sit on a teeter totter to achieve balance, to the respective distances of two stars in a double star system, from their mutual center of gravity.

Basically a load L is placed at one end which we wish to lift by applying a force F. Let the load be a distance a from the pivot, and the applied force acts at a distance, b. Then:

Force x distance from axis = load (mg) x distance from axis or:

F x b = L x a or F = (a/b) L = (a/b) mg.

This is called the "law of the lever". It helps to illustrate using a simple problem how it works:

Example problem:

A 50 kg concrete block has to be moved from the ground to a wheelbarrow and a workman is provided with a board 5 m in length. If the workman pivots the block at 3.5 m from one end and lifts from the other (assume g = 10  ms^-2 ) What applied force is needed to lift the block? What is the work done?

We have the effort distance, a = 5.0 m - 3.5 m = 1.5 m, and the load is:

w = mg = 50 Kg (10 ms^-2 ) =  500 N, with load distance a = 3.5m.

Then, since:

F x b = L x a, we have:

F = (a/b) w and F = (1.5 m/ 3.5m) 500 N = 214 N.

The work done is

Fs = (mg)d but (d/s) = (a/b)


 so Fs = (a/b) mg x 1.5 m = 321 J.


Additional problems:

1. a) In the grouped pulley system depicted in Fig. 4 (C) the force applied F will move 6 times as far as the load w. If the load has a mass of 40 kg, and assuming g = 9.80 ms^-2, find the applied force. Thence or otherwise, obtain the mechanical advantage of the system. If the force F is applied through 10 m what is the work done? (Work is defined as the force times the distance moved, i.e. against gravity, or W = F x)

b) Examine the pulley system shown in Fig. 3(b). How would the basic applied equation for force and mechanical advantage be changed compared to the pulley shown in Fig. 3(a)? (Given that:  F = wd/s = ½ w  for the single moveable pulley in 3(a))


2. A man raises a uniform plank 12' long and of weight 40 lbs. until it is horizontal. His left hand is on one end of the plank and his right hand is 3' from the same end. Assuming both hands exert vertical forces, find the forces exerted by each hand to support the plank.

3. In the sample lever problem it is feasible to reduce the work done to only 125 J by re-arranging the lever distances (effort and load distance). Using a sketch show how could this could be done and give the new applied force in this scenario.

4. The "line of centers" for a binary star orbit, in reference to the center of mass x, is shown below:

A O------------x cm-------------------------o B

The sum of the two stellar masses is given by:

m(A) + m(B) = 3.2 M_s

where M_s   denotes solar mass units.  If mass  m(B) = ½ m(A)  then find the distances Ax and Bx. Thence also find the masses of m(A) and m(B) in terms of solar masses (M_s ).


5. The sum of masses for a binary star system can also be obtained using Kepler's 3rd law:

m1 + m2 = a³/P²


Using this, where a = the separation of the stars in astronomical units (AU) , and P is the period for their revolution about the center of mass in years, find P if:

m1 + m2 =  1.8 solar masses and a = 0.16 AU.

About That Broncos - Ravens Game.........

LB Ray Lewis did not appear in the NFL Kickoff Game in Denver  on Thursday night. Neither did over a half dozen other key players from the SB winning team.

Okay, let's discuss that 49- 27  beat down of the Ravens by the Broncos two nights ago. Let's begin by clarifying language. Contrary to some deluded Broncos' fans it was not "revenge" for the January playoff loss. The latter totally eliminated the Broncos from contention, it was "one and done". Broncos' fans wailed in disbelief because their season was terminated.....no more going on. Finito.  The game Thursday night did not eliminate the Ravens in any manner, shape or form since they have 15 more games to play and....can still get into the playoffs and even eliminate the Broncos in them like they did last year (after the Broncos beat them 34-17 in Baltimore)

In order to be revenge, the costs exacted by a Ravens' defeat would have had to be at least relatively equal in magnitude to what they inflicted on the Broncos in January. They weren't. The Ravens move on to next team - Cleveland, Broncos didn't move on at all in January.

Next, the Broncos did not "defeat the Super Bowl champs" other than nominally. The team they played was the Baltimore Ravens, sure, but radically remade from the team that beat the Niners in February. For example, a significant chunk of the SB champion defense was gone, including: LB Ray Lewis, LB Donnell Ellerbe, LB Paul Kruger,safety Ed Reed, safety Bernard Pollard, LB  Brendon Ayanbedejo. The offense also suffered several hits, with power center Matt Birk retiring, Anquan Boldin traded to the Niners for draft picks, Ramon Harewood (released) and tight end Dennis Pitta injured in preseason. Recall that Pitta and Boldin were key playmakers in the Ravens' playoff run.

"But hey! The Broncos' team changed too!"

Yeppers! But they weren't the Superbowl champs! Bear in mind a SB team is defined by its specific players- members not the team name. 

Anyway, I could see the Ravens were going to lose Thursday night's game after two horrific injuries to offensive players: WR Jacoby Jones (who is also the team's return specialist) and Right Guard Michael Oher (made famous in the movie The Blind Side). Hideously, both injuries were "friendly fire" - each one a result of impact with one's own team mate.

Before I go on, recall Jones was the one responsible for the "Rocky Mountain Rainbow" - the killer catch that tied the January playoff game in regulation, see the play here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOeL1D8vMiI

Jones was about to field a punt Thursday night when teammate Brynden Trawick ran into him at the Baltimore 15. He ended up with a sprained knee and was knocked out of the game. This loss of Jones eliminated  one of the only reliable deep threats, and allowed the Broncs' secondary to gang up on Torey Smith, and Brandon Stokeley.  

The loss of Oher was equally hellacious, a result of teammate Marshall Yanda being pushed into him by a Bronco defender. Oher is out with another ankle injury and we don't know for how long. Until the injury, Oher had been doing a good job keeping Bronco defenders out of Flacco's face and the run game had a chance to getting going.  With Oher gone, the run game collapsed and Flacco ended up scrambling or dodging a lot of the time.

Meanwhile, on the other side, the Broncos' Offense pretty well found a new weapon in monster  6'7" TE Julius Thomas.  Thomas ran through Ravens' defenders with ease scoring two TDs. The guy was simply too big to bring down.

Yeah, the game could have turned differently had Ravens' coach John Harbaugh tossed a red flag after a dropped ball by Wes Welker of the Broncos. The problem was the replay wasn't televised on the stadium's jumbo screen so Harbaugh couldn't be sure. He didn't want to lose a time out if wrong.  Still, one of the coaches had the responsibility of getting the info to him after seeing the network replay.  Had that been done, it would have been Ravens' ball. As it was the Broncs marched down to get a TD.

Another comment: Dallas Clark who was sure handed in his prime (at Indy), doesn't seem so now. He dropped five of 12 passes, including one sure TD (as he was about to cross  the goal line at the end of the half) and it slipped from his hands. Clark and other newcomer Brandon Stokely were to be the answers to a departed Boldin but from where I sat, it didn't appear they could replace anyone. Stokeley for his part was often out of breath and showing his age, like Clark.

The Ravens at least have ten days to recover and they might get Jones back by the game in Cleveland. In the meantime they are searching for other replacements, free agents, to fill the obvious  holes - but it won't be easy. As I told wifey after Boldin was traded, that might be the worst mistake the Ravens made. Boldin was a tough, high traffic receiver and the Niners now -because of nabbing him - will probably be the team to beat.

As for the Denver Broncos, congrats and hats off to them for taking the first game of the season, and getting a measure of ersatz retribution on Baltimore. Manning's 7 TDs were a Broncos' record and he could have had 8, had a knuckleheaded Denver safety, who intercepted Flacco,  not dropped the ball in pre-celebration before crossing the goal line for what should have been a pick six.

The Packers, my team, meanwhile face the Niners on Sunday in Frisco. It will be a good test to see if they can control Colin Kaepernick this time. Also if they can emulate the toughness the Ravens did against the Niners in the SB, and beat SF this time, getting a measure of retribution for last year's one and done.
------

Footnote: It shouldn't be necessary to say this, but those who've never played ANY sports in their lives - except maybe tiddly winks- have no business criticizing true football fans. One blogger dunderhead, it has come to my attention, seems to believe he's a football fan when: a) he's NEVER played the game in his life, and b) can't tell a punt from a kickoff and doesn't know a wideout from a tight end. He also evidently claimed he is a fan of "Dallas" and "the Broncos" - when he likely couldn't name the main Bronco (or Cowboy) offensive players without googling. He then apparently had the chutzpah to insinuate many of us (avid football fans) "never played a contact sport in our lives" when it doesn't matter - since most football fans haven't played football anyway - though I did at intra-mural tag level at Pace High. But this is hilarious coming from a guy whose only vested interest was in trying out for the cheerleader squad at Pace - when they wouldn't let him on the football team (after one materialized).  It's also amusing how he takes football fans to task for "gobbling brats, hot wings and beer" - when this little dork eats three or four whoppers every day - probably explaining most of his health problem and why he has to beg for $$$ on his blog.

TEACHING ALGEBRA II THE RIGHT WAY! USING APPLICATIONS!

According to the author of the HARPERS piece ‘Wrong Answer’, one gripe of Algebra II students is the ‘bait and switch’ tactics often used in their textbooks. The author cites a caption introducing Chapter 8 of the Algebra II Common Core text which displays a Basilisk lizard racing across the surface of a body of water – and there’s a hint (in the caption) of applying algebra to find the “surface tension” and application  – but nothing manifests. It’s a dead end!

The author, Nicholson Baker,  then exposes the scam:

“There’s nothing about surface tension or walking on water in Chapter 8, and indeed the caption would puzzle an expert on reptilian locomotion- since basilisk lizards don’t actually rely on surface tension to run on water. They’re like heavy striders”

He then goes on to explain the real physics, which attributes the lizards’ water skimming ability to “relying on the momentary inertia of the boluses of water beneath its long toed feet.”  In other words, certain discrete semi-separate masses of water (boluses) possess the property of inertia (resistance to displacement) when the reptile scampers over them – thereby allowing it to appear to skim the surface of the water if fast enough. But again, no algebra is shown to be applied.
 

Instead of teaching slavishly (and abstractly – i.e. via formal definitions), to a text, why aren’t various applications emphasized to really get students engaged? In this and two more blogs I will show a variety of ways to apply algebra to drum up of the interest of Algebra II students.  Each application requires only a passing or basic introduction to certain algebraic principles without going hog wild into abstraction, i.e. trying to get a kid to differentiate between continuous and non-continuous rational functions. In the case of an applications –based course, the question of whether functions employed are continuous will arise naturally – say in the course of discussions, or the applications.

 

 

1. Application to the Number Line:
 

One of the foremost concepts any student of algebra needs to master is the number line. There have been various ways to present it, but the most sterile is the teacher simply drawing a boring line on a blackboard and filling in numbers - positive and negative- at regular intervals. A better way is to introduce an immediate application, which demands the use of such numbers - say the stellar magnitude scale shown above.

 

 

If the students are told there is a way to tell the brightness of one star from another, they ought to immediately become curious. You then let them know the brightest stars are assigned negative numbers and the less bright positive ones. A class exercise would be to mark out an extended magnitude scale, say from (-26.5) at one end, to maybe +10 or +15  at the other. You can then use a star atlas to write the stellar magnitudes on the board - or on whatever medium is applicable - and let the kids fill them in.

 

 2. Kinematic applications:
 

Number line too boring?

 

Then one can really get into the 'nitty gritty' with the application to kinematics and dynamics. In this case, the motion of some object, say motor vehicle, is recorded on a distance - time or other (velocity v. time) graph, such as shown below and the results interpreted.

The top graph gives the displacement s in terms of the time as: s = 2t. The bottom graph gives the velocity based on this motion, which will be: v = s/t = 2t/t = 2, say in meters per second. Since there is no initial velocity, u = 0, then (v – u)/ t = 0 and the slope the v-t graph is zero. Meanwhile, the graph of the s-t graph (top) has constant slope. In either of these instances one can infer there is uniform motion and hence Newton’s 1^st law of motion applies.

 

 

 The basic equations of kinematics can then be derived or given, allowing all sort of interesting problems to be worked out. These equations include:

 

 

1) v = u + at

 

 

which relates the final velocity to u, the initial velocity and then to the acceleration a and time it is in motion, t.

 

2) s = ut +  ½ at²

 

This relates the distance traveled to the initial velocity u, the time t, and any acceleration a, If the initial velocity u = 0 then, s = ½ at²

3) v²  =  u²   + 2as
 

A different form relating final velocity to initial velocity u, and distance covered, as well as acceleration.  Remember, that when one moves on to calculus, the primary bugbear of all students is algebraic manipulation (say using partial fraction decomposition),  not recalling continuous and discontinuous functions and their properties.  A good exercise for students is to change the subjects for the different kinematic equations, which the teacher can propose for different circumstances.

 

For example, take equation (2). Now, apply it to a falling body, say a rock, dropped from a tree 20 m high. Then we know s = 20 m, and the initial velocity u = 0. So, how long it will it take to reach the ground? You need to solve for t, the time. (You can take g = 10 ms^-2  to keep it simple, or use 9.8 ms^-2 .)

 

 

In the case of equation (3) maybe a car initially moving at 30 m/s brakes to 10 m/s and does so in two seconds. How would you find the deceleration a? Would you need more than one kinematic equation to find it?

 

 

Application problems:
 

 

1) A car moves at 10 m/s for a period of 5 seconds then slows to 5 m/s for the next 10 seconds. Draw a graph showing the complete motion. What is the speed of the car after 2.5 seconds? What is its speed after 8 seconds? What is the total distance covered over 15 seconds? Over the first 5 seconds?

 

 

2) A go Kart starts off with an initial uniform velocity of 2 m/s for 5 s. It then accelerates to 3 m/s in 1 second and sustains that for 3 seconds. What is the distance it covers?

 

3) A car is traveling along a level road at 50 km/h, then it speeds up to 80 km/h over a period of 5 minutes. Find the acceleration in m/s/s and the distance covered in the time, in m if it maintains the final velocity for 1 minute. (Take 1000 m = 1 km, 1 h = 3600 s)

Think Romney Wouldn't Have Planned Syria Attack? Think AGAIN!

"Today we start a war in the Persian Gulf if the right thumb comes up. But if the left thumb comes up then we bomb Syria! Both come up and we do both! Heh, heh, heh!"





It's passing unbelievable but some necrophilous, Right wing bloggers actually believe Obama is unique in planning an attack on Syria. While calling him "O'Bummer" they assert - I kid you  not- that they'd actually like to see a nuclear war unfold on the scale depicted in the 1983 Brit film 'Threads' and then they could see all of us who voted for Obama last November "running and screaming like pussies with our skin burning off."


Hmmmmm......typical necrophilous bombast and bluster, but they miss the point. Had the Mittster been elected he'd be planning a similar assault, if not worse. It's not the MAN, Reich wing dumbos, it's the Neoliberal war -for -capital Washington consensus! And that means when you're the man in power, okay let me rephrase that....when you're the guy that gets elected, you toe the line of the Capitalist Neoliberal War State. That easy enough for you?

Since most of these Reich wing necrotics have the attention span of gnats and the memories of amoebae, it pays to refresh their minds as to what Mitt actually said in one of his debates, the Monday, October 22nd, foreign policy debate. As I noted in my blog of the next day, recapping the debate:

"On every issue, from Libya, to Syria, to use of drones, to leaving Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Egypt and deposing Mubarak, Romney sided with Obama. It was more like being in an 'echo chamber' than watching a debate! "

I also noted earlier how Romney at an APAC confab, admitted he'd  "send battle ships into the Persian Gulf and fire missiles on Tehran if need be."

If need be? Or if the capitalist warmonger state and its shadow oligarchs dictated it? More likely the latter. And, of course, if he felt no hesitation about lobbing Tomahawks into Iran, he'd have fewer lobbing them into Syria ......or anyplace else the war hawks demanded. Because see, since JFK's assassination, THEY are the ones running the country and its military- national security policy. This is the point to which we've arrived and presidents (with some minor latitude on timing of attacks) are merely 'yes' men.

This is hard for the  Right's nuts to grasp, only because they deliberately eschew conventional conspiracies in favor of the truly whacked out ones, like: FEMA and the UN setting up concentration camps - after they seize the guns, or Obama really being a Muslim and having some pact with them, or his Affordable Care Act being a device to sneak socialism into the country. Hey, dunderheads, the ACA was originally a Republican plan, actually conceived by Nixon in his era! Oh, btw, Romney implemented a smaller scale version of it at the state level in Massachusetts. It was called "Romney care". 

See also: http://www.salon.com/2013/09/05/10_weirdest_right_wing_christian_conspiracy_theories_partner/

But the intricacies of state power and its connections -networks is not a strong suite of the Right. They simply can't fathom that a hidden cabal of high profile  militarists, oligarchs (such as belong to the Bilderberg group) could possess such power as to really call the shots behind the scenes - as opposed to a single president. Hence, without this insight, they look at each escapade as one man's folly or decision as opposed to the dictates of the hidden Puppeteers. This means, of course, they will never able be able to grasp politics at the deep level....or what we call deep politics.

The bare truth is that even if Romney had been elected back in November, we'd be going through pretty well the same shit right now - maybe even worse. With Romney "in charge"- and a horde of neocons like William Krystal to back him, you'd not just see a two day strike but full regime change a la Saddam in Iraq, with all that implies.

The sad aspect is that the necrophilous righties will never get that....but remain convinced it's all Obama's doing right now, and we who voted for him deserve to be burned alive in a nuclear holocaust. Oh, as for them? They say they don't mind burning up in a nuclear war too so long as they see us "O'Bummer voters" getting it in the end!

Written like true necrophilous psychopaths!

The Hubris and Folly of Empire: How Many More Lies Will We Be Told?

"Violence can never bring peace! War is War!" - Pope Francis, admonishing the U.S. Empire not to strike at Syria as any kind of solution.

"Secretary of State John Kerry made it abundantly clear during a congressional hearing on Tuesday that he is ready to ask someone to be the first to die for a mistake, and did so with a barrage of gibberish so vast that it bent the light in the hearing room.  He insisted with table-pounding vehemence that the president is not asking America to go to war by asking America to flip missiles and bombs into Syria, because it totally won't seem like war to us. - William Rivers Pitt, today on smirkingchimp.com

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." - President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address, January, 1961.


Is the U.S. an Empire? Without a doubt! Author Gore Vidal pinpointed the emergence of the American Empire when he noted (Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta, 2002, p. 124)


"Since 1950 the United States has fought perhaps a hundred overt and covert wars. None was declared by the nominal representatives of the American people in Congress…they had meekly turned over to the executive their principal great power to wage war. That was the end of that Constitution”.

A sobering look at the consolidation of the American Empire (up to 2007) is provided in the book: The State of the American Empire, particularly the highlighted maps showing its expanse (pp. 70-71), as well as the total of U.S. military interventions from 1945-89 (pp. 76-77). Meanwhile, the comparable military spending per person (page 67) boggles the mind into insensibility. When one beholds these maps and the graphics, one rightfully wonders what current pundits' objections - that the U.S. is "not an Empire" - are all about.

An additional insight is provided with the global map of recipients of U.S. arms sales (pp. 72-73). Adjacent to the key, the author notes:

“The USA is the world’s largest arms exporter and the U.S. government manipulates this trade to influence world events”

Well, how exactly?  Let’s let the author answer this:

“Creating a dependency on weapons gives the USA direct control of a client country’s capacity to defend itself, or to wage aggression, and indirect control over its wider foreign policy”.

The author goes on:

"In the Middle East the U.S. maintains Israeli military domination through arms sales and other forms of aid, but also has Saudi Arabia and Egypt- potential adversaries of Israel- as its biggest customers, although it never arms them to a level of sophistication that will threaten Israel”


Since 2007, of course, the U.S. Empire has expanded massively. The United States now maintains 702 military 'installations' in 63 foreign countries. It has 4,471 bases altogether, according to the Defense Department's annual budget statement. These figures don't include bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're talking about our military presence in nations like Germany, South Korea, and Japan. ALL of these represent redundant costs since the wars that incepted the bases are now more than a half century over! While the total cost of these bases is kept secret, the best analysis I've seen estimates their ten-year cost at approximately $1 trillion, but this is probably lowballed.

What we the citizens need to grasp, is that if we're inhabiting an Empire we are inhabiting a war - addicted nation that must have ever more wars, conflicts and aggression to maintain its existing "security". In addition, Empires lean toward fascism ultimately, and this means: a) a weakened congress (no separation of powers)  which abdicates its declaration of war powers, ceding them to a run amuck "unitary" executive, and b) an expanded national surveillance state - which thanks to Ed Snowden - we now also are aware of and ought to be awarding him a freedom medal as opposed to calling for his head.

We also need to be historically literate as to what happens to all Empires! Bottom line: they collapse. Usually this isn't from without, i..e. external enemies, barbarians or "terrorists",  but from expanded massive debt owing to what has been called "military overstretch". The massive debt destabilizes internal domestic security, for example, when roads, bridges, water mains don't get repaired, and citizens find themselves poorer and living in an increasingly inequitable society because so much spending is allocated to warfare and defense. The figures for U.S. bases given earlier should alert everyone to the fact we're already in the zone of military overstretch.

More wars of influence are needed to sustain this overstretch, because the resources of those (designated "enemy") countries are the only way to try to pay off the  existing debt. But it never works, because like a coke addict, the war state must continually move on to its next 'hit'. As with all such preludes, the truth is the first casualty and that's what we've now found with this Syria attack prelude.  Now, according to additional reports from ABC News last night the Pentagon "has expanded targets" to be hit in Syria and also intends to use B-1 and B-52 bombers to drops tens of thousands of tons equivalent of TNT on these assorted expanded targets. This, in addition, to U.S. warships equipped with over 100 cruise missiles, all to be fired at targets at a cost of $2m each. (This as we face an increase in the debt ceiling past $16.7 trillion in a matter of weeks)


The news of the expanded targets and increased bombing capacity discloses we've already been lied to. We had been informed at first it would only be a "limited strike" presumably with only cruise missiles, no heavy bombers. What next? What other lies? We've been told by Kerry "no boots on the ground" but as several pundits with clear heads noted (including Eugene Robinson on 'Morning Joe' this a.m.) no one can promise that.  In the laws and landscape of unintended consequences, make sure you factor in the immediate retaliation by Syria's allies - including Iran.

As Williams Rivers Pitt has already noted, Syria and Iran are strategic allies, pledged to each other's mutual defense. This means if the U.S. Empire launches an attack as currently described,  all the Iranian missile sites in the mountains above the Persian Gulf coast could launch their missiles in retaliation.  Rivers also noted that those Iranian missiles are not Iraqi Scuds, they are advanced enough to spoof Aegis radar systems, which means thousands of American service members currently manning our warships in the Gulf could very quickly be delivered into a watery grave.  Iran has also vowed to attack U.S.  Embassies in the region.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah as well as Iran are liable to launch massive terror, rocket and other attacks in Lebanon as well as Israel.  Israel is likely to strike back, and Russia has asserted (last night) it will respond to ANY U.S. aggression, though not elaborating.

Do we really want to go this route?  The 'powers that be'  claim the strikes will still be limited and the collateral damage will be restricted. They still also maintain this is a "punishment operation". Who are they kidding? Not the informed and historically literate citizen! As Chalmers Johnson has noted ('Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic', p. 27) the U.S. - despite pretentiously boasting what a sanctimonious nation it is, hence the only one qualified to dish out "punishments" to other nations,  has never been a signatory to Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions of Aug. 12, 1949.

This relates to the "Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1, June 8, 1977)" and explicitly states :

"It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of a civilian population such as: food stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive,"

Johnson notes the U.S.  flagrantly violated this Protocol in the first Gulf War - destroying facilities for water purification and sewage treatment plants resulting in "epidemics of cholera, gastroenteritis, and typhoid....leading to perhaps as many as 100,000 civilian deaths and a doubling of the infant mortality rate. "

Johnson cited Colonel John A.  Warden III's writings in his Airpower Journal.  He went on to observe that a team from the Harvard School of Public Health suggested in May 1991, that "at least 170,000 children would die in the coming year from the delayed effects of the bombing."

In the meantime, what of the tolls, e.g. in Afghanistan and Iraq, in the wake of the  9/11 attacks. Johnson cites an excerpt from a '60 Minutes' interview with Madeleine Albright, by correspondent Leslie Stahl (p. 25). She asked:

"We have heard that about a half million children have died as a result of the sanctions in Iraq. That's more than died in Hiroshima. Was the price worth it?"

Albright replied:

"I think this is a very hard choice. But we think the price is worth it."

WORTH IT??? A Half million kids dead and the price was worth it?  But see, this is the Neoliberal 'war for capital-resources' in action and how it really has no concern for casualties at all. That's all bullshit. The only thing it cares about is making the planet safe for global capital! This is the primo reason the war makers want to strike Syria now as well, and devil take the hindmost.

But this is how hardcore Empires act. And it is also why our beloved "reps" mostly lie through their teeth. Last night, for example, on the ABC News, both John McCain and Dianne Feinstein were shown reacting to their constituents' pleas, i.e.  to vote against any attacks on Iraq. What were their smug replies? The Neoliberal security state quisling Feinstein merely smiled and assured the interviewer yes, her folks were against it "but then they don't know what I know."  Sound familiar? That's also the smug, smarmy ass riposte  she delivered two months ago,  to defend continued NSA spying after the Snowden PRISM and XKeyscore expose.

As for Insane McCain, well he claimed "the numbers are getting better the more town halls I hold." Really, Johnno? That's not what it looked like in the clips we saw.

The American, people - left and right (but obviously for different reasons) are four square against this foolish planned strike which will only unleash the dogs of war, as well as umpteen terror attacks in a blowback we can only try to imagine. We are all of one mind in stopping this thing before it starts - and it may well be one of the few times you see Atheists join hands with fundies and a pope in common cause.

If You're Against Radical Jihadists - You Need to OPPOSE Attacks on Syria!

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
— Martin Luther King, Jr.,

"As always, the war’s stated purpose — “a punitive strike against the Syrian government” — is just a cover story. The U.S. and its possible allies, France and Great Britain, all have an interest in regaining influence in Syria, which requires Assad’s collapse. But beyond the geopolitics, there are deeper and darker hidden motives for launching a bright new war. We, or at least our government and the economic interests it serves, are addicted to war. This addiction is the Washington consensus. Almost every politician who rises to prominence has to embrace this consensus."- Robert C. Koehler,  'Stopping A War Before It Starts', smirkingchimp.com today


The image this morning (on CBS's Early show) of rebels standing over butchered, headless bodies ought to be a last wake up call for Americans, i.e.  who the hell might comprise a large portion of Assad's opposition. It also brought to mind the video  images of a few months ago, when a rebel dug his paws into a downed Syrian regime defender, ripped out his heart, and ate part of it. Look, these oppositionists are not angels. (Assad sure as shit isn't either, but that's the point! It's an internal civil war between Sunni and Shiite sects of Islam!) Also we still don't know - despite even smarmy liberal bloviators - that this opposition or factions within it,  didn't actually launch the gas attacks to drag the U.S. into the fray. It's not incomprehensible, and despite all Kerry's gum flapping he hasn't presented any forensic evidence showing the gas was industrially manufactured - as opposed to home made.

On Steve Koroacki's MSNBC program ('UP') Sunday, guest Hillary Mann Leverett, professor at American University, came out swinging and gave a wake up call to the mainly pro-attack zombies:

'What if Assad didn't order this? What if this wasn't a Syrian troop chemical attack. What if this was perpetrated by al Qaeda affiliated oppositionists. The consequences here for going into Syria are even more grave than Iraq. Because if we go into Syria and the al Qaeda groups get away with mass chemical warfare- and that's what happened - and we think they're going to stop there - that's the definition of insanity."


Prof. Leverett then pointed out that the Russians and Chinese didn't pull their people out of Syria like the U.S.  but went to the last chemical weapons attack sites in March. What did they find? According to her:

"They did forensics on the ground themselves and found two striking things which have not been covered here in the press at home: One was that the rockets used to deliver those chemicals were home made rockets. Not military or industrially produced. The other thing they found is that the sarin was not military ordnance or industrially produced, it didn't include stabilizers. So maybe the Russians have a point."

Why haven't these been covered by the media at home? Maybe because they're as hot to trot for an attack as Obama and the M-I-C is! Maybe because they can't wait to televise another late night attack with flashes and noise that they seem to believe subs as a real life video game. But....the people on the ground won't be laughing or entertained.


Okay, let's cut the crap. Despite all the Neoliberal warmongering and pundit baloney and BS that  this planned attack on Syria is a "punishment operation" - let me make clear for all remaining sentient citizens that it's an act of war and will be perceived as such by Syria and its allies. Hence, it will invite retaliation and likely massive retaliation! There is no soft soaping this - and what is ambiguated by an above-the- law Empire as "punishment" will be seen by the sentient and sensible global citizen as a pre-emptive,  aggressive strike against a sovereign state - that hasn't killed one single American or demonstrably been proven to affect American interests.


It's not just me, a "rabid" die-hard liberal (actually socialist) saying this either! Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer of the Center for Advanced Defense Studies(appearing on MSNBC's 'The Cycle yesterday )  laid it on the line that NO , the U.S. isn't "following the world" (on any issuance of a "red line")  to address any humanitarian concerns in Syria,  it is pushing the world to follow its lead. But he added that this could have severe repercussions because no matter what we believe, our aggression and attacks will be regarded by the Syrians (as well as the Russians, Iran) as an act of war- inviting full retaliation which could assume myriad forms - from massive cyber attacks, knocking down power grids,  to Iranian missile attacks on the U.S. fleet, to Russian bombing of U.S. destroyers in retaliation for any collateral damage.

Lt. Col. Shaffer  also warned of the possibility of  accidental killing of their technicians,  who help maintain the Syrian air force. Think Putin wouldn't retaliate for killing Russian techs or other personnel? Think again!

And again, keep in mind the images of the radical jihadists we've already seen. Why are so damned many elites - who really don't have that much  real skin in the game (other than egos) -  convinced the jihadists are in the minority? And because of the assumption of jihadi minority status or having no part in the gas attacks, the U.S. can feel free to hurl cruise missiles into Syria.  Could it be an inability to think?  This is the hypothesis of the late Chalmers Johnson, in his book: Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. 

Johnson references Hanna Arendt's A Report on the Banality of Evil (p. 21) and the model of Adolf Eichmann as a "desk murderer" which also applied (according to Johnson) to  George W. Bush. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who "order remote controlled killing of the modern sort" including "the firing of cruise missiles from a warship at sea " or the "firing of a Hellfire missile from a Predator, unmanned aerial vehicle controlled by 'pilots' thousands of miles away". These cowards are also "desk murderers" and every bit the contributors to the banality of evil as Eichmann.

How do people, including leaders, become "desk murderers"? Johnson notes (p. 22):

"First, they lose the ability to think because, according to Arendt, 'thinking conditions men against evil doing'".

What  she means is that before one commits an evil act, if he THINKS properly first, he will insert the act into a frame of exterior reference to forecast the effects on all those affected. Like a chess player, he will be able to see 6-10 moves ahead on how he can't advance a certain aggressive plan (i.e. taking the opponent's queen) without serious penalty. Hence,  the thinker will see the adverse consequences his act will lead to, and back away from the precipice.

Let us bear in mind again, as I wrote before, many evil acts are committed with good intentions. The evil then inheres in improper thinking,  which feeds the creation of false beliefs i.e. "We must be the world's guardians of  international norms, law and morality and it's our right to punish all other nations if they act bad." And then leads to an apparent rationally justified evil act.

Johnson goes on (ibid.):

"Jerome Kohn adds, 'With some degree of confidence it may be said that the ability to think, which Eichmann lacked, is the precondition of judging, and that the refusal as well as the inability to judge- to imagine before your eyes the others whom your judgment represents and to whom it responds, invite evil to enter and infect the world'. To lack a personal conscience means 'never to start the soundless, solitary dialogue we call thinking."

What must the putative leader be wary of, whether military or political? According to Johnson (ibid.):

"Instantly and unthinkingly following orders, submission to clichés, stock phrases and adherence to conventional, standardized codes of expression and conduct - which have the socially recognized function of protecting us against reality. That is, against the claim on our thinking attention which all events and facts arouse by virtue of their existence."

Instead of going all around the G-20 in St Petersburg and trying to badger the assembled delegates into joining him in an act of evil folly, Obama needs to find a quiet room, and in his solitary being,  think of what he is emotively planning to do:  inflicting this long distance "limited punishment" on Syria. If he is still able to think and has not been overly preconditioned by conventional responses,  mental artifacts and expected codes (or HIS OWN "red lines"), he will see what he thinks is a national "good" is not the answer.

Let us hope he follows this advice!

On a further note, it's been reported (e.g. at salon.com) this morning that Pope Francis has urged leaders of the Group of 20 to abandon the “futile pursuit” of a military solution in Syria and work instead for dialogue and negotiation to end the conflict.  Obama, you paying attention?

See also:   http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/51460/all-scrubbed-up-nowhere-to-show

and:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-c-koehler/51459/stopping-a-war-before-it-starts

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/51820/syrian-rebels-embrace-al-qaeda

The U.S. : Rogue State or Global Citizen? The Jury Is Out

"The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough—more than enough—of war and hate and oppression."- John F. Kennedy, June 10, 1963 (Speech at American University)

In the horrific 1983 British film Threads, the nuclear destruction and termination of human civilization is effected after the U.S. and NATO intervene in Iran and exchanges lead to the accidental sinking of the Russian ship Kirov in the Straits of Hormuz.

Subsequently,  an accidental exchange of 2 tactical nuclear weapons (with radiation blowing over Pakistan) leads to escalation and a full scale nuclear war  within 24 hrs.- with 3,000 megatons exchange (210 megatons on the UK alone).

After the final exchange, when 80 megatons land on Sheffield, UK, the focus is on a family huddled inside their shock -wave blasted home as the radioactive debris descends - leading to non stop vomiting by all the members, then deaths of the parents (after losing all their hair and skin sores) then the daughter giving birth (9 months later) to a monster, that can best be described as a 'Rosemary's Baby' look- alike. The final scene shows the baby after its live birth, porcine features with rat-like ears and teeth exposed on its epidermis- while the poor, malnourished girl who just delivered it screams at the top of her lungs.

'Threads'  is not a film for the squeamish, nor was it meant to be. It was intended to be a cautionary tale against rash human actions - laden with arrogance and hubris - with the perpetrators unable to see ahead to the consequences of their  actions. It was intended to send the message: "Look, you idiots! It doesn't matter whether YOU think you're in the right for any given action or not! If by god you fuck it up - launch an aggressive strike with unintended consequences, there may be no turning back for any of us!"

Such warnings apply now as a congress all too willing in the past to be 'yes men' to the executive, is once more being drumbeaten into taking reckless action for "humanitarian purposes". But what kind of humanitarian purpose will it be if 1 million more Syrian refugees are created by our Tomahawk attacks, and they pour into adjacent Turkey and Jordan which already are at their tipping points?  You call that humanitarian? It's stupidity! Plus, we will likely kill as many or more via collateral damage as perished in the gas attacks (And contrary to the nattering nabobs - including liberals like Krystal Ball on MSNBC - we still don't know WHO was responsible!)

The money consumed by destroying those cruise missiles ($1 billion est.) by lobbing them into Syria ought to be used instead to provide support for the 2 million refugees already in Turkey and Jordan. This was the suggestion yesterday by Rep. Alan Grayson (FL) as he addressed a media simpleton on MSNBC who tried to compare not taking action to the Chamberlain appeasement at Munich. Well, Grayson raked the Neolib twerp's ass over the coals, drawing attention to his historical attention deficit disorder, for that one! (The correct comparison, as Grayson noted, was the run-up to the Iraq fiasco.)

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer of the Center for Advanced Defense Studies(appearing on MSNBC's 'The Cycle)  laid it on the line this afternoon that NO the U.S. isn't "following the world" (on any issuance of a "red line")  to address any humanitarian concerns in Syria,  it is pushing the world to follow its lead. But this could have severe repercussions because no matter what we believe, our aggression and attacks will be regarded by the Syrians (as well as the Russians, Iran and other actors) as an act of war- inviting full retaliation which could assume myriad forms - from massive cyber attacks, knocking down power grids,  to Iranian missile attacks on the U.S. fleet, to Russian bombing of U.S. destroyers in retaliation for any collateral damage.

Kerry basically said there's nothing to fret over re: Russia, but he's an idiot. How he has managed to get to the position of Secretary of State is beyond me. I guess politics and friendly Repukes (who relish his MA Senate seat) can make a difference. Anyway, as Lt. Col. Shaffer said, neither the Syrians or others affected will take any attack lying down. Besides, there are many ways the Russians could get involved, from an accidental strike on their naval base, to the accidental killing of their technicians who help maintain the Syrian air force. Think Putin wouldn't retaliate for killing Russian techs or other personnel? Think again!

Then there are the 50,000 Iranians who also are there in country, helping Assad's forces. Kill any of them and also watch as the Iranians retaliate. Who knows in what ways, but bear in mind, as with 9/11, the blowback can take years to unfold. Ask Chalmers Johnson who predicted (in Blowback) the 9/11 attacks because of our aggressive Middle East policies. Another thing, as Howard Fineman asked on the same MSNBC segment: 'Since when did the Democratic Party become the War Party'?

The notion we can just hurl cruise missiles into Syria with impunity and do whatever we like  (as self-proclaimed cop of the world- lacking any moral authority to be said 'cop')  is such a noxious, insane notion it is beyond the pale and makes us a rogue state, above the law - certainly above international law-  no matter what congress authorizes or not.

Lt. Col. Shaffer admonished Obama for his decision to go it alone, even with just the puny cover of congressional authorization. He stated that what must be done, to show the world we are not above the law - international law- is to take our case to the UN Security Council and behind the scenes make the political moves to get China and Russia invested in the proposal that it's in THEIR best interests to get Assad removed from power. But....contrary to asshole and idiot Bill Krystal (one of the foremost instigators of regime change in Iraq) it is NOT OUR business to regime change Assad.

But if we fire off a missile attack on Syria without UN concurrence,  we will expose ourselves as the outlaw rogue state everyone in the world believes we are. Worse, we will help to create a scenario that will likely quickly get out of control no matter how many supposed precautions we take.

In that case, a near future such as depicted on Threads may well be our sorry- ass lot.