| Webmaster |
United States
US, visis Land of the Free?
Speaking humbly, Randy Black rejects a New York Times editorial commended by
Ross Rogers, Jr.: "Ross Rogers Jr.'s assertion that it is unpatriotic to
charge foreigners $100 to apply for a visitors visa to the US is an unsupportable
position to take. Unpatriotic to whom?
It is VERY patriotic, in my humble opinion, to charge citizens from another
nation for the paperwork that must be accomplished in order for those folks
to visit the USA. He calls those visitors non-immigrant visa users. If they
can afford the vacation to the USA, they can afford a simple fee of $100 to
process their paperwork.
Mr. Rogers ignores the fact that the foreign citizen very obviously can afford
the $100 in the first place, since the plane ticket to the US from India or
other developing nations coupled with the room and board and tickets to Disney
World while here cost many, many times more than the $100".
RH: Randy omits a key passage from the editorial "Land of the Free? (New
York Times, 3/31/04) by Steven Clemons.. "Even if their applications are
rejected, citizens of developing nations must pay $100 for a non-immigrant visa
to the United States. The unfairness is obvious: people should not be charged
for something - in this case, a visa to the United States -that they do not
receive". I am sure that if Randy were forced to pay for something he did
not receive", he would not simply say =Too bad".
On the subject of visa charges, General Robert Gard reports: "I am going
to the APEC Education Ministerial in Santiago, Chile, the end of this month.
Having a tourist not an official passport, I will pay a fee of $100 to the Chilean
government as a cover charge". RH: Things have certainly changed since
my travel days. I hope Bob will send us a report on the APEC meeting.
The US charges $100 for a visa application, even if the visa is refused. Randy
Black rejects the protests this inspired: "Are US taxpayers to be required
to pay for processing of paperwork on the behalf of literally millions of "non-immigrant"
visitors to the US annually? The practice was implemented under the Clinton
administration, by the way.
I strongly believe that US taxpayers are in favor of those foreign vacationers
paying their own way. We are a "user-based" society, whether we like
it or not. We pay for the privilege of using our own National Parks, we pay
for using a toll bridge or toll road, we pay, in some cases, just to apply for
a job. For instance, American Airlines charges a $25 applications fee to apply
for a job, whether you get to an interview or not, much less to get the actual
job. I am certain that it is not the only firm to charge an application fee.
I suspect that many universities charge just to apply for admission.
The argument that the charge is somehow unfair to a prospective visitor from
France or Russia or India for the application to apply for a visa just does
not hold water. The unstated inference is that somehow the US makes a profit
off such application fees, and that other countries don't do the same thing.
Au contraire: Russia charges an application fee, whether or not the applicant
is successful, and charges the the same fee scale for the actual visa that the
US does, despite the fact that Russian visa employee salaries are about 1/20th
of their counterparts in the USA. The US, at least in the case of Russia, grants
more than 75% of the applicants their visa despite the fact that nearly one
third of visitors from Russia overstay their limits. Further, while a significant
number or Russians become illegals in the US, I cannot recall an instance where
an US citizen became an illegal in Russia. Yet, we must jump through incredible
hoops to get into Russia.
I have not surveyed other countries but suspect we are not the only country
to charge for using our Embassy".
The government and the press
In "Shut Up, War Critics" (Independent; 4/ 11/,04) Robert Fisk wrote:
" Just shut up. That's the new foreign policy line of our masters. When
Senator Edward Kennedy dubbed Iraq "George Bush's Vietnam", US Secretary
of State Colin Powell told him to be "a little more restrained and careful"
in his comments. I recall that when the US commenced its bombing of Afghanistan,
the White House spokesman claimed that some journalists were "asking questions
that the American people wouldn't want asked". Back in the early 1980s,
when I reported on the Iranian
soldiers on a troop train to Tehran who were coughing Saddam's mustard gas out
of their lungs in blood and mucus, a Foreign Office official told my then editor
on The Times that my dispatch was "not helpful". In other words, stop
criticizing our ally, Saddam".
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=5300
RH:Fisk's point is well taken, but, while in general I am a strong defender
of print journalists, their cocky attitude is sometimes alienating. Good journalists
have a professional attitude. In general, the US government is very open with
them.
Tim Brown criticizes the articles forwarded by Phyllis Gardner: "Just because
something is published does not prove it is true. Just because a lawyer defends
his client does not mean his client is innocent. Just because a politician from
one party criticizes a political opponent does not make the politician's charges
right. In the case of these particular articles, I am struck by the internal
contradictions involved. The Washington Post has long argued that we have been
acted unilaterally with the coalition of the willing, which is a farce: Now
it is arguing that because the troops of countries it has until now decried
as totally insignificant are being withdrawing, the US military position is
being severely undermined. The Post has also charged that the US bought the
few allies it has had. If the Post has been right, then they haven't stayed
"bought". Which is it?"
RH "Just because something is published does not prove it is true".
That should be borne in mind with regard to charges that the UN is guilty of
embezzling Iraqi oil for food funds. With regard to the allies who quit, I suspect
they got the money and ran, frightened by popular opposition to the war. As
for Spain, I wonder. The Zapatero government of Spain has sent to Washington
a new ambassador who has been issuing platitudes about the good relations between
Spain and the US. As Spanish protesting against the US said "No somos idiotas"--we
are not idiots. Nor are we.
U.S. Marine Officer Training
Among the many military acronyms used by Marine General Michael Sullivan is OCS. I asked what it meant. He replies: "OCS stands for Officers Candidate School. In the Marine Corps it's a 10 week, challenging training program mainly consisting of physical conditioning and stress generating problems to see if the candidate can successfully meet the the basic physical, mental and leadership qualifications to become a Marine Corps officer. Marine OCS has about a 30% washout rate for men and a 60% for women. All Marine Corps OCS and basic officer training is conducted at Quantico, Va. Upon successful completion of OCS, the candidate will be commissioned a 2Lt and ordered to The Basic School (TBS) to begin a seven months, intensive program learning to be a Marine Corps officer. This newly commissioned officer is exposed to everything required to be proficient as a 2Lt. The training is heavilly weighted toward the infantry as all Marines are considered to be riflemen first. Subjects range from leadership principles, military history and traditions, small unit tactics, exposure to the various combat arms of the Corps like aviation, tanks, amphibs, arty, recon, intel, communications and logistics. The 2Lts receive familiarzation and firing in most infantry weapons the Marine Corps uses and qualification on the range with the M-16.
Instruction is given in handling personnel record books, pay records, reenlistments,
discharges, legal procedures and exposure to many Marine Corps Manuals and Orders
governing everything you may encounter administratively. Normally, half a day
is spent in the classroom and the other half in the field. There are written
tests for all blocks of instruction, while passing the swimming test and qualifying
with the M-16 are required to graduate. After graduation the 2Lts are sent for
further training in the military occupational specialties (MOS) they have been
assigned like the advanced infantry course, flight school or aviation related
schools, comm school, intel school, supply school, maintenance officer school
etc. After completion of the MOS granting school, the 2Lt then joins his or
her first Marine Corps unit and and is expected to hit the ground running. It's
not uncommon for a newly commissioned 2Lt to take at least a year and a half
to reach his or her first operational unit. Aviators take at least two and up
to four years, depending on the pools in flight school for the type of aircraft
they will fly, to reach their first operational Marine squadron. Many of those
flying jets arrive already promoted to Captain. It's important that you see
how the system works, as there are so many rumors about "90 day wonders"
that are simply not true today in the Corps".
US arms for Taiwan
Taiwan is planning to purchase anti-missile defense systems from the US as
early as June, Reuters reported, citing an unidentified source in the daily
China Times, The anti-missile defense system is intended to counter the threat
from China's hundreds of warheads, which are presently pointed at the island.
US Vice-President Dick Cheney arrived in China hours after the report's release.
Cheney was expected to discuss US arms sales to Taiwan with Chinese leaders.
Beijing has accused Washington of encouraging Taiwan's bid for independence
by selling the island arms. China views Taiwan as a breakaway province and has
threatened to attack if it declares independence. According to Reuters, the
China Times said that Taiwan planned to buy, among other weapons, six Patriot
PAC-3 missiles, worth US$3 billion. Last month, the Pentagon said that it planned
to approve the sale of long-range early-warning radar equipment worth some US$1.78
billion to Taiwan. The US has remained Taiwan's main arms supplier, though it
acknowledges China's claim to the island. Ahead of Cheney's arrival in Beijing,
China urged Washington
to stop adhering to a law that encourages the US to sell defensive weapons to
Taiwan. By remaining committed to the
Taiwan Relations Act, the US was sending the "wrong message to Taiwan independence
forces",a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman told the official Xinhua News
Agency. He said the act meddled in China's affairs and infringed on its sovereignty.
Under the Taiwan Relations Act, the US is pledged to defend the island off southeastern
China if it is attacked from the mainland. (ISN 4/14/04): RH. Since France is
supplying arms to China, there is here a confrontation between France and the
US.
Umbiguously Divided
David Westbrook writes: "One of the problems with life among the very educated (and hence WAIS) is that pretty much everything tends to be expressed as argument, often policy argument. Sometimes, of course, the language of argument expresses a real disagreement, an argument. Other times, however, the language of argument serves to express something else. The trick is knowing what this "something else" is.
I have a strong sense that many arguments surrounding President Bush, especially the administration's policies regarding the economy and Iraq, are awkward and indirect ways of expressing something else. Lifelong liberals are attacking the president for deficit spending. In the 9/11 commission, civil libertarians berate the administration for failing to be tough at borders and gather lots of intelligence on individuals, as if they would have supported the Patriot Act or worse, and before 9/11. It is not as if the Administration cannot be criticized -- obviously, there is much to be criticized -- but policy disagreement seems to be merely the language, not what's at stake. People who never really worried about the law of war vis-a-vis Clinton's military adventures are simply horrified that Bush would do something illegal. And so forth.
I am NOT making a partisan point. While the Republicans are less shrill at the moment, no doubt due to their current prominence, during the Clinton administration many clearly loathed the president to the point of unreason. Not that the Republicans are models of consistency. The Republicans, who generally claim to be conservatives, have run up an enormous deficit. And they have increased the size of government, and have gotten involved in nation building . . . . Some of this is wartime, some of it is learning, but lots of it is just strange. I understand that politics is often partisan, but there seems to be a thoughtlessness, even a crazed disregard for ideology, in contemporary politics that I have not seen before. There is also the unsettling map, from the last election, in which the Democrats took the coasts (save Texas and Florida) and the upper midwest, and the rest was Republican. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this is just a time of more heated politics. But for some time I have thought that the United States is engaged in a struggle with itself that it has difficulty even articulating, though the loose references to the culture wars suggest the conflict. Closer still is the vaguely paranoid style of much right wing media (Rush Limbaugh springs to mind) talking about "Liberals." For their part, "Liberals" rarely deign to acknowledge the existence of the other side. But while there does seem to be a split between two sides, Democrat/Republican, liberal/conservative, coastal/heartland don't seem quite apt".
RH: The "something else" is mugwumpism. The very word "mugwump"
is suggestive.
THE US and Germany
John Heelan said: Perhaps Tim Browb could remind me where the US has "successfully led any nation out of this sort of mess into prosperous democracy"?" I commented "Germany is a prosperous democracy". Christopher Jones counters: "I wouldn't class Germany in the same category as the mess in Iraq. And I wish we could stop glorifying the US's role in postwar Germany which was NOT motivated by any altruistic considerations for Germany's population. The US was at times a brutal occupier who only conceded to restore German sovereignty when it needed "its" Germany to help confront the Soviets. The prosperity that followed the introduction of the DM was also motivated by a strong desire to create a prosperous consumer market for US finance and manufacture. (Proof: the long standing US presence in Germany of IBM, General Motors and Ford.) Adenauer was no fool and he never trusted the Americans for a second. (I have heard a remark of Adenauer's -- on film -- where he said that the Jews who ran America were very powerful.) His main concern was to keep the Soviets out and lead his country to democracy. The German people led their country to democracy and prosperity. Not the US".
RH: Of course Iraq is not comparable to Germany, but both were a mess albeit of a different kind. The US role in Germany can best be described as enlightened self-interest.
| Webmaster |