Science Fiction Bummer

As a lifelong Sci Fi geek, I have always believed that one day there would be some sort of Star Trek type of breakthrough that would take humans to the stars.  Why shouldn't there be faster-than-light speeds?  Why shouldn't there be alien species out there?  How is it possible that the imaginations of people on earth outstrip the reality of a relativistic universe?

But as I get older and somewhat better informed, I am far less sanguine about the chance that the universe operates in any way that will allow Star Fleet to discover strange - or even commonplace - new worlds. 

We now know that there are plenty of earth-like planets in the universe.  The latest is planet Kepler, "Discovery May Help Prove We're Not Alone."  But I think it's more proof of the opposite.  I think there are likely to be lots of earth-like planets out there with intelligent life.  I just don't think we'll ever meet them. 

Look:  faster-than-light speed is likely an utter impossibility.  Aside from the fact that such a thing would enable time travel (which has lots of problems as a real concept on its own), planet Kepler argues against it. 

If the universe is infinite - and at some point it has to be - then therefore there are an infinite amount of earth-like planets.  I say 'at some point' because there are different theories about a finite universe, or an infinite number of finite universes, or something like that. 

So if there are an infinite number of earths and intelligent creatures, somebody would have figured out space travel by now.  That's the problem with 'infinite' things.  Infinitely, somebody will have done everything.  Everything possible, that is.  If it were possible to meet our neighbors, somebody would have done it by now. 

Science Fiction used to have a lot more science in it.  Today, we have science fiction fantasies with great star ships flitting willy-nilly around the universe (and I can't believe the spell-heck passed 'willy-nilly') never wondering about silly things like astrophysics and the laws of nature.  But back in the day, actual science was used in the construction of Sci Fi. 

I'm thinking about Arthur C. Clarke's Rendezvous With Rama.  In it, an alien ship dubbed "Rama" by humans passes through our solar system.  We don't know where it cane from or where it's going, but it's been travelling millions of years and will travel millions more before it gets anywhere that could be a destination.  The book is rife with scientific detail.  The human ship that meets Rama has to do all sorts of calculations and has a limited amount of fuel and is not some magic flying carpet like most science fiction gives us today.

So if you want to travel the cosmos, that's how you do it.  There's no substitute for taking the extraordinary amount of time to cover the distance.  Sorry. 

So if there's a Kepler out there with smart guys writing their blogs while they should be doing something else,we'll never know it.  You don't need to be a scientist to see that the science of interstellar travel is just not workable.

Or could I be wrong?

Cuba!

Absolutely amazing.  The United States and Cuba have re-opened embassies in their respective capitals.  The Cuban flag flies in the city of Washington D.C.  It's something that I never thought would happen in my lifetime. 

The Cuban Revolution in 1959 kicked out the exploitive capitalist fascistic government to install an exploitive communist dictatorship.  You know - progress.  A couple of years later, the Soviet Union tried to put nuclear missiles on the island.  The funny part was that the KGB was in charge of moving the missiles in - which was accomplished with complete secrecy.  But the construction of the missile sites was left up to the guys who normally built missile sites.  So they worked completely out in the open and were spotted by American spy planes immediately.  If they'd been built in secret, they'd probably still be there today.

The rest is history.  Cuban Missile Crisis.  American embargo (which remains in place).  End of diplomatic relations.  Until today. Wow.

The aspect that I'm most curious about is how they will resolve the land claims.  Cuban expatriates (a major political force in Florida - just ask Sen. Marco Rubio) have always maintained their ownership claims over their former property on the island.  If the US normalizes relations, how will those claims be resolved?

Because the right-wing Cuban voting bloc in Florida has real political heft, I think there's virtually no chance that the answer will be, in the words of the classic GoDaddy.com ad:  "Stick It!"  They will have some traction - but will they be able to get back the property they lost to the communist revolutionaries?  Will they get a settlement? 

The people who really need that answer are the Israelis and the Palestinians. 

Palestinians have been holding out for a 'right of return' since they abandoned their homes in what is now Israel in 1948.  They were told by invading Arab armies to get out of the way while the Jews were being mass-murdered. Then something funny happened (obviously not "funny ha-ha").  The invaders came running back the way they came.  Some 800,000 Palestinian Arabs were left in refugee camps. 

They were not offered relocation to Egypt or Jordan (though many ended up in Jordan) or Syria or Lebanon.  They were left in these camps, being supported by UN money to this day - so your tax dollars go their continued support.  The Arabs intended to wipe out Israel and wanted the Palestinians in place to occupy the newly empty country.  When it became clear that Israel wasn't going to fold, nobody had an answer for the Palestinian "refugees." 

The "refugees" have been there for 67 years.  They have grown in numbers and now represent a people and a nation of their own having nothing to do with modern Israel - other than their claims. 

So if the American Crazy Right (tm) fights for Cuban expatriate "rights," what will they do for the Palestinians?  Because they've been in 100% support of the right wing in Israel. 

What should happen (hey - it's my blog.  I get to say!) is that there is a financial settlement in both cases. The Cuban population is American and relatively affluent. If they want money for their former property, the US should help Cuba make those payments. 

In the case of the Palestinians, they need a global Marshall Plan.  They need economic development.  They need to build their 'camps' into cities.  In their case, they will have to overcome generations of children raised to hate Jews and an irrational worldview that puts them in perpetual conflict.  And I don't know if that's possible.

But I really think that people with jobs and homes will be less ready to fire rockets at the neighbors, leading to the endless cycle of violence they're trapped in today. 

The Cuba settlement will be telling. 

What is War?

The indispensable Glenn Greenwald just posted another in a long series of must-reads on The Intercept.  In it, he breaks down the label of 'terrorism' that's being applied to the murders of Marines in Chattanooga.  If, in fact, the murder was motivated by radical Islam, does that make this automatically a case of 'terrorism' as reports seem to indicate? 

No.  Well, maybe.  But not really.

As the estimable Mr. Greenwald explains, the word 'terrorism' has been bled of all meaning by the US government and the media outlets that cover these stories.  Simply put, it's 'terror' when Islamic people attack Western or Israeli people.  It's 'the War on Terror' when the West attacks Islamists.  Even when Islamist militants attack military personnel, they are labelled 'terrorists.' 

The US has explicitly made it their policy that Islamist militants can and will be attacked anywhere in the world at any time.  There is no 'battlefield.'  If a target of the US is at home or in a car with civilians (or family) - it doesn't matter.  They can be - and are - targeted and killed. 

So why are US military personnel off-limits to Islamist militants while they are at home or in a car with family? 

The inequality in language serves to make any Western military (or CIA) attacks seem okay.  They are protecting their citizens by killing a bad guy in his living room in Somalia.  Or a guy they think is a bad guy.  Or - and this is true - killing a guy because he's presumed to be bad because he lives in the same neighborhood as a bad guy.  Can you imagine being blown away because the guy three doors down is an asshole?

So which side is right?  Answer:  neither.  Islamic attacks on civilians and military personnel not engaged in combat operations are terrorism.  Guess what?  So are drone strikes by the US and allies.  State terror is still terror.  Neither act of violence should be allowed.  But while most Islamist attacks are not centrally coordinated, the Western attacks are.  If Western leadership ordered a stop, they would stop. 

Look:  Islamist violence which to we are unfortunately accustomed is a pure evil in the world.  Stopping that violence is a complex challenge involving international and community engagement.  It also involves the cessation of murderous drone strikes.  The US has become the nation of 'death from the sky.'  When did the whole 'freedom' thing go away?  Because that used to be the Americans calling card. 

While this discussion has robbed 'terrorism' of any coherent meaning, it's also taken away the definition of 'war.'  A war is a declared conflict between two uniformed military forces on a defined battlefield.  The uniform makes a difference here - a combatant in a war can be treated as a spy if they are not in uniform.

But how can we have a 'war of terror' when one side has no uniforms and the other side doesn't define a battlefield?  It's not 'war' when somebody in plain dress (as defined by the region) opens fire unexpectedly on unprepared people.  That's at least murder and possibly 'terrorism' (if a definition can be found).  But by the same token, how is it 'war' to prowl the skies over a large territory that may have militant inhabitants and then kill them - and unidentified people around them. 

If this is war let it be war.  Not an 'authorization for the use of military force.'  I don't see that in the constitution.  The West should use violence only to stop a uniformed, identifiable enemy (ISIS and Boko Haram fit the bill) or in a law enforcement capacity. 

The idea of an American president reviewing a list of people to be killed is an abomination.  President Obama's Tuesday hit list review is no more legal than an orgamized crime boss doing the same thing.

We need to put 'war' back in its place in the dictionary.  And the law back in our military policy.