Philosophy 101–Essay #7

Essay #1   Essay #2   Essay #3

Essay #4   Essay #5   Essay #6

Seventh in a series

Welcome back, as I continue my wanderings through the canyons of my philosophy.

As I left off in Chapter 6, my question remains: What should society do for us?

That is a tough question and I know I don’t have the complete answer.

Now, I would like it if we could differentiate between “Society” and “Government” but that seems so awfully hard to do these days. I don’t know when it happened, but there used to be two separate entities: Society and Government … but today, things that used to be the responsibility of society has, for the most part, seemed to have to morphed into things that we demand that government, as a representative or agent of society, provide for us.

You are free to disagree here, but one of the things that Alexander de Tocqueville found so appealing about the American experiment back in the 1830s was the degree to which Americans voluntarily formed civic associations to solve social problems. We did not look to government for the solutions; we turned to like-minded individuals and used that synergy to achieve incredible feats that made the United States so wealthy – in spirit as well as materiel – and powerful. It seems that visualization of how to solve our problems have given way to letting someone else deal with it … in this case the “government” as agent for us.

This sense of civic involvement has given way to an apathy, or at least a detachment, that since the “government” or “society” has assumed responsibility for solving all our problems and since we pay taxes to that government, then we have fulfilled our part of the social contract and no further effort is needed from us. It is the easy way out, but is the right way out?

Remember, I said that individuals are inherently basically lazy. Now, I don’t mean that in the pejorative sense of the word (well, sort of). What I do mean is that like anything else in nature, we people seek the course that requires the least effort from us. The easier it is, then the more likely that it is a choice we will make. This is not bad, necessarily, but it is the way we are. Deny that truth at your own peril.

Sometimes we do chose to take the more difficult path, but usually that is because we perceive a greater reward at the end of it than if we took the easy road. Again, that is simply the way humans are. We are self-interested and rightly so, because otherwise some predator in nature would have eaten us.

However, over the millennia, we humans have figured out that we can’t do everything by ourselves and that sometimes there is safety, if not more efficiency, in numbers. Hence, man has slowly but surely become more “civilized.” Individuals learned to specialize and trade things for those things that others had. As this civilization grew, so did the need for people to arbitrate and administer the transactions and the bureaucracy was born.

I remember once hearing a history professor tell me that you could tell the level of civilization within a society by the size of its bureaucracy. To wit, my jocular response was, “I think we are civilized enough now, already even, thank you.”

But, yes, what was the thing de Tocqueville was getting at? When we voluntarily come together, the results are nothing short of incredible. When we are compelled to work together, as was the case with the feudal societies of the Europe before the 19^th century, progress can be made, but it is restricted. Unleash the power of the individual and look out.

Unfortunately, from my perspective, that has been perverted somewhat by others – particularly the 19^th century social philosopher Karl Marx – into a view that seeks to release the individual from responsibility for existence and transfer that responsibility to the state. There are those who see Marx’s vision and philosophy as being the best option, but I would contend that they are wrong because it fails to take into account human nature. You are welcome to make your own choice.

The essence of the socialist philosophy (and no I have not read all three volumes of Marx’s epic epistle) seems to have been explained to me as “from each according to their ability and to each according to their need.” I find that concept quite seductive until I start thinking about it.

Let’s take the first part: From each according to their ability. Define ability? Are we saying all that a person is capable of? At what level of effort? Would that be minimum or maximum effort? How about “sustainable” effort? Who decides what that level is? How can we define it in a way that is fair to person putting forth the effort? Are all individuals willing to put out more than minimum effort if the reward for it is the same as for greater effort?

Secondly, who assigns the value to that ability? If we remember that society/state is made up of individuals, then who or what is giving that other individual as an agent of the state the right to assign that value? We can do that through our social contracts. We do that all the time in our lives when we exchange one thing of value with another person for something that person has of value. Of course, under a capitalist system, the individual gets to decide the relative values, where as in a socialist system that decision is left to the state and who is the state but individuals who have taken on the responsibility for others and substituting their choices for the original individual.

Taking the second part: To each according to their need. Define need? How much food, water, shelter, clothing, protection, etc., is required in order to fulfill anyone’s needs. Three hots and cot can be a pretty low standard.

If we cannot define “need” satisfactorily, then how will it be possible to fulfill all the needs of all the people, especially when each person is different and their needs essentially unique? Add to that, how do we allocate the limited resources we have, which – in case you haven’t noticed – won’t begin to fulfill all the needs of all the people to bring all the people up to the same standard (unless you set that standard pretty low – which brings us back to three hots and cot).

So, what role should the state/society/government have in our lives? It has to have some, otherwise it would be anarchy and I am not advocating that.

I alluded to what role I think government/state/the society should have in an individual’s life when I was talking about civilizations. The role should be limited to enforcing contracts between individuals, groups, and the various associations that humans form. Contracts are the basis for our existence. Oral, written, tacit, implicit, explicit, whatever form they take, in the end as members of society we have to agree to some level of enforcement of those contracts.

That is what we do with our unwritten social contract. It regulates our behaviors through social sanctions. Society breaks down when the system of social sanctions breaks down. If you don’t believe that, then just look around you, as examples abound. I could take a dozen news stories a day that would illustrate this point, where society has turned its head on individual responsibility only to have its face slapped.

Unfortunately, we have surrendered individual responsibility in favor of societal responsibility and we are paying the price.

Don’t agree? That is your prerogative, but in the long run, I fear that you will find that you are wrong.

Nuff said for this go-round.

Again, someone much more articulate than I

This article I am linking to expresses so well the point I have been trying to make.
Arab Spring nations don’t yet grasp freedom of dissent
If there is going to be a clash of cultures, then this will be at its root. Where there is no freedom of dissent; then there is no freedom. Either you are willing to accept and tolerate others who disagree with you or there inevitably will be conflict.
It doesn’t matter where you live, or what culture you live in, or society or anything. At the bottom of it all is that if you are unwilling to accept that other individuals are different than you are and are going to be, no matter what you think, then there will be no freedom, no liberty for anyone. Someone will always be trying to impose the tyranny of conformity on you and everyone else.
This, more than anything else, is what we should take away as a lesson from the riots, carnage and chaos we are seeing igniting around the world by Muslim extremists. Muslim, as well as members of all faiths, should reject the message being sent by these demonstrations in no uncertain terms.

Is perception reality?

Pew Poll finds majority think rich don't pay enough taxes

Sometimes the majority is wrong, unless it really doesn’t want equality before the law but only equality of outcome. It seems the Pew Institute did a public opinion survey that found that a majority of Americans believe that the “rich” do not pay enough taxes. Interesting concept is “enough.”

I wish I had bookmarked the page (but I didn’t and at the moment I am too lazy to go find it) but it was either a General Accounting Office or a Congressional Budget Office report that had a breakdown by income of which group paid how much. It revealed that the US federal income tax was indeed very progressive (if you can pay more you do, as a percentage of your income). Now, if that is true, then whatever happened to equality?

No, perception sometimes is about other things. For the last few years we have had pounded into our brains that equality means everybody gets the same, rather than everyone is treated the same by the government.

Now, I suppose, that if I am not getting enough, then I should be getting more. However, the concept of enough, like the concept of need, is quite elastic, wouldn’t you say?

To put it in plain perspective, when you sit down at the table to eat: Does everyone get exactly the same meal? Is that a requirement? Do you need the same meal as everyone else? Do you think the same portions given to everyone else are enough for you? What if you don’t like one of the foods on your plate? Must you eat all on your plate?

I could go on and on like that but I think I am making my point. Each of us is an individual. Our needs and our wants and what is “enough” are defined by our own perception and not by someone else. Oh, yes, we can be influenced by society and our learned value system, but it still comes down to what we perceive and how we, as individuals, define “enough.”

Now, we can accept that each of is an individual and try to cope with the problems that presents; or we can try to give each person an equal share of the pie. Granted, equal shares seem to be fairer, but are they always truly fairer? Again, our individual perception colors how we view that question. You see if you want to be “fair”, then government – at whatever level you choose – has to treat each individual equally, otherwise it discriminates by some arbitrary standard. Does government do that? Don’t be silly, of course it doesn’t treat people equal. Not if some people pay more than others and others receive more than others.

How do you reconcile this dichotomy? Well, you can ignore it or you can try to justify it. We in this day and age are trying somewhat ineffectively to accomplish the latter. We do that by trying to figure out a system that gives each individual what they need or what they want. I say ineffectively because as always with humans some are “gaming” the system to their own advantage.

The system tries to codify how government can dole out its largess to a very large, and therefore impersonal, population. The question then becomes should government (as representative of society) be responsible for providing for the needs and wants of individuals or should individuals be left responsible for that chore themselves?

Good question. Should the choice of whether to assist others be left to the individual or should it be compelled by the community? It depends, I guess, on how you view property (and I include labor as property). You see if an individual can “own” property, then that creates one set of problems. If all property is “owned” by the community, then that creates another set of problems. The question then becomes which system is “right” and which system meets the needs of the individual best.

Again, that brings us back to the question: Are we individuals? Do individuals have rights? Can individuals be free to make their own choices? Are individuals responsible for those choices? When are individuals not responsible? When is it right for others to take responsibility for individuals?

I firmly believe that as individuals, we are – for the most part – responsible for our own decisions; that we have to take responsibility for our own lives. And having said that: I also believe that we should make the choice to help others when we can; not because we have to or are compelled to do so, but because we choose to do so. I also believe that it is our own self-interest to choose to defend and protect our community and our society. Yes, it is an “obligation” but it not an obligation that you can force a person to accept. It must come from within the person.

I don’t agree with those who say it is right for the government/society to compel anyone to do anything or make a certain choice. They should be free to make whatever choice they want, with the proviso that they also are willing to accept the consequences of that choice, whatever they may be. That means that if they make bad choices, then they have to live with those bad choices. Yes, that means that maybe they will be harmed. Yes, that may mean that others might be harmed by association. We can try, if we choose to ameliorate that harm to the others, but even that should by choice rather than compulsion.

I know I could be very wrong in these beliefs. I know that there are a lot of people who might condemn me for lacking in compassion for these beliefs, but they would be ignoring that I, too, have a choice and that choice is when and where and how I assist others.

So, back to the original thesis of this essay: Do the rich pay enough in taxes? Well, it depends on how much you mean when you say “enough.” We should not be like bank robbers who rob banks only because that is where the money is. If we plan to take money – taxes – from people, then it would seem to me that equity should be the rule and not the exception. By equity, I mean that if we decide that people should pay at a given rate, then that rate should be the same for all people. If we decide that people should pay a certain amount, then that amount should be the same for all people. That is what government owes us: Equality.

If there are those who can’t – for whatever reason – can’t “pay” the fee, then I would hope that it would be the choice of others to help. Not because they are forced to do it, but because they choose to do it.

As for taxes, if they are based on a percentage of income, or wealth or whatever, then that rate should be the same for all persons. I realize that is not a popular concept, but it is the one I believe is most fair to all people. I believe in that case we are all contributors to society and not divided into two groups: Those from whom things are taken and those upon who benefits are bestowed.

When you look at our society, or any society, as we go into the future, keep those thoughts in mind. I hope that you would consider their merits and act accordingly.

In the end, as always, the choice is yours, yours as an individual and no one else’s.

Fairy tales?

Real Life Sleeping Beauties

What was that song that Frank Sinatra used to sing about fairy tales.  Sinatra sings Young at Heart 

Well, it seems that some young ladies and young men in the Ukraine are feeling very young at heart … or at least they believe in the Sleepy Beauty fairy tale.

Tale of Sleeping Beauty

There must be an awful lot of hopeless romantics out there (shyly raising my hand because I prefer the Disney version) because this deal in the art museum in Kiev, Ukraine, has got to be out there. I mean who would sign a contract pledging to marry someone based on a kiss while they are allegedly asleep … and who would sign a contract pledging to marry someone if your kiss woke them up. I can see all sorts of problems here.

But, as Frank says, fairy tales can come true; they can happen to you; if … well, if you want to believe.

I hope these young people find their fairy tales coming true. I guess it is little different that the reality series in the U.S. called The Bachelor and The Bachelorette. I really am not sure I would want my “courtship” played out before television cameras. It would rather freak me out, to tell the truth. But that is because I am not the most suave and debonair person that you are going to see (far from it) although I am quite romantic in my own way (I think, you need to ask my beautiful, wonderful, talented and special wife if that really is true, however).

Anyway, who says fairy tales can’t come true? Just look at any political campaign in the US.

Some really random thoughts

I usually try to link my commentary to some tidbit on the news, but that eludes me tonight. I guess it is because of all the stupidity I see. I apologize; change that to silliness (Pappy taught me it was not nice to call people stupid, unless they were bent over).

Now, mind you, I rarely watch TV anymore (unless there is a storm watch and then I watch the weather channel and channel surf between the local channels to see if they have any warnings).

I gave up watching what passes for prime time entertainment long ago, because I do not find it funny to make fun of people making mistakes or being jerks, just so we can laugh at them. I know, I am strange, but that is the way I am. So, you can see, most of the situation comedies really aren’t all that much fun for me. I guess I empathize too much with those who are the butt of the jokes (having often been the butt of many a joke myself).

I consider myself a reasonably intelligent adult, so most of the dramas leave me flat because, while maybe dramatic, there are holes in the logic of most shows that you could drive a supertanker through. I guess I fail at the required suspension of disbelief you need to watch such shows.

As for television news: Would you believe it? I once was an addict, but I think that was back when I was young and innocent and thought journalists really could be somewhat balanced. I knew they could never be objective, but at least I thought we working reporters and editors at least could try to compensate for our prejudices. Somewhere along the line, something my Uncle Joe told me (he was the one who used to be a TV news producer) finally clicked. The people in front of the broadcast cameras really are … well, for the lack of a better term – airheads. As the old soldier in me says, they have a real headspace and timing problem.

Now, my heart and my blood pressure doesn’t need the aggravation of what I see passing for journalism in the broadcast world these days. Believe me, it ain’t the journalism that I learned back in college 40 years ago.

So, having been a print journalist lo all those many years, I have turned to reading the news online. The internet is a great source … to a point. However, you have to take just about everything you read with about two tons of salt (as Pappy used to say). The sad thing is that it is getting worse and worse.

Now, we have an important political campaign happening this year in the United States … or is that the Untied States (I get confused sometimes). I have been fed up with the coverage of the various campaigns from the git-go. It always has been about the horse race, if you want to call it that, and who has stumbled lately. What a bunch of junk.

Now, it seems that (at least on one side of the presidential campaign) it has gotten to the point that even the truth doesn’t matter. Just sling up accusations and insinuations and go for it. Not to say the other side is doing much better, but at least – so far – they have tried to keep their mud focused on job performance and not on peripheral issues.

I guess what is really getting to me is how it has coarsened the discourse between people I thought were relatively sensible. My esteemed younger daughter, who despite her father seems to have a thoughtful head on her shoulders when it comes to most issues, put a rant up on her Facebook page the other day (everybody has a Facebook page, right?) admonishing those who post to do so only after fact-checking, or at least Googling the subject (Is Google a verb? I guess it is now), before posting comments that would make them look like idiots when talking about politics. She probably has a valid point.

But even then, it appears that people don’t let facts get in the way. No, it is better to trash people and denigrate stereotypes … and send out calls for the elimination of all dissenting thoughts. I have seen so much of that lately; it literally is about the make me physically sick. There are web sites that I go to, deliberately. Not because I agree with their perspective, but because most of the time I don’t agree. However, it is important to me to see what they are saying, if only to challenge me to defend my own perspective.

Hence, you probably will notice that I am more critical of the so-called progressives in the U.S. then I am of the libertarians. Even “conservatives” come out a little better than the progressives in my book. But then, I have lived in “conservative”, Bible-belt communities most of my adult life. And while I have rarely found myself in total agreement with those who are “out there” so to speak, I always have felt that for the most part there was a willingness to respect differences.

In fact, while I know I would get some arguments from so quarters, I would suggest that the stereotype of the Southern redneck fails to recognize the reality of the world that they live in. Most of those good old boys (and girls) aren’t all that bad, as far as folks go. May have a weird sense of humor to a lot of city folks, but then the converse is true … city folk humor seems a mite weird to them. Of course, if you want, you can set yourself up on a pedestal and look down on them, make fun of them, but most of them are secure enough in who they are that they don’t give a rip that you do.

Still, it is the ugliness of this portrayal that bugs me (I will probably say more on that in another post). Having traveled a mite around this world and seen things I would rather have not seen, I have come to the decision that by and large, despite all their problems, quirks and sensitivities, most Americans – be they urbanite, country bumkins, college educated or high school dropouts – pretty much are a good bunch of people to be around. Yet, I see a lot of attacking of people just because they believe different than you do, and that isn’t just a right-left thing.

I wish, if I could, touch some of you who come to visit these random thoughts. Make you think. Make you reexamine your assumptions and premises, maybe. Think about what would happen if you stopped throwing verbal bombshells and vitriol and started accepting people for their differences. Yes, they are different. And HELL YES sometimes those differences seem to be the silliest things you can imagine. But put the shoe on the other foot, and stop and think how you might look to them. Stop and think, that with the shoe on their foot that wouldn’t you want to be treated with dignity and respect rather than the other alternative.

Well, that is enough thoughts for now. Comments are welcome.

Difficult, huh?

Gay couples face big hurdles to parenthood

It seems that gay couples wanting to have children face significant hurdles to becoming parents. Ah, what part of Biology 101 did you miss?

The last time I studied the biology of various species, humans were not among those who could propagate without the involvement of two different genders: A male and a female. Now, I might be wrong, but I think that is what I remember. Now, it seems that most animals are that way. I don’t know why, but it seems to be the case.

However, I think there was a plan by God/Allah/Mother Nature/Evolution, etc., when the human species was not made asexual. I don’t know, but it seems to me that there is some reason why people are designed the way they are.

Marriage, beyond being a legal construct that we people use for divvying up various benefits from the state and some other mythologies, primarily was instituted among various and sundry cultures (amazing how it is almost universal among the human species) to provide a structure to protect, nourish and ensure the propagation of the members of that civilization’s next generation. Now, granted, in some societies, polygamy is permitted but then that goes back to the pack nature of man and the fact that the gestation period for humans is nine months.

So, if gay couples are the union of two members of the same sex, would someone explain to me how they naturally are going to propagate? I can see how, using modern medical techniques, it can be done, but that is artificially. Artificial methods, I understand can get expensive but then that is the price of technology. I also fail to understand how two males are supposed to accomplish this (females, being the new-life carriers, it is far easier to understand).

Ok, despite having the obvious biological hurdle which seems significant to me, I guess society has placed a few more hoops for people who want children but can’t have them have to go through.

I know I am wrong, but it just seems that some homosexual couples don’t realize the difficulties facing heterosexual people who for one reason or another merely want to adopt children. There are those people, who are not gay, who can’t have children naturally. For them, they usually seek to adopt children, but that process is not just going down to the local hospital and picking out a new son or daughter.

There are all sorts of rules that make it very difficult for heterosexual couples to adopt and the hurdles for single people (remember, they just represent one gender as well) to adopt are even more complex and difficult (although it has never been banned outright). So heterosexual couples have to go through a multitude of hoops (Just ask my dear wife, who adopted two in her first marriage – took 12 years) in order to have children and now same-sex couples are complaining. Give me a break.

In the linked article, it is interesting that all the cases involved two women. I didn’t see any involving two men. It would seem to me that in all fairness, the reporter should have included the problems two men would have adopting a child, given the difficulty a single man already faces. I mean, if we are going to equality here, it has to be equality before the law, right?

And then if two people of the same sex want to adopt, what about three or four? What about multiple parents? Why not? It seems to me that multiple parents would be a good thing. What about multiple parents with mixed genders? Oops, we are moving into the realm of polygamy, plural marriages and communal marriages.

No, unfortunately, this isn’t really about parenthood, or raising the next generation. Not really because it really is about individuals thinking merely about themselves and their own pleasure, sexual and otherwise.

Remembering that humans are bisexual and that therefore unisexual relations are basically a statistical aberration, it would seem that homosexual relations are indeed not the norm.

I realize that these people desperately need to feel accepted as individuals. We all need to feel accepted as individuals. However, they are not the norm and never will be (or the species will die off).

I say we tolerate their differences as long as they tolerate our right to disagree with them.

Vote with your feet

Gay Chik Fil A employees speak out

 

I get really tired of people talking like this. Understand, I am not a fan of Chik Fil A. It is not my taste.

Still, if you work for someone and you don’t like the views of the people at the top of the corporation, there is a simple solution: Cast your vote with your feet and go to work somewhere else. Chik Fil A doesn’t owe you a job and you don’t owe your labor to Chik Fil A.

The sad thing, as was apparent in the HuffPo piece above, is that the actual policies and treatment for gay employees was pretty much no different than any other employee and that is how it should be.

People should keep their sexual orientation out of the workplace, where it doesn’t belong in the first place. I know that is an unrealistic attitude to take but it is what should be happening. Just like people should keep their religion and politics out of the work place, people should not make an issue out of a lot of other things that absolutely no bearing on whether the person can do the job they are paid to do.

I suspect I speak for a lot of people who say that being homosexual is unusual, but if it is what you are, then have at it. However, don’t force your views on me or ask me to accept your homosexuality as “normal” because it is not. It is normal for you, as the GLBT, but it is not normal for the species as a whole. This is not to condemn you or to criticize you. It is merely pointing out the obvious.

I used to have red hair. When I was younger, I took my share of abuse for it. Didn’t like the abuse but I didn’t run around demanding that people had to accept me because I had red hair. No, I wanted them to accept me because I was a competent individual who did whatever job I was assigned to do to the best of my ability. If you didn’t like my red hair, too bad, that was your problem, not mine.

Can’t tell you how many times I was referred to as that “little red-headed son-of-bitch” but I got over it. Got called a lot of other names as well, but I survived. Heck, every person gets called names unless they are totally milquetoast.

As I have said before, I have no problem with individuals being GLBT or whatever. What they do with their private sex lives is no concern of mine. However, the operative word there being “private.” Unlike, some people (lord, it wasn’t all by a long shot, I know after living what is “affectionately” referred to the “Bible Belt” for most of my adult life) whose take on religion makes them intolerant in their own right. Just like gays are being intolerant of those who don’t accept them, these people can’t accept gays because they are different.

It really is sad that a relatively small group of people, all in the name of demanding attention and acceptance of their “unusual” sexual orientation have set out to redefine everyone else’s religious beliefs. You may not agree with their religious beliefs, but just as you expect them to respect yours and treat you with dignity, then each person should treat those with whom they disagree with respect and dignity.

Unfortunately, we are seeing precious little of that these days … anywhere (Not just in the US). Makes a real sad commentary on the human race, doesn’t it.

Amen!

Presidents, policies - foreign and domestic - and elections

 

The author of the article linked above has a really good grasp of reality when it comes to the powers of the presidency, to which I add my hearty: Amen! Definitely read the article, it really is good.

You see, contrary to a lot of people’s opinions, the American president ain’t all that powerful. That is malice by design by the people who created this republic 225 years ago.

The so-called “founding fathers” had a really strong dislike for a strong executive authority, which in that time normally was wielded by a monarch of some variety. So, the president was not given all that much authority to do anything, without the advice and consent of Congress, the Supreme Court and the states. Despite the passage of time, the president still finds himself (so far, just hims) very limited in what he actually can accomplish. I think that President Obama probably is getting around to understanding that lesson, but unfortunately, a lot of Americans and very few non-Americans get it.

No matter who wins in November, whoever is sworn in on January 20, 2013, they will find themselves in the same bind.

In addition, as the author pointed out, no matter how much the president wants to control things, he ain’t in control. No one is. That to me is the salient point of the article. People, in their hubris, think we can control events. Well, I have news for you, if you haven’t figured it out already: We don’t, we can’t and we never will.

George W. Bush opposed nation-building and that is just what trapped his administration in Afghanistan and Iraq. Barack Obama was going to step back and let other nations help carry the load, and found out that everybody still looks to the Americans to take the lead.

Whether it is trying to control the weather or stop climate change, or bring global peace to all mankind, or ensure that no one goes hungry or without medical care: It is not going to happen. That may sound like a pretty ugly assessment, but it is facing reality.

The best we all can do is to try to cope with whatever contingencies we are faced with. Rarely will they be the ones we chose and often they will be seemingly overwhelming … and sometimes they might well be. But we can’t delude ourselves into thinking that somehow, someone, somewhere will be able to bring this chaos we see around us under control. It is not going to happen.

Remember the ancient curse – “May you live in interesting times” - well, it may come as a revelation to you, but all times are interesting times.

I don’t have a crystal ball, nor am I clairvoyant, but I can tell you all: BUCKLE UP, we are in for a wild ride.

Criticism v. A Teaching Moment

A person who wished to remain anonymous posted the following on my posting about Islam needing both a Reformation and an Enlightenment:
You are very ignorant--why don't you go to a mosque near you---it is Ramadan and you might get a free dinner---as well as be able to talk to actual Muslims---and see how the understand their religion. (The Saudi's are not the only Muslims on the planet---you know---in fact the Middle East has only 15% of the global Muslim population---it in no way "represents" Islam)
I am not offended by such a posting. In fact, it actually gives me what I call a “teaching moment.”
This person calls me “ignorant” and they have every right to do so. I will not deny them that right. I would disagree, and here are my reasons:
A. The person assumes that I have a very limited knowledge of Islam. I would contend that assumption is incorrect. I have, for instance, read much of the Quran, the Islamic faith’s equivalent of the Christian Bible. I also have read many other writings on the history of Islam, the history of the Arabian Peninsula, the history of South Asia. All this has given me part of my perspective on the religion, which I hold is not necessarily “evil” or “bad”, no more than any other religion is. It does, however, have some what I call “disturbing” tenets which call for violence against non-believers.
B. The person seems to be laboring under the impression that I have never sat down with some of the Islamic religion and had a discussion about the differences from the Judeo-Christian background I was raised in (my grandfather that I knew and lived with and gave me my first Bible was a Congregationalist minister and missionary). Again, an incorrect assumption. I had the pleasure of having lengthy discussions with a man my parents were assisting in his studies at a private college in California. This gentleman, and he truly was a gentle man, was – according to his story – the minister of secondary education in Afghanistan and a tutor to the king’s son at that time. He taught me a little about his language and about Arabic, the language of Islam, as well as about Afghanistan and sparked my interest later to spend a considerable time studying the history of South Asia in college. But fast forward almost 30 years; I was in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for more than half a year in 1990-1991. Granted, I was in the service of the United States Army, but I was not off on some isolated desert base. No, I was living and working among Muslims, representing many different countries. They will tell I was a curious American. I was always asking them if they could find me a good English version of the Quran (none did, although I finally was able to download one off the Internet) and I would take every opportunity to engage them in conversations that involved their religion, their customs and culture. I spent many hours in conversation with the Saudi Bedouin prayer leader at a business I visited weekly for three months while I waited for projects I was overseeing to be completed. I also shared green tea and conversation with the Lebanese businessman who owned the printing press where the newspaper I was editor of for the US Army was printed. I learned a lot from these encounters. Then, while I was in Kuwait for two weeks, I again had many encounters with local people with whom I had interesting discussions.
So, I don’t consider myself fluent in all the facets of Islam, I am conversant enough to hold what I feel are valid opinions on the subject. I also would point out that the Saudis, as the custodians of The Two Holy Mosques, do play a major role in Islam.
Now, the teaching moment: It is not wise to assume when you don’t know. This person, who did not identify their self, leaves me wondering whether or not they are a Muslim? I have no way of knowing. I have no way of knowing really what country they are from.
I do have a first impression of this person: They are not very polite. I would not call him ignorant. I have no way of knowing whether he has the knowledge base to be able to qualify him to not be ignorant, but I am not going to call ignorant, because I don’t know. However, I do know that being rude is not one of the tenets of Islam.
That is one of the problems we have in the world: People making assumptions. Assumptions, more often than not, turn out to be wrong.
A second problem is that we tend to make things personal. Rather than point out where I have erred, rather than take the time to show me why this person’s perception of the world is more accurate than mine, the person merely tells me I am ignorant. Wrong answer.
Now, I have pointed out many times in my posts that I happen to believe that people are not monolithic. That just because a person is (A), then all people are (A). That I think would be a very silly position to take.
I do think that most people do share a desire to survive and live a more comfortable life, if possible. I also believe most people would rather do it with less effort rather than more. Note that I said “most people”. When you are dealing with people, all are unique individuals (except maybe identical twins, but even then their life experiences are different and unique), and therefore you are not dealing with absolutes.
Now, I agree that probably the majority of those who profess to be Muslims are basically like most other people in their desires and don’t really give a rat’s behind about what other people think or believe. It doesn’t affect them.
However, there seems to be a substantial subset that does not have a willingness to be tolerant of the peculiarities of others who may happen to believe differently than they do. We see this when we see riots across the Muslim world when some obscure Christian minister of a small church in Florida announces he plans to burn the Quran as part of his worship service. Now, that was not limited to the Arabian peninsula or North Africa or even just South Asia.
Then there was the riots set off by the publication in a Danish periodical of caricatures of Mohammad, the Islamic prophet who plays the same role for Muslims as Jesus plays for Christians. Those weren’t just limited to Saudi Arabia or some Arab country.
The Muslim author Salmun Rushdie faces a death sentence because he wrote a book that was a satire about some of the parts of the Islamic religion.
We see this when Muslims all over the place react violently when some soldiers disposing of paper materials on an Afghan base burn some Qurans.
I can not visit Mecca or Medina, but Muslims can visit Jerusalem or Rome or London or just about any city in the U.S.
And now the Saudi government seems intent on making insulting the faith a criminal offense.
These things distress me, not because ALL Muslims believe that way, but with more than a billion adherents, even if it is just .01 percent who believe absolutely that infidels should die, then that would make up a very large body of people.
Granted, the Christian church has its extremists as well, and I believe these “cults” should be denounced and treated with disdain, but that does not excuse the need for Islam to come to an accommodation that lets it adherents accept without malice those who believe in a different view of God.
Enough rambling. Via Con Dios and Enshallah..

The world is not perfect

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/mitt-romney-taxes-tough-sell-hairball_n_1681636.html

Oh Joy, Oh Joy! Some of the Republican illuminati are not all the enthused by the presumed party nominee Mitt Romney. Obviously this portends that his campaign to unseat President Barack Obama will fail and the progressives will have four more years to change America into their vision of what it should be.

Let there be dancing in the streets. The GOP is not this monolith monster that is going to steam roll over all the “progressive” achievements of the last century and return everyone to slavery.

Since when was the GOP a monolith? Since when were conservatives a united force walking in lockstep? Are we talking social conservatives or fiscal conservatives or religious conservatives or the so-called political conservatives? What about the neo-conservatives? Oh, yes, we must believe they are all cut from the same mold.

Aren’t Christian fundamentalists just like business and corporate fundamentalists? I mean they are fundamentalists, right? Aren’t all fundamentalists exactly alike?

Hello, what world are you living on? Is any group a monolith? You have got to be kidding. So, some of the traditional elite in the Republican Party do not have shivers running down their leg that the Mormon Romney indicating that he walks on water and is the messiah. Does that mean they are just going to go home? I don’t think so.

It is almost an illusion to look at each crack that indicates that maybe somebody doesn’t agree with Romney on X issue or Y issue that doesn’t necessarily translate into that somebody either voting for President Obama or not voting. Wishful thinking more likely.

Who people decide to vote for really is a bit more complex, as well as simpler, than how as candidate stands on this or that issue. While most people might say that some issue made them vote for a candidate, what they really mean is that issue is the they are most cognizant of that tipped the balance of their perception of whom to vote for.

Yes, some people will just vote Democrat as much as some people will never vote Democratic, and vice-versa for the Republicans. But they make up only a slice of the electorate and the bigger slice is in the middle, where the voters muddle through a host of perceptions and considerations until they decide how they are going to vote. Some even flip coins.

The point being, I think, never gloat over what you perceive to be your enemies weaknesses and remember oft times your opponents are adherents to the old mantra that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” at least for this go around.

Also remember that leaders often don’t lead, and don’t always (without the direct application of the threat of physical force) make people vote the way they want them too. That is the secret of the secret ballot. People can, once in the polling booth, cast their ballots relatively anonymously. I am not so sanguine to suggest, however, that people around you are not perceptive enough to figure out for whom you voted. But, then you can always lie. That works too.

The problem is, despite what some people seem to want to think, candidates are not perfect. The world is not perfect and is not about to be perfected, even if progressives think it can be. All candidates have faults, depending on their supporters’ (and opponents’) perspective. Candidates are at best a compromise. They try to bridge the various factions within every political grouping to garner sufficient support at the ballot box to actually win an election. In reality, many voters going into vote metaphorically hold their noses while casting their ballot as the best of the worst.

To fail to recognize this is an indication of how people have become intolerant of compromise, the art of the possible and the heart of a democratic republic.

Like Ben Franklin said, we have given birth to a republic and now the question is after it has grown up, can we keep it one?

But then again, the world is not a perfect place nor will it ever be one.  So much for this random thought.

Update on Islam and reformation

Ok, sometimes I don’t get things quite right. When I did the bit on Islam needing a reformation, I toyed with also arguing that it also needed to undergo a corresponding period of the Western world’s Enlightenment that followed the Reformation but that would have made it a bit more tedious to understand and explain. I should have taken the plunge and included it.

As it is, another person wrote a much more coherent piece than I did on why Islam needs both a Reformation AND an Enlightenment period (http://www.atlassociety.org/tni/islam-reformation). His article points out that Islam in a sense is already embroiled in its Reformation (about time, can we speed it up and get to the Enlightenment now). I just hope it doesn’t take another three or four centuries of conflict and war for them to get the message on tolerance, acceptance and compromise.

Better said than I can

Sometimes,there are people are just far more eloquent than I can ever be.

In this first article, after you take away the slams on President Obama, and you just look at this person’s description of what society and life really is, he explains it far better than I have been able to do, I suspect.

http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/jul/16/obama-revealed/

The point being that life, society, communities, nations, are made up of individuals and we all make our own way and accommodations with those things. To deny that is to deny being human and to deny a human the rights, freedoms and liberty that they deserve.

This second article explains what a libertarian (like myself for the most part) stands for by debunking 10 myths about libertarians. It is probably the best explanation I have ever seen to explain what a libertarian believes.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/13/libertarianism-for-dummies/

Yet another example

http://unofficialview.net/2012/07/you-did-not-do-it-alone/

Для моих посетителей, Русский

Согласно информации, предоставление на blogspot, кажется, что мои случайные мысли привлечь больше из вас, чем кто-нибудь еще. Ну, вы обычно галстук с количество посещений от людей в США A., который ведет мое любопытство спросить: почему? И как вы приходите найти этот довольно неясным блог? Это та же группа людей или другие?

У меня нет ответа, но я хотел бы получить ваши отзывы по вопросам, которые я обсудить. И, это мое любопытство..., который чертовски ближайшем убил меня несколько раз..., но это было причиной, почему я был журналистом на протяжении многих лет.

Кроме того, я думаю, я принял близко к сердцу девиз мало мангуста Редьярд Киплинг (который моя Паппи используется для чтения мне в детстве) Рикки-Тикки-Тави: запуск и выяснить.

Austerity

Background reading

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/austerity-measures-a-thousand-cuts_n_1666309.html

The problem with austerity is that it hurts. It requires sacrifice and sacrifice always hurts (that is why it is called sacrifice, but anyway).

Today, it seems that we are attempting to live our lives without pain, without sacrifice, and I wonder if that is even possible. It seems to me that life in our real world is full of hurts and pains, and things that will bring us hurt and pain and discomfort. It is not how we avoid these things that make us, but how we accept and deal with them.

When I read tragedies such as described in the above article, I am struck by the fact that I, too, have paid a price. Granted that price was practically entirely of my own choosing when I sit down to analyze it, but, still, I figure that I am not all that unique in this world. I could sit down and list all the bad things that have happened to me in my life, but to what end? It might act as a warning to others not to do as I have done, but then again, people being people, I doubt it.

I agree that austerity is not the nicest concept, but what alternative is there? By that I mean that we have to understand that absolutely nothing in life is “free”. Sorry, everything comes with its own “cost” like it or not. Even those things we take for granted as free come with a cost, whether it is in the effort to achieve them or the mere fact that our survival always has a price tag on it.

You may not agree with that concept, but I would say that you are denying reality.

So, if you cannot pay the price, then what happens? You, as an individual, have to adopt your own austerity policies. Can’t afford that house? Then you have to give it up? Can’t afford that lobster and steak dinner? I guess it is another macaroni and cheese dinner night.

That is what life is all about: Choices. Sometimes we have to make some pretty grim choices because life deals us opportunities in the form of illnesses or other medical problems, or shortages of this resource or that resource or any of a myriad of other things. We can either chose to face these things, or we can try to ignore them. (The latter doesn’t work very well, as I can personally attest to)

So, if we can’t afford something, then we have to do without; that is a basic truth.

Which brings me to the next question: Why can’t we afford it?

Well, if we don’t have something to trade with other people to exchange resources for those that we want; then we can't afford it. But then what if we think we need those things: Whose responsibility is it to satisfy those needs? That, I suggest is the great debate of today’s societies, pretty much around the world.

Does society (your community/nation/etc.) owe it to you as an individual to provide you with satisfaction of your needs? Or do you owe it to your society to provide for your own needs the best you can by trading the only things you own – your labor and intelligence – for the resources needed for your survival as well, if possible, for making your life easier.

That leads to yet another question: What are needs? Are needs merely things necessary for survival? Or, as seems to be the case in my country, needs have an every expanding definition. Is it necessary to have a cell phone? Is a G1, G2, G3 or G4 networked phone needed and which level? Is a television set necessary and how big and what format? Is a computer necessary? How about a stove (gas or electric?), a refrigerator, running water, waste disposal, heating, air conditioning, a microwave oven, a fireplace, a couch, a bed, a roof, a house (or an apartment or even just a room)? The list can be almost endless.

What does society owe us and what do we owe society? I have my own views on that, but I will save them for later. To me, that is the basic debate we are having this year in our presidential campaign.

My question to you, dear reader, is: What do you think? You have a functioning brain. You obviously can read (at least one of the languages that this rant can be translated into). Believe it or not, it is my belief that what each of us thinks is important. For what we think affects those around us, which affects those around them, and on, and on, like ripples in a pond.

So, if you think we have to accept austerity as part of life, you might want to pass that thought on to others. I do and I have just done that.

A Matter of perspective

Background reading:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/11/world/europe/nireland-dog-death-sentence/index.html?hpt=wo_bn6

http://world.time.com/2012/07/11/getting-away-with-murder-why-pakistans-fanatic-right-acts-with-impunity/

http://world.time.com/2012/07/11/yemen-suicide-bomber-attacks-police-cadets/

http://news.yahoo.com/mali-seek-icc-probe-rebel-crimes-north-132152653.html

http://news.yahoo.com/masked-gunmen-kill-9-police-pakistan-city-lahore-043305206.html

http://news.yahoo.com/dozens-burned-nigeria-petrol-tanker-blaze-111541832.html

http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/26/fbi-nationwide-child-prostitution-sweep-leads-to-104-arrests-79-children-rescued/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18829052

It is interesting the things that spur emotions in people. Sometimes, it makes one shake their head in amazement … or amusement, I am not sure.

For example, my step-daughter, who truly is a wonderful young woman who holds passionate beliefs (even if her step-father thinks some of them are more than a bit out there, if you understand the reference). She works as the manager of a pet supply/pet store and as one would expect is passionate about animals and their treatment, or lack thereof, or mistreatment, as the case may be.

Recently, on her Facebook page, she took up the case of a dog in Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK, that was a pitbull-lab mix and, since owning pitbulls happens to be illegal in Belfast, was slated to be put down. After several years of legal wrangling, the dog was put to death recently and there now is an effort to punish the dog catcher person for obeying the law.

Couple points here: One, my stepdaughter is Canadian and this was happening in Northern Ireland. I mean, if you don’t like a law, then move to the place and change it. (But that is an entirely different argument). Second, it is a dog, however loveable, or not, but still a dog.

In a world where hundreds (if not thousands) of people are dying every day (the sample of news stories above taken from roughly one 24-hour period), to me, there would seem to be a much larger issue to take up. It is, however, a matter of perspective.

But then I am struck by something Josef Stalin was alleged to have said:

One death is a tragedy; thousands (or was it millions) are just statistics.

And yet, where is the passion? Where is the anger? Where is the action? Nowhere.

Why is that? Why is it that we can get all that worked up over the deliberate death of one dog, when there are so many deliberate deaths of human beings every day? To me that is more than a tragedy, it is an obscenity.

I understand that in war people die, that is why Robert E. Lee’s observation always seems so appropriate:

It is well that war is so terrible; otherwise we should grow too fond of it.

(If you don’t know who Bobbie Lee was, please look him up, he was a great American)

There are times for war, just as there are times for peace, but in every conflict/war/battle every death is a tragedy. We see far too much tragedy these days. Part of that is a product of the telecommunications revolution that allows us to be aware of events happening all around the planet within seconds of it happening, but even then it seems that there is a lot of violence being done to relatively innocent people every day that far outweighs the fate of a simple dog. I am not really criticizing my stepdaughter, just pointing out that that it is a matter of perspective … a matter of what is important.

The problem with delegation

Background reading

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/06/allegations-american-generals-delayed-kabul-hospital-abuse-probe/?hpt=hp_t2

I recently read the above story about an Afghan Army hospital and the abysmal care its patients receive. Now, the hospital does have American advisors, but I fail to see how that makes them responsible for how the Afghan Army runs its hospital.

Granted, I think the actions and policies suck … big time … but that happens when you delegate authority and responsibility to someone else.

First of all, when you delegate some task, remember first, foremost and always: You are not doing it and because you are not doing it, whoever is doing WILL in most cases do it differently than you would have done it.

This is a fact of life. They might do it somewhat the way you would have done it, but there will be differences. The biggest problem in leadership is recognizing this fact and accepting it. This is something Americans have a big problem dealing with when we are in other lands. We seem to think that a) we know best, so everybody should do everything the way we do it and b) there is no other way to do things. We are stupid, and, in that sense, lousy leaders. Sorry, my fellow Americans, but we are.

So, when you let someone else take over doing whatever, then you damn well better be ready to accept the outcome and hope and pray it accomplishes the mission/job. By that I mean, you have to be ready to accept that what they are doing is the best way they think it should be done and, despite that, you have to respect that, even if you think it is awful. If it accomplished the job satisfactorily, then all the better; if not, then it is a “teaching moment” for you. Otherwise, you might as well try to do it yourself … and you never will go home.

I learned this lesson in both my civilian and military careers. When I was the news editor at a mid-sized daily newspaper it was my job to see that the paper got out each night. I had several subordinates who would stand in for me on my days off or when I got sick and I learned fast that I had to accept how the paper looked when one of them had the job of getting it to the press on time and it was really bad form to be a Monday-morning quarterback the next day. I hadn’t been there, so I really couldn’t be a critic. All I could do is use it as a teaching moment and explain what I might have done different and how I would have done it. No, you don’t jump up and down on your desk, yelling and screaming, because that rarely works as people will just turn off and tune you out.

I quickly learned the same lesson in my National Guard role as a platoon sergeant. Unless I wanted to run everything (which is impossible), I had to trust my squad leaders to do their assigned tasks as they were trained to do. Often, they would try new ways of doing tasks. Some worked and some didn’t. But in all cases it was a learning experience.

Another leadership tip: Praise in public; criticize in private. To do otherwise is a morale killer. My workers and troops soon learned that if their fearless leader called them into a private conference, it was a bit – as one former school teacher told me – a bit like being sent to the principal’s office. Which I told him was exactly how he should have felt because what I was chewing him out for was really beneath what I expected him as a professional.

I had one of my soldiers look at me and say, honestly to me one day as I drew him off to the side with the words “we need to have a chat”: “Sarge, I really screwed up this time, didn’t I.” He knew he had done wrong, and it was bad enough that I wasn’t going to be able to use as an example of a teaching moment for the rest of the troops. He also knew I wasn't going to embarrass him in front of his friends just for the sake of making a point.

These are hard lessons to learn, and are lessons that nations as well as people of all shapes, stripes and colors would be well to learn in my humble opinion.

So, what happens in the Afghan Army, or what happens in Iraq, is not the fault of NATO or the Americans. The Afghans (or the Iraqis) are the ones dropping the ball and it is time for people to step back and hold them accountable.

In this case, the Pottery Shack Rule (you break it, you own it), doesn’t really apply.

Hope for the best; expect the worst

I had a nice person comment on one of my rants, pointing out that we need to retain our hope that “government” will do the right thing for us … to retain faith in our government.

I could not agree more. Yes, we need to retain our hope and faith that government will do the “right” thing for us … but I would also say that we need to expect that the people in government, either elected or hired, will still be people … and that means they will be flawed and not always perfect, or even good.

However, hoping that someone will do the “right” thing begs two questions:

1. What is the “right” thing? Who defines it? How is it defined? Can it mean different things to different people? Do we as individuals have the right to have our own definition of the “right” thing, even if it disagrees with the vision of others?

2. For whom is it appropriate to do the “right” thing? I mean, for example, is it appropriate for a ditch digger to perform heart surgery, or a heart surgeon to dig ditches? Both work to improve the channeling the movement of fluids. Is it more appropriate for a town government to do something rather than the state government or the federal government or the United Nations? Who decides?

I know; I am terrible; I just ask questions. I guess I am sort of addicted to the Socratic method of thinking.

Still, we have to admit that human altruism is the exception rather than the rule. Why is that I haven’t a clue, but I know it is true. It is why we celebrate demonstrations of it, rather than just accept it as just another normal day at the office.

People are selfish. Governments, because they are run by people, are selfish. Now, just because something looks out for its own interest and does things because it is in its own interest, it doesn’t make either that something/someone or what it does bad. Not by a long shot.

Richard Dawkins wrote an interesting book that I read a few years ago called “The Selfish Gene.” Note, this is not a light read or an easy one, but it is enlightening.

The basic thing was that genes are selfish, acting in their own interest to replicate themselves, but sometimes they do things that seem almost altruistic … but in reality, really are just manifestations of its own self-interest. It is somewhat a radical thought, but I think it is true for the most part.

I have long contended that since people ARE selfish, the trick is to harness that selfishness so that it does the community and civilization at large the best. Sort of what Mr. Dawkins is talking about when he is discussing the selfish gene. In other words, how can I make what I want them to do what I want by making it something that they see is in their own best interest and rewarding. I don’t want them to do it out of fear because that ultimately is contra-productive. Also, I am not one to engage in conflict for conflict’s sake. I merely do it when I perceive it is my own best interests, where the rewards exceed any foreseen costs.

So, what is in our own best interest? Well, I think each of us has to determine that ourselves. First, only we really know what our interests are and, second, it isn’t really fair to slough that responsibility (or even authority) off on someone else … they already have a full-time job deciding what is in their own best interest (and they, like the rest of us, are doing it imperfectly).

Of course, all that assumes that individuals have a right to decide what to do and to be free of outside forces telling them what their role is to be. Granted, to an extent, we do let outsides forces tell us what to do every day by adhering to the rules, social mores, regulations, laws and contracts, social and otherwise, that we engage in routinely. But, by and large, at least so far in the United States, we are free to make a lot of our choices on our own (although those choices seem to be getting more and more restricted as I get older, and I am not referring to my own abilities and capabilities, but those permitted by the society that I live in). The libertarian in me says this is a bad thing, but I understand those who see things happening and want to intervene, to help protect people from their own stupidity. I just question the wisdom of it. Especially if you go so far as to relieve the individual of the responsibility to become aware of what their own interests are and to provide for them.

I guess that goes back to the question whether people are even smart enough to take care of themselves. My view is, for the vast majority, is that they are. It is just that a large proportion are quite willing to delegate that authority to another so that they can feel that they have met their responsibility, while not having to work at it.

Others may see it differently and say the smarter have an obligation to take care of the less smart and make their decisions for them … for their own good, of course, or for the good of those they have assumed responsibility for – such as children.

I happen to disagree with those folks, but then I am one who believes in individual liberty at the expense of community comity. I do, however, believe that it is in our own self-interest to help develop and protect our selected communities, but note that I said in my “own self-interest.” I don’t think I should do it because I owe it, necessarily, to the community, except in exchange for the benefits I receive from that community.

Well, enough rambling. Thank you to those who come and visit these random thoughts. I would encourage others, particularly those from other nations than the US of A, to give me feedback … even if it is not in English … I will figure out how to translate it. I actually enjoy dialogs, even with those people with whom I vehemently disagree (as long as we keep our tongues civil and don’t come to blows … that I don’t like).

Blame game?

http://geoimpulse.blogspot.com/2012/04/is-iraq-disintegrating.html?showComment=1334933795169#c7736188547415859602

I have an old high school acquaintance who I have relatively recently (via facebook) have renewed some of the debates with which we enlivened one of our classes our senior year. Debating with him was such fun, even if he had difficulty defending his progressive opinions back then. Come to think of it, he still does, in my humble opinion.

His current jag is that the war in Iraq was a failure and Bush was wrong and so it all was a waste … to the point that a) we should have left Saddam in power and b) the Iranians now are going to control Iraq (as well as Syria and Lebanon, I suppose). Well, with all due respect to the Don, once again I think he is wrong.

First, what were the reasons we and about 40 other nations went into Iraq in 2003 to enforce a host of U.N. resolutions?

Weapons of Mass Destruction? Partly … and yes, despite the conventional wisdom of today: a) the Iraqis did have some WMDs, did have the capability of producing more and did have plans to produce more, if and when the then-in-force sanctions regimen collapsed and was no longer in effect and b) that Saddam’s regime already had demonstrated against the Iranians in the 1980-1988 war that it was willing to use them against external enemies and against the Kurds and the Shi’a that it was willing to use such weapons against internal enemies as well.

The fact that he was a genocidal tyrant who was killing thousands of his people annually as well as torturing thousand upon thousands more.

The fact that he was blatant violation of something like 19 U.N. Security Council resolutions, many of which authorized the use of force to compel compliance.

The fact that he was fostering terrorist actions against not only Israel but other “enemies” (including the United States), including but not limited to training, financing and giving the families of anti-Semitic homicide bombers $25,000 USD if they bomber was successful.

It already was costing the US (and other countries involved, including the Brits), billions of bucks to maintain the U.N.-ordered “No Fly” zones over northern and southern Iraq to protect the indigenous people there (both basically unrepresented in Bathist regime) from military reprisals against them.

In addition, the Coalition had moved thousands of troops, billions of dollars worth of military supplies into the deserts of Kuwait and to a lesser extent eastern Turkey, in an effort to convince the Saddam regime that cooperating with the U.N. mandated inspections for weapons of mass destruction was in its best interest. An effort that was only marginally successful, as the U.N. inspectors complained that the Iraqis were not be cooperative, and were, in fact, being disingenuous.

All those are well documented reasons and really can’t be debated, unless you want just to deny reality.

Still, one has to be a realist and point out that however good the reasons 40-plus nations (for whatever reason you want to attribute) felt compelled to be involved, while the initial operation was a resounding success from a purely military point of view, its implementation and the subsequent efforts to help the Iraqis form a more perfect union definitely screwed the pooch as they say.

First, let me say that Gen. Shinseki was right … and Don Rumsfeld was wrong.  Let me say that the Bush Administration (including POTUS and VPOTUS) made a host of atrocious decisions and assumptions that merely illustrated the American propensity to be extremely ignorant of things non-American.

But let me point out that one cannot just use the American presence as a scapegoat for what has happened over the last 10 years in Iraq. It is not from lack of effort by the Americans that bombs still are going off in Iraq and that much of Iraq’s infrastructure remains damaged. No, most (a vast majority and now all) of that is the result of Iraqi v. Iraqi violence and depredations.

It is, as it always has, been the choice of the Iraqis themselves to choose violence over coexistence and compromise.

Now, as for the point that the U.S. has handed Iraq to the suzerainty of Tehran: Ain’t happening, and ain’t gonna happen.

Why do I say that? How about a little reality check here:

First, Iraq is Arab and Kurdish; Iran is Persian and Kurdish (but dominated by the Persians). There is a reason why that stretch of water between the Arabian peninsula and the coast of Southwest Asia has two names, depending on which side you are on – The Arabian Gulf or the Persian Gulf.

Simply put, Arabs and Persians do not get along and haven’t for about 3,000 years. There is a very, very long history of conflict and conquest here in cultures that have very long memories. So, to expect Baghdad just to march in step with Tehran is to ignore reality.

Secondly, not only is their the Shi’a-Sunni divide (which is another source of conflict that stretches back about 1,700 years) but there is a Shi’a-Shi’a divide between the ayatollahs in Qum and the ayatollahs in Karbala. Needless to say that does not bode all that well for Iranian dominance there.

What is happening in Iraq today is little different that what we saw happen in North Ireland for 20-plus years, Lebanon for at least as long, or Bosnia or Kosovo, or Somalia, or Sudan/Dafur, or Uganda, or Namibia, or host of other places that could be named. It is a civil war between two ethnic/religious groups vying for political power and to dominate the economic pie.

Rather than share either, both sides continue to use whatever means possible to advance their own agenda.

Question: Is that that fault of the Americans? Hell, no. Do the Americans necessarily a responsibility to try to intervene? Well, we tried that with mixed results in various places, but in the end, the responsibility for whatever violence and chaos an area maybe enduring, whether it Afghanistan or Iraq or the Philippines or Sri Lanka or Nigeria or Norway, really is the responsibility of the people who live there. They have to make the decision whether it is better to live under a rule of law where they are essentially equal before the law or to live under some other system.

So, to fault the Americans for failing to create more perfect unions in Iraq and Afghanistan is to ignore reality. The Iraqis and the Afghans are choosing their own fates.

Random Thoughts 20

As I watch the events marking 9/11 and the controversy surrounding the pastor in Florida who threatened to burn copies of the Islamic holy book, I was struck by the differences between the US and say Afghanistan or Indonesia.

In those countries, demonstrators angry over the prospect of some obscure non-denominational preacher in a faraway country with a church with a membership of about 50 will destroy a copy of their sacred text. They protest by burning American flags, a relatively sacred object to many Americans, and urging death to Americans everywhere. I imagine that if they had Christian Bibles to burn, they would readily do so.

Americans, who thought the idea of burning the Islamic sacred text … or at least a copy of it … was not a very good idea were able to talk to the point that the pastor reconsidered his idea and apparently has decided that it is not such a great idea after all.

Still, the riots and demonstrations persist, just because someone even thought of burning the text. How bizarre is that?

I wonder if Christian Americans were to go on rampages every time an American flag was burned, or Christian sacred symbols were destroyed in Muslim countries, how that would be received? How about Americans calling for the deaths of all Muslims and then violently following up?

Yes, I know, there are those who say Americans already are doing that with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but that would be a misrepresentation of those efforts.

Besides, much of the violence in those war torn countries is not directed at coalition forces as it is against local indigenous people.

It just strikes me how hypocritical it is to hold the US to one standard while absolving others and holding them to an entirely different standard. It doesn’t matter that Americans look at themselves as unique or exceptional in this world where multicultural people have been able to come together and for the most part live in peace and harmony (especially when compared to the rest of the world where peace and harmony, if it exists at all) comes only with homogeneous countries with one race, one religion and one government ideology.

But then, it is acceptable to find fault with everything the US does, both internally and externally, and to absolve others of the selfsame failings or worse.

It really gets depressing sometimes.

Random Thoughts 10

I have been doing my usual thing of reviewing the news on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, BBC, Al Jazeera, and commentary from the Drudge Report and Neil Boortz (He is an Atlanta-based talk-show host who actually went to the same high school I did ... although he was ahead of me by four or five years) and have a whole bunch of random thoughts ... well some are related.

It was interesting to read that Russian President Putin picked a relatively political unknown as prime minister to lead a caretaker government until the parliamentary elections in November and the presidential elections early next year. The thing that most interests me is whether Putin will just leave office (as he is barred from seeking a third term) and pass the reins of power to a successor yet to be determined. That will be the true test of democracy in Russia.. Another thing that sort of amazed me ... here the Russians are a few short months from having an election for president and like nobody is campaigning for the job ... this seems weird, especially when we look at the U.S. where it is like 14 months before the election and still six months before the primary mess begins (I will not digress on that as I think I already have) and most of what is on the news is about the two mobs seeking to become their party’s candidate. It makes one wonder what it going on in Russia these days.

Then, of course, the Russians had to set off a massive fuel-air bomb that was four times more powerful than the reported force of the U.S. MOAB bomb that uses basically the same technology. I think we just reverted back to the 1950s with a schoolyard demonstration of our bomb is bigger than your bomb.

Then there was the item about the Japanese prime minister saying he was stepping down. It is interesting to see the Japanese leadership fall on their swords in traditional fashion when things are not going well for their party. It also is one of the drawbacks of parliamentary systems ... government’s tend to fall all too often which leads to a certain amount of instability. I still think fixed terms are better ... more stable, even if the national media in the U.S. seems to start the campaign for the next election the day after the voters finish voting.

Then there was the massive earthquake down in Indonesia ... I imagine the first questions asked by Bush upon hearing this was: where is the nearest American aircraft carrier; where is the nearest American Marine/Navy amphibious ready group; and where are the Mercy/Comfort/Hope, the hospital ships. Once more, I suspect American forces will leap into the breach with little fanfare or recognition. Such is the way of things.

Last but not least, there is the “Patreaus Report.”

First, it really contained nothing new, nothing unexpected. All the usual suspects said all the usual things and things are pretty much status quo ante. However, I would recommend reading an Al Jazeera analysis for the story (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/160735B8-6995-44FA-9891-274A29CF60E5.htm) for the “Arab” take on the story.

Another recommendation would be to read Newt Gingrich’s take on the report (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200709/POL20070911a.html) which I happen to agree with (for the most part). I respect Gingrich as a historian, political theorists and a political bomb thrower, but he has made too many enemies to be an effective leader and his public persona has been ground down to where he really seems to be fringe character these days. That is a long way from his heady days as Speaker of the House. Still, in this case, I think his assessment is right on the mark. Our political leaders have taken the eye off the ball and have lost sight at whom the enemy really is, how it fights and how long this “war” really is going to go on. That is the problem and it is going to sink us. No one seems to have a vision of how to fight this World War IV (WWIII was the Cold War) or at least no one really has articulated a vision how to fight it. Iraq is just one front and, from the comments and actions from one side of the U.S. political spectrum, it is a front that the U.S. has no right to win on. We are just throwing away troops and money on a lost cause. Which leads me to ask what cause they would be willing to invest the lives of our troops and the wherewithal and resources to equip and supply them. Right now, short of tanks on the beach at Atlantic City or Newport Beach or Padre Island or tanks rolling across the desert toward Tucson or El Paso or Austin ... or across the bridge and through the tunnel between Windsor and Detroit, I don’t think some Americans think that military force is acceptable ... and I imagine in those cases they would be screaming that the U.S. just needed to negotiate in good faith and confess all its sins and give its wealth away to atone for those sins. I really believe that these people have lost track of the fact that the world they live in is not the same world the rest of us live in. To them I would say: There really are people out there who don’t care if an American is a liberal/progressive or a conservative, a Democrat or a Republican, worker or management; all they care about is that they intend to kill Americans and do harm to America in any way they possibly can.

It is beyond me how these Americans - as intelligent and as educated as I know them to be - can’t understand that America – the United States – is the object of a love/hate relationship with the rest of the world. For the most part, the rest of the world loves this idealized image of the U.S. and its culture as it is spread through books and magazines, TV and movies, CDs and DVDs, but, at the same time, it hates the U.S. culture because it is not their culture. It also hates the Americans because they keep demonstrating that they don’t really live up to the idealized but artificial image of who and what Americans are.

Yes, Americans can be arrogant ... but so can any other nationality you can name that is proud of their nation and their culture. American “exceptionalism” is not so exceptional, except for the fact that the American system is the most successful in history in providing for needs of its citizens. Look, even the poorest of Americans have a standard of living that far outstrips the poor in other countries. This is not to belittle the poverty (mostly of spirit) that can be found in the U.S., but it is to point out that there are very few, in reality, in the U.S. who lives in the grinding poverty that can be found in most Third World countries and even in some developed countries. This wealth is why a lot of the world resents Americans; that and the fact we keep telling people that if they would just follow our example, it, too, could be theirs. That plus the fact that we often fail to live up to our own ideals and standards, which makes others ask how can we follow such a flawed example.

Nuff ranting for now.