Nicholsclan.com : a dimension of mind...

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously, some of you out there are confused. The phrase, "Hi, how are you?" is RHETORICAL!! "Fine, and you?" is an appropriate and polite response. It is not an invitation to launch into a detailed description of how you actually are to a relative stranger.

Let's establish some guidelines. As a rule of thumb, if you've never had lunch with the person, they don't really care how you are. Regardless of how many times you've noshed with your buddy, if you are currently in the men's room, he doesn't really care how you are. And if you are having the conversation through a stall door, well, then you really should think about getting a fish to talk to at home.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the "what were they thinking?" column comes news from NYC that they are opening a public high school exclusively for gay, lesbian, and transgender children so that they'll be able to get an education free from harassment.

While I'm sure the intention behind this was noble, in execution it is misguided, and not at all because this is about homosexuals. The fundamental problems are two-fold. First, what makes gays a unique demographic when it comes to harassment? Why not a separate school for fat kids, nerds, dumb kids, etc.? They all get picked on. Ironically, New York State's education policy is very pro-inclusion at this point. Classrooms should be blended with kids of all abilities, races, genders, etc. The decision to open this gay-only school would seem to fly directly in the face of that policy. Inclusion for all... except gays?

The second issue is harder to defend, but I think equally pertinent. If you are different, you will be picked on. This is reality in school and in life in general. It doesn't matter if that difference is sexual orientation, race, religion, or body type. Granted, school can be merciless when it comes to being picked on, but if you are different, thickening up your skin and learning to deal with the real world is an essential social adaptation for life. Yes, school is an intellectual pursuit, but it is also a social pursuit. Learning to deal and work with others is as much a part of your education as math class.

And one final thought. Given the anti-discrimination laws which prevent employers from making decisions based on a person's sexual orientation, it is not necessary to reveal your orientation to your employer. Yet we will be putting "I am gay" on each of these kids' resumes by virtue of the high school they attended.

And one really really absolutely final thought (for the moment)... what will be the entrance criteria for getting into this school? Sexual orientation is hardly a black and white delineation. There are shades of grey too numerous to comprehend. Who will decide where to draw the line, and by what measure will you fall on one side or the other?

------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, this was from Jay Leno last night, but I thought it was funny.

The U.S. is saying that they are moving in on Saddam and that he has no where left to hide. I sure hope he doesn't hide with his Weapons of Mass Destruction! We'll never be able to find him then.

------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering Kim's thoughts about heroes, I like her idea about making heroes out of people you know. I think every parent hopes his child thinks him a hero, and for at least some part of their youth, I contend most children tend to view one or both parents as their heroes. If not parents, then perhaps close family or friends. But I think we need to define "hero" to take this any further. To me, a hero is someone that you not only respect, but that you wish to emulate or grow up to be like. But I don't think it's necessary to want to emulate every aspect of that person for them to be a hero to you. You could emulate the bravery of a NYC firefighter and that might make him a hero. For all you know, he goes home and kicks his dog. Would it diminish his hero status if his dog kicking became public? Undoubtedly. But blind to his animal abuses, you simply focus on the known traits and the ones you want to emulate. In this case, what you don't know, can't really hurt you. The hero is simply an embodiment of an ideal. Truth is not really the point. Striving for personal betterment is. Therefore, I contend that heroes don't need to exist as all-or-nothing ideals. There is an element or a vector of behavior you strive for. The rest is blissfully invisible.

Another point about restricting yourself to heroes you know is that for many people that can be overly limiting. Like most parents, I want my kids to grow beyond me someday. I want them to be more than I am, and more than I'm capable of. If I am their only hero, then that limits what they aspire to be. I don't want them to be just like me, or just like anybody else. I want them to draw on the best of breed behaviors they see from a variety of people. People they know, people they read about, or even fictional characters can all be valuable role models, and to my mind, that makes them heroes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kim has some additional insights and observations on heroes and celebrities. Kim's comments are below in Purple Text - As always, Italicized Text of any color is quoted material from previous posts.

I can't stop thinking about this. I agree completely, as I've said, that our society is wrong for creating the fact that celebrities are in such demand in people's minds. However, I think it stems from the fact that people don't teach what real values and character traits should be for those "heroes" in your life. It's situations like this, when celebrities do (or are accused of doing wrong) that should be what parents use to teach their children what's important about other people. It's not what someone can do well that makes the person, but who the person really is that's important. I try at all costs to tell my girls that it's what's on the inside of a person that's important, not what they look like, what talents they have, or what they'll do for you that counts. People make celebrities what they are.

You, as everyone else, knows that I have an enormous fondness for Toby Keith. All I know of him is what he chooses to let me know. I only watch shows he's a guest on and listen to comments he makes himself. I'm no stalker of his by any means. My kids know I love 'em. But... if he were accused of something like this, I probably would want to know. I don't think I'd watch all the details about it, but should it turn out to be true, I would sure want to know that I should have the right to feel differently about him.

Heroes should be good people that you KNOW. I don't feel I know any celebrity. I may have a great respect for them, but that's different than knowing them. In fact, one of my other favorite celebrities said it best when Larry Bird (Celtics) had a father come up to him and ask for his autograph for his kid because Larry was the kids hero. Larry's reply was "that's too bad... you should be his hero". If more kids had good role models to teach them, maybe all these celebrities wouldn't be so important.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Another contributor makes a welcome guest appearance. Kim's comments to the Kobe Bryant piece earlier today are below in Purple Text - As always, Italicized Text of any color is quoted material from previous posts.

I'm not suggesting that I find Kobe guilty or not. To be honest, I really haven't followed it at all simply because it's getting too much press. Personally, I may almost think he isn't guilty of rape, but only because of the fact that she did willingly go to his room. She does have bruises, but only to the extent that a friend of hers says so a week later, but we haven't seen them. (To be fair, maybe the bruising evidence was published before I got so disgusted with the whole thing.) I'm not sure at all that she didn't go to his room to be with him just because he was such a celebrity. I'm sure that played into it. And maybe once there, she changed her mind. She's entitled to that too. However, the part of this that got me completely NOT following isn't (as you state) the 'amount' of coverage it's getting, but the 'type' of coverage is what's bothered me the most. This is as typical a case as any other rape case... once public, the press immediately go after the alleged victim and HER past. Then when it actually gets to trial, it is SHE that must defend herself to the world... not him. That behavior in the press, the courts and the system at large is exactly why there are so many victims out there that no one will ever hear about. It's simply not worth the public scrutiny... especially when going against such a public figure. There is the only reason that would make me believe her without all the facts. Why would she want to be dragged through this as she knew she would be, based on who she accused, knowing she'd face this. OTOH, maybe she never had a clue what happens to those that are the "victim" in these types of cases. Surely, if it were me, 15 minutes of fame no way out weighs what she'll go thru, if it's not true. Still what I do agree with you on is that if the people out in the world today weren't so fixated on others lives to the extent they are, maybe we'd have to endure a lot less of it on TV.

You raise a good point with regard to what she is going through and how this makes it all the more difficult for people to report any sort of sexual assault. In this case, it seems exacerbated by the fact that Kobe Bryant was not a celebrity "bad boy", and because of his popularity and gentle clean-cut image, many in the public seem unwilling to think of him in a felonious light.

If anything, I think you are making an even stronger case for removing the celebrity spotlight from criminal or even potentially criminal cases. If Kobe were just another Joe on the street, then this woman would not be hiding from the press camped out in her front yard. The rape shield law has kept the mainstream press from releasing her name, but her name is being used by certain talk radio hosts and web sites. And given that all her friends have been interviewed on CNN, she is probably the worst kept secret in the nation. Under the circumstances, the assault by the press may well be more damaging to her than the (alleged) assault by Kobe.

Further, I find that I feel sorry for him. Let me clarify that at a minimum he was guilty of some seriously bad judgement. (I can't help but think >that his alleged victim was minimally guilty of equally poor judgement.) Kobe may also be guilty of a felony. I don't know. But why I feel sorry >for him is that it no longer really matters whether he's guilty of more or not. We are increasingly a society where people of any amount of >celebrity are tried by the over-zealous media long before they ever get a day in court.

I'm sorry, but I don't feel sorry for him at all. If he's innocent of rape fine. But he knows what celebrity status means. He signed up for that. So even if he had an "indiscretion", he had to have known there was a possibility that it would get out. The fact that it did, regardless of rape or just adultery, he knew it was possible. If he didn't want the attention he's getting, he should've known better.

I must disagree that he signed up for celebrity status and therefore has this sort of publicity coming. He signed up to play basketball. By virtue of his exceptional skill at that, he has become a celebrity. I disagree that this somehow makes his entire life subject to public scrutiny. I do agree that he should have recognized that our society currently dictates that celebrity status, whether via sports, politics, entertainment, or whatever, suddenly puts your life under a microscope. But I assert that this is a moral shortcoming of our current culture.

Generalizing the discussion away from Kobe Bryant in particular, we have reached a juncture where you almost have to question the sanity of anyone who would willingly subject themselves to the media microscope. Especially for sports and entertainment celebrities, for them to practice their chosen careers they have to be in the limelight by definition. In politics, exceptional people have other options such as success in business or academia, where the spotlight is not nearly so bright. In fact I'm beginning to question whether anyone who seeks political office could possibly be qualified for the job. If their talents were that good, they could enjoy success any number of places.

The result of all this being that we have reached a point where we destroy heroes in the name of "truth". Many an author and researcher have lamented that today's youth have no heroes. How could they? Heroes are larger than life. They are exceptional people who are buoyed by stories which have been enhanced and romanticized through the retelling. The press observed a certain respect for personal privacy at one time. This allowed hero status to gather around exceptional people. Sure, heroes throughout history have all had their dark sides - their skeletons in the closet. But that didn't make them less exceptional in their fields. Scandals existed and were reported, but celebrities were not hunted for sport the way they are today. Success could be had by being a great athlete, astronaut, or orator, without worrying that somebody was following you home every night.

I'm not advocating that we sweep criminal activity aside for celebrities. I am advocating that we provide a spotlight to celebrities when they are on the stage, on the court, or behind the microphone. But let them live normal private lives when they are not. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I don't think too many of us would want every nuance of our personal lives broadcast to the audience of our professional lives. Therefore, it would be hypocritical of us to be interested in the sordid details of some celebrity's life.

---------------------------------------------------------------
I find myself contemplating Kobe Bryant today. By itself this is unusual. I really don't devote any interest or energy in following sports, but I find I'm interested in his situation nonetheless. Further, I find that I feel sorry for him. Let me clarify that at a minimum he was guilty of some seriously bad judgement. (I can't help but think that his alleged victim was minimally guilty of equally poor judgement.) Kobe may also be guilty of a felony. I don't know. But why I feel sorry for him is that it no longer really matters whether he's guilty of more or not.

We are increasingly a society where people of any amount of celebrity are tried by the over-zealous media long before they ever get a day in court. Yet I'm hard pressed to vilify the media for this. The fault ultimately lies with the public. If there were no market for the scandal, there would be no circus surrounding it. The technologies of mass communication and virtual reality have brought us to a point where fiction is no longer sufficiently stimulating. So-called Reality TV is successful precisely because there is a believability to it, regardless of how outrageous it is. Similar known fictional situations would not last the week in the ratings.

And perhaps the hypocrisy of people is the hardest to take. I can no longer count the number of people who admit to me how ludicrous things like Reality TV and media crucifixions are, and in their second breath tell me how they just can't help themselves though. They have to watch. They have to read. The cruel realities of capitalism are that business will arise to fill that void. The guilt lies with those of us who create that void in the first place. Shame on us.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW - there were over 100 hits on this blog yesterday. A new (and very cool) record. This means there are a lot of silent readers out there. You are obviously welcome to read in silence, but if you have a moment I'd love to hear from you. Let me know what you like or don't. Let me know how you found the blog. And if you have a point or counterpoint to make on the content, that would be even better. There's a "comments" link to the right (or top if this is an older browser), or just send an e-mail to blog@nicholsclan.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a follow-up observation to my point on Tuesday that radical monotheists are not inclined toward democracy.

First, I want to clarify that this blanket statement is by no means limited to Muslims. There are plenty of radical Christians in this country and more than a few radical Jews in Israel who make me nervous because of their willingness to oppress (or even persecute) people who are different, and to my knowledge are almost always organized behind a single powerful leader. Bill Maher said that we should stop focusing on regulating drugs and think about regulating religion as it's far more dangerous. Now to be fair, religion, as practiced by most people, is not dangerous and may even be beneficial. Curiously, the same thing could be said for drugs (especially if you include all pharmaceuticals). It does make you think.

Anyway, the observation which occurred to me yesterday was that the principles of democracy arose in ancient Greece - a place rife with gods and godesses. The Roman Empire (also pretty rich in the number of deities) was the most prominate practice of democracy in the ancient world. Could it be that polytheism (or at least not monotheism) was prerequisite to the conception of a democratic form of government? And would it then follow that monotheism and democracy are naturally at odds with one another? Perhaps this was recognized by our founding fathers and that was the reason the legal separation of church and state was instituted in the USA.

I haven't thought this all the way through yet, but I wanted to toss it out and see if anyone wanted to contribute their thoughts. I welcome them.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought for the day: "A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion."

------------------------------------------------------------------
The debate joyfully rages on. (If you're just joining, go back to 1st July 22nd entry, where the discussion starts, and read up from there.) Andrew's words are in Green Text - Italicized Text of any color is quoted material from previous posts.

The war was decisive yet humane. how often has that combination ever happened?

Humane? You recanted "good war" for "humane"? In the words of Inigo Montoya (Princess Bride), "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Webster's defines humane as marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration. War is none of those things. Maybe you should switch from "Rambo II" to "Saving Private Ryan" - or at least to decaf. Yes the war was decisive. It was an awesome display of force and technological prowess. But given the disparity of our respective forces, we would have had egg on our face if it was anything less. Yes, we took great measure to protect Iraqi lives and assets, but to your previous point, that was motivated as much if not more by political and economic necessity than by our humanity.

Janeane Garofalo and Susan Sarandon can kiss my white Irish ass.

I noticed you didn't invite Martin Sheen or Sean Penn to pucker up. Oversight?

The issue wasn't the short term price of oil, but rather the long term (5 years and out) guarantee of it. Believe it our not, currently we only get a small percentage of our oil from the Middle-East, something less than 20%. We are getting a lot of our oil from South America, Canada, Russia and areas surrounding the Black Sea. But these countries are pumping it out at very high rates and peak production will happen quickly, probably in a few years. After that, Middle East oil will be the only game in town. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, after Saudi Arabia.

Twenty-five years ago, the U.S. only had a ten year supply of oil without the Middle Eastern fields. Doom-sayers were adament that if we didn't find an alternative to oil or play nice with the Arab nations that we would all be walking to work. But it didn't happen. New techniques to locate new reserves, reach oil we couldn't get to before, and/or get more oil out of existing wells was developed. This is no different than then. And technology is also on the verge of realizing man-made oil production through the Thermo-Depolymerization Process you mentioned earlier. If that pans out (and that looks pretty likely), the Middle East gets a lot less important. But all that is aside the real issue. It's one thing to state oil as the primary goal of the war. However, that was never stated as even a tertiary goal. In fact it was adamently denied to be a factor. Will it come in handy? Damn straight. But it's a little like taking over Fort Knox because you need the parking space and then serendipitously finding the basement is full of gold. Does anybody really buy the parking story? That's the point.

Democracy is a human, not an American ideal. My guess is that only someone living under a democracy would ask your questions. Democracy isn't the only benign form of government, but it provides the greatest protection from extreme forms. As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest". Believing that democracy is not the "cultural norm" for Muslims is probably elitist, was Fascism the cultural norm for Germans? The recent Iranian student protests for democracy make it pretty clear that the desire is there.

Well I guess it's my turn to claim that your explanation is simplistic. If democracy were the natural human organizational model, it wouldn't be so scarce. True democracy, where everyone has an equal voice, is virtually non-existant. We are fooling ourselves if we think it even exists in the U.S. Only 51% of eligible voters turned out for elections in 2000, and most of them were woefully unprepared to be in a voting booth. Besides, true democracy (majority rule) doesn't work anyway. Larry Flynt commented that "Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper."

Left to their own, people organize in heirachical command and control structures. There are leaders and there are followers, and the vast majority of people are followers. They don't want to be abused, but they want to be led. Strangely, "The Matrix Reloaded" gets it right. Benign leadership/control requires that people be given the illusion of choice. Any parent knows this as well, and what frightens me is Bush administration gets it too. On the flip, everyone from Lord Acton to George Orwell has said, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The result being that "natural" human organizations yield a constant struggle to be King-of-the-Hill. You follow the guy that's there until he becomes abusive or weak and the next guy knocks him out. This is the basis of most unstable or oppressive governments. Further, virtually all social mammals operate on this theme. In cases where resource competition is not a daily struggle (and only in those cases), our intellect has allowed us to reason a way beyond the constant churn and consequent violence. The main way we attempt to address the problem is by separating power so that no one body/person has absolute power. In the USA this power is separated into a number of different bodies, each acting as a check and balance on the other - the Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, and the written Constitution. The system is notoriously slow and not in the least productive, however that was exactly the way it was designed. It is this design which provides the illusion of choice for us as citizens while protecting us from abuse and leader churn. Our so-called democracy is one way to achieve this checked power distribution and illusionary choice, but there's nothing magic about it.

As for my comment that Muslims are culturally disinclined to democracy, I concede that I painted with too broad a brush - or at least the wrong broad brush. It is radical monotheists who are not inclined toward democracy. They have already yielded their will to their god, and will readily transfer that to a human leader replete with religious fervor. Certainly all Muslims are not radicals, the Iranian students are good evidence of that. But I fear that Iraq has more than an annoying share of radicals.

I support the policy of preemption, I think it is a necessary and inevitable reaction to the new reality of asymmetrical warfare, where small bands of individuals can threaten the world.

This is probably the most disconcerting statement you've made. You're on a mighty slippery slope there. Our form of government is based on the notion that you are innocent until proven guilty. Now you are saying that guilt is provable prior to the occurrance of the crime. It's easy to back preemption when you are the 500lb gorilla and the alleged perpetrator is half a world away. But if we are to avoid hypocracy we must practice the same basic philosophy at home. Are you prepared to be arrested because you're sitting in a bar with a BAC over the limit and car keys in your pocket? I'm not. And I'm also thinking to a future point where America might not be the 500lb gorilla. How would we react if the Chinese launched a preemptive strike against us because we were experiencing civil unrest and had old stockpiles of WMDs in our possession. It's not all that unlikely a future.

Even given that preemption is limited as our foreign policy, doesn't that mean we should be invading Iran, Syria, and North Korea right now as a minimum? India is somewhat politically unstable and nuclear capable as well as being an increasing home for American business. Lots of interets at stake there. And Pakistan hates India and also has WMDs. We should get them too. Where does it stop? Who is the judge for what qualifies as justified preemption? There's not a person or organization on the planet I would trust with that authority. This is not a world I want to live in.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew returns with his rebuttal. His words are in Green Text - Italicized Text is quoted material from previous posts.

Oh boy, I've really poked my head into the bee's nest now. Just a few points of clarification and responses.

I'm intrigued by your definition of a "good war". I understand the concept of a just war, a necessary war, or even a noble war. But "good" is not an adjective I find remotely applicable to the reality of war.

"Good" was probably (intentionally) a bit inflammatory given it's religious/moral implications. How about "Wildly Successful", "Extraordinary Triumphant" or "Opened a Giant Can of Whoop Ass". How do you measure the success of a war? Minimal numbers of soldiers and civilians killed, infrastructure spared, short duration, goals achieved, post war restructuring (in progress). The war was decisive yet humane. how often has that combination ever happened? But of course, none of the war protestors will give any credit to our military. They were predicting a million dead civilians, a blood bath in the streets of Baghdad, Arab streets going berserk, oil fields ablaze and the Iraqi infrastructure destroyed. Janeane Garofalo and Susan Sarandon can kiss my white Irish ass.

The really scary part is that I think he (Bush) truly believes his quest to rout evil from the world is divinely inspired. He thinks his god is more righteous and powerful than the Muslim god. He hasn't said that explicitly, but I think he believes it. He his guilty of acting with the same air of moral superiority as the terrorists he purports to hunt.

I agree with you, Bush is scary, overly nationalistic, dogmatic and a quite stupid. No doubt we will agree, that reentering Iraq wasn't Bush's idea, but in fact, hatched by guys like Paul Wolfowitz and Bill Kristol. If anything, Bush ran on a protectionist platform, as he said, he wasn't into "Nation Building." I think a lot of the protest over the war had more to do with Bush than the actual idea of attacking Iraq. The Left is rightly upset about the Clinton Impeachment, the 2000 election, drilling in Alaska and pulling out of Koyoto. As I said previously, the war was just about the only policy of the Bush administration that I agree with.

Things like the Patriot Act and the positioning of those with opposing views as unpatriotic simply reek of the tactics McCarthy employed in the '50s and are the precursor to even scarier things to come. Is it not ironic that we are losing our own freedoms while we wander the globe spreading it elsewhere?

Excellent point, I agree completely.

I would welcome more detail on why you believe what you state above. As I stated earlier in the blog, this war broke new ground. It was pre-emptive. We attacked to remove a perceived threat. A perception which is turning out after the fact to have been greatly exaggerated. If this qualifies as justified, exactly what would not qualify as justification? If this becomes the international standard for war then as a planet we are about to experience a great deal more of it.

I support the policy of preemption, I think it is a necessary and inevitable reaction to the new reality of asymmetrical warfare, where small bands of individuals can threaten the world. Of course no stockpiles of WMD have been found in Iraq yet (I believe they will). But I think finding them is moot. Iraq was a threat, even if they no longer had WMD, because they never gave the world any reason to believe they didn't possess them. The power of WMD comes from the threat of using them, actually using them is usually impractical. Iraq gave every signal that they still possessed the WMD's they had used in the past. Is killing someone threatening you with an unloaded gun, self defense?

Will the world be safer and more democratic now? It's not clear Saddam was ever much of a threat to the world at large. His own populace was in the most danger, followed by his immediate neighbors. Curiously, the other Middle East nations were not pleading for U.S. intervention (excluding Israel who's always up for kicking a little Arab butt).

The rest of the Middle East supported us thru their relative silence. They couldn't support us openly, for fear of reprisals, and lack of trust that the US would actually follow thru with our threats. Now their confidence in our willingness to take risks and put boots on the ground is helping make headway in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict. The new respect we've gained will help us in our continuing war on terror. Bin Laden thought we were a paper tiger, that our only response to him would be to lob millon dollar cruise missiles at five dollar tents.

And what hubris drives the assertion that democracy is the only benign form of government? By implication, non-democratic institutions are less ideal. I don't buy it. The majority of the planet's population does not live under a functional democracy. Are they all oppressed? Do we need to go free the rest of them now? And I will be greatly astonished if anything resembling a democracy survives in Iraq after the U.S. forces leave. Look around the Muslim world and find me good examples of democracies. It's not the cultural norm for them. That doesn't mean they are doomed to oppression or even that they are wrong. Everyone doesn't need to be like us.

Democracy is a human, not an American ideal. My guess is that only someone living under a democracy would ask your questions. Democracy isn't the only benign form of government, but it provides the greatest protection from extreme forms. As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest". Believing that democracy is not the "cultural norm" for Muslims is probably elitist, was Fascism the cultural norm for Germans? The recent Iranian student protests for democracy make it pretty clear that the desire is there.

If the Middle East is more stable post-invasion it is only because there are hundreds of thousands of our heavily armed troops over there. If we left tomorrow, it would be way more destabilized than it was before we showed up.

Were not leaving tomorrow. When we do, hopefully things will be better.

And by what rationale did this war strengthen our diplomatic hand with terror sponsoring nations? Do you mean that we are probably more intimidating now so they are less likely to mess with us? That's only considered diplomacy if you're Bill Gates. We have established ourselves as the quintessential 500lb gorilla, but that's a double edged sword. The bully gets a lot of respect in the light of day, but needs to sleep with one eye open.

Hmmmm, Bill Gates, and he is.... what? An example of how not to run a successful company? The appeasement and lack of response to terrorist attacks during the Clinton administration didn't stop the 9/11 attacks. I believe that our weakness only encouraged them. We are a 500lb gorilla whether we fight back or not.

And I've addressed the "liberation" angle many times before. Yes, that was goodness and light. Yes, we've liberated other countries. But we've also ignored the plight of countless millions where liberating them was not politically feasible or economically viable.


I always find this the strangest argument against the attack on Iraq. Just because we can't solve all the worlds problems, does that mean we shouldn't try to solve any of them? Especially ones that our in our national interest.

The first war was a U.N action and it accomplished the U.N. goal of driving Iraq from Kuwait, and officially ended. The goal was never to depose Saddam. Yes, Iraq didn't comply with the U.N. sanctions after the war. But the U.N did not reauthorize a war to enforce them. The U.S. was the dominate military force in both wars, but they were different legal entities launched by two separate governments. You can't join them as contiguous actions of a single government. Emotionally there is a connection. There is continuity for the U.S. involvement. But that doesn't make them the same war.

Ok, let's be honest, the first war was a US war and we brought the UN along to appease the fence sitters. If you were to suppose that this war was necessary for our national security, then we have a right to defend ourselves, regardless of what the UN wants. If you want to disagree on the need for the attack, that's fine, but the US should not let the UN decide if we can defend ourselves.

Sure, we're oil junkies. I drive a big honkin' truck, so I know a thing or two about being addicted to oil products. But we survived for 12 years without Iraqi oil on the market. Was the price rising? Sure. But we weren't in danger of losing our oil supply.

The issue wasn't the short term price of oil, but rather the long term (5 years and out) guarantee of it. Believe it our not, currently we only get a small percentage of our oil from the Middle-East, something less than 20%. We are getting a lot of our oil from South America, Canada, Russia and areas surrounding the Black Sea. But these countries are pumping it out at very high rates and peak production will happen quickly, probably in a few years. After that, Middle East oil will be the only game in town. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, after Saudi Arabia.

Besides, if the real issue was flooding the market with Iraqi oil to lower the price, that could have been accomplished by pressuring the U.N. to remove the oil sanctions under the premise of providing revenue to improve the standard of living for Iraqi citizens. No one would have died and we wouldn't have invested billions to accomplish that.

We already had an oil for food program and by most accounts it wasn't working.

We're back to the honesty and integrity of our leaders. If oil was the reason, then say that. I take umbrage at the notion that Bush et. al. are trying to manipulate public opinion to create the illusion of morally righteous actions when the reality is otherwise - even if they truly believe that their real agenda is in my best interest. How the hell does that remotely translate to the precious democracy which we are so desperate to spread to everyone else?

Look, as I said before, I don't like Bush, didn't vote for him and probably won't be voting for him next time around. I'm an independent (thank god). But I do find it ironic that the Left is suddenly aware of the necessity for "honesty and integrity of our leaders".

----------------------------------------------------------------
Ahhh, new blood in the water... Noble reader Andrew sent the following message (green text below) to address my question of why we attacked Iraq. My thanks for the contribution. Worthy adversaries are always welcome, as is his counter-point, or yours. My response is in the normal text.

OK, I'll bite. Your explanations, to finish the job daddy started and due to our oil interests are both correct, but far from a complete list and a bit too simplistic (coursn' dubya likes to keep it simple). Occam's Razor might not be the best tool for analyzing foreign policy or the rationale for war.

Certainly my explanation is overly simplistic and doubtless incomplete, but as you note, that does not invalidate the explanation. I do appreciate your recognition that 'dubya likes to keep it simple. However, I do draw a distinction between people like Stephen Hawking who comprehend the complexities of the world and have a gift for explaining complex ideas in simple language, and people like Bush who just see the world as simple. It is not remotely obvious that 'dubya has a clue about the complexities of the game he is playing.

Unfortunately, Bush's justifications, diplomatic acrobatics leading up to the war and now evidence of the over-zealous sales pitch, has left a good sized stain on what otherwise was a pretty damn good war.

I'm intrigued by your definition of a "good war". I understand the concept of a just war, a necessary war, or even a noble war. But "good" is not an adjective I find remotely applicable to the reality of war. Humans, as a species, will always engage in war. It is our nature. We compete with each other on scales both subtle and gross. As long as there is competition in our blood, we will spill it. I accept that, but I don't find it good.

This is a case where we should of shot the messenger. Anyone who has ever uttered the phrase "evil-doer" that isn't wearing a red cape, is probably going to have a hard time conveying complex ideas. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day. In this case, and just about only this case, I find myself in agreement with the current administration. This is to the consternation of just about everybody I associate with, and I'm not yet ready to join the local branch of the Rush Limbaugh fan club.

I couldn't agree more. He should be shot. Unfortunately, that would just make him a martyr at this point. The really scary part is that I think he truly believes his quest to rout evil from the world is divinely inspired. He thinks his god is more righteous and powerful than the Muslim god. He hasn't said that explicitly, but I think he believes it. He his guilty of acting with the same air of moral superiority as the terrorists he purports to hunt. Things like the Patriot Act and the positioning of those with opposing views as unpatriotic simply reek of the tactics McCarthy employed in the '50s and are the precursor to even scarier things to come. Is it not ironic that we are losing our own freedoms while we wander the globe spreading it elsewhere? If the Bush administration's plans are rational and just, then he should be able to play fairly and above board with supporters and detractors alike. Truth withstands criticism and critical analysis. Passion and dogma do not.

And the usefulness of a stopped clock depends greatly on the willingness of the observer to depend on a device which is wrong over 99% of the time.

Anyhow, I believe, the attack on Iraq was justified, in our long term interests and on balance, will be shown to have made the world safer and more democratic. It helped stabilize the Middle-East, and therefore the world. Reestablished a credible American force that has strengthened our diplomatic hand with rouge/terror sponsoring nations. Liberated a nation from a regime that was horribly brutalizing it's people (as we have done, for example, in Bosnia and Haiti)

I would welcome more detail on why you believe what you state above. As I stated earlier in the blog, this war broke new ground. It was pre-emptive. We attacked to remove a perceived threat. A perception which is turning out after the fact to have been greatly exaggerated. If this qualifies as justified, exactly what would not qualify as justification? If this becomes the international standard for war then as a planet we are about to experience a great deal more of it.

Will the world be safer and more democratic now? It's not clear Saddam was ever much of a threat to the world at large. His own populace was in the most danger, followed by his immediate neighbors. Curiously, the other Middle East nations were not pleading for U.S. intervention (excluding Israel who's always up for kicking a little Arab butt). And what hubris drives the assertion that democracy is the only benign form of government? By implication, non-democratic institutions are less ideal. I don't buy it. The majority of the planet's population does not live under a functional democracy. Are they all oppressed? Do we need to go free the rest of them now? And I will be greatly astonished if anything resembling a democracy survives in Iraq after the U.S. forces leave. Look around the Muslim world and find me good examples of democracies. It's not the cultural norm for them. That doesn't mean they are doomed to oppression or even that they are wrong. Everyone doesn't need to be like us.

If the Middle East is more stable post-invasion it is only because there are hundreds of thousands of our heavily armed troops over there. If we left tomorrow, it would be way more destabilized than it was before we showed up. And by what rationale did this war strengthen our diplomatic hand with terror sponsoring nations? Do you mean that we are probably more intimidating now so they are less likely to mess with us? That's only considered diplomacy if you're Bill Gates. We have established ourselves as the quintessential 500lb gorilla, but that's a double edged sword. The bully gets a lot of respect in the light of day, but needs to sleep with one eye open.

And I've addressed the "liberation" angle many times before. Yes, that was goodness and light. Yes, we've liberated other countries. But we've also ignored the plight of countless millions where liberating them was not politically feasible or economically viable.

As for finishing up daddy's fight, in fact we were. Iraq never complied with the treaty at the end of the first Gulf war and therefore that war never truly ended. Daily sorties were still the norm. So if the first gulf war was justified, so was the second. They were in effect the same war, with a 12 year intermission.

I understand your point, but you can't play both sides. The first war was a U.N action and it accomplished the U.N. goal of driving Iraq from Kuwait, and officially ended. The goal was never to depose Saddam. Yes, Iraq didn't comply with the U.N. sanctions after the war. But the U.N did not reauthorize a war to enforce them. The U.S. was the dominate military force in both wars, but they were different legal entities launched by two separate governments. You can't join them as contiguous actions of a single government. Emotionally there is a connection. There is continuity for the U.S. involvement. But that doesn't make them the same war.

Was this war partially about oil? I think so. Does that necessarily make it unjustified? I'm don't think so. Probably every war that has ever been fought can be seen in strictly financial terms, that doesn't mean that they are unjustified or without merit. The American Revolution is a decent example of this. The US didn't however, as some suggested, seize the oil fields for our own profit. Do we get any credit here?

I agree that war is often financially motivated, and this one was no different. Yet it remains to be seen if we seized the oil fields for our own profit. Yes, the current rhetoric is that we are redeveloping the Iraqi oil business to benefit the Iraqis. And I have no doubt that they will benefit to a degree. But at this point, we would be morons to absorb the cost of "liberation" and "reconstruction" without recouping our investment. And I've no doubt we'll take a little profit to boot. How much we take will speak loudly to our true motivation. Stay tuned...

The reality is that the US and the rest of the world could not survive for one month if the oil was turned off. It's not just that we would have to tough it out for a little while, use our fireplaces, wear an extra sweater, and ride our bike to work. Everything, everything that makes us a modern society would disappear, poof. The vast majority of us would literally die of starvation within weeks. We are a 20 million barrel a day, oil-junkie. (see Jeremy Rifkin's "The Hydrogen Economy" for some facinating/scary insights)

Sure, we're oil junkies. I drive a big honkin' truck, so I know a thing or two about being addicted to oil products. But we survived for 12 years without Iraqi oil on the market. Was the price rising? Sure. But we weren't in danger of losing our oil supply. Besides, if the real issue was flooding the market with Iraqi oil to lower the price, that could have been accomplished by pressuring the U.N. to remove the oil sanctions under the premise of providing revenue to improve the standard of living for Iraqi citizens. No one would have died and we wouldn't have invested billions to accomplish that.

If protecting the free flow of oil isn't in our national interest, I don't know what is. I think the whole "No Blood for Oil" slogan is a nice sentiment, but is at best, naive. Don't get me wrong, I actively support moving away from oil and a switch to a hydrogen, but even the best estimate is that it's at least a decade away, probably more like 30 years. Personally I'm enthused about "Thermo-Depolymerization Process" Anyhow, that's it for now, gotta go check my blood pressure.

Protecting oil is in our national interest. Granted. I'd love to make tons of oil from turkey guts and other discarded organic material (despite the Soylent Green flashbacks) or have a Mr. Fusion machine in my kitchen. But (as you note) that future's been a decade away for several decades now. We need oil. If necessary I could even back a military action to assure that we were not held hostage for reasonably priced oil. But that wasn't the stated reason for this war. We're back to the honesty and integrity of our leaders. If oil was the reason, then say that. I take umbrage at the notion that Bush et. al. are trying to manipulate public opinion to create the illusion of morally righteous actions when the reality is otherwise - even if they truly believe that their real agenda is in my best interest. How the hell does that remotely translate to the precious democracy which we are so desperate to spread to everyone else?

------------------------------------------------------------------
Score one for the Blog-meister!! If you recall (or you can go look in the April 4th archives), this blog predicted a TV movie deal for Pvt. Jessica Lynch right after the rescue. Thanks to CBS for making me a psychic. In addition to a movie deal, the network has offered a book deal, MTV specials, and even a Country Music Television special. Presumably the Dixie Chicks would host it.

Kudos to Lynch and her family who have, so far, not taken the bait.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
I'm fresh back from a weekend in Washington, D.C. While it would be nice to think I went because George had called me down to explain a coupla' things, the truth is that this trip was a family reunion of sorts. It had some very touching moments, many fun ones, and a handful that were outright root-beer-coming-out-your-nose silly. Oh yeah, and there was the driving. I've been to the nation's capital a number of times, but this was my first attempt to drive around it - "around it" being the operative phrase. Now at street level, Washington is a straightforward sort of a city. Lots of right angles, lots of blocks of buildings, no problems. This makes sense as these are the roads laid down in the 19th century when politicians said what they thought and were known as great thinkers and orators. You would expect something clear and concise from these fellows. The highways, added in the late 20th century, comprise the labyrinth from another dimension. Endless loops where you are teased with a glimpse of the building you are trying to reach, only to find you are now across the Potomac from it. Varying the pattern slightly, you make another pass - and find yourself in the Pentagon's parking lot. What does that say about the people who built these roads? There were times I threatened to just get out and walk as it would be easier to get there. However, that would mean I needed to park first. The only thing harder than driving to something in Washington is parking when you get there.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, for cryin' in yer beer. Bush and Blair just did a joint news conference at The White House. Bush was asked point-blank if he took personal responsibility for the State of the Union statement on uranium. He danced like a Country Bear at Disney. He talked about how he took responsibility for the decision to go to war, etc. But he never even came close to addressing the direct question. Blair then took a shot, and at least had the courage to acknowledge the question. He did say that Brittain stood behind the evidence and that he still believed it to be credible. This despite solid evidence that the documents on which the claims were based have been acknowledged by the CIA to be forgeries. Blair at least admits that not finding the WMD is a possibility, although he still firmly believes. Bush won't even concede the possibility that he was wrong. He is adament the weapons are there somewhere.

I beginning to think it's all for the best if he continues to paint himself into that narrowing corner.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, I know I said I was going to get off the political bandwagon and get on with my life, but I'm a bit of a dog on a bone here. CIA Director George Tenet is trying to take the bullet for Bush's claims about Saddam going after uranium in Africa. (Look here if you need the background.) This is wrong on so many levels I'm about to explode.

First, Bush can't expect to have a lackey take the fall for something he said in his most important speech of the year. To abdicate responsibility for the content of his State of the Union Address is tantamount to a confession that he is not in control of the words, ideas, and (by implication) the policies which emanate from The White House. It's an admission that he's no more than the mouthpiece of a behind-the-scenes person or group, and that he really is the intellectual lightweight he appeared to be prior to his 9/11 rebirth. Yet Bush is staying comparatively silent, and (inconceivably) no one is calling him on it! C'mon George. You've been full of testosterone-laden rhetoric for 18 months. Is it all bluster, or are you really man enough to be accountable?

Second, Tenet admits that the information was known to not be credible, but claims someone at The White House (presumably either Bush or the aforementioned "men behind the curtain") insisted it but put in the speech anyway. The motivation was clearly to create a case for a war he/they had already decided to fight. He/they lied to us to gain support for their agenda. It's that simple. And this is the same political faction that demanded Clinton's impeachment for lying to the American people, right? I'm sorry, but Clinton told a lie damn near any of us would have told given that we'd been accused of a similar transgression. His lie did not cost the taxpayers billions of dollars and hundreds of citizens their lives.

Which brings us to point three. There is no evidence for WMDs after the fact. The pre-war evidence was at least partially fabricated and probably exaggerated in whole. The stated motivation for the war was to remove the imminent threat Saddam posed to U.S. citizens, soil, and interests overseas. (Claims about spreading freedom and liberating the oppressed are merely emotional posturing. Were that a reason for military action, the Marines would never sleep.) In essence then, the motivations for the war were fabrications. This leaves a huge hanging question: Why then did we attack Iraq? Enquiring minds want to know.

There are two obvious answers. One is that the motivation was simply for the Son-of-a-Bush to finish the job his daddy started. If true, it would mean that a vast portion of the political machinery of this country is malleable enough to be formed to the narrow agenda of a handful of emotionally insecure radicals. I find that unlikely. If the structure were that weak, the government would not be so paralyzed over so many other issues. Power is not that easy to wield. Politicians have repeatedly demonstrated that they are capable of being immensely self-serving, and are not likely to align behind an emotionally driven plan.

The alternate obvious answer is that the war was motivated by the financial interests of the industrially oriented oligarchy. That this was about oil and all the downstream old-money families and companies which would benefit from its cheap and plentiful availability. Occam's Razor leads us to the cold reality that this is the most likely truth. If it is, this makes Bush's posturing about fusion, fuel cells, and future alternate fuels all the more disingenuous. Moreover, it makes the ethical blunderings on Enron, WorldCom, et. al. executives look all the more pale by comparison. If their acts were criminal, I'm thinking the beltway insiders should be looking at being fit for striped suits - and I ain't talkin' pinstripes.

Let's face it, if Clinton was in the Oval Office, and this situation developed, there would be special investigators falling over each other's commissions to get the first indictment. I'm not advocating tit-for-tat witch hunts here. But do think a little accountability is in order. In fairness, there may be an alternate explanation. I'm all ears George.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a bit of housekeeping: this blog is now viewable on any browser (I think). It has been tested and works on Netscape Communicator v4.x. It's not nearly as cool looking in the older browsers, but it's readable.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
So just to recap. Tell me if I'm missing something:
- We've spent billions to keep the world safe from the Twin Trailers of Terror.

- Oh yeah, and we freed some oppressed people... who are now so happy they are shooting us in the streets.

- Still, our intelligence is "darn good", which is a hog spit short of being "swell", but still well above "oop-si-daisy".

- Those silly Brittish (motto: "Snortin' Yank bum is not my bag baby") said Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa. Ms. Condoleezza Rice says that just because they were quoted in the U.S. State of the Union address is no reason to assume the statement was true. After all, Mr. Bush did attribute the quote properly. He also quoted his own intelligence agencies a number of times in that same speech. If you do the math, that makes the Brittish intelligence "jolly good".

- And no one could have possibly forseen the ensuing instability caused by freeing disparate groups of people rife with mutual distrust and even hate. It's not like this sort of thing just occurred in Eastern Europe or anything.

Therefore, it is not Bush's fault that we are now in a 5+ year multi-billion dollar military/political sink hole. We have to finish what we started. Which is why he's continuing to focus on voodoo economics (motto: "If the rich are only rich enough, all other problems will seem trite to them"), the legacy of slavery (loosly translted as "Man I hope some Black people vote for me next time"), and assuring that Tom Ridge is on schedule to get the new logo published for Homeland Security (motto: "Duct tape fixes anything").

Hmmm... d'ya think you should be concerened that this man has a quarter billion dollars to spend on his next election campaign and no viable opposition? Maybe just a little?

------------------------------------------------------------------
The Finns apparently have a better handle on their priorities than their Danish neighbors. While the Danes are busy desert fitting their lawn equipment, the Finns are holding wife-carrying championships. You gotta love the spirit of an event where carrying a woman (any woman over 108 lbs will do - and she only has to be your "wife" for the day) through a 279 yard obstacle course could win you her weight in beer. Honest. And they say romance is dead.

------------------------------------------------------------------
It's nice to know some things are universal. When Danish troops in Iraq complained about not having proper gear to deal with the sweltering conditions, their government promptly sent them a shipment of snowplows and lawnmowers. Honest. See for yourself.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Every now and again, I get the urge to be Cledus T. Judd. Not many people would claim that publically, or that they love parody songs. But I do, and this one was just itchin to get out of my brain. And Cledus - if your out there - copyrights man, and royalties would be nice.

Cheese (with apologies to Montgomery Gentry's song "Speed")
---------
I'm tired of yearning for cheese,
I need to find a place with a deli if you please,
And I need to get there pretty quick,
Hey mister whatcha got behind the counter
You can sell me in a pinch.

Maybe one of them yummy sorts of Jack,
The kind that makes your head spin like you're snortin' crack,
Flavor don't matter yeah I'll even take some Brie,
All that really concerns me, is

Cheese,
How much will it cost,
Can you get me,
Some Munster quickly,
I love it sickly,
Til it flows out of my ears,
Yeah what I really need,
Is a loaf of bread, and a whole lotta
Cheese

I'd like to make a grilled cheese,
Cause it makes me warm inside,
And brings me to my knees,
See it's the first meal since my lunch,
Where I only had some curds,
And some Doodles on the lawn,
But now that's gone, and I need to eat on (give me)

Cheese,
How fast will it melt,
Can you get me,
Some slices quickly,
Oh I'm so hungry,
Can I butter my own bread,
Yeah what I really need
Is a fryin' pan, and a whole lotta
Cheese

Turn on the flame so I can make the griddle sizzle,
Peel off the plastic wrap, and slice it thick and full,
Let me lean on that gas, she melts so fast (yeah)

Cheese
How fast can I eat,
Oh you'll never see,
Leftover chunks of cheese,
Mice don't bother me,
I never drop a little crumb,
Yeah what I really need,
Is a heart by-pass, and a whole lotta
Cheese

------------------------------------------------------------------
My kids are apparently not geography whizzes. I'm off to San Francisco tomorrow. One was thrilled to know that he'd be going to the same city with his mom later this summer. Only trouble is that he's going to Cincinnati. The other admonished him for thinking SF was in Ohio as it was clearly in Arizona. Turns out he was thinking of Santa Fe (pronounced "Santa Fee"). School's only been out a couple of weeks and their brains are mush already.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, this blog is gettin' a little too heavy. They say the key is to write every day, and that was rather my point in setting it up. Somewhere along the way I lost sight of the objective and transmuted the thing into an anti-Republican pulpit. It's curious. I've never considered myself remotely partisan. I don't even belong to a political party. Now that's not to say that I'm not opinionated (I have references), but it is to say that my opinions have never before fallen so cleanly along party lines. So while I'm not backing away from my political opinions, and I still think the current Republican oligarchy is hell-bent on a pathological self-serving agenda at the expense of the blissfully ignorant American populace... I need to lighten up a bit.

--------------------------------------------------------------
In an unprecedented fit of liberalism, the US Supreme Court decided that you are free to conduct your private sex life however you wish. The Gay/Lesbian populace is ecstatic, and rightly so. They can be indignant that it took so many decades to reach this obvious truism later. It seems strange that in a country where hetero sex occurs everywhere from primetime TV to the Oval Office that there are people doggedly opposed to consensual sex of any sort in private. Surely there are better things to fret about than what your neighbors are doing behind closed doors. Grow up.