Reaping the Whirlwind...

Very interesting post over here, "For They That Sow The Wind Shall reap the Whirlwind" | AfterDowningStreet.org by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Project for a New American Century (cont)

Just in case you haven't seen this, here's an exerpt from yesterday's Meet the Press. Reuel Marc Gerecht, PNAC's director of their Middle East initiative had this to say about concerns over women's rights in the new Iraqi constitution (read the transcript if you want to verify the context):

MR. GERECHT: Actually, I'm not terribly worried about this. I mean, one hopes that the Iraqis protect women's social rights as much as possible. It certainly seems clear that in protecting the political rights, there's no discussion of women not having the right to vote. I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then. In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled. I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there. I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective.

Good to know this he isn't losing any sleep.

History, Culture, Ethnicity- Does Anyone Care?

This post is pretty long and winds around a bit, but, hey, it's my blog. The thesis that I attempt to develop is that in my opinion the US foreign policy is completely lacking in the areas of historical perspective and cultural impact on the regions, nations, and ethnic groups it affects. I feel that this is obvious to me as a layperson (i.e. I'm not a politician, diplomat, or historian by profession.)

I enjoy history. I'm always amused when I think some trend or innovation is new and, well, innovative. I know several historians, each in different disciplines, who will on occasion politely (or not so politely) shake their heads and say something like, "That has strong parallels with what was going on in the SE United States from 1830 up until about 1850.....". Historians are good at shooting down smug "I'm so new and innovative" claims. I think history is important for lots of reasons. Everyone is familiar with the old, "If we don't learn from history we're bound to repeat it" (my paraphrase). There are many other reasons, too, I think. Along the lines of my friends earlier statement, a good view of history can be a good dose of humility when we read about indoor plumbing in West Africa when my ancestors were still painting themselves blue, living in caves, and probably eating each other once in a while. Yes, running naked into battle was once considered the ultimate expression of machismo! Additionally, I think our sense of history, i.e. how far back we look for our identity personally and as a society, can have a strong influence on our present day behaviors and consequences, including family relations, foreign policy, "why they hate us", even the outcome of wars fought thousands of miles away.

While living in SE Asia I had numerous conversations with people who had a very different view of history than me. One interesting conversation was with a language teacher. During one lesson the conversation rolled around to some photos of some historic buildings in the US. I told her that some of them were over two hundred years old (wow!). She replied in an unimpressed tone that the current ruling dynasty was about that old. I laughed at myself. Her identity with her ethnic group and the physical location of her nation dated back thousands of years. The two hundred or so years of the US was simply the age of the latest dynasty. I realize that my European history dates back to comparable times to hers, but I don't really have a strong identity with those roots. Many of us in the US of European descent have lost much of our ties to that history as being "ours". We ridicule the French and Germans in these present times. We look back with pride on our break with British royalty whereas my Asian friend looks on the monarchy that ruled her country five hundred years ago with awe and admiration. There are prominent statues honoring war heroes from a thousand years ago, heroes that present day folks honor as having defended the land and preserved their culture.

In the US we do have some areas of the country that still feel strongly connected to the pre-civil war culture. I have a cousin who has researched our family roots extensively as part of his connection with that past. Some of it gets a bit vague with rumors of horse thieves so we don't pursue that line too far. My opinion is that the mainstream US (I know, I know- don't ask me define that too specifically) connection with history is pretty short-term. We are a consumer society that for the most part lives in a short past and are pretty much concentrating on the here and now issues like making a living and achieving comfort. We are hight tech and have instant access to information, e.g. internet, library, etc... that don't require any interpersonal contact. That is, we don't have to rely on elders to tell us the history of our people verbally.

Another conversation I had a few years back was with a Pakistani gentleman, Faruq. He was very upset with the war in Afghanistan, but, despite that, we were having a very friendly conversation about it. He is a Pashtun which is the same tribe as the Taliban. If you look at their distribution on a map you'll see that they are distributed across Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as some other pockets in the region. It was quite clear in our conversation that Faruq had much more of a Pashtun identity than a Pakistani one. When we spoke about the situation in Afghanistan he used the pronoun "we" in reference to the Pashtun and Taliban rather than "they". He was very upset with the US attack on Afghanistan and had several reasons. Our conversation wasn't so much about the Taliban than it was the internal and external politics involved. In other words, we didn't get into the Shari'a law and oppressive aspects of the Taliban rule. Instead, our discussion centered more around the conflict within Afghanistan between the Sunni's in the South (i.e. the Pashtun Taliban) and the Shi'a in the north (remember the Afghan Northern Alliance ? ). Long story short, he stated that Afghanistan's politics can be seen as pretty much a Sunni-Shi'a conflict. He said that "the English came" and were good at exploiting the differences in the region. but they eventually left and we were able to rule ourselves again. (When he said this I thought to myself, "Did he just say, "the English came"? What year are we talking about?" I later looked it up and he was talking about 1839 like it was yesterday.) He then said, "Then the Soviets came and left. Now the Americans have come but they will eventually leave. We can wait. When they leave we will once again take up our cause and fight." Here was another person living in the same moment as me but with a very different view of history and, because of that, the present. I'm not making value judgments on his views, just repeating what he said.

What is my point? My point is that Iraq is filled with people much like the people I describe above and unlike the modern, non-recent-immigrant US citizen. While the stated desired outcomes from the conflicts in Iraq, and to a degree Afghanistan, seem a bit fluid, themes of "stability", "peace", and "security" are ones that most of the players would love to see happen. It seems to me, however, that actions have been taken in the spirit of vengeance and "justice" that are in direct opposition to "making the world a safer place"

 "In World War II we fought to make the world safer, then worked to rebuild it. As we wage war today to keep the world safe from terror, we must also work to make the world a better place for all its citizens."
President Bush
Washington, D.C. (Inter-American Development Bank)
March 14, 2002

As we map out responses to terror, I'm sure there are several routes to take. The one we seem to have taken from the start is the one that we had the "right" to pursue i.e. They attacked us so we have the right to go after them." "Saddam hasn't complied to we have the "right" to go after him." Neither of these, in my opinion, further the over-all honorable goal of a lasting stability and peace in the world. Instead, history, ethnicity, and regional dynamics have all been ignored for the short-term goals of personal (in a corporate sense) vengeance. This administration seems at a loss as to how to handle the impasse over the Iraqi constitution. They seem to really expect a majority of Iraqis to feel an Iraqi national identity over their individual cultural identity (i.e. Shi'a, Sunni, Kurd, etc....). Sadaam Hussein didn't have an Iraqi identity yet we expect the rest of Iraq to do so? Where are the history and cultural experts in the administration who are warning Bush about all of these issues? Where are the military specialists on these issues? Have they been silenced or just ignored? If the Kurds establish some degree of independence, has anyone informed Bush that this is Turkey's greatest fears come true? What will that do to "stability in the region? A quick review of the area on a Google search would warn of these issues, let alone access to several intelligence agencies who have had operations in the region for years!!! One of the saddest things I've observed about this administration's approach to the "war on terror" is the total disregard for the complicated cultural and world-view issues involved in the region in favor of a gun-slinging arrogance that expects superior military might to quickly settle any issue.

I am by no means saying that a "culturally aware" policy is an easy proposition, but it is one that has to be taken if we don't want to be find ourselves time after time scratching our heads wondering why the big guns didn't solve the problem. Bush talks about sacrifice and commitment. I'm saying that part of sacrifice and commitment is going the extra mile to consider cultural, sociological, and anthropological issues in order to achieve real and lasting results in our foreign policy. Even if you are a war-hawk and want to conquer the Middle East, it seems that you would want to have thorough insight into these factors before you initiated a military campaign. I know this is a pipe dream, but I believe it to be of vital importance as more and more world conflicts boil down to tribalism (Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Albania, Serbia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Congo, Israel/Palestine, etc....) I wonder if Bush could tell you the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'a? Probably way too much to expect him to understand Wahhabism even though it has had incredible impact on his entire presidency.

If you are still reading, here's to the historians and cultural sociologists and anthropologists who were warning us about this "quagmire" long before the first Abrams tanks hit the sand. Ignorance is no excuse, especially when the information is readily available, sometimes being screamed at deaf ears.

"Theory" and "Evolution"

Streak's comment hit home on a good point- the use of terminology. It's interesting how his point in his post about how historical and scientific expertise is so quickly cast aside by anyone who feels it violates a religious belief of theirs can also be applied to the word "theory" itself. How many times have you heard someone say when referring to evolution, "Well, it is just a "theory""? He make a nice clarification on the scientific use of the word.

Another clarification that doesn't get pointed out often enough is the definition of the term "evolution". Here's one definition and an expanded comment:

the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations

What I think is absolutely verifiable is evolution as defined above. The discrepancy and conflict arises when "common ancestor" theory comes into the discussion i.e. we all evolved from a common ancestor or common atoms of carbon getting together. I think there can be some discussion regarding "how it all started". No matter how far you go back, there's a leap of "faith" as to where it all came from to start with. Evolution as defned above is as observabble and verifiable.

If you say it's so enough times.....

Streak's Blog has a good point today regarding the discomfort some of us have with the closed-minded and arrogant views that religious faith somehow trumps scientifically or historically established theories and proofs. I am enjoying some free premium movie channels with my new satellite dish. Last night I caught Bill Maher for a few minutes and he had some good points about this. Maher grates on my nerves at times (disrespectful personal attacks, total disdain for religion, etc....) but his underlying point spoke to some of what bothers me about Creationism or ID or whatever you want to call it being taught as science. There are plenty of arguments or "beliefs" that we can readily refute. Simply presenting an alternative theory to one established through scientific methods isn't enough to make the new theory legitimate, no matter how much you BELIEVE in it. Maher's example was that you can BELIEVE that baby's are delivered by storks all you want. It doens' make it so. There is plenty of evidence to support a much messier verson.

One of the conservative evangelical Christian interpretations of the first five chapters of Genesis is now being presented as science. There are plenty of other Christian groups who support other interpretations. Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus take a bit different interpretation. Atheists and others have their theories. None of these theories or beliefs are based on scientific study- verifiable truth. Believe what you want about how it all started- evolution is taking place all around us. It can be verified and studied in the laboratory of the world at any time someone wants to open their eyes and take a look. As far as Genesis 1 goes, get into the Hebrew and you have "evening and morning, a second day" (not THE second day). Even the literal language throws ambiguity on the timing of creation. I'm happy with accepting that God created it and is still here. I would have moved on long ago, but for some reason she sticks around.

Robertson called for the assassination of Venez ... [Media Matters]

Grab your air-sick bags and check out this video.
Robertson called for the assassination of Venez ... [Media Matters] Robertson has been given enough rope and has, in my opinion, hung himself verbally. Here's a person claiming to be a follower of Jesus advocating the murder of another human being. Oops! I forgot that the Monroe doctrine trumps the old, tired ones that Christ advocated.

Hypocrites with Short Memories

GREAT post over at Daily Kos: Ahh, the good ol' days referring to quotes made in response to Clinton's commitment of troups to Bosnia. A couple quick excerpts:

"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

I'm not stating support of our policies in Bosnia, just pointing out hypocritical statements from the those who would become the current US ruling junta.

Great Writing:Doghouse: Jesus Outed in Megachurch, Film at 11

Thanks to a new life emerging for the link to Doghouse: Jesus Outed in Megachurch, Film at 11, Part 1. It's a great piece full of wit. To be able to read all 12 parts you'll need to work from the page I've linked above. The subsequent pages don't all have links to the next link i.e. part 4 doesn't necessarily have the link to part 5. CHECK IT OUT!

Armchair Sociologist Part 1

My bud Streak is probably about the only person who reads this, so I tend to write assuming he'll be the one reading it. He often wrestles in his blog with how masses of Christians can follow a leader who claims to be a Christian but, in his (and my) opinion exhibits policies and behaviors in total contrast to those promoted by Jesus, the "Christ" in "Christian". Here is part one of a few thoughts I have on the subject. This is by no means exhaustive, but here goes. I think that it is fairly well accepted that there are several foundational beliefs or assumptions upon which most, if not all, of our other beliefs are built. "There is a God", "the world is flat", "the world is round", "the earth is the center of the universe", "Jesus was the son of God", "There is no God but God and Mohammed was his prophet", "the atom is the basic building block of matter". The list could go on and on. The evangelical Christians with whom I spent a good bit of my life have as a base belief or assumption that "salvation", as they define it, is the most important event in a human being's life. It is so important, in fact, that it supersedes and transcends ANYTHING else in one's life. While this statement may seem self evident, I point it out because so many behaviors, attitudes, policies, and beliefs hinge on this fundamental assumption.

Examples of how I've experienced this assumption in action are varied. To start, from childhood I was taught that "accepting Christ" was the most important event in my life. All teaching was designed to lead me to that point of decision. Good behavior was important, but only in a secondary way. We were taught that any admirable qualities in other people who weren't "saved" were simply good behaviors that wouldn't earn the person eternal life. The effort to deemphasize the good behavior of non-Christians communicated to us that behavior was important, but only if you were saved. In face, a saved person who behaves badly is still better off than a "lost" person who behaves admirably. We were convinced that this "lost" person who is outwardly good and seems happy, is really only putting on a shell of good works and false happiness. Only we saved people are truly happy, even when we're "backsliding". Nevermind that society at large benefited from "good" behavior. The focus was whether or not it got you "eternal life". To the unfamiliar this may sound like reasoning that could work with a child, but surely adults wouldn't buy into it. Sadly, I was in Sunday School a couple weeks ago and heard basically this same argument presented but with more sophisticated wording- "It counts for them nothing". Poetic, isn't it. So, we are brainwashed from childhood to put critical thinking on hold and accept that being "saved" trumps everything.

Flash over to politics. This same thinking says that criticism of a leader is trumped by his or her being saved. Your criticism of my saved leader is always going to be suspect, especially if you aren't a saved Christian yourself. In that case you are part of the conspiracy to undermine Christianity.

I have had this same type of exchange with Muslim friends. The context was several years ago when the first reports were coming out about Osama bin Laden. Several things were part of the discussion. I suggested that the reports were true- that bin Laden was behind terrorist activities. My Muslim friend, a person who had never participated in an act of violence in his life nor would he, was convinced that bin Laden was not responsible. He was NOT saying that bin Laden was responsible and justified. Quite the opposite- he said that the terrorism was an abomination but that a man with bin Laden's religious piety could not take part in such acts. "Bin Laden reads the Q'ran every day, prays 5 times a day, gives to the poor, etc.... He could not do such things. The West hates Islam and is making up things about him to cover up the real culprits." My friend had accepted the foundational assumptions that a person who talks the religious talk and displays the "correct" religious behaviors was not capable of doing these bad things. He was automatically given the benefit of the doubt over any criticism from someone outside of the Islamic world. I will say that since those conversations my friend has come around to understanding that bin Laden is largely responsible, but there is still always a feeling of reluctance to fully accept that there isn't another explanation.

Why include this account? I think the same principles are at play. Assume "our people" are right. Criticism is persecution of all of our principles. Ignore behaviors that aren't consistent with what we know to be right in order to protect our agenda. Others smarter than me can probably draw more parallels and conclusions.

So, for Streak and me the indoctrination started early in life. Fire insurance, or salvation as defined by our fundamentalist teachers, was top priority. I see salvation as a process for some, maybe a moment for others. I see behavior as important, particularly when it comes to the responsibility of the powerful toward the powerless. Truth is critically important, even if it undermines our agendas and embarrasses our leaders. I believe that God disdains evil behavior from those who claim to be his followers and I believe he is glorified by good works done by anyone- follower or not. I'll not play my-verse-versus-your-verse right now- maybe later.

The second big component of the Bush Christian following I think has to do with the "Agenda", i.e. at the bottom of it all is a leader who has bowed to "our" agenda, and that's even more important that whether or not he says he's a Christian. But that's for part 2, unless I get sidetracked........

Another Reminder of the Bait and Switch

Good article here, suprisingly enough by CNN on the current status of the war in Iraq. The following is a good reminder of the retro-fit that has occurred.

Bush and other administration officials said the March 2003 invasion, which toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, was needed to strip of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction that it could provide to terrorists. Iraq was later determined to have abandoned its non-conventional weapons programs in the 1990s, though it had concealed some weapons-related research from U.N. inspectors.

The president now says establishing a stable, democratic Iraq will foster reforms in other Middle Eastern countries that will undercut support for terrorism.

We need to be constantly reminded of how we were inundated with the WMD campaign as criteria for the war. We can't forget Colin Powell's presentation to the UN. If Bush EVER put his reputation and personal integrity at stake on ANYTHING, it was WMDs. What on earth would compell anyone to expect me to believe one word that comes out of his mouth, especially when it comes to justification for war? He now says establishing a stable, democratic Iraq is the noble cause for which we are fighting. We're to a point to where, as far as I'm concerned, it's "pick your justification time". Whatever he says will hold the same credibility with me- zero. He has created an atmosphere in Iraq that now necessitates US military presence. The breeding ground for terrorism that was previously contained and monitored is now fertile and wide open. The killing and dying isn't anywhere near to being over and we have a president who seems intent on plowing ahead as if all decisions up to now have been the right ones. Good luck to whomever follows Bush as president.

Lou Dobbs Needs to use IDIOTIC to the Guy in the Mirror

I was just channel surfing and landed on a story detailing how the US military is changing code signals used in NORAD to eliminate Native American tribal and individual names. The report was actually pretty good. They also pointed out that the pentagon has NO intentions of changing things on a broader scale (e.g. Apache helicopters, etc...). Upon completing the report, the newsperson turned to Lou Dobbs who then asked her what idiot came up with the idea to eliminate Native American names from military jargon!!!! He later said that they were behaving idiotically. The lack of professionalism in this display is shocking to me. Admittedly, I seldom watch Dobbs so this may be his usual. At one point he asked if we should take Eisenhower off of our aircraft carrier!!! Talk about missing the point! I wanted to shout at him, "YES! If Eisenhower asked you to take his name off then that would be the ethical thing to do!! If the US military has systematically wiped out Eisenhower's family then YES, it would be good to remove the name!" Native American names being used by the US MILITARY is indeed obscene. This was a self-righteous, pompus display by someone with international exposure. There is no excuse for a supposed news anchor to make this kind of commentary.

State Lobbyists Near the $1 Billion Mark

VERY interesting read at Hired Guns - The Center for Public Integrity A quick excerpt:

Vested interests are working harder than ever to achieve their goals in state capitols and state agencies across the country. Nearly 47,000 such interests—companies, advocacy groups, labor unions, professional organizations and even government agencies—hired more than 38,000 individual lobbyists. This averages out to five lobbyists and almost $130,000 in expenditures per state legislator.

With this kind of money being spent it's hard to fathom that my legistlators really represent my community. We elect them, but six figure or higher donations will inevitably redirect the loyalties of most politicians. Like I heard once years ago in the midst of banking deregulation, if a judge is trying your case and you hand him $130,000 it's a bribe and you, or even both of you, will likely go to jail. If you hand it to a politician it's a campaign contribution. In traveling and living overseas I've been asked so many times if the US government is corrupt like that in whatever country I was in at the time. My answer was usually something like, "Yes, but it's gotten more sophisticated and often it's just plain legal."

State Lobbyists Near the $1 Billion Mark

VERY interesting read at Hired Guns - The Center for Public Integrity A quick excerpt:

Vested interests are working harder than ever to achieve their goals in state capitols and state agencies across the country. Nearly 47,000 such interests—companies, advocacy groups, labor unions, professional organizations and even government agencies—hired more than 38,000 individual lobbyists. This averages out to five lobbyists and almost $130,000 in expenditures per state legislator.

With this kind of money being spent it's hard to fathom that my legistlators really represent my community. We elect them, but six figure or higher donations will inevitably redirect the loyalties of most politicians. Like I heard once years ago in the midst of banking deregulation, if a judge is trying your case and you hand him $130,000 it's a bribe and you, or even both of you, will likely go to jail. If you hand it to a politician it's a campaign contribution. In traveling and living overseas I've been asked so many times if the US government is corrupt like that in whatever country I was in at the time. My answer was usually something like, "Yes, but it's gotten more sophisticated and often it's just plain legal."

Focus on the Family Uncovers Homosexual Agenda in the Bible, Denounces God

Just when things were getting out of hand with Dobson and FOTF, this breaking news. A highlight

The first strong recognition of this deity's gay sympathies came during staff Bible study about a week ago when we were confronted with the rainbow as the sign of God's covenant with Noah. A freakin' rainbow! And what kind of a guy's name is Noah, anyway? How can we born again Christians overlook this? God is omniscient and omnipotent, for Pete's sake. He didn't have to use a symbol that He knew would eventually represent gays.

Baghdad Politics

Interesting article, Baghdad Mayor Is Ousted by a Shiite Group and Replaced - New York Times.

Satellite, McChesney, and the Media

We moved recently and in doing so decided to go with The Dish Network. I held out a long time over the years and kept to an old-fashioned antenna. The networks have gotten to the point now that there's very little worth watching. Not even Saturday mornings have cartoons anymore and 7-8pm are not longer reserved for family friendly shows. I waffle back and forth on TV or no TV at all, but I must say that getting the satellite system has proved to be very enjoyable so far. The number of "family friendly" stations is nice, but the thing I'm enjoying over the cable package we had before is the number of alternative news and public access stations. As an example this morning I was watching UCTV--University of California Television. On the broadcastRobert McChesney was giving a great lecture on the state of media in the US. Since it was a university station and a lecture to boot, he was able to give a pretty in depth overview of media, policies affecting the media, history, etc.... No shouting, no 20 second sound bites. Points were developed and clarified. It's sad to say, but that kind of programing has become so rare in my experience that it does feel pretty novel at this point to see this kind of broadcast. I enjoy documentaries on a couple other stations and watch DemocracyNow each morning. All in all a nice discovery so far. BTW you can click on the University of California link and then select McChesney's lecture to view it online.

A few of the points he brought up that I thought were very thought provoking were that the first amendment should protect us from a few conglomerates controlling the media just as much as it should protect us from government control. He also pointed out that a truly free press or the lack thereof is completely determined by government policy making. Free press is not an organic entity that just springs up on its own. There have to be policies that allow that to happen. I thought of the internet, bloggers, and other forms of alternative media and how they may be restricted or supported by government policies in the future. Anyway, check out the links.