The Wandering Mind

God, Indivdualism and Pendulums

2004-11-18T16:14:00.000-05:00

*One of my readers suggest I rename this piece, to reflect more accurately the theme and ideas of the discussion. His kind advice is appreciated.*

The following will be my last thoughts on the political divide we see in our country today, for now.

Before I go on, firstly let me apologize for being a day late. Work and matters of a personal nature precluded me from meeting that self imposed deadline.

In addition, I'd like to clarify a few matters raised by some thoughtful comments made in reference to my previous post

It has never been my intention my intent to make relativism a component in defining right from wrong. There is right and wrong and there is good and evil. Those truths that have influenced choices man has made from the earliest days.

Whether from a societal or religious standpoint, right and wrong must be dealt with, as well as good and evil. It is in the definition of those attributes that we differ.

Now, clearly, we call all see certain evils. September 11 was an evil, perpetrated by evil people. While we can all agree on that, the rest becomes fuzzier.

Some will say (mistakenly, I believe) that we foisted that evil upon ourselves, as a result of our policies. While I there is no need to discuss that now, obviously, I disagree whole heartedly. Nevertheless, there are people who see things differently. That in itself does not obviate the real evil.

There is no middle ground against evil. Societies thrive and endure when common efforts are exerted to keep evil at bay. If and when a society neglects that truth, that society will not endure and will collapse on itself. History is full of examples of failed Empires, the demise of whom can traced to not addressing an evil of one kind or another.

For the purposes of this discussion, I want to address not so much specifics as I do fundamental issues that are on the front burner.

Given the current climate of political debate, one question stands out.

Can God coexist with notion of the absolute right of individualism?

These two notions are diametrically opposed. Either we acknowledge God's Dominion and live our lives as directed by religious dictate, or we don’t. Any expression of individualism must be secondary to those dictates. That individuality and total freedom of expression, would be outside the confines of a Godly relationship.

We answer to God, or God answers to us.

On the surface, there is no possible reconciliation. Ideologues at either extreme of the debate keep fanning the flames of intolerance, believing that even one concession will undermine their entire belief structure.

In the end of course, they are wrong. Societies flourish when they interact with each other and in the long run, nothing can change that. The source of all democracies is the ability to live and let live.

Wars of all kinds, military, cultural and those of the class variety, are begun and fought by absolutists and phony 'patriots' of all stripes. Well meaning or not, when that absolutism reigns in a free society, no one wins, regardless of the outcome

Democratic governments and cultures don't go to war with one another. They work things out, find common ground and move on. If groups within a democracy (for the moment, extremists on either side of the debate) that do not have that fundamental understanding, instead choosing absolutism or direct confrontation, we are headed toward a train wreck.

It is with this in mind that we must examine the role of God in our society. That question needs to be addressed because it is one of the defining issues of our time. Whether you believe in God as Him, as a manifestation of an undefined spiritual being or not all, how we choose to find a place for believers or non believers as equals, defines our nation.

As in economics, there is a free market of ideas and thoughts, as I like to say. That market place responds in the same way the financial ones do- laissez faire, or let the marketplace decide. Over a period of time, the wild sways of the pendulum tend to self correct and the markets, like ideas, reach a certain equilibrium.

As the Church once repressed and subjugated whole classes of people, so too did secularists, foisting upon their adherents a value system that placed the importance of the individual above all, minimizing the necessary contributions the individual must make for society and the greater good.

Within a short period of time, the rift had occurred. From blind devotion to God and fear of Divine Retribution, society migrated to devout secularism and faith as science, that empirical deity.

It is interesting and bears remembering that both religious adherents and secularists claim the 'Judeo-Christian' ethic as the basis for their fundamental belief structure, finding within that ethic, expressions of God and expressions of the Self.

Still, it was inevitable that a clash would occur.

Absolutists on either side attempted to define their beliefs for all of us. The belivers clung with tenacity to an unshakable and unbendable faith and the non believers attempted to negate faith and God at every turn.

The problem was, and still is, people resist being 'defined.' Despite attempts by the religious to shun evidenced progress and their refusal to share scientific findings with faith, people did not ignore science.

Despite attempts by secularists to negate spiritualism, that didn’t quite work out either. People still believe, and want to believe.

This is the real silent majority, accompanied by a silent truth:

Most religious people and most secularists have made peace with coexistence. The marketplace of free thoughts and ideas has self corrected. There will always be that tension below the surface, but by and large, the loudest voices are the extremes on either side.

Those voices are what is upsetting the applecart. They impede our lives and our communities. We have found ways to make it work- and work well, but those shrill voices who purport to speak for us, keep distracting us from our better selves. Sadly, too many of us are too easily coopted, preferring to upset that applecart so that they are heard. When that applecart tumbles, no one eats.

Our understanding of God and Science has deepened. It is not an issue of the sacred and the profane. That is too simple and too inelegant. There is within the material and the scientific realities, much spiritual dimension that all but the most callous cannot see.

Why is this so hard to see- and for many to accept- is the result of many influences. Our parents and communities play no small role. Our educational experiences as children and as college students, help shape our perceptions greatly. Gullible 19 year olds, sitting in a classroom listening to a professor pontificate on his own subjective beliefs, followed by textbooks designed to obscure the truth, have a profound impact on who we are. Couple that with the now emotional 'all or nothing' political ideologies of today and it is easy to see how realities become obscured

We must find a way to make that silent, accepting and coexisting majority, speak for us. The voices that are imposed upon us must give way.

For the religious, and the believers, it is important to remember that were endowed with free will. The choice to do what we do, is our own. In other words, it is up to each individual to live life as best he sees how. Belief is not to be imposed, it is rather, to arrived at and understood, by everyone, as individuals. It is not contrary to faith be an individual. The same truth can be applied to some liberal ideas and values. Many conservatives reject those ideas simply because they came from liberal sources, as if somehow, they are tainted.

By the same token, secularists must recall, that the rights of the individual include the right to believe in God. When God is rejected by secularists, it is important to realize they are rejecting their own definition of God. While it is easy to reject an absolutist God, it is a bit more difficult to reject a God that endowed us with free will and the right to express that free will through our individuality Many pundits say that the last election was lost because many with liberal ideas who do believe in God, felt rejected and unwelcome by a mainstream political party. It is interesting to note that many secularists that reject religious influence and participation, define a God that most believers do not worship. That is no coincidence.

It is very difficult, admittedly, to reach beyond our own ‘four cubits.’ To examine who and what we are- and why we are, can be painful.. Still, facing ourselves and challenging ourselves is a high calling indeed. We can only be the better for it and reinvigorated by the process.

In the end, no good spiritual beliefs will be undone by man made ones, and no good secularist ideal is in conflict with those who believe in God.

Will there be conflicts? Of course. Will it always be easy? No. Nevertheless, by each side of the divide rightly claiming a basis in the Judeo-Christian ethic, there is a way to resolution. The biggest impediment to accepting the doctrine of coexistence are those shrill voices I spoke of earlier.

One idea does stand out.

From the millennia of an absolutist and rejectionist God, to a couple of centuries of extraordinary 'Enlightenment', and 'Progress,' of culture and technology, we have been through a lot. We have seen religions run amuck and destroy. We have seen man on his own, spill the blood of hundreds of millions with nary a mention of God, much less a belief.

And he we are, once again, talking about God.

I don't imagine I've made anyone happy, but maybe I've given you something to think about.

Inside the box, outside the box, part two of two

2004-11-16T17:20:00.000-05:00

They say every country has it's 'Founding Myth.'

This is true of course, as heroes and villains need to be clearly defined. Children need to be taught in a clear and concise a fashion the merits and uniqueness of their nation and the nobility of their Founding Fathers. This is true of all nations, everywhere. Patriotism demands this pedagogical approach, for reasons far to numerous to elaborate here.

Of course, using our own country as an example, we learn that life isn't that simple.

Washington kept slaves. Jefferson loved (?) the slave girl Sally Hemmings, and so on.

In the end, we learn what we all know, that we are imperfect beings. The best of us, the real heroes, try to excel and exceed their own capacities and capabilities. They sacrifice their earthly souls (a metaphor, for my non religious, liberal readers), so that their ideas and contributions may benefit us all. For that, we are grateful.

Still, these heroes, like the rest of us, are imperfect and flawed. None of that, of course, diminishes their efforts or contributions to our nation, our communities or even our small neighborhoods. We love our heroes, because they represent the best of us and because through them, we hope to see a bit of ourselves, despite our own flaws and imperfections.

A recent casual conversation with a highly regarded Federal Judge prompted me to write this, and yesterday's piece. Now, I don't spend time with Judges-- so I thought I'd make the most of our few minutes together.

In a serious exchange, His Honor candidly admitted the struggle he faces, daily. In his words, he is "Torn between two women- Lady Justice and Lady Liberty." He went on to say that "It was no accident that Lady Justice was blind and that Lady Liberty bore a torch."

"Justice" he said, "must always be blind, to be dispensed without favor or influence."

"Liberty must shed light," he said, "on the human ideal to excel and exceed."

I was immediately struck. In those few words, His Honor forever exorcised my notion of political and legal absolutes.

At times, we demand absolute Justice and at times we demand absolute Liberty, sometimes forgetting there may be a necessary friction so as to keep us on our guard. Neither liberty or justice are meant to be taken lightly. They are meant to be discussed, debated and at times, argued. These democratic attributes are to be regarded as the living and breathing embodiment of rights, the blood that runs through that living breathing body we call democracy.

As I wrote yesterday, "Elections and issues are now emotional exercises, rather than intellectual ones. As any good Hollywood director knows, 'make 'em laugh or make 'em cry, and you'll sell tickets.' We are being sold tickets and the studio with the funnier or sadder film, wins. This cannot continue."

This sorry state of affairs are the result of mass marketing of ideas and the oversimplification of ideas. Both sides of the political spectrum dismiss each other with generalizations and the deliberate mischaracterization of of beliefs and intent. Human nature being what it is, we are ever eager to have the difficult things in life explained to us or handed to us on a silver platter- and the Washington political elites know it.

Welcome to Hollywood, DC.

My conversation with the Judge humbled me. I can be opinionated and so sure of the absoluteness of my beliefs, ever easy to dismiss or deny those who disagree with me. I also know that I am flawed and that sometimes, I dont think, or I allow others to think for me. I justify that behavior with a shrug and say to myself, well, everyone else does it.

Are we as nation, hurtling towards that 'House divided against itself'? I don't know, for sure. In a recent exchange with a friend, I asked that very question. My correspondent thought not, but the words weren't as strong as they might have been. Perhaps they were words of a silent wish or prayer.

In any case, there are realities that tie and bind us-- bonds, I believe, that are stronger than our dissentions.

Our election produced a record turnout of voters, well in excess of 115 million voices, exercising their right and resposibility as citizens. No matter how they voted, the passion of that exercise in debate and the willingness to participate, is a good thing. Passion is always better than lethargy or complacency. As a nation, we cared deeply, each in our own way. We cared about liberty and justice.

There is a passionate argument, made by liberals for universal compassion and and the deeply held belief in the tolerance and acceptance of all.

There is an equally passionate argument, made by social and religious conservatives, that an absolute faith in God makes clear the difference between right and wrong. That comittment is to a just and caring society. It is the belief that we are all 'Created in His Image,' that demands as much from us as we can give.

There is no great chasm between the ideas between the groups and ideologies they share, only the paths taken. The chasm is an artificial one, really, a construct of the political parties themselves and the media:

Liberals are all hard left wingers, wanting to usurp everything that America stands for- or they are progressive and forward thinking, always ready to stand up for the weak and oppressed.

Conservatives are fascists or bigots- or, they are people of faith, values and patriotism, always ready to defend the just society based on the Golden Rule.

Any way you cut it, the division is one of direction, not values. There isn't anyone who can obviate the values of these two groups. They are the same, in reality. It is the struggle that define our differences-- the struggle between Lady Justice and Lady Liberty.

In the best of all worlds, we would find comfort in the middle ground. In nature, we find the opposites in every organism and opposites in every man made endeavor. Trees have solid trunks, immovable and resolute, and they have branches that sway in the wind, leaves fluttering. Language has defined letters and punctuation, from which poetry and great literature emerges, and causes us to emote and reflect. Music is result of a rigid, mathematical structure from which emerges a passion so deep so as to move people of different backgrounds, together.

Does God belong in politics? Some would answer no, the doctrine of the Church and State division acts as a buffer to religious extremism. There is after all, a history of Church repression. Political Islam, speaks for itself. Faith is best kept a private and personal matter.

Others might say that this country was founded on religious principles, and indeed, faith based good works have left an indelible mark on this nation. Thus, faith alone is the underpinning of our society.

In truth, religion was used as method of oppression. However, that expression of faith has no foothold here. We founded by those who wished to escape that and other forms of tyranny. It is religion that allowed and was the orginal guarantors of freedom in this country.

Is secularism the answer to our future? Secularism, and all it's derivatives, were understandable reactions to being held underfoot by a Church and faith that cared not for it's believers. That Church, thankfully no longer exists, in no small measure due to the reality that human dignity, especially under God's Dominion, demanded freedom. When a slave broke the chains of his bondage, he didn't stay long enough to have tea and say good bye to his master. He ran, as far and fast as he could.

Those former slaves that false Church founded a new replacement for God. That new religion, for many, was Science. Nietzsche defiantly and confidently declared that "God is Dead." He was right. The God that Nietzche and the other starring cast of the Enlightenment understood and knew, was indeed dead. In it's place a new belief structure arouse. As the Church once oppressed, in extremis, so too did the resulting backlash of secularism, a hedonistic orgy of self centeredness.

The Church has changed and Secularism has changed.

Much has changed, in both the liberal and conservative communities. Take away the politics and there is ground for discussion and acceptance.

I meant to finish this today, but I have a few closing conclusions and ideas that may surprise you. My last thoughts on the matter will be posted tomorrow.

If I have caused you even a few moments of thought, I am grateful. If indeed, you find yourself questioning the status quo, even better.

That I have once again, pleased no one, is a given.

One does not have to change their own beliefs to question them.

Acceptance of new ideas, thoughts, hopes and dreams are what fuel our better selves.

We may not always undestand what we are getting into when we step into the breach, but as with any new endeavor, we can choose to see it defensively or choose to see it as an opportunity.
Even our own beliefs and ideas can be strengthened by new understandings.

Lastly, I received numerous emails and a few comments from some very thoughtful minds. I will answer them all tomorrow.

Inside the box, outside the box, part one of two

2004-11-15T13:48:00.000-05:00

The recent election will be analyzed for years to come, with pundits crunching the numbers and opining on what went right and what went wrong, for the each of Presidential contenders.

What very few pundits and analysts will attempt to do, in a real and meaningful way, is examine why it is that religion and politics are so divisive.

Much conventional liberal thought despises the notion of religion as being influential in politics and many liberals openly abhor the participation of religious adherents in the political process.

Many conservatives wish to obliterate any idea that is deemed to originate from a liberal source, as if liberals wish to poison the well we all drink from.

A few weeks after the election, we are once again comfortable in the mindless bashing. Rather than discuss relevant issues in a meaningful exchange, as BunkerMulligan has often stated, the next round of debates have begun- debates in name only, with the intent of silencing the any and all of the opposing voices.

There are reasoned voices out there, of course, heard at The Commons, LittleRedBlog and Bittersweet and a host of other here on HSB. For some reason, HSB seems to have found a good mix of well reasoned bloggers. No small feat, that- the blogsphere is replete with forgettable, shrill voices.

Having said that, with a bit of reasoned thought, this 'great divide' may serve a higher purpose.

If we consider the nature of the divide and the driving forces behind it, we may perhaps better understand the real issues. Some issues will continue to divide us- not in terms of our value as citizens, but rather in how we look at things. Others issues aren't the national catastrophe that some, including the media, would have us believe, and still other issues do not divide us at all. They are rather, looking at the same idea from different angles.

For the purposes of this piece, I will state that I will exclude the radical idiots, on both sides of the political landscape. While it is tempting to define those mindless voices, I shall not. We all are a whole lot smarter than most political pundits and the media would have us believe.

To paraphrase the Supreme Court definition on pornography, "We know stupidity when we see it."

The matters that have caused this great chasm between Americans and the vitriol they seem to inspire, must be addressed. Simply being dismissive of voices in opposition serves no one- not the country, not our communities and last but not least, not ourselves. The real outrage is that we tolerate this divide, that has been manufactured in the same way that Hollywood makes movies.

While we like to see our candidates reflective of our views and beliefs, here's a reality check:

Candidates are the creation of well funded machines, packaged, marketed and put on display. There is nothing 'real' about any candidate today. What we see is Hollywoood, DC, no more, no less.

The R&D department of the political machines do well funded market studies and determine the 'mood' of a particular constituency. If that 'mood' needs a bit of tweaking, well, there's enough money to go round. It isn't pretty, but it's reality.

If that reality isn't apparent, quit reading now, because this piece isn't headed into the fantasy land of self serving political, passionate pleasures.

There is of course, the mindless pablum of Hollywood's influence, but in the end, bakers need to bake and hatmakers should make hats. Everyone of course is free to express their opinions- and they should. But being influenced by star power is a sad commnetary on the rest of us. What is even more sad is that the political machines attempt to utilize the tactic. Do they think so little of us?

No candidate today, for a variety of reasons, including the PAC's that fund campaigns in the hope of gaining influence or access, can run on real vision, program for change (and thus giving us a better country) or even real conviction. What at times may appear to be convictions may be no more than pandering to a political base or well organized agendas.

There are no longer visionaries that can run on ideas and higher convictions alone.

The last President that was able to do that was Lyndon Johnson- and his vision of the Great Society was bitterly opposed by many for no other reason than it upset too many apple carts.

As a wise man once said, "If you want to make an enemy, propose change."

Real change and real progress, from either side of the political spectrum, is both elusive and ethereal.

Candidates today are selected because the machines that regurgitate winning political campaigns have focused on manipulation our emotions and not appealing to our real and reasoned sensibilities.

We are reminded of real and legitimate fears, and cajoled into carefully crafted ones, with the intent of presenting the opposing candidate as a potential Benedict Arnold or ready for immediate capitutalion to the dark forces we oppose.

Like or not, admit it or not, politics is driven by money (pork), financial considerations and agenda based ideologies.

There are no Abe Lincolns that can run for office anymore, and there are no Jimmy Stewart portrayals of 'Mr Smith Goes to Washington,' that aren't parodies- and 'we the people' are poorer for it.

In this reality and environment, much has been forgotten.

Liberals have forgotten that our country includes even those who disagree with them and their voices are just as relelvant as theirs. Simply disagreeing with some ideas does not make someone stupid. They have also forgotten that simply because they wish to define morality, their definitions by extension, must therefore define us. Life, politics and morality are not zero sum games, that all or nothing proposition. Nor do definitions serve as the means of measure of anyone's worth.

Religious Conservatives have forgotten that 'free will' applies to everyone, and that God places value on everyone. It is not for them decide who is meritorious and who isn't. Nor is it for somepeople to decide morality for everyone. Morality is and will always be, a personal matter. Further, as disconcerting as it may be to some, God made Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and atheists, as well. Part of the bigger picture that seems to be forgotten sometimes.

Secular Conservatives have forgotten that 'My country, right or wrong,' is a bumper sticker, not a profound ideology. The Founders placed great import on debate and spirited oppsosition. To simply follow along, without great thought, is antithetical to what this country stands for and values.

Lemmings are hardly the model for political inspiration.

Fortunately, the truth prevails, notwithstanding Mr Carville or Mr Rove.

Plenty of Christians voted Mr for Kerry, and plenty of progressives voted for Mr Bush in numbers that are beyond a statistical blip.

That happened because some religious voters recognize a greater spirituality as opposed to a specific set of beliefs, and felt comfortable with their choice. Some secular voters felt comfortable with how things are being handled now. Despite all the packaging, pundits and shrill political voices warning of impending doom, many Americans, quietly reasoned and came to decisions without being influenced and without tearing anyone down.

America was founded and made great by many liberal beliefs and convictions, by people of great conviction, honesty and foresight

America was was also founded and made great by many conservative values, by people of great conviction, honesty and foresight.

America it seems, also needs it's cowboys, some wearing white hats, some wearing black hats, all interchangeable. It is to that notion that the 'Hollywoodization' of politics was exploited, by the political powers that be.

Elections and issues are now emotional exercises, rather than intellectual ones. As any good Hollywood director knows, 'make 'em laugh or make 'em cry, and you'll sell tickets.'

We are being sold tickets and the studio with the funnier or sadder film, wins.

This cannot continue.

We, as human beings, always look to our inner compass, our belief and value systems. For some, the magnetic North is the church and faith. For others, it is the 'good works,' sans religion, of much Liberal thought and ideology.

Many mouths a day are fed by religious people, and many mouths a day are fed by secularists. To the hungry I think, it matters not.

As a result of the media and the packaging, however, somehow what has become important is who's picture is seen dispensing the food. Each side declares the other's kitchen as infested with disease, and each side manufactures conspiracy dark theories, implying that 'they' really want to poison us all.

Faced with the barrage of orchestrated and contrived crises, we retreat into ourselves, into the boxes that have been provided to us. All too often, we refuse to think outside that box. And the cycle contiues.

Now that I've haven't made anybody happy, the conclusion to these thoughts will be up tomorrow. No doubt, more head shaking in store.

I can hear it now- "Alex, how little we knew ye."

Tomorrow, I'm going to discuss what is outside the box, that threatens the current political leadership and landscape: Common ground.

On this day, Divine Justice

2004-11-11T13:50:00.000-05:00

November 11, 2004.

On this day, we see Divine Justice.

On the day we remember that 'band of brothers,' our veterans and their comrades who were left behind, Yasser Arafat has breathed his last.

Immortalized in a poem entitled Flanders Field, on Vimy Ridge and a host of other long forgotten blood soaked battlefields, we, from who's ranks and families came those quiet men of honor, can clearly differentiate between the sacred glory of warriors for peace and liberty and the profane idolater of evil, Yasser Arafat.

Much will be written and said about Arafat over the next few days. Some will eulogize him as a great leader and father figure to the Palestinians and others will apologize and jsutify much of what he has done. Others, even more effusive, will refer to him as the ultimate 'freedom fighter,' as if to say he too, shared the honor of a noble warrior.
As I wrote once before, nothing could be further from the truth. Arafat was a terrorist of the worst kind. He attempted to put a noble face on his evil and to have it seen as good.

"Terrorism" is a description of a means, a method of deliberately attacking or threatening to attack civilian targets in order to achieve political goals. "Freedom fighting" is a description of an end, as a freedom fighter's goal is national liberation. An individual could participate in "terrorism" and "freedom fighting" simultaneously, because one word describes means, while the other describes ends. To say that a Palestinian suicide bomber is not condemnable as a terrorist because the bomber's cause is national liberation is to argue that the end justifies the means."

Arafat espoused the deliberate attempt to legitimize his evil deeds, by couching those deeds in terms of honor- as if somehow words alone could transform reality.

Those men, from the Great War, WW2, Korea, Vietnam and now, Iraq, share no moral equivalence to Yasser Arafat's 'freedom fighting.'

Those men fought a war to bring freedom and liberty to those who would take them away.

Those men fought a war for to defend the highest principles, that all men should be free.

Those men fought a war in the hope, naive perhaps, that through their efforts, blood and tears, there would be an end to all wars.

Believing in those principles, some of those men were never came home, instead buried in fields close and far away. Some graves remain unmarked, are the bottom of a forever cold ocean, with young and good men entombed in deep dark water, never to have the sun shine on on their final resting places.

Familes too, paid for their sacrifices.

Children who never again would see their father.

Wives learning that, 'what God hath brought together' can be 'torn asunder,' at the hands of other men that held close evil to their heats.

Parents, having to live through nature in reverse, burying their sons and daughters.

Yasser Arafat and his ilk know nothing of such nobility. They know nothing of sacrifice, only of greed and deceit. They fight not for the principles that make men great, but rather for what makes men petty and cruel.

They rejoice at the death of innocents and in a world turned upside down, refer to the murderers as 'martyrs,' to be glorified amd revered.

In all of wars darkest hours, we spoke of high ideals and principles. We spoke of freedom and the determination that we would pay, with our blood, so that ourselves and others may live free. Our leaders asked not for glory, but rather suffered in anguish at the loss of young lives.

"I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant-General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle

"I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which shall attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save.

I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom. "

So said Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to a mother who lost 5 sons, defending the nation. These are not the words of a leader, who with calculated indifference, pushed children into harms way, so as to garner sympathy for himself and his cause.

Arafat was incapable of even understanding what liberty means, much less the Altar of Freedom Lincoln referred to.

The Palestinians deserve a homeland, no doubt. They deserve to make the decisions and choices that will affect their lives. They do not have that right to take that away from others, as so many of openly say they wish to do.

Freedom is earned, not given away. Freedom must been paid for and sometimes defended, with the blood of patriots.

Arafat never offered freedom to his people, only tyranny and hate.

It is on this day, we can clearly contrast the differences between mean of real honor and those that defile it.

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

Sleep well, oh Band of Brothers. The torch you have passed is in good hands. We have not broken faith with you. Those noble ideals and beliefs for which you paid so much, are safe in the hands of all good, free men.

To be free, times three

2004-11-10T13:03:00.000-05:00

Many words have been written on what is to be a citizen of free society and country.

Lofty ideals and words, profound thoughts and heroic actions, are usually exploited in the attempt to define and describe the ethereal values and charateristics of what being free really means.

While rummaging around in the attic of my small thoughts, it occured to me that to be free is to be a part of an ever changing landscape. No Five Year Plans, no Great Leap Forward. To be free is to paint a single brushstroke, wherever we please.

I have a friend suffering from a chronic illness. Despite the constant pain and debiliating psychological assault on well being, my friend worries about our country and what it means to defend our values.

My friend reached beyond herself. Like the athelete that performs beyond his abilities in the big game, my friend rejoiced in the first free election in Afghnistan, a country so far away, with secret tears of joy she never admitted to. My friend knows and understands what free choice means to average people. My friend understands what it means for people to be able to have a say in their own lives, irrespective of their choice of candidate, win or lose.

My friend selected her choice for President and her stand on the issues of the day with care, despite her current condition. The arguments defending her beliefs and choices were eloquently and passionately argued. Her small voice, and millions like her, chose not to be silent, but rather to participate.

I remember quite clearly, when I was in Eastern Europe before the Wall came down, how disenfranchised people were from participating in matters that affected them. Dreary, passionless and tired, those sad lives were reignited with the fire of freedom when the chance to participate was a possibility.

My friend values her freedom, so much so, that she participates, even when it would be easier not to.

Another friend, a speechwriter, is a true artist with words. From the unique perspective of a wordsmith, my friend clearly understands how words, carefully crafted, can convey a decidedly toxic message and make it palatable.

After working all day with words, it would be easy to succumb to someone else's efforts, just like everyone else. My friend chooses not to do that. Instead, my friend chooses to think, ponder and weigh issues- and despite an obvious facility with words, will not attempt to sway anyone in one directon or another, until the issues are clearly understood. Most extraorinarily, I think, my friend will not even do that. My friend wants people to think for themselves, make their own choices and not be spoon fed and not be part of crowd, simply agreeing so as to fit in.

Anyone can opine on any subject, of course. Simply having access to soapbox does not make opinions any more relevant, than does command of the English language. Issues need to be understood and digested, looked at from every angle.

All too often, we forget that. Opinions are thrown about without regard to veracity, or even real knowledge of the subject at hand. For example, I know someone who has studied the Middle East for decades. He can write a well researched, reasoned and measured article and is immediately excoriated by people who disagree with his point of view and see this as a justification for personal attack.

My speechwriter friend knows better than to ever do something like that, despite having the serious firepower to do just that.

Lastly, there are people whom I've come to know and respect, that take freedom seriously. They have wives, children and family responsibilities. We don't always agree and don't neccesarily see eye to eye on everything, but somehow we all speak the same language. I do wonder (and sometimes worry about) about the irrepresible and mildly insane NickyGoomba at times, but he makes me laugh, always.

BunkerMulligan, Paulie, John Adams, Nathan Hale and Capt Trevett over at The Commons, Sherry at Bittersweet, the ever thoughtful Marvin at LittleRedBlog, the research and incisive analysis icon that is Chrenkoff, Daisycutter,Pacetown and BrainShavings are all voices that have chosen to participate. Tom adds to the mix with interesting discussions and exchanges that challenge me, as does David of a Physicist's Perspective. Much to my delight, I no longer think of physicists as strange whack jobs.

There are many others on the Homespun blogroll who are no less a part of the mix. We don't all agree on many things and may even take issue with each other from time to time, but all in all, I'm lucky to be in such good company.

We are all small voices, participating in the free market place of thoughts and ideas, a marketplace ever growing.

Why did I write this? Because in free societies, there is no monolithic state voice. In free societies, there is a symphony of loud, cacaphonous voices, the sweetest sound ever known to the human spirit. In a free society, we willingly make room for variant voices.

In free societies, little voices matter. They are real heroes of free societies, irrespective of how they vote. The passion of those voices, inclusionists all, are the clarion call of free people.

Dinner, civil debate and the National Anthem

2004-11-08T11:45:00.000-05:00

A friend of mine recently recounted part of a recent, shared conversation. Over dinner, my friends mother made the remark that she "could not understand how anyone would want to live in the US," given the state of our current political climate.

My friend, a rather thoughful and insightful person was rather surprised at the off handedness of the remark and the implications implied. I should mention that my friend is probably more liberal in ideaology than I am. Nevertheless, my friend was rather taken aback by the remarks. More liberal or not, my friend is nothing if not reflective, honest and thoughtful and most important, focused. My friend exhibits a great sense of balance, proportion and wisdom. I have learned much. We don't always agree, but it is intersting to see that where we differ can usually be reduced to style, not import.

The conversation relayed, irked me a bit, not because of one person's opinion, but rather, because of it's casualness.

Irrespective of one's views, it has become part of our reality that complex issues and political positions can be summed up with one liners. Even more disheartening is the reality that this kind of discourse has become acceptable and de riguer.

A while back I had an exchange with BunkerMulligan. We were discussing a variant of this topic. I mentioned that simply having differing views did not disqualify the relevance or patriotism of worthy adversaries. I went on to mention that I considered Patrick Daniel Moynihan a real American patriot. Although in many areas, the late senator Moynihan challenged the views of some conservtives, there was never a question of his love of country or his dream to make America a better place for all her citizens. Mr Moynihan often crossed party lines and confounded his supporters and detractors on a regular basis. His entire raison d'etre was to help build a better America.

BunkerMulligan, in his usual elegant way, concurred. With a few simple words, he stated plainly that he missed Mr Moynihan and wished there were more like him.

While I can't speak for BunkerMulligan, I think we share a few similiar ideas.

Debate is just that, debate. Debate can be a healthy exercise giving us pause and insisting that we think for ourselves. At its, lowest, debate can be reduced to a toxic level, with the sole intent of poisining what I call the free market of thoughts and ideas.

The demise of real debate is cancerous. The acceptance of 'spin' as reality has made for vitriol heretofore unknown. We're all guilty of it. It is easier to buy off the shelf than to cook for ourselves. We are filled with adulterated foods, real taste compromised and the empty calories of a mindless ideology, whatever it is, providing us with intellectual irrelevant weight.

We have forgotten what fresh food for thought tastes like.

Recently, I wrote this same friend about a someone who had made rather foolish sounding allegations about the recent elections and expected them to be taken at face value
...irrespective of one's politics, [the claim that] that Mr Bush or any of his colleagues are 'facists' is not in evidence. Until such time as truly fascist behavior is exhibited, such as taking control of the press, suspending the US Constitution and the Bill ofRights or declaring martial law, John's allegations are certainly not a historical event.

Lacking any serious evidence and corroberation, John's claims are spurious at best.There is no evidence whatsoever the election was 'stolen' as John contends. Neither Mr Kerry, the Democrat Party, Democrat Party pollworkers, observers or the UN observers in place, made such allegations. If as John says, 'the fix was in,' it would be a good thing if he were to present such evidence. I'm sure the Federal ElectionCommission, in conjuction with the media, would examine such evidence carefully and seriously.

There is no evidence that the Mr Bush wishes to establish a theocracy. Is John implying that there are no Democrats who believe in God, or attend church? Is his implying that that no atheists voted for Mr Bush? There is ample evidence to suggest that there is plenty of crossover voting. I am a bit uncomfortable with the idea that democracy has no
room for some of a particular stripe. All in all, John seems to have not posted on a historical event, but rather on an unsubstatiated set of allegations.

To be certain, John's views are one side of the same coin. The same type of silliness can be heard on the reverse of that coin.

One writer in the NYT recently said that Europeans see Americans as having more in common with the Taliban than they do with Western Europeans. It is this type of thinking and pandering, along with others propogating the idea that Europe as the center of immorality, that provides in part for the decline of our civilization, as much as any other threat we face.

There are rational voices to be heard- and listened to. In an intersting confluence of fate, recent columns by liberal and conservative pundits shared a similiar concerns. Mort Zuckerman recently wrote,

... Americans rejected the hedonism of Woodstock, in which individual choice and uninhibited, personal expression trumped all. Hollywood came to epitomize for them thisnarcissism and repudiation of conventional values. They were tired ofthe new counterculture of radical change, seeing in the New Left acontempt for middle America and its values, reflected in fathers abandoning their families, the delegitimization of the sanctity of marriage, raising children without clear moral guideposts — all of which, in their minds, led to increased criminality, drug abuse,people being recast as society's victims rather than acceptingresponsibility for their own actions. They yearned to restore the authority of public institutions and toremove some of the violenceand sexuality in TV programs, records, and computer games, whose content they ascribed to the liberals who write the screenplays for TV and movies.
Against this backdrop, the Democratic Party saw its leadership shifting away from its working-class and middle-class roots, away from moral traditionalists, especially families that go to church, awayfrom those who live in unfashionable tract suburbs and even in working-class neighborhoods. The Democratic Party was increasingly identifying more with the rising elites of the information andentertainment age - what commentator Joel Kotkin calls the"hip-ocracy" of well-educated people, high-tech tycoons, Hollywood moguls and celebrities, Wall Street financiers, and an academic world of people with graduate degrees - a new social elite, much moreliberal than the country at large. Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain" and "It's the economy, stupid!" reflected the need to reconnect withthe traditional Democratic middle-class constituencies, but then he exacerbated the concern over moral values and family issues with his personal behavior.

Liberals will abhor such remarks, of course, but in the context of civil debate, they are indeed, relevant.

Conservatives will applaud such remarks, of course. After all, Zuckerman is preaching to the choir. The more important question is, how will conservatives react to the following, from Common Dreams?

Tens of millions of Americans feel betrayed by a society that seems to place materialism and selfishness above moral values. They know that "looking out for number one" has become the common sense of our society, but they want a life that is about something more --- a framework of meaning and purpose to their lives that would transcend the grasping and narcissism that surrounds them. Sure, they will admit that they have material needs, and that they worry about adequate health care, stability in employment, and enough money to give their kids a college education. But even more deeply they want their lives to have meaning --- and they respond to candidates who seem to care about values and some sense of transcendent purpose...
Yet to move in this direction, many Democrats would have to give up their attachment to a core belief: that those who voted for Bush are fundamentally stupid or evil. Its time they got over that elitist self righteousness and developed strategies that could affirm their common humanity with those who voted for the Right. Teaching themselves to see the good in the rest of the American public would be a critical first step in liberals and progressives learning how to teach the rest of American society how to see that same goodness in the rest of the people on this planet. It is this spiritual lesson --- that our own well-being depends on the well-being of everyone else on the planet and on the well-being of the earth --- a lesson rooted deeply in the spiritual wisdom of virtually every religion on the planet, that could be the center of a revived Democratic Party.
Yet to take that seriously, the Democrats are going to have to get over the false and demeaning perception that the Americans who voted for Bush could never be moved to care about the well being of anyone but themselves. That transformation in the Democrats would make them into serious contenders

Can anyone deny the truth of what the writer states? Can anyone deny the fundamental reality that given the right focus and direction, liberal values will appeal to many? I for one, have no doubt of that. I share some of the writers ideas and thoughts. I may not agree with all his politics, but like Patrick Moynihan, Rabbi Lerner cannot be dismissed simply because of his political affiliations. We would do well to read and understand his points of view and ideas, if for no other reason that they are sound and contain more than a kernel of truth.

The fact of the matter is, truth is no less truth simply because we don't like the bearer.

I wrote recently that words can be the rifle scope on the gun, that fires the bullets that kill.

If the uncivil debate continues unabated, we will have have lost something in this country, far more precious than elections or debates. We will have lost that part of ourselves that made America great- the intoxicating addiction to the truth and the notion that as a nation, Americans want a 'land of the free and the home of the brave.'

We must be free to express ourselves, without fear of exclusion and brave enough to consider ideas and thoughts that challenge us.

As newspapers become more partisan and elites of all stripes want to do our thinking for us, we would do well to remember the words of the Pledge of Allegiance-- One nation...with liberty and justice, for all.

Who we are and can be, cannot and should not be reduced to an offhanded remark over dinner.

Day after comments

2004-11-03T16:55:00.000-05:00

There isn't much I can add to the blogshere pundits that are analyzing the election.

Instead, I visited the Atrios website and read through some of the comments left on that left leaning site.

Civil discourse? I think not

Goal now is to make it living Hell for all Republicans...No hold barred, nothing to outrageous or dirty. I don't want to see any more virtuous, serious-minded discussions of policy or ideas. What I want to see is relentless attacks beyond imagination of every damn filthy Republican and all of their supporters. Non-stop attack. Meanwhile, start building the 08 campaign now. I will never quit fighting the ignorance that Murka has become. It's my F-ing country, they've just stolen it

America the Ugly, America the Destroyer, America the Asshole of the World...

Wear whatever the fuck you want, it ain't gonna mean shit unless you're willing to spill blood

its not the messenger - its the receiver we got out our message - it is righteous true and noble....the sheep cannot understand progressive politics they don't comprehend how we believe in women and their right to choose - remember women those 54% are against choice they don't comprehend how we have embraced the gay community instead of alienating it ...bottom line: so long as the cult religion is allowed to flourish, ignorance and intolerance will be the majority alas - gays guns grizzlies and the GOP are fine by the merican sheeplewhat do you expect - country of retards

Finally, I truly feel sorry for the Canadians. If there was ever a reason to beef up the border, this is it:

Let's all move to Canada together. We can start a new town. Atriostown. We'll blow up your teevees, throw away our papers go to the country, build some homes. Plant a little garden, eat a lot of peaches Try an find Jesus on our own. As far as income, I hear marijuana commands a high price.

Somber reminders

2004-11-02T10:48:00.000-05:00

See Nicky Goomba and Bittersweet.

Both posts are disturbing, relevant and important.

Vote.

Postmodern courtesan follow up

2004-11-02T10:25:00.000-05:00

There has been a flood of emails to my post on the Postmodern Courtesan.

For those of you, on either side of the issue that chose to write thoughtful critique, I shall respond over the course of the day, via email, as time permits.

To those of you on either side of the issue that responded in a less than civil manner, well, as in real life, you shall be ignored.

I may or may not choose to post again on the matter. It is not my intent to be a cheering section or lightning rod for debating the issue.

To one email correspondent in particular, let me say that Olympia Manet if far more 'relevant' as a person than you will ever be.

Irrespective of some of what she chooses to do-- and that choice is hers to make-- as a human being she has contributed far more to society than you ever will.

Postmodern courtesan comments and email

2004-11-01T10:27:00.000-05:00

Despite the late evening post, I've received a number of emails on my post below, The Postmodern Courtesan Responds.

Not altogther unexpectedly, I have been excoriated for even having a discussion with the "likes" of Olympia Manet, and I have been called a racist homophobe (among other things) on the other extreme.

As I made clear, I wrote the piece as a discussion- an important one. As the ever succint Paulie of The Commons notes in a comment he posted below, there is a strong argument to be made about the effects of gay marriage on children.

In any case, unless and until civil discourse becomes the norm, diverse opinion will become even more divisive-- and that means we all lose.

The Post Modern Coutesan Responds

2004-11-01T01:15:00.000-05:00

The Post Modern Courtesan has responded to my post, via an email. I shall post the entire correspondence and my responses to her. I want her letter to me to be taken in context, rather than 'cherry pick' a few disjointed remarks and comment on them.

Thus, this post will be long. I hope my readers forgive me. It is however, an important discussion. What follows below is an exchange of opinions and thoughts.

As The Post Modern Coutesan writes,

"High-minded debate is something so acutely lacking in society today that I find an intelligent dissenter far more rewarding than a fawning supporter."

Olympia Manet's (the nom de plume of the Post Modern Courtesan) letter was thoughtful, relevant and in it's own way, very poignant.

Let me be clear. I have no objection to to Ms. Manet herself-- only some of the choices she has made. As I posted in my earlier piece, "It is authored by an obviously intelligent, educated and erudite writer."

Ms. Manet is not a Nazi, Islamofascist and she does not wear a white hood. She is not looking to corrupt your children nor steal Grandpa's Social Security check.

After reading her letter to me I can only reiterate those things as truths. While I do not agree with much of what Ms. Manet writes and ascribes to, I certainly respect her.

For those of you who will react in a religiously reflexive manner, please recall that both the Old and New Testaments are replete with examples of tolerance and understanding, even for those who have sinned.

For those of you who hate religion and anything else that smacks of conservative values, let me remind you that many of the liberal values we have in this country came about as the result of the efforts of many who invoked God's name.

Here is the letter:

Dear Alex,

I am Olympia Manet, the nom de plume of the postmodern courtesan. I'm writing because a reader forwarded me the link to your blog and your posting on mine.

Let me start by saying that though I suspect our political views would tend to be different, I really appreciate and respect the way you criticized my site and lifestyle without denigrating me as a person. High-minded debate is something so acutely lacking insociety today that I find an intelligent dissenter far more rewarding than a fawning supporter.

I took a moment to acquaint myself with your site as a whole so that I could better contextualize your comments on my site. One of the things I like about your site is that I have been able to pin very few associations on you. I have deduced from your divorced dad of a teenage daughter note that you are a man, and I am assuming you are both white and Christian, though I can't decide if your defense of the Catholic Church was sympathy or empathy. And you appear to be from the beautiful state of North Carolina.

I did want to take a moment to respond to some of your assertions, if only to give you a different perspective, one which I hope is free of rhetoric and cliches. You mention three things in your posting:homosexuality, prostitution, and terrorism that you consider to be disadvantageous to us as a society. I guess my disagreement can be traced to the fact that those three things have been in existence since the dawn of recorded history. Homosexuality, whether sanctioned or closeted has been around since at least Ancient Greece, and prostitution can be found in the Old Testament. Terrorism makes an appearance there as well: the Philistines who attack the Israelites from behind without provocation, killing women and children in a dishonorable manner.

I would wager to guess that these things will be around long after you and I cease to record our digital thoughts. I think what has changed is that we now talk about them. Issues that were once considered unacceptable to air publicly are now well in the public domain. I don't think this is a bad thing.

I'm not solely trying to pick apart your argument piece by piece, but the following passages juxtaposed made me curious:

"I don't believe that mental illness is a curse from God, nor do I believe that Gays are inherently sinfully choice or that that aren't issues that aren't struggled with everyday. I've written about that before as have many others.

Nevertheless, there comes a point where we have to take responsibility for our actions, good or bad.While we can rightly claim the good we do, we must also take the blame for the wrongs we do- or those done in our name."

Does the second paragraph mean that people must take responsibility for their homosexuality and acknowledge it as bad? Are people to be blamed for that? (I'm not going to ask about mental illness, as I am pretty positive you don't think people ought to be owning up to that and accepting blame for being mentally ill). And if they are to be blamed, what does that mean? Is a public apology good enough? Is returning to a time when we just don't talk about those kinds of people enough? Is the proper conclusion that gays should realize their actions are bad and stop requesting rights on par with straight people?

No, Ms Manet, I do not believe that homosexuals need acknowledge their behavior as bad. That is something I will leave for others to determine. Nor do I believe that we ought not talk about homosexuality, sexuality or even question other long held beliefs. That is not and has never been an issue.

I do not believe that there ought to be different rights for different groups of people. Christians, Jews and Muslims share the same equal rights and there is no need to place one religion 'over' another. Indeed, that was the Framers original intent, to preclude a government sanctioned (majority or otherwise) religion from imposing itself on the nation, to the exclusion of other faiths. The same is true of all equal protection laws.

I do however believe, that the homosexual community needs to acknowledge their behavior as different and that attempting to 'normalize' that behavior as an acceptable-- and thus equivalent-- lifestyle has repurcussions to society at large. This is no different than the Amish acknowledging their way of life different, in the same way that Orthodox Jews or Orthodox Muslims acknowledge their own differences. None of those groups ask for or receive special rights that are outside those already afforded them. They do not ask that we change our lifestyles so that we respect their respective Sabbath Days.

Society and government have the obligation to preserve and defend the standard definition of family, if for no other reason than they they are the foundations of our past, current and future existence.

It is true that prostitution, adultery and homosexuality have been around a long time and will always be an issue in society.

Having said that, let me point out that I am all for civil unions. However that works itself out, is fine with me. I do not wish to see any persons in 'this great experiment in democracy,' excluded from equal protections. Equal protections however, does not mean equivalence. Nor does that imply a superior or inferior status. Equal protections are just that- to be applied equally.

As the late Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliot Trudeau once said, "Government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."

That oft quoted remark will always remain relevant.

Adultery laws, and those about homosexuality, found in the bible (and the quran) were put in place at a time when societies were fragmented and the most important thing was to keep the society together and to propagate it. If you were having sex with someone other than your wife, or with a man, you weren't having children who would in turn further the aims of the society. Most of the biblical laws were put in place to prevent societal atrophy. The entire Old Testament is geared towards making sure there would be enough people to sustain the religion. Adultery and homosexuality were seen to be barriers to that (as was the honoring of parents, the ban on false idols, the coveting of those things that rightly belonged to one's neighbor). Regardless of whether the issue of sustaining a society is still relevant today (which I would posit it isn't, or certainly not in the dire way it was portrayed 2 and 3 thousand years ago), the problem with using those mores as a foundation for a secular government is that it is inherently exclusive. I have always felt that democracy strives to be inclusive, to provide a safe place for people to actas they wish while respecting the laws of the land. Laws that are of utmost importance would be not stealing from other people and not killing them. Without those laws in place, anarchy would certainly reign. I just don't see how homosexuality and prostitution pose the same threat. Yes, there are religions, and those religions have the majority of the U.S. population as followers, that disdain adultery, prostitution, and homosexuality, but that alone cannot be justification for secular laws against them.

Here, I'm not sure what Ms. Manet is saying. Is she implying that there are laws that are actively discriminatory towards gays? If anything, it is clear that there are no laws that are specifically anti gay in nature. There have been laws that have been found to be exclusionary in their implementation, but those laws were reinterpreted by the courts and clarified to be more inclusive. Herein lies the strength of our society. The courts are constantly redefining who we are and what our laws mean. We don't always like these 'activist' courts (unless of course, they rule in our favor, whatever the cause du jour may be), but in reality, overall the courts have worked remakably well.

Ms. Manet's assertion disappoints me in that she implies there are laws that are actively discriminatory, is an unfair characterization of our laws and as such, lessens open and honest debate.

Further, biblical laws pertaining to prostitution and homosexuality were established for more than simply propogation of the religion. It would seem to me that the issues those laws adderssed are as equally valid today as they were back then. The issues the address are the same as the ones we face today. Families are disintegrating and children are being reduced to chattel, bought and paid for on a weekend to weekend basis. We are less engaged with our families. This results in even more detachment.

Even the "It takes a village to raise a child" philosophy is meaningless if there aren't strong families to populate and commit to those villages.

I cannot argue Ms Manet's point that laws pertaining to adultery and prostitution are not the equivalent of the laws relating to murder and theft. Nevertheless, we have somehow managed to find ourselves in a society and culture that is more callous and less grounded. While not resulting in the anachy of murder and mayhem, perhaps we ought to be looking at the slow disintegration of values we hold dear. There is an increasing sexualization of children and the depressing state of what passes for TV and film entertainment, seems to be headed to even lower depths.

Those are not strictly the religious values Ms. Manet would have you believe. I would submit that someone as thoughtful as her would concur that we, in this generation, face challenges never before imagined. We cannot even imagine what the future holds. By Ms. Manet's own words, "biblical laws were put in place to prevent societal atrophy." Why would that be no less true today? Since when is societal atrophy a religious matter only?

To say that moral corruption is a religious matter only, is a disingenious argument, because the obverse would also be true-- that morality is a religious construct.

If that were true, why is the fight for gay marriage being called a moral fight? Why should marriage be relevant at all, outside religious boundries?

Morality exists outside the boundries of religion, as does immorality. As such, there are a whole range of moral issues that must be dealt with by society as a whole.

Putting aside religion, morality and politics for a moment, consider this. In some states, girls as young as 14 can have an abortion without their parents knowledge.

Something is wrong with that. Very wrong and very tragic.

I have yet to receive a response I understand for how granting marriage to homosexuals weakens heterosexual marriage. I don't understand how adultery with a prostitute is any more damaging than adultery with a lay person - and I don't think there would be much support for an anti-adultery law. You yourself are divorced, and I can only imagine what a painful decision that must have been, but the result is that, through what I will guess was neither homosexuality nor the solicitation of a prostitute, your family has become non-nuclear. If the nuclear family is the key towards righting our social ills, I might suggest that both you and I are guilty of contravening that goal.

As I stated earlier, I have no problem with civil unions.

Ms. Manet is right to say that divorce is always painful and neither homosexuality or prostitution played a role in my own, and for that matter, in the demise of most, marriages.

Still, the remark that "I don't understand how adultery with a prostitute is any more damaging than adultery with a lay person...," troubles me.

Nowhere in the letter does Ms. Manet denigrate marriage, nor given her apparent ideology, condemn marraige. Therefore, the remarks are confusing. With adultery and sex with a prostitute, the marriage vows are compromised. Notwithstanding any religious beliefs, society has accepted marital fidelity as a given.

Prostitution reduces intimacy to commodity, no more no less. It is bought and paid for with no consequence. It is the exact opposite of intimacy. It is a commercial exchange, with the emphasis on the commercial. Men (or women) pay for sex, period. While is true there is often the illusion of a relationship, as you have written yourself, in the end, it is just that-- an illusion.

Arguments can be made that adultery is 'better' or 'worse' than prostitution, but regardless, the results are the same. There are consequences to the individuals, families and society at large.

In both cases, prostitution and adultery, social and religious lines are crossed.

But that's not my point. I think that we encounter far greater threats to our way of life and our livelihood than either homosexuality or prostitution pose, and I am saddened that those issues, especially the former, are seized upon in an attempt to distance ourselves from the stickier problems that affect us: poor education, poor race relations, general intolerance, general greed, and the converse, general poverty. I find that arguments made against sexual issues are an avoidance tactic that allows people to be galvanized while simultaneously allowing them to ignore the problems that may well affect them more directly on a day to day basis.

In this area, I find myself somewhat agreeing with Ms Manet. It is true there are greater societal needs than prostitition. I would argue however, that the eradication of the very real issues you mention, go hand in hand with proper perspective. They cannot be attacked piecemeal. When we attempt to deal with societal ills, we need to deal with all of them. Still, she is right. In the great scheme of things, the triage of what must be dealt with, would place prostitution on a lower rung.

On a more personal note, let me be honest and say I know I make my money off human weakness and moral relativism. My livelihood is directly linked to people wanting more and varied sex, being unable to confront their partners with these desires, and coming to a third party for fulfillment. If it breaks up families, obviously I feel bad. But not responsible. A marriage that breaks up because one or both partners stray cannot be attributed to the straying itself, but rather the causes for that straying. If adultery wasn't going to terminate the marriage, something else would have. The world is too complex for that to be a black and white issue. And whether couples break up for reasons of adultery, money problems, or the old irreconcilable differences, and children of that union will be hurt. A child who has just witnessed a divorce isn't going to take time to rank how bad the reasons for the divorce were, he or she will simply be devastated by the divorce itself. But thinking that had one of the parents not seen a prostitute the marriage would still be intact is just poor reasoning.

I admire Ms. Manet's candor with regard to human weakness and moral relativism. With those few words, she concedes much.

I do question her when she remarks that prostitution doesn't break marriages. In a sense of course, that is true. In another sense, an argument can be made that prostitution can contribute mightily to the dissolution of a marriage.

Prostitutes cultivate relationships. That is their business. A good prostitute knows that by being the object of an infatuation, the relationship will flourish and thus be lucrative. I do wonder if Ms. Manet grasps the magnitude of that obsession, in all it's implications.

Prostitution and adultery can indeed contribute to the breakup of a marriage

Ms. Monet seems to make light on the impact divorce has on children, when it comes about as the result of adultery or prostitution. Younger children are perhaps immune to the issues of betrayal, but older children are not. Children as young as 8 years old, the age when rational thought and consequence become apparent, can be acutely aware and traumatized by impact of infidelity and betrayal. Those wounds are hard to heal.

Similarly, I would like to say that, on a more altruistic note, the way I handle my business affairs is far more responsible than one might imagine. My rule of mandatory STD screening for both me and my clients prevents the spread of a terror with fartherreaching consequences than simple divorce. Men who choose to see prostitutes with less stringent rules run the risk of infecting their wives with something they picked up from a prostitute.

Finally, I'd like to end with your last paragraph:

"Democracy is about a lot more than legitimizing the morally corrupt notion of that 'all is fair in love and war."

You've said a mouthful here. Morally corrupt, as I attempted to describe above, is a spiritual construct, not a secular one. Morality is relative, and though you and I probably subscribe to a basic set of similar morals, those should not be the basis on which we govern. Government should be free from such influence and should instead focus on what is civicley corrupt. Morality is an issue each of us must confront with that to which we pray or believe. Making it something more removes the singularity of our democratic processes and makes it about a special interest. People who preach morality do so, generally, because they truly believe they have the answers to the ills of our society, but their voices are only some of many, and to give credence to any one group overanother is a recipe for disaster. Democracy is about alot more than legitimizing notions. Democracy is about creating an environment where people are free to livetheir lives unoppressed and unmolested. But it is als oabout preserving my right to think that gays should marry and I should be permitted to have sex for moneyand preserving your right to think otherwise. And if some of those thoughts come up against laws where we are restricted from leading our lives because we subscribe to different beliefs or lifestyles, something has gone drastically wrong. It is easy to dismiss the similarities between the rights for gays and the rights for blacks or women, but at the time that equal rights for both blacks and women were debated, there were plenty of people who subscribed to the notion that granting equal rights to those demographics would erode the family and our society as a whole. I'm glad to say that eventuality happened in neither case.

Anything goes no matter if we want it to or not, but I'm not sure if punishment and secrecy are the answer to the problems you see in society. I would wager aguess that if our society were stronger, neither homosexuality nor prostitution would pose the great threat you feel they do. If our children were educated and tolerant; if we didn't have hordes of starving and sick people barely surviving throughout our rich country; if our air and water quality were better; andif we learned to prize and respect each other as unique and contributing individuals, rejoicing in our similarities and our ability to create great things,and not wallowing in those petty differences we often use to separate ourselves - maybe then it wouldn't matter if our next door neighbors were a gay couple with two adopted kids. Utopian, this thought might be, but no less utopian than the world I saw you envision in your post.

I have discussed moral corruption as a social and not strictly religious issue, so I need not repeat myself.

As for much of what Ms Monet goes on to say, I agree. We disagree however, it the conclusions.

As she says, "Democracy is about creating an environment where people are free to live their lives unoppressed and unmolested."

Ms Monet sees the issue of democracy as primarily an expression of individual rights and then communal rights.

I see democracy as an expression of communal rights first, because it is from the community that all sense of individual rights are derived. I too, recognize Ms Monet's notion of 'creating an environment' conducive to democracy where personal liberties flourish. However, those personal liberties are not an absolute. Free speech does not allow for yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. At some point, the well being of the community trumps the individual's rights.

Nowhere did I mention or suggest 'punishment' for those I disagree with. That characterization is unfair and is an atempt to miscontrue my words.

Like Ms Monet, I stuggle at times with the balance. As I've written before, regarding abortion, that struggle has been very real for me.

Ms Monet tries to equate civil rights for blacks and women as equal to civil rights for gays. That argument won't hold water.

Black Americans were discriminated against simply because they existed. There is no more fundamentall right than the right to live. It took too long, a war was fought over it and we finally corrected that injustice.

Women suffered at the hands of a culture that in many cases, demeaned and denigrated them. That too, over time, was a wrong, rightly overcome. We changed the way we think about women and that has benefited all of society enormously.

The discrimination of gays is also a matter that must be addressed-- and they are being addressed, in the courts and in the market place of thoughts and ideas. Nevertheless, addressing discrimination does not mean specific rights for any group of people. Nor does it mean forcing society into accepting an alternative lifestyle as equal. At some point, society has a right to define itself.

Ms Monet calls me on 'preaching morality.'

I suppose she's right. I do believe in right and wrong. However, I don't believe that I have all the answers. She is wrong however, when she implies I'm trying to cure all the worlds ills. I do have strong beliefs in what would make for a better world, but in reality, I can only attempt to influence that small circle around me. Sometimes I will be successful, sometimes I won't.

I have written that America is a uniquely self correcting endeavor. Elections happen, power is handed over and somehow, the cycle continues and we all seem to move forward.

I have nowhere near the answers for what ails the world, any more than Ms Manet does. I think Ms Manet would admit to that.

Let me also say that discussions of this nature are never final or definative. They can however be instructive and provide food for thought.

Perhaps neither Ms, Manet's way of thinking or mine holds the key to that magical kingdom we both envision, but in the end, we do share similiar ideas about the kind of world we want to live in.

We both want the world to be a better place. That's a start.

This has gone on far too long, and if you're still reading, thank you. I chose to write you personally rather than leave a comment on your blog. However, if you wanted to reprint any of this email for your readers, you have my permission provided that you donot unfairly excerpt. I trust you wouldn't, but I wanted to make my preferences known. I tried not to take your writing out of context when penning this missive, and I would hope you would show me the same respect were you to reprint a part of this. We might have some radically different opinions, but I found your site to be well-written and certainly thoughtful.

Fondly,

Olympia

The thinking feminists for Bush

2004-10-31T13:30:00.000-05:00

In recent Newsmax piece, Tammy Bruce makes an argument that's tough to beat. Ms Bruce has also taken a hard line on Iraq and has spoken out in defense of marriage. For a bit of insight who Tammy Bruce is, see her website.

It really is a matter of issues, not of ethreal ideologies. Not this election, any way. The discussion of ideologies is important of course, but at the moment, it is not a luxury we have. Ideological discussions don't carry the firepower, deterrent or intmidation that we need to defeat what will inevitably remain a threat-- not a nuisance.

When we're being threatened by an all consuming fire, now isn't the time to discuss the merits of various brands of sprinkler systems, fire retardent sleepwear for kids or which brand of smoke alarms work best. You put out the fire and then discuss the options for the future.

America has always shown itself to a self correcting society, so I'm not worried about whether or not in the long run, we'll do the right thing. Nor do I fear healthy, vigorous political debate. Now, however, is the time we need to form a bucket brigade, and is not the time to have the 'can't we all just get along' discussion with the UN.

There are many reasons Tammy Bruce is voting for Bush:

The simple answer? It means you're a confident liberal, a thoughtful person who realizes that game of party loyalty takes a back seat to the safety of your family and this nation. It also means you take the slogans of "choice" and "radical individualism" seriously.

Isn't it ironic that there's nothing more radically individual these days than a liberal who doesn't conform?

For me, Authentic Feminism is rooted in making it possible for people tomake the choices that best suit them.

She goes on to say,
If you have recognized the weakness of John Kerry, and know in your heart a vote for the president is the right thing to do, join me and do it! It can be done with a clear conscience as you embrace the radical individual inside you that attracted you to liberal causes in the first place.

Because some things simply transcend party lines, when in front of that Early Voting touch screen, I stood there as an American first, and voted for George W. Bush. This nation, our lives, and the lives our children require nothing less.

I explain to detractors and supporters alike that President Bush is the man who will keep this nation safest.

The president and I hold dramatically divergent views on a number of social issues of importance to me, and yet for the 3,000 people who died on September 11th, abortion rights and same-sex civil unions mean absolutely nothing to them now.

These issues, while important to me and ones on which I will continue to speak out about, are luxuries in the face of a world war where the enemy is a stateless savage who hunts children and cuts off people's heads.

Read the article here.

Someone wrote me today and made a cogent observation:
Along with... [the] ability to think...comes the ability to change my mind on an issue once I've thought about it long and hard. Now that is a truly unusual thing...

I don't need to comment on my friends politics and in truth, they are irrelevant. What I do know, my friend is right.

Think before you vote.

Nicky Goomba

2004-10-31T12:53:00.000-05:00

Im glad Nicky's on our side-- I think.

Always good for an irreverent look at reality, such as it is. If there was ever a guy I'd love to run into at a party, it's gotta be Nicky-- mostly, case he's so subtle.

Go get em, Nicky!

Cadmus Sorrel

2004-10-31T12:25:00.000-05:00

I've been meaning to do this for a while, but somehow, I just never get around to it.

Cadmus Sorrel has a great blog with an excellent assortment of links on a daily basis.

It's obvious he reads them and has a sense of their importance- it's not a willy nilly of links slapped together to fill up space.

Bookmark his site and refer to it daily.

More rule of page 21, China and Procktoberfest

2004-10-30T09:15:00.000-05:00

"If you want to understand what's going to be important, look to page 21." If it's on page one, it's old news."

So I wrote a while ago.

I first wrote about China's new economic interests and then followed up here and here.

Well, there's more to worry about than China's foray into Canadian resource companies.

THERE is no mistaking the emergence of China as a global economic superpower. Beijing's manufacturing revolution is gobbling up 29% of world steel production, 26% of global copper and it is now the world's second-largest consumer of oil at 6.7m barrels a day, ahead of eighbouring Japan.

But despite its place at the high table of international economics - it attended the last Group of Seven meeting in Washington -decision- making is as obscure as ever.

As a result the country's action in raising its key interest rate by just over a quarter-point to 5.58% had analysts confused. China stated earlier this year that it would consider raising rates if inflation exceeded 5%. But it has been above that level for some time so the jump came as a shock.

It could be seen as more of the same as the Chinese have been tightening policy since September 2003 through a series of moves including an increase in bank reserve requirements -a policy instrument abandoned in the West some years ago.

But the markets saw Beijing's action as a turning point. The dollar climbed against the yen and the euro and US Treasury bonds rose strongly.

The markets believe that the rate rise may be a prelude to the long postponed revaluation of the Chinese currency, the renminbi, against the American dollar.

If this were the case it is assumed that China would not have to support the dollar by buying US Treasuries as at present.

All of this remains speculation. Despite its openness to Western capitalism China prefers to keep its thoughts to itself, which is not helpful when it is so pivotal to global growth and stability.

Sooner or later, we're going to have to deal with the economic reality that is China.

Finally, Procktoberfest is coming to an end. I know I posted about this earlier, but it was just to good to let fade away. Really, you can't make this stuff up.

Kerry Plan Rumor Mill

2004-10-29T15:25:00.000-05:00

Big talk today in the NC State Capital building, here in Raleigh.

The rumor mill has Kerry abandoning Florida to focus on Ohio, for good reason.

Apparently, the Dems feel confident enough that the Florida race will be tight and thus they believe they can keep the election in Florida from being certified by the Florida Secretary of State. It is being said that post election court challenges are ready to go, with the intent of having the Florida courts nullify the election in that state.

This is an important distinction. The Dem machine isn't looking to challenge the results of the election- they just want the results nullified, if goes against them. If true, Kerry supporters are counting on the balance of the electoral college votes to be handed to the Dem candidate. Dem strategists see the Electoral College numbers in favor of Kerry, without Florida.

Rumor also has it that the best Dem party election litigators are already in Florida to be on the ground early to choreograph the alleged plan.

The Dems want it, and they want it bad. As was recently written by CJ in The Unmentionables, this is going to be interesting.

9/11 family voices

2004-10-29T10:01:00.000-05:00

Arthur Chrenkoff has the piece that everyone has been waiting for.

He quotes from and opines on an open letter from '911 families for America. It is a very good read and an important one.

For many bloggers, writing about the 9/11 families and their political views has been somewhat of a taboo subject.

The fact of the matter is, 9/11 was an American tragedy. That day changed our country and the world.

Like Pearl Harbor and Veterans Day, 9/11 commemorates horror and tragedies that affected us all. In the same way that the families of those tragic days and wars do not 'own' that day, 9/11 is also a day shared by all.

The day is not 'owned' by anyone or any one particular ideology. To imply so is to lessen the significance of that moning in September.

Read Arthur's post here.

"Are you a journalist? If you are, I will cry"

2004-10-28T19:56:00.000-05:00

A seriously ill Yasser Arafat is headed to Paris for medical treatment.

Now, the look back at the old warrior has begun. What is being said by the Arab and regional press is an example of what we can look forward to. Of course, after he really is gone, the questions of where all the money went can be asked, without the pesky annoyance of being respectful to the old thief on his deathbed.

There are some metaphors in real life that can't be beat. Under the tutelage of Arafat, the Palestinians have morphed into the caricature of the 'despairing' victims.
Abdel Nasser, a passenger in a beat up car hurtling through the darkened Ramallah streets to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's Mukata Wednesday night, grimaced when asked whether he would cry if he died.
"Are you a journalist?" he asked a reporter on the way to Arafat's compound. The reporter's answer was in the affirmative. "Then, yes, I will cry." He then grinned. "But if you are not a journalist, then no, I won't cry.

..."it is better for the Palestinians and for Arafat that as a leader" he exits the scene.

Turns out, Arafat's legacy is already being tarnished. From the Saudi controlled Arab News:
For almost four decades Arafat has symbolized both the best and worst of Palestinians...
He also symbolized some of the worst aspects of the Palestinian struggle that, many believe, have contributed to the tragedy that Palestine is today. His reluctance to delegate authority and his insistence that he should control all the levers of power have had the result of reducing the entire Palestinian struggle, its government, its political organizations and socials movements to a one-man show. Whatever his intentions, the result has been nepotism, corruption and denial of rights to his people. There have been times when one got the impression that the Palestinian people were under a double occupation.

The Job Huntress

2004-10-28T10:28:00.000-05:00

In my ever expanding effort to be a good citizen, I have recently become aware of a fellow North Carolinian on an intrepid job search.

It is my civic duty as a fellow NC citizen to do my part on her behalf, so I will toot her horn.

The Princess Girly Girl has talents that would be an asset to any organization.

She has mastered the use of long handled tongs, can maintain her balance on 3 inch heels and appears to understand the ins and outs of fashion.

There are some minor talents that a potential employer might pick up on-- heavy multi tasking skills, mastery of MS Word, Excel and typing speed that is well in excees of 30 WPM.

The blog is funny, personal and engaging. I can't say much more than that because people in that part of NC have guns and consider them essentials, like cellphones. That's not really true, but it was entertaining-- and I don't want there to be any misunderstandings between me and the Mr.

Arafat

2004-10-27T22:58:00.000-05:00

News reports late this evening are reporting on a critically ill Yasser Arafat. His wife, Suha, is reportedly leaving her beloved Paris (and boyfriend) to be by his side.

True or not this time, the effect will be the same when Arafat dies.

The man responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Lebanon, Jordan and Israel, will not be remembered for his corruption, deceit and lies. Nor will he be remembered for leading the Palestinians down the road to nowhere, despair, economic ruin and moral decay.

No, he will be remembered as some kind of hero. He will be remebered as the father of modern day terror and the man who ordered the murder of Cleo Noel and Curtis Moore, American diplomatic envoys to Khartoum, Sudan, just as he ordered the death of innocents in a kindergarten and took delight in blowing school buses, years ago.

And he will be eulogized by our 'friends,' the Saudis, Egyptians and all the Gulf countries and Emirates-- indeed, the whole region. He will hailed as a 'Statesman' who won the Nobel Prize.

Why? Because as so often reported in the Arab press, Arafat was at the forefront of the self proclaimed Muslim destiny to 'complete what Hitler started,' as they say in the own words.

It was all about killing Jews and those who defended and supported them. The voices of the clerics are heard daily, repeating those very words and ideas.

Was it about land, or the Palestinians? Nope, never was.

Imagine a football field. Imagine a matchbook in one corner of that football field. That is the actual relative size of Israel in comparison to the entire Arab world.

And that my friends, is the one thing Arafat and the entire Arab world don't want you to think about.

As a society, they have failed, by every standard of measurement.

The deaths, destruction and misery Arafat and his allies have caused all over the world, have been an incalculable drain on the progress of man in a civilized society.

They celebrated 9/11 and soon, they will mourn his death.

That is Arafat's legacy. That is what he cultivated.

It is the function of evil to turn good into evil, and evil into good. That Yasser Arafat did with joy and purpose.

That is what we saw before and after 9/11, and that legacy continues on today.

There will no resting in peace for Arafat. Not in this world or the next.

Take a time out from the politics and read this

2004-10-27T18:10:00.000-05:00

The election is a week or so away and everyone will be into it, fast and furious, as we should.

I'm going to ask you to do something.

Stop, just for a few moments and read this-- and just for another moment, pause.

Call girls and politics UPDATE

2004-10-27T13:09:00.000-05:00

*UPDATE*

A comment was left, asking me why I chose not to link directly to the Postmodern Coutesan. The post I was referring to, "Busy Tuesday," can be found here.

In retropspect, I probably should have linked directly. In fairness, there is no difference between linking to the postmodern coutesan blog than any other bloggers I take issue with. Maybe it's because I have a daughter that it more personal. I guess divorced dads with young teenage daugters pleading for more makeup might be a bit over sensitive.

At least, that's what I'm telling myself.

Much has been written on moral relativism, by myself, Paulie et al, at The Commons, BunkerMulligan, Sherry at Bittersweet and the ever thoughtful Marvin over at LittleRedBlog.

I ran across a blog today, called postmodern courtesan. It is authored by an obviously intelligent, educated and erudite writer. I'm reluctant to link to it, so if you want to read it, do a Google search.

There is a post about a 'relationship' with a man named Ellis, a very sympathetic fellow, indeed. Here, I use the term 'relationship' loosely. After all, she is a call girl. Notwithstanding her kind and good hearted nature, she is still a call girl.

The blog is well designed and well written and is very engaging.

It is also very disturbing. Our 'postmodern courtesan' blog has given another outlet/voice to what is a new front on the moral assault on the family and society-- the acceptance of anything goes.

No surprise, really.

In an election cycle that has seen new lows and deceit as an acceptable addition to the election process, the mainstreaming of Gay TV channels and blogging call girls should come as no surprise.

Someone just wrote me about the 'explosives' story that really isn't. My correspondent, a very insightful person, wrote that it would come as no surprise if we were to be at the receiving end of Heavenly swift kick in the rear (I'm paraphasing), as a result of completely a deliberate demeaning of the entire election process.

In response, I disagreed somewhat. I don't share the same 'fire and brimstone' as my insightful friend. I do believe however, that we have been experiencing a bit of neglect from the Power that is and will probably continue to do so. At any rate, theology isn't the point.

What is the point is that nowadays, anything goes and if anyobe thinks there won't be repurcussion, Heavenly and otherwise, they are sadly mistaken.

Now, I'm no fan of the 'good ole days' of repressed behavior, sexuality or back room politics and racial discrmination. I don't believe that mental illness is a curse from God, nor do I believe that Gays are inherently sinful by choice or that that aren't issues that aren't struggled with everyday. I've written about that before as have many others.

Nevertheless, there comes a point where we have to take responsibility for our actions, good or bad. While we can rightly claim the good we do, we must also take the blame for the wrongs we do- or those done in our name.

The postmodern courtesan is a blight on society in the same way terror is a blight to Islam. No amount of moral equivocation can change that.

Those words were chosen carefully. In the same way that terror groups have used Islam as a validation for their acts of evil, and as a result, they have decimated societies, in real and tangible ways.

The postmodern courtesan fired another shot at legitimizing her profession as 'necessary' or mainstream. For every Ellis, the sympathetic figure she writes about, there are men-- and women-- that end up with destroyed lives, familes and communities. It is a more benign terror, perhaps, but it is just as deadly. The trail of destruction is as real as any bomb going off anywhere, with victims and orphans of a different kind perhaps, but no less scarred.

The postmodern courtesan, symapthetic engaging and charming as she is, cannot justify the havoc her choices create. No blog, no recounting of the fine dining experiences and opera critique can change that. Like the well dressed and seemingly refined apologist for terror, the results of those choices made are incontrovertable. The destruction cannot be hidden. At some point, there must be a reckoning.

The postmodern courtesan's blog is disturbing, for many reasons. Read it, if you like.

In an time when 'anything goes,' I would like to add one more thing.

Like the postmodern courtesan, some politicians will say and do anything to legitimize their campaigns and agendas.

While we may accept is as 'business as usual,' we have our own responsibilities to other democracies. Like it or not, we have become the 'Light unto the Nations.'

As the Democrat Party and their power brokers and strategists gird themselves for the three ring circus of post election court fights and charges and counter charges, it might behoove them to think of what we look like to the rest of the world-- especially in countries where democracy is new or still young. We need not be teaching by example how to subvert a vote and make it appear 'legal.' In most countries, the legal system can easily be used to manipulate a populace. Is this the message we need to send? Do we need to set an example that contrived racial divides, concocted so as to further a political agenda, are accpetable? In countries where real discrimination exists, how credible are we if we engage is such practices?

At some point, the ideals of democracy must trump the personal ambitions and agendas of politicians and political parties.

We would be well served by Democrat politicians and a Democrat Party that shied away from a contrived spectacle of false charges and spurious, over the top court challenges.

No matter the differences between candidates and their ideologies, democracy isn't about the postmodern courtesan way of thinking.

Democracy is about a lot more than legitimizing the morally corrupt notion of that 'all is fair in love and war.'

The world we live in..and oh yes, a bit of sex

2004-10-26T09:38:00.000-05:00

Here's an intersting look at the bigger picture. Sort of puts things in perspective.

In France, TV makes for strange bedfellows. TV viewers in that country can now choose between Al Jazeera and PinkTV, a gay and lesbian TV network.

The new TV channel is being hailed as a some kind of Mao-esque 'great leap forward.
"I hope that PinkTV becomes a broad space of freedom and culture allowing all of our fellow citizens live their freedom and respect one another," said Culture and Communications Minister Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres.

PinkTV is backed by three of France's main channels and has received widespread and mostly positive coverage in the French media, being promoted as a hip, urban channel which hopes to attract both straight and gay viewers.

The Gay community is excited. It seems that the channel is funded in part with government money.
There's an evident change in mentalities... In France, we can clearly say that gays have gone from the era of tolerance to the era of legality, which simply means equality," he said.

The channel has received backing from three of the country's main TV channels, as well as the government' culture minister, who attended last night's party.

I'd like to see if I could get funding for a pasta network in France. Low carb diet or not, pasta will remain a big seller. I can envision a 24 hour a day QVC type channel, selling overpriced pasta, pasta makers and sauces.

Meanwhile, the UN is forging ahead with a full head of steam. Unfortunately, the results can't be much seen. Koffi Annan says the world body still has no idea who comitted the massacres in Burundi that resulted in 159 deaths.
In a preliminary report released in early September the UN suggested that Rwandan, Congolese and Burundian groups were all responsible for the massacre.

Meanwhile, the UN is meeting again on reform within the world body. The ready for action agenda includes
..brought together representatives of a large number of UN entities, Geneva-based think tanks and other international researchers to share results of research projects and other analytical work and discuss policy implications.

Presentations will concentrate on the following three themes: new security threats and disarmament; good governance and reconciliation in post conflict situations; and the environment and sustainable development.

Look for real action as a result of those meetings.

Along the same lines, there are things you just can't make up. According to officials in Pakistan, the UN has prevented WW3. Seriously, here's what the guy said:
The United Nations represents and symblolises evolution and forward movement in human history and it has formed a universal, global family besides averting third World War.

Can you imagine the UN family Thanksgiving Dinner?

Meanwhile, the fun in Sudan goes on. There is a good read in the IHT about the 'special' treatment afforded women by the Janajaweed in Darfur.
Even with the eyes of the world on this burned-out swath of western Sudan, threats of oil sanctions against the government and the trickle of African Union monitors into the countryside, one brutality apparently has continued undeterred: violence against Darfur's women.

Women were insulted, beaten and raped as their families were chased from their homes at the height of the war in this region. They continue to be insulted, beaten and raped as they try to eke out a living far from home in the miserable camps of the displaced across Darfur.

Read the article here. It's important to understand the magnitude of the atrocities being committed.

Of course, the good news is that there are more meetings on Sudan. Yesiree, meetings. This, from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs press release.
France calls on the parties, the Sudanese government and the rebels, to cooperate with the African Union in good faith and in a constructive spirit.

Can't we all just get along?

Meanwhile, back on the ranch...er, France, the movement to replace English is humming right along.
The fed-up French are sick of the English language taking over in Brussels.

So in a bid to push the language of love, they have launched a campaign to make French the official lingo of European law.

The French meanwhile, aren't happy with the Duelfur Report on the UN oil for food scandal. They're fighting back, hard. I guess they didn't appreciate getting busted for dealing with Saddam.
"It is completely inaccurate to say that France had major commercial interests in Iraq before the war," the statement said...

France strongly believes that Duelfer, a CIA adviser who heads the Iraq Survey Group hunting for banned weapons in Iraq, was acting "outside his mandate" when he issued his report, the diplomat said. "Bribes may have been paid, but that is for Volcker to establish."

There may be some American companies involved, so this story isn't over just yet.

On the privacy front, things are getting interesting. Passports are going very high tech, with radio frequency chips that can identify the holder without the passport being handled. Unfortunately, it seems like the kid who bags your groceries at Safeway has the tools to read that document.
And herein lies the chief problem, as identified by privacy advocates. Without requiring the passport to be physically handled in order to retrieve information, just about anyone will be able to read your passport contents, remotely, and without your knowledge.

Lastly, what would a post like this be without a bit of sex?
Viewers groups and MPs are calling on the Government to prevent a new film depicting real sex being screened in Britain's cinemas.

The British Board of Film Classification announced last week that it was giving an "18" certificate to the film Nine Songs and would not be insisting on any cuts.

Campaigners last night said that the board's decision would open the floodgates to hardcore pornography on the big screen.

The actress goes on to describe the artistic difficulties of cinematic sex scenes. Read it here.

Well, it's pretty safe to say HRH Elizabeth will pass on that flick. As for Charles and Harry, well, that may be another matter.

Sheikh performs polygamous marriages, too

2004-10-23T20:20:00.000-05:00

Muslims with up to 4 wives are becoming a problem in the UK. I wrote about here.

Turns out the rabid Jew and Christian hating Sheik Younus Kathrada encourages and performs such unions. On this web site, there is application for both women and men to participate in ploygamous marriages.

Interestingly enough, on his main web page, the good sheikh contends that he is a law abiding, good citizen.

On the matter of refusing to build bridges and heeding calls towards peace: I do believe that dialogue amongst people of different faiths and beliefs is healthy and beneficial. I am however opposed to any one group forcing their beliefs onto others. We may share our commonalities and differences so we have a better understanding of one another, however, I do not believe it is correct nor reasonable to expect others to accept, adopt and approve of any particular set of beliefs.

Except of course, Islam, as his repeated statements (recorded) have made clear. Jihad is to be waged offensively.

I guess the good sheikh wants to be left alone to keep performorming polygamous marriages, too. I suppose his words imply that he and his fellow Muslims are exempt from having to 'accept, adopt and approve of any particular set of beliefs.'- you know, like the LAW.

Fight the good fight

2004-10-23T09:54:00.000-05:00

What an interesting day.

Europe's Muslims it seems, are headed off to Iraq to fight the good Jihad and kill Americans.
Intelligence officials fear that for a new generation of disaffected European Muslims, Iraq could become what Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya are for European Islamic militants in past decades:a galvanizing cause that sends idealistic young men abroad, trains them and puts them in touch with a more radical global network of terrorists. In the past, many young Europeans who fought in those wars came back to Europe to plot terrorist attacks at home.

It isn't hard to understand how this happens. In Canada, a 'respected' Muslim leader nonchalantly declared that all Israelis are targets of terror attacks. His rationale? Since there is a draft in Israel, all Israelis are fair game, at all times.
"Israel has a people's army and a draft and therefore they should be onsidered legitimate targets. They are part of the occupying power, and alestinians consider them targets for suicide bombers as well as other means," Mr. Elmasry said.

This coming from a tenured professor. Lovely.

Also, as I wrote about yesterday, an Vancouver Imam is coming under scrutiny by the RCMP for 'hate speech.' Not your garden variety hate speech, but the rabid vitriol of evil.
Mr. Kathrada told his followers the Koran calls on them to spread the ord of Islam by fighting.

"That is what is known as the offensive jihad. And there's a good reason for that. It is in order to establish security on this earth. It is so that the word of Allah will be the superior word," he said.

"I have no problem calling the Christians and the Jews and those who
are not Muslim kuffar and if they die in that state they will abide in the
hell-fire forever. I don't care what anyone else says."

Maybe the Presbyterians are getting the message. It seems like some of the Church hierchy is upset at the new, up close and personal relationship being developed with the likes of Hizbollah.
Leaders of the Louisville-based Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are distancing themselves from a church-funded delegation's visit to the Hezbollah organization in Lebanon, calling it "misguided, at best."

...they denounced the comments of one member of the delegation, who
told Arab television that "relations and conversations with Islamic leaders are a lot easier than dealings and dialogue with Jewish leaders."

Theres so much more and so little time.

Here's an Arab take on the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, as presented in an Arab television drama. Of course, it's America's fault.

As 'strange' as that is, the TV release was cancelled. It seems some people thought the show was insulting to the Taliban.

I guess you just can't please everyone.

That's it folks, I'm off, into the wild blue yonder.

The tangled webs woven

2004-10-22T11:27:00.000-05:00

Is the head of the Log Cabin Republicans actually a Democrat?

In what may turn out to be a bombshell, there appears to be some evidence to back that claim up.

Log Cabin Political Director Christopher Barron headed up volunteer efforts for the John Edwards for President campaign for the Washington, DC area. Barron was hired by new Executive Director Patrick Guerriero as part of his management team. According to three different sources, Barron has separately confirmed his connection to the Edwards campaign in the past.

This was posted on the Gaypatriot website. These are serious charges.

All mention of Chris Barron and his comments on the John Edwards for President website mysteriously vanished just days before the start of the 2004 Republican National Convention. During that time period, Guerriero and Barron were attempting to work with moderates on the Republican platform committee to have a "unity plank" inserted into the GOP platform. It is entirely possible this effort was sabatoged because certain delegates found out that the lead political strategist for the national gay Republican organization was in fact a past operative of the 2004 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee.

You don't send a Democrat in to do what should be the work of a real Republican.

If these charges prove to be true- and the hard evidence seems to back that up-- the Democrats have stooped to new lows in deceit and fraud.

The article is a bombshell. Read it all here.

It didn't take long

2004-10-22T09:22:00.000-05:00

Nathan, over at The Commons, posted an excellent link to site describing Saddam's link to terror. In an unequivicable and clear presentation, any all further discussion of Saddam's ties to terror are terminated. Nuff said.

Read the post and get to the link here. I can only assume Paulie is 'under the weather' as a result of Sox celebration.

Iraq, Che, harems and hate

2004-10-22T07:05:00.000-05:00

Naturally, the Baathist's in Iraq enjoy left wing support.
With Che Guevara, we affirm that "imperialism has a head, the United States", and that it should be cut off! The USA is the enemy of mankind. The re-establishment of world Peace, of the fraternity of the peoples and civilizations implies the destruction of the Yankee imperialism and its accomplices: America Delenda Est!

The Iraq Committees are open to all those who want to support actively the Iraqi Resistance against the yankee occupation and to take part in the constitution of a radical anti-American force, wherever they come from, and united in a strategy of unitary Front.

The Baathist's solidarity and planning meetings took place in Lebanon- a meeting that could only have taken place with the full cooperation of Syria, the defacto rulers of Lebanon.
The Ba’ath Party is in a very good health and leads the most honorable and most dignified battle of the Arab Nation under the supervision of Comrade Izzat al Duri, elected president of the Party after its late secret Congress in Lebanon.

The Ba’athist position is clear: No negotiations with the US under the Occupation, the only dialogue between them and us are the dialogue of arms and resistance. There is a large national, patriotic, and Progressive Front, which is participating with the Ba'ath in the Resistance Battle, which provide them with the necessary means. The so-called Sunni Triangle is a term invented by the enemy to sow division in amongst Iraqi people; Resistanceis in every province of Iraq.

The interview with the Iraq leader is here.

In Great Britain, Muslim men seen to face no hurdles in assembling a harem of up to 5 women. According to the Times, "Muslim men use law loophole to get a harem of 'wives'.

UP TO 4,000 British Muslim men have entered into polygamous marriages, some of them keeping as many as five wives, according to senior religious figures.

They have taken advantage of a loophole in the laws against bigamy by going through a "nikah" ceremony at a mosque rather than registering the marriages officially.

Many are avoiding the expense and obligations of divorce, but an estimated 2,000 or more are men who wish to exercise their "right", according to traditional interpretations of the Koran, to have as many as four wives.

Heck of deal. I can't even get a phone number, lately.
In extreme cases, women brought from abroad, notably from Bangladesh, to marry a British Muslim have been victims of so-called honour killings by their families after being sent home when the relationship has failed.

The entire article is here.

On a personal note, I can't really understand the long term benefits of polygamy. Not unless you really enjoy a little 'whine with dinner.' I mean, it's only a matter of time before wife 2 complains that, "but you told me you love me more than her.." and so on. Manageable perhaps, but factor in wives 3 and 4...The inevitable 'We need to talk' takes on a depth heretofore not even contemplated by this blogger.

On a more serious note, an Imam in a Candadian mosque actually defends himself for his disparaging of Jews and Americans. The leader of the Vancouver mosque,

Sheik Younus Kathrada tells an audience all real Muslims want to be martyred. "It is inconceivable that a true believer will not desire martyrdom," Kathrada says.

...Kathrada tells his audience the Qur'an and its accompanying writings view Jews as treacherous people with whom Muslims will engage in an apocalyptic battle. "The prophet... said the final hour will
not be established until such time as the Muslims will battle and will fight
against the Jews," Kathrada says.

...But he defended his characterization of Jews as treacherous monkeys and pigs. "I guess no rougher than what is used against us," Kathrada said. "It's in our Qur'an."

...Rudwan Khalil Abubaker, also known as Rudwan Khalil, regularly attended the Dar al-Madinah mosque along with his brother Amir.

Russian authorities identified Khalil as one of four men killed in a skirmish with Chechen rebels earlier this month. They displayed his Canadian passport and B.C. driver's licence and claimed he was an explosives expert...
Make no mistake, Christians are not held in higher esteem.
"I have no problem with calling the Christians and the Jews and those who are not Muslims kuffar. They are kuffar and if they die in that state they will abide in the hellfire forever. I don't care what anyone else says."

"When we hear the kuffar today and they start attacking the Muslims...you think immediately of their double standard.

"When the United States, for example, sees a land that poses a threat to them, what do they do? Don't they attack that land? And what is their justification? That they want to establish peace on Earth..."

"I ask you by Allah, will peace and security ever be established if Islam is not the religion that is practised? It will never be established...

I wish him many, many wives, and a long, long life.

And while he happily married to his harem, Let's see if the Canadian government will apply its hate laws with equal enthusiasm to Muslim preachers as it does to Christian clergy.

Read about it, here and here.

My niece, the election and art

2004-10-21T17:02:00.000-05:00

Well, after a weeks forced hiatus, I'm back at it again.

For those of you kind enough to write, please accept my thanks and appreciation for your concern. It really does make a difference.

My niece is doing better, thankfully. She will require further surgeries, but in the great scheme of things, we're focused on her being with us for a long time to come.

Onwards.

I've written and rewritten my 'back to blogging' post a few times. I suppose being away and concerned with matters of a non cyber nature, has forced me, just a bit, to refocus the lens through which I see things.

I'm going to write about the elections, John Kerry and George Bush. There are a few personal observations I'd like to make first, however, because they are in many ways related.

To my friends who will be reading this, remember-- life is short and precious. There is little time for the politics du jour and there is even less time to pretend that reality doesn't exist. Simple denial of the relevance of truth and morality, so as to emphasize an overly influenced agenda of deceit or even self deceit, is not a legacy to be proud of, under any circumstances.

We are each endowed with a blank canvas, to fill in as we choose. Some of us are rather poor artists and others, as a result of fate, are better equipped. Then there are the few, the special few, that are not so restricted by the canvas or palette of colors at hand. They are share similarities. They are quiet and self effacing and are aware of all the realities around them. They see the world and forget not their place in it nor their obligations. They can, with a bit of luck, faith and perseverance, create a better world. I am lucky to know a few such persons. To you, I say, believe in yourself.

These words are relevant to my readers, fellow bloggers and friends because we live in an era where we asked and even told to challenge our very own beliefs and values, as if these were somehow negotiable, simply because others say they are. When we debate others and lose, to some extent, we blame ourselves for not presenting a 'good enough case.' We dont blame or fault others for their beliefs. We do not see an inherent fault in others for differing points of view. We see them as of yet, being 'uninformed.'

Our adversaries on the other hand, see us as defective-- even evil. To espouse certain beliefs in their eyes, is to be somehow, 'less than' or unequal-- and worst of all, unworthy. One late night TV guest, a Hollywood type, made the remark that Republican voters should have their votes nullified, or should not even be allowed to vote. TV land response? Applause, of course.

Very few conservative friends and associates I have, will ever attempt to stifle discourse and civil debate. Conservatives may be known for their stubbornness and hard headed beliefs, but in the end, very few wish to impose their beliefs on anyone.

Liberals openly at times, wish to stifle free speech and the free exchange of thoughts in the marketplace of ideas. All thoughts or ideas one may have must be deemed worthy and pass the liberal litmus test.

It is true that conservatives wish to see a different set of values at the fore in this country. That is very different than beliefs.

Let's examine that.

Conservatives have no real desire to impose a set of beliefs on anyone. A conservative will tell emphasize that you are free to believe and worship as you choose. Even beliefs that are anathema to conservatives are given free reign. Conservatives do not attempt to introduce politically correct prayers, liturgy and belief structures on anyone or any group. Conservatives believe that all groups are equal under the law and all deserve equal protection.

It is true that the ideal has not always worked the way it is supposed to. Many groups were disenfranchised and some were left behind. Sadly, this is the human condition-- we are all less than perfect, at times selfish and even uncaring. Not one of us, conservative or liberal alike, can point a definative accusatory finger at any one else with any moral certitude

Nevertheless we plod along, ever seeking to better ourselves and the world around us. Again, not a perfect record, but one that seems to work. If you question that, look around at other places.

Contrast all this with our more liberal brethren. They truly do wish to impose their beliefs and values upon us. They mean well at times, of that I'm sure, but the results of their often well meaning ideals can have a disastrous effect.

It is not enough for liberals to impose a set of values on us. They wish to impose a set of beliefs, as well. If they don't like a particular church's preachings or belief, the entire church becomes the 'enemy.'

For example, it is of little importance to liberals that the Catholic Church, for example, feeds millions of people a day.

The fact that there aren't female priests is enough to label the Church as worthless and misogynistic. That the Catholic Church has internal problems, is evident. So does every church, religion and faith. Those issues may be serious, and at times, require immediate attention. That does not, however, nullify the value of a church, synagogue or mosque to the community, contrary to what liberals would have you believe. Very few young minds have been poisoned beyond repair because there are no women priests.

If church liturgy isn't politically correct, then the focus of the church must be directed to changing the liturgy and everything else be damned. It is as if politically correct and acceptable beliefs are the true merits of faith, teachings and good works be damned.

To a liberal, the message has become more important than the works. At times, desperately needed foreign aid must be dependent on allowing abortion in the recipient country-- even if that goes against the cultural, societal and religious norms of that country. While that may garner headlines, for example, there are few if any liberal voices heard for the abolition of FGM. Those voices it seems, belong to missionary groups that take in young and at risk girls. While no doubt women's right are a real issue globally, it is ironic that children are neglected, deemed to suffer yet another round of mindless liberal handwringing at the UN and others women's forums.

All this is reminiscent of a Jewish friend of mine, who in response to a plea from a rather eager and narrow, newly minted evangelical preacher, only half jokingly responded as follows: "We appreciate your love for us, but please, please, stop loving us so much. That love has been killing us for centuries."

Liberals have become the evangelizing network for the assault on conservative values.

That's what John Kerry and the liberals are about. They preach their cause with the zeal of of the newly converted and will stop at nothing to see their beliefs imposed on us all. Like the religious zealots before them, much heartache and destruction will follow and has followed in their wake.

It is not conservatives that are the zealots the liberals would have you believe. They assume that by labeling the conservatives in that way, people will not recognize who the real zealots are. Mr Kerry and company are assaulting the very strong beliefs that Americans share about family faith and morals. As Mort Zuckerman, of US News and World report put it, the Democrats have left their base of the 'little guy' and instead, have chosen to Hollywood to serve as the baseline for liberal beliefs.

The reason Mr. Kerry and the Democrats are focusing so much on the war in Iraq as opposed to what liberal ideology stands for, is because they know Americans will never agree with true liberal ideology. Americans are a whole lot smarter than Mr. Kerry and the liberals give them credit for.

It is that very same reason Mr Bush maintains his popularity and support, despite what has to be considered a less than stellar economy and lagging economic indicators. Americans are whole lot smarter than politicians give them credit for.

The wars on terror, in Afghanistan and in Iraq have to be paid for. Americans understand that 9/11 cost the entire nation in ways that yet to be calculated.

How do Mr Kerry and the Democrat Party plan on dealing with these truths? By avoiding them, thats how. Rather than deal with an ideology that has failed, the Democrats plan on contesting the election in whatever way, shape or form possible, both before and after the election.

Like book burnings or the 'auto-de-fe' of the inquisition, the ends justify the means. Like the misguided zealots before them, the Democrats believe that sin, even capital sin-- in reality even attempting to subvert the democratic process is just that-- is justified, so as to recreate the world in their image.

Much critique of Mr Bush is fair. Much isn't. History will determine that balance.

One thing for certain is that even on cursory examination, Mr Bush is far more a 'people's President' than Mr. Kerry could ever hope to be.

Americans, are by nature, a 'live and let live' group. Fairness, equality and decency are who we are. These are traits the came about as the result of lifetimes before us, our predecessors offering us their best.

They cannot be traded to fit an agenda.

Sitting in that hospital, for days, one has time to reflect about much. I am sure many of you have been in that same seat, thinking and reflecting and feeling very small. In those few moments in time, we see what is important and what isn't. Many things become clear and much of the chaff is discarded.

America has proven time and again, that when we take the brush in hand and create on that canvas of our lives and communities, whatever it is we see, something wonderful occurs.

It has been said that American art is unique, in that it reflects the history of America, who we are and where we come from. Our artists have defined pictorally and in words our story-- the good and the bad.

This is an election wherby some want to place that brush into the hands of a chosen few. That is why this election is important.

Roundup...

2004-10-14T21:27:00.000-05:00

China is making it's presence known in Africa. Oil it seems, is the resource that counts. China, never known for it's foreign aid, is cozying to up the African continent.

Beijing is substantially deepening its political and economic relations with Africa, largely in an effort to gain access to the continent's oil reserves and markets.

...China desperately needs oil to sustain its nine per cent-plus economic growth rate. This is driving Beijing's efforts to gain ground on the African continent, which now supplies 25 per cent of its oil imports. China became the second largest oil consumer in the world in 2004, with imports totalling more than 100 million tonnes (approximately 800 million barrels). China's requirements will continue to expand and this could lead it into direct competition with the US over access to the world's oil supplies. Article is here.

Onwards...

As Iran goes nuclear, Al jazeera tries to make the case that Iran should go nuclear. The rationale? The NPT is 'out of touch' with reality.
"There is only a legal reason not to go nuclear - the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). "But the NPT is completely out of touch with reality and Iran may be close to opting out of it anyway."

Concerned over a perceived threat to its nuclear facilities, Tehran used a military parade marking the Iran-Iraq war to send its own message to Israel.

Iranian Persident Khatami says Iran doesn't want nuclear weapons.
Slogans draped over its ballistic missiles read "America will be crushed
under our feet" and "Israel will be wiped out".

Of course, it is all America's fault.

Yup, they make an excellent case for going nuclear. Article is here.

Also in Iran, according to Reporteurs sans Frontieres, journalists and editors of pro reform websites are being arrested.

Meanwhile, back at the Tehran Ranch, political jockeying is going on. It bears to see who comes out on top re next years elections. Here's a story on one of the frontrunners. This is not a nice guy and and his election will cause us grief.

Interfax is reporting on Russia-Iran 'cooperation' on terror. I'm not sure if that if that scares me or comforts me.

Thousands more to die in Sudan?

2004-10-14T15:20:00.000-05:00

Good thing the UN is on the job.

There is nothing like threatening to consider the imposition of sanctions.

In the meantime, Sudan rebels say thousands more could die in Darfur.
"Tens of thousands more civilians in Darfur may die in coming months unless security improves, rebels from ravaged western Sudan said on Thursday.

"It's a matter of an ugly, genocidal war," said Sharif Harir, a senior member of the Sudanese Liberation Movement (SLM), one of Darfur's two rebel groups whose uprising last year provoked a fierce response from the government and Arab militia.

"Already 50,000 have died, and 10,000 have the potential to die every month if things don't improve," he added.

The United Nations' World Food Programme said this week it is being forced to scale back food aid in Darfur due to growing violence. Darfur residents recently told a visiting UN delegation of new attacks by Arab militiamen.

Article is here.

How bad is it? Well, a few hours ago I wrote on the UN sanctioned slaughter in Rwanda

A 'rebel' leader says the situation is "worse than Rwanda"
"This is not only killing, but starving, displacing, disease and poverty. The militias are targeting our water sources," added Mr. Minawi, whose own father is in a refugee camp on the border between Sudan and Chad.

That article is here.

It has to be difficult for those UN diplomats. Good thing they have that good French cuisine to fortify themselves with during these trying times.

Those diplomatic cocktail parties must be hell.

The UN- Just say NO

2004-10-14T12:10:00.000-05:00

As Sherry at Bittersweet and others have posted, the UN is looking to form and deploy it's own rapid deployment force, or 'hit squad.'

I suppose the idea would have merit if the UN had the moral credibility. Trouble is, they don't.

Canadian General, Romeo Daillaire was sent to intervene in Rwanda for 100 days.

He came back a suicidal, pill popping wreck of a human being. Why? Because the UN restricted his activities to simply watching the genocide and slaughter taking place in front of his eyes- until he could watch no longer and defied UN orders and actually tried to save live.

The UN was not amused at his activities as other 'peacekeepers' were pulled out.

The same UN that is allowing the genocide in Darfur to continue. The same UN that seems to think 'hit squads' are what the UN needs to restore it's credibility.

From the Third World Traveller, a few extracts:

In an indifferent world, Gen. Romeo Dallaire and a few thousand ill equipped U.N. peacekeepers were all that stood between Rwandans and genocide. The Canadian commander did what he could-did more than anyone else-but he sees his mission as a terrible failure and counts himself among its casualties.

After a 100-day reign of terror, some 800,000 Rwandan civilians were dead, most killed by their machete-wielding neighbors. Dallaire had sounded the alarm. He'd begged. He'd bellowed. He'd even disobeyed orders. "l was ordered to withdraw...by [then-U.N. Sec. Gen. Boutros]Boutros Ghali about seven, eight days into it... and I said to him, 'I can't, I've got thousands' -by then we had over 20,000 people-'in areas under our control," Dallaire said in a recent interview with Amnesty Now. The general's hands, always moving, rose beside his face as if to block the memories. "The situation was going to shit...And, I said, 'No, I can't leave..."

Dallaire and his troops were about to become spectators to genocide. As bodies filled the streets and rivers, the general, backed by a UN mandate that didn't even allow him to disarm the militias, pleaded with his UN superiors for additional troops, ammunition, and the authority to seize Hutu arms caches. In an assessment that military experts now accept as realistic, Dallaire argued that with 5,000 well-equipped soldiers and
a free hand to fight Hutu power, he could bring the genocide to a rapid
halt.

The U.N. turned him down. He asked the U.S. to block the Hutu radio transmissions. The Clinton administration refused to do even that. Gun shy after a humiliating retreat from Somalia, Washington saw nothing to gain from another intervention in Africa, and the Defense Department, according to a memo, assessed the cost of jamming the Hutu hate broadcasts at $8,500 per flight-hour...

Three days after the Rwandan killings began, with Dallaire's troops running short of rations as well as ammunition, about 1,000 European troops arrived in Kigali. The general watched with frustration as the well armed, well-fed Westerners landed and left again as soon as they'd evacuated their own nationals. Then, after Hutu militias killed 40 Belgian paratroopers, Brussels withdrew all of its peacekeepers (the only significant Western contingent and the only one that was properly equipped) from the U.N. mission. Dallaire's depleted force was on its own...

Remarkably, with scant resources-indeed, with only one satellite telephone for the whole mission-Dallaire was able to maintain safe areas for those 20,000 terrorized Rwandans. But he could do little else, and the killing continued

Dallaire says that about 20 percent of troops and humanitarian workers on missions like his suffer much the same thing, as do 5 to 10 percent of diplomats. "They are casualties," he tells me. "High suicide rates, booze, drugs, pornography, finding themselves on skid row."

Read it here. It isn't at all pretty- and it's happening all over again in Darfur.

Without the UN, the US would no doubt have intervened. Instead, we are held hostage as we play to the 'lets talk about it' crowd at the UN-- and then, no matter what, it will be our fault.

And when you're done, ask yourself about supporting the UN 'ideals.'

Children suicide bombers in Russia?

2004-10-14T09:50:00.000-05:00

As if the Moscow theater debacle, apartment block bombings and Beslan weren't enough, the Russians now have new fears to deal with: Children suicide bombers.

Representatives of the Moscow's law machinery do not rule out the possibility of this happening. Law-enforcement officials are given orders to pay attention at everyone, even at children. For even a respectfully-looking man, a nice woman, a senior or even a teenager can turn out to be a suicide-bomber.

It should be noted that there have already been tragedies where children carried out a role of a weapon of mass destruction. Israeli Special Forces have prevented a terrorist act that should have been carried out by a 15 year old teenager, in the city of Afula. Those who planned this act gave the boy a mobile phone and 1 thousand of shekels ($220).

While giving no specifics, it is interesting that law enforcement officials see fit to disseminate this information now.

Up there and down here

2004-10-13T19:50:00.000-05:00

I've been trying to post for a while now, not quite sure how to get back into the saddle.

There are few pieces I've been working on that are about 3/4 done, about some of my fellow Homespun bloggers. I just can't seem to focus on that right now, mostly because of the last 36 hours.

Monday night, my niece was in a serious car accident.

Her mom and dad are divorced and as luck would have it, they were each away and I was next down the list of 'next of kin.'

Her mom was gone only for the one day, and my niece, at 17, is a pretty responsible kid. Her mom never leaves for more than one night and my niece has never had a problem being alone-- till now.

The how's and why's of the accident aren't clear yet. There is a possiblity that the driver was an uninsured illegal alien, and hit her after crossing a median. At this point, I don't care-- my primary consideration is my niece.

The call came in on Monday night. I was informed of the accident, but I was led to believe it wasn't too serious. I spent the rest of the evening trying to corral my relatives and finally managed to track down my brother. I could not reach my sister in law, but did manage to leave a message with someone whom I knew would be in touch with her.

The following morning, the hospital called and informed me that my niece was not doing well at all and that it would be best if I came to Atlanta. I was surprised, as I thought her injuries weren't severe.

I was told they were.

I flew down to Atlanta immediately and went directly to the hospital.

My brother was due in early in the afternoon. He was flying back from San Francisco, where he was on business. My sister in law would also be coming in at that time, but I didn't know it at the time. Nor did I know there was going to be a long night ahead of me.

I'll fill you in on the end of the story after I post a few thoughts.

All this has been a preamble to what I really wanted to talk about-- and that was inspired by a few posts I read today, two at Bittersweet, here and here, and one over at LittleRedBlog.

The accident brought my faith front and center, no doubt about it, and I've come to a singular conclusion.

I love God.

I also hated God, for a while.

I wanted to use the word 'resent' but I knew I was only sugar coating what it was I felt.

I love God for the bounty and fortune he has brought into my life and the life of many in this country and elsewhere.

I hated God for the unfairness and cruelty that exists in the world today, that allowed for my niece to be so hurt, and for so many others to live lives of hoplessness, despair and in the constant shadow of death.

It was a secret struggle-- I never told anyone or discussed it with anyone. It was one of those things I internalized and wrestled with.

I wanted so much for my relationship with God to be serene, sure and perfect. Whatever it was, it certainly wasn't that.

My relationship with God was a struggle-- always has been. I've always questioned, defied and even rebelled. People laugh and are genuinely surprised when I tell them that. I don't come across as the 'bad boy' but I have had my moments-- long moments-- in the past. With the passage of time and the reality of real responsibility, they are fewer, farther between and less 'bad.' What possessed me to bungee jump (twice) two years ago still eludes me. It was something I had to try. Fathers don't do that kind of thing. There are still some mea culpa's on my account that need to be reconciled.

When I got to the hospital, I hated God with a fury.

When I saw my niece, bandaged up, tubes running in and out her and machines beeping and humming, I hated God with an even colder passion.

It was a simple, stupid and unthinking reaction. It was a cheap shot and offered me no insight and understanding. Nor did it alleviate the fear and anguish.

Belief, and even moreso, acceptance is like work. It isn't meant to be easy. It is meant to be a constant and ever more difficult struggle. As we get older and hopefully wiser, the burden becomes heavier as we deal with issues that aren't so black and white.

I remember once reading and being struck by the notion that 'the greater the belief, the greater the doubt.'

It's not about God, it's about me and every believer out there. God will tend to His affairs and we must tend to ours. That is the compact we have with Him.

We are meant to carry a burden. It is the kind of burden and how we carry it that counts.

The way I see it, there are really two burdens-- one is our own and the other is our communal burden. We are responsible for both, in equal measure. By shouldering both, we halve the load of each, in many way. Making moral choices helps not only ourseves, but our comminity as well. By supporting a community's right choices and fighting against those things that may be harmful, we help ourselves lead the lives we need to.

Sadly, too many of us lose the sense of balance. For some, the personal struggle is the center of attention. For others, they fight for commnunity and neglect the personal choices. In both cases there is the rationale that 'because what I'm doing is good, I can afford to pay less attention to my other obligations.'

There has to be a balance or we sacrifice an important part of our lives.

Too often, we make religion and belief a zero sum game-- an all or nothing proposition. Whatever it's faults- and religion has many, that is one thing it is not supposed to be.

And yet, of all things, that is the one dominant similarity religions have come to share. In the process, different religions and different beliefs within religion have become no more than marketing companies, trying to appeal to as many people as they can by 'dumbing down' the struggle and appealing to the 'feel good' needs without the struggle.

It's as if religion has gone 'TV'-- we sit in front of the television for an hour and think we know understand the real issues and problems. We don't need to study, struggle and wrestle with ideas and concepts that we have no clue about. That others have spent years doing just that is of no importance. We look at Dan Rather or PBS and think we 'know' what's going on.

Just attend the House of Worship of your choice and all will be revealed and understood. If you aren't happy, there is always another channel down the road, with another script, requiring even less effort and even more tolerant of requiring no comittment to ideals and even beliefs.

Is it any wonder people are tuned out?

It is true that for a long time, organized religion didn't 'speak to us.' Religion responded not by elevating us, but rather by requiring less of us.

It has been asked, how did we reach the point that the Sabbath Day highlight is a football game?
The answer is easy, I think. We can be passionate about our teams and our sports because for a few hours, we can be as involved as we want, without real comittment.

When the game is over, we get on with our lives. No more attention required, till the next game.

Organized religion imitated that, to compete. Show up, sing, dance and pray and you're done with it till next week.

I always wondered how on earth clergy people could be good marriage counselors. They don't require any comittment to God from their parishoners. How on earth could they advise anyone about comittment?

Sometimes I wonder if our society has abandoned religion, or if religion has abandoned us.

Albert Einstein said 'God doesn't play dice with the Universe'- meaning there was a purpose to creation.

I don't know the meaning of it all. I don't know my purpose on this earth or anyone else's. I'm not even sure I want to know.

The only thing I do know is that God is here and has expectations from us. We are required not to be perfect, but rather to do the best we can.

We know God in two ways. We know what we are asked to do, in how we treat our fellow man.

We also know that we are expected to have a personal relationship with Him in matters of the heart and soul-- a relationship that is deeply private and intimate.

I don't know what my niece had to go through what she did. I don't know why she has to be the one to go through a few more surgeries. I don't know her parents will suffer, as only parents can, for a child. I will be there for my niece as best I can, in any way I can.

God will do and tend to the things he needs to, and I will do and attend to things I need to.

I will not worry about other people's private relationship with God, or the what's and why's of what he has in store for them, or what the 'Grand Plan' may be.

There are far too many other things down here I need to concern myself with.

I thank God and love Him for giving me the opportunity to extend myself, to my niece and her family. I have been blessed. I will continue to pray to be so blessed-- and that I have the further opportunity to be a meaningful influence on others, those close and not so close to me.

Personal Note

2004-10-13T12:50:00.000-05:00

For the past day and a half, I have been tending to a family emergency.

My niece was involved in a serious car accident.

While not 'out of the woods' yet, things now seem to be headed in the right direction and hopefully, all will return to normal.

At any rate, It will be back to posting today, after a bit of housekeeping and going to the market.

Housesitter (friend?) cleaned out the fridge, freezer and pantry, all in a day and half.

Sad tragedy

2004-10-11T19:46:00.000-05:00

There are some tragedies that give pause, wherever we are and whatever we believe.

Woman kills herself after husband refuses to buy colour TV: Report

TEHRAN: An Iranian woman killed herself by setting herself on fire after her husband rejected her repeated demands for a colour television set, Kayhan newspaper reported yesterday.

The report, quoting the head of a hospital in the western city of Khoramabad, said the 27-year-old woman died from burns that were apparently self-inflicted. It said her husband, who worked as a labourer, was too poor to afford a $115 colour television.

What can you say?

Religious Intolerance Abroad Discussed

2004-10-11T19:07:00.000-05:00

You've heard it all before, but it bears repeating. Many of those we fight are not our moral equivalents.

In Saudi Arabia, school children are taught as follows, according to Congressional testimony, which featured 'testimony on the anti-Christian policies and practices of nations like Saudi Arabia.'

The State Dept Docs are here

"...Al-Ahmed held up for members of Congress schoolbooks that teach first-grade children Judaism and Christianity are false religions....

"Fourth-graders are asked if you can love Jews and Christians, and the answer the textbooks provide is, 'No, you cannot,' he said. "Even if they are your parents. These are government textbooks...

What's on tap and missing Iraqi nuke materials

2004-10-11T17:14:00.000-05:00

I've been working on a couple of pieces about some bloggers of note.

I wanted them up today, but I got bit sidelined and had a couple of work related fires to put out. Look for them tomorrow.

In the meantime, I did come across this item. It seems Iraqi nuclear related items have vanished.

The equipment -- including high-precision milling and turning machines and electron-beam welders -- and materials -- such as high-strength aluminum -- were tagged by the IAEA years ago, as part of the watchdog agency's shutdown of Iraq's nuclear program. U.N. inspectors then monitored the sites until their evacuation from Iraq just before the war.
Article is here.

Life is hard

2004-10-11T15:40:00.000-05:00

It seems the Hamas employees of the UN are on strike.

Now that Israel has had success in blowing up the arms smuggling tunnels from Gaza, explosives prices must be rising.

Speaking of the UN, it seems American companies are included in the UN oil-for-food scandal.

If true, they need to be prosecuted.

Of course, the French deny involvement in the scandal-- despite reports that they, the Russians and Chinese were in it up to their eyballs.

Mon Dieux!

From the China Daily

2004-10-11T12:39:00.000-05:00

Just so there's no misunderstanding about the meaning of the new French-Sino trade deals and expanding relationship, here's how the state controlled China Daily reports the matter.

No comment required-- speaks for itself.

UPDATEMore on France, China and public policy

2004-10-11T10:51:00.000-05:00

Recent trade agreements between France and China will have long lasting effects on public policy and foreign policy as we know it.

I will post more fully on the subject later. In the meantime, here are a few definitions and realities we will face in the upcoming short and medium term.

Short and medium term have different meanings for different people.

In the US, short term can mean anything from 1 month to 1 year.

In China, short term can mean 25 years and long term can mean 100 years or more.

In Europe, nothwithstanding US market influences, short to long term can vary from 5 to 25 years.

For the sake of this post, I will use the terms as defined by European measures, because as far as we are concerned, it is that amount of time that will be dictaed to us.

There is nothing we can do at this point to counter the deals that China and France have agreed to. In other words, we have lost round one in the upcoming trade wars with the EU and China. These deals will have many ramifications to our future economy and trade status.

This will affect public policy.

In an economy in which we are dependent not only on free markets, but price controls of resources as well, we will see a decline in the economy. That China will control the flow of natural resources from Canads and elsewhere, is a given.

It is in their best interest to grow and expand their own economy. It is also in China's best interest to maintain a favorable relationship with the EU, and France in particular. Just signed trade agreements will give China access to Western technology-- essentially, our technology, legally bought and paid for by the French.

Despite technology embargoes, this will happen. It happened in Iraq and throughout the Arab world. The French have had no qualms in the past about embargo busting and their is no reason to think they would now. In fact, the French will have a greater incentive to circumvent any technology embargo in order to ensure a stable supply and reserve of resource inventory and flow. This in turn, will guarantee strong long term growth for French/EU countries while at the same time, destabilize American prospects for industrial growth.

As with any downturn, there will be fewer public dollars and thus, public policy. Here are a few examples. I will discuss them each in future posts.

This will affect Social Security. The amounts paid, retirement age, etc will have to be renegotiated. These problem are in addition to the Social Security solvency problems.

Health care too, as we know, is at risk. Government programs such as Medicare will have to be reduced. In addition, with rising unemployment, there will be fewer insured. As health costs rise, there will have to be a policy addressing the allocation of health care dollars. For example, are tight dollars expended on children or the middle aged? For that matter, how much can we allocate to the elderly andtheir care?

Government heath insurance will accelerate the disaster, to be sure. Canada's experiment has failed miserably. The system there will implode and collapse on itself.

There are welfare issues that can be extrapolated from all this as well.

While I will discuss all this at greater length later on, think about this.

The GATT treaties, IMF and World Bank regulations will be subject to renogotiation.

Currently, active membership is refused to countries that engage in active and official boycotts. Thus, much of the Arab world has been excluded because of their boycott of Israel.

China is actively pursuing trade and arms deals in the region. With China calling the economic shots in Europe, rule changes are inevitable. There is a large amount of pressure that can be brought to virtually every country to ensure that. Oil supply, too, is a potent tool

Despite China's poor record on Human Rights, the French have publicly called for the eliminations of the arms trade embargo on that country.

China wants to see arms, new technology and expand trade in the region. All that wil require are access to resouces, trade deals and energy.

Do you really think we're going to be a priority for the Saudis?

*UPDATE*

Monsieur le President, Jacques Chirac is taking some heat for publicly berating les maudits Americaines, while in China.

No doubt, this will reassure many in America-- until French jobs and industry are on the line. The French trade deals are strategic and long term-- and we need to see and deal with them that way.

We will only compound the problem if we ignore the issue.

UPDATED The page 21 rule

2004-10-11T00:05:00.000-05:00

There's a saying in my business- "If you want to understand what's going to be important, look to page 21." If it's on page one, it's old news.

Well, here's the next page 21. To fully understand the impact this 'page 21' will have on us, click through and read the stories.

China, France sign 20 agreements

China and France signed 20 agreements during French President Jacques Chirac's five-day statevisit to China, concerning environmental protection, railway, aviation, agriculture, telecommunication and finance.
French president leads business push into China
French companies are benefiting from a state visit to China according to French President Jacques Chirac.
Chirac says Iraq war was illegal
Hanoi, Oct 8 - French President Jacques Chirac has said the US-led war in Iraq was illegal and expressed his fear for the country's future in the face of a "civil war".
In an interview with China Central TV filmed last month ahead of a visit to China this week, Chirac reiterated his strong opposition to Washington's decision to wage war on Saddam Hussein without United Nations backing.
Chirac accused of 'dishonour' on Tiananmen

President Jacques Chirac was accused yesterday of brushing aside Beijing's human rights record and the legacy of Tiananmen Square as he launched a public relations exercise intended to boost trade links between France and China.

Actually, that's the least of it. See my post here, on China's foray into Canada.

China will control the flow of critical raw materials and resources in Canada, our largest trading partner, with daily trade now in excess of a billion and a half dollars a day.

This is page 21, folks-- and how we react and deal with these new realities will be up to us and government policy.

This is going to hit you in your wallet, one way or the other.

*UPDATED*

(I wrote this in the comment section, in reply to a response to this post. I'm reposting my reply here, as a matter of clarification.)

The EU is attempting to usurp our economy, as well as our politics.

If the Chinese do control resources, it will become a sword of Damocles, hanging over us.

That control will affect our economy, jobs and public policy- that latter being the biggest issue of all.

If the EU gets into bed with Chinese, as they are trying to do now, they move to the front of line in terms of resource allocation-- and price controls. This is a time bomb-- and it's a short fuse. China's economy is booming and trade deals with the EU and oil producers are going to impact us in ways we can't yet imagine.

I will post on the public policy issues tomorrow.

Wide Range

2004-10-10T18:26:00.000-05:00

In two posts, BeautifulAtrocities manages to zip around an interesting corner of the blogsphere.

Firstly, there is an interesting post about Rathergate and the ABC Memo. They are by no means a 'done deal' and there is a movement to let let the market weigh in on the debate. There are a few good links worth checking out.

Zipping right along, there is the improbable look at who else inhabits the blogsphere. In a post called 'The League of Mean Girls: Fraud in the Blogshere'...well, if you think liberals are a strange lot, you need to check these bloggers out.

I must be getting old-- or, I've grown up.

The very thought scares me!

Marvin, Muslims and the Mirror

2004-10-10T12:45:00.000-05:00

On Friday, Marvin at LittleRedBlog, wrote a short piece entitled, I am thirsty. I was going to write about it yesterday, but in truth, I hadn't quite digested the implications of his piece.

Now, I like Marvin's blog because in the fast paced blogsphere, he slows down just enough to reflect. I did just that and reread his post a few times.

In his post, Marvin posits a few questions, assuming the role of a Muslim. He starts by setting the stage.

Islam is the vessel that carries the water that all Muslims should drink. The water being the moral truths to guide a man or woman through life and to God's will. Whereas today, the vessel is dry and carries the dust of the forgotten truths, and the sand of bigotry and hatred

Marvin then attempts to understand and more importantly, confronts the issue.

"...In a community that neither respects nor seeks to understand the moral basis of their faith, instead choosing to focus on the fiqh (jurisprudence)and the tawhid (oneness of God) as known and understood in years gone by, it will not be easy. The first step to refilling the vessel is the hardest. It is the recognition that the vessel is dry..."

With a bit of no nonsense clarity, Marvin finds the crux of the issue. It is about avoidance. The mirror reflects the tragic image of failure. There isn't enough makeup to fix the problem.

His piece isn't long, but it does bear a slow read- and even reread.

Over the last day or so, I've asked myself why that is-- and how it came to pass that whatever it is we stand for, the Muslim world has an instant and reflexive knee jerk, opposite reaction.

Of course, there is no one single reason but I do believe I understand.

When the Third World and Muslims especially, see us stumble, it is a validation for themselves and an excuse to say, "Well, things here really aren't so bad."

When America or her ideals succeed, they perceive themselves as failing. They are forced to see if but for a moment, the utter failures their societies, cultures and beliefs have adopted.

Therefore, it is an imperative to them that America and her ideals be reviled and rejected. To do otherwise is to force that long hard look in the mirror.

They see way of life as a zero sum game- an all or nothing proposition.

The Third World and Muslims in particular, clearly do not see reality. They actively embrace a mythology of conspiracy theories and fantastic plots foisted upon them by an America obsessed with keeping them down.

America and Americans seek the mirror of reality. We adjust, fix, change and admit to our flaws. That is our obsession.

When the Third World and Muslims reflect, they yearn for earlier days and want to go back to better times, as if somehow, that would fix all the problems of their current realities.

America looks ahead- 'Our best days are yet to come,' as every American knows and believes. Yes, we cherish our past. However, we are not obsessed with it.

Understanding reality, is dealing with today and preparing for tomorrow. If that means looking in the mirror and recognizing our flaws, we will do it with vigor and enthusiasm.

Religious dogma teaches us that true repentance is more than words. It is more than an acknowledgement of our past transgressions. Repentance is the acceptance of our obligation to modify our future behavior.

It is not about going back in time, but rather, going forward. It is not about living in the past, but rather about preparing for living in the future, in a way that elevates us and those around us.

This is the lesson that America understands.

It is a lesson many others need to learn as well, as Marvin's post points out.

Help is on the way

2004-10-10T09:51:00.000-05:00

Help is on the way, and it's not just a political slogan. The Israeli secret service, the Mossad has the Jihadis in their sights.

The Israeli government has ordered the Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence service, to make the hunt for Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda members its top priority after last Thursday's Sinai attacks that killed at least 33 people, including at least 11 Israeli tourists.

Now that the Mossad is getting involved, the EU seems to be a bit less timid. In a short news release, the EU's top dog in the Middle East is saying the Israeli barrier is a success in reducing an preventing terror.

EU Diplomat says Israeli Wall a Success

Otte, has conceded that the controversial wall being built by Israel in the West Bank has stopped Palestinian extremists from carrying out suicide attacks in Israel. His comments, made in an interview with Financial Times Deutschland, make him the first high-level EU diplomat to publicly say that the barrier has fulfilled its aim

He goes on to say he doesn't like the wall, but hey-- it's not like the EU diplomat has family under fire.

On other news, the Pakistanis still hold the lead in the 'Bomb Houses of Worship' competition. This just happened this morning.

At least seven people have been killed after a suicide bomber shot his way in to a Shi'ite Muslim mosque in the Pakistani city of Lahore and detonated his explosives, a Shi'ite leader has said.
A local resident quoted witnesses as saying that a man opened fire on a security guard who tried to stop him entering the mosque, then blew himself up inside.

That was round two. In yesterday's competition, 39 were killed.

African Muslims are getting on board. In Nigeria, Islamic 'rebels'-- nice to identify yourself as having a political agenda instead of a religious one-- raided a police station, and took the police 'hostage'. Can beheadings be far behind?

Well folks, just another day in Paradise.

The Grand Hypocrisy from the Grand Imam

2004-10-09T19:45:00.000-05:00

What a nice man Dr. Mohammad Sayed Tantawi must be.

The leader of Al Ahzar University, the Islamic equivalent of Harvard, asks us to pay heed to his lofty 'ideals.'

In KUNA press release issued today, the remarks the venerable Imam made are reported on:

...‏ Dr. Mohammad Sayed Tantawi stressed Saturday that Islam renounces ‏all acts of terrorism and killing being executed under its name.‏
‏
... Dr. Tantawi said that all the divine religions condemn ‏the killing and terrorizing of innocent people, demanding the perpetrators to ‏stop linking between Islam and their crimes.‏

He indicated that for over 14 centuries Islam has been a religion that calls for peace and refuses aggression. It also defines the reasons of jihad, ‏which should only be for self defense, protecting ones land, money, belief and ‏honor.

Which can reasonably meant to mean anything Muslims want it to be.

Now this 'moderate' has also said,

"...that bombers who blow themselves up to avenge aggression are martyrs as along as they do not plan to kill the weak. Or if they confine their operations to places where there are aggressors from Jews."

He was answering a question on whether Palestinian bombers are suicides or martyrs.

"Those who blow themselves up among aggressors, who demolish houses, kill men, women and innocent people and assault honour and property of Palestinians, are martyrs," he said.

He said "Chivalry, gallantry and honor in Islamic Sharia prohibit one from blowing himself up among children. But suppose that he (the bomber)enters a settlement and this Jewish settlement includes proven aggressors and blows himself up inside that settlement killing men, women and children, he is still a martyr because he could not make a distinction among them."

I'm not sure I understand the Grand Imam's logic.

If it is alright to blow up women, children and the elderly because they may be 'aggressors,' surely the learned Imam understands that the Israelis are playing by Islamic rules.

Hiding among and behind women, children, the elserly and the infirm, is a long and time honored Arab tradition. Saddam, taking children hostages, the kidnappings in Iraq of civilians, and of course, Beslan.

What are the Israelis doing that isn't conforming with Islamic riles of war? Surely they should be credited for fighting in an Islamically sanctioned manner? So what if a few innocents get killed?

Of course, killing Americans is also alright with the Grand Imam.

The Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Sheikh Mohamed Sayyed Tantawi Saturday, February 22, ruled that attempts to stop a U.S. aggression on Iraq is "Jihad” (holy war), and resisting such an attack is a "binding Islamic duty".

Al-Azhar Imam also hoped that "Allah may bestow His victory (against all aggressors) on the Iraqi people", pointing out that it is "a religious duty to side with Iraq against any aggression to befall it". He said that resisting an unjustifiable attack on any Muslim country is "Jihad and an Islamic duty"...He added that “death while defending Iraq is a kind of martyrdom”, as it comes in the defense of a Muslim land against aggressor enemies.

For a better idea of who the Grand Imam is, and some his Grand Beliefs, see this, from MEMRI and then see this, for some direct quotes. Personally, I think this says it all:

"On January 1, 1956, the Islamic Religious Ruling Committee at AL-Azhar published its historic 'Fatwa’ [religious ruling] regarding the signing of peace with Israel and cooperation with colonialist states who supported it and who [still] support its criminal aggression. The 'Fatwa’ stipulates: 'peace with Israel, so-called by those who have an interest in it, is forbidden by the Islamic religious ruling, because it allows the plunder to keep his loot and recognizes this plunderer’s right to it..."

The MEMRI piece goes on to translate some clarification of what the Grand Imam of the Grand Religion of Peace means, despite disagreeing with him:

A group of Al-Azhar religious leaders rejected Sheik of Al-Azhar's meeting with the Israeli rabbi. According to the religious leaders the meeting constitutes a breech of the national Ijma'a [consensus] and a violation of the religious rulings of the Islamic Research Academy... who since 1936 and until 1988 have forbidden negotiating with the oppressive Jews by other means than the weapon of 'Jihad' until they disappear from the face of the earth.

In case there is any misunderstanding about the Grand Imam's and his co-religionists meaning, let's be clear. From Bat Yeor, leading authority on Islam:

"Jihad is a war which would be described as genocidal today, since it orders men to be massacred and women and children to be enslaved, if there is resistance. These rules were applied during the twentieth century and continue up to the present day in Southern Sudan with the enslavement of the wives and children of rebels."

The article on Jihad, Dhimmitude and the Grand Imam Tantawi is not long. I urge you to read it here.

Late morning coffee

2004-10-09T09:43:00.000-05:00

With todays cup of Joe...

BunkerMulligan is all over the map, with an especially good collection this morning. I liked his Afghan vote piece. I don't know why--it just struck me. He also comments on the Fox News anniversary. They like Bunker at Fox. He gets responses to emails from the on air celebs. All I ever get are offers for free business cards, Canadian drugs and umm..enhancers.

Sherry at Bittersweet has a killer photo on a young Afghani girl voting-- you've probably seen it, but it just hits me.

Marvin, at LittleRedBlog is to the races today, in support of a Colorado candidate named Coors, of all things. I shall refrain from making the obvious observations. Marving was kind enough to reference to a post of mine, Immoral Outrage, to which he makes an interesting observation and comment about Islam, called "I am Thirsty". Marvin, one day Haloscan will work for us.

Marvin gets a whole paragraph because he's knows a guy named COORS-- and I'm off to Denver in a few weeks. 'Nuff said.

Reckers SpeakingMyMind has a great post on the Aussie election. He links to results and I suspect he'll have more to say on the election.

Unlike my wordy self, BrainShavings hits Charlie Gibson where it hurts in a few short and precise words for last nigh's cheap shot by the ABC moderator. I'm just starting to read that blog-- I like it.

From the 'You can't make this up dept'

2004-10-09T01:05:00.000-05:00

T'is the season..

And now, Proctoberfest. Seriously.

Actually, not to long ago I had my first 'exam.'

At the critical moment (and it was critical), I looked over my shoulder at the doc and asked him, "Does your mother know what you have to do to make a living?"

A word to the wise-- the time to make the doctor laugh is after the exam.

Arab News, the voice of civilized Islam

2004-10-08T20:00:00.000-05:00

In an article entitiled "These Rabbis are rabid, " the Arab News has reached a new low in demonstrating to the English speaking audience Islamic 'Enlightenment.'

With much disgust, the 'writer,' Tariq A. Al-Maeena states:

A news item that would never make it to the front pages of the US press caught my attention the other day. It seems that some Israeli rabbis have decreed the Israeli Army not shy away from killing Palestinian civilians in the context of the ongoing military campaign against armed groups resisting the illegal occupation of their lands.

For some reason, Mr. Al Maeena finds that more important than taking issue with terrorism, or even the inevitable celebration of terror attacks against civilians- that has been going on for over 50 years, with the blessing of the Islamic clergy.

The rest of the article is patently ridiculous and deliberately misleading, but Mr. Al-Maeena then has the temerity to solemnly ask:

What would possess these men of the cloth to justify the killing of the innocent?
Imagine that. After decades of Mosque sermons that end with cries of 'Itbach al Yahudi!'-- Slaughter the Jews!-- Mr. Al-Maeena sees fit not to question Islam, but rather to castigate Jews who are sick and tired of being blown to bits within the 'occupied territories' and on buses and in restaurants within Israel. Not even religious Passover dinners are exempted from the 'enlightened' exercise of terror. Somehow, Mr. Al-Maeena isn't concerned about Islamic clerics.

Mr. Al-Maeena then goes on to again deliberately misquote statements or take them out of context.

Mr Al-Maeena is a hypocrite and a fraud- which is no surprise, really. No doubt, if confronted, he'll say he was 'misunderstood.'

Spend 5 minutes on MEMRI and the real Mr Al-Maeenas' of Saudi Arabia make themselves evident.

Spend a bit more time on MEMRITV and you see it as well as read it.

His obsession with Jews and Israel has obscured all rational thought.

Does Mr. Al-Maeena really want to play the religion comparison game?

Think before you answer, Mr. Al-Maeena.

He chooses not to discuss the slaughter in Darfur, the ongoing slave trade by Arabs in Mauritania, the rape and dismemberment of children in Algeria by the GIA, the forced conversions and forced circumcisions that took place in East Timor, or the slaughter in Nigeria that continues. From his own very backyard that produced the 9/11 terrorists, Mr. Al-Maeena and the Muslim world doesn't want you to remember the day that was met with so much joy and glee. He doesn't want you to remember the clerics who called that day of infamy a 'gift' from Allah.

Now that Beslan is out of the headlines, life can get back to normal for Mr. Al Maeena. That one, quick moment of self reflection for many in the Islamic world has ended.

If Mr Al-Maeena is looking for the devil, all he has to do is look in the mirror.

Physician, heal thyself.

Immoral outrage

2004-10-08T15:31:00.000-05:00

UK citizen Ken Bigley is dead, another infidel decapitated by insurgents in Iraq. A civilian engineer, Bigley came to Iraq with the idea he was helping the nation rebuild itself.

There will be all kinds of post game analysis, finger pointing and the inevitable recriminations as to how it happened and who is to blame-- as if that were really ever in question.

Ken Bigley, husband and father (I will not allow that to go unnoticed), was killed-- or rather murdered, as Sherry at Bittersweet pointedly reminds us-- by terrorists who never really intended to deal for his release. Outrageous, isn't it?

There is no problem with negotiating with terrorists. It is the kind of negotiating that makes the difference. We are not negotiating with equals, moral or otherwise.

The only kind of negotiating that must be done has to include consequences.

If hostages aren't released, or there is more terror, there will be consequences-- serious consequences. It must be understood that we will follow through on our threats.

It's that simple.

There will of course, be analogies made to Israeli tactics. So be it. The Israelis have it right. Let's examine that briefly and talk about Iraq.

The homes of Palestinian suicide bombers (and their supporters, in some cases) are blown up. Notwithstanding sophomoric media attention, there are is no equivalent to the loss of real estate to the loss of life.

In a recent poll, 70% of Palestinians voiced support for suicide bombings. That makes them accomplices, period. These bombings don't occur in a vacuum. People know that terror attacks will happen. Turning a blind eye to terror is more than implicit support-- it is direct complicity. Tim Mcveigh's cheerleader and supporter Terry Nichols knows that first hand.

Further, if the Israelis know where the terrorists are, it is inconceivable that Yasser Arafat's PA does not, or cannot find them. They seem to have the werewithal to kill those that disagree with them, but say they are unable to stop terror.

One could disregard Mr. Arafat's entire history of evil and the result would be the same. He now allows and funds terror-- and benefits from it. That he refuses to prosecute or even apprehend those who commit those vile acts, is reason enough to equate him to Osama bin Laden. There is no longer any difference between them. Arafat is a creation we had a hand in-- we allowed him a place at the table as an equal. We allowed him to be an equal and the Israelis-- Jews, lets be clear here-- are now paying for it. Those on the Left who support Arafat and company, cannot hide their bigotry behind taking a stand for the 'freedom fighters' of Palestine. That there are liberal Jews who support the Palestinian cause is of no consequence. Stupidity is a God given gift that was dispensed in equal measure to all His creatures.

The recent Israeli incursion into Gaza came as a direct result of rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. The Gaza population is now coming to understand there are direct consequences for their participation and support of terror and the Intifadah.

They wanted that Intifadah and now, they are paying for it. Until the Palestinians understand that there is a direct consequence to terror and that they too, have a role to play in suppressing terror, they will continue to suffer the consequences.

Last weekend, I wrote a long piece, entitled 'Snapshot of Islam'-- too long, I suppose for a blog-- wherin I described the reality of Islam today. Until we see clearly the position we are in and what we face, the status quo will continue.

It is no different in Iraq. Until the 'insurgents' undestand that there is a price to pay for their actions, they will continue. It is a fact of life.

The vast majority of Iraqis want freedom.

Like the Palestinians, the Iraqis must understand that freedom is a gift that must be earned. Their tacit support of the terrorists, by their inactions and unwillingness to help stamp out the evil, will disqualify them from participating in the fruits of real democracy and freedom.

Our behavior in dealing with the realities on the ground, is grist for a never ending soap opera. We are being told that the Muslim world need to be 'understood,' their 'feelings' and 'humiliations' are almost too much to bear.

It is a familiar story line. The self indulgent husband and father enchants the naive and beautiful young woman with tales of woe, suffering and lack of 'fullfilment' in an unhappy marriage. He courts her, tells her what she wants to hear..."You," he pleads to the young beauty, "you understand me like no one else, you can make whole, if only for a while..transport me, support me in my needs..." He reminds her of her lofty ideals and plays on them-- and accuses her if she questions his motives. Good natured as she is, the young woman responds.. and and so the wife and children go without and wanting, while he fulfills his 'needs.' He cares not a whit about his family and his own house. He doesn't want to put in the effort to repair and rebuild his life.

We in the west are that 'young woman.' We want to believe we can make a difference. Well, we can't and won't.

At times, the right words are spoken, but they are just words. Until there is a real effort to fix their own house, be it in Iraq or Palestine, the Muslim world will remain where it is, mired in the real quagmire of self perpetuating defeat and hatred. BunkerMulligan posted some of those words-- and is still waiting for a response.

Like the young woman in the soap opera, we cannot allow our values to be questioned by those who openly wish to take advantage of us. Until there is a real effort at change, we cannot allow them to sit at our table as equals, no matter how badlt they 'feel.'

Until we openly admit our complicity, our outrage at terror has a certain tinge of immorality.

The other Iraq battlefield

2004-10-08T10:53:00.000-05:00

As reported by AFP, we now under assault by 'experts,' telling us that the gains we've made in Iraq are really losses- and that our efforts there aren't good enough.

In addition, we are to blame for the looting that occured in Baghdad

Interference by the Pentagon delivered a massive blow to efforts to provide humanitarian relief for Iraq after last year's war, according to two US aid experts who struggled with the conflict's chaotic aftermath.

In trenchant criticism, the pair say the Department of Defense alienated aid workers, misjudged the scale of looting that wrecked Iraq's health service and sent out bureaucrats who only served to complicate matters.

It gets better-- some NGO's felt the Pentagon threatend their 'neutrality'.

Many of these agencies distanced themselves, fearful that their reputation for neutrality would be compromised on the ground if they had to work with occupying troops..

Further, no mention is made of terror attacks against the Iraqi infrastucture:

...That crisis was worsened by chronic insecurity, hours-long power cuts and lack of sanitation...

Nor was nay mention made of the UN cutting and running after their headquarters was bombed.

...They had little field experience in relief operations, many were ignorant of functions, charter and capabilities of UN agencies, Red Cross organisations or NGOs, and they simply created another unnecessary level of
bureaucracy...

The article is a biased outrage. We have commited billions to the rebuilding of Iraq- and now, we are subject to partisan 'critique' before an election.

The article is here.

Educated, middle class Muslims-- our next concern

2004-10-08T09:42:00.000-05:00

By now, everyone knows that most of the 9/11 hijackers weren't from the poor and disenfranchised segment of Islamic society.

That said, while there does seem to be voices emanating from that socio economic class decrying fundamentalist terror, there are more voices calling for action and the establishment of a Pan Islamic state.

These voices aren't removed from our mainstream. They have attended our universities and are familiar with our way of life. They are, or will be our neighbors.

This is a serious matter and if we remain blissfully ignorant, we will see here what has already transpired in Europe. The juggernaut towards the Islamization of Europe has begun.

It is not my wish to malign Europe-- just the opposite, really. However, there is no denying the European reality- and if we wish to avoid the European experience, we must learn from it.

Below are excerpts from a Reuters report:

Islamic Group Defies Ban, Draws Educated Pakistanis

They are considered a new breed of Islamic fundamentalists. They study at top British and American schools yet abhor Western values, advocate a pan-Islamic state and favor the removal of Pakistan's pro-U.S. government.

Militancy and violence is not part of their agenda; they want to achieve their "lofty goals" through peaceful and non-violent struggle.

But analysts say such men, fired by the passion of an Islamic renaissance, stand on a thin line dividing political and violent struggle.

Pakistan, an ally of the United States in the war on terror, banned several militant Islamic groups, but most re-emerged under new names. Hizb ut-Tahrir has refused to change its identity despite the closure of offices and the arrest of several members.

British and U.S. nationals of Pakistani origin comprise the backbone of this secretive group formed in Jerusalem in 1953.

It wants to establish a supra-Islamic state on the model of the caliphate as it existed in the early days of Islam.

The article contains several revealing and salient quotes from Americans, Brits and western educated Pakistanis.

Read it here.

Eyes wide shut

2004-10-07T22:43:00.000-05:00

Apparently, blowing up religious gatherings and Houses of Worship is a sport in Pakistan-- the latest example having occured today. At least 40 people have died and over one hundred injured in a car/motorcycle attack.

Of course, by now everyone has heard of the hotel bomb blast in Taba, Egypt, that killed at least 35 and wounded at least 100 Israelis.

The rape and slaughter in Darfur by the Arab militia Janjaweed goes on, with no end in sight. To date, up to 50,000 thousand have been killed and over a million displaced.

FGM is still a reality in the Muslim world. There are 135 million women that have undergone the barbaric procedure-- and over 2 million more at risk. The good news is that there are feminists working on the problem as we speak. They've organized another conference to discuss the matter.

No matter, though.

What is really important to the Muslim world are the Israelis and the Palestinian Intifadah. For some reason, that trumps everything else.

Well, at least they're acting on the matter. At a conference in Bahrain, Muslims all over the world are being called to stand in solidarity with their Palestinian co-religionists. Naturally, a Hamas leader spoke and of course, money is being solicited for 'charitable' purposes.

After all, what greater problem does the Muslim world have?

Two Palestinian teens pretending to fire rockets killed

2004-10-07T18:18:00.000-05:00

The Palestinian culture of death isn't like playing cowboys and Indians. That game is imaginary in nature and is all about make believe.

It isn't about confronting soldiers or shielding gunmen.

Gaza Strip - An Israeli missile strike on Thursday killed two Palestinian teenagers who were playing with a tube and a gasoline-filled bottle in a game imitating militants firing rockets at Israel, relatives said...

Throughout the raid, which Israel launched to prevent militants from firing homemade Qassam rockets at Israeli towns, Palestinian children have emulated the violence in a series of games, using pieces of wood to represent guns in games of "firefight" and holding simulated funerals. In recent days, militants have appealed to parents in local radio broadcasts to keep children off the streets.

On Thursday morning, an unmanned Israeli aircraft spotted two suspicious figures on the edge of the Jebaliya refugee camp as they set up a rocket launcher, the army said. The drone spotted a flash, the figures ran away, then returned to the launcher and were struck by the missile, the army said.

The badly disfigured bodies were identified by relatives as Suleiman Abu Foul, 14, and Raed Abu Zeid, 15...

According to Suleiman's 19-year-old brother, Mohammed, friends said the two boys had been playing on the outskirts of Jebaliya, about 200 yards from an Israeli tank position, using an empty tube and gasoline-filled bottles to pretend to launch rockets at Israel.

Read Article here.

Blogs, life and death

2004-10-07T15:20:00.000-05:00

A few days ago, I had a conversation with a friend, whom I shall refer to as 'YB.'

YB had wondered if anybody really read blogs and if so, did I think they were effective.

Well, that conversation and discussion has been had many a time by many bloggers.

The reason I'm touching on this subject is because of another conversation I had with Bob, a very good friend and someone I admire and respect enormously.

Bob has a long time friend with cancer. He has been through chemo-therapy a number of times and it has resuted in various remissions of the cancer.

In reality, he's playing for time. The cancer is too widespread to be cured and there is no question as to the final outcome. Bob's friend will die. His family will be heartbroken and his children will not share their weddings and families with him.

Chemo-treatment is very debilitating. Besides the external symptoms of hair loss nausea, constant pain and exhaustion, there is also the psychological impact-- a feeling of doom, helplessness and bitterness. Some overcome those feelings, some don't.

Bob's friend wants to die.

He wants it over and done with. He does not want to have to endure the chemo-therapy treatments that in the end, will prove futile.

Bob came to me a few days ago and asked me how to reply to his friend. How do you tell a man in pain and suffering-- on death's doorstep, in reality, that life is worth living to the very end?

Well, I thought about a bit.

I thought back on my own life and realized there were things said to me in the most offhand and innocous ways that have had a profound impact on me. There were things told to me, as a child that I remember to this day, with great clarity. There were off the cuff mutterings my dad made that provided me with some great insights and lessons in life.

The truth is, we have all been influenced by people who were unaware they were doing just that and we have learned from and retained memories we can't even imagine being without.

Bob's friend has children, in their teens. What little time he has left needs to be spent with them, imparting ideas, thoughts and recounting memories. As I said to Bob, tell him you never, ever know what will stick in a meaningful way.

To my blogger friend YB, I say, you never ever know what sticks. It may be the influence of a daily read, or it may be the few words of a single post, ages ago.

Whichever it is, the result is the same. It justifies the effort, if the impact is positive.

I know firsthand this is true.

Hindsight and Foresight

2004-10-07T10:59:00.000-05:00

"Earlier in this century, George W. Bush's Presidency was on the road to being a weak reiteration of the Reagan years. He had taken some steps toward reapplying Reaganomics, but had succumbed to the desire to work with the opposition in creating more socialistic programs. Under his watch, the Federal government increased Medicare spending to provide prescription drug benefits to the elderly, and Bush pushed the Congress to increase education spending. In the latter, he teamed with Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts in an attempt to heal some of the wounds remaining from the contentious 2000 election.

On September 11, 2001, Bush's focus changed dramatically with the attack by nineteen Islamic terrorists which destroyed New York City's twin World Trade Center towers and the southern face of the Pentagon in Washington, D.C."

So begins an interesting look at history as it may be viewed. BunkerMulligan's piece, "History," is a not so farfetched look into how the future may be look back at our times.

Bunker is not attempting to prognosticate events to come. He is rather cleverly removing the gauze from in front of the lens as events are unfolding now.

There are certain empirical truths that defy time-- and Bunker makes that clear. Irrespective of how the political landscapes and minefields unfold, he is pointing out that the path chosen by the President has been clearly chosen, with a thoughtful and moral rationale. This President has staked out his positions on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts with equal clarity. As Bunker points out, President Bush has not and will not in the future, consider his legacy as a motivating factor in his decision making.

Bunker clearly illustrates the realities of what we are looking at, irrespective of how they are played out.

We may choose to view issues in a certain way, but in the end, it is the 'facts on the ground' that determine the truth. Bunker has provided an unobstructed view of those facts.

As the election draws closer, it is important to remember that our voices will decide the history and future of this nation. Who we select as our leader will be a reflection of the moral conscience and character of the American people.

Read BunkerMulligans piece here- and think about it.

China and the economic front

2004-10-07T09:27:00.000-05:00

China it seems, has been very interested in Canadian mining companies.

This is very important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that by owning natural resources, they can effectively control the flow and cost of raw materials into the US.

China Minmetals Corp., a state-owned conglomerate, is negotiating to buy Noranda from Brascan Corp. and other shareholders for $7 billion. It would be Beijing's largest foreign takeover, dwarfing its entire direct investment in Canada of $400 million last year, and of our $540 million in China. The deal will give Beijing control of a venerable Canadian mining firm, 15,000 jobs worldwide and strategically vital deposits of zinc, nickel, copper and other minerals. Noranda also controls Falconbridge Ltd.

This is a purchase which Prime Minister Paul Martin's government must scrutinize closely. That's because while a Minmetals takeover might be good for Noranda and its shareholders from a strict business point of view, the deal has much broader political and policy implications.

The Beijing leadership uses whatever leverage it has to stifle criticism of China at the United Nations or elsewhere on topics ranging from Beijing's aversion to democracy to its rough handling of the Tiananmen Square protesters, to its suppression of Falun Gong, its occupation of Tibet, and relations with Hong Kong and Taiwan.

The Canadians are just beginning to realize the implications of Chinese ownership.

Do we want Beijing making political demands of us, while holding Canadian jobs hostage? Similarly, would we want Washington or Moscow to have direct leverage of this sort?

The fact of the matter is, that no matter what differences the Canadian and US governments du jour have, Canada is the US largest trading partner, with trade now well exceeding one billion dollars a day. The vast majority of raw materials necessary for the economic engine to work, come from resource rich Canada. "China's disquieting bid for Noranda" is a must read editorial.

In another development along the same lines, Canadian mining company Falconbridge, is now a prime takeover candidate. They produce over 8% of the world's total nickel output. The company is also the largest producer of copper. The potential takeover target company has a global reach. As Bloomberg reported,

Inco Ltd., the world's second- biggest nickel producer, and Falconbridge Ltd. may spend $3.9 billion building mines in New Caledonia in the South Pacific as demand for the metal from Chinese stainless steel makers soars.

... Falconbridge is completing a study of its Koniambo project. The two companies would join French rival Eramet SA on the island with projects that may produce 10 percent of the world's nickel...

Read the entire article- it's a wakeup call.

We may be facing another kind of front in the war on terror, something much more insidious-- an economic war that serve to diminish our growth.

With the French and the EU fostering deals with China to secure their potential for growth, we may get left out in the cold-- and that would be a disaster.

These economic strategies are being played out daily in Canada.

I believe they bear closer scrutiny.

Britain jails policeman for espionage

2004-10-06T22:42:00.000-05:00

A new front? I hope this is an aberration.

From the Globe and Mail

A judge sentenced a former London police officer to 2½ years in prison Monday for spying on Saudi Arabian dissidents and others in Britain in exchange for $25,000 from a Saudi diplomat...

According to Mr. Kassim's guilty plea, Ali al-Shamarani, a third secretary at the Saudi Arabian embassy in London, paid him to gather information on several people, including Saudi dissident Muhammed al-Massari, a former Sudanese prime minister and Abu Hamza al-Masri, a Muslim cleric in Britain now being held on a U.S. warrant for terrorism...

Mr. Kassim illegally used police computers to obtain information and questioned people in their homes, saying he was part of a police investigation...
Read article here.

Exporting Decapitation

2004-10-06T22:24:00.000-05:00

No comment required.

Arisitide backers threaten beheadings in Haiti after UN troops arrest dozens

Enraged supporters of ousted Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide armed themselves with machetes, guns, rocks and bottles and roamed a downtown slum in the capital, threatening to behead foreigners after UN troops and Haitian police arrested dozens of people Wednesday.

Read it here.

Think you're unlucky in love?

2004-10-06T21:25:00.000-05:00

No matter how rough a time you may have had, it couldn't have been as bad as this. And don't even mention 'commitment issues.'

From the Guardian, no less.

50 years on, man reweds first of 52 wives

Love, they say, is blind. But marriage, it seems, can be a real eye-opener.

It certainly has been for Kamarudin Mohammed, whose search for the perfect partner led him a merry dance, and ended - happily - exactly where it started.

The 72-year-old admitted yesterday that he had tied the knot for a 52nd time and that his latest wife was the same woman he married when he first took the plunge nearly 50 years ago.

Read it all here.

Made me think of my first girlfriend, Abigail. I fell in love with her at age 7, after she used my Mr. Ed lunchbox to beat my nemesis, Harry, into submission.

It lasted until she used Harry's Howdy Doody Lunchbox (he inherited that from his sister, to beat me into submission.

I miss her.

The Daily Shocker

2004-10-06T19:59:00.000-05:00

From the 'Hard to believe but true,' department of the London Daily Telegraph:

Saddam bribed politicians around world

Saddam Hussein bribed senior politicians and businessmen around the world to secure an early lifting of sanctions, according to the Iraq Survey Report.

Focusing his attention in particular on France and Russia, both permanent members of the UN Security Council, Saddam awarded oil exploration contracts and financial inducements to individuals.

Some US estimates have suggested that the Iraqis siphoned off $10 billion (£5.6 billion) from the scheme

"He [Saddam] targeted friendly companies and foreign political parties that possessed either extensive business ties to Iraq, or held pro-Iraq policies," said the report.

And yes, the article 'names names'.

The Imperial Feminist

2004-10-06T18:18:00.000-05:00

Sherry, over at Bittersweet, presents a very good piece, "The Wedge Between Women."

With great precision, Sherry extracts some very important universal truths in the way womens rights are fought for, presented and perceived.

Sherry rightly acknowledges real political differences and does not allow herself to be drawn into that arena. Instead, she sharply focuses her attention on women's matters that should lie outside the political arena, yet have become hijacked by a particular political agenda.

"There are times when as women we should put away our differences, whether they are petty or with merit."

The advancement of freedom and democracy for women around the world should be one of those instances, however it is not.

In discussing the issue of women's rights in Iraq, Sherry points to issues that have become too politicized.

Rather than get into specifics here, I suggest you read the article. It is essential reading because the women's movements are more and more defining debate and policy.

In essence however, what is happening within the women's movement is the increasing intolerance toward women's opinion that doesn't conform with 'established and approved' leftist women's thought.

What was once a celebration of diversity has turned into a vicious attack on non conformity-- a conformity established by a few women who's obvious agenda isn't about women, but rather about the imposition political power and agendas.

Rather than engage in real diversity, free thought and encouragement, the womens movement has dismissed a large segment of their natural constituency by nullifying their beliefs. It is an Leftist version of the Talibanization of women with differing opinions-- "Believe and support what we tell you or you're at risk of being in violation of the Law."

"While we engage in our bitch fest, another woman is raped or murdered or driven from her home. While we waste time bickering the elections grow closer and we run the risk that less women will feel empowered to make their voices heard.

Whatever our differences may be here in our free society, we need to set our egos and ideologies aside and join together to bring the best standard of life we have to offer to our oppressed and suffering sisters around the world."

Recently, I wrote something to the effect, that while women here may celebrate "Sex in the City" as a joyous expression of their sexual identities, I was sure this happy ideal might be lost on women raped in Darfur daily, and still being subjected to FGM.

Sherry's piece addresses the how's and why's that is allowed to happen-- and what must be done to legitimize the women's movement and restore the respect and credibility the movement must reestablish to merit a serious place at the table of influence

Right now, as Sherry has pointed out, there is deep division and distrust within the womens movement-- so much so that other less fortunate women in places of hoplessness are considered disposable and are used as cannon fodder in order to further a domestic agenda-- and an agenda that serves only a few.

One of the ever present arguments against the west is the 'Imperialist' one- that we seek to impose our views and beliefs on other.

While that may have been true a long time ago, it isn't so any more-- at least in the realm of realpolitik.

As Sherry points out in her piece, the Imperialist argument can be made in reference to the women's movement-- and that can only serve to prolong inequalities at home and abroad.

I submit the women of Darfur and being subjected to FGM wouldn't be impressed with the political gymnastics done 'in their name.'

Why I read blogs

2004-10-06T17:15:00.000-05:00

Marvin, over at LittleRedBlog has another gem, "The Danger found in the Irrelevance of Moral Arguments."

With simplicity and clarity, Mavin presents a rational and at times, even biting argument, for the inclusion of morality into the political debate.

It is not an argument for a particular moral stand-- the very nature of debate itself is reflective of a plurality of opinion. Nor is the argument he makes a "one size fits all" arrangement.

"...It isn't sin I wish to discuss, as I believe that to be a matter between the individual and God. However, moral and legal issues are of man's domain and must be discussed and understood in order to develop the finest characteristics in man, enabling our compassion, inspiring our dreams and suppressing our aptitude to harm each other..."

Marvin's argument is that regardless of the nature of the debate, it is an imperative to insert moral values into the issue at hand. The moral component of an argument cannot be shunted aside, replaced by vague references to ever fickle 'rights and wrongs.'

"The loss that concerns me today is the loss of clarity and relevance of righteous and moral thought, dialogue and action in governance and daily life. "

In his piece, Marvin discusses Iraq, terror and world views, all matters where morality does count.

Rather than quote more, read the original in full context, here.

It is a superb read.

The Child of Hate

2004-10-06T13:45:00.000-05:00

She was a child of hatred-- hated by her own.

This young child was sacrificed on the Altar of Deceit.

And those around her, will continue to celebrate death.

From Chron Watch

Who really killed Iman al-Hamas (Yes, that is her real name)?

Iman was a 13 year old girl, walking in an area of the Gaza Strip completely closed off to any entrance by any Palestinians yesterday (Oct 5). While the Palestinians say she was walking home from school, there is no school anywhere nearby. She walked right up to the perimeter of an Israeli army installation, took off her school bag, and threw it at the soldiers or at the fence. The soldiers opened fire and she was hit by 20 bullets. She was killed instantly. The PLO and its Jewish leftist amen chorus is screaming cold-blooded murder.

They are right. It was cold-blooded murder. Iman was murdered by the PLO and its Jewish leftist amen chorus. Why? Because the PLO, ensconced in the Gaza Strip and West Bank thanks to the Jewish Left, has fostered a situation where 13 year old Palestinian children are routinely recruited for terror activities, including suicide bombings. Because the PLO and its leftist supporters have created a situation where it is entirely plausible for reasonable people seeing a child approach an army installation to suspect that the child is engaged in terror. Because the PLO has conducted nonstop terror atrocities over the past 12 years of Oslo peace, in which bombs inside schoolbags and other parcels are routinely thrown at Jews.

In Imans schoolbag there were only books. She became yet another martyr murdered in cold-blood by the PLOs terror and the Oslo mega-stupidity.

Space Cadets?

2004-10-06T10:06:00.000-05:00

North Korea has prepared legions of compuer hackers to immobilize US defence computers.

North Korea ready to launch cyber war against US, reads the headline.

North Korea has trained more than 500 computer hackers capable of launching cyber warfare against the United States, South Korea’s defence ministry said yesterday.

In a report to the National Assembly’s National Defense Committee, the ministry said that hackers from the impoverished Stalinist state were among the best in the world.

That's a lot of money that could have been more wisely spent. No doubt fiscal manangement techniques were learned from the Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat.

In the meantime, Pyongyang has decided to close it's doors to foreign aid groups.

It seems like the decade long famine hasn't made much of an impression on Kim Jung Il, North Korea's 'Great Leader.'

U.N. agencies and diplomats were informed last month that the regime no longer wished to participate in what is called the consolidated appeals process, a fundraising mechanism used by the world body's organizations to coordinate their efforts. The U.N. program, which provides medical and agricultural assistance as well as food, is widely credited with reducing the percentage of North Korean children suffering from stunted growth, from 60% to 40%.
I guess 40% of children with various chronic maladies is acceptable in North Korea.

Yesiree, we need bilateral talks with these 'equals.'

2004-10-06T09:26:00.000-05:00

Go see BunkerMulligan's "Why not to Vote for Bush" piece this morning.

Sublime-- as are many of his pieces. It'll go well with a cup of coffee.

Bunker and everyone else on Homespun, along with the news, have become a part of my morning routine.

The real 'Other America' UPDATE

2004-10-06T00:21:00.000-05:00

There are few things that leave me speechless.

These are photos from Berekely, CA, that highlight the 'Two Americas.'

Then, look here.

*UPDATE* We need to remember how others see us. This was written by someone who knew real tyranny.

It was written September 24, 2001

Debate Redux

2004-10-06T00:01:00.000-05:00

As in too many things, perception matters.

Like the presidential debate, I think anyone who actually reads a transcript of the proceedings, would come away with a far different impression than one given by the media.

After seeing the Vice Presidential debate, I do think Mr.Cheney came across well, very well.

Mr Edwards, I believe, came across as I expected-- a trial lawyer trying to get as many points in as he could in a limited amity of time-- his objective being to influence and overwhelm the jury, if you will. Here in North Carolina, John Kerry's style is well known and almost universally dismissed. As in his famous trial work, Mr. Edwards has a reputation for saying what has to be said to 'win the case' and then move on to the next case and the next big payday.

Therein is Mr. Edwards weakness, for all to see.

Governance in not a trial, with a start date, finish date and the predictable courtroom rules and decorum. Juries, in closed courtrooms, are told only to focus on one thing and one thing only-- the case at hand.

Responsible government is about long term planning and ongoing stewardship of policies and ideas, commitment and the ever present 'firefighting.' Mr. Edwards has proven woefully inept. As Mr. Cheney said, Mr. Edwards could not even manage to spend that much time in the Senate, let alone vote.

It is easy for Mr. Edwards to attempt to try a case after the fact, an endeavor he should have succeeded in this evening-- and yet he didn't. Simply reciting a litany of 'would have, should have and could have,' isn't enough to qualify one's leadership abilities.

Mr. Edwards really failed in his attempt to qualify himself as a potential leader. He could not refer to his Senate record nor could he could not refer to his record as a trial attorney. In that arena, Mr. Edwards has consistently relied on questionable science, deliberate and knowing misrepresentations and has used his considerable talent to 'emote' to his juries.

While perfectly acceptable, if not highly principled, in the courtrooms, that kind of record is woefully inadequate as credentials to serve as Vice President of the United States.

His public 'jury' here in North Carolina has been less than impressed with Mr. Edwards.

Like I said, read the transcripts.

Java Muslim militants force closure of Catholic school

2004-10-05T17:35:00.000-05:00

In another example of the war we really are fighting, this.

A Catholic school was forced to shut down- but not before being attacked.

Lovely-- just bloody lovely.

In the face of threats by a large band of armed Muslim extremists, the nun in charge of St Bernadette's Catholic compound in a small village 35 km west of Jakarta was forced to close down its church and school.

"When the attack came early in the morning no one could resist the aggressors. We had to obey", Sr Anselma, one of the Sisters of the Child Jesus, told AsiaNews.

Sr Anselma said that in Sunday's attack Muslim militants from the Islam defender Front (Front Pembela Islam or FPI) stormed the compound brandishing weapons and ordered the nuns to close down the Sang Timur(the Child Jesus) church and school.The FPI accuses Catholics of proselytising because they have been using the school's sport hall as a makeshift church for the past ten years.
Article is here.

More on Mr Edwards, 'Populist'

2004-10-05T13:30:00.000-05:00

More in John Edwards, man of the people.

"WALL STREET JOURNAL - The Edwards campaign merely shrugged this spring when Sen. Kerry's press secretary assailed the North Carolinian's White House bid as "wholly funded by trial lawyers."
More remarkable yet was how Edwards's spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri had earlier responded to similar sniping: "We have no problem if 100% of our money came from trial lawyers."

Extracted from the LA Weekly: Edwards' legislative record - what little there is of it - is hardly populist. In fact, Edwards is a classic, corporate-friendly, centrist New Democrat. In his five years as a freshman senator, Edwards on his own produced little legislation, much less than some other first-termers - although he was assigned by Tom Daschle to represent the Democrats in negotiations over a patients' bill of rights, and so can boast he was a co-sponsor of the final, but aborted, bill.

However, there's one highly significant chapter in his Senate career omitted from Edwards' campaign Web site. Edwards, who comes from a state where banking is big business, played a critical role in brokering legislation to allow banks to sell mutual funds and insurance, and to
engage in other speculative ventures. This law, worth hundreds of billions to the banks, blasted a gigantic hole in the Glass-Steagal banking law's firewall of protections designed to prevent the kinds of bank collapses that marked the Great Depression of the '30s - meaning that it put the money of Joe Six-Pack depositors at risk. Such a gigantic boon to the banking lobby can hardly be classed as a populist victory.

Sometimes, the pamphlet contradicts Edwards' reality. Example: "Some tax lawyers make millions through flimsy letters telling clients how to shelter their income. Edwards will stop these abuses," it claims. But in 1995, Edwards - already a multimillionaire - set up a professional
corporation to shelter at least $10 million in legal earnings from having to pay Medicare taxes on them, saving himself some $290,000, according to the News and Observer, which quoted a top specialist from the American Institute of CPAs as labeling this trick "gaming the system." Populist Hypocrisy?

he foreign and defense policy sections of the pamphlet are similarly airy and detail-free, with lots of boilerplate guff about "promoting democratic values." And while Edwards, when campaigning, bashes John Ashcroft for assaults on civil liberties, his pamphlet boasts that he'd "create thousands of neighborhood watch groups by 2007," which sounds suspiciously akin to Ashcroft's infamous TIPS program of setting citizen to spy on citizen. Edwards, of course, voted for both the blank check to Dubya for war in Iraq, and for the civil liberties & SHY;shredding Patriot Act. He's in no
position to take on Dubya over his lies about Iraq's WMD - for Edwards himself proclaimed, as late as October 10, 2002, "We know that Hussein has chemical and biological weapons"; and hailed the invasion of Iraq, which "still might prove a victory for people everywhere . . . who seek to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction."

The Web zine Slate called him "more hawkish than all the Democratic candidates except for Joe Lieberman." Example: As a senator, Edwards voted to deploy the "Star Wars" national missile defense as soon as possible -but you won't find this controversial position in Johnny's feel-good pamphlet. His solution to the quagmire of the U.S. occupation of Iraq is not to hand it over to the United Nations -of which Edwards has been a tart critic -but to have Iraq policed by NATO, which is not exactly what most of the world would interpret as a step toward the international rule
of law. . .

Edwards on the stump likes to proclaim, "What you see is what you get."
Not quite, Johnny.

Edwards gave loan to Federal Judge

Edwards wanted to see Social Security invested in market.

Cheney, Halliburton, Edwards, courtroom deceit UPDATED

2004-10-05T10:37:00.000-05:00

Over at Bittersweet, there's a good post on Halliburton and Cheney.

In the interest of fairness, here's a bit of info on John Ewards, from right here in my backyard.

Mr Edwards isn't well thought of here and there is little chance of the Kerry/Edwards ticket taking the state.

*UPDATE*

From the WashTimes: "...he pioneered the art of blaming psychiatrists for patients who commit suicide..."The John Edwards we know crushed [obstetrics, gynecology] and neurosurgery in North Carolina," said Dr. Craig VanDerVeer, a Charlotte neurosurgeon. "As a result, thousands of patients lost their health care."

"And all of this for the little people?" he asked, a reference to Mr. Edwardss argument that he represented regular people against mighty foes such as prosperous doctors and big insurance companies. "How many little people do you know who will supply you with $60 million in legal fees over a couple of years?"

See this from FrontpageMag: "Because of the courtroom success of Edwards and trial lawyers who have imitated him, doctors who used to perform caesarian sections in six percent of births now deliver 26 percent of babies by C-section. The procedure adds enormously to the expense of delivering a baby, as well as to prolonged healing, pain and injury to mothers. And as ABC "20/20" anchorman John Stossel reported, the old rate of cerebral palsy among children has not declined in the slightest. This suggests that Edwards built his entire career and $70 million fortune on a wrong assertion, perhaps even a lie. The failure to do caesarian births apparently never was a cause of cerebral palsy; had it been, its incidence would have declined measurably as caesarian births jumped more than fourfold..."

From the NYT: An examination of Mr. Edwards's legal career also opens a window onto the world of personal injury litigation. In building his career, Mr. Edwards underbid other lawyers to win promising clients, sifted through several dozen expert witnesses to find one who would attest to his claims, and opposed state legislation that would have helped all families with brain-damaged children and not just those few who win big malpractice awards.

From AIM (Accuracy in Media): Jill Lawrence of USA Today reported that the Campbell girl suffered from cerebral palsy "as a result of hospital personnel ignoring signs that she was in trouble in the womb..." That's what Edwards wanted the jury to believe. The implication is that the doctor should have delivered her earlier with a Caesarean operation. But if he had, she probably still would have developed cerebral palsy because the vast majority of cases has nothing to do with what a doctor or hospital does during delivery.

Marc Morano of CNS News cites evidence that Edwards relied on "junk science" in the cerebral palsy suits. Adam Liptak and Michael Moss of the New York Times put it somewhat differently, noting in a story last January that Edwards was accused "of relying on questionable science in his trial work." They noted that, in response to the legal judgments Edwards and other lawyers have won, doctors and hospitals are increasingly using fetal monitors to detect distress and resorting to Caesarean deliveries.

It can thus be argued that Edwards and other "Learjet lawyers" have been partly responsible for a dangerous increase in Caesarean deliveries. The dangers of this procedure, which is major abdominal surgery, include infertility and bladder injury for women. If he's truly for women's rights, as he claims, Edwards should be asked by the media whether his record of dubious lawsuits has put women in more danger.

Kerry's pick of Edwards as a running mate was truly shocking to those familiar with his record as a first-term North Carolina Senator with no chance of winning re-election.

Article is here.

I've selected one of many articles describing Mr. Edwards legal career and his reliance on what many would call 'junk science' to make his fortunes-- going into courtrooms with the intent to deceive.

"The superstar trial lawyer accomplishments of John Edwards, which allowed this former millworker to amass a personal fortune, finance his successful U.S. Senate run in 1998 and catapult himself into the 2004 race for president, may have been partially built on "junk science," according to legal and medical experts who spoke with CNSNews.com .

Edwards became one of America's wealthiest trial lawyers by winning record jury verdicts and settlements in cases alleging that the botched treatment of women in labor and their deliveries caused infants to develop cerebral palsy, a brain disorder that causes motor function impairment and lifelong disability.

Edwards has repeatedly told campaign audiences that he fought on behalf of the common man against the large insurance companies. But a political critic with extensive knowledge of Edwards' legal career in North Carolina told CNSNews.com a different story

"Edwards always helped the little guy as long as he got a million dollars out of it,"said the source, who did not want to be identified.

"The overwhelming majority of children that are born with developmental brain damage, the ob/gyn could not have done anything about it, could not have, not at this stage of what we know," Goldstein added.

But some of Edwards' critics say that as a trial lawyer, he relied more on his verbal skills than the latest scientific evidence to persuade juries that the doctors' mistakes had been instrumental in causing the cerebral palsy in the infants.

Edwards' trial summaries "routinely went beyond a recitation of his case to a heart-wrenching plea to jurors to listen to the unspoken voices of injured children," according to a comprehensive analysis of Edwards' legal career by The Boston Globe in 2003.

However, Olson believes trial lawyers "have been getting away with an awful lot in cerebral palsy litigation," by excluding certain scientific evidence.

"[Trial lawyers] have been cashing in on cases where the doctor's conduct probably did not make any difference at all -- cases where the child was doomed to this condition based on things that happened before they ever got to the delivery room," Olson said.

"Despite the almost complete absence of scientific basis for these [medical malpractice] claims, cerebral palsy cases remain enormously attractive to lawyers," Huber wrote.

...Edwards amass[ed] a personal fortune estimated at between $12.8 and $60 million. He and his wife own three homes, each worth more than $1 million, according to Edwards' Senate financial disclosure forms. Edwards' old law firm reportedly kept between 25 and 40 percent of the jury awards/settlements during the time he worked there. "

But the recent scientific studies may make those lawsuits "scientifically unfounded."
Olson explained. He contends that the medical malpractice suits that enabled Edwards and other trial lawyers to become rich and famous are crippling medical specialties like obstetrics, emergency room medicine and neurosurgery."

As many in NC will tell you, Edwards went into court knowing full well his case was based on junk science.

Read the whole article here.

John Edwards played footloose and fancy free with the truth here in North Carolina.

He had no problem misleading the courts and juries.

Imagine the field day he'd have in the government Disneyworld that is Washington DC- and misleading the American people.

I wonder if he'd like to debate that tonight.

Unlike a courtroom jury, Mr Cheney can respond.

From the..er..'outer edges' of scientific research

2004-10-04T22:45:00.000-05:00

No kidding.

These are for real. See for yourselves.

The Effect of Country Music on Suicide

Investigating the scientific validity of the Five-Second Rule about whether it's safe to eat food that's been dropped.

The Vatican, for outsourcing prayers to India

Herrings apparently communicate by farting.

Politicians' Uniquely Simple Personalities-- This one is interesting...

Karl Schwärzler and the nation of Liechtenstein, for making it possible to rent the entire country for corporate conventions, weddings, bar mitzvahs, and other gatherings.

As for why I eat a lot of chicken, the answer is now obvious: Chickens Prefer Beautiful Humans

Ever wonder what happened to that nerdy kid?

2004-10-04T22:17:00.000-05:00

Remember the nerdy kid in grade 5? You know, the strange kid that had strange sandwiches at lunch and was perefctly happy with the same compass and protractor, year after year? C'mon, you remember, the kid that absolutely no one- no one-- had any idea what he was talking about?

I think he did pretty good for himself. He's getting letters published in "New Scientist."

Renaming means chaos

Bob Holmes reports on proposals to replace our standard Linnaean system of classifying animals and plants with a new system called the PhyloCode (11 September, p 12). Advocates of this revolution - for that is what it is - claim names will be more stable, more precise in their meaning, and that the proposed abolition of ranks (genera, families, etc) will be helpful. They base their reasons for change on the charge that Linnaean taxonomy (founded well before evolutionary theory) is incapable of absorbing our changing ideas of genealogy.

Unfortunately, their proposals will probably lead to chaos. The PhyloCode small print reveals that a name may be formulated in one of several ways. Any user, such as a field biologist seeking to document our ever-decreasing biota, will have to know in what way.

Placing an organism into a PhyloCode system will require us to know its genealogical relationships, since this is how the names are formulated. Do we have time for this?

Also, names we now use can be commandeered to the PhyloCode, meaning that two systems will exist in parallel and sometimes in a hybridised form, so the same name could mean very different things. Finally, the idea that we drop the genus rank, and hence the binomial system (whereby every species has two parts to its name), would be universally disruptive and undermine the foundations of our current codes of nomenclature.

No one claims the current system is perfect. But it is flexible to the point of being usable by many, not just the few.

Peter Forey
Department of Palaeontology, Natural History Museum
London, UK

Obviously, he's doing well. Though I still don't know what the hell he's talking about.