A Long Road to Hoe

Despite my left leanings, or perhaps because of them, I wanted to make sure it is clear to all that I support the Iraqi people in their quest for stability, democracy, and peace. Even though I feel we could have gone about this process in a much more organized fashion from a position of power instead of one of intense controversy, we are nevertheless entrenched and we have to pray now for the best. This article, and in fact the whole site, gives a nice perspective into some of the hearts of the "man in the street" in Iraq. Good luck, brothers and sisters. We are truly in this together.

Belichick on Bush (Actually Brady)

"I think preparation has a lot to do with good decision making. That's one of the things we harp on from a team standpoint, and I think Tom [Brady] is a good example of it. The better prepared you are then the more likely you are to make the right decision, and make it quickly."

- Bill Belichick

Wise words, Bill. We've had a good amount of comments back and forth about the war in Iraq on this blog. I find that many times when I bring up the now refuted reasons for going to war some people either think it's old news and doesn't matter anymore or they actually try to defend them, as if they aren't false. Whether or not Bush outright lied is debatable - we'll never know his true intentions - but it's pretty clear he "mislead" us. Perhaps he was "misled" himself, but if he ever picked up a newspaper, read a book, or concerned himself with the details of his decisions (aka preparation) the state of the nation right now might be vastly different.

Free People, Not Free Markets

Hopefully the good people at Blasphemy Blog won't mind that I'm just lifting their post, but I thought this one was quite good.

This Day in History

August 22, 1866, President Andrew Johnson formally declared the Civil War over, months after the fighting had ended.

May 2003, President George W. Bush declares "major combat operations in Iraq have ended", years before an end is in sight. This article explains how Iraq is in a bitter state of civil war, and fewer and fewer people now believe that there is much of a chance for peace.

A. Bush's reasons for invading this country were contentious at best.
B. It has been painfully clear for a long time now that he has NO IDEA when or how the occupation could possibly end.
C. We are fighting a losing battle.

Like the failed and miserable "war on drugs" this war will NEVER succeed because it does not address core issues. Ostensibly, we invaded Iraq to bring stability to the Middle East - a naturally unstable place because of its inhabitants' varied religions and ethnicity, and their thousands-of-years old refusal to accept a contrary viewpoint about anything. Stability in the Middle East, to say the least, is a lofty goal. That is why we really needed to A. be sure as hell of what we were getting into, and B. get as much help and world-wide support as humanly possible. We did neither of those things.

The war on drugs is idiotic because you can't declare war on a noun. Countries declare war on other countries - that's the definition of war. Now we've declared war on another noun, terrorism, and there's no country on Earth - not Iraq, not Iran, not Saudi Arabia - that flies that flag. The war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on terror, any war on an abstract notion, is doomed to failure because war just isn't made for fighting concepts. It's made for fighting armies.

William S. Burroughs (a man who knows a thing or two about drugs) said 50 years ago that the way to get rid of drugs is to treat the addict in the street. After all this time we still haven't taken his advice. It's all about the root causes. Stop the demand and the supply will naturally stop with it. It's just common sense. Why didn't we take this route with Iraq? We knew about their inability to get along with each other, but we didn't prepare at all for it. The reason so many Middle Eastern countries end up being ruled by iron fisted dictators is that's been the only proven way to maintain stability. It's sad but true. I'm not saying Saddam was good for the country, but at least he kept control - look at the murder statistics in the article. We blindly opened Pandora's box without a thought as to how we would get it closed again. Our president used fear and the lives of those lost on 9/11 to charge like a child into a battlefield where history has shown there's little hope of emerging victorious.

Just Throwing This Out There...

How important is community? How important is country? How important is family? How important is lineage? How important is religion? To what level should one honor and serve these things? I don’t know the answers, and I’m sure it differs depending on who you ask, but I’m willing to put them in order of importance…

1. Family
2. Community
3. Country
4. Religion
5. Lineage

Many might disagree with my priorities, but there’s a method to the madness. Family is the most important because it has the most direct, immediate, and has the most lasting impact on who a person is. Chances are if your family is screwed up, you’re going to be too.

Community is number two because it has the second most powerful effect on our daily lives. I am using community in a pretty broad sense to mean the town or county we live in, our friends and neighbors, local politicians, etc. These are people we tend to know personally (except maybe for the local politicians – although we should know them).

Country is third because, depending on what country you’re from, you could go your entire life without having anything to do with the federal government (outside of taxes), without stepping foot in a federal building, without voting, without watching the national news, and still be a happy, well adjusted person – maybe even more so than if you were involved – but it is still relatively important to participate. Large governments could run amok without strict supervision.

Religion I put as fourth because I acknowledge the impact it has on many people’s lives and I acknowledge that it is often a positive part of community but I think if one’s personal faith in himself and what (s)he believes to be God is strong, then a powerful organized religion can actually be detrimental (this blends into my next point).

Lineage I put as last because, outside of curiosity, what does it really matter? The suffering that various peoples have had over the centuries is no trivial matter, to be sure, but the fact (or assumption) that we may be descended from one of those peoples does not mean we necessarily share their suffering. African Americans (and all those descended from the African slave trade) had their heritage stolen from them and that is absolutely tragic. I understand any “African” wanting to embrace African culture and trying to get a piece of that heritage back, but it will never erase the slave trade. It will never bring back their lost culture. As far as I’m concerned it’s the same with Jews. The physical land now called Israel has changed so much and has been conquered and/or desecrated by so many peoples, how can it be “theirs” anymore? Why does it need to be? I’m not necessarily suggesting the dissolution of Israel, I’m just saying that it’s better to make the most of what we do have than to focus on what we think we’re owed from generations past.

My general point is this: if we all focused on family, community and country, in that order, and focused less on religion and lineage, we might be able to make some serious progress as “children of the Earth”. Think what would happen if the Israelis and Palestinians decided they didn’t care about the holy land any more; if they realized that God is all around and inside each one of them, so why worry about any particular geographical location. What if all the theocracies in the Middle East were replaced with secular democracies? That’s what most Westerners want anyway, isn’t it? How could that be done? They’d have to move religion from #1 on the list to #4. Obviously they’re not going to do that, but it’s food for thought for those of us who are “proud as hell to be Irish” or foist our “Christian morals” on others. We shouldn’t be ashamed to be Irish or Christian by any means, but we shouldn’t be “proud” to the extreme either. Lineage and religion are parts of where we came from, but they’re not really a part of who we are as individuals. At least that’s my take. It’s an over simplification but, like I said in the heading, I’m just throwing it out there.

Easy Question

THE ONE WITH A BRAIN!!!!!
(Although it is a funny pic.)

The Elusive "Middle"

How many of us are extremists? By definition (number 3) it can't be many. So why does the majority of the informed public - those who supposedly comprise the "middle" - have such a hard time defining it? It's because in order to realize the middle of something, we have to know where its outer edges are. Makes sense.

But here's the trap: Those of us who engage in healthy political discourse tend to get caught up in labeling people to one extreme or the other. We need those outer boundaries to define where we fall into place, but when we talk about others we tend to greatly exaggerate where they fall.

So let's lay down a couple of specifics, and we'll try not to exaggerate. George Bush is an extremist in a few ways. As a social extremist, he abhors homosexuality to such a degree that he supports an amendment to the US Constitution to try and squash it. As a military extremist,evidenced through his actions, he sees the war on terror as black and white - no nuance or color at all. This is why it can never be won as it stands today. The United States cannot win this "war" alone. We cannot win it with England. We cannot win it with England and Australia. We cannot win it with England, Australia, and even Saudi Arabia. We cannot win it with France and Germany. We need to win it by winning over the entire middle east. The only way that to win over the entire middle east is to get the entire rest of the world to put enormous pressure on them. How can we unify the world in such a way if our leader goes around flicking people off and appointing extremists to important diplomatic posts and judgeships?

The sentiment that I am driving at is in order to come up with an agreement on what makes up the middle, we have to... come up with an agreement. We need consensus. Many presidents have made questionable moves over the course of our history and many have presided over a nation divided. But not since Lincoln and the civil war has the nation been this divided, and the world is feeling that delta. Something's got to give.

Kudos to the Bay State

I am proud to live in the first state to have legalized gay marriage. Hopefully our zany governor won't get the ruling reversed and there will be many happily married men and women across our great state.

I've known many, many homosexuals in my life. Many of my good friends are gay. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the gay lifestyle as a whole and people who think otherwise simply don't know enough gay people.

One problem I have come across in the gay community is many times long term commitments are ended because of some trivial matter - the couple gets into a fight or some such thing. I think the major reason for this is their relationship never felt 100% valid to them because so much of society deems it invalid. Hopefully this new found respect and equality for their relationships will foster a greater sense of commitment to each other.