Muslims vs. Jews (part one)

Until recently, I didn’t have a substantial appreciation for the complexity of the situation that exists in the Middle East with respect to the conflict between Arabs and Jews. Truth in fact, the conflict, as I’ve discovered, would be better characterized as Muslims versus Jews.

As I’ve trudged my way through “From Time Immemorial…”, I’ve learned some very important distinctions. First of all, many Israeli Jews are, in fact, Arab-born. Second, the so-called “refugee problem” in the area is attributable to the Diaspora as much as it is Palestinians displaced after Israeli statehood in 1948. Third, not only have Arab countries refused to aid the Palestinian refugees over the last 50 years, but they’ve contributed to the problem by both expelling Jews in their countries and using the plight of the Palestinians as a political lever to sustain the conflict between Islam and Zionism.

The Usual Suspects

Since 1948 and the establishment of the Jewish state (of Israel), hundreds of thousands of Arab-born Jews have been expelled from their homes and their countries, separated from their possessions and their heritage at the whim of the predominantly Islamic regimes. The numbers listed herein compare the estimated Jewish populations before 1948 with those as of the early 1980s. (Source: “From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine.”) I must admit that I had to take a moment to re-read this table several times to let the information sink in. The Jewish migration was literally orders of magnitude… The abatement of the Jews in these countries wasn’t an overnight phenomenon and not entirely due to emigration; a portion of the population attrition can be attributed to a number of pogroms.

Touted as one of the more “moderate” countries toward the Jews, Morocco currently has the most Jews of the listed Arab countries (18,000 as of 1982). In 1948, however, there were more than 265,000 Jews in Morocco. The second largest attrition of Jews was found in Algeria. Before 1948, the population was estimated between 130,000 and 140,000. By 1982, that number was between 300 and 400. Iraq went from approximately130,000 Jews to 200-300 in 35 years. Current estimates put the Jewish population in Iraq at about 20. In Egypt, the Jewish population was attrited from 75K to 250. Tunisia diminished its numbers from 105,000 to less than 4,000 (a liberal estimate). Libya has all but eradicated its Jewish community, reducing it from 38,000 to a paltry 15-20. These numbers don’t get any easier to follow, so let me simply summarize.

The total estimated number of Jews in Arab countries prior to 1948 was approximately 836,000. By 1982, that total was slashed to just over 29,000. Thirty-five years of Diaspora (Jewish emigration) and pogroms (massacres) have changed the face of the Middle East. Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Aden, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, and Libya have all contributed to the modern-day version of the Jewish Exodus. While not specifically mentioned, there are other Arab countries with culpability. In 1948, there were no Jews living in Jordan. In addition, Saudi Arabia cannot be charged with exiling or massacring Jews; they aren’t allowed into the country. There have been rare, notable exceptions, to include U.S. State Department officials who were granted access, but even foreign journalists have been denied visas due to their religious affiliations.

What’s the deal?

So, naturally the question arises, “Why is there such enmity between the Muslims and Jews?” Certainly, Islamic fundamentalists would cite passages from the qur`An (Koran) that specifically moralizes the persecution of the Jews. Furthermore, many Muslims point to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” as though it was a Jewish manifesto for world domination.

I believe most Muslims today would cite the Damascus blood libel of 1840. And while a number of authorities have exposed the blood libel for the fabrication that it was, some lore is impossible to excise from a culture. To this day, Syria is the harshest Arab country toward its Jewish population, denying them the right to leave their country…a fundamental human right recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

At this point in my education, I am of the opinion that the “cradle of civilization” hasn’t matured beyond puberty. You know what I’m talking about…the pubescent adolescent who is angry at everyone and everything. In a constant condition of the “world revolves around me”, their quasi-paranoid perceptions lead them to believe that “everyone is out to ruin their lives”. Their tenuous grip on reality is threatened by those who are stronger, smarter, and more emotionally stable. In defense, they shelter themselves, and attack anyone who might even resemble a threat to their fragile stability.

In an interview in 1977, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat acknowledged that “seventy percent of this Arab-Israeli conflict is a psychological problem – it has only thirty percent substance.” Not only do I agree with Sadat’s assessment, – albeit oversimplified – but I would take it a step further and assert that their progress as a civilization is impeded by the same challenges.

The hallmark of a civilized society is not the sophistication of its technology. The hallmark of a civilized society is higher-ordered thinking and behavior that reflects it.

Traditionalism vs. Secularism

Once again, I lay awake watching FNC and wondering what I’m doing on this planet. The topic for the moment on The O’Reilly Factor is, in effect, whether to return the country to Traditionalism or Secularism as a result of next year’s election. And once again, I have to ask… “Why does it have to be one or the other?” Polar opinions are starting to drive me crazy. I appreciate the value of presenting opposing opinions, but let’s dispense with the pretense that one of the two will be victorious. Ultimately, the Middle Way will prevail because nothing else will be effective.

Am I supposed to believe that by electing Bush that we’ll become a “traditionalist” country? I’m sure in some part that’s true, but it’s impossible to apply it universally. And why do you suppose that is? Because there is enough support for the opposing opinion to “reinstall” it in 4 to 8 years (or at least try).

When will we realize that the Middle Way is what we’re operating to and focus less on political affiliations and more on effecting the appropriate changes in our society?

Comment This!

I've added the commenting script to the blog so readers can simply add their responses directly attached to the blog. Just click Comments at the bottom of the blog. Enjoy!

Social Decay and the Middle Way

Are we regressing as a society to completely digital thinking? Must everything be black and white, right and wrong, good and evil? Zeros and ones?

When I look at the political landscape in this environment of impending presidential elections, I’m reminded that the country is fairly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans (red and blue, respectively). While they aren’t truly polar opposites on the political scale, the are certainly closer to the middle than other, more eccentric political groups. It is amazing, however, that we ever get anything accomplished.

So today, I hereby proclaim a new political ideology that I shall call the Middle Way. All right, so it’s not really a new ideology - I stole it from Buddhism - but it would be new to the majority of people in this country. It shall be based upon the simple precept that truth will only be found where our collective perspectives coincide.

It is commonly accepted that a compromise is a lose-lose proposition. When two parties compromise, they sacrifice their positions to meet a middle ground. We must first and foremost dispel this for the sake of the greater good. If we are going to ever accomplish anything we must stop clinging to our polar positions with pride. It is time to respect the views and opinions of our “opponents” and begin the journey to the Middle Way. The fastest flow of the river is in the middle…

Of course, we’ll need a slogan… Rome wasn’t built in a day and if there’s anything I’ve learned, it’s that cultural change is painstakingly slow. Members of the Middle Way answer the question “Is the glass half-empty or half-full?” by replying that “The glass is too big.” (Of course, I intend no offense to Buddhists, who might take a more philosophical approach.) So there it is: “The Middle Way...because the glass is too big.”

I know what you’re thinking… No, I’m not on drugs (unless my wife slipped something into my eggs this morning). It’s just that I’ve been worn down by divisive politics, divisive social commentary, and destructive criticism, in general. Has our myopia gotten so bad that it’s incurable? That we’ve become incapable of seeing the bigger picture?

I admit that 10 years ago I would have said, “Screw this! Why are we spending money to fix problems in foreign countries?” I was an isolationist, but largely because I couldn’t see the big picture. I lacked the perspective to realize that America, with one of the strongest economies in the world, had a significant impact on global economies and cultures. And the cultural impact is the one that has really hit home. As I learn about the perceptions of the billions of much less fortunate people in this world, I realize that we are a victim of our own success. “Corporate America”, while a distinctive group within our society, is axiomatic to a large part of the rest of the world. Consequently, we have fostered a sentiment of pathological jealousy that has risked our lives and the lives of others affiliated with us.

Let's take a common "big picture" issue that can seem to come to a satisfactory closure. How can we combat the simple economics of narcotic trafficking if we can’t offer an equitable alternative? The morality of it notwithstanding, (an issue I won’t begin to debate) the simple landscape of the situation reveals that if we destroy the cocaine, marijuana, and opium crops of Columbian farmers, we have effectively rendered them unemployed. And what do unemployed people do to feed and shelter their families? Anything they can…

Let’s take another simple example of foreign economics. Provide a country with tools and resources to instantiate twentieth century technology in their society and you’ve just created a new customer for services to support it. In addition, this customer can be served by the growing number of other global service providers. By creating a simple demand in a ‘burgeoning market’, you’ve substantiated the foundation of a global economy.

Want more “big picture”? Let’s talk about “trickle down economics”. It’s a term that was popular during the Reagan administration, but largely unpopular with the Middle Class. The oversimplified outline of this concept is based upon putting more money into the hands of the wealthiest so that they, in turn, will invest in the companies that employ the nation’s work force. By default, or so it seemed, the working Middle Class will then benefit from the company’s new-found cash reserves. Like many economic policies (communism, for example), it’s only flawed in its application. The key to making Reaganomics (as it was coined) work is the Labor Unions’ ability to squeeze those reserves out of the tight fists of company executives.

Now, while I’m at it, I’m going to return fire at those who find it necessary to vilify the “wealthiest 10%”. Let’s talk about the wealthy, shall we? In October 2001, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report that showed to be among the wealthiest 20% a household need only to report an annual income of $88,000. To make the Top 10 List, you merely have to make $122,300. Scrape up another $44,200 (to sum to $166,500) and you be among the elite Top 5 percent!

While we’re at it, let’s talk about tax liability. Household incomes totaling $50K or more shoulder the burden of 92.8% of the federal income tax burden (under 2000 law). Change that number to $100K and the number drops to 67.8%. When the truth falls out, household incomes summing more than $200K per year bear 45.2% of the tax burden.

How about this:

• 7.8% of the population are among the wealthiest Top 10 percent and bear the burden of 62.1% of the Individual Income Tax Liability.(under 2000 law)


• 15.4% of the population are among the wealthiest Top 20 percent and bear the burden of 75.0% of the Individual Income Tax Liability. (under 2000 law)

You know, if these people continue to cast epithets at those who aspire to be wealthier, then where is the social incentive? Isn’t that what we aspire to in this country? To be wealthier?

I’m not a Democrat or a Republican, by affiliation, but it is because I share the perspectives and views of both that I’m considered a Moderate…a member of the Middle Way.

Enough for now...

Parity in Discipline

The more I read Schechter, the more I realized that he (and others like him) are incapable of recognizing simple contradictions. Aside from the arguments about the pre-war planning and the lack of pre-war planning, there are more generic, global contradictions that are ignored.

As the reasons for the war were promulgated, there was constant push-back about the lack of parity being addressed. “So what if Iraq has WMD, so does Korea, Isreal, Pakistan, India, and other countries. Do you plan to invade them too?” This argument suggests that a consistent approach be taken with each “offending country” in violation of the non-proliferation treaty. While I agree to an extent, the issue that I have is that these are the same people arguing about how wrong the U.S. Attorney General was to suggest that courts not deviate from federal sentencing guidelines for criminals (i.e. consistent sentences for the same crimes). If you don’t want to apply it nationally, why would you want to apply it globally? This contradiction seems to go unnoticed.

For any given infraction of the law (nationally or internationally) there are a number of factors (both mitigating and aggravating) that guides the sentencing rationale of the presiding authority. Some criminals, for example, can be recognized as being beyond rehabilitation, remorse, or reconciliation. I am, of course speaking of both national and international criminals. Contrary to “popular belief” (a concept I abhor), all people are not the same. They may be ‘created equal’, but they are not ‘equally created’.

I don’t want to leave the impression that I support the application of universal consistency. Quite the contrary, it is completely appropriate to relate to friends and enemies with the temperament with which they deserve. Remember the first logical fallacy, “All things being equal”… I'm sorry, but my position is that Justice is only blind when she's sleeping. Equal treatment under the law is bereft of compassion and neglects the human condition. When Justice is no longer doled out by humans, THEN we'll have equal treatment under the law...and won't that be fun...

Guerrilla Warfare, Freedom Fighters, Insurgents, Terrorists, et al

The “raiding” that is being employed in Iraq has been a topic of criticism of late. Not by American media, ironically (or perhaps not), but by Iraqi citizens themselves. The operations being prosecuted in the Sunni Triangle are following a simple precept: Arabs are motivated by greed and humiliation. They are, by and large, emotional human beings whose spirit and drive swings quicker than the mood of a menstrual woman. When the armed forces got as much as they could through the appeal of easy money, they switched tactics. During recent events, where property was “disposed of”, it became a tactic that addressed BOTH greed and humiliation. Now, it is openly recognized that this tactic can either leave them feeling defeated or raise their ire to a fevered pitch. In either case, rational, calculated thought goes right out the window...and the resulting mistakes mean victory for the troops.

I can’t count how many times I have said that the administration's understanding of the culture of these people is feckless? This is a simple illustration of that, is it not? Even I can see that these actions have the potential to further bolster the indignity of the people. The problem is that while everyone screams that this is a terrible and awful way of prosecuting an operation, no one is coming to the table with an effective alternative.

But these “decent people” (as they’ve been deemed) are, by and large, simple-minded people of the same ilk regularly recruited to sacrifice their lives for the sake of honor. And while I'm chiefly referring to militants and terrorists, I contend it applies to members of the armed forces of any country. And while they are away from their families they do unspeakable things that even their closest family will never know.

To the defenders of those “decent people”, I say “Don't be naive.” Those people of Tikrit are just as capable as anyone of being the next suicide bomber that kills tens, hundreds, or thousands of people. In fact, they represent the typical profile. Under-privileged. Uneducated. Disenfranchised. Suffering from poverty of dignity. Moreover, the Arab terrorist is pathologically jealous. Internally they feel unredeemable, except through acts of self-sacrifice.

I'm sick of hearing the expression "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It's bullshit and blurs the line of what little morality there may be in open, armed conflict (a.k.a. WAR). While I don't support the guerillas in the article below, I don't classify them as terrorists. They clearly target military forces and not civilians. Make no mistake, however, they are combatants and, as such, are not protected as civilians under the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, if coalition forces are raiding homes of engineers, wholesalers, and retired generals, then by Jove, they're on the right track.

This is war. It isn't over. No one said it was over. Bush said there was an end to major combat operations (defined as company-sized (or greater) conflicts between opposing forces). That's not an end to the war. You can look for two indicators for the war to be over; the release of all prisoners of war and the replacement of the occupying force with a peacekeeping force. Those things will define the war's end regardless of the return of Iraqi sovereignty. No, I contend that the condition that exists in Iraq is akin to Martial Law, and by definition certain civil liberties are superceded until common law is in force. And they haven’t earned that right, yet.

(Take note of the surprise of the family at the admission of complicity by one of the people being interviewed. How could they not know?)
AP: Iraqis Say Saddam Not Leading Attacks

Book Review

To say that Embeds: Weapons of Mass Deception was a big disappointment would be dramatically understating the truth. Filled largely with unsubstantiated opinions and redundancy, I found it very difficult to glean anything of value from the 250+ pages. When statistics and independent evidence were used, it was spun so poorly that I had difficulty keeping my mind from wandering.

The substance of the book was centered around the role the media played in the days leading up to, during, and following the recent war in Iraq. It addresses political motivations of the media, journalistic integrities, and the biased and unobjective reporting that was done. It sharply criticizes the American media for not only supporting the war, but implies that it promoted it as well.

While I respect the fact that Mr. Schechter has/had an alternate viewpoint to convey, he did so in a way that turned me, the reader, off. Since I did give it one mark (out of five), it would be appropriate to list its merits.

• I learned that liberals tend to rely on the credentials of a speaker to substantiate their statements.


• I learned that I wasn’t the only one “displeased” with the media coverage of the war.


• I learned that even people who have been high-level executives in their respective industries can still miss the bigger picture while nit-picking at the details.

I, personally, take great exception to the first bullet on two accounts. First, it implies that people with impressive credentials don’t make stupid statements (and/or are infallible). We don’t have to look too far to invalidate this assumption. Second, it further implies that ordinary people are incapable of profundity. Forget about how a patent clerk changed the world, some MENSA members are truck drivers. NEVER, EVER, EVER confuse ambition with intellect. Success (ergo impressive credentials) is a product of dedication and perseverance, not necessarily genius.

"Press on: nothing in the world can take the place of perseverance. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent." – Calvin Coolidge

The second bullet is a stretch... I needed to come up with three things...

The third bullet troubles me deeply. While I respect the need to address the finer points, it seems invalid without the context of the broader perspective. Schechter, in fact, alludes to this (by criticizing the narrow views of the embedded journalists) without thinking of applying it to himself. Never mind that I found much of his content to be factually incorrect and/or incomplete.

Admittedly, I was emotionally stirred by this book (although not in the vein that Schechter was hoping for). As I read through it, I found myself writing responses to incomplete/myopic/incorrect passages in his book. I stopped by page 134, drained and exhausted. Typed, my responses fill nine pages. I'm open to sharing them, but you probably won't find them particularly lucid; my grasp of the English language suffers as my emotional state heightens.

This book took me far too long to read. Many passages within were repeated verbatim. The themes, quotes, and evidence were recycled more than aluminum cans. It was, by far, the biggest “plate of cooked spinach” I’ve ever had. And like large quantities of spinach, Schechter’s book “fills me with the urge to defecate”.
{Sidebar:I have $20 for the first person who can identify the song and artist of that lyric.}

Simple Economics

In this welfare state, the simple economics of the flow of money is not plainly explained. The consequence of this is a level of ignorance for the motives of our political/governmental leaders and their initiatives. I do believe that a substantial portion of our nation’s citizens do grasp the basic tenets of the system, but as I listen to the debate over the $87B allotted for Iraqi reconstruction, I’m increasingly less encouraged. So let me see if I can boil this solution down to the basic elements.

There are a couple notable populations I feel we need to recognize for the context of this discussion. First are the average citizens who work in the private sector. These are taxpayers who work for companies/corporations who aren’t directly contracted by any branch of the federal/state/local government to perform work. Their income levels vary from the highest to the lowest. Next are the people who work for government contractors. Often referred to as “welfare for the middle-class”, employees of these companies provide products and services directly to government agencies through contracts. Finally, there are the “civil servants”, people employed directly by government agencies. For everyone’s edification, military members fall into this category.

The impact the government has on the economy should start to become apparent. Conceptually, at least at this point, it represents half of the economy’s contribution. Government contractors typically sustain their longevity with commercial contracts, as well. The fickle nature of politics and government funding makes the formation of companies who rely solely on government contracts a risky endeavor.

Now that we’ve identified the players, let’s talk about the game. The interesting thing about this next step is that it’s fairly universal. The objective is simple really; circulate the cash. That’s all we do, from an economic standpoint. We circulate cash. To make this easier to understand, though, we’ll start with a private sector scenario. The consumer (from any one of the aforementioned groups) buys a product or service. That cash is taken by the seller, divided and redistributed. It is mostly divided between the employees of the company and the government. Of course, the employees divide that between the government and another variety of sellers…and the cycle begins again.

In the last example, the government had their hand in everybody’s pocket. Since they represent half of the economic equation, it shouldn’t be too surprising. This is how the government “earns” money to pay for its employees (whom they also tax) and purchase its goods and services through private contractors (or directly). For every transaction, the government continues to take its cut. Effectively, any product or service that the government purchases, it gets a discount at a rate equivalent to the prevailing tax rates. Should it be a surprise that government contractors hike up their prices on government contracts? The irony is that government employees, per se, are paid much less than their counterparts in the private sector.

Taxes, taxes, taxes. When a company sells a product to a consumer, the government collects a sales tax. When one company makes a profit from investing in another company, the government collects a capital gains tax (also applies to individual investments). Then there are less logical taxes, such as the death tax and the marriage penalty. Under closer scrutiny, one might conclude that the government collects the death tax to claim the last of a citizen’s contribution to the economy. Following that logic, you might conclude that population growth is key to sustaining the economy. More people translates to a higher demand for products and services, ergo, more potential tax revenues. This logic would further explain the “marriage penalty”. Essentially, married couples without children bear a higher income tax burden than those with children. Democrats would lead you to believe that it’s because families with children need that extra money that would otherwise be used for taxes. The Republicans might argue that the marriage penalty (as it is referred to) recognizes that couples without children aren’t contributing fully to the growth of the economy (by not adding to the demand for goods and services associated with rearing children). Therefore, the government will get their money through greater tax burdens.

As hard as many would like to make it, this isn’t rocket science (as a rocket scientist, I can vouch for this). Admittedly, there are a couple of complicating factors, but put in the context of the “circulating cash paradigm”, it’s really quite uncomplicated…

What is the impact of personal credit? It circulates more cash into the economic system…that is until the debt is repaid. Take a country who is deep in recession and I’ll bet you’ll find that the average debt burden per capita has been significantly reduced over recent years.

The national debt, however, is a little more complicated. Less tax revenue or over-spending can both contribute to the national debt. Budget deficits, however, circulate more money into the private sector, increasing personal incomes, establishing new levels of living, and thereby, creating the potential for more personal debt.

Until recently, I was not a proponent for foreign aid as a government policy. What I’ve come to realize, however, is that foreign aid begins the cash circulation paradigm with other countries. Give Israel, for example, $54 million dollars in loans to spend on U.S. military contracts. The after-effect is the need to sustain a new demand (e.g. spare parts, upgrades, follow-on orders, etc.), thereby decreasing the international trade deficit and infusing other countries’ monies into our own. Supply African countries on the cusp of modern technology with computers, and they’ll eventually reach the same stage all of us have…constant sustainment of equipment, software, and upgrades. The most effective business model that was adopted from the government by the private sector was to freely distribute its product, get the consumer hooked (thereby establishing a demand), and then charge for the upgrades and accessory products. It’s how Microsoft, Netscape, AOL, and many others became the corporate giants they are today. (They, of course, sustain their success by regularly introducing innovation into the market.)

The capitalistic nature of this country has inspired me to have some more controversial ideas about how our government operates. Opponents to euthanasia, I contend, might actually be more concerned about the impacts to the economy than the moral ramifications. I’d apply the same to capital punishment and laws against suicide. Your life is not your own, it belongs to the economy. Of course, that’s an extremely unqualified generalization, but I can’t help but feel that there’s a grain of truth out there. Cynics have asserted for years that many of the world’s major diseases are far to profitable to cure. A diabetic without health insurance can easily spend $400 per month in supplies needed to manage his or her disease. Multiply that by the millions of diabetics worldwide…

As insane as it may sound, there is balance in the world. Think about the real tumult a world at peace would foster. As Iraqis would be quick to point out, with a 65% unemployment rate, to which they greatly attribute the dissolution of the military, “peace” has brought violence, corruption, and real danger. …I know…that’s a dramatic oversimplification, but look for the grain of truth in it.

Politics

"Politics is the pursuit of trivial men who, when they succeed at it, become important in the eyes of more trivial men." --George Jean Nathan (1882 - 1958)

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." –Plato

"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." --Also by Plato

"The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'." --Larry Hardiman

"In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant." - Charles de Gaulle

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." -- Vladimir Lenin

---

Liberty and Freedom

"Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it." --Malcolm X

"...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky

---

Citizenship

"Too many people are only willing to to defend rights that are personally important to them. It's selfish ignorance, and it's exactly why totalitarian governments are able to get away with trampling on people. Freedom does not mean freedom just for the things *I* think I should be able to do. Freedom is for all of us. If people will not speak up for other's people's rights, there will come a day when they will lose their own." - Tony Lawrence

"He that will not reason is a bigot, He that cannot reason is a fool, He that dares not reason is a slave." - William Drummond

"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first." --Mark Twain

"In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." -- Martin Niemoller

"There are seven sins in the world: Wealth without work, Pleasure without conscience, Knowledge without character, Commerce without morality, Science without humanity, Worship without sacrifice and politics without principle." --Mahatma Gandhi

More and More Spinach

One of the things that I have extolled the most is the value of perspective. To me, it requires being secure enough with oneself to consider alternative viewpoints, even if they tend to contradict preconceived (or established) judgments. Having said that, I turned on PBS tonight to witness the rebroadcast of the Democratic Presidential Candidate debate. A panel of three posed questions to the nine (9) candidates currently running for the Democratic Presidential Candidacy. The audience was comprised of the Congressional Black Caucus in Detroit, Michigan.

I thought that I was going to have the opportunity to learn more about the potential candidates. I thought that I was going to gain some insight as to who the eventual winner would be, competing with President Bush in 2004. To my distaste, it was another plate of cooked spinach. I would suffer through about seven or eight minutes before I had to change the channel for a moment. What I learned is that I sure as hell don't want to pay for the pipe dreams that these nimrods are selling! But before I summarize the candidates, I have to express my total disgust at the moderators and authors of the questions presented. It was readily apparent that "hard-hitting journalism" has evolved into epithets in the form of an interrogative. To say that I was appalled understates the physical reaction that was taking place in my stomach. I never supported Political Correctness because it went too far to protect the delicate sensibilities of others, but this effrontery went too far in the other direction. Why is it so hard to find a happy medium, people?

Riverbend, I have a 9-man (read human, as usual) puppet show that rivals yours! (Reference to the Iraqi Governing Council/CPA) You don't have anything on this motley crew! We have drama, fantasy, and delusions of grandeur. We have provocateurs, panderers, circus performers, and ringmasters. At any rate, here's what I took away from the "debate". It's not thoughtfully substantial, just my impression, so take it as a grain of salt...rock salt, that is.

Kucinich: I have no idea where this guy comes from, but the ideas that come out of is mouth are Utopian. What world is he living in that he thinks that a Department of Peace will change the face of this country and the rest of the world? Hey, I respect the work of Martin Luther King, but those days are long gone. It's a different culture, a different society, and these people have different needs. Developing a new bureaucratic system (he proposed a cabinet level department of the Executive Branch, akin to the State Dept. or Department of Interior) to try to affect cultural change in this country has no chance of succeeding, even if you could find a way to measure its success. This man has so many fantasies, he ought to work for Disney. He doesn't project the image of a leader, and in my opinion, would undermine our diplomatic position in foreign affairs. He is the antithesis of Bush; be careful what you wish for.

Kerry: A Senator from Massachusetts, (Didn't I see him on Cheers once?) he extolled the virtues of the Clinton domestic agenda. If I wanted CLINTON back, I'd vote for his wife! One of the few who actually feigned intelligence, Kerry took a familiar approach with his attack of the "top 1%" wealthiest Americans. People, stop already. The wealthiest 10% earn $85K per year; the richest 5% earn $150K per year; the top 1% make just over $265K per year. (My numbers are about 3 years old, but we're still within the realm of reason. Oh, by the way, the top 1%, for whom everyone has so much disdain, shoulders 30% of this nation's tax burden...You're welcome.

Dick Gephardt: So, Kerry isn't alone on the "Clinton Economics" train; he has Dick riding shotgun. I used to think that this guy was a serious contender. His charisma on the House floor was really unmatched. What I discovered tonight was that he spoke loudly but had no substance to speak of. Danny Schechter, whom I'm roasting on another spit, coined the word "jingoism" in his book. Well, Gephardt was full of them. His political assaults on Bush were little more than schoolyard chants that are more irritating than anything....and I quote: "Like father, like son; after four years, this president is done." Who is he pandering to? I mean really? What audience finds that inspiring? I want to know so that I can either avoid them like SARS or take them out back and facilitate some "arbor education".

Joe Lieberman: The self-proclaimed "Independent in a Democrat's body" is a man look for a Party. I didn't understand half of the answers to the questions he was asked. To my fault, I was expecting him to answer the question. It was a moment of weakness... of late night television... yeah, that's it. This guy doesn't stand a chance. He sure as hell doesn't understand the Middle East. "A peaceful Israel right next to a peaceful Palestine..." It'll never happen, my friend. Tell them, Riverbend... What's the first phrase out of a Palestinian baby's mouth? From the River to the Sea!

Carol Braun: My impression is that she's in it for the experience and to benefit the image of the Democratic Party. As the former ambassador to New Zealand, don't expect any ground-breaking foreign policy out of her. She'll learn from this and try it again a couple of more times. In twenty years, it's quite possible that this country will be disposed to elect her or someone like her.

Howard Dean: The only other candidate who abandoned the circus performance and gave the appearance of a thoughtful person. While it is my best bet that he'll end up winning the nomination, I don't think he'll mount a significant challenge to Bush. In the hour that I watched the debate, if you want to call it that, I found myself saying "I'm not paying for that" at least twice for him. (More often for others.) The one thing about Dean is that he's very principled. Unfortunately, that implies that he's unyielding and uncooperative (stubborn, really) in matters where he's already made up his mind. Politicians aren't supposed to have principles; they reflect the whim and will of the people they represent. After watching Carl Levin in a Budget Hearing recently, this became quite apparent. Don't blame the politicians for being bafoons; if they're doing their job right, you should blame their constituents.

General Clark: In order to become a general in the armed services, you have to be appointed by Congress. That would imply that you have to have some political acumen to rise to that position. While retired General Wesley Clark does, in fact, have some acumen, he won't last long with many moderates in this country by dodging the details of his foreign and domestic plans. To say that he danced would be understated, but it was less like Fred Astaire and more like "Elaine" on Seinfeld; spasmodic describes it best. The guy just doesn't know if he's coming or going.

John Edwards: You know, it's late, and I should be going to bed, so all I'll say about Edwards is this... No more confederate southerners, please!

Al Sharpton: The thing about Al that concerns me the most is that he has the capacity to exhort a large enough population, especially in the urban areas, to be dangerous. He's far and away the most charismatic and his dancing is very smooth. If you're smart enough to lift the veil, you won't find much substance to this provocateur, but his run for President will garner him a lot of political power, which he can either wield or yield for the right price. For certain, he will be able to pave the way (much like Carol) for those who would follow in his footsteps in future elections. Beware of this character... He is the Ross Perot of the poor folk...

Good night...

Freedom of Speech: Part One

Having suffered through two-thirds of Danny Schechter’s book, Embed: Weapons of Mass Deception, I am reminded of one of Mark Twain’s pearls of prose: “In our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either.”

One might argue that my critical assessment of Mr. Schechter’s work is premature, given that I haven’t finished “consuming” it. I’m sorry, but my gag-reflex can really only handle 20 pages at time. Much like cooked spinach, it’s going down, but very slowly. All I can say is that the “Great Dissector” has it coming…

As I began reading the book, I thought his premise would be founded upon Hansell Duckett’s sentiment when he said, “What this country needs is more free speech…worth listening to”. But after my first “gag”, I was left with the impression that this is a man who was ‘excluded from the party’ and is rancorously pissed about it. So, here’s part of my “dissection” of his perspective…

"He is always the severest censor of the merit of others who has the least worth of his own." -- Elias Lyman Maggon

Pearls of wisdom that I would offer to Mr. Schechter as I attempt to heed them myself…

PARITY

One of the characteristics of the media that has turned me off over the years (which has compelled me to turn them off) is the lack of parity. It’s a deficiency that Schechter alludes to in his book, but not in the manner I would have hoped. While I agree with him that the media did not take an objective approach to the war in Iraq, that’s where it ends. His complaint seems to be less about the objectivity and more about how the media has “swung to the right”. Largely known as a liberal organization over the years for their self-appointed role as government watchdog and champion of human interests, it seems that the prevailing focus has swung more toward commercial interests. Consequently, he asserts that the journalistic integrity has been sacrificed at the alter of politics and commercialism. I agree, but that’s not the problem, Danny-boy. The problem is that you still associate the media with journalism.

Members of the media (whom I’m loathe to refer to as journalists) have forgotten what their role truly is; they are living witnesses to history. Furthermore, they fail to acknowledge (or let anyone else acknowledge) their shortcomings in this capacity. Any law enforcement official in this country will tell you that given a room full of witnesses to a crime, there will be a room full of different accounts to it. Why? Because we all bring our own perspective to the same world. There is no single truth, only perspectives that coincide from time to time… As I read his pompous outpourings over the criticism the media and its constituents received from our government, I wondered where the parity was. What gives them the exclusive right to criticize the government with impunity? Are they really beyond reproach? Are you, Peter Arnett? Are you, Geraldo Rivera? Are you beyond reproach because you wave the banner of the First Amendment? Just out of curiosity, would you be as self-important if it had been the 10th Amendment?

I think what bothers me the most is that our media is the face that other countries believe reflects our society. That deeply concerns me, just as it should concern many of the world’s 1.3 billion Arabs that Al-Jazeera reflects their culture. …but that’s another rant.

In his book, Schechter makes fun of Donald Rumsfield and the manner in which he “takes down journalists”. He cited a news conference where a reporter interrupted Rumsfield’s response with a follow-up and was “shushed” like a father quiets a child. Apparently, not only are reporters beyond reproach, they are also above polite manners and common courtesies. Little did Rumsfield know that the reporter was wearing a button on his lapel that said, “Please don’t talk when I’m interrupting. It’s rude!” (Just kidding, folks.)

HONOR BEFORE LOYALTY

A thoughtful discussion (which I found wanting in the book) that I would have enjoyed is the dichotomy between honor and loyalty in the context of journalism during wartime. How do you balance the loyalty to your country and countrymen with what you believe to be “the right thing”? Personally, I am of the mind that honor always comes before loyalty. Journalists, however, are faced with a real challenge of staying true to themselves (as they are defined by their journalistic integrity) while striving to protect the country that has granted them the freedom to do so. Here’s where I would use Peter Arnett as a good centerpiece for the debate. My position is that, while Peter may have been satisfying his journalistic integrity (and I use that loosely), he lost his balance. He was fired for his disloyalty, not his principles (or adherence to them).

Independent reporters present a different challenge insomuch that they are often not affiliated with a country (by way of a media organization). They, however, simply lack the balance between their ears. Driven by who-knows-what (pride, perhaps), they put themselves in harm’s way in an effort to “scoop the story”. Schechter mentions four such journalists in Iraq who were arrested and detained by military forces. While they are ostensibly non-combatants, they have the capacity to draw imminent danger to those around them. How many of us have seen a news crew on the side of the road and wanted to stop to see what was going on? Why? Go home and watch it. The mentality in the back of our minds, though, is to solve the mystery immediately. Still not convinced? During the 1990’s the media visiting Iraq were very closely scrutinized for fear that they were CIA officers collecting intelligence under the cover of journalism. During the recent war, each correspondent was paired with a “minder” that accompanied them to all “newsworthy locations”, monitored the questions they asked, and reported back to the Ministry of Information on a daily basis. Why was the Ministry of Information bombed? The government claims “command and control” operations were being conducted within it. Qadm, the liaison between the Ministry and foreign correspondents was, in-fact, an Iraqi intelligence officer. And how might we know that? It could be that we DID have CIA operatives posing as journalists (or among the “human shields”). So, who’s to say what the allegiance was of the four independent journalists in southern Iraq? At least we KNEW that the embedded journalists weren’t betraying us…Then again, that’s open for debate, isn’t it…

Peripheral to this discussion, I would have liked to see Schechter objectively address the nature of propaganda. In the balance between honor and loyalty, there is a subplot that addresses war propaganda for and against us. (I think it’s fortunate for our media that it’s not considered a military function by the Geneva Conventions.) Critical of our media for being a propaganda machine for the Pentagon and Bush administration (which I won’t contest), Schechter fails to recognize that the stories he longed to hear/tell about (e.g. Iraqi civilian casualties, the inefficacy of PSYOPs, changes to the “war plan”, imprecise “smart bombs”, etc.) were clearly tools of propaganda for the Iraqi regime and its supporters. Personally, I don’t think it’s any wiser to tell both stories (arm both combatants equally) than it is to choose either side (in the case of journalism). Stay the fuck out of it altogether, is what I’d prefer they did. The last thing our military machine needs is 200 million micro-managers, inspired by these emotional instigators, weighing in their public opinion. The chance for them to do that was in the beginning, before the war began, and they did…we did. As a military veteran, my position is, “sit-down, shut-up, and let me do my job”.

As I rant on, I find my disdain is surfacing more plainly. So, as long as I’ve long since departed from the “high road”, let me close with this. My grandfather used to tell me a joke that I haven’t truly felt the gravity of until recently. It’s decidedly controversial and I’ve modified it to serve my point here…it’s just as poignant nonetheless. Without further ado, I’d like to recommend the world’s three shortest books (in addition to the ones at the right):

• Who’s Who from Texas A&M


• Arab Heroes of the 6-day War


• Ethics in Journalism in the 20th century and beyond…

Stay tuned…

Book Reviews

The War over Iraq explains how we (Americans) have arrived to this point in history, detailing the chain of events, motivations, and policies of past Presidential administrations dating back to Reagan (with a couple of references to Truman). If you thought you knew why we went to war in Iraq in 1991 or again in 2003, then think again. I found this book both compelling and enlightening and I didn't put it down until I finished it.

The author does a very good job of presenting the facts surrounding the chain of events without excessive editorializing until the last 20 pages or so. My head swelled with the knowledge that I gained (without his opinions) and served to significantly broaden my view of foreign political landscape. It also helped me more succinctly define my own philosophies toward foreign policy.

My words don't do this book justice. I can't imagine ever having an intelligent conversation about our reasons for those wars without the information presented in this book. My enthusiasm abounds... That's the best way I can put it.

---

Losing Bin Laden is a book that chronicles the blunders and miscues of our federal government and its leaders. For those who are still novices about the worlwide terrorist organizations (or completely ignorant), this book will quickly bring you up to speed. It goes back as far as bin Laden's flight from Saudi Arabia, after having been put under house arrest by the Saudi government for his associations with radical Islamic extremists. It goes on to chronicle his fight against the Soviets alongside the Mujahideen and his five "protected" years in Sudan.

More enlightening, however, was how the U.S. State Department, FBI, CIA, and other organizations (including the President, himself) ignored the signs or took the stance of "passive resistance". More specifically, foreign policy was (in my opinion) centered around political expedience and self-serving motivations. While much of the blame for "Porsche 911" has been blamed on the lack of inter-agency cooperation (and by blame, I'm referring to the prevention of the occurrence), the "buck stops here" (i.e. the President) and too often no action was taken. Even after the FBI informed the White House that the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was the work of a terrorist organization (which is easily traced by associations back to Osama bin Laden), there is was a clear denial by the White House to accept these facts and report them as such.

The one take-away point that I would attribute to this book? As I closed the last page, I heard the words "that self-serving son of a bitch" escape my lips...

---

Terrorist Hunter is a must buy, gotta have it, super stocker! I am effusive about this book and am not shy about it! It complements the first two books in this review, but goes a step beyond and adds drama, intrigue, and suspense! A Jewish family, born in al-Basra in Iraq, found themselves suddenly persecuted after Saddam's rise to power. Anyone who knows anything about the biography of Saddam Hussein is familiar with the incident where he publicly hung 14 Iraqi suspected of spying, 9 of which were Iraqi Jews (or was it 8...I can't remember for certain). At any rate, the author (who remains anonymous) was a young girl during that period of time and was force to flee Iraq with her family to Israel. There, she grew up, went to school, served in the military, and started a family. Still a leftist, with proclivities to support the establishment of the Palestinian state, she nonetheless, prospered as a Jew in an Israeli coastal town. After her third son, she moved to the United States where she became an employee of a Middle East research institute.

Here's where the story really begins to explode. Through exhaustive research, she began to uncover the roots and origins of religious leaders and charitable organizations operating fronts for terrorists in the United States. To dig deeper into their operations, she posed as an Iraqi Muslim woman, attending conventions and rallies in major metropolitan areas across this country (e.g. Chicago, San Francisco, etc.). One of the most astounding discoveries, in my opinion, was the charitable front in Tucson, Arizona, that was the first and central organization in the U.S. that funded al-Qaida.

The most astounding element of the story and her endeavors was that much of the information was found in the public domain. You or I or anyone else could have discovered (or in this case, verified) the information by simply rooting around through various public domain documents, such as articles of incorporation and federal tax declarations (required for charities). This is a first-rate example of where the bureaucracy of our system actually benefited us citizens.

As I finished this book, I was left with two very poignant realizations. First, the freedoms that we enjoy are enjoyed by all...and I mean ALL ...who come here. Secondly, we, as American citizens, by-in-large don't have the simplest grasp of the magnitude of the foe we are facing. As I read it, images of John Gotti and Al Capone flashed in my head, because the magnitude of the "system" that has been put in place (with regard to the terrorist organizations) is akin to organized crime on a global scale. It was both the most compelling and alarming book (of nonfiction) that I have ever read.

A matter of evidence…

I think the time has come where we all need to stop pissing and moaning about evidence. I think it’s time to accept the circumstances of the situation and go from there. I’m sick of hearing about how the evidence linking Saddam to the attacks of 9/11 is flimsy or non-existent. That should never have been used as a motivating factor for our military action, in the first place. Pundits argue that there was no logical connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda, citing Saddam’s stifling of fundamentalist movements and Osama bin Laden’s ire for secular Arab leaders. The flaw in this analysis is in its lack of application of human nature and lessons from history. We, the U.S., have consistently demonstrated throughout history that we will ally with the enemy of our enemies: the Russians in World War II, Fidel Castro and the Cuban revolution, Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War, the list goes on. There are countless lessons from history that suggests that virtually any other foreign leader would/will do the same. Granted, we have a tendency to be less discriminating about whom we choose as “friends”, but mistakes will happen. The point is that what you characterize as “serious” evidence is subjective. If I see a trail of associations to those responsible, then, to me, the guilt is self-evident. In proverbial terms, we refer to it as “birds of a feather flock together”. Would I blame Saddam Hussein directly for 9/11? No. Do I think he had some peripheral contribution? Yes. Do I feel the need for such evidence to justify kicking his ass? Not only no, but hell no.

We are traveling down a very dark road with the beacon of self-righteousness leading our way. “American internationalism”, our newest foreign policy, asserts that democracy is the way to global peace. In all fairness, there is compelling evidence that supports it. The risks we accept, however, are the consequences of our arrogance. By asserting our preeminence, we draw enmity from a great many in this world. As a leader, it’s a tough decision. But ask any corporate leader in this country and they’ll tell you their truths:

1) Leadership is more about “responsibility” than “ability”. For every decision there is a natural consequence and as a leader you have to accept them and press on. That’s the responsibility of our leaders.

2) Leadership requires very tough decisions that are often unpopular. The luxury that most leaders have is the benefit of the broader perspective, often referred to as “the big picture”. That picture defines their vision of the past, present, and future. Invariably, any given decision will have opposing viewpoints. As a leader, it’s necessary to consider those views and press on.

3) Vision is a hard thing to verbalize. It’s often lonely at the top because of the benefit of the bigger picture and the inability to effectively communicate it. One of the biggest challenges leaders face is leading itself, motivating others toward a common goal, driven by a common vision. Articulating that vision is the first and most difficult step.

4) Leadership requires the right blend of lieutenants. Without the first rank of subordinates both sharing the vision and offering disparate viewpoints, the leader’s foundation is unstable. Bill Gates was once noted as saying that he’s “not that smart”, he “just surrounds himself with smart people”. His business ethics notwithstanding, he is arguably one of the greatest business leaders today

The path that President Bush has embarked upon is a difficult one, whether I agree with it or not. Is it right? I can’t answer that. In my opinion, it’s neither right nor wrong. If asked, I would say the same about Pentecostals, Evangelicals, Mormons, Southern Baptists, and any other religion that aggressively purports that theirs is singularly principled. Are there benefits? I strongly argue, yes, there is. I believe that almost anyone would agree with that. That’s not where the argument lies, though, is it. It lies in how well we can accept the consequences and some people are less apt than others.

Believe it or not, this philosophical foray was actually leading somewhere. The argument has been made that the foreign policy practices of containment and deterrence would have kept Saddam Hussein in check, indefinitely. After all, so the story goes, it worked so well with the Soviet Union that we ultimately prevailed. Like an international staring contest, they went blind from not blinking. But to correlate Cold War containment with Saddam Hussein ignores the details of the circumstances. Cold War containment worked because the two principals involved were levelheaded and unwilling to risk the devastation of their country or countrymen. Saddam has demonstrated otherwise. Pundits further contend that even in the event that Saddam did acquire a nuclear capability, he would be deterred by the other nuclear weapon-wielding nations of the world. They contend that the prospect of a retaliatory strike would prevent him from initiating one. This is where the so-called experts have miscalculated their subject. Saddam Hussein, by his own admission, is an anti-Semite with pan-Arab ambitions. His two personal idols include Joseph Stalin (who killed millions of his own countrymen) and Egyptian President Nasser (who publicly stated that “the problem with Israel is that it exists”). Experts further miscalculate their enemy; fundamentalist Islamic leaders have consistently said that their religion sanctifies death as much as the Zionists sanctify life. Nothing would deter Saddam Hussein, a megalomaniac by all accounts, from martyring himself and his people if it meant the total annihilation of Israel. He would consider it a personal and pan-Arab coup of historic proportions. Until such time, he will do everything he can to bend the rules to further his cause.

The other exception I take to the argument of containment and deterrence is with the U.S. response. If a retaliatory nuclear strike is going to take place, it must occur swiftly and decisively. Not a matter of weeks or days, but a matter of hours or minutes. In this day and age, the political fallout both nationally and internationally is far greater than any president in recent history (in my opinion) has the intestinal fortitude to risk. We elect leaders to make tough decisions, but each one accepts their post with a prayer on their lips that they may never have to exercise all of the power with which they’ve been endowed.

And what IF Saddam sells off a nuclear weapon to the highest anti-Semitic bidder? How do we retaliate against a nation-less entity, like al-Qaeda, al-Ansar al-Islam, or Abu Sayyef? I can hear the news stories now… “Why didn’t we do more to stop this? What more could we have done to prevent this from happening?” I’m not an expert in foreign policy or diplomatic relations, but I believe the logical argument suggests that anything less than pre-emptive military intervention increases the risk (the probability of occurrence, in this case). And the natural consequence of this very difficult course of action is a different kind of political fallout. Are there benefits? Yes. What is the list of consequences and which are we willing to accept? This is Risk Management 101. You implement mitigation actions to reduce the probability or consequence of occurrence for any given risk. For every mitigating action there is a cost-benefit analysis. Does the cost outweigh the benefits? And by how much are we mitigating the risk. …These are the tools of a leader.

Enough for now…

Of Leaders and Men…(Inspired by Riverbend (9/2/03))

The new group of leaders installed by the “coalition of the willing” has often been characterized as a cast of puppets. A bold, cynical statement… While they may not be the leaders that everyone wants today, the question we should be asking is "can they do the job well enough until someone better comes along?" Sure, we all want the perfect government in place today with all the right players making all the right decisions, but how realistic is that? We, a nation of 250 million people, have nearly as many different opinions, perspectives, and motivations. For that reason, we change our President every four years (eight if we're too lazy to vote), our Senators and Representatives every two years, and all because our needs are constantly changing and we're never satisfied with our leaders. That's democracy.

But let’s ask another question…How well were the modern Iraqi people previously represented? Especially the Shia'as in the South? The Kurds in the North? If you don't grant them a place in the "Hall of Power" then they're sacrifice was for naught. And who WOULD represent the modern Iraqi people. In a society that has been politically repressed for decades, who within your population has the political acumen? I appreciate that there is little respect for those Nine Ninnies because they didn't suffer through those years as everyone else did. From a political perspective, however, you have to crawl before you can walk, and walk before you run, and run before becoming a recognized political force in the international community. It took Saddam Hussein decades to obtain the level of "recognition" that he had. And he did it through brute force, the whole way. He was destined to fall, because the world would not have allowed him to achieve much more. Iraq should consider themselves "back to Square One".

Power and Punishment
My first commentary on the post-war Iraq… Inspired by Riverbend (8/25/03).

In a power vacuum, people will vie to fill the void, pursuing their own agendas. They've learned (in Iraq) by example, over the last 30+ years, that intimidation, fear, and oppression will reward them with that power they covet so dearly. This too, shall pass. As much as America is touted as being socially and culturally diverse, we still have the same militants against cultural "blending". Aryan Nation. The KKK. Don't think that they're all WASPs, though. The Black Panthers were black separatists led by a prominent black man who espoused the virtues of "separate, but equal".
Going forward, Iraqis will have to trust their fellow countrymen to do the right thing. They'll make mistakes, they'll betray one another, and they'll cause a great deal of pain and controversy. But in the end, it'll work out... The silent majority will express themselves when it matters most.
Before the war, the media was rife with anti-war rhetoric, but much to their disbelief, polls showed almost three-quarters of the population in support of military action. In this country, the media has the largest influence over popular opinion and they know it. So when popular opinion ran counter to their own, they were beside themselves...visibly so. I remember the day clearly as the anchors would stammer out the poll results, further editorializing the report with their disbelief and dismay. It was a personal victory for me, but that's another rant...

I play hockey, here in the States, about three nights a week. Just like in life, we have rules. And just like in life, people break the rules. Sundays, I play in a league that is notorious for players who break the rules. Time and again, they play in a manner that is unsportsmanlike and never punished. The referees, for whatever reason, don't make the calls and the behavior goes unchecked. That will never correct the behavior. So people get hurt, the game isn't fun, and emotions boil-over. Much like we "Cowboy Americans" do, I occasionally take matters into my own hands. Sunday, one particular player was being especially unruly. I gave him fair warning, which he chose not to heed. "Be careful with how rough you play me, bubba." Two minutes later I watched him put his stick into the back of a fellow player. The referee, watching the play, took no action. That's when I "broke the rules" and attacked him. Now, there was no intent to injure and I wasn't picking a fight, I simply tackled him to the floor. It drew a number of other players in, but the, now engaged, referees quickly separated the fray. As we separated, he challenged me further, drawing me into fisticuffs. Having no interest I simply replied, "What goes around comes around". I'm a firm believer in the Law of Reciprocity and he sat in the penalty box for four minutes thinking about that. I sent a simple message. There are consequences to your actions and if it means breaking the rules to show you that, I'm willing to do that. The take-away message that I'm trying to convey is in the absence of a lawful response, sometimes it's appropriate to break the rules to send a simple message. Some might characterize that as vigilantism. I would agree to a point. The distinction I make is when the “lawful agent” chooses to ignore the indiscretion. ...But that's me... I have a low tolerance for injustice.

Something interesting came from a discussion I had with Riverbend. She mentioned that her salary was comparable to male colleagues in the office, something typically uncommon in Western cultures. One of the most interesting things that I experienced in the Middle East was the natural tendency to negotiate for goods and services. Depending upon the strict social guidelines of the country, women were just as skillful at negotiating as men. Western cultures don't "breed" that trait into their females. It has been my contention for quite some time that "equal pay" for women is in no small part the responsibility of the woman and their aptitude for negotiating. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen it in my position. Furthermore, as a businessman, I'm focused on getting the highest value from my human resource. Does that mean I intentionally take advantage of women's inability to effectively negotiate their salaries? Heavens, no! In fact, the whole point is that they are happy with the salary being offered. In most cases, it doesn't occur to them that they could ask for more... For others, it's simply too distasteful to barter, and would sooner walk away from the table altogether. So...as a capitalist pig (grin), I'm glad our culture is the way it is, because it means more profit for the company! But as women continue to climb into leadership roles, their lack of negotiating skills has a broader, less positive impact. ...What's that...? The bigger picture...? NO! Really!? (snicker)

Let the games begin...

Good morning. It's finally come to this. Since I can't get anyone to PAY me to pontificate (grin), I thought I'd just lay it all out there... On a serious note, the recent growth of blogging has inspired me and I wanted to pitch my nickel into the "global wishing well".

In case anyone is wondering what "Sutta" is, it means "discourses" in Pali. But more about that later...

I'll field remarks at dreamchaser6020@yahoo.com