Some two-bit cockroach son of a bitch at the University of Massachussetts wrote an op-ed piece for the college paper.
Title: [i]Pat Tillman is not a hero: He got what was coming to him.[/i]
Author: Rene Gonzalez
Content: Primarily unkown by yours truly. The Daily Collegian seems to be *unavailable*. I have found a few portions of it [url=http://asmallvictory.net/arch...]here[/url]. And a damned good fisking, I might add.
I can't help but add my two cents. I say almost sympathetic because the poor bastard will probably spend the next couple of weeks getting his ass kicked. I just can't bring myself to feel actual sympathy though.
There's something about this kind of thing that turns my stomach. I can understand disagreeing with the war in Iraq. But, there's a legitimate way of doing so. Arguing that people like Pat Tillman are ignorant/brainwashed/show ing off is indecent. Dispicable. Odious. I can't think of a properly furious adjective but it's the kind of thing that makes the little vein on my forehead pop.
Perhaps you do disagree with the war. Perhaps it's an exercise in futility. The thing is, people like Pat Tillman are fighting in the war because they believe in something greater than themselves. They make a very hard choice and they do it with pride. They are all heroes and with Pat Tillman's fame they have a face. As the tomb of the unknown soldier stands for all of the men and women who have died in service of America. Pat Tillman represents all the men and women who have sacrificed a lot or a little for America.
Few people can claim as great a distinction as any one of these people. It's easy to sacrifice for one's self. It's easy to sacrifice for one's family. How easy is it to sacrifice for an abstraction?
Rene Gonzalez is exactly the kind of person who doesn't deserve the kind of freedoms we enjoy in America. Am I suggesting he be [i]denied[/i] said freedom? Not in the least. What I'm suggesting is that he abuses the freedom and thus endangers it for us all. He will not face any kind of legal retribution. Nor should he. He will face societal retribution. (God Bless the U.S.A. Isn't democracy great?)
This ties in nicely with yesterday's post. Rene Gonzalez finds himself in the same category as Roseanne Barr's crotch-clutching National Anthem and Howard Stern's juvenile lack of humor and Janet Jackson's bejeweled boob. Youngish people, college people, are getting fed up with this envelope-pushing abuse of freedoms. Rene Gonzalez will be bitch-slapped into oblivion for taking a stand that violates the tenets of good taste and decency shared by a huge portion of the American people.
In fact from what I've read Rene Gonzalez will be bitch-slapped, given a wedgie up to his ears, pimp-slapped, stuffed through a basketball hoop by the U Mass basketball team, football team, and chess club, paid the occassional visit by various members of the Armed Forces, and then. . . Then things are going to get nasty.
With a very little effort one can ([url=http://www.right-thoughts.us/...]many already have[/url] ) find the poor bastard's e-mail address(es), and phone number (in public domain no less). Apparently the e-mails are on overload and the phone seems to be off the hook. And, as I said the Daily Collegian web site does not appear to be in good health. I think Rene Gonzalez has been introduced to his very own hell on earth.
It's almost enough to make you feel sorry for the guy.
Naah.
[b]ADDENDUM[/b]
I managed to open the Google cache of Rene Gonzalez's article and realized that I miswrote previously. It should have read [i]god damned two-bit mother fucker cockroach son of a bitch[/i]. Apologies for imprecision.
[b]ADDENDUM[/b]
The internet is absolutely fucking brilliant. And I'm shameless. I followed the Google link at Right Thoughts and browsed the hits. Rene Gonzalez's Amazon buying habits tell me that if the bizarro left-wing screamers ever need to replace their favorite demagogue, Michael Moore, they've found their man.
[b]ADDENDUM[/b]
I promise this will be the last time. I'm not sure why this fellow has me so worked up. Anyhow I once again realize that I miswrote. It should say: [i]god damned [b]pinko socialist[/b] two-bit mother fucker cockroach son of a bitch[/i].
[b]ADDENDUM[/b]
Okay, this time I really promise. Apparently he [url=http://www.whiotv.com/news/32...]apologized[/url]. Now if we're lucky he'll move to France and tag team with Ted Rall.
For some time I've been noticing gravitation away from values and towards morality. In fact, it began when I considered my own philosophies and motivations as a member of Generation X. I see little things, like young people my own age complaining about the behavior of children and their lack of discipline (I was a holy terror for a good while. My folks weren't afraid to use the belt when it was warranted). Television programming is tending towards the innocuous and away from the scandalous. The business-suited professional is emerging as something of a pop-icon.
Values are purely arbitrary. To value a thing is to hold it in a degree of esteem according to a personal scale of worth. One can never hold one's values as superior to those of another. Thus a parent who values a child's freedom of expression and exploration over decorum and socially accepted behavior is as valid as one who values discipline and appropriate behavior. A two-bit hooker who values a quick buck and the right to do with her body as she sees fit is equal to the local hardware store owner who values hard work and a commitment to excellence. The values mentality is a left-over of the feel-good free-love decades of the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
There are two main problems with a value-driven society.
First members of a value-driven society have no corrective mechanism. (For purposes of this discussion I can discount values that are contrary to law). So, discounting values that infringe upon the rights of others, the society is still left with values that infringe upon the tenets of good taste and appropriacy. In fact, such a society ends up in a downward spiral of values that are progressively less tasteful and appropriate. The values driven society started in the 50s after World War II. The adults from that time remembered the hardships of the Depression and the shortages during the war and wanted their kids to have everything they did not. So, the Baby Boomers were indulged and amused and appeased. Additionally, they wanted to make a difference and to stand out from the stolid, do what you gotta do, boringly reliable attitude their parents had. So they indulged themselves with free-love, bra-burning, and outrageous swinging. As time passed and they started having kids of their own they created a trap for themselves. They couldn't in good conscience deny their children the same indulgence they had enjoyed. However, what they had done had been done and their children had to do something even more outrageous and scandalous in order to stand out from their hippie parents. From the freel-love ballad rockers of the baby-boomers we went to the X-Treme sex drugs and shock rock and roll craziness of Generation X. The next step, the Millenials, found alternative rock and crotch grabbing rap, marginalized sex, and plumbed the depths of depression. Should it be taken, the next step may be too terrible to contemplate.
The second problem with a value-driven society is that it has no external measure of improvement. Since all values are equal it would be a hypocrisy of the first order to disparage anybody for any value they might hold. If all values are equal, everybody who has a value is of equal standing to anybody else. A person who values image and appearance over accomplishment and achievement (that is somebody who thinks the appearance of achievement is equivalent to achievement) will always be more of a drain than a contributor. They will not be likely to achieve anything but because their values are held in esteem they will never [i]have[/i] to achieve anything. No individual or group of society needs to aspire to more than what they are because if they are defined by their values they are as respected as any other member of society.
Morals are not individually arbitrary. Morals are an external set of behavioral guidelines that determine the limits of appropriacy and acceptability. Morals may be arbitrary to a given society, but they apply equally to all members of society. I think it's fair to say that morals are 'pure form' values. Being external to the individual, morals provide a measuring stick by which an individual can compare their behavior and their values and determine their progression towards achieving the nearest possible approximation of morality.
America has traditionally been a moral society and I have determined at least three direct sources for our moral fiber.
The first and oldest of these comes from Plato. I mentioned that morals may be described as 'pure form' values. In the Republic, Socrates explains pure form. The idea is that on some level all things exist in purity. In reality all things are flawed but it is right for man to strive to achieve the nearest approximation of the pure form possible. Sound familiar? It should. It is in fact one of the founding principles of America. "We the people of the United States of America in order to form a more perfect union. . ." Plato's pure forms are embodied in the documents that create our country and by extension in the people of our country.
The second source of American moral fiber, and the one most frequently derided is the Bible. As an atheist I don't believe in the Bible as such. However, the Bible is a well-written book with valuable moral guidance. I equate the Bible with Aesop's fables. Both are books containing stories that serve to illustrate points of morality, and provide a source of moral guidance. The Bible has the advantages of humanity (Sorry Aesop. Talking goats just aren't hugely motivating.) Christianity is the source of our societal morality. It is the measure which Americans have chosen for themselves by virtue of historical circumstance.
The third source is our frontier heritage. I think sometimes people underestimate the influence America's march across this continent has had on our collective and individual identity. The unwritten laws of the frontier are perhaps the most influential source of American individuality. Some of the frontier laws come directly from the Bible, but beyond that the people who populated America had to develop an acceptable code of behavior without the benefit of external reinforcement. Personal integrity, honesty, and the golden rule were the essence of survival among the pioneers.
America took a decades long foray into the world of values, but now we are seeing a reversal and a return to morality. What's particularly astonishing is that it's not old fogies complaining about the good old days when people were decent. It's younger Americans in their twenties and thirties.
Television programming is an excellent example (and more importantly a reflection) of the changing attitudes of Americans. The most popular shows on television are about self-improvement and achievement. American Idol and The Apprentice are enormously popular. It may be reflective of America's love-affair with celebrity, and wealth, but I think it also reveals a desire to better one's self and to achieve. American Idol starts with a bunch of potentially talented singers who practice and improve their abilities until they reach number one. Americans love winners, but more important than winning is [i]earning[/i] a win. The Apprentice reveals similarly unexpected appreciations shared by a relatively young demographic. These people are not competing for survival in a jungle or on a desert island. They are competing for survival in the cut-throat world of corporate America. We see a contemporary example of the Christian ethic and how Americans have applied it to their working lives. The majority of the dot com boomers were of Generation X between the ages of 19 and 31. They were the people working 80 hours a week and living on frozen pizza and tap water. Their continued enthusiasm for America's free enterprise system and the benefit of hard work is exposed in The Apprentice. The Simpsons is a perennial favorite and while their politics are often left-leaning they maintain a core of conservatism. The Simpsons live in a traditional family situation. Homer brings home the bacon. Marge is a stay at home mom. They have 2.3 kids. The Simpsons are as dysfunctional as any other American family but they are first and foremost [i]a family[/i]. Springfield is a community. The Simpsons rub elbows with their doctor, their teachers, their principal, their judge, and their local billionaire down at the Kwik-E-Mart. Although the Simpsons aren't the Brady Bunch they still cling to tradition and morality and (somewhat startlingly) this is part of the appeal.
I think one of the most telling examples of America's shift was the Janet Jackson Super Bowl extravaganza. Liberals pooh-poohed all the people who were angered by her antics and furthermore, blamed the fall-out on conservatives; they immediately began screaming censorship. I don't think the FCC arbitrarily decided to start cleaning up the broadcast house. And I don't think that they were picking on Janet and Justin. I think they were responding to the outrage of a sizable portion of the American public. It was Americans, young and old alike, who bitch-slapped Janet and Justin for what happened on Superbowl Sunday and the FCC acted on our collective disapproval.
Additionally, the changing direction can be seen in politics. Liberals and Democrats have had an undeniable edge for decades. During Clinton's administration the Democrats began losing their numerical edge. States began leaning towards Republican legislatures, Congress was swept by Republicans. And finally, even the Chief Executive was chosen from the conservative half of the spectrum. Barring clandestine meetings among conspiratorial conservatives, the only conclusion can be that the voters decided.
I don't know exactly what led to the changing winds in American culture. I think it is somewhat cyclical. I also think that no matter what liberals would have you believe, people do and can think for themselves. People my age saw the direction they were heading and the direction their children were heading. And I think it scared the hell out of them. Recurring themes I hear while listening to semi-liberal talk radio are recriminations less of schools and institutions but more of inadequate parenting. I hear people finding ways to spend time with their kids and help with homework and screen their television habits. More moms are trying to stay at home at least for a while to be with their kids. People are waiting longer to marry. Divorces are declining. Juvenile drug use and juvenile violent crimes are down overall. We seem to have hit a plateau of the "It's okay if it feels good" philosophy and adopted one of greater responsibility. It's okay to do things that feel good but it's [i]important[/i] to do things that are right.
Thus we have one generation (Generation X) making a u-turn and another generation (Millenials) being raised with this renewed morality. Further evidence of this change can be seen in the proliferation and popularity of conservative blogs. There are few enough outlets for conservative ideology. Most television is left-leaning, most educational institutions are left-leaning. The largest newspapers are left-leaning. Fox news tends towards conservatism, but I'm hard pressed to think of any other right-leaning news source. Until looking on-line that is. I hate that I can't find the link but I actually read an op-ed piece castigating the internet and its users for the ability (and desire) of people to search and filter the information they choose to peruse. The internet provides and uncontrollable flood of information from every imaginable position on the political spectrum and while my browsing habits take me to far more conservative outlets, I make it a point to occassionally put on my protective gear and tool through the liberal outlets. So far I have found a far smaller forum of liberals (although generally far more vociferous). I have also found a greater amount of repetition among the liberal side of things.
What all of this tells me is that liberalism has plateaued for the time being. I think it is a cyclical pattern, so it won't be forever. But conservatism is on the rise, especially among the younger demographic. It will take time (probably decades) to run its course and it will not be complete (imagine San Francisco electing a Republican board of supervisors). But once again we see the amazing self-corrective properties of the American people as a society.
I heard on the radio that some soldiers in Iraq are being treated for symptoms 'consistent with radiation poisoning '. In display of ignorance that can only be described as appalling, the blame has been placed on Depleted Uranium used by the U.S. in munitions and armor. The dipshit idea that Depleted Uranium is dangerous is reflective of sub-chimpanzee intelligence: Uranium bad. No no touchy Uranium.
I'm not a scientist so I can't crunch the numbers myself. But, I have read enough science to know that their claim is ridiculous. And, I have enough sense to hunt down the [url=http://wikipedia.org]number crunchers[/url] and their numbers. So, here we go now.
What I know is that there are different kinds of radioactive materials and different kinds of radiation. Some kinds of radiation are severly damaging, other kinds are easily shielded. Alpha radiation and beta radiation are both easily shielded. In fact, the outer layer of human skin is more than sufficient to protect a person from alpha and beta radiation. Gamma radiation is severly damaging and requires special shielding.
Radioactive materials take many different forms and emit various amounts of the different types of radiation. Plutonium is probably the most misunderstood radioactive element (at least by your average person). It's sometimes called the most dangerous substance known to man. It's sensational if not accurate. Plutonium gets its reputation from its use in nuclear weapons. However, Plutonium emits alpha radiation which can be shielded by a piece of paper. Like Plutonium, Uranium is commonly misunderstood and its danger is exaggerated. Americium 241 and Cobalt 60 are gamma radiation emitters and are far more dangerous than either Plutonium or Uranium.
Natural Uranium comes in three flavors. U 238, U 235 and U 234. U 238 makes up over 99% of naturally occurring Uranium. U 235 is the part that's useful as fissile material and it is concentrated in enriched Uranium. Enriched Uranium contains around 1 or more percent U 235. The leftover Uranium lacking its portion of U 235 is nearly pure U 238 and is called Depleted Uranium. The howlers have made sure everybody knows that the military uses Depleted Uranium in armor and munitions, and want us to believe that it's going to result in three headed babies and glow-in-the-dark milk.
This is categorically [url=http://www.who.int/mediacentr...]untrue[/url] according to every scientific [url=http://www.nrpb.org/faq/du/in...]study[/url] completed. Depleted Uranium is radioactive but it emits alpha radiation which, as I've mentioned, can't penetrate a simple sheet of paper. Further, while it is radioactive it decays very very slowly. The half life of Uranium 238 is about 4.5 billion (with a b) years. That's about as long as the entire earth has been around. The radioactive elements in our bodies like Carbon 14 actually produce far more damaging radiation than any amount of Uranium 238 we could be exposed to. One could build a house of Depleted Uranium, wallpaper the walls and be exposed to less radiation than is found at any given outdoors location in the world. Why? Because Depleted Uranium is so dense (65% more dense than lead) it provides excellent shielding against background and cosmic radiation.
These left-wingers display a level of ignorance that should be criminal. Not only do they not do any homework, their efforts are more harmful than helpful. Left-wingers? You betcha. The howlers are the likes of the Sierra Club (every arsonists best friend. We know what they did to Los Alamos), and the Sane and Fair Energy Legacy. What they lack in intelligence they make up for in panic-mongering. They managed to convince Americans that nuclear power is arbitrarily a bad thing. Now they are extending that mindless reactionary thinking to anything related to nuclear power. Thus anything that is radioactive is bad and will unquestionably destroy the environment and everybody within a thousand mile radius. And their children for the rest of eternity. And bunny rabbits.
They are entirely to blame for America's continued use of coal power plants. They have thrown every legal stumbling block in the way of nuclear power development and as a result we are still using coal to power our homes. Coal is a filthy source of energy many times more polluting than nuclear power plants. Coal contains dozens if not hundreds of impurities including Uranium and Thorium which is released into the air and increases background radiation by far greater amounts than nuclear power plants. Additionally there are thousands of tons of slag and ash that are radioactive due to the heat inside the furnace and that must be disposed of. If the radioactive emission standards imposed on nuclear power plants were also imposed on coal power plants the coal power plants would go out of business. Nuclear power plants can meet the emissions standards and still stay in business. Curious, no?
The only people born with this magnitude of stupidity usually die before puberty so I have to assume it's a choice. In the animal kingdom they're about as smart as the shit monkeys throw. None of these people have done any homework or research. They arbitrarily believe what they think they know about nuclear power and it's relatives and (re)act.
A quote if you will: [i]''This is a weapon of mass destruction that we need to halt,'' said New Paltz resident Michelle Riddell, of SAFE Legacy, or Sane and Fair Energy Legacy. ''It is the tip of the nuclear iceberg.''[/i]
A weapon of mass destruction? Depleted Uranium is used mostly as armor, or radiation shielding, or as a counterweight in aircraft. It is also used in munitions as armor piercing and bunker bunsting projectiles. It does not explode in a nuclear reaction unless subjected to very precise conditions. It does not contribute significantly to background radiation. If you have skin you are shielded. If you were in a situation where you could breathe enough of it you would probably die of asphyxiation before you inhaled enough to be damaging, or already dead from impact.
The tip of the nuclear iceberg? First, Depleted Uranium is not a nuclear weapon under any rational definition. I fail to see how its use will translate into arbitrary use of atomic bombs. My hope is that people will come to learn that things nuclear are hopelessly misunderstood and educate themselves instead of listening to this ludicrous passel of drooling fuckwits.
[b]P.S.[/b] Do a news Google for 'Depleted Uranium.' The link doesn't seem to copy and paste properly.
I like to keep up with the latest technologies and trends as they emerge. No technology field seems to be advancing quite as rapidly as medicine. It's only a suspicion, but I think it may be due to the rigorous research and development procedure. Many of the technologies we are seeing today have been delayed for years or even decades because of regulation (rightly so, I think) thus, we're only now seeing the fruits of the past ten years worth of scientific research. Also a lot of today's medical technology is only possible because of advances in other fields (computing, materials science, chemical engineering, etc.). Why this is exciting is because I suspect we are really seeing the tip of the iceberg. Ten years from now medical technology probably will only remotely resemble what we have today.
While I have no desire to be a medical professional, I find the technology and techniques fascinating and fully expect to live to 180. I've decided this will just be an informational post. I could debate the arguments against the advancement of medical technology and if there's any interest I may.
So, what's so exciting about medicine right now? It can really be summed up in one sentence. We are finally able to treat ailments instead of symptoms. Up until fairly recently our only options to treating afflictions were to combat the symptoms and hope the body can cure itself. This isn't wholly accurate but is a fair generality. New technology in biology, optics, and materials science finally allows us to assist our own biology in battling disease.
Genetic modification is potentially one of the most powerful and effective medical technologies we will have in our arsenal. It doesn't take a great leap to believe that one day there will no longer be debilitating birth defects. Genetic predispositions for cancer, heart disease, diabetes and other afflictions can finally be limited. Research into proteins is somewhat parallel to genetic research and while it is still in its infancy it is progressing rapidly and shows staggering potential. For now I will avoid considering genetic engineering. While we are capable of genetic modification I don't think we are yet at a level of sophistication that will permit genetic engineering.
Chemical engineering is another story. We now have the ability to manufacture molecules that will target specific cellular receptors and attach to them. If it's an invading cell it can destroy the invader. Others regulate cellular signals. Other kinds of molecules can be injected into a patient and when exposed to light are activated. This technique is effective in cancer therapies. We are not far from the day when designer medications can be manufactured to target a given illness without disrupting other systems.
We've seen the first artificial heart, we're close to having artificial eyes, and research is advancing in fusing computer chips to the human brain. Before I die, I fully expect to see 'cyborgs', and designer children. Some might find the prospect macabre if not downright frightening. I think it's brilliant. When cybernetic technology is optional you'll find me standing in line.
[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Previously[/url] I wrote about voting the party line. I explained some of my reasons for doing so, and am now following up with my thoughts on how this effects our two party system and what it means for those who don't vote along party lines.
One thing that's interesting and fairly unique about American political parties is that there is no party accountability. A party member votes as he sees fit regardless of party affiliation and if said member fails to uphold the party platform that's just the way it is. In many other systems the parties expect a degree of affiliation and loyalty, and have sufficient influence over the candidates to see that they vote accordingly. American parties have no such mechanism for mandating accountability. That leads to some apparently oxymoronic situations. At one point (I believe during Reagan's administration) the Republican party was home to both the most liberal and most conservative members of Congress.
In fact, it actually makes one wonder if parties actually serve a purpose. I think the answer is yes, they do serve a purpose. American parties serve a different purpose as compared to European parties, however. European parties serve to advance an agenda and a given platform. American parties serve to advance an ideology.
In many European democracies there are multi party systems. In part it is due to the voting mechanism, in part to the political structures. This has lead to a political climate where relatively minor parties can effectively gain control of political branches. Small parties can pursue fringe issues and win enough popular support to prevent larger parties from winning an outright majority or plurality as the case may be. What then happens is that the other parties will form affiliations and throw their support behind the fringe candidates. In a first-past-the-post election the major parties may not achieve the number of votes needed for a victory but if they drummed up enough support with their affiliated parties one of their fringe allies can end up with enough votes in the subsequent recount to win the election.
This type of system is attractive for some reasons but has certain problems. Smaller groups have more influence in the larger political arena and their constituents feel their voice is being heard. Unfortunately, this also means there are more arguments to be had. It also leads to some unsustainable policies and some not insignificant back-tracking. If the labor and green and socialist parties ally with one another and gain control of the government they will pursue party agendas that might be good for their constituents but at the cost of business and economic interests which is not good for the long term benefit of their constituents or their government.
America doesn't have exact parallels with European systems but we have a sort of simulated equivalent. Since we have only two parties that matter the effect of third parties is largely insignificant. In 2000 we saw what some of that influence can be. But, by and large a vote for a third party is a protest vote. Since we don't have active or powerful third parties one might think that a large portion of opinions and ideologies are ignored. That's not the case though. Our two parties must build the largest political base they can within their ideology or risk losing to the competing party. So each respective party ecompasses the entire gamut of liberalism and conservatism. Each party also has internal factions that can occasionally cause a split among the majority party members.
Our party system also has its good and bad points. One of the good things about our system is that compromise is necessary. Even if one party is in firm control of the government, internal party politics and lack of party discipline means that while we may shift between conservative and liberal directions, our general political climate will be primarily centrist. It is also helps sustain and control our experimentation in democracy. It slows change to glacial momentum. I mentioned in [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]this post[/url] that America has become one of the last great conservative nations in the world. The bad side of our system is that many people feel disaffected because their specific agendas don't seem to be addressed. The Christian Right will always be beating their heads against a brick wall because their position is too radical to gain any real influence. Equally, socialist democrats will never be satisfied because America will resist their reforms.
So what does this have to do with not voting the party line? Well, both political parties have a broad base of constituents in nearly equal numbers who do stick to the party line. These two groups ultimately polarize American politics into two camps and when combined with the Electoral College, perpetuate the two-party system. Most of these people believe firmly in their political position and are firmly on one side of the political divide (i.e. left or right). However, there is a large minority of voters who don't fall on either side. They could be called Centrists. They vote their conscious, they vote for the prettiest speech-maker, they vote for the issue, whatever.
One thing that is important is that Centrists tend to vote for the candidate with the widest appeal at the present time. Voters firmly on a given side of the political spectrum believe that their vision is the best direction for America to go. Centrists believe the candidate they are voting for can best handle the issues of the day. It also helps explain the comparatively conservative nature of America. Centrists are middle of the road, politically. They will simply not vote for a candidate who is radical in either direction because radical political agendas will seldom corellate with their own semi-liberal/semi-conserv ative views.
Additionally, we see how America simulates the multi-party systems of Europe. Issues of the day will often determine who the Centrist voter will choose. If the economy is of greatest concern they will vote for the candidates with the best apparent fiscal policy. If war is the issue of the day they will vote for the candidates with the stongest foreign policy. If the environment becomes an issue of some note it will influence the Centrist. In this way, fringe issues are dealt with as they percolate into the mainstream without abandoning additional issues.
Americans are divided into four political divisions: Conservatives, Liberals, Centrists and Third Parties. Third Parties do play a part in American politics, one I would call erosive. They erode the support base for a given group as we saw in 2000, also, more spectacularly, in 1912 with Theodore Roosevelt. But they are still a tiny minority. The Liberals and Conservatives are far larger but neither have a majority. The Centrists are fewer than either Conservatives or Liberals but are a large enough portion of the voters that they ultimately elect the candidates to office by casting their votes with the votes of one of the other groups and thus accounting for a majority.
In many ways our system is dissatisfying to many people because many things they believe in are not addressed as they wish. What's important to remember though is that it's not possible to appease every opinion all the time. But I believe that because of our voter structure and because of the Centrists most opinions are appeased most of the time, to varying degrees. I think it's quite an ingenius system really.
[b]ADDENDUM[/b]
I gave myself ideas for some future posts. While I know gerneralities about Third Parties I must plead ignorance about their specific incarnations. So, stay tuned for assessments regarding the Third Parties. Such as they are.
Where to start? First, I should warn you that there may be some spoilers following. Regardless, it's a series inherently worth watching even if you know or think you know what's going to happen. Second, it's absolutely fucking brilliant. Babylon 5 may well be the best science fiction television series to come down the pike ever. I'm a shameless Trek fan, but Star Trek is hopelessly optimistic. Star Trek in all of its incarnations is just a little too pristine, a sort of idyllic vision of the way we hope things to be one day. The good guys are always good, the bad guys are always bad, the good guys always win.
Babylon 5 explores a broader range of the human condition. The good guys aren't always so good. The bad guys aren't always so bad. I'll try to avoid specific references so I don't ruin any of the best surprises. But as the show progresses so do the characters. They grow and change and switch allegiances for very human and very believable reasons. My all time favorite character ends up being opposite what she seems. My least favorite character ends up being exactly what I thought she was. My favorite villain is indeed villainous, but you still discover that somewhere in his warped universe there is a measure of warmth. The hero is heroic but finds himself making villainous decisions. One ambassador is a wolf in sheep's clothing, one is a sheep in wolf's clothing. Bad things happen to good people, good things happen to bad people. I think one quote from the series sums up the characters and their development perfectly. "Nobody is exactly what they seem." That is as is should be. You might come to know the characters but as in life you will still be surprised by what they do.
In Babylon 5 decisions are made not for right or wrong reasons but for the best apparent reasons. Things don't work out as you might expect they would, but they do work out and the universe has another chance to try to get it right. There is an element of idealism but it's merely a reflection of human optimism. Sure the good guys win most of the time. That's how we wish the universe worked. But it doesn't and on Babylon 5 the good guys don't win all the time. You always cheer the good guys, but sometimes you end up rooting for the unlikeliest characters.
Babylon 5 is not white-washed. The command crew and the working people are well-off, but the wretches, the huddled masses live in Down Below. It's rather like a slum. They come to Babylon 5 to start a new life but it seldom works out as they hope it will. There is still poverty and crime in the universe. The aliens fight one another as well as themselves. Humans fight other races as well as other humans. You again see that good and evil are not black and white. One's choices are seldom as clear cut as we might wish.
There is an interesting and pervasive spiritual element to the series. It's an extremely well-done sub-theme. We learn many things about religious perspectives. Some people have a pantheon of gods, some believe in something similar to Buddhism, some are atheists, some simply suspend belief and understand that there are things in the universe that can't necessarily be explained right now. It is not overused in my estimation. Many spiritual things happen to many of the characters but it reflects the perspective of the various characters and is not used as a ploy to advance the plot.
My favorite aspect is the political one. Babylon 5's underlying theme is the progression of life and the consequences of making decisions. The arena is largely political. Another of my favorite characters, Londo Molari, is a tragic villain. He's inherently likable, wise, and energetic. Yet, he makes many poor decisions, many for horrible reasons, many for the fairest of reasons but with the foulest of consequences. He is a dealer and a negotiator and a schemer, and from his point of view more than perhaps any other you see a progression of political agendas and ideologies. The converse to his manipulation is Captain Sheridan and the Alliance. Captain Sheridan represents the Jacksonian tradition, peace through strength, do unto others, play by the rules given yet strive to achieve something better and nobler. One can find a direct corellation between the political decision making of Babylon 5 and the current state of politics.
The series begins a little slowly. Commander Sinclair is the moody, hard-assed, and inherently loyal leader of Babylon 5. Should things have worked out differently, one must wonder for which side he would have fought in a later war. He was to be a hero of a different war however. The last line of the first season was Commander Sinclair saying "Nothing's the same anymore." He was somewhat tortured. I think he suspected some of what was to come, and even he wasn't sure what to choose.
The second season gains steam. Babylon 5 is the last best hope for peace. Commander Sinclair is replaced by Captain Sheridan who is as up-beat and principled as Sinclair was moody and loyal. Season two we learn of the necessity for peace, the growing threat facing Babylon 5 and the galaxy at large. We learn the vital importance of Babylon 5's mission.
The third and fourth seasons are the pinnacle of the Babylon 5 universe. The plot is advanced, the characters are advanced and there is a minimum of fluff. Babylon 5's mission to create peace failed. War fell upon the galaxy and the Earth Alliance collapsed. In the Babylon 5 universe humans are the last best hope for life. With the Earth Alliance at war with itself and the growing threat from the First Ones those who know the truth must fight for it.
The fifth season is vaguely dissatisfying. It's largely one long season of goodbyes. The momentum seems spent. The main thing that came of season five was that one comes to understand that the great wars were merely battles. There are still many battles and many wars to be fought. Indeed, it may never end, but the guiding principle is that there will always be somebody to fight for what they believe is right. The final episode was good in some respects but woefully inadequate in others. I was left a bazillion questions. What did G'Kar learn? What happened to Mister Bester? Did Vir rescue the Centauri Empire? Did Lyta self-destruct? Has the telepath war come to pass? Unanswered questions spark the imagination, but I don't like unanswered questions and that's why I found the final season irking.
Taken as a whole, Babylon 5 is fucking brilliant. The state of scientific knowledge notwithstanding, it is a wholly believable and engaging series. It has a beginning, a sort of unsettling quiet before the storm. It has a middle, the tempest of change. It has an end, the winding down and the long quiet before the next great trial. It's more like a five year mini-series telling one story than the sort of aimless drivel one sees today. I've found that American television is more concerned with character development than story progression. Babylon 5 explored character development within the progression of the story that was being told. It was very effective, and very entertaining.
I think the thing Babylon 5 did best (not perfectly) was examine pure forms. All the trials faced by Babylon 5 mandated choice-making. The characters made their choices for various reasons but always there was a core of nobility in what they did. From their perspective they were fighting for truth, for freedom, for principles and for loyalty. Every character made selfish decisions, but they also made selfless decisions to serve something greater than themselves. This, I think, may be the most idealistic sub-theme of the series. But, I think it describes a characteristic of the human condition that needs to be more fully explored and exploited. Regardless of faith, it is in our best interests to struggle to achieve to be something bigger and better than what we are. It will not always be possible, and people will falll, but as long as the drive exists, we will not fail.
Finally, I wanted to tie this to the Arthur C. Clarke quote. The state of scientific knowledge in Babylon 5 if impressive. More importantly, it's not entirely beyond belief. They use science to effectively create a level of technology that is relatively beleivable. Some of their technology can't be explained in modern terms but it came from civilizations thousands or even millions of yeras older than our own. As Clarke said: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Babylon 5 explores that idea without asking the audience to suspend belief entirely. The space battles are *usually* physically accurate in terms of momentum and so on. (I had a real problem with some of the Shadow War battles because the laws of physics were arbitrarily ignored but it is television.)
Anyhow, I enjoyed the series and have every reason to beleive I will enjoy it many times in the future.
My Barbadian Muses gave me another idea for a post today. Thanks, Ross and Andre.
My favorite science quote is by Arthur C. Clarke. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Ross read my post on evolution and remarked that the first thing he learned in science class was that theories aren't fact, but are the best possible explanation for a given set of facts. He told me that Andre once told him that the theories of today are the common sense of tomorrow.
I think Andre is a little optimistic. I suggested that the theories of today are the joke of tomorrow. Flat earth? Crystal spheres? Elements? Ether? The list goes on.
I suppose in fairness these theories were as accurate as the data their formulators had on hand considering the times. But today we laugh at the ignorant bumpkins. So maybe Andre's version is accurate. When their theories are proven right, we take them for granted and anything else not matching what we've learned in the meantime is foolish.
I think that might be the essence of Clarke's quote. We turn on the television and sit down and watch, vaguely aware that little bits of information fly through the air and find our television to provide us with viewing pleasure. Two hundred years ago people would be apalled at our witchery and burn us alive. We find their ignorance amusing from a modern perspective but from their point of view the only possible explanation is magic. They have no frame of reference or scientific ability to explain what is happening. It just appears to be happening. Like magic.
It's also why I'm such a fan of science fiction and science fact. I'm almost finished watching the 5th season of Babylon 5 and I'll be posting on the series when I do finish it. I find it fascinating. Hyperspace and organic technology and laser beams of unimaginable destructive power is all very exciting and entertaining. However, the state of science now tells us these things probably can't be done. But hey, what the hell do we know?
I believe that in a hundred or a thousand years there will be technology that would boggle our minds as thoroughly as television would boggle the minds of Thomas Jefferson or Eli Whitney. Science fiction writers and theorists will peg some of our abilities and completely flub others. Our descendents will laugh at us for believing in fundamentally indivisible constituents of matter, or for believing in a universal speed limit, and take for granted quantum gravity or string space or zero point energy and wonder how we could have been so wrong about the alternatives.
In the meantime we know what we think we know and we make up the rest. It seems to have worked out pretty well so far.
User musicalhair started me thinking about this because of his post regarding my blurb on evolution and the folks in Tennessee. For a while, people were saying that political parties in America are kind of a joke, that the differences between them are negligible. Obviously people aren't saying that anymore. The two major political parties here are polarized.
I often hear people say they don't vote for a party, they vote for a candidate, or they vote for an issue. I think that's a pretty poor way to participate in American politics. The American economic/political/social system is massive and its inertia is similarly enormous. I think our system is best viewed as a big picture. Voting on the candidate or the issue fails to consider the big picture.
There are a couple of pitfalls I can see happening by voters casting their ballot for their candidate or their issue(s). I seem to remember reading something that said most voters actually vote according to their views of certain core issues like abortion or gun control or social welfare. While I'm not arguing that this is an invalid way to cast one's ballot, I do feel that these voters are potentially ignoring other issues which can hardly be ignored.
People who say they vote for candidates make me think they're more interested in popularity or 'electability' than the political process. I can't entirely discount their choosing process either because the candidates' personalities and characters are undeniably important since they must be diplomats and negotiators as well as leaders. However, these characteristics are only a part of the package.
I vote the party line (Republican) because on average I agree with more of their policies and agendas than I do with the Democrats. I certainly don't agree with all of their ideologies. I'm something of an oxymoron really. A gay atheist Republican living in the San Francisco Bay Area? The thing is, I believe in the legislative process above the judicial process. I believe in the Constitution. I believe in populism. In short, I believe in the American people.
In a previous post I endorsed evolution. Fair enough, but Republicans or conservatives are often equalled with religion, specifically Christianity. How can I be both? I can't. And I'm not. For one thing, evolution continues regardless of belief. Darwin's engine doesn't stop chugging because people don't learn about it. Should I have the good fortune of raising a child he will learn about religions and about evolution and he will be allowed to decide what he believes for himself.
There's a deeper issue here beyond the validity of evolution vs. religion. That is the separation of church and state. I absolutely believe in said separation. Something to consider here though is that America is overwhelmingly Christian. Separation between church and state doesn't mean that the candidates in office can't have some kind of belief. All it means is that no church can be promoted as superior and no church can have influence in the government as a political entity. That being said, I mentioned that America is an overwhelmingly Christian nation. Even Bill Clinton carried a Bible around with him everywhere he went. For the foreseeable future American politics will be colored by the Christian ethic simply by virtue of demographics. That doesn't mean that followers of other religions will be mistreated or invalidated, only that they are outnumbered by Christians. I don't know if it's a bad thing or not, nor do I care. I believe in science, in fact, and in result. As long as there are results I approve of I don't care about the motivation, be it Christian or otherwise.
I've also endorsed gay marriage after a fashion. It does apply directly to me. The general idea seems to be that gay marriage is anathema to the Republican Party. However, my feeling is that it would be best to pursue legislative action rather than judicial action. I would rather see people accept gay marriage voluntarily than have it foisted on them by judges. It would certainly be better for gays.
Public education? I think it is in America's best interest to see that it has a well-educated population. I don't think a publicly funded school system is the way to achieve that. In fact, what we have now may be the next best thing to an abject failure. I think education should be privatized, moderately regulated and parents receive tuition assistance based on income, number of children, etc.
Welfare? Sure, I think people ought to be given a hand when they are in need, but I don't trust people who don't make their own way. Welfare needs to be strictly limited to people who are not capable of independent living and strictly limited to temporary benefits in terms of unemployment. It's not a matter of compassion. It's a matter of reality. I simply don't trust people who aren't earning their own way. And if I am earning my own way I want the option of deciding whether and who I get to help out. We all go through hard times, but when push comes to shove there are possibilities. Unemployed? Flip burgers or stuff envelopes or mow lawns until you can find something better.
These examples demonstrate the direction I would like to see America go. It's more likely that the Republicans will move in this direction than the Democrats and that's why I vote the party line. Sure there might be Democrats who would push for school vouchers or welfare reform, but if I vote for them based those issues I'm forgoing the others. In fact, I'm potentially reversing things I appreciate that have already been accomplished.
This is turning out to be a fascinating topic in my own mind, so I think I'll try to follow it up with some thoughts on the middle of the road voters. Especially since they're generally the ones who actually end up electing the candidates.
[i][b]EU may have funded terrorists, says Parliament[/b]
It is the first time the EU has itself acknowledged that its own funds may have been misused
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Tens of thousands of euro of EU funds may have been diverted to people linked with Palestinian terrorism, according to a report from the European Parliament, obtained by the EUobserver.
The report cites documentary evidence seen by a Parliamentary working group- set up last year after allegations that EU funds to the Palestinian Authority (PA) had been misused - that between 21,000-39,000 US dollars of EU funds may have been transferred to terrorists.
It is the first time that the EU has said that its own funds to Palestine may not have been used for their intended purpose, although the report does not find sufficient evidence to prove wrongdoing one way or the other.
"There existed two different ways of defining evidence and that each led to a different conclusion as to whether it could be established or not that PA money has been diverted to finance illegal activities, including terrorism", the report says.
The allegations relate to funds given by the EU directly to the Palestinian Authority account from June 2001 until December 2002.
What constitutes evidence? The report details the work of a 13-member cross-party parliamentary group. It is due to be finalised this evening (31 March) behind closed doors and is, in many ways, inconclusive.
The group says it does not yet have enough evidence to show funds were transferred directly to terrorists, but can show that monies were transferred from the PA to members of the Fatah group, which is linked to the 'Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades' - a group on the EU's terror list.
The Israeli intelligence services say that evidence yielded from military operations in the Palestinian territories show 2.5 million euro which was "requested and delivered" to the PA fell into terrorists hands, of which 39,000 US dollars can be proven to have been actually paid out.
"Examination of the documents by the European Commission showed that payments to alleged Fatah activists had been authorised for a sum of 21,000 US dollars", according to the report.
Although it adds: "a link between the Palestinian Authority budget structure and the financing of Fatah is difficult to clearly picture".
Direct assistance The EU paid around 10 million euro a month directly into the Palestinian Authority's budget during between June 2001 and December 2002 to help avert its financial collapse after Israel withheld tax transfers.
The retention of the tax left the authority unable to pay staff and pay for basic public services, prompting the EU and other international donors to step in.
The EU withdrew its direct assistance shortly after Israel resumed payments in June 2002.
The Parliamentary report backed the Commission's aim of propping up the PA but criticised the method chosen.
"The Commissioner [External Relations Commissioner Chris Patten] showed his best intentions in order to stabilise the situation and to encourage the reform of the PA institutions in a very difficult context".
However it does conclude: "Budgetary Assistance was not the most appropriate financial instrument to be implemented".
Sources taking part in the talks say there is still discussion over what constitutes evidence of funding terror which could change some details of the final text of the document.
It is not clear when the Parliament will publish the report. [/i]
There are a lot of interesting points to consider.
Palestinians reject the endorsement out of hand saying: "Bush is the first US president to give legitimacy to Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. We reject this, we will not accept it." Their objections are duly noted, but provided the Likud gives Sharon the go ahead, they won't have much choice. I'm sorry I can't find the quote again, but they also said that Bush's endorsement has derailed the "peace process." The peace process has been derailed how many times by suicide bombers and militants? I think Sharon is pursuing Israel's best chance for peace.
I think this is a prime example of the efficacy of terrorism. Palestinians have relied on terrorism in the war against Israel. As a result they have been stripped of any legitamacy in the negotiations and will not be consulted in the final two-state solution.
Another point is that Palestinians will not be allowed to return to Israeli territory. As long as Palestinians wage a hate war against the Jews they will not be welcome in Israel (I suspect that will be for a great many years). This spells trouble for Palestine. President Bush said that Palestine is responsible for their people, refugee or otherwise. Once the wall is complete Palestine will be a hell hole of poverty. Time will tell how long it takes for their people to become so desperate that they turn on one another. They will probably suffer horribly and only subsist on international aid, blaming the Jews for their plight but doing nothing themselves to make it better. Eventually they will be so desperate they will turn on one another, and it can be hoped that at that point they will learn that Jews or Americans are not responsible for Palestinians and their lives (wishful thinking maybe but what can I say? I'm an optimist).
Finally, PM Qurei said: ""We call on the (international peacemaking) Quartet - the European Union, the United Nations, the United States and Russia - to hold an international conference to discuss the neglect of Palestinian rights." What he doesn't seem to understand is that Israel has already told the EU and the UN what they think. This latest action is Sharon's equivalent of a great big "Fuck You" Hallmark card. Sharon doesn't give one good god damn about the UN or the EU, nor does the rest of Israel. Sharon sought Bush's endorsement because it actually carries some weight in Israel and will do far more to influence the Likud than anything the EU, the UN or Russia could possibly do.
I just read the transcript of last night's press conference. It's curious that nobody brought up the economy during the conference, but perhaps the fact that economic data is so strong made it undesirable. The questions all seemed to fall under the "When did you stop beating your children?" category. The idea that Iraq is a catastrophic failure was implicit, as was the idea the President Bush and his administration was somehow responsible for 9-11. I think he handled it well. He was not as upbeat and encouraging as usual, but we're facing a challenging and serious situation in Iraq right now. On the other hand, most of his answers were oatmeal. On the third hand, most politicians give oatmeal answers because taking any kind of firm stand on anything inflames potential constituents and possibly spells political death.
I do think President Bush addressed the charge that there is no direction for the Iraqis and the end of our occupation. I have a hard time swallowing that charge because not so long ago these same people were suggesting that we had no intention of leaving Iraq or handing sovereignty over to the Iraqis. Now that we have set up a firm deadline it's the wrong deadline? Anyhow, he outlined the progression of the democratic process in Iraq. The interim government will take over on June 30, come hell or high water. From there they will draft a permanent constitution by October, and subsequently they will elect a permanent government by 2005. U.S. troops will remain on hand to guarantee security and to see that democracy takes root. They will be their as long as they are needed. It sounds like a plan to me. There is no telling how long our troops will be needed. We will not always have the level of troops there that we have now, but there is reason to believe that we will have a presence there for a long time to come. How long have our soldiers been in Germany? We have troops in Japan and Korea right down to this very day. Our forces have been in Kuwait for over 10 years. Iraq will be no different.
Something else I got out of it was that the journalists seemed intent on getting some kind of apology or admission of guilt from President Bush. I'm glad to see he didn't cave. Bush is no more responsible for 9-11 than any previous administration. That particular brand of finger pointing is worthless and fruitless and is nothing more than an inflammatory attempt to feed the left wing demagogues. The question about what has been your greatest mistake since 9-11 is the most blatant example. I'm disappointed that Bush didn't come up with a quicker reply, but it was a shot, pure and simple.
The price of milk is climbing well above three dollars a gallon. Apparently it's cyclical. Dairy farmers over produce milk and the cost of raw milk plummets. The dairy farmers then sell off their herds or slaughter their cattle for beef. The cost of raw milk subsequently skyrockets and the cycle begins again. I guess it never came to my attention before because while I was growing up I had the privelege of milking our own cows and goats.
[b]Head for the hills. Greenland is melting![/b]
It seems the globe is still warming. I mentioned my general view of global warming when it was blamed for the SoCal fires last year. In short I think global warming is alarmist garbage with no grounding in either science or reality. Earth's climate has fluctuated wildly over the last few billion years. Tropical periods follow ice ages follow temperate. I can't for the life of me imagine why people still eat this shit up. It's like the nuclear power issue. The eco-frauds howl about nuclear power and force us to use fossil fuels which are thousands of times more polluting than nuclear power plants.
[b]Barbados considers floating Barbadian dollar against U.S.[/b]
Countries who have tied their currency to the U.S. dollar are feeling the pinch from the Fed's controlled devaluation of the greenback. My good friend Andre tells me Barbados is struggling with the devalued dollar since they also have to deal in Euros. It's probably only speculation since their economy would likely collapse if they allowed their dollar to float.
[b]An Update on T& T and Barbados.[/b]
Barbados told Trinidad and Tobago to get stuffed. They're reducing trade with Trinidad and Tobago and purchasing more imports from the U.S. Trinidad and Tobago signed an agreement with Venezuela regarding the EEZ shared between Barbados and Guyana. The thing is, the agreement between T & T and Venezuela hinges on the assertion that Venezuela actually owns about one third of Guyana. What they're fighting over is about 75 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. If you remember one of my previous posts about T & T and Barbados they were initially disputing over fishing agreements. T & T refused to sign the fishing agreement because it would mean agreeing to specific maritime boundaries which would effectively nullify their joint agreement with Venezuela. In any case, since Barbados currently has the favor of the International Convention of the Sea on their side and possession is another nine tenths of the law they are scrambling to develop that maritime area before Venezuela and T&T can get at it. Kick some ass Barbados.
What a news day. Listening to the radio I heard a plan by schools (possibly in Tennessee, I'm not certain of the location) to put disclaimers in text books reading "Evolution is just a theory and not a fact."
Do people make you crazy too?
The disclaimer is certainly accurate. It is a theory and one that can never be proven as an incontrovertible fact. Evolution is like the O.J. Simpson trial. We have a mountain of evidence but it doesn't matter. No, what's evidence compared to God?
The thing is, evolution has been studied and explored with an enthusiasm and rigor that I think has only been matched by the explorations of Einstein's relativity. Since neither of these has (or technically can) be proven as fact, one must ask the question what is the alternative?
Creation is of course the alternative. I don't mind if this turns into a Creationist/Evolutionist topic, but since I'm an atheist I think my view should already be abundantly clear. My actual question is: Beyond of the Bible, the Koran and their respective apocrypha, what evidence is there that creation is the answer?
And should this be posted in science or religion? That's the real pickle, let me tell ya.
Contra Costa County (where I live in the Bay Area) passed a law forbidding the sale of .50 caliber fire arms in Contra Costa County's unincorporated areas.
[i]"It will apply to two gun dealers, neither of which sells the powerful weapon. However, supervisors say they hope cities will follow suit with similar ordinances.
"This is the first step toward making Contra Costa a safer place," said Supervisor John Gioia of Richmond. "And it could ultimately lead to a statewide ban."
"At the time, supervisors said a terrorist could use the .50-caliber weapons to ignite an oil refinery into a fiery chemical bomb."[/i]
Um? I'm not even entirely certain how to address this. The NRA is contesting of course. The thing that gets me is the assertion that Contra Costa is being made a safer place. While I'm not certain what your average person would do with a .50 caliber rifle, I have a hard time believing that banning their sale in Contra Costa makes this a safer place. The ban doesn't make possession of said weapon illegal. Furthermore, it doesn't make the sales illegal in the cities of Contra Costa. If a terrorist wants to take potshots at the Shell or Tosco refineries with a .50 caliber rifle, what stops them from going to Alameda County or Sacramento County or San Joaquin County or the cities of Martinez or Concord or Richmond?
Apparently it is a symbolic gesture. My question: Symbolic of what? Contempt for the U.S. Constitution?
Violence erupted in Iraq. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it bubbled to the surface like trapped swamp gas. Early on, it was understood that preventing civil war in Iraq would be one of the challenges faced by Coalition forces. The people of Iraq do have an Iraqi identity but they are deeply and fundamentally divided in their culture and religion. The Kurds, the Shiites, the Sunnis all are struggling to seize control in Iraq. Or at least make sure their faction is in a position to protect themselves from the others.
The situation isn't really that simple however. Not only are the three ethnic/religious factions battling for supremacy on various fronts (i.e. political, diplomatic, military), there is an additional division emerging. It again is fundamentalist vs. progressive. It could be described as Pro vs. Anti-Coalition. This division creates strange bed-fellows. For all of their differences and animosity, the Shiites and the Sunnis find themselves fighting on the same side (albeit not together) against the Coalition forces. So, in a way, Iraq is already at civil war.
The Anti-Coalition forces are the likes of Sadr and his Mahdi militia. They garner support from the Iranian Ayatollahs, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and Syria. They want an Islamic government probably not unlike the kind seen in Iran. They are only united in their fanatical belief that Iraq should be ruled by Islamic law.
The Pro-Coalition forces are the Iraqi police forces who are fighting alongside Coalition forces. These people are moderates who recognize that a fundamentalist government would not be far removed from Hussein's totalitarianism.
The fighting that is going on now has inflamed the left. We hear renewed cries that people are dying and we need to get out now. I think it's more reason than ever for us to stick to our guns. Should the fundamentalists drive the Coalition out (unlikely), they will briefly rejoice at the might of their armies and their god before turning on one another.
While Shiites and Sunnis are temporarily aligned in their efforts against Coalition forces in Fallujah and elsewhere in Iraq it is purely coincidental. Were the Coalition's forces to leave Iraq they would turn on one another like rabid dogs. Iraq would see wholesale slaughter on both sides as the Sunnis and the Shiites fight for control of Iraq. The Kurds would be dragged into the fray simply because they would probably not survive a Sunni or Shiite government and would take steps to achieve independence or at least protect themselves from the other factions.
An interesting (if infuriating) discussion from the left can be found [url=http://forums.indigital.co.uk...]here[/url]. I find two particularly interesting items in the discussion. One is complete disregard for facts or even common sense. One user on the message board says that Shiites and Sunnis are united. They're suddenly one people and they're taking their country back. It's wildly inaccurate if not downright foolish. Shiites and Sunnis are not united they're coincidental compatriots. The Shiites will not forget what they endured under Saddam's reign. If Shiite fundamentalists seize power they will try to crush the Sunnis. The Sunnis had a taste of power under Saddam and likely would appreciate a return to that particular balance of power.
The other thing is the not so subtly expressed desire that the U.S. lose the war. The arguments are hopelessly transparent, asinine in some cases. It's an illegal war, an illegal occupation, and it's for the oil. Iraqis are standing up for themselves and 'throwing off the yoke of American occupation.' I think it all boils down to a terrible kind of vindictive pettiness. People would like to see Iraq return to hell hole status, where women are property, where school means learning the Koran, where people live in abject fear of their government rather than see the United States succeed. This sounds no more rational to me than Al Qaeda's Madrid message: We will win because we believe in death and you believe in life.
ADDENDUM
Something just occurred to me that I think I should have addressed previously. Everything I've read today indicates that this insurgence is spontaneous. The Iraqis suddenly got fed up with the U.S. and are striking back. There hasn't been one mention of the fact this actually began because of the barbarity in Fallujah.
It seems terribly irresponsible of the media. I think the U.S. might have underestimated the resistance we are facing in our reprisal against the monsters who desecrated the four men in Fallujah but I think that is a result of panic on the part of the fundamentalists. It was said that the U.S. would respond overwhelmingly and with calculation to the monstrosity we saw earlier. I suspect that the fundamentalist factions freaked out when we actually began the operation and immediately lashed out against us. I suspect a large number of them have shown their hand and once the Coalition has mopped the floor with them we will see a much more peaceful and less organized Iraqi insurgence. Sadr and a number of other fundamentalist leaders will necessarily be splatted or arrested and there will be no direction for the remaining disorganized fundamentalists.
I perused a few liberal blogs today. I really couldn't believe what I read. Vitriolic glee is the best I can come up with. I think I need a shower.
In Fallujah four people are burnt to a crisp, dragged through the streets, desecrated by a mob of barbarians, and hung from a bridge like sides of beef. People are dancing and cheering in some sort of macabre orgiastic hate-filled lust. What do I find people (Americans!) saying? Screw them. They deserved it. It's just pay back for the U.S. invasion.
Consider. These bloggers are the same people who get weepy-eyed over trees and maltreated geese. They rally behind ethnic groups and queers and women's rights. They are people who profess to believe in compassion and decency and equality for all people.
The Islamic fundamentalists are excused for a level of barbarity that would be considered insane in America. The four people killed in Fallujah didn't deserve what happened to them. But according the what I read today, they brought it on themselves. They were mercenaries. Hired killers, who left their families at home for the sake of a pay check.
How can anybod try to justify an act that would make Vlad the Impaler jealous? It's inhuman and indecent. Is there not a fundamental value to human decency? Or is their a quantification, some sort of equation that creates humanity out of savagery? Perhaps the joy these monster got out of what they did was so great it outweighed the loss and desecration of four human beings. One human is equal to joy squared.
I think there is no excuse. There is a fundamental value to human decency and there is a minimum standard of human behavior that peoples of all cultures can and should be expected to abide by. If there was any doubt in my mind that we should not have gone to Iraq, it is now erased. This is an example of mass insanity. It is a cultural disease that left to itself will fester and spread like a pox.
