Faith + Reason = Truth

Voice of America News has just reported that "Iran has failed to accept a United Nations-backed proposal for uranium enrichment and has instead offered its own counter-proposal."  Is there anyone involved on either side of the negotiation that is even remotely surprised by this?  Good question.

The offer that was on the table was designed to remove Iran's supply of uranium from the country and, in return, ship them uranium in a form that could only be used for medical purposes, i.e., nuclear medicine.  This would have minimized the threat of Iran using their nuclear plants for non-peaceful purposes.  Instead, Iran has responded that they will go ahead and keep their own uranium, thank you very much, and when they need uranium for nuclear medicine, they will simply buy it from other nations.

Their counter, obviously, defeats the purpose of the whole negotiation, which was to persuade Iran to give up the pursuit of nuclear technology for non-peaceful objectives.  But it does more than that:  it gives Iran yet another victory in its ongoing war with the world.  Their war is not fought with infantry or ships or bombers; it is fought with words.  We are not battling over territory, we are battling over time.  Every hour of every day that goes by, Iran is working on developing nuclear technology.  Every extra minute they gain is a battle won.  When the world issues an ultimatum or an edict, Iran can now comply, refuse, or ask for bargaining time.  With President Bush, who the Iranians knew would never negotiate, they had only two courses:  comply or refuse.  So they refused.  But with President Obama, who is very open about pursuing dialogue, the Iranians are able to employ the third tactic of "negotiation," which is a victory in itself.  This way, they are able to buy themselves more time, which is a victory, and then refuse.

Ahmadinejad's refusal, though, is not presented as such; he is far too masterful for that.  It is instead proffered as a "counter-proposal."  Bush's administration, and every administration before his that had dealt with the Islamic Republic's regime, understood this game.  Obama and his team do not.  All Iran is looking for is time, so the best thing they could have ever hoped for in an American administration is someone who would grant them that gift on a unilateral basis while seeking absolutely nothing in return.  President Obama is the answer to their prayers.  He is the answer to Vladimir Putin's prayers in his similarly unilateral action to expose Eastern Europe to Russia's sphere of influence rather than extending our future missile shield to protect them.

Obama is bending over backward to accomodate Russia, Iran, Wall Street chieftains, and others who really don't need or deserve our assistance.  At what point will the whole of America earn, or shall I say "be entitled to," his good graces?  Good question.

A sitting President of the United States, presiding over ongoing war operations in Afghanistan with military and civilian casualties on both sides of the conflict each and every day, winning the Nobel Peace Prize.  Hmmm...

A prize for which he was unanimously selected - and for which the deadline for nominations was 11 days after he took office.  Hmmm...

A prize that had, as one of its finalists, a true hero working in the midst of war, after having suffered through the brutally oppressive anti-female education policies of the Taliban in the country of - you guessed it - Afghanistan.

Slide shows about global warming, Yasser Arafat doing his utmost in Palestine, a Presidential victory and inauguration based on hope; these are the things that have earned recent Nobel Prizes for Peace.  Not decades of scientific work or literary toil, as are the cases for Nobel prizes in science and literature.  No, just a quick PowerPoint, some campaign posters, and launching rockets at Jews.

Actually, there is one thing that these winners have in common, and that is their shared aptitude for delivering a darn good speech about what OTHER people ought to do.  Their abilities to talk about action, rather than actually acting themselves.  Which is exactly what the world needs more of, if you think about it.  Isn't it?

Hmmm....

Are you struck by images of soldiers alone with heads bowed down in prayer?  Especially when the fear or desperation is tangible through the photo, through the paper or tv, across the thousands of miles of ocean and land?
Or maybe it's not fear, maybe it's hope, maybe it's faith, maybe it's thoughts about others in their prayers.  There is no doubt that when things are toughest, times are darkest, and hope is all but lost, those are the times when faith is either magnified or abandoned.  People have wondered since our very beginnings why God allows tough times.  I don't know, but I do know that those are the times when His children are closest to Him.  For that, I am thankful.  And for those who have fought bravely to protect freedom, America's as well as other nation's, I am indebted and grateful.
Here is an excerpt of the eloquent words proclaimed by President Bush in honor of this day and the people it memorializes:

A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

On Veterans Day, we pay tribute to the service and sacrifice of the men and women who in defense of our freedom have bravely worn the uniform of the United States.

From the fields and forests of war-torn Europe to the jungles of Southeast Asia, from the deserts of Iraq to the mountains of Afghanistan, brave patriots have protected our Nation's ideals, rescued millions from tyranny, and helped spread freedom around the globe. America's veterans answered the call when asked to protect our Nation from some of the most brutal and ruthless tyrants, terrorists, and militaries the world has ever known. They stood tall in the face of grave danger and enabled our Nation to become the greatest force for freedom in human history. Members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard have answered a high calling to serve and have helped secure America at every turn.

Our country is forever indebted to our veterans for their quiet courage and exemplary service. We also remember and honor those who laid down their lives in freedom's defense. These brave men and women made the ultimate sacrifice for our benefit. On Veterans Day, we remember these heroes for their valor, their loyalty, and their dedication. Their selfless sacrifices continue to inspire us today as we work to advance peace and extend freedom around the world.

A story on Pravda's site today with a dateline of a week or so ago reminded me of the Russian President's comments that the actions of the U.S., coupled with the dismal economic conditions in the U.S. and abroad, are leading to a somewhat vacated leadership void that could well be filled in by Russia.  After all, they are still a huge regional economy, they have tremendous natural resources (particularly regarding food and energy), and they still possess the ultimate trump card in the form of their massive nuclear arsenal.

The reason they can't serve the unique economic powerhouse role that the U.S. occupies is the same reason that China can't:  nobody trusts them.  When a country has a recent and well-documented history of repressing citizens of its own and/or other countries, it cannot be trusted to be empowered with even more power and authority than it currently possesses and abuses.

Sorry, Mr. President, but if you would like to earn the world standing of an America or a Great Britain (or even a France or Germany), you'll have to earn it through your actions at home and your dealings with your neighbors.  And you'll need to do so over a period of decades, not just months or years.

In light of the shocking development regarding a journalist being sentenced to death in Afghanistan for something written, in a country with free and democratic elections, here is a post of mine from April 26, 2007 that I trumpet today, louder than ever:

April 26, 2007

"More Important Than Elections By the People"

Downtown Dallas has a small, very well-hidden plaza area called Thanksgiving Square.  This thing SERIOUSLY blurs the line between church and state - ok, it downright erases it.  Long story short:  it needs to be updated by a Proclamation of Thanksgiving by President George W. Bush.  The "Proclamation Wall" currently has just two of these:  the very first one, by George Washington, and one from President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1991 (I'm guessing that's when the Square was dedicated, but I'm not certain).  The wall has a history of Thanksgiving in America dating back to the Pilgrims, going through the American Revolution (the first official act of the soon to be declared independent U.S. of A. by the delegates of the First Continental Congress was to give thanks to God, after much spirited debate about the subject), and on up through to present times.
The wall boldly states that it will contain proclamations from future presidents IN GOOD TIMES AND IN BAD, yet 1789 and 1991 are the only such proclamations to date.  Apparently President Clinton's two terms didn't produce one, nor have either of this President Bush's.  The timing right now would be perfect:  George W. could join his dad on the wall; he is a deeply religious President who has no trouble merging the goals of church and state in certain instances (nor do I for that matter, as this country was founded on the rights of all to worship as they so choose and Presidents should not be excluded from this right); he is a Texan and it makes sense to have this in Dallas; this would be his last Thanksgiving in office before a new President-elect is upon us; while the first Bush and Washington were proclaiming in relatively "good" times, this would be an ideal opportunity for our nation to give thanks to God even during the darker days of our young people dying in a far away war, thanks that our nation is still what it always has been, which is a shining example of freedom and liberty for all nations to follow, as well as a defender of freedom for those unable to defend themselves.
And no, I didn't have a giant Stars and Stripes hanging behind me as I wrote this while "My Eyes Have Seen the Glory" played in the background (although that would have been really cool).

Wednesday, July 18 - New York steampipe explosion
Wednesday, July 25 - Dallas gas explosion (shutting down I-35 for the rest of the day)
Wednesday, August 1 - Minneapolis bridge collapse into the Mississippi (shutting down I-35)

Anyone for staying off of the Freeway of Random Catastrophe, i.e. I-35, in major U.S. cities, which runs from Mexico up through Texas, Oklahoma, and all the way to Canada?  It's the only interstate that connects Mexico with Canada, by the way.  So who's out to get us, the Mexicans or the Canadians?  Or are they BOTH conspiring against us?!  Save yourselves and stay home next Wednesday, August 8, America.  Don't say you weren't warned...

Giant fiery explosions and a huge black plume of smoke in downtown Dallas right now. I doubt that it's on purpose, and details are sketchy (aren't they always?), but supposedly it's some sort of gas explosion.  I can see it from my 28th floor window, and it's just creepy, with all the soot falling from the sky and the sirens continuously blaring by below.  It's coming from just behind Reunion Arena, where the Dallas Mavericks and Dallas Stars used to play before the American Airlines Center was built some years ago.

Yesterday afternoon we had the big power outage in San Francisco that took down many important websites for several hours, including Netflix, TypePad, FeedBurner, and many that I don't frequent. I'm not sure what they've determined as the cause of that, if they have yet.  We also just had the huge underground steampipe explosion in NYC. This morning on the way up the elevator, I read that the TSA (authority that protects airports and airplanes) has issued a warning for U.S. airports to be on alert for what appear to be "dry runs" for terror attacks.

I'll report back if there's anything worth reporting. In the meantime, more sirens continue to blare and the fire and black smoke continue to rise high into the sky.

Readers, I implore you:  PLEASE use the internet to keep yourself informed of things that are filtered/censored/edited out of your news horizon. 5pm Central Time in the U.S., and I do a quick headline search.  Financial Times - blah. CNN - blah blah. Google News - blah blah blah. Jerusalem Post (www.jpost.com) - NOW we've got something! Check out this baby's headline, front and center on their site:

"Britain does not rule out military strike on Teheran"

That will grab one's attention, as it did mine (and no, planes are not in the air as I type this - at least not that I'm aware of). This may just be a ploy by G.B.'s new Prime Minister Gordon Brown to deflect some of Tony Blair's Middle East pub, but he [Brown] says "I believe that the economic sanctions imposed on Teheran will be effective, but I wouldn't… rule out action of a different kind" in what the Jerusalem Post dubbed his first interview from 10 Downing. The rest of the article blathers on about the U.N. (more blah blah blah), but it just seemed like an important enough statement by the Prime Minister of Great Britain that it would have garnered at least a tiny mention at other major news sites.

It's free, it takes virtually no research activity whatsoever on your part - just hit a few sites for content that you wouldn't think would normally make their way through your country's typical media filters. That's all I'm asking you to do. You just might be amazed at what goes on out in that big, scary world that nobody tells you about!

A trick knee has derailed my cousin's imminent year-long Iraqi adventure. As readers of this post may recall, he was supposedly headed to Iraq for a year even though his 6-year active duty status in the National Guard ended in April. But while finishing up his 2-week training tuneup in Wisconsin, he was declared physically unfit for duty due to an apparently ligament-free knee that has tormented him since he was younger and has never had surgery. So after receiving a letter from the family doctor back home about it, the Guard x-ray'd it, confirmed the diagnosis, and flew him back home.

Today, the Financial Times is reporting that the Pakistani Supreme Court has reinstated one of their own, who had been barred by Gen. (sorry, I mean "President") Musharraf because of overstepping his judiciary boundaries. Here's an excerpt from the article that details exactly how the judge allegedly crossed the line, "By accepting, in particular, that there should be an investigation into alleged 'disappearances' of terrorism suspects and by reversing the privatisation of a large steel mill, Mr Chaudhry appeared to have overstepped the mark."  The short piece also mentions a few of the General's own constitutional transgressions:
"Rules in the constitution that Gen Musharraf has either ignored or circumvented since his 1999 coup include those barring a serving army chief from holding public office and from standing for election within two years of giving up the post."

Understand that this is a military dictatorship, that it is strongly supported by the U.S., that it faces popular opposition from Islamic fundamentalist groups, and that Osama bin Laden and his closest "cabinet members" are presumed to be in hiding along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, which is best described as "tribal frontier not governed by any national government." I won't say "lawless," as I'm sure they most likely do have their own system of recognized and abided-by, if not formally written, laws in place. If he is democratically forced out of office, as can now happen, what does this mean for al-Queda? Is it better for them to have an Islamic fundamentalist government in power that sympathizes with them, but which might also encourage a strong and open U.S. occupation of the area that could go to work rooting them out (and, by extension, more U.S. citizens like my cousin to be deployed there), or is it better to have an American-backed unpopular military dictator that is, in practice, leaving them alone in the places it matters most while winning for them the hearts and support of the population that opposes Musharraf?

Many of the parallels between the U.S. and imperial Rome are obvious:  unrivaled (which is not to say unchallenged) power of the "known world", far-flung campaigns to secure natural resources (grain then, oil now), subject of world envy while simultaneously despised by that very same world.  Even going down to the very name of the U.S. General in charge of Iraqi operations, General Petraeus (ok, this is getting a bit silly, Mr. Bush).  However, if one can get beyond the Daily Show-esque comic element of his name, his qualifications are actually quite impressive - and I would go so far as to say downright amazing.  Here's a snippet that I copied from his entry at Wikipedia:

"Petraeus was the General George C. Marshall Award winner as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College - class of 1983. He subsequently earned a Master of Public Administration (1985) and a Ph.D. (1987) in International Relations from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. He later served as Assistant Professor of International Relations at the U.S. Military Academy, and also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University. He has a BS from the U.S. Military Academy - class of 1974."

Could a candidate possibly be more qualified than this?  I doubt it.  While this does not ensure or even necessarily increase the U.S. chances for "victory", however that ends up being defined, it should at the very least result in an extraordinarily well-informed assessment of the situation from the ground forces level.  What is done with that assessment is anyone's guess, but I would hope that the appointment of such a well-credentialed, educated, and qualified individual to the top post indicates a sincere willingness and desire on the part of President Bush to determine exactly what our prospects for victory are, as well as what is likely to occur if victory is not achieved.  Someone who has excelled at West Point, Princeton, and Georgetown will have an excellent foundation in both military history and international relations, accompanied by a scholarly perspective of the whole affair.   There may yet be hope for this to come out as well as it possibly can, if not as well as once assumed.

Bush hasn't figured out the Middle East yet.  Neither did Clinton, or Bush, or Reagan, or any U.S. President in history, or any civilization in the history of man's existence in the Fertile Crescent and surrounding areas.  Nor has Africa been "solved."  I for one, however, do not necessarily believe that democratically-elected representative government should be the immediate or even primary objective for these areas, and asking differing religious traditions to peacefully co-exist in the same place doesn't have what could reasonably be enthusiastically embraced as an encouraging track record, either.  Where do we start then?
Simple:  free speech/free press.  However governments are elected or appointed or determined, and whatever the religious belief or economic system is, if I could have one rule, it would be that anyone could say whatever they wanted and write whatever they wanted without fear of reprisal or punishment or oppression, as long as it did not untruthfully harm anyone else.  What this would accomplish is a situation where everyone would be aware of what was going on, and common human moral decency would be the unstoppable force that would do away with the "bad" and keep the "good" elements of the society in question.  When attempting to analyze track records in human relations/worker treatment by Chinese mining companies or Indonesian shoe manufacturers, I believe one would quickly find that 1) it's not easy to do, and 2) it wouldn't be an enjoyable, feel-good process when faced with the realities of the situations.  The only reason American companies are any better at all is because of the efforts of muckrakers who stirred up what really transpired behind the scenes in the unsafe sweatshops staffed by women and children, or the dangerous mines and oilfields and steel mills, or any of the myriad other transgressions of corporations pursuing profit at any cost and sacrifice, human included.
The only weapon the journalists/investigators had was freedom of speech and of the press; they could not force any company or politician to do anything.  They had no weapons or militia or resources of any kind.  But once the public was made aware of what really happened, they were the ones who demanded and caused change.  Don't get me wrong:  I'm fairly certain that many of these "newly enlightened citizens" were probably already well-informed about how things worked at some of these operations, but once it was out in the open and EVERYONE knew, and even more importantly, everyone KNEW that everyone knew, the influential ones had to take action to change things, lest they have taken action upon themselves by the outraged citizenry.
Boris Yeltsin supposedly opened up the Russian press to enjoy some short-lived freedom, but it wasn't in place for a long enough period of time to institutionalize any lasting reform.  It's now been closed again by Vladimir Putin, and it may be quite a while before it once more sees the light of day.  Governments can be democracies, monarchies, a combination of the two, or even "benevolent dictatorships", but what distinguishes the different societies and the quality of life that its citizens are able to experience are their freedoms, or lack thereof, to say what they wish, to expose what is going on, and to thereby allow their fellow man to take the appropriate enlightened action necessary to bring the state of affairs in line with what would universally be recognized as right and good.  Conversely, without this lone, crucial freedom, even a democratic and representative government elected in the most fair method ever devised by man cannot result in a society that represents the best man has to offer, since people would be ignorant of the evils going on around them and powerless to do anything about it to mobilize correcting actions even if they WERE somehow aware of some atrocity somewhere.
Where does this leave us?  I have to be encouraged by the existence of the internet, if nothing else.  That alone gives people hope of exposing what is happening at any given time, any given place, even if no press or speech freedom is in place, in hopes that someone, anyone, will step up, do what's right, and fight (or simply negotiate) on behalf the oppressed little guy.  It's how the Iraq conflict began, and it's how reform in China is slowly (albeit painfully slowly) reforming, and it's how America itself was born over 200 years ago:  the cry of a free press, the call to arms to its citizenry, the plea for help from a stronger champion (France) in our hopeless struggle against an undefeatable oppressor (or at least bully, if "oppressor" is too strong a term for our British friends).  It DOES work, it DOES take time, and it IS what we really need to be fighting for, even ahead of the objective of democratically-elected representative government.

Spending the early part of childhood in Rochester, NY (my dad worked for Eastman Kodak), I remember that he traveled on occasion to conduct training.  I remember him going to Beirut, Lebanon, in the early-mid 70's, before it was destroyed, and hearing stories of sitting up on a balcony in the hills watching some rockets being fired off in the distance as the fighting was getting underway.  I also remember an Iranian man named Vigaine (not sure of the spelling) who was here for training and had family in Iran he was always worried about.  Not sure what ever became of him or his family.  He was extremely nice, generous, polite, friendly, wore a business suit, and gave me one of the few gifts I remember from those early years - a big, white, plastic Formula racing car that I could roll down ramps or along the ground (by my own arm power, of course).  Very cool.
Spending the remainder of my childhood and adult years in Texas, Richardson (outside of Dallas) had a pretty sizable Islamic community.  There was an interesting-looking mosque adding an international flair to the short skyline in one part of town, and lots of people attended  - that always made an impression on me, all of the women in burkas and men dressed in their non-Western attire, at least for that particular day and time.  Friendliest haircutter I ever regularly visited was from Iran and he owned the salon, but was always careful to refer to it as "Persia" rather than Iran.
Today, my next door neighbors are Iranians.  She's a nurse, he's an engineer that used to wear a hard hat on his way to work in his little pickup (he's opened up a Mexican restaurant as a career change within the past year though), and they have a teenager who's crazy about soccer as well as an infant.  We've been neighbors for 7 years now.  Nothing but a hard-working, polite, westernized, American family, who happens to travel to and from Tehran every summer to see family (as did the Persian hairmaster above).
These stories/slices of life have no point other than to illustrate that although the world is vast and much of it is filled with circumstances and responses to those circumstances that are beyond our comprehension or ability to reason through, people are people at the local, neighborhood level, and I have to believe that if the world were filled with neighborhoods just like these, where everyone has enough to eat and drink, electricity, jobs, a little money to spend, safety and security, freedom to worship as desired as long as others are not harmed, then we'd all be a whole lot better off.  Maybe the neighborhoods are centered around mosques or temples or cathedrals or shopping malls or factories, but if people had these basic necessities taken care of, most of the world's issues would no longer exist.  I've seen an interview with citizens of Baghdad saying "the Americans can take the oil - just let us live our lives", or words to that effect.  People just want to be left alone to pursue what they feel is their life's purpose, be it to raise a family, excel at a job, worship privately, evangelize their religion in a non-violent manner, display their artistic abilities, or invent something that would improve the world.  I realize global politics are not that simple - but I can't make logical sense out of why they are not, or why they can't start making their way in that direction.