The Independent

Health Care Reform

2009-08-13T14:51:00.000-07:00

Here's my two cents worth (more like a dollars worth). The United States is the only high-income nation out of 27 that does not have universal health coverage/socialized medicine. Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, Great Britain among other nations all have it. America now pays about twice as much per person for health care among other industrialized nations and yet we have the lowest life expectancy among those same nations (click here for source). According to the CIA and United Nations, the U.S. is ranked 45th in life expectancy, while Canada is 14th and Japan is 3rd. I'm not saying we should copy what other nations are doing, but we certainly should take a very good look at it. And I believe that is what the government is trying to accomplish with the town hall meetings.

The United States already has some socialized programs, and many of them were/are the best in the world. Even our military has socialized medicine. Some say it's the best, others say it's the worst. But since I never served in the military, I do not know whom to believe. I believe many of the socialized programs in America have suffered due to a lack of funding. In my opinion, I think there has been a trend toward much of our government (both Republican and Democrat) being more concerned with serving the needs of private interests (big business) than the needs of the public.

I lived in a country with socialized medicine for 4 years (Japan, the world's 2nd largest economy), and I never paid for a doctor's visit, ever. The only thing I paid for was medicine, and it was very cheap. Personally, I didn't see any difference in care, but I can only speak from the perspective of a relatively healthy adult in his 20's while living in Japan. My wife's grandmother recently passed away in Japan at the age of 93, and according to her family she received quality health care.

I am not one to rush to take sides, but I do not believe we can continue down the path we are on without some reform. My wife and I along with her employer pay a certain amount (not cheap) to an insurance company each month for coverage. On top of the monthly insurance premium, there is a deductible. And there is also the co-payment for each visit to a doctor. And then there is the issue of pre-existing conditions not covered by the insurance company. And on top of all that, if your insurance plan has a lifetime limit (and most do), the insurance company will stop paying if you are unfortunate enough to get an expensive illness and run up the bills. And the number one reason people go bankrupt is because they can't pay their medical bills. At the very least the government should get rid of pre-existing conditions and lifetime limits.

For the record, the reform proposed by the Obama administration is not full-blown socialism (but instead a public option) (source) and there are no "death panels" (source). This doesn't mean that the Obama administration or others supporting health care reform haven't made false claims, they have (source).

I am not a big fan of Michael Moore, but his documentary "Sicko" about health care is worth a look.

Now is the time to stand up and let your voice be heard no matter which side you support. We do live in a democratic republic after all. If we were truly communist/socialist as some have suggested, then the bill would have already been passed behind closed doors without any public discussion.

It's Official!

2009-01-20T10:37:00.001-08:00

Congratulations President Barack Hussein Obama! Best wishes to you and your administration.

Shut Up and Sing!

2009-01-19T19:46:00.000-08:00

It's A New Day!

2008-11-11T11:31:00.000-08:00

The people have spoken. What a phenomenal victory for Obama! The best way to put this historic victory into perspective is by looking at some facts:

First minority president in U.S. history
Most votes ever for any president: 69 million (53%)
Largest percentage of popular vote for Democrat since 1964
Largest percentage of popular vote for any president since 1988
Margin of victory: 10 million (7%)
States won: 28
Republican States Won: 9
Electoral votes: 365 (68%)
Control of House: Democrats +78
Control of Senate: Democrats +17 (1 race pending)
The World Celebrated Obama's Victory: click here, here, and here.

Comparison with Gore (2000):
Gore only won 20 states, 266 electoral votes, 48.4% of popular vote (51 million)
Obama +8 states, +99 electoral votes, +4.2% of popular vote (15 million)
Obama outperformed Gore in 45 states
Gore didn't even win his home state of Tennessee

Comparison with Bush II (2000):
Bush won 30 states, 271 electoral votes, 47.9% of popular vote (51 million)
Bush + 2 states
Obama +94 electoral votes, +4.7% of popular vote (15 million)

Comparison with Kerry (2004):
Kerry only won 19 states, 252 electoral votes, 48.3% of popular vote (59 million)
Obama +9 states, +113 electoral votes, +4.3% of popular vote (7 million)
Obama outperformed Kerry in 44 states

Comparison with Bush II (2004):
Bush won 31 states, 286 electoral votes, 50.7% of popular vote (62 million)
Bush +3 states
Obama +79 electoral votes, +1.9% of popular vote (4 million)

Bush II claimed a mandate with his win in 2004, so I guess Obama has a super-mandate with his victory in 2008. Unfortunately, the next four years will be difficult for Obama. Here are just a few reasons:
Record deficits and debt
Unemployment rate 6.5% (highest since 1994)
47 million uninsured Americans
Failing banks and insurance companies
Falling stock market and retirement funds
"Our entire economy is in danger." Not my words, not the media's words, but President Bush's words.
$10 billion per month of taxpayer's money to an unneccesary war
4000+ US soldiers dead in Iraq

Lackluster campaigns by Gore and Kerry in 2000 and 2004 paved the way for an Obama victory in 2008. And Bush's bad judgment and lack of leadership also helped, not to mention McCain's embrace of Bush and his administration. It's certainly nice to have Obama as our President, but Gore could have saved many Americans a lot of pain and heartache if he had just taken care of business in 2000. But like the Rolling Stones said, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes well you just might find.....you get what you need."

Click here for post-election political cartoons.

PS. This will be my last post for a while, especially from the political perspective. This doesn't mean I won't disagree with Obama or his administration. I already have. I simply feel better about the future and direction of our country. Like the title says, "It's A New Day!" Plus, my wife and I have our first little one on the way, so our lives will be too busy to follow the political landscape regularly. Peace and Love.

Congratulations President-Elect Obama!

2008-11-04T21:53:00.000-08:00

I really don't know what to say. I admire John McCain. As I've mentioned before, he is a good man and I wish him well.

To Barack Hussein Obama...Congratulations! You ran a well-organized campaign, you stayed on message, you stayed calm, you worked hard, and you won.

The face of America is no longer just that of white males. The face of America is a composite of all the people who live here, and it's my hope that a female will win the presidency next time. Best wishes to Hillary Rodham Clinton and all women fighting for equality in this country.

More reflection to come once I've had time for all of this to sink in...

Whatever Happens...

2008-11-03T18:29:00.000-08:00

it's not the end of the world. Both Barack Obama and John McCain are good men, and I wish them well in the election tomorrow. It's time to let the people speak and may the best candidate win.

Three Scenarios and One Prediction

2008-10-22T14:10:00.001-07:00

Scenario #1: Some Democrats have been talking about an Obama landslide (375+ electoral votes). I seriously doubt that will happen. In my opinion, the best Obama can expect to do is 338 to 200.
Click the link below for map:
http://news.yahoo.com/election#1

Scenario #2: The consensus is that McCain is unlikely to win the election. Nonetheless, McCain's path to victory might look something like this: McCain 273 Obama 265.
Click link below for map:
http://news.yahoo.com/election#2

Scenario #3: The final possibility is a worst case scenario for the American people. One that involves settling the winner by means of the US House of Representatives as dictated by the 12th Amendment.
Click the link below for map:
http://news.yahoo.com/election#3

My prediction: Obama 291 (52% popular vote) McCain 247 (47%).
Obama's path to victory has always been hold Kerry states + Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado. I believe he also picks up Nevada and Virginia. This election always has been and still is a close race. In the end, Obama wins by a margin of victory similar to Bush in 2004.
http://news.yahoo.com/election/myprediction

"That One"

2008-10-09T13:59:00.000-07:00

I didn't watch enough of the debate to determine a winner, so all I have to go on are polls of people who actually watched it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQqjqb95uNc
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/08/politics/2008debates /main4508430.shtml?source=mostpop_story

From what I've watched and gathered, I suspect both candidates did well but not well enough to move the electorate much in either direction. Today we have exactly 28 days until we decide who the next president will be. May the best candidate win.

By the way, his name is Senator Barack Hussein Obama.

PS. Have you checked your 401(k) recently?

In Retrospect

2008-09-27T10:32:00.000-07:00

Following a well-organized and moderated debate (kudos to Jim Lehrer and PBS), I decided to sleep on it before offering any commentary. My initial reaction was that neither candidate did very well. After reading many blog reactions I believe several Obama supporters (including myself) were too critical of his performance. I cannot speak for McCain supporters. To a certain extent I think this is understandable and to be expected, and I don't necessarily believe it's such a bad thing. I believe the most ardent supporters on both sides hold their candidates to stricter, albeit sometimes unrealistic, standards. There's nothing wrong with wanting your candidate to excel, but there really isn't any need for your candidate to try to crush his opponent.

In retrospect, I believe both candidates did what they had to do in the first debate. I think Obama looked, acted, and spoke like someone who could be president. And I believe McCain lived up to (maybe exceeded) expectations considering his reputation for economic issues and the possibility of a debate postponement. And McCain also performed well with regard to national security issues. And as expected, McCain was on the offensive and attacked Obama because he is currently trailing in a majority of national and state polls.

Anyway, I thought both candidates demonstrated knowledge of the issues at hand regardless if anyone agrees with them or not. And I believe McCain, with a few exceptions, was speaking to his base more than Obama. I think this benefits McCain more because this is how Republicans win elections. And that is exactly how they won in 2000 and 2004.

Overall, I thought McCain looked the most uncomfortable on stage. I believe this involves many factors: he's trailing, he realizes he has to play by the Republican playbook to a certain extent, he's admitted he's not very knowledgeable about the economy, and the economy is not very good for a candidate who is from the same party whose had most of the control the last eight years.

Debate Scorecard and winners:
Presentation: Obama
Demeanor: Obama
Knowledge of Issues: Tie
Red Meat: McCain
Expectations: McCain

Overall: Tie
Obama's strengths were overall image and knowledge of issues.
McCain's strengths were meeting expectations and knowledge of issues.

UPDATE: These links are encouraging if you support Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wup4nsIWe8A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALdyDYZiC_8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9fThbEGFBc

In Remembrance

2008-09-12T13:51:00.001-07:00

In remembrance and honor of:

Iraqi humans who lost their lives in the Iraq War
Vietnamese humans who lost their lives in the Vietnam War
Japanese humans who lost their lives as the result of two nuclear bombs
African-American humans who lost their lives during 223 years of slavery
Native American humans who lost their lives on the Trail of Tears
All humans who lost their lives in needless wars and experiments

In Remembrance

2008-09-11T09:05:00.001-07:00

In remembrance and honor of those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001.

Thoughts on Palin

2008-09-04T16:36:00.001-07:00

What seemed like an odd pick at first will work out well for McCain. Palin can be the "pit bull" while McCain takes the high road, and she certainly seems willing and able to fill that role. And Palin appeals to the Republican base in ways that McCain never could. She's as anti-abortion as one can get, and she's a lifetime member of the NRA. Palin also presents the image of a Washington outsider who is reform-minded. And I'll even say she comes across as more authentic than most politicians, but her selection and nomination to the ticket is only historic in that it's the first time Republicans have chosen a woman as vice president. The Democrats broke the gender barrier 24 years ago with Geraldine Ferraro.

The McCain campaign keeps pushing that Palin has more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined. If this is in fact true, then she also has more executive experience than McCain.
Personally, I think experience is over-rated. Bush was the governor of a large state for 6 years and a businessman before that. Look where the economy is now. Cheney had tons of foreign policy experience and so did Rumsfeld. Look where their foreign policy experience has taken us. How did we get to our present state of affairs? Lack of experience or bad judgment? I believe it was the result of bad judgment.

No More Excuses

2008-08-28T21:51:00.000-07:00

Obama said what he plans to do, and here is his Blueprint for Change. The ball is now in your hands...what are you going to do?

This is encouraging...

2008-08-28T21:46:00.000-07:00

More on Biden

2008-08-23T22:51:00.000-07:00

In an ideal world, Obama could have chosen someone who fits his theme of change more perfectly. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world.

Let's be honest, racism and its by-products are largely generational, and we have plenty of older folks who feel uncomfortable voting for someone they perceive as different. There's no guarantee that those same folks will vote for Obama with Biden on the ticket, but it at least gives him a chance.

Obama is the candidate of change (in more ways than one) and Biden is the person who might make that transition a little easier for some people. Whether or not Obama's strategy works remains to be seen.

Unfortunately, there are some people (young and old) who will probably never vote for Obama no matter who he has on the ticket. In the end, the best cure for race relations in America is to have someone as intelligent and kindhearted as Obama as president. But if he doesn't win in November, it could very well negate some recent gains in race relations.

I'm certainly not advocating that we vote for Obama because of his race. Instead, we should look beyond his race In reality, there is no such thing as a pure race. We are all racial hybrids.

The following is an excerpt from my blog on November 8, 2006:

"When will America elect a minority president? I can't believe we are still asking this question...It's the 21st century, and I think white males have had more than enough time to run the country. Sure, they've accomplished many good things, but they've also had their share of failures. It's time to give someone else a chance to succeed or fail. By the way, did the accomplishments or failures of white males have anything to do with their skin color or gender?"

Obama is qualified to be President of the United States with or without Biden, and his skin color is absolutely irrelevant.

Thoughts on Joe Biden

2008-08-23T07:49:00.001-07:00

What makes Biden a good choice?
First, his experience in the Senate and on the Foreign Relations committee. Second, his Catholic heritage allows the ticket to appeal to a large and significant demographic. But the most important aspect is Biden's ability to attack the Republican ticket. In many respects, he is the perfect Attack Dog for a presidential candidate to have. Does he stick his foot in his mouth? Occasionally, but Biden is a seasoned politician, and he will certainly come across as more likeable than Dick Cheney, Al Gore, and Dan Quayle combined. Biden is perhaps one of the most down to earth politicians you will find in Washington DC. He is the least wealthy of all US Senators, and he regularly commutes between his home in Wilmington, Delaware and DC. Biden may have been in DC a long time, but he is by no means the quintessential Washington insider.

To an extent, Biden helps Obama among older whites and the working class. But let's be honest, people who were planning to vote against Obama because he's different are not likely to change their minds because Biden (or anyone else) is on the ticket. However, Biden is likely to help with voters who were leaning toward Obama but were a little unsure of his capacity to lead.

In my opinion VPs don't matter that much when it comes time to vote for President. And historically speaking, the only recent elections in which a VP carried states that had a significant impact were 1960 (Lyndon Johnson) and 1976 (Walter Mondale). Nonetheless, I believe Biden will have a slight regional impact. To a certain extent, Biden helps the Democrats retain Pennsylvania and possibly gain Virginia. With Biden, I think all of the Northeast including New Hampshire goes to Obama. Outside the Northeast, I think Biden helps the Democrats retain Michigan and possibly gain Ohio, Iowa, or Florida. Biden certainly doesn't hurt in those areas. For the most part, whatever Obama wins in the West (in addition to WA, OR, and CA) can be credited to Obama or Howard Dean.

Having Biden on the ticket (at age 65) certainly doesn't play well for the future of the Democratic Party, but it does leave the possibility for Clinton to run in 2016 or even 2012. But the party may be much different by then and Clinton may very well be out of the loop. Anyway, planning for the future of the party doesn't always work out well. Remember Gore's attempt to carry the mantle?

What about Clinton?
I'm very pleased that Obama did not give in to the pressure to select Clinton as his running mate. If anything represents more of the same, it's the Clinton brand of politics, and in order for change to take place, the cycle of Bush-Clinton had to be broken. Since 1980, there has been a Bush or Clinton as Vice President or President; 28 years is more than enough. Ultimately, Obama has to sink or swim on his own, and I'm sure he realized he couldn't do this with the Clintons tied to his presidency. If Obama loses, he will have done so on his terms and with dignity.

What about McCain?
I still believe McCain's best choice is Romney, but I suspect he might pick Rob Portman of Ohio, or Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania to counter Obama-Biden in the Northeast and Great Lakes region. Portman is somewhat risky because of his ties to the Bush administration, and Ridge is risky because he is Pro-Abortion and he also has ties to the Bush administration. In the end, I believe McCain will decide to go with the person he is most comfortable with. That means his pick is probably Ridge.

Wild-cards include a female VP or even Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. I don't think McCain would be very comfortable with a female running mate, but Lieberman would certainly be an interesting choice. Lieberman would certainly help the ticket appeal to older white Democrats, but the Republican base will reject his more liberal social views (gay rights, gun control, stem cell research, Social Security, etc).

Obama-Biden vs.
McCain-Ridge???

It's Wesley Clark?

2008-08-11T13:09:00.000-07:00

Here were my top 5 predictions for Democratic VP in June:
1. John Edwards
2. Wesley Clark
3. Tim Kaine
4. Jim Webb
5. Hillary Clinton

Since Edwards has disqualified himself due to Clintonesque behaviors, Wesley Clark steps into first place as my top prediction for Democratic VP. It makes a lot of sense when you consider the recent events involving Russia and Georgia in addition to a possible air strike of Iran by Israeli forces. In the post-9/11 world, events are becoming even more complicated, and Wesley Clark would certainly help Obama appear as though he is "ready to lead" militarily.

My Predictions:
Obama-Clark '08 for the Democrats
McCain-Romney '08 for the Repbublicans

Obama Disappoints

2008-07-29T11:42:00.001-07:00

Preface: (The purpose of this entry is to highlight the fact that it is absolutely necessary to hold politicians accountable. It's much better to disagree with the person you voted for than to blindly follow without critical analysis; something many Republicans and Democrats have had difficulty with recently.)

Obama, after securing his party's nomination, has moved to the right. What's disappointing about this move is that it represents more of the same old politics, the kind he is apparently running against. Ultimately, I realize that Obama is trying to appeal to a broader base in order to win the election. Unfortunately, this means he sacrifices principle in favor of calculation, which only serves to confuse his base and others. Is Obama paying lip service to the right or is he geniune? There wouldn't be any confusion if he stood by his principles. (Issues of concern include FISA, public funding for campaign, and off shore drilling.)

One is certainly entitled to change his or her opinions after long deliberations, and in many cases one should change course regardless of the political consequences. In politics, timing, image, and perception mean everything, and in the case of Obama's recent changes, he certainly appears to be calculating his moves at the expense of principles. To me, this is a disappointment. For others, it may be a pleasant surprise. Nonetheless, I still plan to vote for Obama for a variety of reasons including McCain's well-documented list of transformations since his true Maverick run against Bush in 2000.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops

Excerpt from The Nation:
"Now Obama is not only putting politics ahead of principle--he's also calculating the politics wrong. The fact is, his stance in February helped him win a landslide victory in the Wisconsin primary, just as Feingold's principled but lonely stand against the Patriot Act helped him win overwhelming re-election in 2004. Obama inspired the support of millions when he refused to play the politics of fear and called on us to heed the better angels of our nature. He risks endangering that support when he plays the politics of calculation."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080721/editors

Updated Look at Possible Vice Presidents

2008-06-02T15:39:00.000-07:00

On May 10, I posted this about possible Vice Presidents. Since then, I have made a few small changes. These are my final predictions.

Republicans (McCain)
1. Mitt Romney because he helps McCain keep Colorado and Nevada Republican, and he puts Minnesota, Michigan, and Massachusetts in play. Based on this alone, McCain would be silly not to offer the vice presidency to him. Hopefully, some Republicans can get over his Mormonism.

2. Mike Huckabee because McCain still has problems with the Religious Right. Additionally, Huckabee helps McCain retain Iowa and helps keep the Democrats out of the South. Will the Religious Right stay home if Huckabee's not on the ticket?

3. Mark Sanford of South Carolina drops slightly due to Huckabee's name recognition and religious appeal. Sanford's positives are his youth (for future of party) and his current status of being a Washington outsider.

4. Charlie Crist's stock has dropped considerably because McCain might very well be able to retain Florida for the Republicans without the current governor. And although Crist is only 51, he looks much older.

5. Joe Lieberman stays in his original position.

Will McCain choose someone he is more comfortable with or will he choose the candidate most likely to put states in play despite any real or perceived animosity? I suspect McCain is reasonable enough to overlook any ill feelings between himself and Romney. But will the Religious Right support a rebel and a Mormon? Not sure, but I believe the Religious Right might find more in common with McCain and Romney than they suspect. That is, if they take the time to look.

Other Possibilities:
Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota
Jim Gibbons of Nevada
Bobby Jindal of Louisiana
Rick Perry of Texas
JC Watts of Oklahoma
Condoleezza Rice
Colin Powell
Rudy Guiliani of New York

Democrats (Obama)
1. John Edwards has moved up because he helps bridge the gap between Obama, Clinton, and working class whites. Additionally, Edwards is a household name which helps the ticket overcome some worries about Obama's unknown elements. And Edwards totally fits Obama's theme of change because he has changed his view on the Iraq War.

2. Wesley Clark has moved up because he might help the ticket solidify the support of Clinton voters, and his military credentials alone are worthy of vice presidential consideration. But I'm still concerned about his political skills.

3. Tim Kaine of Virginia slips slightly because his unknowns coupled with those of Obama might be too much for America to accept at once. Nonetheless, I believe he is a highly qualified candidate.

4. Jim Webb has dropped considerably due to his views on women, which is not likely to sit well with many Clinton supporters, among others.

5. Hillary Clinton retains the 5th spot due to her political gravitas, but she certainly does not fit Obama's theme of change. And her own comments concerning Obama's presidential qualifications and his possible assassination may preclude her vice presidency.

Other Possibilities:
Al Gore of Tennessee
Evan Bayh of Indiana
Ted Strickland of Ohio
Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania
Joe Biden of Delaware
Chris Dodd of Connecticut
Mark Warner of Virginia
Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas
Bill Richardson of New Mexico
Chuck Hagel of Nebraska

In addition to selecting Edwards for VP, Obama should announce whom he would like to select for his cabinet. This would help calm concerns about what an Obama presidency would look like and generate excitement among the base.

The band...

2008-05-31T23:15:00.000-07:00

The band...named Beirut...

People I Admire...

2008-05-31T22:44:00.000-07:00

NBA Playoffs

2008-05-18T17:27:00.000-07:00

My late prediction: Los Angeles Lakers over the Detroit Pistons in 6 (or 7) games. I don't like either team, but I hope it's exciting and no one gets hurt.

I'm cheering for the New Orleans Hornets and Cleveland Cavaliers, but I doubt they will make it.

Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism in Perspective

2008-05-17T20:02:00.000-07:00

It's my belief that voters rarely vote for someone simply based on race. Historically speaking, voters' options were primarily limited to wealthy white males. And minorities were not even allowed to vote for many years. Fortunately, black males earned the right to vote in 1870 by means of the 15th Amendment. However, unconstitutional Jim Crow laws prevented many black males from voting. And all females regardless of race earned the right to vote in 1920 thanks to the 19th Amendment. Finally, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 established equal rights for all minorities.

For the record, the United States was not the first country to grant universal voting rights to all citizens. That achievement belongs to the Corsican Republic whose constitution included universal suffrage in 1755.

A simple definition of prejudice is pre-judgment. A more detailed definition is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience (Oxford).
Simply put, prejudice = beliefs (attitudes).

Discrimination is defined as the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex (Oxford).
Simply put, discrimination = actions.

Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races (Oxford).
Simply put, racism = actions based on beliefs.

And minority is defined as a relatively small group of people, esp. one commonly discriminated against in a community, society, or nation, differing from others in race, religion, language, or political persuasion (Oxford). Another definition is a group that has less power than the dominant group.

Clearly, someone can be prejudiced without discriminating, but discrimination implies a preconceived opinion (prejudice). Simply put, a prejudiced person can hold preconceived opinions of someone without ever acting on those prejudices. However, someone who discriminates is clearly demonstrating his or her prejudices in the form of actions.

So can minorities be prejudiced, discriminatory, and racist? Obviously, members of a minority group can hold prejudices against others. And it's also clear that members of a minority group can also discriminate, but his or her discrimination may have little or no impact due to an imbalance of power. Remember, a minority is a group with less power commonly discriminated against. In fact, definitions of majority do not imply that they are discriminated against. In reality, members of the majority are more effective at discriminating because they hold a majority, if not all, of the power. This is where racism comes in. Racism needs to be thought of as a system of prejudice and discrimination imposed by those in power, the majority.

So another, more accurate, definition of racism is:
racism = prejudice and discrimination + power
A more detailed definition of racism is:

Racial prejudice and discrimination that are supported by institutional power and authority. The critical element that differentiates racism from prejudice and discrimination is the use of institutional power and authority to support prejudices and enforce discriminatory behaviors in systematic ways with far-reaching outcomes and effects. In the United States, racism is based on the ideology of White (European) supremacy and is used to the advantage of White people and the disadvantage of people of color. (Enid Lee, Deborah Menkart, and Margo Okazawa-Rey; Beyond Heroes and Holidays: A Practical Guide to K-12 Anti-Racist, Multicultural Education and Staff Development)

Failure to view racism as part of a historical context only serves to perpetuate the system of racism which dominated and still disgraces American society. Very few would deny that we still have racism in the United States. A classic example of how the system of racism continues to disgrace American society is found in South Carolina where the Confederate flag (a symbol of racism) flew with the American flag on top of the State House from 1962 to 2000. It has since been removed but the flag now flies in front of the state capitol next to a monument honoring fallen Confederate soldiers. The year 1962 is significant because it was at the height of the Civil Rights Movement. Simply put, the Confederate flag was and still is used as a means of intimidation against blacks seeking more power. Use of the Confederate flag is equal to the use of the Nazi flag against Jews, and flying a Confederate flag at a government facility is a form of state-sponsored racism. Imagine what would happen if a government facility flew the Nazi flag. Hopefully, you get the picture.

Are people racist when they vote for or against a particular candidate simply based on race? I wouldn't go that far, but people who vote simply based on race are certainly discriminating. Obviously, voters cannot discriminate based on race when there is only one race to choose from. Historically, minority voters rarely had the opportunity to vote for someone other than a white male. From 1776 when the Declaration of Independence stated that "all humans are created equal" until 1865, black males couldn't vote or run for office at all. And from 1865 until 1964, blacks had to contend with Jim Crow laws which made it more difficult for some blacks to vote. And it wasn't until 1920 that black women had the right to vote.

Do blacks who discriminate simply based on race when voting do so because they think their race is superior? Or is the discrimination based on gaining more power within society? Obviously, blacks could discriminate based on a belief of racial superiority, but it's more likely to be based on gaining more power. And remember that blacks often don't have any minority candidates to chose from. So voting for a white candidate often represents a vote for the candidate most likely to have the black community's interests at heart.

Do whites who discriminate simply based on race when voting do so because they think their race is superior? Or do whites discriminate when voting to gain or maintain more power within society? Again, I think the vote has more to do with power, but in this case, the vote to gain or maintain power is more significant because it serves to exclude minorities from positions from which they can create or maintain a level playing field. If minorities are routinely excluded from such positions, then they become dependent on others for social change. For example, blacks were dependent on President Lincoln and the Union Army during the Civil War, and they were also dependent on President Johnson and the US Congress for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Certainly, blacks such as Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks made significant contributions to the process, but the final legislation was ultimately in the hands of white males. Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, 30% of the elected white males voted against it.

If blacks had been granted their freedom in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was written, the issue of race and politics would be an afterthought. But blacks and other minorities did not gain equality (on paper) until 1964, and even then 30% of the elected officials didn't want it. As a result, we are still talking about race when we should be beyond race. By the way, there were plenty of people in 1776 who thought we should have abandoned the institution of slavery. Unfortunately, our founding fathers listened more to money interests than moral interests. There was a huge conflict of interests because many of the founding fathers owned slaves.

Anyway, blacks could certainly discriminate when voting in order to gain enough power to establish a system of racism, but anyone who believes we are even close to such a system is clearly in error. Some point to affirmative action as a system of racism. Affirmative action was rightfully "implemented in the 1950s to redress the negative effects of past discrimination and to encourage public institutions such as universities, hospitals, and police forces to be more representative of the population." Nonetheless, some believe affirmative action has gone too far in securing positions for minorities; that blacks and other minorities unfairly gain positions at the expense of whites. Some whites claim they are being unfairly treated simply because of their race and the unfortunate timing of their existence on earth.

But anyone who suggests that the unfair treatment of whites as a result of affirmative action is anywhere close to the injustices that blacks suffered for hundreds of years is clearly wrong. I often hear the phrase "life ain't fair." Well, that's true, sometimes it isn't. Life wasn't fair for all the slaves brought to America from 1654 to 1865. And life wasn't fair for blacks and other minorities until 1964. Like it or not, some injustices are greater than others and some injustices require amends.

Is life fairer in the United States today? Absolutely, but we still have work to do. Today, the 110th Congress is composed of 86% whites and 14% racial minorities. This is out of proportion with the population at large (approximately 70% white and 30% non-white). This is a lot better than having 100% white in Congress but it still needs improving.

By the way, the US Supreme Court has, rightly or wrongly, started to reverse the course of affirmative action. For many, affirmative action was only meant to be a temporary means of correcting past mistakes. But I doubt that some minorities like Native Americans will ever let affirmative action disappear. Why should they?

As I mentioned earlier, I believe voters rarely vote for someone simply based on race, but we would be naive to think it doesn't happen. In the end, however, I think a person's vote has more to do with who will serve his or her interests. Unfortunately, when people start thinking and acting according to the interests of MY "BIOLOGICAL" RACE instead of the interests of THE HUMAN RACE, their way of thinking and actions inevitably become racist.

Early Look at Possible Vice Presidents

2008-05-10T13:57:00.000-07:00

Here's an early look at possible Vice Presidents for the Democrats (Obama) and Republicans (McCain).

Preface: As I've mentioned before, I don't think age, gender, race or religion should be a factor when choosing a President or Vice-President, but I'm realistic enough to know that it still does matter to many people. For that reason, I have included these demographics as pros or cons for each of the potential vice presidents.

Democrats (Obama)
1. Jim Webb of Virginia (current junior Senator, former Secretary of the Navy)
Pros: White male with military experience; anti-Iraq War; attack-dog mentality; former Republican from possible swing state; age 62 (to counter Obama's youth)
Cons: Real or perceived over-aggressiveness; age 62 (perhaps too old for future of party)

2. Tim Kaine of Virginia (current Governor)
Pros: Washington outsider from possible swing state; 14 years of local and state political experience including city council, mayor, lieutenant governor, and governor; white male; Roman Catholic; age 50 (future potential)
Cons: Relative unknown; age 50 (too young of a ticket)

3. John Edwards of North Carolina (former junior Senator)
Pros: White male populist; admits mistakes; anti-poverty work; age 54 (future potential)
Cons: Couldn't carry home state in 2004 election; admitted too many mistakes

4. Wesley Clark of Arkansas (retired 4-star general)
Pros: White male with military experience; age 63 (same as Webb)
Cons: Uninspiring candidate; ties to Clintons; age 63 (same as Webb)

5. Hillary Clinton of New York (current junior Senator)
Pros: White female with 35 years of experience; health care reform; women's rights; popular among older and less-educated Democrats; age 60 (same as Webb)
Cons: Female; represents old Democratic Party; admits she has lots of baggage; baggage has not been completely vetted (one example: 1996 Bosnia trip); campaign debt; real or perceived negativity toward Obama; age 60 (same as Webb)

Who Didn't Make the Democratic List and Why:
Evan Bayh of IN: possible dark horse, but not likely to carry Indiana for Democrats
Ed Rendell of PA: age 64; ties to Clintons
Ted Strickland of OH: age 66; ties to Clintons
Bill Richardson of NM: minority; not a very good speaker or debater
Joe Biden of DE: age 65; from solid Democratic state
Chris Dodd of CT: age 63; from solid Democratic state
Al Gore of TN: never gonna happen; couldn't win home state of TN in 2000
Kathleen Sebelius of KS: female; boring speaker (reminds me of John Kerry)
Mark Warner of VA: currently running for an important Senate position
Chuck Hagel of NE: two words: current Republican

Republicans (McCain)
1. Charlie Crist of Florida (current Governor)
Pros: one word, Florida; Washington outsider; age 51
Cons: rumors of homosexuality

2. Mark Sanford of South Carolina (current Governor)
Pros: Governor; perceived as Washington outsider; age 47
Cons: Relative unknown; from solid Republican state

3. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas (former Governor)
Pros: appeals to Religious Right; former Governor; charismatic; age 52
Cons: appeals to Religious Right; from solid Republican state

4. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts (former Governor)
Pros: appeals to social conservatives; former Governor; Washington outsider; age 61 (but looks much younger)
Cons: perceived as flip-flopper; Mormon; not sure McCain likes him; not likely to carry Massachusetts for Republicans

5. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
Pros: acts and talks like a Republican; good friend of McCain
Cons: two words, current Democrat

Who Didn't Make the Republican List and Why:
Tim Pawlenty of MN: Minnesota looks tempting but a McCain-Pawlenty ticket doesn't
Jim Gibbons of NV: age 63; relative unknown; Mormon
Colin Powell: age 71; disenchanted with Republicans; now believes Iraq War was mistake
JC Watts of OK: McCain knows he's not going to get many black votes even if he has a black person on the ticket
Condoleezza Rice: see JC Watts; McCain and Rice on same ticket = too much Iraq
Rick Perry of TX: Voters are now leery of governors from Texas
Bobby Jindal of LA: at 36, still a political lightweight: too much too soon = Quayle

Why It's Okay to Vote for Obama

2008-03-29T18:05:00.001-07:00

1. He's got a specific plan for bringing about change to politics as usual in America. You may not agree with his plan, but you cannot say he doesn't have a plan or lacks specifics. Click here for his plan, all 64 pages of it. If you want to continue politics as usual, please don't vote for Obama. And if you're a Republican, many prominent conservatives including Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin have expressed serious concerns about John McCain. Limbaugh and Coulter even suggested that there's not much difference between McCain and the Democrats. So why not vote for Obama?

2. Obama opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, a war that even the conservative National Review said was a mistake. And here is what the late William F. Buckley Jr. had to say, "Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans." Let me repeat, these are conservative Republicans saying the Iraq War was a mistake and failure. So what difference does it make if Obama says it was a mistake?

3. Obama realizes that "It's the war economy, stupid." Many people don't make the connection between the Iraq War and our stagnant, if not recessive, economy. The average gas price before invading Iraq was $1.82, but now the national average is $3.39 with averages expected to hit $3.60 by summer. And the cost of the war for US taxpayers: 12 Billion dollars per month, that's 400 Million dollars per day. If you want to keep spending this amount of money on an unnecessary war, please don't vote for Obama.

4. Obama realizes that sometimes it's necessary to talk with our enemies. Remember when Ronald Reagan sat down at the table with the evil Soviet Union? Or when Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam Hussein? And Iraq's current Prime Minister al-Maliki recently met with Iranian President Ahmadinejad. And even Reagan's administration negotiated with Iran. In 1985, the Reagan administration illegally agreed to sell weapons to Iran, a state sponsor of terror, in exchange for hostages. In the end only 3 hostages were released, but the US made enough money to help fund a "freedom fighting" militia in Nicaragua who engaged in terrorist activities. And if you're a Christian, please remember what Jesus said, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you."

5. Obama is a healer. This is not to say that McCain or Clinton couldn’t be healers. I’m sure they could, but Obama represents the best chance of healing a wounded citizenry. I realize the last so-called healer didn’t work out too well. Bush claimed to be a uniter, but unfortunately many perceived him as part of the problem. I will not put all of the blame on Bush’s shoulders, but he should bear a good deal of it. It certainly doesn’t help when you have one of the most despised vice presidents of all time, a person who only listens to opinion polls when it suits his agenda (Click here and here for videos). Anyway, Obama doesn’t seem to think we’re as divided as it might appear. Obama had this to say in a 2006 interview, “The country is not as polarized as our politics would suggest.” Let’s hope he’s correct.

Each candidate has positives and negatives. Unfortunately, most politicians and voters respond to negativity, and since I’m not afraid to address Obama’s negatives, I will discuss that here. One of Obama’s negatives involves the words of his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Opponents of Obama can’t understand how Obama could have stayed in a church with such a leader for 20 years. What opponents incorrectly assume is that Rev. Wright preached “God Damn America” every week. If he did, where are the tapes? If more tapes appear, I’ll be the first to condemn them, but to my knowledge, only two clips were played endlessly on so-called news channels. But one must not forget the importance of context.

Blacks in America were slaves for 250 years, followed by another hundred years or more of inequality (see Jim Crow Laws). Rev Wright was born in 1941 and grew up during the most violent time of America's domestic history. During this time, it goes without saying that Rev Wright was subject to an oppressive culture on a daily basis. Many blacks living during this time witnessed some of the most inhumane treatment of blacks and others on a daily basis. And in 1961 Rev Wright honored his country by serving in the armed forces even before his country would honor him or his race as equals. And even though the Civil Rights Amendment of 1964 was passed, equality did not happen over night. Like Mr. Obama said, Rev. Wright is part of a different generation, and some of them haven't gotten over the past; not unlike the many Jews who have vowed to forgive but never forget the atrocities of Nazi Germany and others. And let's not forget the Native Americans and their ongoing grievances with the US government. And let's not forget women's struggle for the right to vote and equal rights. I certainly believe all these groups have legitimate arguments and frustrations with the governments that oppressed them, especially those people who actually lived under such oppression (like Rev. Wright did). By the way, Rev. Wright and others are not likely to forget that the Confederate Flag flew with the American Flag on top of the South Carolina State House from 1962 to 2000. It has since been removed but the flag now flies in front of the state capitol next to a monument honoring fallen Confederate soldiers.

Anyway, what was Obama’s response to Rev. Wright? Obama denounced and rejected Rev. Wright's comments saying, "Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."

So let me put this all into perspective by asking you a few questions. How could any presidential candidate prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have sat in church week after week listening to preachers talk about how God and Jesus loved everyone equally while non-whites were degraded on a daily basis outside the church building? And this next question is specifically for whites: How many of you have disowned family or friends outright who said things far worse than “God Damn America,” words such as nigger, coon, or spade? Obama considers Rev. Wright family, and he did what most of us have always done; that is, he condemned the words but not the person, Obama attacked the sin, not the sinner. Even Mike Huckabee and other preachers agree with Obama on this (Click here and here for links). Even so, we (including all races) have come a long way, but we (everybody) still have work to do.

Here’s another question: How is “God Damn America” any different from Rev. Jerry Falwell’s comment that America deserved to be attacked on 9/11? (Click here for video). Or what about Rev. John Hagee’s statement that the Catholic Church is the Great Whore? John McCain rightly called Falwell and others “agents of intolerance” in 2000, but he kissed and made up in 2006 when he decided to run for president again. McCain even accepted the endorsement of John Hagee. And what was McCain’s response? “When he endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes.” I totally agree with McCain, but does the same standard apply to Obama? (Click here for video).

I don’t agree with Rev. Wright, Rev. Falwell, or Rev. Hagee, but that doesn’t mean they can’t express their First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech. This is, after all, America. To say they can’t say such things is simply un-American. And what did Thomas Jefferson have to say about dissent? “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

Another negative associated with Obama is his so-called lack of patriotism. Most of this stems from his decision not to wear a flag pin. Here is Obama’s response: “You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest; instead I’m gonna try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.” Enough said. If you don’t agree then you can just be like those bleeding heart liberals and wear your heart or, in this case, your flag on your sleeve, I mean lapel.

I included a section on Obama’s negatives to emphasize the fact that we all make mistakes and have weaknesses. It doesn't matter if you are Democratic, Republican, Independent, etc. I could just have easily spent my entire time writing about McCain’s and Clinton’s negatives, but I don’t respond well to negativity and neither should you. The world would certainly be a better place if we didn’t.

Anyway, you can denounce Obama's speeches and what he represents if you like, but you would only end up sounding like Hillary Clinton who stated, "We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered."

I prefer to believe in hope: “Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can seize our future. And as we leave this great state with a new wind at our backs and we take this journey across this great country, a country we love, with the message we carry from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire, from the Nevada desert to the South Carolina coast, the same message we had when we were up and when we were down, that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we will hope.”

Even if you still don’t think Obama is a healer, he’s certainly no less a uniter than Bush. At least Obama’s words or actions (or even those of his pastor) haven’t divided a nation against a war that has killed 4036 US soldiers and many thousands of Iraqis.

This year, the distinctions are clear: more of the same or a fresh start. Which are you going to choose?

Clinton vs Obama (The Stats)

2008-03-29T18:03:00.001-07:00

Here's a look at some 2008 Democratic Campaign Statistics:

Pledged Delegates (Includes Florida and Michigan)
Obama 1768 (+105)
Clinton 1663

Super Delegates
Obama 307 (+27)
Clinton 280

Total Delegates (Includes Florida and Michigan)
Obama 2075 (+132)
Clinton 1943

Popular Vote (Includes Florida and Michigan)
Obama 47.6%
Clinton 47.7% (+0.1)

Contests Won (Includes Florida and Michigan)
Obama 33 (+12)
Clinton 21

Primaries Won (Includes Florida and Michigan)
Obama 19
Clinton 19

Caucuses Won
Obama 14 (+12)
Clinton 2

Democratic States Won (According to 2004 Results)
Obama 12 (+4)
Clinton 8

Republican States Won (According to 2004 Results)
Obama 17 (+5)
Clinton 12

Big States Won (70 or more delegates)
Obama 10
Clinton 11 (+1)

Small States Won (Less than 70 delegates)
Obama 19 (+10)
Clinton 9

Money Raised
Obama $234,745,081 (+ $45,648,028)
Clinton $189,097,053

Categories Won
Obama 9 (+7)
Clinton 2

Upcoming Contests (Predicted Winners)
Obama 2 (SD, MT)
Clinton 0
Toss-up 1 (Puerto Rico)

Commentary:
I'm a life-long Independent who supports Obama for the Democratic nomination. I'm still undecided about voting for Clinton if she happens to obtain the nomination. Personally, I see very little difference between Washington DC Republicans and Democrats when it comes to corporate influence, over-spending, waste, voting to authorize unnecessary wars, disconnect from middle and lower class citizens, trade, and politics as usual (partisanship). And the longer this democratic process continues, the more Clinton acts like a Washington DC Republican.

When the nomination process began, conventional wisdom, the media, and the Clinton campaign projected that the nomination was Hillary Clinton's to win or lose. Even Mrs. Clinton said the process would be over on February 5, 2008 (click here for video). Well, conventional wisdom, the media, and Clinton were wrong.

Mrs. Clinton and the Clinton brand of politics are losing the election to a candidate who was a relative unknown until 2004, the year Barack Obama came on the scene at the Democratic National Convention. How could this have happened? How could Mrs. Clinton and the Clinton Machine be losing to such a political lightweight? How could the Clintons be losing in fundraising, the popular vote, number of pledged delegates, and number of contests won (even if you include Florida and Michigan)? How is this possible? How could the former First Lady of a popular Democratic president, a person with 35 years of experience and thousands of political ties, be losing to a bi-racial man whose father was from Kenya and who once lived in Indonesia? And how could the Clintons be losing to a man whose preacher once said "God Damn America"? It just doesn't seem possible. Perhaps it is the "vast right-wing conspiracy" Mrs. Clinton talked about many years ago. Perhaps "THEY" are behind this.

Or maybe it's something else. Perhaps it's Mr. Obama's character; his genuineness, intelligence, and inspiration. Or maybe it's because he doesn't change himself, his message, or his tactics every other week. Or perhaps it's because he doesn't appear desperate to win at all costs. Or maybe it's because he doesn't want to change the rules. Or possibly it's because he doesn't pit "US" against "THEM". Or maybe it's because he doesn't appear to think he's somehow entitled to the presidency. Or perhaps it's because he appeals to people's hopes that the government can and should empower people from the bottom up, not the top down. Or maybe it's because he stays on message week after week and talks about the issues (Those who say he doesn't give specifics are not listening or looking. Click here for Mr. Obama's specifics). Or possibly it's because words do matter, and people believe he will put his words into action (if given the chance). As Mrs. Clinton said, actions speak louder than words. Indeed, Mrs. Clinton has 35 years of action, but the majority of people just aren't buying it. I wonder why.

Perhaps Mr. Obama is winning because he opposed the war in Iraq on principle from the beginning while Mrs. Clinton appears to have favored the war for political reasons. Or maybe it's because Mr. Obama is acting "dovish" or "feminine" while Mrs. Clinton is acting "hawkish" or "masculine". Or possibly it's like Mrs. Geraldine Ferraro said, it's because Mr. Obama is black or because America is more sexist than racist. I hope not.

Or maybe it's because Mr. Obama's positives are higher and his negatives are lower than Mrs. Clinton's. And why should we believe Mrs. Clinton when she says she is more electable in the General Election when she can't even win her party's own primary election? And why should we trust that Mrs. Clinton will be better in the General Election when she has to lend her own campaign 5 MILLION dollars and she can't even raise more funds than her opponent in the primary election? Where are the organizational skills? Where is the Clinton Machine?

I agree with both candidates that Mrs. Clinton should stay in the race until June 3, the date of the last primaries. When the dust has settled, the (conceptually undemocratic) Super Delegates should vote for the candidate with the most Pledged Delegates. Hopefully, that candidate will also have the popular vote, but if he or she doesn't, get over it. We all know the popular vote is not the way we elect our nominees or presidents. If you want to change the rules, do it before the process begins, not during it.

Considering the statistics above, I find it difficult to believe that the Super Delegates or anyone else will override the "will of the people" (Look at the stats). As you might have noticed, I included the results from Florida and Michigan for the sake of argument. Even if you include these results, Clinton is still losing. And if Clinton somehow obtains the nomination without winning the Pledged Delegates, I will probably vote for a third party candidate.

The nomination was Mrs. Clinton's to win or lose. She lost it.
Or maybe you could say Obama won it.

My Primary Predictions (A Recap)

2008-03-29T18:02:00.001-07:00

My primary predictions were wrong. I accurately predicted that Giulliani would not get the Republican nomination, but I was way off base in selecting Huckabee. In the end, Huckabee stayed around longer than many expected, but I should have known that the Republicans would resort to a nomination of entitlement much the way they did in 1996 with Dole. Unlike then, McCain is a much more formidable candidate with cross-party appeal and national security credentials in a post 9-11 world. His major disadvantages, however, are loyalty to Bush, unyielding support for the war in Iraq, lack of funds, and lack of support from the religious right. Some might also consider his age as a disadvantage, I don't.

As for the Democrats, I am pleasantly surprised. I never thought Obama or anyone else could seriously challenge the Clinton machine. My original preference for the Democratic nomination was Kucinich, Gravel, or Edwards. Although I do not agree with everything Obama advocates or represents, I still believe he is the best candidate for the Democratic Party and the nation at this time. Like I said before, I believe the country needs a healer now, not another Clinton (Hillary) or Bush (McCain).

Final Political Predictions Before Primaries

2007-12-06T19:31:00.001-08:00

Back in August, I had this to say about the 2008 Presidential Election.
And the following is a quick summary of my August predictions:
Democratic Nominee: Hillary Clinton (VP: Wesley Clark or Jim Webb)
Republican Nominee: Fred Thompson (VP: Mike Huckabee or Mark Sanford)

Now it is December 6 and only 28 days until the beginning of the presidential primary season. Everything is the same with my August predictions with one major exception: I now predict that Mike Huckabee will get the Republican nomination. As I predicted in August, Huckabee is the dark horse for the Republican presidential nomination. He is now second in Iowa and might very well win that state and the nomination. In the end, Huckabee is the "ideal" candidate for the Republicans because he's young, a counter to Clinton in Arkansas, and a member of the religious right. However, Huckabee must turn early victories into financial windfalls or he will not make it very far on Super Tuesday (February 5, 2007). Nonetheless, I believe he is positioned to steal the political fortunes of Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain.

In August, the momentum was certainly with Thompson, but he has since squandered a chance to obtain the nomination. I believe his late entry, age, and lack of enthusiasm have contributed to his decline. Other major factors are the staying power of Romney and the rising power of Mike Huckabee. Romney has assembled a solid foundation in the early states which has fended off potential challengers with one exception. Huckabee, with the religious right starting to take notice, is beginning to challenge Romney. Nonetheless, I still believe Romney, Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain will do well enough to make it to the end of February, but Huckabee's rising political status and surprise victories will ultimately put Thompson and the others out of contention.

Let me reiterate that I do not believe Romney or Giuliani will get the Republican nomination because one is in the "wrong" religion (Mormonism) and the other "isn't religious enough." This is by no means their fault. It is the fault of the political party they support and aspire to lead. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is becoming more exclusive. President George W. Bush is the new precedent for future Republican nominees. Not only did he openly seek and accept the support of the religious right (nothing new), but he often professed private matters of faith and how they personally guided his decisions as the leader of a secular government. Under Bush, the line between Church and State has certainly gotten smaller, and he was not ashamed to throw the religious right red meat when he or the party needed their support.

As a result, the religious right will compare any future nominee to the standard Bush has set. The thought of President Romney or Giuliani scares many people, but I just don't see the U.S. or world falling apart if they win. But I just don't think they will get the nomination in a party that is becoming increasingly theocratic (in the Christian sense). Is it any wonder that Huckabee is gaining steam? If this trend continues I suspect the Republican Party will eventually split. Until then, those who proclaim blind allegiance to the religious right have a distinct advantage when it comes to getting the Republican nomination.

So my final prediction for the presidential primaries is this:
Democrats: Hillary Clinton (VP: Wesley Clark or Jim Webb)
Republicans: Mike Huckabee (VP: Mark Sanford)

As I mentioned in August, there is one caveat. If the U.S. is attacked again or war breaks out with Iran, the Republican nomination is likely to go to McCain, Giuliani, or Thompson. That is a big IF, but it would certainly change the dynamics of the race for both Republicans and Democrats.

I will now give my preferences for president as they are different from my projections. I seriously doubt I will vote for Huckabee or Clinton if they are the nominees. The only way I will consider voting for Clinton is if she offers the vice-presidency to Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, or Gravel. This is unlikely to happen even for Obama or Edwards. Therefore, I am left with the following:
Wishful-thinking choices for president: Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd or Ralph Nader
Realistic choices for president: Barack Obama, John Edwards, or Rudy Giuliani

Giuliani seems like an odd pick, but he is similar to the Democrats on some issues (especially social ones). And he certainly appears more compassionate, level-headed, and intelligent than President Bush or any of the other Republican candidates. But one major negative for me is that he continues to support the war in Iraq. This I can not accept.

Unfortunately, the only way I see Obama getting the Democratic nomination is if Edwards drops out early and throws his support to him. I doubt this will happen. Even if it did, it would still be very difficult to stop Clinton. I will likely vote for Nader, Michael Bloomberg (if they run), or some other third party candidate if Clinton gets the nomination. Until that officially happens, there's always the audacity of hope...

For the record, I will not contribute financial support to any candidate until the primaries are over and the ballots are set. Unfortunately, my vote on May 13, 2008 will be a moot point since the nomination will be wrapped up well before then. No wonder voters feel disenfranchised. The primaries are in serious need of reform. One suggestion is having the federal government divide the states into regions which vote first (like Iowa and New Hampshire) on a rotating basis. Another idea is having all states vote at once. I prefer the former because it allows candidates a chance to hone their political skills and more importantly, empowers voters (from different areas) with the opportunity to shape the political process and discourse.

Football Predictions

2007-11-29T14:29:00.001-08:00

NFL: The New England Patriots look very strong, but they are not beyond vulnerability. Injuries late in the season or peaking too early can undo any team. I doubt they will finish the regular season undefeated, but if they do, more power to them. If the Patriots stumble in the playoffs, it will more than likely be to the Indianapolis Colts.

In the NFC, I believe the Green Bay Packers will beat the Dallas Cowboys tonight but lose to them in the playoffs.

Playoff Projections
AFC
New England Patriots
Indianapolis Colts
Pittsburgh Steelers
San Diego Chargers
Jacksonville Jaguars (wild card)
Cleveland Browns (wild card)

NFC
Dallas Cowboys
Green Bay Packers
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Seattle Seahawks
New York Giants (wild card)
Winner of Philadelphia Eagles and New Orleans Saints on December 23 gets the final wild card

Super Bowl 42: New England Patriots over the Dallas Cowboys
A no brainer but not a certainty by any means

College: I'm seriously considering a boycott of college football if they do not implement a playoff system. To not have one is simply asinine. The crazy thing is you can still retain the top 15 major bowls with a 16-team playoff format. With this format, 15 games would be played over a period of four weeks. Each of the 15 games could be played as corporate-sponsored bowls with the final 7 games designated to the Sugar, Orange, Tostitos, Rose, Capital One, Cotton, and Gator Bowls on a rotating basis.

Anyway, here are my bowl projections
Orange: Georgia vs. Virginia Tech (or Boston College)
Sugar: LSU vs. Hawaii
Rose: USC vs. Ohio State
Tostitos: Oklahoma vs. Arizona State
Allstate Championship Bowl: West Virginia vs. Missouri

I might very well skip the BCS this season if Hawaii doesn't get into a BCS bowl. Even Kansas might not make it to a BCS bowl at 11-1. And if Ohio State makes it back to the Championship Bowl by default, I will certainly cheer for the other team.

Petraeus' Testimony

2007-09-12T09:12:00.000-07:00

Here is what General Petraeus had to say...

"Nonetheless, there are reasons for optimism. Today approximately 164,000 Iraqi police and soldiers (of which about 100,000 are trained and equipped) and an additional 74,000 facility protection forces are performing a wide variety of security missions. Equipment is being delivered. Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being reestablished."

in 2004, yes 2004.

Despite the optimism and progress cited 3 years ago, he still wants over 160,000 U.S. troops to remain in Iraq until March 2008, followed by a withdrawal of 30,000 troops (the number of surge troops) by next summer. When will it end?

8,000,000,000 tax dollars and 64 U.S. soldiers killed every month.
No thanks. I don't want my tax dollars spent this way.

It's clear that terrorism (like crime) will be with us for a while. The best way to contain terrorism is through pro-active intelligence gathering, diligent police work, and strengthening alliances, NOT through wars of attrition. Wars of attrition on distant shores will only serve to destroy our great civilization. Is this what we want for our children?

An Early Prediction

2007-08-14T16:20:00.000-07:00

Introduction
It is impossible to say with any certainty what WILL happen in the upcoming presidential campaign. Nonetheless, I would like to offer an idea as to what MIGHT happen followed by my thoughts on the process and my current preferences.

Early signs indicate this election cycle might very well be unprecedented in many respects. First, the amount of money being raised each quarter continues to be record-setting. Second, the number of debates and candidates on each side are quite high. Third, it's been 80 years since there was no incumbent president or vice president running for nomination. Finally, the threat of terrorism in the nation and world will continue to be a factor. In the end, however, I believe the deciding factors will be the state of the economy (for all Americans) and the War in Iraq, NOT national security or terrorism.

Before I address the 2008 presidential election in detail, I would like to mention a few caveats that might significantly influence the process. First, another major terrorist attack on United States soil will more than likely increase the support of Republican candidates, especially McCain and Giuliani. Of course, all of this depends on when and how such an event takes place. Another word of caution involves the possibility of a significant third party candidate. Nader has already mentioned the possibility of running again, and Bloomberg, despite saying he would not run, recently changed his party's affiliation to independent, and he continues to voice his opinions about issues facing presidential candidates. And there is also the possibility that the evangelical base of the Republican party might support a third party candidate or simply refuse to support the party's nomination for any number of reasons. Nonetheless, I don't see such a third party candidate getting much of the vote, perhaps 3-5% at the most. To a large extent, the battle lines have been drawn by the two major political parties since the 2000 election, and most voters are likely to fall along party lines with swing voters keeping the 2008 election within 3-5% points. Sound likes an interesting presidential election to me.

The Democrats
I will start with the Democrats since their field appears to be easier to prognosticate. Currently, Hillary Clinton is in a strong position to win the nomination for a variety of reasons. Name recognition and image are huge in politics, and Clinton is doing a good job of controlling both to her advantage. In the polls, Clinton has a national average lead of 17 points, and she is leading in most states including a 2 point lead in Iowa and 15 point lead in New Hampshire. A lot could happen between now and January 2008, but Clinton is a professional politician with a huge political machine, and I doubt she will be derailed.

Barack Obama and John Edwards appear to be the only candidates with a realistic chance of overtaking Clinton for the Democratic nomination. To a large extent, Obama is running as the candidate of change and Edwards is running as the anti-Clinton candidate. Edwards national poll average is 10.3 while Clinton's national average is 38.3. In fact, Al Gore (an undeclared candidate) is garnering more support than Edwards in some polls. In the Democratic Party, at least, it is clear that being pro-Clinton is more popular than being anti-Clinton. Again, I don't think much will happen between now and January 2008 to change this view.

If anyone can dethrone Clinton it will most likely be Obama who has gained enough support, both financial and human, to significantly challenge her for the nomination. Obama's national poll average is 21%, but even if he loses a couple of early states in the primaries and caucuses he will have enough money to compete on February 5, 2008 (Super Tuesday/National Primary) and beyond. Even so, I seriously doubt Obama will be able to overcome the well-oiled political machine of Clinton.

The Republicans
The Republican nomination, on the other hand, appears to be much more complicated. Early signs indicated that the nomination was going to Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani's national poll average has only dropped 4 points since he entered the presidential race in February 2007, but recent polls indicate that an increasing number of Republicans are unsure of who they would vote for in their party (currently 23%, up from 10% in March 2007). In the same poll, Giuliani received 29% (down from 36% in March 2007). Additionally, Fred Thompson has been polling in second place ahead of John McCain and Mitt Romney without officially being in the race. To complicate matters even more, Romney is ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire polls with 17- and 11-point leads respectively.

And we haven't even mentioned the significance of the evangelical base of the Republican Party. To my knowledge, no post-World War II Republican (including Nixon) has won the presidency without the support of the evangelical base, and I don't see 2008 being much different in this respect.

So how might the evangelical base influence the prospects of the Republican candidates?:
On immigration, abortion, and gay rights, Giuliani is more like independents and Democrats. According to Rasmussen Reports, 51% of Americans polled consider him a moderate or liberal. I wish Giuliani well, but I just don't see the evangelical base (a significant number) voting for him in the primaries or national election. Therefore, I don't think Giuliani gets the nomination. Giuliani's national poll average (28%) is already down 10 points from March 2007, when he peaked at 38%. He's also down 4 points from his initial national poll average of 32% in February 2007, and I think he will continue to fade as more and more evangelicals become familiar with his platform and his personal life. One of Giuliani's self-proclaimed strengths is national security, and I'm sure it's an important issue to many evangelicals. However, I cannot imagine national security trumping immigration, abortion, or gay rights.

McCain angered many evangelicals in the 2000 presidential campaign when he openly criticized conservative Christian leaders as being "agents of intolerance." McCain has since apologized and even sought the support of those he criticized. This move alone should be enough to convince you that the support of the evangelical base is a significant component of the Republican nomination. McCain's support has dropped among independents, in part, due to his ongoing support of the War in Iraq, and his support among Republicans has dropped to an extent because of his so-called "amnesty" for illegal immigrants. McCain will probably continue to fade before surging at some point in the election, only to drop out in the end.

Before moving on to other Republicans, it is important to remember the caveat I proposed earlier in this essay. That is, Giuliani and McCain gain support, enough to get the nomination, if the US is attacked again. However, I think the majority of support that pushes Giuliani or McCain ahead will come from Reagan Democrats, undecided independents, and secular Republicans, NOT evangelicals. Sure, some evangelicals might "hold their noses" while they pull the lever for Giuliani or McCain, but I suspect many evangelicals will simply stay home on election day 2008 if they don't like the candidates. Their silent protest will not be aimed at anyone in particular. Instead, I believe the protest will have more to do with the unusual amount of stench originating from Washington DC, both Republican and Democratic (Larry Craig, David Vitter, William Jefferson, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, Tom DeLay, Alberto Gonzales, Bob Ney, Jack Abramoff).

That leaves us with Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and a dark horse named Mike Huckabee. Nominating Romney (at age 60, looks younger) or Huckabee (age 52) would be better for the future and image of the Republican Party (Thompson is 65). But Romney's Mormonism might not play well with the evangelical base among others. According to a recent Pew Research poll, 25% of Americans would be less likely to support a candidate for president who is Mormon. Mormons are in third place only behind Muslims (45%) and Atheists (61%). In the same poll, Americans would only be 6% less likely to vote for a black candidate for president. One's religion appears to be more important than one's skin color. Another problem for Romney is his change of opinion with regard to abortion. Actually, I think this is less of an issue than his religion. Despite his change of mind, at least Romney has ended up on the side that evangelicals favor; that is "pro-life".

An ideal candidate for the evangelicals is Huckabee. He is similar enough to all the other Republican candidates with three significant distinctions: he's always been "pro-life," he doesn't believe in evolution, and he's a Baptist preacher. Nonetheless, Huckabee remains a relative unknown among the Republican pack. But there are signs that this is changing. Huckabee's national poll average is up to nearly 4%, and he finished second in the Ames, Iowa Republican Straw Poll (Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson did not compete). Huckabee's national average was nearly dead at 0-1% as late as May 2007. Huckabee is starting to show signs of life, but he must make more significant gains in the polls between now and January 2008 or he will continue to maintain his lower-tier/possible vice-president status.

So how does Thompson figure in to the equation? Thompson has been criticized for waiting to officially enter the race (He officially announced on September 5, 2007). I don't blame him for waiting until after Labor Day to announce, but if he did in fact manipulate the political system to his advantage then he should be held accountable. As for entering the race late, couldn't it be that the others entered too soon (as early as January 2007)? It sounds like Thompson has a 6-month strategy, one which allows him to enter the race in September 2007, and know whether or not he is the nominee by the end of February 2008. In this day and age, that is more than enough time for the media and the public to get to know a candidate.

But one issue that may upset the evangelical base are allegations that Thompson lobbied for a pro-abortion rights group in the early 1990s. So far, it seems as though Thompson has been able to deflect this, and I suspect he's folksy enough to continue to do so throughout the campaign. Compared to Giuliani and Romney, I believe Thompson will be more effective at explaining any concerns regarding abortion (or any issue). One clear advantage for Thompson is that he appears to be more skillful and comfortable at speaking with the "common" person. Personally, I do not think this characteristic should be a prerequisite for the presidency, but it's an important factor for many people and therefore considered an advantage. (This is also an advantage for Huckabee).

And I just don't believe pundits and others who say Romney has the most to lose from Thompson entering the race. During Thompson's "exploratory period," both Thompson and Romney's national poll averages went up while Giuliani's and McCain's went down. It appears as though Giuliani and McCain have the most to lose from a Thompson campaign. And despite the decreased likelihood that Americans will vote for someone who is Mormon, Romney's personal life is more in line with what evangelicals and Catholics usually expect from their candidates. Even so, I don't believe Romney can garner enough support to win the nomination.

What's interesting is Jeb Bush's absence from the 2008 presidential election. I believe Jeb has seriously considered running, but he realizes the chances for another Bush aren't so good this election cycle. However, I suppose we will hear from Jeb or another Bush in 2012 and beyond.

Final Analysis
The Democrats are probably even more likely than 2004 to nominate a candidate they believe is the most electable. Eights years of Bush II has perhaps strengthened Clinton's chances, while the Republican Party struggles to find someone like Ronald Reagan. I say Clinton's chances are strengthened because the Democrats are also being nostalgic. The Democrats are looking for someone like Bill Clinton, the last (elected) two-term Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-45). So I think Hillary Clinton gets the nomination barring any major scandals (like Lewinsky) or surprises (like Gore entering the race).

As for Clinton's running mate, I suspect it will be a white male. Clinton is relatively progressive, but she's certainly not a dumb politician. Choosing a minority for VP (Richardson, Obama, or another female) would certainly be progressive and bold, but not so politically smart. Regardless of Clinton's popularity, a ticket with two minorities would be a hard sale in many places. I imagine Clinton has already figured this out. I also imagine Clinton thinks she needs to appear strong (even hawkish) when it comes to national security. Therefore, I suppose Clinton will choose a white male with some military background. Who might that be? My best guess would be Wesley Clark. Another guess might be Jim Webb.

The Republicans, on the other hand, will continue to struggle with the legacy of Reagan. I believe the Republican nomination will ultimately be a dogfight between Thompson and Romney until February 5th (Super Tuesday). Once the smoke clears, I think Thompson will edge out Romney by the end of February. One significant reason: I just don't see the evangelical base supporting a Mormon. I don't think this is fair, but I do think this is how it will play out.

And I suspect Thompson will select someone he's comfortable with for vice-president and not someone who makes more political sense. Therefore, I believe Thompson will choose someone from the South instead of a more strategic pick. Who might that be? Mike Huckabee, Mark Sanford or Newt Gingrich. If Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, choosing Huckabee might serve to counter the influence of Clinton in Arkansas. Another possible VP candidate is Mark Sanford, current governor of South Carolina. He's a Washington "outsider" with a fresh, young face (age 47) and no apparent baggage. Gingrich, on the other hand, seems like more of a gamble. I'm not sure what kind of relationship Thompson has with Gingrich, but it appears like Gingrich might have too much baggage to be an effective VP candidate. And I've also heard rumors on the Internet of Thompson selecting Condoleezza Rice as VP. This would be very progressive and bold, but I seriously doubt it will happen. Even more unlikely is Jeb Bush as VP.

So here's my early prediction:
Democrats: Clinton (VP = Clark or Webb)
Republicans: Thompson (VP = Huckabee or Sanford)

Research the Candidates on the Internet:
As for the other candidates on both sides (Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, Gravel, Brownback, Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo), I will discuss them in a section below entitled My Current Preferences. And please take time to visit and research all of the candidates at their official websites:

Republicans:
Sam Brownback
Mike Huckabee
Duncan Hunter
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Ron Paul
Mitt Romney
Tom Tancredo
Fred Thompson

Democrats:
Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton
Chris Dodd
John Edwards
Mike Gravel
Dennis Kucinich
Barack Obama
Bill Richardson

Independents:
Blake Ashby of Missouri
Don Cordell of California
Joe Schriner of Ohio
Jon A Greenspon of California
Brad Lord-Leutwyler of Nevada
Charles T. Maxham of New Jersey
James H. Mccall of Ohio
David J. Masters of North Carolina
Donald K. Allen of Ohio
Steve Adams of Kentucky
David Koch of Utah
John Taylor Bowles of South Carolina
Bob W. Hargis of Oklahoma
Thomas J. Kozee Jr. of Ohio

Others:
Potential Green Party Candidates
Libertarian Party
Constitution Party

My Thoughts on the Political Process:
It is becoming more evident that presidential elections in the United States are becoming more dependent on the power of money and less dependent on the power of the individual voter. Why must one have to raise MILLIONS of dollars in order to make a serious run for president? It sounds like we need serious campaign finance reform, and I praise John McCain, Russ Feingold, and even Fred Thompson (and others) for realizing that.

And the primaries and caucuses are also starting to get out of hand with many states trying to move ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire. I don't blame them. There should be a federal system in place that rotates a region of states every four years, so each region of states gets to go first at some point. Why should other states sit around while Iowa and New Hampshire always enjoy the spotlight and influence that comes along with being first?

There should also be a recycled paper trail of every vote placed in every state and every district. Some states are already doing this, but all of them should be required to do so. In addition to voting by mail, there should be a mandatory period of one weekend in which all polls are opening for voting. We might also want to think about compulsory voting. There are currently 32 countries with compulsory voting, including Australia where voter turnout averages 95%.

My Current Preferences:
I am still researching all the presidential candidates, and I am unlikely to make a decision until the spring of 2008. As an independent, I'm unlikely to be able to vote in the primaries in my state. However, if I were able to vote in the primaries, I would currently CONSIDER the following:
Giuliani for the Republicans
Barack Obama, John Edwards, or Joe Biden for the Democrats
Ralph Nader for the Green Party
Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the other third party candidates to make a consideration at this time.

Ideally, I'd prefer a "change" candidate outside of the two-party system with a respectable chance of winning or seriously challenging the Democrats or Republicans. Currently, no one seems to fit that ideal, not even Nader. Therefore, I have started to look at other options. Giuliani is somewhat appealing because he appears to be a moderate politician outside the Capital Beltway, but he is not adequately addressing the issues most important to me. Edwards has already had a shot at the White House and couldn't even carry his home state of North Carolina in 2004. Nonetheless, Edwards is humble enough to admit his mistakes, and he seems to have gained an unusual spark along the way that deserves a second look. Biden seems like one of the most reasonable, intelligent candidates, but he has a tendency to be abrasive at times. For the time being, I will have to say that Obama is my current preference for a variety of reasons: he represents the most reasonable form of change (albeit within the Democratic party), he seems genuinely interested in bipartisanship and diplomacy, he is trying hard to stay above the fray of traditional political bickering, and he is addressing issues that concern me (see list below). Even so, it is still too early to make a decision, and I have not researched third party candidates enough.

Issues that are most important to me:
1. Health care reform
2. War in Iraq (ending it, that is; 8 billion $ and 64 soldiers a month)
3. Economy (fair trade and jobs)
4. Energy conservation and reform
5. National security
6. Campaign finance reform

Brownback, Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo on the Republican side seem to be too divisive and radical for the current state of the nation. The same goes for Kucinich and Gravel on the Democratic side. The nation now needs a "healer", and I doubt they would be up for the task. McCain is for more war, and I'm not. But I am still uncertain about Huckabee, Thompson, and Giuliani. The same uncertainty goes for Richardson, Dodd, and Clinton on the Democratic side.

Clinton is perhaps the Democrats best chance of winning the presidency, and the Democrats are certainly addressing more of the issues I'm most concerned about this election cycle. Nonetheless, I find it difficult to embrace her candidacy as something the country needs at this moment. She seems too much like a professional politician who makes every effort to stay on script with the latest talking points. Haven't we had enough of this? Clinton has not admitted her mistake in voting to authorize the War in Iraq, yet she seems more than willing to blame Bush for waging war she helped approve. And I have a strange feeling she will not bring the troops home from Iraq anytime soon if she is elected president. To get a better idea of why I'm leery of Clinton, please read this article from The Nation.

Some Democrats believe nominating Clinton will only serve to solidify the Republicans and others against the Democrats. Other Democrats believe Clinton's unfavorable ratings are too high to get elected. I agree with these statements to a certain extent. Clinton is certainly unpopular among the vast majority of Republicans. And Clinton's unfavorable ratings are high (39%) but not higher than Bush's (46%) before he was re-elected in 2004 (Pew Research poll). Despite these disadvantages, Clinton still has an average lead over every Republican candidate in head-to-head match-ups. Granted, it's still too soon to predict how her negatives would play out in the general election. Some say her negatives have already played themselves out, but I tend to disagree.

Like I said before, I believe the nation needs someone who will help depolarize the ugly divide between the right and left, and I just don't think she's the person for such a job. I believe the country deserves more than Bushes and Clintons. The nation is ripe for change and Hillary represents more of the same stale fruit Washington DC has to offer.

Currently, I believe Obama and Edwards offer the best medicine for America, and I wish them well. However, the odds are in Clinton's favor, and if she is humble enough to admit mistakes and offer the vice-presidency to Obama and Edwards, I will consider her candidacy. Even then, it would be a difficult pill for me to swallow, and there's no guarantee of recovery. Stay tuned...

Be Afraid...But Don't Worry

2007-07-17T19:25:00.001-07:00

On July 11, 2007, Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff warned that the United States faces an increased risk of terrorist attacks. He later described his concerns about future attacks as "a gut feeling." I'm sure, at least I hope, it was based on more than intuition. Mr. Chertoff is certainly privy to intelligence that could cause the stomach to feel a bit uneasy. "We could easily be attacked," Mr. Chertoff stated. "The intent to attack us remains as strong as it was on September 10, 2001." Nonetheless, he failed to give any specifics as to what type of attack might be in the works this summer or fall.

Unfortunately, the last time we had reports like "Al-Qaida Plots New Attacks on US Soil," four airplanes were hijacked and thousands of people died. On August 6, 2001, President Bush received a daily briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." The report stated that a Bin Laden "cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youths for attacks." In addition, signs indicated that Bin Laden and Al-Qaida might be planning to hijack US aircraft. And the report came to an end with the following: "FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of buildings in New York." The rest is history.

And on July 17, 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) reported that the US faces a "heightened threat environment." The following are excerpts of an article by the Associated Press as printed in the Chicago Tribune:

"The findings focused most heavily on Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, which was judged to remain the most serious threat to the United States."
"In addition, analysts stressed the importance of al-Qaida's increasingly comfortable hideout in Pakistan that has resulted from a hands-off accord between Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and tribal leaders along the Afghan border."

The NIE report included three potential terror threats to the US:

Lebanese Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim extremist group, may be more likely to consider attacking here, especially if it believes the United States is directly threatening the group or its main sponsor, Iran.
The number of homegrown extremists in the U.S. and its Western allies is growing, fueled by Internet web sites and anti-American rhetoric.
So-called "single issue" terrorist groups probably will attack here on a smaller scale. They include white supremacists, anarchists and animal rights groups, such as Animal Liberation Front.

So where does this leave us? Well, there are two ways of viewing this latest information:

It's just one of many false reports or reports that will not materialize
It's the real thing

There is no way of knowing for certain, and I suspect the government will have to live with that reality. If something does happen the government can claim, "there was no way of knowing for sure." And if nothing happens, they can say, "we were just doing our jobs." I'm not blaming our government for this. It's just an inconvenient truth. For this reason, I suspect we hear contradictory generalizations like "Be Afraid...But Don't Worry."

So what are we to make of all this? It's not so much knowing with certainty what will happen (an impossibility) as it is our willingness to allow ourselves to get diverted or distracted from the most important task at hand: containing terrorism. The important question here is: Who is diverting our attention and why are they doing so? I believe the Neoconservatives and their Project for the New American Century are the source of the problem.

First, let me preface the following by saying that I do not believe the Neocons or the Bush Administration planned 9/11 or allowed it to happen, but I do believe they have used their influence and power to take advantage of 9/11 at the expense of US soldiers, the American people, and Iraqis. Having said that, I do believe government conspiracies exist. If one doesn't believe in such conspiracies, then one might argue that Watergate or Iran-Contra never happened.

So what do the Neocons represent? The following are excerpts from the Neocons' Statement of Principles:

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
We need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
We need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, among others, signed and helped write the Statement of Principles and ideals set forth by the Neocons and their Project for the New American Century. So what are the responsibilities the Neocons are so worried about? Those responsibilities are "defense/national security, global leadership and spreading democracy." For more information, please visit the Neocons' website: http://www.newamericancentury.org/. By the way, the Project for a New American Century is an American neoconservative think tank that seeks to exert influence on United States foreign policy and national security.

The best way to understand the Neocons is to actually read their strategies. On November 16, 1998, nearly three years before 9/11, The Weekly Standard (a neoconservative magazine) wrote an editorial entitled "How to Attack Iraq". Other articles concerning this matter can be found here. It's safe to say the Neocons were convinced that Iraq had WMDs. Sure, others also believed this, but to say that everyone believed Iraq had WMDs is categorically wrong. Scott Ritter, former UN Weapons Inspector, was the most outspoken critic. Tyler Drumheller, a former top CIA official, was also skeptical. And many experts and former government officials expressed their concerns in the documentary Uncovered: The War on Iraq.

Despite the skepticism concerning Iraq and WMDs, the Neocons continued to beat the drums of war. Then 9/11 happened and all signs pointed to Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. But almost immediately, the Neocons were focusing their attention on Iraq and its alleged connection to 9/11. Gary Schmitt of The Weekly Standard wrote an article titled "Why Iraq?"on October 19, 2001, just 5 weeks after 9/11. In the article, Mr. Schmitt outlined exactly why the US should invade Iraq. The article is even posted on the Necons' website.

On October 7, 2001, the United States military invaded Afghanistan. I believe the war in Afghanistan was a justifiable response to 9/11, and it put the United States in a great position to contain and monitor Iran and Pakistan. Unfortunately, we have since diverted our attention to the tasks of invading and occupying Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. As a result, Osama Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda members are still at large, and they have regrouped along the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Again let me reiterate that I do not believe there was a conspiracy on the part of the Neocons to plan or let 9/11 happen. But I do believe there was a conspiracy to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power, and 9/11 provided that opportunity. Even if Iraq had WMDs, that does not mean Hussein conspired with the terrorists of 9/11. In fact, all evidence suggest Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And if you believe they did, then you do believe in conspiracies.

What, if anything, does all of this mean?
Will a new terrorist attack on US soil convince the Neocons to take advantage of the opportunity? And if they did, what would they do? Would Dick Cheney decide to run for President? Doubtful. Would the Neocons support a Republican candidate that would continue to carry on the ideals of The Project for the New American Century? They already are. Would the Republican Party and the Bush Administration use scare tactics? They already are. Would Congress and the Democrats give President Bush the authority to wage more war? Probably. Would US troops stay in Iraq indefinitely? They already are.

Mr. Chertoff and the National Intelligence Estimate are not the only ones who think an attack is imminent. Rick Santorum, former Republican Senator of Pennsylvania said the following on July 10, 2007:

"Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we’re seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public’s going to have a very different view."

Well, I have a "gut feeling," too. My "gut feeling" is that something will happen in Iraq or Iran later this year that compels the US to respond in the form of aerial attacks on strategic targets in Iran. This of course, opens the floodgates in Iraq leading to a full-scale regional war (in full swing by spring 2008).

Another scenario is that the US is attacked again and the Republicans start to play the fear card as the presidential campaign picks up (see video below). Then...

As a loyal Bushie (on the Iraq war), McCain is endorsed by the White House as the person best suited to carry on the war. With little or no foreign policy or war time experience, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards lose ground as the American public grows more fearful. McCain selects Guiliani as his VP and the memories of 9/11 inspire millions to re-elect a Republican to the White House. God save us!?!?

Let's hope Mr. Chertoff, Mr. Santorum, and I are incorrect.

Postscript: I realize future terrorist attacks in the United States are probably inevitable, but I do not believe fighting wars of attrition on distant shores is the way to win the "War on Terror." Isn't war itself terrifying? And it's not about winning or losing, it's about containing and neutralizing. Our best defense is proactive intelligence, strong multi-national alliances, strategic strikes when necessary, and some luck (like the British had in London). Over-extending our armies and fighting unpopular wars only serve to weaken our great civilization.

Should Jefferson and Vitter Resign?

2007-07-14T14:25:00.000-07:00

The scandal surrounding Democratic Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana is really a no brainer unless he is in fact innocent. Only he would know for sure. But even then, I'm sure there are ethical issues to be addressed. Mr. Jefferson was indicted on June 4, 2007 on 16 counts for charges including racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire-fraud, money-laundering, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy. Mr. Jefferson pleaded not guilty to the charges on June 8, 2007. I still believe in "innocent until proven guilty," but the evidence sure doesn't look good for Mr. Jefferson.

The scandal involving Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana is a bit more complicated. Mr. Vitter offered a public apology on July 9, 2007, for events involving solicitation of an illegal escort service. Phone records show that Mr. Vitter's number was called five times at his request from October 1999 to February 2001. And recent accusations by a New Orleans brothel allege that Mr. Vitter was a paying customer in the 1990s. Apparently, the statutes of limitations have expired, so it is unlikely that Mr. Vitter will face any criminal charges such as adultery or soliciting prostitutes. If that were the end of the story, I could easily say that Mr. Vitter should remain in office. However, some of Mr. Vitter's past statements bring into question the legitimacy of his integrity.

People make mistakes, and it's okay to make mistakes. It's also okay to make mistakes, learn from them, and then help others from making such errors. It's even okay to claim family values and make mistakes. But one should be careful about condemning others for their mistakes. In 1998, at the height of the Lewinsky Scandal, Mr. Vitter told the Atlanta Journal Constitution that extramarital affairs were grounds for resignation. If an extramarital affair is grounds for resignation, isn't soliciting prostitutes also grounds for resignation? If you are going to preach, be careful what you say.

Mr. Vitter has also been a diligent opponent of same-sex marriage. While running for US Senator of Louisiana in 2004, Mr. Vitter released the following statement on protecting the sanctity of marriage: "This is a real outrage. The Hollywood left is redefining the most basic institution in human history, and our two U.S. Senators won't do anything about it. We need a U.S. Senator who will stand up for Louisiana values, not Massachusetts's values. I am the only Senate Candidate to coauthor the Federal Marriage Amendment; the only one fighting for its passage."

Well, I'm sorry to hear that Mr. Vitter and his belief in the sanctity of marriage are the victims of gays and lesbians seeking the opportunity to enjoy something Mr. Vitter values so much. As a Christian, Mr. Vitter should know that the Bible has a lot more to say about adultery than homosexuality. Mr. Vitter should also know that the Bible says the punishment for both adultery and homosexuality is death. Fortunately, Jesus gave us a new way of thinking and loving.

Having said that, it would not anger or even disappoint me if Mr. Vitter decided to remain in office. If I were in a position to do so, I would forgive him. Much the way Jesus came to the defense of the prostitute who was about to be stoned to death. Apparently, Mr. Vitter's wife has decided to forgive him as well. Mrs. Vitter once implied that she would cut off her husband's penis if he cheated on her. Mrs. Vitter made this comment in response to a question regarding the infidelity of Bob Livingston, a former congressman from Louisiana who resigned from office in May 1999.

For the record, I will state that I believe former President Clinton should have resigned and served time. Not because of his adultery, but because he lied under oath and obstructed justice. If President Clinton had admitted his guilt from the beginning, or at the very least when he was under oath, I would have been content with him staying in office.

And Mr. Scooter Libby also lied under oath and obstructed justice. To Mr. Libby's credit, he did resign. However, President Bush commuted Mr. Libby's 30-month sentence because he thought it was too harsh. As a result, Mr. Libby did not go to jail. If the sentence was too harsh, why didn't President Bush just reduce the sentence to 1 year or 6 months?

And Duke Cunningham and Mark Foley, former Republican congressmen, did the right thing when they resigned. Mr. Cunningham is currently serving 8 years in prison for a number of convictions, and Mark Foley received counseling after sending suggestive emails and sexually explicit instant messages to teenagers.

So should Jefferson and Vitter resign? Yes for Jefferson. No for Vitter. I wrote this post to emphasize the fact that we all make mistakes. It doesn't matter if you are Democratic, Republican, Independent, etc. All too often, Democrats try to separate individual responsibility from a person's actions, and Republicans try to legislate morality they don't always live up to. Somewhere between the ideals of the Democrats and the Republicans is a middle path. Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity all talk about a middle way. The Bible says, "Do not swerve to the right or left; Do not turn aside to the left or to the right." Jesus also talked extensively about love, forgiveness and the importance of not passing judgment on others. Sure, there must be consequences, but there is nothing anyone could do to keep me from loving or forgiving him or her, not even my enemies.

If you get a chance, please read God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong, and the Left Doesn't Get It by Jim Wallis.

Happy Anniversary!!!!

2007-06-19T08:00:00.001-07:00

Happy Anniversary Nacky!!!! I love you, and I miss you very much. This song reminds me of you, and it helps me stay close while we are apart.

Lebron James - Be

2007-06-07T21:47:00.001-07:00

The NBA is back. If you have given up on the NBA, it's time to take another look. As much as I admire Tim Duncan of the San Antonio Spurs, I must say that I am cheering for the Cavs and LeBron James. Art in Motion. Beautiful, simply beautiful...

Farewell to Jerry Falwell

2007-05-22T20:36:00.000-07:00

Did Jerry Falwell emulate Jesus Christ?

"I think Mohammed was a terrorist."

"These perverted homosexuals...absolutely hate everything that you and I and most decent, God-fearing citizens stand for...Make no mistake. These deviants seek no less than total control and influence in society, politics, our schools, and in our exercise of free speech and religious freedom...If we do not act now, homosexuals will own America!"

"I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians...the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped [the September 11 attacks] happen.'"

"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals."

Perhaps Mr. Falwell's heart problems were the wrath of a just God against false prophets.

Dixie Chicks

2007-03-03T17:50:00.000-08:00

On March 10, 2003, at the Shepherd's Bush Empire theatre in London, England, Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks said the following: "Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas." The crowd erupted in support. Ten days later, the United States military started dropping bombs on Iraq in the form of "shock and awe".

Little did the Dixie Chicks realize that the comments of Ms. Maines would set off another war. This war, however, would be waged in the U.S. by fair-weather fans, country/western radio stations, and other forms of mass media. Ms. Maines and the Dixie Chicks may have dropped the first bomb, but their new-found enemies would introduce them to a new form of "shock and awe".

The bombardment of the Dixie Chicks was relentless. Country/western radio stations across the nation systematically boycotted the Chicks' music at the request of many disgruntled fans. And what's more, many radio stations and other organizations held parties in which angry fans could burn or trash concert tickets, CDs, and Chicks' memorabilia. By the time the Chicks returned to the U.S. for the stateside portion of their tour, their remaining concerts were in jeopardy of being canceled or severely compromised. To add insult to injury, the American Red Cross refused a one million dollar donation from the Chicks.

In an attempt to lessen some of the "shock and awe", the Dixie Chicks, and Ms. Maines in particular, apologized to President Bush with the following statement: "As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect. We are currently in Europe and witnessing a huge anti-American sentiment as a result of the perceived rush to war. While war may remain a viable option, as a mother, I just want to see every possible alternative exhausted before children and American soldiers' lives are lost. I love my country. I am a proud American" (emphasis added). However, the Chicks, to date, have refused to apologize to their former fans, radio stations, and the country/western establishment who turned their back on the Chicks.

Despite the disgruntled fans, boycotts, and death threats, the Chicks were able to finish their American tour to a number of sold-out crowds. However, the "shock and awe" and the resulting tension continued to mount. "On May 22, 2003, at the Academy of Country Music (ACM) awards ceremony in Las Vegas, there were boos when the group's nomination for Entertainer of the Year award was announced. However, the broadcast's host, Vince Gill, reminded the audience that everyone is entitled to freedom of speech. The Academy gave the award to Toby Keith, an outspoken critic of the group" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_chicks#Political_controversy).

The damage was done, and the Chicks returned to the relative safety of their homes following the 2003 tour. The group had lost many fans, many country/western radio stations, the support of the country music industry, and perhaps an entire music genre. A fragile truce settled in bringing a halt to the war against the Dixie Chicks. In Iraq, war was still being waged and by the end of 2003, 486 U.S. soldiers were dead and 2,408 wounded.

The Chicks took a two-year break in order to rest and recuperate. During the vacation, one of the Chicks, Emily Robison, gave birth to beautiful twin girls. The time off also gave birth to a renewed spirit and sense of direction. The group decided to turn their back on the country music industry but not their love of country music. The Chicks hired Rick Rubin, an eclectic music producer, and temporarily moved to Los Angeles during 2005. What emerged from this unusual collaboration was a beautiful testament to the wonder of life an it's precious treasures. Their creation, Taking the Long Way, offers a variety of thought-provoking songs in a manner that is respectful, powerful, and ultimately true to themselves as artists. The album speaks truth to power and freedom.

In 2006, "Taking the Long Way debuted at number one on both the U.S. pop albums chart and the U.S. country albums chart, selling 526,000 copies in the first week (the year's second-best total for any country act) and making it a gold record within its first week." Taking the Long Way was the ninth best-selling album of 2006 in the U.S., and it won the 2007 Grammy for Best Album, Best Record, Best Song (Not Ready to Make Nice), and Best Country Album. And I wish the Chicks the best with their nominations for Video and Group Video of the Year on Country Music Television (CMT) on April 16, 2007.

The album includes a lullaby and songs about grandparents and the tragic loss of memory, the loss of loved ones, friends, hope, peace, and the importance of standing up for what you believe in. The album would not have been complete without Not Ready to Make Nice which reminds the public that the reactions to Ms. Maines' 2003 comment were not appropriate, and therefore, difficult to forget and/or forgive.

Here are the lyrics from Not Ready to Make Nice (Words and Music by Emily Robinson, Martie Maguire, Natalie Maines, Dan Wilson):
Forgive, sounds good. Forget, I'm not sure I could. They say time heals everything. But I'm still waiting. I'm through with doubt. There's nothing left for me to figure out. I've paid a price. And I'll keep paying. I'm not ready to make nice. I'm not ready to back down. I'm still mad as hell and I don't have time to go round and round and round. It's too late to make it right. I probably wouldn't if I could. Cause I'm mad as hell. Can't bring myself to do what it is you think I should. I know you said can't you just get over it. It turned my whole world around and I kind of like it. I made my bed and I sleep like a baby. With no regrets and I don't mind sayin' it's a sad sad story when a mother will teach her daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger. And how in the world can the words that I said send somebody so over the edge that they'd write me a letter sayin' that I better shut up and sing or my life will be over. I'm still mad as hell and I don't have time to go round and round and round. It's too late to make it right. I probably wouldn't if I could. Cause I'm mad as hell. Can't bring myself to do what it is you think I should. I'm not ready to make nice. I'm not ready to make nice. I'm not ready to back down. I'm still mad as hell and I don't have time to go round and round and round. It's too late to make it right. I probably wouldn't if I could. Cause I'm mad as hell. Can't bring myself to do what it is you think I should. Forgive sounds good. Forget I'm not sure I could. They say times heals everything. But I'm still waiting. (emphasis added)

Speaking of Shut Up and Sing, the Chicks released a film by the same name in February 2007, documenting their "controversial" statement, the inappropriate reactions, and the making of their new album, Taking the Long Way. The documentary closes with the Chicks "returning to the scene of the crime" at Shepherd's Bush Empire theatre in London, England in 2006. Natalie Maines tells the crowd that people have asked her what she planned to say in response to the infamous comment she made three years earlier. Ms. Maines boldly stated, "we’re still ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas." Once again, the crowd erupted in support. And in Iraq, the bombs are still dropping with 3,169 U.S. soldiers dead, 23,417 wounded and no end in sight.

Needless to say, the Dixie Chicks have a special place in my heart. Their courage is inspiring, and I wish them the best in the future. "Traitors, Dixie Sluts, Saddam's Angels, Hippies, Opinionated?"
I love you Dixie Chicks!!!

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Thomas Jefferson.

WAR IS OVER! If you want it

2007-02-19T15:59:00.000-08:00

Another 2 U.S. soldiers died today, and another 15 were wounded. Support our troops by bringing them home. I'm not for an immediate withdrawal, but I am for deadlines. All U.S. soldiers should be home by December 2008. Critics of withdrawal deadlines argue that such talk only emboldens the enemies. Might deadlines also encourage the Iraqi government to step up? Just something for the withdrawal critics to think about. The world doesn't function properly without deadlines.

Controlling terrorism is a matter of law enforcement, not military power. The solution to a stable Iraq is not more war, it's more diplomacy. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has created a difficult world for the Iraqi government and its neighbors to negotiate. Granted, Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator, but can supporters of the war really say Iraq is better off today with hundreds of Iraqis dying every day and thousands fleeing every month? Since when did America become the democracy police? Last time I checked Saudi Arabia was a monarchy and 19 of the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis. So, when are we going to bring shock and awe and democracy to Saudi Arabia?

The withdrawal should take place as follows:
June 2007 reduce current levels to 125,000
December 2007 reduce levels to 100,000
March 2008 reduce levels to 75,000
June 2008 reduce levels to 50,000
September 2008 reduce levels to 25,000
December 2008 all troops home

At each stage of the withdrawal, the U.S. government should encourage and participate in diplomacy. This should include direct diplomatic relations with Iran. This is just one of many plans for ending U.S. involvement in Iraq. What's your plan?

Please watch short clip: How This Must End

The War on Peace

2006-12-17T22:50:00.000-08:00

It looks like some people are waging war on peace this holiday season. According to the Associated Press, "a homeowners association in southwestern Colorado has threatened to fine a resident $25 a day until she removes a Christmas wreath with a peace sign that some say is an anti-Iraq war protest or a symbol of Satan." Link to story

Happy Holidays and
Peace on Earth!

Abbey of Gethsemani and Thomas Merton

2006-12-16T21:48:00.000-08:00

My wife and I visited the Abbey of Gethsemani in Trappist, Kentucky for a silent retreat in April 2006. I totally reconnected with God and myself, and I highly recommend this journey for anyone who needs to refresh his or her spirit or would like to get away from the hustle and bustle of modern life.

It was a wonderful spiritual experience, and I truly admire the men and women who can devote such a life to God. I also believe that Thomas Merton, a monk who once lived at the monastery, was a modern-day prophet. It was so peaceful and refreshing, and I would love to spend one Christmas there if possible.

For more on the Abbey of Gethsemani and Thomas Merton, please visit the following links:
Abbey of Gethsemani
About Thomas Merton
Books by Thomas Merton

bell hooks

2006-12-16T19:31:00.000-08:00

My wife and I heard bell hooks speak at a multicultural event at Marshall University on November 28. We also attended her lecture at the University of Georgia in 2002.

bell hooks is a cultural critic, feminine theorist, and social activist who "focuses on the interconnectivity of race, class, and gender and their ability to produce and perpetuate systems of oppression and domination. She has published over thirty books and numerous scholarly and mainstream articles, appeared in several documentary films, and participated in various public lectures." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_hooks) She is currently teaching at Berea College in Berea, Kentucky, which participates in an Ecological Sustainability Education Program designed to reduce the footprint of humans on Earth. Berea was founded in 1855 by John Gregg Fee, an abolitionist.

I've just started to explore the books and other writings of bell hooks, but I thoroughly enjoyed her speeches, and I admire her ability to educate and inspire others to think critically and take action.

For more on bell hooks, please visit the following:
http://www.allaboutbell.com/home.html
List of Books
Selection of Writings

Will the Democrats Be Any Better?

2006-11-08T12:24:00.000-08:00

I'm skeptical. I'm afraid the current political system in Washington DC is so out of touch with reality to effectively work on issues such as immigration, health care, education, social security, campaign reform, voting reform, term limits, corruption, poverty, minimum wage, foreign policy, and homeland security. Nonetheless, I wish the democrats well just as I wished President Bush well in 2004. Let's hope politicians work as hard for the American people as they work to obtain or protect their seats in Congress. Let's also hope our elected politicians show us some sincere bi-partisanship.

In America, unfortunately, you have to be a millionaire to run for president or senator. Will the House soon follow? Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA) have spent 46 and 44 years in DC respectively, and they will probably die in office. My God, kick them out! Thank goodness there is a limit on the presidency. The American people should demand a constitutional amendment to limit terms of senators and representatives! They will not limit themselves! But they will continue to increase their pay while the minimum wage remains a joke. When I was born in 1969 the minimum wage was $1.60 and the average cost of a new automobile was $3,500. If my math is correct, the minimum wage should currently be at least $9.60.

It's refreshing to see Rumsfeld step down. I opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning, but I agree that we should try our best to leave Iraq better than we found it. It would be nice to have some outside help, but our government's hubris has left us isolated. Where is the humility? I am not yet convinced that an increase in troops will solve the problem, and I'm just as confused as most people concerning the best solution for getting out without abandoning Iraq. Perhaps the government should have made better plans before the first bombs were dropped. After all, we do elect and pay them to make such decisions and plans. So far, both democrats and republicans have proven themselves incompetent. If I'm not mistaken, they both voted to send us there, and the insurgency is clearly NOT in "the last throes."

Saddam Hussein is a criminal and deserves to be punished, but I do not agree with a death sentence. Sure, Hussein was a bully and murderer, but the United States and other Western nations enabled him for many years. The United States and other Western nations worked behind the scenes to support the rise of the Baath party (including Hussein) many years ago. The US government was aware of Hussein's reputation and influence for many years but conveniently looked the other way when it served our interests. The United States and other Western nations also supported Hussein during his 8-year war with Iran when he used chemical weapons on Iran and his own people. American companies even supplied Iraq with some of those weapons. I'm not condoning Hussein's crimes any more than I am excusing the US government's hypocrisy.

America desperately needs a strong third party, and I encourage everyone to seek alternatives to the current political system. Obviously there are no guarantees a third party would be any better, but it's worth a try. It's too early to know who the 2008 presidential candidates will be, but please, no more Bushes or Clintons! Nothing against Hillary Clinton personally, but I think she and her husband have had their time in the spotlight. Anyway, she just spent 29 million dollars to protect her seat in the senate which doesn't expire until 2012. Barack Obama would be an interesting candidate, but will his current popularity last? I was hoping that Mark Warner (former governor of Virginia) would run, but he recently dropped out before the race even started. I seriously doubt the democrats can win, but their best chance of a 2008 victory would be if Jeb Bush or Dick Cheney got the republican nomination. Cheney said he will not run, but I'm not sure I believe him. Jeb Bush hasn't said if he's running, but his job as Florida's governor will soon expire. John McCain and/or Rudy Giuliani are the republicans' best bets (right now), but I doubt the religious right will embrace them. A religious right candidate outside the republican mainstream would obviously hurt the republicans' chances, and a strong alternative to the democrats would also make things very interesting. The more the merrier.

When will America elect a minority president? I can't believe we are still asking this question. I don't know enough about the candidates' positions to have a favorite yet, but I am ready for a minority president. It's the 21st century, and I think white males have had more than enough time to run the country. Sure, they've accomplished many good things, but they've also had their share of failures. It's time to give someone else a chance to succeed or fail. By the way, did the accomplishments or failures of white males have anything to do with their skin color or gender?

Should the U.S. Attack Iran?

2006-09-06T16:59:00.000-07:00

No one should be allowed to answer this question without a look at the facts and a serious explanation of his or her position. Therefore, I will attempt to make my case by first looking at the historical events influencing the evolving state of affairs between the United States, Iran, and the rest of the international community.

Recently, one cannot help but hear or read about the growing concerns surrounding Iran's pursuit of nuclear energy and/or nuclear weapons. In order to better understand the current situation, I feel it's necessary to highlight significant events in Iran's modern history (1900-2006). Hopefully, the historical information will give you an idea of Iran's world view. Commentary follows the historical background. Please feel free to comment via the link provided at the end of the discussion. (And please see references for more detailed information).

I. Historical Background

1901 A wealthy Englishman, William K. D'Arcy, with the help of the British Empire, obtained a 60-year concession from the Shah (King) of Persia to explore for and exploit the oil resources of a large section of the country (Persia/Iran). Oil was discovered and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC), today's British Petroleum (BP) was founded.

1913 The British government became the major shareholder of APOC (BP) when it nationalized the company in order to secure British-controlled oil for its ships. Winston Churchill was a significant figure in the decision to nationalize the company.

1914-18 Despite claiming neutrality during World War I, Iran was the scene of numerous battles between British and Russian allies and Turkish troops.

Unfortunately, the Anglo-Persian oil venture turned out to be somewhat of a lopsided affair with Iran only receiving 16% of the profits. In reality the percentage was less since some of the total profits were excluded from the amount Iran could take from. Throughout the years to come, Iran negotiated for profits equal to what other countries were receiving as part of oil ventures with Britain and other countries. Two other issues also caused tension between the two sides: 1. The British government was earning more in taxes from APOC than Iran received from the exploitation of it's natural resources. 2. Oil in Iran cost more than it did in Britain.

1935 Iran was officially accepted as the new name for Persia. Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) became Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC).

August 25, 1941 Despite Iran's neutrality, Britain and the Soviet Union invaded Iran in order to secure Iran's oil infrastructure and curtail German influence in the country. British troops invaded Iran from their bases in Iraq (a British colony at the time).

The Shah (King) of Iran (Reza Phavali) wrote the following to U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt "…on the basis of the declarations which Your Excellency has made several times regarding the necessity of defending principles of international justice and the right of peoples to liberty. I beg Your Excellency to take efficacious and urgent humanitarian steps to put an end to these acts of aggression. This incident brings into war a neutral and pacific country which has had no other care than the safeguarding of tranquility and the reform of the country."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran)

President Roosevelt reassured the Shah of Iran that the invasion was only a temporary strategic move to help thrawt Germany's aggression.

September 16, 1941 During the military occupation, the Shah (Reza Phavali) was pressured to abdicate the throne in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Phavali (age 21).

May 1945 End of World War II: Britain and the Soviet Union continued to occupy Iran until March 1946. Soviet Union reluctantly withdrew from northern Iran but not before setting up two short-lived puppet states.

March 1951 Frustrated with negotiations that failed to meet Iran's demands, the Iranian Parliament unanimously voted to nationalize the oil industry.

April 1951 Mohammed Mossadegh is democratically elected by the Iranian Parliament as the country's new prime minister (vote 79-12). Mohammad Reza Phavali remained Shah of Iran.

Prime Minister Mossadegh enforced the Oil Nationalization Act after taking office, and Britain responded by issuing a blockade that prevented oil from leaving Iran.

Britain consulted the United States concerning the dispute, and reports soon started to appear in Britain and the U.S. that claimed Iran was vulnerable to the Communist influence.

1952-53 The British government, under Prime Minister Winston Churchill, conceived a plan to overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh. U.S. President Truman refused to participate. However, new U.S. President Eisenhower was interested.

The Shah of Iran attempted to replace Mossadegh as prime minister with Iranian general Zahedi (U.S.-British approved choice) , but the plan backfired, and the Shah is asked to leave Iran.

April1953 The British Intelligence Service (BIS) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States begin a covert operation (Operation Ajax) to remove Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh from power.

"Agents were hired to facilitate violence; and, as a result, protests broke out across the nation. Anti- and pro-monarchy protesters violently clashed in the streets, leaving almost 300 dead. The operation was successful in triggering a coup, and within days, pro-Shah tanks stormed the capital and bombarded the Prime Minister's residence. Mossadegh surrendered, and was arrested on August 19, 1953. He was tried for treason, and sentenced to three years in prison."

"Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was then reinstated as Shah. His rule became increasingly autocratic in the following years and soon Iran became a model police state. With strong support from the U.S. and U.K., the Shah further modernized Iranian industry, but simultaneously crushed all forms of political opposition with his intelligence agency, SAVAK" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran).

1957 With assistance from the CIA, the Iranian Intelligence Agency, SAVAK, is formed. Physically torturing detainees was widely practiced.

Religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini became a outspoken critic of the Shah and the Iranian government. He later denounced the U.S. government for intervening in Iranian affairs .

1959 With U.S. assistance, Iran established the Tehran Nuclear Researh Center administered by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. The nuclear research reactor and uranium were supplied by the U.S. The shah's reasons for pursuing nuclear energy were to conserve oil and meet Iran's growing energy demand.

1963 Ayatollah Khomeini is arrested and imprisoned in Iran for 8 months. He then spent the next 14 years in exile in Turkey, Iraq, and France. During his exile in France, the French government offered to "arrange for Khomeini to have a fatal accident," but the Shah declined.

1968 Iran signed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty legally permitting them to pursue and use nuclear technology for peaceful means.

1975 U.S. Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, signed National Security Decision 292 ("U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation) outlining the sale of nuclear energy equipment to Iran.

1976 U.S. President Ford signed a directive offering Iran the opportunity to buy a U.S. nuclear reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz (former members of the Ford administration) all supported Iran's pursuit of a nuclear energy program.

1978 The Shah of Iran implemented martial law in response to protests against him and the Iranian government.

January 16, 1979 The Shah and his family left Iran due to rising opposition and the threat of outright revolution.

February 1, 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran after being invited by the leaders of the anti-Shah revolution. Khomeini, rejecting the suggestion of free elections, set up his own provisional government replacing the monarchy with an Islamic republic.

During the Shah's visit (2 months) to the U.S. to address medical concerns, the new Iranian government requested that the U.S. government return the Shah to Iran to stand trial. The U.S. government did not honor the request.

November 4, 1979 Iranian students took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and subsequently held 66 American citizens (later reduced to 52) hostage for 444 days.

The Iranian students demanded the following:
1. Apologize for interfering in the internal affairs of Iran and the overthrowing of Prime Minister Mossadeghr
2. Release Iranian assets in U.S.
3. Return the Shah to Iran to stand trial
The U.S. government rejected the demands

During the takeover, Iranian students discovered documents detailing clandestine affairs of the CIA in Iran.

April 24, 1980 A secret rescue mission (Operation Eagle Claw) by the U.S. military was aborted. Eight U.S. servicemen died in an accident related to the mission.

1980 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reported that Iraq (not Iran) had been actively acquiring chemical weapons capacities since the mid-1970s.

September 1980 Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein invaded Iran over a border dispute.

1980-88 The Iran-Iraq War kills approximately 1 million people including 100,000 from chemical weapons.

Iran informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of its plans to restart its nuclear energy program, but the program came to a standstill due in part to Iran-Iraq War and U.S. economic sanctions.

1980-81 Outgoing President Carter and his administration negotiated a deal with Iran (via Algeria) to release the U.S. hostages. As part of the agreement to release the hostages, the Carter administration reluctantly agreed to pledge non-intervention in Iranian affairs. The non-intervention provision of the Algiers Accords reads "The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs."

January 20, 1981 The remaining 52 hostages are released from Iranian captivity. No hostages were killed during the 444 day ordeal. Ronald Reagan becomes President of the U.S.

1982 Reagan administration removes Iraq from State Department's terrorism sponsorship list. The removal made Iraq eligible for U.S. dual use items (civilian and/or military use) and military technology and intelligence.

1982-83 Reports began to appear in the U.S. and other countries indicating that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops.

1982-88 Despite Iraq's known record of using chemical weapons, U.S. exported approximately $200 million worth of conventional arms to Iraq including helicopters and 70 shipments of chemical agents (including strains of anthrax and West Nile virus). British and other western companies also sold materials to Iraq that could be used to develop nuclear, chemical, biological, and conventional weapons.

December 1983 Donald Rumsfeld (special envoy for Reagan administration, current Secretary of Defense in Bush administration) met with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (currently on trial for war crimes) in Baghdad to discuss, among other things, the possible restoration of official diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iraq. After returning to the U.S., Rumsfeld said, "It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we are interested in solving the Mideast problems."

1984-86 U.S.-Iraqi relations strengthened. U.S. CIA began supplying Iraq with intelligence (including satellite images) subsequently used to calibrate chemical attacks against Iranian troops. Iran is placed on the State Department's terrorism sponsorship list.

March 5, 1984 U.S. State Department issued public condemnation of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. However, notes from a meeting involving Secretary of State George Schulz mentioned that "the U.S. will continue its efforts to help prevent an Iranian victory, and earnestly wishes to continue the progress in its relations with Iraq."

March 24, 1984 Rumsfeld visited Baghdad for the second time in four months. He met with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz (currently on trial for war crimes).

March 30, 1984 The United Nations Security Council made an official statement condemning the use of chemical weapons (did not mention Iraq specifically). Despite Iran's request, the U.N. did not create or pass a binding resolution against Iraq.

September 1984 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency stated that Iraq will "probably continue to develop its formidable conventional and chemical capability, and probably pursue nuclear weapons."

November 26, 1984 U.S. and Iraq officially restored full diplomatic relationships.

1985-86 U.S.-Iraqi relations strengthened. U.S. CIA began supplying Iraq with satellite images for bombing raids.

1986 According to national security adviser Howard Teicher, President Reagan sent a message to Saddam Hussein (via Vice President Bush and Egyptian President Mubarak) recommending intensified military air attacks against Iran.

March 1986 U.N. Security Council stated it was "profoundly concerned" with Iraq's continued use of chemical weapons against Iran (non-binding statement). The. U.S. voted against the issuance of the statement.

November 1986 Iran-Contra Affair was revealed. The Reagan administration initiated a deal with Iran (Iraq's enemy) to sell U.S. weapons to Iran in exchange for hostages taken by militant groups (including Hezbollah). Proceeds from the sales funded an insurgency in Nicaragua. Specifically, the money went to the Contras, an anti-communist militant group. No hostages were released, but Iran agreed to purchase the weapons at an inflated price. President Reagan initially stated that the U.S. did not trade arms for hostages, but he later recanted. He also said Vice President Bush was aware of the deal. Reagan was strongly criticized but other government officials were indicted.

May 1987 United Nations Security Council said it is "deeply dismayed" by the Iraq's continued use of chemical weapons against Iran (non-binding statement).

July 3, 1988 U.S. Navy accidentally shot down an Iranian commercial airplane killing all 290 passengers and crew. A U.S. admiral admitted that the U.S. Navy was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the fatal missiles. The U.S. government eventually paid reparations but never apologized. George H. W. Bush said the following about the incident, "I will never apologize for the United States of America. I don't care what the facts are."

August 1988 The bloody war came to an end. Casualties were approximately 1 million (conservative) including 100,000 from chemical weapons (Iranians and Kurds).

June 1989 Ayatollah Khomeini passed away. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei succeeded him as Supreme Religious Leader of Iran.

August 1989 Akbar Rafsanjani was elected President of Iran. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei remained Supreme Religious Leader.

July 25, 1990 U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, met with Saddam Hussein and Tariq Aziz. President Bush instructed Ms. Glaspie to "broaden and deepen" relations with Iraq. She also said, "the President has very recently affirmed his desire for a better relationship and has proven that by, for example, opposing sanction bills." In response to Iraq's ongoing border dispute with Kuwait, Ms. Glaspie said the following according to National Security Council notes, "I served in Kuwait 20 years before, then, as now, we take no position on these Arab affairs."

August 2, 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait. The cycle continues.

It is important to point out that Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party came to power in Iraq in the 1960's after a series of coups orchestrated by the U.S. CIA (and backed by Britain and Israel). Saddam was a member of the Baathist government until it was disbanded in 2003 by the same country that helped bring it to power. Robert Komer, a National Security Council aide told President Kennedy in 1963 that the Baath Party was "almost certainly a gain for our side."

1991 The United Nations had this to say about the Iran-Iraq War: "That Iraq's explanations do not appear sufficient or acceptable to the international community is a fact. Accordingly, the outstanding event under the violations referred to is the attack of September 22, 1980, against Iran, which cannot be justified under the charter of the United Nations, any recognized rules and principles of international law or any principles of international morality and entails the responsibility for the conflict." (too little, too late)

1995 Former Soviet Union signed contract with Iran to help complete nuclear reactor started in 1980s.

August 1996 U.S. President Clinton signed Iran-Libya Sanctions Act in response to the countries' continued support of militant groups.

August 1997 Mohammad Khatami is elected President of Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei is still Supreme Religious Leader. President Khatami, a reformist, often clashed with conservative Muslims in the Iranian government over the status of women and demands of the younger generation. President Khatami was re-elected in 2001.

August 2002 Iranian dissident group accused Iran of developing nuclear energy program.

February 2003 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors find traces of enriched uranium in Iran.

March 2003 U.S. invaded Iraq. From bases established in Iraq, the U.S. began using unmanned drones to spy on Iran.

June 2003 IAEA reported that Iran was not in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

September 2003 Despite the report, U.S. said Iran is in non-compliance with the NPT and called for a referral to the United Nations Security Council.

October 2003 Iran admitted to 18 years of covert atomic experiments. Iran agreed to sign Additional Protocol of the NPT allowing unannounced IAEA inspections. Iran declared that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran agreed to stop enriching uranium (despite its right to do so).

November 2003 IAEA reported that there is no conclusive proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. U.S. government dismissed the report.

February 2004 Abdul Khan, founder of Pakistan's nuclear program, admitted that he had provided nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea, and Libya since the 1980s. Pakistan is a U.S. ally.

May 2004 Iran submitted 1,000 page report to IAEA concerning its nuclear activities.

June 2004 IAEA complained that Iran has not adequately cooperated. In retaliation, Iran resumed testing of centrifuges.

November 2004 Iran promised members of European Union (EU) that they will stop uranium conversion.

February 2005 U.S. President said, "this notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. (short pause) And having said that, all options are on the table."

August 2005 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a controversial hardliner, is elected President of Iran. Iran resumed uranium conversion at Isfahan plant.

September 2005 IAEA confirmed resumption of uranium enrichment and called for Iran's full disclosure and cooperation.

Iran reiterates that its nuclear program will not be used to develop nuclear weapons.

December 2005 Iranian President Ahmadinejad said the Holocaust was a myth and Israel should be wiped off the map.

January 2006 Iran resumed nuclear research at Natanz plant.

February 2006 IAEA voted to send Iran to U.N. Security Council. Iran announced it would end voluntary cooperation with IAEA.

March 2006 U.N. Security Council issued statement calling for the suspension of Iran's nuclear program within 30 days.

April 2006 Iran announced that it has successfully enriched uranium. Threatened to cut ties with IAEA if U.N. sanctions are imposed.

IAEA sent report to U.N. Security Council confirming Iran's refusal to suspend nuclear program.
Possible sanctions are discussed.

Report alleges that U.S. government is considering the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran and its nuclear program. President Bush dismissed the allegation as "wild speculation."

July 2006 U.N. Security Council approved a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its nuclear program by August 31 or face the possibility of economic sanctions.

September 2006 Deadline passed without Iran suspending its nuclear program. Negotiations and talk of economic sanctions continue.

II. Commentary

Iran and the IAEA

Beginning with the most recent events, let's address Iran's refusal to suspend its nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and many members of the international community demand that Iran stop its program as a prerequisite for negotiations, but Iran adamantly refuses to stop on the grounds that it has the inalienable right to pursue the development of nuclear energy as a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran is correct about that, but what is the harm in suspending operations to appease the international community? It's understandable that some countries are skeptical of Iran's intentions considering past statements and current connections to militant groups (in particular Hezbollah). However, it's also easy to understand Iran's skepticism of the world considering the international community's failure to respond to Iraq's invasion of Iran and use of chemical weapons during the long Iran-Iraq War (1980-88). Western powers' long history of intervention in the affairs of Iran doesn't help either. For the record, Iran has, on occasion, temporarily stopped its nuclear energy program at the request of other countries.

(Please tell me if I'm wrong, but) I don't believe the IAEA or the United Nations (UN) has ever said that Iran was in direct violation of the NPT. Instead, IAEA's main complaints are that Iran has not been as forthcoming as they would like, and Iran refuses to give in to persistent political pressure to stop its nuclear program.

Though there has been a surfeit of motivated and ill-informed commentary about how Iran "concealed" its uranium enrichment programme from the IAEA "in violation of the NPT" until it was "caught cheating" in 2002, the fact is that Iran was not obliged to inform the Agency about those facilities at the time. David Albright and Corey Hinderstein — who first provided the international media with satellite imagery and analysis of the unfinished fuel fabrication facility at Natanz and heavy water research reactor at Arak on December 12, 2002 — themselves noted that under the safeguards agreement in force at the time, "Iran is not required to allow IAEA inspections of a new nuclear facility until six months before nuclear material is introduced into it." In fact, it was not even required to inform the IAEA of their existence until then, a point conceded by Britain at the March 2003 Board of Governors meeting. The Arak reactor is planned to go into operation in 2014. As for the pilot fuel enrichment plant (PFEP) at Natanz, it is still not operational today. (http://www.hindu.com/2005/09/21/stories/2005092105231000.htm)

Iran's pursuit of alternative forms of energy is understandable considering the fact that economic sanctions restricting Iran's oil and gas sectors have been in effect since 1980 including additional sanctions in 1996 (Iran-Libya Sanctions Act). And before the Iranian revolution of 1979, we know that the U.S. government supported Iran's pursuit of nuclear energy.

So does Iran, despite its political system, have the right to pursue nuclear energy? Absolutely. Does the international community have the right to impose sanctions on Iran for pursuing nuclear energy? Only if Iran violates provisions of the NPT.

What if Iran decides to produce nuclear weapons?

Well, they won't be the first. Currently, there are eight declared countries possessing nuclear weapons. They are the United States, Russia, England, France, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. One country, Israel, has never confirmed or denied possession of nuclear weapons, but it is widely accepted that Israel has a substantial arsenal.

With the exception of India, Pakistan, and Israel, all countries possessing nuclear weapons have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003 over a dispute with the U.S.

So where is the persistent pressure from the U.S. and the international community with regards to India, Pakistan, and Israel? India and Pakistan have fought each other off and on for many years, and a nuclear attack is not out of the question considering past leaders from both countries have expressed the right to defend themselves by any means necessary. Pakistan said it would sign the NPT if India did, but nobody is dragging India or Pakistan before the UN Security Council for sanctions.

There are several militant groups in Pakistan and Osama bin Laden is allegedly along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, but we are not calling for Pakistan to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. Perhaps bin Laden is trying to acquire a nuclear weapon while we concentrate on Iraq and Iran. Apparently, militant groups have been offered a haven in Pakistan (click here for more details).

And where is the persistent pressure on Israel to be more forthcoming about its alleged nuclear weapons program? And what of North Korea? North Korea appears to be a more serious and immediate threat considering they have shot test missiles in the direction of Japan on more than one occasion.

Unfortunately, non-NPT members such as India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea are not bound by the provisions of the NPT. Perhaps Iran should save themselves and everyone else a lot of trouble and withdraw from the NPT. I hope they don't. But if they did, would the persistent pressure Iran is now experiencing dissipate?

So does Iran have the right to develop nuclear weapons? No, not as long as they are a member of the NPT. If they renounce their membership, they would no longer fall under the guidelines of the treaty but would run the risk of being an international outcast along the lines of North Korea. Does the U.S. have the right to sanction Iran concerning the development of nuclear energy or nuclear weapons? They already have been for more than 25 years.

Does it even matter if Iran develops a nuclear weapon?

The obvious answer seems to be "of course." But let's take a look at history before giving an answer. The U.S. was the first to successfully develop nuclear weapons, and is the only country to have used them in war. Since 1945, only eight other countries have successfully developed nuclear weapons and 188 countries have signed the NPT indicating their commitment to the disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Obviously, nuclear weapons are terrible threats to the environment and the existence of human beings. But so are conventional weapons. Throughout history, thousands of wars have been fought and millions of people have died by means of traditional weapons. So do I think we should just throw up our hands and give Iran nuclear weapons? No, but I just don't believe nuclear bombs are going to start dropping all over the place if Iran develops them. By the way, Iran has not said they are planning to develop nuclear weapons, but it's apparent that some nuclear countries don't trust them. Ideally, no country would feel the need to develop nuclear weapons, but if Iran does, it reveals a great deal about the world all of us have created. It doesn't have to be this way.

Look, I'll be the first to condemn Iran if evidence of nuclear weapons are discovered. I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons any more than I want the U.S., Russia, England, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, or Israel to have them. Combined, the nine nuclear countries have tested approximately 2100 nuclear bombs and dropped 2 on civilian areas during war. Clearly nuclear bombs are not good for humanity or the environment.

A better question would have been, "Should any country have nuclear weapons?".
The answer is NO.

Who Would Jesus Bomb?

Let me preface this discussion by pointing out that it is impossible for me to separate my spirituality from this commentary, and I think it's appropriate to address this question in light of President Bush's well-documented born-again Christian status.

What does the Bible have to say about war and peace? The Old Testament says that there is a time for war and peace, a time for love and hate, and a time to kill and heal. I totally agree, but this does not mean that war, hate, and killing are inevitable. It does not mean that eradicating or severely limiting war, hate, and killing is impossible. If we don't believe peace on earth is possible then we have already been defeated. In the Lord's Prayer, Jesus says, "[God's] kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." Jesus also says the kingdom of God is already within us (Luke 17:20-21). And none of the Ten Commandments say we should make war, hate, or kill. In fact, we all know the commandments say, "You shall not kill."

And what about the Golden Rule? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Do we really want Iran to attack us? How about, "Love your neighbor as yourself"? There's also, "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." Don't forget, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God." And what did Jesus say when one of his followers pulled a sword? "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." And what did Jesus say while he was dying on the cross? "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And how many times should we forgive our enemies? Indefinitely, according to Jesus (Matthew 18:21-22).

And didn't President Bush call Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the Axis of Evil? Here's what the Bible has to say about evil: "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge, I will repay,' says the Lord. On the contrary: 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:19-21)

And what about the most profound statement ever, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also"? "Turn the other cheek" is perhaps the most difficult for people to come to terms with. Personally, I don't think it means to let someone walk all over you. Instead, I think it means "we are not to have a retaliatory attitude." Sure, I would initially defend myself if someone attacked me, but I would not seek revenge at a later time. I would not hold a grudge or plot to destroy my enemy. I would forgive and love my enemy and allow justice to do its work.

Anyway, the Bible clearly comes down on the side of love and peace. There are 789 references to love and peace as compared with 209 references to hate and war, but what the Bible has to say about these concepts is even more significant. Ultimately, God is Love (not hate), and Jesus is the Prince of Peace (not war).

So, who would Jesus bomb? Nobody.

What makes some Muslims kill?

Despite commandments from the same God not to kill, some extremists in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism continue to kill in the name of their religions. To a great extent, fundamentalists have hijacked these religions as a means to an end (annihilation/oppression/perpetual war). It's safe to say that these extremists are in fact not Christians, Muslims, or Jews at all, but impostors.

All too often, extremists intentionally misinterpret scripture to suit their needs. For example, some Christian extremists have taken a passage from the Bible as an excuse to kill abortion doctors or blow up clinics. "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman...[and there] is serious injury, you are to take life for life..." (Exodus 21:22-25). The same thing happens in Islam.

The literal translation of jihad is 'effort' expressing struggle on behalf of God and Islam (much the way Jacob struggled with God in Genesis 32:28). However, the term has come to mean a holy war undertaken by Muslims against unbelievers. Muslim extremists have taken jihad as an excuse to wage unprovoked war against unbelievers.

The best way to understand the true meaning of jihad is to look at what the Quran has to say. "O Prophet, strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be firm against them. And their abode is hell, and evil is the destination" (9:73). According to Maulana Ali, a Quran scholar, "The correct rendering is that jihad signifies striving, or exerting oneself, and there is nothing in the word to indicate that this striving is to be effected by the sword or by the tongue or by any other method."

As for submitting to the sword, I didn't find any such passage during my research of the Quran. According to one Quran scholar, "The waging of war on unbelievers to compel them to accept Islam is a myth pure and simple, a thing unknown to the Holy Quran." In fact the following passages corroborate the scholars statement, "There is no compulsion in religion - the right way is indeed distinct from error" (2:256) and "The Truth is from the Lord; so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve" (18:29). One scholar states, "To all the nonsense which is being talked about the Prophet offering Islam or the sword as alternatives to the pagan Arabs, these verses are sufficient answers."

Muslims controlled most of Spain for over 600 years, and during this time Jews, Christians, and Muslims co-existed peacefully. The mere fact that they co-existed disproves the idea that non-Muslims had to convert to Islam or die by the sword. Following many peaceful years of Muslim rule, Christians were the ones who expelled Jews from Spain and started the Spanish Inquisition.

"And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allah loves not aggressors" (2:190). One Quran scholar writes, "It is remarkable that fighting in the way of Allah is here expressly limited to fighting in defence. Muslims were required to fight in the way of Allah, but they could fight only against those who waged war on them."

"Permission (to fight) is given to those on whom war is made, because they are oppressed. And surely Allah is able to assist them...And if Allah did not repel some people by others, cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which Allah's name is much remembered, would have been pulled down" (22:39-40). One scholar comments, "The religious freedom which was established by Islam thirteen hundred years ago has not yet been surpassed by the most civilized and tolerant of nations. It deserves to be noted that the lives of Muslims are to be sacrificed not only to stop their own persecution by their opponents and to save their own mosques, but to save churches, synagogues, and cloisters as well -- in fact, to establish perfect religious freedom."

Another passage also corroborates the idea mentioned above, "Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good, they have their reward with their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve" (2:62).

And what does the Quran say about killing? "Say: Come! I will recite what your Lord has forbidden to you...kill not the soul which Allah has made sacred except in the course of justice. This He enjoins upon you that you may understand" (6:151).

It's clear to me that people who kill in the name of the Bible or Quran are not true Christians or Muslims. They are, in fact, spiritually dead.

The argument that the Quran is a book of war and killing could also be made about the Bible. Here are just a few examples:

"This is what the Lord Almighty says: ...'Now go attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys'" (I Samuel 15:2-3).

"When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. Twelve thousand men fell that day -- all the people of Ai" (Joshua 8:24-25).

"They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors...He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded (Joshua 10:37, 40).

"The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem also and took it. They put the city to the sword and set it on fire" (Judges 1:8).

"Completely destroy them -- the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites -- as the Lord your God has commanded you" (Deuteronomy 20:17).

"When I sharpen my flashing sword and my hand grasps it in judgment, I will take vengence on my adversaries and repay those who hate me" (Deuteronomy 32:41).

What makes some Muslims kill? Ideology based on hate, not the Quran.

Are there different standards for Western powers and the rest of the world?

Imperialism is defined as "a policy extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force."

In the early 1900's the sun never set on the British Empire, the most extensive empire in world history. But Britain was not the only one; the Spanish, French, and Dutch also had large empires at the expense of others.

Why has history viewed communist and Japanese imperialism as aggression and Western imperialism as a service? Like Japan and communist countries, Western nations have killed thousands in the name of imperialism. In Tasmania, British settlers literally hunted the natives for sport, and the Dutch did the same to the Hottentots of Africa. Like Japan and communist countries, Western nations "civilized" their subjects and exploited resources. What makes Western imperialism acceptable and other imperialism unacceptable? All imperialism is unacceptable.

A quote by former British Prime Minister Churchill sums up the ideology of Western imperialism quite well, "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

Quotes about War

"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living."
Omar Bradley, former WWII general

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

"The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions."
Robert Lynd

"A nation that continues year and year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
Martin Luther King, Jr.

"There are causes worth dying for, but none worth killing for."
Albert Camus

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?"
Mahatma Gandhi

Are some wars justifiable?

Let me preface this by saying that I am not making a judgment about anyone who has served or is serving in the military.

Afghanistan War (2001-present): Yes, but I wish the U.S. would have devoted more time, energy, and money to this effort. The amount of money invested in the rebuilding of Afghanistan is minuscule compared to that of Iran. Unfortunately, the lack of attention is starting to show. The drug trade is growing, the Taliban are returning, and Osama bin Laden is still at large.
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211957,00.html) (http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2006Sep13/0,4675,Afghanistan,00.html)

Iraq War (2003-present): No. Report after report indicates there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda or 9-11. Even President Bush admits there was no link between Iraq and 9-11. As for weapons of mass destruction, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency claimed Iraq didn't possess them. It turns out they were correct. Even an investigation organized by the Pentagon and CIA (Iraq Survey Group) after the invasion concluded that Iraq had no deployable WMD as of March 2003 and had no production since 1991. Despite the UN's request for more time, the U.S. invaded Iraq without the approval of the UN Security Council. UN Security General Kofi Annan regards the invasion of Iraq as illegal, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, [the invasion] was illegal."

As for Saddam being an evil dictator, of course he was. No one denies that. But there are several evil dictators in the world. What about Fidel Castro? We've been able to live with him for nearly 50 years, and his evil empire is just 100 miles off the Florida coast. The evil dictators of the Soviet Union came to an end without a single nuclear bomb being dropped (excluding tests). Muammar al Gaddafi is still defacto dictator of Libya, and he recently gave up a weapons program as a result of diplomacy. And there are several evil dictators in Africa. And what about North Korea?

What makes Saddam different? Was he really a threat to the United States? Approximately two-thirds of Iraq's airspace prior to the war was controlled by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. And Iraq was under heavy sanctions for over 10 years. The U.S. supported Saddam and the Baath Party's rise to power in the 1960's by means of a series of violent takeovers (not democracy). The U.S. then supplied Saddam with weapons and intelligence during Iraq's long war with Iran. The U.S. removed Iraq from the terrorist list despite its invasion of Iran and use of chemical weapons. We then go behind Iraq's back to sell arms to Iran in exchange for the release of hostages taken by militant groups. Perhaps the U.S. should be more careful about who it associates with.

Gulf War (1990-91): Yes. Actually, this war might have been avoided all together if Western powers had not spent so much time, energy, and money on building up and appeasing the Hussein regime. Nonetheless, the international community including the U.S. was smart to stop short of removing Hussein and occupying Iraq.

Former President George H. W. Bush said the following about the idea of occupying Iraq: "Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome."

Iran-Iraq War (1980-88): Yes and No. No, because Iraq was clearly at fault for invading Iran and using chemical weapons. Yes, because the international community should have stepped in immediately to stop the conflict. Even after the use of chemical weapons, the international community did very little to stop this bloody war. The U.S. government was wrong to support Saddam Hussein on the one hand and sell arms to Iran on the other.

Vietnam War (unofficially 1945-75, officially 1964-75): No. If anything, France was at fault for trying to preserve the status quo of Western imperialism. The U.S. supported the cause of Ho Chi Minh when he helped us fight the Japanese in World War II, but requested the services of former Japanese soldiers, among others, to fight the communist cause and Ho Chi Minh after the war. The U.S. worked behind the scenes to replace South Vietnamese leaders by means of revolution, and the U.S. government did not know enough about the region or its history to effectively fight a war or negotiate peace.

Robert McNamara, former Secretary of Defense, said the following about Vietnam: "We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong."

In 1956, the South Vietnamese, with the backing of the U.S. government, refused to hold unification elections for fear the Communist party would win. In 1961, the U.S. military began using Agent Orange to defoliate the countryside of Vietnam. In 1963, with American approval, the South Vietnamese government stages a coup, murdering President Diem and his brother (former pawns of the U.S. government). In 1964, during covert operations in North Vietnamese waters, a U.S. ship is allegedly attacked. The U.S. government passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution giving President Johnson the authority to increase military operations in Vietnam. From 1965-67, the U.S. military dropped more tonnage of bombs than it did in all of World War II. In 1968, American troops killed several hundred innocent civilians at My Lai. In 1969, President Nixon began secret bombing raids in Cambodia. In 1971, 71% of the U.S. population believes the war was a mistake. In 1975, U.S. leaves Vietnam. 58,015 U.S. soldiers are dead and 153,303 are wounded.

"The military don't start wars. Politicians start wars." William Westmoreland, former U.S. general and commander of American military operations during the Vietnam War

Korean War: Don't know enough to comment.

World War II: Yes. The unprovoked invasions of France and Poland and the bombing of Britain justified the removal of Hitler and the Nazi Party. The U.S. was smart to preserve the Japanese emperor as a symbolic figure, but I totally disagree with the decision to drop two atomic bombs.

Many prominent people in the military also opposed the dropping of the nuclear bombs. Dwight D. Eisenhower, former commander of allied forces in Europe and President of the United States, wrote "In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

Other military personnel who disagreed with the necessity of the bombs included General Douglas McArthur, Fleet Admiral William Leahy, General Carl Spaatz, Brigadier General Carter Clarke, Major General Curtis LeMay, Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Ralph Bard, Fleet Admiral Charles Nimitz, Commander of Pacific Fleet.

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Admiral Charles Nimitz

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William Leahy

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey

Ironically, it appears as though the decision to drop the bombs was political, not military. Was the United States concerned about the Soviet Union's decision to join the war effort in the Pacific? Regardless, the decision to drop the bombs was unethical if not illegal.

In the documentary The Fog of War, Robert McNamara, former WWII military analyst and former Secretary of Defense, surmised that the U.S. and its allies would have been accused and tried as war criminals if the Allies had lost World War II. Even Major General Curtis LeMay admitted as much, "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal." In addition to the two atomic bombs, the U.S. leveled several German and Japanese cities by means of firebombing, "a bombing technique designed to damage a target, generally an urban area through the use of fire from an incendiary device, rather than from the blast effect of large bombs." Firebombing exposed large areas of a city to fire that otherwise would have been unaffected by a high explosive bomb.

The following two quotes are excerpts from the documentary The Fog of War:
"Why was it necessary to drop the nuclear bomb if LeMay was burning up Japan? And he went on from Tokyo to firebomb other cities. 58% of Yokohama. Yokohama is roughly the size of Cleveland. 58% of Cleveland destroyed. Tokyo is roughly the size of New York. 51% percent of New York destroyed. 99% of the equivalent of Chattanooga, which was Toyama. 40% of the equivalent of Los Angeles, which was Nagoya. This was all done before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which by the way was dropped by LeMay's command. Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve."

"LeMay said, 'If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.' And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"

In relative secrecy, the U.S. developed and used the most deadly weapon on earth. We still possess thousands of nuclear weapons and have tested more than any other nation. To say the dropping of the atomic bomb was a difficult decision is not correct. Dropping a bomb or pushing a button is terribly easy. We knew the consequences and the impact this bomb would have. Taking the high road is always more difficult, and to say that we were justified because our enemies might have used it only serves to lower us to their level. I'm sure everyone wanted the war to end including the Japanese, but I believe President Truman made a hasty decision. Were the Japanese wrong to attack the U.S. military base at Pearl Harbor? Of course, but this does not justify the use of nuclear weapons. Japanese imperialism was wrong but no worse than the long history of imperialism by Western powers.

I'm not justifying what Germany or Japan did. They committed horrible war crimes, but we are naive to think that the dropping of the atomic bomb was inevitable. Humans have an enormous capacity to be sensible and responsible. Despite the dropping of two nuclear bombs in World War II and despite all the rhetoric of the Cold War, humans showed enough restraint to keep the world intact. Even the "evil" communists in China and the former Soviet Union didn't drop an atomic bomb on innocent civilians.

I am against all killing whether it's war, capital punishment, abortion, Christian extremists killing abortion doctors, or Muslim extremists flying planes into buildings. Ideally, no killing would take place, but I realize that sometimes taking life is necessary and even lawful. Nonetheless, we should constantly strive for the greater of two extremes: peace instead of war, healing instead of killing, and love instead of hate.

What does the U.S. government value?

The United States is #1 in the world when it comes to military spending, and our military budget is almost more than the rest of the world combined. The U.S. spends approximately $466 billion each year compared to $500 billion BY THE REST OF THE WORLD (China is a distant second at $65 billion). Eight nations in the Top 10 are U.S. allies. What's wrong with this picture? It's no wonder some of the world view us as a threat. And who do you think sometimes ends up supplying other countries with weapons? Either the U.S. or one of our allies. Sometimes we even give weapons to our enemies. What does all of this reveal about our values as a nation? I certainly don't value this, and I want my tax money to be spent differently.

The current financial cost of the Iraq War is nearly $6,000,000,000 PER MONTH with total congressional appropriations at over $315,000,000,000. The current human costs (as of 9-20-06) are 2,691 U.S. deaths (2.1 per day) and 19,910 U.S. wounded (15.6 per day). Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated at 43,000, and Iraqi security forces have experienced 5,385 deaths. All of this despite statements from Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice prior to 9-11 that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction (video, transcript). All of this despite President Bush's policy against nation building (article). All of this despite the fact that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. All of this to remove Hussein (a former ally) who had nothing to do with 9-11 or Al-Qaeda. And if anyone says that 2,700 U.S. lives lost and 19,900 wounded is an acceptable amount compared to previous wars, he or she should sign up immediately and serve the cause in Iraq.

Currently, the U.S. possesses approximately 10,000 nuclear weapons, and we continue to use depleted uranium weapons despite a United Nations resolution classifying these munitions as illegal weapons of mass destruction (United Nations resolution). You can imagine the effects depleted uranium might have on the enemy, but reports indicate that U.S. soldiers have also been exposed. In fact, some soldiers have been reported as having unusually high levels of uranium in their urine (http://currents.ucsc.edu/03-04/01-19/uranium.html).

In the past, the U.S. government has worked to promote freedom and democracy on one hand while secretly trying to circumvent it on the other (see historical background). What would happen if another country tried to intervene in our affairs? Just the thought of another country telling the U.S. what to do would infuriate many Americans (remember changing French Fries to Freedom Fries?), yet our government repeatedly intervenes in the affairs of foreign countries. Are we to believe that the U.S. government is always doing what is in the best interest of indigenous people when it politically intervenes in their affairs? Are we to believe that all wars fought in the name of freedom and democracy are justifiable? Are we to believe that the U.S. is beyond reproach?

History indicates that political engineering only serves to replace one oppressor with another. What good is that? Let the indigenous people of a country vote or revolt according to their own free will. We should not impose our will on countries just because we have the power to do so.

So, what does the U.S. government value? I'm not sure.

As strange as it may seem, I wish the U.S. had a three-year mandatory military service for all people between the ages of 18-21. I would only support this if there was absolutely no way for the wealthy and influential to avoid serving. Most 18-year olds don't know what they want to do after high school anyway (I didn't). Plus, it would probably instill discipline, reduce crime, lower insurance rates, and hopefully reduce our willingness to go to war so easily. At any given point in time, many members of the U.S. government would have someone they loved serving in the military. We would certainly think twice about going to war.

Final Comments

Look, there are plenty of wonderful things about America, and I still believe it is the best country in the world. However, I'm not here to discuss what's right about America. Ideally, citizens wouldn't feel compelled to speak out against their country, but it's our right and duty. Thomas Jefferson once said, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." And Theodore Roosevelt stated, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were horrible acts of hate. I pray for those who died (including the terrorists), our troops, and the innocent civilians of the world. And I pray this never happens again. I've experienced a range of emotions since 9-11, but not once have I felt hate or the need to exact revenge. If we allow hate to take hold of our emotions, we slowly but surely become the people who attacked us out of hate. But what did Iraq or Iran have to do with 9-11 anyway?

Many believe the "war on terror" is more effectively contained and dismantled by means of intelligence, not brute military force. George Will, a conservative columnist, wrote, "Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that 'many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror.' In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be 'occasionally military,' it is 'primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world.'"

I don't believe the U.S. government is silly enough to invade Iran any time soon, but I do believe they've considered aerial bombing. I'm opposed to both because I sincerely believe diplomacy works. According to most reports, Iran is years away from the capacity to develop nuclear weapons. That gives plenty of time for diplomacy to take place. However, diplomacy with Iran will be difficult considering the past. Unfortunately, inconsistencies in the past have complicated the process and created a sense of mistrust. One glaring problem is that all five permanent members of United Nations Security Council possess nuclear weapons. This is the same security council that looked the other way when Iraq was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction in the 1980s. Weapons that were eventually used on Iran. And if we do start a war with Iran, I wonder how many of our own weapons will be used against us.

Was Iranian President Ahmadinejad wrong for saying that the Holocaust was a myth and Israel should be wiped off the map? Absolutely. Is Iran wrong to be intervening in the current affairs of Iraq? Absolutely, but can we raise a stone to condemn them considering our past intervention in the affairs of numerous countries? Iran's rhetoric does not give us an excuse to attack Iran. Neither does Iran's nuclear energy program. Not even Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. If we do attack Iran on these grounds, then we should have bombed North Korea and Pakistan a long time ago.

I cannot conclude this commentary without asking "What Would Jesus Do?". Well, Jesus hung out with sinners, so I don't think it would be beneath him to talk directly to Iran about his concerns. As emulators of Christ, can't we do the same? I think it would really shock Iran if we changed our approach. It would be like "heaping burning coals on their heads" (Romans 12:19-21).

So, back to the original question that started this discussion: Should the U.S. attack Iran? No, stop the cycle of war and violence. "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

References
http://www.parstimes.com/history/us_iran.html
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/8/19C76894-2A3A-49D7-96A5-02039F66FD20.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_iraq_80s
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran's_nuclear_program
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_iraq_war
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2005/09/21/stories/2005092105231000.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211877,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211862,00.html
http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/29/news/iran_sanctions/index.htm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iran/nuclearprogram.html
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj03albright
http://www.presidentreagan.info/speeches/iran_contra.cfm
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon2/pent11.htm
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Vietnam-prelude.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081401163.html
UN Speech: President of Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/15474492.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060908/pl_nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc_3
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2006/01/17/CU2006011701017.html
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/iran_timeline.shtml
http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/elbaradei27jan03.htm
http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/elbaradei-7mar03.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#_note-9
http://members.aol.com/silence004/koran.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Contra_Scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons#Chemical_warfare_in_the_Iran-Iraq_War
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=7624
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030519-450997,00.html
http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/ot_grp6/ot_oil_agreements_20040818.html
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2010123&contentId=2000904
http://www.worldalmanacforkids.com/explore/nations/iran.html#fw..ir038100.a60
http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/whoarmediraq.pdf
http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/LicenseMD.html
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Saddam_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/USmadeIraq.html
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_iraq_80s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990
http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations/rumsfeld_saddam_nyt_031223.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq61.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_plans_to_use_military_force_against_iran&key_events=keyEvents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/12/b2a9c22c-6f37-422d-9fd2-40e8fde27f49.html?napage=2
http://www.cnn.com/US/9608/05/clinton/
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj03albright
http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/thebulletin?q=iran&sa10.x=0&sa10.y=0&sa10=Google+Search
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/051006/w100670.html
http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/pdf/iranpolicy.pdf
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+ir0187)
http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/na-20/frrsnf.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19820-2005Feb12.html
http://currents.ucsc.edu/03-04/01-19/uranium.html
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/archive/displaydocument.asp?docid=110705
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html
http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/failedtransition/index.htm