Where They Come From

It is my opinion that since at least the 90s, probably long before, the average American knows who they are going to vote for years in advance of any election. It doesn't seem to have too much to do with ideology... in fact, I'm not really sure what it has to do with these days: you have big government Republicans and low tax Democrats, you have pro-war Democrats and pro-choice Republicans, and on and on. It doesn't seem like the people who make up the parties are all that different, which is probably part of the reason why most of the country is so evenly split in most recent elections. Charles has a post in which he discusses the possibility that there are a multitude of people who voted for both Bill Clinton and George W Bush. I guess its possible.

Here I'm going to go off on ideas that I don't have data for. It seems to me, despite Charles's post, that most people know who they are going to vote for well beforehand. So the deciding factor in who gets into office is who's party gets the best turnout. That being said, it seems logical for politicians to spend far more time and money motivating their own party rather than trying to convince undecided voters. I think that recent trends, such as incredibly negative campaign ads designed to show voters what a horrible person a candidate's opponent is, reflect this. The politicians try to prove to people that letting their opponent win will be a horrible thing, rather than trying to convince people that they are the better candidate. Since most people won't be changing their minds, its not worth the effort. You just need to sufficiently scare your party into voting to secure a win. And I think that means that politicians have lost their motivation to present themselves as, and possibly become, the best candidate possible. And I think that this is a horrible thing that is hurting American politics. I'm not sure exactly what the best thing is to do about it... and I'm about to go to bed. So maybe I'll think of something good to do about it later.

Marriage Issue

I guess this is as a good a time as any to talk about the marriage issue facing the country today. Let me begin by saying that I do not understand the legal rationale for why the government recognizes marriage. To me it seems like an arbitrary set of rules that has long been desired and accepted by the people of this country. I feel that marriage is a religious institution and the government's recognition of it is strange. My dad, a pretty party-line Republican, says that the government recognizes marriage because its the fundamental unit of government, and he believes this is an adequate explanation. I disagree, cynically believing that there are as many destructive marriages as constructive, if not more. However, that may still have been the motivation of those who made the laws. Fine, that works. Others more pragmatically have suggested that supporting child raising is the motivation for the government's recognition of marriage. To this I say that not all married couples are raising children, and some that aren't married are. So it seems that child-raising status ought to be the measure then, not marriage.

One way or the other, I'm not seeing much hard data on why heterosexual marriages deserve recognition by the government and homosexual marriages do not. It seems to me that if those opposed to homosexual marriage are correct and it violates the reason to recognize marriage or its bad for society that it should be a simple matter to prove their point. This is what I require to be convinced: a plain, rational reason why heterosexual marriages deserve recognition by the government and clear evidence that homosexual marriages do not. Saying that heterosexual marriages deserve recognition because they're "right" or because "that's the way its meant to be" are not good reasons. If someone was trying to get me to live with a law that prevented me from getting treatment I felt I deserved those reasons would only incite anger and resentment in me. I believe that our homosexual citizens, as full and equal citizens under the law as well as fellow human beings, deserve better.

All that being said, I will be voting in favor of an amendment in Colorado that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Sound hypocritical? Here is why: I don't believe that the ends justify the means. I am not convinced that I should support government recognition of marriage at all. However, I do not believe that it should ever be right for a judge to change the law by reinterpreting what it means over a technicality when its obvious what the law originally meant. I firmly believe that the marriage laws that are now on the books were made with the idea that marriage would solely belong to one man and one woman. So my vote says this: "The laws we have on the books now are for marriage between a man and a woman. They may not be right, but we need to know exactly where we stand and those are the laws currently. Now that we've established that, we have the freedom and space to have a real conversation about whether these laws are the way they should be or whether they should be further amended, perhaps out of existence."

Opponents of this amendment are trying to take a short-cut to government approved homosexual marriage by exploiting a lack of clarity in the laws. If they are successful then homosexual marriage may become a part of American government without the people ever getting a chance to debate and and discuss why it should or shouldn't be. It will sidestep all the channels that new laws are supposed to go through, and I feel this will be detrimental to society, perhaps homosexuals especially, in the long run. I believe that whenever we clearly know the intent behind a law, that is what should be upheld, not the letter of the law, so to speak. If a law is wrong in intent then the law should be changed through the correct legal process, which is through the legislature. Not by reinterpreting its meaning to something acceptable through the judiciary.

Firefox 2.0

If you haven't already done so, download and install Firefox 2.0. Besides being faster and more secure it introduces some really nice new features -- most everything from TabMix Plus. My favorite new functionality is the ability to have multiple tabs as my homepage, so whenever Firefox starts I have gmail, google news, and my Baylor email all up. Conveniently, and probably necessarily, Firefox 2.0 will keep most of your old plug ins, so the switch should be nearly seamless. But, best of all, Firefox 2.0 does not suck down obscene amounts of RAM! I would recommend moving to it if that were the only change they made, the rest is bonus in my opinion. Oh, and Firefox 2.0 is ready for Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux so no matter what OS you're using you can download and enjoy Firefox 2.0 right now.

Queen

Its amazing to me how much of good modern music (Radiohead, Muse, Death Cab For Cutie, Jimmy Eat World, Foo Fighters... that sort of thing) you can hear in Queen. It drives my wife crazy that I listen to Queen, and its true that they don't really sound like anything else I listen to -- on the surface. But in their music you can hear so much that wasn't being done by contemporary bands and so much that has been carried over into great music today. I love that about them. I think that it is a testament to their musical prowess. Its always amazing to me to look back at people/groups who were ahead of their time. Radiohead is the same way if you consider their music from the 90's and the way it affects music being made today, like Muse's. I like listening to Queen because I like hearing the foundations of the other music I love today, and its fun music that is unashamed to be ridiculous from time to time -- a distinction that is so uncommon in most music today. Whatever you think about Queen there are a few things I can say with certainty: Freddy Mercury was one of the most flamboyant homosexuals and best rock vocalists ever, and "Bohemian Rhapsody" is a work of genius.

Under God

I was perusing "The Charter and The Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States" when I came across this phrase: "Under God, and for these ends and upon these principles, we do establish and adopt this Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States of America." Now, I'm not a person who really thinks that its that big of a deal that the pledge of allegiance says "under God," but I also wouldn't really care if the phrase were removed. When I found out that the phrase was added in the 1950's to combat Communism I felt that any argument about how it was connected to our founding principles became much weaker, and I pretty much stopped caring. However, many prominent Democrats didn't stop caring. I don't mind that they're upset by it and want it changed, but doesn't it seem logical that if it is an offensive phrase to them they would want it taken out of their party's charter? It just seems odd to me that they're fighting to take it out of a semi-official pledge that most people don't say after they are out of grade school and don't seem to mind at all that its part of the foundational document of their party. I know its different in many respects, but it still strikes me as odd.

A Horrible Idea

Frank Lasee, a Wisconsin state representative from Green Bay, is advocating allowing teachers to carry guns at school in light of recent school shootings. Before commenting on the utterly lunacy of this proposal, it should be noted that, according to this interview with forensic psychologist Dr. Helen Smith, "we haven’t had that many particular school shootings. I mean, they’re definitely not accelerating." So we're not dealing with something new this year or looking at an increase in numbers. But even if we were, I cannot imagine an American classroom with an armed teacher. Can you imagine reading Shakespeare aloud in high school English while your teacher has a .45 strapped to her hip? I think it might be a bit of a distraction. How could we feel safe going to school or sending our kids to school if our schools are places where teachers need to carry guns? According to the above mentioned article, Pete Pochouski, Director of School safety, Milwaukee Public School said, "statistically, schools are the safest place for children." If that's true then Lasee's recommendation is even more ludacris. Perhaps even more important is the fact that teachers carrying guns, in my opinion, will be largely ineffective and probably more likely to cause harm than good. Can you imagine a teacher shooting at a student? Probably not likely. So maybe its not for stopping crazy students (the cause of most of school shootings) its just for stopping outsiders who come in like in the recent shootings in Bailey and Nickle Mines. I suppose its possible, but if a shooter grabs a student and uses that student as a shield do you think there are many teachers bold enough to take a shot at the aggressor? Most police officers wouldn't take the risk of hitting the student accidentaly, I can't imagine that it would be a good thing if a teacher did. Finally, adding that many firearms to a school environment in the hands of people whose primary concern is not the firearms is a very bad idea. We have had many cases in the past of police officers being shot with their own weapons. If a police officer can have his weapon stolen then I find it highly likely that the same could happen even to the most diligent teacher. So now you are introducing the possibility of arming an aggressor who might otherwise not have access to a firearm. Brilliant. This type of security at schools should be handled the same way it is everywhere else -- by police officers. If we don't have enough police officers to put enough in every school then we need to raise the pay of police officers so that more qualified people will want the job. If there isn't money to pay the police officers then we need to take some from the glut that is being given to mostly useless school bureaucracy. If there still isn't enough money then we need to raise taxes for it. It should be a priority. The safety of our children is one of the most important things for this or any nation. If the solution is having more guns on campuses then we need to do whatever it takes to provide that protection in the form of police officers.

Please, Don't Encourage Them

I know that people on both sides of the political fence are already talking about this, but I just can't help saying something. This line comes from a campaign ad for Minnesota Democrat Petty Wetterling that I read about here:

"It shocks the conscience. Congressional leaders have admitted to covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman who used the internet to molest children."

I realize that I have very little to say that hasn't already been said, but this particular quote seems incredibly horrible to me. My two problems with it: No one has admitted to covering anything up in regards to the Foley scandal, and Foley, as far as the public knows, never molested anyone. I'm not going to go on a tirade like Dean Barnett or others from the fairly far right about how this shows us something about the nature of Democrats or the left. I am not so partisan to believe that politicians on the right wouldn't do the same type of thing, in the right situation. This doesn't show us anything about the left in particular, in my opinion, but it does show us something about politicians. Its not something new, its just a reinforcement of what we already know. Apparently they will say whatever they believe most benefits them, even when it doesn't involve the facts quite correctly. Furthermore, this tells us something about the American public. Again, its not something new. This shows us once again that the American public, in general, is apathetic. It could not be advantageous for a politician to run an ad like this if the average American paid attention at least to the daily news reports. One doesn't need to dig past the headlines to read the Foley story, and even a cursory read over any coverage will show that at this point in time all we know Foley did is have completely inappropriate conversations over IM and email with teenagers. No molestation. And it doesn't take a whole lot of interest to find that no one is claiming to have covered up anything for him. So, maybe its the Senator's opinion that people covered up for Foley, but claiming that they have admitted so is paramount to slander. Perhaps she has her own definition of molestation that diverges from the normally accepted one, but levelling a molestation charge without any clarification is again disingenuous at best, slander at worst. This is an example of politician opportunism at its worst, and it saddens me and hurts my trust in politicians in general.

On a connected note, it further damages his credibility, with me at least, that Markos Moulitsas links this ad without any mention of its inaccurate accusations. It makes me sad when people, politicians or otherwise, put their party above common decency. It doesn't matter to me if Kos believes that Republicans did cover up for Foley, he still should at least make mention of the fact that the ad goes too far in asserting that they have admitted such. Propogating political campaign lies makes the problem even worse, because now people who read Kos's blog and are somewhat interested, although not interested enough to read the news themselves, will assume that everything in the ad is true because Kos linked it without any cautionary note. It is a politician's responsibility not to lie in their campaign ads or any other time, it ought to be the responsibility of each of us not to propogate such lies when we come across them.

A Moment of Truth?

What will we, the US, do if it turns out to be true that Pakistan masterminded the Mumbai bombing in India? That would make Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism, which, under our current standing doctrine, would make them our enemies. However, there is some truth, although probably not as much as he would like us to believe, in Pakistan's President's words in regards to our "war on terror": "'You'll be brought down to your knees if Pakistan doesn't co-operate with you... Pakistan is the main ally. If we were not to be with you, you won't manage anything. Let that be clear. And if ISI is not with you, you will fail.'" So, what will we do? Will we, once again, allow our political and military needs to trump our stated standards like we did during the cold war when we supported and/or installed "benevolent" dictators? Will we give a free pass to anyone who gives us enough help in whatever we're most interested in at a given time? I don't expect that we will come down hard on Pakistan, and I am sure there won't be an regime toppling by the US there. But what should we do? Is there anything we can do that won't make us hypocrites without severing ties with a seemingly much needed ally in our current conflicts?

Closing

Today at 11:30AM I am selling my house. I have had this house listed since March 24th -- almost six months to the day. I hate this house, due in no small part to the fact that it has been on the market for 6 months and I've had to pay the mortgage and maintain it during that time. I cannot express how excited I am to go to closing today. I hope I can refrain from dancing on the table.

In somewhat related news, the Dow Jones, and all other American stocks, has been making tremendous gains lately and is close to its historic high. I have no idea what this really means for the economy, but it sounds very promising. Is this another 90s? Probably too soon to tell, I'd bet. But I really don't know anything about economics except that Adam Smith wrote "Wealth of the Nations" about it and John Nash's "original idea" changed the way the world looked at economics. Can anyone with more insight give me some clue as to how significant the stocks' gains and (relatively) low gas prices (down to $2.09 in Waco!) really are?

MSM: An Inside Look

I have grown out of using the term "liberal media" because I feel that it oversimplifies and is often a defense mechanism used by religious conservatives to discount anything they don't like on TV or in print. It seems like the kind of thing that can't really be discussed rationally anyway. However, Hugh Hewitt had a very interesting conversation with Thomas Edsall who now writes for The New Republic and was the senior political reporter at the Washington Post, where he worked for 25 years, until recently. He also worked at the Baltimore Sun for 14 years. I think everyone would benefit from reading the entire interview with the extremely honest Edsall. Here are some interesting parts:

HH: A proposition. The reason talk radio exploded, followed by Fox News, followed by the center-right blogosphere, is that because folks like you have been the dominant voice in American media for a long time, and you’re a pretty thoroughgoing, Democratic favoring, agenda journalist for the left, and you’ve been the senior political reporter of the Washington Post for a very long time. And people didn’t trust your news product…not you, personally, but the accumulation of you, throughout the L.A. Times, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and they got sick and tired of being spoon fed liberal dross, and they went to the radio when an alternative product came along.

TE: To a certain degree, I agree with that.

HH: And so, why do you think it’s wrong, somehow, for people to want to hear news that they don’t consider as biased? I mean, that’s what it is. It’s just unbiased news is what people wanted. That’s why conservatives like me got platforms, and our blogs get read, and our columns get absorbed.

TE: One, I don’t think it’s unbiased.

HH: It’s transparent at least. Everyone has bias. I agree with that. Everyone’s got bias.

TE: It’s transparent. Okay, that I would agree. And I agree that whatever you want to call it, mainstream media, presents itself as unbiased, when in fact, there are built into it, many biases, and they are overwhelmingly to the left.

*****************************************

HH: ... given that number of reporters out there, is it ten to one Democrat to Republican? Twenty to one Democrat to Republican?

TE: It’s probably in the range of 15-25:1 Democrat.

*****************************************

HH: ...Your newspaper wrote that Evangelicals were ill-educated, and easily led. Remember that one?

TE: That was one of the dumber things that’s been in the paper.

HH: Yeah, but it was in the paper.

TE: It was.

HH: And it got past editors.

TE: The only reason that the reporter who wrote it didn’t get in bigger trouble is that the editor who let it get by was someone of some prominence.

HH: Oh, what was his name?

TE: I’m not going to get into that, but it was someone of some power at the Washington Post, and there was no way they were going to mess with him.

HH: And so, they didn’t really have an early warning system. My guess is, because in the newsroom, and the newsrooms which I have worked, and that’s primarily PBS…

TE: I agree with you on this score, 100%.

HH: It’s very anti-religion, isn’t it?

TE: Well, it…certainly, they would let a quote by that, without, in many cases, without blinking, not recognizing that it was extraordinarily insulting.

E85

In this month's issue of IEEE's Spectrum magazine (I'm a nerd) in an article entitled "Stricter U.S. Gas Standards Stalled," I read this: "E85 is more expensive than gasoline, it provides inferior fuel efficiency, and it yields little if any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions." The article goes on to quote Reg Modlin, director of environmental and energy planning for DaimlerChryselr Corp., saying, "'there is currently little customer demand' for E85 vehicles." No kidding? People aren't demanding cars that run worse on more expensive fuel that is just as bad for the environment and can't be found at most gas stations? I wholeheartedly agree that we need to find an alternative to gasoline and petroleum products, especially in automobiles. However, it does not appear that E85 is a good solution, and I cannot believe that it has so many proponents. The article quotes people blaming Congress for not passing incentives and forcing infrastructure for the general lack of interest in E85. Usually I agree with anyone saying Congress isn't doing their job. In this case, however, I'm thankful that Congress hasn't stupidly signed away tax dollars to something that doesn't sound like its going to help us much anyway. My solution to the oil issue? Nuclear power, especially fusion. If we spent as much money on that as we do researching other alternative fuels we could probably come up with some pretty good ways to keep it safe. And with nuclear energy the power is so cheap that an electric car becomes economically feasible. That's environmentally and economically friendly.

After Bush?

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has made a name for himself internationally with his strong anti-US rhetoric and, more visibly, his harsh, off the deep end criticisms of US President Bush. My question is, what will he do after the 2008 elections when Bush isn't the president any more? Defining yourself as the guy who said that George W. Bush is the devil seems like a short-sighted strategy, especially in the late months of 2006. Yes, Mr Chavez, we know you hate President Bush. We understand that you want to stand against the US and believe it is a threat to your country. Is there anything more than that? Are you offering some alternative philosophy or ideology? Do you have some reason that the US is wrong? What will you stand for after the 2008 elections when there is no longer the evil Bush to rely on?

In a Name

"What's in a name?" questions the now-cliche Shakespeare quote. Not much, as it turns out, for the Emerging Church. Or Emergent Church, or Emergent movement, or simply Emergent -- however you may know it. This movement bears a name that conveys absolutely no meaning about the ideals of the movement. It is by definition an inadequate title, and a completely non-sustainable one. In fact, this title ought not apply to any movement but instead is a category that changes as the times change (the Evangelical Church was once the "emerging" school of thought as well). However, another name for this movement will be hard to come by because the people within the movement are as confused about what it means as the name is ambiguous. We, as a whole, have very little idea what we stand for. We are a group bound together more by name then by creed. Except we know exactly what we are not. We have spent the last decade or so figuring out what it is we don't want to be, what it is that turns us away from less "emerging," more established groups. But this definition by negative cannot go on forever. If this group, this "movement," is going to survive it needs to define itself. If people are going to consider the Emerging Church and consider its merits, they need to know what it is they are considering. If we don't find some way to define ourselves by what we are then I fear what is already beginning to happen will become predominant -- various groups with wildly differing ideas will all claim to be "Emergent" and none will be able to hold a legitimate claim to the title over others. And then the title will lose all meaning what so ever in regards to conveying something useful about the group associated with it.

Tony Jones, the National Coordinator of Emergent, says "Emergent is an amorphous collection of friends who’ve decided to live life together, regardless of our ecclesial affiliations, regardless of our theological commitments. We want to follow Christ in community with one another. In a very messy way, we’re trying to figure out what that means." Sooo, pretty much nothing? I don't want to argue with the National Coordinator of Emergent about what Emergent is, but that description doesn't really convey much information to me. He goes on to say, "But in general, what binds people in Emergent is an eschatological conviction, which is the most everybody in Emergent would rally under the flag of hope. We have hope for the future. We have hope for the Church. We have hope for the kingdom of God to break into the present and transform the present." That's a lot better, and maybe something to work with. However, part of the problem we run in to is that even if this is the definition of Emergent, its not widely enough known to be consistant among groups who claim to be part of the Emerging Church. Furthermore, Jones states "It’s not a denomination... Statements of faith are about drawing boards, which means you have to load your weapons and place soldiers at those borders. You have to check people’s passports when they pass those borders. It becomes an obsession—guarding the borders. That is simply not the ministry of Jesus... For the short duration of time that I have on this planet to do my best to partner with God and build His kingdom, I don’t want to spend it guarding borders." I really do appreciate his ideals and sentiment here. But the problem is that it takes away any meaning of the term. By his definition what does it take to be Emergent? Allowing discussion about opposing opinions in theology as well as politics and culture? So, has Emergent just become a new word for tolerant?

Here is where I think Jones and I diverge and the reason for my desire for more concrete definitions where he feels no need: "Emergent could be very short lived. This whole thing could blow up over politics or theology or broken friendships or whatever. I don’t hold any grand illusions over how long this thing will be around. But as long as it’s around, we’re going to do our best to maintain a relational equilibrium." My vision is not of a short-lived experiment into loving each other. Emergent as the organization that Jones is a part of may well disappear soon. But the Emerging Church is not going to just disappear. All the people who are members of churches that identify themselves this way will still remain. Even if Emergent goes away the Emerging Church will not -- it cannot unless the people who make up this church all die suddenly. And so we must do something that is hard for us: we have to create a definition of what it means to be part of this movement (and maybe we could get a new, more meaningful name?). And that necessarily means drawing some boundaries. It means that there will be people who are part of it and people who aren't. And that is hard for many of us in the Emerging Church. But we're fooling ourselves because this distinction already exists in all of our minds, we're just not ready to voice it for fear that we will become just like everything we are trying to move away from. However, in the spirit that I believe embodies this movement, the purpose of this definition is not to exculde, but to include. Not so that we can identify who is not a part of the group, but so those of us in the group know who we are and what it means to be part of this group. And the definition should reflect that. I'll be writing more about this as I have more ideas. I may try to get input from Tony Jones and David Crowder if either has the time. My express desire is to create a definition to further give life to this movement. Again in the spirit displayed by the movement, I feel this is a conversation that we need to be having in our churches and with those not in our churches and between our churches, and therefore any and all input is not only welcomed but encouraged. Please, tell me what you think whether you love, hate, or don't care at all about the Emerging Church.

Another Route

Why don't we hear any politicians on either side of the aisle talking about something like this? This guy sounds to me like he knows what he's talking about and he seems qualified to talk about it. His proposal would take a lot of time and money, but it seems worthwhile in the short and long term if it could be pulled off. Is he wrong? Or are there politicians talking about it that I'm not aware of? Or are the politicians more interested in politics, and therefore short-term high return 'plans,' rather than finding a viable long-term solution? I think that the politicians and we the American people need to decide if we are really committed to establishing a democracy in Iraq or if we are more interested in seeing our side "win" the political battle that has been established around Iraq. Do we want to see a military victory in Iraq or a quick withdrawal of troops? Or do we want to see Iraq emerge as a stable democracy in Iraq even if it means committing more time and money and switching approaches completely? Furthermore, if we do decide that we want real progress in Iraq and our politicians aren't going to take us there, what do we do? How do we show our politicians that we want a different solution than either side is offering? And I don't believe that the right answer here is voting for one side or another.

No Guilt by Association

Although it has been said in various ways by many different people I think it bears repeating: we must be careful and diligent to remind ourselves, others in our country, and the world that although we are in a conflict with "Islamo fascism," or Islamic radicals who want to destroy the West by force, we are not in a conflict with all Muslims. If our enemies can convince the rest of the world that we are against Islam in general then they will have won support, or at least greater disdain for us, from a large percentage of the world's population. Furthermore, the Muslims in the US need to know that they are not outcasts. We also need to remind those in our country who would seek to harm all Muslims, even other citizens, that we are not a people who desire or tolerate hatred or guilt by association and that, as a nation, we are remorseful for times that we have done so in the past. Muslims and those of Middle Eastern heritage may be under greater suspicion than WASPy types, but they are not guilty just because of their faith or family history. Is it fair that they are under greater suspicion? Maybe not. But I can't think of a better system because, without further investigation, you can't tell an "Islamo fascist" from a peaceful Muslim. If there were a group of white supremacists carrying out terrorist attacks and seeking to destroy our culture I hope that us blond haired blue eyed types would be under greater suspicion than those who are not white at all. But because Muslims are under greater suspicion it is easy to understand why they may feel targeted. And therefore we need to make an extra effort to make sure they know that they are not guilty by association and that we do accept them as countrymen or just as other peace-loving humans. If we allow this sizeable majority in our country to feel isolated and targeted simply by their coincidental association with terrorists then it only becomes more likely that they may one day sympathize with our enemies more than us. And, from a less practical standpoint, we should reach out to those who feel persecuted or outcast because it is harmful for them, as humans, to feel that way. We ought to show compassion and acceptance. Not just for the practical purpose of trying to keep them from becoming resentful, but for the pragmatic purpose of embracing everyone who will be embraced and showing love and compassion to the world. If we do not wholehartedly welcome diversity and allow each person to have their own ideology, as long as it doesn't involve killing us or terrorizing us, then we are worse than our enemies.

Sometimes its Obvious

Iran is continuing to develop its nuclear program. Why do the UN and Europe continue to act surprised? Why do they believe that they can really talk Iran out of it? The President of Iran has quite clearly and frequently stated that he believes his country to be at war with the Western world. Furthermore, he has stated that his goal is to destroy Israel and diminish Western power, especially that of the US, to inferior to that of the "Muslim world," which probably really means Iran. What is it going to take for the West to realize that you can't make a deal with someone whose stated goal is your domination? The UN and Europe have been trying to get Israel to find a diplomatic peace with several groups who have a desire to destroy Israel as one of their purposes for existence. I thought that this stupidity had something to do with their feelings about Israel, but now it appears that perhaps they are genuine. Now they too seek to deal diplomatically with an adversary that says it seeks their destruction. Diplomatic peace means compromise. You cannot compromise with a group that wants to destroy you. If they want something else and are willing to destroy you to get it then you can give them that something else to avoid destruction. But when the goal they set forth is your destruction there is nothing to barter with. I guess maybe Europe believes that there is something else that Iran really wants and that a desire to destroy the West is really born from that other desire. I guess that may be true, but I don't see why they would know what Iran wants more than the President of Iran does. He is saying he wants to destroy the West, and I believe him when he says it. The most I can say for Europe is that at least they aren't hypocrites (on this point, anyway). And while Europe keeps trying to appease Iran, Iran continues to string them along without even a pause in their program.

The Path of Least Resistance

Michael Yon and probably others have been saying it for awhile, and now it seems that most of our political leaders and generals are jumping on board, too: there is a civil war brewing or under way in Iraq. There are clearly three sides in the war, the Kurds, the Shi'ites, and the Sunnis. These three groups have been at odds since the British lumped them blindly into one country and called it Iraq. Each of these groups has their own culture and belief system and each wants to run their own country with nothing to do with the others. So my questions is, why not let them? Its clear that right now they don't want to exist in a country together, but most of them do want a free independent country (not a dictatorship or theocracy). Why would we see it as a loss to allow them to each have their own country? Right now we have to exert a large amount of military force to try to keep them from ripping each other to shreds -- and we're still not doing that great a job of it. These are three groups that want independence that were forced to be governed together first by colonialism and then by an oppressive dictatorship. Why does it not make sense that part of toppling that dictatorship is to set each of these groups free to govern themselves? It seems to me like we have three choices at this point:

1. Maintain a vast military presence in Iraq so that the civil war that will be fought will look more like individual acts of aggression by rouge forces. When they eventually learn to get along years, maybe decades from now, then we'll be able to leave.
2. Maintain current troop levels or decrease them in any amount and watch the country fall into full fledged civil war that either ends in separate countries being made or one or more of the factions being dominated by another.
3. Set up three separate countries today, maintain our military presence to enforce the borders for some period of time, and call it a victory for everyone.

Now, I know things aren't that simple, but I think that there is going to be conflict between these groups for a long time if they aren't allowed to be autonomous. It seems fully in line with the mission of setting up democracy in the Middle East to allow these groups of people to govern themselves as they wish. Ethnic diversity has "worked" in the U.S. historically because before any significant new ethnic group arrives there is already a stifling majority of nationals who consider themselves "Americans" (meaning citizens of the U.S.). In Iraq you have these three groups trying to coexist with none having a clear majority and all having a different vision. So, let them have three countries. If the unite into one again some day, so much the better. But if we try to keep them as one now, I believe that odds are that they will eventually split anyway. It won't be that much extra government building because each group already has their politicians and some political infrastructure, and at least two of the groups already have trained militaries: the Kurdish militias are probably the best native fighting force in Iraq, and the Shi'ites mostly own the Iraqi Army. In the end I think this is the path we are going to have to go down. Why not go there voluntarily, when we can legitimately claim that it is still victory, rather than waiting for the thousands of lost lives and costly years, in terms of dollars and politics, and what will only look like failure, for the same result? If we make a united Iraq our goal there is no way we can claim victory when it splits, and at this point it looks like an inevitability to me. So it makes sense to split Iraq in terms of lives lost, money spent, and political gain, both at home and internationally.

(Mis)Representation

It seems to me that the ideal purpose of a politician in a democracy is to represent the people in the piece of the country that they are elected from, whether that be an entire state or a single county or city. That means that whether you are Republican or Democrat, if your district is split 49-51%, your voting should reflect more middle of the road trends. If your district is 90% your party, then you should vote with your party almost all of the time.

But that is not what happens in the US today because we have, as a nation, consistently valued party over people. I'm not sure when it happened, maybe its always been that way. However, this leads to massive misrepresentation, in my opinion. Today if your district is split 49-51% then nearly half of the people in your district are misrepresented because most politicians vote party line on most issues.

Now, the argument for the way a party system like this works is that you vote for the party that most represents your views. Then the party that has the majority of the votes in a district will be the party that most accurately represents the people and therefore maximum representation is achieved. But there are only two parties today, and most people do not fall solidly within a given party on every vote. It is my opinion that most people would vote in a range across the middle of the political spectrum if they could vote on every issue. Instead we mostly get votes polarized on both ends of the spectrum and there is never a middle of the road victory.

The motivation behind electing a candidate and not a party is that a candidate from a given district will know the people of that district and be able to accurately represent them. If a politician is only going to vote party line then there is no reason to have him around at all. We need only to establish the bounds of what a party stands for and the vote for the party that will represent your district. Apparently this was not the intent when our system was created because we do, in fact, vote for candidates.

When a great deal of districts in recent elections have been split by less than 10% but most votes by politicians fall squarely along party lines, accurate representation is not happening. It is my opinion that this was not the intent of those creating the system when it was set up, and it is not the ideal situation. If it were a better system I would be willing to forgo the "founders" intent for one that we have found to be better. However, I do not believe that this misrepresentation is better. Rather I believe that it will be beneficial and right for us to encourage a move within our system so that politicians vote to represent their whole district, not just the small majority who elected them, if that is the case. I'm not sure what practical steps we can take, but I know that one thing that will help is getting more people informed and interested during the primaries, because if more people vote in the primary then a more representative candidate will emerge as a contender in the general election. I'd like to hear any practical ways we can move towards more accurate representation in our government today, or any reasons why we ought not to.

Doubts

What if this is the truth about the Israeli campaign in Lebanon? Can we really have any idea of knowing who is right and wrong right now? Will we ever know? I've found that on many high profile issues, especially regarding recent military activities, its hard to know what to believe or who to trust. The two sides usually contradict on major points, and both make claims about the other side that are impossible to substantiate but equally impossible to prove false. And both sides have something to gain by lying if what the other says is true. I am left with a lot of "facts" and assertions and no way of knowing who is telling the truth. I suspect that the truth is often somewhere in between the two perspectives.

An Israeli Perspective

I found this article at jewishworldreview.com that talks about the double edged sword that Hezbollah represents to Israel. The basic point goes like this: Hezbollah attacks Israeli civilians seeking to maximize non-military damage. At the same time they hide their military positions among heavily populated areas so when Israel attacks them they kill civilians. No matter what Israel does it loses, either in its civilian casualties or by inflicting them on Lebanon. The author claims that Israel goes so far as to drop leaflets ahead of their bombing missions to allow civilians time to leave, where Hezbollah intentionally targets civilians. Yet Israel is seen by most of the world as the war criminal. Is this piece propaganda or a repetition of propaganda? Maybe. But it may have some shred of truth in it and it is important to consider amongst some international calls for war crimes charges to be leveled at Israel.