We Just Hit 3,000

With the death of a Texas soldier announced this afternoon by the Pentagon, the U.S. has now lost 3,000 troops in Iraq. The drumbeat goes on. We hit 1,000 in September 2004; we hit 2,000 in October 2005. Having number 3,000 come in December 2006 confirms an almost imperceptible decline in the death rate for U.S. troops over the last three and a half years. We’re making no progress toward Iraq becoming a safer place for anyone. But that isn’t news anymore.

Meanwhile, we wait for the “new way forward” to be announced by the White House. I hope that the way before us is both new and forward moving. I’m tired of staying the same old course that has become little more than “drifting sideways”, as Senator John Warner described it, a drifting that has come at the expense of thousands upon thousands of American and Iraqi lives and billions upon billions of dollars.

After today’s announcement, deputy White House press secretary Scott Stanzel said that the president "will ensure their sacrifice was not made in vain." I hate that phrase. I detest anyone even suggesting that the honorable death of an American service member in combat could ever be in vain.

These 3,000 men and women don’t need anyone in the White House, the Pentagon, the Congress, the courts, the think tanks, the media, the talk shows, the editorial pages, or the blogosphere to define when, or to decide whether, their sacrifice is or not in vain. Nothing done by the president or anyone else in the past, present or future will add to or detract from the efficacy of their sacrifice.

First and foremost, any true, freely offered sacrifice stands on its own merits by virtue of the fact that it is a true and freely offered sacrifice. Such a sacrifice is not divested of its honor and its valor simply because it does not produce some preferred or predetermined result. Sacrifice is an act that is independent of its result. To conclude otherwise would require us to declare that every person in civilian law enforcement who has died in the line of duty has died in vain because we still have crime in the streets. It’s preposterous.

Second, fulfilling one’s duty to country with honor, courage and commitment absolutely ensures that no such service can ever be said to in vain. How dare anyone even so much as suggest otherwise. It is vanity for anyone to do so, as if the labels “in vain” and “not in vain” are theirs to confer.

We should never tie the value of a person’s faithful performance of their military duty to someone else’s political definition of a victory. Any service member who meets the standard set by the United States Marine Corps motto – Semper Fidelis – Always Faithful – can never have the words “in vain” uttered in connection with their life, their service or their death.

So, Mr. Stanzel, please tell the president, with all due respect, that these brave 3,000 men and women don’t need him to do anything to ensure that their sacrifice will not be in vain. Their sacrifice and those additional sacrifices that are sure to follow in 2007 and beyond are above and beyond anything that he can do. God bless them, one and all.

A 77-Chair Salute

I didn’t expect to the end the year with a posting like this. I thought that I’d close 2006 with an entry about someone or some group doing something significant to close out the year. Heaven knows there’s a lot going on in the world and newsworthy people rarely take a day off. Instead, this is a posting about almost everyone doing essentially nothing – in other words, almost everyone took a day off.

When the entire city of Washington, DC manages to embarrass itself badly by doing essentially nothing, and doing so across all branches of government and with utter disregard for partisan lines, it’s a noteworthy non-event. Last night, the United States of America held a state funeral for a former President of the United States – and a good and decent one at that – and damned near no one showed up.

Gerald R. Ford was by most accounts a humble man and Washington doesn’t do well when it comes to recognizing and paying tribute to humility. This is how the leaders of America responded to last night’s call to the official funeral for President Ford:

President Bush didn’t show - he was cutting cedar and riding his bike in Crawford. First, that man has got to develop another hobby or two for his approaching retirement. As far as we’ve seen, cutting down bike paths with a chainsaw is about all he does on vacation. The Crawford White House issued a press release that set out the logistics for the funeral. Then, with nothing more than an asterisk, it advised us: "Please note that President George W. Bush will not be attending this event."

Bush will pay his belated respects when he comes back to Washington after his holiday. He will attend a second memorial service for President Ford on Tuesday. But the head of state did not want to cut short his version of a Texas chainsaw escapade for a state funeral. His minions quickly noted that he did the same thing for Reagan's funeral. His minions did not note, quickly or otherwise, that he was acting as the head of state at the time – hosting a G-8 summit of world leaders. Somehow, clearing yet another unwanted patch of brush on the ranch doesn’t fall into the same “regrets” bucket.

To his credit, Dick Cheney, President Ford’s former chief of staff, attended and appropriately noted that President Ford was the kind of man who “answered discourtesy with courtesy”. I wonder if that was a prepared remark or one that came to mind as the vice president looked around the nearly empty Rotunda, where a meager 77 chairs had been put out for mourners.

To his discredit, Don Rumsfeld, an honorary pallbearer and also a former chief of staff for President Ford, did not attend. If only his former leader had passed away before Rumsfeld got fired I’m sure he would have been in Washington making plans for the new way forward in Iraq. Another honorary pallbearer, James Baker, was unseen. He’s probably still in isolation licking his I-can’t-believe-they-ignored-my-new-way-forward wounds.

Only 35 of the 535 members of Congress showed up, including only 25 members of the House of Representatives where Gerald Ford served with distinction for several decades, including as Minority Leader. It’s sadly ironic that Ford asked for his body to lay in repose outside the House and Senate chambers before it arrived in the Capitol Rotunda. In character to the very end, he paid respect to the men and women who serve in those chambers, even if those men and women were unwilling to pay their respects to him.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his sidekick, Richard Durbin, didn’t show because they were touring Incan ruins. I wonder who paid for those trips. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a no show. She was probably getting a facial, a manicure, a pedicure, a new hairdo and a Prada gown fitting for some soiree tonight. To their credit, departing Speaker Dennis Hastert and departing Senate President Pro Tem Ted Stevens attended and gave decent eulogies for a decent man who deserved more decency than he got last night.

Only three of the nine members of the Supreme Court attended. Ford's lone appointee, John Paul Stevens, did not. Only two members of the Cabinet accepted the invitation. While all 50 governors were invited, it doesn’t appear that any of them came.

Sadly, the Washington Post reported that “Congressional staffers and Ford family representatives scrambled to find sufficient greeters and honorary pallbearers to join Vice President Cheney and a score of former lawmakers and Ford administration officials …. Staffers were invited in to pad the crowd and make the room look less empty.”

While the public showed more respect for the departed president than Washington officials, they were slow in doing so. By mid-afternoon yesterday, only 20 people were in a line that had been set up to handle thousands. By the time the public viewing began, several hundred citizens were waiting.

I suppose I should be more understanding. After all, it’s New Year's weekend and that’s bowl time and party time, not funeral time. The Ford ceremony was unceremoniously scheduled in between the Alamo Bowl, which kept the Texas crowd riveted to their seats elsewhere, and the not-to-be-missed Chick-Fil-A Bowl. It also fell on the same day as a home game for the hapless Redskins, which is barely an excuse for missing a dentist appointment.

Far more people attended the funeral for James Brown earlier in the day and that says more than I care to address. Who knows how many people couldn’t break away because they were surfing the web looking for video of Saddam Hussein finally being allowed to wear a tie again – one made of rope.

Next time President Ford dies his family and United States government really need to pick a better weekend for his state funeral. Bad planning, all around.

As the Post wryly noted, President Bush “phoned in a eulogy” by using his weekly Saturday radio address to describe President Ford as a man of "selfless dedication". The President added, "He always put the needs of his country before his own." The Post appropriately observed, “It was a rare trait in official Washington last night.”

Shame on official Washington – as if that’s something new.

Death to the Dictator

It appears that the Iraqi government will execute Saddam Hussein tomorrow. Many Shiites around the world will rejoice. Many Sunnis will mourn and instantly proclaim him a religious martyr. Many Muslims, without regard to Islamic denomination or other tribal allegiance or national affiliation, will ignore the purported involvement of the Iraqi government in the trial and sentencing of Saddam and see his execution as another American incursion into the Islamic world. To them, Saddam Hussein will become a political martyr.

Islamic martyrs, whether proclaimed as such by religion or politics, are not needed at any time, but especially at this time when the future of Iraq and peace in the Middle East hangs in the balance. Islamic martyrs with the soon-to-be mythical stature of Saddam Hussein are not helpful to America, Iraq or any other country in the Middle East.

When a criminal is executed it’s typical for people to speak about closure. There’ll be no closure with the death of Saddam. There’s more likely to be an opening – of festering wounds filled with the infection of hatred and vengeance. The pus from those wounds will almost certainly be poured on Americans.

My opposition to this execution is based on my fear that more American troops will die because of this one death; more than would have died if this one man spent the rest of his life in prison. I’m not willing to trade those American lives and the attendant sacrifice of their families for this dictator’s death. The price of that piece of ultimate justice will ultimately be too high. He’s just not worth it. He’s been brought down, jailed, tried and convicted. That’s enough. Enough good men and women have died bringing this bad man to this point.

I readily admit that if anyone deserves capital punishment it’s a brutal and barbaric dictator like Saddam Hussein. He may be the recipient of some form or degree of mercy from a God who knows more about when to dispense mercy than we do, but this despicable man is wholly undeserving of mercy from his captors and his country. His case is devoid of mitigation.

Nonetheless, I would rather see Saddam live a couple of long and lonely decades in abject humiliation in a 6’x8’ Iraqi prison cell, like the “spider hole” from which he was pulled by U.S. troops. For a man like Saddam, who has been surrounded by adoring and slavering lap dogs who have obeyed his every whim, solitary confinement in a Shiite-run prison is hell – the inferno of the powerless. There would be no one to command; no one to obey; no one to listen; no one to agree; and, no one connected with America to make him a martyr. If he’s not already insane, I suspect he’d enter the hell of insanity in due course.

In prison, his pathetic impotence would be a constant reminder of the eventual fate for anyone who would emulate him, a reminder that very few brutal and barbaric dictators die peacefully in their palace bed. Saddam would be seen living in hell.

Hanging from the gallows, Saddam Hussein is freed of his impotence and is invested with new power in the twisted minds of Middle Eastern terrorists. Without regard to how we picture his life after death, we have to keep in mind how Islamic extremists will picture it. Zealots act in this world on the basis of their views of life and death, not our views. In the mind of the terrorist, Saddam will be seen living in heavenly glory and bidding them to join him through the Gates of Jihad.

Some may proclaim this execution to be a victory. It may be, but we won’t know that for a long time. To know that, we’ll have to wait until we’re finished counting the men, women and children who will die because of the war in Iraq after tomorrow. We’ll have to estimate how many of those men, women, children – and American troops – die not just because of the war, but because of what happens tomorrow.

History is always written in the days after tomorrow.

Thank You, President Ford

On the morning after the presidential election in 1968 I watched Richard Nixon and his family appear at a press conference. I distinctly recall the feeling of hope that I felt at that moment. I had worked hard with the Young Republicans at the University of Utah supporting the Nixon campaign, not that the electoral votes for Utah were ever in doubt.

That was the first time that a presidential election meant something significant to me. As a less than politically astute 12-year old, my only contribution to the election of 1960 was to join friends in chanting, “Nixon, Nixon, he’s our man, Kennedy belongs in the garbage can.” As a native of Arizona and a high school student in Phoenix, I helped with mailers and yard signs in support of Barry Goldwater in 1964. By 1968, the violent struggle for civil rights and the violent resistance to the war in Vietnam had changed everything.

Opposition to the war in Vietnam had spilled into the streets and had gotten as ugly as the civil rights riots from 1964 to 1968, as witnessed in the streets of Chicago during the Democratic National Convention in the summer of 1968. Lyndon Johnson had announced in March that he would not seek reelection and his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, became the Democratic standard bearer in Chicago. All that mattered to me and millions of other Americans was that Johnson’s wartime legacy would come to an end. Peace in America was becoming as important as peace in Vietnam. Humphrey was stained by his role in the Johnson administration and could not get enough distance between himself and Vietnam and the street violence of the prior four years. When Nixon won, I was jubilant.

Little did we know that in less than four years Richard Nixon would set upon a path that would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis for the United States. On that crooked path Nixon made the cover-up of the conspiracy surrounding the Watergate break-in the primary legacy of his administration. By 1974, the country was as ready to get rid of Nixon as it had been to rid itself of Johnson. Standing beside Nixon at the time was his vice president, Gerald R. Ford, newly appointed following the disgraceful resignation of Spiro Agnew in December 1973.

On August 9, 1974, Nixon resigned the presidency and Gerald Ford became the 38th President of the United States – the only person never elected to either the presidency or the vice presidency. While most of us were too Watergate weary to feel anything approaching jubilant, there was once again a sense of hope for the future.

President Ford died yesterday. In the coming days we will hear a lot spoken about his legacy and the words that we’re most likely to hear will be about a healing in America, a restoration of trust, and a renewal of confidence, faith and integrity in the White House. In his inaugural address, he said some things that need repeating in this political day and age, when our “bond” is once again strained at home and abroad:

"I believe that truth is the glue that holds government together, not only our government, but civilization itself. That bond, though strained, is unbroken at home and abroad.

"In all my public and private acts as your president, I expect to follow my instincts of openness and candor with full confidence that honesty is always the best policy at hand.

"Our Constitution works; our great republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here the people rule. But there is a higher power, by whatever name we honor Him, who ordains not only righteousness but love, not only justice but mercy.”

Above all else, President Ford was a good, decent, honest man who vowed to end the “imperial presidency” and did so. One of the first pictures we saw of this former MVP football player from Michigan was of him making his own breakfast. There are no pictures of Nixon or Johnson in the kitchen. Apparently, they couldn’t stand the heat there, so they got out.

Ford’s approval rating jumped to over 70%. Then he did something in keeping with his nature – he pardoned Richard Nixon. Four months after that decision, his approval rating plummeted to 36%. His presidency, like those of his two predecessors, was under a siege of its own making. Agree with it or not, that pardon was consistent with his vow that it was time for America to end its “national nightmare” and move beyond Watergate and Vietnam. And that’s just what we did.

Our country will always owe Jerry Ford a debt of gratitude for the sense of political order that he restored. It’s ironic that he’s the only president to be the victim of two assassination attempts. It’s hard to understand the mind of someone who felt the need to kill a man like President Ford. Fortunately, he was unharmed. But when Jimmy Carter began firing at him in 1976, he wasn’t as fortunate and his long history of public service in Washington, DC came to an end.

Comparing Ford to the presidents who followed him, Henry Kissinger made the following observation, one that should be understood by all future presidential candidates and West Wing residents:

"The modern politician is less interested in being a hero than a superstar. Heroes walk alone; stars derive their status from approbation. Heroes are defined by inner values, stars by consensus. When a candidate's views are forged in focus groups and ratified by television anchorpersons, insecurity and superficiality become congenital. Radicalism replaces liberalism, and populism masquerades as conservatism."

To Kissinger, Ford was a hero. Many people agree with that assessment. He was something else that we’re sorely lacking these days – a true political moderate. In a speech in 1968 that set him apart from the rabid partisanship and the sharp liberal-conservative dichotomy that has become so deeply entrenched in a post-Ford Washington, he said:

"The higher ground of moderation with unselfish unity is not only common horse sense for a political party, it is also representative of the people and in keeping with the underlying genius of the American political system."

Gerald R. Ford, as a president and as a man, was “in keeping with the underlying genius of the American political system” and in keeping with the American people he served with integrity and common decency, the American people who mourn his passing today.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to all my family and friends!
May your day be filled with peace and joy!

Twas the Night Before

Christmas Eve has always been the most delightful part of Christmas for me. When I was a child, Christmas Eve was the apex of anticipation. It represented a kind of peace on earth for me because everything seemed warm and secure; all was right with the world that night. It was an evening when family reigned and nothing intruded. There were presents aplenty under the tree each year, producing a sense of bounty and blessedness. Yet, we knew that Jolly Old Saint Nicholas would top it off, like a cherry on a sundae, with something exceptional during the middle of the night. We felt special in our home on Christmas Eve.

When I was the parent of small children, Christmas Eve was a time of excited preparation. Their mom and I loved creating a magical scene for the kids to see the next morning. She would wrap and wrap and wrap, and I would put everything in its place around the tree and the family room. Everything was located in a way that would produce the maximum “Wow!” factor when the children entered the family room the next morning. With five children, there were enough presents each year to fill a gift arc that spanned the room. The gifts were not only around the tree, but also in front of and on the fireplace hearth, the couch and every chair and table in the room.

As the years progressed a wonderful array of Christmas Eve traditions arose and took root in our family – new pajamas for everyone; hot chocolate afloat with marshmallows; singing carols with abandon and utter disregard for the dearth of musical talent in our genes; reading a special Christmas book about Santa and his elves and his cat named, Whiskers, with our “unique” additions to the tale being told; reading "The Night Before Christmas"; setting out milk and chocolate chip cookies for Santa, whose appreciation of them never waned; and then, to close the evening, reading the Christmas story from the second chapter of the Book of Luke and kneeling together for a prayer of gratitude for all we had. These things worked their magic year after year.

I went to bed after each Christmas Eve with a peaceful heart and a sense of fulfillment. Just before doing so, however, I would “set the trap” in the hallway between the bedrooms and the family room. The “trap” consisted of strategically placed chairs and a blanket that was laid carefully and perfectly smooth between the chairs. Our kids were assured that any treading past the chairs and onto that blanket could and would be easily detected because the blanket was set in a secret way that no one other than dad could reproduce. They knew that some dire consequence awaited any trespasser. Never a footprint wrinkle was seen on that perfectly smooth blanket. Of course, it can be told now that never a parent looked at the “trap” after it was set.

After only a couple of hours of sleep, we would awaken to our five-member choir singing “We Wish You a Merry Christmas” outside our bedroom door sometime between 5 and 6AM. With that, we went down the hall, past the now dismantled and thoroughly trampled “trap” to watch our children express that wonder-filled glee that can only be heard early on Christmas morning.

Coming, Going and Crossing Paths

Today is my oldest daughter’s birthday. She turns 34. Typically, that’s the kind of birthday number that’s pretty nondescript. Most people don’t pay a lot of attention to their 34th. 30 or 35, sure; 34, not so much.

Of course, any birthday number can become ‘descript’ if it happens to intersect some other numerical path that instantly transfers meaning to it, and that’s what happened today. Two 34s crossed paths and everyone involved momentarily felt a little off center.

My wife was 34 when I met her.

While I met my wife 12 years ago, it’s a little disconcerting to think of my daughter being the age my wife was when we began seeing each other “not that long ago”. Suddenly, I’m able to picture my daughter being 46 and my wife being 58. Of course, I can’t picture myself being 70 when that happens. That’s a galaxy far, far away. Math may be perfectly logical, but time gets a little warped on occasion.

I remember the evening of December 23, 1972, in vivid detail. There are few moments in life more dramatic and more meaningful than the moment that someone becomes a parent. Everything changes; nothing is ever the same. I remember the evening of December 3, 1994, in vivid detail. There are few moments in life more significant than the moment we meet someone who makes everything change; someone who ensures that nothing will ever be the same. Those two evenings have brought me immeasurable joy.

I’m very grateful for the two 34s; for those two December meetings; and for the changes that each of them brought into my life. I don’t want anything to be the way it was before those two evenings, with one exception.

On December 6, 1994, I met two boys who would become my stepsons. They also brought joy and life-altering changes into my life. But, the one thing I want the way it was before that December evening is to have Danny back. I want to watch him become 34. With him gone, nothing will ever be the same.

We are told that all meetings end in separation. But we don’t always appreciate how everything changes in both of those moments in time, and we don’t always appreciate the joy that lies between them. Tonight, I do.

Can a Country Enter Rehab?

Miss USA is going into rehab. With this simple announcement, the era of greatness in American culture has officially come to an end. We’re on the slippery slope to the path of ruin that will lead us over the edge of cultural credibility into the abyss of … well … you get the point.

The only drama still to unfold is to find out if this, the mother of all rehabs, is for Ms. Conner’s addiction to alcohol, drugs or teenage girls. That’s what the boys at the track call a trifecta – assuming you pick them in the right order. Culturally speaking, it’s the slope-path-edge-abyss thing.

How does a 20-year old young woman emerge from rural Russell Springs, Kentucky, and in less than a year become something between a national embarrassment and an international joke, depending on how seriously you take this matter. I’m not taking it too seriously, so I’m leaning toward the joke end of the scale. But I am taking it seriously enough to mention the slope-path-edge-abyss thing.

A likely answer to the aforementioned question goes like this: she has spent way too much time watching and listening to a lineup of celebrated losers: Paris, Nicky, Nicole, Britney, Christina, Tara, Lindsay, Mary Kate, Ashley, Jessica, Ashlee and fill-in-the-blank. Nominations for this list of cultural misfits remains, unfortunately, very much open. They even have an alumni club for grads like Shannen, Tori, LaToya, Anna, Pamela and Madonna. There’s also a pack of male misfits, as exemplified by K-Fed, K. Rock, R. Kelly, P. Diddy, Andy, Robert, Charlie, Mel and the like, but sadly it’s the young women who dominate the slope-path-edge-abyss thing.

The fact that we pay one minute of attention to children dressing up as adolescents who are trying to act like bad-ass adults is sad enough. The fact that we devote countless magazine covers, news articles, E! Entertainment stories, red-carpet interviews, tabloid exposés, etc., etc., ad nauseam, to these so-called celebrities is so far beyond sad that it becomes the slope-path-edge-abyss thing.

Too many otherwise decent Americans are caught up in a grotesque fascination with an endless array of crude, crass and classless behavior. If only it stopped there. But, on the serious side of the scale, bad party behavior and the distasteful antics of spoiled, rich kids has morphed into an endless Faustian tale of alcoholism, drug use, addiction, bulimia, anorexia, exhibitionism, and sexual affectation. What awaits us at the bottom of the abyss? Can an entire country enter rehab?

I don’t know if the Madonna – Britney – Madonna – Christina 2003 MTV tongue lashings signaled the beginning of the end or, worse, signaled that we’d already rounded the clubhouse turn and were closing in on the finish line, but seeing almost every media source in the country flashing the shot of Miss USA 2006 swapping copycat spit with Miss Teen USA 2006 surely signaled something along the highway to cultural hell, aka the slope-path-edge-abyss thing.

But, wasn’t it nice to see The Donald, is his oh-so-appropriate role as owner of Miss USA and Miss Teen USA, graciously granting a conditional pardon to Ms. Conner, he being the paradigm of morality and virtue. Like we can’t remember him letting his tongue wander into something maples-flavored not all that long ago, while Ms. Ivana was at home tending to the little Trumpets.

Alright, that’s enough. I can feel the slope slipping under my feet.

Absolutely - Not Winning (Still)

When you wake up to the news that the president has just admitted for the first time that, "We’re not winning the war in Iraq", and that Miss USA is going into rehab, how can you not post a blog entry? As much as I want to adhere to Sai Baba’s guidance on good speech, I cannot resist the Siren’s song on matters of such import.

I’ll start with the news that puts waves on the Potomac that are big enough to surf. President Bush told the Washington Post on Tuesday that we’re not winning the war. I’m amazed. First, that he said it; second, that he said it to the Post. The fact that he said it is both good and bad.

It’s good because it’s true and has been true for some time. It’s good because it creates necessary alignment with his new secretary of defense, who, after having declared that we’re not winning the war in his congressional confirmation hearings, is now in Iraq on his first official mission in that position. Like Secretary Gates, the president went on to say that we’re not losing the war, either. I would never expect either of them to say otherwise on that end of the scoreboard, so I’ll let that one go.

Well, I won’t let it go entirely. If we’re not winning or losing, then I guess it’s a tie. Shouldn’t we be troubled by a tie? We have an armed force of 150,000 of the best-trained and best-equipped troops in the world in a country that’s about the size of California and more than a third smaller than Texas. Why aren’t we winning? The answer to that question could fill a book and eventually will fill several books – a deeply flawed strategy; improper tactics; misdirected political leadership; lack of alignment between civilian and military leaders; troops who have been trained and equipped to fight a different kind of war, the kind we fought and won for the first two months in Iraq; lack of international support; lack of dialog with other countries in the region; and, of course, an inept Iraqi government, weak Iraqi security forces and the fact that the whole thing has devolved into a sectarian civil war. “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”

Back to the news, the president’s admission is bad because it’s barely been more than a month since he declared with unflinching certainty that, “Absolutely, we’re winning the war (insert picture of the famous crooked grin)!” We’ve gone from absolutely winning to not winning in a handful of weeks and that begs a few serious questions.

Did the war change that dramatically in a month – no; wars of this nature are not given to precipitous change and this one is no exception. It’s about the same now as it was in early November.

Did the president change his mind that dramatically in a month – not likely; the nature of this president is not given to precipitous change and this change is no exception. In fact, I think we’d have cause for concern if the president changed his mind that fast and that dramatically on what is without question the single most important matter being undertaken by his administration.

Did the president believe that we were not winning the war a month ago when he staunchly and repeatedly declared that we were absolutely winning the war – in all likelihood, yes; and that should be a problem for almost everyone. The president couldn’t bring himself to be truthful with the American people for one reason – an election was afoot in the land of the free – an election that was a national plebiscite on his administration and the status of the war that he single-handedly launched. Ergo, tell the voters whatever is needed to make them think that the home of brave is kicking butt in Baghdad, baby!

I’m not naïve; I understand how the game of politics is played; I understand the parsing of words and the turning of clever phrases; I understand that misdirection can be used in a campaign as successfully as in an NFL backfield; I understand the use of nuance, inflection, and the always-popular subtle distinction; and I understand that political pronouncements of so-called “facts” can fall all along the grey scale. I also understand that matters of national security often can’t be played out in the public arena, but matters of national security should cause leadership to keep quiet not to tell us bedtime stories.

I do not understand, and thus do not accept, how blue can be called red; how midnight can be called noon; how a hurricane can be called sunshine; and how not winning can be called absolutely winning. Maybe it’s the reference to “absolutely” that really gets under my skin, as if he was trying to intimidate the uncertain among us through hyperbole, as if to say, “Hell, idiots, we’re not just winning this thing, we’re so far ahead that this win is absolute! You people have got to open your eyes and see wha’sup!”

Well, guess what? On November 7 that’s exactly what we did and dozens of the president’s closest friends are now putting their personal effects in the back end of a Bekins van and headed back to their “home district” to stay. What we’re unsure of at this point is whether the wake up call was heard in either the West Wing or the East Wing of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

So, we’re not winning. Okay, what next? The president says that the election was not a mandate to leave Iraq but a mandate to significantly change what we’re doing in Iraq. That might be a distinction without a difference, but I’ll roll with that one for a while. Everyone knows that if we just pack our duffle bags and come home then we will leave behind a human disaster of epic proportions. Some day we may have no choice but to do just that, to our everlasting shame. But if there is any other reasonable alternative, then I’m just one of millions of Americans who are willing to listen.

So, let’s start talking about the reasonable alternatives – now. Maybe, for example, we can give just one or two hours of further consideration to the 79 recommendations offered by the Iraq Study Group. But, whatever we do, let’s not try any more of that Slick Willie misdirection, subtle distinction, lying stuff. Let’s make a national commitment to Stephen Colbert’s trademark concept – truthiness.

As for Miss USA, I’ll deal with you next – in far fewer words.

3,543 Hours of Pictures, Sounds, Words & Opinions!

I like to collect favorite quotations, two of which are almost at eye level in my office, but off to the side of the 19-inch screen that is the center of my working universe. In that location these quotes don’t catch my attention as often as they should. They caught my attention yesterday and instantly created a blogistential crisis.

The first quote, from the Buddha, says:

· People with opinions just go around bothering one another.

There’s no lack of opinions on HOTS, that’s for sure, and I have a high degree of confidence that some of them, maybe more than some, have been bothersome to a few who’ve read them, maybe more than a few. The Buddha’s observation is not an injunction, however, because sometimes there’s nothing wrong with bothering someone with our opinions. Note, too, that the Buddha indicates that the people who are bothered by people with opinions are – other people with opinions. So, the bothering is mutually inflicted. Okay; I worked my way through that one well enough.

The second quote, from Sai Baba, the highly controversial Indian “guru”, says:

· Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it kind; is it necessary; is it true, does it improve on the silence.

Even though the source is controversial, this four-part test for worthwhile speech is sound advice, and a darn tough standard to meet. While I’m not aware of having posted something here that is untrue in a factual sense (the truth of opinions is always open for debate), I am guilty of posting words that clearly aren’t kind; words that almost certainly aren’t necessary; and words that probably haven’t improved on silence. Brother Baba makes me think. It will be harder to work my way through this one.

The U.S. Census Bureau just released its annual statistical abstract that says 13 million people started a blog in 2005 alone, with millions more undoubtedly having done so this year, me included. That’s a lot of opinions getting thrown into the wind, and a lot of words that are potentially unkind, unnecessary, untrue, and that don’t improve upon silence. Needless to say, we have millions of embryonic bloggers yet to come online.

More alarming is that this report says that Americans are now engaged with media of some kind (e.g., TV, cable, radio, iPods, email, Internet, etc.) for an average of 3,543 hours a year. That’s otherwise known as 147 days a year, which means we spend somewhere between 70 – 75% of our lives buried in media or the bedcovers!

So, I ask, am I just spreading verbal pollution; am I just contributing to an unhealthy media addiction, including my own? The answer is, that’s possible, if not probable. Then I ask, should I continue doing what I’ve been doing? The answer is….

I need to turn the screen off; get up; take a long walk; and think about that. I’m not sure how I’ll work my way through this one.

Holy Crap!

Frank Barone died! He was only 71. My heartfelt condolences go out to Marie, Ray, Robert, Debra, Amy and the rest of the Barone family. I hope they’re doing OK.

I didn’t know Frank, but I sure felt like I did. It often seemed like he could have been my slightly off-center uncle from what is often referred to as “the other side of the family”.

Frank Barone, of course, is Peter Doyle, the instantly recognized character actor who played Frank on the long-running sitcom, Everybody Loves Raymond. When I learned yesterday that Doyle had died, it momentarily felt like a personal loss. Not that it felt like a deep loss; just that it felt real, like I’d lost someone with whom I’d spent quite a bit of time. It was as though he’d been my neighbor for nine years, albeit a few doors down.

That feeling points out how TV can work its way into the fabric of our lives, for good or for bad. We really think we “know” the characters we watch week after week, or day after day in syndicated reruns. We get connected by sharing living rooms with each other – Frank has been in mine as often as I’ve been in his. Actors who play these roles consistently talk about people approaching them in public and calling them by their character’s name, often not having a clue about their real name. Peter Doyle was Frank Barone as much as Frank Barone was Peter Doyle.

If you haven’t seen Doyle play Frankenstein in Mel Brooks’ classic movie, Young Frankenstein, then you should head to Blockbuster or add it to your Netflix queue ASAP. Those who didn’t know Doyle before that movie, never forget him after seeing it.

So, another virtual friend passes on. The neighborhood just won’t feel the same.

I wonder if Marie will remarry.

Let It Shine!

In response to one of the comments posted about the Christmas trees at the Seattle airport, why did I suggest that SeaTac should cut the rabbi some slack, put up the menorah, and then deal with other objections if they arose? Practically speaking, because the people who make these decisions have to draw a line somewhere, just as they did when they put up the trees; just as they did again when they took down the trees.

More importantly, because I’ve been taught since I was a child that America stands on a firm Judeo-Christian foundation, which recognizes that Judaism and Christianity are interlaced in a way that doesn’t apply in the same way to Islam or Kwanzaa or whatever else might now be found in our cultural mix.

Jesus was a Jew. In the Book of John we find him in the Temple during the Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah). If the event that is celebrated as Hanukkah today was similarly celebrated during his lifetime, I believe Jesus would have celebrated the holiday; he would have gathered with his family and participated in lighting the menorah; he would have recited the prayers of re-dedication; he would have recognized the significance of the emergence of light in a dark world.

Notwithstanding the historical significance of the Judeo-Christian relationship, given the message of Peace and Good Will that emanated from under the heavenly lights in Bethlehem, I would happily accept the addition of any Islamic or Kwanzaa symbol that further enlightens the world and similarly speaks to Peace and Good Will to men and women everywhere. As the president would say, “Bring ‘em on!”

The Christmas trees are back up at SeaTac and there’ll be no lawsuit from the rabbi. The lights on the trees are once again a nice addition to the airport. But, with the addition of the menorah, there could have been more light – not only more light shed on this event and its stumbling protagonists, but more celebratory light of the season for all to enjoy.

Jesus said, “I am the light.” We can never have enough light in this world, especially during a season that celebrates a message of Peace and Good Will. As Christian children are fond of singing, “Let it shine, let it shine, let it shine.”

Rocky Mountain Low ... in Colorado

When Ted Haggard, the former leader of the 14,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs, the former president of the National Association of Evangelicals, and a dedicated gay basher at the pulpit, was found to be a crystal meth user and a customer of a male prostitute over a three-year period, I didn’t say anything about it here. I knew that I would end up writing just another snide rant about yet another case of gross hypocrisy in the ranks of conservative leaders in the evangelical and Republican national arenas.

But, there was one scene in the Haggard story that was very painful to watch. It evoked something other than criticism or ridicule; it evoked sorrow. The scene happened when a reporter interviewed Haggard as he was preparing to drive somewhere with his family. It was in this interview that Haggard admitted to buying the meth but claimed he never used it (thereby invoking the Bill Clinton “I never inhaled” defense), and admitted to having received massages from the male prostitute but claimed there was no sexual contact (thereby invoking yet another Clinton defense).

As these denials rolled off his tongue with ease, Haggard had this big, broad, somewhat odd smile on his face – his omnipresent media smile; the smile of a pastor supposedly at peace with himself and the story he was telling. His wife was sitting in the seat next to him and his two children were in the back seat. There were no smiles on their faces; there was no hint of peace in their eyes. They appeared trapped in a mire of stunned disbelief and humiliation. It was hard to watch; I felt genuinely sorry for them.

Haggard later confessed that he’d had sex with the male prostitute. In that confession he made a statement that allowed me to get just enough of glimpse behind the prosthetic smile to begin to find sorrow for him as well. He said, “There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I've been warring against it all of my adult life.” You can’t hear someone describe a part of their life as repulsive and speak of being at war with themselves all of their adult life, and not feel sorrow and pity.

Why bring this up now, more than a month after the Haggard affair? This last weekend, Paul Barnes, the 54-year old founding pastor of a second Colorado evangelical mega-church, resigned after confessing that he’d had sex with other men. Barnes confessed to an associate pastor at Grace Chapel in Englewood after the church “received a call last week”. Barnes led Grace Chapel for 28 years. Like Haggard, he’s married and has two children.

In words reminiscent of Haggard’s confession, Barnes said in his videotaped confession that, ''I have struggled with homosexuality since I was a 5-year-old boy. ... I can't tell you the number of nights I have cried myself to sleep, begging God to take this away.'' When I read that sentence I felt the same sorrow that I felt for the Haggard family. It’s unbelievably sad. And it’s unbelievably unnecessary.

The associate pastor at Grace said in a written statement that, ''While we cannot condone what he has done, we continue to support and love Paul.'' Uh-huh – love and support. I’m sure that the expectation of love and support at church is what has kept Haggard secretly at war with his repulsive self and Barnes secretly struggling, crying and begging God for deliverance since he was five years old. What both of them knew was waiting for them at church was moral judgment and shame, with an underlying current of loathing. See, I knew the snide rant would leak out if I took the lid off this subject.

I don’t know how anyone can read the two quotes above, along with countless others just like them from other previously closeted Christian gays and lesbians, and still hold to the position that homosexuality is a choice – just another “lifestyle” on the menu – and an abominable and sinful lifestyle choice, at that.

Isn’t it blatantly obvious that five-year old boys don’t select a God-damned lifestyle; five-year old boys don’t opt for a God-damned sexuality.

Isn’t it equally obvious that if these good Christian men, and I’m still going to call them that, can struggle all of their adult life or can beg God for deliverance from self-revulsion from the age of five, then homosexuality isn’t something that God is going to change or “take away” from them any more than s/he is going to change the color of their eyes, hair or skin. If there’s no deliverance from this purported abomination for the likes of Haggard and Barnes, then who is the fortunate recipient of the willful grace of their discriminating God?

I’ve seen or heard dozens of homosexuals say that they first felt their sexual orientation in pre-adolescence. If, like Barnes, they recall feeling it at five, then wasn’t it there at four, at three – at birth. I’m convinced that it’s just a matter of time before we have scientific proof that our sexual orientation is genetically hardwired in each of us, not that such proof will dissuade those who frequently ignore sound science because well-known, “well-respected men of God” have told them otherwise.

Some might want to spend a little time getting further acquainted with a few gay and lesbian Christians through websites such as: Christianlesbians.com and Gaychristian.net.

I feel sorrow for people like Haggard and Barnes. They’re good people trying to live good lives as best they know how. But, they’re also desperate souls trapped in a dogmatic snare of their own construction, only they’ve projected their creation onto their anthropomorphic vision of God and now suffer deeply as a result. It’s unbelievably sad, and unbelievably unnecessary.

I pray that God will finally remove their revulsion, end their struggle, dry their tears, answer their prayerful begging, and somehow introduce them to their true selves – and at the same time introduce them for the first time to the God who made them who and what they are.

May they find peace with their Creator and with his creation. May they come to the conclusion that God did not make a dark and repulsive mistake when s/he made them who and what they are. Their God is bigger and better than that.

Senseless in Seattle

My wife and I have been giving serious consideration to retiring in the Northwest, somewhere near Seattle or Portland. We’ve thoroughly enjoyed visits to each city. As a result of this interest, we tend to watch the news (not to mention the weather) that comes out of both places. This weekend, Seattle took a hit.

It seems that several Christmas trees had been put up and nicely decorated in the Seattle-Tacoma airport, something I’m sure many holiday travelers enjoyed. I’m also sure that many holiday travelers paid little attention to the trees as they fought their way through the madness that fills almost all large airports during the holidays.

But, someone was paying attention. After all, this is America, so what has now become almost inevitable, happened as expected – someone complained. That someone was a rabbi.

The rabbi asked the airport to put up a menorah along with the Christmas trees, to acknowledge and celebrate Hanukkah, which I’m sure would also have been enjoyed by a number of holiday travelers. Again, many travelers would have paid little attention.

Most of us are quite accustomed to seeing both holidays recognized in one form or another. It’s a peaceful coexistence, which seems fitting for the season. But the cloudy weather in Seattle must have dampened the holiday spirit and clouded everyone’s judgment because both “sides” in this teapot tempest decided to get a little hazy and crazy.

First, the rabbi apparently decided to elevate his request to a threat by … here it comes … cue the Little Drummer Boy, please … hiring a lawyer. That’s a step that pretty much squelches Peace on Earth. But, like I said, this is America and that’s what we do in the home of the brave and the land of the free. We get offended; and then we hire a litigator to yank everyone around until we all embrace truth and justice.

This step apparently invoked a Newtonian reaction in the airport officials. They had several options, but they opted for an equal and opposing idiocy – they decided to take down the Christmas trees late Saturday night when the least number of holiday travelers would notice. Doing so probably got the attention of those travelers who would have otherwise paid no attention. Dismantling Christmas trees in the second week of December is a bit unusual.

So, there now, we have no Christmas trees or menorahs in the Sea-Tac airport. Everyone who feels good about that, raise your hands. As I thought, it looks like about 100 out of every million. Now, everyone who feels like these people could have done something different, raise your hands. Yep, there are the 750,000 fellow travelers that I expected. The rest of you are the ones who don’t care, or at least don’t pay attention to this stuff, one way or the other.

The rabbi, well intended though he may have been, did not need to bring a hired gun to the center of the runway at high noon. The airport officials, well intended though they may have been, and somewhat understandably peeved at getting threatened over holiday decorations, did not need to take their trees and go home.

All of these people should have listened and talked and thought and reasoned – and then put up some damn menorahs, for crying out loud. After all, the menorah symbolizes a Festival of Lights and Dedication and, heaven knows, both “sides” could have benefited by some added enlightenment and a little more dedication to the holiday spirit they both claim to celebrate. So could all the holiday travelers. So could all of the rest of us.

The airport officials say that they deconstructed the holiday decorations because they didn’t have the time and resources to deal with everyone who might want to put up something in the airport during the holidays. Well, how about paying attention to the Biblical reminder that, ‘Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” That means just deal with the problem you have, not the problem you think you might have at some time in the future. If the problem actually becomes a big one, then decide what to do in the face of the real problem – not the imagined one.

Jesus, if we can’t solve the great holiday decoration debate at the Sea-Tac airport then how in God’s name will we ever solve any religion-based problem between two groups of people? I’m not taking the name of the Lord in vain there; I’m asking him a serious question.

Now both of the senseless “sides” in Seattle are feeling bad. The Jewish community is feeling like they’ll be seen as the Grinch who stole the Christmas lights in the name of the Hanukkah lights. The Christians are feeling like victims of yet another skirmish in the often mindless battle for political correctness, a battle that often results in an inclusiveness that is so broad that it excludes diversity, or an insistence on diversity that is so narrow that it defies inclusiveness. Balance, people! Let’s find the middle way!

Portland, we’re watching and hoping that you’ll do a little better on this score.

Imperfect People on Imperfect Roads

I make myself tired sometimes with all my ranting about politics and religion, which probably explains why I love Cindy Alexander’s song, “Sick of Myself”. Every once in a while I encounter some real wisdom, as opposed to the wisdom-of-the-hour for which the blogosphere is simultaneously famous and infamous, and it slows me down and makes me contemplate different things, or the same things on a different level.

The following quote from Mahatma Gandhi is a piece of such wisdom. He says:

“Religions are different roads converging on the same point. What does it matter that we take different roads so long as we reach the same goal? I believe that all religions of the world are true more or less. I say "more or less" because I believe that everything the human hand touches, by reason of the very fact that human beings are imperfect, becomes imperfect.”

Everything the human hand touches is thereafter imbued with the imperfection that is endemic to all humanity throughout its history. Every religion, every political party, every organization and institution – indeed, every culture and civilization is marked by the human hand and is therefore imperfect. Imperfection is one of the things that every person and every group of people have in common.

What would the world be like if every one of us spoke and acted like we were consistently aware of our own imperfection? People who speak and write about the imperfections of others, as I often do here, would be prepared to acknowledge in the same breath – “I could be wrong about this; I’m certainly wrong about something because, heaven knows, I’m far from perfect.”

What would the world be like if every one of us acknowledged that all we know is our personal opinion; all we see is our personal perspective; all we hear is sifted through our personal filters; and, as a result, none of us can proclaim to have a firm grasp on reality? It’s often questionable whether we even have a tenuous grasp on reality. Rather, the world we experience is a world of our own making – a world imbued with our imperfection.

On the subject of religion in particular, note that Gandhi does not make his statement about every little sect and denomination that has come from the hand of man or woman. He refers to the “religions of the world”, and I take that to mean religions that have persevered through time and have a worldwide reach and sphere of influence – Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and a small number of others.

Isn’t it possible that these religions of the world have survived and thrived through time because they all have a sufficient claim to a sufficient amount of truth to serve as a meaningful guide for countless men and women who travel on different roads to the same destination – heaven, salvation, liberation, nirvana, enlightenment, whatever the eternal and transcendent release from the trials and tribulations of our imperfect lives may be called by the individual traveler.

“What does it matter that we take different roads so long as we reach the same goal” – it doesn’t matter. Obviously that statement assumes that we’re all pursuing the same goal, which, ultimately, I think we are. If we took the time to carefully boil down the mixture in each beaker of world religion, I believe that we’d find the same precipitate. I’ll call it peace – peace in our hearts and minds; peace in our homes; peace in our nations and our world; and peace with God.

We all seek a perfect peace. May we all find the awareness and wisdom to get us down our individual road to that end.

As Helen Keller said, “I do not want the ‘peace that passeth understanding’; I want the understanding that brings peace.”

Power to the People

The long-anticipated report from the Iraq Study Group came out on Wednesday. The overall message may be summed up on page one where the ISG declares that “the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating”. For the next 100 pages, call it what you will, the ISG essentially repudiates at least the last three years of the Bush administration’s policy and strategy in Iraq.

The ISG advances a 79-point plan for going forward. I won’t reiterate the details of what is being discussed and dissected in every media outlet available. To me, the report stands on four legs: 1) initiate a responsible reduction of the combat brigades in Iraq over a 15-month period, shifting the primary focus to a five-fold increase in embedded U.S. military advisors training Iraqi security forces; 2) immediately initiate a “new diplomatic initiative” in the region that includes direct talks with Iran and Syria; 3) make it clear to the Iraqis that if they don’t make “substantial progress” in reconciliation, security and governance, the U.S. will reduce all forms of support for their government; and 4) initiate serious Israeli – Palestinian peace negotiations.

Jim Baker, the Republican co-chair of the ISG, said that we have to abandon the current “stay the course” strategy. Lee Hamilton, the Democratic co-chair concurred and added, ominously, that “the ability of the United States to influence events is diminishing.” Others on the panel concurred that the time for making any effective change in Iraq may be running out.

By noon on Thursday, the White House had essentially distanced itself from the first three legs by saying that we will not diminish the strength of our commitment to Iraq until “victory” has been achieved, and we will not engage in diplomatic discussions with Iran and Syria until they make concessions that we know they won’t make. No word that I’ve heard yet on the fate of the fourth leg, which may prove to be the cornerstone of any meaningful effort to achieve long-term stabilization of the Middle East as a whole.

The proposal to drawn down combat troops in a reasoned manner over a responsible period of times makes sense to me and millions of other Americans. I don’t know if 15 months is the right answer, but some well-defined exit strategy that doesn’t rest on some ill-defined “victory” must be put in place. However, shifting a large number of combat troops into roles as advisors embedded with Iraqi forces raises a red flag for me: how do we protect the U.S. troops in those roles; won’t they be at significantly greater risk than the combat troops are now? That piece needs more discussion.

On the subject of regional diplomacy, Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton both reminded everyone that we engaged in direct negotiations with the Soviet Union and China for 40 years, in spite of them having been not only militant in their anti-American policies but also having been a direct military threat that included actual weapons of mass destruction. If we were able to speak directly with these Communist powers, I see no reason we can’t do the same with the Middle Eastern powers. Ironically, it was Republican presidents who eventually turned the keys that unlocked the doors with both of those sworn enemies – Nixon with the Chinese and Reagan with the Soviets.

Making it clear to the Iraqis that they have to make substantial progress in assuming full responsibility for reconciling, securing and governing their country or face a commensurate reduction in American political, military and economic support not only makes sense but is long overdue.

I don’t know if the 79 points offered by the ISG constitute the best go-forward plan. But I take it seriously enough to know that I would like my president to engage in meaningful discussions on each of those points for longer than 24 hours. I would like to see Bush and Secretaries Rice and Gates sit down with Baker, Hamilton and the four senior leaders in Congress for a few days, if not a couple of weeks, in a concerted effort to both ensure mutual understanding and to seek a common road ahead.

But, the shrieking voices from the far right will have none of that. They’re already attacking what they’ve now dubbed the Iraq Surrender Group. What a clever lot they are. The vapid nature of their commentary over the last two days reveals the lack of substance in their autonomic support of the current course of action in Iraq. All they can offer is an even more shrill version of the utterly worn out “we will not cut and run” mantra. Their plan amounts to about 79/100ths of a point.

The partisan uber-conservatives have marched out the “it’s just another partisan attack” attack. I love how they employ the “p” word in only one direction. It seems that the makeup of the ISG doesn’t please them. Never mind the fact that it was the brainchild of a Reb congressman from Virginia; it was established by a Reb-controlled congress; it was sanctioned by a Reb president; and five of its ten members, including the president’s new secretary of defense, are Rebs. They just aren’t the right kind of Rebs, meaning there’s no froth at the corners of their mouths.

At some point, a group of Reb leaders will need to visit the Oval Office to tell the current resident that he’s going to lead the Republican Party the rest of the way over the cliff. He and the likes of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney have led the party to the precipice already, but they seem oddly unaware of their teetering stance on the crumbling edge. It appears that they’ve forgotten what happened on November 7th, when America held a national plebiscite on the war in Iraq. Bush, Rove and Cheney got their butts kicked from coast to coast.

The president has often said that he pays no attention to the opinion polls. Electing to pay no attention to the people is a far riskier choice. When those people go to the election polls they’re capable of expressing an opinion that can’t be ignored – just ask the Rebs who are packing up their offices in Washington at this very minute. George W. Bush is perhaps the only Republican in the country who is capable of single-handedly turning over the keys of his office to the Republican’s version of Public Enemy No. 1, Ms. Hilary Clinton. The Reb leadership has to stand up and speak up.

But that only further begs the question as to whether there’s anyone in the Oval Office who has ears to hear. George Bush has declared in the last month that we are “absolutely winning the war”. His new secretary of defense has declared in the last week that we are not winning the war. Will the president listen to his new defense chief? I wouldn’t put any hard cash down on that bet.

For now, the president waits – waits for other assessments on Iraq that he has commissioned from the Pentagon, the National Security Council, and his staff. Undoubtedly, someone will eventually come up with a plan that says what the president wants to hear. In Washington, there’s always someone who will say what you want to hear.

It was a bitter reminder of the stakes on the table to hear that 11 U.S. troops were killed in Iraq on Wednesday, the day the ISG report came out. Those men didn’t get a chance to read that report. But, thanks to modern technology, more than 400,000 copies of that report were downloaded from just one website in the first five hours after it was released. Even though it’s available for free on the Internet, it’s already the No. 1 best seller in bookstores around the country.

The people are listening, and reading, and thinking, and making judgments on their own. They will make their opinions known in the opinion polls and in the blogs that now abound. Then, assuming they don’t take to the streets as they did the last time an American president ignored their coalescing views on a bad war, they will make their opinions even more clear in about 23 months.

Power to the people.

Peace on Earth

My wife and I read the electronic edition of The New York Times each day. A piece by Nicholas Kristof on Sunday struck a responsive chord in each of us. While we’re not nearly as cynical as Professor Dawkins (below), we visibly flinch when we hear that some form of “healing” is being attributed to the prayers of the faithful, particularly when someone is “cured” of cancer. Countless people of faith, literally around the world, prayed constantly and fervently for Danny’s healing. He died of cancer, nonetheless.

It seems that one person’s awesome God is another person’s arbitrary God. Of course, no one likes the idea of an arbitrary God, so other explanations are offered as balms to the wounded, such as, “It’s God’s will, which we can’t comprehend;” or, “Sometimes God answers our prayers in ways we don’t understand or intend;” or, “All things happen for a reason, which will be revealed in due course.” The thing that no one seems willing to say out loud is that maybe God doesn’t answer prayers for some people and then fail to answer them for others – in other words, maybe God doesn’t answer prayers at all – some people just believe that s/he does.

Personally, I don’t know if God answers prayers directly, indirectly or not at all; I don’t know if everything happens for a reason that will be revealed in the future; I don’t know if God’s will is unfolding in all things. I believe these things to some extent; but, I don’t know. I don’t think anyone else knows, either. I think we’re all just believers, of one thing or another, of this or that opinion on a given subject. Said another way, to some extent we’re all agnostic, literally meaning we are “without knowledge”. If only we’d act accordingly.

Kristof’s point is that the “other side” of the God/religion debate is now speaking up with a disquieting zeal that is equal to those who profess to know this or that about God and religion. He suggests that its time to tone down the rhetoric, to declare a truce on the subjects, because both sides have become not just dogmatic and intolerant, but militant and contemptuous of each other. His thoughts are worth reading.
_____________________________________

“A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion” – Nicholas D. Kristof, The New York Times, December 3, 2006

If God is omniscient and omnipotent, you can’t help wondering why she doesn’t pull out a thunderbolt and strike down Richard Dawkins.

Or, at least, crash the Web site of www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com. That’s a snarky site that notes that while people regularly credit God for curing cancer or other ailments, amputees never seem to enjoy divine intervention.

“If God were answering the prayers of amputees to regenerate their lost limbs, we would be seeing amputated legs growing back every day,” the Web site declares, adding: “It would appear, to an unbiased observer, that God is singling out amputees and purposefully ignoring them.”

That site is part of an increasingly assertive, often obnoxious atheist offensive led in part by Professor Dawkins — the Oxford scientist who is author of the new best seller “The God Delusion.” It’s a militant, in-your-face brand of atheism that he and others are proselytizing for.

He counsels readers to imagine a world without religion and conjures his own glimpse: “Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as ‘Christ-killers,’ no Northern Ireland ‘troubles,’ no ‘honor killings,’ no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money.”

Look elsewhere on the best-seller list and you find an equally acerbic assault on faith: Sam Harris’s “Letter to a Christian Nation.” Mr. Harris mocks conservative Christians for opposing abortion, writing: “20 percent of all recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage. There is an obvious truth here that cries out for acknowledgment: if God exists, He is the most prolific abortionist of all.”

The number of avowed atheists is tiny, with only 1 to 2 percent of Americans describing themselves in polls as atheists. But about 15 percent now say that they are not affiliated with any religion, and this vague category is sometimes described as the fastest-growing “religious group” in America today (some surveys back that contention, while others don’t).

Granted, many Americans may not yet be willing to come out of the closet and acknowledge their irreligious views. In polls, more than 90 percent of Americans have said that they would be willing to vote for a woman, a Jew or a black, and 79 percent would be willing to vote for a gay person. But at last count, only 37 percent would consider voting for an atheist.

Such discrimination on the basis of (non) belief is insidious and intolerant, and undermines our ability to have far-reaching discussions about faith and politics. Mr. Harris, for example, makes some legitimate policy points, such as criticism of conservative Christians who try to block research on stem cells because of their potential to become humans.

“Almost every cell in your body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering,” notes Mr. Harris. “Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings.”

Yet the tone of this Charge of the Atheist Brigade is often just as intolerant — and mean. It’s contemptuous and even ... a bit fundamentalist.

“These writers share a few things with the zealous religionists they oppose, such as a high degree of dogmatism and an aggressive rhetorical style,” says John Green of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. “Indeed, one could speak of a secular fundamentalism that resembles religious fundamentalism. This may be one of those cases where opposites converge.”

Granted, religious figures have been involved throughout history in the worst kinds of atrocities. But as Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot show, so have atheists.

Moreover, for all the slaughters in the name of religion over the centuries, there is another side of the ledger. Every time I travel in the poorest parts of Africa, I see missionary hospitals that are the only source of assistance to desperate people. God may not help amputees sprout new limbs, but churches do galvanize their members to support soup kitchens, homeless shelters and clinics that otherwise would not exist. Religious constituencies have pushed for more action on AIDS, malaria, sex trafficking and Darfur’s genocide, and believers often give large proportions of their incomes to charities that are a lifeline to the neediest.

Now that the Christian Right has largely retreated from the culture wars, let’s hope that the Atheist Left doesn’t revive them. We’ve suffered enough from religious intolerance that the last thing the world needs is irreligious intolerance.
_____________________________________

It strikes me that we might need the hard-edged atheist responses to some degree, in order to provide a little balance to the zealous barrage we receive from the hardcore who know that they’re possessed of or by the one and only true religion. After all, there’s seldom any meaningful opportunity for a truce if only one side of a conflict has ammunition.

Both sides of this debate are well-armed for battle on this or that argument. Both sides win some, lose some, and inflict damage on “the other”. But, as Kristof suggests, isn’t it time to step back from the firing line and assess that damage and become more aware of the volatile mixture of ignorance and arrogance that lies at its root. Isn’t it time for a little more “Peace on Earth”, a little more good will to men and women everywhere.

Maybe we should have a season each year that’s devoted to promoting Peace on Earth, Good Will to Men. Who knows; the spirit of the season might catch on.

Four Indictments in One Memo

The leak last week of the classified memo written by Donald Rumsfeld two days before he submitted his “resignation” as secretary of defense is noteworthy for several reasons, none of which may prove to be positive, all of which may prove to be further indictments of the administration.

As widely reported, the Rumsfeld memo acknowledges that the Bush administration’s strategy in Iraq “is not working well enough or fast enough” and needs a “major adjustment”. That assessment is contrary to essentially everything Rumsfeld and the White House have said publicly about the war and its progress toward ultimate objectives.

The first indictment that comes to mind is just that – having the highest levels of the U.S. government telling the public one thing while they’re telling each other something that isn’t just different, but almost diametrically opposed to what they’re telling us. I’m not naïve; I don’t expect the White House to share all of their war assessments with the public. But, I also don’t expect them to tell us something 180º out of alignment with what they’re thinking. I have so far resisted the oft-repeated mantra from the left side of the aisle that the administration has lied to us about all things Iraqi. This memo serves notice to some of us, and confirms for others, that we need to listen to these folks not just with a cocked ear but with serious doubt and skepticism. I’m probably coming late to a conclusion that millions reached several years ago, but I won’t ignore the implications of this memo.

The second indictment comes from the potential that the president will ignore the implications of this memo, and not just for the obvious reason that Rumsfeld is on his way out the door and that the Defense Department voice to tune into now is secretary-designee, Robert Gates. My concern is that the White House will discount or ignore all advice to do anything substantially different than what they’re doing now.

As we prepare to receive the long-awaited report from the Jim Baker-led Iraq Study Group, we can already see the White House casting a long, dark shadow over a couple of the recommendations that are expected to flow from that group – namely, a phased withdrawal of a substantial number of our troops by sometime in 2008 and the need to engage in direct discussions with Iran and Syria. The Rumsfeld memo could be just another piece of advice from a source supposedly respected by the president that will be largely ignored. In fact, just a couple of hours ago, Stephen Hadley, the national security advisor, characterized the Rumsfeld memo as just a “laundry list” and declared, “We have not failed in Iraq.”

The third indictment comes from the potential that the president will follow Rumsfeld’s advice on yet another evasive tack that’s laid out in his memo. The secretary expresses doubt about the administration’s ability to develop an effective alternative in Iraq (indeed, no one may be able to hit that mark). Therefore, after donning his Karl Rove look-alike mask, Rumsfeld suggests that the White House should begin to lower public expectations in order to avoid the political fallout attendant to changing our course of action, after having declared time and time again that we’re not going to change our course of action. On that point, the president said again last week that we’re “going to stay in Iraq until the job is done,” which sounds really close to the “stay the course” strategy that two weeks ago he declared we’ve never had. No one other than Tony Snow even pretended to take that hip fake.

Rumsfeld says the White House should “go minimalist” by “recast[ing] the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals.” He goes on to say that they should “Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis. This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not ‘lose’”.

There you have it – just try to misdirect and mislead the American public in whatever way is necessary to avoid the appearance of losing – after all, that’s what really matters once you’ve decided that you aren’t going to win.

The last indictment is that we’re aware of this memo at all. The week before someone in the White House leaked another classified memo, written by Hadley, in which the national security advisor cast serious doubts on the ability of the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, to do the job – referring to him as ignorant, incompetent or misleading (that’s not a very encouraging list to pick from).

Having someone in the White House leak two highly classified and sensitive documents regarding International Issue No. 1 may be a sign that the growing pressure and stress related to the war is pulling the administration’s seams apart. It’s possible that there may only be four people onboard the ship of state who still concur with the direction we’re sailing. Admittedly, those four people may be Bush, Cheney, Rice and Hadley, which are all the votes you need to pass any motion that may arise in a White House discussion on Iraq. Nonetheless, the sight and sound of things potentially unraveling is not good news.

But then, when it comes to Iraq, we’re fresh out of good news.

Not on Our Watch

Genocide has been unfolding in Darfur for over three years. At least 400,000 men, women and children have been killed, and more than 2 million innocent people had fled their homes to “live” as displaced-persons elsewhere in Sudan or as refugees in Chad. More than 3.5 million men, women and children are now dependent on international aid for survival. It’s Rwanda revisited - starvation, rape, torture, maiming, and slaughter on a massive scale. I listened to one woman from Darfur describe the killing of 34 of the 38 children in one village school. By and large, the world has watched.

Since 2003, Sudanese armed forces and government-backed militia called Janjaweed have been fighting two rebel groups in Darfur. The rebels are trying to force the Sudanese government to deal with underdevelopment in the region. In response, government armed forces and the Janjaweed have attacked the areas and ethnic groups from which the rebels get their support. In addition to the killings, the government forces and Janjaweed militias have destroyed hundreds of rural villages, raped thousands of women and girls and maimed or disfigured countless people. I listened to a second woman from Darfur describe the Janjaweed cutting off the arms of eight children – to get their watches. By and large, the world has watched.

In May 2006, the Darfur Peace Agreement was signed by the government and one rebel faction. However, deadlines have been ignored and violence has escalated, with fighting between rebel factions dramatically increasing, which has effectively prevented any widespread humanitarian aid. In August, the senior U.N. humanitarian official, Jan Egeland, said the situation is "going from real bad to catastrophic," with government-backed militias still attacking civilians with impunity. Mr. Egeland has predicted that the killings could reach 100,000 a month. By and large, the world has watched.

The Bush administration has properly labeled these atrocities as genocide. Beyond that, the U.S. hasn’t done much. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees has described the situation as “the largest and most complex humanitarian problem on the globe.” Beyond a couple of resolutions, the U.N. and its member nations haven’t done much.

In July 2004, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1556, demanding that the Sudanese government disarm the Janjaweed, a demand reiterated in the May Peace Agreement. In August 2006, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1706, authorizing a strong U.N. peacekeeping force for Darfur, a force that would take over for the under-funded and under-manned African Union monitoring mission that’s there now. Despite these actions, the Janjaweed are still killing civilians with the aid of the Sudanese government. By and large, the world is still watching.

The Security Council must immediately take the steps to actually deploy the peacekeeping force with a clear mandate to protect innocent civilians. Other nations and international humanitarian relief institutions must provide and ensure access to sufficient aid for those in need. The U.S. should spur the U.N. to act and must otherwise act consistent with it’s declaration that the unimpeded killing in Darfur is genocide. How can we and the rest of the free world use that most scurrilous label and then do nothing more than pass a couple of resolutions? The U.S. and its coalition partners in Iraq never accused Saddam Hussein of sustained genocide, yet we claimed to have sufficient reason to knock out the government of Iraq in a matter of weeks. I’m not suggesting an invasion of the Sudan, but some meaningful action has to be taken by the world community to make it absolutely clear that free people will not tolerate genocide in the 21st century.

“Never again,” said the Jews after the Holocaust. “Never again,” should be repeated by Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and other world religions and non-believers everywhere. But George Bush may have given us an equally appropriate, if not more appropriate, mantra for horrific events of this nature. I suggest it may be more appropriate because it speaks to personal responsibility.

Early in his presidency, President Bush received a report on the failure of the Clinton administration to intervene in the Rwandan genocide. On the margin of that paper Mr. Bush wrote, “Not on my watch.” Well, it is happening on his watch and someone may author a future paper on the failure of his administration to intervene in Darfur. The president still has the opportunity to avoid that judgment of history.

It’s time for all of us, who are collectively charged with the responsibility to be vigilant in guarding against atrocities that bear the seeds of genocide, to declare, “Never again; not on our watch!” Our voices should be heard in the White House, the Congress, the offices of the UN, NGOs, the editorial pages, the pulpits of churches, mosques and synagogues, and through organizations like Save Darfur – www.savedarfur.org.

Radioactive Smoke

I’ve somewhat followed the case of the former KGB agent, Alexander Litvinenko, who died last week after being poisoned by radioactive polonium-210. Investigators in the UK have found traces of radioactivity in several airplanes and restaurants where Mr. Litvinenko was present, which has caused a good deal of concern in the public. As I’ve followed that event, however, I wasn’t aware that it had important implications for my family and friends in the U.S.

Polonium-210 is also found in cigarettes.

Scientists believe that certain uranium products naturally present in soils are absorbed by tobacco plants and decay into radioactive polonium. Apparently, the tobacco industry has known since the 60s that their products contain significant levels of polonium. They also know that their cigarette filters don’t trap this isotope effectively.

While a fraction of a trillionth of a curie (the unit of radiation) of polonium-210 in each cigarette may not sound like much, polonium is a powerful radionuclide that emits alpha particles at a much higher rate than the plutonium in the bombs dropped on Japan. Polonium-210 is thousands of times more radioactive than the nuclear material used in early atomic bombs, and alpha particles are deadly culprits in lung cancer.

Smokers tend to smoke a lot of cigarettes. With .04 pico-curies of polonium-210 in each cigarette, a pack-and-a-half-a-day smoker inhales a lifetime dose equal to about 300 chest x-rays. That’s worth thinking about before lighting up the next pack-and-a-half tomorrow.

No one knows how many people have died or will die from polonium in tobacco. There are hundreds of toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke and it’s hard to sort out which one causes what. But experts don’t dispute the size of the risk. The World Health Organization estimates that by 2020 10 million people will die annually from cigarettes. Cigarettes killed about 100 million people in the 20th century. In this century, the death toll could be close to a billion.

Arsenic, cyanide, tar and nicotine are bad enough – but radiation? As people learn more about tobacco, it should become more difficult for the industry to continue asserting that the dangers of cigarettes are “common knowledge”. Even knowledgeable smokers would probably be surprised to learn that cigarette smoke is radioactive, and that the scare related to a poisoned KGB agent may be insignificant when compared to what rolls out the end of 5.7 trillion cigarettes every year.

Back to my family and friends – I’ve had loved ones who smoke, and some may do so now. If they’re doing so now, or if they think about doing so in the future, I urge them to think again about what they’re sucking into their lungs, and what they’re putting into the air around them for others to suck into their lungs – arsenic, cyanide and radioactive polonium-210, not to mention the old favorites, tar and nicotine.

For those loved ones who are parents, I urge them to do everything possible to prevent their children from smoking – and there is no preventative step more powerful than personal example. Smoking parents, including the ones who think they’re being “responsible” by never smoking in their home or who think that they smoke without their children knowing about it, need to understand that no one smokes in secret. Smokers wear their habit on their skin, in their hair, on their clothes, in their cars, and on their breath long after the last draw – the evidence is in and on everything that comes in contact with the smoke. Kids know. They just don’t know that it’s radioactive.

Please don’t start. Please don’t start again. Please stop. Please don’t become a statistic in the new century.