Sacrificial Lamb?

Photo credit: Don Imus-WFAN Pediactric Center For Tomorrow's Children

Freedom requires responsibility and that includes freedom of speech. When one person exercises his or her individual rights in a way that trespasses on the rights of others, it is no longer an expression of freedom, but of aggression.
Don Imus' statements, in actuality, hurt nobody except himself.. What he said, and the backlash to what he said, should not be used as an excuse to limit freedom of speech or expression, but as a warning that there may be consequences in what we say and do. Imus was wrong to say what he said, but he had every right to say it. It is conceptually erroneous to point out the apparent hypocracy that some are allowed to use language that others aren't. Offense is a relative concept that must include context, meaning, and scope, or sphere of influence. We would do well to see an example in the entire incident that respect for others is the best way to protect our individual freedoms, and it all comes down to personal responsibility. However, what we do see is a sacrificial lamb that negates the conscious of others who will continue to use unfounded and hateful terms such as "Nazi," "Chickenhawk," and, in the context it is often used, "neocon."
We should remember that our First Ammendment rights also give us the freedom to choose to listen or not to listen, and that includes the choice to or not to be offended. We have, at our disposal, a high tech device called the "on-off switch." Rather than using offensive speech to limit the rights of others, it is better to just ignore it.

Why Pike's Peak is my favorite photo subject

Iraq is not a political issue

Common sense would say that the best way to bring the troops home would be to complete the mission as quickly and efficiently as possible. It isn't going to happen tomorrow, but the "surge" operation prescribed by General Petreaus is, by all accounts, working toward that end. Iraqi troops are being trained in US military units, the Iraqi government is allowing and encouraging former Sunni insurgents to become involved in the peacekeeping process, and the insurgent groups are breaking up.
Both the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report and Gen Petreaus have suggested that military force alone will not resolve Iraq's problems--diplomatic means have to be a part of the process. The Iraqi government has responded to diplomatic pressure by the United States, budgeting ten billion dollars toward reconstruction, working toward peace initiatives between the Sunni and She'ya factions, mingling Iraqi troops with the coilition forces for training, becoming involved in regional talks with neighboring countries, and working out fair distribution of oil wealth. Iraq is on its way to becoming an independent, democratic nation, while its new government is gaining strength, and working to make a society that is fair to all its different factions.
There is still much work to do. Iraq does not yet have a strong enough military force to stand on its own. The presence of Baathist and foriegn militant forces is still felt in a violent fashion daily. If the coilition was to withdraw from Iraq before the democratic government is solidly established and in control of the country, all indications of the result forcast a much more widespread and deadly war. The Saudis have vowed to support Sunni militants in Iraq, if the coillition leaves, while Iran has supported and will support She'ya factions. This would amount to conflict over Iraq between the two Arab nations, which would most likely escalate into a world war. It is about oil, not Oil, and until modern society can do without oil from the Middle East conflict over the precious commodity will ensue. Most experts believe that energy independence will take twenty to forty years to achieve--until then, oil is a necessary evil.
So why do some politicians in the United States want to stop US involvement in Iraq? It is simply that they are politicians. Their agenda does not include a peaceful world and the future does not concern them unless it involves keeping their jobs. They do not want to see success in Iraq, because it would indicate to the voters that the policy they opposed was the correct policy. They will twist public opinion factors to justify their actions--such as interpreting the call for a change in direction in Iraq as meaning that we should withdraw right now. Every American wants to be able to call our troops home from Iraq, but not if it leaves a battleground which will be exploited in a way which will cause devistation to our economy. It is more likely that the ideology of these politicians will increase the violence in the Middle East, rather than decrease it. When politics become involved in a military operation, and in the movement of troops, defeat is often snatched from the jaws of victory.

Tears in my eyes

This recent video from Baghdad brought tears to my eyes, out of gratitude for seeing our troops trying to make good with the population, and out of sympathy for these children who live among so much violence. It feels good to see them have a happy moment.
I have to bring up a unattributed quote here, because I can't remember who said it:
"If the Iraqis loved their children more than they hate each other, they would stop the violence."

Slavery does not help the poor

A socialist economy, such as that which Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is imposing on his country--and is attempting to impose on the rest of South and Central America--does not represent "freedom for the masses." Such an economy, if we are to use Cuba as a model, creates a form of slavery that, historically speaking, has never done anything to help the plight of the poor.
In nationalizing the economy, Chavez is giving himself the authority to determine the lot of every individual in Venezuela. Food, housing, medicine, education, income, and property are all controlled by Chavez. If Chavez, as he has said himself, is modeling his country after Castro's Cuba, he needs the absolute control of Venezuela and its populace to be in his hands. The people of Venezuela must become dependant on Chavez for their needs.
Certainly, Chavez has helped his country in some ways--building schools, hospitals and housing with government money. But what impetus is there to ensure that the education and medical aid meet the needs of the people? Technology will suffer. The schools will only teach what is pertinent to Chavez's idea of Socialism. The students will be indoctrinated to the will of the State. Travel restrictions will be placed on those in the medical profession, as they are in Cuba, so that the medical professionals don't leave the country. This also means that these doctors and medical scientists will be unable to keep up on new medical advances and techniques, and the health of the country will stagnate and decline.
Using his money to build houses for the poor is a way of showing the people that they need to look to El Jefe for their needs, for there is no other way they would get a house. Because Chavez has all the money, he decides who gets housing and how they get the housing. As the Benifacter of the People, he has the power to ruin those who oppose him. while demanding loyalty from those he benifits. When there are no jobs, there is the citizens' militia. We have seen video of this militia parading down the street, cradling imaginary guns. Of course, Chavez won't arm the militia, the members of which get paid nine dollars a week. An armed militia could be instrumental in the overthrow of a government, something no dictator would want while he's in the process of consolidating power.
The Venezualen economy has already declined 38% over the past two years. In a Socialist economy, there is no incentive for investment, as there is no profit to be found. There are no new jobs created in this way, and every person in Venezuela who has a job has little hope of finding a better job. Worse yet, there is no way to help the economy grow. Within the next five to fifteen years, new technology, instability in the Middle East, and environmental conservation will diminish the need for oil, which is the main source of revenue for Venezuela. So Hugo Chavez will have to go elsewhere for revenue, outside of Venezuelan territory. He has already begun the process, using his oil revenue to support Socialist and sympathetic candidates in other countries, bribing the governments of other countries to help spread his influence, and hiring demonstrators for pay to protest against those governments he feels are against him.
He has gone so far as to direct his oil company, Citgo, to implement a program to give a large heating oil discount to those in selected American cities who can't afford the regular rates. Chavez knows enough about capitalism to know the value of good public relations. He knows that by making Citgo appear altruistic, he can circumvent a large scale boycott. Notice that the U.S. has not slapped sanctions or tariffs against Venezuelan oil, or Citgo, nor has Venezuela closed its five refineries in the United States or shut off its oil supply to the U.S. Chavez wants the revenue from our country, and our country wants the oil from Chavez.
The latter is important in the need for a dictator to create an external enemy (Natan Sharansky, The Case For Democracy). An external enemy, real or imagined infuses nationalism into the general population. The tyrant becomes the sole protector, and the more evil the protector can make the enemy seem to the people, the more job security the dictator has. It should be noted that in the war of words between the U.S. and Venezuela, the only shots fired have been from Venezuela. All the name-calling has come from Chavez. It won't matter who the next President of the United States is, he will continue his anti-U.S. rhetoric no matter if that President's Rodham-Clinton, Obama, Giulianni, or McCain. He has to, because he needs an enemy to help him solidify his position.
Why, then should we even be concerned about the direction Chavez is taking? There is little short term concern, but in the long run, the fear society Chavez is building will create insurrection, in Venezuela, and in other South American countries. Chavez and his allies will blame the instability on the U.S.A., while other countries will ask whoever the next U.S. President is for aid in quelling the rebellion, which, most likely, will be given in one form or another, military or not. This in turn will be used by Chavez to further incite terrorists and revolutionaries against the U.S. It is inevitable, and centuries of human experience and historical fact will support this prediction.

Relative Reality and You

Perception is reality, and reality is relative. If there are 300,000,000 people in the United States of America, then there are 300,000,000 different versions of reality. These myriad realities find a common ground and create one or more consensus realities. For example, a ten dollar bill is only a piece of paper unless there is a consensus reality that agrees the paper represents a value of ten dollars.
Consensus reality is developed from the merging of individual or group relative realities and the perception of truth within those realities. We develop our basic individual perception through personal experience and education. As we grow in experience, we become aware of the realities of others in the form of opinions and beliefs, which often result in events that occur in consensus reality. For example, consensus reality tells us that the events of September 11, 2001 actually happened. It was the result of a relative reality that is percieved by some that anybody who does not follow the Law of the Koran is an infidel who does not deserve to live on this planet. That relative reality was not generally part of consensus reality until the events of 9/11.
Events can be taken as fact only if they occur in consensus reality. Otherwise, the event or news item is seen only as a matter of individual belief or perception. If we, as individuals, were to stop our experience at our personal individual reality, we would stop our education and personal growth. There would be no further purpose for us to continue on this plane of existance. Recognition of consensus reality is necessary for personal growth.
In these days, when many people base their perception of reality on the opinions of others, in the aspect of editorial comment or political rhetoric, it is harder to create a consensus reality. As an example, many people believe the current warming of the earth is a natural cycle, while just as many perceive it to be the result of human activity. Those in the set that believes human activity is the cause will not accept any part of the reality of that set which believes it is a natural cycle, indeed, they try to silence and undermine those who disagree with them. Conversely, the reality of the set that believes global warming is a natural cycle, does not accept the perception of those who wish to forgo personal responsibility by blaming global warming on "big oil," or "big capitalism." A consensus reality can not occur in this matter, and will not be reached until something manifasts itself as a fact that is universal truth. Universal truth is something that invades the realities of all and is undeniable and unavoidable.
There was a time when high school and college education wasn't about indoctrination into one form or the other of non-consensus reality. High school teachers and college professors would present different views and theories of a subject, and task the student to come up with a view of his or her own, wheras now, many teachers and professors present only their own personal reality, cherry-picking historical facts and theories that agree with their own perception and imposing them on their students. This is detrimental to creating a consensus reality of many factors that affect us, and it inhibits creativity in problem solving and new ideas.
In many cases, consensus reality can be seen merely as common sense. In the politically polarized atmosphere of our world today, common sense is a rare thing. Politicians may believe in a consensus reality, but they do not want those of us who may vote for them to know that. Like the aforementioned teachers and college professors, they cherry pick consensus reality facts that most closely resemble that reality which they want to present to the public.
Thus several different non-consesus realities prevail, and nothing is accomplished that will ensure a better future, such as independence from foreign oil, or a long term solution for national security. Without any appearence of common sense, they present their beliefs to a public whose perceptions they want to mold to their own way of thinking. The only purpose a politician sees in life is to get re-elected, and in order to do so, the politician must set him or herself apart from other politician. Long term solutions do not have a place in the reality of the so-called "public servant" on Capitol Hill.
Thus it is important to listen to different views of what is important to us, that we experience the realities of not just that with which we agree, but with that we don't usually see or hear. In order to have a consensus reality, in order to show some common sense, we must listen to many points of view. More improtantly, we must act on what we learn, if only it means taking personal responsibility in the stewardship of our planet and of our future. Otherwise, Nature may impose on us a consensus reality we can not live with at the level of luxury we live in now. That will be a reality in which there will be no more internet, or any other form of communication for that matter, no more freedom of expression or religion, no more principle of ownership. Do we really want to experience that reality?

With Great Respect to the late Gilda Radner

Introducing my guest blogger, Emily Litella

What's all this fuss about Al Kali in Iraq? Isn't the Al Kali Shrine the guys wearing fez's who drive those little cars around in circles in the parades? Certainly they do good for folds with the Shrine Circus and the money they raise for charity, but what are they doing in Iraq, anyway? Perhaps they thought that a circus would help them lift their spirits, but I don't see where a circus would do enough to solve the problems in the Middle East,
anyway. Some people are traumatized by clowns, and the people of Iraq are traumatized enough anyway without having clowns around to traumatize them more.
I don't understand why we need to send troops to get rid of Al Kali in Iraq. It's not like they have weapons or anything. They just have squirt guns and those guns with the little flags that pop out and say "bang!" All we have to do is tell them to leave and they'll probably go somewhere else anyway. If the people in Iraq don't want Al Kali there, all they have to do is...
Eh? Al Qaeda in Iraq?

Never mind!