Mathematics of War

Most people aren’t very good at mathematics. Numbers are abstract and hard for us to imagine them as real objects in the world. So when we see numbers intending to express the devastation of war in the world it fails to impact us. The Washington Post reports an estimate of 100,000 civilian deaths from conflict in Iraq since the war began. A BBC report puts civilian deaths in Afghanistan somewhere between 3,700 and 5,000. You see part of the problem is that U.S. forces don’t keep records of the number of civilians killed during conflicts. Military planners must be sensitive to our poor math skills and don’t want us to work to hard adding the numbers up.
Numbers that we carry with us as a nation are the deaths of our own people. During 9/11 we lost 3,030 innocent people. Folks died because they went to work that day or because they had the courage to try to help others. People that had nothing to do with international politics died without ever knowing why. As a nation we think back to that time and our hearts ache and anger boils new in our blood. This is a natural reaction to lose and trauma. There are so many aching hearts in the world today. Can we truly justify creating more mothers without children, more children without parents? The number of civilians killed in Lebanon in the past 30 days number between 500 and 1000 people. The Israeli army doesn’t like math any more than we do. According to the Israel Defense Forces, Hezbollah attacks have killed seven Israeli civilians. Israel has a right to defend itself, but can you understand why the 1.5 billion Muslims world wide are feeling disproportionate heartache. People living in parking garages in Lebanon are now looking to Hezbollah to protect them. Are we more secure now because of this carnage, are they? None of us are very good at the math but hasn’t the answer become clear?
Kidnappers and terrorist are criminals. When a child is kidnapped in this country we don’t bomb our bridges to keep the criminal from escaping. When Timothy McVeigh was arrested for the Oklahoma City bombing we didn’t send troops and bombs to his hometown of Pendleton, New York. After the Columbine school shooting we didn’t lock up anti social teens as potential enemy combatants. We have peace in this country and calm despite a number of criminals and crazy people equal to anywhere in the world. We’ve proven our ability to wage war better than any nation in the world. Perhaps it is time to show the world how to wage peace.
Our resources are limited and so is our time. A child who lives in a war torn country becomes day by day accustomed to violence and the solutions of war. Peace and reconciliation become as foreign as a language he’s never heard. Hezbollah wanted Israel to attack them in the heart of Lebanon. Israeli attacks have killed many of their soldiers but the numbers in their army continue to grow. This is not just a failure of Israel but the concept of war itself. Unless we abandon the idea that anger can breed love and war can create peace we will never convince anyone else of this truth. The answer lies not in the mathematics of who killed whom, but which side will have the courage to let live.

Stem Cell Foolishness

The bumper sticker line for the anti Stem Cell movement has been: “Some lines should not be crossed.” This has been the central argument for the Presidents veto. The “line” in question is whether the federal government should fund research derived from human embryos. Stem Cell Research shows great promise for cures of diseases as diverse as Parkinson’s, Alzhimer’s and Cancer. The best hope for these cures come from Embryos donated from Fertility clinics. Hundreds of embryos are created by these clinics for every woman hoping to have a child. The numbers of frozen embryos in storage number in the hundreds of thousands. Hundreds more are destroyed everyday. The amount of embryos trapped within this system dwarfs that of the abortions conducted in this country each year.
The Presidents spokesperson, Tony Snow told the press recently that: "The president believes strongly that for the purpose of research it's inappropriate for the federal government to finance something that many people consider murder,(the President) is one of them,". There is a segment of the country that strongly supports the President on this issue and agree with his assessment. The problem comes when we look at the larger picture of presidential policy and the federal budget.
On August 9, 2001 the President announced that he would support federal funding of Embryonic Cell research. He made a moral distinction between using destroyed embryos and destroying embryos in order for them to be used. His only restriction was that federal funds only be spent on existing Cell lines. He claimed at the time that there were as many as 60 cell lines already derived from human embryos that could be used for experimentation. Most of these groups of cells had been in labs for years and were no longer viable to continue the work researchers hoped would one day cure a variety of diseases. Topics not covered in his decision were where these embryos were coming from. No one asked him if private funds should be used to do research on what the President sees as a human being. The President doesn’t intend to make this research illegal. Nor is he pushing to have the fertility clinics, that produce thousands of unwanted embryos, shut down. It must be admitted that the President is on shaky moral ground at best, even by those that share his view of the issue.
Consider that research and development spending for the military was 74 billion dollars last year. This research did not cause death to a single embryo but the end result and whole point of the research was to find new and better ways of killing people. Why is it so much easier to justify the killing of fully functional adult humans? With such a broad range of inconsistencies in the Presidents policy he gains very little political or moral ground. What he looses is a united political party behind his agenda. He looses the trust of a public that in large majority disagree with his position. With this veto, the first while in office, he puts himself at risk of being a Lame Duck President even while his party maintains control of Congress. What the public looses by this decision is far greater. We have lost precious time on the path to finding cures for some of most debilitating and tragic diseases.

Democrats Tilt Right

The Democratic leadership has line up in support of Joe Lieberman against the liberal challenger Ned Lamont. Lamont has gained a great deal of support from the left against a senior Senator that is perceived as turning too much toward the conservative camp of the opposition party. Senator Lieberman has been a steady supporter of the war in Iraq. He created the American Council of Trustees and Alumni with the help of Lynn Cheney to attack college professors that challenged public policy after 9/11. The organization went so far as to release a document called “Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America''. The paper accused professors of anti-American activities for teaching students context within the war on terror. Lieberman has made many “compromises” and deals with the republican leadership that has almost always favored the conservative position while giving very little to Democrats in return. The best example may be the failure of Democrats to use the Senate procedure of the filibuster to block conservative nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. This was, in no small part, thanks to Joe Lieberman and the “Gang of 14” that reached a deal letting the vote for Bush appointments to occur. This was great for Republicans but Democrats gained nothing. Liberal frustration with Lieberman came to graphic illustration when President Bush kissed him on the check moments before his 2005 State of the Union address.

The liberal wing of the Democratic Party has become energies to action by the actions of their own leadership. The Democratic leadership seems to think the way to win elections, including the big one in ‘08 is to steal away some of the loyal republican core by acting a little more like Republicans. They’ve come to believe it is more likely that republicans will switch candidates than those on the left will vote at all. Who can blame them? College kids and Internet bloggers came out in force in ’04. They attended rallies, concerts and events but when it came time to vote 04’ saw no significant gains in youth voting. Political activists that couldn’t translate themselves into numbers at the polls left John Kerry high and dry. One third of this countries potential voter stayed home in ‘04. Democrats seem convinced that they are an unattainable political resource. Instead they court the conservative voter. Those that believe in conservative ideology and policy but don’t see the modern Republican leadership good stewards of their political ideals. The problem with the strategy is that conservative voters already have a party. Turning the Democratic Party into a watered down version of the Republican Party reminds me of a show I saw as a child. The Harlem Globetrotters favorite adversaries were the Washington Generals and the New Your Nationals. The Generals wore Yellow while the Globetrotters wore the flashy red white and blue. The boys in yellow seemed to try hard to win but even while telling jokes and doing tricks the Globetrotters never really had to worry about loosing the game. Without those Generals however there would be no game, no show and no reason to come to see the famous Harlem Globetrotters. Democrats have bee playing the roll of the Washington Generals for the past several years and if they continue elections will be all show and no game.

Time for Diplomacy

We don’t have the military resources to mount an effective invasion and occupation of Iran or North Korea. This statement is whispered often but rarely stated outright by anyone that wishes it could be otherwise. We have used so many resources and personnel in our attempt to control the nation of Iraq that the Administration has no choice but to look to a diplomatic solution to the threats posed by North Korea and Iran. Both of these countries are in blatant defiance of international agreement and are pursuing not only weapons of mass destruction but also the means to deliver them. The administration’s position on Korea is to continue to demand that diplomacy come only from 6 party talks. This puts China in the lead in the negotiation process. China is one of the few countries left that trade with North Korea. The Chinese don’t have to be concerned with Kim John Il’s nuclear and missile capacity. China is the last country Korea would attack. America may well be the first target on Korea’s list but we refuse to talk directly to the government that could cause us peril. By putting China in the driver’s seat in regards to the negotiation process has given them undue and unnecessary influence in the region. The Bush administration has been pushing the “6 party talks” idea since they came into office, but in that time we have seen no diplomatic progress. On the contrary, the relations and tensions between North Korea and ourselves have only gotten worse. It is time to put the future of our national security in the hands of our diplomats and negotiators and out of the hands of the Chinese and Russians. Our security is not the responsibility of the Chinese. They can’t be expected to put our interests ahead of their own. This was a point the President was trying to make when he criticized John Kerry’s “global test” statement. Given that we don’t have the military resources to remove the North Korean regime the way we did in Iraq, it is up to our diplomats to secure our safety, not the Chinese.
Likewise in Iran we have let the Russians and Europeans lead the way in confronting President Ahmadinejad. Iran doesn’t pose a threat to Moscow except in the form of the trade they would lose if the Russians pushed too hard for Iranian compliance. Russia doesn’t need Iranian oil, but we do. Iran has been a consistent supporter of terror groups acting against the west. The Iranian government went so far as to not stamp the passports of some of the 9/11 hijackers when they passed through that country on their way to the U.S. This made it easier for these terrorists to enter the country without alerting the authorities. The connection between 9/11 and Iran is much more real than any perceived Iraq involvement but we no longer have the resources to invade Iran. Our security is now the responsibility of our diplomats not the those in the global community. Perhaps I am too willing to make deals with our enemies. Had we more military resources at hand today I might be more “hawkish”. The fact is we are no longer able to bully the world with bluster. Even the President has toned down his “bring it on.“ rhetoric. Should we let the Russians or Chinese make the deals so we can save face? Allow them to make the compromises so we can appear uncompromising. When I look to the recent events in Israel and Lebanon I see what can come from uncompromising resolve. The administration has supported Israeli action as it destroys Lebanese infrastructure. Hezbollah terrorist kidnapped two Israeli soldiers with demands of a prisoner exchange. During the cold war we often made prisoner exchanges with the Soviets. We compromised with our enemy because we respected their military power. Why can’t we show Arab states the same respect? What do we have to loose except the chance at peace? Will we continue our disengaged support of the conflicted if Iran involves itself? What will the new government of Iraq do if it’s borders are breached again, this time by Iranian forces? 4 years ago Saddam Hussein was contained in a box of sanctions and military threats. As time goes on I feel as though that box is now closing in on us. Let us all hope that our diplomats are savvy enough to talk us out of it.

Unbiased bias

Those that write under the confines of the term journalist have a heavy burden of keeping bias from the work that they do. When writing of events and news they must not only hunt down facts but also provide context for the story within the community without regard for personal opinion. Such a standard is daunting and those that attempt to carry it should be commended. The opinion column thankfully doesn’t have to share this burden. I try to see the world as honestly as I can, without prejudice to my own background or perspective. The hope is that my ideas about the world will reflect the world as it is, not as I wish it would be. How much of my worldview is based on clear analysis of the facts as they are presented? Am I liberal because I see those virtues reflected in the facts? Am I liberal because my history precludes me from seeing the wisdom of conservative thought? The truth is I can’t answer these questions with any certainty. I take comfort in the fact that no one else can either.
Who do we trust to tell us the color of our eyes? Without a mirror we may never be certain of the truth. Conservatives will never give up their hard won and time honored views because I make a valid point or two within the sentences of these essays. Shouting figures on Fox News will never sway me to be more like them. What value does any of this opinion writing have then? When Rush Limbaugh picks and chooses quotes of “liberal” political leaders in order to make them look stupid or criminally unpatriotic he’s not trying to sell his listeners something he knows is blatantly false. He is trying to illustrate a concept he believes with all his heart to be real. Who isn’t guilty of the same excesses from time to time? I must be guilty, if only because conservatives can’t be wrong as consistently as I give them credit for. No matter how hard I try to be objective and open to the facts as they are I lean left 75, no make that 80, percent of the time. Understanding my own prejudices help me to understand and accept the prejudices of others. Rush Limbaugh is not my enemy. The ideas Rush expounds on the radio each day are reflections of political and ideological heritage passed to him by his father or mother and perhaps their parents before them. The mind of even the most cleaver of people is both rational and emotional. The rational mind is great for gathering information but too often we leave it to the emotional mind to give the information context. It’s only through practice and patience can we see the center from which our perspective is drawn. I am proud of my liberal background and of my liberal ideals. It should be no surprise to me that those of my neighbors that lean to the conservative are just and proud and certain of the rightness of their worldview. With this in mind I would ask you to read these columns as a window into a perspective perhaps different than your own. Then we, conservative and liberal, can come together and discover what we have to share in common goals and ideas. Whether it is my own or Rush Limbaugh’s we have the opportunity to throw ideas against one another to see what passions and actions it stirs. By this process we get to know one another. By this progress, real truth, unrecognized often by any political view can bubble up to the surface. Truth discovered through discourse can lead to real solutions. The hope is that conservatives, liberals and otherwise, will continue to move down the road of sifting through not only the information but also the inheritance of differing perspectives we all share.

Flag Burning

I doubt there is anyone on the fence regarding the “Flag Burning Amendment“. Debated last week and defeated once more in congress, this idea has been voted on by every congress since 1995. Bringing up the issue of flag desecration is a quick way to stir the passions of people. Walk into any diner in the country say: “So how about that flag burning amendment?“ and off they go. Both sides will be quick to say why we should or should not allow desecration of our flag. This is a subject of passion but very little substance. We do not have thousands of young people addicted to burning flags. We don‘t worry that our flag insurance premiums are rising due to excessive flag burning. Nor do we worry about foreign fighters coming over the border and burning flags in town squares to express their hatred. This is an amendment in search of a problem. When is the last time you saw a flag burning in this country? The number of flags burnt by protesters peeked after George Bush Sr. proposed the amendment in 1989. Chief Justice Rehnquist once referred to flag burning as an “inarticulate grunt”. I think that is a fair description of the exercise. A grunt is not an argument nor does it help to advance any dialog, but is that a reason to ban such expression through constitutional amendment? The ability to speak freely is what makes us free. This basic principle, the first of all amendments is what makes the flag worth defending. One burnt flag or even a hundred could never damage the meaning and value of our flag. Making it the only symbol in the entire world not covered by the principles we aspire to will cost us dearly. When we allow our flag to be sacrificed to an angry “grunt” we show how strong our ideals really are. To show the world that liberty is stronger than anger is worth any hurt an anti-American expression might bring.
As members of this great society we have responsibilities. Often the greatest challenge of liberty is to allow those that would offend us to be offensive. Soldiers that go off to war make the choice to defend their country. Those that run for public office have a similar choice to make when giving themselves up to the criticism and ridicule that comes from the title politician. As common citizens we are called upon to pay our taxes without being asked if we would like to. Always painful we participate knowing the value of contributing to the common good. We vote for representation. This is especially painful when our candidate looses. As citizens of this great nation we accept these burdens are part of living within a system greater than ourselves. The most important responsibility we have is to put democracy and freedom above the hurt that can be caused by those that challenge our most deeply held beliefs. These are the burdens of liberty, whether we like it or not. Opinion writers, like myself, don’t take individual sensibilities into account when expressing ideas. If we did, no opinion could ever be expressed. All opinions run the risk of offending someone. The hurt that opinions cause is what is protected by the first amendment. The hurt we allow ourselves to feel is contribution the common person gives to the defense of our democracy. This is why the destruction of the flag as a form opinion must be protected. Defending the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution is why we fly our flag so proudly. Sometimes free speech causes real hurt. All of us deserve to take pride in the hurt we allow ourselves to feel when confronted by dissent. My thanks to those that would allow an occasional “inarticulate grunt” in order to contribute to the greatness of our nation.