New Jersey: Terror Battle Won

The recently uncovered terror plot in New Jersey is a great victory in the war on terror. Not only has a terror cell been disrupted but many lives have been saved. This victory came at very little expense to tax payers, being that no heavy equipment needed to be sent overseas to catch these criminals. Law enforcement officers also managed to capture these enemies to freedom without destroying infrastructure of any kind. No roads or building were bombed by police in their apprehension of these criminals. No innocents were killed as they moved in to make the arrests. Such victories in the war on terror have been far too few in the past several years. Perhaps this is why a recent study of terror attacks has shown such a sharp increase in terror events around the world. Perhaps the Administration has implemented the wrong strategy to fight terror with our war machine.
Because AlQaeda is not an organization of governmental weight and power it is easy to understand how the Administration reacted so poorly to the threat of terrorism. Security from criminals can only come from enforcement of the laws established by like minded people. The more secure humanity feels in their homes and lives the less likely it is that terrorists will muster the resources necessary to strike at us from across the ocean.
The hope of the administration was to bring Democracy to the Middle East. This is by itself a very noble goal. However, political and social change in any culture, including our own, is inherently destabilizing. Hundreds of years of practice living under the rule of a constitutional democracy has left our country still at odds with itself. We are caught between red and blue, left and right ideologies that have become known as the culture war. Americans are still living with the cultural scars of the Viet Nam era as well as the era of the Civil War. Should it be any wonder that the region of the Middle East has been turned into chaos by the introduction of a completely new social paradigm? George Bush wanted to change the world. The chaos and unpredictability of the situation is a direct and inevitable product of that change. After 9/11, changing the world was not what he had been asked to do. Securing our “homeland” was his charge. Keeping us safe from diluted fanatics was his responsibility as President, not reshaping the world in his vision of an ideal. He thought he could do both, but anyone familiar with the dynamics of social change should have known better.
Today the terror movement has been redefined as Islamic Fascism. This brings to mind images of Nazis, Soviets and goose stepping, married with our stereotyped idea of Islam. Promotion of this idea is disingenuous to the task of securing ourselves from acts of terror. The solution to Nazi oppression was brute allied military force. The push to unconditional surrender, save the world from organized Nazi oppression. The implication of the term Islamic Fascism is that these oppressors can be defeated with the same Shermanesque tactics. Bin Laden however, is no Hitler and his organization is not representative of any formal government or religion. This is a fight against criminals that hide behind both concepts to further their personal goals.
Islam is also not the religion we think it is. Nor is Christianity and Judaism what Muslims around the world see. As Israel dominates Jerusalem and Americans dominate Baghdad we slander our own beliefs in the eyes of strangers to those unfamiliar with church and Synagogue. Terrorists also sully the very heart of the practice of Islam and we play into their hands every time we associate terrorist with the faith of those that pray in the Mosque.
The terrorists that we are fighting are not Islamic or representative of a political ideology like fascism any more than KKK members represent Christian values or the concept of a republic. They all fall under the same category of anti social criminal and should be treated accordingly.
The FBI and local law enforcement have done in New Jersey what 4 years in Iraq has failed to do. Their actions have made us safer without encouraging new recruits. These arrests have shown our strength without compromising our principles. Perhaps the time has come to look past the policies of military invasion and superficial labels to the unassuming and effective application of the front line heroes of law enforcement. If we begin to treat AlQaeda as petty thieves and mobsters that is all they will ever be.

George Not Curious Enough

George Tenet, the former head of the CIA seems to be wanting to write history books himself before less biased eyes pass judgment on his conduct. Tenet's claim that the administration cherry picked information and manipulated Americans understanding of the situation in Iraq is by now well established. For Tenet to come out and declare that his “slam dunk” statement was misrepresented by Dick Cheney and the Administration is of very little consequence or consolation.
Colin Powell's reputation is ruined in the eyes of the world and much of the nation thanks in large part to Tenet's timidness and incompetence. Tenet sat behind Powell as he addressed the UN knowing that the information he was presenting was anything but “facts and not assertions.” These facts and conclusions that Tenet allowed to be stretched to the breaking point of credibility has taken away a powerful tool from our countries diplomatic arsenal. Colin Powell was once as highly respected as the United States itself and his word and integrity was seen as unquestionable. Years of building such a reputation has been destroyed thanks to Tenet's inability to make clear the uncertainty of information coming from his own department. We are now embroiled in an impossible situation in the heart of the Middle East and no amount of apologies and statements of personal responsibility will change that now. Tenet thinks he can escape the judgment of history now in the same way that Richard Clark did by excusing himself from the insanity of the administration policy. Clark however came out early and strong against the administrations madness. Tenet's book and publicity tour is nothing more than Monday morning quarterbacking. Ironically it was Tenet that held the ball through most of the game.
The one point that Tenet's book makes that is worth mentioning is that the work done by the CIA and the people doing the work of gathering information was honorable and as accurate as it could be. Anyone that would have been interested in critically examining the data coming from the men and women doing this work could have seen that the case was not what Cheney claimed it to be. The Iraq war is not a product of bad information gathered by the CIA. The data and analysis was there to make an informed assumption that Iraq was not the threat the President wanted it to be. The failure was in the interpretation of that information. The President and his close colleagues saw what they wanted to see, but it was Tenet that, in his weakness, allow them to believe it. In doing so he failed the American people and the world.
Tenet is going to keep his Medal of Freedom despite the fact that his own book implies that he doesn't deserve it. It was his leadership and judgment that failed the very men and women of the CIA that he claims for whom he accepted the award. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the President all wanted their war in Iraq. It was Tenet's mishandling of his responsibilities as Director of Intelligence that facilitated their desires. Tenet has published 550 pages of apologizes and explanations. None of which are enough to right what he has done wrong. As a consolation to himself, he will aways have his Medal of Freedom and the sales of his book about the tragedy of his tenure, will make him far richer than he deserves to be.

Schroedinger's Cat

Here we go again with this damn cat. I thought I was through with partial physics and the philosophy of the nature of existence. Unfortunately I got suckered into the conversation again and now I have that damn cat running around in my head looking for answers. The only way to get it out is to say a few words on this famous cat in the box.
For those of you that don't know about the cat, here is a brief summary of the concept. Erwin Schroedinger proposed an experiment which put a live cat in a sealed box fitted with a trigger device to kill the cat if a single particle is released from a radioactive substance. The quantum problem is that, according to particle research it is possible for the particle to be inside the atom and released from the atom at the same time. So as long as you don't look in the box the cat will remain in a superpositional state both alive and dead at the same time. So if you asked a particle physicist is the cat alive or dead they would answer you with a simple: Yes.
Some suggest that this shows the potential for illustrating multiple realities. As a particle can exist in two places at once then there are two equally valid realities for the cat. In one we open up the box and the cat is alive and in another the cat is dead. This to me is lazy reasoning and I suggest another opinion on this subject. All matter is made up of energy. It was an explosion of energy that came from the big bang and all matter comes from that initial release. We understand matter to a great degree. It was Newton that got us to the moon after all, without any help from Einstein or Hawking. But as we get down to subatomic particles they are near the threshold of the line between matter and energy. Energy and the four basic forces of the universe aren't nearly as well understood as gross matter is. However, theorists want to talk about particles in materialistic terms. This causes the paradoxes we see regarding this cat.
Matter moving at the speed of light squared equals energy. This is the reverse of Einstein's famous equation. It works in both directions and the universe is the best example. Matter as it nears the moment becomes pure energy and stops behaving as predictably as matter should. This shouldn't be a great surprise to anyone, since we don't really have a great grasp on how pure energy works in the universe. As long as gravity is a fundamental mystery in its workings it should come to no surprise that particles are no less mysterious. The research should shift in focus from trying to detect particles to detecting the energy and the forces effecting it. When a quirky quark zips this way or that its because, like a quarter dropped in water, it's effected by something we don't have the tools to observe or yet understand.
The physicist might argue that not only do these particles zig and zag but also change their nature and orientation seemingly at random. Fine. Then change the water in the model to a vat filled with clear acid. The quarter still flips and turns from unseen forces but also degrades and changes chemical properties as it moves in the “ether.” Besides, even if I am wrong; According to the theory, somewhere, in some other universe: I'm right.

Virginia Tech and Gun Control

The Virgina Tech tragedy has brought the subject of gun control back to the front of the social debate. The fact that guns are dangerous and deadly become an undeniable truth in the wake of such a senseless loss of life. However, the issue of gun regulation goes far beyond murderous lunatics on shooting sprees.

The perpetrator of the Virginia Tech shooting was a self indulgent child throwing a temper tantrum. Like a toddler that wasn't getting his way in the world he lashed out to share his pain. Children bite, kick and squeal in obnoxious tones as they learn to regulate their outbursts. This child used nine millimeter pistols to express his tantrum. The only difference between him and an undisciplined child is the hardware he possessed and the damage he inflicted.

Guns are powerful and deadly tools: As are prescription drugs, jet planes, and automobiles. All of these things certainly have a place in our society but only guns are held in the position of constitutional protection from regulation. Depending on the skill of one lawyer or another the intention of the second amendment to the constitution can be expressed in several ways. Only one sentence long, the second amendment makes up in complexity what it lacks in length. It manages to contradict itself within the commas. The fact that we have any gun control laws at all speaks to the fact that it is well established that guns can be regulated under our system of government. However, with the phrase “shall not be infringed” boldly printed into the second amendment resistance to regulation of firearms is still very strong. Guns are a part of our history, social identity and self image. Unfortunately so is the violence that comes along with admiration for such weapons.

Guns are designed to kill things. This is their purpose and intent. In the proper hands they can be used to keep the peace, secure the borders, regulate wild populations of animals and put food on tables. What purpose is served by allowing guns into the hands of tantrum throwing children? None. No matter what the constitution says, guns in untrained, uncontrolled hands are a threat to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Aren't those goals the intent of our constitutional protections?

I am, by no means against guns as a matter of conceptual idea. Many things in this world are dangerous and to think we can get rid of them is to tilt at windmills. However, gun owners have a responsibility to themselves as well as to the public at large to insure that these tools are not used to limit the freedoms of others. Under the current laws and attitudes relating to weapons of all kinds this is currently not the case.

The only strength and power the VT shooter ever possessed was bought at the counter of a pawn shop and gun store in Virginia. Such a suicidal explosion of murderous rage is thankfully rare in our world. If it was the only example of the miss use of weapons in our country it might still present a powerful argument toward regulations of some sort. However, too many guns left in untrained hands kill innocent people needlessly everyday. People die by accident, shot often by those that love them. Domestic disputes are turned into crime scenes when a gun is introduced into an emotional struggle. Neighborhoods are turned into war zones when the use of a gun is equated with power and respect. There are plenty of reasons that gun regulation is prudent, but to tie its need solely to the events at VT is missing the larger point.

Guns are inherently dangerous. These weapons have grown in power and number to the point that they threaten our security and our social stability. It is up to gun owners, manufactures, and sellers to prove their ability to be responsible stewards of these most deadly of devices. If they can't bring themselves to secure their tools then the responsibility must shift to the government to fulfill the role of insuring our national security.