FWIW – Saturday, a Day of Rest

Today is Saturday, December 16th. When I was a young boy, Saturday was a day of rest. My brother Tom and I would burst into our parents’ bedroom just about 8 o’clock, jumping on the bed and play-wrestling with Dad.
In those days, only one person needed to be the family breadwinner. If one of us got sick, Dr. Gallagher would come to the house, do all the requisite poking, prodding, temperature-taking, etc and then have his office send a bill for a house call in a few days and that would be that.
We weren’t rich. We, like everyone else on our quiet street, would be considered ‘middle class’. Christian, Jew, Catholic, we all lived and got along well on North 7th Street in New Hyde Park, Long Island, N.Y.
Many of us, being Christian or Catholic decorated our homes with strings of outdoor lights and put up our Christmas trees in the living room or den. Our Jewish neighbors put Menorahs in their windows. We didn’t have to confront the issue of ‘political correctness’ in those days.
During most of the year, Saturday was the day of the week when we took a leisurely breakfast. Mom sent us up the street to the bakery with a couple of bucks and we (my brother, Tommy and I)purchased some rolls (an assortment really; some poppyseed, some plain white with a crispy crust dusted with flour, a few jelly…), then dashed home before they lost their gentle warmth.
After breakfast it was time for ‘chores’. Typically, for my brother and I, this meant making our beds, putting our toys or other stuff away where they belonged. Outside, there was lawn work. Power lawnmowers were regarded as luxuries; we used the good old push mowers with the large wheels and semi-helix-shaped blades that propelled the grass back into our sneakers. If the grass had dew left on it, of course that meant that the grass would attach itself to our dungarees bottoms. We easterners called them dungarees, not “Levi’s” ™ or jeans. (see “Dungaree Doll” by Eddie Fisher ca. 1953).
By the time the yard work was done, it was usually time for lunch. At that time, any leftover rolls from breakfast would be adapted to accept cold cuts (Dad), peanut butter and jelly (Tommy and me), or what-have-you, or perhaps a bowl of soup.
Post-lunch would be the time to ride my bike over to my buddie’s house, where a group of us guys would decide where to bike to. The sort of stuff like the boys did in “E.T.”, just riding around. We didn’t know that you could do the acrobatics that those boys did; we were just enjoying the feel of the air rushing over our faces and through our hair.
Most often the destination was the schoolyard (Hillside Grade School) for bike stunting – who could do the most dramatic side-skid on the dirt, who could go the fastest then slam on the brake and leave a long patch of rubber on the cement sidewalk. Real daring stuff.
Summertime Saturdays might, on occasion, be special enough for a trip to the beach. The ride to Jones Beach seemed interminable to young boys, though it was probably not more than 45 minutes. Being close enough to the Gulf Stream on the east coast, the water temperature at Jones Beach drew great hordes of people during the summer; even those summer days when there would be a slight drizzle, people still came out, using their umbrellas to shield them from the moisture just as they used them to protect them from the sun.
The trip home from the beach, our bodies sun-pinked, would go by in a flash, usually because we fell asleep three minutes after getting into the car.
Other seasons had their rites; leaves in the fall, snow in the winter, rains in the spring; Saturdays were always special.
Who says the ‘Good old days’ weren’t all that good?

Tomorrow: Tommy

Today is Saturday, December 16th; 764 days until the end of the Bush Administration.

FWIW – I Remember Tianemmen Square

In 1989, the picture was stark. One solitary man stood in front of a column of tanks. Frozen in time, it seemed, until we saw motion, revealing ‘real time’. He was just…standing there, defiantly. He put his own frail body in front of a line of tanks as if to say, “Roll over me, if you dare”.
The parallel that occurs to me was Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty or give me death”! Both men chose to take a stand as if to say, “No more! Come no further in your quest to beat men down”!
It would be the height of presumptiousness for me to equate myself with either of these noble persons, so I won’t. But, events unfolding in a court in this country so infuriate me, so offend my belief in the Constitution of The United States that I feel compelled to make my stand.
Background: In the state of New York, the ACLU has asked a federal judge to quash a grand jury subpoena that demands the ACLU surrender
to the FBI “any and all copies” of a December 2005 document in its possession. Service of this subpoena on or about November 20th is nothing more than an attempt to suppress informed criticism and reporting.
"The government's attempt to suppress information using the grand jury process is truly chilling and is unprecedented in law and in the ACLU's history," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "This subpoena serves no legitimate investigative purpose and tramples on fundamental First Amendment rights. We recognize this maneuver for what it is: a patent attempt to intimidate and impede the work of human rights advocates like the ACLU who seek to expose government wrongdoing."
For those of you who remember the Pentagon Papers flap of the late 1960’s, this is a blatant attempt to impose prior restraint on the press and the media to prevent revelation of government misconduct which can only be seen as outright censorship. Just like revealing the Pentagon Papers showed how the American people were duped into supporting the Viet Nam war through implementation of the Gulf Of Tonkin resolution, this document will likewise show how the current administration in Washington has duped us into supporting the present sad state of affairs in Iraq.
The three-and-a-half page document, issued in December 2005, is marked "Secret" and apparently is classified. The ACLU received the document, unsolicited, on October 23, 2006.
In legal papers, the ACLU said that while release of the document might be "mildly embarrassing" to the government, the ACLU's possession of it is legal and its release could in no way threaten national security. To the contrary, the ACLU said, the designation of the generally unremarkable document as "Secret" "appears to be a striking, yet typical, example of overclassification."
"No official secrets act has yet been signed into law, and the grand jury's subpoena power cannot be used to create one," said ACLU Legal Director Steven R. Shapiro. "The most significant thing about this case is not the content of the document but the government's unprecedented effort to suppress it." If the government can enforce a subpoena in this way, Shapiro explained, "it could just as easily have subpoenaed the Pentagon Papers from The New York Times and Washington Post. The effect of the subpoena is no different than a prior restraint and it is equally unconstitutional."

This is where I choose to make my stand.
I am hereby formally requesting the ACLU to release the document to me, a private citizen of the United States. In a fair and unbiased manner, which cannot be guaranteed by any Federal Judge (since the plaintiff is the Government of The United States and the Federal Judiciary is but one arm of the aforementioned Government), my impartiality can be guaranteed to the judgment of the merits.
By so requesting, my choice is to confront the government of The United States, much as Fr. Daniel Berrigan did in the Pentagon Papers imbroglio, and force the government to admit once and for all, that the First Amendment reigns supreme over the wishes of any government cabal and that the rule of law in this country subjects all citizens to abide by that rule.
Bring on Henry Gonzales, bring on George W. Bush, bring ‘em on! (sound familiar?)
I’ve had it with a government that unabashedly lies to its people. Enough of a corrupt government/military/industrial complex that chooses to obscenely conspire to make certain people rich over the sacred bodies of those soldiers who bravely serve to protect and defend this Constitution of The United States.
I’ve had it with a cowardly (there can be no other word for people who claim to be public servants who abandon their duty under Article 1, Sec. 8 of that Constitution and transfer [although there is nothing in the Constitution that permits those servants to transfer those responsibilities] transfer to another branch (i.e. the Executive Branch in the person of the President) of the government.
The framers of the Constitution, wiser than any who now sit in that great chamber, intended that the legislative branch be closer to, and therefore most accountable to, their constituents, the people. That’s you and me, my friend. They drew that document up with the intention that no chief executive could, by personal fiat, involve the sons (and now daughters) in a conflict in a foreign land, but that Congress, itself was to have sole power to “…declare and make war…”.
The election of November 7, 2006 is over. The people have spoken. Yet, this government continues to send our young, brave soldiers to walk around with targets on their backs in a land involved in all-out civil war.
Have you, like me, had enough? Are you mad as hell enough? Are you mad as hell enough to write to your congressperson?
Then, like Nike, JUST DO IT!

Tomorrow: Saturday, a day of rest.

To my dearest Jewish friends, Happy Chanukah!

Today is December 15th; 765 days until the end of the Bush Administration

FWIW – Farewell, Kofi, Alas We Knew You When

The era of Kofi Annan as Secretary General of the United Nations is over. A person of uncommon grace and dignity has stepped down at that organization, as its rules require.
There are those who view him as a resounding failure. Digging deeper into the backgrounds of those who view him in that light, it turns out that their displeasure stems from his resistance to dance to the tune called by the United States. These people believe that since the U.S. is assessed for approximately 22% of the dues of the United Nations, that organization should follow, for the most part, the official U.S. ‘line’.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.
Rather, it works much like our Federal Tax system (system? We’ll get into that can of worms in the future) does. Essentially, the philosophy is that we choose to ‘tax’ ourselves to provide for the things that are to keep our society in order, and, as set forth in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, “..to provide for the general welfare..”, there being certain necessities that the free marketplace cannot or will not provide.
NOAA comes to mind. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration is charged with monitoring the natural forces that shape our weather. The private sector is not capable or even interested (in my humble opinion) in performing such a task. Our private sector, however, is intimately connected and dependent on accurate weather forecasting. It goes much deeper than the blow-dried weather guy on the 6 o’clock news telling us that some trough of high pressure forming 100 miles north of us means it’s going to be warmer tomorrow. Commerce that must move over hundreds or thousands of miles is affected by the currents that move in the oceans and the clouds that drift overhead. Disruptions to the movement of that commerce have large financial repercussions. You would think that such important data would be so critical to the world of commerce that someone in the private sector would be certain to seek to capitalize on such data and the interpretation thereof, wouldn’t you. However, you would be wrong. At least up to now.
Of course, there are financial institutions that fund their own meteorological departments. And, they fund them richly. At least to the extent that the datum those departments provide enable them to manage weather-related risk relative to their own corporate bottom line. Yet, even there, they are still data mining the resources of NOAA to provide the raw numbers that their departments interpret.
I hope I’ve made my point. We fund the United Nations because we, as a nation, wish to show our commitment to the principle that all living persons, as well as those who will be born in the future, are best served by meeting together at one common location and attempting to mediate our differences in an arena where the powerful and the powerless can talk, rather than resort to weaponry. This is the essence of Civilization, as opposed to Tribalism (referred to in an earlier post).
It ain’t perfect, friends, but then again, humans are not perfect either physically or intellectually. An old African saying goes something like, “The steps are many from the tree to the plain”. We humans like to think of ourselves as being highly developed. As long as we seek to kill those who are not like us, may I suggest that, yes, we have a long way to go.
Into that context came Kofi Annan. As he assumed the post of leadership, much was written about him. The more I read, the more I was impressed with his dedication to the belief in the dignity of man and his personal humility. It was tragic that the oil-for-food scandal marred the career of this servant to civility. Actually, if you will research the oil-for-food scandal, you may conclude, as I have, that this program was constructed to be corruptible, and thus destined for failure even before it was implemented.
The post of Secretary General of the United Nations has been likened to herding cats. The best that can be hoped is to have all the participant’s attention for the blink of an eye. In History’s eye-blink, we are certain that Kofi Annan will be regarded as a man of remarkable grace under pressure.

Tomorrow: Assault on the First Amendment, Again

Today is December 14th; 766 days until the end of the Bush Administration.

FWIW – What The ‘N’ Word Says About Us

It was bound to happen. Nick Nolte downs too many beers, goes boppin’ down the PCH at about 400 mph and the next day there’s his picture on the front page looking like 60 miles of bad country road. Then Glen Campbell swigs a few too many and plays ‘bumper cars’ with another driver near his compound in Phoenix. Presto! There’s his mug on the front page of the local rag like he’s saying, “So there, Nolte! I can look stoopid too!” Then, it starts to get ugly. Mel Gibson not only goes over the line with the wine, but he goes into anti-semite overdrive! You’d think that it would be next to impossible to top the rant that made Tinseltown blanche.
But, you’d be wrong. Michael Richards is trying to make a comeback at some ‘Open Mike’ night (pardon the unintentional pun). ‘Cosmo’ just had to have been knockin’ back some righteous Sam Adamses. How else could he have made a reference to one of the more ingenious uses of a fork? I wish my cell phone camera could record with the clarity captured that fateful evening! Of course the cable networks fell all over themselves playing and replaying (and replaying, and…you get the idea) that rant that appeared to go on forever. Maybe that was the point. Maybe they reveled in that moment of delicious human meltdown. Who knows? Can you tell me what purpose was served by playing that video clip over and over for some two and a half days? Was there any conscious person who had not witnessed that clip during those days?
Fast-forward a week or two as red hot emotions cool off a little. I’m not going to use the ‘N’-word from now on, one black comedian asserts. He urges others to abstain as well. And, to be honest, there is real merit to such a choice.
The ‘N’-word, nigger, is, of course, derived from the word niggard or niggardly; pertaining to a person or personal behavior that is excessively lazy, slothful, indigent, irresponsible, etc. It came into wide use in this country during the early years of the Union, when slavery was still legal. Stripped of any vestiges whatsoever of human self-respect by slaveholders, treated as little more than chattel, black men who, in Africa, might have been chieftans or healers or family heads found themselves to be of no value save for what they could lift or cultivate or pick for their “Masters”. Shackled and/or chained together, those who toiled for little recompense did, indeed become niggards, behaving niggardly. Those who sought to escape were either successful (very few and far between) or unsuccessful (usually caught, then beaten savagely, if not hanged). We need not dwell further on this disgraceful aspect of our own history, only to understand the origins of ‘nigger’.
Probably the most perceptive and, in my humble opinion, funniest of today’s black comedians, Chris Rock, not long ago said, “I love Black People!... I hate niggers”! Funny, I feel the same way. There are black people I know whom I consider dear friends and good people. By the same standard, there are white people I know whom I consider to be not worth the powder and lead needed to blow them to Hell. So that’s all just a bit subjective.
But, let’s get back to the crux. Do we really want to ban the word, nigger, from our lexicon, from our discourse? Do we want to make a word (and thus, it’s etimology) like unto a social pariah?
Here’s how the devil’s advocate in me responds: Let’s keep the word in our vocabulary. Let’s keep it there as a reminder of one of the darker aspects of our nation’s history, when humanity was of less import. Let’s remember that we once failed to acknowledge that some persons were treated not as children of the same God. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that our DNA tells us that we are all 99.9% genetically the same and that only a few different elements in that chain of deoxyneucleic acid determine the color of our epidermis, the shape of our nose, the texture of our hair. So, how much of our spiritual genesis do we wish to make invalid when we speak that ‘N’-word? Think about it.

Today is December 13th; 767 days until the end of the Bush Administration.

FWIW – I ‘Get It’ about “South Park”

Going to go a little more light-hearted here. My posts of the last few days have been just a bit, shall we say, grumpy. You’d never know it, but, really, I’m a pretty happy, positive, fun-loving guy. Love to laugh. Really! One of the first things I look for in the morning paper is the funnies.
Somewhere, some highly-credited psychologist claimed that people who love to laugh live longer. Wouldn’t know about that, I’m only 63, so the jury’s still out on that one. The picture over there (-->) gives it away, right? That camera is my other love. More about that some day.
So, for years, people have been telling me how hilarious “South Park” is. Plus, it’s gotten a gaggle of humor awards, probably up to half a bazillion by now. You can’t watch Comedy Central without being deluged with promos for upcoming episodes or promos for 24-hour-long telethons of past episodes or some such.
Now, I’m not a total troglodyte. I’ve read that to some people “South Park” is all about a bunch of trash-talking foul-mouthed kids with a satirical ‘edge’ and their misadventures. The first couple of seasons featured a running gag in which the episodes always ended the same way - with one of the characters, Kenny getting killed. “Oh, my God, they’ve killed Kenny!” Since it was a ‘cartoon’, the premise was that it was all in good fun. And further, since it was an ‘adult cartoon’ it had added panache when referring to excretory functions (at least one per episode), or other scatological references.
So, the other night my wife and I are waiting up late to catch Comedy Central’s good bye and good riddance 2006 featuring Lewis Black and two other comedians that I’ve seen occasionally. The promos said that the special would be on at 10 o’clock. Living in the outlands (Arizona), that meant that it would air at 11 o’clock. Filling that one hour hole was, predictably two episodes of “South Park”. This time, I resolved to myself, I’m going to watch and see what this is all about. Now, I “get it”.
“South Park” is really about the dumbing down and bottom-dredging humor that can be foisted off on a public coarsened since the 1970’s, a public that asks nothing more of humor than semi-constant references to toilet-oriented hijinks. The objective, of course is to make the originators, Trey Parker and some other cretin, rich beyond their wildest slacker dreams as they crank out poorly drawn cut-and-paste construction-paper figures wiggly-wobbling across the screen mouthing either obscenities or poor voice impersonations of today’s celebrities in badly written skits pretending to be social satire. And to make the cycle complete, they (Parker and fellow cretin) must be anointed as geniuses before their time. Truly, I “get it”. I’m ‘hip’. This is a new era in Comedy. At last, form has triumphed over content.
Sorry, but there never was anyone funnier than Sid Caesar.

Today is December 12th, just 768 days remaining for the Bush Administration.

FWIW - Winning The War on Terror, Part 2

In yesterday's post, we spelled out a strategy to defeat the islamic terrorists who are intent on the destruction of Western Civilization.

Before we get into the strategy for extricating ourselves from the incredible quagmire we have created for ourselves in Iraq, we'd like to take this opportunity to address some of the objections bound to be put forward to some of our assumptions. There are those who will maintain that the success of the strategy hinges upon making economies of scale real for hydrogen (fuel cell) technology. At present, fuel cells are not feasible economically due to issues of internal structure that are critical to the entire process of unleashing energy through deconstruction of the water molecule.

Another issue is that of distribution. Essentially, there are very few "hydrogen stations" where vehicles can take on the propellant, just as there need to be gas stations for our current vehicle fleets.

Without making light of these objections, (these are very signifigant issues, there can be no doubt.) we maintain that they are not insurmountable. Rather, we believe that any nation like ours (indeed, uniquely like ours) with such a wealth of research and development 'muscle' can tackle those issues straight on, and given sufficient motivation (money and national survival are very good motivational energies), produce workable solutions in the near term. After all, this is the nation that, when challenged by then President John F. Kennedy, put a man on the moon and returned him safely in less than the time line proposed.

We believe that a nation with virtually no knowledge base in 'space medicine' as it was called, that can acheive a task of such magnitude, is certainly capable of overcoming challenges of the magnitude we've mentioned. Our knowledge base of fuel cell technology is far advanced compared to our then knowledge base of space medicine. Those of us who were around in those days recall the urgency given to project Apollo. This nation had a goal considered crucial to future survival and we all pulled together to make it reality.

The question then becomes one of, "Can we do it again? Can we do this in order that our nation and society survive this onslaught from cold-blooded killers who are fully committed to wreaking death and destruction on the free world? Are we prepared to make the sacrifices necessary in order to defeat this stated enemy of Civilization?" To me it seems that Americans have the needed resolve and strength of character to prevail.

We should understand that this conflict is not going to be fought on conventional battlefields, where humans kill one another with weapons. This conflict will need to be fought in the arena of international commerce. We shall need to defeat the enemy on economic terms (much like we brought down Soviet Russia) rather than military. The Soviet Union fell (imploded economically, really) because our economy was stronger, more resilient than the collectivist model that was followed by the Soviet Union. It was much like a high-stakes poker game where we forced our adversary to go 'bust'. 'Busting' the economic support system that makes the madrassas viable is much more preferable than sending our young men and women (as well as young men and women from other partner nations) to fight and die in our enemy's arena. Thus, our strategy is to fight smarter rather than fight harder to defeat our foe.

And now we come to our proposal to extricate us from this incredible quagmire that is Iraq.

We cannot undo what has already done. We have invaded a country that basically was not a threat to us. A country that had no weapons of mass destruction, as alleged by our leaders. A country that did not have the technology to transfer WMD's to other 'rogue states' as claimed by the Neocon cabal that controlled the government and kept the wool pulled tightly over the eyes of a press establishment grown fat and lazy, and thus incompetent to the task of informing the citizenry. Let us not forget either, that we, the American people 'built' Saddam Hussein. In 1983, The United States supplied Saddam Hussein with all the military hardware needed for him to fight a war with Iran. This was the United States policy under...Ronald Wilson Reagan. We built a ruthless tyrant who had come to power only four years earlier after sacking the government of his own father.

There's a lot of past history that can be unearthed and discussed. It can (and probably will) be done on this site at some point in the future. Today, we are focused upon our exit strategy.

It should not be that difficult to come to agreement once some very pertinent facts are brought to the fore.

According to a poll conducted by the University of Maryland, 71% of Iraqi citizens want us out. That same poll supports the "insurgency", giving it 61% approval. What part of "We despise America and want American troops to leave" don't we understand?

Recently, I received an email from Michael Moore. He states that the only realistic course for the United States to follow is to leave Iraq. The sooner, the better, in fact. Like it or not, our troops are smack dab in the middle of an all-out civil war. We cannot stop Sunni and Shia from killing each other. Their emnity goes back over a thousand years. Not understanding their culture (tribalism) blinds us to the reality that they shall have to settle their scores. After the bloodletting is through, and the two tribes are war-weary enough to come to a cease-fire, the United States can perhaps return and assist in the reconstruction of the country (or, more accurately, what is left of the country), offering first, our deepest, most sincere apology for triggering the war that will ultimately leave over half a million dead and hundreds of thousands as refugees living in other lands, like Syria and Jordan. There are those who consider Michael Moore to be a fool, a dolt, a traitor and various and sundry other defamations. It's strange, don't you think that over 50% of Americans now consider the choice to invade Iraq as a strategic blunder. Michael Moore was saying that even before the first bombs fell on Bagdad over 3 1/2 years ago.

There are many who will maintain that pulling out of Iraq precipitously now would cause the total collapse of Iraq society and make that country a haven for terrorists and terrorist trainers. Here's a clue: that is what is happening in Iraq, on the ground, TODAY. Like it or not, the civil war in Iraq is now full-blown, feeding upon it's own energy and cannot be stopped, no matter if we were to inject 20,000 or 50,000 or even 100,000 new troops tomorrow. Attack and reprisal are now the law of the street. The only sane thing for the United States to do is to withdraw the thousands of young men and women with targets on their backs; do it as quickly and safely as possible, notwithstanding the conditions on the ground.

One thing is certain about the withdrawal of American forces. They will no longer be targets for Sunni or Shiite death squads or makers of IED's (Improvised Electronic Devices, the deadly little bombs that are so lethal that they take more American lives than anything else, save snipers).

What is not certain is how long the civil war will continue. With American soldiers out of the way, there is a small, almost microscopic possibility that Sunni and Shiite factions may decide that they can now talk to each other, given that "the infidels", as our fighters are called, are gone. In the final analysis, they are going to have to talk to each other and come to terms as to how power will be allocated within their country. Ultimately, the Kurds will have to be beckoned to join the discussion; they've secured their portion of Iraq and have both a stable, representative governing council and a highly motivated self-defensive force to safeguard their citizens.

We've heard about the findings of the ISG (Iraq Study Group); how the best minds were brought together to chart a change of course in Iraq, one that would hopefully allow the United States to extricate itself from this godawful mess. Occasionally, we even hear a slight few words having the ring of truth, such as, "...there are no good options, only (options) less bad than the worst options..."; hardly ringing endorsements, wouldn't you agree?

We dare say now what few others will speak today, but more will come around ultimately, It is time for our noble troops to return. Let us all be thankful that they had the courage and the intestinal fortitude to fight in a place foreign to our cherished love of freedom.

Today is Monday, December 11th, 2006; only 769 days to go until the end of the Bush administration.

FWIW - Winning The War on Terror, Part 1

"Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it". Wise words, those. We haven't learned from our ignominious defeat in Viet Nam 30 years ago. America should have learned that a military action not supported by the majority of the populace cannot be 'won', no matter how much the President talks about "Victory".
Just this past week, the Iraq Study Group ("ISG") published it's report on the Iraq quagmire and the dilemma that arose from an ill-considered war of choice by the President and the chicken hawks (aka Neocons) that surrounded him; sold to the American people through an elaborate mechanism of faulty intelligence, outright lies and good old-fashioned fearmongering.
It would seem that the President would have gotten the message from the 'thumpin' the Republican party suffered at the polls in November. Call it "Reality Check #1". The ISG report should have been taken as "Reality Check #2". Yet, just yesterday, the President continued to talk of 'Victory' in a military frame of reference. Bush 41 was turned out of office in large part due to a wide public perception that he "just doesn't get it". Bush 43 will lead the Republican Party to an even larger repudiation at the polls in 2008 if he and his sympathizers "don't get it".
My instincts tell me that, lacking any substantial changes in the ground situation in Iraq in 2007, the Democrats may be poised to take the Presidency as well as control of both houses of Congress in 2008. But, I digress.
We are, after all, looking at the Iraq conflict through a larger prism, one of a so-called "War On Terror". And it was the Administration itself that coined the phrase in it's greater strategy to circumvent Congressional oversight and thus appropriate to the Executive Branch power to make war on any adversary it chose. Thus was Congress deprived of it's responsibility under the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Sec. 8) .."to Declare and Make War..", a responsibility designed by the framers of the Constitution to insure that disasters like Iraq could not happen.
We'll leave discussion of the best exit strategy from Iraq to our next post.
We wish to talk now about how we can defang the tiger of Islamic radicalism; at what cost, both in monetary and human references.
It helps if we understand a few basics about the dynamics between Western Civilization and the Middle East. In a nutshell, the Middle East is societally based upon Tribalism, that is to say that the greater allegiance is to the tribe. In Western Civilization, tribes are subordinate to the needs of the greater Society. Without becoming overly simplistic, this is why Civilization is the antithesis of Tribalism. We in the West are prepared to make some accomodation to the dictums of 'Society', as we perceive it for the purpose of an acknowledged 'greater good'. Under Tribalism, our 'Tribe' is the all-important nexus; where our 'tribe' prevails, we prevail. Certainly, tribes (and thus 'Tribalism') have been around longer than Western Civilization. And, thus lies the conflict that has existed through all of Modern Times.
When oil was discovered in the Middle East in the 20th Century, tribal leaders came into possesion of wealth previously unimaginable. The tribe of Saud could not believe all of the material splendor that was theirs simply by virtue of a black goo pumped out from under the sands at their feet! And so it has been to this day. The greatest riches, in tribalistic design, go to those at the head of the tribe, the smallest crumbs fall of the table to those not in favor, those farthest from the top.
Now, as the global population hurtles past 6 billion (we in the USA just celebrated our 300 millionth citizen), energy needs of our people increase geometrically. Yet, there is only a finite supply of carbon-based (oil) energy. There were only so many carbon-based organisms roaming the planet that far back in our history to decompose into what we now know as petroleum and petroleum by-products. Through chemistry, we may continue to refine this stuff, breaking it apart and re-combining it in different form, but ultimately, the inside of earth's mantle will surrender up it's last drop of oil. The law of supply and demand is one of the most immutable, meaning that oil prices can only go up long term as increasing population competes for lesser and lesser amounts of this resource.
This all fits in with my strategy for prevailing against those who seek the extinction of Western Civilization.
This 'jihad', this struggle, came to light on our shores with the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Ultimately, Sheik Abdel Rahman (The Blind Sheik) was convicted and sentenced for his part in masterminding the bombing. Blithely unaware of the hatred seething against the United States in the Arab middle east, we were caught completely by surprise. By now, we know better.
Here's how it works: When you fill your vehicle with gasoline, ultimately, your 'petrodollars' flow to the middle east through OPEC. From there, they go right to the top of the tribes, like the Saudis, where they build great, ornate palaces for their leaders. Then, like water, ever flowing downhill, these dollars flow to lesser leaders, who bestow these petrodollars on people who will donate them to the Islamic "charities". Indeed, many leaders may fund these "charities" believing that they help the impoverished, not knowing the ultimate destination of these funds. These "charities" are nothing more than a conduit to funnel money to the thousands of madrassas found in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Indonesia and the Phillipines. (There are other locales where these madrassas are located, but these are the most virulent.) The madrassas are the schools where the most extreme hatred for the West is inculcated daily in children bereft of any hope except to die as a martyr and have an afterlife in 'Paradise'.
Nothing in the above scenario changes as long as our energy policy is oil-dependent. As consumer of 25% of the planet's oil resources, there is no way that producing more oil at home can be a viable solution. That's where the U.S. has a unique advantage.
Hydrogen (fuel cell) based energy production has the greatest potential cost v benefit ratio of all of the alternative energy forms. Way above coal (carbon-based, after all), and nuclear (radiation hazards). Wind and solar are promising, but still need to overcome scalability issues (how do you propose to build enough to achieve cost benefit savings). Much of hydrogen technology is already text-based knowledge. A massive R & D emphasis, much like what went into the moon landing mission of the 1960's, could put fuel-cell technology into every day practical application. Imagine the possibilities! Instead of using a finite resource (until it's all gone, as carbon-based fuels), we can utilize a resource, water (which comprises 2/3's of the earth's surface and which is renewed daily through the sun-driven evaporation/rain/snow cycle. as old as the planet itself).
Indeed, working alongside countries like China and India to the benefit of all of our citizens, instead of competing against them for ever more scarce resources, it could be possible to remake international geopolitics! Even now, China is becoming aware of the costs of hyper-industrialization and is seeking to remedy an air pollution problem in it's major cities that grows at an alarming rate. For leaders of vision who can outline a future that is more energy secure for all citizens, the prospects are virtually limitless.
As with any new technology, American ingenuity and free market capitalism hold a possibility for new branches of entrepreneurship in energy generation and transmittal. Where once the benefits of an industrial society made quality of life better for untold numbers of Americans, isn't it possible that a renaissance of entrepreneurship could do likewise for upcoming generations? Cooperation between countries like the United States and China and India have promise for the peoples of all these lands.
We've saved the best for last. By depriving the Middle East of the petrodollars that have been used ultimately to kill Westerners, we enhance our own possibility of survival in the world of tomorrow.

Today is December 10th, 2006; 770 days left for the Bush administration.