Silver Lining?

Sigh. Good morning.
Actually, I'm only a very little bit glum.
Now, there is a silver lining, but I have to admit I was VERY wrong about the way the election was going to go.

The good thing is that conservatism won just about everywhere, but Republicans, who usually champion it, did not. It is difficult to explain to someone who isn't steeped in politics, but there are two elements I think fall into this.

First, and most easy to grasp, is that this was an election about Republicans. Democrats did not win (with a few exceptions) so much as Republicans lost. They lost when they did not listen to their voters. They did not secure our border, they did not protect the tax cuts, they did not take a firm stance on support in Iraq, they did not stand firm behind judges.

As a result, Republican voters have sent this message: "Unlike Democrats, who want their candidates in control no matter what, we will actually hand over control of the country to the opposition if you do not do exactly what you promised when we voted for you."

I believe firmly that we will re-elect Republicans in 2008, and another Republican president, and hopefully those politicians will know for certain that we mean what we say when we insist they do what we elected them to do.

One of the greatest illustrations of this is Joe Lieberman. His party loathed him for standing with the President on the issue of Iraq. Well, if this election was all about hating Bush and wanting to leave Iraq, Lieberman would have lost the general election too. He won handily. Even with the republican taking 10% of the vote away from him (because nobody thinks the Republicans would have voted for Lamont). Instead, it was about people who kept their word, who voted on what was important, and kept their campaign promises. Lieberman did all of these things and even Republicans supported him (though he often votes against our issues, he was at least intellectually honest and he GETS it about the War on Islamic Extremism).

Okay, here's the other thing, and it is harder to explain:

Ballot initiatives are when laws have to go to the voters instead of to individual state legislators. Many initiatives were on ballots all around the country. Conservative initiatives have won almost universally. TWENTY states passed bans on gay marriage, Arizona passed English as their official language, Colorado is denying illegal aliens access to citizen benefits, a whole lot of things.

So, how did all these conservative issues win, when all the Republicans lost? There are only two answers, and they can coincide. One, the country as a whole is conservative, even if it is split Rep/Dem. Two, lots of Republicans DID show up, but they didn't vote for the politicians who let them down in Washington.

I like the theory, but I loathe the practice.

It is wrong thinking. You don't hand power over to the opposition, you elect more conservative Republicans, so instead of a fight between liberals and conservatives, you have a fight between conservatives and moderates.

I'm actually more optimistic about 2008 than if we'd won AGAIN (after all, remember we won HUGE three elections in a row, so it was almost inevitable that we would take a step back). Historically, in 6th year mid-term elections, the party in the White House loses 40 seats in the house and 7 seats in the Senate. This was a loss, don't get me wrong, but it was better than average if you look at history.

The Path to 9/11

http://abc.go.com/movies/thepathto911/index.html

I highly encourage everyone to watch this movie. I was very impressed. Yes, there is partisan bickering over it, but personally I felt the movie aimed the proverbial "fan" at both administrations. If it seemed to focus more on one, I suggest to you that is only because one of the two administrations spent weeks highlighting the fallacy of the film, so you are searching to see what they found so objectionable. Also, one must consider that while the current administration did have several months of culpability (and even that time, being so critical, shows alarmingly well in this docu-drama) the previous administration had more time with the dropped ball rolling about their feet. Anyone would look bad under those circumstances.

This movie, to me, illustrates the incredible dedication of many people determined to protect their fellow citizens. It also shows the root of the problem: Red or Blue, politicians who put popularity and opinion polls (foreign and domestic) and their re-election chances ahead of the safety of their fellow citizens.

It is a gripping story and well told.

The Path to 9/11

Why all the flap about “The Path to 9/11?”

Easy. This may be my shortest post.

In the battle between Liberalism and Conservatism, Liberals fired the biggest cannons they could dream of in the form of movies from Michael Moore and Al Gore. They had little effect, and it is arguable that they actually damaged Liberal causes.

Conservatives are about to air a movie. The reaction from Liberals is very like the reaction Conservatives had. Just as Conservatives were adding fuel to the Michael Moore / Al Gore fire, Liberals are now adding explosives to the possible explosion of “The Path to 9/11”.

The danger?

That despite this being a LIBERAL medium, Conservatives may be on the brink of using it to much greater effect.

I urge you to watch The Path to 9/11 and make up your own mind.

It’s official: we are losing.

It infuriates me, but then again, this is how any losing side feels. There is a war going on. It is not the so-called War on Terror (an unfortunate phrase, that isn’t accurate, but something was needed to satisfy paper-driven bureaucratic weenies). It is not the War in Iraq, or even between Israel and Hezbollah.

It is the War of Mind. A famous and spectacular thinker, shortly after another war (the “War between the states” here in the USA) predicted world wars one and two, calling them the war of chemistry, the war of physics, and predicted the war of mind.

Here it is, and quite frankly, we’re losing. Why? Because we don’t realize that’s the war we’re in, and that the sides are not drawn by country or nation, not even by ideology. This is a war for influence. A war for how things are to be done, and how they are to be perceived. It’s about the old adage that the pen is mightier than the sword.

That adage has been supported by many examples, all of them drawn with the instrument in question. I am here using that very instrument (though in digital form) to say that in the end, the sword is mightier than the pen, because the sword enforces the pen.

The greatest threat facing our nation, and therefore our very way of life (don’t believe for one second the rest of the world would let us live as we do if they could stop us, and believe they were bettering their lives by taking away what they perceive as our wealth), is misrepresentation.

Sides have been taken. Fortunately, there are a few small (but very strong) “pens” on my side. On the other side you have people who want to prove the pen is mightier than the sword simply for the sake of proving it. They have the misguided impression that, once they have taken the side of the underdog, the WRONG underdog, and once they have helped that underdog win against seemingly impossible odds, they will be able to use their pen in their own defense.

This is not what is going to happen. The holders of those pens, which are mighty, are going to be run through by the very swords they helped. For you see, powerful as it is, the pen is not almighty.

It is laudable to attempt to lessen violence and pain, misery and suffering in the world. It is worse than murder to use pens and words to twist the truth in an attempt to make the wrong side win.

These pens-for-hire are being used. They don’t even realize they are being used. Those who I consider my enemies have grown strong and crafty in the years and years of their defeat. They have learned to use a new weapon, and to wield it skillfully. The modern pen is so strong that it has even convinced the sword it is not as mighty. It has convinced the sword it cannot go where the pen will not allow. And it is succeeding.

Can we win this war with the pen? Yes, but only if we embrace it as strongly and with the same resources as our enemy. We find ourselves on the other side of the power struggle. Those of us who believe the sword is mightier have built massive armed forces and can project real power wherever and whenever we choose (don’t kid yourself, if we actually unleashed our eagle, there is not a bear anywhere that could withstand it). Those who can’t build swords to contend with ours have built up their armies - and they are much larger, more powerful, and better equipped than ours. Not necessarily better, but certainly overwhelming.

To win this war with the sword we are going to have to ignore the pen, no matter what color its ink or how fast it writes.

On the other hand, to win this war with the pen we are going to have to develop our own news agencies - agencies willing to investigate the actual truth and expose it, report it whether it is popular or not, and never cover it up. Right now the news that hurts the underdog is covered up. The news that helps the expected winner is covered up or twisted. Until it is exposed and honest, rational thought is shared, we are going to lose and go on losing this war.
I do not believe that limits to the First Amendment are required. I believe that the government has to spend as much money on truth as it does on gunpowder. Don’t get me wrong, I believe in a strong military, and I believe ours is the best on earth. I just believe that too many people invest too much money lying about our efforts, or military, and our intentions. They are not even bothering to play fair. There are no Geneva Conventions covering war waged with pens.

War Panic and Reassurance

I heard a desperate mother calling in to a radio show, near tears about the need to stop war, afraid for her son who works in a daycare facility and sees children every day – she couldn’t imagine her boy or any of those children being asked to go to war and die.

The vast majority of the world wants peace. Most of us are non-aggressive. Look even locally, and you must be forced to admit that left to our own devices, we’re a peaceful race. When violent crime is measured in the “per 100,000 persons” category, it sounds much like “particles per million”. That is a very small percentage.

Unfortunately the very machines of war which limit our casualties (compare 2000 casualties in three years of Iraq with 91,000 casualties in the Pacific Theater of WW2) make it possible for those very small “particles per person” to cause very real damage amongst the rest of us.

I feel for the terrified mother. I am a father of three. I simply do not go down the road of emotion that would be called for should one of my children die – no matter what the circumstances. I would, however, try to soothe her fears by pointing out that we have an all volunteer military. While even amongst the volunteers there are those who feel they were pressured into it (though they usually feel strong enough to protest when faced with real danger) the overwhelming majority of our brave military want to be doing what they’re doing.

The only time a draft would be required, when the daycare specialist might be forced into the armed forces, would be if we did not act responsibly and proactively to limit the size and power of our enemies.

While this could ignite a conversation about the justification of projecting our will and power over others, that is not the thrust of this entry. This is merely to point out that the unreasoning, blank fear that is like a knee-jerk reaction for so many people can be met with calm reassurance.

Archdukes and the Internet: Amateurs at War

As I sat here, like many people (knowing the names or not) making (hopefully unsuccessful) parallels between the Israeli soldier captured/kidnapped in Gaza and Archduke Ferdinand, I thought about stories and accounts of how captured sailors in the Napoleonic Wars (and immediately conjured more parallels between England and France, Israel and fill-in-the-neighbor) often became friends across the battlefield, how captains of ships entertained their enemies and treated them with an almost competitive respect.

Fear not, I shall attempt to keep my sentences shorter for the rest of this entry. Though, think of it spoken aloud in a musing sort of voice rather than typed into a rather persnickety keyboard.

I came to wonder about the brutality with which prisoners are treated in war today. Let us not fool ourselves. A clean cell, religious literature, three square meals a day, access to lawyers and human rights activists does not constitute brutal treatment of enemy combatants. Brutality is beheading, dismemberment, dragging of mutilated bodies through muddy streets.

I could go off on a tangent here and wonder what news stories would be reported about brutality and humane treatment if the war, instead of being fought in Iraq, were fought on the streets of the Eastern Seaboard. However, I shan’t sport with your intelligence.

It occurred to me (and here is where I introduce one last seemingly random thread before producing my organized braid) that there is another related parallel to the outcry that many feel about the onset of the Internet and the apparent anarchy and freedom to information it provides. The outcry comes from professionals who fear for their jobs, or at least for the influence and power that is being eroded away. I do not blame them, it is only natural to feel this way. However, I am not going to stop my freedoms and liberties so they may experience a feeling of control over my destiny. They claim that it is unlikely the average Joe (by whom I assume they mean me, and though I take that as a compliment, I doubt they intend to flatter) will be able to sift through the seemingly limitless information and recognize what is information and what is opinion.

The problem is that we do that all too well, and that’s why we are turning to the Internet now, dopes.

Does use of the word “dopes” brand me as an illiterate and dangerous, unprofessional blogger? Well, I certainly don’t get paid for this outlet.

How do I tie this all together? Archdukes and captured Israeli soldiers, the loss of dignity and decency in the way enemies are treated, and the almost anarchistic influence the Internet has on global society? With the sentence I wished to write all by itself, without this lengthy blog entry to support and explain it (though laying out ones thought process is somehow gratifying).

Terrorism is what one gets when amateurs are given the professional tools of war.

The Ends and Means of our War for Oil

I will try to say this as succinctly as possible, rather than explaining every nuance. Hopefully it will come across very shortly:

Are the wars that we pay attention to today (and there are many we simply ignore, much to the frustration of some of our hottest Hollywood celebrities) in fact wars for oil?

I believe they are. Not in the traditional way that most critics of the current administration say President Bush and his oil cronies are trying to make a buck, but because we here in the United States have allowed ourselves to become less than self-sufficient. Wherever you are dependant on others, there is leverage to be used against you. When you are dependant on friends, your bonds become stronger and you work closer together. When enemies or hostiles supply your dependencies, what you need becomes leverage to make you do what they want.

The bitter fighting in the holy lands (middle east, if you can’t stomach the other term) demands the attention of the United States because we have blocked ourselves from providing the energy we need to drive our cars, watch our televisions, light and cool our buildings, cook our food.

This is a war fought not over the oil under the sands of Iraq or Iran, but over the oil here in our own country that we will not drill. Though it may be sad to say, if we were providing for our own energy consumption, we could ignore what is going on in and around the holy lands the same way we ignore what goes on in great stretches of Africa.

It’s not that I don’t believe “unalienable rights” really do belong to all people, but I don’t believe that most people in this country are up to the massive effort it would take in order to provide those rights to all people: namely, to actually take over the world and deliver those rights. The main argument that seems to be put forth every time a section of the world is freed is that it won’t work, that Arabs or Persians cannot handle freedom, that Islam is incompatible with it.

By that argument, not only would Japan and Germany be inexplicable, but the frighteningly parallel brand of Catholicism embraced only a few hundred years ago would have made our present circumstances impossible. After all, it is not the Republic of Heaven that is spoken of in Christianity’s Koran.

Understand me, and those who think like me, for a change. Our frustration comes not from our perception of your unwillingness to defend our nation or the oppressed around the world, nor from the desire to find alternative ways to fuel our economy. Our frustration comes from policies that cause the problem in the first place, then refuse to allow the mess to be cleaned up, and finally to tout a desire to defend the worst, most wild aspects of our culture – AND to presumably help the oppressed around the world – while in actuality putting up every possible block to achieve those very aims.

Yes. This is a war. This is a war for oil. This is a war for OUR oil, the oil that can be found under Colorado, Alaska, within or near our shores.

But for some this is a war for the ballot box, pure and simple. It is a war to recover power for power’s sake. It is an example of ends and means. We want the ends, such as actual, viable, lasting peace; or even just a handle on our own needs – a feeling of confidence that we can get from place to place, eat a hot meal, see the latest fad TV show; while others want the means: whatever it takes to make sure it is done THEIR way, or by THEIR leader, whether it works or not.