Due to an overwhelming feeling of joy they forgot to thank their rescuers.
Unbelievable...
Friday, March 24, 2006
A Stunning Lack of Gratitude
On Thursday, 23 March, a multi-national military force rescued three Christian peace activists after 118 days of captivity. They were: Canadians James Loney, 41 (pictured at right), and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32, and Briton Norman Kember, 74. The Loney family issued this press release:
“Oh, what a joyful day this is! We have just learned that James is coming home. He has been released unharmed, with his companions Harmeet and Norma. We would like to thank everyone for their support and prayers. At this time, we would also like to express our deepest sympathy to the family of Tom Fox. Please let us rejoice in this family moment as we prepare for the days to come."
Shortly thereafter, a representative of the Christian Peacemaker Teams, the activist group the three men belonged to, released a statement. Here is an excerpt:
“Our hearts are filled with joy today as we heard that Harmeet Singh Sooden, Jim Loney and Norman Kember have been safely released in Baghdad…We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must end.”
Released?? Who do these people believe released their loved ones? The insurgents? If it was not for the actions of a multi-national special operations team, this might not be such a “joyful” day.
The statement continues:
“Today, in the face of this joyful news, our faith compels us to love our enemies even when they have committed acts which caused great hardship to our friends and sorrow to their families.”
They declare love for the insurgents, who brutally murdered their comrade in cause, yet offer no gratitude to the commandos who risked their lives to ensure the safe return of the remaining three?
Stunning…
Saturday, March 18, 2006
The Ghost of Stalin
Alyaksandr Lukashenka, or Batka (roughly translated as Daddy) as he likes to be called, Belarus' sorry excuse for a president, is up for "re-election" this month. (See the article in the comments section of this post if you do not have acess to the Economist online edition.) He was elected in 1994, a 1996 rigged referendum extended his presidency, and a 2004 fixed plebiscite modified the constitution allowing him to remain in power indefinitely.And he intends to keep it that way.
Lukashenka, the former head of Soviet-styled collective farm, did not like what he saw in his southern neighbor, Ukraine, in fall of 2004. Too much orange for his taste. Since then, the regime in Minsk has tightened its grip on it citizens, ramped up its typically-Soviet, over the top, propaganda machine locally known as the press, and provided its judges with very specific instructions on how to handle "problems". As such, the Belarussian gulags are brimming with former "opposition" candidates (past and present), student dissenters, and wayward journalists just to name a few. Additionally, it seems the number of missing persons is escalating at a rather alarming rate.
And who said Stalin was dead?
The American Epidemic of Ignorance
I travel...a lot. Over the past five years, I have been to over 40 countries on 4 continents (to include the UAE and Dubai on over 30 occasions), and never, ever, have I seen such a highly educated citizenry (allegedly so, anyway) of a first world country like America attempt to speak so authoritatively on so many subjects while displaying such utter ignorance of the facts. The stunning self-righteousness which drives so many of these logically devoid views of so many of our fellow American citizens is just staggering. The Dubai ports deal is just one example. Our reasons for going into Iraq are another. So, for all of you fellow citizens who have recently succumbed to this American epidemic of ignorance (and, unfortunately, there have been way to many of you) when it comes to Middle East policy and politics (and numerous other things for that matter), let me suggest some reading, something that many of you told me you do not have "time" to do. Well, both pieces are short and to the point, so you have no excuse.
Thomas Friedman hits one out of the park with his Dubai and Dunces piece (Just omit the second paragraph. He is misinformed.) and then follows it up with a perfect take on our current Iraq/Iran policy with America's Iran Policy: Iraq piece. (See the comments section of this post for the two article sif you do not have access to the NY Times online edition.)
Both should be required reading for all Americans who claim to have an informed, nuanced opinion on Middle East policy.
Let me put it another way...
Apply some analytical rigor to your positions, research them, and then back them up with facts. Parroted, partisan arguments do nothing but show your intellectual laziness and immense stupidity.
Unless you do your homework and bring something substantive to the table, stay out of the discussion. Making yourself look alarmingly ignorant does nothing, needless to say, to further your cause.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
The Face of Arab Modernity
If you do not know this man's face...you will. His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum is the Vice President and Prime Minister of the Unites Arab Emirates and the newly crowned ruler of Dubai, the second most powerful and influential of the seven emirates that make up the UAE. For the past 20 years, and with the tacit agreement of his recently deceased father and former ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mo as he is affectionately known to ex-pats and locals alike, has been vigorously fighting to bring Dubai into the 21st century...and he has. Dubai is a cosmopolitan city, oozing with absurd wealth and dripping with the kind of delight Nero would approve of...and you don't even have to pay that much for it.
With the human sex trafficking, the terrorist money laundering, the local entitlement class, and the modern day caste system in place, Dubai may not be YOUR kind of Arab modernity...but the alternative is not much better. Think Iran. If we are lucky, then think Jordan.
Life and geopolitics, especially in the Middle East, is about uncomfortable compromise. You only hope that you are more right than the next guy...and the world and its markets agree.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
The World Irreverently...
Go here for some...shall we say...unique perspecitves on the recent headlines. Courtesy of that paragon of journalistic accuracy and integrity, The Onion.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Winning the (Quiet) War on Terror
See this article from the Christian Science Monitor. This "quiet war" rarely makes the news, and when it does, no one pays much attention. Why? Because it's not as sensational (read "doesn't promote the media's political agenda" here) as news coming out of Iraq or Afghanistan...and because it is having a large measure of success. CJTF-HOA is doing some outstanding work cutting al-Qaida off at the knees in the countries of east Africa, with the one exception of Somalia where they are forbidden to operate. HOA is an outstanding example of how you defeat an insurgency...you cut it out at the roots before it has a chance to grow. This is known in military parlance as "theater engagement", the process of showing the flag in conjunction with humanitarian operations (i.e. vaccinating kids, digging wells, building schools, training local military, etc.). Theater engagement allows you to bring the "soft power" of the military to bear on a problem in a way that lingers in the mind of the host nation population when al-Qaida comes knocking. You earn their trust through good works and a professional example...and it works.
Cynics say you are just buying off the local population by providing them with things their host nation government cannot.
Yeah...so what.
It is effective and not to mention a hell of a lot less expensive, less complicated, and less taxing for the military. The American taxpayer's money is well spent. When done with the consent of or in conjunction with the host nation, it builds political good will and provides national security in one shot.
You cannot ask for more than that...
"Hysterical and bacchanalian..."
...is how the Russian foreign ministry described President Mikhail Saakshvili, Georgia's temperamental but brilliant leader, and his reaction to the January 22 near simultaneous early morning explosions of two natural gas lines just inside Russia along its border with Georgia.
The Georgian President hit the proverbial roof, immediately calling Russia, and its 1993 capitalist upstart Gazprom (a publicly traded company with appox. 40% of its shares owned by the Russian government and alone responsible for 8% of Russia's GDP), the "enemy" whose actions were "outrageous blackmail".
The President had every right to be upset, it being the dead of winter in the Caucasus and the lines that were destroyed were his entire country's (and by default, because they came from the same source, Armenia's) only source of gas. And it's winter...and it is cold. Place this event in the context of Russia's earlier tiff this year with Ukraine over the cost of Russian supplied natural gas (a proposed price increase on the Ukraine of appox. 500%), and you can see his point. To add insult to injury, later that day, and several hundred kilometers away, an electrical line from Russia to Georgia was "interrupted".
Post-Soviet economic blackmail by a former ruling government or minor industrial accident?
I'll let you decide...
Thursday, February 09, 2006
The Not-So Suprising Face of Islam
Today, Shi'ite Muslims all over the world "celebrate" Ashura, a religious observance in which they flagellate themselves to simulate the pain, suffering and death of Imam Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Mohammad, who, according to Islamic tradition, was killed in AD 680 at Karbala, a city in modern day Iraq, in a battle for the leadership of the faith.
If, after observing:
1) this Islamic "festival",
2) the Islamic world's stunningly hypocritical reaction to that Danish newspaper's Mohammad cartoon ridiculousness (you should see the cartoons in Gulf newspapers depicting Christians and Jews in such a wonderful light on a daily basis), and
3) the Iranian government's quest for "peaceful nuclear power" despite their vast oil reserves (somewhere on the order of 90 billion barrels worth) put within the context of their President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's now infamous and all too truthful rant to "Wipe Israel off the map!",
you do not yet understand the immense danger fundamentalist Islam poses to the civilized world, then you are either:
1) a "happily uniformed, not burdened by the facts, head in the geopolitical sand" jackass, or
2) a fundamentalist Muslim yourself.
Just for correlation, compare this "celebration" to the Christian (read "prodominatly western and democratic" here) celebration of Easter, a philosophically similar religious observance mourning the passing and then celebrating the resurrection of a prophet, conducted in, shall we say, quite a different manner.
Sure, the egg thing is a bit silly, but then again so is slicing your skull open with arrestingly large Mameluke sword to show your depth and breadth of religious devotion. People get committed to a rubber room for less...
I would invite all of you who subscribe to the "Islam is a peaceful religion" nonsense to Riyadh's Deera Square, affectionately known by westerners living in the Kingdom as "Chop Chop Square", this Friday at noon to witness Sharia law in action.
You are bound to see something exciting like a beheading, a stoning, or some other delightfully quaint and unmistakably tribal form of punishment that Qur'anic-based law exacts of the recently convicted.
Or if you are really lucky, the prisoner has committed something particularly egregious (like, for example, printing cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammad in a rather unflattering light?) and has been sentenced to something rather innocuously called Al-Had, in which the prisoner is affixed to a wooden X mounted in the ground and partially beheaded while the crowd cheers Allah Akbar, "God is great", then mobs the executioner in order to shake his hand and congratulate him for enacting "God's will".
And, before you ask...no, I am not making this up.
Certainly sounds like a religion of peace to me. Let's help spread the word on the utopian tendencies of this much maligned and misunderstood religion populated by bushy bearded pacifists who want nothing but world peace.
Who's with me?
Saturday, February 04, 2006
David and Goliath
This past Veteran's Day, I gave a speech on this holiday's significance to a group at a local college. As so happens, the discussion turned towards the war in Iraq. We were (politely believe it or not) discussing the war in Iraq in the context of the Global War on Terrorism when an older Cuban gentleman posed this question: "What is the difference between a terrorist and someone who is a legitimate resistance fighter?"
Fair question...
And my answer was this: “A terrorist intentionally targets, to kill or wound, civilians in order to instill fear into the population of a state in order to coerce that state into accepting their agenda. A freedom fighter attacks lawful targets (as defined under the Geneva Conventions and the Law of Land Warfare) to force the state to legitimize their cause.
What are considered lawful targets? Military personnel and equipment, for example. This is why I cannot fault the Iraqi insurgents for attacking military convoys, patrols, etc. I can fault attacks on Iraqi civilians by the insurgents at polling stations, hospitals, mosques, etc., or taking civilian aid workers or journalists hostage. This falls outside the realm of the internationally accepted definition of lawful war.”
The question was then posed, by a slight, soft spoken Japanese woman, that, “The United States should then be considered a state sponsor of terror due to its targeting of civilians in the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.”
Another fair question...which I answered...
“The difference was one of, unfortunately, numbers. The two atomic bombs were used to avoid a massive US invasion of mainland Japan. Such an invasion would have caused casualties to both military and civilians on both sides on the order of hundreds of thousands, if not millions. So the decision to drop the two atomic bombs was a lesser of two evils. Drop it and kill 100,000 Japanese (approximate total, the majority of which were civilians, according to the Avalon Project at Yale Law School) with no US casualties and minimal damage to the economic and cultural infrastructure of Japan, or invade the Japanese mainland, kill untold numbers of US military and Japanese civilians and military, and destroy the vast majority of the Japanese infrastructure. Do to the effects of "Fat Man" and "Little Boy", the Japanese surrendered unconditionally ending one of the worst wars the world had ever seen.”
Was this attack justified under the circumstances at the time? I believe it was. The world was embroiled in an "unrestricted war", a war that could only be won through massive military conflict at all levels (military, economic, political) involving the entire population of both nations. Unfortunately, the scale of this type of attack was necessary to end the war and thus end the suffering.
We do not face that kind of enemy today. In many ways, we are a victim of our own success. Because of our massive strength and global reach, any military move we make looks like a provocation and therefore, in the eyes of the "oppressed", any asymmetric tactic, to include terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, can be used by David against the modern Goliath without justification and with tacit international support. What we have seen in Tehran in 1979, Beirut in 1983/84, Dar es Salaam and Nairobi in 1998, Aden in 2000, and New York in 1993 and 2001 and many other places throughout recent history and around the globe is just that.
Some of those attacks were legitimate military targets...some were not. And if David wants to hit Goliath…fine. But when David's intentional targets become those defined by the Geneva Conventions as noncombatants, David had better be prepared for the full wrath of Goliath (this ain't the Bible...this is reality), and not cry foul as he is slowly and methodically eliminated with extreme prejudice. A moral imperative demands it.
Fair question...
And my answer was this: “A terrorist intentionally targets, to kill or wound, civilians in order to instill fear into the population of a state in order to coerce that state into accepting their agenda. A freedom fighter attacks lawful targets (as defined under the Geneva Conventions and the Law of Land Warfare) to force the state to legitimize their cause.
What are considered lawful targets? Military personnel and equipment, for example. This is why I cannot fault the Iraqi insurgents for attacking military convoys, patrols, etc. I can fault attacks on Iraqi civilians by the insurgents at polling stations, hospitals, mosques, etc., or taking civilian aid workers or journalists hostage. This falls outside the realm of the internationally accepted definition of lawful war.”
The question was then posed, by a slight, soft spoken Japanese woman, that, “The United States should then be considered a state sponsor of terror due to its targeting of civilians in the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.”
Another fair question...which I answered...
“The difference was one of, unfortunately, numbers. The two atomic bombs were used to avoid a massive US invasion of mainland Japan. Such an invasion would have caused casualties to both military and civilians on both sides on the order of hundreds of thousands, if not millions. So the decision to drop the two atomic bombs was a lesser of two evils. Drop it and kill 100,000 Japanese (approximate total, the majority of which were civilians, according to the Avalon Project at Yale Law School) with no US casualties and minimal damage to the economic and cultural infrastructure of Japan, or invade the Japanese mainland, kill untold numbers of US military and Japanese civilians and military, and destroy the vast majority of the Japanese infrastructure. Do to the effects of "Fat Man" and "Little Boy", the Japanese surrendered unconditionally ending one of the worst wars the world had ever seen.”
Was this attack justified under the circumstances at the time? I believe it was. The world was embroiled in an "unrestricted war", a war that could only be won through massive military conflict at all levels (military, economic, political) involving the entire population of both nations. Unfortunately, the scale of this type of attack was necessary to end the war and thus end the suffering.
We do not face that kind of enemy today. In many ways, we are a victim of our own success. Because of our massive strength and global reach, any military move we make looks like a provocation and therefore, in the eyes of the "oppressed", any asymmetric tactic, to include terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, can be used by David against the modern Goliath without justification and with tacit international support. What we have seen in Tehran in 1979, Beirut in 1983/84, Dar es Salaam and Nairobi in 1998, Aden in 2000, and New York in 1993 and 2001 and many other places throughout recent history and around the globe is just that.
Some of those attacks were legitimate military targets...some were not. And if David wants to hit Goliath…fine. But when David's intentional targets become those defined by the Geneva Conventions as noncombatants, David had better be prepared for the full wrath of Goliath (this ain't the Bible...this is reality), and not cry foul as he is slowly and methodically eliminated with extreme prejudice. A moral imperative demands it.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
The Benefits of the War in Iraq
Because of what I do for a living and because I lived and worked in the Middle East from late 2000 to 2004, I often am asked about the war in Iraq. Many people us this to segue into a self-righteous diatribe on why their opinion on the war is the correct one, whatever that opinion might be. I listen and often hear the standard arguments. On the pro-war side, I hear Sadam was a threat, he had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), he harbored/trained terrorists, etc. On the opposite side, I hear Bush wanted to finish what his father started, Bush was itching for a fight, there were no WMD, etc. We have all heard the standard arguments. What I would like to offer here is some often unexplained benefits of this war in the overall global war on terror (GWOT). I will try and be as succinct as possible.
My first point...
If one looks at the modern history of middle east conflict fought under the guise of "jihad" (Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, Chechnya, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict just to name an important few) there is one undeniable fact: when an Islamic nation or a Muslim people are "under attack” the call for jihad is made by radical Islamist leaders like our pal Usama bin Laden (UBL). What does this do? It causes the sleeping cells of radical Islamic fundamentalists to awake and move. They come from Indonesia, Malaysia, Germany, Britain, Turkey, North Africa, central Asia, from within the Middle East, wherever they are. Money begins to flow from Swiss, Cayman, Cypriot or Dubai bank accounts to fund the fight. Global arms dealers hawk their wares aggressively. To make all of this infrastructure flow, the Islamic fundamentalist networks must talk, on sat phones, via e-mail, face to face.
How does this help us? Our intelligence network, in concert with intelligence networks of other countries, is unparalled. We have extraordinary abilities to monitor every thing I just mentioned. Now, our intelligence, military, and diplomatic agencies break the world up into regions. Subject matter experts are assigned to each region. They live and breathe what happens in their particular area of responsibility. They are intimately familiar, due to our intelligence collection capabilities and the daily reports that are generated from them, with what is going on in their particular area. They know the financial networks, the names of arms dealers, the radical Islamic cells, operating in their area (Do we know it all? Of course not, but we know a lot.). And of course, we have these targets (a bank account, a sleeper cell, an arms dealer, etc) under some kind of surveillance. Some type of intelligence collection asset has been placed against what we have deemed high value targets in a particular area. When the call for jihad is made by UBL, there is movement in all of these areas. Our sensors pick up that movement and we begin to track it. All of this paints a picture of the Islamic fundamentalist terror network. It is like a big jigsaw puzzle. The intelligence is just the pieces. Those pieces must be fused together based on other global intelligence pictures to paint as accurate a picture as possible. Is it always a correct picture? No, but trust me...it is pretty damn good.
We are able to do all of this because we invaded a country, Iraq, in the heart of the Middle East that many Arabs look at as a proud pillar of Arab civilization and the birthplace of modern civilization. And they do not like it...so individuals like UBL call for jihad and everything I just explained above begins to happen.
When all of this happens, the enemy (that is the terrorists, not us, for some of you crazy conspiracy theorists out there who might be reading this) must expose himself. He must leave his country to go fight jihad. To do this he must fly, or get on a boat, or whatever. He must leave the relative safety of a big, messy city like Karachi, for example. He will need money, so money is withdrawn from accounts (ones that we are monitoring hopefully) to buy weapons from dealers (again, ones that we are monitoring or who are working for us). Through this exposure, all facets of the infrastructure make itself vulnerable to our attack and/or montioring. We may chose to monitor and track in hopes that this might lead us to something or someone bigger. Or we may chose to attack and interrupt the movement for whatever reason.
Jose Padilla, the alledged "dirty bomber", is a good example. He was monitored here and overseas. He was arrested upon arrival of an international flight from Zurich into Chicago. The FBI chose to arrest him then vice letting him continue on (in the hope of uncovering his co-conspirators) due to the significance and validity of the dirty bomb threat. Imagine if the FBI had let Padilla continue on under surveillance and then lost him. A short time later a dirty bomb is detonated in downtown Chicago. No need to say anymore. The FBI made the right choice.
The above is an attempt to show how the war in Iraq has aided us in uncovering the transnational terrorist network. Believe me, we have had successes. To publish them would be dangerous. When you have figured out the enemy, the last thing you want to do is let them know how you have figured them out.
My second point...
Some jihadis are going to make it to their destination. In this example, we will say the destination is Iraq. Now, they have arrived to fight jihad in defense of Islam. They are willing to die, purposely, for this fight (think homicide bomber). They are not bound by any rules: no Geneva Convention, no Law of Land Warfare. They are free to do whatever they want in this fight because Allah supposedly allows this in their (and I emphasis "their") version of Islam. The warfare they wage is unrestricted, violent, and horrific. They kill any and all in their way without discriminating between innnocent civilians and professional soldiers.
The force America and its coalition have to fight this kind of enemy is obviously the military. We are allowed to use the military because the fight is outside of our borders (the Posse Comitatus act of 1878 does not allow, except under a declaration of martial law, the US military to act offensively within the borders of the US unless approved by law), the UN gave America permission (though this was not necessarily needed) and because our lawmakers gave the President their approval (though it was not required).
It is important to note here that the US military is superbly equipped to fight wars. Law enforcement is not. So if we had to fight the jihadis inside our own border (i.e. they came here en masse to fight us) we could not use our military due to posse comitatus unless martial law was declared. We would have to use law enforcement. Law enforcement units are bound by stricter rules of engagement and lack some of the requisite skills and equipment needed to fight the jihadis effectively.
So to bring this point full circle, we fight them in Iraq for numerous advantages that we do not have if we must fight them here. I understand how this effects the Iraqi people. To be Machiavellian for a minute, this war must be waged and it must be won. To state the obvious, fighting them in the streets of Baghdad is much safer for millions of Americans than fighting them in the streets of NYC, Dallas, LA, San Francisco, etc. (as 9/11 proved). We can use our military, which is trained and equipped to fight wars, rather than trying to use a law enforcement capability hamstrung by an American legal system not built to deal with warfare. Additionally, due to legal restrictions that would need to be changed by Congress, we could not bring the massive capability of our intelligences services to the fight here in America.
I hope these points are clear. I believe this is a realistic, fair and legal justification for the war in Iraq. Anyone who does not believe that we are at war with an Islamic fundamentalist enemy dedicated to the destruction of this country, and have been since the Iran hostage crisis in 1979, must have their head in the sand (think the bomding of the American embassy in Beirut...twice, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, the first World Trade Center attacks, the bombing of our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, the bombing of the military barracks, Khobar Towers, in Dharhan, Saudi Arabia, the USS Cole in Aden, and finally 9/11). It is my fear that individuals who deny this fact will not be woken up to its veracity until a jihadi executed nuclear detonation happens on the soil of this country...and unfortunately, I believe that to be just a matter of time.
My first point...
If one looks at the modern history of middle east conflict fought under the guise of "jihad" (Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, Chechnya, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict just to name an important few) there is one undeniable fact: when an Islamic nation or a Muslim people are "under attack” the call for jihad is made by radical Islamist leaders like our pal Usama bin Laden (UBL). What does this do? It causes the sleeping cells of radical Islamic fundamentalists to awake and move. They come from Indonesia, Malaysia, Germany, Britain, Turkey, North Africa, central Asia, from within the Middle East, wherever they are. Money begins to flow from Swiss, Cayman, Cypriot or Dubai bank accounts to fund the fight. Global arms dealers hawk their wares aggressively. To make all of this infrastructure flow, the Islamic fundamentalist networks must talk, on sat phones, via e-mail, face to face.
How does this help us? Our intelligence network, in concert with intelligence networks of other countries, is unparalled. We have extraordinary abilities to monitor every thing I just mentioned. Now, our intelligence, military, and diplomatic agencies break the world up into regions. Subject matter experts are assigned to each region. They live and breathe what happens in their particular area of responsibility. They are intimately familiar, due to our intelligence collection capabilities and the daily reports that are generated from them, with what is going on in their particular area. They know the financial networks, the names of arms dealers, the radical Islamic cells, operating in their area (Do we know it all? Of course not, but we know a lot.). And of course, we have these targets (a bank account, a sleeper cell, an arms dealer, etc) under some kind of surveillance. Some type of intelligence collection asset has been placed against what we have deemed high value targets in a particular area. When the call for jihad is made by UBL, there is movement in all of these areas. Our sensors pick up that movement and we begin to track it. All of this paints a picture of the Islamic fundamentalist terror network. It is like a big jigsaw puzzle. The intelligence is just the pieces. Those pieces must be fused together based on other global intelligence pictures to paint as accurate a picture as possible. Is it always a correct picture? No, but trust me...it is pretty damn good.
We are able to do all of this because we invaded a country, Iraq, in the heart of the Middle East that many Arabs look at as a proud pillar of Arab civilization and the birthplace of modern civilization. And they do not like it...so individuals like UBL call for jihad and everything I just explained above begins to happen.
When all of this happens, the enemy (that is the terrorists, not us, for some of you crazy conspiracy theorists out there who might be reading this) must expose himself. He must leave his country to go fight jihad. To do this he must fly, or get on a boat, or whatever. He must leave the relative safety of a big, messy city like Karachi, for example. He will need money, so money is withdrawn from accounts (ones that we are monitoring hopefully) to buy weapons from dealers (again, ones that we are monitoring or who are working for us). Through this exposure, all facets of the infrastructure make itself vulnerable to our attack and/or montioring. We may chose to monitor and track in hopes that this might lead us to something or someone bigger. Or we may chose to attack and interrupt the movement for whatever reason.
Jose Padilla, the alledged "dirty bomber", is a good example. He was monitored here and overseas. He was arrested upon arrival of an international flight from Zurich into Chicago. The FBI chose to arrest him then vice letting him continue on (in the hope of uncovering his co-conspirators) due to the significance and validity of the dirty bomb threat. Imagine if the FBI had let Padilla continue on under surveillance and then lost him. A short time later a dirty bomb is detonated in downtown Chicago. No need to say anymore. The FBI made the right choice.
The above is an attempt to show how the war in Iraq has aided us in uncovering the transnational terrorist network. Believe me, we have had successes. To publish them would be dangerous. When you have figured out the enemy, the last thing you want to do is let them know how you have figured them out.
My second point...
Some jihadis are going to make it to their destination. In this example, we will say the destination is Iraq. Now, they have arrived to fight jihad in defense of Islam. They are willing to die, purposely, for this fight (think homicide bomber). They are not bound by any rules: no Geneva Convention, no Law of Land Warfare. They are free to do whatever they want in this fight because Allah supposedly allows this in their (and I emphasis "their") version of Islam. The warfare they wage is unrestricted, violent, and horrific. They kill any and all in their way without discriminating between innnocent civilians and professional soldiers.
The force America and its coalition have to fight this kind of enemy is obviously the military. We are allowed to use the military because the fight is outside of our borders (the Posse Comitatus act of 1878 does not allow, except under a declaration of martial law, the US military to act offensively within the borders of the US unless approved by law), the UN gave America permission (though this was not necessarily needed) and because our lawmakers gave the President their approval (though it was not required).
It is important to note here that the US military is superbly equipped to fight wars. Law enforcement is not. So if we had to fight the jihadis inside our own border (i.e. they came here en masse to fight us) we could not use our military due to posse comitatus unless martial law was declared. We would have to use law enforcement. Law enforcement units are bound by stricter rules of engagement and lack some of the requisite skills and equipment needed to fight the jihadis effectively.
So to bring this point full circle, we fight them in Iraq for numerous advantages that we do not have if we must fight them here. I understand how this effects the Iraqi people. To be Machiavellian for a minute, this war must be waged and it must be won. To state the obvious, fighting them in the streets of Baghdad is much safer for millions of Americans than fighting them in the streets of NYC, Dallas, LA, San Francisco, etc. (as 9/11 proved). We can use our military, which is trained and equipped to fight wars, rather than trying to use a law enforcement capability hamstrung by an American legal system not built to deal with warfare. Additionally, due to legal restrictions that would need to be changed by Congress, we could not bring the massive capability of our intelligences services to the fight here in America.
I hope these points are clear. I believe this is a realistic, fair and legal justification for the war in Iraq. Anyone who does not believe that we are at war with an Islamic fundamentalist enemy dedicated to the destruction of this country, and have been since the Iran hostage crisis in 1979, must have their head in the sand (think the bomding of the American embassy in Beirut...twice, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, the first World Trade Center attacks, the bombing of our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, the bombing of the military barracks, Khobar Towers, in Dharhan, Saudi Arabia, the USS Cole in Aden, and finally 9/11). It is my fear that individuals who deny this fact will not be woken up to its veracity until a jihadi executed nuclear detonation happens on the soil of this country...and unfortunately, I believe that to be just a matter of time.
Monday, January 16, 2006
India...Anecdotally
I was having lunch at a very traditional Indian restaurant with a friend in Delhi one afternoon. We did not finish all our food so asked for it to be packed up for us.
(Just an aside...this is a very American thing to do. No one else in the world packs up uneaten food and takes it home. Most places look at this as very rude behavior.)
We walked out of the restaurant and was immediately confronted by a young woman carrying an infant. She held out her hand and said "please", in English, over and over again. I handed her the bag of food (this is why we had it packed up in the first place, to give it away).
Then she did something that I completely did not expect. She opened it, took a look inside, rummaged quickly through it, found nothing she wanted and threw it down on the ground. She turned and looked at me, held out her hand again, and with anger in her voice, shouted "MONEY!" at us over and over again.
I shook my head and walked away in disgust...
(Just an aside...this is a very American thing to do. No one else in the world packs up uneaten food and takes it home. Most places look at this as very rude behavior.)
We walked out of the restaurant and was immediately confronted by a young woman carrying an infant. She held out her hand and said "please", in English, over and over again. I handed her the bag of food (this is why we had it packed up in the first place, to give it away).
Then she did something that I completely did not expect. She opened it, took a look inside, rummaged quickly through it, found nothing she wanted and threw it down on the ground. She turned and looked at me, held out her hand again, and with anger in her voice, shouted "MONEY!" at us over and over again.
I shook my head and walked away in disgust...
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Go to India
Begging Kids - Haridwar, India, November 2001 Copyright Protected
I photographed these kids in a Haridwar bazaar on my way north from Delhi to Rishikesh. They were a cheerful, persistent crew who were amazed by my digital camera.
Haridwar is just south of Rishikesh in the foothills of the Himalaya. A narrow, trash infested road goes northeast through Haridwar and on into Rishikesh, a village on the Ganges known for its numerous yoga ashrams and spiritual healing powers.
I have been to India on several occasions over the past 5 years. Every time I go, I am always stunned by the vast scope of the poverty in that country. The poverty is brutal and prevalent.
Every American should go to India. They should go to see the poverty, see the overt contempt one caste holds for another, see the dead bodies of the homeless lying on the side of the street covered by swarming black flies. You never look at the world the same again. And you realize how signifiancant what we have in America is. You appreciate it. So when I see some idealogue from the left or the right begin to spew hate and disconent about this country, I cannot help but laugh at their ridiculousness.
I have only one thing to say...
Go to India. You will never be the same.
On Blogging and Narcissism...
Every now and then, I scroll through the blogs on this website. There are blogs on music, travel, child adoption, relationships, politics, etc. Every conceivable topic is there. This "blog surfing" (or "blog whoring" as I have seen it called) provides a fascinating insight into the human condition, into the scope of what people believe is important in their lives. (I base this last statement on the premise that people would not spend the requisite time and effort to blog unless the topic of the blog is of some significance in their life.)
Blogging is a very narcissistic endeavor. Many blogs are like mine: people pontificating on what they feel is important in their life and in the world. Others blog to selfishly express a side of themselves that they prefer to keep hidden from the rest of the world behind a pseudonym. They use it to express views they cannot express in public for fear of persecution or ridicule.
Then there are the hate-mongers, those who use our precious right to freedom of speech to spread discord (I am trying to be polite here). These individuals are the most narcissistic of all. They use the blog to satiate some perverse need for power over others through self-righteous indignation or parochial proselytizing. (I find the amount of seriousness with which some of these individuals take themselves to be quite humorous.)
It is kind of like the guy in the restaurant who, all week, has had to put up with being told what to do by some jackass boss and decides that to prove they are a man again (after being defanged all week by said jackass boss) they must treat the server or bartender or hostess like their boss treats them: like shit. Everyone knows these kind of people. These are the assholes at the airline check-in counter who demand an upgrade just because...the same kind of people who talk on their cell phone as loud as they possibly can in the checkout line at the grocery store...the same kind of people who bring their unruly kids into a restaurant and justify their refusal to stop them from running around the place by saying things like "Oh, they are just being children..."
I envision these kind of people sitting at their desk, pounding out the words of their blog on the keys of their computer with a pent-up intensity derived from having to be a kowtowing pussy at work all week and, when finished, standup and in a fit of self-righteous satisfaction, punch the air above them and shout "Yeah! I told you motherfucker!".
What idiots...
I am dissolving into a rant (something I despise) so I will conclude rather quickly.
I guess this kind of behavior in a blog can be excused in that it some how allows them to safely vent and keeps them from going out and shooting their boss or beating their wife and kids...
But it certainly does not stop me from wanting to beat the shit out of them...
(Stand up...Punch the air..."I told you motherfucker!")
Blogging is a very narcissistic endeavor. Many blogs are like mine: people pontificating on what they feel is important in their life and in the world. Others blog to selfishly express a side of themselves that they prefer to keep hidden from the rest of the world behind a pseudonym. They use it to express views they cannot express in public for fear of persecution or ridicule.
Then there are the hate-mongers, those who use our precious right to freedom of speech to spread discord (I am trying to be polite here). These individuals are the most narcissistic of all. They use the blog to satiate some perverse need for power over others through self-righteous indignation or parochial proselytizing. (I find the amount of seriousness with which some of these individuals take themselves to be quite humorous.)
It is kind of like the guy in the restaurant who, all week, has had to put up with being told what to do by some jackass boss and decides that to prove they are a man again (after being defanged all week by said jackass boss) they must treat the server or bartender or hostess like their boss treats them: like shit. Everyone knows these kind of people. These are the assholes at the airline check-in counter who demand an upgrade just because...the same kind of people who talk on their cell phone as loud as they possibly can in the checkout line at the grocery store...the same kind of people who bring their unruly kids into a restaurant and justify their refusal to stop them from running around the place by saying things like "Oh, they are just being children..."
I envision these kind of people sitting at their desk, pounding out the words of their blog on the keys of their computer with a pent-up intensity derived from having to be a kowtowing pussy at work all week and, when finished, standup and in a fit of self-righteous satisfaction, punch the air above them and shout "Yeah! I told you motherfucker!".
What idiots...
I am dissolving into a rant (something I despise) so I will conclude rather quickly.
I guess this kind of behavior in a blog can be excused in that it some how allows them to safely vent and keeps them from going out and shooting their boss or beating their wife and kids...
But it certainly does not stop me from wanting to beat the shit out of them...
(Stand up...Punch the air..."I told you motherfucker!")
A Brief Rant...
I usually do not give myself over to the intoxicating intensity of a self-righteous rant, but I right now I just can't help myself...
I am absolutely sick of uninformed individuals making irrational arguments with complete disregard for the known facts...
I am tired of individuals trying to deny the veracity of the facts through their own personal "spin"...
And I am stupefyingly bored with political hate mongering on both sides...
There...it is out. Nothing earth shattering, but I dare say, many do not recognize the damage to democracy the above can have. Fascism is the eventual result if the above actions go unchecked.
I understand that democracy promotes and even underwrites this kind of free speech behavior, but that certainly does not make it right. With democracy and freedom comes personal responsibility. We have seemed to have forgotten that the excercise of freedom through the principles of democracy is predicated on a certain kind of social civility which we try and institutionalize in the form of law. That we will not yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for example.
Absolute freedom is anarchy. And believe it or not, democracy cannot express itself to the benefit of the people in a state of anarchy.
I am absolutely sick of uninformed individuals making irrational arguments with complete disregard for the known facts...
I am tired of individuals trying to deny the veracity of the facts through their own personal "spin"...
And I am stupefyingly bored with political hate mongering on both sides...
There...it is out. Nothing earth shattering, but I dare say, many do not recognize the damage to democracy the above can have. Fascism is the eventual result if the above actions go unchecked.
I understand that democracy promotes and even underwrites this kind of free speech behavior, but that certainly does not make it right. With democracy and freedom comes personal responsibility. We have seemed to have forgotten that the excercise of freedom through the principles of democracy is predicated on a certain kind of social civility which we try and institutionalize in the form of law. That we will not yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for example.
Absolute freedom is anarchy. And believe it or not, democracy cannot express itself to the benefit of the people in a state of anarchy.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
The Immense Stupidity of Harry Belafonte
It is always somewhat painful, and quite frankly embarrassing, to watch wealthy Bel Aire celebrities make comments such as those made by Harry Belafonte on his recent visit to Venezuela:
"No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we're here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people ... support your revolution." (Yahoo News)
I seriously doubt Belafonte, the son of Jamaican immigrants, would have been able to succeed in his chosen profession of entertainment (and be able to afford a very large Bel Aire residence) under a political system based on the philosophy of one Hugo Chavez.
Having been to numerous countries where the government sponsors terrorism (Syria and the Palestenian territories under Yasser Arafat, for example) or where terrorism is a way of life (Israel, Pakistan, the tribal areas of Waziristan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, China all of which I have been to), I can assure you that we do not live in a terrorist state or under a terrorist dictator. I can understand dislike for the President and his policies. But base your criticisms on facts and reasoned analysis, not hate and ridiculous analogies. (I am about as apolitical as they come in today's divisive poltical environment, but I have to say that this kind of absurdity is doing nothing but demeaning the Democrats' cause.)
The lack of civil rights in Syria, Sudan, China, or Zimbabwe (just to name a few) stands in stark contrast to the abundance thereof in the United States. Maybe Harry Belafonte should leave the shelter of his money and his status, go walk the streets of Damascus and prostelityze his political philophy. Maybe then he would understand the immense stupidity of his view from the cell of a Syrian political prison.
Everyone in this country is entitled to their opinion. But if one is going to express it on the world stage, I suggest one apply some due diligence and vet that opinion for such things as hyperbole, hypocrisy, and idiocy.
"No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we're here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people ... support your revolution." (Yahoo News)
I seriously doubt Belafonte, the son of Jamaican immigrants, would have been able to succeed in his chosen profession of entertainment (and be able to afford a very large Bel Aire residence) under a political system based on the philosophy of one Hugo Chavez.
Having been to numerous countries where the government sponsors terrorism (Syria and the Palestenian territories under Yasser Arafat, for example) or where terrorism is a way of life (Israel, Pakistan, the tribal areas of Waziristan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, China all of which I have been to), I can assure you that we do not live in a terrorist state or under a terrorist dictator. I can understand dislike for the President and his policies. But base your criticisms on facts and reasoned analysis, not hate and ridiculous analogies. (I am about as apolitical as they come in today's divisive poltical environment, but I have to say that this kind of absurdity is doing nothing but demeaning the Democrats' cause.)
The lack of civil rights in Syria, Sudan, China, or Zimbabwe (just to name a few) stands in stark contrast to the abundance thereof in the United States. Maybe Harry Belafonte should leave the shelter of his money and his status, go walk the streets of Damascus and prostelityze his political philophy. Maybe then he would understand the immense stupidity of his view from the cell of a Syrian political prison.
Everyone in this country is entitled to their opinion. But if one is going to express it on the world stage, I suggest one apply some due diligence and vet that opinion for such things as hyperbole, hypocrisy, and idiocy.
Remember Chappaquiddick...
In light of the esteemed Massachusetts Senator's truly appalling behavior in the questioning of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's character with regard to his alleged membership in the controversial organization the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, I just wanted to remind every one that people in glass houses should not throw stones.
The below text (pulled from Wikipedia) describes what happened at Chappaquiddick in as impartial a way as I could find....
On July 18, 1969, after a party on Chappaquiddick Island near the island of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, Kennedy drove away with Mary Jo Kopechne as a passenger in his 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88. According to Kennedy, he made a wrong turn onto an unlit road that led to Dike Bridge (also spelled Dyke Bridge), a wooden bridge that was angled obliquely to the road, and drove over its side, which had no guardrail. The car plunged into tide-swept Poucha Pond (at that location a channel) and landed upside down under the water. Kopechne died. According to the medical examiner, she had drowned. Kennedy claims he tried several times to swim down to reach her, then rested on the bank for several minutes before returning on foot to the Lawrence Cottage, where the party attended by Kopechne and other "boiler room girls" had occurred.
Joseph Gargan (Kennedy's cousin) and party co-host Paul Markham then returned to the pond with Kennedy to try to rescue Kopechne. Though there was a telephone at the Lawrence Cottage, nobody called for help. When their efforts to rescue Kopechne failed, Kennedy decided to return to his hotel on the mainland. As the ferry had shut down for the night, Kennedy swam the short distance back to Edgartown.
Some people question his description of his escape from the car, because of his reported back troubles caused by a 1964 airplane accident, and his claim to have been injured when the car went off the bridge.
Kennedy discussed the accident with several people, including his lawyer, before he was contacted by the police.
The next morning (July 19, 1969), a science teacher and a 15 year-old boy discovered Kennedy's car. Police Chief Dominick Arena called Kennedy from the house nearest the bridge. Kennedy was given the news that his mother's car had been involved in a fatal accident. Kopechne's body was discovered by diver John Farrar, who observed that a large amount of air was released from the car when it was righted in the water, and that the trunk, when opened, was remarkably dry. These observations and others have led some to believe that Kopechne had not drowned, but suffocated in an air pocket within the car.
The incident quickly blossomed into a scandal. Kennedy was criticized for driving drunk, for failing to come to Kopechne's aid, for failing to summon help, for contacting not the police but his lawyer first, and for failing to report the accident to the authorities. Because of a lack of evidence other than Kennedy's own word, allegations persist that he did not try to save Kopechne, and that he intentionally turned onto the road crossing the bridge going to the beach in order to have sex with her.
Kennedy entered a plea of guilty to a charge of leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury. He received a sentence of two months in jail, which was suspended. An Edgartown grand jury later reopened the investigation but did not return an indictment.
Kennedy's critics and political opponents question whether justice was served in this case. Rumors periodically surface of a conspiracy by Kennedy and his family to alter his driving record to obviate charges of negligent homicide, and to influence the Edgartown grand jury.
The below text (pulled from Wikipedia) describes what happened at Chappaquiddick in as impartial a way as I could find....
On July 18, 1969, after a party on Chappaquiddick Island near the island of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, Kennedy drove away with Mary Jo Kopechne as a passenger in his 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88. According to Kennedy, he made a wrong turn onto an unlit road that led to Dike Bridge (also spelled Dyke Bridge), a wooden bridge that was angled obliquely to the road, and drove over its side, which had no guardrail. The car plunged into tide-swept Poucha Pond (at that location a channel) and landed upside down under the water. Kopechne died. According to the medical examiner, she had drowned. Kennedy claims he tried several times to swim down to reach her, then rested on the bank for several minutes before returning on foot to the Lawrence Cottage, where the party attended by Kopechne and other "boiler room girls" had occurred.
Joseph Gargan (Kennedy's cousin) and party co-host Paul Markham then returned to the pond with Kennedy to try to rescue Kopechne. Though there was a telephone at the Lawrence Cottage, nobody called for help. When their efforts to rescue Kopechne failed, Kennedy decided to return to his hotel on the mainland. As the ferry had shut down for the night, Kennedy swam the short distance back to Edgartown.
Some people question his description of his escape from the car, because of his reported back troubles caused by a 1964 airplane accident, and his claim to have been injured when the car went off the bridge.
Kennedy discussed the accident with several people, including his lawyer, before he was contacted by the police.
The next morning (July 19, 1969), a science teacher and a 15 year-old boy discovered Kennedy's car. Police Chief Dominick Arena called Kennedy from the house nearest the bridge. Kennedy was given the news that his mother's car had been involved in a fatal accident. Kopechne's body was discovered by diver John Farrar, who observed that a large amount of air was released from the car when it was righted in the water, and that the trunk, when opened, was remarkably dry. These observations and others have led some to believe that Kopechne had not drowned, but suffocated in an air pocket within the car.
The incident quickly blossomed into a scandal. Kennedy was criticized for driving drunk, for failing to come to Kopechne's aid, for failing to summon help, for contacting not the police but his lawyer first, and for failing to report the accident to the authorities. Because of a lack of evidence other than Kennedy's own word, allegations persist that he did not try to save Kopechne, and that he intentionally turned onto the road crossing the bridge going to the beach in order to have sex with her.
Kennedy entered a plea of guilty to a charge of leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury. He received a sentence of two months in jail, which was suspended. An Edgartown grand jury later reopened the investigation but did not return an indictment.
Kennedy's critics and political opponents question whether justice was served in this case. Rumors periodically surface of a conspiracy by Kennedy and his family to alter his driving record to obviate charges of negligent homicide, and to influence the Edgartown grand jury.
Friday, January 06, 2006
In Response...
The following is a response to kahuna6's comments on "East Meets West"...
Unforunately there are plenty of self-professed "insert any religion here" followers. I would argue that unless they apply the tenets of whatever religion with diligence, discipline and uncorrupted intent as evidenced through their actions, then they are nothing more than hypocritical charlatans. And I would also argue that this encompasses a large percentage of any religion's adherents. (See kahuna6's column on Pat Robertson at the Kahuna International link on this site.)
I disagree on Christianity being a coherent philosophy namely because the first principle on which it is based, faith, is wholly irrational. The foundation of faith crumbles when rigorous analytical thought is brought to bear against it. If Christianity is taken as a philosophy without the requirement of faith in Jesus as the son of God (or the existence of divine miracles as you mention), then I would agree that it has some utility in mitigating the effects of the human condition. But without faith, Christianity loses it means towards its end and thus becomes impotent as a viable spiritual vehicle to end human suffering in the way in which it professes: ascendancy to heaven.
I agree with you that Buddhism is more mystical in some derivations namely Theravada and Tibetan Buddhism, but other traditions are completely devoid of mysticism like Zen Buddhism despite its pop culture reputation for the opposite. It is imperative that we not confuse the human manifestation of the religion through formal rituals and practices with the fundamental premises on which those rituals and practices are based. One is an extension of the other, but they are not the same.
I do agree with you that our desires as humans, due to our suffering, urge us to push the tenets of a religion or philosophy farther than they are meant to go in an effort to end our suffering. This leads to delusion and further suffering when those efforts do not conjure the desired effects exactly because we expect too much from those efforts. A vicious spiral develops accelerating us towards delusion and away from truth, which most people never reverse despite their best efforts in whatever religion to which they adhere.
I disagree that the cause (suffering) is the condition (the human condition). Suffering is a subset of the human condition which consists of two things: the act of suffering and the desire to end suffering. The human condition is the result of the act of suffering leading to the desire to end suffering. It is a self-perpetuating cycle. It follows that if you eliminate the cause you eliminate the condition. Buddhism's focus is the elimination of the cause (through practice of the fourth Noble Truth) thus alleviating the condition (the first three Noble Truths), a classic logical solution provided you we on the first principles as stated in the Four Noble Truths.
The Fourth Noble Truth, as the path presented in Buddhism to overcome the reality of the other three Noble Truths, is certainly up for some debate as I believe that every religion offers their own path leading to the elimination of suffering (to use the vernacular of Buddhism). This is a personal choice based on one's individual assessment criteria as to the validity of the path chosen to reach the conclusion desired. My criteria happen to be reason and truth which are not mutually exclusive. If one chooses a faith based path, I would ask "why?". I have not met one person who could provide a reasoned, persuasive answer other than "I just believe" or "I know it to be true", both of which are just silly and ultimately are given to avoid the intellectual rigour required to answer the question.
East Meets West
Buddhist philosophy is the single most coherent and logical postulation on the human condition I have yet to come across. To me, the Four Noble Truths (listed below) which form the foundation of Buddhist thought, describe two very important things: the nature of the human condition and a cure to that condition. Additionally, Buddhist philosophy is adamant that the efforts of the individual are paramount to the success of its application. This last point is in stark contrast to the many faith based religions prevalent throughout the world.
The Four Noble Truths are:
1) All life is dukkha,or suffering.
2) Suffering is caused by tanha, or desire (literally sandskrit for thirst).
3) Suffering is ended through Nibbana (Nirvana), a state of peace, free from desire.
4) The path to Nibbana is to practice the Eight-Fold Noble Path consisting of:
-right understanding
-right thought
-right speech
-right action
-right livelihood
-right effort
-right mindfulness
-right concentration.
Pretty simple stuff here. Nothing too esoteric or radical with one exception: its reliance on individual effort for results. It would seem that in our individualistic, goal driven culture, Buddhist philosophy would thrive. I will grant that scrupulously following the Eight-Fold Noble Path might not jibe with our capitalist urges, but Buddhist philosophy puts utmost emphasis on an action’s intent. It is still possible, even in our decadent culture to make a buck with good intent and therefore follow the spirit of the Eight-Fold Noble Path.
So why is Buddhism still frowned upon by most Americans (though it is steadily growing in popularity)? There is the obvious reason: the faith-based religions on which our American culture was founded promote a derisive view of other religions despite our American self-righteous Constitutional declaration of religious tolerance. But I believe there is another more human answer: cultural decadence breeds laziness.
Faith is easy. Most people do not like to think, to reason, to analyze. To do so confronts them with what they despise most: truth. Truth is the reality we all try our best to avoid by immersing ourselves in immediate distractions (booze, sex, sports, movies, etc.). Truth is painful and ugly. Delusion is much more gratifying.
Buddhism offers stark reality. It requires self-control in the face of humanistic, primal urges. It offers a discipline whose benefits from conquering the self are reaped slowly over time, a concept anathema to the American culture of decadence and immediacy.
Do not get me wrong. I am not proselytizing for Buddhism. If I am proselytizing for anything, it is truth. Delusion is dangerous. I will provide an example of why in my next post…
The Four Noble Truths are:
1) All life is dukkha,or suffering.
2) Suffering is caused by tanha, or desire (literally sandskrit for thirst).
3) Suffering is ended through Nibbana (Nirvana), a state of peace, free from desire.
4) The path to Nibbana is to practice the Eight-Fold Noble Path consisting of:
-right understanding
-right thought
-right speech
-right action
-right livelihood
-right effort
-right mindfulness
-right concentration.
Pretty simple stuff here. Nothing too esoteric or radical with one exception: its reliance on individual effort for results. It would seem that in our individualistic, goal driven culture, Buddhist philosophy would thrive. I will grant that scrupulously following the Eight-Fold Noble Path might not jibe with our capitalist urges, but Buddhist philosophy puts utmost emphasis on an action’s intent. It is still possible, even in our decadent culture to make a buck with good intent and therefore follow the spirit of the Eight-Fold Noble Path.
So why is Buddhism still frowned upon by most Americans (though it is steadily growing in popularity)? There is the obvious reason: the faith-based religions on which our American culture was founded promote a derisive view of other religions despite our American self-righteous Constitutional declaration of religious tolerance. But I believe there is another more human answer: cultural decadence breeds laziness.
Faith is easy. Most people do not like to think, to reason, to analyze. To do so confronts them with what they despise most: truth. Truth is the reality we all try our best to avoid by immersing ourselves in immediate distractions (booze, sex, sports, movies, etc.). Truth is painful and ugly. Delusion is much more gratifying.
Buddhism offers stark reality. It requires self-control in the face of humanistic, primal urges. It offers a discipline whose benefits from conquering the self are reaped slowly over time, a concept anathema to the American culture of decadence and immediacy.
Do not get me wrong. I am not proselytizing for Buddhism. If I am proselytizing for anything, it is truth. Delusion is dangerous. I will provide an example of why in my next post…
Thursday, January 05, 2006
A Young Lesson
I remember the first time I felt the dizziness and harrowing nature of the metaphysical inherent in our lives. That feeling you get when you know deep down you have done something to upset the universal order of things and the way to fix the situation is worse than the initial mistake.
I was seven years old playing at a friend's house. One of my friends had a BB gun. I asked if I could shoot it. He handed it to me, and I promptly took aim at a robin that sat bathing itself in a birdbath in my friend’s yard. I shot, and the robin fell fluttering to the ground. As I approached, the robin struggled to get to its feet in an attempt to flee, its wings splayed and shaking in an unnatural way on the ground. I leaned down and looked right into the robin’s brown, twitching, terrified eye. The look I saw in that eye was one of “why…?” I recocked the BB gun, pointed it at the robin's head and pulled the trigger. The bird's eye fell still. I sat the gun down on the ground, picked up the bird, and buried it in a shallow grave under some azalea bushes.
I left for home without saying a word.
I was seven years old playing at a friend's house. One of my friends had a BB gun. I asked if I could shoot it. He handed it to me, and I promptly took aim at a robin that sat bathing itself in a birdbath in my friend’s yard. I shot, and the robin fell fluttering to the ground. As I approached, the robin struggled to get to its feet in an attempt to flee, its wings splayed and shaking in an unnatural way on the ground. I leaned down and looked right into the robin’s brown, twitching, terrified eye. The look I saw in that eye was one of “why…?” I recocked the BB gun, pointed it at the robin's head and pulled the trigger. The bird's eye fell still. I sat the gun down on the ground, picked up the bird, and buried it in a shallow grave under some azalea bushes.
I left for home without saying a word.
Machiavellian Truth
"And one should bear in mind that there is nothing more difficult to execute, nor more dubious of success, nor more dangerous to administer than to introduce a new order of things; for he who introduces it has all those who profit from the old order as his enemies, and he has only lukewarm allies in all those who might profit from the new."
-Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
-Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
On the Muslim World...Anecdotally
I was in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia a few years ago and stopped into a western style convenience store to grab a bottle of water. Sitting on the ground just to the side of the door was a woman in a filthy, black abaya holding an 18 month old child. As I walked by she softly held her cupped hands out towards me, looked away from my eyes, and quietly said, "Min fadilak…" Arabic for please. I reached into my pocket and handed her 20 Saudi Riyals, about five US dollars. She took the money and with a hint of relief in her voice she said "Shukhran…" Thank you. Inside the store I asked my Somali driver why she would be destitute and begging, an activity you typically do not see on the streets of Saudi Arabia. He postulated that she had had the child out of wedlock, was now shunned from her family, and forced to beg on the streets. “She could have been killed,” he quickly added as if her life had luckily been spared. As we exited the store, I saw two men dressed in the traditional Saudi dish dash and kefeyah standing over the women beating her with a long black cane. I was immediately shocked and then immediately angry. I moved to intervene, and my driver grabbed my arm. “Mutawah,” he said, the Saudi religious police. He pulled me away quickly to our car. As I looked back, the two mutawah stood staring at me with a level of contempt hard to describe. “She should not have taken your money," my driver said quietly. "Good Muslims do not accept charity from infidels.”
Welcome...
My premise for this weblog rests on the idea that a worldview acquired through cultural experience, relentless observation, and scrupulous analysis is invaluable in getting to the truth in this world. I believe limiting one's view physically limits one's view intellectually. Experience enlightens, enriches, and educates in ways the church or the classroom could only dream of.
The topics included in this weblog will be diverse. But all my observations are grounded in one thing...the philosophy of experience. There is no substitute for the confirmation or denial of theoretical notions than the cold light of day.
I look forward to your posts...
The topics included in this weblog will be diverse. But all my observations are grounded in one thing...the philosophy of experience. There is no substitute for the confirmation or denial of theoretical notions than the cold light of day.
I look forward to your posts...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)