DARTH CHENEY ON SUPPORTING THE TROOPS

"They're not supporting the troops. They're undermining them," is how Darth "Buckshot" Cheney referred to the House of Representatives. And, oh yes, let's not forget that these truly unpatriotic SOB's are "sending a message to terrorists that America will retreat in the face danger."

Oh give me a frickin break!! I'm beginning to believe that ol' Darth actually had The Big One a couple of years ago, and this dark-side apparition we see on the TV is really a robot who has been programmed with about three repetitive statements. Does anyone actually believe anything this old fart says? OK, yes, there must be some believers, those who take their daily dose of koolaid.

Darth, listen to me - it's time to retire. You've done enough damage to the world to last a lifetime. You have so totally screwed things up that the world will never be the same. Step down Darth - others are standing up, and you can stand down - NOW!

THE NUKALER CLUB: MEMBERS ONLY

The small article on page A-11 of The Oregonian today is about an announcement by the U.S. Energy Department for a new contract to develop a new Hydrogen Bomb, intended to replace the aging warheads now in the U.S. arsenal. With all the media attention, prompted by White House press releases and statements, about the impending doom represented by North Korea and Iran developing nukaler weapons, we are left in a fog of ignorance about our own nukaler capabilities.

What does this small article tell us? Mainly it's about the competition between the three U.S. national weapons laboratories, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia, for the lead position on this contract. The contract value is "secret," but experts say it is worth billions or tens of billions of dollars. We need this new H-bomb because the old ones are, well, old and maybe unreliable; however, "critics" say that the existing stockpile is reliable and can be safely maintained for decades.

I've always had problems with the nuclear nations (the Nukaler Club) telling everyone else that they can't become members because, well, nukes are bad. It's OK for the club members to have nukes, and I guess to also build new ones, but any other nation that moves in that direction is being evil.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not proposing that any and every nation should have nukes; quite the opposite, I don't think any nation should have nukes - they're bad. We've certainly gotten beyond the idea of nuclear deterrence within the Nukaler Club - it's inconceivable that any of the Club members would use nukes against another member because of the realities of nuclear warfare. And nukes aren't very useful against terrorist cells.

Imagine, if you can, being a North Korean or an Iranian. You've been named by an American President part of the "Axis of Evil" and one of the three countries in that Axis has been invaded, occupied, and basically destroyed by the American cowboy President. He's rattled his swords in your direction, moved warships into your neighborhood, used veiled threats of military action against you. So maybe your only defense, so you think, is the threat of nuclear deterrence - that just might be logical thinking. And, oh yeah, by the way, the US is also developing a new H-bomb.

The above is not to condone the actions of North Korea and Iran, and the actions of those countries are certainly much more complicated than this simplistic imagining. But why is it OK for a few nations to have The Bomb and tell everyone else they can't because it's too dangerous?

WANTED/NEEDED: A LEADER FOR A NEW WORLD

In case you haven't noticed, the world is different now. Nothing is, or ever will be, the same as it was before. Human actions have changed the earth's climate, terrorism has changed geopolitics, the Internet has changed communication and commerce, economic globalization has changed the boundaries between state and corporation, international transportation has changed the dispersal patterns of disease. These new realities are difficult to understand and accept, but we need to put aside our old ways, and adopt (and adapt to) new ways.

Old style leaders using old ways of thinking aren't what we need. Their time is over; their ideas and methods don't work anymore and are actually doing more harm than good. We know this; it's in the news every morning, it's the topic of our conversations every day.

Who will our new leaders be? Who actually understands the new realities of the world? Who can articulate the new realities in ways that help us understand and accept them? Who has the ability to translate this awareness into new paradigms for moving ahead and thriving in a new world?

In the USA we already have a number of announced candidates for President (even though the election is almost 2 years away!). I look at this field of politicians and see mostly people who are part of the old way, and by their statements and positions let me know that they can only think in that old mind set. Those who are closest to my particular politics say things that sound good, use the right buzz words and phrases, and identify the right issues, but it really all sounds the same, and I've heard it all before. I'm actually hoping that Senator Obama, because of his age and not-yet-solidified connections to the old politics, might be the candidate who breaks away from the old paradigms and presents us with a new set for a different world.

I honestly don't have a lot of hope that things will change in this world the way I know they need to change. This lack of hope is based on experience - after all, U.S. voters elected George W. Bush not once, but twice! Elections aren't based on reality, they're based on hype and spin, and who does it best. I hope someone surprises me this time around.

ARE U.S. VOTERS READY FOR A WOMAN OR BLACK (or fill in the blank) PRESIDENT?

Unfortunately, the fact that this question is asked means that we're not ready. If this is truly a democracy, why does it matter what gender, color, religion, etc. a candidate is? I wonder if this would even be a question if the media didn't keep hyping it. Perhaps we need to get beyond gender and color and religion identity, and just talk about candidates in terms of their qualifications, experience and positions on critical issues. I look forward to the day when the news isn't that so-and-so is the first woman or black such-and-such, and the focus is on the real story.

SCROTUM

Such a great word, really, but not one that is often heard in public. But now scrotum joins the ranks of many other august terms as a rallying cry by some (not all) of the Protectors of Young Minds - school librarians.

Scrotum appears in this years Newbery Award childrens book. The NY Times tells the story, and that the 10-year old boy in the book hears someone say that his dog was bit by a rattlesnake on the scrotum (ouch!). A number of school librarians have pulled the book off the library shelves because scrotum, I guess, is a word children should not know. Is there a better word for a scotum than scrotum?

I have to say here that I like the word scrotum. It's a great word, a fun word. I imagine a scene from a movie in which Mel Gibson ( I think he has one) and a horde of blue-and-white face-painted men in skirts brandishing swords and battle axes and clubs are charging across a windy plain, holding high a banner with a curvy "W"-shaped icon, and screaming, in a Welsh or Scottish brogue "SCROTUM - SCROTUM; FOR THE HONOR OF SCROTUM." Or something like that.....

So what's the problem here? Don't all kids know the words "penis" and "vagina?" Shouldn't they? So why ignore scrotum?

One school librarian quoted by the NY Times had this to say: “I don’t want to start an issue about censorship, but you won’t find men’s genitalia in quality literature.” Well, maybe she should worry more about sticking her nose where it doesn't belong.

So I say, why pick on scrotum, it's a nice word, a fun word, a playful word - and it's a real body part, too. Don't be afraid of scrotum, use the word proudly and often, fight back against the anti-scrotumers of the world. Scrotums of the world - unite!

THE OIL INDUSTRY: PROFITS BEFORE PEOPLE

Excuse me for a moment while I go find my crying towel. The oil industry, specifically the gasoline refinery companies, are resisting U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) efforts to impose limits on benzene in gasoline, a substance harmful to human health. The refiners are crying that these proposed limits, which would become effective in 2015 or even 2030, will cost them too much money to meet. I find it difficult to sympathize with the oil industry on this one, after reading yesterday about the all-time record net income recorded by Exxon Mobil of $39.5 billion in 2006.

An article in The Oregonian today listed three refiners that met with federal officials to push for less strict rules; Tesoro, Sinclair Oil, and Giant Industries. Each of these three firms owns multiple oil refineries. Tesoro had a 2006 net income of $801 million, up about $300 million from 2005. Sinclair, a privately owned firm, had 2005 sales of $5.6 billion. Sinclair owns 3 refineries, about 2,600 gas stations in the U.S., and numerous upscale hotels and resorts. Giant Industries (love the name) had $104 million net income in 2005 from $3.6 billion revenue.

These companies are putting profits before people. The long-term health effects of benzene exposure (source: CDC) include: effects on the blood (harmful effects on bone marrow, decrease in red blood cells, excessive bleeding, immune system effects); leukemia (cancer of the blood-forming organs); possible birth defects (demonstrated in animal studies). This is particularly bad news for people in the Pacific Northwest states, where benzene in gasoline is much higher than the US national average.

The Core Values of Giant Indutries, Inc. are: "Do your best. Do what's right. Treat others the way you would like to be treated." Tesoro Corporation touts it's social responsibility, including environmental responsibility. Wouldn't it be a wonderful world indeed if these were more than words from these industrial giants. Real responsibility would be to step up and say "the health of people is more important than the magnitude of our profits." Don't hold your breath for this to happen - but do hold your breath if you live near automobile exhaust.

CONGRESSMAN BLUMENAUER: NEW DIRECTION FOR IRAQ ACT OF 2007

On January 25, we were at Portland City Hall for the press conference of Congressman Earl Blumenauer, Oregon 3rd District, about his "New Direction for Iraq Act of 2007." Explaining that, for the past six years under Republican control, congressional Democrats could not hold hearings or introduce legislation, Earl presented a summary of his proposed legislation. I'm highlighting this proposed act here because it is a lot more than a plan and timetable for withdrawal of US military forces; Earl's legislation addresses and plans for corrections of the very serious flaws in US actions in Iraq, US foreign policy in the Middle East, and war profiteering resulting from the outsourcing of the war effort. Equally important, the legislation addresses the needs of the Iraqi people for security, jobs, an end to sectarian conflict, and reconciliation. The US has broken Iraq, and Earl's proposed legislation is perhaps our best shot to help mend it.

In their last gasps of administration, the Bushies are still trying to find a way to "victory" by "surging" more US troops into Iraq, and using the same old worn out red herrings that anyone opposing this escalation is "emboldening the enemy." Nothing can embolden the enemies of peace and democracy more than the failed invasion and occupation of Iraq by the Bush Administration, and the continuation of their failed policies. Congressman Blumenauer has proposed a series of reasoned and reasonable steps for coming out of the Iraq mess with the possibility of hope for the Iraqi people, US military forces and their families, and the credibility of our country. It's about time!

Photo: Congressman Earl Blumenauer (foreground), Portland, Oregon Mayor Tom Potter (background); photo copyright: readmyopinion.blogspot.com

BRILLIANT TRANSPORTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTED BY CITY OF PORTLAND

A clever plan to solve Portland's increasing traffic congestion has been quietly implemented by the City of Portland, Oregon. Faced with a rapidly growing population (another one million people in the next 20 years) and a limited capacity to handle traffic, the new City plan makes mass transit use a more attractive option for commuters. The plan is ingenious in it's simplicity: make travel by automobile so difficult, people will flock to mass transit or other options.

Evidence of the Plan is visible everywhere in the city. Closures or lane restrictions on one or more Willamette River bridges, streets closed for construction without adequate warning or signage, detours that lead nowhere, areas of the city that seem impossible to get to from where you are. The frustration of all this makes drivers think about the bus, light rail, streetcar, bicycling, walking, and even The Tram. Brilliant!

The only possible down-side of this plan is the transit mess downtown resulting from new light rail construction. Oh well, nothing is perfect.

OUR COMMON HERITAGE; ALAS, POOR YORICK

It is fitting, on the U.S. holiday Martin Luther King Jr. Day, to contemplate the condition of our world in terms of human relations. There is so much hatred of "the other" that one has to wonder if humanity can survive.

A small science item in the local newspaper truly enlightens the discussion: "Fossil skull offers proof modern humans migrated out of Africa." A team of scientists has concluded that a skull of modern humans (the species Homo sapiens) found about 50 years ago in South Africa closely resembles those of humans in Europe, far-eastern Asia and Australia from the same time period, about 36,000 years ago. This finding corroborates archaeological and genetic evidence by providing a crucial fossil link for the period of 70,000 to 15,000 years ago.

This additional support for the conclusion that modern humans originated in sub-Saharan Africa and migrated to Europe and Asia is meaningful for all people on Earth today: we are all related, and our common ancestors were Africans.

Alas poor Yorick, I knew him, Horatio!

THE BUSH IRAQ STRATIGERY

President Bush's speech the other night seems to have been about as convincing as Richard Nixon's statement "I'm not a crook." The way I interpret Bush's bold "new way forward" is that the U.S. will rely on the Iraqi government to provide the security it has never been able to provide. Great plan, George!

I have three key questions that Congress needs to ask, and that President Bush needs to answer, before this new plan is supported:

1. What do the Iraqi people want? I think the Iraqi people should decide whether or not they want an escalation (no Condi, it is not an "enhancement") of the U.S. occupation of their country. Iraq is, after all, a democracy, isn't it?

WPO Report dated January 13, 2007. A new poll of the Iraqi public finds that a large majority of Iraqis think the US plans to maintain bases in Iraq permanently, even if the newly elected government asks the US to leave. A large majority favors setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces, though this majority divides over whether the timeline should be over a period of six months or two years. Nearly half of Iraqis approve of attacks on US-led forces—including nine out of 10 Sunnis. Most Iraqis believe that many aspects of their lives will improve once the US-led forces leave, but are nonetheless uncertain that Iraqi security forces are ready to stand on their own.

CNN Report dated September 27, 2006. Seventy-one percent of Iraqis responding to a new survey favor a commitment by U.S.-led forces in Iraq to withdraw in a year.

2. How do you define "victory." President Bush and his apologists insist that the U.S. must have a victory, and that a defeat would be a disaster. But has anyone defined what a victory is, and how we'll know when we have one?

The definition of a victory should be based on achieving the goals of the invasion and occupation. Now, this has been a moving target since the beginning, but this is what I remember:

Mission 1: find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. Well, we looked, and there weren't any, so that mission was accomplished, and that equals victory.

Mission 2 (stated when Mission 1 didn't pan out): depose the evil dictator Saddam Hussein. He was deposed, he was tried, he was hanged. Mission accomplished, and that's a victory.

Mission 3: create a democratic government in Iraq. Well, the Iraqi's wrote a constitution, they had democratic elections, they have a democratically elected government. Mission accomplished, another victory (wow, three for three!!).

So what's the problem here? Come on guys, if fact isn't good enough, certainly Carl Rove can spin it so everyone is convinced that victory is ours!

And by the way, Bush's rhetoric about "winning the war on terror" is a red herring in this conversation. If he wanted to win the so called "war on terror" he should not have established the world's largest terrorist training camp - Iraq - in the first place. Show me the analysis that says Iraq is the key to world terrorism. This is more of the Bush-Cheney scare tactics.

3. What's the price tag for this "surge?" Why would any American buy an expanded occupation in Iraq without first knowing the cost? The Iraq War is not a budget item in The Decider's budget - I have no idea how it's paid for (but I bet my grandkids will find out). A government agency recently published their calculation that this misadventure is costing two billion dollars per week ($2,000,000,000). That's one hundred four billion dollars per year ($104,000,000,000). Who approved that kind of expenditure? Congress needs to get ahold of the purse strings and cut of this irresponsible little boy's allowance, unless he can really justify why American taxpayer money should be spent like this. Talk about fiscal irresponsibility!

So, let's review: the Iraqi people don't seem to want us there, victory has already been achieved at least three times, and this occupation is costing us a fortune, using money that could be doing a lot of good right here at home. And the President wants us to commit more troops (with many more injuries and deaths), many more billions of dollars, and further destroy the reputation of the United States in the eyes of the world.

I would say it's a no brainer.

BYE BYE 2006 - BUY BUY 2007

Another year down the tubes, another year beginning. While I tend to focus on the negative, I am also hopeful that the coming year has the potential to see many positive things happen in the world. I only wish that we in the U.S. of A. had some real leadership.

Our dear President Bush has been talking about "a new way forward." This phrase should actually be in caps because it is his latest slogan (the man loves slogans). The world is anxiously awaiting his message about The New Way Forward in Iraq - I'm not holding my breath.

But Bush gave us a hint of what he's thinking at a recent press conference (might have been December 20th). Here are his words:

As we work with Congress in the coming year to chart a new course in Iraq and strengthen our military to meet the challenges of the 21st century, we must also work together to achieve important goals for the American people here at home. This work begins with keeping our economy growing. … And I encourage you all to go shopping more.

You all certainly remember that this was also his advice to us following the September 11 attacks. Go shopping! The Bush M.O. is very clear - spend, spend, spend. "Strengthen our military" in the above statement translates to "we're going to spend a lot more money on the military" - the cost of the Iraq war is now at $2 billion per week (see footnote). "Meet the challenges of the 21st century" means figuring out new ways for consumers to spend more so Bush's supporters (puppet masters?) can reap even larger obscene profits than they already are (have you read about the record CEO compensation packages in 2006?).

The implications of the Bush "go shopping/spend" policy are very far-reaching. An excellent article by Anatol Lieven discusses the relationship between global warming and western free-market democracy - an important read. A previous post of mine discussed the relationship between American consumerism and global air pollution from China. So don't be fooled by G.W. Bush's down-home folksiness - this is bad shit, and generations to come in the USA and around the globe will be paying for it!

Bye bye '06 - buy buy '07!


Footnote: The number $2 billion is difficult to grasp. Think of it this way - if you are fortunate enough to make a salary of $100,000 per year, it would only take you 20,000 years to earn $2 billion.

REPORT TO GRAND COUNCIL OF SCIENCE FROM INVESTIGATOR QZRKSTYNLPTYR

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM OF INVESTIGATION
TO: Grand Council of Science
FROM: Investigator Qzrkstynlptyr (8i4412121212zpq)
SUBJECT: Investigation of Planet Blue Liquid (S+3): Preliminary Life Form Observations

Council Members:
I respectfully submit this report as per my investigative assignment under the Inter-Planetary Scientific Survey Protocols of 0695534, Section a666, Sub-x. Since my recent arrival on the Planet Blue Liquid 14 parmuns ago, I have spent considerable time conducting non-contact, non-visible observations to determine which life forms are dominant and potentially approachable. This report summarizes my initial observations of the apparent dominant life form on this planet, which I shall refer to as Life Form D06 (LFD06).

I selected as the setting for my first contact an area known as a "park," based on my observations that the dominant life form frequents these areas regularly. Curiously, all of these creatures bring with them to the park area another life form, which I have coded as LFH8, with which they have a peculiar relationship. Each individual LFD06 in the park area is pulling one specimen of LFH8 by means of a length of material, often a synthetic or hide strap. LFD06 has a loop of material around the area between its head and trunk to which the length of strap is attached; LFH8 appears to be grasping a loop in the other end of the strap in one of its two articulated upper appendages.

I should describe here that LFD06 is a quadra-pedal life form, while LFH8 is typically bi-pedal, but has a second set of appendages with articulated endings with which it manipulates objects. LFD06 is fur-covered over the entirety of its body; LFH8 typically has scant fur except on the head, although many males of the species have much less fur even in that location.

After considerable study of these organisms, I have determined the following behavioral patterns:
1. LFD06 is dominant, and pulls LFH8 behind it, sometimes with great effort, along pathways, through shrubbery, and under trees.
2. LFD06 constantly inhales through special openings in its head as if sampling the air, particularly close to the ground and on vertical objects.
3. LFD06 stops frequently to void liquid, and occasionally to deposit solid material on the ground.
4. LFH8 uses a thin plastic membrane pouch to collect the solid material deposited by LFD06 and transports it for the remainder of the travel through and out of the park area.

My conclusions thus far concerning these behaviors are: a) LFH8 is subservient to LFD06; b) LFD06 has trained LFH8 to follow specific behavioral commands, although LFH8 sometimes exhibits resistance, particularly when being pulled by a strap; c) LFH8 values the solid material deposited on the ground by LFD06 (perhaps as food??), and collects and carries this material with it.

The next phase of my investigation will be to attempt contact with an individual LFD06. I have many questions about this life form, including its relationship with, and apparent tolerance of, the less intelligent LFH8.

Until my next report.

May your quarks flow randomly; may the nebulae align favorably; and may the interests of galactic study always be foremost in your active neurons.

Investigator Qzrkstynlptyr

THE FINEST STRUCTURE CAN HOUSE THE WORST EVIL

"The finest structure can house the worst evil." This was the message inside my fortune cookie today at our neighborhood Chinese restaurant. (I searched the internet for the origin of this saying - all I could find was a lot of other people who had the same message inside their fortune cookies also wondering who said it!) I'm a big fan of fortune cookie wisdom; I have often received sayings that had a particular relevance to my life or my thoughts. This one, received on Christmas Day, is no exception.

I've been thinking a lot lately about the capacity of human beings to perpetrate evil. A headline today about world leaders calling for peace, on Christmas Day, urged me to write about this topic. In many ways, the human animal is "the finest structure," a result of millions of years of evolution (obviously I'm not a creationist). Humans have an intellectual and creative capability that is, as far as we know, superior to any other living organisms on Earth. Part of this superiority is the ability to recognize and distinguish between "good" and "evil" (these words are in quotes because I don't want to even try to define them - I'll leave that to you). But throughout history humans have committed what can only be termed "evil" acts against other humans. A quick trip around the world today finds terrorism, genocide, occupation, torture, bigotry, humiliation, and other actions in every corner. History repeats, and we humans never seem to learn from history. Why?

On a recent "Journey of Peace" to Israel and Palestine, we met with Sari Nusseibeh, a Palestinian, philosopher, and the President of Al Quds University in East Jerusalem. I recently read one of Dr. Nusseibeh's presentations, “Identities in conflict: Masters and Slaves,” given at the International Conference of the Human Development Capability Association in Netherlands, September 2006. His discussion of human identity is very relevant to my questions about evil among humans. Dr. Nusseibeh talks about the "wide range of identity-layers, or layers which together make up or constitute an identity." In other words, each of us has multiple factors which together constitute our identity. Each individual, however, manifests an identity to those around him or her, and the choice of identity is "the degree to which one is a master or slave of one’s identity - a degree which can be taken to be at once a measure of one’s freedom, as well as a function of the propensity to prejudice-propelled conflict or violence."

It is the choice of identity that I believe is the key to understanding the manifestations of evil by humans. Dr. Nusseibeh states that "to the extent that one can make those choices one can be said to be master of one’s identity; and to the extent that one particular layer comes to dominate and in an exclusivist manner therefore to limit one’s choices one’s capability range, or freedom, is diminished, thereby reflecting the transformation of the agent from being master to being a slave of their identity." Do we as individuals consciously choose our identities, or do we allow external factors, including other people, to choose our identities for us? "Are we destined, as human beings, to be victims of our self-prejudiced identities?" Do we make excuses for our own behaviors by blaming the behaviors of others? "If we admit we have been turned into monsters only by the violent actions perpetrated by the other side, what else should we expect to find on the other side as we carry out similar actions but monsters, too."

As "the finest structure," we as humans can choose our identities; we can choose to reject evil and promote good. Humans also have the capacity to teach and learn - we are not just biologically programmed to act out the same behaviors over and over. "Being able to master sufficiently one’s identity, and to shape it, can be a powerful tool in helping shape the identities of others."

My identity as an American is seen by many in the world as the identity projected by the actions of my government, many of which I presently do not support. It is my goal, therefore, to actively choose and present an identity that is aligned with my core values and beliefs. And, while I often find it difficult to maintain a positive attitude about the world and the actions of my fellow humans (read some of my blog posts), I know that I must continue to focus my self-identity on the parts of my humanity that are "good," all the while rejecting "evil" and speaking out against it.

The finest structures can house the worst evil. But the finest structures can also house the greatest good. There are many good people on this planet, and we need to tell their stories more often as examples for hope. The choice between good and evil is ours - each of us - and I still, despite the evil rampant in the world, trust in the true goodness of humanity.

HECKUVA JOB RUMMIE!!

On December 16, 2006, President George W. Bush praised outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in a farewell ceremony. According to the President:

Don Rumsfeld has been at my side from the moment I took office. We've been through war together. We have shared some of the most challenging moments in our nation's history. Over the past six years, I have come to appreciate Don Rumsfeld's professionalism, his dedication, his strategic vision, his deep devotion to the men and women of our nation who wear the uniform, and his love for the United States of America.

Well, I suppose it would be a bit tacky for the President to actually tell the truth about Rummie, so I'll do Mr. Bush a favor and do the dirty work for him.

• Don Rumsfeld's professionalism: "Needless to say, the President is correct. Whatever it was he said." Donald Rumsfeld
• Don Rumsfeld's strategic vision: "Stuff happens. It's untidy, and freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things." Donald Rumsfeld
• more strategic vision: "The Gulf war in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months. But it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that." Donald Rumsfeld
• Don Rumsfeld's deep devotion to the men and women of our nation who wear the uniform: "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time." Donald Rumsfeld
• a combination of strategic vision (military) and devotion to our people in uniform: "We know where they (WMD) are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Donald Rumsfeld
• another combo, as above: "We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead." Donald Rumsfeld

But why stop here? How about some examples illustrating the need for a sharp mind and a keen sense of the world that makes a Secretary of Defense great?

• "If we left Iraq prematurely, the enemy would tell us to leave Afghanistan and then withdraw from the Middle East. And if we left the Middle East, they’d order us and all those who don’t share their militant ideology to leave what they call the occupied Muslim lands from Spain to the Philippines." Donald Rumsfeld
• "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know." Donald Rumsfeld

Who could have predicted the result of the appointment of Don Rumsfeld to the position of Secretary of Defense? And who can predict how the new Secretary will do?

"I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past - I think the past was not predictable when it started." Donald Rumsfeld

Heckuva job, Rummie!!

Click here for these quotes and more.

DEAR PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD

Sir: Based upon knowing your keen interest in history and the fairness of historical representation, as evidenced by your recent international conference: "Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision," I would like to invite you to a newly announced international conference: "Review of Iranian Whining: Global Historic Revisionism." This conference will examine the truth behind claims by the Iranian people about their history, and reveal many interesting, and sometimes startling, actual facts.

A recent American television propaganda piece about Iran by the Jewish journalist Ted Koppel (whose parents did not escape from Nazi Germany - this is another great lie) included numerous supposedly Iranian people reminding Mr. Koppel that in 1953 the United States had overthrown the democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran and replaced him with the Dictator, Shah Reza Khan, a puppet of the U.S. The international conference will expose this fraudulent myth for what it is - a fraudulent myth. Iran never had a democratically elected Parliament and Prime Minister; the United States did not overthrow this supposed Prime Minister and put him in jail and house arrest for the remainder of his life; and there never was a Shah Reza Khan - this is one of the Big Lies promulgated by the Iranian people, who are opposed to truth as history (they should be wiped from the map)!

Similarly, there are those among the population of Iran, and other countries I might add, who claim that there was a long war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988. These same false-witnesses to history also claim, among other lies, that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian troops, that some Iranian prisoners of war were not returned until 2003, and - the biggest fabrication of all - that the United States was complicit in its support of Saddam Hussein of Iraq. The infamous photo of the smiling Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein is obviously a photo-shopped fake!

So, Dear President Ahmadinejad, please accept this invitation to our international conference as the Keynote Speaker. Your presence will lend immeasurable legitimacy to this event as a gathering of committed individuals (or those who should be committed). Please tailor your keynote address to the following topic: "History and Truth: Ramblings of a Madman."

Thank you.

ISRAEL - PALESTINE: LIFE IN A HARSH LANDSCAPE

I've developed a habit of studying landscapes as I travel the world. By "studying" I mean not just seeing landscapes as they roll by, but sensing their realities of geology, ecology, and human use. As we've traveled through Israel and Palestine (the West Bank), I've internalized a deep sense of the harshness of the landscape. With the exception of the coastal plain of the Mediterranean Sea, most of what I've seen in those lands is a beautiful, but harsh landscape of desert and rock.

Several years ago we drove the road from Tiberius in the north, south to the Dead Sea and then west to Jerusalem. The highway generally parallels the Jordan Valley, which is seen below as a green ribbon at the boundary of Israel and Jordan. But the more immediate landscape is desert sand and rock - hot, dry and with a sense of unforgiving. We passed small towns and individual dwellings, and imagined the effort needed to scratch out a living from this land.

This year we traveled into northern Israel again, to the area between Haifa and Tiberius, where we have family in the city of Carmiel. This landscape is dominated by rock, as pictured above. As I walked through an undeveloped area on the edge of town to take pictures, even the thorny plants reminded me that this landscape can be unforgiving. The rock itself is old and weathered, appearing ancient like everything else in this land. What stories could the rock relate if I could only find its language?

People occupy landscapes, and often change them to suite their needs. Forests disappear, grasslands yield to pasture and row crops, cities grow where nature once ruled. But there is something about the landscape of Israel/Palestine that conveys the sense that nature rules here. Perhaps the harshness of civilization in this land, the seemingly endless conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians, Arabs (Muslims and Christians) and Jews, Muslims and Christians, is a reflection of the land itself.

For millenia, people have learned to live with and on the harsh landscape of these lands, to accept the land for what it is and reach an accord with it. My hope is that someday people can learn to live with each other, to reach an accord with the social and political landscape and turn its harshness into peace.

AND THE WINNER IS......MERRY CHRISTMAS!!

Yes, dear readers, it's true, Merry Christmas seems to have won "the War on Christmas." If you remember, 2005 was the year that the Christian right declared that they were doing holy battle against the evil-doers who were waging a War on Christmas. Who were these evil-doers? People like me, and many others who were simply saying "Happy Holidays" to friends and family who do not celebrate Christmas because - well gosh - they aren't Christian! Many retail businesses were also using "Happy Holidays" displays and advertising to attract consumers of all religious beliefs. And many people, myself included, objected to religious displays on public property, such as courthouse lawns.

"JUST SAY MERRY CHRISTMAS" was the rallying cry of the Christian right, and they crusaded mightily against the heathens among us who would object. Separation of church and State - bah humbug!

The 2006 holiday season is upon us - I'm sure you've noticed. And guess what? It looks like Merry Christmas is the winner. Every advertisement by Target stores for a recent major national television program was a Merry Christmas advertisement. "Merry Christmas" ads and banners have sprouted everywhere in retail land. Starbucks is once again selling their Christmas Blend, but try to find a bag of the Holiday Blend and you'll be very disappointed, even though the Starbucks staff will tell you that they're supposed to have the blue bags and labels for the same beans that are in the red bags. A very reliable source at Starbucks tells the following story: a customer asked what the diference is between the coffee in the red Christmas Blend bags and the blue Holiday Blend bags (it seems some stores have the blue bags). The Starbucks person explained that it is the same coffee, just in different bags. "Oh, I get it," replied the customer, "the blue bags are for Jewish people, and the red bags are for Americans!"

Just say "Merry Christmas."

CHINA AND GLOBAL POLLUTION: EACH OF US IS RESPONSIBLE

The Oregonian ran a front page article yesterday about huge clouds of soot and mercury drifting across the Pacific to Oregon and the rest of the United States. Major sources of this pollution are the coal-powered electrical generating plants in China. China presently has about 2,000 coal-fired plants, and has plans in place to build another 500. Impacts in Oregon of these Chinese plumes include hazy skies, increased particulate matter in our air, and increased levels of mercury in our rivers, leading to increased mercury levels in fish.

I've written previously in this blog about the basic laws of ecology, as posed in the 1970's by Dr. Barry Commoner, including "everything is connected to everything else." There are direct links between the Chinese air pollution and each Oregonian. I'm sure that like me, you've often noticed that almost everything we buy these days is made in China. Chinese manufacturers provide low cost labor, low cost materials, and an aggressive manufacturing and exporting sector based on scant government regulation regarding worker health and welfare, environmental impact (i.e. pollution), and other issues that increase the cost of goods made in the U.S.A. As a result, the Chinese economy is a raging tiger, trying to keep up with both the foreign demand for manufactured goods, and the domestic demand for modernity and a higher standard of living (in other words, the Chinese want to be like us Americans).

I pulled some data from the U.S. Bureau of Census web site about the balance of trade between China and the United States. Below is a graph of the data I pulled (sorry about the quality - I really struggled to import this as a graphic). The graph shows, for every year from 1985 until 2006, the dollar values of goods exported from the USA to China (blue line), imported from China to the USA (red line), and the trade balance, or difference between the import and export (yellow line). The vertical axis is millions of dollars, and the values shown on the axis are therefore $100 billion, $200 billion, etc.


In 1985, the US exported $3.85 billion and imported $3.86 billion in goods. By 1995, the US exported $11.7 billion and imported $45.5 billion. By 2005, the US exported $41.9 billion and imported $243.5 billion of goods from China. The trade balance (US exports to China minus US imports from China) went from minus $6 million in 1985, to minus $33.7 billion in 1995, to minus $201.5 billion in 2005, and is projected to be about minus $221.7 billion in 2006. Household and electronic goods account for a major portion of the imports from China.

Yesterday was the day after the Thanksgiving holiday in America, and is always the biggest shopping day of the year. Stores open at 5 and 6AM with big sales, and people line up to be there early. The TV news showed shoppers with carts full of big-screen televisions, video games, stereo and video equipment, and all manner of electronics and toys and household items, mostly bought on credit (US consumer credit debt is another topic). A majority of these consumer goods are probably manufactured in China.

Everything is connected to everything else. The pollution drifting through the atmosphere from China to Oregon is directly linked to the buying habits of American consumers. We want our "stuff," and we don't really think or care about where it comes from - we only want it at a low price. Unfortunately, the dollar price we pay at the store is not the true price of the item. The true price includes the ecological price tag that comes - hidden - with each item we buy.

TELLTALE SIGNS THAT WE'RE HOSED

Maybe I tend to be too cynical, but, as Lily Tomlin said: "no matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up." I know that the media tends to focus on negative news, and that good things are happening in some places; but everywhere I look there are telltale signs that human civilization is hosed. A few examples from the recent headlines:

• In 2005, 35.1 million people in the United States were "food insecure" (a government term for spinning the term "hungry"), meaning that they didn't have enough food for an active, healthy life.
  
• The number of Oregon school children who are homeless increased by 16% last year compared to the previous year, to a total of 13,159.
• Siberian bears are not hibernating, Arctic sea ice is at very low levels, Arctic sea temperatures are warmer than historically, shrubs are taking over large areas of Arctic tundra, and permafrost isn't very "perma" anymore - all signs of global warming.
  
• The Deputy Ambassador of the United Kingdom is traveling through California, Oregon and Washington looking for state and municipal partners to combat global warming. The British have given up looking to the Bush White House for leadership on this issue.
• President George W. Bush thinks that the U.S. A. can win the Iraq war if "we don't quit" like we did in Viet Nam.
  
• Genocide continues unabated in Darfur as the world watches.
• The U.S. foreign policy in relation to nations such as Iran and North Korea is to call them names, refuse to talk to them, and crank up the machines of war.
• Israel and Hamas continue to throw explosives at each other.
• And finally, people are camping on the sidewalks in front of retail stores - for days - in order to purchase the new $600 Playstation 3 video game console.

Walking around the city of Jerusalem last month reminded me that human civilizations have been around for many thousands of years. But we don't seem to learn anything from history. Why is it that humans cannot get past what seem to be the most basic and troublesome behaviors of hate, mistrust, intolerance and greed? One would think that a species that has evolved such tremendous mental capacities could find its way out of primitive thinking and destructive behaviors. But then, one would have to think!

WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IRAN?

OK, now that I've ruled out the role of god in dealing with Iran (see my previous post), does that mean people should do nothing? Certainly not. (As an aside, our Israeli cousin, after reading my letter in the Jerusalem Post, said that she agrees with me - George Bush is not god's operative who has been willed to destroy Iran - but her take is that god should bomb Iran!)

The Israeli Prime Minister yesterday chastised the world community for not being tough with Iran, and for being too slow to do so. Israel is rightly concerned about Iranian moves towards nuclearity (a term I just invented), considering: 1) Iran's announced intention to develop nuclear weapons, 2) the Iranian President's continuing declarations that the Holocaust was a fake, 3) the Iranian President's stated goals of wiping Israel off the map, and 4) the televised tests by Iran yesterday of missles capable of delivering warheads to Israel.

I'm certainly not a statesman or a diplomat, and I won't pretend to be one. I also don't think we can change the direction Iran is taking by saying "pretty please don't" or something like that. But I can't accept a military response as the first response. Israeli Prime Minister Olmert is, in my opinion, justified in criticizing the international community for moving too slowly on this threat. The world community, including the NATO countries, China and Russia, as well as many others, need to take a very strong and very vocal stand against Iran's moves towards nuclearity. Economic moves should be clearly designed to hurt Iran in the pocket book (and I don't mean by starving the Iranian people), and diplomatic moves should be designed to isolate Iran as a country moving in a dangerous direction.

But - and this is a major but - channels of communication with Iran should be kept open, and new channels developed to move towards agreement on basic principles. Unfortunately, the United States does not operate this way under Geaorge Bush. Instead, the U.S. administration uses name-calling (Axis of Evil) and threats of war to try to bully our "enemies" into submission. The foreign policy of the United States is a simple one - no policy at all, and don't talk to people we don't like. Every action gets a reaction. And the U.S. President has not made and kept friends around the world who are eager to stand with us; instead, Bush has pissed-off many governments around the world, and not built bridges of understanding and cooperation. Do I think Bush is the problem vis-a-vis Iran? No, but he has made matters worse in a very short time.

Let's not kid ourselves, Iran is a direct threat to Israel, the Middle East, and world stability. If the rest of the world diddles around too long, Iran might do something stupid, which will have very dire consequences for large numbers of people and for global relations. Maybe they want that to happen (they being the present rulers of Iran). So my message to all you world leaders who are regular readers of my blog is: do something now before it's too late.