Web 2.0... The Double-edged Sword for Peace in the Arab World

If we listen carefully, we can hear the beat of drums just beneath the great din of our technological age. The Web, being the height of humanity’s collective achievement, has become the battleground for the minds of men.
The victors shall decide whether our earth shall be ruled by fear, or reason.

The Arab world is one of the fastest growing Internet markets in the world. It is also a land dominated by religious, racial, and social fanaticism.

In all but the most advanced Arab countries; misinformation, intolerance, and war mongering permeate the social structure. Beginning with the nuclear family, to religious communities, all the way to the institutions of government; many Arabs live their lives isolated from any ideas that have run the gauntlet of comparative analysis.

Should we assume that all this misunderstanding, ignorance and blind hatred will immediately be assuaged by the ubiquitous availability of the Internet? Won’t democracy and inter-racial cooperation be the inevitable result of the limitless interpersonal communication the new web affords? Well, many people believe exactly that. While I share their belief in the supremacy of reason; I’m concerned that the grip of fundamentalism is likely to tighten before it falls limp. When these societies are empowered with this magnitude of social connectivity, it vastly increases the ability of fanatics to reach those minds that are up for grabs. To be sure, the intellectuals are also empowered, but they are also greatly outnumbered.

Even in our own marketplace, the most meritorious ideas can be lost in the cloud of noise. Consider the staggering number of conspiracy theory sites and blogs. Such sites vary in their content from the plausible to the incredible, and their audience size ranges from laughable to the phenomenal. In the cases of the more incredible among them, the relative worthlessness of the idea does not prevent the idea from reaching large numbers of people.

I suggest that the inevitable diffusion of the Internet into the Second and Third world will bring a wave of peace, but that peace will be preceded by an inescapable (albeit fleeting) dominance of fanaticism.

The majority of the third world is ruled by a predisposition for action (i.e. totalitarian efficiency) as opposed to the First world predisposition to discourse (or, if you like, sluggish bureaucracy). The difference between the loosely defined worlds will be highlighted by the power of the new web. In our world the web has streamlined our bureaucracy, allowing the existing discourse to happen at an exponentially faster rate. In the Third world, the first thing to be streamlined will be the ability of fanatics to rally support.

I predict that fanaticism will eventually fall to reason. However, we must accept that the eventual Arabian renaissance will be preceded by darker times. Waves of fanatical enterprises will attempt to artificially recreate the Arabian Golden Age. Just as in post-war Germany, Hitler tried to force the birth of the Third Reich, similar attempts to domesticate minds of men are forever destined to catastrophic failure.

The only road to wisdom is age. The only road to knowledge is education. Man can neither wish himself a sage, nor will himself a scholar. The only road to peace is arduous discourse. Mankind can only reconcile his differences on the uncompromising and level battlefield of reason.

The American Dream: Alive and Well

On June 17th 2008 CNN ran an informal poll in which they asked if the ‘American Dream’ was dead. A surprising number of people stated, and elaborated upon an opinion that it was. A number of them cited the strife of the economy and the difficulty obtaining a job. It seems as though many people believe that our society has become so economically demanding that people are no longer free to choose their own career path based on their own interests. This is a misguided position and must be reconsidered in the light of a reasonable definition of freedom and a realistic examination of the economy as it is today.

Freedom is among the most nuanced words in the English language. Countless sons and daughters have died and suffered for the idea, and the United States is axiomatically referred to as the ‘Land of the Free.’ However, few people actually have the capacity to fully experience true freedom. Freedom requires the ability to see the world as it is, and make conscious choices while fully aware of their consequences. A free person must acknowledge that, for the most part, his situation is entirely of his own making. In essence, freedom is a state of absolute responsibility.

Today, too many people assert that they are, in fact, enslaved by an economic hegemony. While these people are in fact enslaved, it is because they have mortgaged that freedom for the petty pleasure of economic security. These people will normally complain that they should be free to choose a career based on their own talents and interests. This complaint, of course, ignores a fundamental reality of talent and interests. Talent must be developed into skills; and interests are fairly worthless without talent. For Example: If it is a man’s life ambition to play the violin in the streets, he must accept that he will likely not be wealthy. He must accept the economic reality of that ambition. On the other hand, if he aspires to play in the London Philharmonic Orchestra he must also accept the reality of the dedication and practice that such a goal requires. The truth is that while many people have talents and interests, few have the discipline it takes to make a desirable living with them.

Discipline, another nuanced word, has many varied meanings. Every one of those meanings, however, orbits around a single concept: effort. Both noun and verb form of ‘discipline’ require enormous amounts of personal effort. Those people who are willing to exert the required effort will be those who succeed. Finally, we come to the motivation of the complaint: It is far easier to blame an archetypical entity such as ‘The System” than it is to accept one’s station in life as an effect of ones own actions.

Finally we must examine the issue of the current economy. It is true that media is forecasting ‘doom and gloom’ but in reality, the country has seldom seen a more diverse marketplace. The miracle of the Internet has made a market for nearly every niche talent and craft imaginable to man. In the age of Google’s “AdSense” and EBay’s near-zero overhead business plans, there are more options available to the hard working American than ever before. The vastness of the Internet has qualitatively changed the depth of freedom available to mankind, and it is irresponsible to gainsay the true freedoms we enjoy.

Looking over it all, it is somewhat disrespectful to our forefathers to complain that we are not free enough to choose our own place in our economy. Those who crafted our world, from The Constitution to the Internet, dedicated their lives to the future. As a result a hard working man or woman is more free and empowered today, than ever before in human history. With hard work a person can craft his own future, and therefore the ‘American Dream’ is alive and well.

A New Age is Dawning

Oft heard I, Wise men proclaim
‘To all things there is a season’
to joy, and sorrow, pleasure and pain
And so, it stands to reason:

The reign of fear one day will fail
And Truth will be the victor
The dark unknown will the light assail
The New Age brought all the quicker

Whence we wander, weather we ponder
My brothers, this age is ending
Heralds asunder, hail the age of wonder
And start our race to mending.

Shine Forth

Obama Arrives

Battle of Berkley, the Devil's Side

Citizens of Berkley California are protesting the presence of U.S. Marine recruiters in their traditionally liberal and peace-loving city. It is fashionable to side with the Marines. After all, an all-volunteer force requires broad recruiting. Some go further, criticizing the citizens of Berkley as ungratefully undermining the very people that keep our country free. As a member of the armed services, and a lover of sporting debate, I feel inclined to advocate the Devil.

In the first place, many people too trivially assume that an all-volunteer force is good for our country. More the 60,000 American Sons lost their lives in Vietnam, many of them sacrificed against their will. The great injustice felt by the country led to the suspension of the draft, but I wonder if we missed the point. Might the draft be the very thing that keeps us from getting involved in such a war again? After all, when we might pay for our apathy with our lives; we are much more likely to hold our government to the standard of our best interests.

The image of the ungrateful citizen is a little one-sided as well. The claim that the military keeps our country free, while encouraging to the esprit de corps, is quite the bleak assessment of the republic. I should hope that our continued liberty is the result of our willingness to fight for it intellectually. Our struggle should be to create symbiotic international relationships driven by mutual benefit, that is, not by intimidation. Military might is the worst possible way to achieve freedom. Perhaps this is the reason why our founding fathers were so suspicious of the idea of a standing army.

The people of Berkley have intentionally built a community of peace loving, liberal idealists. From their point of view, allowing the presence of military recruiters is tantamount to an endorsement of their country’s militant foreign policy. There is a current trend to accuse all dissenters as “undermining the troops”. This sentiment implies that without the public support, we will think we cannot win this war. In truth, we already won the war for Iraqi Freedom. The War for Iraqi independence is not ours to fight.

Shine forth The Light

Smoke on the Horizon

I have looked out many windows. I have stood a top many mountains. I have heard the call of many birds. Today I looked out a window, and beheld something I will never forget.

In the land between two rivers in the dessert, a great oasis of life and fertility has existed since this land was young. These places have had many names, especially the city I am in today. ‘Baghdad’ is a Persian word. My friend tells me it means either the jungle or the garden that ‘is given’. If it is in fact "the garden that is given" (implicitly by God) you could make a reasonable argument that to a Persian, Baghdad means ‘Garden of Eden’.

It makes sense when you think about it. This whole area is the lush garden or jungle between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. Such a large oasis in the relatively arid land of the Arabian peninsula would surely have been thought of as a gift from God.


I had this conversation with my friend atop a tower in Baghdad. My Iraqi friend was sad in his quiet accepted way. He told me of the ancient world, and the shame of war that has come to it. We talked about the state of this great planet, given by God unto man. God's creation, this beautiful and mystical land is God's greatest revelation to us. And so I come to my sorrow today.

I have looked out many windows. I have stood a top many mountains. Today I heard the distant call of a raven and when I looked out my window I saw smoke... smoke rising from the Trees of Eden.

Shine Forth the Light

God’s Advocate: Of Faith in Politics

I recently took part in a Facebook political poll asking “what role should a president’s faith play in the decisions he or she makes in office.” 64% of those polled said that it should not play any role whatsoever. While my first instinct as a zealous defender of our secular republic was to agree with the majority, I ultimately did not vote that way.

The question is based on a deceptive word; ‘faith’ does not appropriately refer to the religion a particular person ascribes themselves to. Dan Brown defined faith as “The acceptance of that which you imagine to be true.” Put a little less dramatically, faith is the psycho/spiritual construct with which we face the world. It is our belief, based on a distilling of all our experience in search of Truth.

With that definition it seems obvious that a president would have nothing but his faith by which to make decisions. If the solution to a problem is scientifically obvious, i.e. there is no other option, it will not fall to the president to make such a decision. When the matter requires subtlety, however, we turn it over to the duly elected representative of executive will of the people.

So if we can agree that a president’s faith will be the determining variable in how he or she will act on behalf of the people; it seems only logical that it be the determining factor in why we vote for the president. For example: the President of the United States should have a sense of moral justice that is simply beyond reproach. How would it be then if it was to emerge that a candidate agreed with a court ruling that allowed a child to be imprisoned because its father did not live long enough to be punished for a crime he committed. Such a position (which I admit is absurd) would seriously undermine the people’s confidence in the candidate’s faith (i.e. their world view).

How then should a candidate that calls themselves ‘Christian’ be judged? The defining characteristic of many Christian churches holds that the Creator of the universe, contrary to all conventions of moral justice, condemned all sons and daughters of man, for the sins of one man. As if this were not a perverse enough portrayal of the Almighty, a Christian candidate would also believe that a moral transgression could be paid for by another as if murder was a debt that could be paid by a rich friend. This type of logic, if brought to its extreme would allow a parent to compel its child to serve a criminal sentence imposed on the parent. After all the time tested law: ‘an eye for an eye’, doesn’t specify whose eye.

Now that said, it should be accompanied by a concession that most clear thinking Christians (if only sub-consciously) disagree with most of the obsolete and psychologically destructive dogma. I only raise the point of the double standard to illustrate the danger that comes when we as a society begin to ignore, for fear, the spiritual reality of our lives. Our open-mindedness is our greatest hope to, in our lifetime; understand the nature of the Almighty’s Creation. Our country dismisses too quickly, that which it does not understand. This is an act of supreme arrogance, and in our quest to know ourselves and our Creator, is the height of folly.

If You Are Christian.... Christmas Is Not Over

Merry Christmas to you on this 28^th of December… but wait isn’t Christmas over? Well if you sell ornaments and gifts it is, but what about if you’re a Christian. Few Christians realize that Christmas begins on 25 December. It is a 12 day celebration beginning on the Feast of the Incarnation and ending on the Feast of the Epiphany. It’s a shame that Christmas is not truly celebrated in this country.

The regular reader will recognize that I am not in favor of Christianizing our nation any more then we already do, but I am in favor of an extended period of time in which it is customary to reach out to our fellow man. When you really think about it our country has turned the traditional Christmas back into the pagan festival of the winter solstice. A single day to revere as the last day before light begins to come back into the world.

Once again…I’m not trying to move mountains here, I just want to point out another absurdity in our descent from spiritual to material ambition.

A True Meaning of Christmas

The Christmas Season is a time full of beauty: The natural quiet stillness of snowfall and the warmth of a family taking common shelter against the cold. As I will spend Christmas this year away from those I love, I thought I might take a moment to articulate one of the true meanings of Christmas

The proper name for Christmas is “The Feast of the Incarnation”. ‘Incarnation’, to paraphrase, means the coming of spirit upon flesh. It is well known that the date of Christmas is not meant to correspond to the actual anniversary of the birth of the Nazarene. The feast was adapted from a pagan feast celebrating the darkest time of the year (the winter solstice). Pagans believed that this was a time where Light was coming back into the world. The Christians adopted this feast as the best time to celebrate the birth of the ‘Lord of Light’. And so, we wish each other ‘Merry Christmas’. We acknowledge the Divine Light alive and well in our fellow man. We give each other gifts as an acknowledgment that the Light has come alive in them.

There is a custom that has traveled with eastern tradition to every corner of the globe. It is called ‘nemaste’. While the spelling and littoral meaning of this custom vary; it most nearly means ‘I bow to you’. It is the custom of people slightly inclining their heads in a bow of recognition. The idea is: “I see the Light in you, I feel the loving presence of the ‘Divine Source’ within you, because you are holy I bow to you”. The beauty of this custom is that people bow to each other at the same time. It is a custom without rank, simply an acknowledgment that the Light is within in all good people.

As we progress into the cold of winter let us reach out to our loved ones. The gifts we give are not always bought in a store. A hug, a smile, a kind word of encouragement, or even a slight bow of the head; these are all vessels of love and let us be generous with them this Christmas.

May the Great Light shine upon You

May It grow within You.

May You be for the World a beacon

May You shine the Light forth

May the World be comforted

For Truth and Light will prevail.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell. General Kerr did both.

Retired Brigadier General Keith Kerr caused a scandal at the Republican You Tube debate last week. He challenged the candidates with a question demanding that gays be allowed to serve in the military. It was discovered, later that he was on a steering committee for Gay issues in the Clinton campaign. General Kerr has said that he is still evaluating who he will vote for, and I believe his association with Clinton is because she is listening to his issue. I don’t believe that makes him ‘her man’.

As a Soldier I believe that a retired General, has earned the right to speak on his own merit. He is a gay man who took the high rode. He hid in the military so he could serve his country. Now years later, after faithful service, he says that he felt that the army was wrong to make him stay secretive. He has every right to feel this way, and I support his position that Soldiers are professionals able to work with gays in the workplace.

Fight the smear campaign against him as a ‘political pawn’. Generals are not pawns, he has earned the right to scream his outrage from the rooftops.

Homosexuals in the Military

Homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the U.S. Military.

The very first Amendment to the United States Constitution, was intended to grant citizens the rights of free expression, especially as it pertains to their spirituality. By forbidding Congress to establish an official religion, it specifically baptizes the new nation as a secular nation. The founding fathers believed that the republic was best served when all mankind was free to pursue spirituality as they see fit.

There is no more important spiritual expression then the choice of a life partner. Our partners act as a balance, and keep us true to ourselves. They are moments of the divine alight in the body of another. They guide us, inspire us, comfort us, and kick us in the ass when it becomes necessary.

The idea that this fulfilling spiritual relationship cannot exist between homosexuals is absurd to many. Still many others believe that it is a sinful and unnatural relationship. What ever your position, you must accept that your conviction is a spiritual one. It is a matter of what you believe about human spirituality.

This should not be used as a basis to refuse homosexuals entrance into the military. As a Soldier, I believe it is the right of any citizen, some might say the duty, but at least the right, to serve their nation. The ideal of our “Sacred Honor” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence should be held high over a primarily Christian condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle.

Undoubtedly, there are practical issues surrounding the inclusion of gays in the military. All of them must be overcome. Those in the military incapable of discretionary thinking should be phased out anyway. This is about right and wrong, and defending the Sacred Honor of standing up for something. They have the right to serve and the military must accommodate them.

Conservatives Criticize "Cutest Couple"

Recently a teenage homosexual couple was voted the superlative of “Cutest Couple” in the yearbook of Illinois’ Waukegan High School. There names Lupe Silva and Brandy Johnson quickly were plastered across the headlines of conservative news organizations. Some saw it as one more attempt for secular progressives to undermine the soul of the country. Others assumed it was mere rebellion against the town parents.

What does it say about a person who assumes either of these things? Is it so impossible that these girls are actually experiencing the same type of love as their peers? Why do the likes of Bill O’Reilly insist on this elitist, “more holy then thou”, condescension?

The United States of America, to the dismay of many crazies, is a secular nation. It was made so by the 1^st Amendment to the Constitution forbidding Congress to establish an official religion of the new country. The purpose of this law was to allow people to grow in the spiritual path that seemed most likely to them to result in enlightenment.

The Christian, podium pounding, enemies to the evolution of spiritual consciousness must let go. This majority has no right to rule. This is not their country, this is our country, and we want it back!

Cowardice in the State Department

I must say that over the past 5 years, a lot of people have accused their respective opponents of not supporting the troops. Someone wants a huge expenditure authorized for the war. Their opponent refuses to agree because he wants to know that there is an end in sight. Inevitably, the first guy will accuse the second guy of “not supporting the troops.”

Another popular slander is made of anyone that says the war is unjust, a waste of lives and treasure, or cannot be won. . Their opponents will say they are undermining the troops and even giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I don’t really take much offence to this type of thing; I see it as politicians doing what they feel is best. Even if they are wrong, they are trying.

I was recently offended by a member of the Department of State (DOS). I saw him on CNN complaining to some spokesman of DOS. “An assignment to Iraq can be tantamount to a death sentence and you know that.” WELL SWEET JESUS CONNECTICUT CHRIST! If you will forgive me a moment of vulgar expression, It would seem that a department of the United States Government has decided that it is dangerous in Iraq. He then went on to complain about how DOS is putting their families welfare in danger…Blah Blah Blah.

I can handle my service being used as a political pawn. What I can’t handle are members of the Department of State, by the way the branch of government responsible for representing America to the world, acting like cowards. That’s right I said it, and you should to. This country has never needed diplomats more in Iraq. With all there CNN interviews saying ‘there needs to be a diplomatic solution’ they cower and whine on national television. I’m offended and every diplomat should feel shame for the dishonor their brother has brought

NOTE: In accordance with Article 88 of the UCMJ, this literature is not intended as contempt for any elected official or duly appointed officer of the U.S. Government.

Are Americans Inarticulate, or Are They Just Unable to Say What They Mean?

How can it be that in a time where people are most connected to those around them; when we grow up with the greatest library of human knowledge in world history; how can it be that we are as a whole so lacking in self-expression.

Queen Rania Al-Abdullah was recently interviewed on CNN’s Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. Now I don’t wish to enter into a discussion, in this particular post, about the ethics and politics of the conflict in the Middle East, but I do wish to address the differences in the way our leaders approach the world.

Listening to Her Majesty speak, is somewhat embarrassing. Only a few minutes earlier, having listened to President Bush speak, it was clear that the Queen’s skill at expressing herself and coherently delivering an argument, were in a league well above the American President’s. Our President does not command much respect with his lack-luster public speaking abilities. He is however, regrettably, representative of many Americans.

Far too many, Americans lack either the will or the education to accurately and precisely express themselves. Often, an argument ends with people resolving that there remains differences beyond reconcile. When a debate does erupt, often people fall back on their right to hold an opinion and dismiss another’s right to challenge it.

Even the Presidential debates lack any real meat. They are over moderated to the point where they are left as face to face presentations of prepared talking points. Where is the challenging of ideas? Where is the passion? A moderator’s role should not just be time keeper. A moderator's purpose is the presentation of issues and regulation of evasion and irrelevant podium thumping. Where is the discourse that made our country great?

Intellectual laziness is a cancer in American society. People do not put forth the effort required to either exercise their expression or expand their vocabulary. Experimenting in expression and vocabulary is important to the future of civilization as a whole. The ideas we have are irrelevant without the capacity to articulate them. These days, between Google, the world media, the thousands of movies, and countless sitcoms available to us, there is no excuse for being simple.

Coal Companies Trying To Buy Money From Congress

I was watching PBS news this morning, not by choice but by the graces of the Armed Forces Network. I saw a report that was simply awe inspiring. Apparently the Coal industry, which while being a very popular source of energy, is loosing its footing in an environmentally conscious country. The United States is the world’s leading producer of coal and coal energy plants are responsible for approximately a third of carbon emissions in the country today.

This did not surprise me as I use to play SimCity and know that a coal power plant, while cheap will have your sims complaining about pollution before you see your first skyscraper. What surprised me was that coal industry spent 30 million dollars last year petitioning Congressmen for funding of research into clean coal technology.

I agree that clean coal technology would be fantastic, and fantastic for motivating coal mining investors. I don’t agree that spending millions to persuade the government to spend millions is efficient. If the Coal industry can afford to spend 30 million dollars bribing er… informing Congressmen about the need for research. They can practice some of their desired efficiency and spend the millions on a cooperative effort to find a clean coal burning process instead.

The Coal industry is not alone in this style of operation. The Pharmaceutical industry does the same thing. Rather then spending their wealth on research and development as they claim to, they spend billions on direct-to-consumer marketing, and the bribery….er “professional development” of doctors and Congressmen. Pharmaceutical companies are extremely important to our country and our economy, but they need spend their money to make more valuable drugs not to make their drugs more valuable.

(The above facts about the coal industry are the taken word of PBS)

Shine Forth

John McCain Exposes Himself

Senator and Presidential candidate John McCain revealed more about himself then he would have like to in a debate on 21 OCT. His “big laugh” of the night was the result of a mocking joke about the worthlessness of Woodstock. Now I wasn’t alive for Woodstock and admittedly, the gentleman from Arizona was “tied up” as a POW at the time. Neither condition, however, excuses either of us from admitting what Woodstock represented in the evolution of our country.

Those present at Woodstock can speak for what it meant at the time, but today it is emblematic of the power of the people. The draw created by word of mouth at garage and attic meetings was literally phenomenal. The subject of the Senator’s comment was a indictment of Sen. Hilary Clinton recent vote for a million dollar museum dedicated to the iconic concert. My time in Iraq has shown me a lot more worthless things for a million dollars to be spent on, however this is wide of the point.

Senator McCain’s comment mocking Woodstock show his ignorance of the power of people. It is clear from his views on Iraq and Iran; that there is only one type of power that he understands. He seems unconsciously pulled toward military might. In the 60’s and 70’s a phenomenon began that endures. The youth of our country are, at their best, dedicated to peaceful solutions based on empathy and compassion for our fellow man. Those who hold such ideals as the fancies of dreamers and hippies are not fit for the Senate, much less the Presidency.

Shine Forth the Light

The Sound Byte Media

When I was young I remember hearing people ask, “Did you see the news last night?”. I am fortunate to remember, barely, a time before cable news. With war so common in the last 50 years the 24 hour news networks provide content to the most influential in society. The evidence of this is in the commercials. Notice that CNN is broadcasted with luxury cars, designer drugs and financial firms as their advertisers.

Coming with the age of the 24 hour news channel is the age of the internet. The fore-mentioned question has been replaced with “Did you hear about (some specific story)”. The internet has made people more and more aware of the world around them. It has also necessitated a new type of filtering. Citizens of the digital world are even more required to submit everything they hear to their own internal sense of Truth. Our politicians, however, are quite far behind in this process. Politicians still expect people to believe what they are told at face value. Unfortunately, this style of talking to the public still works for a majority of Americans.

An example of this is clear in President Bush’s treatment of President Ahmadinejad. When the Iranian president spoke to Columbia University, he said many things. The television media concentrated on very few. Among them was his assertion that the nation of Israel should be “wiped off the map”. If one were to listen to the address at Columbia, they would find that he was not talking about physical destruction. He meant quite literally political destruction. Literally interpreted “wiped off the map” refers to the changing of the political boundaries on a map. He believes that the west was unjust in their forcefully forming, and funding of Israel after World War II. He stated that the Palestinians have been put in an untenable situation because the west, primarily England and the U.S., have armed the Israelis, giving them an unfair political and military advantage. Whether or not you agree with him, we must admit a fair point for debate when we see it. I was most disturbed to hear my President interpret his comments so as to hint that he said “If we had the ability we would Nuke Israel.”

Most people can tell you only a few things about the President of Iran. Not many can even pronounce his name. You will hear that he denied the holocaust. You will hear that he executes homosexuals as well as women who speak there mind. You will hear that he wants to destroy Israel. Whether or not any one of these things is true, it is quite dangerous to believe them blindly without any tangible evidence. It is the same as believing that President Bush invaded Iraq to steal all the oil. The world is not as simple as our sound byte media would have you believe.

Sen. John Kerry lost an election because the Republicans were able to convince millions that he was a flip-flopper. They even went so far as to bring ninety-nine cent sandals to the national convention and wave them in the air. Honestly, I thought it was pretty lame and simple minded, the stunt embarrassed me as a human. Seriously though, isn’t the ability to dynamically react to complex situations desirable in the leader of the free world? Should not the Commander of the worlds most awesome military power be capable of changing his mind based on information contrary to his original premise?

If our great country is to succeed in the new millennium, we must have a higher reverence for the Truth even if means not fully understanding a situation. We must be prepared to look at a situation, and consider whether we have simplified too much to feel comfortable with it.

Shine Forth

Baghdad Soldiers Debate Abortion

Recently I returned from a trip to Baghdad. While there I learned the true potential for debate and discourse in small secluded groups of people from all over our country. I only hope that Congress will emulate the intellectual forum I experienced while visiting Soldiers in a modest bunker in Camp Victory, Iraq.

While with them I started one such debate, er.. discourse when I brought up Congressman, Dr. Ron Paul and his candidacy for President. For liberals his position of non-interference in the rest of the world, and decreased federal interference in the affairs of state, can seem tempting. In fact I’m not totally sure that I disagree with him. There is one issue, however, that is sure to get national attention among liberals if he gets the Republican nod. Dr. Ron Paul is Pro-Life.

It was on this point that I entered a debate with half a dozen Soldiers in a modest bunker in Bagdad. Dr. Paul wants to legislate the beginning of human life at conception. I agree that a law has to be passed that specifically outlines when the protection of the 14th Amendment (that those born or naturalized in the United States are legally citizens) takes effect. I don’t agree that it should be at conception. It allows no latitude for the many situations in which Pro-Choice advocates have legitimate points.

Dr. Paul’s position is not a religious one. He is a physician that has delivered over 4,000 children. He has said that a civilization that holds itself as the beacon of freedom and justice must protect the innocent above all. Coming from him I see it as an idealist statement worthy of a champion.

I therefore present the outcome of the Baghdad debate: Congress should pass a law declaring the beginning of life as the first detectable heartbeat. This allows the untimely or assaulted woman a small amount of time to make a big decision. It also maintains the Christian ideal of the sanctity of life. Christians believe that life is ‘breathed’ into mankind by God. The mystical beginning of the heartbeat seems the most apparent physical manifestation of the biblical phenomenon. Scientifically, the heartbeat is also the means by which doctors tell if someone is living or dead. While six weeks (the coming of the heartbeat) seems like a small window for a life decision, such a policy will be strict enough to encourage a more responsible practice of sexuality, and lenient enough to allow the expanse of choice the American People demand.

The most important element of this issue, is that it be resolved. Too long has this politically polarizing issue been poisoning our government. Issues like abortion, homosexual marriage, and stem cells are viral afflictions in political process. They are so harmful because they eliminate moderate candidates from the ballot. As a result, our extreme and uncompromising policies on issues like abortion, are made by the same uncompromising people that decide our foreign, financial and domestic policies. It is time to put these issues to bed, so that America can emerge as shining Light of Freedom and Justice we are destined to be.

Shine forth the Light