This is not a dictatorship: Bush on Iran

Since I was under the influence of moderate pain medications due to my freakish bad luck this past weekend, my last column probably didn’t fall into the coherent writing category. I hope to redeem myself with this piece, however.
This past Tuesday (April 11) Iran announced that it had joined the nuclear club. This frightens me very much, but something else frightens me a whole lot more. That something else is Bush’s possible plans for Iran.
The day before, I stumbled across an interview with reporter Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker, in which he said that Bush is deliberating a strike against Iran because he (meaning Bush, of course) wants, in those infamous words, “regime change.” Oh, then we’re handling Iraq so bloody well? That memo must have come when I was in class, which means I missed it. Sorry, George. Bush wants to go into Iran because he considers Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a ruler in the style of Adolf Hitler.
I’m not crazy about the guy myself, but we do not have the right to run into yet another country and screw their lives up, too. Things were not perfect in Iraq before we got there and things needed to change -- in their own time, but why do we think we have the right to go into Iran and hurt innocent people again?
Hersh said that Bush also was considering a nuclear option to deal with Iran. Therefore, the way I understand it, we want to fight fire with fire, so to speak. The president that claims to be moral, ethical, and who grabbed plenty of votes simply because he prays just might be considering the most morally reprehensible option ever in dealing with Iran. Am I the only person who finds that statement sickening, if not disgusting?
When the hell did we get the right to have 12,000 of our own nuclear warheads, but at the same time tell every other nation that it would be “dangerous and immoral” (in the words of Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria) for them to have even just a few warheads of their own? For my own sanity (or what’s left of it), I’m ignoring the obvious irony found in Zakaria’s use of the word “immoral.”
I don’t like the idea of Iran having the potential to make nuclear weapons. In fact, I don’t like the idea of anyone having the potential to make nuclear weapons. But where was it written down that the sovereign nations of the world have to obtain American approval to do things? The last I checked, it wasn’t written anywhere.
If you trust Hersh’s report, then it doesn’t look like Bush is going to stop until he starts World War III. But, I forgot, Bush has a mandate from God, since apparently he has God’s cell phone number. I bet Bush’s God is not a God I would be inclined to believe in, to be honest about it. Even a member of the House of Representatives said to Hersh at one point, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy [meaning Bush] has a messianic vision.”
I speak only for myself here, but there’s only room in my life for one messiah, and it certainly isn’t George W. Bush.

Does this one really have a point?

“But when you look back you must realize
That nothing in your life's divine
Everything that's ever befallen you
Happened simply 'cause it crossed your mind
You're crashing by design”
-- Pete Townshend, “Crashing By Design”

When something bad happens to you, what do you usually think? If you’re anything like I was this past weekend, you begin to think you’re cursed at worst or someone bad in a previous life at the least. But what you’re really doing is blaming someone else -- in these cases, God. As humorous as those musings tend to be, I don’t think they go much further than that as being truth -- except, maybe, being someone bad in a previous life. I’m beginning to think I was the schoolyard bully who laughed at all the clumsy, dorky children, because I became precisely that clumsy, dorky child.
I’m a big believer in free will, meaning that the choices we make have the most effect on what happens in our lives. I’m a religious person who personally tends to downplay the belief that God has every minute detail of our lives mapped out. (I could be wrong. I’ve been wrong before; I’ll be wrong again.) It’s also the choices that others make for us that affect our lives -- whether we want them to have that kind of power or not.
As much as I’ve beaten the horse that is freedom of choice, the truth is we will never make every decision for ourselves completely by ourselves. Our parents decided where we’d live as children, what schools we would attend, which in turn, influences events such as the shaping of our personality, where we’d go to college (or if we’d even get the chance to go). That, in turn, influences the career we have, where we live, and so on. If you think about it, our parents really might not have made the choice of where they lived. It’s a long tangle, one that will take much more than 800 or so words to undo.
Well, I guess that the horse isn’t completely dead, because here I go again. Though there are elements on each side of the political spectrum that would eliminate the freedom of choice, it’s mainly the right that desires to take away our right to choose anything for ourselves. I bet if they had their way, we’d only be able to eat what they put on the plate before us. The government tries to choose who I can marry, who should live or die, what other countries can do, and so on. I’ve lost enough opportunities to my parents’ decisions; I don’t want to lose anymore. I think there is a proper role for government to make responsible choices on behalf of its citizens, but I don’t believe that, for the most part, our government can be called on to make responsible choices anymore. I used to be part of the so-called “moral majority” that advocated most of these government roles, but then I decided that I wanted to use my brain for something besides keeping my head inflated. I’m still a moral person, but I like thinking. Okay, before the hate mail starts to arrive, I know a few smart Republicans.
I had someone tell me once “I used to be a liberal when I was young and naïve; when I matured, I became a Republican.” Apart from the slap at my maturity level, I was intrigued and taken aback by this statement. Is it really naïve to desire equality for all Americans, not just the rich, white males? I suppose it is a bit idealistic, but I can dream, can’t I? It’s naïve to allow someone to make decisions for you without thinking for yourself. It’s naïve to trust someone’s judgment solely because they’re the president, solely because they’re your pastor, and so on down the line. I don’t trust the judgment of my president or my pastor. I don’t even trust the judgment of the leadership of the Democratic Party. That doesn’t mean that any of them are bad people or that they’re wrong simply because I disagree with them. It means that what you say has to pass muster with me and most statements never get that far.
Please don’t blame all your problems on someone else; take some responsibility. Most likely you’re the one who got yourself into this mess. And for crying out loud, don’t listen to me solely because I’m running my mouth in this column. Think about it, disagree or agree, it doesn’t really matter. Just think about it for yourself. Come to your own conclusions.

Women's Leadership

Editor's Note: Once again, an unrevised column that will be featured tomorrow in the DM. Many gracious thanks to Erin for the idea.

As a budding feminist, I look at the recent evolution of world politics with fresh eyes. Chile, Germany, Liberia, and Jamaica have installed or will install women to top leadership positions in their respective governments. The U.S. (along with several other “developed” nations) hasn’t elected women to top leadership positions at all. Sure, we have had women placed on the Supreme Court and in the Cabinet, but we haven’t elected any woman (or any minority, for that matter) to the presidency. Why is that? Do we not trust women to be in charge? Do we think women don’t deserve the positions for some reason? Or do we simply think women can’t get the job done? I’m hoping the answers are no, but sometimes I’m not really sure.
I realize that both Condoleezza Rice and Hilary Clinton are heavily favored to win the nominations for their respective parties for the 2008 presidential election. I’m not entirely sure it will happen, but I guess I’m asking a bigger question here. I want to know why we haven’t elected a woman to office before now. We’re the leader of the modern world and we can’t get past basic equality issues.
No one will be able to fully convince me that, on some level at least, it isn’t an equality issue. It’s just that no one admits that it’s true. Personally I believe we haven’t elected a female candidate because there are very few out there who have the right credentials to make it. It’s like my rejection letter from Ole Miss graduate school that said I didn’t have competitive credentials. It doesn’t mean I’m not smart, it’s just that I couldn’t compete with applicants who had better credentials. It just means that I have to work harder, that’s all. Women, on the whole, are smart enough, but they aren’t being given the chances they need (and rightly deserve) to get to the point of being a competitive candidate. It’s still an equality issue, still a serious issue, but one that’s much less obvious.
We teach our young women that they can do anything they set their minds to and then slam doors in their faces. We teach them that they are every bit the equal of a man and then pay them much less for the same jobs. We talk, talk, talk, but don’t follow through on anything we say. That sends a ridiculously foolish and wrong message to our young women.
Then there’s the religious aspect (and you can’t tell me there isn’t one): most fundamentalist groups (I’m not using this term in a derogatory manner, but in its original definition -- Biblical literalism) take their scriptures and deny women leadership positions in the church, limiting how they can serve God. Many, but by no means all, teach that a woman’s place is in the home, ignoring what a woman could have to offer both her society and her church. This in turn creates uncertainty in young women trying to find their place in life. In the one place all should be equal, inequality reigns. I know this isn’t true for all cases, but it’s true for many of them.
The solution isn’t as simple as I’d like it to be or as simple as it sounds. To again use a phrase I’ve championed multiple times this semester: freedom of choice. Someone else is making choices for generations of young women. It sounds simple to say that women should be encouraged to enter politics if they choose to do so, but the reality is: they aren’t. Just as engineering and mathematics have reputations as “men’s fields,” politics looks the same way to many people. It’s a stereotype and stereotypes are wrong -- that’s simple enough. Women can and should do anything they choose to do career wise. It doesn’t matter if it takes them to the presidency or not: if they want to try, they should have the same chance as all the men.

Democracy is freedom of choice -- not America's choice

Editor's Note: Some form of this piece of work most likely will appear in the DM tomorrow morning. Enjoy the unrevised version.


We went to Iraq to supposedly bring peace and democracy to the people after their years under Saddam’s rule, right? So when the constitution is written and elections take place, what happens? Somehow the American government gets it in its head that Iraq did everything wrong because we don’t like what happened. That wasn’t our place to say that. Our constitution begins with “We the people,” talking about the American people -- not the British people or the Iraqi people or anyone else. The same thing applies to Iraq. “We the sons of Mesopotamia” refers to the Iraqi people – not the American people. It was not our choice to make.
The same principle applies to the Palestinian elections, when Hamas came to power. The Bush administration has repeatedly pushed for more democracy in the Middle East. But when results happened that Bush and company didn’t like, they screamed that it wasn’t democracy and that the whole process was flawed. Now, the democratic process is not without its problems. We’ve seen plenty of evidence of that. In fact, honestly, I highly doubt a perfect form of government exists because there are always flawed human beings in the mix.
I’m all for freedom of choice, even if I don’t personally like that particular choice. Choosing something means thinking for oneself in order to conclude that one makes the right decision. Freedom of choice is nothing without freedom of thought. Choosing a path also means living with that path and learning from the mistakes that arise. Mistakes are a part of life and I would argue that they are a vital part of life. Personally, we’re to learn from our mistakes. The governments of the world should therefore do the same. America itself did not begin as a perfect nation and will remain imperfect.
I’m not suggesting – and certainly not asking – that anyone agree with the selection of Hamas as leaders of the Palestinian Authority. After all, they are the ones who live there and have a better understanding of what they want and what they need their governments to do. All we know is what we get from the media – it is almost always secondhand news. They have to live with the everyday ramifications of their choice. But in a way, we in America live with their choice as well, just as the nations of the world are affected by our political choices.
I don’t agree with the decision myself. I think that Hamas’ international reputation as terrorists has led them to be in the position they’re in right now. I also think that they should disarm and begin to work toward peace before they’re allowed to take power. By working toward peace, I don’t mean that they should have a list of demands (such as withdrawal to the 1967 borders) that Israel should simply comply with, saying as Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas party prime minister, did in a Newsweek interview this week, “It all starts with Israel.” I mean they should sit down and work through the process with Israel like a rational political entity. Ideally, there will be two independent states at the end of the process.
But I defend the right of the Palestinians to make their own choices. If they think Hamas will get things done, then by all means, elect them to office. Give them a chance. We in America do the same thing when we vote. We elect the people we think will do the best job. Of course, there are limits to their freedom, especially when that freedom impinges upon the freedom of a nation like Israel.
Does this mean that the rest of the world should sit back and let things happen? Not necessarily. The rest of the world should help with a peaceful transition anyway they can, not by withdrawing monetary support from the Palestinian Authority and not by refusing to work with the government as if it doesn’t exist. Haniyeh, the new Hamas party prime minister, conducted his telephone interview with Newsweek from the refugee camp in which he lives with his family. Israel and America refused to deal with the PA after the elections. Bad choice, guys. The European Union has agreed to give $143 million to the PA before the government turns over to Hamas. They need this money; they need help. They need our support – but not our enforcement of decisions upon them – now more than ever.

Christians and Universities

Editor's Note: Just so you know, I'm a reformed conservative (though a small sliver of conservative elements remain) as well as a recovering Southern Baptist. The turnaround came during my college years, but the "liberal bias" had nothing to do with it. I simply learned to think for myself.

Free Republic had this article up for our enjoyment today. I wasn't going to say anything, but I just get tired of the whole "conservatives have to lie to pass" bit running around about our universities. Even when I was conservative, I never had to lie. You know why? It never came up in the first place. And it's not like the professors didn't know that I was conservative, I write for the newspaper. I even scared a few and gained the respect of a few during my tenure. Many of these professors that stand in front of a classroom and say hateful things about conservatives, Christians, etc., don't deserve to stand in front of a classroom and teach. They probably have another ax to grind as well or don't want to be at that university to begin with. But the classroom is not the place for any kind of agenda: political, religious, or otherwise. You're there to learn objectively. The professor shouldn't espouse one and the student shouldn't espouse one. What I mean by espouse is one shouldn't do in politics what proselytizing is for religion. The proper way for the flow of ideas is what Dr. Harrington calls the "food for thought" theory. Just throw out what you think as an option, not as absolute truth with everyone becoming wrong, going to hell, etc. If there's any proselytizing going on, it's often with the conservatives themselves.

Why I'm ranting now, I don't really know. I've done a column on this. I guess I'm just loosening up my brain for my column due on Tuesday.

I don't know why they want to complain. I guess it's because they know that their children are being exposed to different ideas, which one would think that the children would be able to think for themselves and accept or reject whatever they want. Their small worldview is being challenged and they don't like it. I'm not saying threatened, because I don't support threatening what others believe (yes, this one's for you, Ann Coulter), or calling people names (again, for Ms. Coulter).

To be honest, I still call myself an evangelical. Evamgelical as in the real meaning of the word and as compared to charismatic Christians, not as in Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. I don't subscribe to their brand of evangelicalism. I believe that Christianity -- taught and practiced correctly -- is the right way. What I don't believe is forcing it down people's throats, just putting it out there and then trying to live my life in accordance to what I believe.

P.S. Ann Coulter was at Indiana University yesterday -- read this story to find out just how outrageous she is. Unfortunately, no pictures for us to confirm her as really being a man.

Mosques, Religion, and Objective Media

I'm sorry, but calling yourself a "religion of peace" when some of its more radical (i.e., pissed off) adherents go out and blow stuff up isn't fair, to say the least. Maybe fair isn't the word I'm looking for. I will, however, be fair and say that Christianity can't call itself a "religion of peace" either. Unless, of course, one doesn't count events such as the Crusades, etc. I don't think there really is a "religion of peace," politically speaking. Theologically speaking, they are all intended to bring peace to the individual believer.

Erin mentioned in the last post that no one's objective, certainly not the two of us. I get paid to be unobjective, for crying out loud. But to me, and this may just be my opinion, but the media (thank you, Dr. Watt, for pointing out that media is plural, singular -- medium) should at least try to maintain some standard of objectivity. Leave the opinions to the op/ed writers (such as myself), bloggers, and talk show hosts. Below, I give you fair readers here two covers of the attack on the Golden Mosque in Baghdad. There's just something about the language -- and I'm not talking about the Arabic, which I'm leaving for Erin. There's just a difference between "gunmen" and "militants" to me. It's different to the dictionary too: militant means "Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause." Aren't the Iraqis always called militants? I forgot, this is Fox, which supposedly represents American interests. They only like white people. That's not "fair and balanced." That's "racist and bigoted."

Now I'm white and I suppose I benefit from this, but that doesn't make it right!!!! Bigotry is just wrong all the way around because, eventually, it will come back to haunt you. In these situations, I often think of this quote by Rev. Martin Niemoller: "First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." Speak up for those who have no voice, or you may find that you will no longer have a voice.

But back to the point (how ever did I get a job at the DM?), the media tend to stereotype whole groups of people. If I pulled some of these stunts on my academic work, I'd either fail or get cursed at. The media are paid to relay facts to us, where we can make up our own minds. America isn't as stupid as you might think, give us a chance.

Wait, many of us did vote for George W. Bush in 2004....


Links:
CNN's coverage of the attack on the mosque
Fox News' coverage of the same attack