The Levees Are Broken

This is my second post today. I am full of stress, anxiety. The magnitude of the devastation wrought by Katrina is now impossible for me to manage. My sense is that things are dire, not only for the Gulf, but also for the entire country. We will not sustain $3.45/gallon gas prices for long. That sort of crazy increase in fuel prices is enough to invoke images of Mad Max: fighting for fuel in the most primitive, vicious ways imaginable.

I am no economist. I understand supply, demand, and much of the volatility of markets. I understand that there are fears of shortages, as deliveries of crude oil and other fuels are interrupted. But I also recognize this: there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of Gulf Coast Americans right now who are NOT consuming any oil or gas or electricity. No consumption at all, nor shall there be for days, weeks, maybe months. How does that fact affect economic forces?

As for the looters: what the hell is that all about? It's like raiding Fort Knox after the world has ended.

Where, pray tell, do you think you're going with all those sneakers? Are you going to jog through the sodden city streets? And where in a city with no electricity do you think you're going to find takers of those stolen TVs? Do you think stolen jewels are going to help you find clean water?

That one looter was quoted as saying this is the time for the oppressed to get back at their alleged oppressors is purely hellish: It is the sort of statement one might find in a real hell. For the looting is utterly futile. It will bring nothing to the thieves at all, except more oppression. There is no vindication or justice found in stealing goods, especially when the goods are stolen in the midst of a tragedy that smites everyone. It's like stealing a wallet from a dead airline pilot slumped over the controls of an airplane that is blasting full-throttle directly toward the ground. The act is damnable in its futility and indignity. As one reporter put it, the looting has nothing to do with survival. Breaking into a grocery store and distributing bread to neighbors is survival. Rafting stolen golf clubs down streets is complete self-absorption. It reminds me of George Costanza, the Seinfeld character, running from an apartment fire by first knocking down an old lady holding her walker and then pushing children out of the way. Except none of this is funny.

I am struggling with my own sense of futility, not only in what I do here, but what I can do to help my neighbors in the Gulf Coast. I am awash with an existential grief, losing faith that any of this has meaning. I am worried, anxious. There looms a sense of dread. What to do?

The Institute for Public Accuracy (now there's an Orwellian and futile name if I've ever read one), has blamed the New Orleans levee breaks on the Bush administration's expenditures running the Iraq War. Had the money not been spent in Iraq, the levees, apparently, would have been shored up more substantially. Of course, those who think this way are remarkably, uh, obtuse. Since all the monies spent on Iraq come not from some special super-duper bank account but from the operating budget of the United States government, one might cite OTHER expenditures that have siphoned money from New Orleans. One could ask whether Boston's Big Dig was not a disasterous funneling of money away from New Orleans' levee projects. One could also ask whether all that money spent on Medicare or Social Security or alternative energy projects or the hearings regarding stem-cell research could not have been better spent on the Gulf Coast. Perhaps if we didn't spend money on AIDS research or Africa revitalization efforts none of this would be happening right now.

Truly, the idiocy is staggering. And yet, as I said in my post earlier today, I have braced myself for that idiocy. However, I think I am braced rather poorly.

Has anyone heard news of offers of aid from other countries to help America with the loss of a major city? If memory serves me well, a Category IV-V hurricane is more potent than hundreds of hydrogen bombs: the energy of a hurricane is the most powerful force on earth. The Gulf Coast disaster, then, is a nuclear holocaust only with rain and wind and the surge of the sea (waves 47-feet high measured by buoys in the Gulf). Do you think there is to be any help from Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro when the sun rises?

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

When Words Fail, Especially My Words

The scenes in New Orleans are harrowing. What else can be said? The sorrow that region faces, and that which all America faces, is hard to calculate. Shall we turn this moment into a lecture on economics or oil-dependence? Shall we turn this tragedy into a symposium on global warming, blaming industrialists for meterological woes? Or shall we turn this into a sermon on the carnality of the French Quarter, or the allegedly perverse foreign policy of Republicans? Shall we pointificate on C-Span and Air America about causes we cannot see, and ignore the effects that stare us in the face?

I brace myself for the idiocy.

Some ponderings:

• As the New Orleans story unfolds, and the economy rocks back on its heels, other stories will rapidly disappear from view. For example, Cindy Sheehan is over: her fifteen minutes–prolonged as they were in slow motion–are gone. Perhaps I am overstating this, but Hurricane Katrina is a meteorological 9/11 (in scale and effect alone, not causation). My sense is that this is going to get worse by the minute. Damage from water, septage, molds: the list goes on. Please realize that there is a skyscraper at New York's Ground Zero that still has a gaping hole in it. Mold has ruined the building, and the structure is most likely doomed. Can you imagine a whole city with water in it for weeks? The news focus is definitely going to shift.
• Sorrow among sorrows: How sad to read people blaming God; or perceiving Katrina as God's wrath; or perceiving Katrina as payback by Mother Earth for humanity's maltreatment of the planet. Why is this sad? Because it doesn't help. If I have a tumor in my brain, how does it help me to know that God put it there? How does it help to learn that a tumor is punishment? There is only one redemptive aspect to such a lesson, and that is to draw me toward repentance; toward remembering God. OK. I buy that. But it does not help me with the tumor; the tumor needs to be addressed. "God put it there," does not help me get rid of it. Nor does telling me that I have a tumor because I abused my body; that this is nature's way of punishing me. Such commentary is completely unhelpful, and there is nothing redemptive about it. The plain fact is that a tumor needs to be addressed. Let's deal with it–now. Discussing causes while one's brain dies, or wondering about causes while a city burns, is not helpful unless, and here's the rub, discovering the cause removes the tumor, or puts out the fire. But who has seen such a thing with tumors? If I were to stop abusing my body, will the tumor go away? If I admit God caused it in retribution of bad behavior, will it disappear? If I find the cause of an inferno is a leaking gas line, will plugging the line repair buildings already ablaze? If New Orleans and America repent of all their sins right now; if all of America dropped on its knees and declared that God is King and we his grateful servants, does anyone think that, even if there is such a God, our repentance would immediately cause the streets of New Orleans to dry, and the buildings and lives be restored? And, if we were to stop polluting the atmosphere and the earth right this second, will no one be homeless anywhere, no longer displaced by catastrophes?
  
• I am not opposed to looking at the divine when studying problems. I am not opposed to looking at everything–science, politics, economics, theology, sociology, psychology–in determining causality or solutions. What I am opposed to is blaming some people while not blaming others. In short–and here is the Christian doctrine of original sin raising its head–we are all to blame. But even admitting this does nothing other than humble us. But, if we are all to blame, what do we do next? Or are only some to blame? If that's the case, then truly there is a dark irony. For those who want to blame others and not themselves are usually the ones who find the doctrine of original sin too malicious, too damning of all the greatness of humanity. But what is more malicious than blaming only some people for the brokenness of the planet and its inhabitants?
• Right this second, the remnants of Katrina are darkening the skies outside my window. There are bands of rain, swirling winds, and a tropical feel to the air. The energy outside is wonderful, beautiful, stunning. But it is also dangerous. Do I not realize that living in all this power and beauty and mystery is a risk? Did I not know that last week? last year? when I was a child taking my first steps? Do I really want science and government and guns and God to remove all the risk of living; to spare me of grief and tragedy? Do I want to live in a world where Category V hurricanes are rendered impotent; or can never pose a threat to anything?
  
• If God sends bad weather as punishment, does God send good weather as a blessing? If so, then why are not the blogs jammed with discussions and speculations about God's goodness in granting us long sunny days, perfectly temperate? And if the earth punishes us for spilling oil in Alaska, or burning fossil fuels in Cambridge, does she bless us with clear sunny days as well? If so, why? And why are there no symposiums discussing how nature BLESSES us daily with abundant sunshine, food, and recreation? Why only symposiums on the causes of Earth's wrath?
  

These musings are not much in the wake of Katrina. They are not much in the wake of even a beautiful sunset or sipping a glass of chilled Riesling with friends or playing with puppies. Life is a privilege, lest we forget. Too often we are cocksure in our convictions that the government and the very cosmos owe us something, something we believe we are entitled to by rights. But it is not a right to breathe. It is a privilege. And the second you reduce any of life's gifts to a right, you suck the life out of living, and you destroy life's giftedness. If you are entitled to a gift on your birthday, how is it a gift? Reducing life to a series of guarantees that all your creature comforts and desires will be protected and fulfilled, is to destroy the foundations of joy. For joy must always come as a surprise. As a gift. You do not deserve or earn joy. It just comes, handed out in the generosity which is always grace.

Blessings to you, New Orleans, Biloxi, and surrounding towns.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved

Today, Let These Suffice

As a photographer, I've long held the conviction that the camera always lies. Perhaps at some other time I will defend that thesis. But for now, let this photograph (which made the papers) and then this photograph open your eyes to the broader truth that neither picture can convey.

Contratimes

Weapons Of Miss Direction

New Orleans, Biloxi, the coast of Alabama. We think of you today. Blessings.

Miss Cindy Sheehan, whose personal life spins toward the soap opera-esque, has begged our attention, suggesting that people who support the fight in Iraq are "brainwashed." It is hardly an original observation she has offered. The "brainwashed" are everywhere: in churches, synagogues and mosques; on blogrolls and FoxNews; at NASCAR races and Toby Keith concerts; at symposiums on Intelligent Design.

But Miss Sheehan's observation is also reminiscent of something I would often urge my friends (and some students) to do when in the heat of a debate: Always be the first one to say "Well, I prefer to keep an open mind," thus securing for yourself a swift victory in the art of polemics. No one loses ANY argument if one secures the "high ground" of intellectual openness. Similarly, Miss Sheehan's observation is actually not so much an insult as it is a compliment–to herself. For she tacitly declares herself a member of the cognoscenti, the enlightened and clear-minded, the illuminati. The rest of us, well, we're just doltish cadavers with White-Housewashed brains, plodding like zombies toward the abyss. In contrast, if she is not all-knowing, she is at least complete and total in her understanding of foreign policy, war, and the clash of civilizations. All this with a round of applause from the prophet of perspicacity himself, Al Sharpton!

Of course, Miss Sheehan really wants us to lose our focus: she does not want us to look at the causes of the war; she wants us to look at the causes of her grief. And the causes of her grief are what she dismisses as the "false causes" of the war (see, she knows THE truth) which led to her son's death (who reenlisted for a return to Iraq, by the way, brainwashed as he was). That is why her question to President Bush–What "noble cause" did my son die for?– is so painful for her: Her mental advantage over the rest of us has determined that there is nothing for which her son died that could be considered noble. Her question to the president, in fact, is not really a question, as she has already found her answer. It is a rebuke, a declarative statement oozing with contempt and hostility: President Bush is a maker of zombies.

You of course already know the "causes" that are "false": weapons of mass destruction, Saddam's threat, Iraq's connection to 9/11, etc. Of course, each of these is viewed as false in the most logically fallacious way: If there is WMD, we will find them. We did not find them, THEREFORE there never were any WMD. It's like saying if there is a moon, I will see it when I look at the sky. I do not see the moon at this moment, therefore someone is lying about the moon. You see, the deficiency is not necessarily with the president and his minions. The deficiency may very well be with his critics. Their deficiency is due to a certain lack of humility; they lack healthy uncertainty.

So, in light of all this, I've spent some time just looking at the history of WMD inventories from Iraq. During my perusal, I discovered this interesting tidbit: in the mid-90s it was learned that prisoners were taken from Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison (have you heard of that place?) and taken to facilities where chemical and biological weapons were tested on those prisoners. (Hillary Clinton referred to the US's prisoner abuses at the that facility as "atrocities". I wonder what word she'd use to describe the use of humans as lab rats?) [see entry for June-August 1995]

Anyhow, that tidbit is worth mentioning, considering how sensitive the left is about such bad things. But I also found interesting the inventory reports submitted throughout the 1990's (I believe there were five) provided by the Iraqi government which listed chemical and biological weapons, and agents for mixing such weapons, in quantities measured in thousands of metric tons. The Iraqis themselves (these are not the reports of "failed intelligence agencies" but Iraq officials, for you sceptics out there) declared that they had manufactured VX nerve gas (some reports say liters, others 4 to 400 tons), mustard gas, and other such pleasantries. (See the list near bottom of this link.)

And then of course there are the UNSCOM reports of inspectors personally destroying or witnessing the destroying of vast parts of Iraq's inventories; and that much of the inventories' whereabouts or alleged destruction could not be verified. From the same reports, one comment (among many) stands out:

"...Iraq's basic declarations of its holdings and capabilities in prohibited weapons areas have never been "full, final or complete", as required by the Council. Further, Iraq's failure to provide all of the materials and evidence required to fill in the gaps left by those declarations and its acts of unilateral destruction have significantly obfuscated the situation.

... If the Commission is to enter such reports credibly, where prohibited weapons have existed, it must be able to verify positively that they have been destroyed, removed or rendered harmless. Where items and facilities for the potential manufacture or constitution of such weapons existed or exist, it must be able to verify negatively that prohibited weapons are not being created. This is the standard that was envisaged by the Security Council and is the standard routinely applied in all comparable disarmament and arms control regimes." UNSCOM REPORT, APRIL 1998

Add to this the blatantly bizarre behavior of Saddam Hussein–welcoming inspectors promising full access, then shutting them out, and then his expulsion of just the American inspectors–and an objective observer must rationally conclude that WMDs were part of the Hussein arsenal. How else to explain to an outsider a leader who would permit the devastation of his regime and much of his country by an adversary who has given him 13 years to come clean and avoid conflict? Mere political posturing, mere bravado?

What I am saying is this: The outrage at the lack of WMD repeatedly voiced by critics of the war is demonstrably fallacious, and intentionally disregards history. When Iraq admits to WMD, when it submits inventories to the UN and those inventories are largely confirmed by inspectors (not always), then a logical person concludes that Iraq possesses WMD. That they no longer do possess them is irrelevant.

Of course, the other "false pretext" on which the war is allegedly based was that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. But, curiously, he demonstrably was a threat. Even on the most superficial level he was a threat to world peace. For when a regime gives the middle finger to international law (all the while promising compliance), ignoring 17 UN resolutions and corrupting a nobly-intentioned Oil-For-Food program, then the world is threatened. Why? Because it spits on international law, treating it like so much toothless nonsense. Moreover, Hussein's caprice destabilized the region: Does anyone believe Israel felt comfortable with Iraq being "governed" by such a double-minded man? And does anyone believe that Israel would be pulling out of the Gaza Strip with Hussein still in power in Iraq? Well, I don't believe it for a second.

Lastly, regarding the connection of Iraq and 9/11, I've already addressed that in Mr. President, What About This Draft?

It is evident that opposing the war is no longer a moral duty. It's become a sort of brand loyalty, even a commodity traded for commercial gain. People are circling around Miss Sheehan for financial gain and political notoriety; swirling in the maelstrom of book deals, magazine interviews, movie rights, radio and TV ratings. Soon, the tide will turn for or against the war depending on which viewpoint generates the most cash for vendors, publishers and ad agencies, though, as it stands, I am sure plenty of economic energy is generated in the heat-engine that is the Sheehan sideshow, with opposing sides entrenched against one another. But like Hurricane Katrina, this story will begin to break apart, finally drizzling out over New England. News crews will travel home, publishers will reconvene, and the next great moment will be awaited, signs and microphones and computer graphics in hand.

But right now, a huge portion of the media and its audience are being directed by a mother whose grief and anger are pointing in all the wrong directions; by a mother who wants to direct the president, and the country, on how to conduct a war on terrorism. Grief is horrible to observe; even harder to endure. But grief is not entitled to tyrannize either the news or the government. It is entitled to speak, to mourn, to wail and even scream. But it is not an oracle offering advice out of a morass (particularly an alleged one). Yes, praise the democracy where such voices are heard, respected, even highlighted. But woe to that country that succumbs to the manipulations of grief, elevating it beyond its proper place. For there are other, equally viable emotions, full of force and inspiration. For instance, what of a father's pride in his son's death while in valiant battle? Where are the TV crews and magazine reporters camped out with Miss Sheehan's soon-to-be ex-husband? Are not his emotions worth noting, worth bringing to the President's attention, worth reporting in order to inform the public about war?

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

On Loan From Your Local Library: An Intelligent Man

Yesterday, to my soul's delight, I received an email from a friend who forwarded a wonderful story published in the Wall Street Journal. Since the Journal is quite restrictive about access to its online material (I've no problem with that), I tracked down an earlier report at World News Australia. It reads:

SWEDISH LIBRARY'S LIVING LOANS

A Swedish library has adopted a novel approach to the challenge of breaking down negative stereotypes by offering borrowers the chance to loan a living person.

In a fresh twist to the idea of being ‘on the shelf’, the Malmoe Library in southern Sweden will make available nine new additions to its collection over the weekend.

“Maybe not all journalists are know-it-all and sensationalist, just unafraid and curious. Maybe not all animal rights activists are angry and intolerant, but intelligent and committed,” said Ulla Brohed, the coordinator of the living library scheme.

“You sometimes hear people’s prejudices and you realise that they are just uninformed,” Ms Brohed said.

The ‘items’ on loan will include an imam, a journalist, a Dane, a homosexual, a Muslim woman and a member of the Romany, or Gypsy, community.

The ‘Borrow a Bias’ project will give borrowers 45 minutes to confront the prejudice of their choice in the library’s outdoor café.

It is not clear whether the library will impose late-fees if borrowers are late returning their loans.

“It’s a fun idea. Prejudice is something you have when you don’t know each other. If you confront each other, then the prejudice is broken down,” Lilian Simonsen, the Dane who will be on loan, said.

“We would like to test whether there really is such a difference between Danes and Swedes, as many people believe,” Ms Brohed said of Lilian Simonsen’s involvement.

The librarian said the Danes and Swedes have too little contact and that people living in the north of Sweden tended to find the Danish language incomprehensible, according to a report on the Danish Foreign Ministry’s official Denmark website.

Such conditions provide a fertile breeding ground for misinformed beliefs and preconceptions.

But,at least in launching the living library project, Swedes and Danes will soon have one more thing in common.

Copenhagen’s multicultural Norrebro neighbourhood has laid claim to initiating the idea.

This bit of news is really a raucous joke on the state of affairs in far too much of the West. Can you imagine the signing out of a Resident Homosexual for a good "reading" by the local "homophobe", or vice versa? How about "reading" a Catholic Priest Who Is Not A Pedophile, or an Orthodox Christian Who Is Not A Theocrat? How about reading the Democrat That Is Not A Marxist or the Republican Who Does Not Hate Children (you know, those folks who support unfunded education mandates)?

I imagine there must be some sort of ground rules associated with borrowing a particular object of prejudice. Surely one could only ask the plainest questions of the above-mentioned Imam, or perhaps the Resident Mormon, without even the pleasure of Socratic dialogue. Why? Because borrowers would be restricted, I should think, from "changing" or "corrupting" or "vandalizing" the very living texts on loan at the library.

Imagine a crafty evangelical signing out a Real Agnostic and, in the process of confronting his intellectual nightmare or his deepest prejudices with diverse arguments and Bible passages, the evangelical leads the Agnostic to accept Christ as Savior. Surely the evangelical would not be returning his subject "in the same condition in which it was originally borrowed." Think too of an Intelligent Husband signed out by myriad women intent on observing such a rare sight. Surely there would be no poking and prodding or dog-earing allowed. Surely there could be no handing him an iron or a can-opener to see if he can use either with flawless skill. Surely there could be no taking him into the Ladies lavatory to see if he leaves the toilet seat up or presses the toothpaste tube in the middle. Surely he can't be tested in a women's shoe store, or trusted with little children at dinnertime; or asked "Does this dress make me look fat?"

Really, just think of the nightmare awaiting librarians everywhere as they posit restrictions on usage, and determine the condition of items returned (and yes, collect those late fees).

"Today, on our New Arrivals shelf, please find a Neo-con who supports George Bush's illegal war in Iraq."

"Psst. Excuse me. Librarian? I am no longer a Neo-con. This morning's time with the Democratic mother really made me a different person. I am now a Quaker with a twist: I believe in war, but only against oppressors like George Bush and ..."

"Oops. Quick. Get in the Bargain Bin."

It is sad that the remedy for getting to know one's neighbor; to walk a mile in another's shoes, or to understand another person's quite different perspective from one's own, has come down to a type of prostitution.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved

The Most Important Question: Epilogue

In parts I and II of this series, I mentioned a belief in inevitability that runs through Islam; a theological concept of predestination. This article of belief is known as al-Qadar. Marxist- Communist doctrine is similar, claiming that the proletariat struggle against the bourgeoisie (with the proletariat's eventual overthrow of that bourgeoisie and the socializing of the means of production) is an inevitable process of history. Of course, this Marxist idea is a religious idea, as there are no logical or scientific proofs to Marxist idealism.

I was a bit heavy-handed, I think, in attributing by innuendo to all Muslims that all Muslims are quiet about terrorism, or are supportive of or comfortable with al-Qadar. There are problems in Islamic theological discourse between Muslim clerics, with sundry divisions, in ways familiar to those of us attuned to divisions in Christian theology. No one group is ever completely homogeneous.

Let me direct you to this interesting condemnation of Islam's old infatuation with suicide bombings. It is delivered by a Muslim cleric. Please take the time to read this speech reprinted at MEMRI. It is revealing (though there are problems with it). [Thanks to Frontpagemag.com for citing it.]

I will end my comments with this curious syllogism found at Answering Islam.org:

• (1) If A, then B. If Allah endorses Islam, then it should expand endlessly.
• (2) Not-B. But it is not expanding endlessly (see this analysis).
• (3) Therefore, not-A. Therefore, Allah does not endorse Islam.

In a technical sense, this is a valid syllogism, a modus tollens, though I find such syllogisms faulty. For this could be an equally valid modus tollens:

1. If my dog is home, the front door will be locked.
2. The front door is not locked.
3. Therefore my dog is not home.

But the syllogism about Islam raises an interesting point. If there is a God, and that God has established a religion, one would think that that religion would expand and not contract. Of course, Christianity's earliest writings predict a great apostasy in "the last days" from its own folds, but I do not believe Islam makes similar claims of itself. Islam is much more concerned about earthly terrority and holy sites than is Christendom: Visitation to such sites is one of the Five Pillars of Islam (Hajj). Much of Islam is fixed on earthly dominance and expansion, and thus is much more vulnerable to the problem raised in the syllogism printed above.

IRAQ CONSTITUTION

As you know by now, the deadline has passed in Iraq, and the Iraqis have not agreed upon a constitution. This news is only disappointing in the most superficial analysis. To me, the news is heartening and exciting. That one Iraqi lawmaker said that the constitution thus far drafted has been drafted "by the powerful people, and not by the people," is beautiful, for it reveals the depth of understanding some if not all Iraqis possess about the drafting of a constitution. Even some lawmakers have recommended that parts of the constitution be sent to the Iraqi people in a referendum. In that way, perhaps, the seminal elements of democracy will be fertilized even more. But what is heartening is that the process is taking time; even lots of time. Which proves, at the very least, that people are taking this process seriously, and are not rushing off pell-mell to take control of an ancient and vulnerable culture.

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

The Most Important Question: On Inevitability And The War On Terror, Part II

In Part I of this series (which is a prerequisite for understanding what follows), I argued that the Islamic article of belief – al-Qadar – the sixth of six such articles, must lead us who reside in the West to this important question: Has Allah willed the destruction – or the submission – of the West?

As I have shown, al-Qadar is the will of Allah; that all that comes to pass has been willed by him. Thus, as the towers imploded at Ground Zero, Muslims submitted to Allah's will – the towers were willed down by Allah's fiat. There is therefore no real condemnation of the act of terror: Since it happened, it was meant to happen. There is no denying Allah's hand.

Of course, this teaching is fraught with difficulty, as many Muslim scholars admit. Where is human free will in Allah's sovereignty? Does Allah will evil and sinfulness? How does a Muslim understand devastating personal or military defeat? (For some analysis of the problems such questions raise, follow the links in Part 1.)

Irrespective of the difficulty of al-Qadar, the fact remains that most if not all practicing Muslims are reluctant to either condemn or reject this article of belief. Why? Because it is fundamental to that faith, and to the very essence of Islam, a word which means "to submit" or "surrender". Allah must be sovereign. He can not be surprised; he cannot have other wills competing against his own; he cannot NOT know everything. Otherwise, he would not be all-powerful or all-knowing. In short, he would not be Allah.

THE WAR ON TERROR AND AL-QADAR

In Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, an Israeli army major reservist wrote about his role in removing his fellow citizens from Gaza, a painful and harrowing ordeal. Michael B. Oren writes about how he felt prior to that dreadful eviction:

"My feelings were, at best, ambivalent. I wanted to end Israel's occupation of Gaza's 1.4 million Palestinians and preserve Israel's Jewish majority, but feared abetting the terrorists' claim that Israel had fled under fire." [emphasis added]

(see Page A10, August 23, 2005)

What is important to see in Oren's comments is what I've highlighted in bold: He feared that Israel's withdrawal would fuel the terrorists' belief that Israel was routed by superior force. Why is that important? Because it supports the Islamic belief that, if a thing happens, Allah wanted it to happen. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza proves the supremacy of Allah's will, and the supremacy of his Lordship over even other gods. After all, there is no other God but Allah. The Jewish God is no match at all.

Remember Osama bin Laden's celebration over the surprising (to him) collapse of the World Trade Center towers? The collapses proved his faith in Allah; Allah was on his side. Similarly, when the mujahideen pushed back the Soviet invaders in Afghanistan, this success was proof that Allah was against the greatest Western super-power in Europe and Asia. And the retreat of American troops in Somalia proved more of the same.

So Israel's "retreat" is seen as a defeat, and a sign that Allah is on the move.

WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST?

For a moment, let us countenance the foreign policy of someone like Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother of a fallen soldier camped out at "Camp Casey" in Crawford, TX. Let us agree that America should begin an immediate and systematic withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq and even Afghanistan. What would those actions do to Islamic religious beliefs about its holy war against Western infidels?

Answer: It would fuel confidence that Allah was in fact supreme, and supremely interested in defeating the infidel West. It would vindicate the insurgents' attacks along countless roadsides. It would be cause for celebration. What will be was MEANT to be. Meant by Allah.

Thus, retreat and withdrawal from the Middle East is an act of concession on a religious scale, and not a military one.

In Part 1, I asserted that the West, particularly the United States, might want to rethink its military strategy in Iraq or withdraw. Clearly, withdrawal is not an option. But its current military strategy may in fact be as ineffective and dangerous as withdrawal. Why?

If in fact al-Qadar infuses all of Islam, or most of it, then perhaps the only military strategy effective in dealing with Islamic militants is profound military superiority. And I mean profound. (Please note: I am not advocating this, only analyzing what is before us.) If, for instance, the West were to destroy all Islamic holy sites, making them in fact uninhabitable and unrecognizable; if the West obliterated every alleged Allah-backed stronghold, the Islamic faith in Allah would be sorely shaken, and may perhaps never recover. In fact, Islam might even be destroyed, or reformed into something hardly recognizable to its current form.

Again, I am not advocating this, nor am I wishing this. I am merely suggesting what may be the only viable military option to confront those Muslims committed to Allah's victory over alleged Western infidelity.

There is, of course, another way. We could do what I said yesterday: We could let the theologians fight the battle.

"CONVERT THEM TO CHRISTIANITY"

Recall what Ann Coulter said shortly after 9/11: The West should, among other things, invade Islamic countries and "convert them to Christianity". In a way, her remarks were brilliantly on point. For what we need to do is win the propaganda war with radical Islam: We need to show the most aggressive corners of Islam that the religious idea of Allah's sovereignty is not intellectually viable. In other words, we should not be launching sorties of bombs on Muslim strongholds, but sorties of brochures pointing out the weakness of a deity that wills everything. (Of course, this would violate Church/State or Mosque/State separation requirements. But what must America do if indeed the war on terror consists of a religion battling a secular state. Should that secular state ignore religion altogether? Should it be mute about it? Or should it engage its opponents in a battle of wits?)

What? Have I lost my mind? No. What I am saying is this: Any deity deemed to be all-powerful is not a deity if he (or she) WILLS everything. Willing EVERYTHING is a sign of weakness, not strength. Really, who is stronger, that Being which MAKES everything turn out his way, or that Being which permits things to happen randomly and yet nonetheless conform to his will?

Think of it this way (I'll try not to be too theological here). Imagine two men in an adventurer's race from New York City to Katamandu. One racer maps out every step; makes plans to the final minute; mapping out every runway and highway and airport escalator. The other racer plans nothing other than a willful first step. And with that first step he is carried in a whirlwind of events: he is hit by a car, taken to hospital, blown out a window by a tornado, lands in a ship, shipwrecks at sea, swims to shore, is offered a bicycle ride by a one-legged man. The racer with the plan and the map is making great headway, and yet, at the finish line, is amazed to find that his opponent is buying fabric in a Katamandu market. Which of these racers is really the more adventurous, and even the more powerful? Is the man who plans and controls every step powerful, or the one who finds his way through chaos?

But we are not talking about men here, we are talking of gods. And if there is a God, it would seem to me that He must be so all-powerful that His will would still cosmically prevail without His needing to decree every single instant. (As theologian Karl Barth said of the Christian Incarnation, God is so omnipotent He can be impotent and still be God. God has the power to be powerless.) Moreover, His Will is not some sort of preconceived outcome, like decreeing that Jerusalem is the seat of Utopia. His Will is not a quantity but a quality: It is not that the end of all things is defined by the walls of a perfected state. The end is defined by whether the end of all things is LOVING. Hence, God's will is more about His heart than His head. He does not have a PLAN. The creation is enfused with His nature, and thus, no matter how creation unfolds, through myriad accidents and trials and seemingly random events, it will end up according to God's nature. The paths to the end may be infinite; but the end will always be the same: God's will crosses the finish line first, and the prize is love and gentleness and prodigal generosity. The prize is not a better government or a better nation-state or caliphate.

It is this sort of argument that needs to be dropped on the "fatalists" at war with us. What is needed is the sowing of healthy doubt. What is needed is to make people, no matter who they are, doubt themselves enough to wonder if they in fact "might be wrong." What we need ultimately is the destruction of certainty; religious certainty.

Who are the most gentle, easy people with whom to debate religion? Is it that person who KNOWS they are right about God? Is it that person who is certain you are wrong for believing in Christ? Is it that arrogant agnostic certain of his doubt? Or is it that person who is health-fully doubtful, recognizing the role of faith in all knowledge; recognizing that our certainties are often the worse thing about us? In short, are not the best dialogues on religion between those who are genuinely (not feignedly) humble about their beliefs, admitting their vulnerabilities and doubts?

There are only a few ways to fight the War on Terror: As an all out flexing of muscularity and blustering of machismo; a turning heel and running scared; a half-hearted display of strength; a reasoned, calculated blend of force and diplomacy. America may in fact be involved in the shrewdest type of warfare ever seen: superior firepower blended with conviviality and fraternity and patient restraint. But unless the War on Terror includes a better bomb for the mind and heart – the religious mind and heart – the war will continue on its perennial, 4000-year-old course.

This is a religious battle over the nature of God. I am, I think, certain of it. But I could be wrong.

Peace to you.

(Here is Part III, the epilogue.)

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved

The Most Important Question: On Inevitability And The War On Terror

What I am attempting here today might be overly ambitious. But I want to get at the most important thing you need to know about the so-called War on Terror. I am not suggesting that the War on Terror is false or foolhardy. There is undoubtedly the Islam-fueled machinery of terrorism aimed at the West. But what I am suggesting is that the War on Terror is not really aptly named. It would be like calling the practice of medicine a "War on Pain". Pain is only a symptom. Of course, sometimes medicine can only treat symptoms; the common cold is so treated. But a medical War on Pain is about etiology, about causes and origins. It is not about pain per se, but what the pain signifies. Hence, medicine is about treating causes; about eradicating threats to health. But even that is not the ultimate aim of medicine. Medicine is not ultimately about a War on Pain or Causes. It is ultimately about a War on Death.

Similarly, the War on Terror, playing out as a war on symptoms, should be a war against causes. But the causes are not failed foreign policy or trade imbalances or territory occupations. Those themselves are symptomatic. What the war is ultimately about is something far scarier, and far more elusive. The War on Terror is really a war about the nature of God. My aim is for this essay to be the most important thing you've ever read about radical Islam, and its aggressions toward the West. And it is to suggest two things: The West either needs to completely redefine its use of military force in this war, or it needs to stop such force altogether. In short, the War on Terror might be better fought by theologians than soldiers.

I begin with the National Geographic documentary "Inside 9/11". This well-done though imperfect and incomplete 4-hour film defines the key "causes" of 9/11, though it reaches only back into the deep history of 1980. That this is a tremendous shortfall is obvious, though the reason for this mistake is likewise obvious: Islam and the West have been at 0dds for over 1000 years, so a line must be drawn somewhere. What happened in 1980? The former Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, an invasion which was nothing but struggle for the Soviets for 8 years. Eventually, Muslim fighters – the mujahideen – backed with weapons supplied by the US' CIA, forced the great socialist state to retreat in defeat.

This defeat set the tone for men like Osama bin Laden (OBL): They were on the right side of God, as Allah decreed. This religious confidence would expand, finding itself expressed in the "defeat" of American forces in Mogadishu (backed by OBL) made infamous in the film, "Black Hawk Down" (I have read that Somalia celebrates an annual holiday in honor of its victory over America); through September 11, as Muslim crowds cheered the demolition of the World Trade Center; and even on through to today, as Israel completes its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Where does this confidence come from? Why do Muslims cheer as thousands die? And why have no major Islamic leaders – political or religious – denounced those horrific acts?

The confidence of Islam and its glee over and seeming indifference to death comes from one of the most important teachings of Islam. It is to this teaching that I will now turn.

al-Qadar

If you are at all familiar with the Calvinistic idea of predestination, then you are on the road to understanding the Islamic teaching of al-Qadar. It is, in simplest possible terms, the idea that an all-powerful, all-knowing Allah wills and decrees and foreknows every thing that comes to pass. That this teaching is fraught with difficulty is admitted by Muslim scholars the world over, as many struggle to maintain a concept of human free will in the presence of an omnipotent Allah. Of course, this same problem exists for Christian theologians, particularly those in the Calvinist tradition.

Granted, I have perhaps over-simplified the doctrine, but I have stated its essence accurately. One online definition and description is to be found here; a more thorough one can be read here or at this link.

Let me share three things I've learned over the years as I've studied this. First, this doctrine is not peripheral or tangential to Islam, it is essential. In fact, it is the sixth of the Six Articles of Belief. "Islam", let us remember, means "to submit or surrender"; the surrender of the Muslim (one who surrenders) to the will of Allah. Second, to deny or challenge this foundational doctrine is to risk divine judgment. And third, this teaching has led many to believe that Islam is essentially fatalistic: That there is nothing in life but inevitabililty; there is no personal control over destiny. In fact, G.K. Chesterton nearly 100 years ago repeatedly referred to Islam as the religion of fatalism. Muslims have actually addressed this charge (for an example, go here). For a discussion about such fate, study this link.

I want to highlight two statements regarding al-Qadar from sources already cited:

"Al-Qadar is a matter of Allah's Knowledge. No one can uncover his own Qadar but after it happens. One's intention to perform a deed precedes the action itself. He does not know what Al-Qadar holds for him."

"Allah created everything and nothing happens without His permission. He said that all actions taken by His slave happen by His Will, (If Allah had willed, succeeding generations would not have fought against each other, after clear Versus of Allah had come to them, but they differed, some of them believed and others disbelieved. If Allah had willed, they would not have fought against one another, but Allah does what He likes.) [2:253] and, (And if We had willed, surely! We would have given every person his guidance, but the Word from Me took effect (about evil-doers), that I will fill Hell with Jinn and mankind together.) [32:13].

"As for the mind, the universe is Allah's Kingdom and mankind are a part of this Kingdom. Therefore, all mankind are owned by Allah. The slave cannot do anything in this Kingdom unless its Lord, Allah, gives him permission."

THE PROBLEM

I hope the reader can guess where I am going here. I am suggesting something entirely simple, and it is this: When something occurs, whether it be the defeat of the Soviet army, the withdrawal of American troops from Somalia, a bombing in London or Madrid, or the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, Muslims MUST view those events as Allah's will, his Qadar. There is no other choice. And if you've read the articles to which I've linked, then you know that al-Qadar is not an easy teaching for Muslims: It is nearly impossible for them to separate a person's freedom from Allah's decree. In fact, if I were a Muslim, I would always choose, largely because of the difficulty of the teaching, to assign all actions to a sovereign deity in order not to offend that deity's omnipotent honor.

Osama bin Laden himself submits to this teaching, as proven by his comments released in December 2001. Surely we all remember the videotape, with OBL sitting in a cave speaking about 9/11 to a Saudi sheik? What did they say about the World Trade Center? They said this, translated of course [UBL is Usama bin Laden, a variant spelling]:

UBL: (... Inaudible...) we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (... Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.

Shaykh: Allah be praised.

UBL: We were at (... inaudible...) when the event took place. We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on. It was 5: 30 p. m. our time. I was sitting with Dr. Ahmad Abu-al-(( Khair)). Immediately, we heard the news that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. We turned the radio station to the news from Washington. The news continued and no mention of the attack until the end. At the end of the newscast, they reported that a plane just hit the World Trade Center.

Shaykh: Allah be praised.

UBL: After a little while, they announced that another plane had hit the World Trade Center. The brothers who heard the news were overjoyed by it.

Shaykh: I listened to the news and I was sitting. We didn't... we were not thinking about anything, and all of a sudden, Allah willing, we were talking about how come we didn't have anything, and all of a sudden the news came and everyone was overjoyed and everyone until the next day, in the morning, was talking about what was happening and we stayed until four o'clock, listening to the news every time a little bit different, everyone was very joyous and saying "Allah is great," "Allah is great," "We are thankful to Allah," "Praise Allah." And I was happy for the happiness of my brothers. That day the congratulations were coming on the phone non-stop. The mother was receiving phone calls continuously. Thank Allah. Allah is great, praise be to Allah.

(Quoting the verse from the Quran) Shaykh: "Fight them, Allah will torture them, with your hands, he will torture them. He will deceive them and he will give you victory. Allah will forgive the believers, he is knowledgeable about everything."

Shaykh: No doubt it is a clear victory. Allah has bestowed on us... honor on us... and he will give us blessing and more victory during this holy month of Ramadan. And this is what everyone is hoping for. Thank Allah America came out of its caves. We hit her the first hit and the next one will hit her with the hands of the believers, the good believers, the strong believers. By Allah it is a great work. Allah prepares for you a great reward for this work.

(Read the complete transcript here)

What is the response to OBL's having learned that the towers have collapsed? "Allah be praised". It is more than anyone hoped for.

Hence, that the towers collapsed PROVES to (most?) Muslims that they were MEANT to collapse, by divine decree. In fact each terrorism attack that succeeds vindicates militant Islam's belief in its superiority to the religions of other nations. Moreover, Muslims can't really denounce something if it has already occurred: Allah willed it!

Where does that then leave us? It leaves us in the heart of a theological debate, even if each of us in the West living under Osama bin Laden's fatwa is an atheist. There is no way around this religious issue. It is the heart of the struggle, and that struggle begs this most important question: Is the deity of Islam WILLING the West's destruction or not?

It is food for thought.

(CLICK HERE for Part II)

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All rights reserved.

Inside My Heart: Brother, Take My Hand. Let's Leave This Place

It is impossible for me to fully process what I have just seen (National Geographic's "Inside 9/11"). My earlier posts seem trivial, petulant, even foolish. This whole story – the West's struggle with Islam – is bigger than any one, or any ten thousand minds, can comprehend.

Tonight, I have cried. I have shouted out profanities. I have called out to God (as one woman screamed out in the WTC dust cloud for Jesus to save her).

But I have not suffered. Everything around me is comfortable, safe, stable.

For now.

A New York Muslim falls as he tries to escape the imploding tower. A Hasidic Jew stands over him, reaches down. "Brother, take my hand. Let's leave this place."

A moment of choking, smothering chaos. Suddenly, a hand of Shalom, of Salaam. The Good Samaritan. Love thy neighbor. Love your enemies.

Breathtaking, in more ways than one.

Of course, Osama bin Laden's quote posted at the end of the film, is a mindbender: We love death, the U.S. loves life. That is the difference.

It is the difference indeed.

Contratimes

Disappointed: Inside 9/11 From The Outside

[This begins below with Play By Play...]

Last night's first chapter of the two-part series, "Inside 9/11", was just OK. The National Geographic Society did all it could to impress us with its, well, geography, with satellite image-based graphics adorning its jam-packed timeline, but the graphics and attendant audio effects eventually felt overdone and irritating.

That said, I was disappointed by this one fact: The series did not mention Iraq once - other than a passing remark about perfectly forged Iraqi passports. There may have been more references, and I may have missed them, but I doubt it.

Why should this upset me? Because there is the underlying myth pervading particularly the liberal landscape that Iraq and 9/11 are completely – and eternally, it seems – unrelated. In fact, the NGS writers mention OBL's fatwa – barely, but only in reference to America's alliance with Saudi Arabia. While that alliance irked him to no end, it was America's aggression toward Iraq that pissed him off. See my Mr. President, What About ...

Moreover, it was a Clintonite, Karen Mylroie, I believe, who made a strong case in 1994 that Iraq President Saddam Hussein was involved in the first major attack on the WTC in 1993. Of course, this is all lost in the left's tedious repeating of the lie that the 9/11 Commission found no connection between 9/11 and Hussein. To counteract that lie, the Commission held press conferences to denounce that finding, pointing out that it had only concluded that there was no "collaborative" connection between Hussein and the 9/11 terrorists.

But the Able Danger scandal, hot as hell, places doubt on the veracity of both the Commission's findings and the recollections of the former Clinton administration. This much is clear: Clinton REALLY screwed up. I am not stating this in any partisan way. It is true, plain and simple.

Lastly, I am disappointed by the NGC's reference to one terrorist who was raised in the lands apparently stolen by Israel during the Six Days' War. The suggestion is that he was a member of the oppressed, which he was. But he was not oppressed solely by land-hungry oppressors. He was oppressed by the aggressions of his own people and the 20-plus other PLO nations intent on the sole destruction of Israel. After all, it was Israel's neighbors who first attacked Israel: The Six Days' War was a defensive measure on all objective counts, save maybe the Quakers'.

Contratimes

Play By Play: Inside 9/11, LIVE

While I have family members rocking out right now to the Rolling Stones in Fenway Park, I sit and watch the National Geographic Channel's "Inside 9/11". It is a highly-publicized four-hour documentary examining the timeline leading up to September 11.

Here are a few thoughts during the 10:23 commercial break.

• The show fails to mention the Clinton administration's failure to declare the Feb 26, 1993 bombing attack on the World Trade Center as an act of war. Instead, the administration chose to view it, and subsequent attacks around the world, as criminal acts. This separated the F.B.I and C.I.A. in ways indeterminable.In fact, the show hardly mentions Clinton's leadership at all, until
• The impeachment scandal is highlighted, as well as Clinton's acquittal by the Senate. I am sorry, but the implication is that if Clinton had not been harassed by puritanical officials obsessed with his sex-life, Clinton would have been free to better track, capture and/or destroy Osama bin Laden. In other words, that Clinton could not do his job because of the harassment by such devils as Ken Starr. No sense is given that Clinton brought the Lewinsky scandal upon himself.
• Ah, there is, right now (the show is back on), mention that Clinton went into retreat during the waning months of his final term, thus harming morale throughout the military establishment.
• Oops. Now we're told that Bush was "on vacation" in August of 2001, when he received a brief warning of an attack. It's all designed to implicate. No mention that Clinton's sexual recklessness destroyed his effectiveness. But Bush showing off his chainsaw prowess; that's something else. Sure, there's Clinton hugging Monica in that hat, BUT that's Clinton's "Private Life." Of course, Bush's vacation is not his private life.

It is clear that Clinton dropped the ball. Eight years of neglect of bin Laden's threats. Yes, Bush was too domestically fixated during the first months of his term, largely due to wanting to win America's blessing after the 2000 election debacle. But he and his administration are on the scene for but a few months. Clinton had 8 years to do better than his successor...

More later...

Contratimes

Sui Generis

It's Sunday morning, I've been stung by a bee, had my coffee, and just finished reading Ann Coulter's latest essay, Cindy Sheehan - Commander in Grief. Ann makes a remarkably similar argument, in parts, to what I drafted yesterday. However, since she is my superior and quicker to the punchline, I abdicate any claim to originality (as I do most days anyway), recognizing that her opinions may have, through the course of any news cycle, influenced mine without my notice.

In a lighter, more personal note, how is it (pain always generates mild obsession) that while pedalling my mountain bike at full speed on the way to this perfect little café, I could get stung on the back of the left thigh? Such a nasty little surprise.

Last night I watched much of the film, "A Beautiful Mind", the story of the genius and mentally ill mathematician John Nash. (With Jennifer Connolly playing Nash's wife, my closest male friends have repeatedly referred to the film as "A Beautiful Wife." Again, hardly an original thought. But an accurate one, nonetheless. I mean, she was distractingly beautiful in that film.)

If the film is at all accurate, Nash was obsessed, at least at Princeton, with publishing an original thought. Such a goal is notable, and must be closely allied with obsession. I can with all clarity admit that I've not once had an original thought, nor have I uttered an original sentence at a dinner party. To pursue originality, to actually create something sui generis, one-of-a-kind, must either be a stroke of luck or demand all one's faculties, or both.

And I can pretty much say that if I've heard an original thought offered while sitting at this café or clinking glasses over paté, the thought is usually remarkably deficient, even ridiculous.

With this in mind, I ask myself why I should bother writing about that which is popular, known, unoriginal? Why repeat the oft repeated, and engage in the infinite loop?

Because I am striving, along with the rest of you, for a glimpse of the transcendent, the new, the detour around the morass. I am looking for those off- and on-ramps that lead to something eternal, fixed, indubitable, even fresh; new vistas, insights, epiphanies, each to help me make sense of the world in which I find myself.

It is not asking too much, is it?

But sometimes stating the obvious, telling the plain truth about an object in common sense terms, is possibly a stroke of genius. Originality is perhaps too aggressively pursued; and by too many people enamored of the creative spirit irrespective of the poverty of that which is created. It is possible, as I've stated in other ways, to be so creative as to be of no artistic good (in the truest sense of artistic); and of no earthly good. We can be so enamored of the artistic image that we can no longer see anything but canvas and clay, the much cheaper representations of the real things we no longer see, nor care to. It is like wedding guests huddled around dozens of digital cameras, oohing and ahhing over images of the very things they can see in three dimensions if they would just lift their eyes. Even a woman I met in NYC, a survivor of 9/11, shared with me that once she WATCHED the film clips of that tragic day, it became more real to her. (I recall as a teenager, after a tragic weekend in which three schoolmates were killed, that I did not weep at wake or funeral. I wept after the fact, when I read the obituaries.)

So, in a world divorced from the ground of being, with people disconnected from the ISNESS of things, stating the obvious, or even just searching for it without comment or analysis, may indeed be an ingenius act of creation; and a true protest.

Enjoy this August day. See it, taste it, touch it. Whatever you do, don't miss it. Even if it stings you in the rear.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes

At A Loss

Cindy Sheehan is hot right now, so hot her name is probably a hipper search word than "Jessica Simpson" or "Jude Law". Strange how things change so quickly. Ms. Sheehan was totally unknown to me until about 10 days ago. Prior to that I was dealing with the Downing Street Memo or Dick Cheney or Maureen Dowd; Abu Ghraib or Karl Rove, John Roberts, or even John Bolton. Now, as indictments are drafted against UN officials involved in the UN Oil-For-Food scandal with Iraq, and the Clinton presidency and the 9/11 commission teeter under the severe weight of the Able Danger revelations, the latest Propaganda-For-News fad is a woman camped out at the end of a Texas driveway.

For a great look at Ms. Sheehan's views, please see Christopher Hitchens' recent op-eds, Cindy Sheehan's Sinister Piffle and What Cindy Sheehan Really Wants. (Hey, anyone who puts "sinister" and "piffle" in the same headline has got to be worth reading.) As you read Hitchens, take time to follow the many links he posts in his essay. It is quite a tour. That Mr. Hitchens and I would not agree on much matters little to me. What matters is that he has a handle on this latest gratuitous info-mercial presented by the main-stream media and the leftists who have exploited it.

I have no strong views about Ms. Sheehan. She will soon be forgotten. This is in no way meant to diminish her grief. It is merely meant to mentally prepare myself for the next cause celebre that will beg for my attention. And since my time on earth is finite, I need to use that time as wisely and frugally as possible. After all, any time spent on anything is time one can never retrieve.

But today I want to expend my time on two things central to the story of the Crawford standoff, where Ms. Sheehan, I believe, expects President Bush to Crawl-Forward to her in deep contrition.

The first is a rebuff of the silly, vapid remarks offered by two Boston talk-radio personalities who believe President Bush should meet – individually – with the "parents" of all soldiers killed in the "War on Terror". Of course, this sort of expectation comes from the same folks who believe the President should not waste so much time vacationing. But what greater vacation would there be from presidential duties than meeting with grieving loved ones individually? Moreover, why limit visits to parents? Why not step- and grandparents, wives, husbands, fiances, girlfriends and children?

A simple math calculation may move us along to the next scene in this absurd theater. Let us assume that when the year is done, 2000 American troops will have been killed in Iraq. Let us give them each 2 parents. That leaves us with 4000 grieving moms and dads, though some soldiers will have only one parent, others might have four (counting step-parents). Let us assume that 25 percent of the soldiers leave behind a spouse. That makes for 4500 grieving family members. Now let's assume that there are 750 children left behind; 750 fiances, and 500 girlfriends and boyfriends. That gives us about 6500 people the president should comfort with his counsel. Now, assuming that Mr. Bush meets with all these people, giving them 5 minutes each (not much) of his time, his aides will have to earmark 32,500 minutes for such services. That's a mere 541.66 hours. If President Bush worked 24-hours a day, without rest, he could dispense his comforts in 3.22 weeks. At 12-hour days, he could fulfill his pastoral duties in 6.44 weeks.

And this does not include comforting grieving siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles.

The question is this: What is the cutoff number of dead soldiers that makes it impossible for the President to speak to grieving parents face-to-face, one-on-one? Is 1000 a good number? Do 2000 dead soldiers leave behind too many loved ones to receive presidential solace? Who among us dares to come forward with the number?

"A NOBLE CAUSE"

Ms. Sheehan claims that she wants to know why her son died. She offers that she heard Mr. Bush speak about her son dying for a noble cause. What noble cause, Mr. Bush? is her question. And her other question is whether the President has encouraged his own daughters to enlist in the fight if the cause is indeed as noble as he claims.

Ms. Sheehan's question about the President's daughters is mired in the fallacious. Ms. Sheehan connects support of a war with participation: If you support X, put your money where your mouth is, and put on your boots. But one need not be involved in X in order to rightly support it. I can support my child's love of skateboarding without trying the sport myself (I could be wheelchair bound). I could send my parents to a nursing home without living there myself; or I could support my neighbor sending his son to camp, though neither of us had ever gone camping. I appreciate opera without singing opera; I appreciate Ms. Sheehan's right to speech without participating in her sort of remonstrance.

But if Ms. Sheehan's logic is to be followed, she herself cannot speak against something unless she is involved in that which she rebukes. Her statements lead to the absurd situation where the opera singer smugly dismisses the critic's reviews on the basis that the critic himself is not an opera singer. If Mr. Bush cannot call the war noble without direct participation (why would his daughters' enlistment qualify and not his own?), then Ms. Sheehan cannot call it ignoble without direct involvement (and losing a son is not direct involvement). Moreover, if BOTH the President's daughters did enlist and were killed, would that give him twice the cachet that Ms. Sheehan apparently possesses?

Lastly, who among us would want to be either the Commander-in-Chief, or the daughters of that commander? The Bush family has and will long continue to live under state protection, surrounded by safeguards. Ms. Sheehan has lost something dear to her: her son. But the entire Bush family has also sacrificed something: their freedom. While Ms. Sheehan is free enough to grieve her son's death by camping ad infinitum outside a Crawford ranch, the Bush daughters could not safely camp there, or anywhere, for five minutes (without being surrounded by perhaps the best security forces in the world). Does anyone really envy the gulag which is the Bush compound at Kennebunkport? Is that really a vacation behind the security fence at Crawford?

I would not sacrifice one second of my life to be in President Bush's shoes, would you?

The sacrifices of the Iraq War, many of which are hidden, are nonetheless ubiquitous. Most will never capture the film producer's attention. But those who sacrifice are not just among the many grieving mothers. They are everywhere among us.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes

Of Birds And Bees, And The Free Oppression Of Women: Conclusions and Solutions

[This series begins with Kicking At The Darkness.]

Let us imagine an America where all abortions are illegal. What is the one thing we would discover should that ever happen?

We we would discover that abortions will be performed, irrespective of the law.

Let us imagine America with no restrictions (we're pretty much there now) on abortion. What is the one thing we would know should that be the case?

We would know that babies will be aborted by some if not by many women, for callous, gratuitous, self-indulgent reasons. Of course, that already happens now. We know that.

Given what we know in either scenario, what solution is there to the abortion problem? On the one hand there are the pro-choicers, adamant that all women have the right to "reproductive freedom" (Orwellian newspeak, of course); that outlawing abortion, even restricting it, is tantamount to embracing a medieval ethos, returning women to back-alley abortionists. For sure, this reaction is justifiable only if everything else remains equal, i.e. motherhood remains devalued, being feminist means being like men, and the world maintains an inhospitable posture towards mothers, including unwed ones, and children (especially those from the "disadvantaged" sectors, where abortions are often sought). Moreover, abortion advocates repeatedly speak about making abortion "safe and rare." How this latter idea jives with mandating that all women have access to the complete apparatus conjoined to "reproductive freedom" is elusive and vague.

But let us assume that the abortion advocates are doggedly serious about making abortion safe and rare. What do they mean? Do they mean that rarity is guaranteed by contraceptive measures; that promiscuity should be treated benignly as long as abortion and the concomitant diseases of promiscuity are rare and safely treated? Or do they mean something more?

Now, on the other hand, we have the pro-lifers, many of whom believe that abortion should be outlawed in all instances. OK. Voila! I'll give them their wish – abortion is completely illegal in all corners of the United States. However, abortions will still occur. Now what? Convict and sentence? OK, let's do that, with severity. But guess what? Abortions will still occur, as will "bad abortions." Where does that leave us as a "culture of life"?

KEEPING THINGS RARE

It requires no great feat of mind to ascertain one supreme fact concerning the philosophy of psychology embraced and followed by pro-choice activists, and that fact is this: The pro-choice zeitgeist demands that no one feel guilty except those who make other people feel guilty. Should a woman feel guilt for sexual indiscretions or promiscuity? Of course not. Such behavior is in fact empowering, and is a behavior to which the complete women is entitled. Should a woman feel guilty about slashing her body with razors, scarring herself into the psych ward? Of course not, as she is lashing out at the repressions of her family, or the cultural exploitation of the female form, or the abuses hurled upon her by patriarchal males and their phallic ideologies. Should a woman feel guilt about aborting her unborn child, no matter the circumstance? Of course not!

You get the picture. The sexually permissive avoid guilt and shame like the plague, though they do not mind abashing the sexually pure for their alleged prudishness. Hence, it is impossible for this subset to countenance an over-turning or restricting of Roe v. Wade, precisely because it would suggest that abortion is wrong, and hence necessitating shame and guilt. This, to the abortion advocate, simply will not do.

But surely if abortion is to be "rare", there is something untoward about it, something indecent. We want cancers to be rare, and foul water. Conversely we want healthy bodies and clean water to flow with prodigality, with abundance. No one who delights in something, even if the thing is inherently benign, would wish to delight in that thing rarely. We want poverty and disease and tragedy and grief to be rare, if not obliterated. Hence, as abortion rights advocates, hoping for the rarity of abortions implies that abortion is undesirable. What, pray tell, is anyone thus doing to make abortion a rare occurrence?

A SOLUTION?

How do we, as a people divided on this issue, find a solution?

I have already made several suggestions in this series. First, all of us, particularly women, need to return to a sense that women's bodies are holy places: that the womb is a sacrament, and that motherhood is neither blight nor misfortune, nor something that "ruins" a woman's figure and sex appeal. Women's bodies are not playthings for men; nor are they idols for their indulgence. Recall with me that thousands of years ago women were placed in temples as prostitutes, incorporated into an idolatrous cult – often in honor of a female deity – in which men would gratify their lusts with sick and disturbed license. Curiously, things have not changed that much at all, as women (and men) continue to be treated as objects in the cult of mammon, sexually abusing one another for some sort of beatific vision which never comes.

Hence, if women would truly rebel against the male idea that female sexuality is mostly an orgasmic lark, and instead embrace the ideal that, as holy vessels, they must make men EARN their way in; if they put up a truly feminine fight against the cheapening of the female body (fueled by feminists); not only would women truly feel empowered, men would have to become better men. As it is, it is EASY for men to get the ONE THING THEY MOST WANT from women: Why, in this permissive and casual milieu in which consequence is treated with indifference, would a man strive to be A GREAT MAN for a woman if he can, even as a married man, find women ready to satisfy his lusts for the most superficial reasons (eg. he's cute, funny, successful, wealthy, etc.)? Why be NOBLE when nobility is no longer a prerequisite? Why be a gentleman if women are encouraged – truly – to be self-determined harlots in the cult in which we now live, granting nearly free access to their wondrous bodies for the smallest price?

Second, embracing biology, with a true understanding of human anatomy and physiology, would transform sexual ethos. An erect penis is not a toy; nor is it a weapon. It is a procreative delivery system, designed and equipped to deliver, not LOVE, nor even pleasure. It is designed to deliver a fertilizing agent; and it is so designed even if we deny its basic and incontrovertible structures. It is the fertilizing sperm and the receptive life-giving egg which together create pleasure, even sexual pleasure, for the children beyond ourselves. For if sex is truly about pleasure alone, then who would not want to share that pleasure beyond the bed, and on into the very DNA of children born of such pleasure? One look at an ejaculating penis, with its vigorous, tenacious sperm, combined with the hospitable reception of egg and womb, and one instantly realizes that sex is about sharing the joy, beauty and laughter of life with some one beyond our immediate gratification: SEX is always about someone else, if you truly see it on the biological level.

Sadly, men and women are wildly divorced from the purposes of their own bodies, though brashly believing that they are more in tune with the body's workings than their prudish ancestors. (Associated with this, we need to transform culture so that birth pangs and babies' cries are more exciting and desired than the sounds and spasms of orgasm.)

Third, people truly need to unite in making the world, not a perfect welfare state, but a wondrous nursery, full of the adventure and thrills of being parents with children. Killing babies is not a solution. It is the neglect of a solution. Creating a culture in which a mother in the most dire situation nonetheless thrills at the thought of delivering a child to an applauding populace will transform the world! Mothers, even single ones, are WONDERFUL, and so are their babies. Welcome to the nursery, where we have all joined hands to truly help!

(I have a dear elderly friend, a staunch Democrat, who once defended her political party with the response, "I believe I am my brother's keeper." That this is a religiously-rooted idea is worth noting, though not necessarily germane. The point is that she does not really believe she is her brother's keeper. She believes the state, funded by her many tax dollars, should be her brother's keeper. And she believes that the state should force others to fund the same sort of ideal. I AM NOT advocating that kind of idea here. I am calling for something entirely more personal and private.)

Lastly, we need to reach a compromise, and here I propose one. The American judiciary and legislature should make all legal provisions to ensure that abortions are safe and indeed rare, making abortion accessible, but not easy. Abortions will occur, so there is no reason the state should turn a cold shoulder to that reality. This involvement by the state and judiciary would appease the pro-abortion lobby, particularly if that group is sincere in its desire that abortions are rare and safe.

And, to appease the pro-life groups, the executive branch, as executors of the state, should be permitted and even encouraged to constantly declare what the vast majority of Americans believe: That abortion is not right or desirable, and that the state would plead with people not to participate in such a procedure. Moreover, the executive branch, along with the Congress and judiciary, may want to reconsider referring to abortion as a "right", particularly since it is gender specific (half the population does not have this right). Granted, abortion is not really a right now: it is justified in an alleged right to privacy. But having some branch of the government say that abortion is wrong and that America encourages the delivery of all children; and that America further recognizes that not all pregnancies will make it to full term, would go a long way to bridging the gap between Americans divided along the fault lines of abortion.

These essays, I hope, prove one thing. It is possible to be pro-choice and pro-life. Let us opt for making life more abundant, and not death. Shall we do less than the birds and the bees?

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes

Of Birds And Bees, And The Free Oppression Of Women, Part V

[This series on abortion rights begin with Kicking At The Darkness. Hence, this is actually part VI, with Kicking At The Darkness serving as prologue.]

Perchance some readers who have pored through this series might conclude I lack sensitivity toward the plights and struggles of women, and the struggles facing babies born into families incapable of properly raising children. Let me make a few assurances:

Let it be said that I know what it is like living in a home where one is not wanted. I know what it is like to see mental illness ravage a family. I have seen a child who should have been surrendered to adoption agents instead be beaten and battered physically and emotionally. I have lied to the social worker who came to investigate such neglect. I have known what it is like to struggle through unplanned pregnancy; and to see the child's mother storm off toward the abortionist. I have fought to keep a child from the abortionist's hands; I have known what it is like to be a single-parent.

I have known the friend who, with his wife, counts the birthdays of their first child which they aborted for a reason neither of them can ascertain, three happy children later. I have known the friend who turns snide and cruel at dinner parties, angry at the pro-lifers in attendance, defensive of her abortions, though no one has mentioned abortion at all during conversations; nor does anyone sit in judgement upon her. I have known the sorrow of a woman and man desperately seeking pregnancy, who seethed with anger when contemplating the millions of women who treat pregnancy like so much bad make-up, like a bad hair day with cramps. And I have known the anger of a co-worker who once told me, right outside my office door, how she had separated from and divorced her unfaithful husband, with whom she had had three lovely children (all nearly fully grown), and yet, upon discovering she was pregnant with their fourth child just days after she threw him out, chose to abort that baby. "There was no way I was going to bring that bastard's kid into the world," she said.

And I have seen the parents and siblings of unimaginably handicapped children gathered round them at birthdays and graduations, smiling and crying and beaming at some small connection or achievement, cameras clicking away at light impossible to see.

And I have asked, "Which is better: To live and suffer, and at least have the possibility to say 'yea' or 'nay' to life's difficulty, or never to exist at all?"

Recently I read a news report about a man who murdered his wife because she wanted to cuddle after intercourse. He just wanted to watch a sports event on TV. Cuddling was too difficult. No doubt she'd be alive right now if she had been more male in her sexuality, you know, sex without all that other stuff, all the frills and tassels and details women generally desire. Screw, and then kill her. It's been done millions and millions of times, it's just that many men murder their lovers' hearts. They leave the body for someone else. Boys, being boys, no doubt.

This news story shines a dim light in the darkness of our sex-without-consequences culture. Women should be more masculine in their sexual propensities, and everyone will get along just fine.

The other day I visited a blog where the young woman writing was asking for advice how she could REALLY please her boyfriend sexually. She wrote that they had "done the PiV thing, the anal thing, the oral thing ..." but she really wanted to blow his mind. "Any suggestions?"

Just think about what she has written. She has made reference to the PiV thing, the penis-in-vagina THING. Could there be a more reductionistic statement about sex? Could she have possibly drafted a blog that dripped with more indifference and joylessness? Could she have sucked the life out of sex any more proficiently, or thrust upon us a more ennui-laden view of her world?

Any suggestions, she asks? Yes, I've got a few. How about turning your boyfriend on, not with premarital sex, but premarital love? How about turning him on with the wild fantasy that you'd like him to impregnate you; that you'd like to try using your body for what it is so clearly designed to do, and that you'd like him to do the same, in the sacrament of holy matrimony? Or would that be just too boring, too much of the baby-in-utero thing; too much like real living and not the abyss from which you beg advice from internet strangers, the hundreds who tell you how to misuse your soul and body even more? And I further suggest that you consider two things: Your husband is most likely out there, somewhere, perhaps clicking through the internet. What sort of person will he find when he finds you, at your oh-so-progressive website? Think that'll be good for your relationship, your sexual past made public? And what of your future children? Surely this sort of website is the kind of thing you will hide away from them, no? Or is it a shining moment of your utterly self-defined womanhood?

You see, the climate is rife with efforts to divorce women from what their bodies and emotional needs actually are. In other words, there is an existential estrangement not only between men and women, there is one between a woman and her womb. For most women have been duped into believing their wombs are mere playthings, mere jungle-gyms for cute men. In other words, they've been seduced into being something other than female.

And no other seducers are more dangerously anti-feminine than the pro-choice batterers of the sacred female. Essentially the pro-choice model is entirely one of redefining a woman's body. For the message is this: Go ahead, be indifferent, casual, even reckless with your womb. Divorce it from who you are, deep, in your soul. If you want to entertain men, if you want to experience PLEASURE, go ahead. And if the outcome is not quite what you think, we can help you, we can send in other men with tools and poisons and anti-biotics, and we will dispense with the problem in a manner professional, casual and yet sensitive to your needs. So what if this may lead to women being perceived as objects more thoroughly, more fully, than ever before. We can help with the problem. Trust us.

THE COLOR OF WATER

If you have not read James McBride's The Color Of Water, I urge you to do so. It is a brilliant biography/memoir of dirt poor black children (you'll see what I mean) raised by their very-white mother in Brooklyn's projects. It is a stunning piece of storytelling, and it is a stunning view at what life can be when life is affirmed and chosen, with all its risks, rather than the death and abandonment associated with the choice of abortion.

Let us concede: There are harrowing issues facing people every minute of every day. There are children treated brutally every morning, or at bedtime, or even during evening prayers. But, such living is to be preferred over non-existence, is it not? Surely we should leave the choice of a life's value to those who are living that life? Surely each of us is entitled to life itself, and to make our own decision whether death or life is the more glorious option? For that, I believe, is the point of so many poignant and powerful stories, like The Color of Water: Life is a choice one makes for the benefit of others, so that they may make their own choices.

What is the most important thing a person can do? Is it to cure cancer? build a cathedral? create a new energy source? Or is it to create a child, and to actively and consciously choose to raise that child? For what is the cure of cancer, if there are no people procreating to enjoy such treatment, or to applaud such accomplishment? What is the beauty of a cathedral, if it is not to awe and inspire the living and their progeny? Why create alternative fuels, if no child benefits from its efficiency and cleanliness?

No doubt all these things are important, as are the many things people do. No doubt there are those who cannot procreate, for all sorts of reasons, reasons mostly deemed tragic, unnatural, or abnormal (such as deformity, injury, illness, or birth defect). And there is no doubt that Nature has given us a message in the very behaviors of most of the highest verterbrates: procreation is a powerful, joyous, beauteous and inspiring act and responsibility. It is fraught with purpose, depth, meaning, redemption. There is no alienation in nature (except that caused by predation or competition due to scarcity) observed in mammalian parents: they do not wonder about purpose, or "relationship" or meaning, precisely because they embrace life exactly as it is, male and female, and do not treat life or sex as sport or recreation or some other casual dalliance or hobby. Sex itself is purposive, and, if we could just get on with treating our bodies and souls as they are defined by nature, we would find that men and women could bridge the alienation inherent in wrong living.

Do not believe what you see and hear in the machine of media and information: we are not gods and goddesses who can live life in blithe indifference, a human safety net spread beneath our recklessness. We are fallen gods and goddesses, in need of a solution. And that solution is simple: We need to start being real men, real women. Our children are calling out to us from near and far, pleading with us to change.

And a change needs to take place. Be radical. Look at your genitals and understand: They are not toys. There is a purpose beyond superficial stimulation. Let the birds and the bees show you what it is, for they know better than the high and mighty among our own very confused species.

Contratimes

To finish this series, read here.

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.