Arabs to the left of us.....

Arabs to the right. Here I am stuck in the middle with you......

I haven't spent any time writing here on the Presidential campaigns. While sometimes interesting, surreal, groundbreaking and entertaining, I just haven't felt the need to say anything.

Until now.

First off, a guy in Minnesota says that he's afraid of raising his child in a country where Obama is President. To which, John McCain replies there is no need to fear Barack Obama. He's a decent family man, a decent man, to which the crowd replies BOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122368132195924869.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27130171/

Then, later another lady says she cannot trust Obama, because, and I'm not making this up, he's an Arab. John McCain then snatches the mike out of her hand and says, no, he is not an Arab. Come on. If you are going to hate someone for their race or the color of their skin, at least get it right. He's a BLACK GUY. Last time I checked, being Arab was not illegal - one more 9/11 attack, and MAYBE it will be. Certainly I know a lot of Arabs FEEL like it's illegal to be Arab in America.

I cannot wait to hear how this will be spun on Monday. But I think it will go something like this (bulletized for your convenience):

• Why did you not have any of the good comments, only the bad ones (maybe a fair assertion)
• Well, that's just the liberal media trying to make John McCain look bad (when in reality, it made him look good by taking control of a situation turning ugly)
• People are angry. Stuff happens. The liberals have anger too, but the MSM just refuses to cover it.

I think that John McCain looked genuinely hurt that this happened. I really sensed that. You could see it in his face. For one second, I felt kind of sorry for him. But, then I remembered "I'm John McCain and I approved this message".

For most of the last two weeks, the McCain campaign, in an effort to take the eyes off the molten meltdown of the economy have been touting Barack Osama (oops, I mean Obama) as a terrorist and a terrorist sympathizer. The most dangerous man, trying to become President. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

So, when it turns ugly, you can't really now say, well, hey, he's a great guy. A dedicated family man. All that other stuff we said? Hey, you know, that's just part of the campaign. Wink, wink. We really didn't MEAN it.

We need to get off of this negative stuff. People are losing their homes. Their jobs. Their life savings. The Dow is dropping faster than a big rock dropped into a deep lake, with all the ripples that you get when you drop a rock in a lake emanating out into the world financial markets.

And what doe the McCain campaign want to focus on? Some board Barack Obama sat on with some guy several years back, and the guy on that board did bad things - of course, Barack Obama was EIGHT YEARS OLD when those things happened. Simply by KNOWING the guy, that makes him a terrorist.

I think Americans are looking for leadership, but, sadly the candidates don' t have anything else other than to bring stuff like this up. The Republicans simply cannot stop this campaigning because it is all they've known for twenty years or more. First with Lee Atwater, then with Karl Rove, and now the disciples that Karl Rove trained up. It's pretty hard to throw the manual out the window, especially since it worked - until now.

America saw last night some real ugliness. When it goes bad, it's easy to blame minorities and outsiders. History has a long list of that happening. Most of those situations turned out bad.

I hope that we're better than that.

I don't know though.

CRA? Please. Give me a break

The newest story put forth by Conservatives is that the current financial meltdown can be blamed on some do gooder, socialism minded liberals and minorities.


The abridged story told by the Conservative spin machine is that a program called the Community Reinvestment Act passed in the seventies and beefed up by Bill Clinton FORCED banks to give minorities bad loans, which led to this current crisis. So, it is all the fault of community organizers (hey, wasn't that Barack Obama guy a community organizer?), Liberal Democrats and minorities.


I am going to post a few articles from various sources below which debunk this story quite nicely. The problem is that those who are disposed to believe this will not believe the stories because they come from the LIBERAL spin machine - the mainstream media.


http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008104107/pre-inventing-history


http://www.newsweek.com/id/162789


Of course, if you look hard enough you can find articles to justify that the CRA was to blame (go to any conservative talk radio person's blog or web site and I'll bet you'll find it). The above is just a random sampling of several articles supporting the idea of this fallacy. I could probably post 15 or 20 that I've found.

Most of the bad loans given were given by institutions NOT covered by the dictates of the CRA.

They gave those loans out not because of any altruism that they wanted to see the joy of someone owning a home, or fear of government regulation. They gave those loans out because they made a lot of money doing so.

There has been a lot of talk about the loan givers. Not much talk about the loan takers. At the risk so sounding cold and politically incorrect, some of those people had no business owning the homes they were put into. Some of them could not afford the homes, but the desire for instant gratification, and the American desire for consumption made the loan an easy take. The loan guy probably said, well, one more loan won't hurt the system (IF he had the scruples to think that way), and the loanee, in most cases said, well, I MIGHT get a better job before the big numbers come due, or I MIGHT get a raise.

What we got in the end was disaster.

There are several reasons this story (the CRA = Housing Crash/Credit Crunch story) needs to be pedaled now. One is to try to take down Barack Obama's campaign a few notches. The most important reason though is to blame a powerless group to divert attention from the big companies who gave out these reckless loans and the other ones that ran their companies into the dirt through risky and reckless accounting practices. Also to divert attention from a system in Washington which turned a blind eye while all this was going on.

It is also to deflect attention from their child like mantra that if you only take the hands off the market, the market will do the right thing, and will eventually correct itself. This works great, right up to the moment the government has to step in and pump massive infusions of cash in to save whatever capitalist venture that has gone wrong.

If they admitted to these things, they would have to admit that their premises about capitalism and economics were mostly incorrect.

Never mind all of this stuff above.

Does it really sound plausible that handing out a few bags of shekels to some minorities could be the cause of the WHOLE WORLD ECONOMIC SYSTEM to crash in a violent and cataclysmic manner? I don't even know how they can say it with a straight face.

And if that small event could cause the whole system to crash, what does that say about the robustness of the system? The resiliency of the system?

Not much in my opinion.

There is something fundamentally wrong with the system. In the weeks, months and years to come, we MIGHT find out what it is, or we might not.

It is acknowledged now that a lot of folks thought they understood the system, but that it has become so fast acting and complex that they do not understand it at all.

In the mean time, the need exists for those who can look at the WHOLE economy. Not just the bits and pieces that strike the media fancy that day (i.e. the stock market one day, unemployment the next).

Going to be some interesting, painful, scary times.

Meltdown

I have been watching, like the rest of my fellow Americans, this financial meltdown mess.

I have also been watching the Treasury Secretary's efforts to "correct" the problem in the form of a $700 billion dollar tax payer funded bailout. Of course, this does not even bring into the windshield view all the other issues, like the $2 trillion dollar (that is probably a conservative estimate) "time bomb" created by the never ending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That bomb will go off eventually and it WILL come due.

There has been much written and much said. Why do I feel qualified to address this? I have not done any worse than the "experts" in their predictions on the state of the economy. I am not any smarter than anyone else, I just largely did what I did with the Iraq war. Listened to what the government "experts" were saying and believed pretty much the polar opposite.

On August 14 2007 in this blog I wrote:

"Our economy, while APPEARING strong is a house of cards built on credit and the promise of cheap, plentiful energy, either of which could evaporate at any moment (and as far as credit goes has been heading that way)."

On March 7 2008 I wrote:

"One of the things I've been talking about over the past several days to my friends is the idea of looking at the economy as a whole. The people in Washington count on the idea that Americans are going to look at the economy in somewhat of a fragmented way - almost as if there are "economy boxes" - there's the energy economy box, the health care box, the housing box, the manufacturing box, the war box. It is ALL ONE BOX.What happens to one sector of the economy affects ALL sectors of the economy."


This is an excerpt from a piece by William Greider, in which he cites Section 8 of this provision. Hopefully, this will change:

"Section 8. Review. Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

(http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081006/greider2)

This seems to be giving the government nearly dictatorial powers to deal with the economy. This is not even remotely American, OR Constitutional. The decisions of a lot of totalitarian governments with regard to their economies have been "non-reviewable" through the years. How many of those economies are still thriving?

This reminds me a lot of the rapid passing of the Patriot Act without much comment and review in the raw emotional times after 9/11.

It is also interesting to read that some economists do not absolutely believe this is the best way to handle the crisis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/23/AR2008092302326.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26861562/

The path of least resistance which Treasury is taking seems to be to hit the taxpayers. Why? Because there is not much, in reality we can do to stop them. We could not stop them from going to war, and we can not stop them from doing this. They seem to be telling the Congress that if you don't do this, it is YOUR fault whatever happens. Congress seems to be falling in line from the bullying.

I do not know if this bail out is the right thing to do or not - I have my doubts based on what I've read. I certainly believe that it is prudent to independently monitor this. We must act swiftly, but not so swiftly that we give away the farm.

I'm also certain that the people who got us into this mess must hate the demand for independent review. When you turn that rock over in your back yard that has been sitting there for awhile, it is very interesting to see what kinds of things crawl out from under it.

A lot of people have compared this plan with Socialism. I think that is a pretty good analogy. My view is that they see us as working mules (or sheep) - not very smart, and an unending flow of easy cash to take and spend as they see fit.

Our contribution to it all is to just give them the money, and let them take care of the problem for us.

I'm not sure that is good enough.

Knoxville

It's unfortunately becoming more common. Guy walks into "x" locale heavily armed and shoots up the place (and just today, some maniac up in Wisconsin ambushed some kids swimming in the river).

This happened just recently in Knoxville, where one Jim Adkisson shot up the Unitarian Universalist Church during a children's performance of the musical Annie.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25872864/

There has been a lot of coverage that Mr. Adkisson did this despicable act to get at the liberals (stating that he couldn't get at the "Liberal Leadership - whoever the heck that is so he decided to shoot up this church because they are known for their liberal tendencies).

There has also been a lot of coverage that Mr. Adkisson was a fan of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, etc.

At the outset, the blame for this act should be laid squarely at the feet of the shooter. It is obvious that he is a profoundly broken human being.

The case will be made by those media outlets that lots of people listen to and read those peoples books every day and don't shoot up a church, so they couldn't have had anything to do with it.

This may be true. But, this guy was unemployed. So, what did he do all day? Probably stayed home and listened to the radio, and read the books. Day after day, hour after hour of ingesting those ideas that only agreed with and aligned with what HE personally believed.

This one deranged individual excluded, I think this is a bigger example of the polarization of this country. I also believe this is indicative of a new kind of coarse "entertainment" - that which disguises itself as "news" and "discussion" of the issues. In reality, these folks seek to divide (while saying they seek to unify), they seek to make us deathly afraid of the "other" whether that be someone of a different color, different faith, different nationality, or whatever.

Fear is their stock and trade, and fear is what they want to sow. Oh, they wrap it up quite righteously saying they only want to "spread the truth". But at the bottom, it's fear they want to spread.

For there is power in making people afraid.

I find it laughable that conservative talk radio and television hosts complain about the "liberal media" and yet they have literally 24 hours of total coverage somewhere on the media spectrum. Whether it be Fox News, or EIB, or whatever.

There is not even a good division anymore of what constitutes a liberal or conservative. For instance, Hannity, et al say that if you don't support the President and his wars, you are a disloyal traitorous liberal. But since day one of the wars conservative pundits such as Pat Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts have been extremely tough on this war. NO ONE would EVER accuse Pat Buchanan of being a liberal. His conservative credentials are well known, and are certainly not in doubt.

Another thing that interests me is that the mainstream media gives so much attention to these bottom feeders. Witness the talk about Rush Limbaugh affecting the primaries. Witness the recent flap over Michael Savage and Autism. Why not just ignore them? By giving them the press, you give them EXACTLY what they want - publicity, and a platform for them to whine, mule and cry about how they are being persecuted by that mean old liberal media machine.

I believe that the proliferation of shows like Limbaugh, etc prove just how shallow we've become as a people, and despite how much we say we want to debate and understand the issues, we really just want to make all the issues a simple x = y event.

If "x" happens it is because of "y". And so much the better "y" is black, latino, an immigrant, on welfare, or whatever.

We are in deep trouble as a country. Watching Fox News or listening to Rush Limbaugh will not help us solve our problems which are extremely deep and widely systemic. We have economic woes. We have social woes. We are running two wars which the conservative press would like you to believe we are winning. Most likely we are not (and Bill Lind has a GREAT piece on that called something like Why McCain is Wrong http://www.d-n-i.net - EVERY American should read Bill Lind), and the wars are slowly bleeding the life out of this country.

I think the labels Conservative and Liberal are so overused and tired that they really don't mean anything anymore. I also do understand that those on the left sometimes trade in as much hate and fear as those on the right.

I don't consider myself Liberal or Conservative, nor have I for a few years. I call myself a "Recovering Conservative". Like when you decide to get sober of alcohol or drugs. You go to a meeting and get a poker chip.

My mother told me once that my politics were to the right of Pat Buchanan. I am somewhat ashamed that I ever held such views. I now like to consider myself independent. Hopefully a systems thinker. Progressive. Anything but those two other labels.

So, in the final analysis, what is the solution? Do not ban Limbaugh, etc. That will only make them what they want to be: Radio Martyrs. This will "prove" to them and their followers that the world is out to get them. The final solution is to turn them off and ignore them. Read a book. Talk to your wife and kids. Go to the library. Love your neighbor as yourself as Jesus taught us.

Anything but feeding off of those parasites.

Nothing Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin say is profound or deep. Nothing they say is particularly important in the grand scheme of things either.

The Declaration of Independence

I have a 4th of July tradition. It's not going to see fireworks (although I have done that). It's not eating barbecue (although I have done that, and will do that again today). My tradition is to actually READ the Declaration of Independence each year.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

A few years back, I used to post on a certain message board. I put this quote from the Declaration, and then I asked folks to comment on it - especially the question, is our government "working" for us anymore:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

A few people on the board accused me of being a traitor and calling for armed insurrection against the government (which I did not, nor would I ever advocate). Others said that since we had our independence, and now had a constitution, that particular line in the Declaration no longer mattered.

I have often wondered what Jefferson, Washington and Franklin would think of the state of the Federal Government, and what they'd say about the state of the Republic. A lot think they would be proud of our actions of late. Others aren't so sure. Since I don't know, they are all dead, I can only go by what they said and wrote when they were alive. Most of their writings indicated they were DEEPLY suspicious of centralized power, and were afraid of it accumulating. Others were deeply suspicious of militarism and standing armies and foreign entanglements. Still others were repulsed by an unholy unity of organized religion and the government.

Of course we are continually told 9/11 changed all of those quaint notions of a weak central government. We had to, in the words of the recently deceased Tim Russert "Go Get Em", before they got us. And, of course, since we were a "Christian" nation, it was all a righteous cause we needed to take to combat the evil in the world (meaning all those who don't believe as we do).

Washington is ruled (yes, ruled, not governed) by a specific class of elites, lobbyists and special intersts. I don't believe it is any longer by the people and for the people. I think there are good people up there, but I believe some go to Washington with good intentions and are co-opted by the system (lured by the power and riches). Others, like Congressman Ron Paul are trying hard, but are swimming upstream.

In asking the questions how our government is working, you have to wonder about the huge outlays of money (the most recent installment of $162 BILLION, almost all of it borrowed, thus mortgaging the future of our country) for continuation of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And recently the revelation of an authorised $400 million for covert operations against Iran (many thinking that it being a preparation for ACTUAL military action). They are spending obscene amounts of money which we don't have.

Meanwhile, our economy at home is hemorrhaging deeply. Many analysts believe that rumors of more war in the gulf against Iran add $40 to $50 dollars per barrel in risk assessment. In the event of an actual war, most analysts now won't even guess at what the price of oil will be. $200? $300? $400? Our infrastructure is crumbling. Many Americans are out of work. Many Americans can't get basic access to health care. This doesn't even consider the horrible misery caused in places OTHER than America due to rising petroleum and food costs.

When pointing out these discrepancies that the money we are spending for war could be used elsewhere, Americans are basically told to shut up and not question. It is traitorous to question. And, oh, by the way to give Americans access to health care and to help them out here at home would be Socialism. We are told that they should get a job so they can get all that stuff for themselves, and that personal responsibility would solve all the problems.

Never mind, a lot of them are working and still falling further behind. Never mind that a lot of people - good hard working people who obey the rules and have faith in the system - in the months and years to come will simply be swallowed up and will not be able to survive without assistance.

What then, am I thinking on this Fourth of July? A few days ago, I wrote about 6 points regarding freedom from fear of war. I think I shall consider those my personal "Declaration of Independence".

I see signs of hubris and arrogance where there is no evidence that we are in a position to be arrogant. We need to wake the hell up before it's too late.

It continues to amaze me

Lately, there is a lot of talk about an attack on Iran to stop their nuclear program, and their work on nuclear weapons (never mind that the administration has chosen to ignore the NIE which says that Iran is not working on nuclear weapons, and has not been for some time - they choose to believe Israeli "intelligence" or their own, which says that Tehran is only a few years from the bomb).

Hmmmm. Where have we been burned by bad, fabricated intelligence before?

The talk of late has been about Israel attacking Iran (although it is known that US decision makers are dabbling in the idea despite their weak protestations. Most certainly, we will be drawn in anyway, giving us the excuse of having to "defend ourselves"). Most believe that an Israeli attack would not stop the Iranian nuclear program in any way, shape or form - at the very best case, it would only delay it a few years. Most believe that it would be devastating to the world economy.

Where there is great difference is what an attack on Iran would mean, and what would the response be.

Many of those advocating an attack have written that Iran doesn't have the ability to mount any kind of resistance, and the attack would be met with very little resistance. They want you to believe that it would be a "cakewalk".

What amazes me is that people continue to pay any attention to Kristol, Bolton, etc. They have been so wrong, for so long on virtually everything they've said on Afghanistan, Iraq. Why any American would believe them now is as mystifying as anything has ever been to me.

Let's review a little history.

A quick "victory" against the Taliban in Afghanistan. This is what the administration touted. Others said that the Taliban was only stopping the war for a season. Regrouping. Many felt that they would defend Afghanistan, and that Afghanistan was very important psychologically.
Afghanistan is psychologically important because of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Well, a few years have gone by and Afghanistan is as hot as ever (not to mention being a major source for the flow of illegal drugs into the United States) - casualties even eclipsing the casualties in Iraq.

After the quick "defeat" of the Taliban. The Administration moved on to Iraq (never mind that they quit looking for Osama bin Laden, the guy who actually attacked us on 9/11. Never mind that they again left Afghanistan in the lurch as they had done 20 years before when the Soviets left, creating the climate of civil war and anarchy that enabled the Taliban to come to power).

The things they were wrong about in Iraq have been well documented. A few worth remembering is their prediction of the shortness of the war, the President declaring Mission Accomplished, no weapons of mass destruction or any evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program, an insurgency that was unexpected (although it was expected by some. The rag tag insurgencies both in Afghanistan and Iraq have fought the worlds finest Army, essentially to a draw - and the question is really pondered, what could the Iranians do?). The list literally goes on and on.

What's interesting is that after it all, they try to go back and rewrite history - like they expected it all to go down the way it did. Unfortunately, there is that pesky historical record of what they said and how they voted.

So now we come to Iran. The NIE says no nuclear program. Well, the administration of course knows better. They have their own "intelligence". There IS a nuclear program. And the Iranians ARE building a bomb. It exists because we say it exists. Like connecting Saddam to 9/11 and continually saying he had weapons of mass destruction (despite inspection evidence to the contrary), they seem to think if you say it enough it becomes truth.

Then there is the speculation on the Iranian response to an attack. Bill Lind (every American should read Bill Lind www.d-n-i.net) has said that an attack on Iran could literally lead to the loss of the Army in Iraq. How that could happen is well explained by Mr. Lind in his "On War" columns.

Today, the US Navy said that no matter what, the Persian Gulf would be kept open. Of course a lot of Americans believe that the Navy is entirely capable of this. What could a bunch of Iranians in little speed boats do to us (sort of along the same lines as what could 19 guys with box cutters do to the mighty US of A). Americans should read about a man named General Van Riper and a war game called Millennium Challenge 2002. This is certainly one avenue available to the Iranians.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/washington/12navy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

All of the other empires in history (and yes, I know. We are not an "empire". Right) have had these cataclysmic, empire changing, or ending events. Usually this occurs when the hubris and arrogance has gotten to the point where the empire thinks itself completely invincible.

I see signs in the government, in the media and in the people, that we are there, or getting close.

Up till now, our entanglements in the war on terror have been much worse than predicted (but apparently not bad enough to give most Americans pause and question what is being done in their name). 4000+ dead Americans (and an untold number of Iraqi's) tells us this is true.

We haven't yet had that cataclysmic, empire changing (or ending) event. But, just because it hasn't happened to us, doesn't mean that it isn't possible. It could happen with any foreign policy misadventure the administration decides to take.

I PERSONALLY believe that an attack on Iran will happen. I have believed it for a long time (just as I have always believe that Saddam's fate was sealed on 9/12/01 if not sooner, despite the Administration's claims they wanted to solve the Iraq problem diplomatically - DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR??????) I also believe that no amount of debate or protest will stop it. The media and Congress are compliant co-conspirators in any attack on Iran because they have FAILED to critically ask the questions (and in certain cases they have voted on bills to make it easier to justify an attack). Just like most of them FAILED to ask the questions in the run up to the Iraq war (not that it would have made a difference there either).

What can you do. You just pray, write, talk about peace and hope for the best. You hope you are being paranoid about the things that the Bill Lind's and the General Van Riper's are saying (although you suspect that at some point, our luck is REALLY going to run out).

This gang is going to do what they want to do regardless of the will of the people.

Freedom from fear, aversion to war - 6 points

These are some things I've been thinking about over the past few weeks.

I realize that those who are convinced there are terrorists behind every mail box, and every Muslim is out to kill us and take away our way of life will think me terribly naive, and out of touch with reality. Like I care. We are continually told that "everything changed on 9/11". Some things did change. What changed is that Americans were willing to trust the government, and to trade freedom and liberty for "security" (and in the process got less of both). What changed is that a lot of Americans started to believe that it didn't matter what happened to anyone else in the world, as long as we were safe, fat, dumb and happy here in America, everything was OK. What changed is that we were willing to let go of some of our deepest values, the rule of law, the fact that we don't do empire, and the fact that we don't torture.

1. I will not call anyone my enemy just because my government tells me to. This includes Iranians, Iraqi's, Afghani's, Pakistani's, or any other country who happens to take a turn in the Administration's "Axis of Evil"

2. I will not be afraid because my government tells me to. Some Americans are terrified that they are going to be killed by terrorists. The Administration has done a GREAT job of stoking that fear. The media has been a willing co-conspirator. I have never been afraid of terrorists. I have a better chance of an unlicensed, uninsured, AMERICAN drunk driver plowing into me and killing me on any weekend night than to be killed by a member of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

3. I will not give my government a pass on killings or torture just because they say they were "terrorists". There has been a lot of coverage on the killings in Haditha. All of the Marines involved have been let off the hook in one way or another. The people on the right have been crowing that this "proves" that they did the right thing. But, the fact is that 24 people, most of them women and children are still just as dead. There has also been a lot of coverage on torture, our use of secret prisons, Guantanamo Bay, etc. Some of the stories sound more like they should have come from Soviet Russia, or other ruthless dictatorships. Certainly NOT America.

4. I will keep myself informed. There is nothing more valuable to the current Administration than uninformed Americans. Uninformed Americans enabled the Administration to be able to convince that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and there were WMD's in Iraq. The Administration is going down the same road with regard to Iran - there are a few more people this time who are questioning it - this, I know must really irk the Administration - the script is not working as well this time. Unfortunately though, no matter how much questioning goes on, they will decide to go to war, and then it won't matter much.

5. I will study, pray for, talk about, write about peace. As I wrote about a quote from an Iraqi Doctor in a previous blog, dropping bombs (or torturing, or occupying a country) signals a loss of imagination. Too many Americans cannot imagine their country ever being able to be at peace with the world. It is not because it is not possible - it is because we do not have enough imagination. It is also because a lot of Americans, in reality simply do not want to live at peace with the rest of the world. I am absolutely convinced that we are on a path to war with Iran. The signs are all there. The Administration weakly bleats that they are trying for "diplomacy" but that "all options are on the table". It simply amazes me that Americans do not remember that this was almost the exact same script used for the run-up to the war in Iraq. It also amazes me that virtually every thing they said about the war in Iraq (we'd be greeted as liberators, the war would be over quickly, it would be paid for with Iraqi oil money) was dead WRONG. Why any American would trust ANYTHING they'd have to say regarding Iran is beyond me.

6. I will try not to lose hope. This is the hardest thing of all. The economy is tanking here at home. Americans continue to die in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as Iraqi's and Afghani's). If we attack Iran, my belief is that the world's economy will crash in a huge way, and we will see misery worldwide that we cannot even imagine at this point. How can I not lose hope with all of those things? I don't know. But I'll try.