Curious Meaning of Words

I came across an old definition of "consummation" this morning. According to Samuel Johnson, it once meant "Death; end of life." Given the poor state and dim view of marriage in this country, in the minds of some, and many in Hollywood, this definition is not quite obsolete.

Religion and History

The Texas State Board of Education took issue Thursday with a proposal to include more coverage of religion in U.S. government and history classes in school. Despite that fact that even a cursory reading of American history reveals considerable religious influence on movements and policy, some on the Board of Education feel the inclusion of religion is largely irrelevant and unnecessary.

If understanding religion is unnecessary to understanding the past, it is unnecessary to understanding the present. The myopia of this view serves to distort history and handicaps students in their understanding of society and the world. The widespread ignorance among many concerning religion, and its history and role in society, is a large factor in the bewilderment, unease, and even animosity of many towards religious beliefs and concerns, except, of course, where those beliefs and concerns run parallel to policy. It is this ignorance of religion that the Texas State Board of Education proposes to address by trying to sidestep the issue.

Religion is at risk of becoming an eccentricity, sometimes useful, sometimes irrelevant, and sometimes harmful, depending on the person and which religion is being considered. It seems that where there is disagreement over religion and its place in society and history, it is often concluded that the best approach to the subject is to avoid it.

Sowing the Wind

America and the West are discussing the need to increase pressure on the government in Tehran, and even overthrow it if required, due to its nuclear efforts. Meanwhile, the Americans and Israelis are exploring their military options and preparing plans to attack Iran if it is deemed necessary. Plans are being made and plots are being hatched. None of this is remarkable or objectionable if one is an American or an Israeli. Plans have long been made and studied in the U.S. on how to contain the Islamic regime in Tehran. But what if one is Iranian? How should an Iranian view the plans and preparations to "contain" it? It is not as though the U.S. and Israel have never launched attacks or worked to undermine governments when it was perceived that their national security interests were at stake.

It is odd that Iran is viewed as the chief threat in the Middle East. The U.S. has invaded and occupied two of Iran's neighbors. There are thousands of U.S. troops, and hundreds of U.S. aircraft nearby in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are dozens U.S. warships patrolling not far off Iran's shore. And still, Iran is the threat. Israel has a formidable air force and threatens to attack Iran if necessary. Despite its bluster, Iran has little effective means to attack Israel, and none to attack the U.S. It has only a modest ability to defend itself. Yet, Iran is the chief danger to peace in the Middle East.

Israel has launched numerous "preemptive" and "defensive" attacks on its neighbors. Iran has attacked no one. But, Iran is the threat to peace in the Middle East. The U.S. has railed against the government in Tehran and worked to undermine it. We have demanded Iran honor and faithfully adhere to international laws and treaties while we have often been selective in our adherence and enforcement, and creative in our interpretation of those laws and treaties. Yet, Iran is condemned. Each war fought by Israel, with the possible exception of its recent invasion of Lebanon, has ended to the benefit of Israel. Yet its survival is seen in jeopardy.

Iran claims it is being singled out for it's actions and policies. The U.S. claims that Iran is being devious in its plans and dishonest in its statements. Perhaps the U.S. and Israel are correct in their concerns and prudent in their preparations. But still, it is hard to blame the Iranians if they feel they are being treated unfairly. As they say, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean no one's out to get you.

Having a nuclear weapon would not allow Iran to take over the world or destroy it's enemies. It would not even allow Iran to take over it's neighbors. Surrounded as they are by Israel, India, Russia, and Pakistan, and with U.S. in Afghanistan, Iraq and offshore, all with nuclear weapons, whatever territorial ambitions Iran may have, if any, would be unlikely to succeed. Militarily, even with a nuclear weapon, Iran is hopelessly outmatched. The only use Iran could make of a nuclear weapon would be for self defense or an act of spite. If Iran ever decided used a nuclear weapon, it would certainly be destroyed. While some in Iran may boast and threaten, is difficult to believe the government in Tehran would accept the destruction of Iran for an act of spite. And let there be no doubt, it would be destroyed.

The greatest benefit of possessing nuclear weapons to Iran, other than the boost to its collective ego, is that those weapons would make Iran less susceptible to attack and threats from the West. Perhaps if Iran felt less threatened and more secure, its ego, fears, and ambitions would be easier to assuage. It might at least be more willing to sit down and talk to it's adversaries.

There are many that are impatient and suspicious of Iran's motives and abilities and reluctant to "waste" time negotiating. They advocate confrontation, even military action. But we should resist their calls. An attack on Iran, to put it in terms befitting the region, would be the act of sowing the wind.

It's Not About Fighting

Recently, thousands of flamboyant, rainbow flag waving protesters marched in Washington. Their demand? The right serve openly in the military. There is a certain irony here. One of the most stridently liberal and anti-military demographics in the country is demanding the right to serve in the military.

The issue of gays in the military is not, or at least ought not be, about the ability or willingness of gays to serve their country. No doubt many are able and willing. It is about the close quarters and the forced intimacy of military life. The prospect of sharing a shower, a room, or a tent with someone who may be attracted to you and find you sexually appealing can be uncomfortable and unpleasant, especially if those sentiments aren't shared or welcome. How many women (even liberal women) would feel comfortable dressing, showering, and sleeping among men? Very few I imagine. That is why men and women have separate showers, bathrooms, dressing rooms, and barracks. The unease about gays in the military is not about "homophobia." It is about human nature, and human nature has long been the greatest frustration to idealists. One does not "get over" human nature.

If the demands of gay rights protesters to serve openly in the military are ever met, I imagine there would be a great deal of celebration in the gay and lesbian community and among it's supporters. I wonder if the military might want to set up enlistment booths at gay pride rallies to take advantage of the celebrants' patriotism. How many of the celebrators do you think would enlist? How much of their anger do you suppose is caused by their frustrated patriotism and desire to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than the fact that someone refused one of their demands?

As a side note, I look forward to the day when polygamists march on Washington to demand tolerance, respect, and the right to "love" as they please.

Confident Liberals

I sometimes wish I were as confident in my beliefs and opinions as many liberals seem to be. I can never seem to shake the constant suspicion I have that I have overlooked something or not thought something fully through. Because of this, I constantly keep an eye out and an ear open for information I might not have considered. If I had the surety and conviction of liberals, I could save a lot of time. Perhaps enough that I could attend rallies and protests more often.

Banned Bits of Beef

Japan recently suspended beef imports from a Tysons meatpacking plant in Lexington, Nebraska for including beef parts banned under a trade agreement between Japan and the U.S. The shipment included parts of spinal bones. Spinal bones contain tissue implicated in the transmission of mad cow disease.

Tyson apologized, saying the inclusion of the spinal parts had been made by mistake and was the result of a mix-up. They said that those parts were not supposed to be shipped to Japan. So, where were those parts supposed to be shipped?