Iraq five years later

The American news media is featuring "look-back" pieces this week to mark the 5th anniversary of the Iraq war. But as I read and listen, the focus seems to stay on the war as a singular event and not connected to the larger context of the Middle East and America. Tunnel vision is a common human tendency but one must unfold the big picture to determine what has and has not been accomplished. Iraq is but one battle in the global war on terrorism, it just seems like more. Al Qaeda and its satellite cells are and will continue to wage war in other countries regardless of the Iraq outcome. Leaving Iraq tomorrow with it hypothetically secure and flourishing would not be the end of the war against militant Islamism. Iraq is experiencing a slow, but steady, flushing out of al Qaeda by its own populace who have grown weary of relying on militant Islamism as a solution. They have banded together because they have seen firsthand that al Qaeda can brutalize and kill, but it can't provide jobs, education, housing, healthcare, or any meaningful future for them. Remember, al Qaeda funds itself primarily through the heroin trade. Some future. In the big picture, 2007 has been a better year for Iraqis as they slowly struggle to reform and grow economically into the largest democracy in the Middle East. Our goal should be to leave Iraq as an example to other countries across the globe who want to shed their repressive regimes and leave a brighter future to their children. Al Qaeda can only live in an atmosphere of fear and despair. Offering struggling countries a blueprint for hope and a future can go a long way in defeating radical Islamism.

Obama

I watched Obama's speech this morning. He talked about America's racist past and our racist present. He did not agree with, but understood, the anger and anti-American diatribes of his Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He did not disavow Rev Wright, but condemned his hate speech. Left unsaid, however, was that Obama has sat in Rev Wright's pews for over 20 years, listening to these types of sermons, in an environment that indisputably would be uncomfortable for most whites (including Obama's own white mother), but never openly challenged the Reverend's teachings or ultimately changed churches. What does that say about Obama? And left unaddressed by Obama was why he dropped Rev Wright from his advisory committee so quickly when Rev Wright's rhetoric reached a broad audience via the internet. Although he claims that his race is a liability, it actually is an advantage that is unavailable to a white man (McCain) or a white woman (Hillary). How else to explain his appeal to whites? His popularity can't be the product of his ideas. He has never actually explained what he means by "change" or "hope". Exactly how would he bring Americans together? He is long on sweeping abstracts but short on actual details. He frames the presidential race in a way that leaves whites with the false choice of "change" now (vote for a black man) or forever be mired in the "past" (vote for McCain or Hillary). Without a doubt, Obama has himself made his run for the presidency about race. That approach does not work for me and one's race and/or wispy visions do not impress me. My vote is for sale to the best plans and ideas offered by anyone from any affiliation.

Pelosi's stunts

For the second recent time, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has sent the Senate on vacation for two weeks without permitting a vote on a bill that would restore critical surveillance authority to US intelligence agencies. The Senate bill enjoyed broad bipartisan support and would have easily passed the House if she would have allowed the vote. Obviously stung by criticism the first time she pulled this stunt, she attempted to camouflage her dereliction of duty this time by offering an alternative proposal that was so deeply flawed that it would have been D.O.A. in the Senate. Her alternate bill denies US telecommunications companies the liability protection they need, perefectly in step with the interest of the trial lawyers, lavish supporters of the Democrats. In Pelosi's world, if an overseas terrorist calls another terrorist to coordinate an operation against US troops, our intelligence agencies should not be permitted to monitor their conversations unless a judge in Washington is convinced the courtroom standard of "probable cause" has been met. No matter that FISA was specifically designed to permit the monitoring of non-Americans overseas without restrictions, Pelosi has decided that aliens have Fourth Amendment rights (like all Americans) and they need worldwide privacy protections against eavesdropping. By tying the hands of our intelligence agencies, she weakens our country's defenses and makes us more vulnerable to attack. Her loyalties lie with protecting the interests of the trial lawyer lobby. How many more days will she delay the vote and allow terrorists to plot, plan, and organize without fear of detection?

No Common Sense in Berkeley

The Berkeley City Council recently passed several measures targeting the only Marine recruitment office in town. Instead of defending the recruiters' property rights after they were subjected to defacement (bloody handprints and misspelled signs slapped on their windows) and aggressive picketing and nonstop bullhorn harrassment by the radical anti-war group Code Pink, the city fathers voted to sabotage the center further by granting the protesters special parking privileges in front of the center to facilitate their protests and offered them a free sound permit for six months. In a way that you might treat a porn shop, the council members decided that the protesters needed special license to impede the work of the recruiters, apparently oblivious to federal law that makes it a crime to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. Shamelessly, the council maintained that they were not against our troops, but only against our government's (read Bush's) policies. Give me a break. This vote was political and partisan. Let's be clear. Code Pink has a right to protest. But the council has no right to grant special rights to one group at the expense of another, and especially not to flaunt federal law. This council acted like a special interest group, not a governing body. Shame on their stupidity, and shame on the message that they are sending their and our children. Seriously, where is their common sense?

Presidential influence

Probably the most underreported aspect of the next presidential election is the impact on the makeup of our Supreme Court. As a general rule, Presidents nominate individuals who broadly share their ideological views. The President may nominate anyone to serve, and a majority of the Senate must approve, to complete the lifetime appointment. Of the current nine justices, four are over 71 years old (one is 87 years old), and two are on the 70-year cusp. It would not be unreasonable to project that one-half of the Court may retire, die, or become diminished in the term of the next President. History tells us that Supreme Court decisions are rarely overturned, and, if so, only occur many decades later. The reality is that the next justice nominations, and the resulting decisions, will shape the law of our land for our lifetimes. Our next President will wield the awesome power to tip the court ideologically. Please look at our candidates with a broad view to the future. Their ideology will be tattooed on their nominations and the resulting court rulings will likely stand for your life. This is not small stuff.

The Real "Inconvenient Truth"

Carbon footprint activists claim that by reducing the burning of fossil fuels, we will produce less greenhouse gases and reduce global warming. That "solution" is junk science and is based on a false premise. Here are some real answers to real questions.

1. Is the world warming catastrophically? NO...Humans have only been measuring global temperature consistently since 1880, and it has warmed only .6C (plus or minus .2C) since then, and at least half of this rise occurred prior to 1950 and prior to any signficant changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

2. Carbon dioxide rising means rising temperatures? NO...Global mean temperatures have both risen and fallen during the period that atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising, and are well within the range of natural variations.

3. Carbon dioxide is bad? NO...It is an essential trace gas that underpins the bulk of the global food web. Commercial growers deliberately generate CO2 to increase productivity and water efficiency for food crops.

4. Greenhouse is all about carbon dioxide? NO...Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's total greenhouse effect. The other 10% is carbon dioxide and other minor gases.

5. Humans are responsible for the carbon dioxide total greenhouse effect? NO...Humans only account for about 3% of the only 10% of the greenhouse effect. The rest is natural.

6. The Earth's atmosphere acts like a greenhouse? NO...an actual greenhouse acts as a physical barrier to convection (the transfer of heat by currents in a fluid). The Earth's atmosphere actually facilitates convection.

Bottom line: Of all the things that humans can do to the planet, temperature response to carbon dioxide emissions is simply too trivial to worry about. Thank you for "saving the planet", but carbon constraint is nonsense and a distraction to real problems. Better to direct your activism to begging problems like malaria, potable water, AIDS, and sanitation in the Third World.

Good Iraq news is bad for activists

It is said that the winners in war write the history. And, inescapably, peace always follows war. War should not be waged simply to achieve a peace, but history tells that the nature of mankind makes war inevitable and that peace is always a byproduct. Sometimes, the dynamics of a situation make fighting a war now make more sense than fighting a war later. The so-called Axis of Evil in World War II are now all allies of the United States. I find it curious that many anti-war, or liberal, activists are not welcoming the indisputably good news that is coming out of Iraq. By any metric, violent attacks are less than half of what they were a year ago and trending distinctively downward. After all, this kind of news should energize those who claim their true concern is the safety of our troops as it portends the return of them to the U.S. Yet, it also means that we are slowly winning the Iraq war and that conclusion does not fit the template of those who claim the war is a disaster. If the war is not a quagmire and winnable, that would make them...well, wrong. Watch as they move the goalposts and deny the successes even when the news continues to be good, the security responsibilities continue to be shifted to the Iraq people, and our troops begin a steady exodus. My guess is that these activists will conveniently dismiss the military's years of efforts, including the recent Surge operation, and will instead try to claim that their whining, not the military, made our victory possible. Of course, such a lie is mind numbingly absurd and despicable, but let's see if they hijack our media and write the history to fit their political agenda.