(Note: This entry was originally posted on Monday, May 08, 2006)
I am so sick of the Iraq "backstory." You know, the whole question of what did we really know, who knew it, and how was the decision made to press for war? I certainly have my own opinion about that---and I may yet decide to write about it at some point---but that's not the bee under my personal bonnet today.
No, what has me frustrated right now is that the general discussion seems to have missed maybe the most crucial point of all. As we see the debate (ad nauseum) as to whether or not we should have gone into Iraq, we seem to have lost sight of the fact that, having made the decision to go, we totally missed on how we should go, and (more importantly) what we should have done when we got there.
Part of the problem, of course, is that the advisors who created the strategy for the war really had no clue about Iraqi culture...and were absolutely determined to ignore it as irrelevant. This is the crucial mistake, and frankly, leads back to the subject I have promised not to discuss---how the decision to go to war was ultimately made. I still won't get into that, but it's germane to the overall strategy. You see, it matters a great deal what the administration was thinking, because it was that thinking that shaped the peri- and post-war strategy.
The Bush Administration was convinced---on ideological grounds---that giving the Iraqi populace self-determination would automatically convert their society to a (relatively) peaceful, democratic republic. Everyone would lay down their weapons, abandon their petty grievances, and agree to settle thier disputes in court and at the ballot box. Of course they would. Everyone wants democracy, right?
Well, it's not quite as simple as that. It is patently true that everyone loves democracy...so long as their own party is in charge and has no moral obligation to share power. However, you can't simply impose a multi-party democratic system on a society; the society needs to grow into it. The society needs to be ready for it.
The Iraqis were not, and it was no secret. I knew it, and I am no expert on Arab cultures or the middle-East. More importantly, just about everyone at the State Department knew it, every academic worth his (or her) salt knew it, and virtually every historian or religious scholar who has studied Arab culture past and present knew it too. Everyone the Bush Administration should have (and could have) asked would have told them the very same thing: the people of Iraq are simply not prepared to govern themselves peacefully. The culture does not permit it. They are tribal and sectarian, and the arabic perception of strong leadership demands absolute victory or eternal opposition. The culture does not tolerate weakness, and compromise is, by definition, weakness.
Now I need to be clear on something. I believe that the various Arab states will all become multi-party democracies...eventually. I believe that the scourge of extreme Islam will burn itself out and fade away (just as the activist Christian right will ultimately fade in this country), and the cultural imperative to conquer or die will weaken to the point where democracy can work in the Arab world.
But that time has not yet arrived, and the reactionary nature of Arab culture means that there are simply no shortcuts we can take in Iraq. Period.
Maybe we really did need to topple Saddam. I have known for many years that this was an evil man. I was in Israel during the 1st Gulf War, and was on the receiving end (near enough) of one of his SCUD missiles. I watched the news as he slaughtered his own people, a la Josef Stalin. I saw how he tried to construct a "super cannon" and to acquire weapons of mass destruction (though it seemed clear that he had fundamentally abandoned those ambitions). He was a bad man, an evil man, and you wouldn't have had to argue very hard to convince me that he had to go, and that only by military force could we depose him. In the end, I suppose I agree with all of that. I said so before the Iraq War, and I say so still.
I also say still the other point I made then: I am not sure that it is (was) the right time for this action. I didn't believe we had exhausted diplomatic options (even if they would ultimately be unsuccessful), nor had we built enough of a world concensus. But I wasn't opposed in principle to the notion that Saddam had to go, and that we were going to have to be the ones to send him packing. My president made that decision, and while I had plenty of misgivings, I could go along with him that far.
Removing Saddam and conquering Iraq turned out to be a cakewalk. I think most of us expected that, but maybe not how easy it turned out to be. For all of the fiery rhetoric we see, Arab culture does not really expect its soldiers to die in a courageous stand against an irresistable enemy. if anything, the idea is to get the bastards from that other tribe to do your dying for you; the most important thing is not the country or the king, but the welfare of my family and my tribe. When faced with overwhelming force, Saddam's armies evaporated like a desert mirage...and for any who read history, that has been the case throughout Arab history. No armies have ever been as ferocious---and merciless---in victory, or as unreliable (and even craven) when faced with an equal or greater foe. The military tradition of Arab culture is that of the bully: bloody his nose and he'll run like a rabbit.
Of course, these soldiers are not cowards. They will fight very courageously and die without regret for a cause that matters to them...but their rulers are never cause enough. They will stand and fight for their tribe, but not for their country. Indeed, Iraqis don't see themselves as Iraqis, but rather as members of their specific tribe and extended family. For this reason, they make excellent guerilla fighters, by the way...
In any case, our military victory was a foregone conclusion, and the forces of Saddam showed themselves to be an Arab army in the truest sense: they weren't about to let themselves be slaughtered in defense of a man and a regime that was not of their own tribe. They didn't mind seeing Saddam fall anyway. The fall of one ruler opens the door for the rise of another ruler. The end of a great tribe means the ascendancy of other tribes, and maybe their own tribe. The battle was never really with the American forces; they were conserving their strength for the true fight...against the other tribes of Iraq.
Which brings me to the ultimate point of today's gripe: we were in a position to do it right, but instead we chose to do it wrong...and maybe that was worse than not doing it at all.
The crucial task we faced---once we decided to go in at all---was what to do after we conquered the country. I agree that we needed (and still need) to set up a democracy there...but it needs to be a real democracy, with an electorate that will respect and support an elected regime, even if that regime is not in the hands of their own tribe. That Iraq does not exist, no matter how many elections they try to hold now. Our task was to create not only the structure of a democracy, but also the electorate to support it...and we never even tried. And there is a very strong political reason why we never even planned to do that:
It would have taken an occupation.
I'm not talking about what we have now; I mean a true occupation, with 500,000 troops, stationed there for 20+ years. We needed to completely disarm the populace, sweep the country for weapons from top to bottom, and declare martial law.
No, this is not my dream; it is more like my nightmare...but this is what it would have taken. We needed to commit to governing Iraq for many, many years. We needed to commit to reshaping the entire culture, and denying any Iraqi any power. We needed to create a benign dictatorship, and rebuild the Iraqi economy in an enforced peace. At the same time, we needed to establish a re-education program that would teach today's Iraqi children about democracy...about national unity and patriotism. We needed to grow an Iraqi democracy from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. Start by letting local communities elect leaders with very limited power, and immediately and forcefully stamp out the inevitable corruption...
As the elected leaders learned (slowly, I'm sure) to serve their constituancies, to be reasonably honest, we would then allow them more control, and allow the people to select state and regional reppresentatives. Any attempts to restore tribalism would be ruthlessly suppressed, until the Iraqis themselves realized that they are a single people, with common interests.
Eventually, this nascent democracy would grow meaningful political parties, and as each layer of self-rule was added, the people would see democracy in action; see the oil revenues of Iraq invested in the country and its infrastructure. No armies. No palaces. No Iraqi secret police. A government for the people, because its power is strictly limited to serving the people. Until finally, after the long haul, the American presence could slowly fade away, leaving a true democracy in its place...a government elected by a populace that was a true electorate.
This plan would have been hugely expensive. More than that, it might easily have taken 40 or 50 years, rather than the 20 I suggested previously. I understand that. I also understand that the American people would have refused to go along with this plan...and maybe rightly so.
But it is the only plan that would have worked; the only strategy that could justify the invasion in the first place. It would have been a painful process, and a controversial one. It may even have been extreme enough to derail the presidency and the invasion, which is why it was never an option for this administration.
But it is the right way to do this. It's how we helped rebuild Europe and Japan. It's the only effective way to reshape the middle-East. We could have done it right...
Friday, August 5, 2011
Thursday, August 4, 2011
SHHHHH!!!! For God's Sake, Don't Call it What it Is!
(Note: This entry was originally posted on Friday, March 17, 2006)
Hooray! We have yet another sterling example of political obfuscation!
Actually, your humble blogger here is quite likely late to this particular party---H.R. 3824---but having heard a part of the NPR program Talk of the Nation today, I felt like I had to comment. You see, it may not be news to you, but I hadn't realized that Congress was trying to fundamentally re-write The Endangered Species Act. Well, that's exactly what's happening, and that provides yet another opportunity to focus on one of my personal pet peeves: the intentional misuse of the English language. In this case, the misrepresentation of proposed changes to an established law.
To wit: Congressman Richard W. Pombo is feeding us excrement, and calling it chocolate. How does it taste, my friends?
The nature of the changes proposed in H.R. 3824 shouldn't surprise anyone. Congressman Pombo has been a fanatical opponent of the Endangered Species Act his entire career. The congressman believes that a person should have the right to use his or her land in whatever manner seems best to him or her, and how that land usage impacts either the environment or any indigenous species is just not relevant. Property rights trump all others.
Fair enough. I don't agree with Congressman Pombo's stance, but he has a right to promote it. Insofar as he has managed to be elected and re-elected to the U.S. House of Representatives several times, we have to presume that there are a fair number of people in his home district that agree with him. Pombo's obligation is to serve his country and his constituency to the best of his ability, and he has both the right and the duty to use his congressional platform to do so.
All he has to do is persuade a majority of his colleagues to vote with him.
It is there that the Honorable Mr. Pombo has heretofore run into a brick wall. The Endangered Species Act is, for many excellent reasons, a very popular law. By and large, the people of the United States believe in its importance, and agree with the general manner in which the law is applied. Any vote to repeal the law would be seen as opposing the conservation of threatened and endangered species. Congressman Pombo may not mind being perceived as opposing conservation, but a great many of his congressional colleagues find that stance untenable. Their constituents would blow a collective gasket, and the various congresspeople who had cast such an unpopular vote would find their positions imperiled.
Realizing this, Congressman Pombo initially attempted to re-write the act in such a way as to render it meaningless. He openly explained the businesses and land owners were being inconvenienced by the law, and they should be freed from its constraints. Alas, that view proved equally unpopular. Those of us who like the idea of having (for example) wild populations of Bald Eagles or Brown Pelicans just don't want to see the law watered down in any way. In fact, many of us would prefer to see the Endangered Species Act given new and more formidable teeth. Frankly, the law just doesn't go far enough in protecting the flora and fauna that is the true heritage of this country.
Undeterred in his obsession, Congressman Pombo finally saw the political light: it is far easier to fool the electorate than it is to persuade them. The voters want an Endangered Species Act, and a significant percentage of them would like to find ways to make the law even more effective. This was the opening that the esteemed congressman has chosen to exploit.
"Why not," he must have thought, "present my ideas for emasculating this annoying law as suggestions to improve it? If I can shout loudly enough about efficiency and effectiveness, I can probably pull the wool over a great many ecologically sensitive eyes..." And he has, has Mr. Congressman Pombo.
In presenting the bill that the House has since passed as H.R. 3824, the congressman twisted various facts and statistics in such a way as to demonstrate that the Endangered Species Act is broken, and requires fixing. His reasoning? That many species identified as endangered have remained on the list for many years, and show no signs of achieving natural sustainability. Obviously, if the law worked, all of these species would have recovered, and been removed from the list. The very fact that there are species that have been listed as endangered for more than 20 years and remain so today is Congressman Pombo's rationale for concluding that the Endangered Species Act is a failure.
Of course, the changes the congressman wants to apply to the act to "fix" it are suspiciously similar to the changes he once proposed render it pointless. They are, in fact, fundamentally identical, and that is his aim.
He just can't sell that idea.
And so the congressman positions himself as an environmental activist of sorts, argues that what he wants to do is make an ineffective law more effective, and sets out to fool the country. In the process, he intentionally misrepresents both his actions and his aims. In other words, he lies.
I wonder if it has occurred to the congressman, were it not for this flawed and ineffective act, just how many species would now have transitioned from "endangered" to "extinct?"
I am tired of this. More than that, I find that I am coming to truly hate people like Congressman Pombo. Certainly, I have no respect for what he has chosen to do. I would fight against his proposals in any case, but if he was open and honest about his intent, I would at least have some respect for the man.
This is a bill that is designed to make it easier for businesses and land owners to damage or even destroy local ecologies. It's about making money by raising land values and opening the door to currently proscribed ways of using and developing undeveloped land. That is Pombo's aim, and he has no other motive. That is the aim of those who support this bill, and they have no other motive. The heck with the damage we may cause...this is our land, and we have a God-given right to use it in the most profitable way we can.
Well, the House has passed the bill, and the Senate will likely pass its own bill. The good news is that the Senate seems less inclined to follow Congressman Pombo's lead, and the Endangered Species Act just might be safe for the time being. The Senate resolution will almost certainly repudiate most of what is included in the House resolution. Still, using language as a fig leaf, a fanatical legislator has managed to get the ultimate anti-environmental bill through the lower house of congress. Our media had little to say; there was no public outcry. Pombo's strategy worked that far.
Are we, as a people, this stupid? When a politico tells us that left is right, that down is up, that being against something is really being for it, are we going to continue to mutely nod our heads and go one about our business?
God I hope not...
Hooray! We have yet another sterling example of political obfuscation!
Actually, your humble blogger here is quite likely late to this particular party---H.R. 3824---but having heard a part of the NPR program Talk of the Nation today, I felt like I had to comment. You see, it may not be news to you, but I hadn't realized that Congress was trying to fundamentally re-write The Endangered Species Act. Well, that's exactly what's happening, and that provides yet another opportunity to focus on one of my personal pet peeves: the intentional misuse of the English language. In this case, the misrepresentation of proposed changes to an established law.
To wit: Congressman Richard W. Pombo is feeding us excrement, and calling it chocolate. How does it taste, my friends?
The nature of the changes proposed in H.R. 3824 shouldn't surprise anyone. Congressman Pombo has been a fanatical opponent of the Endangered Species Act his entire career. The congressman believes that a person should have the right to use his or her land in whatever manner seems best to him or her, and how that land usage impacts either the environment or any indigenous species is just not relevant. Property rights trump all others.
Fair enough. I don't agree with Congressman Pombo's stance, but he has a right to promote it. Insofar as he has managed to be elected and re-elected to the U.S. House of Representatives several times, we have to presume that there are a fair number of people in his home district that agree with him. Pombo's obligation is to serve his country and his constituency to the best of his ability, and he has both the right and the duty to use his congressional platform to do so.
All he has to do is persuade a majority of his colleagues to vote with him.
It is there that the Honorable Mr. Pombo has heretofore run into a brick wall. The Endangered Species Act is, for many excellent reasons, a very popular law. By and large, the people of the United States believe in its importance, and agree with the general manner in which the law is applied. Any vote to repeal the law would be seen as opposing the conservation of threatened and endangered species. Congressman Pombo may not mind being perceived as opposing conservation, but a great many of his congressional colleagues find that stance untenable. Their constituents would blow a collective gasket, and the various congresspeople who had cast such an unpopular vote would find their positions imperiled.
Realizing this, Congressman Pombo initially attempted to re-write the act in such a way as to render it meaningless. He openly explained the businesses and land owners were being inconvenienced by the law, and they should be freed from its constraints. Alas, that view proved equally unpopular. Those of us who like the idea of having (for example) wild populations of Bald Eagles or Brown Pelicans just don't want to see the law watered down in any way. In fact, many of us would prefer to see the Endangered Species Act given new and more formidable teeth. Frankly, the law just doesn't go far enough in protecting the flora and fauna that is the true heritage of this country.
Undeterred in his obsession, Congressman Pombo finally saw the political light: it is far easier to fool the electorate than it is to persuade them. The voters want an Endangered Species Act, and a significant percentage of them would like to find ways to make the law even more effective. This was the opening that the esteemed congressman has chosen to exploit.
"Why not," he must have thought, "present my ideas for emasculating this annoying law as suggestions to improve it? If I can shout loudly enough about efficiency and effectiveness, I can probably pull the wool over a great many ecologically sensitive eyes..." And he has, has Mr. Congressman Pombo.
In presenting the bill that the House has since passed as H.R. 3824, the congressman twisted various facts and statistics in such a way as to demonstrate that the Endangered Species Act is broken, and requires fixing. His reasoning? That many species identified as endangered have remained on the list for many years, and show no signs of achieving natural sustainability. Obviously, if the law worked, all of these species would have recovered, and been removed from the list. The very fact that there are species that have been listed as endangered for more than 20 years and remain so today is Congressman Pombo's rationale for concluding that the Endangered Species Act is a failure.
Of course, the changes the congressman wants to apply to the act to "fix" it are suspiciously similar to the changes he once proposed render it pointless. They are, in fact, fundamentally identical, and that is his aim.
He just can't sell that idea.
And so the congressman positions himself as an environmental activist of sorts, argues that what he wants to do is make an ineffective law more effective, and sets out to fool the country. In the process, he intentionally misrepresents both his actions and his aims. In other words, he lies.
I wonder if it has occurred to the congressman, were it not for this flawed and ineffective act, just how many species would now have transitioned from "endangered" to "extinct?"
I am tired of this. More than that, I find that I am coming to truly hate people like Congressman Pombo. Certainly, I have no respect for what he has chosen to do. I would fight against his proposals in any case, but if he was open and honest about his intent, I would at least have some respect for the man.
This is a bill that is designed to make it easier for businesses and land owners to damage or even destroy local ecologies. It's about making money by raising land values and opening the door to currently proscribed ways of using and developing undeveloped land. That is Pombo's aim, and he has no other motive. That is the aim of those who support this bill, and they have no other motive. The heck with the damage we may cause...this is our land, and we have a God-given right to use it in the most profitable way we can.
Well, the House has passed the bill, and the Senate will likely pass its own bill. The good news is that the Senate seems less inclined to follow Congressman Pombo's lead, and the Endangered Species Act just might be safe for the time being. The Senate resolution will almost certainly repudiate most of what is included in the House resolution. Still, using language as a fig leaf, a fanatical legislator has managed to get the ultimate anti-environmental bill through the lower house of congress. Our media had little to say; there was no public outcry. Pombo's strategy worked that far.
Are we, as a people, this stupid? When a politico tells us that left is right, that down is up, that being against something is really being for it, are we going to continue to mutely nod our heads and go one about our business?
God I hope not...
OK, South Dakota, I Give Up...
(Note: This entry was originally posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006)
...is this a trick question?
It's already old news to all of you---and to me too, since I listen to NPR---but the great state of Sout Dakota has, in its infinite wisdom, passed a law that bans virtually all abortions. According to at least some informed sources, the text of the law is specifically designed to generate a challenge to Roe v Wade. Many of these same informed sources suggest that this move was orchestrated by the pro-life movement to force the new Supreme Court to declare itself in regards to the Roe v Wade precedent.
That all makes sense to me...if you are a pro-life activist.
OK, tangent here...
[Begin Tangent] I actually write for living (I don't really write that well, hence it is not such a good living), so word selection matters to me. I think one of my primary motives for starting this blog was to express my dismay and disgust with the way our politicians (and the special interest groups to which they prostitute themselves) create appealing names for their causes. This is especially true for those names that are intentionally misleading. It is the ultimate spin, and with no apologies whatsoever to a certain moronic windbag, this zone is not about spin.
Anyway, as misleading names go, "pro-life" is a masterpiece. In favor of life? Hooray! I'm in favor of life too...for just about everyone. I'm not going to weep over the chicken I plan to eat tonight, and there are certainly some scoundrels and blackguards in the world who wouldn't be missed if their lives were cut short. Still, I am essentially in favor of all life. Of course, our "pro-life" crowd isn't really in favor of life in general...they just use the name to market themselves. They chose the name specifically to counter the perceived negativity of the label they had worn for many years: "anti-abortion." Unfortunately, while "anti-abortion" is an excellent description of these activists, "pro-life" isn't. The term is too ambiguous, and implies that those who oppose them are anti-life. Since I can honestly say that I am in favor of life, and at the same time oppose the actions, aims, and propaganda of the pro-life movement, I feel philologically obliged to reject that name. Henceforth, the thought police heretofore identified as pro-life shall be known as anti-abortion. [End Tangent]
OK, back to the great state of South Dakota...
What were you people thinking? I honestly don't know if the majority of the South Dakota electorate is actually in favor of this law, nor can I even imagine how the state elected a legislature that would pass the law. Regardless, though, South Dakota has truly opened Pandora's political box. You see, this is a theological law.
Yes, I am very pleased to hear that the vast majority of South Dakotans are people of faith. Me too, by the way. Even so, having travelled far beyond not only my home state of Florida, but even outside the boundaries of our great nation, I can tell you with great certainty that basing a law on anyone's theology is a bad idea. You see, the thing about theologies is that, like anuses, just about everyone has one...and no two theologies truly agree. This is especially true across cultures. It is for this reason that our country's founding fathers intentionally created a division---a separation, in fact---between our government and our many different faiths.
By enacting this law, the government of South Dakota has crossed a far more dangerous line than it realizes: they have made a bold statement that the government can tell the people which theologies should be believed, and worse, that the government can force the populace to abide by the tenets of a specific theology. Scary stuff, people.
You may be surprised to hear that I don't much care for abortion myself. I think it is sad, even tragic that people sometimes decide to end a pregnancy. Pregnancy should be a time for joy and anticipation. Indeed, there is a good reason why we sometimes describe a pregnant woman as "expecting." She is expecting, and the event she is expecting is a supremely joyful one. But there's the rub. If pregnancy should be a joyful experience, what can a woman for whom the experience is far from joyful do? Can anyone explain to me why a woman experiencing the overwhelming joy of pregnancy would choose to end it? The truth is that an unwanted pregnancy is never joyful, and an unwanted child is the greatest tragedy humankind can produce. Small wonder that a great many people choose to end unwanted pregnancies every year.
In the end, whether or not to carry a child to term is a decision that only the mother can make. regardless of my opinion---equivocal at best---I am in no position to tell a woman what to do in that case. It is the most personal and private of decisions, and no government has any business intruding.
What has me really concerned, though, is the motivation behind the law. As far as the South Dakota legislature is concerned, any pregnancy is God's will...even a pregnancy engendered by rape or incest. The reasoning is obvious...if God hadn't wanted her to be pregnant, she wouldn't have been raped or molested, and she wouldn't have gotten pregnant. She was raped, though, and she is pregnant. Therefore, God wants this child to be born. Of course, one has to assume that the legislature---who never mentioned or discussed any deity in its deliberations---would be able to agree amongst themselves what God's will truly is. Make no mistake, though, in spite of the legal language and the spin they put on the debate, the reason all of these distinguished solons oppose abortion is because they believe it is God's will. Even if they are correct, however, they have no right to impose their beliefs on even a single woman in South Dakota.
If they will do this, though, what comes next? I mean, we're talking the will of God, here. Have we figured out a way to recreate brimstone in the laboratory yet? There are thousands of homosexuals in South Dakota, and God surely showed His will in regards to gays when He smote Sodom and Gemorrah, right? We can pack them in a stadium, and shower them with state-sponsored brimstone. That fits in well with a pro-life agenda, right?
The fundamental concept upon which religious observance in this country was founded is that no one can tell you what to believe. You can express your opinion as loudly as you like, and you can join the church or organization of your choosing. No matter what, though, you do not have the right to tell anyone else what to believe, nor may you force others to abide by the precepts of your beliefs. When a government---state or federal---enacts a law that compels obedience to a specific religious belief, it shreds one of the most fundamental rights of this country. Any that do have much for which to answer.
South Dakota, you're on the clock...what in the world do you think you're doing?
...is this a trick question?
It's already old news to all of you---and to me too, since I listen to NPR---but the great state of Sout Dakota has, in its infinite wisdom, passed a law that bans virtually all abortions. According to at least some informed sources, the text of the law is specifically designed to generate a challenge to Roe v Wade. Many of these same informed sources suggest that this move was orchestrated by the pro-life movement to force the new Supreme Court to declare itself in regards to the Roe v Wade precedent.
That all makes sense to me...if you are a pro-life activist.
OK, tangent here...
[Begin Tangent] I actually write for living (I don't really write that well, hence it is not such a good living), so word selection matters to me. I think one of my primary motives for starting this blog was to express my dismay and disgust with the way our politicians (and the special interest groups to which they prostitute themselves) create appealing names for their causes. This is especially true for those names that are intentionally misleading. It is the ultimate spin, and with no apologies whatsoever to a certain moronic windbag, this zone is not about spin.
Anyway, as misleading names go, "pro-life" is a masterpiece. In favor of life? Hooray! I'm in favor of life too...for just about everyone. I'm not going to weep over the chicken I plan to eat tonight, and there are certainly some scoundrels and blackguards in the world who wouldn't be missed if their lives were cut short. Still, I am essentially in favor of all life. Of course, our "pro-life" crowd isn't really in favor of life in general...they just use the name to market themselves. They chose the name specifically to counter the perceived negativity of the label they had worn for many years: "anti-abortion." Unfortunately, while "anti-abortion" is an excellent description of these activists, "pro-life" isn't. The term is too ambiguous, and implies that those who oppose them are anti-life. Since I can honestly say that I am in favor of life, and at the same time oppose the actions, aims, and propaganda of the pro-life movement, I feel philologically obliged to reject that name. Henceforth, the thought police heretofore identified as pro-life shall be known as anti-abortion. [End Tangent]
OK, back to the great state of South Dakota...
What were you people thinking? I honestly don't know if the majority of the South Dakota electorate is actually in favor of this law, nor can I even imagine how the state elected a legislature that would pass the law. Regardless, though, South Dakota has truly opened Pandora's political box. You see, this is a theological law.
Yes, I am very pleased to hear that the vast majority of South Dakotans are people of faith. Me too, by the way. Even so, having travelled far beyond not only my home state of Florida, but even outside the boundaries of our great nation, I can tell you with great certainty that basing a law on anyone's theology is a bad idea. You see, the thing about theologies is that, like anuses, just about everyone has one...and no two theologies truly agree. This is especially true across cultures. It is for this reason that our country's founding fathers intentionally created a division---a separation, in fact---between our government and our many different faiths.
By enacting this law, the government of South Dakota has crossed a far more dangerous line than it realizes: they have made a bold statement that the government can tell the people which theologies should be believed, and worse, that the government can force the populace to abide by the tenets of a specific theology. Scary stuff, people.
You may be surprised to hear that I don't much care for abortion myself. I think it is sad, even tragic that people sometimes decide to end a pregnancy. Pregnancy should be a time for joy and anticipation. Indeed, there is a good reason why we sometimes describe a pregnant woman as "expecting." She is expecting, and the event she is expecting is a supremely joyful one. But there's the rub. If pregnancy should be a joyful experience, what can a woman for whom the experience is far from joyful do? Can anyone explain to me why a woman experiencing the overwhelming joy of pregnancy would choose to end it? The truth is that an unwanted pregnancy is never joyful, and an unwanted child is the greatest tragedy humankind can produce. Small wonder that a great many people choose to end unwanted pregnancies every year.
In the end, whether or not to carry a child to term is a decision that only the mother can make. regardless of my opinion---equivocal at best---I am in no position to tell a woman what to do in that case. It is the most personal and private of decisions, and no government has any business intruding.
What has me really concerned, though, is the motivation behind the law. As far as the South Dakota legislature is concerned, any pregnancy is God's will...even a pregnancy engendered by rape or incest. The reasoning is obvious...if God hadn't wanted her to be pregnant, she wouldn't have been raped or molested, and she wouldn't have gotten pregnant. She was raped, though, and she is pregnant. Therefore, God wants this child to be born. Of course, one has to assume that the legislature---who never mentioned or discussed any deity in its deliberations---would be able to agree amongst themselves what God's will truly is. Make no mistake, though, in spite of the legal language and the spin they put on the debate, the reason all of these distinguished solons oppose abortion is because they believe it is God's will. Even if they are correct, however, they have no right to impose their beliefs on even a single woman in South Dakota.
If they will do this, though, what comes next? I mean, we're talking the will of God, here. Have we figured out a way to recreate brimstone in the laboratory yet? There are thousands of homosexuals in South Dakota, and God surely showed His will in regards to gays when He smote Sodom and Gemorrah, right? We can pack them in a stadium, and shower them with state-sponsored brimstone. That fits in well with a pro-life agenda, right?
The fundamental concept upon which religious observance in this country was founded is that no one can tell you what to believe. You can express your opinion as loudly as you like, and you can join the church or organization of your choosing. No matter what, though, you do not have the right to tell anyone else what to believe, nor may you force others to abide by the precepts of your beliefs. When a government---state or federal---enacts a law that compels obedience to a specific religious belief, it shreds one of the most fundamental rights of this country. Any that do have much for which to answer.
South Dakota, you're on the clock...what in the world do you think you're doing?
A New Beginning
Greetings All!
I return! Ta-da!!!!
OK, so not such a big deal. I'm pretty sure no one even noticed that I'd left...
Seriously, I started a blog many years ago. I called it "Gripes and Pipedreams," and focused on the things that I either liked or disliked about current events. I began eagerly, and I posted a few times to it, too. It turned out, though, that I wasn't dedicated or consistent enough, and after just a few submissions, I stopped. I think that happens to a great many would-be bloggers.
Even so, my urge to blog never quite left me, and so, more than five years later, I return. I am choosing a new format, a wider topic range, if you will, encompassing more than simply my own social and political observations. Oh, I am likely to spout off at times too, but in addition I intend to wax philosophic on whatever theme seems appropriate, be it fishing or football, love or finance, travel or cuisine. I am just going to write.
And you? If any of you ever decide to read any of this, I hope you find at least some of it amusing. Beyond that, if anything I write encourages you to think just a little, or suggests to you that there might just be a perspective different from your own, that's all to the good.
And if not, I imagine YOU won't be reading this anyway!
;-)
Well, here goes, my second attempt at a self-indulgent, pseudo-intellectual web log, mostly intended just to amuse myself. If you wandered in here by mistake, take the opportunity now and run!
As a big believe in recycling, I shall first post some of my entries from the old blog. Once that is done, I am going to try to post new material more regularly. Please feel free to comment. If I don't think you stroke my ego enough, I'll just block your comment anyway...
I return! Ta-da!!!!
OK, so not such a big deal. I'm pretty sure no one even noticed that I'd left...
Seriously, I started a blog many years ago. I called it "Gripes and Pipedreams," and focused on the things that I either liked or disliked about current events. I began eagerly, and I posted a few times to it, too. It turned out, though, that I wasn't dedicated or consistent enough, and after just a few submissions, I stopped. I think that happens to a great many would-be bloggers.
Even so, my urge to blog never quite left me, and so, more than five years later, I return. I am choosing a new format, a wider topic range, if you will, encompassing more than simply my own social and political observations. Oh, I am likely to spout off at times too, but in addition I intend to wax philosophic on whatever theme seems appropriate, be it fishing or football, love or finance, travel or cuisine. I am just going to write.
And you? If any of you ever decide to read any of this, I hope you find at least some of it amusing. Beyond that, if anything I write encourages you to think just a little, or suggests to you that there might just be a perspective different from your own, that's all to the good.
And if not, I imagine YOU won't be reading this anyway!
;-)
Well, here goes, my second attempt at a self-indulgent, pseudo-intellectual web log, mostly intended just to amuse myself. If you wandered in here by mistake, take the opportunity now and run!
As a big believe in recycling, I shall first post some of my entries from the old blog. Once that is done, I am going to try to post new material more regularly. Please feel free to comment. If I don't think you stroke my ego enough, I'll just block your comment anyway...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)