Losing?

I heard Murtha today talking about how poorly we're doing in Iraq. I've been hearing for months that we're doing terribly. We're LOSING!!

I keep thinking, "Wait a damned minute..." The "insurgents" do seem to be persistent bastards, but am I the only one who thinks they're actually pretty pathetic? Terrorism itself is pathetic because it is intellectually (and spiritually) vacant, but when you are trying to be the bad-ass in town and your best shots are trying to kill as many unarmed, innocent civilians as possible... that's really pathetic.

Every military engagement ends in massive killing and capturing of the insurgents, and few US casualties. The Iraqis seem to be winning in confrontations too. Speaking of which, ever more of them are taking the lead in operations.

The Iraqis are making tremendous strides (because of the work of our troops and the administration) in forming a democratically elected government in an amazingly short period of time. In a month they'll have a government. Obviously, to anyone with any sense of perspective, there will be fits and starts and it will take time for it to get up and running, but it's a miracle it's there at all considering what was there in 2002.

The vast majority of Iraq is pacified. The areas that aren't are dominated by people who were part of a minority that held power, and that viciously dominated the majority, and they don't like that any power they will get will have to be earned and that there may be a price to pay for their willing participation in the tyrannical Saddam regime. Also, there are some people that are dead set against a democracy in the heart of the middle east. They don't WANT to see a free and flourishing Iraq, because it disrupts their power base. If free people (Arabs... Muslims) in a free market are successful, what does that say about their "blame America and Israel for your terrible lot in life" sales pitch? What does that say to the masses in Iran and Syria and other countries about their own governments? So, yeah, they are a problem. But, as the political process keeps moving forward, and more Sunnis see that the tide is coming in whether they want it to or not, so they might as well participate, the insurgency will have less and less ground to stand on.

Apparently, in most of the country, the economy is beginning to flourish. Even in Baghdad I've seen reports that new shops are opening and more business is being done. Surely, people will see that security will attract investment, and as the tide continues moving inexhorably in, they will continue to take more and more responsibility for keeping insurgents out of their neighborhoods. Just today, in Mosul, a gathering of top Al Qaeda leaders (possibly including Zarqawi) was targeted by US and Iraqi troops due to a tip from an Iraqi civilian. They're catching on!

I don't see how all of this positive news, and more, much more in terms of building schools, building hospitals, re-building and improving worn down infrastructure, getting and keeping the oil flowing (oil that will belong to Iraqis!), etc., gets translated into "we're losing".

Yes, we've lost 2,100 people. Way too many Iraqis have died (not at OUR hand, but at the hand of the terrorists). Many of our bravest have been wounded. All of that is true. But, in historical terms, the casualties are incredibly low. We're talking about an operation that toppled a horrendously dangerous dictatorial regime, and is putting a democracy in its place in the middle of a region where authoritarian rule is all they know, and has been suppressing the people for generations. That is HUGE! That as few have been killed and wounded as there has been is an immense tribute to the quality of our military.

Yes... every loss is a tragedy. But we have to remember that there is a distinct possibility that if we'd just left it all alone, chances are very good that the combination of Saddam and his lust for WMD and his hatred of the US, and his support of terrorists could very well have led to far more death and disruption here than what our military has incurred there. 2,100 is a big number, but it's still smaller than the toll from 9/11. What would weaponized VX or anthrax in Times Square, or at the Rose Bowl, or in Tel Aviv cost in terms of life and economic damage?

Our military is winning, and they ARE keeping us safe at home because of what they're accomplshing there. It's time people stop saying we're losing.

Point of Emphasis... PLEASE!

I'd love to see the administration, others in the GOP, and bloggers start to re-emphasize how the apparent weakness of the USA contributed to terror (including 9/11) and how important it is to show the resolve now that we didn't show then. I know there is a conversation about showing resolve and possible results, but I'd like the historical context emphasized so to help give weight to the argument about what pulling out of Iraq would mean.

For example, Bin Laden was convinced we were a paper tiger. He said that he thought we'd shown all the resolve we had after Somalia. We had made ourselves appear vulnerable, we had actually BECOME vulnerable, so they knew they could strike us.

I think the best reason to go into Iraq was presented in Bush's speech to the UN when he told them that they risked becoming irrelevent (and, they've since proved that they are). To quote no less a luminary than.... well... ME, in this early post from my blog:

I think this is closest to what was really in President Bush's mind when he
decided to go to Iraq. He knew that Al Queda was emboldened by our tepid
responses to their other actions. He knew that Bin Laden thought we showed all
the resolve we had in Somalia, where "Black Hawk Down" led immediately to our
retreat. He knew that Saddam's ability to thumb his nose not only at the UN, but
directly at the U.S.A. emboldened not only terrorists, but other outlaw regimes.
Why would North Korea or Iran take UN resolutions seriously when it was obvious
that you could violate them with no repercussions? Why would they take sanctions
seriously, when it was doubtlessly known that Saddam managed to get around them
and even make a profit despite them? Slapping Saddam down was a "do NOT screw
with US ANYMORE!" moment. And, you know what? It was necessary. We'd become eminently "screw-withable" and the bad guys were taking advantage. Afghanistan was an announcement that we'd get justice for 9/11. Iraq was the announcement that we have officially stopped taking shit.

Zarqawi: Sorry... but, BOOM!!!

Yesterday Zarqawi released a tape apologizing for the bombing of a wedding in Amman. Apparently, they didn't MEAN to blow up a wedding. They just wanted to destroy property and non-wedding-going Muslims in the hotels, along with whatever westerners happened to be milling about.

Question: Have you ever walked into a wedding and not recognized that it was a wedding? The bomber had a choice about whether or not to detonate. He SAW what was there and who was there.

The day of the apology, two bombs were detonated in Mosques (!!!) in Iraq, killing (last I heard) 72 MUSLIMS at prayer in Allah's house. Then, today, a car bomb went off in a funeral procession.

I hope the people in Amman, and in Iraq (and throughout the Muslim world) are paying attention to the veracity of the apology. "Sorry... didn't mean to blow up the wedding party. Our real enemies are in the Mosques and in funeral processions!"

Interesting Iraqi Documents in Qatar

I've been interested in Stephen Hayes' article in the Weekly Standard about all the papers sitting in Qatar that may shed some light on what Saddam was up to since the first Gulf War. Today, Aaron at Lifelike Pundits did a post on the documents. Republicans are wondering why the administration isn't using these documents to bolster their justification for the war. The left seems to figure that the fact they're not either means Stephen Hayes doesn't know what he's talking about, or that the documents are forged to help Bush (the first comment on Aaron's post said something like, "They're waiting for the ink to dry."

I placed a comment on his post, and liked my comment so much that I decided to post it:

Why isn't the administration exploiting this possible PR coup? According to Stephen Hayes: "I have been told countless times by officials of the executive branch that there is no need to reargue the case for war, that what matters now is winning on the ground, that our intelligence professionals don't have time to review history, so occupied are they with current intelligence about current threats. I'm sympathetic to at least part of that thinking; it's hard to insist in the face of new and evolving threats that intelligence analysts should spend their precious time evaluating the past." [emphasis is mine]

In other words, they have their eye on the ball.

What's so difficult about pulling these documents together and making an argument? Again, Hayes: "It's not an easy job. Some of the documents are forged. Others are hard to read after being damaged by fire, or the water used to extinguish those fires, in the days and weeks after the U.S. invasion. Making the job even more difficult is the fact that many of these documents have come from larger sets of documents that never made it to Doha. We know that the Iraqi regime in the run-up to war systematically destroyed what it considered the most incriminating evidence of its misdeeds. So our analysts are essentially looking at isolated pieces of a much larger puzzle without knowing whether they will ever have the remaining pieces.

"The document collection effort in Iraq was haphazard, to say the least. No comprehensive guidance was ever provided to soldiers and intelligence officials on what exactly they should collect. This lack of direction meant that in many cases unit commanders made decisions about what to gather and what to discard. When David Kay ran the Iraq Survey Group searching for weapons of mass destruction, he instructed his team to ignore anything not directly related to the regime's WMD efforts. As a consequence, documents describing the regime's training and financing of terrorists were labeled "No Intelligence Value" and often discarded, according to two sources."

Sounds like a difficult task to me, and one that probably won't get huge attention until after the war is won.

The fact is, if you've read the report by the Iraq Survey Group, you don't need to see all of this to know that whether or not he had WMD at the moment, Saddam had every intention of having them again. Either the guy was dangerous, or he wasn't. Either he broke all those UN resolutions, including the cease-fire, or he didn't. Either he was in league with terrorists, or he wasn't. Perhaps most importantly, either Islamofacists were emboldened by our dithering with Iraq and weak reaction to previous terror attacks, or they weren't. Before the war, there was vast agreement that the former was true in all those statements. That was the justification then, and it stands today.

Kerry: Bush Misled

I usually can't watch John Kerry. I just don't believe he believes a word that comes out of his own mouth. But, I was flipping through the channels and landed briefly on CNN and Wolf Blitzer was interviewing Kerry. He asked about the Senate having the same intelligence as the president. Unfortunately, I paused long enough for the answer, somehow curious to see what Kerry would say.

He went into a fact barren rap about Bush misleading and exaggerating, then said, "Let me give you an example. In the State of the Union speech, the President told the American people that Saddam had tried to buy nuclear material from Africa... from Niger..." Impulsively, my finger hit the "up" button.

I sat stunned. Could they REALLY be countering the "congress had the same argument" rebuttal with the ol' Joe Wilson bullshirt? Are they unaware that the British STILL stand by their intelligence on that story? Are they unaware that it turned out that Wilson himself, in his report to the CIA, said more to confirm it (yes, Iraqi agents wanted to discuss trade relations with a country whose only real export is yellowcake uranium) than deny it? THIS was Kerry's example? Oh, lordy... these people are bankrupt.

Please, if you haven't done it yet, read this article at Front Page Magazine for a UNSCOM and ISG inspector's take on WMD. Favorite quote: "Iraqis have told me that the WMD destruction and movement started after Operation Desert Fox, since after all, who would be so stupid to start a bombing campaign and just stop. It was only after Saddam realized that President Clinton lacked the nerve for anything more than a temper-tantrum demonstration that he knew the doors were wide open for him to continue his weapons program."

Wilson has been debunked so much it's rediculous, so I'm sure you can find as many links as I can. Also see this article from June 2004 regarding Iraqi WMD and WMD manufacturing equipment being found all over the world after a hurried dismantling before the war. In my post below, I link to the final Iraq Survey Group report. Please read the whole post.

Why Isn't Anyone Saying THIS???

I love that the administration in general, and George Bush in particular, are finally fighting back against the "Bush lied" lie. It's about time the Dems got their own words thrown in their faces.

However, there is one area where I think what they're saying could expose them as even weaker (if that's possible) on national security. President Bush touched on it, but I think it has to go deeper.

The Dems and the administration alike were saying that Saddam was dangerous with WMD. Right? And, that he harbored and supported terrorists, including al Qaeda. The danger after 9/11 was the possibility of a rogue dictator like Saddam passing off weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. All of that is true and on the record.

The final report from the Iraq Survey Group states emphatically that it was fully Saddam's intention to reconstitute his WMD program, and that he had both the scientists in place (including the nuclear scientists) and the dual use facilities to do so. Check out this little section of the report for example:

Saddam met with his senior nuclear scientists in 1999 and offered to provide them with whatever they needed, and increased funding began to flow to the IAEC in 2001, according to the former Minister of Military Industrialization. Saddam directed a large budget increase for IAEC and increased salaries tenfold from 2001 to 2003. He also directed the head of the IAEC to keep nuclear scientists together, instituted new laws and regulations to increase privileges for IAEC scientists and invested in numerous new projects. He also convened frequent meetings with the IAEC to highlight new achievements.

Saddam asked in 1999 how long it would take to build a production line for CW agents, according to the former Minister of Military Industrialization. Huwaysh investigated and responded that experts could readily prepare a production line for mustard, which could be produced within six months. VX and Sarin production was more complicated and would take longer. Huwaysh relayed this answer to Saddam, who never requested follow-up information. An Iraqi CW expert separately estimated Iraq would require only a few days to start producing mustard—if it was prepared to sacrifice the production equipment.

The report also talks about how Saddam was working to end sanctions, which we all know from the OFF scandal included lining people's pockets, as well as (according to the report) cutting off the flow of oil on occasion to exert pressure on members of the Security Council. There is little doubt that sanctions eventually would have ended, or that Saddam would have simply used his OFF money to covertly regain his arsenal of weapons. Possession of WMD (again, according to the report) was extremely important to Saddam.

So... here's my question: If Saddam was indeed dangerous with WMD, and clearly everyone agreed that he was, what difference does it make if he had old stockpiles, or created new ones? Do you realize what a small amount would be needed to pass some off to terrorists for a WMD strike that would... well... terrorize the living daylights out of everyone?

Just because it turned out he didn't have them at the time of the invasion (or, more accurately, that we couldn't find them, because it is still possible that Qusay, Uday, Saddam, or one of his minions may know--or knew before being killed--where they are... cough... Syria), does NOT mean there was no threat from him. Given his capability and desire to reconstitute his WMD arsenal, saying Saddam was no threat because we didn't find WMD is like saying that a smoker has quit smoking just because he has temporarily run out of cigarettes. The smoker is smoking again after a quick run to the convenience store.

Here is what I would emphasize if I were the administration:

The Democrats that are now saying that they would not have gone to war if they'd known Saddam had no WMD's (and implying that they were mislead about them), seem to be ignoring the fact that Saddam had both the equipment and expertise to make new WMD, and a desire to reconstitute his nuclear program. Do we want anyone who would ignore this incredibly important fact (that is available for all to see in the Iraq Survey Group Final Report) in charge of our national security?

The point was, Saddam was dangerous. He could not be trusted. He had thumbed his nose at the international community for years, was jobbing the system (OFF and inspections), and was making progress toward ending sanctions, despite his non-cooperation with the UN. Moreover, he STILL had ambitions, and capability, to have WMD, including nuclear capabilities. Knowing all of that, exactly what difference would the existence of stockpiles of aging WMD make?

Is it just me, or does it seem that the whole "Bush lied so we shouldn't have gone to war" theme is not only exposing the Dems as liars themselves, but also as people who absolutely do NOT have the intellect to perceive future probabilities, even when those future probabilities are identical to something they understand the consequences of in the present? I'd ask: "Exactly what difference is there between Saddam having stockpiles of WMD and Saddam reconstituting his stockpiles of WMD?" The only answer is that the terrorists would have to wait a little longer before Saddam could get the bio or chem weapons into their hands. Other than that, no difference.

All these Democrats agreed Saddam, as a leader, was a tyrant and a danger. The Iraq Survey Group report makes it clear that he had not changed and was determined to have WMD. Is that not complete justification of the war?

The Spirituality of Capitalism

Capitalism is often portrayed as ruthless, and without morals. Remember the “greed” speech from the movie “Wall Street”? Even one of my personal favorite author/philosophers, Ayn Rand, is said to portray capitalism as “selfish”. Of course, “selfishness” is a bad trait. It takes no one else into consideration. It’s not what I read in Ayn Rand, though.

In spiritual philosophy, at least as I study and engage in it, there is a distinction made between a “low-self” (which is the set of beliefs about ones individuality, sometimes referred to as the “ego”, though not in the Freudian sense, that a person has developed—basically a person’s belief that they are separate and apart from others, and God, and their methods of survival in that lonely situation) and a “higher Self” (which is the understanding of oneself as connected with God, and all that God is connected to, which is everything). When I read “Atlas Shrugged,” I don’t see “selfishness” in terms of an ego gratification or in pursuit of raising in esteem the beliefs about the “low-self”, I see “Selfishness” as in connecting with the highest creativity and capability in oneself in order not simply to benefit the ego, but to fully express that creativity and capability which benefits all that are connected with it.

For those familiar with “Atlas Shrugged”, it seems to me that Hank Reardon’s “Reardon Metal” was not a self-aggrandizing effort, but a desire to humbly express his God-given creativity by passionately bringing forth something that was superior in every way to what was currently being used, and that would be of great benefit to people. I say “humbly” because he wasn’t proclaiming “I’M better than you” he was saying, “This metal is better than what you’re using now and it will bring a greater benefit to the people using it than what you’re using now.”

Dagney Taggart took on the “impossible” task of completing the “John Galt” line, not for her own self-aggrandizement (ego driven), but because she knew that she could confront any problems in her way and could accomplish something that benefited others, including the entrepreneurs bringing incredibly superior products to the market and the general population of the region.

What I read was not a statement of selfishness in terms of attaining ego gratification, but a book about people working to attain and be true to the highest aspect of their beings. This, to me, is a spiritual thing. What was celebrated was the mind. However, the mind was not defined as the sum of one person’s knowledge. It sort of remained in that spiritual plane, where it was greater than merely the sum of knowledge, or the combination of knowledge and beliefs and personality. Ayn never said it, but, to me, there was room, in a person “of the mind”, for reaching into a Universal Mind, for “connection”.

When I look at capitalism at the level of the entrepreneur, I see a spiritual journey. I see someone tapping not merely into a base of knowledge acquired through their lifetime, but reaching into the realm of creativity, which is a spiritual realm. Why do I say that? First, creating is what God does. It is not that the inventor is usurping God’s prerogative, it is that the inventor is working in the same realm, side by side with what one might call the Creative Impulse. Second, it requires a leap from what you know into a realm of inspiration that takes you beyond your knowledge. It’s unpredictable, at least in the moment, though it can appear in retrospect that each step forward is a logical step, rather than a creative one. Third, though it might sound strange, the act of creation is often an act of love. It even requires passion. The inventor/entrepreneur loves his/her creation, and also generally loves both whatever prompted them to create, and whatever, or (more importantly) whoever will benefit by the creation.

So, creation is a spiritual act. When you talk to inventors, the fact that they didn’t know the solution to a problem, and couldn’t think of it on their own, but then had an inspiration that provided the answer is a common theme. It is not all that unlike the writer who feels an inspiration and simply begins typing and, two hours later, they don’t know how much time has passed, and aren’t even sure what they wrote until they go back and read it. Or the artist who begins painting, loses their sense of themselves, and finds themselves surprised and amazed at what they’ve painted when they’re done.

I’m actually a Patent holder. I have three, and will be applying for more for different aspects of the inventions. I can tell you from my own experience that I didn’t solve the problems that led to the invention. I simply opened up and let them come to me. In one case, I was standing in the shower and suddenly saw the completed piece in my mind. I didn’t even understand how it worked until I sat down and drew it out and saw what had been created. At the time, I was working with two very good mechanical engineers who hadn’t been able to solve the problem (I’m NOT a mechanical engineer). I faxed them the solution and they both thought it was brilliant. Frankly, I couldn’t take credit for it, though I was both pleased and amazed that they not only understood what “I” had created, but saw that it would work. The answer didn’t lie in being a brilliant engineer. The answer was in having love for the project, passion for it, and both a desire and a willingness to have the answer come. This is NOT a story that is unique to me.

There is also another creative aspect of capitalism, which is, I think, also spiritual and it distinguishes capitalism from economic models such as socialism. It has to do with bringing order, and not just order, but exactly what is needed, out of apparent chaos. In other systems, people try to logically engineer what is needed. An elite tries to plan for all that is needed. As a result of this, evidenced by the progress (or lack thereof) in socialist countries, or in countries controlled by a totalitarian regime, there is tremendous lack. Trying to control the economy just doesn’t work. In capitalist countries, there is a fluid response that allows market forces to call forth from the apparent chaos of the market what is needed. What is needed is provided, and there is a minimum of lack. What we end up with is a sort of “dance” where a variety of forces move together (need, creativity, capital, labor, etc.) and what is needed and/or wanted is provided.

In the mix of this is something that could be called “The Hand of Providence.” Serendipity is often present. Synergy occurs. Creativity (as noted above) is needed and supplied. Abundance often results.

If you look across the short time span from the beginnings of the industrial revolution to now, the progress appears to be miraculous. Who could have predicted or planned the infrastructure we all enjoy, or the abundance of food, shelter, clothing, and convenience items?

The question about capitalism and spirituality often comes down to an argument about the money. Is it fair that some have a lot, and some have a little?

In spirituality, which I will loosely define as a growing understanding and experience of God, there is a condition that is also fundamental to capitalism. You get out of it what you put into it. It’s about choice, and about the use of your mind and your effort relating to that choice. In spiritual thinking, God is there, omnipresent, but He is not forcing you even acknowledge Him, let alone love Him. You will experience your connection with God to the degree that you put effort into trying to experience that connection. And, occasionally, you will have an “ah-ha!” experience that is life altering, IF you make it so. Many of us experience realizations of greater or lesser magnitude, or experience something miraculous, either in presence or mentally, and we discount it, or allow ourselves to forget the impact it had. Others can have those experiences and allow them to change their entire lives. Ultimately, it is what we choose to do with our time, with our minds, and with our efforts.

Capitalism works the same way. One person can start from nothing, make choices about the use of their time and their mind and end up rich. Another person from the same circumstances can make other choices and never move an inch forward. And, there are all options possible in between. For most people working within the capitalist system, they attain a certain level of comfort, and that is enough. Thus, we have the vast middle class. It is the same with spirituality. People are comfortable with a particular understanding of themselves and their relationship to God, and they hold there. And there is nothing wrong with either being middle class, or finding a comfortable spiritual place and holding there. Just as there is nothing intrinsically wrong with people whose choices leave them poor. As the popular saying goes: it is what it is. Simultaneously, it is not terribly productive to make self-destructive, or unfortunate choices and then blame someone else. Just as the person who has made no effort to have an active relationship with a God Who is always present is not well served to suddenly find themselves feeling spiritually bankrupt and then blame God for it. It’s sort of like when I’m getting angry as I search the house for my keys while holding them in my hand!

To a large degree, it is choice that makes capitalism spiritual. In communism, socialism and totalitarianism, the state makes your choices, and puts limits on you. Having your choices taken from you crushes your spirit, because you know on some level (spiritual) that being a human being (a child of God) is ABOUT the freedom to choose how you use your mind, spirit, and even the body. You get out of your spiritual endeavors what you put into them, plus the benefit of grace. You get out of your life in free market capitalism exactly what you put into it, plus the benefit of grace (as in, isn’t it interesting how “luck” seems so often to happen to those who are the best prepared and have worked the hardest).

Capitalism also provides the opportunity to give, which is obviously spiritual. Giving can take many forms. It can obviously be taking some of your abundance and literally giving it to someone in need. Giving can also be the creation of something that fills a need for people. It can also be providing a pleasant work environment, or opportunities for advancement—the ability to take a risk on another human being and allowing them to prove themselves.

The trajectory of capitalism seems to be for it to be opening it’s “heart”, so to speak. Companies are not just trying to provide their products and services, they are also finding that contributing to their communities in other ways is a good thing. Some of this is purely market driven, some is simply the nature of the people running the companies. Companies know that people would rather do business with someone they like than someone they don’t. Far from being self-serving, this is an incredible testimony to the power of the market. Many companies have come to realize that the quality of the work environment allows them to attract and keep the best and brightest employees. Again, competition and the market move capitalists in directions that are not predictable. “Workers” are “exploited”! Well, not in a company that wants to keep the best and the brightest, and wants to be confident that its employees are proud of their work and want to produce the best quality product possible. This doesn’t require, and is actually harmed by, an activist union making demands and pitting workers against the employers. It is the product of the expansion of the mind and an understanding of fellow human beings. The same is true of environmental issues. The market began to demand that the companies it does business with be more environmentally friendly. This was sometimes expressed politically, though the political expression is far too often so strident and adversarial that it doesn’t take into account that the minds of the people in the companies can and have changed and can and have reacted to the demands of the market. Thus, the political fervor can do harm by limiting the entrepreneur where it began by doing good by helping them “wake up”. The result of the market demand for being more environmentally friendly is that the virtues of capitalism went to work on the problem, and created solutions. Thus, a nation like the United States continues to become less polluted, while countries mired in totalitarianism are increasingly polluted.

In addition, there is another spiritual quality to capitalism. In spirituality, we’re all the same. We’re all children of God. There’s nothing that disqualifies us from that, though we can choose not to believe it, not to act like it, or not to be part of the family. The capitalist makes no distinction either. Everyone’s a customer. The capitalist wants everyone to succeed because their success makes them a better customer, or their positive choices make them better employees. The thought that capitalists would want to oppress anyone is ridiculous, because it would be self-defeating. Capitalists want markets to expand and markets only expand when more people are successful enough to become customers. Capitalists root for the best for their “brothers and sisters.”

Creativity. Choice. Being a conduit for fulfilling needs. Generating abundance. Bringing order from apparent chaos. Growth and expansion. These are spiritual qualities and they are the qualities of free market capitalism. And the two actually mesh nicely. The lessons from one can be applied in the other. Moreover, as Maslow showed in his “hierarchy of needs”, the base needs of people have to be met before, psychologically, they’re ready for “self-actualization.” No system ever devised has been able to provide those base needs, more effectively than capitalism, which then gives people the psychological space they need to move to higher levels on the hierarchy.

Whether you want to talk about spirituality in terms of connection with God, or if you want to think of it as self-actualization in terms of fulfilling ones full human potential (spirituality in terms of the human spirit), capitalism is the system that, in practice, is the best analogue to spirituality.

UPDATE: For my Christian friends

One of the things I find interesting in the Bible is this: When Jesus was confronted with a situation where he had a multitude of hungry followers with no food, he did NOT say, "Go... find wealthy fishermen and bakers and confiscate their loaves and fishes and feed them to the people." Instead, he saw the need, and he created the solution. This is widely (and rightly) regarded as a miracle, but I think the story is also an interesting analogy. It would be fantastic if, in our present state of humanity, we could create the fulfillment of needs out of the ether. The closest we come in our present state of consciousness and connection is the kind of creation that takes place in free market capitalism. (And... do not let my first point about what Jesus did NOT say go by unnoticed.)

They Can't Be Serious

Did you know that Scooter Libby being charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for his testimony to the grand jury equals "the administration lied to get us into the war"?

That's what I'm hearing Dems say. I also heard a Democrat consultant today on The Big Story on Fox tell John Gibson that there were no WMDs, there was no connection between Saddam and Bin Laden, and... hell, I don't even remember the other thing. Probably something about no attempt to purchase yellowcake from Africa, or about Halliburton...

Do they believe any of this? Can they still be beating the WMD drum? They must figure that anything you say loud enough and long enough becomes true by default. Let's go over it again, shall we? Everyone from Bill Clinton, to Al Gore, to John Kerry, to the Russians, to the Israelies, to Saddam's neighbors, to the current administration believed he had WMD. The meme is, we didn't find any, so there weren't any. Well, we did find a few strays here and there. We did find dual use facilities to re-start the WMD program as soon as sanctions were lifted. I even remember Saddam saying, shortly after he was captured, that he WANTED the world to believe he still had the WMD. After all, he was "defeating" us, so he couldn't look weak to the world. So, the conclusion of multiple reports has been that he did have them once, he may have gotten rid of them (I'm still thinking he got rid of them by sending them to Syria or something equally clever), but he certainly wasn't willing to provide proof of it. Remember his level of cooperation with the last UNSC resolution? All he would've had to do to avoid war was to prove he'd gotten rid of them. Show us where. Tell us how. Nope. And don't trip to lightly over the sentence that says we've found a few. The Dems still say we haven't found ANY. I got this on an e-mail today:

"* 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
* 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)
* Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas
* Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency

This is only a PARTIAL LIST of the horrific weapons verified to have been recovered in Iraq to date. Yet Americans overwhelmingly believe U.S. and coalition forces have found NO weapons of mass destruction."

Not precisely no WMD. Not what we expected. But, the point was that Saddam was dangerous with WMD. If he just had to flip the switch after sanctions were lifted to start production again, isn't that just as bad as having stockpiles given our underlying concern?

The Dems so conveniently forget that Saddam DID have al Qaeda ties. He sent emmissaries to meet with Bin Laden. He offered the guy safe haven. Zarqawi was in Iraq prior to OIF. Why did Zarqawi think he'd be safe there if Saddam wasn't friendly to terrorists in general, and possibly to al Qaeda in particular? This is to say nothing of his support for Palestinian terror, or his harboring of other terrorists, or even the terror training camp in the North. This has also all been in official reports. And, we may never know the whole story, but it seems that some Iraqi Intelligence Service agents were hanging around in places perilously close to where 9/11 planning and preparations were taking place. Saddam also helped get one of the first WTC bombers into safe haven in Iraq and paid his way for 10 years. What the reports have said is that there is no PROOF that Iraq had OPERATIONAL ties to the al Qaeda 9/11 plot. It does NOT say he had no ties to al Qaeda, or even that it's not possible that there were in fact ties to 9/11. No proof he did does not equal proof he didn't.

I won't even go into Joe Wilson and Valery. OK... just a little. How does he come back as this incredible refuter of the entire reason for the war when what he came back with was that, indeed, Iraqi agents HAD visited with Niger officials, but the officials wouldn't sell them yellowcake because of the sanctions. People say his report "might even support the possibility that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake in Niger." MIGHT? Plus, I've been to Africa. Africa is a good deal bigger than just Niger. Not only didn't his mission to Niger completely refute the possibility that the Iraqis tried to buy yellowcake there, it in no way could speak to what may have occurred in other nations. The guy came back with bubkis in terms of refutation of the claim Saddam tried to buy uranium. Then he lied about not only who sent him, but what he found, plus a few other whoppers.

What Fitzgerald DID say about the indictment of Libby was that it had nothing to do with the war in Iraq, and that the White House cooperated fully. Let's keep in mind that it was four other people in this, supposedly, "corrupt" administration that told a story different than Libby's that resulted in his indictment in the first place. And, the underlying crime that was investigated was not proven at all. Wilson came up with bubkis in his visit to Niger, and the Dems came up with bubkis in the investigation of the Plame outing.

My question is why they keep calling everyone else liars when it is clear to anyone who has paid any attention at all that it is THEY who are lying. Add to that that they do everything in their power to divide the country: like accusing Bush of lying us into a war; saying that the war is a catastrophe and that nothing good has come out of it--ignoring the fact that it's a burgeoning democracy in the heart of the Middle East; voting in Clinton's term to make regime change our policy in Iraq because Saddam is dangerous with WMD, then claiming when we act to accomplish regime change that the reasons weren't good enough; talking about the danger Social Security is in during the Clinton years, then saying it'll all be fine when Bush moved to do something about it; talking about the economy like it's collapsing when it's actually flourishing; fighting against highly qualified court nominees; harping on the "stolen" election in 2000 and saying shenanigans occurred in Ohio in '04, despite the fact that from reports I've seen, the only shenanigans were by Dems; on and on and on, all the while claiming Bush and the Republicans are dividing the country.

There is a problem when people begin to think that anything they say or do, no matter how dishonest, is OK because they SHOULD be in power and they're not, so whatever gets them back in is fair game. Say Bush lied. It's OK to ignore all the evidence to the contrary. Say the war in Iraq is a failure. It's OK to ignore all the good that is being done, and what a tremendous success it will be when a Iraq is a functioning democracy and our ally. And, worst of all, it's OK to pretend that the WOT is a figment of the right's imagination. It's OK to pretend that some understanding could be reached with the Islamofacists. They don't REALLY want the world to exist under a sharia caliphate. They're just a little disgruntled. A good "progressive" politician could reason with them. After all, they pretty much left us alone under Clinton. (smirk)

The left has officially blown my mind. The half-truths and outright lies come so fast and furious that you can't refute them all. On "The Big Story" that democratic consultant reeled off her list of three things in 5 seconds. They were nonsense slogans. But it would've taken several minutes to fully refute them. The Dems know that if they can just burn certain quick slogans into people's minds, that's what the ignorant will remember. And to truly educate people on the truth, the Republicans would have to take more time than our soundbite driven media can give them (if they will give someone on the right any time at all).

Drives me nuts!