Planes, Trains, and Automobiles

As the war in Iraq rages on, as fuel prices hover far above what we'd like them to be, and as we fumble through traffic every morning trying to make it to school and work, it is high time for a reminder why we pay such a high price just to get around.

In the 1950s began an era of such economic boom that everyone wanted - and had the money - to get an automobile. It just so happened that the U.S. government, being such good friends with the Big Three in Detroit, and already being jealous of the German autobahn, agreed with that want and hatched a plan to let every American fulfill it.

But not unlike many personal choices that are centered around consumerism, this one was fatally short-sighted. The interstate highway was born to allow quick and easy access for the military to any part of the country in the event of a national emergency. This system was supposed to end at the edge of cities, but with automobile popularity continuing to soar and with how easy it is for the government to spend more than intended, these highways went right ahead and sliced on through. That, along with GM being given permission from city governments to put their streetcar and bus companies out of business, the success of the rhetoric coming from those who believed (foolishly) that "public" meant "Communist", and the rampant belief that somehow these automobile contraptions were the American dream as opposed to just potential facilitators for it, and a host of other reasons, led to the demise of independence, efficiency, and personal economic freedom.

It is sobering to think about the fact that the US built the world's first trans-continental railroad but let it lie in rot once trucking came along. We are so behind in the transportation sector compared to countries of equal development that it will take no less than an oil crisis of proportions never before seen, or simply conscientious voters, to turn this tide.

What specifically I talk about is a nationwide high-speed rail service, much like those of Asia and Europe. This would provide private, profitable, safe, efficient, and at 200-300 mph, blindingly fast interstate transportation - the best of air and road travel without any of the drawbacks. In my opinion, Amtrak should be expanded to these proportions, split, and privatized.

What would also put a hole in our little dilemma on wheels is the rethinking of cities. With bike lanes, sidewalks, and greater urban densities, growth no longer crawls outwards, but climbs upwards. This creates an entirely new dimension of city design. Imagine fitting more people in a smaller area, comfortably, and saving money at the same time. The benefits of this are endless, including greater livability, an improved environment, lower utility costs, more successful small and independent businesses, more vibrant communities, and most importantly, the end of being forced to drive. Just hop on your bike, the bus, or take a walk. If you need to head off to Dallas for a concert or convention, hit the bullet train and get there in just 2 hours. It's your choice. Either move somewhere with these ideas already in motion, or start speaking up about how dismal your choices are.

The Christian Left

The word “liberal” has, on various occasions, been used as an insult in political media and there has been some success in giving it a negative connotation. However, according to most definitions and original takes on the word, to be a liberal has always been and should always be a good thing. I will begin with the Christian definitions of the word and end with an analysis of a certain right-wing hypocrisy. Both of these are in the effort to revert the right’s hijacking of religion. The American Heritage Dictionary cites “liberal” as “free from bigotry,” and “favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded”. Though many may not trust a definition put forth by the commonly liberal academia, this is an example of most widely accepted definitions of the word. The more important matter is how the fact that the right has ignored these definitions, establishing their own opinions on the nature of being liberal, cannot be biblically justified.

The New International Version of the Bible uses the words “liberal,” “liberally,” and “liberality” in the contexts of the church serving the poor, the kings serving their guests plentifully and to their liking, the character of saints, and as synonyms to “beneficence” and “benevolence.” Here is a snippet of my search results on http://www.biblegateway.com/:

BENEFICENCE » See LIBERALITY
BENEVOLENCE » See LIBERALITY
CHARACTER » OF SAINTS » Liberal (Isaiah 32:8; 2 Corinthians 9:13)
CHARITY » See LIBERALITY
CHURCH » BENEFICENCE OF » See LIBERALITY
DEDICATION » OF SELF » See LIBERALITY

Examples of scripture that may raise a conservative brow are following. Enough context has been provided to give sense to the definition. This is still following the NIV:

19What is more, he was chosen by the churches to accompany us as we carry the offering, which we administer in order to honor the Lord himself and to show our eagerness to help. 20We want to avoid any criticism of the way we administer this liberal gift. 21For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of men.
2 Corinthians 8:19-21

It is recommended that you read the entire passage of Corinthians 8 if you can, since it gives the entire story behind the chapter called “Generosity Encouraged.”

The examples follow this trend even more clearly in the King James Version:

“The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself.”
Proverbs 11:25

Isaiah Chapter 32 provides some extremely interesting remarks on the nature of those liberal that provide evidence that perhaps there are actually two kinds; the falsely named liberal and the true, righteous liberal. Why it is not convincing that the modern conservative is actually the latter is the discrepancy in the fact that the Bible still refers to the true liberal as having a deep concern for the poor and outcast, regardless of personal well-being or sense of individualism. In addition, it is written that the wicked will destroy the poor with lies, even when the poor are justified in their needy cries and that, opposite the wicked, the liberal (KJV) or noble (NIV) stand by their beliefs in defense of such underprivileged.

These ignored biblical definitions provide evidence that modern Christianity is far more hypocritical in its behavior than most might realize. There are certain defended norms most contemporary evangelical Americans follow that seem a reversal of Christ’s teachings. One mere example is what appears to be the adoption of capitalism as a righteous economic system. Though it does succeed admirably at what it intends to accomplish, its most adamant participants disregard many of the most basic lessons of Christ’s life and, worse, those actions are not often addressed by the church. The modern corporation is a legal person and is treated as such in court. When was the last time you saw a corporation act as Good Samaritan or make an effort to pursue conscientious production? The corporation, it appears, does not follow what can be biblically called “good stewardship” of its planet or society, something that must be pondered by Christian business people everywhere, in good conscience.

Misguided Paranoia

I guess chain letters are the best way to obtain good material...

Google has implemented a new feature wherein you can type someone's telephone number into the search bar and hit enter and then you will be given a map to their house. Everyone should be aware of this! Note that you can have your phone number removed or blocked. Before forwarding this, I tested it by typing my telephone number in google.com. My phone number came up, and when I clicked on the Map Quest link, it actually mapped out where I live. Quite scary. Please look up your own number. Readbelow for details. Think about it ... if a child gives out his/her phone number to someone they can actually now look it up to find out where he/she lives. The safety issues are obvious, and alarming. In order to test whether your phone number is mapped, go to: www.google.com , Type your phone number in the search bar, (A/C + number), and hit enter. If you want to BLOCK Google from divulging your private information, simply click on your phone number. Removal takes 48-hours. If you are unlisted in the phone book, you might not be in there, but it is a good idea just to check. If your number does come up and you hit 'map', it will show you a direct map to your house...

Whomever this may concern,
This service was not devised by Google. Google is a search engine (doing it's job quite admirably) and coordinates with other services like MapQuest to provide public information. You should be angry at MapQuest (and Yahoo Maps, for that matter). To prove Google's innocence, go to maps.google.com and type in a number. This is Google's competing map service and does not provide number tracing. Furthermore, MapQuest and Yahoo Maps (your actual culprits) only divulge information that is public anyway. Your phone number and address are in the phone book. This is not news. Another course of action would be to write legislature concerning what should and should not be public information or getting right to the point and protesting the Patriot Act.

Chain Letter Logic

By Gene Johnson

I am constantly tweaking this essay for exact historical accuracy and it therefore may not match exactly what is posted on the Progressive Voice website (and greatly abridged in the Progressive Voice).

The following is an analysis of an email chain-letter that I stumbled upon last summer.

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January... In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.

That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.

This statement uses imagery to argue that the entire country of Iraq is as equally as violent as a single American city in order to downplay American combat related killings and justify American presence there. There are several reasons this argument is invalid. It is senseless to compare two completely unrelated numbers in order to make one number seem smaller than it is. Detroit's murders are committed by different people, for different reasons, and have different motivations than the combat related killings in Iraq. It is therefore inane to argue that the combat related killings are few because they are compared to the number of murders in an American city. To an American soldier dead on the battlefield as a pawn for jingoism, one combat related killing is one too many. The 400 billion dollar annual military budget could go to programs to help fight ignorance, unemployment, and crime in Detroit and bring down both numbers to zero. Lastly, the phrase "war torn country of Iraq" has nothing to do with the combat related killings. It is misguided imagery as the "war torn country of Iraq," which naturally refers to the people of Iraq and not the soldiers of the United States, has its own murder death toll not being discussed in the comparison.

When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:

FDR:
led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

This argument is designed to be an attack on the Democratic Party and justify the war in Iraq by comparing it to past pre-emptive strikes initiated by democratic administrations. Again, no comparison to equal and unrelated evils justifies another evil. I am personally not a Democrat but an Independent pacifist, and have little higher regard for the Democratic Party then I do for the Republican Party. To argue from the original standpoint defending FDR, however, the assumption is made that his Democrat-controlled administration waged un-provoked war against Germany after mobilizing for retaliation against Japan. This assumption is blatantly ignorant, however, as Germany declared war on the United States, not vice versa. Rebutting from the pacifist standpoint; although the Necessary War was noble, it was tainted by a foreign policy that was apathetic to the rise of fascism and hypocritical about its desire to secure democracy, resulting in a death toll greater than necessary. The trade with Italy while Italy massacred the agrarian Ethiopian society with modern weapons in 1934 and the uncaring lack of support for the Spanish Revolution provide historical evidence for these accusations.

Truman:
finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy:
started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson:
turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton:
went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

These statements are all solely attacks on Democrat policies and the administrations that carried them out. Ignoring the fact that the Democrats are no more respected by pacifists than Republicans for the very reasons stated above, one cannot justify a Republican war by balancing it against Democratic wars. This is child's logic.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has:
Liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The praising of President Bush is a skillful side-step of issues discussed but a poor justification for his family war. The statements made are partially opinion and partially fact. The reason to go to Afghanistan was to find Osama bin Laden and to eliminate a terrorist-harboring regime. Note, now, that Bush has said in press conferences that finding Osama Bin Laden is not a priority and, added to that, his administration no less than supported the Taliban regime for all of its previous history (during which it was know as the Mujahideen). To be concise, finally, the hand-picked replacement Prime Minister was highly involved in pipeline projects with US energy companies before his appointment. One must consider more of the incredible irony and hypocrisy involved in this liberation. The Mujahideen (which later split into the Taliban and Northern Alliance) was funded 3 billion dollars to fight the Soviet Union during the Cold War and and was also heavily funded and organized by Bin Laden. Much of the elaborate cave system that Osama bin Laden hid in that was torn to pieces by daisy-cutters was formulated by the Cold War era CIA to benefit the Mujahideen (helping make Afghanistan the USSR's Vietnam) and much more of it is already supposed to be well-known to the CIA. As far as having liberated Iraq, it remains true that Iraq is under American martial law, with routine blood-shed on both sides. The idea that Al-Qaeda is crippled is a pointless argument considering the fact that terrorism isn't a number; it is a reality forged by behavior. As cunning government agencies claim that Al-Qaeda leadership is crippled and their numbers are fewer, American policy behavior is lighting the flames of more potential terrorism. However, possibly admirable course of action taken by Bush that is pointed out is his placing of nuclear inspectors in Libya, North Korea, and Iraq. The problem with this justification is that not only could anyone have done it but, quite simply, one right does not correct another wrong, especially in largely independent situations such as this. These countries should have had nuclear inspectors long ago, along with the United States. Lastly, Saddam Hussein is referred to as a terrorist in this argument. Saddam Hussein is head of state, not a terrorist. Terrorists take care of their own business, heads of state tell other people to. Not to mention that Saddam Hussein is not even Islamic and can therefore not have a say in any sort of jihad (though he has feigned such power) or make a fatwa. The only justification I see for Gulf War II in this case is the rescuing of the Kurdish peoples. This is evidently not a priority at all, though, since after the massacre in 1988, the Reagan Administration took no action to condemn the regime beyond mere words. In fact, most of the 300,000 Kurds killed during Saddam's reign were killed during Reagan's administration, with no action on the part of the Unites States to disrupt the death. The Iran-Contra affair provides more evidence of policy hypocrisy during this period.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but:

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at the Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!

These four points are a horrendous use of red herrings. More specifically they are personal attacks on the reader assuming they are a Democrat. Fortunately, I am not a Democrat. Even if I were, however, these have nothing to do with the war in Iraq and have no value to the debate. The length of the war is too long because it should not exist to begin with. Anyone opposing the war in the first place is going to complain about its length by default. Getting technical though, these compare two unrelated timeframes in order to justify one timeframe. Only to the most gullible would this argument ever be effective.

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military moral is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

These are opinions, most simply, but for the sake of argument, our Commander-In-Chief stole the White House, therefore making him your Commander-In-Chief. The military moral is low, therefore I believe it is meant "morale." Finally, the media is only as biased as the corporations that monitor them and the press that wants to rub shoulders with officials.

My Conclusion: These arguments crutch on partisanship to justify Bush's war in Iraq and are severely crippled by arguing with the logic that one can right wrong with more right and downplay certain accusations with equal or greater accusations that have no relation to one another.