Haiti: Msg to nations ass'ting w military

I'm not trying to be a nag, or to ignore security, or the lives of the service men and women who are eager to help in these dire circumstances.

I do need to point out a reality. A military is formed and trained with the expectations of facing and fighting determined foes. With that ability, I have to wonder a bit at the excessive fear of violence from a people who have demonstrated that they are probably the most compliant and good hearted, calm and retaining dignity of any who have been in such a disaster before.

People, think about it. Five days in circumstances that I assure you any American man or woman trying to get food, water or medical aid for their kin would have already completely flipped out over and you would have demonstrations and worse galore... and yet the people wait with unbelievable suffering for even the smallest amount of help, with desperate, quiet, desperation.

If you are trained to handle determined foes, can you not have a little more confidence in yourselves and the people you are trying to help that you can get your fannies out there and take a chance that someone, some people might panic and rush you.... but sheesh, are you not supposed to be able to organize (as I see on TV you have in a few areas) to promote order and calm in handing out supplies? I'd like to think our military (and those of the other nations) can handle that? I never thought I'd see the day that the military where they are desperately wanted, not opposed is so overly cautious that people are lying in the shit with broken backs and no food or water or medicine for five days. The five star general in the sky does not like that attitude very much, let me assure you of that.

Courage is not lacking, so what is it? Why are too many politicians and commanders acting as if the most highly trained militaries in the world cannot get the heck out of the frigging airport and set up situations where yes, there will be dodgy moments, but get these people some life in that hell?????

I think my USA paratrooper dad (who MP'd in World War II Berlin) could have handled this and not been "concerned" about "going out in the field" in case desperate hungry and dying people "rushed him." PLEASE GET OUT THERE AND SHOW THEM HOW IT's DONE.

Christmas/Hanukkah ideas -2

Hi again, and this idea is also especially for you young people out there (hey! :-)

It's time to purchase, if you are using traditional mail, which you should in addition to ecards, your Christmas or Hanukkah greeting cards.

This year be sure to purchase or create at least one set of religious theme cards. Resist buying neutral arty or "season" cards alone, no matter how beautiful they are or how cute, or what worthy cause they support. Trust me, I understand and have bought many sets of "happy holidays" or other neutral cards because 1) they are pretty or artistic or support a good cause or 2) in politically correct times I've not wanted to "impose" a religious theme on some recipients.

Young people, these are urgent critical times and we must swing the pendulum back to the side of expressing the faith first and being safe or neutral second.

Here's the problem. Media, marketers, secularists and others with "agenda" have created an atmosphere where many are ashamed and abashed to actually send what would have been the most ordinary of cards (Merry Christmas and Nativity scenes, or a serious Hanukkah card) not that long ago (but seems like another eon). It's a lie to celebrate Christmas and deny the reality that it celebrates, which is the birth of Jesus Christ. If you believe then the time has come that you really have to make what would have been an ordinary action a few decades and now requires some boldness and thought, which is to send a religious theme card among your set of purchases.

It promotes, rather than diminishes, peace and comfort. I can testify that one of my favorite cards to receive each year was a Christmas theme card sent to me by a Muslim friend.

So when you purchase a "snail mail" card, select an ecard, and/or design and create your own cards, please put "the reason for the season" loud and proud in your selection and honor your faith. Don't worry about "offending" anyone; it is far more offensive to not care about genuine spiritual comfort and God based peace in the world.

Part two of this suggestion is to obtain names and addresses of military service men and women and be sure to get them some cards. I believe that a good place to start is finding out who is serving from your community, and/or is based near your community, as that will give them a touch of home. But also find names of those who don't get much mail, I seem to recall there are such sources, at least during the time of the beginning of the Iraq conflict I remember that we could find service people who would like to receive mail, especially if they didn't receive much from home. I personally know how much that means to service people. Also you can send cards to service people in Veterans hospitals and rehab centers. So parcel off a portion of your cards to send to those who just don't receive many cards and greetings and who need to be remembered.

Thanks for your Santa or Hanukkah bush help! ;-)

Case study: Fort Hood shooting

I'm going to call this a morality case study, even though the Fort Hood shooting is obviously mostly a criminal and a psychological matter. This is because I want to help my readers, especially the young people (Hi again!) to use powers of faith and reason to understand current events and also to discern the best path to accuracy and justice.

My first point is that human nature likes, yes I would say even craves, simplicity. They will naturally want one and only one reason and cause for why the Fort Hood shooting happened. You hear this on the talk shows where certain hosts gravitate immediately to the Muslim connection, while others gravitate to the stress of exposure (even second hand) to war and post traumatic stress. Yet you must understand that this event, like so many others, are the culmination of several factors all at once. This is why I want to do this as a case study for you.

We have not yet heard from the defendant, and I'm not going to put words in his mouth, second guess him, or try to predict what decisions he will make about culpability. I'm going to teach you how to look at the facts and put yourself in the optimal frame of mind for then processing new developments and information as they occur.

Fact one: The defendant is a psychiatrist, one who is focused on treating and also being among the most grievously war wounded. Thus his contact with the military arena is not firsthand, in that he was not in combat himself (yet). Any soldier will tell you that no one understands combat until he or she is actually in it. So one cannot accurately ascribe a combat mentality to the defendant based on experience, but only his second hand information and his imagination of what it will be like when he is deployed. Think about that last point. He is on the receiving end of those who have returned from combat mentally and physically wounded. He's not treating people who returned from Iraq and Afghanistan but are OK. So he is not part of those who greet the returning veterans and active military who are OK and going home. He is treating those who are severely injured and when not treating them, he is immersed in that environment nonetheless. Thus he gets a "sampling" of combat only from those who are the most injured by combat, and that sampling is the totality of his "experience." He then deduces and imagines what combat is like based on that environment of treating and being among the most wounded and injured of the combatants.

This fact, then, is not "the" cause, but "one" cause. Why is it not "the" cause? Because we can imagine that if other things were different that he might have had more perspective and more comfort in dealing with the one sided view he was receiving of combat. I'm not saying that combat is ever great, but here is my point.

Fact two: He was a lonely and isolated individual. The defendant was never married, had no children, and was not part of a tight knit cultural local community. There are two components to this. The first is reality of military life, which is you go where you are ordered. People from strong local ethnic cultures (Native Americans, for example) often have to leave their intimate support network and be very singular when going to college, joining the military, etc. So there is a cultural isolation that is inherent in that profession. The second and more urgent point is, however, that he was not married. Again and again I have warned that not marrying, the breakdown of the family, and "sexual liberation" will only lead to isolation and ruin. Don't believe me?

Genesis 2:18, 22, 24
Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man is alone; I will make him a helper like himself." And the rib which the Lord God took from the man, he made into a woman, and brought her to him. For this reason a man leaves his father and mother, and clings to his wife, and the two become one flesh.

Let's be all grown up here. People are meant to be together, to be married, to be intimate, to have a life partner and to have sex. Society is falling apart and individuals are going crazy because this freak show society has demonized traditional families and created generations of frustrated lone wolfs. Duh. So my point is that even though fact one regarding his combat imaginings and deductions are true, we don't know that he would have had difficulty with that or indeed snapped if he also had been in a traditional loving intimate and, yes, sexual marriage. This is what I mean when I say that these events are rarely "one cause." Do you see what I mean?

Fact three: He is a Muslim and relationships with Muslims can be, but are not required to be, more complex since the reality of September 11, 2001. Further, Muslim attitudes toward themselves and others can be, but are not required to be, more complex since the reality of September 11, 2001. It is a fact that the defendant joined the military and became a psychiatrist before September 11, 2001. The terrorism of September 11, 2001 is also a fact. Thus one must recognize, without excusing, the significance of timing. Suppose he were a younger man and was not ready to either go to college or enlist until 9/11/2001 had happened. Someone of a more timid character might well have decided, "Hey, I'm a Muslim and I'm not sure I can handle entering the military with all the limelight and pressure on any Muslim, so I'm going to go to school or whatever and not enlist." Those Muslim Americans who felt the patriotic call to the Armed Services went ahead and enlisted, during and post 9/11/2001. This guy, had he been younger, might have recognized that he was not cut out to be in the pressure cooker of belonging to the broad "category" of "Muslim" at the height of justifiable suspicion AND draw further attention to one's self by enlisting where one is going to get pressure, either intentional or unintentional. I'm not saying I believe he was harassed. I'm saying that when one is Muslim, or any other minority, one stands out and one must have a certain strength of character to function accordingly and appropriately. So my third point is the significance of timing of global events and the way people's character is tested by the luck of the draw regarding where they were and what decisions they made, and then subsequent events.

Fact four: Isolated and troubled people easily gravitate to increasingly extreme views, in both politics and their faith. When I say "troubled" I do not mean mentally or emotionally disturbed, in this case study. I mean that they are uneasy about something. As a psychiatrist the defendant would have heard disturbing events and feelings expressed by and experienced by his wounded warrior patients, and the others around him, even if he was not actually treating them. This creates an inherent tension that some can handle, while some cannot. Here's an exercise to help you to imagine the situation I am describing.

Suppose that you are a female counselor and all your patients have had violent encounters with females and here I don't mean battering. What if every one of your patients returned from combat where their injuries were inflicted by women soldiers on the other side? Suppose that you are a gay man who is a counselor. Suppose that every one of your patients had issues because they had been beaten up by gay men, and in return had sometimes done some very bad things?

Do you see what I mean? Some people, particularly those who are isolated (as described above) find themselves identifying more and more with a category of people rather than humanity as a whole when they have to deal with repeated examples of unsuccessful outcomes with their "category." In other words, the defendant would feel more and more "Muslim" and less and less "Army officer," less and less "counselor," less and less "American," less and less "humanitarian." The female counselor in my example above would likewise feel more and more "female" and less and less "officer" or "humanitarian" or "American." Also a well adjusted gay guy who is a regular ordinary counselor might start feeling more and more as being "gay" because patient after patient is describing combat or trauma with or at the hands of gays. Again, this is not an excuse at all. I am explaining why members of all groups find themselves more and more isolated and more and more radical if they are exposed to "bad outcomes" in relationships with their "category" of person.

This is different from the phenomenon that many discuss, and I allude to in fact one, where counselors who counsel certain cases of trauma over and over pick up, like second hand smoking, some of that trauma themselves. I don't think that we can conclude that about the defendant based on the facts, beyond what I said in fact one, which is that lacking first hand combat experience, his entire set of information and opinion is based on the trauma of his patients. So what I am saying is that I am skeptical that he is receiving second hand trauma in the classic way that let's say domestic violence counselors often start to pick up residue of trauma from repeated treatment of domestic violence victims. I am saying that based on the facts that 1) he was not in combat himself and 2) all of what he heard was based on wounded and traumatic experience we can deduce that he had a "sampling" of what combat in predominately Muslim countries was like, rather than first hand experience.

Thus when one is isolated (not married, no children, not in a strong local community network) and one receives troubling information about a category of person (in this case, his faith) that one belongs to, one often has the problem of becoming less, instead of more, integrated with humanity as a whole, and often more radicalized in one's perception of one's own category, with potential for feeling part of a one-sided situation with no neutral ground.

We know that some of the most troubling radicalization of Muslim children occurs when they are in dire poverty and the radical groups feed them, clothe them and send them to school, becoming their caregivers and family. This is what I mean that those who are isolated (without family) and/or troubled (in this example, suffering from poverty) are often quite naturally radicalized as they feel either 1) more isolated due to their "category" and 2) "rescued" by zealotry and "belonging."

I could continue with this but I want to wrap up this blogging here because my purpose is a case study, not an analysis with conclusions, since we simply do not know yet, and may never really know all the facts and perspectives. Again, this is by no means a defense of him but, rather, I am taking advantage of a situation to teach you, especially young people, how to understand the combinations of facts and opportunities/situations that mixed together result in a person's actions or an event.

Our society has become so overwhelmingly complex and false that people have "complexity fatigue" and yearn, unrealistically, for "one cause" and "one reason" factors and that simply is not the case for most events. It is usually a progression and a combination that results in such events and they must be understood as such if they are to be reduced or somehow "fixed."

Here is another fact, published in the New York Times. There are just over four hundred psychiatrists to treat a military of over 500,000 men and women. Whether the pressure of such shockingly few counselors for so many military (particularly during several hot wars) is part of the "cause" or not of the Fort Hood incident, I do not have to psychically channel the genius Albert Einstein to tell you that is far from being enough resources, period.

Further, I cannot believe the foolishness of an incredibly sexualized society that while promoting and pushing sex in all ways and forms except long term marriage allows the isolation of so many single frustrated males and females while they are under pressures of career, combat, and whatever. This is why arranged marriages took place in many societies so that people didn't "demand their rights" to "choose their own partner" and then instead drink, do drugs and end up going to bed alone or with "hook ups," all the while being saturated by the media about how "hot" and alluring one should be.

God ordained marriage as a coping mechanism. Life is a miserable drag (and I don't mean cross dressing, ha, no hate mail please) without the majority of people being married. Again, I don't need to channel Einstein to tell you that. People need stable and intimate spousal relationships and access to expression of their normal sexual needs.

Yes, I can hear some of you think, "Yeah, but what about those losers who nearly every day shoot their own wife and children and then commit suicide? If marriage is so great why do these people kill what they have?" This is what I mean by the complexity of real situations. There is rarely "one cause." Often there is a "trigger" or to use the old expression "The last straw" (referring to loading straw on a camel until the final straw added makes the whole load too heavy and breaks the camel's back). When we hear about events such as murder-suicides and the Fort Hood shooting, there is usually a final "trigger" event but that is rarely the "cause." The "cause" is usually an amalgamation of several fundamental facts.

Any good counselor can tell you that there is usually a combination of these factors: isolation, lack of consistent intimacy (love and sex), trauma (first hand or second hand), stress (workload and/or economic), violence (first or second hand, including media exposure) and addictions. What is the tipping point where one "snaps?" It is usually despair.

See, this is why it is so important to have a stable, normal, marriage and children based society. It is the ultimate and only bulwark against despair. Despair can be fleeting, just a moment of pure desperation, in which case if the person is able to be supported through that moment it passes. Or despair can be accumulating and grinding when the person is in a position of having "their back against a wall," such as we see with people who slowly slide into poverty due to years of economic collapse and ruin. An example of that is the many farmers in India who have been committing suicide in despair as they are ruined. So despair can be either "a moment" or "a long grinding path."

It is not enough to have economic governmental "safety nets." The problem is that the safety net against despair has been nearly totally ruined by this freak show modern society. The safety net of neighborhood, community, family, children and committed intimacy (sex is not a commodity to be obtained but part of the overall spousal intimacy) has been almost totally unraveled.

Again, I'm not excusing by any means or condoning any of the tragic and criminal events that we hear about these days. What I am trying to do is finally get your attention that this is a crisis beyond anyone's full comprehension. I come from a heavy World War II generation and I know what I'm talking about: the change from then to now regarding the "despair" safety net is almost indescribably vast.

I don't, however, want to further dilute the case study by going into my general rant about how these "do your own thing" generations have instead of being liberating have enslaved themselves to modern idolatry, isolation and despair. I concluded with those observations so that one can understand the fact finding that I have demonstrated in this case study about the tragic and criminal Fort Hood shooting against the panoply of so many of these "events" that seem to defy having a simple one source "cause" or "reason." Life and human needs and health are remarkably simple; it is the way that humans are tempted to self destruct and self delude that are astonishingly complex. I hope that this has helped some in regaining some reality based comprehension of what is going on.

Case Study: Gays in the Military

Case Study: Gays in the Military, using faith and reasoning in decision making

I was just listening to an interview with General Colin Powell, former Secretary of State, on a wide range of topics, including gays in the military. He is the author of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy currently implemented in the United States. It gave me the idea of doing a “case study” on this topic, of how to logic one’s way through proper decision making, and of course to share my opinion.

First of all, I have always supported gays in the military and I am far from a “Johnny Come Lately,” since support of gays in the military has always been my core belief. I have, actually, proof of that by relaying to you a “date and time stamped” event where I voiced my support. In 1980 I was hired into a certain major petrochemical company. The department manager was a former military guy, I’ll call him B. He was feisty and quite a character, and I admired his managerial skill, and of course his “war stories.” I did not get to work for him very long, as he was there only I guess a few months to a year of my time there. Anyway, in the fall of 1980 when I had a meeting with him, after the quick handling of business he became chatty in that fun way that he had and he commented on lots of topics, including his opinion of gays in the military. He told me he had no problem with them as people, but as a military guy he was very concerned that being gay was fertile source for blackmail by foreign agents. Remember, this is exactly twenty-eight years ago when many gays were still very much in the closet. Now, I disagreed with him then and I have continually. I felt that determined foreign agents will find anything to blackmail a soldier about, if that is their plan, and if they do not have something on the person, they will create something doing what spies call a “honey trap.” B, however, felt that the particular social onus of being gay made it an exceptional risk. So we agreed to disagree. That was fall of 1980 folks. So I have a firm and clear record of supporting gays in the military.

Now, this does not make it an easy issue for humans to solve, just because someone like me is “pro” gays in military, and other people are “against.” This is why it occurred to me to use this issue as a case study.

Let’s start with the Biblical context. Ah ha, caught you! I know that everyone immediately thinks I mean about the morality or sin associated with gay acts. Wrong! What I mean is when you analyze secular policy you must look to the Bible for categorizing secular versus moral issues. Thus one finds that Jesus said, regarding taxes, to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. Thus you correctly identify gays in the military as an issue of “Caesar,” and not of God. Therefore God expects “Caesar” to determine policy and take care of governmental, military and other secular matters based on facts, prudence and justice. You can also think of gays in the military as a matter for the “good king.” The Bible underscores that Jesus did not get involved in governmental policy, but expected all humans to behave with justice and prudence (many of his parables underscore those qualities).

So, now that we realize that the Bible points you to a secular decision regarding gays in the military, how does one make a just decision? You do so by analyzing the issue and the alternatives using two measures.

1) What is the best decision or alternative to support the maximum effectiveness of the military?
2) What is the best decision or alternative to provide justice and equality for all concerned?

Let’s look at the first criterion for decision making. There is no evidence that gays fight less effectively or otherwise are a detriment to military service. To the contrary, we know that the military has suffered from the loss of gay service men and women over the years, both in the shortage of sheer number of service people and also from their talents and skills, both as combatants and in support.

Now, remember, the first criterion must be given due dignity of consideration, even in an obvious case such as this. This is because it is a slippery slope to only look at “effectiveness.” For example, young men and women are the strongest, most energetic and thus best recruits, so this is why the age of consent to join the military allows teenagers. However, suppose someone suggested that young children would be very effective additions to the military, because they are “easily trained,” “energetic,” “small and thus cheaper to house and transport,” etc. That would be appalling logic, putting effectiveness over decency. So one must always consider effectiveness in a moral context, one that is subservient to decent societal standards, which is we do not use child soldiers.

The second criterion regards equality and justice for all of the parties involved. Obviously on the “pro” side is that gays are entitled to the same right to service and justice in so doing as everyone else who is qualified to join the armed services. So this seems, like the first criterion, very obvious. However, one must give pause to consider the rights of everyone involved. The allowing of gays to serve in the military just like everyone else should not be viewed as giving approval to situations that create sexual tension in the military. This was, and is, exactly the same problem that had to be considered with permitting women into increased opportunities in the military. I admit, if I were the decision maker, I would want a lot of fact finding, analysis and persuasion by my managers and generals to be assured that undue sexual tension was not increased over that which already exists among ready, willing and able young men and women. I know what it is like to be stalked by both straights and gays, and to be viewed in terms of such “assessment.” The last thing any military person needs is to be viewed by a comrade as either straight or gay "bait," "in person pornography" or "opportunity." This is one reason I continue to be uneasy with the presence of women in certain areas of the military and I extend that uneasiness to gays.

Part of the problem is that extreme feminists and extreme gay rights advocates have, in society at large, had very loud mouths about hedonistic and cruising tendencies. Then they turn around and try to persuade skeptics that they are sober and prudent and not predatory in their demeanor. Just as I have some problem believing that about some women, (and of course the predatory men who would exploit them), I have some problem believing that every gay in the military has proper custody of his or her eyes, to use a religious expression. I think some men (those who assault their female comrades, to the men’s extreme discredit and disgrace) obviously have a problem with “custody of the eyes,” and most certainly with their actions. Likewise I think some women have a problem with “custody of the eyes” and also most certainly with their actions. And, in true equality, I think that some gays have a problem with “custody of the eyes” and also most certainly with their actions. Any decision regarding military membership must always protect the rights of those, men and women, straight and gay, who do have “custody of the eyes” and are there to do their job, and not to cruise among their comrades.

Humans being humans I had very serious concerns about exactly this problem with the expanded role of women in the military. I believe that the military has, however, painfully learned how to deal with predators and exploiters who act inappropriately in both behavior and in having an invasive view of their own comrades’ dignity. Thus while I am uneasy about this aspect of the problem, I could be persuaded by generals and managers who have expertise in this issue that what was learned about women expanding in the military can be applied to dealing with problems that may arise with expanded and open gay participation. This means that I would expect gays to be treated with dignity, and I would expect them to treat their comrades with dignity. It really is as simple as that. Just as predatory straight men or women should not be part of the military in any way shape or form, I would expect the same about gays; either those being exploitive or being exploited themselves. When the military lacks cohesion, dignity and a certain “being above sex on the job” attitude among its members you have a dangerous meltdown, one that results in things like naked pictures of prisoners being tormented in Iraq. A military that does not have detachment, dignity and “custody of the eyes” among themselves creates an exploitive rabble rather than a proud protective force.

Thus, to recap, I have always supported gays serving in the military and have proven this by referencing my stance as long ago as twenty eight years ago. I also wish to underscore that there is a proper way to use both “faith and reasoning” to analyze how to arrive at the proper and best conclusion with issues such as these. It is also important to always bear in mind that in pursuit of justice and equality, one does not need to be blind, in denial or disingenuous regarding implications of equality, and to analyze systems and procedures so that everyone can maintain their equality and dignity during a time of change.

I hope that you have found this helpful.

Humor: Submariner view of God's creation

I love this; reading it always gives me a smile. This version is engraved on a nearby Vietnam Veterans' memorial and it can be found in many places on the Internet, including with variations for Aussies, etc.


Submariner

In the beginning was the word and the word was God and all else was darkness and void without form. So God created the heavens and the earth. He created the sun and the moon and the stars so that the light might pierce the darkness. And the earth God divided between the land and the sea and these He filled with many assorted creatures.

And the dark smelly creatures that inhabited the land, God called ARMY and dressed them accordingly like trees and bushes.

And the flighty creatures of the air, He called AIR FORCE and these he clothed in uniforms of light blue to match the sky.

The creatures who sailed on the surface of the sea, God called SKIMMERS. Then, with a twinkle in His eye and a sense of humor that only He could have, God gave them big gray targets to sail on. He gave them many splendid uniforms to wear. He gave them many wonderful and exotic places to visit. He gave them pen and paper so they could write home every week. He gave them afternoons off, showers, movies and ice cream makers and he gave them a laundry to keep their splendid uniforms clean When you are God, you tend to get carried away.

And on the 7th day, God rested. On the 8th day at 0700, God looked down on the earth and He was not happy. So He thought about His labors and in His infinite wisdom, God created a "divine creature" which he called a SUBMARINER. And the SUBMARINERS that he created in His own Image were to be of the deep, and to them He gave the Dolphin insignia. He gave them black messengers of death to roam the depths of the seas, waging war against the forces of Satan and evil. He gave them submarine hazardous pay so they might entertain the ladies on Saturday nights, and impress the hell out of the SKIMMERS.

And at the end of the 8th day, God looked down on the earth and saw that all was good, but still God was not happy. In the course of His labors He had forgotten one thing. He himself did not have a submariner's dolphin. He thought about it and He thought about it and Finally satisfied Himself, knowing that not just anybody could be a SUBMARINER!

The heritage of voting rights

I've mentioned this before, but usually while blogging about a related topic, so here is a chance to highlight some historical context.

With the election of President Elect Barrack Obama, many African Americans feel a very satisfying and moving sense of full circle, of full enfranchisement and the finding of a glorious missing piece in their perception of dignity. I completely agree with this and applaud it. I pointed out that I do not feel the same way about, for example, needing to see a woman become President, one way or the other, but the heritage of slavery is by far a greater wound and thus the election of Barrack Obama is doubly beneficial and sweet.

I want, however, to gently correct some feeling about the history of the right to vote that is a bit more painfully felt than it was meant when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Many young and middle aged African Americans feel a sense of hurt about the painful denial of their vote when the country was founded and worse, the notorious developing of "fractional" equivalents for black and white votes when even those limited rights were conferred.

I understand the feelings since, of course, women could not vote either. Also, when I was young, people under the age of twenty one could not vote, so I still remember when the right to vote was given to eighteen year olds and I was able to vote for the first time. So I understand the wound that many African Americans feel when they think back to the Founding Fathers and feel discriminated against.

But in truth, it's not like they thought about giving the vote to African Americans and decided not to; it would never have crossed their minds at all. Why? Because voting was perceived to be a responsibility of land owners. This is why women could not vote either. Women being "irrational" was a latter day excuse; it was not the original reason for women, or young people, or slaves, or free blacks, or Indians not being allowed to vote. Few poor white people voted either. All of the world's cultures at that time derived from a separately developed but shared world view that voting or decision making was in the hands of land owners or, in tribal areas, "elders." So I have never felt hurt or personally insulted that women could not vote, since I am a student of history and understand that it was a class issue (land owners having "skin in the game" regarding society's view of their position as decision makers). That does not mean I would not be vigorous about pursuing the vote (though probably not as much of an extremist as some would like, had I been a potential activist during those times). I was thrilled at the right to eighteen year olds to vote, especially as the Vietnam draft underscored how our young men and women could fight, even drink in some states, but not vote.

Having said that, like I said, I fully understand the woundedness of many African Americans who read the Constitution, and view the Bill of Rights and Amendments as "corrections." That is a handy shorthand in a way, to think of voting enfranchisement as correction of an error, and in one sense it is, of course. However, it is not necessary to seek out more hurt than what is already inherent in the situation by viewing the Founding Fathers as being denying of rights. They were not withholding rights so much as they were giving rights to those who had traditionally held those rights from necessity, which is the "landed class." Sometimes it is easier to see where one is going if one more clearly see where and why people came from in their journey toward equality and social justice.

The Bible equivalent is that God did not invent slavery, but he gave rules to insist that the Israelites treat slaves more fairly and decently. Just because rules about slaves are given in the Bible (and the Qur'an) does not mean God endorsed slavery. God was insisting on a linkage between one's moral code (and thus acceptance in his eyes) and decent treatment of slaves, so long as humans were determined to have them. And it was, of course, from Christianity that the imperative to end slavery sprung.

I really wish that more history was taught in school. Just as an aside, when I went to school, we spent nearly a semester in grade school on the American Revolution. We learned the details of every single battle, for example; I am not exaggerating. That is not pointless, but the way that children learn about "what life was like" during those times, and why much of our civic and cultural structure exists as it does. When children study the battles they learn about the population, the militias, the volunteer army (a radical, VERY radical concept, as the Brits still "pressed" recruits, forcing them into their army and navy, while Americans fought with all volunteer local militias), the way people lived and what they needed (horse transportation, farming society, how vital trees were for firewood, etc). And they learn about diplomacy, and also the reality of how to deal with belligerence. I still remember what I learned, and it provides an essential context for feeling one "belongs" in this country, in its lineage. And this includes African Americans, as George Washington's constant companion was his servant, who was viewed as friend, companion, and aide in the conduct of the war. I was really surprised and disappointed when I learned that so much of American history has been dropped, to everyone's detriment of understanding. How many people today know that the USA fought a second war with Britain, the War of 1812, over the "pressing" of American citizens into the British army and navy? The volunteer army of the USA was a radical idea in the world, really, it was the only place that had such a phenomenon, and that really should be taught in some depth as it was when I was young.

Read about George Washington's valet, William Lee, at this link. Note that William Lee served for the entire eight years of the Revolutionary War, including in the thick of battle, right next to George Washington.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lee_(valet)

3,669 villages impacted by quakes

It is mindboggling that Chinese rescuers within the seven days after the quake have reached all 3,669 villages that were hit by the earthquake. The scope of people who had to be reached is mindboggling. Over one quarter of a million people have been injured.



Folks, you might want to have second thoughts back here in the USA about being anti-military or National Guard. While we here in the USA are involved in a painful conflict, the military and National Guard are essential in peacetime too. Who was it who eventually did reach those cut off in New Orleans by the waters of the broken levee system? The Army. Think about how China was able to mobilize 100,000 soldiers and 16,000 police in order to accomplish their rescue efforts that was demanded of them in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances.