Bubba's Done It Again

Hi Everyone,

No, he hasn't done that again. Thankfully, what he did this time is much more beneficial. I have some very good news, coming back to the blog. Remember those two journalists, I believe their names were Laura Ling and Euna Lee, who were taken hostage while doing a story in North Korea a few months ago? Well, they were released just this week, and they returned home and gave a tearful and heartfelt homecoming statement. In it they thanked President and Secretary Clinton, Vice President Gore, and President Obama for working to get them released. We are all obviously very happy and filled with joy that these two American journalists (who were doing a story on life in North Korea) are home safely, rather than at a North Korean work camp, where their chances of survival would have been virtually nil.

So where does good ol' Bill Clinton fit into this? Well, it turns out the women worked for a channel in San Francisco run by Former Vice President Al Gore, so he was working to get them released. Earlier this week, Former President Bill Clinton, the Secretary of State's Husband, traveled to North Korea to visit North Korean President Kim Jong-il and get the two women pardoned. CNN did an in-depth story on the event here. The point is that when we talked to the bad guys, we got our people out of there and home safely. Richard Nixon knew this when he talked to Mao, who had murdered many of his own people; even Ronald Reagan sat down with the leaders of the "Evil Empire." Imagine the result if this had happened when Bush was President. I don't even want to think about it.

One speculates that the State Department, under Secretary Hillary Clinton's and President Obama's direction, thought that this was a good idea, and okayed Bill's decision to go. Well, they certainly got it right on the money. It was a novel approach of having the current President perhaps collaborating with one of his Predecessors. Interesting how neither Clinton nor Obama was rushing to grab credit for the idea. Really well played on both their parts. As far as Clinton goes, as flawed a human being as he was, he does deserve some credit, especially for this. So, Mr. President, for what it's worth, the Daily Reeder salutes you!

Predictably, there are some critics of this approach who are sniping not only at this action, but at the very notion of getting the two journalists out of there. Dick Morris said that they should have "accepted the consequences of their decision to go into North Korea." John Bolton implied that we had somehow "rewarded" the North Korean government by doing this (don't ask me how). What? I thought we were supposed to be protecting Americans.

Isn't that the reason we've been fighting a war on terror? This is one reason it's very important not to just talk the talk of doing whatever you can to protect Americans, but to walk the walk, as President Clinton did throughout his Presidency. Now he showed that he wasn't going to stop just because of retirement. Let me close by just, again, expressing my profound joy and happiness that Laura Ling and Euna Lee are now home safely in America. Ms. Ling, Ms. Lee, the Daily Reeder salutes you, your courage, and wishes you well in your most important work.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

Time for REEDBACK! Edition 2

Hi Everyone,

You may remember that six months ago, I introduced a new segment called REEDBACK. I expected to use it a lot more often than I have, but since this is such a low traffic blog (I don't particuarly care how many people read it, to tell the truth), I only get about one or two comments per post. Most of those comments have not been enough to devote an entire post to a response. But in checking up on monday's post, I found four comments. The first two were quite lengthy, and were really parts of one comment. They were from someone called "laloyalist." So for the second time, on July 17, 2009, it is time again for...REEDBACK!

Here is what laloyalist wrote:

The first part:

"This area has been the subject of a good deal of thought on my part, so I'm going to weigh in. I spent a long time as a religious (more specifically, Christian) person. To me, it was just something people did. And though I was religious, I eventually began to come by all the things people traditionally receive from religion (moral code, purpose, joy, etc) from other means. Once I realized this, I eventually shed my religion. Yet I did not do this out of any "anger", it was simply a decision that I made as the product of involved thought.I consider myself primarily a Secularist, since I'm not intrested so much in the existence of deities or supernatural entities as their signifigance, which I feel is secondary to human reason and emotion. However, I'm not opposed to religion insofar as it is an excersize of people's freedom to believe what they want; moreover, I feel that the majority of the time a person's belief about the physical nature of the universe is a fact as mundane as his/her hair color. But some religions aren't simply views of the physical nature of the universe, but also doctrines which seek to negate any views - and any persons - which hold them not only as true but absolutely and irrevocably trumping everything else, period. From the reign of Constantine to the Enlightenment, Christianity was one of those religions. At it's core, it remains about repressing free thought; Christians are told in the Bible that the most important thing they can do is not promote human well-being but to believe in a deity. It is for this that, while I fully support your right to feel the way you do, and as a former believer can understand the impetus to feel that way, I also think that a "Christian only" outlook on things implicitly negates others' ability live a good life through other religions, or no religion. As someone who not only treasures freedom of thought, but employs it as my primary source of personal joy, it saddens me that a movement which at its core stifles one's very thought patterns has gained such popularity.Of course, anyone who is critical of Christianity immediately sets himself up to be counterattacked as an enemy of all the good things in the Bible - as a side note, many religions include a body of noble beliefs which religionists claim are inextricably linked to scriptural nastiness and effectively serve to deflect all criticism of that religion. However, I contend that all that is good, noble, or wonderful about religion can be validaded by secular means. Conversely, all that is intolerant, mean-spirited, and destructive in a religion can only be accepted if that religion is granted special treatment in the first place.With regard to religion in politics, Wallis claims (and as best as I can tell you agree) that "The liberal side has made a mistake in ignoring the fact that the teachings of Jesus are what give movements for justice and peace the most strength, and turn to a purely secular vision." If by the "teachings of Jesus" Wallis is refering to the Christian religion, that can be factually proven as incorrect. There is of course the Hindu satyagraha movement of Gandhi, and the prominent women's suffrage advocate Matilda Joslyn Gage was nonreligious. But if Wallis is referring to such teachings as Matthew 5:44, "Love your enemy", I would argue that that is powerful but for a secular reason; a society based on human rights, in which even your enemies are treated with dignity, is our higest calling as humans seeking a better existence.So basically, I disagree with Wallis on many of his points. I particularly am a bit saddened by the final passage about the young agnostic; like so many other exchanges it lays on a heavy implication that the default position of all agnostics, atheists and secularists are against human goodness. Too often we hear either "he's religious and a good person" or "he's an agnostic, but still a good person". Why can't it be "he's agnostic AND a good person"?"

The second part:

"Conclusion:However, I do support Wallis insofar as his message promotes the advancement of human rights and well-being. That's something you don't have to be either religious or secular to support. Now if only we could get good old Jim to acknowledge that."

First of all, the decision to commit to a religious tradition is a deeply personal one. This is a decision everyone must come to on their own. Laloyalist says at the top that he received everything religion traditionally promises (moral code, purpose, joy, so on) without religion. Good for you, laloyalist. However you arrive at those things is fine. However, even in this age, religion does give some people those things. It is important to recognize that religion and spirituality can and does still serve a purpose. If there was nothing of Truth, nothing of existential value, in religious traditions, they would have been confined to the trash can of history long ago.

He goes on to say that how a person believes the universe was created is no more relevant than their hair color. This is not entirely true. For one thing, your hair color probably won't influence how you think about the world, how you treat others. This is so because, as laloyalist later notes, religion encompasses not only the creation and trajectory of the universe (hence the famous Darwinist-Creationist conflict here in the US), but also ways that people should conduct their lives, sometimes for the better, other times for the worse.

Laloyalist goes on to argue that religion stifles free thought and is all about repressing it by making its followers believe that the highest good lies in believing in a deity. I am painfully aware that too many times in the past, and still today, religious doctrine has been used by power-hungry leaders to stifle any criticism of them, elicit vast financial and cultural influence from their followers, and justify dehumanizing and even endorsing violence against those they feel threatened by. This is what made me, for most of my recent life, skeptical of organized religion, as I pointed out in the post.

This was why Jim Wallis's book resonates so strongly with me. Because I feel that, for all its flaws, the Christian tradition does have some truth to it, and I wished, for the longest time, that someone would use this tradition to build others up, rather than justify tearing them down. It was very heartening to get reminded that there are Christians who care about issues like poverty, environmental stewardship, and war and peace. Any religious or spiritual tradition that can seriously be called a guide in life, in my view, must address these larger issues as well as the personal ones.

The loyalist (let's call him that from now on) then states that anyone who dares criticize Christianity sets himself up to be the enemy of all that is pure and good in the religion. This is not entirely true. It is a sad fact that some are still suspicious of those who profess nonbelief, ore even simlpe uncertainty. However, this book also addresses fundamentalism within Christianity, and Wallis mentions that he had someone who didn't agree with him theologically, as the loyalist does not, but nonetheless knew that the way Wallis sought to put his faith into action was right. Hopefully the loyalist may come to a similar conclusion.

Next, the loyalist argues that all that religion offers can be arrived at secularly, but all the intolerances, bigotries, flaws in religion, would not happen had religion not achieved such a high place in society. This is a mistake, I believe, that many nonreligious, or nondeist, if you prefer, people make. They dismiss all good that religion can accomplish by stating that people would do it anyway, but any bad that occurs in the name of religion or a spiritual tradition, that couldn't have happened without religion. It seems to me that any attitude could be justified and empowered by religion, good or bad. To assume that it is entirely either good or bad would be a mistake. Those in religion and out of religion alike must not assume that their traditions are always good, but strive to make them better, to answer the questions I believe we all have and the need we all have to make our world more just.

The next paragraph talks about how Christianity isn't the only religion that has powered movements for social justice, since Gandhi was a Hindu, I think, and one of the Sufferagette leaders was nonreligious. Wallis never claims in the book that Christianity is the only way. What he argues in the book, and what I would argue (what I am arguing) is that religion (Christianity in this context, but doubtless others, as well) can be used to wage powerful campaigns for justice, peace and healing. When such movements have selfless religious and spiritual roots, they are made all the more powerful. The unfortunate tone I detected in that paragraph is that it seems the loyalist is more interested in shooting down theological arguments than listening to what Mr. Wallis is really after.

Lastly, the second, and concluding, part of the loyalist's comment stated that he agreed with Mr. Wallis's mission to promote human rights and well-being. There I believe the loyalist is correct. Then he writes "Now if only we could get good old Jim to acknowledge that." But I believe he does. When Mr. Wallis talks about needing more religion rather than more secularism, he isnt talking about people who demand that creation be taught in school, that the ten commandments be on display out front of every school, and that everybody, on pain of death, say "Merry Christmas." He is talking about the decency that guides us to be just and kind in our dealings, as many biblical passages implore us to do. This is what I believe God and the religious traditions should speak to. Now, if only we could get the loyalist to acknowledge that. I kid the loyalist, with love. But seriously, I hope that comes across. That's why I liked the book so much.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

A Good Reed for EVERYONE

Hi Everyone,

Well, I'm not Oprah and I'm not about to start a book club, but I've got a good read here that I thought you would like to hear about. It was one of those books that, you know, it comes along, you read it, and you feel like it's talking to you. This was one of those books for me, and I felt I had to share it with you. It has to do with politics, social matters, and religion (three things very close to my heart). The book is called God's Politics: Why the Right gets it wrong and the Left doesn't get it. You might have heard of the author. His name is Jim Wallis. He founded Sojourners, a publication and network for religious-minded folk who care about justice and peace, both personally and globally. This is how I feel, and if you're reading this, I hope you do too.

This appeals to what I think religion should be about. One reason I have been skeptical of religion recently is political. The idea of religious politics I came of age with was the dominance of the Religious Right. I came to believe that most christianity and religion at large was ruled by anti-gay people who were opposed to abortion in any and all circumstances, but who are deafeningly silent on the growing disenfranchisement of the poor, degradation of the environment, our most valuable resource, and think nothing of starting senseless wars. This perception, along with the rise of fundamentalism, soured me on organized religion. I came to view religion in politics as being a problem, a pathway to widespread violence and authoritarianism. I came to view religion more as deadening, dehumanizing dogma rather than revitalizing, empowering spirit.

God's Politics was published in 2005, when George W. Bush and the Religious Right had a firm hold on the US Government. It is sort of dated, but its message still rings true. Wallis has written since, and I caught a little bit of his new book, which debuted since the election of Obama and the change in the power structure in DC. Power can corrupt anyone, even those with high-minded and noble motives. So this is just as important now as it was four years ago, and will continue to be important four years from now, and four years after that.

Wallis contends that the most powerful movements for justice and peace have been rooted in religious, spiritual, and moral ideas. A short list: Wallis sites the anti slavery movement of the 19th century and the civil rights movement a century later as the greatest examples. He talks about Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu as examples for what we can accomplish in our country and in the world. Wallis talked, at one point, about the Berrigan brothers, two Catholic priests who campaigned against the Vietnam War, and then continued to campaign against nuclear weapons.

In fact, it turns out Wallis had a plan in mind for how to avoid the Iraq War. He devoted an entire chapter (Chapter 4: Protest is Good; Alternatives are Better) to a strategy to avoid war, and how he attempted to execute it in the run up to the Iraq War in early 2003. It turns out that Wallis and other prominent religious leaders came up with a six-point plan (read the entire plan here) to remove Saddam Hussein from power, eliminate the WMD's and improve the life of the Iraqi people. According to him, he and the others presented the plan to the British government, British Prime Minister Tony Blair himself, and to the State Department. Apparently, it did gain some traction at the time, but I guess we know now who was listening to it and who didn't.

In the book, Wallis also addresses a chief concern of mine when it comes to religion: fundamentalism. In the following chapter, Wallis addresses the rise of the Religious Right in the '80's and '90's. He commented on the fact that the movement, with Jerry Falwell at its helm, gained political power through the Reagan White House. Wallis notes that because the Religious Right's leaders sought political power right away, it became more about keeping their power for them, rather than about bringing to pass whatever beneficial goals it may have had.

He then notes how the Civil Rights movement in the '50's and '60's, with Martin Luther King at its helm, sought to effect change without political power. Eventually, through its appeal to people of lower status, but of sound moral and religious convictions, the movement gained political traction, and the Johnson White House took bold steps in proposing, then signing, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It was not corrupted by its political ambitions, and therefore it was able to accomplish good and justice.

Why I stated that this book was for everyone is because it was subtitled Why the Right gets it wrong and the Left doesn't get it. Wallis's message is meant to challenge both the right and left side of the political spectrum. Wallis says that this is the purpose of religion in politics. The premise is that the right, the conservative side, has made a mistake in co opting religion only to impose personal morality on everyone and ignoring, or going against, the larger responsibility we have to each other, that Jesus stressed in His teachings.

The left, the liberal side, has made a mistake in ignoring the fact that the teachings of Jesus are what give movements for justice and peace the most strength, and turn to a purely secular vision which denies any role for religion in the public sphere. Because it is equally supportive and critical of both sides, and it seeks justice and peace for all, it seems to me like it could gain some broad support. If someone delivered a message of unity and peace like this, in a world riddled with division and war, they could find themselves with a broad base of support. Could it be that Barack Obama read this book, too? It seems that Wallis had known Obama even before he debuted on the national scene.

Wallis even talks about a signing he did in Denver, where he was approached by a kid who was an agnostic. The talk that Wallis gave appealed even to the kid who, like me, was uncertain of the premise of God, but was moved by what Mr. Wallis had to say. I have to close by saying that this book has really spoken to me about what religion can and should be in our lives. What Wallis talks about here has begun to make even me feel that maybe there is something to that Christian tradition. Something that makes it real, that makes it worth pursuing. This way of speaking not just to personal responsibility, but responsibility to each other, has tremendous power, power that can repair this country and this world. Great read, Mr. Wallis.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

Peace Without Appeasement: How to Stand Up to Violent Regimes

Hi Everyone,

Since my mammoth post last March in which I laid out some ideas on how to create peace, the tpoic has been on my mind a lot. I have been thinking about it in conjunction with North Korea, the Middle East, particularly Iran. How to lay the groundwork for peace and stability in such a chaotic world? Well, I've been thinking, and yesterday, I came back to an old video clip I saw a while back.

The youtube clip comes from a May 2008 episode of Hardball with Chris Matthews. Then-President Bush had just implied, in an appearance in Israel, that then-Senator Obama's promise that he would meet with the enemies, principly Iran, without preconditions, was tantamount to the appeasement of Adolf Hitler in the run-up to World War II. Los Angeles talk radio host Kevin James went on Hardball to reinforce this point of view, and when Matthews started playing hardball, James struck out.

In the clip, James states that he wished the President (Bush) had been more direct in calling out the man who would become his successor. James began talking indirectly about how Obama's plans were dangerous for Israel and the US, and that he was an appeaser. Matthews then pressed James with a simple, but poignant question "What did Neville Chamberlain do wrong?" James continued with his line about appeasement and all the rest, but Matthews wouldn't let him get away. He kept asking, again and again "What did he do?"(If you watch the video, you'll see he asks at least 23 times) Finally, James just said "I don't know what [Bush] was referring to." This was probably one of Matthews' finest moments. I probably would have done the thing a little differently, but Matthews' point is right on the money.

What James and Matthews were referring to, what Chamberlain did wrong, was the Munich Agreement. When Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain traveled to Munich to meet with Hitler. He then signed an agreement allowing Hitler to annex part of Czechoslovakia, the Sudetenland, I think it was called, in September 1938. Chamberlain promised the agreement would bring "Peace in our time." Well, we all know how that worked out. Hitler violated the agreement, and when the Germans invaded Poland, everyone realized the only way to stop them was to fight.

The point here is that what Chamberlain did wrong was not talk to the enemy. What he did wrong was allow Hitler to grab up all the territory, on hopes that the problem would go away if they let Germany get what it asked for. This strategy of avoiding the issue does not work with any issue, whether personal or international. Regimes need to be confronted. This is the mistake that Chamberlain and others made, which eventually made the most violent war in history inevitable.

It is also important to realize that confrontation is not just about military might. This is the philosophy that fuels the tyrant. Confronting the issue also involves diplomacy. Diplomacy is different than just caving into demands. Tough diplomacy entails talking to hostile countries, offering deals, but also consequences. One strong point is knowing where the person is coming from. Matthews later elaborated to Rachel Maddow that perhaps if more of the leaders at the time had heard about Mein Kampf, they would have known who they were dealing with.

Matthews also talked about how these slogans, like "cut-and-run," "appeaser," are used irresponsibly to drown out criticism. The process and history of this warrants a post in its own right, but let's just look at this appeasement line. All negotiation with hostile powers is not appeasement; ceding territory for the sake of placating those powers are. They talk about "dealing from a position of strength." But it is possible to deal from a position of strength while acknowledging fault on both sides. Indeed, it seems to me that this is what is required to deal with the situation we now find ourselves in. Thankfully, this seems to be the strategy that President Obama is now implementing.

For all those people who think any talks or deals with hostile forces is appeasement, think of this. What about Richard Nixon? More importantly, what about Ronald Reagan? Did they not talk to the leaders of hostile nations? Nixon had his success with China, and more memorably, Reagan had his success with the Soviet Union. One of the things that people remember about President Reagan was that he was "a statesman." Doesn't being a staesman require talking to hostile leaders? Funnily enough, Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, at the time, was extremely concerned about Reagan's engagement of Gorbachev and the USSR. He, too, likened it to Chamberlain's appeasement.

So why is this important. Two, well, several, reasons: Iran, North Korea, Israel, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan. All of these places are hostile territories, and they will all have to be dealt with with a strong diplomatic approach. Thankfully, it seems one of the President's strong points is comunication. Whether dealing with skeptical voters, critics, or audiences in the Middle East, he has shown talent for communicating seldom seen in anyone. Say what you will about his policies, who can doubt his intelligence when it comes to communication skills? So, going forward, we must not be afraid of dealing in messages of strength and perception. History has shown that strong diplomacy, not appeasement, works.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

Today We're All Iranians

Hi Everyone,

You remember after 9/11, when a French newspaper ran a headline proclaiming "We are all Americans." Well, you've heard about the situation in Iran. People there are being put odwn by their own government for simply wanting a redo of the election. There is now a famous video available n youtube of a young girl getting shot by one of the Revolutionary Guard. All I know is that her name was Neda. Since justice, freedom, and peace are my passion, I urge you all to remember Neda. Since all of us cherish our freedom and crave a more just world, today we are all Iranians.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

Some Thoughts on the Iranian Crisis

Hi Everyone,

Well, I'm sure you've all heard about what's going on in Iran. The election between the incumbent, the hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, and the moderate, somewhat pro-western Mir-Hossein Mousavi (His name's Hussein, too! Well, kinda). Ahmedinejad claimed a landslide victory, which seems very fishy. The people of Iran smelled fraud, and took to the streets in massive numbers. Iran's Revolutionary Guard, under Ahmedinejad's and the Iranian Ayatollah's direction, have attempted to put down the massive protests, and as a result, shots were fired, and eight people were killed. Today, the Guard has backed down, and even more people have come out in what Mousavi has decreed a "day of mourning" for those lost.

What has made this interesting is that technology has played a huge role in fueling the protester's efforts. Photos of the guards have been taken and sent to the outside world through Facebook, and updates sent out through Twitter. Finally, Twitter has come in handy. This is one of the good things technology can help you do. Another thing is the generational factor. Most of Iran's population is under 30. Middle-aged Iranians were largely lost in their war with Iraq in the 1980's.

Remember that election in Lebanon a week or two ago? The one where the radical, pro-Hezbollah faction was thrown out and the pro-Western party came in the day after the Cairo speech? Well, perhaps the leaders of Iran were worried about a similar thing happening in their country, so they pulled something fishy like this. I don't know that this is the case, but it wouldn't surprise me at all. Not that this Mousavi would be a huge change; technically, the Ayatollahs would still be calling the shots. But the hard-line element of Iranian leadership would be curtailed. This Mousavi told Ahmedinejad that his denial of the Holocaust was making Iran "a laughingstock."

Something interesting is definitely happening now. Remember the Revolution of 1979? That was the response to the brutal Shah that was installed by the West in 1953. This began the West's tense relationship with Iran. That was when the hard-line, anti-American Ayatollah was put in power. Now, it seems something similar is happening, only it's not working to the Ayatollah's benefit. Anyway, I found this one post here about the role of Iran's younger generation in this. It notes that the same kind of generational shift that fueled Barack Obama's rise in the United States may deliver change in Iran. And the people of Iran have shown their newfound commitment to a more democratic government (this is much more important to people who haven't had it).

If you ask me, which you are now, I'd say that whether the election results were legitimate or fraudulent, the leaders of Iran better pay attention to this trend, or suffer the consequences. Maybe we can say again the words I paraphrased last week,"Mr. Ahmedinejad, tear down these walls!" As this instability continues in Iran, my (and I hope yours, too) prayers are that the people of Iran may find a more peaceful, free and just country, the kind you and I take for granted. So be thankful, and keep your thoughts and prayers with Iran.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

An Update on President Obama's Mideast Visit

Hi everyone,

Thanks for sticking with me after that last post. It's always hairy dealing with subjects like that. You never know who will agree with you and who will react violently. These issues often lend themselves to fiery arguments that make great fodder for the news, rather than the kind of thoughtful talk that these issues deserve. But thanks for sticking with me. Anyway, today's matter will be a little more promising.

To start off, though, there some alarming news. In North Korea, two journalists from San Francisco, I think, were captured. They were charged with illegal entry into the country, and with an "unspecified grave crime" (don't know what that means, although in North Korea, just calling Kim Jong-il a "loser" would constitute a grave crime).

The Obama administration has said it will do whatever it has to not only to get the two journalists free, but also to keep North Korea from exporting missiles and other nuclear weaponry to other places. The North Korean government has said that any attempt to board their cargo ships and search would be considered "an act of war." Luckily, when it comes to the hostages, that American journalist that was captured in Iran has now been released and is back in the US. But this missile situation is eerily similar to the Missile Crisis of 1962. So stick with me here.

Anyway, on to some more heartening news. I presume you have all seen at least part of President Obama's speech on Middle East peace in Cairo. If you have not seen the speech, you can watch the whole thing here. So I will give an overview of the visit, and the speech.

This may not have been his best speech, but this is Barack Obama. It's nearly impossible to pick the best of his speeches. But I thought this was among the best. I thought he touched on all the notes that need to be touched on when it comes to the Mideast peace process. Addressing the Invasion of Iraq, laying out the new strategy for success in Afghanistan, addressing the plight of the Palestinian people, countering stereotypes of Arabs, Jews and Americans. Also, and these are the issues that need to be addressed in the Middle East, curbing extremism, advocating democracy, and promoting women's rights. These are all things which, in my outsider's view, are a crucial part to establishing peace.

The President started out by noting the significant, but largely unnoticed, contribution to America's history. He noted that tere are about 7,000,000 Muslims living in the United States. According to the speech, there is at least one mosque in every state in the Union(even Wyoming and Alaska?). He also noted that, following a Treaty from Morocco recognizing the US as a country, Thomas Jefferson kept a Qu'ran in his library. It was with this same Qur'an that the first Muslim to become a Congressman, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, was sworn in to his office. When I first watched it, I wasn't quite sure of it. Next day, when I was at Borders, I picked up a history book, and, sure enough, Jefferson had obtained a copy of the Qur'an, and kept it in his library.

Iwas very pleased to see that the President had gone into depth as much as he did on this. If you've been a reeder here with me, you'll know that I believe that this issue is one of great complexity. I noted in my post about the 2008-2009 Conflict in Gaza that I believe that both sides will have to make some concessions if we are to come together. This was the tone that I got from the speech in Cairo. The speech took place, first off, in a University in Cairo. This is indicative of Obama's emphasis on the younger generation as the best hope for peace.

This speech was similar in tone to the famous "A More Perfect Union" speech during last year's primary. When Jeremiah Wright's infamous "God Damn America" remarks inflamed tempers on both sides, then-Senator Obama gave an extensive speech addressing the sensitive issue of race, at the same time condemning Wright's remarks while not disowning Wright himself. Looking back, it was probably just the right tone to strike. I think we can all figure out if the speech worked for him.

So can this same tone, one that acknowledges rights and faults on both sides, and seeks unity over division, work when applied to an international context. Well, it's been a few days since the speech, so let's look at the reaction. The visit and the speech was received pretty well in the Muslim World. In Lebanon, there was an election the day after the speech. The polls indicated for weeks before that the hard-line, pro-Hezbollah faction would win. The day after, the more moderate, pro-US party won in an unexpected upset.

Joe Scarborough, a fomer Republican congressman from Florida and the host of MSNBC's Morning Joe, said, "Barack Obama could be the biggest challenge to Osama Bin Laden since he was being chased out of Torah Borah. This is a real threat to the continued expansion of Al-Qaeda." Scarborough is a key conservative voice at the moment.

Tellingly, at the same time that President Obama was speaking in Cairo, Osama Bin Laden and his lieutenant, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, each released audiotapes attacking the President and urging Muslims everywhere to battle the infidels and their allies. This is because Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other such groups offer no future to the people of the affected areas. They have only an extremist ideology and they use the despair of the people of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and beyond to build their membership, and forward this hateful ideology that leads nowhere.

If the United States offered to help build a stable future, which is what President Obama, and a key general (I forget what his name was) say needs to be done to succeed in Afghanistan, Al-Qeada would lose all their recruiting tools, they would lose their base, their mission would collapse. Hearteningly, in the Pakistani tribal areas, villagers have started to kick out Taliban warlords. Interestingly enough, most people in the Muslim world were listening, except for in Iran. It seems that the Iranian government jammed the communication lines so that people of Iran could not hear the speech, or the part that was addressed directly to Iran.

The next day, President Obama stopped in Germany. in the speech, Obama had repudiated those who denied the Holocaust, plainly stating it was wrong to do so (interestingly enough, some criticized him for denying the Holocaust). So, this day, last Friday, President Obama, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and Elie Wiesel, a survivor of the Holocaust and the Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1986, visited Buchenwald Concentration Camp (the video is available in three parts 1,2,3). The appearance was extremely moving. I was unable to watch it, or even read the remarks, without getting tears in my eyes. Listen to the remarks, or read them, and tell me if you were as moved by them as I was.

In conclusion, I would like to again offer my hope that the process of peace can begin now. I believe that people here in America, overin Germany, and in the Middle East, are increasingly tired of the other option and are ready. It feels profane to offer a quote from the orchestrator of that most evil thing in our history, Hermann Goering, whose ideas and methods are wholeheartedly detestable. But he did say something that is worth noting here.

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country and it is a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

This perpetrator of the greatest evil in human history understood that people are not born or given to violence and evil. It must be driven into them. Driven by cold, dark minds. Minds that are angry, alienated, and ultimately afraid. As Goering said, it is only when people believe that the other group is attacking that the leaders can move in, dehumanize the other group, and work their violence on the other. This has been seen everywhere from Germany to Kosovo to Rwanda to Sudan.

It is this that the President was trying to avoid with this visit to Cairo. It was appropriate that he, along with a man who survived that infinite nightmare and went on to become among the best advocates for peace, and with the current leader of Germany, now a peaceful and prosperous ally of the US, returned to pay tribute to this. Too few world leaders, in my mind, have taken this lesson to heart. One leader in particular, President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad of Iran, denies that the event even happened. Mr. Ahmedinejad continues to promote such an inhuman attitude that builds walls between peoples and can ultimately leads to this pain. As we commemorate six words that shook the world 22 years ago this week, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," we all must again quote President Ronald Reagan and say, "Mr. Ahmedinejad, tear down these walls."

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

Tonight's Anniversary, and the Evolution of Peace

Hi Everyone,

Well, you are all probably aware of the anniversary we observe tonight. Six years ago tonight, shock and awe was visited on Iraq. The reasons for this and the controversy surrounding the War in Iraq are not the central issues of this post. My purpose is to take this anniversary to talk about the opposite of war: peace.

As some bumper stickers proclaim, "Peace, An idea whose time has come". That is a pretty accurate assessment of the process going on. I have spent a lot of time pondering questions of war and peace and good and evil. And something has occured to me, and what occured to me is the central theme of this post.

It occured to me that peace, like many other things in life, has had to evolve over time. Like democracy, even, which had only existed in a few scattered places in the past, but then began to fully bud with the foundation of the US, so too has peace had to go through an evolution process, often a long and imperceptible growth process.

In the past, fighting was a very simple way to settle problems. It is an instinct, a primitive urge, which is probably why children often get in fights. Back then, in the caveman days, all they could do was swing their fists or maybe swing a club at someone. Without many other ways of communicating, this was an easy way to settle disputes.

As societies developed, these fights involved more and more people, hence the development of war. As time went on, these wars got larger and larger. The tools of war became more sophisticated, and thus, more destructive. People moved from clubs and rocks, to swords, to guns, to rifles.

Last century, the 20th Century, was one of almost continual warfare (the word continual means literally nonstop). In 1914, World War I broke out. At this point, a new level of warfare was reached. What makes this significant is all the new technological advancements in ammunition: tanks, poison gas, machine guns, so on. The business of war was far more catastrophic at this point.

In the aftermath of this war, which cost millions of lives and left a generation and the continent of Europe in shambles, some new depth was reached. People with the most toxic, the most hateful ideas were able to seize power. They utilized the most ruthless methods, put so many under subjugation that soon, another war broke out, World War II.

The human cost of this episode was far more horrible, far more evil, than anyone could imagine: a machine of death, a Holocaust which crushed 6 million lives, truly hell on earth. This was, without a doubt, the darkest chapter in human history. And still another depth had been reached. By the end of the war, scientists had discovered a new weapon: the atomic bomb.

For nearly 50 years after 1945, the world was slowly torn apart by a Cold War. For all that time, the US and the Soviet Union pushed their ideologies and those who would toe the line for it in poor nations around the world. In places like Iran, Guatemala, Hungary, Cuba, and more significantly in Vietnam and Afghanistan, the Capitalist and Communist superpowers backed leaders, often brutal ones, were backed to forward ideology, regardless of consequences.

Then still another frontier was reached on the weapons front: nuclear weapons. For four decades, the prospect of a total war involving these new weapons was a terrifying reality. One of these superpowers was also an incredibly grim and repressive regime, which embraced an extremist view of the world and put down anyone who didn't accept it. This was the reality of life for nearly 50 years from 1946 to 1991.

And that was the 20th Century. The 21st Century has gotten off to quite a start. So far, we've had 9/11 and this new conflict, the War on Terror. Plus, now we have a whole new level of warfare: biochemical weapons, dirty bombs, anthrax. These are things that are worse than you could imagine in your worst nightmares, and people make them. They're out there. And all those nuclear weapons the Soviets used to have, they're out there too. All this adds up to make the next few years, perhaps the next few decades, a very treacherous landscape for us to navigate.

So we know what the stakes are, judging from this. So what's gone well? How has peace evolved? Well, pacifism has been an underground movement as early as WWI and probably earlier than that. During Vietnam, the revelation that one's own leaders could be wrong and could lie shocked many people, and galvanized a generation of people to resist war, en masse, for really the first time. Again, the revelation that the government has been corrupted has stirred up a painful, but worthwhile, questioning process, particularly in me.

Earlier, I likened the development of peace to the developing of democracy and our own country. Just as those men took a gamble that a government of, by, and for the people could work, so too can we now bet that a more peaceful, more just, more compassionate world, can exist. Until the time of the founding, a large, impoverished mass of peasants ruled by a single monarch was the accepted norm of government. Philosophers everywhere predicted that a democracy would fail. But a collection of people bet that they were wrong. And neither they nor the naysaying philosophers would live to see their bet pay off. But it did.

Do I, or anyone else have all the answers for how to make this peace possible? No. The world remains a threatening and dangerous place. There are threats that still need to be addressed. We need to stay strong and do what we have to to keep the decent people safe. Sometimes this requires the use of military and warfare. This is the central challenge of trying to create peace. Pacifism is a wonderful wish, but it is still only a wish. What do we do about the world as it is? Because it is this way, with some scumbags who would give anything to harm our country and others still roaming around out there. So how do we get from here to there?

No answer will be easy. This sort of "world peace" that many people talk about, while possible in theory, is likely to be along, long way off. But, again like the Founding Fathers, their vision and dream didn't materialize right away. It didn't even materialize fully in their lifetimes. Their vision is still evolving. But while the Founding Fathers' dream took long to evolve, and had its flaws, who today can doubt that there is something to it.

I don't wanna get really preachy here, but I just wanna share this thought, cause I think it's important. My point is that often, people have written goals off as impossible. Sooner or later, there was that impossible reality staring them in the face. It seems that when people decide that as the saying goes, "Where there's a will, there's a way." I often end up repeating this to myself.

So why do I keep bringing up the Founding Fathers and America? Again, I don't mean to get overly preachy, but it seems to me that this country can be as helpful for this purpose as anyone else. Remember how I detailed how I have fallen in love with my country again. For all of its flaws and mishaps, I think this country still is one of the most conducive to the peace, justice and compassion I spoke of earlier. Is there work to be done? Yeah. But as Martin Luther King said, "The moral arch of the universe does bend toward justice." It does, and wherever the path ahead takes this observer in the coming years, I will do what it takes to turn these lofty words and dreams and quotes into hard, solid reality.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.