How to bake an ISIS cake: recipe for success.

Bakin success.

Bakin a cake ain’t much different from roasting your enemy. Assemble the right ingredients, throw them all together, toss em in the oven for a time and wallah (والله), out comes the perfect finished product, except for one thing: the wrong ingredients.

Mr. Twain didn’t say that, but he did say this:  “Two or three centuries from now it will be recognized that all the competent killers are Christians; then the pagan world will go to the Christian school—not to acquire his religion, but his guns.” Oh, and for the readers edification, “wallah/والله ” is an Arabic expression meaning I promise by Allah, and is used to express great credibility. It’s considered a sin among Muslims to use this phrase and follow it up with a lie. And we told a heap of em. In the words of our satirist: “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” And as far traveling was concerned, “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime,” and we seem a bit short on those attributes as well.

It’s doubtful that before 9/11 many modern Americans knew anything about Sunnis or Shiites, and even less about the importance of the Muslim religion in the Middle East. But what we did, and do, know about are guns and allegedly being Christian. We’ve become a nation of the combination of both. We wear the badge but fall short of the brotherhood part. “If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be—a Christian.” Gandhi had a similar take. He said, “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

But back to the “small steps” and ingredients for the cake. After 9/11 we had the wind of the civilized world in our sails. The destruction of the Twin Towers was the Pearl Harbor of our time and al-Qaeda was the “evil axis,”—the term George W. Bush used extensively throughout his term to describe governments that he accused of helping terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction. That was the first lie: the pretext that justified our invasion and the destruction of the infrastructure of Iraq and every reasonable means for the population for surviving. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq nor were there many members of al-Qaeda (at least at first), but going after the “evil axis” became the battle cry that justified the destruction. So if there were no weapons of mass destruction or al-Qaeda, what was our motive? Certainly getting Saddam and his cronies, but was it reasonable to destroy the entire nation toward that end? Perhaps there was another reason (beyond Oil), and to explore that mystery we’ll follow the money. 

Our war machine is awesome. There is some disagreement concerning the magnitude of our destructive power but best guess says, just counting bombs dropped alone, more tonnage was dropped on Iraq than in WWII altogether. From a distance this is a meaningless statistic but I assure you, having fought two years in Vietnam, it’s not meaningless to people where a war destroys your culture and means of existence. 

But our practice, as discussed in the post The mouse that was forbidden from roaring, has been to rebuild what we destroy and that costs a lot of cash. Last estimate for that rebuilding project: $138 billion. That sounds like a bunch, but is chump change compared to what we tax payers spent to rebuild Western Europe and Japan following WWII. That figure amounted to 11% of our GDP in 1945—$1.652 trillion in today’s money. Eleven percent of our GDP today, to rebuild Iraq, would be $15.92 trillion! Nevertheless the $138 billion that was spent, was spent poorly and Iraq today remains a rubble, unable to provide for even basic necessities. The big issue—follow the money—who got the contracts to rebuild? The answer: Dick Cheney’s Halliburton, #1 with $39.5 billion. Might that be sufficient motivation, beyond oil? Oh, let’s not forget the oil.

In 2005, George Bush received more PAC money from the oil and gas industry than any other politician. The result? GW signed an energy bill from the Republican-controlled Congress that gave $14.5 billion in tax breaks for oil, gas, nuclear power and coal companies. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was based on recommendations by Cheney’s energy task force, also rolled back regulations the oil industry considered burdensome, including exemptions from some clean water laws. All of this transpired only one year after Congress passed a bill that included a tax cut for domestic manufacturing that was expected to save energy companies at least $3.6 billion over a decade. It must not go unmentioned that both Bush and Cheney were former oil executives and during the Bush/Cheney administration the oil and gas industry spent $393.2 million on lobbying the federal government.

This was just the first, in the series of small steps ingredients that led to the inevitable ISIS cake. More will come in subsequent posts.

Standing between the Hatfields and McCoys.

“Man is the only animal that has the True Religion—several of them. The easy confidence with which I know another man’s religion is folly, teaches me to suspect that my own is also.”—MT

The Bush administration’s claim of weapons of mass destruction, (that justified the invasion of Iraq) was correct. The problem was one of misidentification. We were led to imagine atomic and biological weapons at the ready. But what we were not told was of another weapon of mass destruction, also at the ready, that had been seething for centuries. To grasp the significance of the Middle Eastern tree of turmoil it’s necessary to first consider the roots. This was the Sunni mouse that had laid in waiting, divided around the world into somewhere between 1.2-1.5 billion individuals, without a roar waiting for release from Pandora’s Box. As George Eliot said, “Great things are not done by impulse, but by a series of small things brought together,” and we provided those series of small steps necessary for the dormant ISIS mouse to roar with a ferocity never imagined.

One of the “true religions” spoken of by our satirical pundit is Islam, but in this case it isn’t a matter of conflict between one true religion and another. Instead it is a conflict within Islam that has been brewing for nearly 1,400 years, flaring from time to time with a violence capable only when motivated by religious fervor, thus proving MT’s point: “Man is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out... and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel. And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for the universal brotherhood of man with his mouth.”

To acquire an adequate portrait of this millennial old conflict would require volumes, but as the saying goes, A picture is worth a thousand words. By clicking here, you can witness that picture. It doesn’t require a genius to know that standing in the middle of a gun fight between the Hatfields and McCoys isn’t the best of ideas. To shoot at either side invites the fury of the other. In the posts to follow, I’ll walk you through the most important small steps we took to light the fuse that led to the current conflagration.

The suffering of silence.

Sufferers of silence

“There are basically two types of people. People who accomplish things, and people who claim to have accomplished things. The first group is less crowded.”—MT

In a post from another blog I spoke about putting legs under our words and titled the post, Talk without action is cheap (and worthless). Our satirist MT apparently agreed, given his quote above. The essence of his words, and mine, concerns accomplishments, or worse; apathy and complacency—the death knells of accomplishment.

Far too often our tendency is based on the flawed notion of, “It an’t my problem,” with the corresponding notion of making nice and not rocking the boat. We maintain a conspiracy of silence, motivated by an unspoken consensus to not mention or discuss given subjects in order to maintain group solidarity, or fear of political repercussion and social ostracism. “Nice people” avoid controversy and ignore the plights of those, seemingly not like us. In so doing we exhibit the mantra of the assumed elite: A “CEO of Self.”

When you cut through the pomposity, a conspiracy of silence is cowardly dishonest and delusional to the point of refusing to acknowledge our connectivity with the interrelated fabric of life. The complexity of living in today’s world is straining this practice to the breaking point. When does ebola become our problem? When does injustice become our problem? When does poverty, or the growing economic polarization become our problem? Bigotry? Racism? Hatred? An environmental catastrophe?

In 1925, following World War I (the War to end all wars) T. S. Eliot wrote a poem called The Hollow Men. The poem of 98 lines ends with “probably the most quoted lines of any 20th-century poet writing in English.” Eliot captured the spirit of apathy brilliantly and concluded that the silent conspirators rule the world, not by force, but rather by inaction. He said, 

“We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death’s other Kingdom
Remember us—if at all—not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.”

“Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom

For Thine is…
Life is…
For Thine is the…

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.”

Haunting words to contemplate.

Trickle economics—Up or down?

“Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.”—MT

Trickle-down economics is closely identified with the economic policies known as “Reaganomics.” Reagan’s budget director David Stockman, championed tax cuts at first but then became skeptical, and told journalist William Greider that, “supply-side economics is the trickle-down idea: It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down,’ so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’”

The idea seemed to make sense, in theory, due to the fundamental economic relationship between supply and demand. The greater the demand (assuming industrial response) there would be job creation to provide rising supply. However, this principle ceases to function when demand is suppressed when consumers have decreasing disposable income (as during an economic downturn). The only way to correct the situation is with a stimulus program OR if those with wealth incur front-loaded risk and hire (or don’t fire) more people, who then have more disposable income, leading to increased demand. Of course risk aversion is also a sound economic principle and there are very few wealthy people who get excited about incurring more risk. 

But then we must consider the most wealthy of all: the U.S. Government, that is unfortunately controlled by a bunch of congressional idiots beholden to wealthy donors. The Uncommon Sense here is that somebody must take a risk and prime the pump of economic activity to jump-start job creation, putting money in the hands of the people who create demand in the first place. Neither the current elite nor ruling members of The House of Representatives are willing to take that risk, but instead have chosen to slash and burn the very people who could start the economic engine moving. The consequence is that the poor get poorer, the rich get richer and the middle class is joining those at the bottom. There is no “trickle.” There is just fattening the wealthy lambs at their own peril. 

Republican’s have attributed the slogan to Democrats in the 1980s as a way to attack Reagan’s economic policies. But students of history know the term first appeared long before during the Great Depression in 1932 when Will Rogers said of the Republican President, “The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands.” It took Hoover’s successor Franklin Delano Roosevelt to have the vision, fortitude and courage to turn this theory upside down and start the long road out of the worst depression we have ever experienced. Unfortunately the trickle-down nonsense has reemerged, packaged in the disguise of the “makers and the takers,” and once more the policies that created and sustained our economic woes have taken root all over again. To suggest that those who enable wealth are inferior to those who acquire it, is like saying a house is built by itself for the occupants who live in it.

Ignorance ain't bliss.

There’s a certain renaissance now days in the wisdom of MT, which shouldn’t be surprising given the lack of moral leadership in the world today. He was fearless in castigating any and all whom he deemed unworthy of human potential and often said he had more confidence in four legged animals and not so much in human ones. He once said “Often it does seem such a pity that Noah and his party did not miss the boat,” and that if a man was combined with a cat, the cat would be lesser and man the better.

For these reasons, and others, he was considered to be uncommonly wise and thought, for the most part, that the rest of us displayed consistent ignorance, particularly when it came to politicians. His even handed critiques were understood widely since he dealt with everyday foolishness and considered it unseemly to argue with fools. He said, “Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

If MT was compared to The Buddha it would not be inaccurate to say they shared a common reputation for being wise and recognizing ignorance as a core human problem. When The Buddha was asked: “What is that smothers the world? What makes the world so hard to see? What would you say pollutes the world and threatens it the most?” He said, “It is ignorance which smothers and it heedlessness and greed which make the world invisible. The hunger of desire pollutes the world, and the great source of fear is the pain of suffering.” FDR said something more practical, but quite similar and no less wise. He said, “We have always known that heedless self-interest is bad morals; we now know it is bad economics.” Politicians today largely ignore his observation and imply that the opposite is the case (e.g. self-interest/greed is good and translates into good economics). 

The wisdom of MT is more readily known than that of The Buddha. In a certain sense MT’s wisdom might be thought of as symptomatic whereas the wisdom of The Buddha causative. Often times we are drawn to the outside wrapping of a package and less to what the package contains. We are enamored with style and not so much substance, and perhaps for that reason are drawn to the uncommon wisdom of MT instead of the profound wisdom of The Buddha.

MT’s manner was one of scathing assaults on ignorant people and The Buddha’s one of deep sadness and compassion. He understood the source of human failings and recognized why we act in ways that appear to be sheer stupidity. The cause was of little concern to MT. He was a shrewd satirist and commentator on actions, often times without understanding or giving consideration to what led to them.

Before launching Uncommon Sense, barely a month ago, I wrote another blog for seven years regarding the wisdom of The Buddha. It took that much time, with a collection of 280 posts, to gain a worldwide audience of over 30,000 readers. Yet in little over one month Uncommon Sense has garnered an audience of over 1,000 readers. At that rate, if continued, Uncommon Sense will reach the same high bar in one percent of the time. 

That is a telling observation and speaks to the difference in grasping satirical humor instead of a profound understanding of why we are, as MT puts it, pathetic: “Everything human is pathetic. The secret source of humor itself is not joy but sorrow. There is no humor in heaven.” In any event we need both: the indiscriminate scolding for everyday foolishness and a deeper understanding that leads us all away from stupidity and onto a higher moral plain.

“Laws control the lesser man. Right conduct controls the greater one.”—MT

Some take comfort in the rigid structure of laws, which seem to provide relief from taking responsibility for their own actions. It appears easy to avoid right conduct when the law is on the side of wrong doing and protecting vested interests.

Merely following an unjust law does nothing more than to perpetuate injustice. The more we oppose injustice, the more we demonstrate the courage of internal moral resolve. The more we embrace injustice, the more we demonstrate cowardice of a corrupted and vacuous spirit of righteousness.

It was Martin Luther King, Jr who reminded us that, “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the consciousness of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”

That said, violence employed toward the end of rectifying wrong is neither noble nor productive. The result is more violence. Gandhi said, “I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.”

Three years ago the non-violent Occupy Wall Street protest movement began in New York City’s Wall Street financial district. The movement received global attention and spawned other worldwide Occupy movements against social and economic inequality. The main issues addressed by Occupy Wall Street were social and economic inequality, greed, corruption plus the perceived undue influence of corporations on government—particularly from the financial services sector. After many months the movement was forcibly disbanded by those who wished to avoid reform and the effort diminished to a burning ember, but is now being revived.

The result of the setback has allowed greed and corruption to flourish even more. The clock has now moved forward three years and the flaws have grown into monstrous forms of social inequity with the gap between the super wealthy and the rest of humanity at unprecedented levels. A recent Huffington Post article thoroughly examined this imbalance and concluded that unless corrected, we face dire consequences for virtually every problem facing our society.

I encourage everyone to read the article and contemplate where your moral compass leads. The more we oppose injustice, the more we demonstrate the courage of internal moral resolve. The more we embrace injustice, the more we demonstrate cowardice of a corrupted and vacuous spirit of righteousness. This is not only a moral issue, it is one of societal continuation.

“A problem is never significant…until it becomes your own.”

“No occurrence is sole and solitary, but is merely a repetition of a thing which has happened before, and perhaps often.”—MT

• People showing no empathy toward those less fortunate, until they join their ranks.
• People with adequate health insurance not identifying with those who don’t, until they don’t either.
• Parents opposing gay people, until their own child turns out to be gay.
• Seeing war as a glorious endeavor, until they experience it themselves or lose a loved one to it.

These and an untold number of other examples show us all that we are not our brother’s keeper—we are our brother, sister, mother, father or children. Some will say, “I am only responsible for myself and those of my alliances,” forgetting that their fundamental alliance is with humanity. Lest we think ignoring a problem gets us off the hook, more than 1,900 years ago a Greek philosopher noted: “The omission of good is no less reprehensible than the commission of evil.”

Could’a, would’a, should’a

The face of sorrow.

If only… Fewer words are more remorseful. If a  picture is worth ten thousand words then few say more than this. 
Click here.

“It is the highest form of self-respect to admit our errors and mistakes and make amends for them. To make a mistake is only an error in judgment, but to adhere to it when it is discovered shows infirmity of character.”—Dale Turner

“Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn’t do than by the ones you did. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.”—MT

No one can change yesterday and only you can change today. Have a good day and do your best to not be sorry tomorrow.

“I was seldom able to see an opportunity until it had ceased to be one.”—MT

Our burning house...

Hindsight ain’t worth a damn, unless of course you prefer walking backwards. MT didn’t say that, but he should have. There are some things that, if not noticed in a timely fashion, are not worth noticing at all, such as your house burning down with you in it, or becoming aware that global climate change has moved past the tipping point while you remained unaware. MT said, “Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.” Now days, weather is what we don’t expect because we refused to accept climate as it is.

Opportunities are, as MT observes, rarely seen as such. Instead they might be considered annoyances or inconveniences that get in the way of our preconceived agendas. These account for the peculiar human condition known as denial: the inability to face reality as it is rather than as we wish it to be.

A contemporary Japanese writer said, “I’m not afraid to die. What I’m afraid of is having reality get the better of me, of having reality leave me behind.” Nobody wants to be left behind, and all of us prefer to consider ourselves as proactive instead of reactive.

There are different kinds of denial. There are denial of facts, denial of responsibility, denial of impact, denial of cycles, and denial of awareness. Perhaps the most egregious of all is denial of denial—the refusal to admit that we err. On the other hand, “When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.”

Death of the turtle.

Shell and no head.

Last week Paul Krugman wrote an editorial in the NY Times called “The Inflation Cult,” in which he compared the soothsayers of inflation to members of a cult whose dogma overrides emerging facts. Their mantras persist in contradiction of reality. Being an acknowledged economist, it’s fitting for Krugman to apply this view to economics. I enjoy Krugman and agree with his perspectives most of the time. 

When I read the editorial I thought that his yardstick was vastly more applicable than restricted to economics. This characteristic of dogma covers virtually all human conduct  and could be described as a turtle that sticks it’s head out once, announces any perspective whatsoever, and then withdraws its head, never to be seen again.

In light of the ISIS debacle growing throughout the Middle East, the pattern seems particularly appropriate. We all seem to have short memories and tend to ignore self-incriminating evidence. When the current situation is carefully examined, only the most forgetful and dogmatically inclined can possibly ignore our culpability in creating this mess. There is a direct line flowing backwards from the present to the past destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure during our invasion—leaving hundreds to thousands of previously employed Iraqis without any means of support—and our subsequent betrayal of the Sunnis during and after the emergence of the “Sons of Iraq” program. While initially sponsored by the US military under the auspices of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the Sons of Iraq helped turn the tide against Al Qaeda in Iraq but then became our worst nightmare.

In 2005 during the battles to destroy Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni tribe of Albu Mahals was being forced out of their territory by the Al Salmani tribe allied with Al Qaeda. The Albu Mahals proposed an alliance with a local USMC Battalion, and in time, this became known as the Anbar Awakening (Sunni Awakening) to counter the influence of foreign Al-Qaeda fighters. Between that point of initiation in 2005 until October 2008, these Sunni forces, 54,000 in number, were our allies and “boots on the ground.” We trained, armed, paid and then abandoned them into the hands of their Shia enemies under the control of Maliki when we left. That transfer of responsibility from the U.S. to the Iraqi Shia government was considered by many (if not most) Sunnis as a betrayal by the U.S. Army. Not unexpectedly, the remnants of that force migrated into the emerging creation of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). Once our allies, now our enemies, were lead step by step to a sectarian civil war which we provoked. During the American Civil War, the French found themselves struggling with a similar dilemma but wisely chose to not take sides.

So now we continue, as the turtle with it’s withdrawn head, by holding onto the flawed thinking that (a) we bear no responsibility for what is occurring and (b) we will once again form another “Sunni Awakening” amongst the same people we betrayed before. The road from Mission Accomplished to ISIS is clear and indisputable and unless we take our heads out of our shell there is a good chance we will die there.

“Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities: War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out, and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel. And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for ‘the universal brotherhood of man’—with his mouth.”—MT

“We are all alike, on the inside.” MT

Flocking together...

By and large MT had some doubts concerning human intelligence and much respect for animals. He said: “If man could be crossed with the cat it would improve man, but deteriorate the cat,” and “It is just like man’s vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.”

Animals do display a lot more cooperation and understanding than we humans. For the most part predators are well known. Other animals have learned to steer clear of them but hang out with other less aggressive creatures, humans excluded. We’re a mystery to them and to ourselves. Sometimes we can be as peaceful as a new born lamb and on the spin of a dime turn into violent aggressors. It’s a puzzle, but more often than not our violent behavior is rooted in viewing others not like ourselves and this is particularly true when it comes to religion. MT wasn’t a fan and seemed to run along the same track as Krishnamurti who saw violence as having a lot to do with what we think.

He said, “Violence is not merely killing another. It is violence when we use a sharp word, when we make a gesture to brush away a person, when we obey because there is fear. So violence isn’t merely organized butchery in the name of God, in the name of society or country. Violence is much more subtle, much deeper, and we are inquiring into the very depths of violence.

When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.”

Unfortunately we d0 flock together like birds of a feather, and tend to forget we’re all basically birds.

“The secret of getting ‘ahead’ is getting started.”

And it might be worth adding: Use your own “head,” instead of someone else’s. This may appear to be self-evident, but isn’t. Too often, allegiances are used as a surrogate for thinking, with the inevitable result of surrendering one’s responsibility and freedom. This is true of any sort of allegiance: interpersonal, religious, political or communal.

The inherent delusion of giving over one’s responsibility into the hands of another is that ‘other’ will work in our behalf (and not their own). Rarely, if ever, does this delusion work to our advantage. Instead when reality sets in, we discover the flaw of our presumption. 

MT summed this up religiously: “I cannot see how a man of any large degree of humorous perception can ever be religious—unless he purposely shuts the eyes of his mind and keeps them shut by force.”

And politically: “All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity.” Or: “Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”

Abdicating responsibility contains a copout. “Each of you, for himself, by himself and on his own responsibility, must speak. And it is a solemn and weighty responsibility, and not lightly to be flung aside at the bullying of pulpit, press, government, or the empty catchphrases of politicians. Each must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, and which course is patriotic and which isn’t. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your convictions is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let man label you as they may. If you alone of all the nation shall decide one way, and that way be the right way according to your convictions of the right, you have done your duty by yourself and by your country—hold up your head! You have nothing to be ashamed of.”

A rule of all life (physical or otherwise) is that for every action there is a corresponding reaction, of the same kind.

“When a fool is championed by other fools, he suddenly becomes a genius.”

The greater fool?

Of course, as King Solomon observed, “A fool is wise in his eyes.” So by that measure there are only wise people—those who think they are and those who really are. On the other hand Ben Franklin thought the matter boiled down to unexamined, loose “canonish” complaining and criticism. But true to form, MT had the best solution for ferreting out the true fool—“There’s one way to find out if a man is honest: ask him; if he says yes, you know he’s crooked.”

Political opinions and loyalties flit about on the winds of knee-jerk reactions to changing events, and with events changing so rapidly it’s hard to keep an accurate ledger of who fits where. One moment a fool is an enemy and the next an ally. It all boils down to who is telling you what you want to hear or not. With elections approaching, this phenomena of whimsy is particularly true. One might be fooled to consider our Vice President an ally of our President. The prior has long been considered as a loose canon by friend and foe alike, but within the past few days he has been especially vociferous with his expressed outrage (perhaps understandably) by stating that “we” will chase ISIS to the doors of Hell. I suppose the “we” he is referring to is someone other than the Washington crowd, regardless of political affiliation. But his heart-felt conviction falls prey to MT’s thoughts on unexamined rhetoric.

The vicious and disturbing actions of ISIS do stimulate passions of retribution quite the same as following 9/11 and just as Saddam Hussein did prior to our invasion of Iraq. That too was an unexamined act that ripped apart the fabric of a largely Muslim country and lead to the mess we have today. It was a nasty tyranny that needed correction but it’s debatable if the invasion was thoughtful.

Saddam, you may recall, was a member of the Ba’ath Party which eventually aligned themselves with the Sunnis. Our elimination of Saddam wreaked the delicate balance of Iraq but was good news for the Sunnis since it left the country in disarray.  Oh, and let us not forget that it was only due to our support of Saddam against Iran (largely a Shia nation) that Saddam prevailed. That war began in 1980, lasted for eight years and resulted in at the very least, half a million and possibly twice as many troops killed on both sides; at least half a million became permanent invalids, some $228 billion were directly expended, and more than $400 billion in damages. 

Now we come to today and ISIS, the Sunni terrorist organization which grew out of the assorted rebels fighting in Syria against the Bashar al-Assad regime (Shia) with the backing of Iran (also Shia). Their stated goal is to establish a non-geographic caliphate and governed by Sharia law. So to examine Biden’s “follow them to the gates of Hell” becomes a very sticky wicket. By eliciting the support of Iran and Assad against ISIS makes us allies of previous arch enemies.

For the uninformed, we need to take a look at this wicket. While Muslims are found on all five inhabited continents, more than 60% of the global Muslim population is in Asia and about 20% is in the Middle East and North Africa. However, the Middle East-North Africa region has the highest percentage of Muslim-majority countries. Indeed, more than half of the 20 countries and territories in that region have populations that are approximately 95% Muslim or greater. There are roughly 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, and the percent of Sunni Muslims in the Islamic faith is roughly 85-90%. Thus, around 1.5 billion of the total 7 billion people of the world population are Sunni. If ISIS is successful in recruiting a mere 1% from this vast pool, it would result in a force of 15,000,000 fighters; not an insignificant contribution.  

The bluster of Mr. Biden, while emotionally appealing (and fuel for the hawks), makes his bombastic pronouncement somewhat daunting. Boots on the ground? Mission creep? This is all sounding like déjà vu: remnants of Vietnam which was also a costly debacle. According to a new study by a Harvard researcher, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost U.S. taxpayers $4 trillion to $6 trillion, taking into account the medical care of wounded veterans and expensive repairs to the forces depleted by more than a decade of fighting. 

It is hard to argue the case that we did not create this mess. We did. And to now to rush willy-nilly into the Middle East fracas without thorough examination will undoubtedly  bankrupt us financially, morally and physically. With the pressure to reign in fiscal spending, the glaring question is, how to battle ISIS and at the same time slash spending. And far from an unimportant footnote, we must remember the alliance between Russia, China and Iran all of whom share a common interest in limiting the political influence of the United States in Central Asia.

So who’s the greater fool? The ones who profess wisdom (but have none), or the ones who swallow their unwise bait like a fish caught on a hook? What a mess!

“The trouble isn’t that there are too many fools, but that the lightning isn’t distributed right.” MT

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

We have met the enemy...

I debated the title. The candidates were the one above,

“Locking the barn door after the horse is gone,” and “A card laid is a card played.” 

The application of these candidates concern what the whole world seems to be struggling to understand: why so many from prosperous Western nations are joining ISIS? The pundits have many theories but the one that makes most sense is the combination of disillusionment, disenfranchisement and injustice, in a socio-economic system that is growing increasingly fragmented and unfair.

MT, as many know, was not a fan of organized religion but he more than likely would side with Pope Francis who offered his own perspective: “Today in many places we hear a call for greater security. But until exclusion and inequality in society and between peoples are reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate violence. The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence, yet without equal opportunities the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and eventually explode. When a society—whether local, national or global—is willing to leave a part of itself on the fringes, no political programs or resources spent on law enforcement or surveillance systems can indefinitely guarantee tranquility.”

For sure there are many interlocking pieces that contribute to the fog but when the fog clears the answer boils down to what we don’t want to admit. In a previous post (Misery is an issue of mind over matter. If you don’t mind, it doesn’t matter.) I suggested, “Not only do the fortunate have an obligation to share the fruits of labor, there is a necessity to do so, and the proof is bursting in evidence throughout the world.” MT echoed this with his own clarity of vision: “The silent colossal National Lie that is the support and confederate of all the tyrannies and shams and inequalities and unfairnesses that afflict the peoples—that is the one to throw bricks and sermons at.”

To quote Pogo: “We have met the enemy and he is us,” which perfectly sums up the foibles of mankind and the nature of the human condition. If we were more attentive to insuring civil equality than insuring inequality we might find a much more compassionate and efficient way of conducting our affairs. “Economic inequality is not simply unfair—it has dire consequences for virtually every major problem facing our society.”

“Loyalty to petrified opinion, never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul.”

MT wasn’t big on inflexible, dogmatic minds, and was suspicious of points of view, and institutions, that didn’t pass the litmus test of examination. He figured if an idea was valid it would pass the test, and if it didn’t, then move on down the road.

He said, “In religion and politics, people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”

As far as he was concerned, religion was like marriage: easy to get into and hard to get out of. While he cherished his marriage he pointed out that in many cases, “It is easier to stay out than get out.” One may enter as a matter of curiosity, hope and unknowing, but was kicked out because of the opposite. Stagnant beliefs were no better to him than stagnant water: neither moved and both stank. In his words, “A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows.”

A most peculiar human tendency occurs when closed-minded people profess to be open-minded. His view was that traveling far and wide opened those closed minds and exposed a person’s honesty and genuine nature: “Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one’s lifetime,” and “the gentle reader will never, never know what a consummate ass he can become until he goes abroad.” 

While quick to expose pretenders and the self-righteous, along with the current Dali Lama, he embraced kindness. They lived in different times but said essentially the same thing: “This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.”

Misery is an issue of mind over matter. If you don’t mind, it doesn’t matter.

Sorry MT for the plagiarism but your wisdom is too sublime to avoid. Besides, according to one of your colleagues, “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” and my rhetorical reconstruction is intended as flattery. Yes, I know you employed the word “Age” rather than “Misery” but the switch fits the point of my post: happiness and misery, the summation being—You can’t build happiness on the back of someone else’s misery.

In today’s conventional wisdom, that notion is contradicted with clichés like Makers and Takers, or more aptly Winners and Losers. Both of these expressions assume that happiness does indeed come about when built on the backs of those denied. But that illogic overlooks the integral union of necessity pointed out by Martin Luther King, Jr., “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” or to reconstruct his notion: Winners/Makers must be the force that leads to justice for all, and if not then chaos will prevail.

This latter point should be apparent but alas it’s not. Instead the cliché prevails that somehow, unexplainable, the fortunate can deny those who enabled their fortune and live happily ever after. Or to use your vernacular: It just ain’t so. Not only do the fortunate have an obligation to share the fruits of labor, there is a necessity to do so, and the proof is bursting in evidence throughout the world. Makers and Takers implies an untruth: that those who enable fortune are unnecessary. Without one, the other ceases to exist and to deny this rather obvious point, misery of the denied will, and does, lead to misery of all.