Myth # 1: Scientific Ignorance of the Church

From the Summa Theologica, by St. Thomas Aquinas, c. 1265 a.d. This excerpt is from the very first Article, "Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?"

"Reply to Objection 2:

Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy."

Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_myth

"Clenched Fist" Diplomacy

Obama: "Unclench your fist so we can shake hands." Iran: "So you admit you're wrong."

To Obama, it's all about theater. But in the international arena, theater translates into justification. The breakdown is this: O was elected on a retroactive plank of "I never would have attacked Iraq. Bush didn't have the evidence to justify what he told the world so he was wrong to attack." Iran studies our media (who doesn't? people in caves know who Monica Lewinsky was within days of that story). They know that O needs reasons. This is the game they want to play. Because reasons can be argued with, and the one with the best reasons will look like the one who has moral authority, which they believe they have. Back to the media- Our faults are out there for all the world to see. Iran's are implicit, but not advertised- they don't admit them. So it's easy for them to point to this or that individual American action of the past to paint us as wrong and them as victims. Now, the way to fight this is to do what everyone with a brain loved Ronald Reagan for: Being able to articulate American values in such a way as to make them obvious and unapologetic. Good rhetoric goes a long way. BUT (here's why I'm worried), OBAMA doesn't talk pro-American rhetoric too good. When he tries to explain why he loves this country, it comes out stilted and self-serving. It was only when he criticized Bush that he was eloquent (even though wrong). I'm going to point to my own posts from the election- this is what I worried about then, and still do. He wants to talk to our enemies, but to them, talk is cheap. To us, talk should be cheap, but it's not. Talk got Obama elected. Iran would have worried about McCain. They don't have any worries about Obama...

Where is the "Palestinian" Gandhi?

I have frequently been struck by the irony of the so-called "intifadas." Here are the so-called "Palestinians" (why do I put the name in quotes? see Joan Peters, see Moses Hess and Theodor Herzl) who have sent their very children to take on the Israel Defense Forces. These children take their stand (while covering for armed adult terrorists who fire from behind them), but according to the cameras, it is the "army of Davids" hurling their stones against the Israeli Goliaths. Why is this still a debate? Children against tanks, children against soldiers, it's a wonder that there isn't more support for their cause than there is. But ultimately this cause of theirs falls flat. I consider myself a reasonable man, I don't want anyone to suffer unjustly. But the "Palestinian" cause elicits no sympathy in me, and it elicits no sympathy from evangelical American Christians. This isn't only due to our pro-Israel "bias," or pro-Western bias, or anything of that sort. It is because the "Palestinians" are not engaged in non-violent resistance.

Non-violent resistance has a unique power. As practiced by Mahatma Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, Jr., or even Jesus Himself, it was powerful in that when an unjust law or force was applied, their followers had only to receive the blows of their oppressors to prove the injustice. That is very different from throwing stones at soldiers or firing rockets from Gaza. Those are provocations, not non-violence. Non-violence is restraint in the face of oppressive violence. But in the absence of Gaza rockets fired into Israel, there would have been no recent Israeli action in Gaza. There would have been no reason. Without the stone-throwing of the intifada (with armed adults behind them), there was no reason for an IDF response. This puts the lie to "Palestinian" "victimhood." If the "Palestinians" ever go non-violent, the world will be forced to yawn and look elsewhere for its martyr's-heart-on-the-sleeve cause, because the Israelis don't really DO anything to the "Palestinians." There are Arab members of the Israeli Knesset, Arab Israelis are citizens of Israel, the Jews don't tear down mosques or Islamic holy places- they left the Temple Mount in Waqf hands after the 6-Day War (why? why?) and it was the "Palestinians" who ravaged Joseph's Tomb and set fire to synagogues left in Gaza (not to mention looting and destroying perfectly good greenhouses which the Jews were paid to leave behind). This is yet another one of those clear-cut issues. Yasser Arafat was never Mohandas Gandhi, and Hamas leaders have certainly not been, and Abbas is not, because the "Palestinian" cause doesn't lend itself to non-violence, because it is only about violence against Israel and against a Jewish State.

Condemned to Repeat...again and again...

In I.T., you don't install an upgrade to a critical application without first testing it in a lab. That enables you to see what might go wrong. As a nation, we have an extraordinary test lab for dealing with Moslem fundamentalists, and that's Israel. Israel deals with these same people, with their same unyielding mindset, continuously. We can learn from their experiences.

Remarkably, one Prime Minister of Israel managed to initiate several experiences. (I'm being careful not to say "mistakes," with sensitivity to the fact that I don't live under those conditions, however much I may regard them as mistakes.) Ehud Barak (that's Barak, not Barack), made 2 major moves that Barack Obama (Barack, not Barak) is in the process of making. Let's look at the parallels.

1- Barak withdrew unilaterally from Lebanon. In the wake of the withdrawal, which arguably was overdue, Hezbull' proclaimed victory. An empty proclamation, perhaps, but certainly it gave them the foothold in S. Leb. that they have had. Now, what happened, long term, following the withdrawal? Israel had to go in AGAIN, for a Second Lebanon War, in greater force and against a stronger enemy.

PARALLEL: Barack wants to withdraw asap from Iraq. He has said so throughout the campaign. The day we leave, Al-Qaeda in Iraq (or Mesopotamia or whatever they're calling themselves) will proclaim victory. The circumstances will hopefully be different. Hopefully the Iraqis will be able to maintain control. Hopefully. Short-term, likely. Long-term, not so likely. It's a matter of attrition. Single-minded fanatics have a tendency to wear down anyone who isn't equally committed to some opposing mindset. I don't think the Iraqis have the long-term endurance necessary to maintain a war mindset against the terrorists who will infiltrate their society in areas sympathetic to their cause, especially without American presence and prodding. If al-Qaeda or some (other?) Iranian-backed group makes enough gains, it is entirely conceivable we will have a Second Iraq War. The irony would be if Barack had to lead that war.

2- Barak sat down with Yasser Arafat, made offers and tried to make a deal. He gave away more than Arafat had any right to expect, but Arafat's response was not only to turn down the deal, but to start the second intifada. For the Israelis, this was an important milestone, tragic for them though it was. That's because it took sitting down with Arafat and making him an offer, to show that he was not the least bit serious about peace with Israel. He didn't make a counter-offer. At the least any reasonable person would have expected the Israeli offer to begin a round of negotiations. But Arafat didn't try to negotiate, he introduced more violence. (Hamas doesn't even make any bones about it, they refuse to negotiate, refuse to recognize Israel, insist that their unwavering goal is to eliminate Israel. Why anyone misses that is beyond me.)

PARALLEL: Barack wants to open the diplomatic channels with Iran. He wants to talk with Ahmadinejad. Ahm. did exactly what I thought he would do once Barack made an overture: He demanded an apology. That's what he wants. An apology. Sadly, Barack might take that step, in part or in full, because you know what? he believes we are so in the wrong regarding the Moslem world (see countless other blogs on this). If Barack apologizes, that will not be enough. An apology is not sufficient. Reparations will be demanded. Ahm., like most religious fundamentalists, is on his most solid footing when he believes he has the moral high ground. That's what he wants. He may, now, decide to go easy. Cozy up to Barack and have a pow wow, a Camp David. Wouldn't that be HISTORICAL!!? Wow! Barack would love that- any president would, they all want that. Barack Obama the Peace Bringer! Glorious! But Ahm. will turn out to be like Arafat. He will give no ground, he only wants ground. Whose ground? Israel's ground. That will be his price. He has already said so, that is the price of Iranian rapprochement. Barack says he would never pay that price. But what if the Israelis go back into Gaza? What if Netanyahu becomes Prime Minister? What if Israel is provoked into losing the supposed moral high ground? Can Obi maintain his stance? Is he capable of it? Does he have the grasp of history and recent events to be able to support U.S. and/or Israeli actions when confronted with ambiguities? I hesitate to say he does, I haven't seen the evidence. He ran on reversing the last 8 years, and he's implementing it. That's not appropriate, and in the current world environment, it's dangerous.

Is it possible?

You'd have to have sworn a few years ago that the idea of one-world economic stewardship, by any one person or institution, was completely impossible. Capitalism defeated communism decisively when the Soviet Union came down, so it was inevitable that the lone remaining superpower would lead the rest of the world by the example of its free market system.

Now picture this. The world situation gets very bad as the repercussions of the financial crisis start reverberating into the "real world." There are food riots, protests against the G-7, and much finger-pointing. Everyone proclaims how the U.S. gov't bailed out Wall Street while letting "Main street" go downhill. The leaders of the world are at a loss what to do. Someone must step up to stop the downslide. How? Who? The how- by taking the same steps in every industry to "save" them as the U.S. gov't took in the financial sector. Of course. The who? Is there any doubt as to which party candidate will benefit from a bad economy during a Republican administration?

Is it possible what I am intimating? It doesn't seem so. It doesn't really seem possible for such an innocuous person. But the office frequently makes the man instead of the other way around.

Reduce Dependence on Foreign Oil

"Reduce dependence on foreign oil."
"We have to reduce dependence on foreign oil."
"How are we going to reduce dependence on foreign oil?"

Have you heard this phrase? I've heard it. I've said it. McCain says it. Obama says it. I think George W. Bush has said it. There are not too many people in this country who don't agree it is something we need to do. But why? Why do we want to reduce dependence on foreign oil? What are our reasons for doing so? In a healthy world economy, we don't necessarily care about the source of our goods. If your country can provide us cheaper oil than we can provide it ourselves, we will buy it with the money you pay us for our vast food resources. In a healthy world economy, this is not a bad thing. It's called comparative advantage.

Where it's no longer an advantage is when one side of the trade balance decides they've got the other by the balls and so they put the squeeze on. This is prevalent with oil-rich countries. Countries that control the flow of oil include a sizeable list of America's rivals and enemies, including Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq and Libya. So when we buy their oil, we put money in their pockets, and they use this money to propagandize against us and directly or indirectly fund terrorism against America and our allies. So, yes, by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, we stop the money flow to our enemies.

But we know this and it isn't why I'm writing this. The reason I'm writing this is because of the emphasis being taken off of foreign by the Obama camp. They don't want to just reduce our dependence on foreign oil, they want to reduce our dependence on oil, because they are focused on global warming and not at all on external threats from our rivals and enemies. That's why they don't want to drill here and take advantage of our own natural resources. The argument that it won't help us tomorrow or next week is specious. Just the fact that we are prepared to drill for our own oil would put a shock to the oil market. Countries and companies make long-term plans. When they see long-term moves, they realize that it changes the landscape. If we want a sure way to deal with a friendlier Russia, Iran and Venezuela, we can't just go there and talk. We need to show that we have plans to reduce our dependence on them, that they will at some point not be able to get their way around the world by playing the oil card, as Russia is doing now in Georgia, as Iran is doing with its nuclear program, as Venezuela is doing by nationalizing its fuel distribution network, as OPEC did in 1973. Sound foreign policy must include sound economic policies that favor us in the long and short terms. That will prevent more wars than talking to and appeasing tyrants. Now, if we want to add to this the development of cleaner energy, I'm not going to complain about it.

Russia is Betting Big on President Obama

Why is Russia suddenly so active? Invading Georgia, increasing their naval presence in the Mediterranean via Syrian ports, all of a sudden they are making some moves on the global board. My prediction is this will continue, albeit in a muted way, for the rest of the Bush presidency. They'll display some brinksmanship, back off now and then when necessary, and they will wait for comments by our two candidates. When it's McCain, they will overreact, call him dangerous. When it's Obama, they will very subtly demonstrate a willingness to hear him out. It will have to be subtle, because they can't be overtly pro-Obama, that would kill his candidacy. But if Obama can show that he has a gift with the Russians, he will appear to be the great statesman that this country "needs" to bring about cooperation around the world. If, Heaven forbid, he becomes president, watch for the Russians to start pulling some stunts and then accuse Obama of being "like Bush" if he overreacts.

Who's fault is this? Why, Obama's, of course. It is he who is setting up the idea that America has been too aggressive, that he must take the reigns of "change," to change the course of the country that Bush & Cheney have steered into such dangerous waters. Obama is going to have to deal with the fact that if he becomes president (it hurts just to think of it), he is going to have to answer to the leaders of these nations that he says he will talk to, as they say, "Yes, we agree Bush was a bad president. Now how are you going to make up to us for it?" He will have to back down in the international arena, or bend over backwards to get the wide consensus that he says we need for everything we want to do, as Russia, Iran, Venezuela, et al, have a field day with his "I'm sorry for my country's bad behavior, world" attitude.

Why does Barack Obama not recognize that when America acts in the world, it is to further the cause of liberty and freedom? It is not for oil. We don't have Iraqi oil. The price of oil has gone up since the Iraq war started- if we were pumping their oil into our own gas tanks then the price would have gone down. When Russia acts, as in Georgia, it is clearly for oil, it is for control of the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline. When we act, people in Iraq hold up an ink-stained finger signalling that they voted, that they stood on line to vote when the terrorists were threatening to blow them up while they did so.