"Happy" anniversary everyone. I propose that we observe it by not killing any innocents anywhere in the world today. I promise. Will you?

Yes, yes... what to do now...

In my opinion that would be to start governing right. By that of course I mean my perception of right though if you tell me there is only one "right" than we both shall be forced to accept what I am about to lay out. Government of, by and for the people. The people!

We need to start acting our age. We're 230 years old, for chrissakes and we're acting like we're 23. The most important thing in life isn't money (read those bibles). We don't have to respond to every provocation with military might, just because we can. When students learn martial arts, some do feel the need to "test" their skills in the world (not just the dojo), but mature students do not.

Appropriate response is the way of most arts, at least the Japanese ones that I know of, not just killing as always the answer (although their Samurai tradition was that).

In any case, when looking at the Iraq situation we need to acknowledge that we've made a mess with our stubborn need to order the world so that we can continue to consume most of the world's resources and have the greatest country in the world in which to be rich (possibly middle class too, though definitely not poor, but then they always have it rough).

To me it comes down to ideals. What do we stand for? That's a tough one and again we get into this idea that there is more than one truth. Ask George W. what his concept of "America" is. Now ask your dad. Now ask yourself. If our stated goal was something like "government of the people, by the people, for the people for the continuous enrichment of the human race", what do you think our foreign policy would be like? In what ways would people of other countries behave toward us? Would they hate us? Would they try to kill us? Or would they act like most of us do when someone treats us with honesty and respect and try to work together and live rich full lives? Of course we'd possibly have to learn to exist with multi-million dollar corporations which are not the most rapacious organizations, economically speaking, in the history of mankind.

I'm not much of a Bible reader usually but I know that somewhere in it, in one of it's lucid passages, it says "...the love of money is the root of all evils". If we accept the Bible as having value in our American society (and don't we?) then why do we not accept this simple truth. First. We can worry about the finer points (like gays and capital punishment) once we have our house in order.

What would that all mean in Iraq now, today?

This is a response that I wrote on another blog on which somebody was attempting to justify the invasion (of Iraq). The blogger has written that the reason that no shots were fired in the cold war (wasn't Viet Nam part of the cold war?) was that the Soviets knew there would be repercussions to anything they "started" (like when they invaded Afghanistan and we boycotted the Olympics see? consequences). He was claiming that Hussein felt no such constraint.

"He actually believed he could fire any weapon he wanted and not get fired on in return..." Who says, you? Rush Limbaugh? A lame attempt at justifying what should have been Bush's first reason for going in (according to Charlie), to effect regime change.

The idea that we should openly declare our intent to bring about "regime change" in a sovereign nation is unprecedented and, in my mind, unwarranted here. In fact, no single "reason" that I've ever heard holds any water at all. WMDs? Were none. 9/11? Even Bush says no link (now, in 2006). To effect regime change? I don't think they actually said that, did they? I think what they said was it was necessary to disarm him. Well at least they did do that but that's where the plan stopped. Unfortunately, the trouble did not.

No, none of the reasons are valid and they never were; the idea was to throw out a lot of (bogus) reasons and let the number of them lend weight of its own (never a good idea).

The reason that it's such a mess is because of the muddled reasoning that went into it. Akin to building a house using all faulty materials; will that house stand long? It's hard to fight a war without clear objectives. You can say our objectives were clear (the reasons listed above), but clear objectives based on fallacy don't get you anywhere. The mission "should" have been go in, disarm Hussein, whatever that means, finding all WMDs and "safing" them, apprehend all 9/ll plotters and then assist the spontaneous uprising of "democracy" and come on back home with our heads held high. But we couldn't because there were no WMDs, there were no 9/11 plotters or aiders/abettors (some sympathizers though, oh yeah) and disarming Hussein and changing the regime (oh, we've changed it all right, we just don't know what to) didn't "win" us anything and certainly hasn't won us the war, on terror or even in Iraq.

The question still remains, however: what to do now?

What a relief this is:

Stolen Munch paintings found safe
Two masterpieces by artist Edvard Munch have been recovered two years after they were stolen from an Oslo museum.
The Scream and Madonna were found in a police operation. "We are 100% certain they are the originals. The damage was much less than feared," police said.

They had been missing since two armed men ripped them from the wall and threatened staff at the Munch Museum in the Norwegian capital in August 2004.

Three men were found guilty of charges relating to the theft in May.

"We felt it was a victory today when the pictures turned up," police chief Iver Stensrud told a press conference in Oslo.

"For two years and nine days we have been hunting systematically for these pictures and now we've found them."

Mr Stensrud added that police believed the paintings had remained in Norway since they were stolen.

"We feel we have been hot on the trail of the paintings the whole time, but it has taken time," he said.

The Scream, painted in 1893, is one of the world's most recognisable paintings.

The artworks will now be examined by experts to establish what effect their two-year disappearance has had on their condition.

Mr Stensrud said no reward had been paid but would not give details of how the paintings were recovered.

Police said no new arrests had been made and the two gunmen remain at large.

In May, Bjoern Hoen, 37, was sentenced to seven years for planning the robbery, Petter Tharaldsen, 37, got eight years for driving the getaway car and Petter Rosenvinge, 34, received four years for supplying the vehicle.

Hoen and Tharaldsen were also ordered to pay 750m kroner (£62.3m) compensation to the City of Oslo to reflect the value of its lost paintings.

Three other men were acquitted. All had pleaded not guilty.

Mr Stensrud said those convicted had not contributed to the recovery of the paintings.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/entertainment/5303200.stm

Published: 2006/08/31 16:59:38 GMT

© BBC MMVI

"The Scream" is my favorite painting.

I've been entering this stupid contest since early May to win a trip to Milwaukee Brewers Fantasy Camp, one entry allowed per person per Brewers telecast and tonight I won. Eight trips there were, four were awarded in June at a must-be-present-to-win drawing and four more tonight. Lucky me!

They've chosen not to print my most recent letter to the editor, or so it appears anyway, so here it is:

The writer of the letter of Thursday has it half right, there is a major difference between killing and murder. It's the second part of his letter that I have to disagree with. He states: "There are rules for fighting wars." Some would argue with this but let's say I agree. His next statement is more of a problem: "The United States abides by these rules the best it can." Really? So is the napalming of innocent children and the saturation bombing of civilian population centers within the rules or is it more an example of the best we can do? What about the treatment of prisoners, are there rules for this (yes) and are we following them the "best we can"?

"The real question is how can people...hate Bush so much that they would rather see our country fall to pieces to get rid of Bush? It makes me wonder who the real enemy is."

Is it really "hating Bush", someone who most of us have never met, or do we hate the way he represents us on the world stage? And who would rather "see our country fall to pieces"? Many of us believe that "getting rid of" the current administration (at the polls) would be a good thing for our country. As to who the "real enemy" is: I wonder too.

That's it for this post I guess.