There are all these people preaching hate in the name of freedom. I don’t know why they’re doing it — their idea of what’s important to freedom don’t seem to line up with mine — and I’d like to become curious, some time, about what they’re doing. But for now, I’m just really really sick of it.

Health Care Reform

The current health care legislation is lame and inadequate, but for purposes of this post, let’s assume we’re talking about real reform — the kind that means people don’t go blind or lose limbs or die because they can’t afford health care.

Here’s what I want to tell folks who claim to be speaking for freedom, for limited government, for constitutional government:

AFTER we’re free of a census that asks us to tell the government our “race”,
AFTER we don’t have standing armies all over the world,
AFTER we aren’t in a permanent state of war against a vague enemy,
AFTER we aren’t in a “drug war” that results in a higher percentage of Americans being in prison than citizens of any other major country and kills zillions of people each year,
AFTER corporations aren’t treated as people while being protected from the consequences of their actions,
AFTER we no longer have an IRS that’s above the law and ruins lives,
AFTER the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is seen as a horrible, tragic mistake we once made, and could never make again…

AFTER all those things, and after we’ve solved the problem of human beings experiencing horrible suffering for lack of health care while we stand by and do nothing, let’s sit down over a nice cup of coffee and see if we can come up with an even better solution that honors that beautiful thing called liberty.

Of course, you need calories to live, so consumers must be careful not to attempt to live on Diet Coke alone. “However,” says Becky Phlemming, vice president of corporate strategy for con-agra, “there is an easy solution. Wonder Bread has now created a 100% whole grain bread made from our albino wheat, so it’s still white as the driven snow.”

Stay tuned for more breaking news, including ingredients lists.

P.S. Some folks have told me they’re not sure if I’m serious. Well, I *am* serious, in that these products really exist. I’m not serious about them being good for you. Yuck!

War used to be easy to identify. It happened between states—governments, actually—according to predictable rules. But when someone blows up a building for a political cause, is it an act of war, or a crime? When bin Laden’s people did it in September, 2001, it was an act of war. When McVey et. al. did it in 1993, it was treated as a crime. When Iraqis do it, it’s treated as both at once.

It’s important to know the difference, because our constitution limits what police can do. They are forbidden, for example, from driving down the road shooting whoever looks suspicious. They aren’t permitted to arrest people and put them in secret prisons with no access to attorneys, and without filing charges.

The idea isn’t new that “rights” just don’t apply to certain groups of people. We’ve all heard someone say that child molesters don’t have rights. Lately, we hear that terrorists don’t have rights.

But here in America, we’re supposed to understand that people are innocent until proven guilty. Innocent men have rights. If we forget that because of the horror of the crimes involved, we will have given up on what it means to be freedom-lovers.

On my first trip, in April-May 2003, we would walk out on the streets of Baghdad at night, albeit with caution. Even on my second trip, in the summer of 2003, I would feel comfortable hopping in a car and driving 100 miles north from Baghdad to Tikrit. To do either of those things now would be suicidal.

His chronicle of the war, Fiasco: America’s Military Adventure in Iraq, gives senior military officials a voice for their frustrations, and brings us a clear view of both the heroes and the tragic mistakes of this “adventure.”

We are supposed to be at war in Iraq, but not against Iraq. And certainly not against the Iraqi civilians. But I wonder if part of the problem is that we don’t know who we’re fighting.

In World War II, when U.S. forces fought in France, it was clear that we were fighting against German Nazis. The French were happy to have us there. When U.S. troops entered Afghanistan, the war was (and is) against Afghanistan under the Taliban government, who provided refuge to Al Quaeda.

When soldiers entered Iraq, the war was with Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein. You may have noticed that Hussein is no longer in charge there. But we are still fighting. No one there has weapons of mass destruction. Who is the enemy? With no Hussein, can we still call this thing in Iraq a war?

By now, some foreign America-haters have taken the opportunity to join the fray. Mostly, though, we’re fighting Iraqis who don’t want us there. Maybe instead of calling it a war, we should call it “helping the Iraqi government restore and maintain peace.” But helping would imply that if the Iraqi government said “Thanks, we’ll be fine now. Bye-bye,” the U.S. troops would come home, that if the Iraqis elected not to host foreign bases, we’d quietly move on. And nobody believes that.

It’s been called a “war on terror.” That doesn’t actually name an enemy, but we’re not supposed to notice that. I do notice, though, and I also notice that terrorism seems to be what you call the acts of war committed by the weak side. When the strong side terrorizes civilians in order to gain compliance, we call that “winning the hearts and minds.”

What we’re fighting is rebellion. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” Terrorism is simply a method for rebellion. It’s what small forces use to fight large ones. It’s horrible, but no more horrible than war.

If you can’t really be at war against terrorism, an idea, maybe we’re at war against terrorists, the people. Let’s see. There’s Al Quaeda. That’s a given. Then there are the Sunnis and Shias that kill each other in Iraq. Then there’s the Iraqi military, and you never know who they’re going to kill. (Same for the U.S. Military, apparently.)

Here’s the point. If “the war” were against Al Quaeda, then when Al Quaeda’s leaders are brought down, it will be over. If “the war” were against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, it’d be over now. After all, Americans are not fighting the Republican Guard. That war is done.

But this war is not going to be over anytime soon. The reason we don’t have a named enemy is that the American government is fighting a war against rebellion, against anyone who doesn’t follow its plan.

It’s been called “the long war.” And it will be long. Rebellion isn’t going to be eradicated any time soon.

Meanwhile, Iraq is a prison, with our soldiers the guards, trapped right along with the rioting inmates. Rebellious or just potentially rebellious, all prisoners are suspect, and presumed guilty of something.

The song, in turn, was based on a traditional story about a fellow who, when he was to be released from prison, wrote a letter to his sweetie asking her to let him know if he would be welcome by tying a yellow ribbon around the oak tree in the yard.

The connection between the story (made popular by the song) and the current yellow ribbon craze is a bit strange. But don’t worry; the history lesson will be brief.

In October of 1979, the deposed leader of Iran, the Shah, was admitted to the U.S. for medical treatment, angering many Iranians. In November the American Embasy was attacked, and 66 Americans were taken hostage. Some were released, but most were kept for the next 14 months.

It was a very difficult time in America. Anger against Iranian-Americans was strong, prices were high, and people were afraid. Yellow ribbons sprouted on trees and cars and houses saying “We haven’t forgotten you, we are working to get you home, and we will welcome you.”

It’s a lovely message, and it’s a darn shame that it’s been lost in the current hysteria. I’d be proud to wear a yellow ribbon that means “We’re sorry you’re trapped in a horrible place. We haven’t forgotten you, we are working to get you home, and we will welcome you.”

Yesterday, he asked me whether there were any circumstances in which it would be ok to lie. As I thought about it, I found the writings of both Mohatma Gandhi and Marshall Rosenberg coming to mind. Here is some of what Gandhi had to say:

I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor.

…

Self-defence….is the only honourable course where there is unreadiness for self-immolation.

Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right.
And Marshall Rosenberg tells us that sometimes the protective use of force is called for, but never punitive use, and that the protective use of force is neither a method of communication nor a way to teach a lesson (or help someone learn). It is a way to prevent harm.

I’m not sure yet if it’s a metaphor, or if lying and force are more literally equivalent. But lying is clearly a way to change someone’s behavior or response to match your agenda, rather than her own. The policeman at my door would presumably prefer to follow her own agenda with accurate information about the situation, rather than basing her choices on a lie. The same is true for the next-door-neighbor who wonders how our homeschooling is going.
What I’ve noticed is that there are situations that might well result in harm to me or my loved ones if I were to tell the truth. In the case of a neighbor, personal questions may result in harsh judgements or gossip. For the police officer, there may be a danger of corruption. Then, of course, there is the famous example of the Nazis at the door, asking if you’ve seen the little Jewish girl.

So the answer I gave my son was that in self-defense (or defense of another), I think it may be ok to lie. “Oh, good,” he told me. He’s so cool.

My kids would never imagine that I’d condone any kind of violence against loved ones.

So, obviously, this PSA wasn’t aimed at me. Who was it aimed at, then? The families that beat their kids? If a parent hasn’t taught their kids that a home is a safe, loving place, how is a new lecture from those same parents going to teach them?

The explanation is pretty simple. The PSA is not intended to change anything. It’s just another of the subtle lies we live with. It’s a lullaby, with a hidden message: Don’t worry about how screwed up the world is. All you have to do is listen to PSAs. Everything’s under control.

This interview at webmonkey really sums it up nicely. If you want to read more about her, her blog is at subvert.com.

I wonder if she knows about NVC?

If you’re interested in really getting what’s going on with this war, you should definitely watch it. It’s not some whacked-out conspiracy thing. It’s the real story, with interviews with real, somewhat ordinary government people talking about what our foreign policy is about.

(And as an added bonus, you can see a picture of Rumsfeld having a buddy-buddy chat with Mr. Hussein.)