Mosque at ground zero

For the last few days I've been collecting my thoughts on the issue of building a mosque near ground zero. My position on the issue has been consistent, but I've been trying to find a good way to lay it out. So here goes:

I do oppose the building of a mosque that close to ground zero. I feel it's a slap in the face to the citizens of New York and to Americans in general. I'm offended at the thought that an Imam would think that a mosque that close to where some radical Muslims slew 3,000 people would be a good idea. It's just plain bad form.

However, from a legal / political standpoint, I don't see a problem with it........WHAT!? No problem with a mosque at ground zero? I can hear some people screaming at their computer screens, "What's wrong with you!? You un-American explicative! How dare you bend to the terrorists will!! How can you claim to be a conservative and say you support this crap!"

Before you decide to never speak to me again or resolve to set my house on fire, allow me to explain myself.

I have a pretty strong libertarian streak. What that means, in the simplest of terms, is I don't support the attitude that says, "I like this, so the government should make everybody do that." And conversely, and especially relative to the case of this mosque, I oppose the view that says, "This offends me, so it should be illegal." I don't turn to the government to solve all my problems. Nor do I want government to force my will on others. The fact that Islamic extremists killed people nearby does not mean that we should outlaw the construction of a mosque in the vicinity of the site. Hitler was Roman Catholic. So a cathedral in Auschwitz should be outlawed as well, right?

Asking the city, state, or federal government to do or stop something just because you do or don't like it is called political activism. It's the political equivalent of demanding that all businesses have special rooms for breastfeeding mothers or that schools serve a vegetarian selection with school lunch.

"But building a mosque there will only create more terrorists!"

Many claim that allowing a mosque near ground zero is conceding victory to the terrorists who masterminded the 9/11 plot and will result in increased terrorist recruiting. For one thing, the Islamic faith didn't attack us on 9/11. An Islamic extremist terrorist cell did. "Muslim" does not equal "Islamic extremist terrorist". In geometric terms, squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. The argument that a mosque will just be a terrorist recruiting tool is irrational and, honestly, Islamophobic. In my time fighting Islamic extremists in Afghanistan, I learned two things. First, Muslims are people too (okay, I already knew that, but it seems that some have forgotten it). But above that, most Muslims want peace and quiet just as much as Christians, Jews, Agnostics, Atheists, Hindus, and Sikhs want it. Second, Islamic extremists hate you - period. It doesn't matter if you try to appease them, ignore them, or kill them. They'll still hate you.

Extremism is just that - extreme. It's illogical and stupid. If you do what an extremist demands, then you are a pushover and must be killed. If you ignore him, you are stupid and must be killed. If you oppose him, you are an enemy and must be killed. If you join him, you are less than pure and must be killed. All your decisions end in your death being required. Any argument stating that choice x, y, or z will result in less or more terrorism is null. So, if we can't base our decision on how the terrorist will react, perhaps we should base it on what our own constitution and laws dictate.

Last time I checked, we live in a country that upholds the freedom of religion. That means you can subscribe to any religion and worship, who, what, and where you want as long as your acts don't infringe on the safety or freedom of others. Building a mosque near ground zero does not infringe on the safety or freedom of anybody. It's rude and offensive, but feelings aren't protected by the constitution.

"But Glenn Beck said that this guy has ties to Hamas!"

From what I can tell, this guy knows a guy who donated to a group that's affiliated with Hamas. Where I come from (America), that's circumstantial evidence and is invalid. I'm pretty sure I probably know a guy or two that donated to a group that's affiliated with some questionable organization, too. Should I be investigated?

"He and the sources of his funding should at least be investigated!"

If we investigate him, then it's only fair that sources of funding for all religious buildings in the U.S. be investigated as well. Additionally, investigating the sources of his funding would require due process, which requires reasonable suspicion. "He knows a guy who donated to a group that's affiliated with a terrorist group" is not reasonable suspicion.

"But you said you oppose the mosque. Then you defended it. You're a hypocrite!"

I do oppose the mosque on principle. But principle does not equal law. Nor should it.

"If you really oppose the mosque, then you'll at least tell me how to stop them from building it!"

Okay. Here's how. You protest. The same amendment that protects this Imam's right to have a mosque protects your right to freedom of expression. You boycott the companies supplying the mosque's building materials. You boycott the construction companies. You do some research and let any company that does any work on that mosque know that you will ensure that it's current and prospective customers know that it helped build the mosque at ground zero. You get up and go stand in front of the building and protest. You cancel your membership to any organization that supports the mosque, etc, etc, etc. And the day there is real evidence that this Imam is actually recruiting, supporting, or training terrorists, you demand that he be investigated.

"But that's hard!"

So was gaining our independence from England and creating a republic that defends individual freedoms. Including religious freedom.

The Ambulance Down in the Valley

'Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed,
Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant;
But over its terrible edge there had slipped
A duke and full many a peasant.
So the people said something would have to be done,
But their projects did not at all tally;
Some said, "Put a fence 'round the edge of the cliff,"
Some, "An ambulance down in the valley."

But the cry for the ambulance carried the day,
For it spread through the neighboring city;
A fence may be useful or not, it is true,
But each heart became full of pity
For those who slipped over the dangerous cliff;
And the dwellers in highway and alley
Gave pounds and gave pence, not to put up a fence,
But an ambulance down in the valley.

"For the cliff is all right, if you're careful," they said,
"And, if folks even slip and are dropping,
It isn't the slipping that hurts them so much
As the shock down below when they're stopping."
So day after day, as these mishaps occurred,
Quick forth would those rescuers sally
To pick up the victims who fell off the cliff,
With their ambulance down in the valley.

Then an old sage remarked: "It's a marvel to me
That people give far more attention
To repairing results than to stopping the cause,
When they'd much better aim at prevention.
Let us stop at its source all this mischief," cried he,
"Come, neighbors and friends, let us rally;
If the cliff we will fence, we might almost dispense
With the ambulance down in the valley."

It seems to me that many of the entitlement programs out there could be considered an ambulance at the bottom of the valley instead of a fence at the top of the cliff. Giving people 2 years worth of unemployment compensation does not help to solve unemployment. Foodstamps, wic, chip, and other so-called "welfare" programs do little to raise people out of poverty.

I understand the basis of the argument for entitlement programs, yet I also understand the argument for their elimination. I personally believe that the federal government should administer very few if any entitlement programs.

Legitimacy of their existence aside, I take issue with another philosophy as well. Encouragement to sign up for the programs angers me. When I was preparing to come home from my training in the army, one of the briefings that I received was called "re-integration to civilian life" or something like that. I was infuriated by the content of the briefing. There was virtually no discussion on finding work, financial planning, and no emphasis on personal responsibility. Instead, the so-called counselor encouraged us to go straight to the unemployment office and get "signed up". She told us to sign up for wic if we had kids, gave us information on affordable housing and HUD, and gave us information on a slew of other programs. Later, when Nikki and I had Keely, a nurse approached us and asked us if we wanted information on how to sign up for CHIP and WIC. Then again, while getting Keely some shots, another nurse asked us if we wanted to get CHIP.

This encouragement to sign up for entitlement programs aggravates me. I just don't think there should be an effort to recruit people to become participants. If someone inquires about an existing program, great, but I don't think we should go around asking for new enrollments. It's almost like somebody's getting paid commission. It's an affront to me to suggest that I can't take care of myself and my own without the government helping me along every step of the way. I would be ashamed to take federal (and therefore taxpayer) money just because I qualify. Even if a person needs the help, I would certainly hope that he or she would be embarrassed enough about it that they get off as soon as possible.

But I digress (always wanted to say that). Back to my original point. It seems that the government all too often focuses on the symptoms of society's ills instead of the root causes. Perhaps that's because many of the problems that entitlement programs address are rooted in social issues more than simple economic problems. And, unfortunately, you can't legislate human behavior.

Credit or Financial Bondage?

When I was in Russia, I often encountered signs at retail stores that read "купить в кредит". The phrase means "buy with credit" or "financing available". These signs were on all types of stores. Clothing stores, electronics outlets, even grocery stores were adorned with the phrase. I remember thinking to myself, "Who in their right mind would walk into a store and use financing to buy a t-shirt or a pair of pants, or their food?" The concept seemed truly insane to me.

After returning home I got on with my life and forgot about the silly signs. Eventually I got married, found an apartment to rent, started school, and became involved with life. That's when, at the age of 22, I was talked into getting a credit card. I honestly didn't understand the concept of the credit card at the time. I knew the fundamentals of the card (an open line of credit that, if not paid off in a set period of time, gathers interest), but I didn't understand what the card offered me that I couldn't obtain without it. I nonetheless decided to keep the card and my wife and I used it to buy groceries and gas. We were good little cardholders and paid it off at the end of every month.

I soon discovered that this good behavior was rewarded with a higher credit "rating". As my credit score climbed, I was offered cards with higher limits. Before long, cards showed up in the mail offering me limits higher as high as $10,000. That was neat and all, but I saw no need for a fancy card. I stuck with my $1,600 limit gas and grocery card. About 6 months ago my wife and I decided to just stop using the card altogether. Budgeting was just easier without the card.

To this day, I still don't understand the justification for using a credit card. I think it comes back to the same voice in the back of my head that asked while I was in Russia, "Who in their right mind would walk into a store and use financing to buy a t-shirt or a pair of pants, or their food?" After all, that is what we do when we use a credit card. We finance whatever we buy with it.

In my opinion, using a credit card, or any form of consumer credit, is like playing with fire. It may be fun, but eventually you will get burnt. I see nothing that you can buy with credit that you can't buy without at a lower risk. To be honest, if you don't feel comfortable buying something without credit, then it's probably not a good idea to buy it with credit.

What does a credit score really get you? More opportunities for borrowing. So we get caught in this cycle where we assume that in order to succeed in life we have to borrow money and pay it back so we can borrow more money later. And so we borrow, and borrow, and borrow. We don't get any more wealthy as our monthly payments grow. In fact, we probably actually get poorer as our payments grow. It seems that the only people who do get rich are the lenders from which we borrow. I just don't get it.

A financial guru I recently discovered by the name of Dave Ramsey says his entire philosophy of how to achieve financial freedom and wealth is based on his observations of what made the wealthy wealthy and what keeps the middle class in the middle. He discovered, surprise surprise, that the wealthy become such by avoiding debt, living within their means, and budgeting their money while the middle class bought into the myth that you have to borrow money to survive.

I personally believe that wealth is actually measured in units of time, not in dollars. That is to say that a person's wealth is actually measured by how much time he or she can survive if his or her active income dries up. True wealth is when your passive income (dividends, interest, etc) outgrows your expenses. At that point, you are "infinitely" wealthy.

For example, say man 1 has $10,000 in the bank. He makes a measly $20,000 per year, but has no debt at all. His utilities, food, and other necessary expenses total $1,000 per month. This man is 10 months wealthy.

Man 2 has $10,000 in the bank as well, but he makes $45,000 per year. It may be contended that he is "richer" than man 1, but he, unlike man 1, has a $1,500 per month mortgage, a $300 car payment, and his minimum credit card payment is $200. I doubt he's unlike the average american. Let's assume that this man's utilities, food, and other necessary expenses also total $1,000 per month. This means that man 2 is a little over 3 months wealthy. Man 2 undoubtedly needs a higher income to support his needs than man 1 does. Conventional wisdom may say that man 1 is poor, but I believe him to be more wealthy than man 2.

Debt is the greatest hindrance to financial freedom. There's no getting around it. Debt, not income level, is what makes people poor. I'm just amazed how many people willingly tie the noose around their own necks.

Bumper Sticker Patriotism

As I checked my email this morning, I discovered that I was the fortunate recipient of a chain letter that included a smattering of pictures of soldiers, helicopters and tanks. It droned on about the troops out there serving us and how lucky we are to live in a country like this. At the end of the message there was a nice line informing me that if I was truly a patriot that I would forward it on to at least 1o people and that if I didn't do so I dishonored the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. Upon surveying the subject line, I noticed that at least 4 great patriots had shown their love for this country as I could see as many "FW:'s" there.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't intend to mock the individual who is touched by a message and forwards it on to a friend. Nor do I want to say that using a blog or email to make a patriotic or political statement is stupid (if that were true, I'd be the stupidest of us all). What I am trying to point out is that emails and bumper stickers should not be the sum of our efforts. Or, rather, I am trying to contrast that to what I view as real, honorable patriotism.

When you go to your town's independence day parade, look for that beat up pickup truck carrying the 70 and 80 something year old guys in white shirts and dark blue hats. There you'll find a handful of patriots.

If you find yourself at a city council meeting, look at those council members who work through mountains of red tape and monotony to serve their fellow citizens. Look at the concerned citizens sitting on the broken metal chairs who come time and time again to ensure that their community is served properly. You'll likely find some patriots there.

This November as you wait in a surprisingly short line to show your support for one or another candidate, look at the gaggle of people in the room with you. There are some patriots among them.

Next time you see a handful of kids from a church group strolling the shoulder of the highway, picking up the trash you threw out your car window, realize you're looking at a handful of patriots.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that involvement, service, and action are the real signs of patriotism. Bumper stickers that read "Obama-nation" or a t-shirts that say "Hope and Change" do nothing to serve the best interest of you or your fellow men. But when you study candidates and place your vote, or when you voice your opinion at a council meeting, or when you volunteer to serve your community, then you have made the brave leap from peanut gallery to patriot.

Patriotism is not shouting, "Yes we can!" It's quietly standing up and saying, "Yes I will."

Save us Petraeus!

About 2 years ago (still can't believe it's already been that long), while in Afghanistan, a friend of mine stuck a picture similar to the one below up on our wall.

At the time the ISAF (international Security Assistance Force) commander was General David McKiernan. As we saw it, McKiernan was an ineffective commander. He obviously had no understanding of COIN (Counter-Insurgency) to speak of, spent much of his time kissing you know what, and seemed incapable of instilling confidence in his troops. So we coined the pun "Save us Petraeus" in the blind hope that perhaps the powers that be would see the light and move Petraeus, who was the main force behind the successes that were taking place in Iraq, to our neighborhood as the new commander of ISAF. The picture raised questions from the few who managed to weasel their way into our office and sparked some good conversation and debate. However, the months wore on, Mckiernan stayed, and eventually we were sent home.

Later, at a so-called "redeployment retreat" that was filled with don't kill yourself and don't slap your spouse briefings, my friend pulled me aside and showed me a presentation that had been masterminded by a Stanley McChrystal. I didn't know much about McChrystal at the time except that he had been a spokesperson in the "stuff happens" days of Rumsfeld. I later learned that McChrystal had been "off the radar" because he was conducting "off the radar" operations. Makes sense.

Anyway, I reviewed the presentation and was shocked to see that this general who I knew so little about had viewpoints that closely mirrored my own. (I don't mean to say that my viewpoints are always right, but anybody that knows me also knows that I tend to assume they are) The man advocated a campaign that would consist of scores of small bases in or near Afghan villages that housed NATO and Afghan troops working side by side all the time. It recommended a scaling up of psychological operations (fancy talk for propaganda), a heavier reliance on human intelligence operations (which I really liked for some weird reason), hinted to operations in Pakistan, and focused on a real support of and a genuine transition of responsibility to the Afghan Forces. Odd....this presentation seemed to actually sound like COIN. I loved the presentation and agreed wholeheartedly, but at the time I noted that if this new strategy was implemented, several things would happen. More troops would be needed. More people (including civilians) would die. The time required for any measure of success would be years and years out. And, as a result, I predicted that support for the effort would likely decline.

At or around the same time, I learned that McChrystal would be replacing McKiernan. He was, in my eyes, a second choice to Petraeus for the job. I thought that we finally would make some progress if President Obama, congress, and the general public could understand and support the strategy. To a degree, that's exactly what happened. President Obama at least pretended to stand behind McChrystal, more bad guys were being killed, and some success seemed to be made.

McChrystal has one weakness as a high profile general. He has trouble dealing with politicians and careerists. He's an infantryman and is, therefore, rough around the edges, outspoken, and a bit callous. His request for 40,000 troops was leaked, I believe, in an intentional effort to force Obama to accommodate the request. He hasn't gotten along well with the politicians that force their way into his circle. He obviously doesn't like Biden or Kerry, and I honestly don't believe he enjoyed being around President Obama. (Yeah I know he voted for Obama. But I seem to think that was a career move. Also, I don't think an infantryman like McChrystal would really support "be nicer to POWs" McCain)

His rough demeanor finally caught up to him when Rolling Stone Magazine spotlighted him. McChrystal should have known better than to allow his staff to be that disrespectful. He should have kept his and his staff's lips tight. Now that the story's out, I don't see how Obama, Biden, or any politician can work with him effectively. Therefore, he should go.

In short, I think what McChrystal said was right, but he wasn't right to say it.

Anyway, it appears that my buddy and I are getting our wish. Petraeus has come to save us. And, though I feel that the move from Centcom to ISAF could be considered a step back, I still think Petraeus is the man for the job. He practically wrote the book on COIN, demonstrated its effectiveness in Iraq, is an inspiring leader, and actually knows how to deal with careerists and politicians. He seems to be the ideal blend for the job.

My one fear is that Obama will restrict Petraeus' ability to operate, manipulate the resulting failures, then pull out of Afghanistan prematurely. I fear that he'll say, "I tried McChrystal and Petraeus and they didn't work. What else can I do?", then pull out. I hope I'm wrong.