opa-opines.net

Little time has passed since the election and powerful issues are begging for attention.

The war is marching into a unique stage. Recently Iraq agreed to a “status of forces” compromise that will quickly move US troops out of combat and into enclaves, subject to the will of the Iraqi government. Afghanistan, noting the agreed withdrawal in Iraq, wants to negotiate the withdrawal of American forces. This is huge change in the war picture.

Iraq is an immediate problem for the new administration. The proposed status of forces agreement contains several unacceptable conditions: Iraqi government approval for operations outside U.S. enclaves; searching incoming supply packages and checking personal mail; and making American civilian contractors subject to Iraqi law. I can see the Iraqi politician’s point of view concerning US military activities, but a politically restricted army is very vulnerable. Bush, who has spoken against any time line for disengaging from Iraq, has suddenly taken an unfortunate reversal.

Inspecting a soldier’s personal mail violates his privacy rights. In previous wars it was common for our intelligence agencies to censor private mail to avoid a soldier unconsciencely compromising security by revealing operational data. Our soldiers complained, but accepted the practice since they knew the importance of security. Having a foreign government censor the mail is without justification.

Making civil contractors subject to Iraq law is a mistake. Because if our military restructuring since 1990s, we are dependent on civilian contractors for supply, providing meals, and transportation. Security of our diplomatic agencies has been outsourced to civilian contractors. If a terrorist attacks our Ambassadors. We cannot adequately protect such civilians without freedom of action – without fear of being arrested for using forceful techniques.

If our new administration is stuck with such an agreement, I believe we should quickly remove our forces from these countries.

Our election season is not over, Georgia is having a runoff election for the US senate. There is a clear choice in this senate race. Senator Chambliss seems to be a man without honor. In the 2002 election he ran against Max Cleland, and won by a narrow margin. How he “won” illustrates the evil that elections often celebrate.

Max Cleland is an American hero. Max served honorably during the Vietnam war and lost three limbs while serving his country. Max suffered the pain of surgical procedures, the emotional stress of adjusting to his damaged body, and the fatiguing work of extensive physical and occupational therapy. Max earned the title of patriot.

Chambliss artfully dodged the draft. Through many deferments, Saxby avoided military service and while Max worked to rebuild his body and his life, Chambliss moved up the ladder of “success”. While Max believed “country first”, Saxby practiced “me first”. Chambliss’s selfish attitude continues in his life.

In 2002, Saxby challenged Max for the US Senate. After waging a losing campaign for awhile, Saxby decided to smear Max. Chambliss paid for a fancy video that called Max a traitor and attempted to link him with our nations’ enemies. None of the claims against Max were true, but enough people questioned Max’s patriotism that he lost in a close election.

Will Georgia return such a man to the US Senate? I can’t see any “real” American reelecting a man without honor. Hopefully, Georgia will send a message: “do not dishonor our veterans.”

I read a historical novel where, when a Christian character says to a “pagan” character “have you seen the meaning of Christian love and forgiveness?” The “pagan” character replies “No, No, that is the last thing I have learned”, then cites examples of Christians and Christian leaders who hate each other, war against each other, and attempt to enforce Christianity at the point of a sword.* How many of us, often in the name of our religion, attempt or merely speak of enforcing our will or our philosophy upon others?

In the recent election, for example, I observed people calling themselves “Christian” while pushing their ideas of morality to become the law so that everyone, regardless of their religion, would be required to obey. I have seen many people judging the words or actions of others and reacting by communicating slanderous tales about those they have judged.

There are two references for consideration. First, the Bill of Rights, which promises freedom of religion, and speech. The second, Matthew 7:1-2

“Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.”

If I have freedom of religion how must it be protected? Does that mean that I have the right to make everyone Christian? I don’t think so. A wise philosophy professor I had in college said that “every right begats a duty.” Within our class discussion he made it very clear that for you to have a right I must recognize it. For example, if I wish to exercise my freedom of religion by going to church and the government outlaws churches, they are denying my right. How can I claim we have freedom of religion in the United States of America if I insist that everyone live by Christian beliefs?

The gospel of Matthew suggests to me that I avoid judging other people. To me that does not mean that I must accept your actions that I believe are immoral, but does suggest that I leave the “judgment” to God. I may pray for you. I may advise you if you will listen. I may decide not to vote for you if you are a political candidate. I may even refuse to associate with you. Those actions merely enforce my beliefs upon myself. But if I judge you I imply that I have power over you, and if I spread my judgement by circulating slanderous remarks to others, I have avoiding seeing “the beam in my own eye.”

* Valley of The Shadow, Peter Tremayne, p. 300.

According to the news, General Motors will run out of operating cash before December 31, 2008. GM says it will go bankrupt without governmental help. What is going on?

For many years conservatives have claimed that they know the best strategy for our nation. In their theory, businesses compete against each other and the more efficient ones survive. The best environment is capitalism and a free market where companies set their own rules and happily do their best to compete by being better than their competition. Everyone wins. Business becomes more efficient and the consumer gets a more reliable product. Labor improves productivity and in that way increases their wealth. Somehow it is not working.

General Motors could be a major case study in how not to compete. During the 50′s and 60′s General Motors was very successful at marketing vehicles in this country. I remember when, if your wanted a good car you looked at Chevy or Pontiac. Oldsmobile and Buick provided more luxury and Cadillac was the symbol of high class. On the other hand, Datsun (Nissan), Toyota, and Honda offered small cars that just didn’t appeal to most Americans. How things have changed.

While Toyota and Honda were working hard to develop a higher quality vehicle to compete in the United States, GM was pushing trucks and the SUV. Both camps were successful. Toyota and Honda marketed automobiles that were more efficient and maintained their value longer than GM or Ford. GM and Ford marketed great SUVs and didn’t seem very interested in competing for the sedan market.

Of course in the 70s we had, thanks to OPEC, an oil shortage with long lines at gas stations. The country resolved to become more energy efficient and become less dependent upon the oil countries. Toyota and Honda pushed fuel efficient cars. GM and Ford pushed trucks and SUVs.

Why did GM and Ford avoid the call? When we search, today, for automobiles that provide the best MPGs we see the high quality cars from Toyota and Honda. Couldn’t the planners at Ford and GM see the “handwriting on the wall?”

The American automobile industry has been in trouble for years. Profits have been dwindling at Ford and GM. Production has been decreasing at GM for years. Much of their strategy during their economic downturn has been to close plants and lay off workers. Even during the recent increase in gas prices that shocked people at the pump, GM showed no leadership. Our American companies didn’t seem interested in changing their strategy.

Now, with our economic crisis, GM wants help from the government. Many companies are asking for federal government help. Bank’s and investment companies, numerous technical corporations, and manufacturers are beginning to line up for their “welfare” checks. In a sense this is poetic justice. Companies that haven’t worried much about out sourcing labor, cutting labor benefits, promoting lower wages, and laying folks off expect those same taxpayers to bail out the companies that “dis” them.