The more things change, the more they stay the same - in the South

Years ago, scenes such as this were common through the states that rebelled against the Union in 1861. Although Slavery was eliminated by 1865, the South created "Jim Crow" and "Separate but Equal" as tools to keep Blacks disenfranchised. Making Blacks use separate facilities (if they existed) for basic needs (such as getting a drink of ice water, as in the photo above) was a way of telling Blacks that they were valued little more than cattle on the farm. Today, these signs are long gone. Yet, the South (with other conservative states) are creating a new class of third class citizen by use of laws that discriminate against a very small number of people - Transgenders. 

It shocked America when the former George Jorgensen came back to the United States in 1951 as Christine Jorgensen. She was looked on as a form of oddity then, as there were only a handful of people who had undergone a sex change operation. Even Louis Farrakhan (in his pre-Muslim Brotherhood days) wrote a song about her - "Is she is, or is she ain't?" Yet, I can't recall anyone trying to deny her the rights to go about as a woman in society. (I can't say whether she had an amended birth certificate or other ID that identified her as female, but she was treated as such by most people she met.)

However things have changed. We now know that transgenders are at least 1/3000th of our nation's population, and maybe more. And as more and more transgenders decide to live in the gender other than that assigned at birth, we're seeing conservative elements in society attempting to bring back obstacles that are intended to let transgenders know that they are considered not worthy of having basic rights.

The author of this blog entry (Wingnuts and the political machine) notes that the bigots are attacking basic human needs, such as the right of the transgenders to go to the bathroom. Since it doesn't make sense to provide separate facilities (there is no "Separate but Equal" requirement for transgenders) for such a small population, the laws that ban transgenders from using appropriate bathrooms mean that there is no place for these people to go.

Why does the sight of a transgender person worry a certain class of conservatives so much? I think that the idea of transgenders provide a proof that the gender binary that has been indoctrinated into some people since childhood is at risk. And they would rather destroy any facts that challenge their understanding of the world.  Could you imagine what these people would feel if they were to see one permanent exhibit at NYC's Museum of Sex? The exhibit I note has examples of animals which change their sex, animals which have both male and female sex organs, and animals that do not reproduce sexually. This certainly does not agree with the biblical account of creation.

- - - - - -

You'll notice that I started with an issue that affects a small percentage of the population. But it gets worse from there. America is a nation of immigrants. Yet, narrow minded people are "suggesting" that people change their names when they come to America to reduce the effort that the "natives" need to expend to learn their new neighbors' names. 

Time and time again, I see postings trying to stir up hatred of Islam from some of my more conservative friends. There is legitimate fear of extremists - these friends see evidence of what happens when radical Islamists get control of countries, and they are right to be worried. But they don't see that their imposition of a fundamentalist form of Christianity is almost as bad as what they fear. Yet, they do make some good points, when they note how the imposition of fundamentalist Islam has affected several countries.

 Iran - Before and After

 Egypt - Before and After

And this problem even infects a "Christian" country when a large number of fundamentalist Muslims immigrate there.....

The Netherlands -

Before and After

What I find interesting is that Christian fundamentalists who fear change can be just as extreme as Muslim fundamentalists. Both believe in forcing others to live their way - even if it means destroying anything which challenges their world view. And in the United States, it is our South that tends to put the most social restrictions on individual liberty. 

I hope that over time, it will become impossible to hold people down using religion and god as excuses to justify mistreatment of individuals. To see this day, forward thinking people will need to gain control of the media and broadcast their messages louder and more often than the opposition. As long as backward thinking people control the messages heard by the general public, we have a great risk of moving backward - as illustrated by the above pictures of Iran, Egypt and The Netherlands.  It will mean that we protect people that we don't really understand, such as Transgenders. But by protecting small minorities first, we prevent the back sliding that would put larger groups (such as Blacks) at greater risk....

Persia, Iran, no matter what one calls this nation, we must deal with it.

I can still remember that in my lifetime, the United States once considered Iran as one of its closest allies. And there is no reason not to do so today, save for a 35 year pissing match that was triggered by the Embassy Hostage Crisis and the United States getting exposed as preparing to overthrow the duly elected government of Iran.

This conflict between nations should not only be examined from the American side (we have just complaints), but from the Iranian side as well (where they also have just complaints). What would be the key issue getting in the way of normalizing relations between the two countries after a generation and a half, if Israel was not given a veto over our actions in the Middle East?  Both countries want to crush ISIS. Both countries want stability in the region. And both countries have legitimate concerns about the balance of power in the region.

Looking at the above map, one can easily see the regional importance of Iran - it borders part of the former USSR, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and shares the Persian Gulf with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, The U.A.E. and Oman. This country could either cause a lot of mischief, or be a valuable power for peace. But without normal diplomatic and trade relations, we have no direct way to influence them to work with us. (I must note that American soldiers are reported to being ferried over Iranian airspace to Afghanistan via foreign flagged aircraft, with the tacit approval of the Iranians. So there is something going on behind the scenes that few people want to talk about in a loud voice.) So it only makes sense to find ways to openly work with this country, if only because they hold a strategically important position in the region.

- - - - - -

When I started writing this entry, the P5+1 (5 Permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany - a major Iran trading partner) negotiations are taking place to resolve the West's issues with Iran's stated plans to develop nuclear technology for peaceful uses. These negotiations have been extended for several months because both sides realized the importance of cutting a deal everyone could live with. 

As it was 35+ years ago, both sides have legitimate issues. From our perspective in the West, it's easy to understand our goal - this world does not need another nation with the capability of making nuclear weapons. When India and Pakistan developed their bombs, it took a lot of diplomacy to develop deals that preserved most of the pre-bomb status quo, and allowed both countries to save face while not getting into a nuclear arms race as the USA and USSR did after WW2. But Iran has a legitimate issue that we in the West don't think of - Tehran is one of the most polluted cities on Earth. Iran's leadership knows that it must lead the country out of the fossil fuel age, and sees nuclear energy as the best short term way to bridge the gap from a fossil fuel age and a renewable fuel age. They simply want to control their destiny - and this is very understandable.

When the Israeli PM, Bibi Netanyahu, was invited to speak to Congress, it was a slap in our president's face, and a violation of protocol. Congress does not make foreign policy. That power is solely invested in the executive branch of government. When Bibi spoke, he was against a deal with Iran, considering that nation's policies to be an existential threat to his country. And most in the GOP support Israel with unquestioned loyalty - as if they want to accelerate the "Second Coming" via support of Israel's bellicose policies. Bibi had no alternative to negotiations - and it appeared that he wanted the USA to fight a war against Iran that his country couldn't win alone.

Luckily, Obama is more cerebral in his thought patterns. He knows that we have a once in a generation chance to gradually shift Iran into a partner for peace. With the exceptions of Egypt and Jordan, no Middle East Muslim country has relations with Israel. Officially, they all call for Israel's destruction, while working very quietly with Israel on the side. This is what we would likely see several years after a deal with Iran. But it will take time to get there.

- - - - - -

Sadly, 47 US Senators wrote a letter to Iran attempting to undercut Obama's ability to work with the Iranians in negotiating a nuclear technology treaty. The NY Daily News labeled these Senators as traitors on its front page. And the Washington Post simply considers the actions of these senators irresponsible. Luckily, the Iranian leadership recognizes this as a Propaganda Ploy and responded accordingly, enlightening these Senators about what our Constitution and International Law say about the subject. And in an article in the Daily Kos, they note that Al Jazeera got it right - The Iran deal will be a Security Council Non-Proliferation Treaty Resolution, and likely be covered by a previous treaty ratified by our Legislative branch of government. I'll bet that these Senators now wish they had tried to make their point with softer words and actions....

- - - - - -

As I said in this entry's title - Iran is a country that must be dealt with. And it only makes sense for us to deal with Iran from a position of mutual respect, as only with respect will we be able to resolve our differences.....

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy

Although I am still a registered Republican, I don't remember the last time I could honestly say that I could vote for a candidate on the Republican Party line. The wingnuts have taken over the party, and the rhetoric coming out of some former standard bearers has been an embarrassment for any thinking person.

Recently, Rudy Giuliani has stated that he doubted that our president, Barack Obama loves America. It seems that he believes that if we love our country that we should blindly praise our country without question, and never criticize it.  This is not love - this is blind, unthinking loyalty to a potentially corrupt leadership. Did the Abolitionists (pre Civil War) not love their country because they disagreed with the law of the land? What about people like Martin Luther King Jr. - could you say that he didn't love this country because he was critical of how it treated his race? What about the Japanese-Americans who were herded into prison camps? Almost every group who are present in this country has a legitimate gripe to complain about - do their complaints mean that they do not love this country?

Giuliani stated that Obama does not believe in American exceptionalism. Later, on Fox News, he "doubled down" and restated the same claim. (And this, with Fox News trying to give him a chance to hedge things, so that he didn't look as much like an idiot as he did.) The former NYC mayor opened up a firestorm, as CNN noted that this puts the GOP 2016 contenders for the Presidency in a bind - Do they support Giuliani, and disrespect the office of the President? Or, do they criticize Giuliani, and say something good about Obama to show respect for his office? Of course, the left has had a field day, with one congressman using the constitution's "3/5ths Human" value of a slave for the head counts needed to determine the number of congressmen a state has.

To me, the most galling of Giuliani's statements show how racist he really is.  Giuliani stated that he was OK to criticize Obama in his way because he (Obama) had a white mother. To me, that's like saying someone isn't racist because he/she has a black friend. Our society has a lot of racist elements in it, and they can not be eliminated overnight. But to say that the sitting president of our country doesn't love his country because he refuses to shout meaningless lines like "we're number one!" and makes valid criticisms of this country is insulting to those who want to continue making this country a better country for all.

Our country was founded as a result of a minority revolt against unjust authority. It caught the British by surprise, as the British acted as it being associated with Britain was reward enough for any injustice suffered by the colonists. History has proven the British wrong - growth always is dependent on a "What have you done for me lately?" attitude. If we're not moving forward as a nation, then we are backsliding. And this president does not seem to be a backslider - even if a critic disagrees with the direction in which the president wants to take this country.

I love my country. But I do not think it is the best country in the world. Instead, we may have the best ideal, the best goal for a society in this world. The opening of the Declaration of Independence comes to mind - "We hold these truths...." We are far from that ideal - but it is a direction we all should take. If we didn't criticize our society, we would have blind obedience to corrupt leaders - and never would have given Blacks the right to vote, nor would we have given Women the right to vote. We never would have fought to end Jim Crow, much less had our current president in office, if voices of criticism were silenced, and defiance of unjust policies never occurred.

No, our president does not love this country in the same way that Rudy Giuliani does, and I thank God for that. I'd rather have a man in charge who is comfortable with criticism than to have a leader who squashes all dissent. 

It's not just what you know, but how and when you use that knowledge.

Not many people have seen an Enigma machine close up - but I have. It's an amazing piece of engineering, but not as amazing as the fact that we cracked the code AND knew enough not to use all the knowledge we had, lest we clue the enemy in to the fact that their codes were broken.

- - - - - -

During WW2, one of the biggest clandestine goals of British intelligence was to break the German Enigma codes. Every day, the Germans would change the rotors and give the Enigmas new settings to code and decode messages. The Allied forces could not break these codes until Alan Turing figured out the weaknesses of what the Germans were doing. 

After the codes were broken, what next? One had a good idea of what the enemy knew, but could they prevent disasters? Often, NO! Unless there was a plausible way to explain why a troop movement was changed, why a convoy was rerouted, why some action was not taken, the Allies had to accept the known attack to come.

Today, we are in a similar war - but against many powers. Ars Technica describes what one division of the NSA is likely to have done in infecting systems around the world, so that America has a technical edge which might be used militarily.  

- - - - - -

In the past, America has tapped Soviet (now Russian) cables connecting the mainland to Vladivostok to keep tabs on the fleet stationed there. But the Soviets were able to plant a bug in the American Embassy in Moscow - inside the Great Seal given to us as a gift. And the Chinese are known to have their electronic spies as well. All the major nations are playing this game, and they have likely evolved a form of "rules of engagement" for use when dealing with each other. But this doesn't apply to nations that aren't top tier powers. Nor does this apply to non-national powers, such as Palestine (not yet a nation) or ISIS.

As civilians, none of us (for all practical purposes) have any clue to what is going on behind the scenes. We do not know for sure how successful the STUXNET virus was in attacking Iran's Uranium enrichment program, but it likely set Iran back by a year or two. Even more interesting is North Korea's military programs - could they have been compromised by malware hidden in the hard drives they bought from outside the country? (I'd bet that China may playing a role here, as they have gotten weary of keeping this dysfunctional regime afloat.)

- - - - - -

Much of the time, information like this never makes it to the history books. Alan Turing's accomplishments were kept Top Secret by the British for a couple of generations. Once classified as Top Secret, few governments ever bother to reclassify information which no longer needs to be kept secret. Yet, some secrets are kept by hiding them in plain sight. Leon Theremin was reportedly kidnapped from the United States in the 1930's (there is information that says he left for tax reasons), and after a stint in the gulag, then working for the KGB, ended up at the Moscow Conservatory of music (building Theremins and other musical instruments) before becoming a professor of Physics at Moscow State University.

- - - - - -

There are people who want our president to go to war against ISIS, putting boots on the ground.  Are we ready to have our children come back from the war in body bags (or worse)? I doubt it. Years ago, President Kennedy contacted the pilots flying spy planes over Cuba and gave them orders (with explanations) to NOT report any hostile fire from the ground while flying their missions. Many planes came back perforated - and the pilots claimed they hit birds and other things. This gave the president the room he needed to talk peace. But it was not only an American who prevented the Third World War - there was a Soviet Officer, Vasili Arkhipov, who kept his submarine from launching nuclear missiles while the submarine he was on was being attacked by American depth charges. Hard Liners in both countries wanted war - thankfully, that war never happened. Are we ready for yet another "Forever War", because we're seeing extreme inhumanity from an enemy? Or, are there other things we can do (or are being done) that can limit the scope of the war?

Right now, we do not have all the facts, and we are being manipulated by the media. We have to watch out how the media is being manipulated - when the Jordanian pilot was burned to death, none of America's Left and Centrist media provided links to see this murder. Only the Right wing media provided links to view the murder, as it is trying to stir up the will for Americans to endure yet another war. In fact, politicians are already saying we should resort to nukes, and kill ruthlessly. Wouldn't it make more sense to get more information before another rush to war?