Reading between the lines

It seems like the GOP establishment is taking the 2016 election seriously. The two most electable contenders recently had a "social meeting", and if I read between the lines properly, they discussed how they could avoid bloodying each other before the main event", the 2016 election. 

Romney's departure from the race only makes sense for the GOP establishment. He is damaged goods. Not only did he have to disavow his greatest achievement as the Governor of Massachusetts, but he had to take on relatively extreme positions (due to the Tea Party and other GOP wingnuts) that alienated him from the moderates he needed to be elected.

Jeb was the Bush brother who should have been elected president in 2000. Instead, we got George W. and his neo-con friends, and a "Forever War" that no average American really wants. To give Jeb credit, he did not pursue higher office when the establishment may have wanted him to do so - he seems to have followed his own path. He was smart enough to know that his brother damaged his chances of running for president. And even more so, waiting until 2016 when Hillary Clinton would likely run again.

- - - - - -

Hillary has some baggage which may be able to become assets. She was working on healthcare long before Obama became a US Senator. The question is - can she turn her prior failed efforts in this arena into an asset among the Democratic base, while separating herself from Obamacare to attract a small number of independents.

Although Hillary seems to be the Democratic candidate in all but name, the question is: How far to the left will she need to steer to keep the loyalty of the base, before tacking to the right to pick up independent votes? If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, she'll need to cut a big deal with Elizabeth Warren in order to keep the loyalty of the base.

- - - - - -

We're seeing the GOP hopefuls say strange things to the base. I find it amazing that anyone could believe that legalizing "gay marriage" would trigger the end of civilization. Even more so, I find it amazing that anyone would believe this malarkey.  But they do.  

In another forum, I had a discussion about a controversial issue with some die-hard supporters of a certain status quo.  I stated I supported the status quo, but didn't give a reason why I did so. And then I asked, religion aside, why should we support this position? A person responded not with a reason, but with an echo taught to the loyalists of a political party. I then said that "I believe that group loyalty trumps the need to examine why its causes should be supported." Then, I noted that I always test ideas presented by any leader to see if I'm being lied to, or are earning my respect. And what did I get? A middle class version of the "Whatever" one would hear from someone who couldn't support his/her position on Jerry Springer. 

- - - - - -

Sadly, this fatalistic inability to articulate support for a position is not limited to GOP loyalists - it is present in the Democratic party as well. It is not that I want to agree with people. Instead, I want to understand where they come from - they are not sure themselves, and are unable to say much than to regurgitate 2 second sound bites such as "defending marriage". What makes things worse is history and its marriage with politics. Deciding to slowly normalize relations with Iran should be a no-brainer, as well as negotiating a halt to the weaponization of their nuclear stockpile. But some say that this betrays Israel. Others say that Obama is being this generation's Chamberlain. Maybe, just maybe, there is a multidimensional game going on which is influenced by many things:

• America's relationship with Israel
• America's and Iran's desire to end their cold war
• Stabilization of the Middle-East (shut down ISIS)
• Sunni Islam vs. Shiite Islam (an ongoing battle to legitimize one group of mullahs)
• Arab hatred of Jews 
• The GOP Congress and its wish to emasculate Obama for the last 2 years of his term
• Israel's vulnerability in a hostile neighborhood
• Israel vs. Palestine
• Israel's nuclear stockpile (estimated at 150+ warheads)
• Iran's nuclear stockpile (not enough pure "yellow cake" for 1 warhead)
• Israel's lobby and its effect on both the GOP and the Democrats
• Christian Fundamentalists and the litmus test they use on GOP hopefuls
• Christian Fundamentalists and a desire to speed up Christ's second coming
• Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia - which Muslim nation dominates the Middle-East

The above is only a short list of the factors which are influencing what is going on in the Middle-East, and few people have a clue as to how any of these factors relate to each other on a given day. I'd bet that only Obama's cabinet and a handful of Republicans in the House and Senate have enough information to read between all of these lines. And as such, any noises we make and opinions we have are those of "armchair quarterbacks" - meaningless, as we are only spectators to the main event.

Jihad vs. Crusade - Which is worse?

The above picture is from the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul - a former church, a former mosque, and now a museum. Istanbul (nee Constantinople) has been at the crossroads of Islam and Christianity for generations, as well as being the crossroads of East and West. And this building reflects the theme of today's post - Islamists vs. Christianists - which group is worse?

- - - - - -

In the past few days, our President has noted the human rights abuses committed by Christians in the past, as well as mentioning that the Crusades were not as holy as we'd like to paint them in the West. Christianists were up in arms, stating that it was Islam that struck the first blow, posting memes across social media to paint Christianity in a defensive light.

At the same time, others have been noting the human rights abuses committed by Muslims in the past (as well as most recent past), mentioning that the expansion of Islam had been one of military conquest - something that many Muslims hated to discuss, as they paint their religion as a peaceful one - ignoring their own history.

As I see it, both sides have committed great evils in the names of their faiths, and have blind spots regarding the history of their faiths. Is there any comparison possible without getting either side angry? I doubt it. Those who need absolute certainty that their faith is correct will try to destroy any evidence, any counter opinion that may suggest that their religion is wrong. 

- - - - - -

What we're seeing is a clash of civilizations. It's not the mainstream Christians and Muslims who have learned to live together that are clashing. Instead, it is those groups of people who want to turn back the clock a few hundred years to a time where there was nothing that could pose a challenge to their orthodoxy. And these people ARE the problem.

There is a large number of Muslims who consider any depiction of "the Prophet" to be heresy worth killing someone for.  Why?  If the word of God that was presented to him is that correct, then wouldn't God take care of justice? Who are they to determine what justice is, when it is only tradition that is responsible for a prohibition against depicting "the Prophet" in any way?  Christians have their hot buttons too. I remember a few years back when someone from Africa (if I recall correctly) painted a Madonna like figure with media made from Elephant dung. And the exhibition of this work set off a maelstrom of protests. Can any one person truly harm God if that God is all powerful?

Most modern people, Christian, Jew, and Muslim would look the other way if something were exhibited that offended us. Why doesn't everyone do this? As I see it, people who are alienated from modern society AND who have taken solace in religion need to believe in an "Old Testament-like God" who is ruthless in his punishments, draconian in his justice, and is as dysfunctional as they are. When events do not exhibit the "justice" they crave, they tale law into their own hands, execute that "justice", then say that they were only following God's will. But who are they to say exactly what God's will is? I don't see God coming down from on high to tell me (or others) what his will is. Who are these people to claim it?

- - - - - -

It's about time that the moderates of all faiths take back control of dogma from the extremists, and push the extremists out of civilized society. In the Mid-East, it may involve the use of heavy duty armaments, while in "civilized" nations it may involve curtailing certain rights - with a goal of forcing the extremists to move elsewhere. I have no solutions. I am proposing some thought experiments, as if we don't come up with ideas soon, the plague infecting the "Old World" may metastasize and infect the "New World" in ways we can't handle....