Seems a lot of people, around the US and abroad, share that opinion. Here are just a few: Newsday, Boston.com, Edinburgh Stop the War Coalition (Scotland), Stevens Point Journal (Wisconsin)...

I respectfully disagree with Clay Evans of the Boulder (Colorado) Daily Camera, who argues we should not support the troops, although the points he raises lead me to repeat these points:

1. My opposition to the war should not be misinterpreted as criticism of US troops.
2. My support for US troops should not be misinterpreted as support for military action.

This Religion News Service article, about a military mom and a peace professor, illustrates beautifully the power of listening and debate.

This Chicago Daily Herald article lists a number of tangible ways to support US troops and their families, including grocery gift certificates, care packages and personal greetings. Let's all put our money where our mouth is.

Speaking of which, let House Speaker Dennis Hastert know how you feel about the disgraceful proposal to cut veterans benefits.

Posted by Me at 23:07 link

I just received an email asking why I would waste perfectly good webspace presenting opposing points of view. Good question. Here's my answer - and remember, you asked for it!

First, bear in mind that I'm not a scientist. I've been fascinated with this sort of thing since my university days, but I don't have the patience - or the stomach - for the kind of multi-syllabic debate required to find the absolute truth about this stuff. (Yes, I see the irony). What follows is a gleefully oversimple overview of a complex topic. Here are some links you can follow if you want more:

• Qualitative decision theory overview (pdf)
• History of cognitive psychology
• Cognitive psychology tutor (learn more about cognitive psychology)
• Online cognitive psychology test (improve your thinking)

Generally speaking, people make up their minds first, then reason things out second (if then). (Yes, you and I tend to do this, too). This works fine for decisions like "where shall we have lunch?", but not so well for decisions like "what's the best way to educate our children?" or "should we go to war?". Unfortunately, most people make most of their decisions before reasoning them out. In fact, rather than reason things out, ever, most people look only for facts (or opinions, etc.) supporting their instinctive positions. We tend to ignore facts which contradict our beliefs, or else we try to discredit such facts.

How then do people make up their minds? According to Schema Theory, throughout our lives we build a framework of knowledge and beliefs; when we come across a new piece of information, we fit it into the framework. If the new information doesn't fit, we tend to warp the new info to make it fit. Less often, we alter the framework in the face of contradictory fact.

What it oughtta be

By recognizing the way our minds work naturally, we can learn to do better.

I believe that the best decisions, judgements and viewpoints are logical ones, based on thorough, unbiased examination of the relevant facts. Already there are a number of problems. How thorough is thorough? How do we escape bias? How do we figure out what's fact and what isn't? Entire fields of study are devoted to these issues. Entire careers have been based on seeking answers to these, and similar, questions.

I'll keep it simple.

The level of thoroughness should depend on the importance of the question. Selecting the correct pair of shoes probably shouldn't require intensive study (although I know some would argue the point); deciding a position on the Iraq war probably should require at least some research, thought and debate.

Recognize bias by asking "what do I believe automatically?". Having recognized your natural inclination, try to set it aside and think about the question from other points of view. For important matters, try on as many other points of view as possible.

Science is the best road to fact. Keep in mind that scientists have biases, too. Common sense can help: the findings of 50 studies, each with 2000 experimental subjects, are likelier to be true than the findings of one study with 10 subjects. Likewise for opinion polls, both in terms of bias (what questions are asked?) and scope (how many respondents?). Again, if the issue is important, probe deeply. Find out the truth as best you can.

Intuition has a very important role in this, because some things can't be known, in a scientific sense. Is there a Higher Power? What happens when we die? For questions like these, we have to trust what our hearts tell us to be true. Also, even with matters of fact, sometimes the answer isn't obvious, even after intensive study. I think it's appropriate - and often necessary - in these situations to decide based on what feels right, always recognizing such decisions for what they are, and remaining open to revisiting those decisions when we learn new facts.

By understanding how we naturally make up our minds, and how good decisions are made, we can replace our own knee-jerk reactions with reasoned opinions. We can learn to base our beliefs on truth, rather than bending truth to suit our beliefs. By recognizing that we can't know the answers to everything, we can become more accepting of beliefs different from ours about Unknowable things.

To answer the original question (why should I present opposing points of view), I do it for two reasons, both related to this rambling discussion. First, I know I'm not always right, as much as I'd like to be. I try to examine the relevant facts thoroughly, recognizing my bias and setting it aside as much as possible, but I'm not perfect, so I know I'm not always right. Second, the world will be a better place when we all learn to examine other points of view besides our own. Given that we haven't all lived identical lives, we've all got different frameworks of knowledge and belief. We can look at the same information and reach radically different conclusions. Many times, others will have vital pieces of information we haven't even considered. And sometimes, there are many correct answers!

The nature of true debate is the search for truth. Recognizing the role of opposing points of view in this search is vital. Let me know if you agree - or disagree.

I'll close with the Serenity Prayer:

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.

Take a break from the war and perform a few easy-to-do environmental good deeds instead.

• Help save wolves. Learn why wolves matter. Check out the other side of the debate.
• Petition President Bush to get rid of Interior Secretary Gail Norton. Find out why many consider Norton to be a threat to the US environment. The other side of this debate.
• Help save National Wildlife Refuges. (Not much debate on this one, just the question of where to find the money).

Finally, click here to learn more about the environmental impacts of cars, how to choose a cleaner car, things you can do to make your current car cleaner, and so forth. Here's (believe it or not) an argument against cleaner cars, and why you might want to take what they have to say with a grain of salt.

Ahhh... Doesn't that feel better than getting all bug-eyed from watching too much CNN?

Posted by Me at 12:06 link

I recently promised some friends of mine (you know who you are) that I would read James Fallows' Free Flight: Beyond Airline Hell to a New Way of Travel and then post a review of it here. Since I may not read the book for several months, here's a link to a professional review. I was mostly accurate in my off-the-cuff description of the book, but Fallows never was an airline industry exec. - he is a highly-skilled amateur pilot, but he makes his living writing for The Atlantic Monthly.

Although I'd intended to put the war aside for the moment, I would be way out of line not to mention this balanced, well-researched masterpiece by Fallows which I ran across looking for a review of his airline book. In the article (warning, it's lengthy), Fallows consults with a large number of experts to outline what we might expect in postwar Iraq. I strongly recommend it.

Posted by Me at 00:56 link

As "shock and awe" begins, it appears the US has already accomplished what many believe to be its primary mission: securing the oil fields intact.

Posted by Me at 13:57 link

The issue of whether to continue protesting after the war has started is a tricky one. Many have voiced the opinion that protest should end when battle begins, because protest at home weakens the morale of our troops and can even strengthen the enemy. Some say protest during war is unpatriotic.

I'm one of many who believe deeply that this war is unnecessary and unjust. The fact that we'll almost certainly win - overwhelmingly - doesn't change my opposition one bit. At the same time, I have the utmost respect for, and gratitude towards, the men and women of our armed forces. The soldiers didn't start this war - the president did, and I blame the president for the war. I protest the actions of the president when I protest the war.

I know some people find it hard to understand and/or accept that distinction, on both sides of the debate. During Vietnam, protesters heaped blame and scorn on returning soldiers, calling them "babykillers". I condemn any such behavior. Already in this war, I have heard polls which asked the question "Do you support the troops?" cited to show "overwhelming support" for the war. This is less immediately repulsive, but also wrong.

To those who would argue that all Americans must rally 'round the president now, right or wrong, for the sake of the troops, I offer a quote:

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

I believe that freedoms are like muscles - fail to exercise them now, and you'll be unable to exercise them later. So I'll keep speaking out against the war, and I'll keep speaking up for soldiers. Let's keep them out of unnecessary wars, let's honor our committments to them, and let's keep in mind whom to blame for wars (politicians, not soldiers). I deeply regret if any soldier finds my peaceful protest demoralizing - that's not my intention.

To those who would condemn wartime dissent as unpatriotic while at the same time proposing major cuts in veterans benefits to fund a tax cut for the rich, shame on you.

(More on proposed veterans benefit cuts.)

Posted by Me at 01:21 link

Just after last night's attack, a commentator on NPR said that American military victory in Iraq is a foregone conclusion, comparing the conflict to "the New York Yankees versus Podunk High." Actually, according to statistics in this BBC analysis, it's even more lopsided than that. Note the disparity in military spending, arguably the best measure of military power: $343 billion for the US, $1.4 billion for Iraq.

Translating that back into sports terms, if this were a game of soccer, we'd field a full team of eleven, they'd only have one player - and their player could be on the field less than 4 minutes in an 80-minute game. To mix metaphors further, this is Bambi meets Godzilla.

Things seem to be going well in the early going, with small numbers of precision weapons apparently being used to target Iraq's military leaders. The military experts I've heard discussing this on NPR (click here for program stream) suggest that this may represent an effort to save lives by bringing an early surrender; "shock and awe" has apparently been put on hold.

Despite my well-documented opposition to this unjust and unnecessary war, my prayers are with our fighting forces, and with the people of Iraq. May we prevail swiftly, with minimal loss of life, and with minimal environmental damage.

Posted by Me at 16:32 link

Latin American women, frustrated by anti-abortion laws, have resorted to taking ulcer drugs to end unwanted pregnancies. Story here. Is this the future for women in the US?

Nobody wants to see more abortions. Just ask any woman who's had one. The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. The best way to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies is better reproductive health education. Follow the NARAL link (also under "Make a Difference") to find out what you can do to help bring this about.

Posted by Me at 14:26 link

I mean other scary stuff, besides the immediate Iraq war. I'm referring to the publicly-stated objectives of the conservative policymakers at the Project for the New American Century. Thanks to Gael for the link to this startling, in-depth declaration of beliefs and goals by those who would remake the whole world in America's image.

What strikes me most about documents such as this editorial (pdf) from November 2002, in which William Kristol and Robert Kagan argue against UN involvement in the Iraq decision-making process, is the arrogance of the presumption that the diplomatic process is merely an obstacle to be overcome before the US can do whatever it wants, to whomever it wants. The implication being that the United States alone knows what's best, and should, in essence, replace the UN and govern the world the way it sees fit. These guys seem to take that position as a given starting point. Our way or the highway to hell.

And they have plans, beyond a war on terror, which could easily lead to World War III and/or perpetual war, à la 1984. In the words of Willam Kristol: "And it will be a preemptive and unilateral war, if necessary."

If you haven't registered to vote, please do so immediately.

Posted by Me at 12:55 link

I've added a group of links to allow readers to take (virtually) instant action on a variety of environmental and social issues. When I become aware of specific issues where action is clearly indicated, I'll squawk about it, and you can send emails, letters, etc. with just a few clicks. Just follow the new "Make a Difference" links (in the left column).

Some question whether politicians pay attention to what voters think; my experience has been clear - they do. I've heard others complain that their elected officials are too easily swayed by public opinion, but my opinion is that's exactly how it should be. We elect them to speak for us. They should listen to our informed opinions and act accordingly. When politicians don't listen, I tend to suspect they are more attuned to lobbies, corporations or other big contributors. This is why true campaign finance reform is necessary. Money may talk, but it's not protected by the first amendment. One dollar should not equal one vote. More on this later.

For now - and always - let 'em know what you want 'em to do, and often they'll do it. To quote Crystal Method, it's "get-busy time."

Posted by Me at 09:52 link

Here's another brilliant opinion piece by Ted Rall, for anyone who thought Bush was dumber than the average American. In the interest of fairness (and more especially, because you might find it amusing), here's a right-wing take on Ted Rall, written after Rall wrote a column discussing speculation that Paul Wellstone's death might have been an assassination.

Posted by Me at 16:42 link

The general consensus among international law experts is that the Iraq action is clearly illegal, that it threatens to undermine International Law and the UN - but that any legal action against the US is unlikely. Story here.

Posted by Me at 16:12 link

Here's a BBC analysis of the US military strategy in Iraq.

Posted by Me at 13:24 link

This Reuters article offers compelling evidence that politicians care what voters think. Looks like the ANWR is safe again, for now.

Update - now it's official.

Further Update - ANWR might not be safe for long if some in Alaska get their way. This truly blows my little mind. Is that legal? By the way, before you throw up your hands and sigh, "well, it's what the people of Alaska want, so why should we interfere?", remember two things:

1. ANWR belongs to all Americans, not just Alaskans; and
2. Where do you think the majority of campaign finance money in Alaska comes from? The good people of Alaska, or perhaps the energy companies?

But will this contraption really catch a mouse?

This New York Times article (free registration required) outlines the basic US military strategy for the war. My first impression was that this strategy, which discards the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force, seems kind of, well, half-baked; but after consulting Sun Tzu's ancient text The Art of War, I see the wisdom of it. In theory, it's true to the three principles of armed conflict:

...armed force [should be] applied so that victory [is] gained

1. in the shortest possible time;
2. at the least possible cost in lives and effort;
3. with infliction on the enemy of the fewest possible casualties.

Keep in mind, though, that the highest principle of war, according to Sun Tzu, is "to win without fighting is best," and that armed conflict should be used only as an absolute last resort. Also, he believed that "national unity [is] an essential requirement of victorious war," and said that unity "could be attained only under a government which [is] devoted to the people's welfare and [does] not oppress them."

I'll let you be the judge.

Posted by Me at 08:56 link

Pope John Paul laid it on the line: the creators of this war will have a lot to answer for "when the roll is called up yonder." I don't always see eye to eye with the Vatican, but may God bless the Pope for standing up for peace.

Why do they hate us so much? (part 2 of ?)

This article outlines the results of recent global opinion polls. The short version? Bush is a magician: in just 18 months, he's made a world of support disappear (never mind how he managed to turn a projected multi-trillion dollar surplus into a projected multi-trillion dollar deficit over a similar time frame). This article provides keen analysis into the reasons behind our loss of international favor. The short version? It's because we apparently want to "rule ze vorld!" [maniacal laugh]


Posted by Me at 21:56 link

As predicted. The Bush administration's proposed Defense Authorization bill contains a proposal to exempt the Defense Department from environmental rules and regulations. Already the DoD and other government agencies are exempt when national security is at stake. This proposed exemption would apply even when national security's not at stake. Follow this link to the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Take-Action Center, where you can send a prepared email to your representatives. The DoD is already one of the worst polluters in the US; I don't even want to think about what would happen if they were given carte blanche to destroy our environment. If you're a first-time visitor to the NRDC site, it may take you as much as 2 minutes to send your email. Please do it - you can help prevent centuries of environmental damage.

Posted by Me at 17:27 link

Think Globally, Act Cautiously

I've been keeping my mouth shut around my little town, and especially at school (which is rather cowardly, I know), because, well, I'm going to need a job soon! So I've called/faxed/emailed/written my representatives, I've signed petition after petition, I've blogged - but I've kept a low profile around town. It seemed a safe assumption that an anti-war stance would be more than a little unpopular here. This is the American South, land of the Redneck. Home of the original Bubba. More to the point, this is North Carolina. A few years ago, I read that approximately 1 in 6 people serving in the US armed forces came from NC. Even the reason we North Carolinians are nicknamed "Tar Heels" relates to our bravery in war.

On my way to class this morning, I reflected on who the pro-war faction really is. It occurred to me that one group disproportionately represented in the pro-war camp are military veterans who never saw action and who don't have children currently serving. One of my classmates, a former Marine, immediately sprang to mind. I knew from previous discussions that he (I'll call him "Johnny") had voted for Bush; he believed the prosperity of the Clinton era was due entirely to the Republican Congress. I assumed Johnny would be pro-war and I just knew he'd throw out something in favor of the war today in class.

To my utter amazement, when another student made a lame "it's about time" comment in favor of the war, Johnny said "No no no. Why are we supposed to be the world's policeman?" I could have hugged him. "I don't believe it!" I said, "I actually agree with Johnny on something!" To which he replied, "Thanks a lot!" With a smile. Later, I asked him "Didn't you vote for Bush?" He said he had but "I sure as hell won't vote for him again." Several other students, hearing the exchange, chimed in their agreement. No one spoke up for the war or for Bush.

I'm feeling a lot better about the world and about my little town today.

Posted by Me at 11:56 link

I just got back from Spring Break in New Jersey. Nobody's going to make a movie about it or anything, but it was totally awesome. I already wrote about the Adirondacks and the Banff Mountain Film Festival; this weekend we saw some dear old friends, went to Sandy Hook, watched some hoops, ate some fantastic Italian food and saw some outstanding natural beauty in the Bronx! Then I got on a plane and came back to NC.

Sandy Hook's an interesting place - 3 miles of hiking trails, 7 miles of beach, the oldest continuously-operated lighthouse in the US, a decomissioned military reservation, a decommissioned artillery proving ground, migratory birds, a great view of the Verrazano Bridge, a great view of lower Manhattan... I'm sure there's a lot more I don't even know about. We met up with Jon and Lisa up in Westfield, then drove down to the Hook. Jon said that in summer, it gets so crowded that they light up a sign on the Garden State Parkway - "Sandy Hook - full." Not too crowded Saturday in the early afternoon, even though it was sunny and warm. The wind made it feel a bit cooler than 55° and the piles of melting snow dimmed the illusion of spring. We didn't walk too much, but we did walk along the seashell-strewn beach, then up to an observation deck. After that we checked out some military ruins; Jon and Lisa chatted with some government scientists counting migratory hawks. We drove through Fort Hancock and checked out the old lighthouse.

Then it was back up to Westfield, where we met Ian, Tessa and Lindsay for the UNC / Duke ACC tourney game. In retrospect, I wish we'd all just met up for a walk down at Sandy Hook, but UNC / Duke? ACC tourney? Must-see, even for a lapsed sports fan such as me. Seeing those guys after so long (in Lindsay's case, about 9 years), was very cool. We should have called Chris, but we all agreed that the odds of finding him at home were slim. After the game, Ian demonstrated that it's possible to repair a malfunctioning Land Rover headlight by banging on it with fists (sounds like a British car to me...). Ian and Tessa's dog Chopin fertilized a suburban lawn as commemorative photos (of the people) were snapped. Then they were off to Brooklyn and Upstate, and Jon and Lisa took us to downtown Westfield for some unbelievably good food at Ferraro's. Best manicotti I ever ate! Apparently I wolfed it down like I'd just been rescued from some desert island. The tiramisu was unreal! Afterwards, Jon drove us around and told us about the town. The opening from Ed was shot there. By the way, did I mention that Jon won an Emmy? I'm willing to bet that you could spend a month with Jon and he'd never mention it. Westfield is, putting it mildy, conservative. The teenage kids hang out at Starbucks. No kidding. I saw it with my own eyes. A huge mob of them, at 10:00 pm on Saturday night.

Sunday, we took in the orchid exhibition at the New York Botanical Garden in the Bronx. Definitely not what I expected! The orchids were beautiful, of course. Did you know that there are 30,000 species of orchid? I guess a couple of hundred varieties were on exhibit. What I hadn't expected were the statues on loan from the Museum of Modern Art. Also, I hadn't realized how spacious the NYBG grounds were, or how beautiful. The concertina wire on top of the well-concealed chain link fence, and the hulking menace of the Tracey Towers in the distance were the only reminders that the Bronx was anything but a nature preserve.

Then I caught a plane and came back to NC. The city was beautiful at night. I stared out my window at lower Manhattan, the Verrazano Bridge. I could make out the Turnpike and the Parkway. I even saw Sandy Hook Light.

So much beauty in the world.

Posted by Me at 23:01 link

Bush's speech makes it obvious enough even for his supporters to understand: we're going to war (again). This one sets a dangerous international precedent. From here on, any world leader who feels threatened, or who plausibly can claim to feel threatened, can cite the Bush doctrine precedent of pre-emptive, first-strike self-defense. I guess that means I can now go beat the hell out of that annoying yuppie neighbor who said he'd shoot my dog if he didn't stop barking. Right?

I know it's for real - government spokespersons have started calling Hussein "Sodom" again. And insisting that now, as the bullets - or satellite-guided missiles as the case may be - are about to start flying, we're all expected to put aside our petty differences of opinion and pull together as a team.

If that means I'm supposed to care about US armed forces personnel, so be it. I'll continue to support our troops 100%. But if that means I'm supposed to stop speaking out against this UNJUST WAR, forget about it. If you want to shut me up, then throw me in jail or run me over with a tank - whatever works for you. I'm an American citizen and it's my patriotic duty to speak up for Truth, Justice and Freedom whenever I see them threatened. The best way to support our troops is to save their lives by stopping this war as soon as possible.

This Tom Tomorrow cartoon sums it up chillingly. This article from Mother Jones puts forward an increasingly-plausible theory of why the administration is willing to risk so much over a two-bit dictator and a few outdated weapons.

In other news...

The Bush administration will probably try to take advantage of the fact that the entire world is laser-focused on the Iraq war to push for a number of harmful social and environmental changes. I'll try to stay on top of these developments and report them here, complete with easy-to-follow action links so you can stand up with me to keep 'em honest. Or at least to mitigate the damage.

Posted by Me at 21:54 link

How about a major war? Yesterday, driving back to NJ across the George Washington Bridge, I made the joking observation that no one ever calls it the "George W." bridge. But it got me thinking: what will they name after him? Maybe a two-faced statue would be appropriate. Here's some blatant propaganda from the Democrats - which doesn't change the fact that it's 100% true. Unlike many statements by the President.

Posted by Me at 18:59 link

hope      (courtesy of Dictionary.com)

v. hoped, hop·ing, hopes

v. intr.

1. To wish for something with expectation of its fulfillment.
   
2. Archaic. To have confidence; trust.

Which matters more to the Bush administration? Millions of people or billions of dollars? I think we all know what's about to happen; what's in doubt is how it will end.

A lot of us feel this is a grave mistake. Still, my wish is that it ends well. To quote Macbeth: "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly." A lot of us feel that it (peace, stability, security prosperity) won't be done when it (the war)'s done - not by a long shot (and I personally harbor doubts about the "quickly" part, too). Our assessment is that the war will lead to more wars, that it will further destabilize the Middle East and the world as a whole and that it will increase resentment and hostility - and therefore terrorism - towards America.

I started to write "toward America and her allies" but we've pretty much chased all of our allies away. Sure, there's Israel. It's hard to criticize Israel, because even the slightest suggestion that their actions are less than holy, or that they might be interested in (and more to the point, capable of) influencing American foreign policy meets with outraged accusations of anti-Semitism. But here goes anyway. First, I love Jewish people, Jewish culture, Judaism as a religion, and the citizens of the nation of Israel. Second, I despise the actions of the current government of Israel, specifically their utter disregard for International Humanitarian Law in their actions against their neighbors. I don't have time right now to get into the hundreds of actions taken by the Israeli government which, committed by almost any other nation, would be considered clear examples of war crimes and/or crimes against humanity.

I will offer (for now) just one example: Rachel Corrie. Why is this not front-page news? Am I the only one who considers this an unpardonable outrage?

But we pardon Israel for everything, presumably because of the Holocaust. Isn't it odd, isn't it painfully ironic, that Israel should treat others so badly, since surely no people on earth know more what's it's like to be persecuted, abused and violated? Again, I protest the actions of the Israeli government. In the US and all over the world, Jewish people are famous for their tolerance, their respect for and their defense of basic human rights for all people. Why, then, do they permit the government of Israel to behave like a jack-booted thug?

But I have digressed miles from the main point, that while the Iraq war seems inevitable, my wish remains that the war can be stopped. If Bush launches this war, my wish is that it end quickly, with no civilian casualties. Hell, this is a wish! I wish for the war, if it happens, to end with no loss of life at all, no environmental damage. I wish for the people of Iraq to emerge empowered, with a government of their own choosing, a government that leads them to tolerance, peace and prosperity for all. My wish is that the war somehow does transform the Middle East in a positive way, that it leads all the countries of the Middle East, even Israel and Saudi Arabia, to tolerant, peaceful prosperity. My wish is that the war brings an end to terrorism and makes the rest of the world love the US, that it leads all the countries of Earth to unite, to disarm; that this is the last war ever fought.

And while I'm wishing - I wish that I were about 4 inches taller, and that every time I ate too much, instead of putting on weight, I grew stronger and faster.

My hope is that working for positive change makes a real difference.

Posted by Me at 09:15 link