The Transplanted Yankee

Several years ago I saw a story about an experiment, where a pair of synchronized atomic clocks were connected to strobe lights. One of the clocks was then loaded aboard an aircraft of some kind, and after reaching altitude the plane flew around for a period of time I don't remember. The significant point is that, over time, the flashing of the strobes became increasingly less synchronized. If I remember correctly the experiment was done to test the hypothesis that time moves at different rates the further you get from a gravity source, and the experiment proved the hypothesis.

Now to the point of this blog. The universe, according to the latest estimates, is around thirteen and a half billion years old. The earth, on the other hand, is believed to be much younger, perhaps only a few tens of thousands of years old. Now consider this: One argument against the theory of the intelligent design of the universe, and particularly the Earth, is the question as to why the universe is so old while the earth is so (relatively) young.

There is an explanation, I believe, that while not provable seems to make sense to me. For the sake of argument, say there is a God, that He created the universe, and for reasons known only to Him created a small rock ball of a planet and created all sorts of creatures to live on it. Now such a creature would be a very potent force, indeed, much more intense than a black hole, and if that force chose, for reasons unknowable to us, to focus it's interest on our planet that could cause time to pass on earth much more slowly than in the rest of the universe. Theoretically that happens inside of the event horizon of a black hole, so why not in the presence of an even more powerful force like the creator of the universe? Although I am a college graduate I'm not a scientist, but to me this seems like a logical explanation.

In the past few weeks the national media has been loudly trumpeting comments by various politicians that the situation in Iraq is un-winable, and we need to bring our troops home immediately, before more unnecessary deaths occur. Well, I don't know about anyone else, but to me the situation appears far from unwinable.

Yesterday, while having lunch in the cafeteria of the hospital I work at, the television in the corner was tuned to Fox News, as it usually is, and the scenes they were showing were interesting, to say the least. It showed long lines of people in Iraq, but rather than rioting or anything like that they were celebrating that they had participated in their country's most recent election. Purple stained fingers, showing they had voted (seems like an interesting idea for here, what with the charges of voter fraud that have plagued recent elections), were proudly displayed, and the one I was most struck by was that of an older woman in traditional local attire. I see it as the Iraqi people flashing the Finger (even though not the one usually used for it) at all those in this country who say things are worse there than before we removed Saddam from power.

Even in Sunni controlled areas of Iraq, where the backbone of the insurgency is located, people turned out in such large numbers (in spite of the very real threat of violence) that they needed more ballots, and polling places had to stay open extended hours to handle the mass of voters. I know the media will try to spin this, and other things, to make yesterday look like a defeat, but I'm encouraged.

I have heard estimates that as many as eleven million of Iraq's approximately fifteen million eligible voters participated in yesterday's election, for an estimated turnout of around seventy three percent. That's right, seventy three percent, and this just for what would be considered an off-year congressional election here! I wonder what voter turnout next November is going to be in this country? Makes you wonder who is actually more interested in the way their government is doing things, doesn't it?

After making my first post earlier this evening, I thought it would be a good idea to clarify some things. For one thing, while I am conservative, like I said in my bio section, I don't give President George Bush or any other politician, conservative or liberal, a blank check. While I support most of his actions, especially his attempt to help the budding democracy in Iraq, I think the President has made some very serious mistakes.

One of President Bush's biggest mistakes since he has been in office is the attitude his administration has taken with Israel. True, he is trying to help Iraq develop into a friendly democracy, but he has also done a lot to hurt the only real democracy currently in existence in the Middle east. Israel has been a democracy for years, and has been a staunch friend for years. To force Israel to give up so much land that it becomes indefensible is insane, but that, with the encouragement of the rest of the world, is what the Bush administration is doing. There is much legitimate concern about Iran and that country's thinly disguised development of nuclear weapons, but if they are pushed into a corner Israel reportedly has the ability to take as many enemies with it as possible.

So, while I generally support the President, and will continue doing so unless given a clear reason to do otherwise, I will also let it be known when I disagree with him.

Yesterday, December 11, 2005, our local paper ran an article by an AP reproter named Sharon Cohen stating that this is the one thousandth day of the Iraq war. I don't know why, but this article sparked me into finally doing something I've been concidering for some time now, starting a blog to get my feelings out. Now that it has started, my first post is going to list a few things I found troubling about Ms Cohen's article, and the spin most of the nation media put on what is happening.

First, Ms. Cohen mentioned Korea and Viet Nam and their thousandth days. While today is, in fact the thousandth day since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the actual thousandth day for the war was June 7, 2004: One thousdand days after the war began with terrorists flying three aircraft into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And when terrorists in a fourth aircraft were thwarted in reaching their target, whatever it was, by the brave actions of the passenges on that plane.

Second, as I indicated above, Operation Iraqi Freedom was not a separate war. Like Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, the Normandy invasion, the North Africa campaign, and other action in World War II, Iraqi Freedom was a campaign in the war on terror, begun by the terrorists on September 11, 2001.

Third, since major military action against Iraqi forces ended in May of 2003(even the major media agree that most insurgents aren't Iraqi), there never was or will be a thousandth day for the length of Iraqi Freedom. And the thousandth day for the current campaign against foreign insurgents won't come for another sixty days or so.

Fourth, it is undeniable that at this writing 2140 American soldiers have did in Iraq, but the attacks on 9/11 took the lives of close to three thousand people, mainly American civilians, in a matter of minutes.

Fifth, Ms. Cohen repeats the claim that no weapons of mass destruction were found. It is true that no massive stockpiles were found, but how does she classify one and a half metric tons of enhanced uranium, over fifteen hundred gallons of chemical weapons agents, chemical warheads with cyclosarin nerve agent, powdered radioactive materials that could be dispursed over population centers, and artillery projectiles loaded with binary chemical agents? What more does she want? And as far as that goes, I think the terrorists proved fairly conclusively that fully fueled jetliners make very effective weapons of mass destruction when they are flown into buildings.

A final question is that, before we talk about coming up with an exit strategy fro Iraq, shouldn't we try to come up with one for Korea, which Ms. Cohen mentioned in her article? After all, there has never been a peace deal signed, just a truce. Action in Korea ended over fifty years ago, so shouldn't we come up with an exit strategy from there?

In conclusion, I do agree with one part of what Ms. Cohen and her fellow mainstream journalists think, I want our troops home as quickly as possible. But what I don't agree with is that we need to bring them home immediately, before the mission is finished. To do that would not only increase the threat of attacks in this country (where would you rather they happen, in Iraq? Or in your own back yard?), but would also mean that all those who have died will have done so in vain.