Thoughts on Mortality:

D.Luttenberger,2010

Void & Emptiness

Pause to ponder the above

Perhaps, these should be capitalized

VOID & EMPTINESS

!

Of course

There is also good reason to think they
should not be capitalized

void & emptiness

.

I suspect

In the Grand Scheme

Font can have no significant impact

on mortality

Ummmm!

Something else to think about

?

Alcatraz, In Kino Bay

For Tony Beasley

Skulls rattle the sand in an off-shore wind
Full of saguaro, cholla and offal
Carrion on the claws of vultures
Kingbirds of the naked sun

The spine of a frigate bird lies upon the shore
Under the shadow of Tiburon, the shark
I pick it up and it sings in my hand
Conjuring ghosts of memory

A depot, where a Yaqui waits with her son
Beneath black shawls in the hot sun
Silence, except for the buzz of flies
And the flap of vultures overhead

In the air dance shadows, phantoms!
A husband, two years an illegal alien
An ailing boy and no money for the medico
And Mama Grande at home, on her death bed
A crucifix across her breast like desert sand

Head bent, the Yaqui waits with her son
Beneath black shawls in the hot sun

She dreams of her lover in Hermosillo
Of toys for the ninos
And dresses in shop windows
She dreams of food
And the taste of beer on the dry tongue
She dreams, but wakes to the empty belly
And the miles to go

So we give them a ride to Puerto Penasco
A drink of flat water from a hot canteen
And speak of life in broken syllables
As if we understood anything
Two gringos in an Oldsmobile

In the barrio she sings sad songs
Playing a broken, three string guitar
Her boy shoots marbles on the concrete floor
While I stare at a picture of a tiny blue child
Not two hours dead
“Mi favorito!" she says
One of eleven now gone

“Mexico!” I sigh
Placing the bones back on the shore
Gazing up into the empty sky

By: D.B. Luttenberger, 4/3/1980

POEM: Journey

Journey

You hold up your hand
To shade your eyes from the harsh light
The landscape outside is rugged
Devoid of meaning

The planets spin endlessly
Stars explode
And gyrate outward from the center
An anomaly
The beginning of time

There is no reason
No sign we are on the right path
The heat is sometimes unbearable
At other times
The cold penetrates your bones

It is a long journey
Begun at birth
Carried forward out of darkness
Over jagged surfaces

Our thoughts congeal
A world projects around us
A web of meaning
Broken promises, sickness, death
We discover mortality
We balance over the abyss

I go, not willingly, but
Because I must, no choice

I chose a path
But not the journey
An infinite array of paths
Like spider webs surround
And I must find the middle way
Between the darkness
And the light

Moments of intense joy
The discovery of hidden meaning
In the heart of stone

Moments of pleasure
In the arms of love
We touch another’s soul

Moments of illumination
Ideas form
Between minds
Two souls as one

For a moment

And then it’s gone

dbl2007

QUOTATION - George Berkeley (1685 - 1753)

"Truth and beauty are in this alike, that the strictest survey sets them both off to advantage; while the false lustre of error and disguise cannot endure being reviewed, or too nearly inspected." Spoken by Philonous in The Second Dialogue, published in 1713.

ESSAY: Make Peace Not War - An Alternate Response to Terrorism

(A radical interpretation of the events of 9/11 and the United States reaction to it as viewed through the writings of the Buddhist teacher and peace activist, Thich Nhat Hanh. Nhat Hanh was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1967 for his contribution to the Vietnam War peace effort.)

“If men are not afraid to die,
It is of no avail to threaten them with death.” Tao Te Ching

A Cataclysmic Event:

We live in a violent time; violent games, violent entertainment, violent streets, violent world. If the 17th century was the Renaissance, the 18th the Age of Reason, the 19th the Industrial Age, then the 20th century is surely the Age of Violence. Instead of reaping the bounty of technology, we are aiming weapons at each other. On September 11, 2001, terrorists flew 3 airplanes into major symbols of America’s capitalist and military strength. This resulted in the death of thousands of American citizens. Whether they were “innocent” or merely “non-combatants” is one of the central issues of this essay. As a result of this attack, their lives, their families’ lives and the lives of every American citizen was changed forever. Although we have always been an aggressive and violent nation, that violence has always been on foreign shores. Not since Pearl Harbor has it occurred within our nation’s borders. The reaction to Pearl Harbor was a nuclear holocaust that took 200,000 lives in one afternoon. The response to 9/11 has far surpassed this in casualties. Unlike Hiroshima, it is not directed at a single country, it is directed at a vague target, called terrorism, which exists in every country throughout the globe, hidden amongst the people of the earth.

The 9/11 attack was brutal. What we find most alarming is that it is seemingly, to us, without motive. It was a deliberate, premeditated plan, executed to extract the maximum amount of carnage on men, women and children who had never consciously intended to harm those who had attacked them. The attackers did not consider them people, only targets; the enemy. We were suddenly at war with an enemy totally unknown to us. We have a vague picture that they are of another world, another religion, and another region. How would we define them; Middle Eastern, Muslim, radical extremists? But so far away, so remote from our daily lives, we cannot understand how they can hate us enough to kill us indiscriminately. Is it simply because we are Americans, Christians, capitalists? Or is it because we have done something to them that we are not even aware of?

And what was our response? It has “filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness and a quiet unyielding anger…the search is underway for those that are behind these evil acts. I’ve directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities, to find those responsible and bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them…we stand together to win the war against terrorism…God Bless America” (George Bush, September 11, 2001). So we are at war in the name of God! We have already attacked two countries, unseated the ruling regimes, and are preparing to attack another. And yet, the terrorists who flew the engines of destruction on 9/11 were already dead before the “War on Terror” began.

“The Roots of Peace” An Alternative:

“Practicing non-violence is first of all to become non-violence…we have to transcend the tendency to take sides” Thich Nhat Hanh, Peace is Every Step (See note 1.)

Is the only answer to violence – violence? In the face of tragedy, isn’t anger, fear, outrage a natural response? How can we discuss peace when we are under attack? What would Nhat Hanh do? He believes in justice. “I am not saying that someone who viciously attacks us should not be disciplined, but what is most important is that we first take care of the seeds of negativity in ourselves. Then if someone needs to be helped or disciplined, we will do so out of compassion, not anger and retribution” (p 64). Also, he is no stranger to anger. “Anger is an unpleasant feeling, it is like a blazing flame that burns up our self control and causes us to say and do things that we regret later. When someone is angry we can see clearly that he or she is abiding in hell. Anger and hatred are the materials from which hell is made” (p 57). Clearly, Hanh has known hatred and anger; anyone who knows anger this deeply has experienced and conquered it. What is most important is not to act until we have gotten our anger under control. If we think on this deeply enough, we will come to realize that those who caused the acts of 9/11 are angry too. Our anger will not lessen their anger it will only add fuel to the fire.

We seek an alternate path because war does not work. It does not eliminate those responsible; it does not address the source of the problem. War may attempt to seek justice, but does not address injustice. War is, by its very definition, born from the dualistic view of life. It is the ultimate “us – them” argument. Hahn would say violence will only create more violence. Violence born from suffering can only cause more suffering. Before we can deal with violence in the outer world we must first deal with it in ourselves.

9/11: A Bell of Mindfulness:

Can such a terrible event, an event that took the lives of thousands, be a bell of mindfulness to the path of peace? The Buddhists say, “Life is suffering.” Can suffering be the event that opens us to the truth behind it? Following the roots of our feelings down into ourselves, we begin to discover, who we are. “When we want to understand something, we cannot stand outside and observe it…to comprehend something is to pick it up and be one with it, there is no other way to understand something. In Buddhism, we call this kind of understanding “non-duality.” Not two” (p 100) I am certain that Hanh would say that the only way out of the violent conflict in which we find ourselves, is compassion. Whenever we feel our anger welling up inside of us, we must return to the event of 9/11 and let this act lead us through our feelings mindfully, to discover the compassion in ourselves that we will need to resolve this conflict.

What will we find if we look deeply inside ourselves? Will we find that those that attacked us are suffering too? It is not because of their anger that they attack us; it is because of their suffering. If we counterattack in anger we will feed their anger, but if we address their suffering through compassion, we might find a way to put out the blaze of their anger. We transform our anger into something useful and in doing so, we change the world. And although we change only the world inside of us, this is the first step in transforming the world around us. “To transform our situation is also to transform our minds, to transform our minds is also to transform our situation, because the situation is mind and the mind is situation…The nature of the bombs, the nature of injustice and the nature of our own beings are the same” (p 112). Therefore, if we can see through our fear and anger, and truly feel compassion for the suffering of our enemy, we transform not only our own world, but the world of our enemy as well.

“Engaged Buddhism” A Platform for Action:

Once one understands that the violence on both sides is due to the suffering of our enemy and ourselves, one comes to realize that the suffering of both is related. Buddhism teaches us that all life is an interconnected membrane, much like a spider web, and like a fly trapped in the web, the spider can feel his struggle through the strands of the web. This leads us to the concept of inter-being. “We cannot just be by ourselves. We have to inter-be with every other thing” (p 96). To look deeply into our relationship with the terrorist is for us to realize that we are somewhat responsible for his actions against us. As we stated earlier, we are “non-combatants” but we are not “innocent.” The terrorists are members of a third world society that lives in the shadow of our affluence. All the wonders of our modern world run on engines driven by oil, the very oil that lies beneath their lands, their homes, their cities. We rape their natural resources for our own pleasure and give them nothing in return. It is true that vast sums of money go into the hands of the dictators that rule these lands, but little of this money finds its way into the pockets or kitchens of the people. “Let us look at wealth and poverty. The affluent society and the deprived society inter-are. The wealth of one society is made of the poverty of the other…we cannot just be, we can only inter-be. We are responsible for everything that happens around us” (p 98).

America has built a marvelous land, we have enjoyed prosperity at home and peace within our borders, but we have paid a terrible price in the poverty of others. The central problem is there is not enough to go around, so some must have more, while others have less. This is the injustice felt by the entire third world, and as the flames of injustice boil to the surface through the acts of the terrorist, the only way to solve terrorism is to extinguish the source of the fire. So what does the Buddhist do in the face of violence and injustice? “Should we continue to practice in our monasteries, or should we leave the meditation halls in order to help the people who are suffering under the bombs? After careful reflection we decided to do both –to go out and help people and to do so in mindfulness. We called it engaged Buddhism” (p 91). In the West, we do not need to be Buddhist to think expansively, we can be engaged Humanists. What would Hanh do? Hanh would act to relieve the suffering of everyone, he would demonstrate for peace, he would lead others to the meditation halls to quench their anger, and he would write his congressman. Hanh would “wage peace” with all the determination that America now wages war. “If the earth were your body, you would be able to feel the many areas where it is suffering. War, political and economic oppression, famine, and pollution wreak havoc in so many places. Every day children are becoming blind from malnutrition, their hands searching hopelessly through mounds of trash for a few ounces of food. Adults are dying slowly in prisons for trying to oppose violence…real strength is not in power, money or weapons, but in deep, inner peace…with clarity, determination and patience – the fruits of meditation – we can sustain a life of action and be real instruments of peace” (p 99).

The National Response – A Nation of Engaged Humanists:

“The Tao of Heaven is to take from those who have too much
and give to those who do have not enough.
Man’s way is different.
He takes from those who do not have enough to give to those
who already have too much.
What man has more than enough and gives it to the world?
Only the man of Tao.” Tao Te Ching

The present national response to terrorism shatters the world into two opposing camps, us and them, the enemy. In preparation to kill our enemy, we must demonize him. He becomes “the evil-doer” and we become the champions of justice, all under the watchful eye of our Christian God. We have turned the clock back a thousand years to the Crusades, a Christian military expedition to recover the Holy Lands from the Muslims. How can this ever bring peace to the world? If we succeed in capturing the lands and ousting their governments, will the people accept us as friends and equals, or will they view us as just the new dictator in town. “In order to fight each other, the chicks born from the same mother hen, put colors on their faces. This is a well known Vietnamese saying; putting colors on our own face is to make ourselves a stranger to our own brothers and sisters. We can only shoot others when they are strangers. Real efforts for reconciliation arise when we see with the eyes of compassion, and that ability comes when we see clearly the nature of inter-being and inter-penetration of all beings” (p 118). We must put out the fires of war that will only tear us apart. We must take off our colors and learn to embrace the enemy as brothers and sisters.

Consider the trillions of dollars that America will pour into the war effort. We have spent billions in Afghanistan, and hundreds of billions in Iraq. Think of the good we could do with that money if it were invested in the poor of the earth. If the only way to eliminate terrorism is to put an end to the suffering caused by hunger, hopelessness and despair, then as a nation of engaged humanists we would share our wealth and prosperity with people, not just the rulers. We would go to Congress and levy a tax on every barrel of oil extracted from the third world and use that money to build schools, hospitals and farms, to feed and heal all the people of the world. In the schools we would train them to teach themselves and heal themselves and feed themselves. We would not make them dependent on us, but we would share our prosperity. Eventually, the poor of the earth will come to see the goodness in our hearts, once they recognize the goodness and love that is flowing from us; they will take off their colors too. We will have removed the source of injustice that fuels the terrorists’ actions. If the terrorists persist in this climate, their own people will see the injustice in their actions and will no longer hide them in their homes or in their hearts. Without the people’s support, terrorism can not exist.

“I think we need a policy for dealing with our suffering. We do not want to condone it, but we need to find a way to make use of our suffering, for our good and for the good of others…we need to use the suffering of the 20th century as compost for the 21st century…
If we are willing to work together and learn together, we can all benefit from the mistakes of our time, and, seeing with the eyes of compassion and understanding, we can offer the next century a beautiful garden and a clear path” (p 134).

“Peace is available in every moment, in every breath, in every step” (p 134).

Note 1: Unless noted otherwise, all page references are to “Peace is Every Step,” Thich Nhat Hanh, Bantam, 1992.

Poem - On the Probability...

“It is evident that the ideas of permanent truth-value and fluctuating truth-value apply in reality to symbolic forms and not to propositions or propositional functions.” Alfred N. Whitehead & Bertrand Russell, Principia Mathematica, 1912.

We know, a priori, gross matters
In a world Principia Mathematica.
(i.e., e.g., limit f(x) = L)
We know such things as schizophrenia
And other pathologicals,
Of ribosome and chromosome
The physiology of the neural cell.

And for those evenings
When we’re drinking late
Metaphysical esoterica of time and space.

We know there’s work at nine
Dinner at eight.
These things we know
As Newton knew, F/M = A.

Or do we play the ingénue?
For Newton dreamed so long ago.

With hypertrophied cerebellum
We can’t define an electron’s spin
Or point to some particular place it’s in
Or, knowing place, predict its subsequent behavior
Whether wave or matter, matter-wave.
Symbol bound we fumble with infinity

The BIG BANG!

(A scattering of energy spun outwards
From some dense and smoldering core
Radiating-coalescing-transubstantiating.
Tyche leering, leaning on the wheel
Careening toward unknown and inconceivable shores.)

Do we hear cacophony
In this music of the spheres?

So certainly did we proceed
From premises to hypotheses
Hypotheses to theories
That we were taken unawares
By Einstein’s relativity
And Heisenberg’s uncertainty.

Uncertainty?
Who could have made a universe imperfectly?

We are such things as quantum dust
And strings that vibrate in the dusk
As night descends
We are alone, together, at the end.

Senescence, not graduation
Was the degree of our initiation
Into a universe of vague uncertainty
Where death lay waiting.

A reality we could not transcend
An immortality we did not intend
To end so damned abruptly.

Without recourse we cast our fate.
As we forsake the security of faith
For truth which does depend
Upon the vagaries of probability.

Our insatiate tenacity
For knowledge and veracity
Seem to devolve
Into that fearful dark abyss
Where theories translate to hieroglyphs
And galaxies dissolve.

Of late, gross matters seem insignificata
In a world post Principia Mathematicata.

DIALOGUE - The NeoRepublic 2007

Characters:
Socrates: Philosopher and gadfly
Georgias: President of the NeoRepublic
Cheneyus: Vice President of the NeoRepublic
Honorable Byrd: President ProTempore of the Senate

Scene: Socrates has been called before the Senate of the United States of America to question the President, and Vice President, concerning their request for additional funds to pursue the on-going war in Iraq.

Honorable Byrd: Gentlemen and ladies of the Senate, it is with a heavy heart that we address the request for additional funding to prosecute the war in Iraq. As you are all aware, the original estimate for the first year was just $50 billion U.S. dollars. Now, in the fifth year of the war, we have a further request for $200 billion for just this year! While the estimated cost for the first 10 years is nearly $2 trillion dollars! This comes at a time when the national debt is at an all time high, the economy is in ruins, and the value of the dollar against the euro at an all time low. The mood of the country has turned against the war. With elections coming next year we senators are unable to think clearly. We want to be fiscally responsible, but we do not want to lose any votes. We are aware that this is more money than we can responsibly spend without someone to blame. So, at your request, I have sought the wisdom of the great teacher, Socrates. He has come all the way from Ancient Greece to our great metropolis to help us deliberate whether or not we can grant the request of the President. And now, please welcome President Georgias and Vice President Cheneyus.

(With considerable pomp and ceremony, President Georgias enters the great hall of congress, followed by Cheneyus to the orchestral trumpets of “Hail to the Chief”! He is surrounded by a cloud of reporters and photographers, while all the politicians in the hall seem to be launching his direction in order to capture a photo opportunity shaking his hand. After an interminable wait they arrive at the front dais where 2 seats are arranged facing the entire hall of senators.)

Georgias: (Aside to Cheneyus.) They love me, don’t they?

Cheneyus: Yes your honor, they love you.
.
Georgias: We’ll get the money won’t we? They wouldn’t refuse me the money would they?

Cheneyus: No, Georgias….

Georgias: Call me Mr. President.

Cheneyus: Of course, No, Mr. President, they would not refuse to support the troops. They are afraid the people will think them weak.

Honorable Byrd: And now Gentlemen, and gentlewomen, I would like to introduce the wisest philosopher of all time, Socrates of Athens!

(Socrates enters the room wearing leather sandals and a simple plain toga with no embellishments, no fanfare. He walks quickly and efficiently to the podium that is placed to one side of the dais, between the supplicants and the great hall.)

Socrates: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate, I believe the most Honorable Byrd has misspoken for I am not the wisest philosopher of all time. I, in fact, know nothing. If I possess any wisdom at all, it is only in knowing that I know nothing. A man once told me that the oracle of Delphi said to him that Socrates was the wisest man in Athens. When this news was given to me I was completely at a loss as to what this could mean. So, I have devoted my life to a search for wisdom by questioning others about what they know so that I might improve myself, or, prove the oracle wrong. In this search I have questioned many, but found no truth with which to prove the oracle wrong. That is why I am excited to be here in America. I hope that here, in this great democracy, this giant world power, I shall at last find the truth that has eluded me for the last three millennia.

Georgias: (Aside to Cheneyus) Is this guy for real?

Cheneyus: (Aside) I’m afraid so Mr. President.

Georgias: (Aside) I’m not talking to him.

Cheneyus: (Aside) I’m afraid you will have to, if you want the money.

Honorable Byrd: Thank you Socrates for coming to our great Senate hall. I would like to present you to the President of the United States of America, President Georgias. (All rise and applaud.)

Socrates: (He bows) Mr. President.

Honorable Byrd: And seated on his right, the Vice President, Cheneyus.

Socrates: (He bows) Mr. Vice President. (The crowd is seated and Socrates turns to the crowd.) And now, before I begin, I beg you to be patient and allow me to speak in my own fashion. Knowing nothing myself, I must look to these great leaders for truth and enlightenment in this issue. My technique is very simple; I shall engage them in a dialogue so that we might, together, reach the true basis of this request so we can determine the best path forward for this great nation. (He turns to the President.) Mr. President, to expedite this discourse, might I call you Georgias?

Georgias: (Silence) Yes, ok, Georgias

Socrates: And Mr. Vice President, might I call you Cheneyus?

Cheneyus: As you wish.

Socrates: Then, perhaps I should ask the most obvious question first. You are the President, the Commander in Chief, and you need funds to prosecute the war. Is this correct Georgias?

Georgias: Yes, we need the funds to support our brave troops!

Socrates: And you, Mr. Byrd, can you speak on behalf of the Senate?

Honorable Byrd: I have been so empowered Socrates.

Socrates: Very good. Then I ask you Mr. Byrd, did the Senate approve the war?

Honorable Byrd: We did Socrates.

Socrates: Then why don’t you give him the money?

Georgias: (Aside to Cheneyus) I’m gonna like this guy.

Honorable Byrd: Well Socrates, that’s difficult to answer. (He clears his throat.) The war drags on…..the people are unhappy and believe that it must end. The request is very high at a time when there are other needed expenses….however some feel an obligation to Iraq…if we withdraw the government could collapse…there would be bloodshed, death, political turmoil…..and there is an election approaching. We do not know what is right, Socrates. We are divided. We are paralyzed with indecision.

Socrates: I see. To grant the funds is to continue the war. The real question then is not the funds, but the war itself. Can we all agree on that?

Honorable Byrd: We can Socrates.

Socrates: And who is the architect of this war?

Georgias: (Aside to Cheneyus) What did he say?

Cheneyus: (Aside) He is asking if it is your war.

Georgias: Yes sir, Mr. Socrates, my war. It was my idea. But they all went along with it. Every last one of 'em!

Socrates: Can you tell me why you wanted to go to war against Iraq?

Georgias: We were attacked! Bushwhacked! No pun intended. Attacked by the Forces of Evil!

Socrates: I know this is an emotional issue, but I must understand in more detail the cause of the war. So, you were attacked by Iraq?

Georgias: No, we were attacked by Terrorists! Muslim Terrorists! And now we are in a War on Terror!

Socrates: I am sorry Georgias, but I still do not understand. You were attacked by Muslim terrorists and these terrorists were from Iraq?

Georgias: What is the matter with you, don’t you read the papers? The Terrorists weren’t in Iraq, they were in Afghanistan. Now they are in Iraq! We are at War on Terror and now the Terrorists are in Iraq and we’re gonna get 'em!

Cheneyus: Excuse me Mr. President. Perhaps I can help explain our current situation. Socrates, we originally went to war against Afghanistan where the terrorists were hiding and training new recruits. We invaded and took over their country. We deposed their leaders, held new democratic elections and now support the new ruling regime. We then turned our attention to Iraq. Iraq was suspected of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, we call them WMD’s, and we were afraid they might fall into the hands of the terrorists so we invaded, deposed and executed their leader, held democratic elections, and now support the ruling regime.

Socrates: Thank you Cheneyus, I am beginning to get a clearer picture of the situation. You invaded Iraq, took over the country and discovered the stockpiles of WMD’s.

Cheneyus: Well actually, there were no WMD’s.

Socrates: No WMD’s. Were there terrorists in Iraq?

Georgias: Of course there were Terrorists! They’re Terrorists everywhere. Everywhere I tell you.

Cheneyus: There were not terrorists at first. There were insurgents. These were people that were unhappy with the war. You see, Iraq was ruled by a small minority party called the Sunnis. Their president, Saddam, was a Sunni Muslim. The majority of the population is Shiite Muslim and in a general election Shiites were put in power. So, many of the Sunnis rebelled against the occupation.

Socrates: But surely the country’s military could keep the insurgents under control.

Cheneyus: Not actually, you see, we disbanded the military, they were all Sunnis and we thought they might take advantage of the situation. You see the Sunnis and the Shiites hate each other and have been fighting for centuries. Saddam had kept all this under control by cruel and repressive measures. He was an evil dictator.

Socrates: This really is quite complicated. And how do the terrorists that attacked the United States of America fit into all of this?

Georgias: They’re all there now. “Nature abhorse a vacuum.” We fight them here, or they follow us home.

Socrates: Forgive me Georgias, but it seems you have the cart before the horse, haven’t they already followed you home? Didn’t they attack first?

Georgias: Got me there.

Cheneyus: Socrates, in the beginning we were only fighting the insurgent population that resisted being ousted from power. However, the terrorists, seeing our plight, flocked to Iraq and began terrorist attacks against the Americans and against innocent civilians. We have already lost nearly 4,000 American lives.

Socrates: And how many Iraqis have been killed? How many displaced?

Cheneyus: The exact numbers are unknown some estimate nearly 1 million dead and 1 to 2 million displaced from their homes. The country is in chaos. The United States remains in Iraq to provide security forces to allow the new Iraq democracy to blossom.

Socrates: Did the Iraqis ask for democracy?

Georgias: We gave it to them Socrates, whether they wanted it or not.

Cheneyus: In America we believe democracy is a god given right. It is a goal toward which all people aspire. Since we had deposed their leader, it seemed like the best thing we could do for them.

Socrates: Let me summarize, just for clarity, before we proceed further. You invaded the country because you thought they had WMD’s that they might give to the terrorists. After you invaded you discovered that they didn’t have WMD’s but you continued to depose and execute their president. Then, you ousted a minority religious sect that was in power, disbanded their military, and held a free election that put the majority, from another religion, in power. These actions unleashed a civil war, attracted terrorists from all over the world, and now this democracy can only exist if you remain in the country as an occupying force. Is this correct Honorable Byrd?

Honorable Byrd: I believe that is correct Socrates.

Socrates: So now the question becomes, do you stay, or go. Is that correct Georgias?

Georgias: Nobody’s going anywhere. We ain’t leaving till we win! You hear me, WE’LL LEAVE OVER MY DEAD BODY!”

Socrates: Yes, well that is part of the dilemma, isn’t it, the question of “winning.” Honorable Byrd, I trust you are familiar with the Constitution of the United States.

Honorable Byrd: I am Socrates

Socrates: Is it safe to say that the Constitution grants all of its citizens equal rights under the law?

Honorable Byrd: It is Socrates.

Socrates: Further, do you believe that one of the rights afforded your citizens is the presumption of innocence before the law. That is, every citizen is to be considered innocent until proven guilty of any offence.

Honorable Byrd: I do believe that is true Socrates.

Socrates: Would it be fair to assume that this could be considered a universal principle in any truly democratic state?

Honorable Byrd: Again, I believe this is a fair assumption.

Socrates: Would it also be safe to say that when dealing with other nations this same principle, since it is universal, should also apply?

Honorable Byrd: I do not understand the question.

Socrates: You have stated that you believe the presumption of innocence should be considered a universal principle, I am asking whether or not you believe this principle should apply when dealing with other nations.

Honorable Byrd: I believe this is correct.

Socrates: And do you Georgias also concur with this?

Georgias: I do not. Only our citizens have rights under our laws.

Socrates: I’m not sure that is correct. Your constitution requires you to uphold any agreements, or treaties, you have made with other countries. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Are you suggesting that in dealing with foreign citizens, or nations, that you have the right to assume they are guilty until proven innocent?

Georgias: Whoa there! You’re putting words in my mouth. I’m saying our laws only apply to our citizens.

Socrates: Do you agree with this Cheneyus?

Cheneyus: I believe the President is saying that it is sometimes necessary, in order to protect the interests of the United States, to act preemptively against a foreign power.

Socrates: By this you mean that you have the right to assume them guilty, without a trial, and to take actions against them accordingly?

Cheneyus: I believe that is what we are saying Socrates.

Socrates: And you Honorable Byrd, did you not just tell me that you, representing the Senate, believe the presumption of innocence to be a universal right?

Honorable Byrd: I did Socrates.

Socrates: Is it true that the Senate voted to approve the invasion of Iraq?

Honorable Byrd: It did Socrates.

Socrates: Was the invasion based on the assumption that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction?

Honorable Byrd: It was Socrates.

Socrates: Did the Senate attempt to verify that such weapons existed?

Honorable Byrd: It did Socrates. The United Nations had posted weapons inspectors inside Iraq.

Socrates: Oh, this is an interesting development. And did these inspectors find WMD’s inside of Iraq?

Honorable Byrd: They did not Socrates.

Socrates: Then you proceeded to sanction a war against Iraq without presumption of innocence, without fair representation?

Honorable Byrd: That is correct Socrates.

Socrates: And after the invasion you discovered your assumptions were incorrect?

Honorable Byrd: That is correct Socrates.

Socrates: Since you stated that you believe that the presumption of innocence is a universal right, and since you did not extend this right to another nation, it seems to me that you have violated the basic principles of your own constitution.

Honorable Byrd: I believe you are correct Socrates.

Socrates: Do you, Honorable Byrd believe in basic principles of moral responsibility?

Honorable Byrd: I do not know what these are Socrates.

Socrates: Do you believe we are responsible for our actions?

Honorable Byrd: I believe that is an excellent principle Socrates.

Socrates: And do you believe in this Georgias?

Georgias: I’m a Christian Socrates and I answer only to God!

Socrates: I’m not sure what that means. What about you, Cheneyus, do you believe we are responsible for our actions?

Cheneyus: It does not seem logical to assume otherwise Socrates.

Socrates: Honorable Byrd, do you believe that the same principle applies to the actions of groups as well as the actions of individuals?

Honorable Byrd: I do Socrates.

Socrates: Then, would it be fair to assume that you believe that the Senate of the United States, in approving the President’s request to invade Iraq, is responsible for the results of these actions?

Honorable Byrd: This is correct Socrates, we are responsible.

Socrates: Is it then fair to conclude that because you acted preemptively, without presumption of innocence, without adequate proof of your assumptions, that you are all responsible for the results of your actions.

Honorable Byrd: Yes Socrates, this is the source of our dilemma, we are guilty of not following our own principles.

Socrates: It would then follow you are also guilty for the results of your actions including millions of deaths, displacements, political upheaval, and general havoc caused by your unjustified occupation of another country.

Honorable Byrd: We are guilty Socrates.

Georgias: Jesus Christ! Are you crazy! We are at War with Terror! We can take any damn action we like if our nation is threatened!

Socrates: I do not believe that your Senate agrees with you. But regardless, even if you believe that you have the right to act preemptively, which your senate does not, you have stated that you believe you are to be held responsible for your actions. Further, having invaded Iraq on the basis of having WMD’s and then finding they did not exist, you persisted in your plans to change the government, execute their leader, and put in place your form of government. Is that not correct?

Georgias: (Aside to Cheneyus) I hate this guy.

Cheneyus: (Aside) Mr. President, you must answer his question.

Georgias: (Grumbling) Yes, yes…We are responsible!

Socrates: And what do you believe your responsibility is in this instance?

Georgias: To win the war!

Socrates: What war?

Georgias: The War on Terror, you idiot!

Cheneyus: I believe that Georgias means that it is our responsibility to bring stability back to the region.

Socrates: Let me ask you a question Cheneyus. Let us assume for the moment that you thought your neighbor’s house had been invaded by criminals. You have no proof of this other than perhaps you saw something unusual. Say a light was turned on that had previously been turned off. Based on this you act preemptively and invade the house expecting to catch the criminal in the act. Instead you find the house empty and the light on an automatic switch. What would be your first action?

Cheneyus: Why, to leave the house and return home Socrates.

Socrates: Let me ask you Cheneyus, what was the reason you invaded Iraq?

Cheneyus: We have already told you Socrates, because we suspected that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Socrates: And when you discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction shouldn’t your immediate reaction have been to admit you were wrong and return home?

Cheneyus: There were extenuating circumstances.

Socrates: I would suggest that all extenuating circumstances were a direct result of your invasion and the primary responsibility to correct your mistake remains the same and that is to leave. Would you agree Honorable Byrd, that if the invasion, based on your own laws, was illegal and, assuming you are responsible for your actions, your primary responsibility should be to leave this country as quickly as you possibly can?

Honorable Byrd: I believe that is correct Socrates.

Socrates: Is this not the case, even if your President does not agree?

Honorable Byrd: That is correct Socrates.

Socrates: Then, regardless of the President’s demands, the Senate cannot act but to assume responsibility for your actions and make preparations to leave as soon as possible.

Honorable Byrd: It seems you are correct Socrates.

Socrates: Would it also not follow that the Senate can not approve any funds that do not further the end of removing their presence from the region while addressing the wrongs done to the people under false pretenses?

Honorable Byrd: It seems that is correct Socrates.

Socrates: Does this answer the dilemma of how to vote on the further approval of funds to prosecute the war?

Honorable Byrd: I believe it does Socrates

Georgias: Now just you wait a minute! This is fucking bullshit! We are not leaving – YOU HEAR ME! These bastards are out to get us! We are not going home with our tail between our legs. Why, if we would leave now, the entire country would collapse!

Honorable Byrd: Yes Socrates, what do you say to that? Now that we are there, how do we just leave?

Socrates: What we concluded is that you should not approve any more funds to prosecute the war. We also concluded that you have to assume responsibility for the actions you have taken. Do you agree with this?

Honorable Byrd: We agree Socrates.

Socrates: Did you not tell me that you have instituted a new government that is a democracy?

Honorable Byrd: We have Socrates.

Socrates: Have you asked the people of Iraq to vote in a free and open election on whether or not they want you to remain?

Honorable Byrd: We have not Socrates.

Socrates: It seems like that should be your first order of business.

Cheneyus: Just a minute Socrates. The United States cannot put such critical decisions in the hands of the Iraqis people. Who knows what they might decide?

Socrates: Is it not your stated goal that they become a Democracy?

Cheneyus: That is correct….but it is not the Democracy we anticipated. It is dominated by Shiite extremists who may join forces with Iran.

Socrates: This is all supposition. If they are a Democracy, do you believe they have the right of self determination?

Cheneyus: I cannot help but agree with this.

Socrates: Then, by your own constitution, you have no other right but to allow them the right of free determination and abide by their decision concerning your presence in their country.

Georgias: Idiots! What about their OIL? We are not leaving without the OIL!

Socrates: And what does the issue of continued funding of the war have to do with oil?

Cheneyus: Our economy, our entire civilization, is built upon a continuous supply of oil from this region. Without oil, our entire way of life would be at stake. We had assumed that once Iraq became a democracy, in return for the sacrifices of our young men and women, we could work with them to secure a continuous supply of inexpensive oil that our economy needs to survive and flourish.

Socrates: I must confess, I do not understand. You have stated your purpose in invading Iraq was to protect yourself from the proliferation of WMD’s. Not finding WMD’s, and after destroying their existing government, you decided you would help them set up a new democratic government. Are you now suggesting that your goal is other than stated? That your real goal was to obtain control of their oil?

Georgias: You bet your ass! Try putting diplomacy in your gas tank.

Socrates: Honorable Byrd, does your Constitution allow you to attack other countries in order to secure control of their resources?

Honorable Byrd: It does not Socrates.

Socrates: Then securing a supply of Iraqis oil should not be an issue under consideration in deciding whether or not to fund the war. Do you agree Honorable Byrd?

Honorable Byrd: The Senate agrees with your conclusion Socrates.

Socrates: I believe my work here is done. Before leaving I would like to make the following observations based on what I have learned here today. It appears that you have taught me that we are all responsible for our actions and the results of those actions. The same applies to governments. And when these governments are democracies the entire population is responsible for the actions of the country, whether or not they agree with the decision. It appears you have acted in a way that is in violation of the principles of your own Constitution. You have attacked a sovereign nation for reasons other than those stated and, in doing so, you have broken your own laws and are responsible for all of the death and destruction that has occurred as a result of these actions. Even if you are not held accountable in a world court of law for your crimes, you are morally responsible to rectify the wrongs you have done in the name of greed and hubris. To continue your present course of action is wrong and no further good of any kind can be obtained from your illegal occupation of another nation. I suggest you admit your mistakes, appeal to your victims for mercy, and put all of your energy, and resources, into redressing these wrongs.

(Despite the above dialogue, the Congress and the Senate voted to ratify continued funding of the war. The Iraqis people have yet to vote on whether the United States should remain in occupation of their country. The death toll continues to rise while the United States government is building a new embassy in Iraq which will become the largest U.S. embassy in the world. The embassy will comprise more than 104 acres and employ nearly 5000 people. It appears as if we plan to stay!)