SamSaid!

THE MUSLIMS

     Recently, a prominent magazine featured a story about muslims in the USA and estimated the total population to be between 2million and 7 million. That's a pretty wide range for an estimate. Somwhat unnerving when we think about the millions of people in the US who are invisible. Who are they and where are they? Just imagine the outcry if a demographic study estimated the total population of the USA at 200 million to 700 million  (at last count).

    The aforementioned article also said that the two fastest growing religions in America are the Mormons and the Muslims. Personally, I don't have any doubts about the Mormons  –  I think they are as patriotic and maybe moreso than most Americans. But I don't have the same feeling of comfort about the Muslims. I guess they fall into 2 categories  –  Americans who follow the Muslim faith, and Muslims who happen to be living in America. Big difference. Certainly all Muslims cannot be categorized into the same camp as the Palestinian flag burners or the “Murder for Allah” extremists, but regarding the War on Terrorism I don't see much evidence of them coming forward saying “We're with you George, let's go get 'em”.

      For the older generation, the experiences of WWII are instructive. Before and during the war, the Japanese, Blacks and Indians were shabbily treated (maybe an understatement), but that didn't prevent legions of them from serving with distinction in the US Armed Forces.      NOTE:  I don't have much use for the term Native American. Nonsense, we all came from somewhere else  –  just a matter of when.

      Nowdays, the biggest thing coming from the US Muslims is silence. It is almost as though they are saying (whispering?) “Hey guys, this is your war, not ours. We'd like to sit this one out”. Not a good sign.

RELIGION

     Religion is always a touchy subject. Years back, folks indulging in social dialogue were admonished to stay clear of (or be discreet in commenting about) sex, religion, and politics. Nowadays you have to wade through all three just to get to sports and the weather. Religion is is the forefront now, and it is indicative that the troubles of the US Roman Catholic Church have pushed the “Murder for Allah” guys off the front page.

     The American RC church has major problems  –  bigger that most can appreciate. Now is the time when cries for “reform” might be heard, but not from the current Pope. He is aged, seriously enfeebled and solidly inflexible when it comes to significant reform. That will have to wait for the next guy.

     Priests, Ministers and Rabbis are the recipients of an enormous amount of trust from the members of the flock. For priests to betray that trust and commit such unspeakable acts defies comprehension. It is one thing for such acts to occur, but it is even worse to learn that the incidents were known, the facts covered up, and the victims paid off under a cloak of secretive non-disclosure. That says that several layers of the heirarchy “knew”. So now the high clergy are talking about “one strike and you are out”. In cases of pedophilia, or predatory sexual abuse, that kind of decision is a no-brainer. It isn't a metter of church discipline  –  it's a matter of the law. And withholding or concealing information is also against the law. But it all depends upon how individual acts are “labeled”. What if the odious actions are described as “improper conduct” or “unacceptable behavior” or “actions in violation of church rules”.  Is it “three strikes” or “ball four”  –  a free pass. You would think that the church would understand that the proper treatment of chocoholics is not transferring them to the candy store acoss the street.  Anyway, legal obligations and garish publicity will compel actions on the most serious trangressors.

     But when the RC leaders convene in Texas in June, they will face an even more imposing challenge  — what to do about homosexuality. The Church is four square in opposition to homosexuality  –  since it does not accept, condone or support it in any way. Yet it is there  –  pervasively. Does the church change its stance on homosexuality?  Does it purge its ranks? Does it deny entry? Or does it maintain an official stance and then wink at it? As one former priest has said, “When you are behind the wall of the RC Church, it's like being in the biggest “closet” in the world, and there is no need to “come out of the closet”. Deciding whether there is a link between homosexuality, pedophilia, or predatory sexual abuse begs the question. This is a religious decision of major magnitude for the RCs.

      And that leads to the $64,000 question  –  celibacy. Almost five hundred years ago, Martin Luther tacked his 95 theses on the church door and lit off the Reformation. Maybe this time it will only take someone tacking a short comment onto one Church door, “Celibacy doesn't work”. Consider that over the past 15 years there have been a large number of priests who have given up “the cloth”. The reason cited by 95% of them was “to get married”. I think there is a message there  –  one that should be heeded by the RCs. Change comes about for various reasons, but change occurs. The Church is not immune.  

ANWR

     The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is a broad frozen expanse that is the Arctic equivalent to the Gobi Desert  –  or maybe the Kalahari or Atacama. It is the home for a variety of quadripeds –  mostly Caribou  –  who somehow survive, but it also sits on top of a large oil field. George Bush has identified drilling in ANWR as the centerpiece of his progam to make the US more energy independent and less dependent on imported oil  –  specifically from the Middle East. Right now, more than half of the oil we consume comes from Russia, the Middle East and Venezuela. Recent history has shown that US dependence upon OPEC and Middle East oil can be very very chancy. And that is especially true nowadays.

     Yet, the environmental extremists and other loonies of the left are vowing to fight to the death to prevent drilling in ANWR. Just imagine a football field totally covered by snow and ice. Then imagine a small 10 sqft area in the corner of an end zone. That is where the drilling would occur. True, the drilling would be lateral as well as vertical, but the surface area would be quite small. By analogy, the drilling area might consume 1% of an area the size of South Carolina. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to understand this issue. For example:

     .  We are nowhere near self sufficiency in oil production, and will not be in the foreseeable future

     .  We are dangerously dependent upon foreign sources of oil  –  especially from the Persian Gulf area

     .  The production from the Prudhoe Bay (Alaska) oil field has peaked and is diminishing

     .  ANWR oil will not make us energy independent, but it will offset the diminishing production from Prudhoe Bay and to some extent will lessen the demands for imported oil

     .  Conservation can also reduce the demand for oil, but it can't be the entire answer for US oil needs. Far from it.

     .  The environmental scare tactics are bogus  — just look at Prudhoe Bay when the same wild claims were made.There are now 3 times more Caribou than there were 20 years ago when the drilling began.

     . An interruption in the flow of oil or a major increase in oil prices can have a devastating effect on the economy.    

     . Shortly,  we will be treated to a Senate filibuster by Democratic Presidential aspirants Biden (Del), Kerry (MA), and Lieberman (Conn). There are enough Senatorial votes to pass the measure to approve the ANWR drilling, but perhaps not enough for cloture (to close off debate). So we will see how the Democratic filibuster goes  –  while the Middle east is aflame and terroism is still alive.

     I wonder if the loonies of the left and the environmental eggheads ever thought of the axiom,  ”every little bit helps”. Even if ANWR is not the answer to oil independence, it sure moves us in that direction. Most folks accept that BOTH drilling and conservation are worthwhile. But not the loonies. Sad.

THE ARAFAT DILEMNA

     To the USA and Israel, Yasser Arafat poses a major dilemna. How do we deal with him? The problem is that Arafat is a terrorist. He was 40 years ago, 30 years ago, 20 years, ten years and now. He is surrounded by terrorist henchmen who have no great desire for peace or a cease-fire. He can't be trusted and his handshake is about as useless as a “slow down” sign on a 70 mph freeway. For decades he has existed to kill Jews with the objective of destroying Israel. To most observers, that should come as no surprise. Arafat has never been a builder; rather, he has been a destroyer. And still is.

    So, do we deal with him or not. Is there any such thing as giving him still another chance? Frankly, I think things have reached the point where even if he wanted peace he couldn't deliver. His mad dogs are loose and he can't control them. If he says to Hamas, Hezbollah and Jihad “Hey guys, knock it off  –  let's cease fire, recognize Israel and negotiate for our Homeland”, they will either laugh at him or blow him away. More likely the latter. Funny how Palestinians are martyrs when one of their suicide bombers takes 100+ innocent Israeli civilians with them, but deaths at the hands of the Israeli military are “assassinations”. Everybody got that??

     So in dealing with Arafat, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Problem is that we are compromising our position on dealing with terrorists. The Arafat leopard simply hasn't changed its spots. Truly a dilemna. We will probbably put up a diplomatic smokescreen and negotiate with him some more but don't expect a lot. The real problem is that there will be no peace until both sides REALLY want peace. We can't force the Palestinians and their corps of terrorist-directed suicide bombers to desire peace. At some point in time it will have to come from them either because they think it is the right thing to do or because the price of continuing conflict is too high. The Palestinian leaders can't comprehend the former and reject the latter.

     Remember the old saying, “You never get order out of order”. It is hard to tell how close this issue is to rock bottom. From my vantage point, it is pretty hard to root for the Palestinians  –  whether or not there is substance to their cause.