Remembering Eyjafjallajokull

Iceland died last week.  Its last request was for its ashes to be spread across Europe

        --  A little Eyjafjallajokull humor

Now that flights have resumed across Europe, and people have begun complaining about the amount of money they lost due to the disruptions caused by Eyjafjallajokull's volcanic eruption I find it only fitting to sit back and witness the awesome power that is mother nature.  Yes this volcano caused seismic headaches for anyone who intended to travel to or within Europe for roughly a week, but that is it. 

The airlines lost money and travellers lost money, but do people actually think someone was at fault for the flight cancellations?  Are people going to sue Iceland for not controlling its volcano, or Great Britain for not controlling the wind in its air space?  Most people I feel would prefer to lose money instead of flying into volcanic ash filled clouds that would destroy jet engines and inevitably result in a loss of lives.  Patience inspired by the awe of volcanic power was all Europe could do.

Or Europe could do this.

Despite how much fun drinking in airports and hating Iceland can be I think a sweet, educational song might be a bit more in order.

Remember if Eyjafjallajokull is too much to handle imagine how debilitating and panic ensuing the eruption of its volcanic neighbor Katla would be.  Katla is located only 12 miles away from Eyjafjallajokull and scientists believe they are connected by an underground network of magma channels.  Therefore, there is an increased chance of Katla erupting after Eyjafjallajokull, yet the eruption of Katla would be roughly ten times as powerful.  Katla would shoot higher and larger plumes of ash into the air that would dwarf these recent events, and by all accounts it is due an eruption.  Katla traditionally has erupted around every 80 years with its last eruption being in 1918.  Basically, for those people intent on recouping their monetary losses from over the past week they should consider buying stock in the European rail and bus industries.

Eyjafjallajokull will probably be remembered as a warm up for Katla, and if people become panicked from the warm up that does not bode well for the game.  We all need to refrain from petulantly flying into a storm regardless of whether the disturbances are a natural occurrence or self-inflicted. 

Maybe we should follow this guys advice by taking a nice, scenic drive in the country while probably listening to either Bjork or Sigur Ros

I like to think that he is driving away from the storm instead of into it, but who knows.

For more great pictures of Eyjafjallajokull vist The Big Picture

The Pope and the Law

This week atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have called for the arrest of Pope Benedict XVI when he visits Britain between September 16 & 19, visiting London, Glasgow, and Coventry.  They intend to have him arrested for “crimes against humanity” and will use the same precedent as when former Chilean Dictator Augusto Pinochet visited and was arrested upon entering Britain in 1998. 

Pinochet was arrested for his “crimes against humanity” that occurred while he ruled Chile that consisted of at least 1,500 killings and 200,000 Chileans fleeing in exile.  The British arrested Pinochet, who had previously had a great relationship with former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, on the principle of universal jurisdiction that proclaims that some crimes are so severe that every country has the right to arrest this criminal for the benefit of all nations regardless of whether the crimes have any relation to the arresting country.  Dawkins and Hitchens argue that Pope Benedict XVI’s handling of child abuse cases where he consistently put the interest of the Catholic Church ahead of the interest of the victims should be regarded as equal to a dictator valuing the stability of his government and consolidation of power over the best interests of the people of his nation.  Additionally, since the Vatican is not recognized as a state by the United Nations the Pope would not be entitled to the diplomatic immunity that a head of state would receive upon visiting Britain.

The significance of Dawkins’ and Hitchens’ claims does not reside in the sensational image of arresting a sitting Pope, but instead on the origins of the moral authority with which we formulate our laws.  As a society we are at a cross roads between laws originating from an infallible source to then be applied to the masses, and laws arising from learning from the fallible nature of man.  The former interpretation of laws will make people more inclined to believe in divine truths, increasingly severe punishments including death, and a very black and white perspective of life.  The latter will result in truths deriving from actions and the knowledge that truths were meant to be broken, and this most likely would result in reasonable punishments, and an acknowledgement of the grey areas of life. 

Laws that originate from the morality created by a religious organization, which is where many current laws have originated, proclaim an infallible nature, but as time has progressed humans have acknowledged the fallibility of the previously infallible.  The arresting of the Pope would prove not only the fallibility of the infallible, but also the fallibility of the most powerful organized religion on earth.  Frankly, if this is the direction humanity wants to proceed I have no problem with that, but I do not feel that atheists should take us there.

If atheists spark this process then history will inevitably repeat itself.  People will decide to believe in no God instead of believing in a God, when the most sensible act would be admitting that we actually have no idea.  The desire to apply infallibility to a belief would have been transferred from a belief in something to a belief in nothing, yet the whole reason for the controversy originates from an acknowledgement of the fallibility of our beliefs and religions, and a desire of our laws to correct these errors.  The desires of Messrs. Dawkins and Hitchens should not be the main motivator for re-examining the actions, motivations, and moral authority of the Pope, but instead the desire should start from common actions such as the current scandal involving U.S. swimming.

Last week ABC reported that 36 U.S.A. Swimming, the official swimming organization representing the United States in the Olympics, coaches over the past decade had groped, molested and secretly videotaped teenage swimmers, and as a result all 36 were banned for life and many are currently serving jail terms.  I think all would agree that U.S.A. Swimming is a much smaller organization than the Catholic Church, but it should be evident to all that U.S.A. Swimming has dealt with these crimes in a much more severe and effective manner.  Despite being a much more stern disciplinarian, U.S.A. Swimming still admits that they need to improve, yet the Catholic Church has failed to act on numerous occasions. 

The Catholic Church repeatedly transfers priests who have abused children to other parishes and ordered for them to repent, yet these tactics not only prove ineffective but also do not align with the standards that society has set for crimes of this magnitude.  The reason that U.S.A. Swimming and the Catholic Church have administered drastically different punishments for similar crimes centers on the fact that the former acts based on the fallible nature of man, and the latter on the infallible nature of its beliefs.  Moving a priest to another parish and sentencing him to repent may appear lenient and ineffective to many, but if your punishments come from an infallible source then the punishments must be adequate.  The absurdity of the Catholic Church’s logic should be obvious to all, and the danger that this logic has wreaked on countless children throughout the world is evident for all to see.

The call to arrest the Pope should stem from an objective will to try those that appear to put the lives of others in danger, and not any ill will towards the belief of an organization.  At present the most damning evidence against Pope Benedict XVI is that in 1985 when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and had been appointed the as the head of the Vatican office that shared responsibility for disciplining abusive priests he denied the request of the diocese of Oakland to remove Rev. Stephen Kiesle whom they had suspected of molesting children.  The then Cardinal Ratzinger cited the “grave significance” of the arguments for removing Rev. Kiesle, but instead ordered that Rev. Kiesle receive “as much paternal care as possible”, a.k.a. adult supervision to hopefully stay out of trouble, and stated that it would be in “the good of the universal church” if this case was handled in this fashion. 

These punishments are not acceptable in modern times, and obviously were not in the 80’s since the diocese of Oakland felt that Rev. Kiesle needed to be removed.  One of the most startling revelations of this case is that Kiesle had been charged with child molestation in 1978 and had just finished his three years of probation upon entering the diocese in Oakland in 1981.  A known pedophile was working in the Catholic Church and not only did Cardinal Ratzinger deny the request to remove him from the Catholic Church, but instead argued that it was in the best interest of the universal church for him to stay.  This decision may have sustained the image of the infallible moral authority for the Catholic Church by allowing the crimes to go unnoticed, but now these errors in judgment can be seen by all and the morality of the Catholic Church does not appear to be on the same level as that of the rest of western civilization. 

At present the Catholic Church seems to be working quickly to correct these errors and that is appropriate, but should the Pope, or the Infallible, be able to argue that his mistakes should be excused because they were based around a desire to sustain an image of infallibility?  Basically, “The Church and I made mistakes because we were trying to be perfect, so stop harassing us so that we can continue with our perfection.”  I think few people would accept this mea culpa, and frankly accepting the Pope’s apology, if one ever arrives, would be a regression in our understanding of the laws that govern us.  The most just act would be to treat the Pope as if he was a regular person, since that is exactly what he is, and every person can be arrested.

The Quixotic Cathedral

Don Justo

“It was his great good fortune to live a madman, and die sane.”

       The epitaph of Don Quixote in Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quixote

For the past 50 years Justo Gallego, 85 and affectionately known as Don Justo, has been building a cathedral on the outskirts of Madrid, Spain.  The first question may center around why it has taken him so long to build a cathedral.  Did he run out of money?  Did an investor pull out of the project?  Does he not have enough workers?  Was a part of the cathedral destroyed, and has the rebuilding taken longer than envisioned?  Europe is no longer in the Dark Ages, so a cathedral should easily be able to be constructed in ones lifetime.  The American in me at first wanted to know why it has taken so long for Don Justo to build his cathedral, and then I found out that the cathedral was not finished, but simply nearly finished.  This project of Don Justo's appears to not make any sense, but that is where the beauty resides.

Don Justo for the past 50 years has been building The Cathedral for Our Lady of the Pillar by hand and on his own.  He mixes his own cement.  He erects his own dangerously below construction code regulations scaffolding to reach the top of the cathedral's 200ft dome.  He constructs the cathedral from his own imagination, and has never drawn up any blueprints.  For years he would wander the streets of his tiny Madrid suburb and gather bricks for his cathedral.  He has done this for 50 years and for most of the time he was regarded as "El Loco" and received no support.  Now the world is catching up with Don Justo and although he may still be insane he may also be a genius.

In response all Don Justo can say is,

“I am a simple man. But I hope people will come to worship here, and I think they will realize this is a splendid and unique place.”

The only aspect missing from this great story is a finished cathedral.  Don Justo is 85 years old now, and it is getting harder and harder for him to get out of bed in the morning.  It takes him longer to climb the scaffolding.  His body is wearing down, but the cathedral needs to be completed.  He needs some help, and luckily for him a trusty assistant arrived a couple of years ago in Angel Lopez Sanchez, 43.  Angel saw the ruins of a cathedral from his balcony and decided to investigate the ruins.  Upon arriving Don Justo asked him what he thought of the cathedral and Angel thought "What cathedral?".  However, from that point on Angel decided "I'm going to help you." and he has been Don Justo's assistant much like Don Quixote has Sancho Panza.

Don Justo and Angel are now on a race against time and age to complete one man's crazy dream, a dream that everyone thought was impossible, but one that will undoubtedly be appreciated upon its completion.  I enjoy stores where people work to achieve their dreams and disregard the naysayers.  Sometimes people succeed in their dreams and sometimes they fail, but in all situations they learn something valuable from the journey.  When Don Justo finishes The Cathedral for Our Lady of the Pillar he intends to give it to the Church.  Upon its completion I hope believers and non-believers alike are inspired to follow their dreams.

The Cathedral for Our Lady of the Pillar

For more info on Don Justo vist The Times

Racism in Italian Football

 Mario Balotelli

Mario Balotelli is an Italian footballer of Ghanaian descent that has suffered many abuses from Italian fans because of his race. 

This week the Italian football club Nuovo Casteltodino abandoned a match after two of their Italian players of African descent received repeated abuses.

Every weekend I watch football.  I watch football from England, Spain, Italy, Germany and France.  I watch a lot of football, yet watching a match on television does not compare to being in the stadium.  The atmosphere inside a football stadium is hard to duplicate and many sports pale in comparison.  Seeing a football match live is truly something everyone should witness even if you are not a fan of the sport.  It is an environment that should be experienced and not just viewed from afar, yet there are aspects that need to be removed.

During my times in Europe I’ve attended a handful of matches, and I enjoyed them all, but I do remember a few occasions where there were chants that I did not appreciate or sections of the stadium that I was advised not to purchase tickets in, and all of this was solely due to the color of my skin.

In modern day society, and past societies, racism and/or prejudices towards other groups are nearly inevitable.  People may be unfamiliar with a group of people and their initial judgments towards the character of those individuals could be based on appearance and/or habits.  At some point people must find a way of dealing with these differences.  Some may respond negatively, some positively, and others completely indifferent, but the main theme should be that although the end result may be similar the process of getting their was most likely completely different.

In Italy people may be inclined to racist actions not because of an overwhelming belief that people of African descent are beneath them, but instead because their country is in a very vulnerable geographic location that makes them ripe for invasion and therefore the people are wary of individuals that one could deem as foreign.  Italian racism could arise from opinions that originate from the slave trade during the Roman Empire.  The method for addressing this problem could reside in their Roman Catholic faith, as the audio clip alluded to.  This perspective does not make their racism any less significant to that which exists in the United States, which originated solely from the slave trade, but it may gave a better method for which we can address and hopefully solve the problem.

Racism may be an international problem, but addressing it domestically may be the ideal method for solving this issue.

For more info on this topic go to the BBC.

A Great Place to Live

Earlier this week a Moroccan man was denied French citizenship for forcing his wife to wear a niqab, a full veil that only allows for her eyes to be seen, due to his behavior being ‘incompatible with French values’.  (The Guardian has the full story.) French Imigration Minister Eric Besson said,

"It emerged during the inquiry and the interview process that this person forced his wife to wear the full veil, deprived her of freedom of movement with her face exposed and rejected the principles of secularism and equality between men and women,"

This outward and distorted display of Islamic principles not only went against the ideals of France’s secular government, but also its basic principle of equality among the sexes.  A man should not be able to so strictly regulate the attire and life of his wife and then be allowed citizenship in a country that opposes these practices.  To make matters even worse he justified these actions by citing his religious beliefs.  France has had a long tradition of secular values that have existed since the French Revolution, and religious expression in government buildings have long been outlawed.  Public schools, courthouses or any government buildings do not display the Ten Commandments, the crucifix, the Star of David, the Koran or any religious imagery.  The French Republic is separate from the church and therefore cannot support any religion.  By not supporting any religion, the French Republic cannot accept justification for actions based solely on religious beliefs.  Actions must be vindicated by reason and logic, and not merely religious dogma.  This is a level of governing that many countries have failed to attain; yet all should aspire for. 

It seems strange to support an individual not obtaining citizenship due to his religious beliefs, but in this situation it is appropriate.  Governments should work towards sustaining and furthering the equality and freedoms of its people, and when an individual acts to diminish this equality and these freedoms he should not be granted the luxury of participating regardless of his justifications.  In the end, we should all hope that this man eventually starts to treat his wife as an equal, and allow her to have all the freedoms that a French person enjoys.  Until, that day happens he truly is not French, and should not be treated as a Frenchmen.

In a completely unrelated story France was voted the best country to live in for the fifth time in a row by International Living’s annual Quality of Life Index.  In evalutating France International Living stated,

"No surprise. Its tiresome bureaucracy and high taxes are outweighed by an unsurpassable quality of life, including the world's best health care."



Ignorance and Hindsight are Essential for Judgment

Two statements could sum up today’s Iraq Inquiry cross-examination of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair:  Ignorance is bliss and hindsight is 20/20. 

When the former Prime Minister was pressed about the links between terrorism and Saddam Hussein’s supposed WMD’s, and if they posed a threat to the UK he replied with, “Yes, because for the reasons that I have given, if Saddam, freed from sanctions, was able to pursue WMD programs, I was very sure that at some point we were going to be involved in the consequences of that.”

This is good logic except that he in that logic gives an example of how the UK could minimize this threat.  Why would you decide to remove sanctions from Saddam Hussein that could allow him to pursue WMD programs?

However, we could review the logic of his decisions for days, but more importantly we should review his competency.  When he was asked, "You weren't aware yourself that you were overstating the intelligence?" he replied with, “Correct”.  The former Prime Minister of the UK basically stated that he had no idea what he was doing, and therefore since he did not know the difference between up and down he could not have lied.  Lying would consist of knowing that down was down, and then telling everyone that it was up.  Tony Blair however thought down was up, and told everyone that down was up.  That is not a lie, but instead just deadly ignorance and that should be regarded as a nearly equal crime.

Additionally, Mr. Blair also admitted that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein has been overstated, and that the threat did not increase after 9/11.  This is a conclusion he has now come to, but is not what he felt while he was Prime Minister.  Hindsight is 20/20.

The problem with these excuses is that they basically allow anyone to get away with anything.  Ignorance cannot be an excusable reason for committing crimes, and eventual education cannot be an excuse for not having to face punishment.  The public should be able to determine what a person should be able to know and that should justify the punishment.  The fact that Mr. Blair knows the error of his ways now, once he is in a position of less influence would imply that he should have known more while he was Prime Minister.

Tony Blair’s logic would be the same as driving your car at 110 mph and then protesting that you should not get a ticket because you were unaware of the speed limit since you were driving so fast that you could not see the signs, yet you currently realize that corrections could have been made and therefore will promise not do it again.  When nearly all of Britain protests your actions, and you have no explanation that proves the wisdom of your acts, then you have obviously done something wrong.  You may have been ignorant and you may know that now, but that should never be an excuse or justification for your actions.

You can read more about the Iraq Inquiry at the Times of London.

Update on Saturday, January 30, 2010 at 9:28AM by Barrett Holmes Pitner

Unrepentant, unforgiven, Blair says:  'I'd do it again'

Tony Blair was branded a liar and a murderer after his appearance at the Iraq Inquiry, and this is warranted.  Ignorance and poor judgment needs to be punished.

Read more at the Times

The Iraq Inquiry

Today former British Prime Minister Tony Blair will face a grueling six-hour cross-examination about the legality of sending British soldiers to fight and die in Iraq.  The British want to know when he decided to commit British soldiers to America’s folly.  They want to know if the reasons that Tony Blair delivered to the British public to explain his commitment to America’s cause were shrouded in lies.  For a country that never supported the war and a Labour Party that publicly expressed its disagreements with the Prime Minister, they both feel they need an explanation for Tony Blair’s acts.  The only person that should be able to give that answer is Tony Blair. 

I wish Americans had the gumption to hold their public officials accountable to a comparable level to the British.  Today, we still have people that will argue on the behalf of the former President and proclaim the benefits and necessity of invading Iraq.  People still bemoan the moments when liberals acknowledge that many of our present problems originated with the previous administration.  We need to become accustomed to holding people accountable for their actions, especially when those actions may have consisted of illegal acts and lies.

Tony Blair thus far has already acknowledged that he would have committed British soldiers to a war in Iraq regardless of whether Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction or not.  Also he has argued that his “assessment” of Saddam Hussein changed after the attacks of 9/11.  Before Saddam Hussein was a defiant Middle Eastern leader that needed to be monitored.  In the post-9/11 world we could not longer take the risk of simply monitoring him, but instead needed to remove him.  That logic would have made sense if Saddam Hussein had any relationship with the attacks on 9/11, but he did not.  This logic would be the equivalent of al-Qaeda attacking Canada due to its association with the United States. 

Tony Blair will probably have a very rough six-hours, and this is warranted.  I will provide an update on the Inquiry once it has been completed.

Friendly Fire?

The term friendly fire has long been used as a condition where a soldier is accidentally killed by another soldier under the same flag.  Instances such as a comrade accidentally being struck by a stray bullet during the heat of battle, or a training exercise that has gone array.  That is what we have been accustomed to friendly fire meaning, but the War in Afghanistan has arisen a potential new meaning to this word.  What do you call it when soldiers of one country are fighting a war in a foreign land in addition to training said countries troops to fight for themselves, and are then intentionally shot and killed by the troops they are training?

Click to read more ...

The Sunday Knight - Bomb Threat

A young Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab

On Christmas day, 23 year old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate a bomb on a Northwest Airlines flight carrying 278 passengers and 11 crew members from Amsterdam to Detroit while the plane made its final descent.  He hid his bomb of pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN), one of the most powerful high explosives, in the lining of his pants and before he attempted to detonate the bomb he ventured to the lavatory for roughly fifteen minutes to set it up.  Upon returning to his window seat, he claimed that he had an upset stomach and then covered himself with a blanket.  At that point he attempted to detonate the bomb, but the detonator malfunctioned and instead a fire erupted in his pants seriously burning his legs.  Upon seeing the fire, hearing the noise, and smelling the smoke the passengers subdued Mr. Abdulmutallab, and the threat disappeared.  

This story should be frightening and infuriating, yet due to the events of the past decade it almost seems like the norm.  This should not be a welcomed surprise.

Click to read more ...

Venice is Drowning

We've been told that Venice has been sinking for many years, but few would have predicted the record floods that have made Venice into what we feared, yet never believed would occur.

However, this appears to be a growing occurrence.  This years flood has brought 56.6 inches (144 centimeters) of rain, but December of last year brought 63 inches (160 centimeters)

December of last yearDecember of this year

Click to read more ...

X Factor vs Rage Against the Machine

In the UK having the top-charting single during the week leading up to Christmas is a very big deal.  The Beatles did it four times, the Spice Girls did it three times, and Queen did it twice.  Being top of the charts come Christmas is very big indeed in the UK and only the best recieve this accolade, yet over the last three years winners of Simon Cowell's show X Factor, essentialy a British American Idol, has provided the top single for this week.  To make matters even worse, the winners of X Factor have topped the charts by covering a song from Kelly Clarkson, and singling a song from The Prince Of Egypt Soundtrack.  This should not be the best Britain can do, and the Brothers Morter feel the same way.

To voice their outrage Jon and Tracy Morter launched a campaign on Facebook to select Rage Against the Machine's song "Killing in the Name" as the top song over the Christmas week.  When Rage heard about it they through their support behind the cause and even agreed to have a free concert if they won.

Well the results are in and "Killing in the Name" is the top song over the Christmas week with 502,000 downloads compared to X Factor winner Joe McElderry's inspirational cover of Miley Cyrus' "The Climb" with 450,000 downloads.

Here is the video of Rage performing live on BBC Radio 5

For more info on the historic upset go HERE.

An Appropriate Response to Tony Blair's Dangerous Ignorance

The Burning of Tony Blair

"The fact that the policy was fixed by Tony Blair irrespective of the facts on the ground, and irrespective of the legality, will now expose him more rather than less to legal difficulties,"

Tony Blair's admission that he would have backed an invasion of Iraq even if he knew that they did not possess weapons of mass destruction has sparked cries that he should be investigated for war crimes.  This is a continuation on his belief that the "notion" of a threat is enough to warrant a military invasion.  Like I said in a previous post HERE, Mr. Blair's belief in the importance of a "notion" instead of facts would engulf the world in chaos because it would justify the military attack of one country to another without the need of evidence.  Thus the evidence of weapons of mass destruction would never be needed or even desired.  All you would need was the creation or fabrication of a "notion" concerning weapons of mass destruction.  Anyone who honestly believes in the importance of a "notion" instead of facts, regardless of how well their intentions may be, will eventually commit a war crime through the creation of a needless war.

Americans need to have the same level of outrage concerning the Iraq War as the British do, but lets hope that Tony Blair can look at his partner in crime and see the folly in their ways.

The Many Faces of War

For more information on Tony Blair go HERE.

Unparliamentary Language

Paul Gogarty, a member of Ireland's Green Party, does not feel that Ireland's Labour Party is taking the country in the right direction.  Thus he decided to let the Labour Party's Chief Whip know about his frustration during a session of the Dáil Éireann, that is what Ireland calls its parliament.  Paul Gogarty is very frustrated and sincere.

This video is NSFW and happened on C-SPAN.  What is the chance of that happening.

Bloodied Berlusconi

"They paint me as a monster, but I don't think I am one - firstly because I am good-looking and secondly because I'm a decent chap"

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was today attack or "punched in the face" today at a political rally in Milan.  

Prime Minister Berlusconi is a very divisive figure in Italy.  You either love him or hate him, but indifference is not an option.  He recently has courted controversy surrounding his private life after his wife, Veronica Lario, filed for divorce after she learned that he attended the birthday party of and bought a gold necklace for an 18 year old girl HERE.  Apparently he never attended the birthdays of his own children according to Ms. Lario.  His impending divorce also opened to flood gates to accusations of soliciting prostitutes HERE.  Additionally, he also selected former models and showgirls as candidates for the European Parliament representing Italy HERE, and has lost his immunity from prosecution HERE.

Needless to say it is easy to either love or hate Mr. Berlusconi, and today was nothing different.

Here is a video of the incident

For more info go HERE and HERE

"Removing Saddam was Right, Even Withouth WNDs" - Tony Blair

The appearance of complexity cannot mask the simplicity of your philosophy.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair came out today and reaffirmed his conviction for the removal of Saddam Hussein.  The former Prime Minister said that the "notion" of Saddam Hussein posing a threat to the region was enough justification for his removal.  This philosophy is not only absurd, but it is extremely dangerous.  Under this reasoning, British and American troops would need to be in the region, and constantly overthrowing governments for the foreseeable future.  Any country inside and outside of the Middle East should easily be able to create an argument validating the "notion" of a threat from one of its neighbors.  Needless to say not too many people agree with Mr. Blair.  Hans Blix, the UN inspector, countered with

"Saddam's removal was a gain but it's the only gain that I can see from the war,"

Hans Blix's statement encompasses the development the world has made since the end of the Bush Administration and the start of the Obama Administration.

Under Tony Blair and George W. Bush the world reveled in simplicity, and actively eschewed complexity.  Saddam Hussein was bad, and we are good.  The good protect others from the bad, and we believe Saddam has a desire to spread is 'bad' or evil to the rest of the region.  This "notion" obligates to good to intervene and stop Saddam from spreading evil before he even starts.  How amazing the world would be if this actually worked.  If the world was this simple I would probably spend my days writing in crayon and eating paste.  Instead with have a complex world and this naive philosophy has resulted in a more chaotic and dangerous Middle East, that happens to be minus one dictator.

Instead the United States currently has a President who works towards the prevention of nuclear proliferation, yet still has to act militarily to protect the nation that has elected him commander-in-chief.  The simplistic ideas that now make military action necessary are also the same that will find these two acts as hypocritical or contradictory, when they are frankly an accurate display of the complexities of our time.  Tony Blair today has shown the world how dangerous previous simplicities can be.  The mere "notion" of the Blair, or Bush, Doctrine should strike fear in the hearts of all citizens of the world.  This Doctrine would allow any country the justification to invade and start a war against any other country without provocation, but instead the simple "notion" of a threat.  If anything should arouse sleepless nights it should be the fear of a world where the Blair Doctrine rules supreme.  Societies instead should embrace complexity and potential contradictions if it prevents needless wars

If ever there was a time to get informed, read a book, get involved in government, and embrace the complexities of life, this is that time.  Otherwise the threat of a simplistic world will return and we will be forced to embrace the terror of chaos.  If this is the Blair Doctrine, all it would accomplish is a world of constant war.

To read more about Tony Blair justifying terrOr go HERE.