Brave Humans

Archimedes said, ‘Give me a lever and I will move the world.’

Better to say ‘Give me a perspective so I can see the world’. A perspective gives us a viewline, and everything is seen through that viewline. Those in the centre see differently from those on the periphery. In Australia, our geography places us on the periphery of all world centres. In public discourse, our worldview has two main blind spots, Africa and South America, but we keep a good eye on what goes on in Europe, Asia and North America.

Europeans and Asians tend to keep an eye on each other. But the US seems to be largely preoccupied with its own concerns, becoming interested in others only to the extent that their actions impact on US prosperity. The elephant
need not heed the horses, goats and mice. But the mouse has to pay attention to all the bigger animals.

A prime example of the blindness of the elephant is the case of football. You, my mostly US audience, think you know what I mean by football, but you don’t even know the beginning of it.

Here in Sydney, Australia, we are a sports-mad culture and we have four codes of football all of which have national professional competitions featured on prime time television. We have two forms of rugby, as well as an Australian football called AFL that is incredibly athletic, and the fourth code is a growing soccer league. These four codes all support a healthy swag of professional players, but a list of the ten highest earning Australian sportsmen includes four Aussies playing soccer in European teams. Does this suggest that even our weakest football code has more than a fair share of world class players?

To an Australian, gridiron is a joke not a sport. Big men dress up in fancy costumes and posture at each other. Then they stop. They posture a bit more, then they stop. There’s more stopping than posturing and not much indication
of athletic abilities. In gridiron I see nothing of the ball skills of soccer player Harry Kewell as he dives through the air and heads the ball to the goal. And where is the endurance of Eddie Betts as he runs non-stop through an AFL game?

Sydney is a stunningly beautiful city that still takes pride in hosting the ‘best ever’ Olympics, and takes immense pride in an intrinsic love of sport that goes beyond winners and losers, though we love to win. At the 2000 Olympics here in Sydney, the last marathon runners came into the stadium a couple of hours after the leaders. As they came onto the track, they were amazed to find the stands still full, and even more amazed to be greeted by a standing ovation. Interviewed afterwards, they were holding back tears as they said this had never happened to them before - the fate of stragglers in the marathon at international events is the lonely experience of entering a nearly-empty stadium.

Here on the periphery, we know what it means to take our sport seriously. It means you are literate in four codes of football, and it means you admire athleticism and determination, especially when it is being shown by those
who are coming last at the world’s best celebration of human sporting endeavour.

We will know that the US is beginning to notice that it is not alone in the world when it recognises that gridion is just a local variant of one of the world’s great games. Worldwide in 2005 there were four professional football leagues with an average attendance above thirty thousand - one was the German soccer league, one was the British soccer league, one was Australian AFL, and another was the US variant, gridion.

Carol over at My View of It has “tagged” me. For those who aren’t familiar with tagging, it is a way to spread an idea or meme, hoping to garner attention for a particular cause or idea. In this case the cause is to Help Make the Web Safer for Children. It was begun by John Harmon and Mihaela Lica, and here is the message they would like to spread:

Please require a password-protected login before allowing even free access to explicit adult content. We understand that selling porn is your business and we respect your right to make a legal living. But understand our legitimate concerns and work with us. You already have the “warning adult content” on your websites. Yet kids, who are not legal customers of your product, ignore the warning. So to prevent them from having direct access to explicit images, texts and sounds, the simplest way is to have a password-protected login. No more “free tours” before a visitor supplies basic information.

My name is Brian, and I approve this message.

But here’s the thing: It won’t work. Every single webmaster on the planet could adhere to this noble cause, and almost nothing would change.

Time for a little honesty. I looked at pornography as a young teenager. I had a couple of Playboy magazines in my possession at the time, and I could have gotten much more had I wanted to. This in an era where pornography was printed on glossy paper, hidden in crevices in your bedroom, and traded and shared between friends while discussing the early bloomers in homeroom.

In an age in which pornography could only be accessed by purchasing it through strict filters and had to be transported physically I had ample access to pornography. And here’s the important thing to note: The filters didn’t impede my access in the slightest. I didn’t need to gain access by shoplifting or purchasing it with a fake ID because there was plenty of access just between friends. Fast forward to today, where megabyte files can be copied and transferred in seconds, and can be stored as a hidden folder on your ipod. Children today can file-share movies and music right under the nose of a film and music industry desperate to prevent piracy. Purveyors of adult content face the same challenge.

Despite my pessimism, I do think the cause is a good one. I just think it is a cause that deserves better than a simple meme or lobbying congress to make it into law. It merits serious discussion. I think we should have Porn and Pancakes. (Don’t worry, the link is safe for work.)

So Carol, tag back to you. Tell everyone you’ve tagged, and who have tagged you that I would like to do more than simply spread the meme. Tell them I’d like to get into the details and discuss how you really reduce children’s access to pornography. I’ll pose a few questions just to get the ball rolling:

1. The Porn and Pancakes approach is to classify pornography as a sin, and look to religion as the path away from pornography. I’ll broaden that simply to personal accountability. Is this enough? Do we simply encourage parents to talk to their children about pornography and leave it at that, or are there things society can and should do to reduce access?
2. Should a requirement such as this be given legal teeth? If so, how strong should the penalties be? How do we determine what is and isn’t worthy of being behind the wall?
3. What about a .xxx domain? Would that make it easier to block pornography from children, or would it simply make it easier for them to find?
4. Should this approach be extended to other controversial topics? If so, who decides?
5. How might this be applied to non-U.S. internet sites?

Well, that’s enough for a start. Must go and heat up the griddle.

Be Brave. Be Human. Discuss.
Brian

I was going to post this topic to my QuipSpot blog, but I’d like to hear a wider array of comments.  It pertains to the two-party system that we succumb to in the U.S.  Enjoy.

What’s the similarity between the items in this list?

• Automobiles
• Computers
• VCRs
• Cell phones

Easy…they all went through the same stages of acceptance, i.e. diffusion of innovations.

So what?

In every technical endeavor, you have five groups of people - innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards.  Some models indicate that the rate of change is known (see the S-curve theory).

I have seen models that say this: however long it takes for 10% of the population to accept a technology, that’s how many more years before 90% of the population accepts it. (e.g. If it takes five years for 10% of the population to accept/buy/use the iPod, then the next 80% will accept it in another five years.) I’m not so sure about the consistency of the numbers, but I do believe the theory applies.

We are starting to see it in homeschooling, so I’m not so sure the concept deals solely with technological movements. How about the green movement? How about radical Islam?

My point? I believe grass roots political movements will grow through the same pattern of diffusion. Most people don’t like change. They will make excuses for staying the same instead of changing.

My point, part 2? The overwhelming majority of people are not innovators when it comes to politics. (No duh, look at who we’ve permitted to be elected into offices of all varieties over the last two decades.) If the innovaters don’t do it first - “throw away” their vote, per se - then the early adopters won’t do it. If the early adopters don’t do it, the movement won’t grow enough for the “me, too-ers” to join; it would still be too painful for them.

(Disclaimer: before y’all throw something at me…you can be an innovator in technology but not in politics, or vice versa. I’m in the “late majority” category in technology, even though I’ve worked in I.T. for twenty years.)

My point, part 3? Those who are not innovators or early adopters will see this, as I said above, as “throwing away” a vote. Hence, it looks like a self-fulfulling prophecy - people vote for a candidate from another party, it doesn’t make a difference, and the wrong person wins. Realistically, it’s not a self-fulfilling prophecy; the movement just has not developed far enough yet.

So, to those of us who consider ourselves innovators for political change, the time to innovate is now. Without our example, the adopters will never catch on, and it will be the same old story.

Innovators of the U.S, unite! For the longstanding improvement of the country!

I don’t know the truth. I’m always seeking for answers. Or, when trying to answer questions of my always-questioning son, I’m admitting that I don’t have all the answers (offering, of course, to help him seek answers in other places). Sometimes I just wish I could stop thinking, or more honestly, stop worrying.

But wouldn’t it be wonderful to know that you knew the truth? That you had answers to all the important questions? What bliss that must be!

This is a feeling I had after the last of several visits from a couple of lovely Mormon sisters. I am often ready for conversations with others who share different viewpoints, and I’ll take an opportunity when it comes. The early visits were mostly about Joseph Smith, his vision, and the Book of Mormon.

But my visitors did not only try to minister to me. They asked me questions. And I asked them questions. I learned several new things, and I like to think that I at least sparked some thoughts in one of them. At the final visit, however, I was told that if I spent twenty minutes a day reading and praying on the Book of Mormon and its teachings, I would find the truth of their Church.

So I, of course, had to ask, “But what if I don’t?”

The response: “You will.”

I asked again, what if I come away from that experience with a different truth. And I was quickly answered again that it wouldn’t happen. I was told that it was not possible. The “truth” was there, and it would be revealed to anyone who read and prayed on what the Book taught. And the “truth” would be the same for everyone who did so. Period.

And their faces lit up with the joy they felt, and the knowledge of the truth they owned. And it was beautiful.

And I didn’t have it. I know that I don’t know the truth. Anybody’s truth.

Looking back, it reminds me of when I was a graduate student. The other graduate students in my office were having a conversation about how nice it must be to be “stupid.” How easy life could be if you weren’t always thinking. I think back on that conversation differently now than I did when I was twenty-one years old, but that same idea of peace seems just as unreachable now as it did then.

This is not just about faith. It’s about thinking and knowing, certainty, comfort, and freedom. Freedom from thought, freedom from worry. But a closed mind should not accompany that freedom. If you’ve got the truth, hurrah for you. But before you go…do you mind if I ask you a couple of questions?

Be human,
Julia

This is not a typical Brave Humans post, but I’m all about information. It’s a small thing, but worth thinking about. I wanted to pass this along because I’d gone more than 40 years and didn’t know this…

I’m writing this with my 5-year-old daughter. She’s an animal lover, and we were recently looking up information about cats on-line.

In doing so, we were reminded about the procedure of de-clawing. Neither of our cats has been through this operation, and my child would like to tell all of you why:

We do not do that because when vets de-claw cats, they are taking part of the knuckles away. Since I am an animal lover, I think it is wrong; it’s like taking part of someone’s finger away. There are four countries in the world where it is against the law to de-claw cats. Some vets won’t de-claw cats because it’s not in their best interest.

Before we had cats, I had no idea what de-clawing meant; I seriously thought it just meant to remove the claws. We have one cat who is a real scratcher, and when we got him from the shelter and found out about his habit, I looked into having him de-clawed. Then I found out the reality…well, let’s just say we’ve all adjusted to the use of a scratching post.

All animals come with their own loveable advantages and annoying characteristics. Our cats are phenomenal purr-ers and are practically dogs in their affection. On the other hand, I have a running battle with the male to stay off my feet at night when I’m trying to sleep. (On the bed, off the bed, on the bed…) We suggest, if you are so inclined, you find an animal with traits you can live with. I never thought I’d be saying that; before we got our cats 2 years ago I really didn’t think about pets much. I do not count them as family members like my daughter does (she thinks there are 5 in our family; I say 3), but since we cared enough to bring them home, we have to consider their needs as well as ours. De-clawing is advantageous for people, not cats. (If you want a de-clawed cat, shelters sometimes have those adoptees available…)

We’ve got to go. The little cat just started to scratch the coffee table, and we need to re-direct her…

Be brave. Be kind to animals.
Susan

Hello all. Before I get into this post, I would like to reiterate Rick’s plea to expand the reach of Bravehumans. If you read my posts you know I’m a Democrat, and I lean at least a bit (maybe a lot) to the left. This describes the majority of the folks I’ve met here on Bravehumans, and that is problem I am desperate to solve. We need balanced presentation: left, right, and center for Bravehumans to work. We have the left, we have SOME of the center, but we need much more for the right. Please, if you’re a conservative and what you read here makes you think or just annoys you, comment and post. If you know a conservative, please turn him or her on to the site. The point of the post that follows here is the importance of having real, substantive debate. You need all relevant sides to have a debate, and then you have to gather the courage to have one. Please help.

Thanks.

The House of Representatives just finished what, in some ways, was a fairly historic process. Over the past week every member of the 435-seat house got the opportunity to get up and speak for about 5 minutes about a current piece of House business. That works out to just over 36 hours of statements. They actually ended up with over 40 hours of statements from most members when all was said and done. My point here is that this was a fairly unique process that took a great deal of time and effort on the part of the House members.

As many Americans are aware, the topic of this roughly 40-hour marathon was a vote on a non-binding resolution on the current troop increase in Iraq ordered by the President. The resolution (paraphrased) states that the House a) supports the U.S. troops and b) opposes the troop increase. That’s it. The resolution subsequently passed along largely party lines (17 Republicans voted yes and 2 Democrats voted no).

So what’s the result of this process? Well, it’s hard to tell. For starters, a non-binding resolution on anything has no direct impact on law, practice, or policy. By itself it does nothing. In contrast, its symbolic value may be fairly high. It is extremely uncommon for either house of Congress to endorse any rebuke of the wartime policy of a sitting President., the general consensus being that the government should keep a united front on such issues. As possible evidence of this, Democrats were unable to bring an identical resolution to a vote in the Senate.

In addition, House Democrats promise that this resolution is just the first step in an attack on the President’s Iraq policy more globally. After the House vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seemed to support this view by calling Iraq the “worst foreign policy disaster in U.S. History”. This definitely signals that Democratic attacks are going to get more aggressive. Senators Joe Biden and Carl Levin have started discussing revisiting the 2002 Iraq authorization as well.

Although I can see the connection between the resolution and these new Democratic moves (regardless of whether or not I support them), I wonder why the Democrats couldn’t just cut to the chase and start HERE rather than with the non-binding resolution. Regardless of what we may believe about these more substantive moves, why not start with substance?

One possible reason given for spending the time and effort on the non-binding resolution was to promote debate on Iraq within the Congress. This is the reason that really bugs me and I’m not alone. Here’s why:

When I was in High School I was forced into a debate class to meet an English requirement. I disliked the class, but I did learn what a debate is. As I understand it, you have (at least) 2 opposing points of view on a specific topic. OK. Check. We have opposing points of view on Iraq within the House. Each side then states its specific side as well as it can, based on both rhetoric and evidence. OK. Check. We have statements both for and against clearly stated, and more or less based on what each side refers to as evidence. Here’s where I think the 40 some-odd hours spent in the House fall apart. In a debate, each side is then required to further defend their position from the opposition and further refute the arguments of the opposition in order to strengthen its own position. This can go on for several rounds.

The point of a debate is to have everyone involved come out at the end with a better (read deeper and more nuanced) understanding of the problem at hand. In some cases one side wins and the other loses, but often not. The point is we all get closer to at least dealing more effectively with the problem at hand. This is simply not what happened in the House. I think we desperately need 40 hours of debate on Iraq. What we got was 40 hours of individual (largely pre-written) position statements on a very specific resolution. Despite what it is being called, there simply was no debate. Each House member got up and essentially reiterated his or her (likely) already well-articulated position on this particular resolution. There was little, if any, give and take in these prepared statements. I watched as much of this as I could on C-span. For the 40 minutes or so I watched before I fell asleep from sheer boredom it was simply a monotonous repetition of the party line of each side. Again, It’s hard to stress how little this bit of theater resembled an actual debate.

According to news reports, a highlight of the process was a speech by Rep. Sam Johnson(Republican of Texas) in which he described his harrowing experience as a POW and issued a powerful emotional appeal to vote against the resolution. He firmly believes that it is the first step in blocking funding for the war and, therefore, for the troops who fight it. He may well be right (Democratic protestations to the contrary). Cutting the funding is the main weapon Congress has to influence war policy in the White House. But whether or not he’s right is not my point. If this process had been an actual debate, Rep. Johnson’s comments would have been in response to a specific argument made by a previous speaker. The next speaker would then focus directly on Rep. Johnson’s comments and attempt to refute them. I did not see the specific speakers on either side of Johnson, but I am fairly sure (based on the 40 minutes I DID see) that they read prepared statements just as he did. Others who reported on the process support this.

There were days, if not weeks, of political wrangling leading up to the vote on the resolution. This was followed by roughly 40 hours of position statements by most of the House membership. This was followed by a vote, the outcome of which was a foregone conclusion and which had no direct impact on policy in any form. One of the main justifications for this process was to provide a desperately needed opportunity for a debate on the war. This debate did not happen. After all of this, I am left knowing no more than I did before it started and seeing no more clearly concerning the profoundly complex issues involved. I am, however, left a bit more disillusioned with my government.

Be Brave. Be Human.
-Grant

Life is all about balancing immediate needs against long-term goals. Often, this is segregated into talk of tactical (short-term) and strategic (long-term) activities. Note that these activities regularly conflict, as what is important immediately may have no relevance to, or be counterproductive to the long-term needs. However, your long-term strategy may never see the light of day if you don’t take care of the immediate fires.

The writer of Ecclesiastes says, “There is nothing new under the sun”. I think that is safe to say. While we have progressed in a number of ways, progress has not overwhelmingly changed the nature of man. Man can still do good, desire to do good, and hope to do good. Inevitably, though, society will do something wrong. For all we want to believe man can be changed for the better, man will still falter. After all, we are imperfect; we cannot be made perfect. You can see a number of societies where man has actually regressed.

It is also safe to say that every human movement, in time, will develop factions. Every movement will have a solid starting point, then will accumulate a number of somewhat agreeing proponents. The differences, though, will vary enough to cause those factions to break off from the main group. Most often, you will see this with religious organizations, but you may also see it with geopolitical movements and business entities.

So, let’s face facts: the model state, while great to discuss, will never exist (unless you believe in salvation and Heaven, but we’re not going there with this post). What do exist, for a variety of situations, are the current state and the desired state. The current state, obviously, is where we are today, regardless of the instigators involved, whether we like them or not. They are not the first to make mistakes, and they won’t be the last to do so, either.

The desired state may start out as the ideal state, but will be tempered by a number of constraints: time, money, law, knowledge, culture, conflicting and aligned opportunities, among others. Forsaking political parties, and how we love to bash our least-favored party, we are where we are.

My question is, where do we want to be?

1. Who is “we”? For me, at BraveHumans, “we” are the citizens of the USA. Why? How dare I clean up someone else’s mess if I can’t clean up my own, and we have more than our own fair share of messes.
2. What governing model are we using: pure democracy, representative democracy, socialist republic, communism or anarchy (i.e. absence of government)?
3. What degree of free markets are we discussing? Are we talking no regulation at all, full regulation, or a mixed bag? If mixed bag, which industries and why?
4. What level of national self-sufficiency are we discussing in terms of security, diplomacy, and finances?

Note that, in my opinion, the Constitution and amendments, as written, are not up for discussion. As interpreted, however, that’s completely open for debate.

Recent posts and comments are trending liberal (that should be obvious, as I am the only right-leaning Human contributing right now). I’d like to see some comments from conservative individuals, so that we can keep BraveHumans as a truly open site.

I think we can, with relative ease, define where we are today irrespective of party opinions. The fun is in discussing where we want to be. The difficulty is in defining the strategic and tactical goals, and bringing them to fruition.

Let the fun begin!

Two months ago several of us began BraveHumans with the goal of raising the level of discussion between people of differing points of view and building bridges across the red-state/blue-state divide. We had grown tired seeing liberals only talk to liberals and conservatives only talk to conservatives. We were frustrated with the media game of pitting ideologues against each other to argue over who is has the truth and who is insane. Mostly we were tired of the political and corporate tactics used to divide us and make us fearful. Fearful of terrorism, fearful of the other political party, and fearful of each other. It is one thing to be wary of real risk, it is quite another to let fear rule our lives.

On a whim, Brian wrote a piece called I Am Not Afraid. This began a series of discussions on combating the culture of fear, and changing the way we talk to each other as fellow human beings (hence the name of our blog). So we decided we would give it a go. We would all write about topics important to us. We would do so honestly, thoughtfully, and with respect for differing opinions. Our hope was that we would build a readership, and would encourage others to do the same. We had no idea if it would work, but we went with hope over fear.

In our short time online we have met with a lot of encouragement. Several people have complimented BraveHumans. We have been named a Blog of the Day, and The Compass offered us a very kind apology after initially accusing BraveHumans of being a liberal rag.

It’s been a great start.

In the past week BraveHumans has experienced a significant increase in visitors. Most of these are from StumbleUpon and MyBlogLog. To those who are new visitors, welcome. Keep reading, and if you like what you see, then give us a StumbleUpon thumbs up, or join our MyBlogLog Community. If you have a blog of your own, then help us spread the word and link to us. We have a list of sites linking to us at the bottom of this page. For those who have already linked to us, thank you. In particular, a big thanks to David B. Dale of Very Short Novels for recommending us on StumbleUpon, and to Carol1461 of My View of It for listing us as one of her Technorati favorites. But even more than sharing links and joining our community, we hope that you will join in the discussion.

Now that BraveHumans has gotten some attention, we’d like to see it grow. We’d like to see BraveHumans have a voice if it can. But we can only do that with your help. We have some ideas about how BraveHumans can grow, but we’d also like to hear your ideas. Would you like a site where political commentary is thoughtful, and really is balanced because all sides get to be heard? Would you like to hear why people have views very different from your own? Would you like a place that doesn’t push a single political view, or media view, or corporate view?

We would. We would like to build a community that nurtures mutual understanding, and feeds our democracy. The kind of community where we can respect other people, even if they hold views very different from our own. If you would like that as well, then join us. If you are new to the site, go back and read some of our earlier posts. Leave us a comment on this post saying what you like about BraveHumans, what you don’t like, and what you would like BraveHumans to become. If enough people comment, we will open a forum to further the discussion. We don’t want BraveHumans to just be our website. We’d like it to be your website as well. Let us know how we can all grow BraveHumans.

Even if we don’t hear from you, we’ll keep posting every other day. If you find us thoughtful and honest, then please keep coming back. Tell your friends about us. Tell your enemies even. And if you have a post you would like to add, let us know.

Until then,

Be Brave. Be Human.

Wouldn’t it be great if you could print your own money? You can, and it is perfectly legal.

Before you start running to the photocopier with your $20 bills, there are some legal caveats. You can’t simply copy U.S. currency, you have to create your own unique currency. You also cannot have a unit of currency which has an equivalent value less than a dollar. Neither of these are difficult conditions to meet. Beyond that you just need one more thing: trust.

Trust is the key to modern currency. We generally assume those green pieces of paper in our wallet have intrinsic value, but in fact U.S. currency hasn’t been backed by actual value (for example, the gold standard) for decades. Instead, the U.S. government established the Federal Reserve in 1913 by an act of congress. This partnership between the federal government and major banking firms prints its own money as it sees fit, and simply declares it to have value by fiat. This is why all American bills have “Federal Reserve Note” printed across the top on the front, and why nowhere on a bill will you see any “real value” equivalent. This differs from gold certificates or silver certificates, which were proxies for actual gold and silver, and which could be exchanged for the equivalent gold or silver on demand.

Essentially, our currency is nothing more than monopoly money with fancy engraving. It may say “In God We Trust” on the bills, but in actual fact it should say “In Big Banks We Trust.” But as long as everyone plays the game, as long as everyone keeps pretending these reserve notes have value, our economy keeps flowing. We will do our jobs (which create value in the world) in exchange for worthless pieces of paper, and then trade them for things of actual value like food and clothes and houses. We all just have to trust in the system for it to work.

Which brings me back to the idea of printing your own money. Printing fancy pieces of paper is easy. The hard part is creating the trust. People have to trust your money enough to accept it as payment for things of real value, and they will only do that if they think they can exchange your money with other people. It seems like an insurmountable challenge for individuals to achieve. And yet, Paul Glover did exactly that when he created Ithaca Hours in 1989.

One Ithaca Hour has a value equivalent to ten American dollars.

Ithaca Hours aren’t just a game. They are an established local currency in Ithaca, NY. They are accepted by hundreds of business in and around Ithaca. The Ithaca Hours Board has granted Hour no-interest loans ranging from 5 to 300 Hours to local non-profits. Since their founding, more than 11,000 Hours have been printed. That is the equivalent of $110,000 created out of nothing but trust.

Therein lies the real power of local currency. The people of Ithaca created money of real value out of nothing but trust. Trust in each other, and trust in their community. And since Ithaca Hours has no value outside of the Ithaca area, the wealth Ithaca Hours has generated in the community is locked to their community. No one can use Ithaca Hours to pull wealth out of the community, unlike U.S. dollars which can be traded anywhere in the world.

What strikes me most about the Ithaca Hours project is how bi-partisan the approach is. On one hand it is the spirit of conservatism: doing for yourself, not relying on big government, and letting the market improve conditions. On the other hand it is the spirit of liberalism: building communities, trusting in others, and working together. Good ideas can arise when we look beyond party lines.

Imagine what would happen if more communities developed their own currency. Local wealth could be kept local. Cities could give tax incentives to companies in the form of local currency, which would ensure those funds could not be funneled out of the community. Small local business could have the advantage over multination chains, since they would accept both local and U.S. currency. There are lots of possibilities once you break out of the idea that the government or corporations determine what is or isn’t money. And when you think beyond the usual right vs. left.

That is why we started BraveHumans. To look at issues from all sides, and move beyond the party lines.

Who knows how far we could go, if we only trust in each other.

Be Brave. Be Human. Trust.
Brian

Image Credit: Ithaca Hours.

Because of a recent discussion in my adult Sunday School class, I’m going to follow up Brian’s posting on Nuclear Options.

As I mentioned before, my Sunday school class is unusual; we often discuss political and social issues in light of our religious beliefs. The Iraq war is frequently mentioned, and, lately, concerns about Iran have arisen.

One class member brought in an article; the source is the American Friends Service Committee website. To summarize: Last September, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met with over forty religious leaders in NYC to discuss the tense situation between Iran and the U.S. Many issues were discussed, but one proposal stands out: Ahmadinejad stated “Iran would open its nuclear facilities to inspections if the United States agreed to do the same.”

We’ve heard from the White House that they are worried Iran’s development of nuclear energy is not solely for a power source but also for weapons. The U.S. wants inspections to ensure that no bombs are being manufactured. But how to force this issue? Hmmmm…

Well…. how about not forcing it? How about consenting to Ahmadinejad’s suggestion? That would get inspectors in the door in a calm, neutral fashion. Why not go along with it? What have we got to hide? Surely there’s nothing illegal occurring in the American nuclear plants? (Surely…)

I’ve been trying to think of the downside to permitting the inspections, and the only negatives that I can envision have to do with perpetuating the “tough guy” image of the United States; we’re not going to give in just because Iran asks…we’re not the ones to be afraid of here…

News flash: we are the ones to be feared. A lot of people are afraid of what is seen as unchecked U.S. aggression. Going along with inspections is equitable… I’ll show you mine if you show me yours…

What have we got to lose? Certainly, it’s possible that one reason Ahmadinejad offered the deal is that he’s convinced President Bush will never agree; Iran then appears reasonable, trying to find a compromise. But if the U.S. consents and Iran reneges, we suddenly might find ourselves in the novel position of receiving international support.

There may be serious objections to submitting to Ahmadinejad’s proposition, but I simply can’t conceive of any. What’s a girl to do? Luckily, I have access to Brave Humans… a place where we try to fill in the gaps for each other. Seriously, what am I missing here? What’s wrong with this picture?

Thanks.
Be brave. Be human.
Susan