There’s an article in last Sunday’s Washington Post Magazine that is a perfect example of my new and developing worldview. If you don’t want to go read it, here’s a summary. Two deaf women, both of whom graduated from Gallaudet and are severely hearing impaired were had a child through in-vitro fertilization. The child turned out to be deaf, and that was fine with the parents. The article chronicles the birth of their second child, and their attempts to ensure the child would also be deaf. Now, I’m not quite sure how I feel about that, but I’m glad they have the right to do it, and why not, let’s just add in the fact that they’re a lesbian couple and are able to have kids.

This is a pretty extreme example of what I’ve been thinking about almost daily since September. There is a place for everyone. If you’re a gay deaf woman, there’s a community that will accept and appreciate you. That community is probably not in the Bible belt, but it exists. On the opposite spectrum, if you’re a homophobic Christian fundamentalist, there are places in this world where you’ll feel right at home. Those places probably don’t include San Francisco, or America’s liberal arts colleges. But they do exist. I’ve visited.

I’m pretty much OK with whatever people want to believe, as long as they don’t try to inflict it on others either physically or morally. I’m on a crusade of acceptance. You want to be a tatooed sailor, fine. You want to live in a cave with the bats and throw crap at the walls? Fine with me, as long as you keep it in the cave, and don’t start throwing it at me. I start to have problems when, and this is a word with a lot of baggage, zealots show up. I notice the “true believers” a lot more now. Whether they’re the Pro-Unix/Anti-Microsoft folks, the religious freaks who think that anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their way of thinking should be wiped off the face of the earth, or even those in government who think that they’re God’s instrument to impose religious tenets as law – they’re all zealots, and I have a hard time listening to anyone who falls in that camp for very long.

If you can’t understand others’ opinions. If you aren’t open to the idea that maybe what you believe might not be as set in stone as you think it is. If you have the urge to hurt others just because they look, act, think, live differently than yourself. You just might be a zealot, and you may just need therapy.

Again, this is a work in progress, meant for revision. So, if you don’t agree with me, bring it on.

If this (warning: not happy stuff. detailed descriptions of chemical warfare against the Kurds in Northern Iraq – view Reid and James) is true, what can we do? Do we let it continue until they decide their chemical weapons are compact and potent enough to travel undetected they attack us here? Do we finally make up our minds that we won’t stand for government-sponsored genocide, and then do something about it?

We waited several years to get into World War 2, and even then, it wasn’t to stop genocide. We did nothing about Stalin, Pol Pot, or the genocide that occured in the Balkans until it was too late to save thousands of lives. We’ve done nothing about Northern Iraq except try to enforce “no-fly” zones. We (what do I mean by we? do I mean the UN, the US, me?) haven’t forced inspections. We’ve dropped some bombs on some suspected facilities, but Hussein has basically done whatever he pleases for ten years backed by lots of oil money and with no supervision.

I’m not sure what the solution is. After reading the accounts in the article, I want to bomb him. But will whoever replaces him be any better? Should we worry about the replacement when he’s still in power? Do we destroy the infrastructure and leave him there like we did the last time, or will he just rebuild and therefore we’ve only postponed the inevitable?

I think we have to go in, with out without Arab support. If the countries surrounding Iraq and in the Arab world don’t see the problem, there’s nothing we can do to convince them past what has already been done. This truly is a matter of national security – and I don’t mean the price of gas. I can’t imagine what it would be like to see my wife and son die in front of me, bleeding from their eyes, choking to death as their bodies convulse and seep out on the ground. I pray it never happens here, and I think we have enough proof that Iraq wants us destroyed and has been experimenting on its own people to find the most effective way to accomplish it. I would like to think I’m a reasonable guy, and anihilating Saddam, his Armies, his infrastructure and his weapons seems the most logical thing to do. The risk is too great and the evidence too strong not to act.

Am I wrong? I would love to hear from anyone on the topic… It makes me wish my cheapy little host supported PHP or any other scripting language so I could add comments. I need feedback on this one. I’ll post responses that I think coherently agree or disagree (and if I get a ton, I’ll post representative ones).