Early January 2005: Greetings once again. I am taking a risk with this blog entry, as I usually try to avoid things that could be ascertained as political. That is not my intent here, but here is a topic on which I feel I have some worthy things to espouse. Know that views expressed here are necessarily those of the management and proprietor of this web site, and are open to interpretation but not dissection. So there.

HOW ARE WE REACTING TO THE REACTIONS OF THE TSUNAMI SITUATION?

That may sound nebulous at first, but when I get into detail it will become clear. We are all aware of the horrid earthquake (of which I have experienced many) and resulting tsunami that caused nothing less than catastrophic damage in the area of the Indian Ocean the day after Christmas. In essence, current numbers (1/12/2005) indicate a total of around 143,000 people dead. In other words, two football or over three baseball stadiums worth, more than the population of many small to mid-sized American cities. This is a total that is hard to fathom, and therefore hard to put in perspective. Think of this - you can imagine $100 in $20 bills. You can further comprehend having up to $10,000 in $20 or $50 bills. However, try to think of $1,000,000,000 (1 billion) in any denomination. It is something that most of us have no frame of reference for, thus the scope of something so large can be lost on us.

Speaking for the United States in general, and many other countries around the world who have allied with the U.S. and the U.N. for ongoing relief effort, the outpouring has been generous and without condition. There are many families left with only one survivor, often an orphaned child, and many more that are mostly whole but with no home. We can provide them with food, temporary shelter, medical needs, etc. What there is not enough of right now is aftercare for things that can be forseen to a degree, but again are hard to fathom. For starters, now that aftershocks are subsiding in the original quake zone, there is an ongoing trauma (which I myself experienced after the 1971 quake in Northridge, CA) that makes it hard to sleep, worrying about future events. Further out, every time somebody in Sri Lanka or Phuket looks out at the ocean they will be looking, for a long time, for indications of another horrendous wave. The trauma will require counseling for people of all ages, something that was not a large staple of their society in the first place, and certainly not to the degree that we view it in the U.S. where grief counselors are available at schools and work places after most devastating events. Also, where will these people live a year from now? Cities have been wiped out, so where will those displaced from jobs find enough work to even afford minimal lodging? These questions are certainly being dealt with by the world community.

Here is the rub, but also the ray of hope, and where I hope to at least provoke positive thought. My wife spent many years in the region growing up and knows about some of the sentiments and beliefs of the Indonesian peoples as well as those of India and Southern Asia. Indonesia, among the hardest hit places and where a lot of the U.S. relief effort is currently directed, is host to the largest accumulative Muslim population in the world. Given recent events that have perhaps colored American perceptions of the Muslims as a whole in an incorrect and poor light, it would be understandable that some bias would be applied as to opinions on the level of care sent their way. I am glad to report that, even here in the D.C. area, I am simply not encountering that. Those who are actively involved with helping and those who are simply giving what they can are helping people in need, not Muslim people in need or Indian people in need.

The reactions to U.S. and U.N. involvement from the other side? Well, those start many years back, but we'll go to 2000. There were many events between 2000 and 2001 directed at U.S. targets, and in many of the areas we are now helping with, the reaction to these was often one of joy that such targets were successfully hit. But let me clarify that in a way that the news media typically does not. Yes, there were individuals in Indonesia who danced in the streets after the 9/11/2001 attacks. But they were a minority. I believe that if 10 out of 10,000 people behaved this way, the media would potentially focus on them rather than the more positive aspects of Muslim life which decry such attacks, and of the remaining individuals who prayed FOR a better world and FOR the people affected by this attack. (Who would you Rather believe?) Just the same, some of those who were so pleased that we had been hurt are now accepting our help in their time of need, and we are giving it. I'd like to have said "without bias" in that last sentence, but I know better, given tensions from atrocities like the Abu Grahib scandal that is still unfolding. While we can teach and preach tolerance among our citizens and soldiers, there will always be a few for which this can't be enforced. Again, with us as with other populations, these few do not represent the majority view, which is much more tolerant than some of the media might have us believe. Perhaps if we can get the few with grudges from our side to take on the few with grudges on their side, and watch them duke it out on some island in the South Pacific while we all enjoy a new peace, THAT would be reality television worth avoiding!

So it is our reaction to their reaction - and know that there are many in the affected area who have blamed U.S. excesses for the undersea geological upheaval no matter how implausible that may seem - that should be focused on at this point, and reinforced. We are at a point now that was hardly imaginable a year ago. The Muslim community can readily reach out to non-Muslims from the U.S. and elsewhere, and not only accept help but join in the efforts as well. We also have a new chance for a walk towards peace again in Israel, which should not be understated by any means. It should be less about politics and more about needs of the general population. Those needs should include the need to not live in a demilitarized zone or hunker down in a green zone, and to acede to the wishes of the majority while still making acceptable provisions for the minority (more on that in my next blog). We need more understanding and less controversy. Conflicts are still inevitable, but it is how they are handled which we really need to understand, and know that with the right people in charge (I am not making ANY endorsement with that postulation, so hold it down) the better are the alternatives that can be realized, starting with understanding each other's point of view.

That is exactly what we are seeing, and hopefully will be seeing over the next year or two, in the tsunami region. We understand multiple points of view - how some of the population there views westerners with a wary eye, but also that they need help without applied conditions. If we look through our history in the U.S. we will see that our initial stab at an independent democracy would have been difficult without the help of France. There are other countries who have been host to us as well during times of need following attacks, and their cooperation has resulted in a different world. It's not enough, but it's a start. I personally like the Gene Rodenberry vision where the challenge should not be how we deal with internal strife on the planet, but how we reach out to others in the galaxy or even the universe with hopes of acquiring new friends through a sense of the unity that can be realized globally. No, I'm not "spacey" in this regard - I am, of course, referring to the positive metaphorical message this sends.

The answer to the famous Rodney King question of "Can't we all just get along?" is, unfortunately, no, and will likely always be that way. However, if you can't get along with somebody, move on and find someone you can get along with. Jesus knew this and made it clear with "Love your enemies," since that very statement implies that some people will simply not coexist well. However, they can coexist peacefully in a world where they simply tolerate each other's points of view even if they don't agree with them (as many who read this may not agree with mine). If they are not bearing down on you with weapons raised, then they are certainly entitled to their opinion as long as it does not negatively impact your life. This is difficult when many conflicts are about turf (such as in the mideast), but seems alarmingly simple when it is about a religious belief (such as most of the 20th century in Ireland). There are many people who may never agree with me, and a select few who will not get along with me or I them, but they are still entitled to living their separate lives, and they as I will have their own friends and community. But if they need help, I'll be there to provide it in whatever capacity I can, without expectation or condition. Such is today's situation in the Indian Ocean. Let's try to practice that in our own localities as well. The results may surprise you!

Next time: Those two words and our pledge of allegiance. Why do they need to stay?

GO BACK TO WHERE YOU WERE BEFORE YOU GOT HERE

Do you have some thoughts on this topic? Informative or constructive ones are always welcome. Mail me at perfbill@hotmail.com, but be informed in advance that I may choose to temporarily post some of the letters here unless explicitly asked not to.