Andy Borgmann's Blog

It's 5:12 am "locally" (locally here is defined as 35,000 feet over Whitehorse, Canada). It is now the second time this day (April 14th) I have experienced 5 am. Traveling over the International Date line is weird. I actually will arrive in Chicago before I took off in Japan. Take that Back to the Future. I am just sitting down after an hour conversation with a Marine named Mark, who apparently is also super claustrophobic on planes like I am and decided to stand back with the flight attendants for an hour.

Mark was reading a book on Philosophy when I first started talking to him, and I later found out he had served in Iraq twice and Afghanistan once. We talked about everything from the historical context of the problems in the Middle East, to traveling the world, to our homes, and what we want to do with the rest of our life. It was a good hour.

One thing I brought up with him was an observation I had made about Japan while there: I wish Europe was more like Japan. I loved Japan. These are words I never thought I'd say. In fact, in all my extreme desire to travel, traveling to the Far East never really interest me. This changed on this trip. I could go many different routes with this, but I am going to stick with one.

About 51 years ago, the USA dropped two Atomic bombs on Japan. They were our enemy, and we were in a bitter, bloody fight and we decided this was the best course of action to save lives. You would think there was some modern day resentment by the Japanese, but there was none. Contrast to Europe, who would all be speaking German right now if it weren't for our help, and they hate our guts. So let me get this straight: here we have a country where we killed innocent men, women, and children, and they were the most friendly, warm, "American" place I have been to (except Israel was more "American, but that's another story).

I just don't get it. Transition to a conversation between Hoey (APU student) and a part-Japanese kid on the trip whose Grandfather fought against America in WW2. He proceeds to tell us that his Grandfather even admits it was good for America to use the A-Bomb as it probably saved Japanese lives. Hoey proceeds to tell him that it was/is never ok for us to do something like this and I step back and think: man this is strange.

We have built so much "white/American guilt" that we hate ourselves more than those we wronged do. Why? Why can't we recognize that if we have been forgiven and the Japanese have moved on, why can't we? Better yet, why can't anyone but the Japanese recognize that America is not perfect, but that we are a good country, trying to do good in the world.

America has done some historically awful stuff. But we have also done some great things (long before Bono & Jolie ever stepped on to the scene). So why are we hated? Why are we ashamed sometimes of our international presence? Why when the countries in which we "affect" are better off then if left alone, do we get accused of imperalization?

Historically speaking, most of what is turbulent in the Middle East is Europe's fault. Whether it was the English drawing country lines without consideration of indigenous people & tribes, or German's forced exile of the Jews back to the Middle East, the problems we are trying to rectify were created by Europe. So it ends now. I've said all along Iraq will be a better place for Iraqis because of our involvement, and I won't feel guilty about that. Let's just hope the Iraqis are more like their Asian counterparts and less like Europe.


You can listen to similar thoughts I shared on our radio show this weekend by pushing the play button above. The entire show can be found at http://www.allenhuntshow.com/Listen/189/

I am three hours into a fourteen hour flight from Chicago to Tokyo. According to the personal TV screen I have in front of me, I am currently at 34,000 feet near Fort McMurray, Canada. Three minutes ago, on that same screen, I just got done watching the movie Blood Diamonds, and I think I have found yet another reason why I won’t be getting married.

Unlike other posts, this reason isn’t because of my observations of the opposite sex. No, I think this new reason, is because I am adding another trait to Andy Borgmann that I believe most women are going to decide is not very appealing. I don’t think I can ever buy a diamond.

If you haven’t seen the movie, you need to. The basic summary is it is about how the insatiable Western demand for diamonds (and capitalistic greed) is leading to civil war in many Middle-African countries. The best line in the movie (which I might be botching up) is when in response to being accused as part of the problem because she too probably dreams of a fairy tale wedding, a female reporter says, "Most girls wouldn’t want a diamond if they knew it cost someone else’s hand." I think that is an appropriate statement.

There was another great line in the movie. An African tribal man said, "Let’s hope they don’t find oil here, because then we will be in real trouble." Bam, another slap in my Western, Capitalistic face; especially since I know how much fuel this flight I am on is consuming. But what I think separates oil from diamonds is this: oil’s conflict is based on the fact oil is a commodity (heck it’s cheaper than bottled water). Diamonds conflict are based on the fact they are a luxury. Eventually, I think oil will bring stability to the region of the Middle East (I know, ya’ll think I am crazy). Diamonds will never do this. Diamonds are a luxury item, and the demand will always be priced that way, which means it will always be highly lucrative, and therefore, conflict stricken.

At the end of the movie it challenges everyone to buy "conflict-free" diamonds. But even conflict free diamonds benefit from the insatiable materialism that is associated with "conflict-ridden" diamonds. In the end, at Tiffany’s or Zales, they are all the same.

So as I sit in my premium economy seat aboard United #881, I am fighting back tears (after all, I don’t want the attractive girl next to me to think I am a Nancy boy). But then again, I guess it doesn’t matter because she would never be attracted to a guy who probably won’t buy her a diamond.

In amidst of all the biblical sites visited on my October 2003 journey through the Galilee, we stopped at a bunker location in the Northern border shared between Lebanon and Israel. Everyone on the bus flung themselves off as fast as we could to go play “army” in the bunkers (even the girls, which was kind of surprising). We roamed around in the tight (I mean tight) passageways of the bunker, pretending to shoot enemies and ducking like we were being shot at. I didn’t realize it then, but with the increasing focus on the looming battle between Israel & Lebanon, I think those bunkers must have been heaven.

I will say the one thing I did leave there thinking was, "man it would suck to be in those bunkers during a war." All I remember was how tight they were, with nails sticking out, and thinking to myself, “if I had these nails sticking out and bombs coming towards me I think I would definitely puncture something forgetting nails were there.” But I digress.

Back to heaven. You see...those bunkers meant nothing to us. We were just having a good time. There was no fighting going on. I honestly don’t even remember what was said during the pseudo-attempt of our professor to give us a historical lesson. It wasn’t until I looked up in my journals this week if we were even at the Lebanon border (or was it Syria).

But that’s my point...do you get it? Probably not because I haven’t done a good job explaining it. I often reflect (as I have shared on this blog) when I land in Frankfurt, Germany, the first thing that always comes to my mind is how 50 years ago it was a war torn area. Now look at it. Amazing what time fixes. So as I look at the picture of myself, Keleigh, Rachel, and Sarah, I hope that one day Lebanon and Israel can be like Germany and France.

But then my thoughts go further and say, man, wouldn’t it be awesome if one day everywhere was like Germany and France, or the US and England. But then reality sits in and I realize that day will never come. It isn’t that we shouldn’t strive for it – as it is quite noble to be peacemakers. But we just know it will never come...until heaven. On that day, all the bunker’s of the world will be used to “play” army just like I did at the Israel/Lebanon border.

If you haven't heard about what is going on in Lebanon now, I am not sure what cave you are living in. The basic summary of the story. The Hezbollah, who is a "political group" (Some call Terrorists, and they certainly reflect terrorists, but it gets tricky because they are also an elected political group in Lebanon. So to make sure I am clearly describing the situation, I will call them a political group.), that is funded by Iran (to the tune of $100 million dollars), kidnapped some Israeli soldiers, so Israel has declared an attack on Lebanon in general, and it has just escalated from there.

This article is not meant to debate whether or not Israel's actions were justified, but rather discuss what the "West's" response to this should be. Israel & its neighbors is a tough situation that few of us can understand with out spending extensive amounts of time there. So what may look like an unnecessary escalation of force to us, is a necessary escalation of force to protect a country the size of New Jersey surrounded by people who want them wiped off the face of the planet. Although, it may not be reasonable either. But I digress.

As I was riding down to the show last night, we (there are 3 of us) were talking about whether or not we should discuss this topic on the air. To my surprise, the other person in the car (not Allen) decided that 1.) this "new" conflict in Lebanon is something "big," and 2.) the answer is to wipe Iran off the face of the planet and that will solve everything. To point #1, I have to say, this isn't any "new big development." Israel has had a war like this in 1948, 1967, 1973, & 1982 - and that doesn't even count the Intifada I or the Intifada II. So to say this is something new, is a bit dramatic.

But it was point #2 that I wanted to punch her in the face for. Keep in mind, as I have posted before, I am for the Iraq war - so I am not "anti-war" per se. However, bombing the "hell" out of Iran isn't going to solve anything - and that's assuming we can actually do this - which we can't. First of all, as I learned while in Israel, West Bank & Jordan, Middle Easterners are people. I know that sounds simplistic, but we need to remember that in the West. I might not of shared the same political beliefs (or religious beliefs) with the guy I had lunch with in the West Bank, but ultimately all he wanted to do was to provide for his family and be able to live "relatively" free. Bombing Iran to smithereens would be wiping out millions of people that are just like our middle class. It would be like wiping out the major US cities for something the "Oklahoma City Bombers Militia Group" did - it just doesn't make sense.

In addition to that, our reputation is already one of "crusadism" in the Middle East, and anymore more war will only surge the hatred and recruit more people into terrorism. I know this is a shock, but the Middle East doesn't trust us. Now I am not going to debate on whether or not they should, but lets just recognize that they don't and start from there. We aren't going to build any trust by wiping out Iran. We will build trust by finishing the job in Iraq, improving the countries conditions, and then the rest of the region will recognize they like the "new-Iraq" more than what Iran offers. That's it!

It sounds a bit ridiculous at this point I know, but I truly believe the Iraq war will be looked back historically as a graceful act. Like Germany & Europe in 1940s, our actions there will bring about an incredible economic and societal change that I believe most Middle Easterners will desire. This change, has the ability to grow through out the region, but not if our answer to everything will be to just bomb the heck out everyone.

This past Sunday was the the worship service I hate the most in the entire year: "Patriotic Sunday." It seems over the short 225 years of our nation’s history, we have increasingly associated Christianity with the USA. I don't think this is a positive relationship for Christianity or the States.

Let me first say that I am not "anti-American." I love living in America. I love our freedom. I support the troops (which is such a pointless statement now days), and I even support the Iraq war (as I have posted on before). I believe whole heartedly in democracy as well as the unalienable rights all humans share because they are children of God. I just want to state that for the record, but I digress.

The largest enemy in my mind to Christianity in the 21st century, western world is moral relativism. We might not all understand moral relativism, but to put it simply it is the whole idea that "what is right for you is right for you, and what is right for me is right for me, so don’t tell me how to live my life." However, the foundation of Democracy is moral relativism. And hear me out on this.

Democracy is built on the principle that every vote counts (and given the 2000 election, we mean that). But in order for every vote to count, society must concede that all are “right” when they go to the polls which allows for them to voice their opinion. Take rape for example. Rape is not immoral in the US simply because the actions are heinous. No, rape is immoral because at least 51% of Americans who think they are right (or at least those they elect) have said it is immoral. That's it. That's the only reason it is is illegal. And this rings true for all of our laws.

This is not to say that I think Democracy is de facto evil. Not at all. And given the state of a "fallen" (i.e. sinful) world, it is probably the best government we can attain. But just as I wouldn't say Jesus would have you drive a Honda because it is the best car, or Jesus loves the Cubs (which he does), I have a hard time saying Jesus love Democracy. This means that Christians should think long and hard about the logical implications to what they are associating the Gospel with; or before we know it, that which we have toted a "God-send" for years may turn back to bite the hand that fed it if 51% of the people decide we are wrong.

It has happened. The second most dangerous man in the world, according to the US government, has been killed. And here in America we are singing the praises of the American military. This post really doesn't have much of a point. I am glad Al-Qaeda has been disabled. However, I don't think Al-Zaqarwi's death means evil is any less prevelant in the world. As long as their is sin in the world, their will be evil. But I digress. This post has one point: always strive to look at all sides of an issue, even the obvious ones.

Studying in Israel my junior year taught me how powerful our news outlets really are. Why? Because I was right there. I knew what happened, not because of what people have told me, but because I witnessed it with my own eyes. For example, one night, I heard a loud "thud" while laying in bed. Sure enough, 1/4 of a mile from my bed, a suicide bomber blew up a restaurant. The next day of course this was covered by CNN, but I was amazed how much information was left out of their story. This got me in the habit of checking out Aljazeera for news information (a practice I continue now that I am back in the States). It surprised me how even in a "fact-based" news story, slant can be applied so easily on both sides of the argument.

My point is this. CNN's articles about yesterday’s killing quoted Army generals, Ambassadors, Tony Blair, and more of the like. Aljazeera's articles about yesterday’s killing quoted Al-Zarqawi’s uncle, people from his home town, and even included a conspiracy theory about the timing of Al-Zarqawi’s death and the rise of the new Prime Minister of Iraq (which CNN left out).

But here's where I am going to get in trouble. Why? Because neither news outlet is wrong. They both are reporting factual information based on the opinions of those in which they are interviewing. Why is Tony Blair's opinion anymore important than towns people from Al-Zarqawi (and yes, that's the name of the city he was from and his last name). Ultimately, we should recognize that all of today's news is really just opinion wrapped in the presentation of fact and it is up to us to decipher what is and is not absolute truth in any given situation. If you take the spoon-fed version of the news you're just going to get opinions, to which I say: death to opinions.

When I was in high school, I took this class we affectionally called "Block." The class consisted of combining AP Literature with AP Social Studies. Freshman year was World History, Sophomore year was US History. While some of my most fondest high school memories are from that class, and I do believe the work in there had more than adequately prepared me for college, I have come to realize that Block, for the most part, was a chance for those deemed "gifted" to somehow bask in the glory of their giftedness with those who were also gifted. There was a degree of arrogance that kids in this class had (myself included) and the class itself only encouraged it.

Now this isn't a post of education, this is a post on war. One of the most impressionable things I can remember from Block was watching the 1930s movie "All Quiet on the Western Front." Now I should put a disclaimer on that statement. I am not 100% positive what I am about to write really stems from "All Quiet on the Western Front." And I am going to do what I hate, and what Block certainly taught against, which is to make a statement as if it is a fact, even though you aren't positive it is a fact. It kills me not to go rent the movie to make sure what I am saying is true. In the end, I think this will make my point stronger. But I digress.

There is a brilliant scene in that movie (I think), where it goes back and forth between those fighting on the western front, and a bunch of old guys sitting at a country club talking about what should be done on the western front. Now I don't remember a lot from Block, and you have to keep in mind that this showing predated the Iraq war by 6 years or so. But that scene stuck in my head and I think it is all the more relevant today.

You see, we, myself included, have become an arrogant culture from a very secure location. Bloggers particularly feel that their opinion matters, yet to what authority do we feel we have to speak on such matters. The News is probably worse. Maybe we do have keen insight as to what should be done in Iraq and the rest of the world. Yet, it is estimated that somewhere between 20%-30% of Americans own a passport (this number is a hard one to nail down). Even if we go with the high number, only 30% of Americans have the ability to travel internationally. If you take out all the "tourist" travel (that gelato in Italy was fabulous), that leaves a horrendously low number of people who actually have international insight derived from true international relationships and conversations. Yet we sit on this side of the Atlantic and tell each other and the world what to do from our figurative "country clubs" while men and women are dying on the "Middle Eastern Front" all in the name of democracy.

This post is not about being for or against the war. This post, like my admission to quoting All Quite on the Western Front, is about humility - something that wasn't taught in Block. And before we confidently assert that we have the next new answer that will solve all of the worlds problem, I think we need to add, in humility, the words "I think" behind it.

P.S. This was a very humbling read about what everyone seems to be an expert on, The Haditha Killings.

This week has been quite a week for the Dixie Chicks. Their new album is at the top of the charts, and two nights ago they were on Larry King Live talking about the past three years. I have to admit, I am one of the Americans (although we seem to be fleeting) that will probably never buy another Dixie Chicks song. This isn't because I hate them vehemently. They are probably great people and they sure as heck produce great music. But just like Barry Bonds for baseball, the Dixie Chicks will always have a sour taste in my mouth.

If you've read this blog before you know that I am pro-Iraq because ultimately I think life will be better for Iraqis once a stable government takes over. I have been to the Middle East, I have seen first hand the amount of oppression over there, and anything that removes oppressive regimes in my book is a noble feat. (This is not to say that I think this is why Bush went over there, nor do I feel we have been dealt with honestly, but that's another topic).

I also should state here that their is a part of me that truly respects the Dixie Chicks. I admire anyone who stands so strongly to their belief, especially when their careers are on the line. Principle is something America seems to have forgotten. I also respect the Dixie Chicks stance on the war, even if I do not agree with it. I have many friends that are against the war in Iraq, and for good reason. Anyone who can come to an educated, reasonable decision about their opinion of the war is respectable, and the Dixie Chicks appear to have that.

So Andy, gosh, what's the big deal. Why the sour taste. Here's why. I think the Dixie Chicks as their name alludes to are Chickens. The biggest problem I had with their sentiments back in 2003 was not what they said, not how they said it, but where they said it. London!

Now many have made the point that they weren't willing to say this in Dallas or Nashville or even New York, and I disagree with them. I think that they were willing to say it anywhere. However, where they chose to say it for the first time is of great importance. And the point is Dixie Chicks, you might be willing to say it anywhere, but the truth of the matter is you didn't.

I would have had no problem if they said what they said in New York (which would still probably agree with them) and then travel to London and say the same thing. But you don't backhand your country, even if you disagree with it, and even if a lot of people in your country would agree with you, on foreign soil for the first time. It is like a husband who tells all his buddies what he hates about his wife in hopes that somehow it will get back to his wife and his wife will change his ways. You just don't do that. Have the balls to look America in the eye, on American soil, and say, "America we are not right in our stance on the war, and I for one am ashamed that W. comes from Texas." That is a statement and a context that I would respect.

Since the statement made from London, they have apologized for how they said it, but to my recollection, not where they said it. So I hope 500,000 of you enjoy your Dixie Chickens CD, I for one, will not be buying it.

As we speak, I am watching the joint press conference between Bush and Blair. Bush has just made the comment that (and I am paraphrasing) that the insurgents in Iraq don't fight a conventional war and don't play by the rules. It was at this moment I wanted Bush to turn to Blair and say, "just like we did 225 years ago against the British."

Before I get further into this conversation, I need to give the disclaimer that I am a supporter of the Iraq war. I have been to the Middle East, I have seen the injustices done from the aristocracy, and Jesus challenges all of his followers to stick up for the oppressed. Any ruler who kills hundreds of thousands of his own people qualifies as an oppressor in my book and I am proud to be a part of a country who seeks justice in the world. I am not saying I think this is why Bush went, for all I know it was all about oil, but that doesn't change the fact that in the end Iraq will be a better place for Iraqi people, and for that I say the mission will be worth it.

But I digress. While there are many things I find despicable about the Middle East insurgency and terrorism, I can't say their methods are one of them. Why you ask? Becuase as an American, we invented the concept of unconventional warfare. Now I don't like the idea of women, children and civilians being targeted anymore than the next guy. But at the same time, logic will not allow for me to say that it is a barbaric act of war because to do so would mean I would have to admit that the American Revolution was a barbaric act of war. We were the ones who refused to line up on an open field to be slaughtered. We fought dirty by hiding in the woods, and by using our surroundings to our advantage. But ultimately, if it weren't for the American Revolution, the world would be a far different place. And for all of her faults, I believe America has brought 10 times (ok an expression) more good to the world. None of this would happen of course unless the Colonies took on an act of war that was not accepted at the time.

So thus, it isn't the methods of war that I feel make it barbaric - as war by definition is barbaric in all circumstances and in any method (but barbarism is sometimes necessary). Rather, what I feel makes the insurgents beyond barbaric is what they are fighting for. They are fighting for oppression. They would rather be led by a mad-man than an elected (still imperfect) government. It isn't even the rejection of democracy that bothers me, as I know some might find this as a shock, but democracy is not the answer for everybody (sorry W.). However, they are rejecting justice. Have a monarchy. Have a dictatorship. Have whatever works. But above all, have peace, justice, and love!

As CJ cries out "boring" and switches the channel to the NBA game, I find myself going back to a place every time I descend from the clouds after a long flight and touch ground in Frankfurt, Germany, or Amsterdam. It amazes me that 50 years ago, touching down at the exact same place would be the same as touching down in Baghdad today. But in such a short time, so much can change. In the same way, after 225 years, after a horribly bloody and unconventional war, Bush & Blair, America & England, stand united together at two podiums unified in the common cause of pursuing justice and eventual peace. For that I am proud, and for that I hope Iraq will one day be like the British.