Isn't it a magnificent creation. It takes in many kinds of grains, vegetables, meats and water or other liquids; produces muscle, bone, and skin; and eliminates the wastes. It has articulated appendages that give it mobility, reach, and power to grasp tools, a pencil to write, or a brush to paint. It has a variety of sensors and an on-board central processor that can decipher those inputs and convert them to images, sounds, smells, and the touch of a gentle breeze. It has the ability to replicate itself and grant to that offspring all the character and wisdom it has aquired for itself.

Why has such a magnificent creation turned on itself and others of its kind to destroy the very body that holds this mystery.

WHY?

Why Iraq?

The Iraq situation, as a symptomatic example of the Islamic world's view of the human condition, is something that we as Christians and particularly we as Americans cannot and should not try to control. We certainly do not understand their culture or religion, but moreover we do not understand their philosophy about life, their community or family dynamic, nor their individual needs and aspirations. To assume that they desire the western world's values on these items is a gross error. To think that democracy is something that everyone wants is fallacious thinking.

We love our democracy because, as Americans, democracy promotes the conditions for living which most Americans value, i.e. freedom to pursue one's ambitions, opportunity to change ones life if it does not meet expectations. i.e. To have. Whether this is in one's personal life, community environment, or professional activity.

This freedom has not always resulted in the best outcome for everyone, but enough of the population has benefited that it is accepted as the norm, i.e. achieving "The American Dream". A house, a car, two kids and two weeks vacation at the beach in the summer. But the reaching of the American Dream has come at considerable expense in many cases. There are social illness as seen by such things as: the breakdown of nuclear family through divorce and separation, or worse simply dysfunctional households persisting in an illusion of tranquillity, and materialistic values being substituted for intrinsically human values to a point where there is a negative stigma attached to any person that does not have the latest electronic gadget or at least two of everything, whatever it is.

This model for life, which we call the American Dream, is not necessarily the model that people in other parts of the world want. Certainly some want it, but it is a mistake to think that everyone wants it.

For us, our culture says, "never stand when you can sit", "never walk when you can ride", "never wait for the other guy when you have the right of way". There are cultures that still believe that toil and suffering are essential ingredients in life and are actually necessary to gain happiness. There are cultures that still believe "it is better to have less than to want more". There are cultures in which the highest level of joy and satisfaction is in sharing human moments even if they are devoid of creature comforts.

How does this relate to Iraq? Only in this way. Our venture in Iraq was predicated on the belief that the people of Iraq did not want to live under Saddam. The people of Iraq really wanted to have what we in the USA have. The people of Iraq really wanted to dramatically change their lives, their country. Our mistake was to not test these assumptions to see if they were really true. Our continuing mistake is to think that our efforts there will be viewed as helping Iraq, while in fact our presence is viewed as the source of conflict.

In fairness, we did not have a really good way to test that at that time. A public opinion poll taken in Iraq in 2002 would probably have been distorted information. However today, with a constitutional government in Iraq, and the demonstrated will of a large number of people to actually vote in an election, maybe a poll could be taken that would be meaningful.

Maybe the way to resolve the dilemna in the USA about what to do in Iraq would be to ask the Iraqui people what they really want. Maybe the issue of whether to stay in Iraq or not should be a referendum in Iraq where the people give their vote. Stay or leave? We are visitors in Iraq, not people of Iraq. We should only be there if we are welcomed visitors by the population at large, not only be a ruling politic that wants our backing. The referendum should take a high fraction in favor of staying if we are to stay. Maybe more than a 2/3rd majority. If we do not have that status with the population we will never win the conflict.

It is my belief that the violent events in the country are persisting because a large part of the population is either actively supporting the insurgency, or quietly condoning it. Actions speak louder than words. Their actions tell me we really are not wanted. Should we stay someplace where we are not wanted?

The world has benefited immensely from chemistry and chemical manufacturing, so why is there such a negative and antagonistic feeling toward the chemical industry? The mere mention of the word "chemical" in many circles elicits a response of great concerns about dangers to health, environment, community property value, and personal safety. Even if the response were not about those serious concerns, as a minimum there would be at least an unqualified negative comment about foul odors, unsightly landscape, and poorer quality of life anywhere near the location of chemicals manufacturing.

Are such concerns well founded, or are they imagined? What would an unbiased presentation of statistical data say about the true record of the chemical industry in real events that impinged on these major social concerns? Where are the real facts and how can they be obtained for public disclosure? Who can be trusted to publish the information in an unbiased manner?

In this age, where every announcement from a center of authority seems slanted toward some personal agenda, how can credible information be communicated. It is not likely, for obvious reasons, that any spokesman associated with any chemical manufacturer would be considered credible. Likewise, any local politician that speaks out (either in favor or opposed) to the siting of chemical facilies in his district is surely owned either by the opponents or proponents. Both the lawyer defending the chemical firm in an action, and the lawyer presenting the case for the complaint will only disclose data that supports their private agenda and not present all relevant facts. This tainted status extends today even to the most highly respected of society, our doctors, university professors, military commanders, and even our religous leaders. It seems there is no one suitable to carry the message.

In such circumstances, the message will be carried by itself. The public opinion and public attitude will be formed as individuals experience the circumstances, good or bad, and relate these experiences to others. For the chemical industry to be perceived as "good", it must be visibly good in the local community of each chemical facility and in the broader public that uses the products of the industry in their daily lives. This cannot be limited to an external facade, but must exist in every facet of its operations. There must be a true dedication to protection of the environment and reduction to risk of accidents even when these things require large capital investments. There must be full undertanding and disclosure of the hazardous characteristics of a product. There must be an honest concern and real effective implementation for the safety of workers in the facility, even when this means further process research investment or delay in introduction of the process into the plant. For consumer products that are widely distributed and used by the general public not trained and knowledgeable in chemistry, they must be promoted, advertised, and distributed in the most responsible way. Their packaging, directions for use, cautions, and applications must be fully appropriate and drafted strictly to the needs of the consumer.

As an observer of the industry for many years, I believe there are firms that truly practice the principles for being counted as "good". I also believe there are some that do not. For many of these firms, the reasons are typically not unethical standards, but economic limitations. It is expensive to be good and sometimes the cost just cannot be supported. How can we establish a system for helping those firms that want to improve but are limited economically? For the other minority of firms that just do not value those higher standards, how can they be removed from the industry?