I feel a bit pressed for time regarding this post, so I beg your indulgence. I want to say this before the election comes on Tuesday, and so I am going to plead that my thoughts are not as well expressed as they would be if I had more time. That is, I want to transfer some of my responsibility as a writer to you the reader -- I am going to ask you to help me make my case, where you find that it is weak, and where you find that I could have better expressed myself.
Before you agree to this task, I am going to warn you that I am going to be challenging -- very sharply challenging -- some of my very good friends. Quite possibly you, if you are a person who considers himself, or herself, a conservative; and this is especially likely if you hold your conservative views with a sincerity that comes either from high political idealism, or devout religious conviction.
If you are not in this category of conservative, then what I have to say may be of very little worth, and you may wish to save yourself the time it will take to wade through this business. On the other hand, you may have a little curiosity about what a family quarrel looks like. If so, welcome aboard.
The reason I feel pressed for time goes back a long way -- as do most things in my mind these days, all things considered.
Back in the 70s, I read an interesting book by the famous (and very effective) lawyer Louis Nizer, called Reflections Without Mirrors. (Before we go any further, don't you have to admire a man who can write a book that can carry such a title as that? I think he was a born teacher, at least in the sense that he was a very good explainer of things to laymen such as myself -- and juries.) The book contained the entire text of his speech before the Senate, defending the sitting president and urging them to reject the articles of impeachment: to acquit and not to convict. The speech was lengthy, eloquent, well-reasoned, and to me pretty persuasive. Especially persuasive because it came from a man more associated with liberal jurisprudence than with conservative.
Well, if you lived through the days of the Nixon presidency, you probably remember that he was not impeached: he resigned before the articles of impeachment could be approved by the full House of Representatives, as they certainly would have been. There was therefore no Senate trial, and there was therefore no speech. Nizer never gave that speech; he was never able to. He couldn't have; the circumstances never arose in which it could have been given.
So what was Nizer doing? I don't know for sure, but I think he was simply applying his distinguished mind, retrospectively, to what might very well have been. Perhaps in his mind, what ought to have been. Suppose the situation had come to that; suppose a defense of the President needed to be mounted? Of course, actual circumstances made the "speech" only an academic exercise; but its publication gave readers a chance to reflect, even if without mirrors.
Perhaps Nixon should have been impeached. But if so, should it not have been for the right reasons? Exceeding his constitutional war powers, perhaps? Ordering wiretaps against political enemies in violation of Fourth Amendment protections, maybe? In other words, should he not have been accused and convicted purely on the basis of constitutional principles and issues? and if by those lights he was justified, should he not have been exonerated?
But that is not what happened. And Nizer knew it, and apparently regretted it, as he seems to have had a real respect for the law and a devotion to its integrity. In reality, Nixon was accused and tried in the popular media, and found guilty in the minds of the people who followed the media. Not only legality, but truth and high standards of justice suffered great and permanent damage; as we were to prove twenty-five years later in the Bill Clinton Affair. Again, a president was accused over matters that did not rise above common hypocrisy. Surely, all but the most naive among us realize that in Washington, DC, the matter of a nationally-known politician receiving sexual services from a non-spouse government employee is a nightly affair. Is it not?
The reason I bring up the Nizer story is because of a question it raised in my mind when I read it that long time ago. In my mind, I put it to Nizer, perhaps unfairly: If you really thought this, if you believed this, if it was important: why did you not speak out when you saw an impending miscarriage of -- if not justice, exactly, then a miscarriage of truth? When a serious unnecessary evil could have been avoided? When something different and better might have happened?
But the time is now, not then. The question is for me, not Nizer. If you see a miscarriage of truth with regard to the president, will you say what needs to be said while there is still time for something good to happen? And this is why I suddenly feel pressed for time. I want to say something that needs to be said before next Tuesday's election. I don't think I can say it half so well as Nizer might, but I think it needs to be attempted anyway.
I hope that I shall not sound angry. I hope that I shall not sound overly accusative. I hope that I shall not sound cynical. I hope that I shall not sound hopeless. Little is accomplished in those states of mind.
I am very deeply disturbed, but I hope to retain my inward balance and my outward composure. I have been perplexed at the behavior of my American "conservative" friends for several years; as time passes, this perplexity is slowly elevating into horror.
I hope to make a good case in a hard matter, and I am not sure I am up to it. With this, I end my introductory remarks.
* * * *
I am not a member of, nor am I sympathetic to, either of our major political parties. I once was; but as Joseph Sobran once quoted St. Paul, I have put away childish things. The best I can say is that each of them contains a few, a very few, leaders who love their country as much as they love their money.
I carry no brief for the leadership of the Democratic Party. Their performance since reasserting their Congressional ascendancy four years ago has been utterly disastrous. I cannot, at the moment, think of any good that they have done. I do not wish to defend the indefensible, nor do I wish to be a devil's advocate -- I have noticed that the devil already has plenty of legal expertise on permanent retainer.
But I also carry no antagonism whatsoever for fellow citizens who are Democrats, vote Democratic, or are a part of local Democratic leadership. I find them to be civic-minded, community-minded people who are often interested in the aspirations of the working class and the needs of the poor -- issues that should engage us all, but for which they demonstrate a special affinity.
And I also carry no brief for the Republican Party: and I fear that many of my lifelong conservative friends see the current election as an opportunity to vindicate their past Republican activism. And anything that diminishes the opposition, as they see it, will redound to the benefit of their cause, which is to them unquestionably noble. Enter the current bashing of President Obama and the justification of it. He is a useful whipping-boy. Get out the vote.
But personally, I think that President Obama is being treated in a dangerously untruthful manner, and I think there is plenty of evidence that this is going on. So I wish to defend him by offering two strong cheers, and a strong criticism of my friends who I think should know better.
Here comes the first strong cheer for President Obama:
As a junior Senator from Illinois, he had the courage to oppose the Congressional resolution that authorized the utterly misbegotten and misguided invasion and destruction of Iraq. Hurrah!
The War In Afghanistan was utterly wrong-headed, too. (I'll save the explanation -- if you really need it -- for later, when I've got more time; I'm racing the calendar here.) But at least the Afghan War could sport one or two flimsy fig-leaves to cover its naked ugliness -- Osama bin Laden Once Lived There, and really, what more reason could you need?
But the Iraq War had no such excuse. Any justification for war in that country required an intentional ignorance of British and American relations with that country for the past century. An intentional, arrogant, stupid ignorance. You can quote me.
Admit it; Obama got this absolutely right. And he got this right as early as 2002, when the country was still in the grip of establishment-induced fear-and-war fever over the events of September 11. And this single, crucial decision places him forever above the following persons and groups in both moral clarity and political courage:
1. The Democratic leadership. This includes their think tanks, their Wall Street, and most of their congressional leadership, specifically including Harry Reid, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton. They got it wrong, and still do.
2. The Republican leadership. This includes their think tanks, their Wall Street, the Pentagon, and most of their congressional leadership, specifically including John McCain. And Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin. They got it wrong, and still do.
3. The Bush administration. This includes George W. Bush and his entire foreign policy team including Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, and that pack of neo-conservatives that infested the Pentagon, the State Department, and the airwaves. They got it wrong, and still do. For too long, that included the braver and wiser Colin Powell.
4. The Israel lobby. They got it wrong. As it is written, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Enough said.
5. The Religious Right. This includes evangelical and "pro-life" leadership, pastors, and many Christian broadcasting and publishing outfits. It also includes an astonishingly large percentage of regular church-goers. They got it wrong, and still do. They should know better. They do know better.
6. Me. I knew what was wrong in 2002 also. I said a few meek things. I expressed a few serious doubts. But it was go-along-and-get-along; mealy-mouthed, I now think. I am ashamed. I didn't put anything on the line.
It's high time for some clarity:
War is almost always wrong. Everyone knows this, because the statement is very easy to demonstrate. It is because war is almost always about either power, or money, or both. Rarely freedom; very rarely justice. History makes this very clear; the Holy Scriptures also make this very clear. The Iraq war was no exception. It was about money and power from long before its beginning. The evidence is available, abundant, and unequivocal. If you doubt this, you have been listening to the wrong voices. Wise up; don't be the last person on your block to figure out something so blindingly obvious. If you have been justifying the war, please stop. Please.
Now here comes the second cheer for President Obama.
As President, he reached out to establish more peaceable relations with the Muslim world, and urged efforts at understanding and amelioration of grievances between Jews and Arabs in Palestine/Israel. Hurrah!
Of course it has gone nowhere. Very few people in America want it to: not the Democratic leadership; not the Republican leadership; not the Israel lobby; not the Religious Right. Quite likely, not you. Conservatives in America have joined forces with their counterparts in Israel to create the most formidable war-party in the world today.
And the continuing justification of war, and hatred of peace, that characterize most of voting America today, are two very good reasons why I do not even begin to trust the tea parties or the conservatives or the big landslide that is supposedly going to happen.
Hey, I'm for voting the bums out. Pick your favorite bum and give him or her the old heave-ho. I plan to, too.
But don't blame President Obama for someone else's sins. That's just plain wrong. Especially don't blame him for yours. That would truly be wicked.
Because in at least two crucially important areas, President Obama has hewed to humane and constitutional principles -- in the same two crucial areas where his conservative (and all other) critics have absolutely abandoned them. If these principles mean anything, he stands exonerated, and his critics stand condemned.
Speaking for myself, I've been praying for that man in the White House who is increasingly alone and marginalized. And I mean praying for him, not praying or working against him. I urge you to join me.
Going back to the first part of my post, I'm thinking of the lesson Louis Nizer's ungiven speech taught me. Think about things carefully. Stand up. Say something for truth and rightness before something sad and irrevocable happens. Don't wait till afterward and say, I thought so, I was afraid so. Though if you do wait till afterward, go ahead and record your thoughts: they may give courage to someone else.
Two cheers for President Obama.
Speaking like a teacher, I'll just say this:
Better do your homework. A major test is coming soon. You've already flunked the last several. If you think this shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. But I didn't write the curriculum any more than you did. And I'm not the one giving the final, and I'm not the one grading it. Best wishes for your success.
* * * *
Well, I've been re-reading this post, and I think I could have said it better. Especially about the second cheer. But I'm going to post now.
Comments welcome. Disagreement welcome. Agreement, of course, even more welcome. In any and all cases, please keep it civil.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this.....thanks for some Saturday morning breakfast for thought.
ReplyDeleteHurrah! for two cheers for President Obama! I, too, think back to my lack of conviction when Americans were beating war drums like mad, drunken drum beaters, and I am ashamed. "Peacemakers" is not a weak word, it certainly is not a dirty word. Perhaps it's time to really read our bibles, or to publish "The Bible for Warmongers" which corrects troubling little statements like those of our Lord.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments.
ReplyDeleteI just checked out the Right Change website. Typical shallow Republican drivel. They say nothing very meaningful about anything; but they totally avoid any mention of the wars, or the constitution, or the police state they have worked so faithfully to establish.
In my view, they are worse than worthless.
I don't think the Revolutionary War was over money or power really..other than freedom to decide where your money goes and the power to decide your own future without the hierarchy of establishment keeping you in your place. Perhaps there are till some Americans who are independent thinkers like those Revolutionary heroes I still hold in very high regard.
ReplyDeleteWar itself, I believe, is not always wrong. In fact, we ourselves are engaged in a battle everyday...although our enemies are mostly unseen. Tolkien did a marvelous job of depicting both the sadness and the necessity of battle.
I'm not privy to the inside information re: Iraq or Afghanistan. I do know that a close friend of mine's son was stationed in Iraq and was shot point blank by his supposed Iraqi friend who had opened up a gate for them to enter their compound and then proceeded to open fire on the whole American group.
I believe there is a different mentality in Muslim countries. I believe they actually do think they are serving Allah by killing Christians (reference 911)
I am naive enough to believe that America is still by far the best country to live in...even with the imperfect and shallow Republicans and Democrats and Tea Partiers arguing over taxes and spending and foreign policies. In fact, that argument is what makes our country the best I think. In most countries, it's not tolerated.
My cousin is a teacher in an international school in Moscow, Bobby. She warned me that there is no mail delivery in Russia so all correspondence has to be by internet or phone. She also warned me when she was here this summer to be careful what I put in the e-mails or say on the phone. There have been teachers that have been forced to resign because of their political disagreement with Russian leadership. What? Today? Now? And your not even a government worker, but just a lowly teacher? "Oh, yes, just be careful what you say," she warned me.
Well, you don't seem to be afraid to write what you want in your blog..nor should you be. Cause you live in American...home of the free and the brave.
Your naive but highly intelligent friend,
Judith Leah Winchell Sharp
I thought of another example which I think support my belief that our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities and the power of the unseen world. We attended a Bible study for 10 years with a man here who works for Raytheon. He lived in Saudi Arabia in Jiddah (and is living there now I believe along with his grown daughter) for 6 of the years that we were in a Bible Study group with his family. Scott came back during our tenure in this Bible study for a year and a half so we got to hear many stories first hand from Saudi Arabia. Scott also had severe bouts of depression from what he experienced there and trying to reconcile his actions with the great need for spiritual enlightenment in Saudi. He was afraid to ever speak of Christ or the Bible except in a very general way because of fear and also the fact that he had signed an agreement that he would not in any way try to evangelize while he was there. He said that every Fri. night in Jiddah that had beheadings...mostly Christians..mostly Philippinos...that were going door to door or inviting people to Bible studies. Their crime which earned them the loss of their heads was telling people of Jesus Christ and a new way of life. Scott saw this many times...the beheadings. This is today. You just don't read about it or see it on the nightly news. However, we have sat in the same room and heard the stories first hand from our brother who said he was scared witless, but also afraid of what God thought of his lack of testimony...hence his depression. Ok, so they behead people who are trying to persuade people they don't have to obey the Iman..that there is a new way..an unknown God that they need to know..it's probably NOT about our power or money, Bobby...that's only the turkish taffy that Satan uses. We are engaged in a battle alright and I'm voting for the candidates that I think are on my side in that great battle!
ReplyDeleteJudy, thanks for your comments.
ReplyDeleteWhen I said that war was ALMOST always wrong, I followed that with the assertion that it is occasionally for freedom, or justice. Occasionally.
I had the American Revolution specifically in mind when I acknowledged the exceptions; I do believe that there have been a few others.
And it is certainly true that people and nations have a right to self-defense, so that can frequently make at least one side of a bad war "good."
But this was not even remotely the case in the American invasion of Iraq. This was no 'self-defense' on our part.
From a Christian point of view, I think St. Augustine's commentary on what makes a 'just war' is the best we've got, if the Holy Scriptures need elaboration and interpretation, which I think they do.
I plan to have a lot more to say about war in general, and specific wars, so stay tuned, and keep the comments coming.
Thanks. You have pointed out another side.
I've read your blog several times to focus on where you are coming from. (And you do sound angry and rather cynical--your final note about the police state that our country has become and your perplexity at your conservative friends' behavior "slowly elevating into horror". I'm curious as to the specific cause of horror.) You've denounced both parties, the rel. right, Israel, and the Tea Party and proudly state that you've put away "childish things" in renouncing both parties. Where are you then? It's easy to fault both parties -- indeed, they both suffer from a multitude of sins; but, unless like Joe Sobran you want to consider anarchy, this is what we have to work with. I am rather encouraged by the grass roots movement springing up to defend our Constitution and to limit the size of gov't. I see a renewed interest in our history and in accepting more responsibility for keeping this a republic.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that you are giving 2 cheers for Obama as much as you are in castigating our country for the war in Iraq. You condemn our justification as "arrogant, stupid ignorance but cite little evidence other than "blindingly obvious." There is of course much to criticize about the Iraqi war. Hindsight is a perfect prophet. But, there are also events for which to be thankful. (Seeing the statue of Saddam, whose cruelty was legend, torn down while the people cheered.) We can engage in debate about the dictator of a rogue state who ignored U.N. warnings, but my concern is with your harsh judgment of the U.S. I think of Regan's seeing "America as a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere." and his admonition that "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." I don't see a mass exodus of people wanting to leave but I do see masses of people including many muslims wanting to live here. I believe that we were purposefully put here to help in the battle "against powers, against the rulers of this world, against the spirits of wickedness under the heaven." I'm reminded of WWII when it looked as if the princes of darkness would hold sway. America's efforts helped to end the war and the nightmare of the Holocaust.
We have many enemies who would rejoice at our demise-- who seek to enslave us. I think that you too easily dismissed the aftermath of 9/11.
Of course some politicians will use it as drama for their own purpose; but the evil and hate were there. Islam is both a religion and a political philosophy. Many muslims are devoted to establishing sharia law worldwide. (I'm not as impressed with Obama's outreach to muslims at the expense of denigrating the U.S., but this missive is already too long so I will save that for another time.
So count me as one of those conservatives who sees us engaged in a battle for our Constitution and Republic.
I
Thank you, Sharon, for your thoughts and comments.
ReplyDeleteIn my view, today's so-called 'conservative insiders' -- I am speaking of government neo-conservatives here -- have completely trashed the Constitution. Under the Bush administration, they (the Pentagon, some elements of Congress, and some elements of the Israel lobby -- specifically Senator Joe Lieberman) established the Department of Homeland Security, whose security functions, being non-military, can only be described as tending -- rapidly -- to a police state. I find it very interesting that President Bush initially opposed this action. But what I would (affectionately) call 'movement conservatives' (I would have considered myself one, at the time) raised no sustained outcry in support of the president's legitimate concern, and so the insider 'neo-conservatives' had their way. Habeas corpus protections have been suspended, wiretaps without judicial oversight have been legitimized and multiplied, imprisonments have been extended without trial, tortures justified, international understandings (Nuremberg and the Geneva Conventions) have been ignored. And all of this began to be put in place before the first bomb fell on Iraq.
The truth about the situation in Iraq was not told to the American people in the 'run-up' to the war, nor since then, nor is it being told today. Instead, a careful script --a playbook -- was developed, primarily by a unit in the Pentagon that was created for this purpose, called the Office of Special Plans, and this script guided the White House in its planning and its public proclamations. This is a matter of common knowledge. On this subject, Scott McClellan, Bush's former press secretary, has a lot to say in his book, 'What Happened.' He says far less than could be said, but he says enough.
The toppling of Saddam's statue is a touching symbol, but the reality is that the situation in Iraq was a fore-ordained disaster. The entire reason for action was flawed. To begin with, there were no weapons of mass destruction, and most of the lower echelons of the 'intelligence community' knew this. They knew that the intelligence was being cooked. But probably even worse than that, the US government, as a whole, didn't even know the practical difference between Shi'a and Sunni and Wahhabi Muslims. I am not blaming Bush for this -- a man has to trust his advisors for the details -- but the fact is, he had no idea what he was committing the military to. Our commanders and soldiers had no practical way of distinguishing friend from foe. And this is not merely 20-20 hindsight. People who understood middle eastern history, recent as well as ancient, could see clearly what was likely to be coming.
The intelligence given to the Bush White House prior to the war was a combination of truth, wishful-thinking from CIA asset Ahmad Chalabi who thought he was loved and would just take over after Saddam was deposed, a desire for payback, guilt over the arming of Saddam against Iran, frustration that ten years of brutal western sanctions 'weren't working,' the desire to control Iraqi oil, and forced and down-right forged itelligence in order to justify a pre-existing war plan that had begun to be developed as early as during the Clinton administration. Bush trusted his advisers, and his advisers let him down.
But Bush also trusted his 'conservative base,' and his conservative base let him down. No significant number of conservatives stood up when the Constitution was threatened. No conservative jurists; no conservative Congressmen; very few conservative pastors. Few conservatives even murmured when the Patriot Act was passed. And years later, when there was no excuse that 'we just didn't know,' they renewed it. There is no sense in prating about 'defending our freedoms' by killing people abroad when conservatives at home are carelessly flinging them away.
continued below
If we cast the war as a religious war against Islam as if they were all enemies of Christianity, the war is going very badly for the Christians.
ReplyDeleteAsk the Christian community that remains in Iraq if the war "for their freedoms" worked out at all. The Assyrian Church is one of the oldest in Christendom, dating back to the very earliest centuries of the Church. They have survived many invasions, including Persians, Muslims, and (I believe) the Moguls. (Or was it the Mongols?) While they, like other Christians, have suffered much, they had sufficient stability and respect that one of their number, Tariq Aziz, was actually Vice-President in the government of Saddam Hussein. Today, seven years after the invasion, they are one of the mostly numerically hard-hit groups. If you ask them whether they are better off, I think they will tell you, No.
Ask the Christian missionaries and laymen who are on-the-ground in Muslim countries whether things have improved. Are they in less danger? Is evangelism growing as a result? Are they surrendering to Jesus Christ as a result of American military action?
The country most notorious for persecution of Christians (and its own criminals) is probably Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia was most closely linked with the supposed hijackers of 911. Osama bin Laden is a part of Saudi nobility. If the roots of anti-Christianity and anti-Americanism are in Saudi Arabia, why did we attack Iraq?
(Hint: check out the special oil deal we negotiated with the Saudis, formalized in the 1970s, but going back much farther. They may not like Christians, or their own fellow Muslims, but hey, Saudis and the west have a good understanding about OIL.)
* * *
As to my personal political inclinations, since I no longer claim any fondness for either major party, I am a Constitutionalist, so I gravitate to the Constitution Party, the paleo-conservatives, and the paleo-libertarians. A generic and suitable name for this is the Old Old Right. There are many people of like mind, and I draw much of my political energy, if I have any, from them.
I also find literary fellowship with G. K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, Albert Jay Nock, and a few others. I highly recommend the writers at the website, LewRockwell.com, particularly Karen Kwiatkowski, Eric Margolis, Fred Reed, and several others.
Anonymous only because I am somewhat tech-challenged and not sure how else to comment. Seemed like the easiest way to post.
ReplyDeleteI find it nearly impossible to find any good in our current president. If you will but toss aside your naivete' and more thoroughly examine his stances, you will discover BO opposed the Iraq invasion and praised the Afghanistan invasion. He called it the "just war" and the "right war". His opposition to the Iraq war was merely political opportunism. He was opposing the Bush administration and parroting his party's left wing propoganda. How sad that you give him credit for this.
I find it beyond belief that you agonize over the "killing fields" of Irag and Afghanistan. According to the most liberal of sources, somewhere around 1.3 million people have died in Iraq since the invasion (this includes Muslim on Muslim violence, military, etc.). Most reliable sources sharply differ on this number and say it is inflated by a factor of at least 2, if not 3 times. The population of Iraq in 2008 was estimated at 30.8 million. Saddam Hussein was believed to have killed nearly 400,000 Iraqis and nearly 2 million total (including Iran, Kuwait, etc.). But all of these numbers pale in comparison to the onslaught of abortion. In this country alone we have averaged about 1.3 million deaths PER YEAR. World-wide there are about 42 million per year. In the 37 years abortion has been legal in this country nearly 50 million babies have been denied their constiutional right to life. Our current president is the most pro-abortion person to ever hold that office. In Illinois, BO was known for his high number of "present-but-not-voting" votes. Yet he voted against and railed against a law that would protect babies born alive who survived abortions. The true killing fields are the wombs of American mothers.
I have taken a vow before God that I will never knowingly vote for any person who is in favor of abortion. I don't care if the candidate is running for dog catcher. S/he will not get my vote if they are not solidly pro-life. Shame on you for defending this baby killer on any stance he takes. His hands are far bloodier than Bush or any other president.
You may think I am rather simple in my approach since I have not quoted any books or authors, but I will quote one. Isaiah 5:20, "Woe to those who call good evil and evil good. Who substitue darkness for light and light for darkness. Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."
It is so easy to become engaged in theories and musings of men. A knowledge of man's philosophies is valuable. An initmate relationship with the Creator of mankind is priceless. Your beliefs and defense of them would carry far more weight with many if you would offer support from the Holy Scriptures.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteThank you for your part in the conversation.
I hope to discuss pro-life matters in a future post, So I will save my thoughts until I can arrange them.
At this point, I'll just note that I am pro-life, both personally and politically, and have been always.
As to the Holy Scriptures -- I have long felt a special affinity with the sentiments expressed in the Hundred-Twentieth Psalm. I feel that same thing today.
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/20/grading_obama_the_progress_report_after_two_years
ReplyDeleteTry this. I may not agree with everything, but the writer appears to have marshaled his facts well.
my apologies for such a late comment, this post was up in Oct, but I kept waiting for such an analysis.
Bangalored