(First, if any of you noticed, Papa’s been quite silent. I began ths post nearly a month ago. No reason for the delay other than a lull in life. Or, as your great-grandfather explained after his family fretted for hours when he seemingly disappeared, “You know how it is.”) (Secondly, after writing the First more days have passed…now you really know how it is at Sight Point.)

I have always tried to read a wide range of media sources. It is becoming a bit difficult because many sources/sites began requiring paid subscriptions. It’s too expensive to access many/all. Reading only a few that might be affordable is not my cup of tea. It is restrictive. Too many folks already get their news/opinions from tunnel vision sites. I suspect most enjoy a sense of confirmation of their rigid beliefs as well as having an easy way to avoid the brain pain involved in thinking. Try to read/view as wide a range of material as possible. Even if you have strong views/opinions already, exposing yourself to counter arguements can’t hurt you.

One of the news sites that I don’t pay to get is the NY Times. I do get pieces and snippets from distribution reprints/summaries. Recently I came across a comment from Thomas Friedman of the Times on the Iran war. I have always enjoyed his writing and found his comments to be cogent and usually to the point. In what is best described as another “Yes, But” moment he says he is happy that the evil of Iran may be taken down BUT. The but being that he doesn’t like that in vanquishing/limiting danger to world peace it may/will help the Prime Minister of Isreal and the President of the US. He’s declared them to be terrible people. So, reducing a threat to world peace does not outweigh dislike for particular politicians/people? Hard to conceive why anyone makes that calculation but I fear many in our country may be so inclined. Isn’t world peace the ultimate goal of pointy heads? Of us all.

Papa smells an odor from the past when military victory was not considered important. It was hard to understand why so many Americans cheered the forces supported by the Soviet Union, Communist China or North Vietnam. Anti-American protests were seen by many as giving an enemy hope. Eventually, when Free Vietnam was not supported by Congress after a truce, millions had to live under an authoritarian communist country. Still do. So what (?) I assume is in the mindset of many aging protesters from the 60’s.

Many concur that Iran is a potential danger. As the writer indicates, Iran being taken down is mostly seen as a good thing. BUT. Yikes. We do need to consider the question of military action as being preventable. Or, necessary. Not easy. Action today will save thousands/millions of lives may be a true statement but impossible to prove. Does a nation, like Europe did in the 1930’s, wait for the proof of World War Two’s loss of millions of lives? Or, should military action have been taken once the terms of World War One’s end were violated before 1935-6? There was a pretty clear danger at the door. Let’s say 10,000 died in such a preventable action. The 1936 mindset might not have conceived what was necessary as compared to what was apparent to the thinking of 1946. There will always be second guessing on issues of foreign policy and world peace. Perhaps it is best to err on the side of caution rather than worry about who will or will not get credit for a successful action.

Time creeps along since I began this post. My Post-WW2 mindset doesn’t understand this on again off again cease fire-negotiations. Talk about flip flops. However, back to my point. I don’t need to understand. Boxing in Iran and/or eliminatimng them as a danger to peace is a good goal no matter how it is achieved. Or by whom. So, for right now, on the eve of July 4th I’ll be patriotic and cheer for a positive USA outcome even if it’s not apparently clear how this ends.

l