Here’s an interesting graphic from the Foreign Affairs website (sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations). It puts America’s level of taxes in a world perspective. There are some “But it doesn’t take into account…” kinds of objections, but still.

A lengthy articles, titled “America the Undertaxed: U.S. Fiscal Policy in Perspective,” accompanied the graphic. A few tidbits from the article.

• We’ve heard that the US has the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. The article confirms that, at a 39% rate. But with all the tax breaks and credits and other bookkeeping tricks we allow, the effective rate is an average of 13%, the lowest among the G-7 countries.
• The amount of total US income going to the top 1% of earners increased from 9% in 1970 to 23.5% in 2007. They earn 20% of all income, but hold over 30% of all wealth. The next highest is Germany, where the top 1% earn just 11% of the country’s total income. So the disparity is severe in the US, and prosperity which once went to the middle class now goes to the very rich.
• The article deals at length with income inequality and the things we’ve built into the tax code to specifically benefit the rich. The article says we have the highest poverty rate among rich nations.
• According to Paul Ryan’s budget plan, 62% of the spending reductions would affect low-income households (government programs being cut), and low-income households would also face higher federal taxes because of a reduction in the Earned Income Tax Credit.
• Meanwhile, persons earning over $1 million would get a tax cut of $265,000, on top of the Bush tax cuts already in place. This from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

At a stoplight, I noticed this bumper sticker on the car ahead of me: “I’m proud that my son is fighting for our freedom.”

I think that parent should be very, very proud. I appreciate this son serving in the military to protect and defend our country. I think it’s a calling worthy of high honor.

But as I drove on, I parsed out the words in that bumper sticker. Nothing to criticize that parent or that son. Just some harmless musing by a person who has never worn the uniform, and had some thinking time to fill.

My thoughts focused on the word “freedom.” Is that son really fighting for the freedom of the United States? I decided–and I’m totally open to being wrong about this–that freedom isn’t the issue. Our freedom isn’t threatened by Al Qaeda or the Taliban. No rag-tag bunch of terrorists are going to take over the United States and subjugate the citizenry. Those soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are, to use the famous words from “A Few Good Man,” standing on a wall. In the fight against Al Qaeda, they are protecting us from attack, pursuing an enemy who threatens us with harm.

Frankly, I think Homeland Security is a greater threat to American freedom than anything in Afghanistan. In our post-9/11 frenzy, we ceded a scary amount of authority to the federal government, which can look into our lives in unprecedented ways. We have greatly expanded the government’s right to detain citizens, accumulate information about every facet of our lives, and keep tabs on everything we do. After 9/11, we went way, way overboard.

But, back to our wars.

The Revolutionary War was all about freedom. So was the War of 1812, a war against conquering invaders.

The Mexican-American War, I would say, was a war of aggression on our part. (Not to be confused with the Texas War of Independence, which included the Alamo.) It was basically a land grab.

I’m not sure how to categorize the Civil War. Both sides were fighting for freedom–the North to (at last in part) free the slaves, the South to preserve states rights and their freedom from federal intervention in their affairs.

World War I doesn’t strike me as being about defending our freedom, but it seems to have been in our national interests. Soldiers often die not in defense of freedom, but for other worthy causes which require deadly force. The Great War falls in that zone. World War II, on the other hand, was indeed about freedom…and much more.

What about Korea and Vietnam? In the context of the Cold War, with communism seeking to dominate the world, I can easily make the argument that it was ultimately about freedom. We were trying to keep early dominos from falling, recognizing that the US would be the last domino to topple. At least, that’s how people thought at the time.

The first Gulf War? Our freedom wasn’t threatened, but we were needed to right a terrible wrong (Saddam Hussein’s invasion of helpless Kuwait). And because of our dependence on oil, we had vital strategic interests in that region.

Now we come to Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither, in my book, involved defending our freedom. But that doesn’t mean fighting those wars was invalid.

We plunged into Afghanistan to eliminate a proven threat. We were attacked, and we retaliated.

Iraq was another story. I’m not going to argue whether or not we should have invaded Iraq. I’m just going to say this: it wasn’t about American freedom (remember, it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom). You can make a case, based on the presumption of Hussein building nuclear weapons, that Iraq could cause us immense harm. But take away our freedom? No, that wasn’t at stake.

Now, we’re mostly left with Afghanistan. The Al Qaeda of 9/11 is pretty much gone, vanquished. Now we are primarily fighting in a civil war against the Taliban. In that sense, the bumper sticker isn’t accurate–that son is not fighting to preserve American freedom. He’s fighting another country’s internal war. Which can still be a worthy cause…or not.

But, as I continued driving and thinking about this, I came to a conclusion which affirmed the bumper sticker. Whether or not we are at war, American soldiers are the first line of defense in safeguarding our freedom. Every man or woman who dons the uniform is prepared to defend my freedom. They may not be fighting for our freedom in Afghanistan, but if a threat to American freedom arises, they are ready to stomp it down. A contrarian could argue that the Constitution is our first line of defense of freedom, or perhaps the judicial system. But when push comes to shove, it’s those men and women in uniform, expertly trained to inflict violence, who make the difference.

And so, in a larger sense, that bumper sticker was indeed accurate. They may not be currently fighting for our freedom, but they are prepared and eager to do so. At least, that’s where my musing ended up.

I don’t know why Americans think we should never apologize for anything. That’s not courteous, and it’s certainly not Christian. I was always taught that it takes the bigger man to make things right. I like to think that when it comes to morality, there is no bigger man on the world stage than America. People say apologizing is a sign of weakness. No, it’s a sign of strength.

Should we apologize for accidentally burning a bunch of Korans? Of course we should. We are guests (of sorts–we forced our way in, and no need to apologize for that) in Afghanistan, and we did something highly offensive in their culture. People are being killed because of what we did. If an apology helps calm things down, then do it (though it hasn’t done much good, apparently).

You’ll never hear Russia or China apologize for anything. But we’re bigger than that. We have more moral character. We claim to be based on Christian values. We can find it within us to say, “We made a terrible mistake, and we’re sorry.”

Rick Santorum, a man who claims Christian values, argues that since it was a mistake, we don’t have anything to apologize for. I’ve rarely heard anything so silly.

I apologize to people all the time for things I do accidentally. If I bump into you as we pass in the hall, I’ll say I’m sorry. If I spill coffee on your desk, or come late to an appointment because of something unforeseen, or mess up a song on Sunday morning, or forget a visitor’s name, or don’t understand what you said and ask you to repeat it–all the time, I’m apologizing for things I didn’t do intentionally. That’s just common courtesy. And sometimes we apologize for the actions of other people, actions we had no control over, like a waitress apologizing for a cook’s mistake, or a customer service rep apologizing because the warehouse sent me the wrong order.

We live in a courteous nation. I like that.

When we accidentally bombed and killed British and Canadian troops (on several occasions), you can be sure we apologized. No, we didn’t kill them accidentally. But we killed allied troops by mistake, and rightfully said we were sorry. We didn’t want to offend our friends by acting as if we hadn’t done anything wrong. But according to Rick Santorum, since it was purely accidental, there should have been no apology. Just tell the Brits and Canadians and their grieving families to let it go, because we did nothing wrong.

Now we have burned some holy books. But since it’s the Muslim holy book, it’s okay? Is that what we think?

You can bet there is an American military officer in Afghanistan, the guy in charge of whatever they were doing with those books, who has apologized profusely to superior officers for letting his men burn Korans. And probably apologized to his men for getting them in trouble. Mr. Santorum, are you saying this officer has nothing to apologize for–that it was just a careless mistake? And you shouldn’t apologize for a mere careless mistake?

A friend told me about an American Muslim woman who, whenever she stays in a hotel room, removes the Gideon Bible from the nightstand and places it in the highest location in the room. Why? Although she’s not a Christian, according to her Muslim culture religious books are sacred and should be treated with respect. Muslims burn American flags and hang our leaders in effigy. But, though I’m sure it happens, you don’t hear about Muslims burning Bibles. If they did, FoxNews would make sure we heard about it.

But people object, “Look at all the wrongs they’ve committed against us, and they don’t apologize.” So you’re saying, let’s throw out the Golden Rule? Declare that Jesus’ words don’t apply to us?

By treating people like we want to be treated–even if there’s little hope of them returning the favor–we are modeling something for the rest of the world. We are modeling our Judeo-Christian values, upon which our country was founded. We are, in fact, according to Proverbs 25, “heaping burning coals” on the heads of Russians and Chinese and radical Muslims, who wouldn’t stoop to admitting wrong.

If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,
and the Lord will reward you.

Why doesn’t Santorum want to heap burning coals on the heads of our enemies? Why is he coddling terrorists? (I jest, I jest!)

In my view, an apology for burning Korans was totally appropriate. It didn’t necessarily need to come from the president. But it was necessary. Because America is a nation of moral character and of strength.

If you disagree–well, I’m real sorry about that.

The funeral of Kim Jong Il, the recently departed “Dear Leader” of North Korea, occasioned some of the worst acting you’ll ever see. Makes Steven Seagal look Oscar calibre.

When crises happen on the international stage, a lot often happens behind the scenes that we know nothing about.

The Daily Beast has a superb article about George H. W. Bush (that’s the father, for those of you who are initial-challenged). It’s called “A Wimp He Wasn’t.”

The article tells about a somewhat hair-raising secret mission the then-vice president took to El Salvador, which was then in the midst of a nasty civil war. He read the riot act to the national leaders, especially about their widespread use of death squads, and reforms soon came. That was very interesting to read.

But I was most intrigued by a story which occurred as the Berlin Wall was crumbling in East Germany.

Bush, now president, received an urgent cable from Soviet President Gorbachev. Gorbachev asked Bush to avoid taking a provocative action that might instigate a Tiananmen Square-like crackdown in East Germany. He, likewise, would mute the Soviet response. The goal was to avoid provoking confrontations that might get out of control.

Bush was criticized for not cheering what was happening in East Germany. He seemed unenthused about this historic happening. And he never talked about his behind-the-scenes agreement with Gorbachev. But the result was a peaceful transition of power. He didn’t go on national TV to posture about democracy. He got it right.

Now we hear numerous critics griping about how President Obama is handling Libya (as they gripe about anything he does). But all kinds of dynamics are at work behind the scenes, balancing relationships with our European allies and with the Arab League, and with various other interests. It’s complicated stuff, and we may never hear some of the things that happens in secret. Just as it took 20 years for that crucial agreement between Bush and Gorbachev to become public.

It’s easy to engage in simplistic posturing that plays well to American audiences (as Rush and the folks at Fox News know all too well). It’s harder to get it right.