My Prediction of the Outcomes of the Primaries

A blog demands taking a plunge to identify with others who want to predict the outcome of the primary elections. It would be fantasy to expect more than the futile efforts of others to know how the unpredictable turns out in reality. However, a blogger must enter the fray!

First, I remain a strong supporter of Obama. In fact, his performance has only increased my support. The fact that he may not overwhelm his opponents does not bother me. His democratic opponents are all good. He has been steady, he has explained well his reasoning for running for president (I do think that there is an urgency for a change in how our president functions) and he has clarified what makes him unique (in addition to his color).

Only because of the strength of the media, money, and her campaign (she has done well in staying close to the “script”, avoided most pitfalls, and has a large number of volunteers that provide great manpower to ensure turnout), I expect Clinton to be the ultimate winner. However, if she did not meet expectations in Iowa and New Hampshire, then the outcome of South Carolina’s primary will become critical. In short, she has to beat her opponents convincingly by 19 January in order to enter the 5 February primaries with optimism of winning.

While I cannot believe that any Republican could be elected in November, the candidates have done well to shatter the perceived strengths of all, except McCain. I do think that he has survived the process with his candidacy still viable. His endorsements by leading news outlets in Iowa and New Hampshire are helpful.

If the outcome is as I expect, I will vote for Clinton but will do so with less than enthusiasm I anticipated. I find her very calculating (as was her husband) which may in long run be good since it tends to identify with the proverbial middle ground. However, in this mess, I doubt that it will be enough to make the necessary changes in our domestic and international policies. I tremble with the thought that the former President will be in the White House. I cannot image his being a mere advisor. I cannot image his not creating problems for Hillary because he will not be capable to withstand saying what he thinks. And what he thinks will not be just another view of a politician. And, unfortunately, I cannot expect that his personal behavior will not emerge as a factor in Hillary’s administration. And finally, I hate the thought that, between 1988 and possibly 2016, we will have two families serving as President.

"The Orchard: A Memoir" by Adele Crockett Robertson

At Christmas, one may receive a gift or two that represents something you would never have if it were not given to you.

I recently received as a gift, "The Orchard: A Memoir" by Adele Crockett Robertson, a book that I doubt that I would have ever heard about, far less read.

Adele Crockett grew up in Ipswich (Massachusetts) on an apple farm that was originally purchased by her grandparents and loved by her father. After her father's death, she assumed responsibility for the farm. Her memoirs capture the heartbreaking work associated with trying to make the farm a success during the depression. Ultimately, she failed at the task and, after many types of work, she distinguished herself as a local journalist. Her memoir was found by her daughter who finally brought it to publications, long after the author's death.

The book is a delight because she was a talented writer. She captured the ongoing struggle with words that crisply caught the nuances of the trials and tribulations of trying to make this farm productive enough to survive.

Religious Right (Republicans)

On 7 September I wrote about the difference between religion and religious. I was trying to capture the fact that being "religious", i.e., acting on values that can be considered consistent with the basic tenets of a religion, differ from identification with a religion.

Today, Harold Meyerson focuses on the Republican Party (led by the ineffable GWB)that continues to focus on their Christian solidarity while advocating policies that are totally inconsistent with Christian values, at least as indicated by Jesus.

Whether we are dealing with preemptive war, torturing of prisoners, or immigration, the Republican Party seems to work hard to be as strong as possible in advocating positions that one could not imagine Jesus condoning.

Admittedly, the alleged links between politicians and a specific religion (most often Christianity) are sources of personal frustration. It is hard to identify with any religion that is so abused by its adherents!

"A Magnificent Catastrophe" by Edward Larson

History is so fascinating because there seems to be no end to what you don’t know. Reading may help to compensate for our ignorance, but it is humbling to realize how much we need to learn.

“A Magnificent Catastrophe” by Edward Larson was a treat because it made me realize that my feelings of intense anger at President Bush was not all that remarkable.

The election of 1800, so early in our nation’s history, was filled with anger. The Republicans (supporters of State Rights) and Federalists (supporting a strong centralized government) were adamantly opposed to each other. And some were so fearful of certain persons out of fear that our fledging nation would not survive their election, that their vitriolics were off the chart. In particular, Hamilton (a Federalist) was so opposed to President Adams (also a Federalist) that he would favor Jefferson (a Republican) rather than see Adams be re-elected. To ensure that Adams would not get sufficient votes for re-election, he wrote a long, scathing pamphlet about the evils of Adams and his weaknesses. At the same time, Jefferson (along with his supporters, e.g., Madison and Munroe) was focusing on how best to ensure his election.

The anger involved in this process made me feel that my anger is not so bad! Whether I would want to sit down with Bush and enjoy a beer is questionable, but the good outcome is that Jefferson, Madison, and Munroe (all Virginians and strong Republicans) led our nation as relative moderates. Our nation survived. So, maybe we can survive Bush!

MIKA LOUISE 16 Dec 07

Small though she be,
Mika Louise enters our world,
With energy to spare,
And hearts to melt.

Joining her new family,
Filled with love and care,
This baby will never miss
Hugs and kisses for sure.

Thankful for the gift
No one deserves.
Nature filled with grace,
Blessed this child beyond measure.

Looking forward to her growth
While never missing a moment
Of her presence in our midst,
Hoping to never lose today’s awe.

Too Complicated for Bush et al.

International diplomacy has not been a strong suit of the Bush administration. Such an understatement seems almost humorous. At any rate, somehow or other, they tend to come up with approaches that are often self-defeating and mostly unsuccessful.

The United States went into Iraq for all sorts of wrong reasons. One of these reasons was a realignment of the Middle East by allowing Iraq to be dominated by its majority population, the Shiites. Somehow, they did not anticipate the consequence of such a role of Shiites in Iraq in relationship to its neighbor, Iran.

Now, they are trying to figure out a new way to restore some balance by trying to restore Sunni strength in Iraq (giving arms and money to Sunni sheiks so that they can restore some security, especially in Northwest Iraq. To assist in this restoration of balance between the Shiites and Sunnis, they have given new military weapons, including planes. to Saudi Arabia. They anticipate that the fear of Shiite strength will mobilize the Sunni Arabs throughout the region to gain a role that will temper the Shiites.

Vali Naser does not share these views. Iran is not seeking to dominate the Middle East by expanding its power throughout the region. Rather, Iran is seeking international respect for its role within the Middle East. Attempting to mitigate the implications of the demographics, there should be a diplomatic effort to channel the strengths of both the Shiite and Sunni nations into a collaborative effort to provide security and economic development throughout the region.

What A Mess!

No big surprise, but we now find out that the Intelligence Community was wrong in 2005 when they stated that Iran was in the process of enriching uranium. And we find out that the President's words about WW III were said when he is was aware that his statements were false OR he should have known at that time.

But, no need to worry! He will not change his mind anyway! Just because the NIE says that they have no program to develop a nuclear bomb, the President remains convinced that he is right. For sure, when you have God directing you, I suppose that one does not need intelligence to support your decisions!!

Gifted Career of Joan Louise

Always clear the goal, Caring for children, any sort, any condition, anyhow. The institutions varied.  Diseases too many to name, Preemies to adolescents. Night duties were tough, Dying children never easy, But, so many joys! Smiles and hugs, Both patients and parents, Signs of thanks. It was not just the heart, Nor just the brains, Heart and Head in unison. Many years, many children, Now, adults more secure, By Joan’s care and wisdom. Time passes, years fall away, Now joy of grandchildren, Giving and loving another way. Thankful for a carin career, Skilled and supportive colleagues, Children filled with trust. Sorrows few, joys many, Smiles more than tears, In all, care with love.

Living Anew with an IPOD

My younger son was amazed and chagrined to think that I lived during the time when the Beatles were so prominent in our culture and I MISSED it all!! I was in another world at the time. Being a committed seminarian, trying hard to become a priest that would make a difference, I never saw any value in the Beatles! Amazing!

Now, here I am in more senior years going down the street with Franklin (our dog) smoking a great Gurka cigar and listening to the new album of the Eagles on my great birthday present of an IPOD! If not the Eagles, I am listening to Bruce Springsteen’s Magic album.

Age is often considered a liability. However, it can be a time to rectify the misperceptions of youth. With adult children to provide the tools (IPODs are just unbelievable creative technology) to be involved with another world of music that I have somehow missed in the past.

One can never undo the past, but if you are fortunate to live long enough, you may get involved in another aspect of life missed in youth.

I am so thankful for my IPOD and my adult children and their loving and thoughtful spouses. How fortunate can a person be!

"Heart and Head: American Christianities" by Garry Wills

Garry Wills is a historian who has authored many books. One of these books, “Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit”, was enormously influential in my personal transformation. It crystallized the fact that the Roman Church’s positions are often based on lies, i.e., positions with a false basis, e.g., priests must be male (and celibate) because Jesus instituted the priesthood that way. Jesus not only did not do this, but he did even create a priesthood. He did not even want to create a church. He was intent on reforming Judaism.

“Head and Heart: American Christianities” explores the various forms of Christianity that have surfaced during America’s history.

Of some interest to me were the following:
1) Early New England was extraordinarily intolerant of any deviation from the “truths” held my the Puritans;
2) Satan was perceived as present in those who held oppositional views;
3) Persistent tension existed between rational and emotional approaches to religion.

Of more interest was the author’s clarity on the uniqueness of the timing of our Constitution. Jefferson (and Madison) was the primary drivers of the view that religion should be considered a right of the individual rather than being dependent on the state. The influence of Deism would not have been present if the revolution occurred fifty years before or after the real event. And, if Jefferson was not present, it is unclear whether others would have been strong enough to overcome some opposition. It is extraordinary to think that our Constitution remains unique for many reasons, but not the least of which is the absence of “God” in the document. And history confirms that the “separation” between state and religion has been positive on religions. Freedom of religion has been good for religions.

It has been hard for me to conclude in recent years that religion, per se, is a problem. Religion is inherently divisive, inherently intolerant. The history of Christianities in America captures the consistent rise of one form or another of Christianity that attempts to establish uniformity in behavior, if not beliefs.

But, until Bush, the drive towards uniformity never was sanctioned by the government. Bush, however, endorsed the agenda of the American conservative Evangelicals and incorporated supporters of this agenda within his administration. Kevin Phillips previously documented also the negative consequences of the administration’s absorption of the conservative Evangelical agenda. Garry Wills addresses the same issue in even more detail.

Our nation has a plethora of problems generated by Bush: Iraq, international loss of esteem and moral value, enormous debt. However, the alignment of government with right wing Evangelicals is a very disturbing reality that has to be addressed.

Iraq: How Long?

Iraq just won't quit! It is disaster whose ending never appears to be "right around the corner".

In the midst of many articles indicating that the surge is having a positive impact, there are two articles that continue to warn us that the future remains dark and gloomy.

Our leader has now started the process to establish a long-term relationship with Iraq. Through the Executive Order process, he has signed an agreement with Iraq's Prime Minister that will engage us during the next year in drawing up an agreement that will ensure that our military will be present in Iraq over the undetermined future. This would guarantee that we would have permanent military bases in Iraq and put our military in the midst of what will undoubtedly be a major internal conflict. While the surge may have had a stabilizing effect, there has been no progress in terms of reconciliation, the sine non quid for any optimism about the future.

Contrary to reports by John McCain and others who indicate that the military are supporters of the current initiative, the article indicating multiple reasons for a need of a major change in our approach to Iraq was signed by twelve Captains with experience in Iraq. It is clear to them that the surge's apparent positive impact is only "apparent".

"Be Near Me" by Andrew O'Hagan

“Be Near Me” is the second novel that I’ve read by Andrew O’Hagan. “Our Fathers” won him the Booker Prize and this novel has rightfully won its share of distinctions.

"Be Near Me" tells the story of David Anderton, a Catholic priest born in Edinburgh and educated in England who is assigned to a parish in Dalgarnock, a decaying Irish town with different residents sympathetic to the Orange or IRA causes. Anderton, though, takes no interest in his parishioners, enduring their ill will towards him. He's been grieving for thirty years for the man he loved who died in an auto accident. The only people in the city with whom he spends time are the local teenagers who live life on the edge, committing petty crimes and indulging in drugs. He senses the life in them that he misses, and finds himself attracted to one of them, Mark. After a night of drinking, Ecstasy, and dancing, he kisses Mark. This act turns his parishioners on him, providing a conduit for their anger, as they accuse him of being a paedophile. Andrew O'Hagan's novel has received positive reviews (and a Booker nomination) with The Guardian saying, "This is a nuanced, intense and complex treatment of a sad and simple story.

[Review by http://www.reviewsofbooks.com/be_near_me/]

The novel provides me an opportunity to share an aspect of my personal history that speaks to some of the meaning of the book.

Becoming a priest in 1963 after spending eight years in a semi-monastic institution was a remarkable experience. While energized by the hopes generated by the Vatican Council, the dynamics of the 60’s were still an unexpected tsunami. Not only was there interest in furthering the aims of the Vatican Council, other pressing matters were demanding my attention, e.g., the need to address racial injustice, poverty here and elsewhere, e.g., Biafra, developing ecumenical bonds with our fellow Christians were challenging that engaged me. Dealing with these challenges confronted me with an awareness that I was walking into areas that I never anticipated in my education. In addition, people argued with me about positions that were ingrained through the seminary education, e.g., birth control. I could sense that these people were not “bad”; in fact, I was often impressed by their commitments. It was hard to dismiss their perspectives on life. Moreover, I started to experience a sense of autonomy that was somewhat scary, knowing that I was departing from the positions advocated by the Church. I was starting to feel alone. And yet, I could not return to the institutional bureaucracy because I now could not endorse those beliefs.

This novel captures one intriguing aspect of this personal transformation. In the novel, it becomes clear to this priest that he should never have been a priest and that life itself was wasted. His friendship with the two rebellious teenagers triggered his attempt to touch life that he never knew. Ultimately, his involvement with these people led to a situation that resulted in his coming to the realization that he had never lived life.

My realization that I would miss life if I continued being a priest was strengthened by meeting people who were “different” in the sense that I could see goodness even in those who were not church-goers, people who differed from me in so many values and yet I saw authenticity in them. The long and short of this trajectory was my coming to the realization that if I did not leave the priesthood, I would be a disgruntled old man at best, and, at worse, involved in experiences that would have been ultimately negative for not only me but potentially others.

I recall two incidents that symbolize what I am referencing. While I went to many funeral homes to share the sadness associated with a death of a loved one, this time it was a significant tragedy. I shared some words with the people and they thanked me. While I do not remember who they were or the actual tragedy, I then recall my thinking how warped my life-experience was that I was immuned from such a tragedy. Not that I wanted to suffer pain that I saw in these people, but it was real. They had risked loving and suffered the commensurate pain resulting from the untimely and tragic death. This appeared so wrong that I was living a life without such risk.

Another memory was a person sharing with me that my vision of the Church was correct but then, it dawned on me that I would never live long enough to see the changes. I then imaged a scene of my being an old man in a rocking chair and some people coming by who would say, “See, you were right! The changes did come.” And I thought, “what a waste!” And I would be bitter.

And now, looking back, I can only leap with joy to think that I made this major change. Granted, I had a few set-backs, e.g., I did not get the doctorate I wanted, but I ended with a life, a real life, with not only real people, but just remarkably beautiful and wonderful people with whom I can only be grateful for such gifts. I have enjoyed a wife who gives love and shares humor, children who amaze me not only because they are intellectually gifted but because they are good.

The novel captures the poignant understanding of missing a real life because of involvement in a role that robbed him of being able to love another. It could have been my story but for so many experiences, people, and books that enabled me to leave the past for what was then, a somewhat uncertain future, but at least it was real!

"Conscience of a Liberal" by Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman is my guru! Everything he writes makes so much sense to me. He surely gives me confidence that my views at least have the intellectual support of such an esteemed academic.

In his latest book, “The Conscience of a Liberal”, he fleshes out his understanding of being a liberal by analyzing how the Great Compression (the narrowing of the wide economic disparities) during the New Deal was shattered during the last 25-30 years.

He details two basic views of what happened: (1) the technology explosion during the 80’s and beyond required higher education and skills, resulting in higher incomes,
2) policies supported by the Republican Party were implemented with the aim to undo the New Deal. The fact that incomes of 99% of the nation remained relatively unchanged argues against the former theory. The 1% that made huge gains distorted statistics about “average” incomes and wealth. Paul Krugman supports his view that the increased wealth of the 1% resulted from the strength of the Republican Party, supported by vast resources of the very rich, to overtake the political process and push its agenda to reverse the changes that brought about the Great Compression.


We notice these attempts to undermine the programs intended to provide the economic security of the vast majority during the last few decades: privatize Social Security, personal health insurance, elimination of the estate tax, tactics designed to reduce the strength of the unions.

Key points in his analysis include the following:
(1) directing massive resources into institutions , e.g., Think Tanks, that would provide intellectual cover for policies intended to revert from a more welfare-type nation to one supporting individual autonomy,
(2) using underlying racial feelings to gain support of programs that are actually against the self-interest of the majority,
(3) appealing to the fears and prejudices of many, especially those in the South.

His underlying liberal philosophy is that the promotion of democracy requires the elimination of the great economic disparities. The social gains associated with satisfying the needs of the common good are clearly more consistent with the vision of a liberal.

The opportunity to reinstitute policies and programs that will now reverse the damage of the last 25-30 years appears imminent with the 2008 election. In order to be successful, he calls for those running for the President to detail their plans for achieving universal health insurance so that such legislation can be enacted quickly. Supporting this change will require the elimination of the tax reductions that are intended to lapse in 2010. And then, proceed to focus on those initiatives that will progressively contribute to a stronger middle class and the elimination of such high economic disparities.

The Shattered Deams of Democracy in the Middle East

Hopes and dreams of expanding democracy into the Middle East and beyond have been reduced to ashes. The future seems to consist of negotiated agreements with the tribal leaders. It is a long way from President’s Bush’s rationalization for attacking Iraq, after finding out there were no WMDs.

President Karzai wants to negotiate now with the Taliban and our troops are funding and supporting with arms the tribal leaders in Iraq.

It makes sense to establish arrangements with those who have the power to stabilize these countries, as reported by Robert Kaplan.

However, it is sad to think that the massive loss of life, the destruction of the nation, and the displacement of thousands of Iraqis were so unnecessary.

The Shattered Deams of Democracy in the Middle East

Hopes and dreams of expanding democracy into the Middle East and beyond have been reduced to ashes. The future seems to consist of negotiated agreements with the tribal leaders. It is a long way from President’s Bush’s rationalization for attacking Iraq, after finding out there were no WMDs.

President Karzai wants to negotiate now with the Taliban and our troops are funding and supporting with arms the tribal leaders in Iraq.

It makes sense to establish arrangements with those who have the power to stabilize these countries, as reported by Robert Kaplan.

However, it is sad to think that the massive loss of life, the destruction of the nation, and the displacement of thousands of Iraqis were so unnecessary.

"The Day of Islam" by Paul L. Williams

Let me start by stating upfront that I know nothing about this author (very little available on the web except that he has written other books, has a Ph.D. from Drew University and is being sued by McMaster University in Canada for his claims against the university in this book) and could find no good reviews of the book.

So, left to my own, I read with interest this detailed account of what appears to be real and serious dangers to our world and, more directly, our nation because of Islam terrorists and our poor border protection.

I am aware that our government has anti-terrorists units in the CIA, FBI, Deptartments of Justice and Homeland Security. What is scary about this author's portrayal of the state of affairs is our government's incompetency, manifested by its inability to (1) note the risks, and/or (2) follow-through with known information to ensure that appropriate action is taken.

Whether the author is a paranoid spook or not, he has many citations to support his claims and, at least some of the reports are consistent with what I know from prior reading. He discusses in detail the stealing and transportation of nuclear devices from Russia, the porous Canadian border as well as the relatively lax internal control of immigrants, the plethora of Islamic groups in South American with mechanisms for transporting people and goods through our southern border, and the number is Islamic groups in our country who continue to work towards their ultimate and scary goal of doing us in. Their vision is energized by a fatalistic and crazy religious ideology. Their goals are clear; they are patient; and they are clever.

The long and short of this book is that our society is very vulnerable and we are not improving our ability to protect our society faster than our adversaries are increasing their capacity to do great, great harm to our country.

John Jay College Report on Clergy Sex Abuse

Reports about the first part of a major study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice indicates that the prevalence of sexual abuse among Roman Catholic clergy is not different than in the general population, e.g., teachers, etc.

While the bishops apparently feel somewhat "relieved" that the incident rates are no worse than others, it does cause some heartburn that they are no better. What this has to say about the religious institution is unclear, but ....

It misses the point about the real crime which was the practice of not assigning criminal liability to these priests per the first instance. Rather than forwarding priests to be prosecuted, as would a school system do with a teacher involved in sex abuse, they covered up the matter and reassigned priests so that the behavior could continue.

I do not think that there is any comparable behavior in any other institution.

Obama: Is It His Time?

While I have been a supporter of Obama for sometime, I admit that I have become concerned with Clinton's performance (very good) and public perception that she was inevitably going to be the Democratic nominee. Recently, things are starting to take a turn in favor of Obama.

There was Clinton's slip-up in Philadelphia followed by Edward's sharp criticisms of her credibility and her associated with the "corrupt" structures of Washington. And, then, Obama started to be more forceful, starting with his speech at the J&J supper in Iowa.

Now, Andrew Sullivan highlights in Atlantic Monthly that Obama does seem to fit the need to a bridge between the old politics and the 21st century. He does not carry baggage of Vietnam controversies nor has he been directly involved in the racial conflicts of the 60's etc. He is into another perspective that will seemingly bridge blacks and whites, Christians and others, domestic and international concerns.

And Ryan Lisa in the New Yorker speaks about his increasingly focused performance that he sharpening his differences with Clinton.

It is starting to look as he can be a winner!

Bush Hatred

Since I consider myself within the category of those who "hate" Bush (I may argue over whether my anger and livid feelings equate to hatred, I will accept that it is), I read with interest Peter Berkowitz's column about Bush Hatred.

The bottom line of his detailed column is that hatred does not serve a rational purpose in attempting to weave through policy decisions and political actions.

In principle, I do concur with the premise that hatred tends to become a problem in itself when dealing with any issue. It tends to shortchange the details of the facts and colors the dynamics between participants of any discussion.

Having said that, what do I do about my feelings of anger (hatred?)? Are they in anyway "rational"?

I start from the premise that anger, in and of itself, is a good feeling. We have such feelings to help us navigate through life. Often, our anger is triggered by what we perceive as worthy of our hatred, e.g., would not we be justified to hate discrimination, injustice, and consequently, be angry at the perpetrators of these outcomes?

If Bush were at least somewhat inconsistent in doing so many things that I hate, i.e., if occasionally he did something I thought was positive, then possibly my hatred would be irrational. But, what else can I do when he constantly comes down on the sides of those with money and power AT THE EXPENSE of so many of peoples of this world with so little? Ranging from the destruction of a nation and a people (Iraq), to his support of farm policies and GTO positions that aggravate the lot of poor people in developing nations, to his disregard of a voting population who disagrees with him, to this disregard of the Constitution, he tends to advocate positions that I hate. Even when he advocates programs that potentially would benefit our people, e.g., medication program for seniors and an education program, his self-serving thrust is to ruin its potential by addressing first those with money and power, e.g., pharmaceutical companies while short-changing our educational system of needed resources to implement the requirements of "No Child Left Behind".

I wish that I was not this angry, but I know not how to be different!

"The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War, Losing the Peace"

It was a "tough read", but I finished Ali Allawi's "The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War, Losing the Peace"!

Since I have reported on many of the books I have read on the Iraq disaster, I can rather quickly indicate that there would be no reason for reading this book IF you read many of the others. However, if someone had no time to read other books on the subject, then this one deserves consideration.

What he reports is consistent with what others have written. What he adds is the fact that he is an Iraqi! From that perspective, there is an added credibility to his account of the disaster created by the horrendous decision to invade Iraq for a lie! Unfortunately, as he also indicated, the Iraqi people are the ones who have really suffered for this decision. Whatever the positive value of removing Hussien is overwhelmed by the destruction of the nation and killings and displacement of the Iraqi people.

He also emphasizes what others note clearly that the American invasion was ill-planned and reflected a total lack of understanding of the Iraqi nation, Arab culture, and Islam sectarianism. The consequences were disastrous!

The Economic Consequences of Bush!

Joseph Stiglitz is a famous economist (Nobel Prize) and he is also someone who can articulate substantive issues in a language that non-economists can understand. He has become a guru for me after reading his books on the global economy (he is a supporter of free trade and is critical of the United States that negotiates treaties that are self-serving and detrimental to developing nations).

At the moment, his long article Vanity Fair on the “The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush” is a relatively detailed litany of the horrendous consequences of this administration’s policies. Bush will not only go down in history as the worse president, in general, but even more so, in terms of economic consequences to our country. Dr.Stiglitz is convinced that “our grandchildren will still be living with, and struggling with, the economic consequences of Mr. Bush”. What a legacy!

The number of policy decisions that favor the rich at the expense of middle class and those struggling with poverty are legendary, at this point. What is more disturbing is these policies resulted in an inability to fund research and development, healthcare, etc. that are needed for our society to compete in the global economy.

Reversing the consequences of Bush will be difficult. It is hard to believe that “the interest we are paying, year after year, on the almost $4 trillion of increased debt burden—even at 5 percent, that’s an annual payment of $200 billion, two Iraq wars a year forever.”

And to think that he was a Republican, supposedly a party that has fiscal integrity as a priority!

Bush Rage!

I never considered myself an angry person, but there are situations when I am aware that I am angry. One of these situations is my inability to deal rationally with our President! He drives me crazy! I actual sense that I am livid when I start talking about him! I cannot believe that our nation elected him not only once, but twice!

It was with some relief that I read Eugene Robinson's column, "Rage of Reason". Based on the recent Gallup Poll which indicated that Bush has now reached the same level of public disapproval as Nixon, Robinson shares his anger and then proceeds to lament the state of affairs facing the next president. Assuming that the worse is over (not a reasonable assumption to make), the next president will be faced with international discredit and turmoil. He/she will have a fiscal disaster to face. We can only hope that the next president will be resilient.

Democracy can be a Shibboleth!

Many of us are lamenting the disasters created by Bush. Now Pakistan is on the verge of implosion and it may not be long before we have a Turkey-Iraq conflict followed (preceded?) by our invasion of Iran! We can only hope that there is some area in the world that will not have felt the horrendous toll of our leader.

The question that has been racing through my brain is the consequences of our leader's vision of extending democracy to as many nations as possible. As he often says, democracy is a "god-given right". I wish that he would prioritize such rights better, e.g., health, education rank higher in my mind (even within the vision of extending democracy since democracy builds on education).

Staying with his vision of extending democracy, we see that Bush and Rice are criticizing Masharraf for stepping back from the path towards democracy. Is democracy that much of a goal that we cannot see the need of further social/legal developments in a nation before democracy can be supported? Our government pushed for a democratic election in the Palestinian Authority only to walk away from the results because they did not meet our expectation. I am not sure that the promotion of democracy at the present time in Pakistan would not end up in a similar way, i.e., election of radical Islamic parties.

H.D.S. Greenway comes to a similar conclusion when examining China. There seems to be a happy state of affairs at the moment between the regime and the people, viz., capitalism is working well and the country is stable. Maybe, at this point in history, this is as good as it can be. Clearly, history seems to indicate that democracy can only build on a society with a certain level of social and legal institutions.

Pakistan does seem to be in a position to support democracy. It surely has a strong legal and judicial system. There is a relatively large middle class. The radical Islamists are strong, but do not enjoy large scale popularity.

In the case of Pakistan, it seems that Bush could live up to his rhetoric about promoting democracy as a "god-given right".

Andrew Bacevich describes the sad status of our international relations in the Los Angeles Times and then proceeds to list five principles to guide our foreign policy. They seem so intelligent and consistent with our general history in foreign affairs that one wonders how so many in our current administration seem to be unaware of these principles.

His five principles are:

* Rather than squandering American power, husband it. As Iraq has shown, U.S. military strength is finite. The nation's economic reserves and diplomatic clout also are limited. They badly need replenishment.

* Align ends with means. Although Bush's penchant for Wilsonian rhetoric may warm the cockles of neoconservative hearts, it raises expectations that cannot be met. Promise only the achievable.

* Let Islam be Islam. The United States possesses neither the capacity nor the wisdom required to liberate the world's 1.4 billion Muslims, who just might entertain their own ideas about what genuine freedom entails. Islam will eventually accommodate itself to the modern world, but Muslims will have to work out the terms.

* Reinvent containment. The process of negotiating that accommodation will produce unwelcome fallout: anger, alienation, scapegoating and violence. In collaboration with its allies, the United States must insulate itself against Islamic radicalism. The imperative is not to wage global war, whether real or metaphorical, but to erect effective defenses, as the West did during the Cold War.

* Exemplify the ideals we profess. Rather than telling others how to live, Americans should devote themselves to repairing their own institutions. Our enfeebled democracy just might offer the place to start.

Rumsfeld: A Man with a Different View!

Given all the books, columns, and articles written about Rumsfeld, no one would be surprised to read his own musings that reflect a different view of reality!

It would be interesting to know how Robin Wright got access to his "snowflakes", but it surely reinforced the idea that Rumsfeld saw reality differently than most of us.

This article serves to sensitize me even more about how often I have been wrong about this or that matter. Looking back, I wonder how I could have held such a position that I now disavow.

While it is easy to criticize Rumsfeld, it is more difficult to zone in on one's personal views which may be held firmly, even if time proves them wrong.

Truth remains elusive!

Self-Defeating Hegemony

Francis Fukuyama may not always have been right, e.g., prior views of the end of history and support for a neoconservative agenda, but he is a bonafide intellectual with great knowledge and insights.

It was with great interest that I read his views of how the United States has created its own problems in the international arena. His basic point is that we have no counterweight to our power (as in the Cold War). Our power has distorted our perspective that resulted in a number of mind-boggling problems.

He cites four such problems:
(1) The doctrine of preemption is impossible to maintain when dealing with nation states, e.g., Iran, Iraq, North Korea. We could never have the resources to mount such wide range preemptive attacks. The doctrine at best is one that needs not be discussed but still used in extreme situations, especially when dealing with specific terrorists.
(2) The United States did not count on the negative reception of its use of power. Traditionally, when we used power with prior support of others, other nations eventually supported us since we succeeded in a mission that ultimately was seen as positive. In this case, we were not supported and have only made more enemies.
(3) We overestimated the strength of conventional armed forces. He cites the amazing status of Iraq where so few are only at bay the conventional forces of the United States (and a few others).
(4) The level of incompetency in the planning and execution of the intervention was a disaster that only compounded the perception of the United States as a problem in itself.

While none of these points is necessarily "new", it is striking that Fukuyama is now on board with many others who cannot wait until we get the present administration out of office!

Forfeiture of Our Moral Stranding

I just wrote the following e-mail to Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

Dear Speaker,
I am one of your supporters and only wish that you were able to be more effective. Unfortunately, you have limited power (as opposed to the President's understanding of his office!).

I write because you justified the committee's vote on a measure to state out position on the Armenian genocide. While I agree with the truth of the matter, I think that our past several years have resulted in our losing any authority to tell others anything about what is right or wrong. We should admit that we have done such horrible things and have forfeited any right to statements of principle for other nations.

The Public's Complicity!

How often have some of us said, "To think that the people elected Bush TWICE!!" It is almost impossible to believe that the people would have four years of him and then, freely, to elect him again!

And, there are complaints that the 2006 election that clearly supported a change in direction in Iraq resulted in zero difference! What does that say about our "democracy" where the elected officials represent the voters?

I read as much as I can because (1) I know that others are more intelligent than I, and (2) to get greater insight into what I already know.

Frank Rich zoned in on the issue of the citizen's complicity in the state of our national affairs. We have read so much about what happens in our government that seems such a disconnect with our Constitution, e.g., lies about our not using torture, or the use of warrentless surveillance, and yet, in general, the public media and public citizenry seem to accept the state of affairs.

The point being: silence that ultimately supports practices that are considered unacceptable, if not immoral, is equivalent to complicity (albeit, not in according to technical legal constructs).

It is hard to argue with the outcomes of our elections if there is such acceptance of the practices of our national representatives.

Arrogance, Once Again!

It was unbelievable (not really) that Secretary of State Rice lectured some human rights activists in Moscow about the negative consequences when there is too much power in the office of the president and a weak legislature.

She was referencing the state of affairs in Russia, but virtually everything she said could easily reference the state of affairs in the United States.

it is remarkable that someone could be serious giving such a lecture when it seems so obvious that it is so hypocritical. Obviously, she and Bush do not see reality the same as many others, but it is just amazing that we can see such a disconnect between what our leaders see and what the majority of Americans notice on a daily basis.

Bush: Unable to Admit Mistakes!

Since the leader of our nation is such a disaster and causes such personal pain and discomfort, I try to avoid thinking any more of him than necessary.

However, Andrew Greeley has the courage to look at Bush and confront some obvious questions. Recently, he wondered how Bush could go along for all these years without ever admitting a mistake! It is so incredulous that I cannot tolerate my internal fury! I have to push along to some other subject.

Being a fan of Andrew Greeley, I thought about the reason Greeley cited as the possible explanation for this phenomenon, viz., his achievement of sobriety apparently without any human intervention except for Billy Graham!

While his speculation is as good as anyone else's, my notion is that this inability to admit mistakes is attributed to massive insecurity. If he were to admit a mistake, his weak ego structure would disintegrate. While most of us are accustomed to face our mistakes, attributed to the observations of spouses and the realities of the workplace, viz., things often do not work as planned, e.g., smart people marketed the Edsel!, Bush has created a structure where errors are reshaped into signs of progress and no opposition is possible (except for the discredited Democrats and media (when the media is functioning as critical observers).

If truth penetrated the system, the ego would collapse!

Democracy at Stake!

On 18 May, I posted comments that were based on Andrew Bocevich's column reflecting on his son's recent death in Iraq. The major point was his distress that a clear election in 2006 signaling a change in strategy in Iraq did not achieve the expected results. There was no change. Dr. Bocevich wondered whether we were functioning as a democracy when the majority vote did not generate changes in government.

One cannot dispel the serious misgivings of our elected officials who seem unable to implement the will of the majority. There seems to be no end to the same, tired policies.

Harold Meyerson comes to the same concerns based on comments by the Democratic contenders for President. You would never know that they knew the results of the 2006 election or the consistent findings of public opinions polls that clearly reject continuation of our present role in Iraq.

It gets back to the same concern: are we functioning as a democracy when the majority is thwarted by public officials?

Idealism: an Unsure Road

So many people have dissected the deceit supporting the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent incompetent execution of a "plan" (assuming that must have been something beyond all those who would great the invaders with flowers!).

Kanan Makiya has been a key figure during the pre-invasion period. He clearly was a supporter of the initiative to rid the nation of Hussein. He now struggles with the unexpected state of affairs.

I was struck by his dealing with the following question:
Would you now support the invasion if you knew what occurred?

In short, he answers the question, "yes", because the removal of Hussein was critical. He never expected such sectarian violence; he thought that the post-invasion period would look similar to South Africa. Clearly, the outcome disturbs him greatly. He continues to try to understand how his idealistic outlook became such a shattered reality.

One personal experience comes to mind, albeit in a relatively minor way.

During the time when I functioned as a Catholic priest, I was a major supporter to the reform associated with the Vatican Council. I was part of a future that seemed so positive for not only Catholics, but for the future of a more unified Christianity. Everything made so much more sense if the vision of the Vatican Council was adopted. The sooner, the better.

I experienced havoc in the few years I served. Without escalating the level of conflict (compared to Iraq, everything pales in comparison), it was period of division and antagonism. I referenced the experience as part of a revolution. But, I shared an idealism that the outcome would be worth the "struggle".

Clearly, my expectations were wrong. The anticipated changes were minimized by the strength of the bureaucracy. The powers of traditional views held sway. In the process, there were some unexpected outcomes.

Many of supporters of change ultimately gave up the battle, in one way or another. Many just stopped active participation, i.e., they found some niche to satisfy their religious aspirations without extending themselves further; others just dropped out.

The expectation that the next generation would learn a whole different set of beliefs, molded more in the biblical understanding the Jesus rather the specific words of a doctrine that was difficult to comprehend. It seems that the outcome was a loss of any understanding of Christianity. Many of the younger generations seem to be missing both the vision and the doctrine.

And, the bureaucracy seems more entrenched than ever.

The current state of affairs surely was unexpected. It may have been naive to expect such great changes. But, somewhat like Kanan Makiya who still claims that the removal of Hussein was worth even the bad outcomes, the loss of a more "unified" Catholic Church based on memorized belief formulas and blind adherence to authority seems worth the price of conflict. What was lost was not worth keeping.

Kanan Makiya ultimately thinks that the "order" lost was not worth keeping either. Having the likes of Hussein in power, a person who killed an estimated million Iraqis, needed to go, even if one of the unexpected outcomes would be the need of the American forces to provide a protectorate for the nation, comparable to the Philippines.

Troubling Story: Department of Justice was an Arm of the White House

On 14 September, I discussed the noteworthy story of Jack Goldsmith who was the head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice. His story was remarkable because he demonstrated what is the stereotypical lawyer, viz., one whose conscience is aligned with the law rather than the politics of any given administration.

Now the New York Times has a full-blown account of the hassles involved in bolstering White House power even when it demanded a shift in allegiance from the law in order to support the Administration's objectives.

Reading the account documents that struggles of a few who fought hard, even if in vain. These attorneys deserve our support and gratitude. For those who apparently capitulated to the power of the White House, we can only hope that we can live to regain our moral integrity within the law.

"Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower" by Zbigniew Brzezinki

The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Communist Regime were historic events. The world captured by the phase, “Cold War”, changed. In 1990, there was only one indisputable world leader, the United States. It was a moment when our leadership could have made a monumental change in how nations interacted. As Bush I so often said, there was a “new world order”. The question Zbigniew Brzezinki asks is: how did each of the three presidents who held office since 1990 succeed in providing the leadership?

Bush I was credited for dealing well with the breakup of the Soviet Union. He, as he said himself, never had “the vision thing”. He never thought through the implications of a “new world order”. There were opportunities lost, e.g., the Middle East in general and the Israel-Palestine conflict, in particular.

Clinton did well in terms of managing or assisting the incorporation of former Soviet client-states into NATO and the EU. He demonstrated leadership in the Balkans. However, he too failed to seize opportunities to make a significant difference, e.g., Israel-Palestine conflict could have been shepherded more successfully. Secondly, he became enamored with the perceived inevitable progress for all nations that the global economy would achieve.

And, then, we have Bush II, admittedly a disaster. For Brzesinki, the major problem was the ideological convictions underlying policy decisions, rather than a realistic appraisal of opportunities that begged for international cooperation. If Bush I and Clinton did not pursue the leadership potential inherent in our position in the world order, Bush II turned the tables: rather than a leader, we became a problem!

Whoever becomes President in 2009 will have a challenge to reverse the current negative situation. The invasion of Iraq has altered the Middle East in ways that are yet to be fully documented. Not only is there instability, but we know that there are vested nations vying for power. How the United States gets back into a multilateral partner with Europe will be a major responsibility of the new president. China will become a power. How we deal with this emerging economic and military power will determine to some extent how successfully China will deal with its neighbors, e.g., Japan, Korea and India.

We have to return to former mechanisms of international diplomacy by utilizing soft power. There was a time when our nation was a symbol of the ideal nation. We have to become a nation that returns to the power that comes from modeling what our Constitution declares.

Fighting the Inevitable!

So much has been written about the problems in Iraq that one becomes jaundiced when seeing still more articles trying to provide some new insight into the mess. Roger Owen’s analysis does shed some additional insight to a commonly referenced problem of the lack of a unified Iraq government. It is hard to note American and Iraqi deaths still occurring when there is no Iraqi who wants an Iraq to exist! No one wants to be an Iraqi!

While our government wants to lull people into thinking that the surge is a success, the following disturbing points are noted:

1. Our military is weakening the centralized government by “arming and financing the Sunni tribes in Anbar Province as local militias”.
2. “National” leaders in government are under the dominion of the various sect leaders. vincial elections in 2005. Essentially, the Coalition Forces supported the local leaders, e.g.., the Shiite militia in Bosra, in the South, and, clearly, the Kurds in the North. And still more frustrating is the lack of unity even within these sects, e.g., Shiite Militias in Bosra fight each other!
3. Since resources, i.e., utilities, are scattered throughout the region, they become dependent on the local warlords who gain more power by their ability to distribute benefits to “their constituents”.

There is no mechanism to build an allegiance to the central government. All of our efforts to give the political process a chance to become effective are doomed to failure. Having said that, what should we do?

Somehow, we have to give the leadership role to some other government or a group of regional powers. We cannot do it. We have to admit failure and ask others to assume leadership with our support, i.e., we will have to support whatever military needs are required in the name of stewardship for the mess we created. The only way that this can happen is our willingness to admit our errors. Why would other nations want to assume any leadership role unless we share our need for help?

Hard Reality of Escaping from Iraq

For someone who has such a vile reaction to our current President and to his horrendous invasion of Iraq with all the subsequent problems, e.g., destruction of property, killing of innocents, millions of refugees, lack of security, even less services, it has been hard for me to support the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party advocating a rapid withdrawal of forces.

It not only seems totally irresponsible for us to walk away from the disaster we caused, but I admit to fears of the outcome to those still present in Iraq and for the region in general.

Whenever you hear politicians talk about the problem, apart from the few who can see things without shades of color, e.g., Kucinich, it seems as either they are buying into the current vision of the administration or being vague. However, I share the problem.

The National Catholic Reporter (NCR) represents a trusted media source. The paper advocates very liberal positions and yet, it too is very cautious about our next steps in Iraq>

NCR reviews the status of our involvement and the potential problems in leaving precipitously. The paper also advocates regional involvement, a necessity repeated often by this writer.


Bush has not only presented a legacy of national debt, but he will leave us with an enduring problem.

State of National Economy

It is hard not to be attracted to positions you endorse. It is natural. We like to receive confirmation that we are not too far from reality.

Over the last several decades, one aspect of economics that seemed clear to me that it is not good to have a great disparity in the distribution of wealth. Originally, my focus was focused on the discrepancy between the Developed Nations and the Third World. Unless the disparity was bridged, violence would be the ultimate price paid. How could you not empathize with those who saw the signs of wealth elsewhere while you were trying to survive, literally.

More recently, the concern has been the economic discrepancy in our nation. Harold Myerson is only the latest of a series of critics of the gross discrepancy between the rich and others. He (and I) grew up with the positive results of a Middle Class that was sharing the growing wealth of the nation. While racial problems, along with poverty, existed, these problems were seen as problems that would be addressed by weight of the growth of our economy. Justice and fairness were words that meant something. They worked to a great extent, albeit not perfectly.

Myerson, Krugman, et al. are now focusing on the phenomenon of the Middle Class losing its capacity to contribute to further growth. In fact, the Middle Class is eroding.

As in the case of the disparity between the wealth of the Developed Nations and the poverty of the Third World, so now we are faced with the prospect of further erosion of our common good, our common security, and our common ground for hope if we cannot recognize the need to ensure that we have a vibrant Middle Class.

In the midst of all this, we have a national economic problem. We have a horrendous national debt, there is an enormous debt being crunched out by credit borrowers, and now we have the problems with liquidity, resulting from the sub-prime fiasco. David Ignatius shares his fears, fears that seem real to me. The problems associated with the packaging and repackaging of mortgage loans into various forms of security may have been "inventive", but the reduction of risks that were cited as the rationale for such derivatives seems now an example of how smart people can act periously.

A Day of Campaigning for Obama

For someone my age, one cannot say that it was an ordinary day. It was the first time in my life that I was going to campaign for a presidential candidate in New Hampshire, the first state with a primary election. Houses would be assigned for me to ring door bells and, hopefully, I would identify supporters of my person, Barack Obama. Since the list included only Democrats and Independents, it seemed simple enough.

It turned out to be a horrendous day (maybe explained in total by my age; I may just be too old for this type of activity!).

At any rate, I had to some blood work done prior to my primary care visit (I pleaded unsuccessfully for the lab work without a physical unless the chemistry results were abnormal). I got to the lab at 9:30 am only to find that the operations did not start until 10 am. It would be a small matter, except that I was now very hungry (fasting for the blood work) and I still had to get to Obama’s Headquarters in Manchester, NH by noon.

After completing the lab work, I needed to eat. I was reduced to Dunkin Donuts due to time constraints. I would have eaten virtually anything at this point.

My former work life required my traveling to Manchester relatively often. I never considered it onerous. However, this trip seemed endless! I was old when I started; I was much older when I got there!

Added to the length of the drive was the horrendous set of directions from Google! Even though my younger son thought that this was a sign of growing senility, I am convinced that the directions could have been more clearly delineated. Be that as it may, it took me added time and misery to wind my way through the “Queen City” of New Hampshire.

When I finally found the former warehouse or factory in an off beaten road, I was a little late, measured by what I thought would have been a highly efficient four hours of campaigning. However, it not take much grey matter to figure out that I was a minority of one senior citizen, albeit there was one other person with some grey hair. And, according to the code of these young (mostly college age) men and women, it takes time to get organized. “Take it easy and relax”, I repeat as a mantra while I try to keep focused on our leader’s instructions.

Unable to find a partner (maybe a blessing), I was given two clip boards with a cover sheet to summarize my activities, a map to find the “turf” (usually referred to as a neighborhood), and a list of names of Democrats and Independents with a code sheet to identify their political leanings and concerns. It so happened that I was assigned a town south of Manchester, requiring another 30 minutes in negotiating Google directions! Thankfully, these directions were better or, possibly, the few brain cells operating as designed were transmitting the information on demand.

I find the “turf” and park my car for what I expected to a somewhat interesting set of conversations with a voting public attuned to the intriguing electoral process. New Hampshire was distinguished because of its enlightened electorate. What I found were the following:

a). The majority of calls were unanswered because no one was home. There were two or three calls that represented people who chose not to open the door.
b). Of the approximately 50-60 calls, I found no one who was clearly an Obama supporter. This was somewhat a surprise.
c). There were three committed to voting Republican (one was for Romney, no less).
d). The remaining people were clearly undecided without giving much evidence that they were leaning in any direction.
e). The issues considered important to their decision to identify a candidate to represent their interests included everything but Iraq, possibly because Iraq was self-evidently a problem.

During the canvassing of the “turf”, I noted myself beginning to faint (hypoglycemic since I had so little to eat or drink since the prior night). Can you imagine one of my adult children getting a call from a local hospital, “We found your father unconscious on the street. He seems to be coming around, but you may want to drive him home.” In spite of occasional signs of dysphoria, I plodded on trying to finish my second “turf”.

In spite of my attempt to complete the task, I had to quit in order to drive back another 30 minutes to headquarters. As in my prior attempt to negotiate the streets of Manchester, the journey was convoluted. Without asking for directions again, I probably would still be there.

The day would end eventually. The ride back home was as endless as when I came. However, this time I would stop to visit my new granddaughter, an event which put the rest of the day into a better perspective.

Campaigning may not be for the old people! Or, it could be that this old person has lost it! For sure, it was discouraging to find no one committed to Obama. And to find so many uncommitted makes me wonder what this special electorate who treasures its role as the state with the first primary reads. Thankfully, there are apparently tons of young people who will compensate for those of us who seemed to have passed into another category, labeled “useless”.

Know Obama by Those Around Him!

It has been difficult for Obama to break through the lead of Hillary. While his rhetoric and charisma are frequently identified as positive, it does not seem that his positions on policies are drawing sufficient attention.

While many of us who support him identify with his "new" style of leadership, it would be hard to label him anything but one who attempts to compromise. In this case, it does seem that compromise is bad; somehow, his compromises do not seem to be as poll driven as they reflect the reality of real differences of opinions.

At any rate, it was impressive reading the large number of people who are advising him and, in particular, to note who they are. They are not wild-eyed liberals, but people with acknowledged competency based on academic credentials and experience.

Whether he can overcome Hillary's significant lead or not, Obama remains my man!

A Conservative with Legal Competence and a Conscience

Jack Goldsmith's education at Yale Law School has served him well. He has taught at the Universities of Virginia and Chicago before accepting the position of being head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. His brief tenure between 2003-2004 when he resigned is a tribute to his character.

In summary, Goldsmith's perspective is that presidential policy decisions should rest on sound legal bases. Who would argue with this?

Apparently, the drive to expand presidential powers in the name of fighting terrorism was overwhelming. Rosen's review of Goldsmith's new book, "Terror Presidency", indicates that the center of his problems was the Office of the Vice-President and his legal counsel, in particular, David Addington.

Goldsmith's objections were based only on the need to secure congressional and/or court's concurrence with the legal positions used to justify policy decisions.

Opinions of the Office of the Legal Counsel apparently provide the Office of the President with immunity when acting on these opinions. It was unusual, but Goldsmith withdrew several opinions and to secure his decision regarding the opinion formulated by his former friend and Deputy Legal Counsel, John Yoo, regarding torture, Goldsmith resigned. The Supreme Court later would support his decision to withdraw the original opinion.

In short, Goldsmith believes that the President could have got all of power he wanted if he went through Congress appropriately. By usurping the power, he ultimately lessened the inherent powers of the presidency.

"Munich": A Film with a Message!

Steven Spielberg is an advocate for Israel. At the same time, he sees the senseless loop of hatred caused by revenge. There is no end with retaliation. As quickly as revenge achieves the death of one, another takes his/her place to retaliate in turn.

"Munich" clearly depicts this senseless cycle. No one wins. In fact, more and more lose.

At the same time, there is an unresolved issue. What do you do when your national existence is at stake? Israel is nation staring at oblivion, if her enemies had their way.

"Munich" only says that revenge will not secure peace.

I suppose Steven Spielberg could have just as easily used tapes of the Iraq invasion to prove the point. With no Al Qaeda present in 2003, our intervention has spawned an entire cadre of Al Qaeda with endless replacements. Prior training in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan are now replaced with real experience in Iraq. The United States has generated more enemies by our perilous intervention to compensate for any we kill.

This type of behavior surely does not make our nation or the world safer.

"Mr. Spielberg, please talk with President Bush!"

Same Old, Unfortunately!

How hard it is to know that the proverb that "one who does not history is doomed to repeat it", seems to be beyond the grasp of this administration.

Roger Cohen shared a 1925 report regarding the former Ottoman Empire that despite “the good intentions of the statesmen of Iraq, whose political experience is necessarily small, it is to be feared that serious difficulties may arise out of the differences which in some cases exist in regard to political ideas between the Shiites of the South and the Sunnites of the North, the racial differences between Arabs and Kurds, and the necessity of keeping the turbulent tribes under control.”

Nothing has changed. David Brooks zoned in on the hatred between the ethnic groups in Iraq. Thomas Friedman highlighted again the lack of civil institutions. This knowledge was available for those who were considering the invasion into Iraq. The knowledge of the breakup of Yugoslavia with its negative outcomes was available.

Why would our leaders think this intervention would avoid a similar outcome?

Source of Anger

When the planes destroyed the Twin Towers and devastated the Pentagon, my reaction was: "What have we done to generate such hatred?" It may not have been a common understanding, but the policies and behavior of the Developed World, especially the United States since it is clearly the leader, seemed designed to generate anger among those who were "left out". It seemed clear that the might of the few would ultimately suffer the consequences of unfairness since no nation "deserves" all it can get.

James Carroll, clearly recognized as an outsider for many,articulates more clearly the same point. The United States may want to see itself an innocent in Iraq, as the government whose intentions were pure, but it does not look that way to many. It is hard to justify the invasion in terms of ridding the nation of Sadam when the consequences are so devastating for the very same people. Millions are refugees, thousands and thousands have been killed, the infrastructure is wrecked, services are relatively non-existing.

How should such victims view us, if not as aggressors?

Nora Anne: 10 September 2007

Slipping rather effortlessly into a new world,
A new baby, sharing the same oxygen,
Now the center of a love matrix.

The gift beyond words,
Young parents in awe,
The educated now speechless.

The gift settles into the rhythm of life,
Nourishment and Rest, supported with love.
Nora Anne, a gift treasured as priceless.

The gift, nestled in loving arms,
Evokes words and feelings of gratitude.
Such an undeserved blessing.

May all who hold you,
Always see the gift
In humble silence.

The Problems With Leaving Iraq!

While sharing the need to get our coalition forces out of a lost cause in Iraq, it is easier said than done.

There are all sorts of pitfalls. The bottom line issue is whether the outcome will become so catastrophic that we (and others) will have to return to avoid a major conflagration in the entire Middle East! The world needs a level of stability in the Middle East.

The Economist provides a detailed overview of the issues that need to addressed should a policy be adopted to leave Iraq!

We are responsible for the mess! As Colin Powell indicated, "if you break it, you own it". (I wish that he was much stronger in getting this point across when he had the power to short-circuit the planned initiative).

Religion versus Religious Values

Religion has become a problem for many, including myself. It is disturbing to hear politicians advocate for positions supported by the religious right while distancing themselves from policies that reflect commonly accepted religious values, as evidenced by the Beatitudes.

Joan Chittister continues to be a convincing advocate for the values underlying religion without disowning her identity as a Catholic nun.

Wishing that there were more like her, for the moment, I am grateful that she continues to speak out for the values that will make a difference in how our nation survives.

International Cooperation: A Strategy for Iraq

Sometimes it feels good when someone with more "weight" agrees with you! Since it is clear to many of us that we cannot "win" in Iraq, however such a word could be defined, the only option to enlist the cooperation of other nations.

While Madeline Albright did not reference any need for admitting responsibility for the tragic initiative, she advocates the need to enlist France, Germany and England (as well as Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia (Iran represents a conundrum).

"A coordinated international effort could help Iraq by patrolling borders, aiding reconstruction, further training its army and police, and strengthening legislative and judicial institutions. It could also send a unified message to Iraq's sectarian leaders that a political power-sharing arrangement that recognizes majority rule and protects minority rights is the only solution and is also attainable."

Our best hope for salvaging a positive outcome, viz., stability, seems to lie with our enlisting the support of other nations.

Begging for help should not be ruled out!

Family

During last week, our home enjoyed the companionship of our adult children and their spouses and our grandson. It was particularly special to know that each of the young women in our home was pregnant! Our only grandchild will soon become the senior grandchild of four! It was special beyond words.

We know vicariously the great experiences of others who are grandparents. We now have this experience in common.

However, my special joy is observing our adult children experiencing their lives with vitality. Observing their relationships with their spouses and, thus far, the new role of one who has become a parent has made me feel that our roles as parents were “successful”. We always were consciously aware that we were their stewards until they could develop into adults. Our job was to prepare them for whatever opportunities they wanted to seize. To see them as people who you admire for who they are and how they relate with others is awesome.

Obama, A Person with Understanding

One of the many reasons why someone would support Obama for President is his balanced approach to reality. He seems to know both sides of virtually any issue and takes both into consideration. While such an approach may not always result in a policies that would please totally extreme partisans, it is refreshingly honest and thoughtful.

Helping the poor will most likely not happen by hurting the rich. Funding for urban schools will not increase if successful schools have to have significantly less. We will not address our urban problems on the backs of rural America.

Obama's vision is captured by David Ignatius. Saying that we have "no good options" in Iraq basically reflects a reality. Whatever strategy is implemented to extricate ourselves from the morass caused by the untimely and poorly executed intervention will be messy at best. Hearing Obama articulate the difficulty adds credibility to his general approach.

We need someone with the ability to see problems as they are (also generally referenced as "reality") and the judgment to proceed thoughtfully and resolutely to execute decisions with the ability to change if necessary.

Grateful for being an American!

It is hard to be avoid being critical of the United States at the present time. The current administration has so distorted the rule of law that it would drive anyone insane! At the same time, it is great to be reminded how fortunate we are to live in this wonderful country, many of us purely by luck of being born here.

A wedding in Acapulco provided a beautiful setting for a most happy occasion. However, Mexico is not the United States! We enjoy so much freedom with a degree of economic security (however, not all and surely not experienced by many) with a set of laws that most people outside the current administration obey unless they want to experience time is an unpleasant setting, generally called a jail. To sense the economic hardship Mexicans experience trying to support themselves makes one see why so many try to enter this country one way or another. Seeing people working hard each day with relatively little to show for it and virtually no hope for "better days ahead" serves to sensitize me further to my good fortune and the need to extend economic hope to others. When you consider that Mexico is our "partner" in NAFTA, you would think that they would be significantly better off. However, once again, USA benefited disproportionately to the gains of our partner. Rather than imposing new fences to separate us, one would think that we would have opened our borders completely as the Europe has done after they become an economic and trading union. If there were no border control, two things would happen:(1) Mexico would receive more investments and would benefit by our involvement, and (2) the ready availability of more laborers would saturate the demand and the supply would finally abate. No one would come to this country to remain poor!

Distorted Reality!

When recalling my work history (try to do little of it!), I do recall trying to accurately write the implications of data. Most bureaucracy is driven by ideology of one sort of another; data is only generally useful if it supports the biases of the decision makers. Trying to reflect data, in short, can be an exercise in futility! Yet, I did feel compelled to do my best.

I find it incredible that the administration can find so many to write such distortions of history evidenced again by the President's speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Comparing Iraq to Vietnam is so distorted that one can only be amazed by language can be used to convey anything. In Iraq, we at least fought a nation-state with one objective, viz., the unification of "their" country. We made a peace deal with a specific leader of that nation-state. There was no civil war among those who defended "their" nation-state. How this set of affairs is comparable to the Iraq experience is beyond me.

In the same speech, the President dared the credibility of the American people once again by saying that "a free Iraq was in reach". Wow!

Art Captures Tragedy!

When you think of art, you associate beauty. However, a recent publication captured the photography of horror, the horror of war!

Nina Berman's photography zoned in on the terrible outcomes of the Iraq war on so many young military men. Admittedly, some of the pictures tear your insides to pieces, but one has to face the often silence about those who evade death only to live with mortal wounds.

How our "leader" can sleep with the continuous bombardment of tragedy is beyond me!

Diversity: is there a Downside?

Robert Putnam became famous with his book, "Bowling Alone". In that book, this sociologist noted that our citizenship behavior was eroding by the fast life-style that left no time for civic activities, including social activities that bonded us to others in the community.

In his recent work, he looked at the phenomenon of increased diversity within urban America. While diversity has been advocated as a means of increasing our capacity to bond with others who come from different backgrounds, what he found was the opposite was occurring. The differences among people were barriers to behaviors that are associated with helping one another.

Since this is a sociological study, he is only reflecting the results of his research. Diversity can still be positive, but apparently the positive behaviors do not happen automatically. We have to work to connect with others. One way to do this is to identify with the political process. Becoming a participant in the advocacy of political agendas that promote the common good will contribute to the civic bonding that was historically a characteristic of our nation.

An Approach towards Peace!

Joan Chittister is a relatively famous Benedictine nun. She is now relatively old (like me) but nevertheless continues to see the world in ways that I can identify with.

In a recent article, she contrasts the administrations pre-emptive war with a pre-emptive peace approach. Enlightened to a great extent by her conversations with Europeans, she sees the need for America to emphasize diplomacy within the world community (United Nations). We have to move away from trying to create an empire through military might! We have to move towards dialogue even with those who may well be enemies. We have to see opportunities for peace wherever possible.

A Better Health System

While I have yet to see "Sicko", the French health care system is viewed as the ultimate system of care. Private healthcare to all within a system of government controlled system.

For those who are unfamiliar with their system, please consider Paul Dutton's overview.

In summary, the system provides healthcare to all that is cheaper by far than that available to Americans. Most of the citizens supplement the national insurance and this is being looked at as an opportunity for change. They are considering the benefits of having the entire system under the government. There is no waiting list. Physicians are free to practice medicine! And there is virtually no administrative charges (going to a physician's office without any clerical support for billing!).

Jesus, the Ultimate Politician!

I have never responded positively to much that has come out of the Hoover Institute, but Tod Lindberg's article about the political teachings of Jesus becomes one that I can wholeheartly endorse.

He does not cite the influence of Dominic Crossen, but it is evident.

The basic premise of Jesus' ministry was to alter the existing political hierarchy that he experienced. In short, he advocated a revolution whereby those on the bottom would be on the top not by using the same power tactics, but by acting on his teachings, exemplified by the Beatitudes.

There are two important points: (1) Jesus was not talking just about another world, and (2) we do need to change our behaviors.

For me, the challenge is not to want to "destroy" those in power! I admit that my anger at times wishes some "bad things" to those who do not see the need to work towards a common good for all! I have to work on the need to love those who I totally disagree with!! Hard work for someone like me!

Secondly, we are not looking only for another world! And for this, I am highly critical of church leaders who do not see that the Kingdom of God is achieved through a political realignment. Politics is in need of those with a Jesus attitude! Note, I am not advocating for a religion-based approach. It appears that the official churches have failed to promote the kingdom's values.

Iadmit that I see Obama as advocating an approach that seems to be in line with the teachings of Jesus. Let's hope!

Power Tends to be Arrogant!

Karl Rove has enjoyed a great reputation as a political strategist. One has to assign some adjective to the achievement of getting someone named George W. Bush elected as President!!

The question that will assess his ultimate success is his own benchmark: did the Republican Party obtain a revolution by achieving a major realignment of politics to ensure that their party will maintain domination for a generation.

Independent of my bias that anyone who manipulated the American public in such a gross fashion deserves little praise, three commentators cite reasons for his ultimate failure.

In the current Atlantic Monthly, Karl Rove is noted as a failure for not seeing the negative impact of polarizing Congress. Except for the Education and pharmacy bills passed early in the first administration, none of the signature legislation were enacted. We are now left with such polarization that only time will determine its ultimate impact. Eugene Robinson
in a similar fashion cites his failure to realize that there was a need to work more effectively with Congress.

A friend of the Democrats, James Carville cites that the Republican party has lost an entire generation of former advocates. Rather than realigning the strength of the party, he has ultimately helped the Democrats to regain power.

Power tends to destroy its holders!

Amartya Sen: Where are You? Iraq needs You!

After delving through the extraordinarily well-thought analysis of personal identities (the ideal being one that has been reasoned though to ensure that all applicable identities are considered and, as many as possible, are included in one's own identity), we see how difficult such a objective is in Iraq.

Peter Galbraith has often written on the situation in Iraq. He has advocated for a tripartite solution (Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites) as inevitable since, for it is the reality of Iraq. His current article is devastatingly clear and convincing.

It appears that no one can identify with the nation-state we label "Iraq". It is very clear that the Kurds will never become part of Iraq. They will not even allow an Iraqi flag to fly when ceremonies occur! The Kurds have the only stable area and it is under their control, i.e., no Iraqis are involved in their security.

It is also clear that the Sunnis will never tolerate a Shiite-led government. As Peter Galraith says: "The Sunni tribes also regard Iraq's Shiite-led government as an enemy" and "Sunni fundamentalists consider the Shiites apostates who deserve death, not power".

The article would make any adult weep with bitterness that we have created this mess.

Send in Amartya Sen to see if he can inculcate the virtues of reason!!!!

Impeachment: A Necessity for the Future!

While I have continually thought that impeachment of the President and Vice-President was an appropriate means to address the horrendous distortions of the executive powers to the point that the Constitution is seemingly meaningless, I have tried to rain in my personal views in light of those who say that it will serve no immediate purpose (cf. Nancy Pelosi's statements that impeachment is "off of the table").

However, John Nichols adds fuel to my personal biases.

The issues at stake are so serious that leaving them "off of the table" will reinforce the idea for future inhabitants of the White House to think that these behaviors are acceptable.

For the sake of the future of our Constitution, I agree with those who advocate impeachment of both the President and Vice-President!!

Leaving Iraq!

In the past, I have referred to the ambiguity of the drive to develop a new strategy in Iraq that will result in our leaving the nation (at least, leave the areas where civil war occurs) and focus only on the terrorists and support of the Iraqi forces. My problem has been two-fold: (a) we initiated the uncalled for action and we are responsible for putting things back together again in some stable fashion, and (b) leaving may represent only an interim maneuver before our need to return to avoid disintegration of the entire nation (with the inevitable involvement of neighboring Muslim nations).

The recent Time article, "How to Leave Iraq", adds another troublesome reality, viz., it takes time to leave, a lot of time. "Pulling out 10 combat brigades — roughly 30,000 troops, along with their gear and support personnel — would take at least 10 months". Were some plans to reduce our forces by half to be implemented, presumably it would be that much longer. Moreover, there are reasons to believe that the departing forces will be easy targets to many Iraqis.

Getting out of a failed nation is no easy task. We never received the welcome envisioned by our Vice-President. I hate to think how we will be perceived as we walk away from the mess we created.

When an Answer Becomes a Problem!

The violence and bloodshed that has marked the last 50 years of self-rule in Africa has been attributed to many factors. One source of the conflicts has been the lack of water, commonly associated with droughts and poor land management.

Now, an underground lake the size of Lake Erie has been found in north Dafur! This seems too good to be true! A solution to one of the major problems affecting the continent.

Based on the experience of the past 50 years (one could even consider how poorly Western Powers ruled before), there are fears that this discovery will result in the same short-sightedness of the central government demonstrated thus far. Unless African leaders can reach beyond their own needs for resources and power to see how the vast majorities in rural areas can benefit, there is fear that this new resource will be exploited to no gain for the masses.

"Identity and Violence" by Amartya Sen

Admittedly, I have been influenced in the past years by authors who argue from the view that current events are being driven by culture (religion being also heavily involved). Sam Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” and Vali Nasr’s “The Shia Revival” represent the conflicts of culture (Hindu vs. Muslim, Western vs. Muslim, etc.) or religious identification (Shia vs. Shiites).

While there is truth embodied in such conflicts, there is a need to be reminded that no one is ONLY driven by a culture or a religion. There are other identities a person (potentially at least) has.

Amartya Sen’s “Identity and Violence”, focuses on the need to understand how our cultures have been historically influenced by each other, e.g., West received decimal system from India and printing, gun powder, and magnets came from China and persons can identify with multiple groupings, e.g., political, professional, nationality, religion, etc.

The trick is to contribute to the expansion of reasoning so that more people will see beyond their traditional identities and choose priorities among the various possible identities.

The book (compilations of a series of lectures) is somewhat repetitive in zeroing in the need to expand the people’s need to be more inclusive. But the repetition serves to clarify his propositions.

Is It Democrats or Is It the Constitution?

I agree with the polls indicating that the Democratic Congress is performing not much better than the President who now rolls to the bottom! Whatever I expected in terms of change, surely it has not happened. There has been no change in policy or legislation (hard to get too happy that they managed to get approved a change in the minimum wage).

And yet, I can understand why the Democrats have been unsuccessful. The rule of getting 60 votes in the Senate in order to proceed for a vote (with a majority)is unfair (to set a standard above the majority exceeds realistic expectations within the context of a democracy).

I am starting to think that the problem may be more ominous, viz., the Constitution as written.

The problem may relate to the vast difference between the time when the Constitution was devised and current affairs. Matters are so complex today that it is virtually impossible to develop a viable middle ground (i.e., sixty votes) on many issues.

If the current congressional standoff occurred within a parliamentary system, there would be a vote of no confidence and presumably, in the instance, there would be a new election. The Bush Era would be over.

In our situation, we are witnessing the inability of the Democrats to address their constituents who voted for a change in policy in Iraq and the rules of Congress that prohibit the change.

I am hoping that brains will recognize that the inability to move forward signals trouble for our Democracy and they will make the necessary modifications in their legislative proposals to win sufficient votes to proceed with change, even if modest.

Another Strategy for Pakistan

Vali Nasr has become my guru of Islam knowledge. His academic credentials as a scholar of the Middle East are good (Naval Postgraduate School and Council of Foreign Relations). He surely has opened my eyes to many of the problems inherent in intra-Islamic conflicts.

In the Christian Science Monitor, he presents an interpretation of what is at stake in Pakistan. While it is common knowledge that Musharraf has manipulated situations to secure his hold on both the military and presidency, I did not know that India has been making positive strides in Afghanistan, setting up offices throughout the country. In the past, the control exercised by the Pashtuns in both northwest Pakistan and Afghanistan served to upset any equilibrium in Afghanistan while providing a protection of Pakistan from India. While recognizing that the United States cannot give Pakistan greater security with India, he concludes by saying that “Washington can give Pakistan greater interest in Afghanistan's stability than it has now by encouraging Kabul to include Pakistan's allies and clients in government; and more important, to finally recognize its international border with Pakistan”.

"Man Gone Down" by Michael Thomas

Retirement provides the opportunity to read books only because they are being recognized the critics. "Man Gone Down" is Michael Thomas' first book and had been well received.

In summary, it deals with a black man in a biracial marriage who is struggling to overcome a history of addiction to become the success his education and intellect warrants. The problems of trying to live according to standards primarily established by his wife include financial and marital discord.

What makes the book worth reading is the author's style of writing. While I found it very confusing, it surely captured the complexity of his life. His writing is like a stream of consciousness. There is no thread clearly connecting each portion of the book. He toggles between his past (childhood, college, addiction), present, and future aspirations without notice.

In a sense, I find myself doing such toggling, often frustrated by my brain's constant meandering between the reality at hand and the plethora of other matters that float into my consciousness. For this reason, reading the book at least provided some support that I am not crazy!