Fetal Heart Sounds

Shhhhhhhhh!
Sound of eleven week fetal heart
Surging with life,
Power in miniature form,
Strength in weakness.

Parents listen,
Smiles greet awareness,
Life is nourished,
Dreams emerge.

Talking: A Means to an End

On 19 February, this blog addressed Niall Ferguson’s critique of B. Obama’s foreign policy as related to Iraq. Agreeing with the need to accept responsibility for the chaos continually emerging in Iraq, there seems a need to (a) admit the responsibility, and then (b) attempt to convene other nations into multilateral negotiations to meet the current set of problems, based on their self-interests. No nation in the entire Middle East, Europe, or Asia is immune from the consequences of utter chaos impacting Iraq and its neighbors.

While seldom in agreement with Henry Kissinger, his article in the International Herald Tribune does seemingly supports the necessity of having the United States in discussions with other nations in order to develop strategies that will ameliorate the current situation and, hopefully, begin to restore security and a sense of stability.

"The Redirection" by Seymour Hersh

Seymour Hersh has established himself as someone who seems to have access to information that is hidden from the American public. And, based on the past, he usually is on to something worthy of our attention.

In this new article in the New Yorker,he provides an insight into the Administration's attempt to control some of the chaos it has created. Specifically, by unleashing an avenue for Shiites to gain power in Iraq, Sunnis are very concerned. King Abdulla's expressed his fear of a new Shiite Crescent. The Saudis have been working overtime to counter Iran's influence on the Hamas and Hezbolla, and to split Syria's relationship with Iran. The Saudi government has warned the United States that withdrawal of US forces, jeopardizing the Iraqi Sunnis would require their intervention. This energetic drive by the Saudis to counter Iran and the Shiite influences in the Middle East is supported by the United States even as we voice our support and send our troops to bolster the Maliki government.

If the bifurcated attention to suppressing the increasing Shiite while supporting the Iraq's Shiite leadership is not sufficiently confusing, Hersh points to the use of secret funds to support Saudi goals, as in Iran Contra affair, i.e., using funds without the appropriate finding authorizing such expenditures.

Why the United States Cannot Win the Civil War in Iraq

Foreign Affairs published a significant article by James Fearson (Stanford University) who traces the approximately 125 civil wars since WWII.

The majority of these conflicts are ultimately resolved by power exerted by one group against the other. In the end, one wins and the other loses. Whenever shared agreements have occurred (and they are relatively rare), the tend not to last, e.g., Lebanon. Note that even when civil wars are ended where there is domination by one side, seldom does the outcome become stable for many years. There is no realistic hope for even another "strong man" to exert control in Iraq. No such person with sufficient personal authority over a large segment of the population has been identified. Most often they come out of the military which is virtually non-existing in Iraq.

The most stunning observation is that, in contrast to the usual antagonism between two forces, the civil war in Iraq is being played out with multiple groups within the larger cohorts of Sunnis and Shiites.

The only way to address the situation is a combination of diplomacy, financial incentives, and some limited and specifically-targeted military interventions. Even if this process were to be adopted, the United States will be involved in Iraq for a long, long time.

"The Known World" by Edward P. Jones

We like to think of ourselves as incapable to adopting behaviors now considered appalling. Self-appraisal minimizes often the inherent weaknesses we keep hidden.

By reading Thirteen Moons, I learned that there were black slave owners who easily adopted the behaviors and attitudes of the white population.

Edward Jones adds more complexity to the world of slave ownership. The Known World (388 pages) focuses on a county in southern Virginia during the period before and after the Civil War. While the depravity of slave ownership is crystallized dollar values assigned to the slaves, there was a process of buying oneself out of slavery. Buying one’s own freedom was not uncommon. What was striking is that some of these former slaves readily transitioned into the mores of independence by their becoming masters of other black persons. These new slave owners readily supported the system of local “patrollers” employed by the Sheriff to monitor the roads to ensure that anyone who attempted to escape was caught. And, they also saw bodily discipline now as an inevitable necessity to ensure compliance with the business at hand, i.e., maintaining the local farm.

The author weaves together various segments of the lives of the multiple characters into a coherent community of blacks and whites. Underneath it all is the shared fear of the slave owners, both black and white, of the possibility of the freedom for all blacks.

Would I be any different if I lived there and then?

It points out the dimension of luck associated with what any of us perceive as positive in our relative success stories. But for where we live, with what set of parents, with what genes, with what community resources, we could be so different with needs that would make more clearly dependent on the compassion of others.

Tenure Achieved!

Endless, the challenges of academia

A doctorate is not enough

More hurdles are needed

Need to be sure

Product is real!

Six more years,

Research published,

In the right journals,

Student reviews good,

Fellow faculty happy,

And then, the reviews!

Department first,

School second,

Then, the Provost

Trustees to follow.

Questions removed

Mark of approval

Moment to rejoice,

Tenure is yours!

Anglican Meeting In Tanzania Revisited

The meeting could have ended worse! The competing forces of those relying on a rather strict interpretation of Scripture and those trying to address contemporary mores within the general context of Christianity surfaced throughout the conference, e.g., some bishops refused to share communion with the Bishop Jefferts, the Presiding Bishop of the United States Episcopal Church. In the end, the communiqué appears to have burdened the Episcopal Conference of the United States (ECUSA) with some challenges.

In terms of the crucial issues of blessing the unions of lesbians and gays and the ordination of openly gay priests to the episcopacy, the ECUSA was ordered to refrain from “authorizing” such blessings and from ordaining gay bishops. It was noted by some that the communiqué did not require the practice of blessing unions of gays and lesbians to cease; bishops could allow the practice to occur without their authorization. A deadline for accepting such restrictions was established as of September 30.

There was also a recommendation that new positions of authority, including a “primatial vicar” be established to oversee those conservative churches that were concerned with the official leadership of ECUSA. The new Presiding Bishop, Katherine Jefferts Schori, supports the more liberal practices. Never has such a role designed to temper the official leadership been established.

The House of Bishops will meet in March to discuss the recommendations of the communiqué, but it is unclear whether a decision can be made without including laity and clergy. The next General Convention is not scheduled until 2009.

Even if the recommendations do seem to be skewed in favor of the more conservative views, the ECUSA could consider accepting the recommendations for the immediate future without having any conclusions become fixed in concrete. Eventually, time will permit others to see the validity of the practices adopted by the ECUSA. It will take a degree of patience that some may find most difficult to accept, especially those directly impacted by these recommendations.

It is heartening at least to see that, in the midst of such a serious struggle that touches the integrity of all participants, there was an effort to not push anyone beyond what appears to be temporarily tolerable.

Sometimes, such tolerance is to be celebrated!

Foreign Policy Issues Confronting Obama

In today’s Los Angeles Times, Niall Ferguson strongly attacks Barack Obama on his position regarding plans to withdraw from Iraq[1]. While acknowledging that the Iraq initiative was flawed from the beginning and compounded with time, his arguments will present a problem to Obama’s credibility: (1) withdrawal will put pressure on the government to achieve a political settlement, (2) Colin Powell’s edict that entry into Iraq carries with it the assumption that “if you break it, you own it”, and (3) Obama has indicated that the United States should intervene when genocide is at issue.

To summarize Professor Ferguson’s problems with Obama, he cites those who claim that US withdrawal will precipitate massive annihilation, as in genocide, which Obama claims that US should address. Leaving will create a situation that will demand re-entry!

And, one is hard pressed to argue with the need of addressing the horrendous situation created by our intervention. There is responsibility or accountability associated even if a very ill-conceived and poorly executed intervention.

While we wait for Obama’s reaction to these critical objections to his announced plan for withdrawal, every citizen has to come to terms with Ferguson’s cogent arguments.

All nations are held accountable to address genocide. But, no nation could independently address all situations. Without referencing Iraq, genocide appears to be more rampant than ever (Bosnia, Dafur, Liberia, Rwanda). It seems that only multinational coalitions could possibly be capable of meeting the demand. The institution designed to address such situations, viz., the United Nations, does seem incapable of rising above the international morass associated with the self-interests of member nations. If the United States adopted a policy that, in lieu of no UN action, we would be forced to intervene, we would be faced with the conundrum of determining the criteria to be used to differentiate which of the many conflicts warranted our action. Since the need to address genocide is high, efforts should be made to persuade “willing nations” to organize for the explicit purpose of intervening in unconscionable atrocities. In short, we would provide leadership for creating such an institution (theoretically, any existing institution could be modified if member nations agreed, e.g., NATO).

It is harder to address the issue of US responsibility to address the situation created by our intervention. How can we justify walking away from the mess? As in the past, my plan may be politically untenable, but it is clear to me that the following should, at least a moral perspective, be considered. I would recommend that vested nations involved, first by admitting that (a) we made a serious mistake, (b) we need the help of other nations, and (c) it is critical to their self-interest that all nations work together to achieve a level of security in Iraq.

---

1. http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-ferguson19feb19,1,2219316.column?coll=la-news-columns&ctrack=1&cset=true

An Expectant Grandchild!

Hidden in her warm body

A dream yet to see life

A world yet to see

And grandparents in awe.

No need to worry

Life comes as a gift

In its own time.

Many wait

A world is ready

Love wraps the expectant

Until in the arms of parents

And, then, ....

The grandparents.

Entitlements: the 800 Pound Gorilla!

Scot Lehigh’s column in today’s Boston Globe focused on the “Fiscal Wake-Up Tour” http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/16/fiscal_wake_up_tours_inconvenient_truth/ . In short, the leaders of this tour are trying to mobilize public opinion so that Congress will effectively deal with the inevitable disaster of the so called, Entitlement Programs (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid). There has been a constant chatter about the scary projections. The Federal Reserve Bank Commissioner, Ben Bernanke, shares his concerns with congressional committees, Robert Samuelson approaches the subject from a relatively conservative perspective, noting the lack of political will to deal with the problems. He sees no alternative to either raising revenue (which he feels will be self-defeating) or curtailing outlays, possibly by transitioning to another system of retirement insurance and imposing some form of rationing of health care. Paul Krugman repeatedly supports a need to increase Social Security Benefits by raising the ceiling for sharing revenue and restricting payments to those with incomes beyond and controlling medical costs by adopting a universal care system under the auspices of the federal government.

I support Social Security since the vast majority of the population needs this source of support as they age (it is hard to believe that people could be self-sufficient to save for their retirement. Chile found out that their system that privatized their retirement system did not work!). Poverty among the aged is relatively low because of these benefits. At the same time, those with many monetary resources have no need of their benefits, even if they are technically entitled to their benefits. Raising the ceiling for those above the present threshold ($94,200) becomes an increase in taxation for the higher income earners. Reducing benefits for those 65 and older to those with income higher than $200,000 or $300,000 does not seem unreasonable.

While it is clear why the insurance companies want the present health care system to continue, supporting universal health care seems good for virtually everyone, especially businesses whose products have to pay for their employees’ insurance. The unneeded expenditures associated with private health insurers is very high (both administrative and legal costs) and there is no control over costs. If the federal government was the primary insurer, as with Medicare, the administrative costs would decrease remarkably and there would be some method of controlling costs. Rationing health care is inevitable. In fact, it has always occurred, at least on those unable to benefit by the current system.

Joseph's One Year Birthday!

Such a short time ago,

No surprise about his coming

Even if his entry was special.

Now a year old,

Enchanting another place

With a smile and blue eyes,

He gives a gift to all,

Grandparents for sure!

Tension in the Anglican Church

Leaders of the world’s 77 million Anglicans are meeting in Tanzania. It is a very important meeting since one, if not the only, item under discussion is the ordination of homosexuals to the priesthood and episcopacy (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=250292007).

This issue became extraordinary when some Episcopal parishes in the United States began to align themselves with another jurisdiction, viz., under the Nigerian primate, Peter Akinola. Bishop Akinola vehemently opposes the United States Episcopal Church’s decision to ordain Gene Robinson as the first homosexual bishop (New Hampshire) and wants some sanction placed against the United States Episcopal Church and a promise not to continue the practice. His goals are complicated by the presence of the new leader of the Episcopal Church, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, who supports the practice.

This conflict has taken on higher visibility in the context of books questioning the validity of religion, e.g., Sam Harris has written The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation and Susan Jacoby’s Freethinkers.

The Anglican tradition has distinguished itself by respecting ambiguity and permitting a range of scriptural interpretations. To some, this has been a negative feature; for others, it represented hope that religion can accommodate a changing society and cultural mores. Sam Harris would argue that such broad accommodation of Scripture actually indicates a lack of credence in what is written. It supports his contention that if the person is the judge of what should be believed, what does it say about the reported generator of the sacred text? Sam Harris, however, would never have had a problem with religion IF all religions were as open to change as the Episcopal Church. His problem is that most religions end up energizing horrendous behavior in the name of God (some of which are quite evident in Iraq).

If the current angst in the Anglican Church cannot be resolved in the spirit of living with diversity, how much problematic will it be for traditions more rigid and insensitive to change, e.g., Roman Church?

Conversion to Skepticism!!

So many books have been published that document the disastrous planning by the Department of Defense (DoD). Michael Gordon in today’s New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/washington/15military.html?hp&ex=1171602000&en=ad512b1b8c4bfb32&ei=5094&partner=homepage) reviews the ill-conceived assumptions and planning scenarios, e.g., there would only be 5,000 American troops in Iraq by December 2006.

In addition, the PowerPoint presentations by DoD (www.nsarchive.org) provide a reference source to support future discussions.

Multiple authors have addressed the question of how such planning could occur at the highest levels of government. None of answers quiet the soul! Such incompetence begs accountability!

One personal result is a new sense of skepticism. For some of us who maintained for so long what is now considered undue naiveté, it represents a sad transition. It will be hard for the younger and future generations to ever overcome a deep sense of skepticism of those who are in positions that should and could have known differently. One is left trusting only what can be verified personally. It places a heavy burden on us!

Partisionship versus Compromise

The House debate on an Iraq resolution that would support troops while disagreeing with the decision to escalate the number of military confronts anyone with the problem of how such disagreement can be bridged. And, if such disagreement cannot be bridged, what does this mean?

I come from a background that resulted in my seemingly being in a confrontational mode in many, if not all, of my occupational settings. I was aware of others who apparently had the skills to stay sane even when they agreed with me that the positions of the leadership were indefensible. I could never figure out how they did it!

While it was always evident that entering Iraq was a terrible error in judgment, if no other reason that there was no rationale strategy of ever achieving a viable coalition of historically antagonistic loyalties (Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds), there is no clear strategy for exiting. While those who advocate increased military forces admit that failure remains a possibility. All the plans of those advocating withdrawal, either sooner or in a more phased out deployment, agree to the possibility of a massive internal devastating civil chaos.

Those advocating a plan for withdrawal can compromise on elements of the plan, e.g., time-frame, number of military bases that require closing. But how can these congressional leaders compromise on the major disagreement: escalation rather than withdrawal?

Partisanship is inevitable when there are no possible grounds for compromise. Both advocate their positions as the basis for a political solution: (a) escalate military forces to give the Iraqi leaders time to deal with the forces leading the nation into chaos; (b) withdraw forces to reinforce the need of the Iraqi leaders to assume the required leadership. The different strategies are significant because lives of American military are at stake. There is a need of the American public to let their congressional representatives know how this critical issue should be resolved, including the need to advance the debate to the need to withdraw funding to force the phased withdrawal of forces. It is a call for partisanship!

A Beginning!

It seems unreal, but "thanks" to my daughter and son-in-law, I have pierced the world of cyberspace with Edward's Blog. The blog is designed to share my "reviews" of readings as well as provide me a forum for sharing my perception of reality. The best feature of the blog is that those who wish to read it, will. Those who have had enough of what I have to offer, can rest from my e-mails!!