Without Pope Benedict’s endorsement of “Christ the Liberator”, i.e., his censure of the author, I would not have struggled to complete this very difficult theological effort to examine the question of Christ in today’s verbal currency.
Without attempting to do justice to his work, let me review a few basic points in any theological undertaking:
(1) no one claims to understand God
(2) the experience of Jesus preceded any written articulation, e.g., Mark’s Gospel was not written until around 60 CE
(3) all people think and write with constructs appropriate to their times, e.g., Gospels written primarily for the Jews (Matthew) was written with constructs familiar to the people, Hellenic thought patterns were used in the 2nd and 3rd centuries
The Jesuit Jon Sobrino lives and breathes in El Salvador. His life experiences color his thinking. Trying to understand who Christ is becomes a challenge for those who appear to be poor and unjust victims in a society and world that seems to discount. Jon Sobrino clearly comes to his work from their perspective.
It is hard to appreciate why the Pope would consider necessary to censure this author. In the first order, there are relatively few who would read such a difficult tome. However, it appears that the Pope was concerned about his academic approach.
John Allen summarized the Vatican’s concerns, as follows:
“Sobrino’s method makes the “church of the poor” the central context for theology, thus minimizing or ignoring the apostolic tradition of the church, especially as expressed in the declarations of early church councils;
• It’s not sufficiently clear in his work that the divinity of Christ is taught by the New Testament itself, as opposed to being a product of later dogmatic development;
• In places, Sobrino tends toward the ancient Christological heresy of “assumptionism,” treating the historical Jesus as a separate figure who was “assumed” by the divine Son of God;
• Sobrino makes too strong a distinction between Christ and the Kingdom of God, thereby devaluing the “unique and singular” significance of Christ;
• Jesus’ self-consciousness as messiah and as the Son of God are not sufficiently clear;
• The death of Christ on the Cross is reduced to a moral example, rather than understood as having universal significance for salvation.”
Let me try to make it relatively easy to understand what is at stake. When I was in the seminary and taught Christology, we were TOLD what the dogma was and then looked to the Scriptures to verify the dogma. Sobrino would consider this approach to be invalid. You start with the historical Jesus and you find God. Granted, it becomes quite complicated trying to put into words the impossible, viz., a belief that Jesus is both God and Human. Again, Sobrino will not force later Hellenic and Thomistic categories into the Scriptures. While discussing those concepts, he relies on an interpretation of the Scriptures within the context of his belief that the dogma of Jesus being both God and Human is true.
Secondly, Sobrino attempts to work through an understanding of this dogma to the point where it supports the conclusion that Christians find God in Jesus and in Jesus, we find out what it is to be human.
Thirdly, he reclaims the emphasis on the Kingdom of God as the essential ingredient in his life and, consequently, in the lives of the followers of Christ. Essentially, the work is to further the aims of the Kingdom of God which is NOT the same as the Church. We are servants to further the Kingdom by spreading justice and hope and defeating the idols of power and destruction.
Finally, Sobrino stresses that the Kingdom of God is biased in favor the poor and unjust victims of society. We who do not personally share the lot of the poor and unjust victims can identify with the Kingdom by promoting justice and dignity to the poor.
I thank Pope Benedict for bringing this book to my attention.
Friday, June 29, 2007
A Version of a Democratic Vision
Ted Sorensen, the famous speech writer for John Kennedy, was asked to write the acceptance speech of the Democratic Nominee for President in 2008. He is an excellent writer, but you are urged to read the speech to refresh yourself of the ideals that are part and parcel of who we Americans are.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
"Globalization and Its Discontents" by Joseph Stiglitz
“Globalization and Its Discontents” is a great book if you want to understand the issues impacting global trading. Not as technical as the other book recently read (Fair Trade for All), this one quite clearly explains the pitfalls of the IMF and World Bank (as well as the United States who is the principal factor in both institutions) in their dealings with developing nations.
While this book is less technical than the first, they both zone in on the same problems.
Professor Stiglitz underlines the rigid thinking of the international bodies that want to apply standardized economics to each nation regardless of their differences. Market liberalization through privatization, rapid financial and capital market liberalization, an emphasis of low inflation are principles that work if the society is well structured, i.e., relatively full employment, strong institutions of banking and law, insurance system to protect workers during transition periods. However, in developing nations, these conditions are not present. Therefore, the prescriptions and conditions demanded by IMF are generally self-defeating. Nations become worse than before they received assistance.
Professor Stiglitz wants IMF and the other international economic institutions to attend to more than the interests of the developed industrial nations and the financial institutions. Helping developing nations requires attention to the state of the nation’s institutions, the level of employment, and other pertinent indicators of ability to transition to a growth economy.
The inflow of major funding can be a danger unless interest rates are realistic and the local financial institutions are effective. It is important that nations have appropriate bankruptcy laws that will effectively deal with defaults (without jeopardizing the entire nation). Local banking institutions need to be well-developed to appropriately determine credit worthiness of the borrower and the ability to deal with defaults.
When it is all said and done, there is a need for the international economic institutions to assign the people of these nations as its top priority. People should be better for financial assistance. They should not be poorer.
While this book is less technical than the first, they both zone in on the same problems.
Professor Stiglitz underlines the rigid thinking of the international bodies that want to apply standardized economics to each nation regardless of their differences. Market liberalization through privatization, rapid financial and capital market liberalization, an emphasis of low inflation are principles that work if the society is well structured, i.e., relatively full employment, strong institutions of banking and law, insurance system to protect workers during transition periods. However, in developing nations, these conditions are not present. Therefore, the prescriptions and conditions demanded by IMF are generally self-defeating. Nations become worse than before they received assistance.
Professor Stiglitz wants IMF and the other international economic institutions to attend to more than the interests of the developed industrial nations and the financial institutions. Helping developing nations requires attention to the state of the nation’s institutions, the level of employment, and other pertinent indicators of ability to transition to a growth economy.
The inflow of major funding can be a danger unless interest rates are realistic and the local financial institutions are effective. It is important that nations have appropriate bankruptcy laws that will effectively deal with defaults (without jeopardizing the entire nation). Local banking institutions need to be well-developed to appropriately determine credit worthiness of the borrower and the ability to deal with defaults.
When it is all said and done, there is a need for the international economic institutions to assign the people of these nations as its top priority. People should be better for financial assistance. They should not be poorer.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Warren Buffet: A Virtual Saint
It is so rewarding to hear such a rich person as Warren Buffet articulate strongly about the need to RAISE the taxes of the rich. As he cited, as the third richest person in the world, his tax rate is 17.7% while his secretary's is 30%.
He agrees with many of this that is not fair!
He agrees with many of this that is not fair!
The Incredible Vice-President!
Now that the Washington Post's four-part series on Dick Cheney is completed,it would be difficult to believe that he has any defenders left!
From his unbelievable malignant notion that he is essentially above the law (as he also educated the President), he proceeded to the delinquency of other government officials. There were a few that escaped, e.g., EPA Director Whitman, but there were far more that altered their thinking so that they could comply with the wishes of Cheney.
I hate to think that neither one of them will leave office without being impeached, but it does seem that the Democrats aren't willing to spend the time.
What is interesting speculation is that Cheney will "find out" this summer when he is hospitalized to replace his pacemaker that he will be provided medical advice that he can no longer stay in office. With that, he will escape! and then, we will have to contend with a replacement. Rumor has it that the only one that Bush will nominate in Thompson who will then become overwhelmingly the Republican nominee for President.
From his unbelievable malignant notion that he is essentially above the law (as he also educated the President), he proceeded to the delinquency of other government officials. There were a few that escaped, e.g., EPA Director Whitman, but there were far more that altered their thinking so that they could comply with the wishes of Cheney.
I hate to think that neither one of them will leave office without being impeached, but it does seem that the Democrats aren't willing to spend the time.
What is interesting speculation is that Cheney will "find out" this summer when he is hospitalized to replace his pacemaker that he will be provided medical advice that he can no longer stay in office. With that, he will escape! and then, we will have to contend with a replacement. Rumor has it that the only one that Bush will nominate in Thompson who will then become overwhelmingly the Republican nominee for President.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Immorality at the Highest Levels of Government
Seymour Hersh has a knack of being able to participate in the unearthing of the dark secrets of the government. In the current New Yorker, he details the horrendous story of General Antonio Taguba who was assigned the responsibility to investigate Abu Grahib only to find out that his honest report earned him the right to immediate exile and then told that he had to retire.
General Taguba shares the naive expectation that he thought that they wanted to know! Sec. Rumsfeld's statements of ignorance of what was occurring at Abu Grahib are totally incredible. His testimony before Congress about this ignorance of abuse is totally untrue.
I am aware that none of us are immune to the weaknesses associated with humanity. What continues to be absurd is that our government preaches the virtues of democracy with the United States as a prize example, only to see evidence over and over again that the prize is jaundiced!
General Taguba shares the naive expectation that he thought that they wanted to know! Sec. Rumsfeld's statements of ignorance of what was occurring at Abu Grahib are totally incredible. His testimony before Congress about this ignorance of abuse is totally untrue.
I am aware that none of us are immune to the weaknesses associated with humanity. What continues to be absurd is that our government preaches the virtues of democracy with the United States as a prize example, only to see evidence over and over again that the prize is jaundiced!
"Last King of Scotland"
Retirement opens the doors to many opportunities not available to those burdened with the daily cycle of work. One of these opportunities is the time to watch DVDs!
"The Last King of Scotland" received high recognition in the 2007 Oscar celebration. With good reason, the prize for the male leading actor was Forest Whitacker.
The film captured the senseless trajectory of the rule of Idi Amin. But the greatest source of sadness is the testimony of the failure of their former colonial masters.
According to Wikipedia, Arab traders in 1830 "found several kingdoms with well-developed political institutions". Between 1894 and 1961, Uganda was under the protectorate of the British.
Without signaling out Britain, Uganda demonstrates the ineffective rule of most colonial powers. Grant exceptions, e.g., India seemed to benefit from British rule, most colonies were raped of their resources and generally exploited without consideration of the aftermath of their role of "protectors".
Such a tragedy!
"The Last King of Scotland" received high recognition in the 2007 Oscar celebration. With good reason, the prize for the male leading actor was Forest Whitacker.
The film captured the senseless trajectory of the rule of Idi Amin. But the greatest source of sadness is the testimony of the failure of their former colonial masters.
According to Wikipedia, Arab traders in 1830 "found several kingdoms with well-developed political institutions". Between 1894 and 1961, Uganda was under the protectorate of the British.
Without signaling out Britain, Uganda demonstrates the ineffective rule of most colonial powers. Grant exceptions, e.g., India seemed to benefit from British rule, most colonies were raped of their resources and generally exploited without consideration of the aftermath of their role of "protectors".
Such a tragedy!
Monday, June 18, 2007
Need of a New Military Strategy
Professor Andrew Bacevich has become a military guru for me! His military and academic career are special. His articles were always extremely thoughtful and reasonable (they agreed with my views!!). Since he suffered the tragedy of having his son die in Iraq, a conflict strongly opposed by his father, his stature has even increased.
His article starts from the statements made by both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates who are supporting a significant increase in military manpower.
He disagrees because the war on terrorism (or any other verbiage to describe what our nation's interests are) is misleading.
The problems confronting the free world is a conflicted Muslim world. They are not homogenous and clearly have agendas independent of the West. Dr. Bacevich stresses the need to develop a new strategy that will focus on how to co-exist with Islam, minimizing the terror, assist where possible, and expect that a more moderate Islam will take much time.
However, Niall Ferguson does caution any scenario that does not include the distinct possibility of a melt-down in the Middle East, especially now that Iraq is further deteriorating, the Palestinians are imploding, Iran is marching towards nuclear capability.
His article starts from the statements made by both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates who are supporting a significant increase in military manpower.
He disagrees because the war on terrorism (or any other verbiage to describe what our nation's interests are) is misleading.
The problems confronting the free world is a conflicted Muslim world. They are not homogenous and clearly have agendas independent of the West. Dr. Bacevich stresses the need to develop a new strategy that will focus on how to co-exist with Islam, minimizing the terror, assist where possible, and expect that a more moderate Islam will take much time.
However, Niall Ferguson does caution any scenario that does not include the distinct possibility of a melt-down in the Middle East, especially now that Iraq is further deteriorating, the Palestinians are imploding, Iran is marching towards nuclear capability.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Consequences of Failed Opportunities
There is a dance between history as it unfolds and the people who are interacting with the events. Decisions made today can create a better tomorrow or lead to further problems.
From the perspective of the Catholic Church, history indicates that the mores supporting celibacy and male dominance no longer serves its mission. Failure thus far to see the historical changes as opportunities from structural reform only has led to more problems. And, to be sure, the resistance to change is self-defeating.
Reading about the chaos enveloping the Palestinians brings to mind all the opportunities thwarted by self-interest and myopic vision. Rather than achieving a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we now have a two-state Palestinian situation.
If there is one single issue that leaps out as a source of failed opportunities was the the US support of Palestinian elections and then not dealing with the outcome of the voters. While going around the world saying that we are on a mission of spreading democracy, we then demonstrate that what we really mean is that we want democracy as it suits us. We are hypocritical!
However, there are other failures to seize opportunities. Jeffrey Sachs highlights the futility of Israel's penetration of the West Bank. There is overwhelming recognition that a return to the 1967 borders is a necessity, if any peace is to be achieved. Expansion continues into the West Bank, albeit at a reduced rate.
Israel's survival depends on taking advantage of opportunities to lessen conflict and promote peace.
From the perspective of the Catholic Church, history indicates that the mores supporting celibacy and male dominance no longer serves its mission. Failure thus far to see the historical changes as opportunities from structural reform only has led to more problems. And, to be sure, the resistance to change is self-defeating.
Reading about the chaos enveloping the Palestinians brings to mind all the opportunities thwarted by self-interest and myopic vision. Rather than achieving a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we now have a two-state Palestinian situation.
If there is one single issue that leaps out as a source of failed opportunities was the the US support of Palestinian elections and then not dealing with the outcome of the voters. While going around the world saying that we are on a mission of spreading democracy, we then demonstrate that what we really mean is that we want democracy as it suits us. We are hypocritical!
However, there are other failures to seize opportunities. Jeffrey Sachs highlights the futility of Israel's penetration of the West Bank. There is overwhelming recognition that a return to the 1967 borders is a necessity, if any peace is to be achieved. Expansion continues into the West Bank, albeit at a reduced rate.
Israel's survival depends on taking advantage of opportunities to lessen conflict and promote peace.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Capitalism Needs Moderation
It is great to be vindicated! What better feeling than to know that you knew something that even one of the brightest is just learning!
Being a liberal usually recognizes that capitalism is good, as far it goes. And, often it goes too far for some. Then, there is a need for government to intervene, to remedy the injustices created by the market system. It takes nothing away from the strengths of capitalism to realize that its weaknesses need buttressing.
Larry Summers is considered one of the brightest persons in our times. Whatever faults he has, his intellect is second to none. He has been a proponent of the market system that distributes resources the most rationally. However, of late, he is recognizing that the global economy is short-changing the middle class.
Larry Summers is working to develop a new model that will continue to promote free trade while creating a system of resource distribution that will address the current glaring inequities.
Whoever does create such a model should be recommended for the Nobel Prize for Economics.
Being a liberal usually recognizes that capitalism is good, as far it goes. And, often it goes too far for some. Then, there is a need for government to intervene, to remedy the injustices created by the market system. It takes nothing away from the strengths of capitalism to realize that its weaknesses need buttressing.
Larry Summers is considered one of the brightest persons in our times. Whatever faults he has, his intellect is second to none. He has been a proponent of the market system that distributes resources the most rationally. However, of late, he is recognizing that the global economy is short-changing the middle class.
Larry Summers is working to develop a new model that will continue to promote free trade while creating a system of resource distribution that will address the current glaring inequities.
Whoever does create such a model should be recommended for the Nobel Prize for Economics.
Friday, June 8, 2007
"Independent Diplomat: Dispatches from an Unaccountable Elite" by Carne Ross
With a sense of humility and feelings of stupidity, I look back on my life with awareness how often I have been wrong about so much!
There was a time when I thought that I knew much about God! And now, I know how little I know and, even more, recognize that what I know may in fact limit my awareness of God’s presence. In short, knowing can get in the way of “being with God”.
There was a time when I thought that my work life was meaningful. Looking back, I know that I accomplished very little.
However, there is one interesting and positive point: I somehow or other spoke out for what I thought was right and true.
Within the context of priestly ministry, I worked hard to share with others the knowledge that I thought was the best available. Whether it was really helpful is questionable. However, it surely got me into trouble with the church’s hierarchy.
And then, in my work at the Veterans Administration, I never shied from sharing my views on our health system could be improved and noted when current practices were a problem.
When reading about the inability of military officers to get their honest views of the Iraq situation to the powers-to-be, I am aware that I could never have successfully functioned within the military structure.
And now, reading Carne Ross’ views about his diplomatic career (United Kingdom) points out how others were caught in a life that was essentially unreal.
As it took time for me to realize that I could not function as a priest within the structures as they were (and are!), so Carne Ross came to realize that the life of a diplomat is essentially dishonest.
The diplomat abandons the self for the sake of the impersonal “we” of the government. The ideas and statements do not represent either the reality of the citizen politic or the situations addressed. The public statements of the government represent only those of the few, e.g., the US government clearly states positions that were not approved by the public election in 2006. Positions taken on Iraq or Afghanistan do not permeate from the peoples of those nations as much as from the US government. And the people who write those briefings often are personally ignorant of the culture, history, and language of the peoples they are addressing, e.g., surely the thoughts regarding how the Iraqi people would welcome us portray grievous misunderstanding of the people.
Carne Ross’ book is essentially a confession. He tells how he wittingly or unwittingly was a part of process that was lacking reality. The world of diplomacy is devoid of the awareness that problems cannot be solved any longer between nations. The problems facing every nation are global in their implication. There is a need for a new type of problem-solving to address radical terrorists, global warming, AIDS, economic inequities. The United Nations, as currently structured, seems incapable of meeting the challenge.
Carne Ross’ recommendations for the future are very idealistic and virtually impossible. Essentially, he advocates a new system that would involve a global democracy. Nation-states would rise above its own interests to address the interests of all the peoples impacted by whatever the issue addressed. The goal of minimizing suffering is noble, but it is hard to conceptualize nations rising above their own interests.
“The Parliament of Man: The Past, Present, and Future of the United Nations” by Paul Kennedy discussed both the very impressive and positive achievements of the United Nations without minimizing the problems associated with its structural imbalance between the Permanent Five and other nations, especially the developing nations. His focus on the need to expand the Security Council and to give more weight to non-security issues do not result in specific recommendations as much a “problems to be addressed”.
Reading Ross’ insights into his false world of diplomacy at least give me hope that we can rise above our past and lead more honest futures.
There was a time when I thought that I knew much about God! And now, I know how little I know and, even more, recognize that what I know may in fact limit my awareness of God’s presence. In short, knowing can get in the way of “being with God”.
There was a time when I thought that my work life was meaningful. Looking back, I know that I accomplished very little.
However, there is one interesting and positive point: I somehow or other spoke out for what I thought was right and true.
Within the context of priestly ministry, I worked hard to share with others the knowledge that I thought was the best available. Whether it was really helpful is questionable. However, it surely got me into trouble with the church’s hierarchy.
And then, in my work at the Veterans Administration, I never shied from sharing my views on our health system could be improved and noted when current practices were a problem.
When reading about the inability of military officers to get their honest views of the Iraq situation to the powers-to-be, I am aware that I could never have successfully functioned within the military structure.
And now, reading Carne Ross’ views about his diplomatic career (United Kingdom) points out how others were caught in a life that was essentially unreal.
As it took time for me to realize that I could not function as a priest within the structures as they were (and are!), so Carne Ross came to realize that the life of a diplomat is essentially dishonest.
The diplomat abandons the self for the sake of the impersonal “we” of the government. The ideas and statements do not represent either the reality of the citizen politic or the situations addressed. The public statements of the government represent only those of the few, e.g., the US government clearly states positions that were not approved by the public election in 2006. Positions taken on Iraq or Afghanistan do not permeate from the peoples of those nations as much as from the US government. And the people who write those briefings often are personally ignorant of the culture, history, and language of the peoples they are addressing, e.g., surely the thoughts regarding how the Iraqi people would welcome us portray grievous misunderstanding of the people.
Carne Ross’ book is essentially a confession. He tells how he wittingly or unwittingly was a part of process that was lacking reality. The world of diplomacy is devoid of the awareness that problems cannot be solved any longer between nations. The problems facing every nation are global in their implication. There is a need for a new type of problem-solving to address radical terrorists, global warming, AIDS, economic inequities. The United Nations, as currently structured, seems incapable of meeting the challenge.
Carne Ross’ recommendations for the future are very idealistic and virtually impossible. Essentially, he advocates a new system that would involve a global democracy. Nation-states would rise above its own interests to address the interests of all the peoples impacted by whatever the issue addressed. The goal of minimizing suffering is noble, but it is hard to conceptualize nations rising above their own interests.
“The Parliament of Man: The Past, Present, and Future of the United Nations” by Paul Kennedy discussed both the very impressive and positive achievements of the United Nations without minimizing the problems associated with its structural imbalance between the Permanent Five and other nations, especially the developing nations. His focus on the need to expand the Security Council and to give more weight to non-security issues do not result in specific recommendations as much a “problems to be addressed”.
Reading Ross’ insights into his false world of diplomacy at least give me hope that we can rise above our past and lead more honest futures.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Gall!
It is amazing to listen to our leaders can lecture others when their own practice warrants criticism.
President Bush pointed out in his talk in Prague that Russia has deviated from the path to democratic values.
How can he say such things, given his record on civil liberties, e.g., depriving those at Guantanamo of Habeas Corpus rights and other legal rights, torture and rendition, illegal intrusion of phone records, politicizing of the Department of Justice, use of Presidential signing statements to clearly discard the relevancy of legislation, etc., etc.
What gall!
President Bush pointed out in his talk in Prague that Russia has deviated from the path to democratic values.
How can he say such things, given his record on civil liberties, e.g., depriving those at Guantanamo of Habeas Corpus rights and other legal rights, torture and rendition, illegal intrusion of phone records, politicizing of the Department of Justice, use of Presidential signing statements to clearly discard the relevancy of legislation, etc., etc.
What gall!
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Problems in Getting Out of Iraq
I have shared my perspective that the present state of Iraq is a (1) mess, (2) our responsibility (we did it!), but (3) we cannot walk away from what we did without (a) being irresponsible and (b) jeopardizing Iraq and the region even further.
Dan Senor writes in the Wall Street Journal that many of those I respected for stating their disagreement with the Bush initiative and now saying that we cannot just leave. These words from these special people should make us sober as we go about supporting those who are trying to establish a new strategy.
Brent Scowcroft
"The costs of staying are visible; the costs of getting out are almost never discussed. If we get out before Iraq is stable, the entire Middle East region might start to resemble Iraq today. Getting out is not a solution."
Anthony Zinni
"When we are in Iraq we are in many ways containing the violence. If we back off we give it more room to breathe, and it may metastasize in some way and become a regional problem. We don't have to be there at the same force level, but it is a five- to seven-year process to get any reasonable stability in Iraq."
"Friends of mine who are Iraqis--Shiite, Sunni, Kurd--all foresee a civil war on a scale with bloodshed that will absolutely dwarf what we're seeing now. It's really difficult to imagine that that would happen . . . without Iran becoming involved from the east, without the Saudis, who have already said in that situation that they would move in to help protect the Sunni minority in Iraq.
John Burns
"It's difficult to see how this could go anywhere but into a much wider conflagration, with all kinds of implications for the world's flow of oil, for the state of Israel. What happens to King Abdullah in Jordan if there's complete chaos in the region? . . . It just seems to me that the consequences are endless, endless."
ou pull out now, and catastrophe ensues, then it is very likely that the United States would have to come back in circumstances which, of course, would be even less favorable, one might imagine, than the ones that now confront American troops here."
Dan Senor writes in the Wall Street Journal that many of those I respected for stating their disagreement with the Bush initiative and now saying that we cannot just leave. These words from these special people should make us sober as we go about supporting those who are trying to establish a new strategy.
Brent Scowcroft
"The costs of staying are visible; the costs of getting out are almost never discussed. If we get out before Iraq is stable, the entire Middle East region might start to resemble Iraq today. Getting out is not a solution."
Anthony Zinni
"When we are in Iraq we are in many ways containing the violence. If we back off we give it more room to breathe, and it may metastasize in some way and become a regional problem. We don't have to be there at the same force level, but it is a five- to seven-year process to get any reasonable stability in Iraq."
"Friends of mine who are Iraqis--Shiite, Sunni, Kurd--all foresee a civil war on a scale with bloodshed that will absolutely dwarf what we're seeing now. It's really difficult to imagine that that would happen . . . without Iran becoming involved from the east, without the Saudis, who have already said in that situation that they would move in to help protect the Sunni minority in Iraq.
John Burns
"It's difficult to see how this could go anywhere but into a much wider conflagration, with all kinds of implications for the world's flow of oil, for the state of Israel. What happens to King Abdullah in Jordan if there's complete chaos in the region? . . . It just seems to me that the consequences are endless, endless."
ou pull out now, and catastrophe ensues, then it is very likely that the United States would have to come back in circumstances which, of course, would be even less favorable, one might imagine, than the ones that now confront American troops here."
Monday, June 4, 2007
Bloody Power: History of Iraq
One reads to know something new. Since so much has been written about Iraq, you would think that there can little else that is "new".
Edward Wong wrote recently about the historical phenomenon that it is not enough to defeat your enemy in Iraq. You must virtually annihilate them. And, this destruction has to be visible to others.
The struggle between the Sunnis and Shiites will not end until the power of one overwhelms the other. One could easily expect another dictator who would rule with such power as Hussein.
If this insight were to come to fruition, what a horrible outcome this would be to such a tragic decision by our leaders to intervene without knowing how to deal with the reality of the people who live there!
Edward Wong wrote recently about the historical phenomenon that it is not enough to defeat your enemy in Iraq. You must virtually annihilate them. And, this destruction has to be visible to others.
The struggle between the Sunnis and Shiites will not end until the power of one overwhelms the other. One could easily expect another dictator who would rule with such power as Hussein.
If this insight were to come to fruition, what a horrible outcome this would be to such a tragic decision by our leaders to intervene without knowing how to deal with the reality of the people who live there!
Democratic Presidential Debate: 3 June
From my perspective, I was proud that so many of the candidates were so good. I could easily vote in the general election for several. It is great to participate in the primaries because there are choices, all of whom are good.
Dennis Kucinich continues to articulate every view I hold! I wish that he were electable, but it is clear that no one thinks so. I am realistic enough to "get over it" even though part of me wants to continue to support him out of principle. What he said last night that make so sense were the following:
1. Universal healthcare with one provider (government)
2. Stop funding the war
3. Creation of a Department for Peace.
Given the reality that Kucinich cannot get elected, I still support Obama. He did very well last night. He is measured (sometimes too much), but he is thoughtful and supports an agenda that will promote international cooperation and universal healthcare (not without some problems).
John Edwards continues to impress me. I clearly would give him my support if Obama were to lose strength in the polls. Again, the richness of the choices is overwhelming. To think that either one would be great while knowing only one can be nominated.
And Hillary did very well. She was impressive, if not overwhelming. While her competence continues to shine and, now, her personality seems to be warmed, I cannot bear to think that we will have Bushes and Clintons following each other from 1988 at least through 2012!! It is too much!
Dennis Kucinich continues to articulate every view I hold! I wish that he were electable, but it is clear that no one thinks so. I am realistic enough to "get over it" even though part of me wants to continue to support him out of principle. What he said last night that make so sense were the following:
1. Universal healthcare with one provider (government)
2. Stop funding the war
3. Creation of a Department for Peace.
Given the reality that Kucinich cannot get elected, I still support Obama. He did very well last night. He is measured (sometimes too much), but he is thoughtful and supports an agenda that will promote international cooperation and universal healthcare (not without some problems).
John Edwards continues to impress me. I clearly would give him my support if Obama were to lose strength in the polls. Again, the richness of the choices is overwhelming. To think that either one would be great while knowing only one can be nominated.
And Hillary did very well. She was impressive, if not overwhelming. While her competence continues to shine and, now, her personality seems to be warmed, I cannot bear to think that we will have Bushes and Clintons following each other from 1988 at least through 2012!! It is too much!
Friday, June 1, 2007
Foreign Policy per Barack Obama
Senator Obama details his foreign policy very well in the current Foreign Affairs. He covers every critical issue that currently is on the table.
I agree with everything he says, but realize how difficult it is to transmit this information in bite-size groupings permitted by public meetings, debates, or TV ads.
Karen Tumulty captures well the downside of Obama's honest approach to problems. He is honest in sharing what he perceives are requirements to address problems, e.g., telling Detroit that automobiles must increase their miles per gallon, indicating that changes in Social Security will be required. Again, what he says is right; the question is how to say it in the setting that he won't be misinterpreted or not publicized (much of what he says does not make the press).
Senator Obama has become a credible voice for a thoughtful approach to the plethora of problems confronting us. Surely, I am a believer! Obama can do it!
I agree with everything he says, but realize how difficult it is to transmit this information in bite-size groupings permitted by public meetings, debates, or TV ads.
Karen Tumulty captures well the downside of Obama's honest approach to problems. He is honest in sharing what he perceives are requirements to address problems, e.g., telling Detroit that automobiles must increase their miles per gallon, indicating that changes in Social Security will be required. Again, what he says is right; the question is how to say it in the setting that he won't be misinterpreted or not publicized (much of what he says does not make the press).
Senator Obama has become a credible voice for a thoughtful approach to the plethora of problems confronting us. Surely, I am a believer! Obama can do it!
"Fair Trade for All" by Joseph Stiglitz & Andrew Charlton
Unless you are an economist and, at that, with some specialization in international trade, “Fair Trade for All” is not a project for your summer reading. Joseph Stiglitz (famous Nobel Prize winner) and Andrew Charlton are overwhelming in dealing with the issues of fairness when trade issues are being addressed at WTO meetings.
Per chance that the challenges of reading the book will pass by, the authors stay focused on the need to be fair when addressing trade issues. Essentially, the problems are two-fold: developed countries are strong enough to negotiate unfair agreements that benefit themselves primarily, and secondly, the processes employed in negotiations are not transparent. Again, the processes benefit the developed nations.
While liberalizing trade agreements is generally a positive policy, problems are created when the specific weaknesses of each of the developing countries are not factored into the agreement. Some agreements will benefit certain nations but not others due to the specific differences, e.g., the amount of unemployment. Loss of revenue from the reduction of tariffs impact some nations more than others that have less options for compensating from this reduction.
In addition, there is a need to compensate developing nations for the costs resulting from the need to adjust to the agreements, e.g., infrastructure has to be improved, technical assistance in processing exports/imports.
The bottom line is that negotiating trade agreements through WTO is very, very complex. Unless the strong developed nations have a mind-set to ensure that each of the developing nations will be better off after the agreements are implemented, then one can be assured that the developing nations are being exploited.
Per chance that the challenges of reading the book will pass by, the authors stay focused on the need to be fair when addressing trade issues. Essentially, the problems are two-fold: developed countries are strong enough to negotiate unfair agreements that benefit themselves primarily, and secondly, the processes employed in negotiations are not transparent. Again, the processes benefit the developed nations.
While liberalizing trade agreements is generally a positive policy, problems are created when the specific weaknesses of each of the developing countries are not factored into the agreement. Some agreements will benefit certain nations but not others due to the specific differences, e.g., the amount of unemployment. Loss of revenue from the reduction of tariffs impact some nations more than others that have less options for compensating from this reduction.
In addition, there is a need to compensate developing nations for the costs resulting from the need to adjust to the agreements, e.g., infrastructure has to be improved, technical assistance in processing exports/imports.
The bottom line is that negotiating trade agreements through WTO is very, very complex. Unless the strong developed nations have a mind-set to ensure that each of the developing nations will be better off after the agreements are implemented, then one can be assured that the developing nations are being exploited.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)