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".
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
"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.
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!
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
"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.
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.
Friday, November 16, 2007
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.
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!
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!
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
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 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!
Friday, November 9, 2007
"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!
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!
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
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:
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.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)