While it appears to be a truism that it only takes one person to make a difference, it does help if that one person is somewhat "crazy"! There are so many needs in the world that overwhelm most individuals when they even consider how they could become meaningfully involved.
"Three Cups of Tea" is a true story of Greg Mortenson's extraordinary involvement in building schools in rural and impoverished areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan. The obstacles faced, the dangers experienced, and the bewildering experiences of survival represent more than most people would consider credible even in the novel, far less in real life!
The book is brought to your attention as one that you will enjoy reading as well as being inspired.
Should you be interested in supporting his cause, you can reach his website for information.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Clinton's Unfortunate Reliance on Pollster!
On 5 January 2008 I discussed one of Hillary's miscalculations, viz., her reliance on Mark Penn, the pollster. It was my outstanding point of contention with the first Clinton that his dependence on polls to determine his decisions robbed the nation of his potential leadership based on his outstanding intellect and his ability to communicate with people.
Leon Panetta, a supporter of Hillary and a former member of Bill's administration, lamented Penn's role in the current campaign. He felt that he was dated in his approach and tended to be divisive. His strategy segmented the population into small interest groups that tended to isolate groups from one another.
Clearly, Panetta agrees with my view that leaders need to be aware of any tendency to be dependent on the findings and advice of pollsters to determine how best to govern a nation!
Leon Panetta, a supporter of Hillary and a former member of Bill's administration, lamented Penn's role in the current campaign. He felt that he was dated in his approach and tended to be divisive. His strategy segmented the population into small interest groups that tended to isolate groups from one another.
Clearly, Panetta agrees with my view that leaders need to be aware of any tendency to be dependent on the findings and advice of pollsters to determine how best to govern a nation!
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Economic Agenda for the Next Democratic President
One reason for reading as much as I do is to educate me about major issues facing our nation and world. Admittedly, the more I read, the more I don't know! But, it remains a work in progress and the alternative, viz., ignorance, is unacceptable.
Thinking about our nation's problems while also focusing on our national fiscal plight makes my head hurt! So much to do with so little to work with!
In general, I have sided in recent times with those who feel that it is important to achieve fiscal soundness. Trying to do this while attending to our crumbling infrastructure, the educational needs of our children, the thousands of medically uninsured seems more than anyone could do.
The "American Prospect" is a bona fide liberal political journal. There are no questions about their political principles. Each month is a step further in the education in matters vital to our nation.
Robert Kuttner, a founder of the journal, writes regularly in that journal and in various news outlets in nation.
Today, he writes a clear overview of what a new and progressive economic agenda should be for a Democratic President.
In summary, there is a need to reinstate higher taxes for the wealthy and get out of Iraq. These monies could then be used to address the infrastructure deficits, health care insurance, and other national interests. There is a need to consider more federal regulations to ensure that our citizens are better protected (drugs and medical devices, mortgage loans, etc.) And then, the new president should use his office to teach and build a larger constituency to support these initiatives. In short, there is a need to rebuild a strong middle class and provide more support to the lower class to ensure that our nation prospers.
Thinking about our nation's problems while also focusing on our national fiscal plight makes my head hurt! So much to do with so little to work with!
In general, I have sided in recent times with those who feel that it is important to achieve fiscal soundness. Trying to do this while attending to our crumbling infrastructure, the educational needs of our children, the thousands of medically uninsured seems more than anyone could do.
The "American Prospect" is a bona fide liberal political journal. There are no questions about their political principles. Each month is a step further in the education in matters vital to our nation.
Robert Kuttner, a founder of the journal, writes regularly in that journal and in various news outlets in nation.
Today, he writes a clear overview of what a new and progressive economic agenda should be for a Democratic President.
In summary, there is a need to reinstate higher taxes for the wealthy and get out of Iraq. These monies could then be used to address the infrastructure deficits, health care insurance, and other national interests. There is a need to consider more federal regulations to ensure that our citizens are better protected (drugs and medical devices, mortgage loans, etc.) And then, the new president should use his office to teach and build a larger constituency to support these initiatives. In short, there is a need to rebuild a strong middle class and provide more support to the lower class to ensure that our nation prospers.
My Hopes May Become Real!
I did not want to avoid the hard choices. So, on 31 December I made my predictions for the nominations for the Presidency. I thought that McCain would be the nominee for the Republicans and Clinton would win for the Democrats. I mentioned how much I wanted Obama to win but I did not think that he had the organization and money to overcome the strengths of Clinton.
It is hard to believe that my hopes for Obama would come true and Clinton would fade for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which for the very reasons I though that she would win, viz., organization and money.
It seems that her organization misread the public and Obama completely. They were unprepared to deal with the possibility that the campaign would last longer than 5 February. In contrast to her lack of planning, Obama had his organization set up in the Potomac areas and beyond. Even in Ohio where Clinton has endorsement from state leaders, he has out-organized her! And one can question her competence in managing an organization and finances. She has had to fire her leading staff and her organization does not seem to provide clues to how to handle Obama. Is this a sign of how she would manage other unexpected happenings? And, she ran out of funds to the point she had to lend her campaign $5 million. What does this say about managing the national economy?
Contrary to Clinton, Obama apparently spent his money more appropriately (Clinton's supporters have been upset to find out how much has been spent on consultants, food, and luxury accommodations). And, surprisingly, he has received more donations due to his exquisite Internet mailing system. Apparently, $1 million is pouring in daily from all sorts of donors, including the likes of myself.
Adam Nagourney reports an interesting observation. Clinton never anticipated an Obama! And with the length of time that this primary season requires, his strengths have only been enhanced. She is losing because her strengths (which are many) were not supported by as good an organization or message. She is losing to a better candidate.
While the conclusion fits with my perception, I am amazed that he has achieved his standing with such overwhelming numbers. He has won and won convincingly.
We can only hope that the enormous problems confronting the aftermath of Bush will not prove more than anyone can handle. Should he succeed, he will take on mythical status in our nation and, likely, the world.
It is hard to believe that my hopes for Obama would come true and Clinton would fade for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which for the very reasons I though that she would win, viz., organization and money.
It seems that her organization misread the public and Obama completely. They were unprepared to deal with the possibility that the campaign would last longer than 5 February. In contrast to her lack of planning, Obama had his organization set up in the Potomac areas and beyond. Even in Ohio where Clinton has endorsement from state leaders, he has out-organized her! And one can question her competence in managing an organization and finances. She has had to fire her leading staff and her organization does not seem to provide clues to how to handle Obama. Is this a sign of how she would manage other unexpected happenings? And, she ran out of funds to the point she had to lend her campaign $5 million. What does this say about managing the national economy?
Contrary to Clinton, Obama apparently spent his money more appropriately (Clinton's supporters have been upset to find out how much has been spent on consultants, food, and luxury accommodations). And, surprisingly, he has received more donations due to his exquisite Internet mailing system. Apparently, $1 million is pouring in daily from all sorts of donors, including the likes of myself.
Adam Nagourney reports an interesting observation. Clinton never anticipated an Obama! And with the length of time that this primary season requires, his strengths have only been enhanced. She is losing because her strengths (which are many) were not supported by as good an organization or message. She is losing to a better candidate.
While the conclusion fits with my perception, I am amazed that he has achieved his standing with such overwhelming numbers. He has won and won convincingly.
We can only hope that the enormous problems confronting the aftermath of Bush will not prove more than anyone can handle. Should he succeed, he will take on mythical status in our nation and, likely, the world.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Unfathomable Prejudice!
It is always mystifying why groups of people are hated. Sure, much has been written about prejudice in order to get a handle on its dynamics. And still, it is unfathomable that an entire ethnic or racial group is categorized as objects of hate. From my perspective, it was always easy for me to twist things around and to look at life as though I too were a member of the group that was so negatively categorized. How would I have felt? Wouldn’t I be angry, if not violent, in reaction to these irrational views of others?
“Lives of Others” is a film that captures the Stasi’s penetration of East Germany by their surveillance of whomever was determined to be a person that could jeopardize their government’s control. While there is some redeeming aspects to the film, it was such a strange feeling watching the total control that government officials had over the population.
“Farewell, Shanghai” was originally written in Bulgarian by Angel Wagenstein. The very depressing story traces some Jews who were “lucky” to escape Germany as Hitler started to initiate his program to remove all Jews. The horrors depicted in their migration to Shanghai, one of the few places that they could enter, and in the subsequent decisions to establish a ghetto for them in this forsaken place, were only compounded when the Allies bombed the area as the end of WWII winded down. There were no redeeming aspects to this narrative; it was totally depressing. And all of this based on total prejudice of a people!
If we could read this in order to only recall the past, it would be an educational experience. However, reading newspapers constantly reminds us that this phenomenon has not stopped. History is telling us that this blinding hatred is destroying the lives of so many, in so many places, so often that one is left dazed and bewildered.
The cries of Eli Weisel, “Never Again”, echo in a chamber isolated from reality. There has to be a way for our world to deal with such hatred and yet, we seem immobilized as we read of continuing horrors perpetrated by one group on another.
My view is that we have to promote a change in the United Nations Charter to support an additional mission of being able to initiate action against those who are involved in the commission of genocide.
“Lives of Others” is a film that captures the Stasi’s penetration of East Germany by their surveillance of whomever was determined to be a person that could jeopardize their government’s control. While there is some redeeming aspects to the film, it was such a strange feeling watching the total control that government officials had over the population.
“Farewell, Shanghai” was originally written in Bulgarian by Angel Wagenstein. The very depressing story traces some Jews who were “lucky” to escape Germany as Hitler started to initiate his program to remove all Jews. The horrors depicted in their migration to Shanghai, one of the few places that they could enter, and in the subsequent decisions to establish a ghetto for them in this forsaken place, were only compounded when the Allies bombed the area as the end of WWII winded down. There were no redeeming aspects to this narrative; it was totally depressing. And all of this based on total prejudice of a people!
If we could read this in order to only recall the past, it would be an educational experience. However, reading newspapers constantly reminds us that this phenomenon has not stopped. History is telling us that this blinding hatred is destroying the lives of so many, in so many places, so often that one is left dazed and bewildered.
The cries of Eli Weisel, “Never Again”, echo in a chamber isolated from reality. There has to be a way for our world to deal with such hatred and yet, we seem immobilized as we read of continuing horrors perpetrated by one group on another.
My view is that we have to promote a change in the United Nations Charter to support an additional mission of being able to initiate action against those who are involved in the commission of genocide.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
"Money-Driven Medicine" by Maggie Mahar
As a “former” employee within the medical world, I have read more than my share of books, articles, and columns on our healthcare system that is now virtually universally described as broken. Maggie Mahar, a financial journalist, has written a book that captures much of what constitutes the problem in “Money-Driven Medicine”.
Getting to the bottom line first, one could pigeon-hole the problem is that healthcare does not respond to capitalistic, market-driven mechanisms, resulting in our dubious standing as the nation with the highest costs without commensurate outcomes.
Citing the likes of Don Berwick, she reports that 30-50% of health care costs are wasted. Procedures are unnecessarily repeated or ordered, interventions done with no clear expectation that the medical condition will be enhanced. Why? Ultimately, health care is not demand driven but supply driven. Technology and capacity is not determined by need but by the availability of capital. Once technology or beds etc. are available, then the supplier, i.e., physicians, order its use. The pharmaceutical and device makers are part of the problem. Their objective is to provide a profit to the share holders which motivates only their interest in new products regardless of their relatively little value to the patient population.
Moreover, the hospital system (whether for profit or non-profit) are inherently wasteful. In order to survive, there is a need to ensure that there is a margin which can usually be obtained only by some mechanisms that are ultimately self-defeating, e.g., acquiring more hospitals or health care system which temporarily boost short-term profits but ultimately collapse because of the inherent problems in the payment for services designed for a capitalistic system.
Attempts to control costs, e.g., HMO’s, work in the short-term but ultimately cost more for the taxpayers. They work in the short-term because insurance companies siphon off the healthy and the sicker population becomes even more expensive for the payers, i.e., tax payers.
While the author does not say it, it is clear to me that establishing universal health care under the auspices of the government, i.e., Medicare, is the only way to provide accessible health care to all in a relatively cost effective way.
Getting to the bottom line first, one could pigeon-hole the problem is that healthcare does not respond to capitalistic, market-driven mechanisms, resulting in our dubious standing as the nation with the highest costs without commensurate outcomes.
Citing the likes of Don Berwick, she reports that 30-50% of health care costs are wasted. Procedures are unnecessarily repeated or ordered, interventions done with no clear expectation that the medical condition will be enhanced. Why? Ultimately, health care is not demand driven but supply driven. Technology and capacity is not determined by need but by the availability of capital. Once technology or beds etc. are available, then the supplier, i.e., physicians, order its use. The pharmaceutical and device makers are part of the problem. Their objective is to provide a profit to the share holders which motivates only their interest in new products regardless of their relatively little value to the patient population.
Moreover, the hospital system (whether for profit or non-profit) are inherently wasteful. In order to survive, there is a need to ensure that there is a margin which can usually be obtained only by some mechanisms that are ultimately self-defeating, e.g., acquiring more hospitals or health care system which temporarily boost short-term profits but ultimately collapse because of the inherent problems in the payment for services designed for a capitalistic system.
Attempts to control costs, e.g., HMO’s, work in the short-term but ultimately cost more for the taxpayers. They work in the short-term because insurance companies siphon off the healthy and the sicker population becomes even more expensive for the payers, i.e., tax payers.
While the author does not say it, it is clear to me that establishing universal health care under the auspices of the government, i.e., Medicare, is the only way to provide accessible health care to all in a relatively cost effective way.
"Nemesis" by Chalmers Johnson
One of my daughter-in-laws, now ensconced in the proverbial Deep South, brought to my attention the need to read the work of Chalmers Johnson. Knowing that any recommendation from her is worth its weight in gold, I just completed his latest book, “Nemesis” which I now urge others to read.
One could easily categorize him as radical as one would attribute term to Noam Chomsky even though Johnson’s writing is less redundant and flamboyant. But, the bottom line remains similar, viz., our nation’s founding values are eroding secondary to an expansionist military. In the process of justifying a greater need for the expansion of the military budget based on proclaimed fear of extremists, our nation is perceived itself as extreme with imperialistic objectives that erode our basic understanding our democracy envisioned by our nation’s founding fathers.
For those who criticize those of us who bring attention to the wayward tendencies of our nation as lacking basic support of our government, it is important that all of those who are highly critical of our government’s actions, as in Johnson, are basically calling our nation only to support its basic values. If not, our nation is on a road that could jeopardize our nation.
Ever so briefly, Johnson’s perspective starts from an understanding that a standing military was always a bone of contention in our nation’s history. While Washington and Hamilton wanted a standing militia in order to secure our nation, Jefferson and others argued vehemently that such a militia was inherently destructive of democratic values. However, no one ultimately would question the need of a military to protect our nation and its peoples. Johnson details the history of our military’s involvement and expansion into all parts of the world, generally with negative outcomes for those peoples. (N.B. John Perkins wrote a relevant book, "Confessions of an Economics Hitman", that details his personal experiences working for a consulting company whose task it was to paint a rosy picture for poor countries of major projects considered for funding by the World Bank or IMF. The projected scenarios never worked and, to deal with the enormous debt, these countries made deals with the United States so that our military could have bases on their land.)
He compares our present trends to those of other major nation-states, e.g., Rome and Great Britain, who expanded beyond their nation’s capacity to fund and control and subsequently, lost its power. Johnson would not be unhappy with a loss of military power, if it did not imply the loss of economic power and a beacon for democratic values.
This book may not have been written, however, if it were not for the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue! Bush has not only expanded our military involvement without need and the great expense of an ancient land, he has been able to assume the role of a dictator who has disregarded the rule of law in the name of protecting our nation!
Johnson clearly is concerned that the violations of our Constitution are inherently eroding our democracy and the separation of powers! While this view is not new, his articulation is strong and alarming.
One is encouraged to read this book and hope that our next election will attempt to rectify the damage caused by Bush!
One could easily categorize him as radical as one would attribute term to Noam Chomsky even though Johnson’s writing is less redundant and flamboyant. But, the bottom line remains similar, viz., our nation’s founding values are eroding secondary to an expansionist military. In the process of justifying a greater need for the expansion of the military budget based on proclaimed fear of extremists, our nation is perceived itself as extreme with imperialistic objectives that erode our basic understanding our democracy envisioned by our nation’s founding fathers.
For those who criticize those of us who bring attention to the wayward tendencies of our nation as lacking basic support of our government, it is important that all of those who are highly critical of our government’s actions, as in Johnson, are basically calling our nation only to support its basic values. If not, our nation is on a road that could jeopardize our nation.
Ever so briefly, Johnson’s perspective starts from an understanding that a standing military was always a bone of contention in our nation’s history. While Washington and Hamilton wanted a standing militia in order to secure our nation, Jefferson and others argued vehemently that such a militia was inherently destructive of democratic values. However, no one ultimately would question the need of a military to protect our nation and its peoples. Johnson details the history of our military’s involvement and expansion into all parts of the world, generally with negative outcomes for those peoples. (N.B. John Perkins wrote a relevant book, "Confessions of an Economics Hitman", that details his personal experiences working for a consulting company whose task it was to paint a rosy picture for poor countries of major projects considered for funding by the World Bank or IMF. The projected scenarios never worked and, to deal with the enormous debt, these countries made deals with the United States so that our military could have bases on their land.)
He compares our present trends to those of other major nation-states, e.g., Rome and Great Britain, who expanded beyond their nation’s capacity to fund and control and subsequently, lost its power. Johnson would not be unhappy with a loss of military power, if it did not imply the loss of economic power and a beacon for democratic values.
This book may not have been written, however, if it were not for the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue! Bush has not only expanded our military involvement without need and the great expense of an ancient land, he has been able to assume the role of a dictator who has disregarded the rule of law in the name of protecting our nation!
Johnson clearly is concerned that the violations of our Constitution are inherently eroding our democracy and the separation of powers! While this view is not new, his articulation is strong and alarming.
One is encouraged to read this book and hope that our next election will attempt to rectify the damage caused by Bush!
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Nora Anne's Baptism
Lit by the large blue eyes of a baby
The chapel listened to the story
Of welcome into a new community,
Believers following the Way.
Alert as she could be,
Surroundings so intriguing,
Her attention steadfast,
New though they be.
Quietly resting in loving arms,
Mother and Dad sharing the gift,
Born so few months ago,
Now, a picture of infant beauty.
Prayers spoken and sung,
Oil and water, symbols
Of priesthood and rebirth,
Marked new life for Nora Anne.
Family brought to tears,
Their children now parents,
Brought new life into their lives,
A gift beyond words.
Love, God’s gift, is alive
In Nora Anne’s parents.
In them, the baby meets
Her warm and caring God.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
"The Suicide of Reason" by Lee Harris
It is not often that a book really makes a difference in one’s thinking. For me, “The Suicide of Reason” made a major difference in my thinking. It surely will make me reconsider many of my views. I encourage you to read the book and your comments would be appreciated.
The author convincingly argues that the West’s ideal of a society built on citizens who live by the laws of reason, i.e., they advocate the need for each person to think and decide what values will guide their behavior, is natural. The problem is that the West, in general, and the United States, in particular, thinks that the rule of reason is inevitable rather than an outcome of exceptional circumstances, virtually never again to be occur.
And, secondly, we tend to see the rule of reason to be the inevitable outcome of history. With education and exposure to societies ruled by reason, it is only a matter of time when other nations will transition to the same values.
Another dimension to this problem is that advocating the rule of reason and the need to pursue self-interest results in a level of tolerance of differences that ultimately weakens the capacity of the citizens to defend themselves when confronted by those who lives by a tribal code, according to the laws of jungle.
These ideals are great, but there is an inherent weakness when confronted by those whose goals and objectives are not based on self-interest, but the well-being of the tribe.
The author focuses on Islam which is different from other cultures that have expanded their hegemony by ultimately dominating peoples not so much by power depicted in the Master/Slave scenario as by encouraging conversion (rather than death) to another way of life. And, their success has been noted by the inability of other cultures and religions to penetrate their culture. In fact, Islam penetrates rather successfully within those cultures ruled by reason by demanding the society’s tolerance for differences requires them to promote their distinctive differences rather than require their assimilation into their new society.
In short, the picture portrayed by the author is that there is a cultural war occurring that intends to destroy the nations ruled by the law of reason and their promotion of self because these ideals are potentially destructive of the Islam culture.
The author is concerned that our decadence, i.e., the life-style that promotes the acquisition of goods that promote our self-interest, will be the cause of our ultimate destruction by those whose only goal is the dominance of their tribe (Islam) which is built on blood by beliefs.
Ultimately, then, the author would advocate that were we to defend ourselves, nations ruled by reason would have to become intolerant of differences that do not identify with the cultural mores of reason, especially in our own nations, but also in others. While we can ensure that those living within these nations adhere to the cultural values of reason by threatening their deportation, intolerance of tribal mores in other nations would require more nuanced approaches that make clear that our differences and our willingness to defend our values when threatened or attacked.
The author convincingly argues that the West’s ideal of a society built on citizens who live by the laws of reason, i.e., they advocate the need for each person to think and decide what values will guide their behavior, is natural. The problem is that the West, in general, and the United States, in particular, thinks that the rule of reason is inevitable rather than an outcome of exceptional circumstances, virtually never again to be occur.
And, secondly, we tend to see the rule of reason to be the inevitable outcome of history. With education and exposure to societies ruled by reason, it is only a matter of time when other nations will transition to the same values.
Another dimension to this problem is that advocating the rule of reason and the need to pursue self-interest results in a level of tolerance of differences that ultimately weakens the capacity of the citizens to defend themselves when confronted by those who lives by a tribal code, according to the laws of jungle.
These ideals are great, but there is an inherent weakness when confronted by those whose goals and objectives are not based on self-interest, but the well-being of the tribe.
The author focuses on Islam which is different from other cultures that have expanded their hegemony by ultimately dominating peoples not so much by power depicted in the Master/Slave scenario as by encouraging conversion (rather than death) to another way of life. And, their success has been noted by the inability of other cultures and religions to penetrate their culture. In fact, Islam penetrates rather successfully within those cultures ruled by reason by demanding the society’s tolerance for differences requires them to promote their distinctive differences rather than require their assimilation into their new society.
In short, the picture portrayed by the author is that there is a cultural war occurring that intends to destroy the nations ruled by the law of reason and their promotion of self because these ideals are potentially destructive of the Islam culture.
The author is concerned that our decadence, i.e., the life-style that promotes the acquisition of goods that promote our self-interest, will be the cause of our ultimate destruction by those whose only goal is the dominance of their tribe (Islam) which is built on blood by beliefs.
Ultimately, then, the author would advocate that were we to defend ourselves, nations ruled by reason would have to become intolerant of differences that do not identify with the cultural mores of reason, especially in our own nations, but also in others. While we can ensure that those living within these nations adhere to the cultural values of reason by threatening their deportation, intolerance of tribal mores in other nations would require more nuanced approaches that make clear that our differences and our willingness to defend our values when threatened or attacked.
"The Suicide of Reason" by Lee Harris
It is not often that a book really makes a difference in one’s thinking. For me, “The Suicide of Reason” made a major difference in my thinking. It surely will make me reconsider many of my views. I encourage you to read the book and your comments would be appreciated.
The author convincingly argues that the West’s ideal of a society built on citizens who live by the laws of reason, i.e., they advocate the need for each person to think and decide what values will guide their behavior. The problem is that the West, in general, and the United States, in particular, thinks that the rule of reason is inevitable rather than an outcome of exceptional circumstances, virtually never again to be occur.
And, secondly, we tend to see the rule of reason to be the inevitable outcome of history. With education and exposure to societies ruled by reason, it is only a matter of time when other nations will transition to the same values.
Another dimension to this problem is that advocating the rule of reason and the need to pursue self-interest results in a level of tolerance of differences that ultimately weakens the capacity of the citizens to defend themselves when confronted by those who lives by a tribal code, according to the laws of jungle.
These ideals are great, but there is an inherent weakness when confronted by those whose goals and objectives are not based on self-interest, but the well-being of the tribe.
The author focuses on Islam which is different from other cultures that have expanded their hegemony by ultimately dominating peoples not so much by power depicted in the Master/Slave scenario as by encouraging conversion (rather than death) to another way of life. And, their success has been noted by the inability of other cultures and religions to penetrate their culture. In fact, Islam penetrates rather successfully within those cultures ruled by reason by demanding the society’s tolerance for differences requires them to promote their distinctive differences rather than require their assimilation into their new society.
In short, the picture portrayed by the author is that there is a cultural war occurring that intends to destroy the nations ruled by the law of reason and their promotion of self because these ideals are potentially destructive of the Islam culture.
The author is concerned that our decadence, i.e., the life-style that promotes the acquisition of goods that promote our self-interest, will be the cause of our ultimate destruction by those whose only goal is the dominance of their tribe (Islam) which is built on blood by beliefs.
Ultimately, then, the author would advocate that were we to defend ourselves, nations ruled by reason would have to become intolerant of differences that do not identify with the cultural mores of reason, especially in our own nations, but also in others. While we can ensure that those living within these nations adhere to the cultural values of reason by threatening their deportation, intolerance of tribal mores in other nations would require more nuanced approaches that make clear that our differences and our willingness to defend our values when threatened or attacked.
The author convincingly argues that the West’s ideal of a society built on citizens who live by the laws of reason, i.e., they advocate the need for each person to think and decide what values will guide their behavior. The problem is that the West, in general, and the United States, in particular, thinks that the rule of reason is inevitable rather than an outcome of exceptional circumstances, virtually never again to be occur.
And, secondly, we tend to see the rule of reason to be the inevitable outcome of history. With education and exposure to societies ruled by reason, it is only a matter of time when other nations will transition to the same values.
Another dimension to this problem is that advocating the rule of reason and the need to pursue self-interest results in a level of tolerance of differences that ultimately weakens the capacity of the citizens to defend themselves when confronted by those who lives by a tribal code, according to the laws of jungle.
These ideals are great, but there is an inherent weakness when confronted by those whose goals and objectives are not based on self-interest, but the well-being of the tribe.
The author focuses on Islam which is different from other cultures that have expanded their hegemony by ultimately dominating peoples not so much by power depicted in the Master/Slave scenario as by encouraging conversion (rather than death) to another way of life. And, their success has been noted by the inability of other cultures and religions to penetrate their culture. In fact, Islam penetrates rather successfully within those cultures ruled by reason by demanding the society’s tolerance for differences requires them to promote their distinctive differences rather than require their assimilation into their new society.
In short, the picture portrayed by the author is that there is a cultural war occurring that intends to destroy the nations ruled by the law of reason and their promotion of self because these ideals are potentially destructive of the Islam culture.
The author is concerned that our decadence, i.e., the life-style that promotes the acquisition of goods that promote our self-interest, will be the cause of our ultimate destruction by those whose only goal is the dominance of their tribe (Islam) which is built on blood by beliefs.
Ultimately, then, the author would advocate that were we to defend ourselves, nations ruled by reason would have to become intolerant of differences that do not identify with the cultural mores of reason, especially in our own nations, but also in others. While we can ensure that those living within these nations adhere to the cultural values of reason by threatening their deportation, intolerance of tribal mores in other nations would require more nuanced approaches that make clear that our differences and our willingness to defend our values when threatened or attacked.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)