There has been a marked upsurge of bitter, threatening articles, talk show screeds,
and circulating Emails denouncing President Obama, and his policies at home and
abroad. They contain accusations of treason, conspiring with Muslims to undermine
this nation, betraying our ally Israel, deliberately bankrupting the nation, and replacing our Capitalist system with Socialism.
Some writers are advocating turning to guns to undo the election miscarriage which
brought us a black Muslim President. Such talk arouses the fringe nut cases like the
ones who murder physicians, museum guards, police officers and even presidents
with whom they differ, or against whom they have some imagined grievance.
From some investigation, it appears that many of the disgruntled writers and ranters are GOD fearing, white, pistol packing papas and mammas who voted for someone else
and can't recover from the loss. Many of them feel that their party, or cult, has
a GOD given mandate to govern this country and they intend to do so, by force if necessary. Persuasion is for sissy liberals (who are ashamed of our country anyway).
The bad economic times add to their stress, and could easily push them into rash
action. That would be the ultimate betrayal of our democratic ideals and values.
They would destroy the nation to "save" it. If there are any rational leaders of
this radical movement. now is the time for them to demonstrate some leadership
to calm the brewing storm.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
HAVES vs HAVE NOTS--2nd Inning
The G8, then G17, meeting on what to do about global warming ended with a whimper.
The underdeveloped countries rightly blame the highly industrialized countries for the huge volume of accumulated CO2 that has fouled our atmosphere. Appealing to the have not nations to control CO2 emmisions means they would remain in a perpetual underdeveloped state. Development and industrialization require tremendous amounts of
energy, which are presently derived from coal and petroleum, both of which are major polluters, but relatively cheap to use. To expect the have not nations to forgo
industrialization is to keep them in perpetual poverty. They will never accept that, so it remains for the haves to take the lead, on two fronts.
First, they must be serious about finding alternative, renewable and clean sources of energy and incorporate them into energy efficient means of production.
Second, they must make those new energy sources and efficiencies available, cheaply, to the have nots, even if this results in their becoming competitors. Such competition would spur innovation and creativity, which in turn lead to better
products, cleanly made, at fair prices. All of those measures will reduce greenhouse
gases, in turn reducing global warming. Equally important, they would improve the standard of living and health all over the globe. That could reduce
terrorism and political conflict as the new haves acquire a stake in a peaceful, prosperous world.
This approach requires some altruism on the part of the haves, and an appreciation
of the new global interdependence which our communication and transportation technologies have brought about. It requires that our politicians think as world statesmen, not Repubs or Dems. Are they up to it, now that a statesman is President?
The underdeveloped countries rightly blame the highly industrialized countries for the huge volume of accumulated CO2 that has fouled our atmosphere. Appealing to the have not nations to control CO2 emmisions means they would remain in a perpetual underdeveloped state. Development and industrialization require tremendous amounts of
energy, which are presently derived from coal and petroleum, both of which are major polluters, but relatively cheap to use. To expect the have not nations to forgo
industrialization is to keep them in perpetual poverty. They will never accept that, so it remains for the haves to take the lead, on two fronts.
First, they must be serious about finding alternative, renewable and clean sources of energy and incorporate them into energy efficient means of production.
Second, they must make those new energy sources and efficiencies available, cheaply, to the have nots, even if this results in their becoming competitors. Such competition would spur innovation and creativity, which in turn lead to better
products, cleanly made, at fair prices. All of those measures will reduce greenhouse
gases, in turn reducing global warming. Equally important, they would improve the standard of living and health all over the globe. That could reduce
terrorism and political conflict as the new haves acquire a stake in a peaceful, prosperous world.
This approach requires some altruism on the part of the haves, and an appreciation
of the new global interdependence which our communication and transportation technologies have brought about. It requires that our politicians think as world statesmen, not Repubs or Dems. Are they up to it, now that a statesman is President?
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Convergence/Divergence
In the post WWII era the world was divided into two opposing blocs, the Western Alliance led by the U.S., and the Eastern/Asian Alliance led by the Soviet Union. The Cold War was characterized by numerous skirmishes on the bloc peripheries, such
as the Berlin Blockade/Airlift. The effective balance of military and nuclear power led the acceptance that armed conflict between the blocs was unthinkable. The
MAD doctrine (mutually assured destruction) kept an uneasy peace between the
principal antagonists. China was the main player outside the two blocs, with its
own expansionist goals and an increasing nuclear and missile capability. China's greatest concern was internal developement and industrialization. For that she needed
export markets, which exercised a restraining influence on her expansionist and
foreign adventures.
The present era confronts the two former great powers with new challenges from
rogue, radical countries that already have or will have nuclear weapons, awakening giants such as India and China, and rebellious client states on the periphery of
Russia.
In the Western hemisphere the U. S. sphere of influence is disintegrating. Nations such as Venezuela and Bolivia and others supporting them, are going their own way,
spurning U.S. policies. Their support in foreign affairs, and in the United Nations
can no longer be taken for granted.
In response to these new trends and power facts Russia and the U.S. are tentatively exploring a convergence of of interests. This could lead to new arms controls and reduction in nuclear armaments, more cooperation in international disputes such as with Iran,
the North Korean bellicosity and threats, and in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
President Obama's meeting this week with the Russian leaders has produced progress
on some of these issues and promises more to come. China appears ready to engage as well.
The President has some serious housekeeping to do in our own hemisphere, where divergence is the trend. He can't do it all alone. Now is the time for Hillary
to put on the steam!
as the Berlin Blockade/Airlift. The effective balance of military and nuclear power led the acceptance that armed conflict between the blocs was unthinkable. The
MAD doctrine (mutually assured destruction) kept an uneasy peace between the
principal antagonists. China was the main player outside the two blocs, with its
own expansionist goals and an increasing nuclear and missile capability. China's greatest concern was internal developement and industrialization. For that she needed
export markets, which exercised a restraining influence on her expansionist and
foreign adventures.
The present era confronts the two former great powers with new challenges from
rogue, radical countries that already have or will have nuclear weapons, awakening giants such as India and China, and rebellious client states on the periphery of
Russia.
In the Western hemisphere the U. S. sphere of influence is disintegrating. Nations such as Venezuela and Bolivia and others supporting them, are going their own way,
spurning U.S. policies. Their support in foreign affairs, and in the United Nations
can no longer be taken for granted.
In response to these new trends and power facts Russia and the U.S. are tentatively exploring a convergence of of interests. This could lead to new arms controls and reduction in nuclear armaments, more cooperation in international disputes such as with Iran,
the North Korean bellicosity and threats, and in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
President Obama's meeting this week with the Russian leaders has produced progress
on some of these issues and promises more to come. China appears ready to engage as well.
The President has some serious housekeeping to do in our own hemisphere, where divergence is the trend. He can't do it all alone. Now is the time for Hillary
to put on the steam!
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Revolution requires Resolution
The people's revolt in Iran will likely not succeed in its immediate goal of
reversing the outcome of the fraudulant election. The suppresive power of the
reactionary state will wear down the protesters, because they lack dynamic leadership. Mousavi did not begin the protest to bring down the theocracy that
rules. He was protesting a fraudulent election which deprived him of the political power he sought for himself. The youthful population wanted change from a medieval, autocratic system which deprived them of opportunities to join the modern world and improve their material condition. Their only rallying point was that frail reed Mousavi. If he, or his more dynamic wife, had seized the reins of the protest and
accepted goals larger than his self interest, the revolt would have galvanized
the vast majority of Iranians to drive on to success. The bloody suppression by
the ruling council would have been self defeating by exposing their interest in control, not the general welfare of he nation.
The game is not over. The seeds of change, fertilized by the blood of martyrs such as Neda, have been planted. The vulnerabilities of the supreme Mullah and the Council
have been exposed. That will stimulate the opposition. They may change tactics,
but the trend has begun and will increase in momentum each day. Despite efforts to suppress communication among the dissidents, modern technology, combined with individual ingenuity, enables the revolutionaries to communicate and coordinate.
Time and evolution are on their side.
The role of the West is to keep the spotlight of public opinion on Iran, and to apply diplomatic and commercial pressure on the ruling clique. If it can be done in a manner which deprives the rulers from claiming that the revolution is foreign born, the West should provide clandestine assistance to the rebels.
reversing the outcome of the fraudulant election. The suppresive power of the
reactionary state will wear down the protesters, because they lack dynamic leadership. Mousavi did not begin the protest to bring down the theocracy that
rules. He was protesting a fraudulent election which deprived him of the political power he sought for himself. The youthful population wanted change from a medieval, autocratic system which deprived them of opportunities to join the modern world and improve their material condition. Their only rallying point was that frail reed Mousavi. If he, or his more dynamic wife, had seized the reins of the protest and
accepted goals larger than his self interest, the revolt would have galvanized
the vast majority of Iranians to drive on to success. The bloody suppression by
the ruling council would have been self defeating by exposing their interest in control, not the general welfare of he nation.
The game is not over. The seeds of change, fertilized by the blood of martyrs such as Neda, have been planted. The vulnerabilities of the supreme Mullah and the Council
have been exposed. That will stimulate the opposition. They may change tactics,
but the trend has begun and will increase in momentum each day. Despite efforts to suppress communication among the dissidents, modern technology, combined with individual ingenuity, enables the revolutionaries to communicate and coordinate.
Time and evolution are on their side.
The role of the West is to keep the spotlight of public opinion on Iran, and to apply diplomatic and commercial pressure on the ruling clique. If it can be done in a manner which deprives the rulers from claiming that the revolution is foreign born, the West should provide clandestine assistance to the rebels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
