Political Religion in America
By Jerome Grossman
Religion has long been a favorite topic for Republican candidates for political office. The looming Iowa GOP presidential caucuses may be decided by the religiosity of the competitors, particularly former governors Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, and how they relate to the beliefs and values of the Evangelical Christians, estimated at some 50% of caucus participants.
But the three leading Democratic presidential pretenders, former Senator John Edwards, Senator's Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have also opened up about their faiths, the role of prayer in their public and private lives and the ways that religion molds their views on policy and government. They walk a fine line, appealing to the religious voters, while not alienating secular voters.
Clinton talks about her faith tradition, Methodism, and has even said that her religion helped her to deal with her husband's infidelity. Obama frequently quotes scripture, emphasizing that his political commitment rises from his faith. Edwards recalls growing up in the Southern Baptist Church, and when talking about his serious family health problems says, “It’s the Lord who got me through.”
Religion looms large in the campaign for the White House. All candidates are grilled about their religious beliefs, some are eager to talk about faith, others play down the issue. The voters clearly want to know about the faith of the candidates and the candidates are more willing to talk about it than in previous elections.
As recently as the 2004 election, the Democratic nominee John Kerry steered away from his religious beliefs, even when he was denied communion by some Roman Catholic Bishops for his choice position on abortion. Now he defends discussion of theology in American political life, says that candidates should discuss their religious backgrounds with the voters, reminds the public that he was a teenage altar boy, that his mother was converted to Catholicism, etc. etc.
President George W. Bush has accented the religious trend by reporting on his talks with God and Jesus as well as establishing regular prayer meetings in the White House. In addition, Bush set up a White House Office of Faith - Based and Community Initiatives and arranged for federal funds to finance social and educational programs based and housed in religious institutions.
The New York Times has reported that the Evangelicals are active everywhere -nationally and locally - on foreign policy, war, abortion, education, evolution, creationism, etc. etc. “A religious subculture once on the fringe has moved into the American mainstream.”
Our political leaders need to be reminded that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution reads in part, “No religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office or Public Trust under the United States.” The very first Amendment to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, begins “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or promoting the free exercise thereof.” There is no reference to God or to any religion in the Constitution, yet Senator John McCain refers to the U.S. as a “Christian Country.”
Our nation has avoided the religious combat that has plagued so many countries for centuries while fostering cooperation among its diverse components by adhering to some very important traditions: the separation of church and state; the practice of toleration of religious groupings; and treating religion as a private affair. America is organized primarily for economic competition: we must avoid drifting into competition for the salvation of souls.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
The Iranians Have Disappointed Us
The Iranians Have Disappointed Us
By Jerome Grossman
Gosh, what a disappointment. You can't even trust the CIA anymore. Imagine, all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies agree that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Where is George Tenet when we need him - to give us a slam dunk or whatever we asked for? Or Saint Colin Powell who would vouch for the war program after some sobbing.
And the intelligence community has admitted it was wrong. That is no way to run a government operation. Rule number one: never admit a mistake. We pay them $44 billion a year to do what we order so the least they can do is give us the intelligence we need to get other nations to do what we want. Or else. As Don Rumsfeld always said, “You go with the intelligence you have, true and accurate or not. And if the other nations are not guilty of what we accuse them, they will be some day, so why wait?”
Sure, I said in October 2007, “If you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” Knowledge is very dangerous. I learned that at Yale and Harvard Business School. It prevented me from making a buck in three oil businesses I ran (interesting pun) in God's country, Texas. They tell me the knowledge to make a nuke is in the libraries. We have to do something about libraries.
My staff told me not to talk about World War III, that Iran didn't compare to the original axis of evil, Germany, Japan and Italy. But it sounded so good, such a big deal, put me on par with my old man, that World War II hero. Besides, even though Iran is a small country, it might unite the 1.3 billion Muslims against Christian America. Fighting World War III would put me on Mount Rushmore with Teddy Roosevelt, and save the American eagle like President Wilson in World War I and FDR in World War II.
I don't know why the Muslims won't allow us to build military bases in their countries. We already have 737 bases in 130 countries. And everybody is happy. That's spreading democracy just like God told us too. And if anyone tells us to go home, resisting the will of God, we do God's work by cutting off their trade or their bank accounts or their heads (joke), whichever is easier.
The new intelligence report was given to me just last week, so I did not know the new findings when I threatened Iran with the U.S. fleet at anchor in the Persian Gulf, loaded with missiles, planes and nuclear weapons waiting to kick the shit out of the Iranians. Our nuclear weapons are a force for good, for democracy, and the National Football League that I watch every Sunday. How about them Patriots? Could a liberal like Ted Kennedy play that game?
Well, last August, before I declared World War III, Admiral Mike McConnell walked into my office and told me that there was new intelligence about Iran and nukes. I didn't ask him the bottom line, because the typing hadn't even been completed and the Redskins were coming on the tube. Besides, I would never interfere with intelligence collecting. I make it up as I go along
Now, I find out that the Iranians stopped their nuclear weapons program because of a cost - benefit approach. I remember those words from Harvard Business School. That proves the Iranians are unpatriotic and dangerous. My great country, the only superpower on God's earth, maybe on the entire universe, never, ever, stops building guns and ammunition of every size and capability. How else could we spread the word of God and prepare for his return?
By Jerome Grossman
Gosh, what a disappointment. You can't even trust the CIA anymore. Imagine, all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies agree that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Where is George Tenet when we need him - to give us a slam dunk or whatever we asked for? Or Saint Colin Powell who would vouch for the war program after some sobbing.
And the intelligence community has admitted it was wrong. That is no way to run a government operation. Rule number one: never admit a mistake. We pay them $44 billion a year to do what we order so the least they can do is give us the intelligence we need to get other nations to do what we want. Or else. As Don Rumsfeld always said, “You go with the intelligence you have, true and accurate or not. And if the other nations are not guilty of what we accuse them, they will be some day, so why wait?”
Sure, I said in October 2007, “If you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” Knowledge is very dangerous. I learned that at Yale and Harvard Business School. It prevented me from making a buck in three oil businesses I ran (interesting pun) in God's country, Texas. They tell me the knowledge to make a nuke is in the libraries. We have to do something about libraries.
My staff told me not to talk about World War III, that Iran didn't compare to the original axis of evil, Germany, Japan and Italy. But it sounded so good, such a big deal, put me on par with my old man, that World War II hero. Besides, even though Iran is a small country, it might unite the 1.3 billion Muslims against Christian America. Fighting World War III would put me on Mount Rushmore with Teddy Roosevelt, and save the American eagle like President Wilson in World War I and FDR in World War II.
I don't know why the Muslims won't allow us to build military bases in their countries. We already have 737 bases in 130 countries. And everybody is happy. That's spreading democracy just like God told us too. And if anyone tells us to go home, resisting the will of God, we do God's work by cutting off their trade or their bank accounts or their heads (joke), whichever is easier.
The new intelligence report was given to me just last week, so I did not know the new findings when I threatened Iran with the U.S. fleet at anchor in the Persian Gulf, loaded with missiles, planes and nuclear weapons waiting to kick the shit out of the Iranians. Our nuclear weapons are a force for good, for democracy, and the National Football League that I watch every Sunday. How about them Patriots? Could a liberal like Ted Kennedy play that game?
Well, last August, before I declared World War III, Admiral Mike McConnell walked into my office and told me that there was new intelligence about Iran and nukes. I didn't ask him the bottom line, because the typing hadn't even been completed and the Redskins were coming on the tube. Besides, I would never interfere with intelligence collecting. I make it up as I go along
Now, I find out that the Iranians stopped their nuclear weapons program because of a cost - benefit approach. I remember those words from Harvard Business School. That proves the Iranians are unpatriotic and dangerous. My great country, the only superpower on God's earth, maybe on the entire universe, never, ever, stops building guns and ammunition of every size and capability. How else could we spread the word of God and prepare for his return?
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Less Violence in Iraq?
Less Violence in Iraq?
By Jerome Grossman
The U. S. Government and the media report that American military and Iraqi civilian casualties have declined significantly for several months. Given the record of the Bush administration in manufacturing information, the American people have a right to be skeptical and suspicious about the accuracy of the count. While the media echoes the same numbers, too often their reporters reside in the comparative comfort and safety of the protected Green Zone and pass along to the public the figures released by the government.
In spite of this positive news, U.S. public opinion polls have not changed. Solid majorities still say that the war was a mistake, that it has been poorly executed, that the troops should come home.
Assuming that the government reports are accurate, what has caused this change? What new techniques did General David Petraeus install? What are the chances for continuation of the reported trend? How will it affect the occupation?
Some of the Sunni leadership was won over by putting them on the U.S. payroll, using crisp $20 bills for distribution to the lower ranks. They also received weapons for current use that may be saved for the anticipated civil war. This makes the ruling Shiites very nervous.
U.S. troops have arrested the men of military age they can find, incarcerating them by the thousands in the new prisons built for this purpose.
Between 2 and 4 million Iraqis have fled the country, reducing the pool of people who might have been slain or wounded.
The "cleansing" of the neighborhoods has been largely completed: Sunnis killed or driven from Shiite areas, Shiites killed or driven from Sunni areas, reducing the casualties as fewer were present to be attacked.
The U.S. military "surge" has placed more troops within the dangerous neighborhoods, decreasing intramural Iraqi fighting, but probably increasing casualties of those who seem to be potential dangers to U.S. troops.
Most important has been the decline in activity of the Mahdi Army, the largest private Shiite militia commanded by the powerful clergyman Moqtada Al-Sadr. For six months he has frozen Mahdi activities and virtually disbanded the organization. At the same time, Al-Sadr disappeared from Iraq, living quietly in Iran. The Iranian government is the prime sponsor of Al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army. Is it possible that Iran is cooperating with the U.S. military by restraining Al-Sadr in order to delay or prevent the threatened U.S. attack on Iran? Restraining the Mahdi Army would be proof of Iranian good faith in helping the U.S. end the Iraqi insurgency, thereby averting the devastation of Iran by the enormous U.S. air and naval power at anchor in the Persian Gulf, waiting to be used?
The resistance of the Iraqis to U.S. forces is likely to continue at some level as long as the occupation continues. The decline in casualties may persist as long as these U.S., Sunni and Iranian policies continue. Surely, the Bush administration will describe the situation as proving the correctness and effectiveness of its policy. The continuation of the insurgency at a low level can be used to justify the continuing presence of U.S. troops in Iraq for the indefinite future.
By Jerome Grossman
The U. S. Government and the media report that American military and Iraqi civilian casualties have declined significantly for several months. Given the record of the Bush administration in manufacturing information, the American people have a right to be skeptical and suspicious about the accuracy of the count. While the media echoes the same numbers, too often their reporters reside in the comparative comfort and safety of the protected Green Zone and pass along to the public the figures released by the government.
In spite of this positive news, U.S. public opinion polls have not changed. Solid majorities still say that the war was a mistake, that it has been poorly executed, that the troops should come home.
Assuming that the government reports are accurate, what has caused this change? What new techniques did General David Petraeus install? What are the chances for continuation of the reported trend? How will it affect the occupation?
Some of the Sunni leadership was won over by putting them on the U.S. payroll, using crisp $20 bills for distribution to the lower ranks. They also received weapons for current use that may be saved for the anticipated civil war. This makes the ruling Shiites very nervous.
U.S. troops have arrested the men of military age they can find, incarcerating them by the thousands in the new prisons built for this purpose.
Between 2 and 4 million Iraqis have fled the country, reducing the pool of people who might have been slain or wounded.
The "cleansing" of the neighborhoods has been largely completed: Sunnis killed or driven from Shiite areas, Shiites killed or driven from Sunni areas, reducing the casualties as fewer were present to be attacked.
The U.S. military "surge" has placed more troops within the dangerous neighborhoods, decreasing intramural Iraqi fighting, but probably increasing casualties of those who seem to be potential dangers to U.S. troops.
Most important has been the decline in activity of the Mahdi Army, the largest private Shiite militia commanded by the powerful clergyman Moqtada Al-Sadr. For six months he has frozen Mahdi activities and virtually disbanded the organization. At the same time, Al-Sadr disappeared from Iraq, living quietly in Iran. The Iranian government is the prime sponsor of Al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army. Is it possible that Iran is cooperating with the U.S. military by restraining Al-Sadr in order to delay or prevent the threatened U.S. attack on Iran? Restraining the Mahdi Army would be proof of Iranian good faith in helping the U.S. end the Iraqi insurgency, thereby averting the devastation of Iran by the enormous U.S. air and naval power at anchor in the Persian Gulf, waiting to be used?
The resistance of the Iraqis to U.S. forces is likely to continue at some level as long as the occupation continues. The decline in casualties may persist as long as these U.S., Sunni and Iranian policies continue. Surely, the Bush administration will describe the situation as proving the correctness and effectiveness of its policy. The continuation of the insurgency at a low level can be used to justify the continuing presence of U.S. troops in Iraq for the indefinite future.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Will the U.S. ever Leave Iraq?
Will the U.S. ever Leave Iraq?
By Jerome Grossman
Since achieving majority control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Democrats in Congress have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush's war policy. Only one bill was passed by both bodies and that was vetoed by Bush.
However, every one of the 40 bills contained a special section providing for a residual U.S. military force to remain in Iraq with no time limit to perform the military tasks U.S. forces are now doing. The exact wording is listed below.
While public opinion is dominated by opposition to this military adventure and by desire for withdrawal, few Americans read the fine print that allows continued occupation. Democratic office holders and presidential candidates do not discuss the details and agree on the maintenance of the residual force. And the media do not inform Americans about this key section.
In the meantime, the Wall Street Journal of November 12 writes, “U.S. digs in to guard Iraq oil exports. Long-term presence planned at Persian Gulf terminals viewed as vulnerable. While presidential candidates debate whether to start bringing ground troops home from Iraq, the new construction suggests that one footprint of U.S. military power in Iraq isn't shrinking any time soon.”
____________________________________________________________________________
Bill H.R. 4156, November 13, 2007
Title 1 – Policy on redeployment and conduct of operations in Iraq
Section 105 (e)After the conclusion of the reduction in transition of the United States Armed Forces to a limited presence as required by this section, the Secretary of Defense may deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq only for the following missions:
1. Protecting United States diplomatic facilities, United States Armed Forces, and American citizens.
2. Conducting limited training, equipping, and providing logistical and intelligence support to the Iraqi Security forces.
3. Engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al- Qaeda, al- Qaeda affiliated groups, and other terrorist organizations in Iraq.
_____________________________________________________________________________
The activities listed in H.R. 4156 section 105 (e) essentially cover the current programs of the U.S. military in Iraq. These programs are now carried out by 162,000 troops. A continuation as specified in the bill would require approximately the same number of troops. Any reductions are likely to be token in size and cosmetic in purpose.
Given the importance to U.S. world hegemony of Middle East oil and gas reserves, protection of U.S. client states (Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, and Israel), current construction of the U.S. embassy in Iraq (the largest in the world), the refusal of the leading Democratic candidates for president and the Democratic Congress to commit to full withdrawal, it is most likely that Iraq will have a permanent American garrison of considerable size for the indefinite future.
By Jerome Grossman
Since achieving majority control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Democrats in Congress have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush's war policy. Only one bill was passed by both bodies and that was vetoed by Bush.
However, every one of the 40 bills contained a special section providing for a residual U.S. military force to remain in Iraq with no time limit to perform the military tasks U.S. forces are now doing. The exact wording is listed below.
While public opinion is dominated by opposition to this military adventure and by desire for withdrawal, few Americans read the fine print that allows continued occupation. Democratic office holders and presidential candidates do not discuss the details and agree on the maintenance of the residual force. And the media do not inform Americans about this key section.
In the meantime, the Wall Street Journal of November 12 writes, “U.S. digs in to guard Iraq oil exports. Long-term presence planned at Persian Gulf terminals viewed as vulnerable. While presidential candidates debate whether to start bringing ground troops home from Iraq, the new construction suggests that one footprint of U.S. military power in Iraq isn't shrinking any time soon.”
____________________________________________________________________________
Bill H.R. 4156, November 13, 2007
Title 1 – Policy on redeployment and conduct of operations in Iraq
Section 105 (e)After the conclusion of the reduction in transition of the United States Armed Forces to a limited presence as required by this section, the Secretary of Defense may deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq only for the following missions:
1. Protecting United States diplomatic facilities, United States Armed Forces, and American citizens.
2. Conducting limited training, equipping, and providing logistical and intelligence support to the Iraqi Security forces.
3. Engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al- Qaeda, al- Qaeda affiliated groups, and other terrorist organizations in Iraq.
_____________________________________________________________________________
The activities listed in H.R. 4156 section 105 (e) essentially cover the current programs of the U.S. military in Iraq. These programs are now carried out by 162,000 troops. A continuation as specified in the bill would require approximately the same number of troops. Any reductions are likely to be token in size and cosmetic in purpose.
Given the importance to U.S. world hegemony of Middle East oil and gas reserves, protection of U.S. client states (Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, and Israel), current construction of the U.S. embassy in Iraq (the largest in the world), the refusal of the leading Democratic candidates for president and the Democratic Congress to commit to full withdrawal, it is most likely that Iraq will have a permanent American garrison of considerable size for the indefinite future.
Monday, November 19, 2007
It's All about Her
It's All about Her
By Jerome Grossman
The presidential election of 2008 is not primarily about the problems facing America: the Iraq war, relations with Iran, illegal immigration, and healthcare. It's all about her, and her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton: her personality, her smile, her laughter, her marriage, her honesty, her courage, her husband, her toughness, her ability. Hillary's position on issues attracts some attention as does her managerial skill, but Democrats and Republicans, men and women, liberals and conservatives are simply fascinated by her mind, body and especially her chutzpah. Let me count the ways.
1. Hillary dominated the Democratic debates, her opinions and personal style were constantly under analysis, review and attack.
2. The media regards Hillary as a prize for their business. Loving or hating her keeps interest alive in a contest already boring the nation.
3. The attacks upon Hillary make the repetitious and sloppy debates watchable. Will one of the candidates finally act out his hostility and frustration by actually roughing her?
4. The National Journal’s political expert writes, "The Democratic race is a locomotive with Hillary Clinton's face on it."
5. A poll of parents of kids 12 years old and younger asked this question: of the presidential candidates, which is the most and least trusted to baby-sit their children? Hillary won both, the best and the worst.
6. For a large section of the electorate, Hillary is too liberal while many Democrats think she is too conservative.
7. The new French President Nicolas Sarkozy, absolutely frenetic in a rushed trip to Washington, DC, the capital of the world, finds the time (15 minutes) to call Hillary, but called no other candidate.
8. National Public Radio reports an incorrect rumor that Hillary failed to leave a tip in an Iowa restaurant. The Clinton campaign rushes another hundred dollars to the waitress (on a $200 group lunch). The rival campaigns race around the country interviewing other waitresses.
9. At Hilton Head, South Carolina, on November 12, at a McCain rally, a woman asked the candidate, “How do we beat the bitch?" McCain smiled and replied “An excellent question."
So far Hillary appears in command of the competition, maintaining her self-control, knowing the issues, and getting good marks from disinterested observers (is there such a category?) on personality, appearance, demeanor, ability to give impromptu organized answers, defending herself when attacked, attacking when necessary.
This woman is in charge. Who or what will replace her as the object of our tangled emotions once the campaign is over and she becomes the mother (but not the lover) of us all? But for now - it’s all about her
By Jerome Grossman
The presidential election of 2008 is not primarily about the problems facing America: the Iraq war, relations with Iran, illegal immigration, and healthcare. It's all about her, and her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton: her personality, her smile, her laughter, her marriage, her honesty, her courage, her husband, her toughness, her ability. Hillary's position on issues attracts some attention as does her managerial skill, but Democrats and Republicans, men and women, liberals and conservatives are simply fascinated by her mind, body and especially her chutzpah. Let me count the ways.
1. Hillary dominated the Democratic debates, her opinions and personal style were constantly under analysis, review and attack.
2. The media regards Hillary as a prize for their business. Loving or hating her keeps interest alive in a contest already boring the nation.
3. The attacks upon Hillary make the repetitious and sloppy debates watchable. Will one of the candidates finally act out his hostility and frustration by actually roughing her?
4. The National Journal’s political expert writes, "The Democratic race is a locomotive with Hillary Clinton's face on it."
5. A poll of parents of kids 12 years old and younger asked this question: of the presidential candidates, which is the most and least trusted to baby-sit their children? Hillary won both, the best and the worst.
6. For a large section of the electorate, Hillary is too liberal while many Democrats think she is too conservative.
7. The new French President Nicolas Sarkozy, absolutely frenetic in a rushed trip to Washington, DC, the capital of the world, finds the time (15 minutes) to call Hillary, but called no other candidate.
8. National Public Radio reports an incorrect rumor that Hillary failed to leave a tip in an Iowa restaurant. The Clinton campaign rushes another hundred dollars to the waitress (on a $200 group lunch). The rival campaigns race around the country interviewing other waitresses.
9. At Hilton Head, South Carolina, on November 12, at a McCain rally, a woman asked the candidate, “How do we beat the bitch?" McCain smiled and replied “An excellent question."
So far Hillary appears in command of the competition, maintaining her self-control, knowing the issues, and getting good marks from disinterested observers (is there such a category?) on personality, appearance, demeanor, ability to give impromptu organized answers, defending herself when attacked, attacking when necessary.
This woman is in charge. Who or what will replace her as the object of our tangled emotions once the campaign is over and she becomes the mother (but not the lover) of us all? But for now - it’s all about her
Monday, November 12, 2007
A City upon a Hill
A City upon a Hill
By Jerome Grossman
Americans like to think of themselves as an exceptional people in an exceptional nation. Puritan Governor John Winthrop of Massachusetts preached in 1630, “For we must consider that we shall be a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us….” For almost 400 years these words have echoed initially across the continent, then across the globe. Leaders and preachers have described America as another Israel, chosen and sanctified by God to bring its message of Democracy to the world.
Given these ideals and aspirations, how can our government authorize torture on human beings, assaulting the very idea of civilization? The eyes of the people of the world are upon the United States as it debates the issue of torture in general, and water -- boarding in particular. U.S. government officials have admitted to systematic use of torture, including extraordinary application of heat and cold, high decibels sound, forced nakedness, hanging of living bodies in extreme stress positions, attacks on sexual organs, various forms of penetration, etc..
All tortures are forbidden under international and U.S. domestic law. Water- boarding is specifically banned by the Army Field Manual, and illegal under the Federal Anti-torture Act, Federal Assault Statutes, The Detainee Treatment Act, The Convention against Torture, and the Geneva Conventions.
Despite these laws, on November 8, the Democrat controlled Senate voted 53 to 40 to confirm Michael Mukasey as U.S. Attorney General even though he refused to say that water -boarding was illegal. The Democrats could have defeated the nomination by declaring a filibuster that requires 60 votes for passage of legislation, a maneuver used regularly by Democrats and Republicans alike. Why didn't they do this? Why didn't they seize the moral high ground by denouncing these inhuman practices and demanding that the law of the land be enforced? The American people were sickened by the abuses in Abu Grabib, by the Japanese tortures of American prisoners in World War II, by the torturing of John McCain and others by the Vietnamese, as well as similar acts by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao?
Some Democratic senators, especially Patrick Leahy of Vermont, have pointed out that torture as a method of interrogation is ineffective, producing incorrect and unreliable information, placing captured U.S. troops in danger of torture, harming the reputation of the U.S., decreasing support for U.S. policies around the world, and increasing likelihood of “blowback” revenge attacks on Americans at home and abroad.
Effective politics is a process of involving citizens in public affairs on one side or another. Surely the issue of torture would resonate with voters morally and practically, giving political advantage to the Democratic Party in the 2008 elections. Taking a strong stand for enforcing the law and rejecting torture would redeem us and tell the world that the U.S. is indeed “A City upon a Hill,”
protecting the rights and liberties of all.
By Jerome Grossman
Americans like to think of themselves as an exceptional people in an exceptional nation. Puritan Governor John Winthrop of Massachusetts preached in 1630, “For we must consider that we shall be a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us….” For almost 400 years these words have echoed initially across the continent, then across the globe. Leaders and preachers have described America as another Israel, chosen and sanctified by God to bring its message of Democracy to the world.
Given these ideals and aspirations, how can our government authorize torture on human beings, assaulting the very idea of civilization? The eyes of the people of the world are upon the United States as it debates the issue of torture in general, and water -- boarding in particular. U.S. government officials have admitted to systematic use of torture, including extraordinary application of heat and cold, high decibels sound, forced nakedness, hanging of living bodies in extreme stress positions, attacks on sexual organs, various forms of penetration, etc..
All tortures are forbidden under international and U.S. domestic law. Water- boarding is specifically banned by the Army Field Manual, and illegal under the Federal Anti-torture Act, Federal Assault Statutes, The Detainee Treatment Act, The Convention against Torture, and the Geneva Conventions.
Despite these laws, on November 8, the Democrat controlled Senate voted 53 to 40 to confirm Michael Mukasey as U.S. Attorney General even though he refused to say that water -boarding was illegal. The Democrats could have defeated the nomination by declaring a filibuster that requires 60 votes for passage of legislation, a maneuver used regularly by Democrats and Republicans alike. Why didn't they do this? Why didn't they seize the moral high ground by denouncing these inhuman practices and demanding that the law of the land be enforced? The American people were sickened by the abuses in Abu Grabib, by the Japanese tortures of American prisoners in World War II, by the torturing of John McCain and others by the Vietnamese, as well as similar acts by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao?
Some Democratic senators, especially Patrick Leahy of Vermont, have pointed out that torture as a method of interrogation is ineffective, producing incorrect and unreliable information, placing captured U.S. troops in danger of torture, harming the reputation of the U.S., decreasing support for U.S. policies around the world, and increasing likelihood of “blowback” revenge attacks on Americans at home and abroad.
Effective politics is a process of involving citizens in public affairs on one side or another. Surely the issue of torture would resonate with voters morally and practically, giving political advantage to the Democratic Party in the 2008 elections. Taking a strong stand for enforcing the law and rejecting torture would redeem us and tell the world that the U.S. is indeed “A City upon a Hill,”
protecting the rights and liberties of all.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Who is the "Change" Candidate?
Who is the "Change" Candidate?
By Jerome Grossman
The candidates for President of the United States present themselves as the leaders who will bring "change" to American political institutions, to the way we manage the domestic affairs of the nation, to how we handle our foreign affairs.
Overused and underspecified, "change" has become a political cliché, a trite, stereotyped expression, designed to give weight to the most innocuous proposals that do not modify the form, nature, or content of our politics by making it different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone.
The leading candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties are carefully playing in the political center, the Democrats slightly to the left,, the Republicans slightly to the right, both avoiding challenges to the military and business interests, the dominant elements in superpower America. In our representative government, authentic Democratic change would respond to the demands of their basic constituencies, labor and liberals. Republican change would heed the business interests. Instead, they emphasize bringing the nation together with programs that satisfy the lowest common denominator.
The problems of the present system are discussed ad infinitum, but only mini - modifications of current practices are offered. Nevertheless, they are hyped as solutions, as "change", for policies that are not working on Iraq, healthcare, immigration, etc.. The only candidates offering real change, meaning entirely new approaches to these issues are Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Dennis Kucinich. Paul would control the all-powerful military- industrial complex and restrain presidential power. Kucinich would end military adventures like Iraq and restrain dominant business interests. They would be authentic changers of the U.S. political system but neither has any chance of election. Does that mean that the voters do not want real change, but only the appearance of change?
With some justification, Americans are often accused of being faddist, fascinated by the latest toy, invention, song, thought, philosophy, and religion. So political sloganeering of "change", even without specifics or content, has a comfortable temporary appeal. But in order to make a significant difference in the lives of Americans, "change" must challenge the dominant powers in society to keep them relevant to public needs. Otherwise, it is a mere slogan, tempting the masses with implied promises, avoiding real change, signifying nothing but political bankruptcy.
By Jerome Grossman
The candidates for President of the United States present themselves as the leaders who will bring "change" to American political institutions, to the way we manage the domestic affairs of the nation, to how we handle our foreign affairs.
Overused and underspecified, "change" has become a political cliché, a trite, stereotyped expression, designed to give weight to the most innocuous proposals that do not modify the form, nature, or content of our politics by making it different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone.
The leading candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties are carefully playing in the political center, the Democrats slightly to the left,, the Republicans slightly to the right, both avoiding challenges to the military and business interests, the dominant elements in superpower America. In our representative government, authentic Democratic change would respond to the demands of their basic constituencies, labor and liberals. Republican change would heed the business interests. Instead, they emphasize bringing the nation together with programs that satisfy the lowest common denominator.
The problems of the present system are discussed ad infinitum, but only mini - modifications of current practices are offered. Nevertheless, they are hyped as solutions, as "change", for policies that are not working on Iraq, healthcare, immigration, etc.. The only candidates offering real change, meaning entirely new approaches to these issues are Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Dennis Kucinich. Paul would control the all-powerful military- industrial complex and restrain presidential power. Kucinich would end military adventures like Iraq and restrain dominant business interests. They would be authentic changers of the U.S. political system but neither has any chance of election. Does that mean that the voters do not want real change, but only the appearance of change?
With some justification, Americans are often accused of being faddist, fascinated by the latest toy, invention, song, thought, philosophy, and religion. So political sloganeering of "change", even without specifics or content, has a comfortable temporary appeal. But in order to make a significant difference in the lives of Americans, "change" must challenge the dominant powers in society to keep them relevant to public needs. Otherwise, it is a mere slogan, tempting the masses with implied promises, avoiding real change, signifying nothing but political bankruptcy.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
The American Idea
The American Idea
By Jerome Grossman
The Atlantic Magazine celebrated its 150th anniversary by asking an eclectic group of thinkers to consider "The American Idea", its meaning and its future.
David Foster Wallace asked, "Are some things worth dying for? Is The American Idea one such thing?" Jerome’s comment: Exactly the wrong question. Better ask, is The American Idea worth living for, a more important and relevant question in imperial America.
Biologist Edward O. Wilson: “The central issue for America is sustainable development. Somehow, we and other countries, have to find a way to continue raising the quality of life without wrecking the planet." Jerome’s comment: A solid observation taken from experience.
African-American historian John Hope Franklin: “If The American Idea was to subdue Native Americans and place them at the disposal of European settlers, to import several million Africans to the New World and subject them to a lifetime of slavery, to impose on Asian immigrants a lifetime of discrimination, then perhaps The American Idea was not so admirable."
Jerome’s comment: The afflicted never forget, nor should they, for we should always be reminded.
Historian Alan Brinkley: “For much of American history, this messianic sense of the nation's destiny was a largely passive one. The United States was to be a model to other nations-a light shining out to the wretched world and inspiring others to lift themselves out. But in the 20th and 21st centuries, as America has ascended to global preeminence, that sense of mission has become linked to a series of attempts-after World War I, World War II, in the attacks of September 11, 2001 to reshape the world." Jerome’s comment: Yes, to reshape the world for our profit and hegemony.
Columnist George Will: “Talk about “The” American Idea is dangerous because it often is a precursor to, and an excuse for, the missionary impulse that sleeps lightly, when it sleeps in all, in many Americans." Jerome’s comment: Even this center right icon is worried.
Novelist John Updike: “The American Idea, as I understand it, is to trust people to know their own minds and to act in their own enlightened self -interest, with a necessary respect for others."
Jerome’s comment: God bless America, with Liberty and Justice for all.
Professor and writer Joyce Carol Oates: “How heartily sick the world has grown, the first seven years of the 21st century, of the American Idea! Speak with any non-American, travel to any foreign country and the consensus is: The American Idea has become a cruel joke, a blustery and bellicose body -- builder luridly bulked up on steroids, consequently low on natural testosterone, deranged and myopic, dangerous... Perhaps the most pernicious of American Ideas is the revered. “My country, right or wrong.” Jerome’s comment: The myth of American exceptionalism is over; the city on the hill was a dream; we are like other nations subject to the strengths and flaws of the living flesh
By Jerome Grossman
The Atlantic Magazine celebrated its 150th anniversary by asking an eclectic group of thinkers to consider "The American Idea", its meaning and its future.
David Foster Wallace asked, "Are some things worth dying for? Is The American Idea one such thing?" Jerome’s comment: Exactly the wrong question. Better ask, is The American Idea worth living for, a more important and relevant question in imperial America.
Biologist Edward O. Wilson: “The central issue for America is sustainable development. Somehow, we and other countries, have to find a way to continue raising the quality of life without wrecking the planet." Jerome’s comment: A solid observation taken from experience.
African-American historian John Hope Franklin: “If The American Idea was to subdue Native Americans and place them at the disposal of European settlers, to import several million Africans to the New World and subject them to a lifetime of slavery, to impose on Asian immigrants a lifetime of discrimination, then perhaps The American Idea was not so admirable."
Jerome’s comment: The afflicted never forget, nor should they, for we should always be reminded.
Historian Alan Brinkley: “For much of American history, this messianic sense of the nation's destiny was a largely passive one. The United States was to be a model to other nations-a light shining out to the wretched world and inspiring others to lift themselves out. But in the 20th and 21st centuries, as America has ascended to global preeminence, that sense of mission has become linked to a series of attempts-after World War I, World War II, in the attacks of September 11, 2001 to reshape the world." Jerome’s comment: Yes, to reshape the world for our profit and hegemony.
Columnist George Will: “Talk about “The” American Idea is dangerous because it often is a precursor to, and an excuse for, the missionary impulse that sleeps lightly, when it sleeps in all, in many Americans." Jerome’s comment: Even this center right icon is worried.
Novelist John Updike: “The American Idea, as I understand it, is to trust people to know their own minds and to act in their own enlightened self -interest, with a necessary respect for others."
Jerome’s comment: God bless America, with Liberty and Justice for all.
Professor and writer Joyce Carol Oates: “How heartily sick the world has grown, the first seven years of the 21st century, of the American Idea! Speak with any non-American, travel to any foreign country and the consensus is: The American Idea has become a cruel joke, a blustery and bellicose body -- builder luridly bulked up on steroids, consequently low on natural testosterone, deranged and myopic, dangerous... Perhaps the most pernicious of American Ideas is the revered. “My country, right or wrong.” Jerome’s comment: The myth of American exceptionalism is over; the city on the hill was a dream; we are like other nations subject to the strengths and flaws of the living flesh
Friday, November 2, 2007
It’s the Oil, Stupid
It’s the Oil, Stupid
By Jerome Grossman
While President Bush praises the invasion of Iraq as spreading freedom, while the Democrats in Congress are overcome with admiration for the U.S. troops installing democracy by the barrel of a gun, the rest of the world is saying, “It's the oil, stupid.”
The U.S. is stuck in the Middle East, just where it wants to be, without an exit strategy because it never intended to leave, not as long as the area contains 60% of world oil reserves and 40% of world natural gas reserves.
Do the math. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves, more than five times the total in the United States. In addition, it is the least explored of the world's oil-rich nations. It has been estimated that Iraq has 300 billion, yes billion, barrels of undiscovered oil. U.S. forces are now occupying in Iraq one quarter of the world's oil reserves. And these forces are now in position to protect the oil of Saudi Arabia and to threaten the oil of Iran.
At today's prices, which may be low given that consumer demand is growing in China, India, etc., the value of Iraqi oil would be about $30 trillion. The projected cost of the U.S. invasion and occupation is about $1 trillion. I won't try to evaluate the 4000 U.S. dead soldiers and 90,000 U.S. wounded.
Was the strategy of invading Iraq for its oil reserves developed at the secret meeting of the Energy Task Force in late 2001 organized by Vice-President Cheney? The oil and energy executives attending discussed the world situation at length but the administration refuses to release the details. But they can't fool Alan Greenspan, who was clear on the matter in his new book: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraqi War is largely about oil.”
While the immense profits were certainly part of the overall plan together with eliminating a dedicated opponent of Israel, neither the money nor Israel was decisive. Probably more important was control of the oil as a tool, or perhaps a weapon in support of U.S. world hegemony. Modern industrial nations require oil for productivity and consumer satisfaction. Crossing the interests of the U.S. will carry the risk of being shut off from the indispensable liquid. The invasion/occupation of Iraq was more than a defensive measure for oil supplies; it gave the U.S. a potent offensive tool to keep other nations in line with American policies.
By Jerome Grossman
While President Bush praises the invasion of Iraq as spreading freedom, while the Democrats in Congress are overcome with admiration for the U.S. troops installing democracy by the barrel of a gun, the rest of the world is saying, “It's the oil, stupid.”
The U.S. is stuck in the Middle East, just where it wants to be, without an exit strategy because it never intended to leave, not as long as the area contains 60% of world oil reserves and 40% of world natural gas reserves.
Do the math. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves, more than five times the total in the United States. In addition, it is the least explored of the world's oil-rich nations. It has been estimated that Iraq has 300 billion, yes billion, barrels of undiscovered oil. U.S. forces are now occupying in Iraq one quarter of the world's oil reserves. And these forces are now in position to protect the oil of Saudi Arabia and to threaten the oil of Iran.
At today's prices, which may be low given that consumer demand is growing in China, India, etc., the value of Iraqi oil would be about $30 trillion. The projected cost of the U.S. invasion and occupation is about $1 trillion. I won't try to evaluate the 4000 U.S. dead soldiers and 90,000 U.S. wounded.
Was the strategy of invading Iraq for its oil reserves developed at the secret meeting of the Energy Task Force in late 2001 organized by Vice-President Cheney? The oil and energy executives attending discussed the world situation at length but the administration refuses to release the details. But they can't fool Alan Greenspan, who was clear on the matter in his new book: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraqi War is largely about oil.”
While the immense profits were certainly part of the overall plan together with eliminating a dedicated opponent of Israel, neither the money nor Israel was decisive. Probably more important was control of the oil as a tool, or perhaps a weapon in support of U.S. world hegemony. Modern industrial nations require oil for productivity and consumer satisfaction. Crossing the interests of the U.S. will carry the risk of being shut off from the indispensable liquid. The invasion/occupation of Iraq was more than a defensive measure for oil supplies; it gave the U.S. a potent offensive tool to keep other nations in line with American policies.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Senator Frankenstein goes to Washington
Senator Frankenstein goes to Washington
By Jerome Grossman
The Democrats need to win more seats in the U.S. Senate in the 2008 elections if they are to achieve their agenda. While they have a working margin in the House of Representatives to pass legislation even with the defection of some conservative Democrats, in the Senate, the margin is a narrow 51 to 49. But in practice the margin is closer. Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who calls himself an independent Democrat, votes often with the Republicans on foreign affairs and sometimes on domestic matters, according to which Halloween mask he is wearing.
However, Democratic prospects are excellent for 2008. The GOP must defend 22 Senate seats, while the Democrats play defense on only 12. Republican retirements already number at least five, creating open seat election opportunities for the Democrats as the GOP loses the enormous benefits of incumbency. Of the ten most competitive Senate seats, nine are now held by Republicans, only one by a Democrat. No wonder the Republicans are scared and depressed.
One of the closest Senate races will be in Minnesota, where the incumbent Norm Coleman is running for his first re-election for the seat previously occupied by flaming liberal Paul Wellstone, who died in a plane crash just before his anticipated re-election. Coleman is a supporter of the war in Iraq, and a loyalist to virtually all the policies of President George W. Bush.
This race is sure to attract national attention, because the likely Democratic nominee is a professional comedian and entertainer, Al Franken, running for office for the first time and starting pretty close to the top. It will be fun. Franken is a liberal who has promoted the agenda of the Democratic Party on radio and television while making his living telling jokes, a new way of starting a political career, but reminiscent of Ronald Reagan.
Franken has a national reputation. In comedy style he covered the 1992 presidential conventions on Comedy Central TV and has delivered his unique blend of humor, disrespect and analysis at many universities and corporations. He is never at a loss for words, comments and jokes. Franken keeps the listeners awake.
Al Franken's best friend and his partner in show business is Ben Stein, a mirror image, a hard-line conservative paired with a flaming liberal. Stein is an actor who was a speechwriter for President Richard Nixon, and believe it or not, writes a column for the New York Times business section every Sunday.
In their acts, the pair is presented as Stein/Franken, because, as Al jokes, Stein is older and thus more deserving. However, others tell them that a more descriptive name would be Franken/Stein, after the horror of the same name.
Of course, Ben Stein will not be a partner in the ascendancy, but the usually humorless Republicans may choose to play with the Franken name, making mistakes on purpose. The title of the novel “Frankenstein” refers to a scientist who creates a being in the likeness of man but people have tended to refer to the horrible creature, composed of body parts taken from the dead, as “Frankenstein.”
Will the new Senator use his formidable nickname to intimidate his political opponents? Or at least get Senator Lieberman to behave? If Senator Al begins to strut around the Senate floor in imitation of the strung-together monster, will he be censured for disrespect? Or will the Republicans bring Vice President Cheney to shoot this caricature of a manufactured Senator? In any case, there will be no love interest in this movie on C-SPAN and the tedium of the Senate will have been eased by a comic routine. A new day may be dawning in the U.S. Senate. And where is Senator Groucho Marx now that we need him?
By Jerome Grossman
The Democrats need to win more seats in the U.S. Senate in the 2008 elections if they are to achieve their agenda. While they have a working margin in the House of Representatives to pass legislation even with the defection of some conservative Democrats, in the Senate, the margin is a narrow 51 to 49. But in practice the margin is closer. Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who calls himself an independent Democrat, votes often with the Republicans on foreign affairs and sometimes on domestic matters, according to which Halloween mask he is wearing.
However, Democratic prospects are excellent for 2008. The GOP must defend 22 Senate seats, while the Democrats play defense on only 12. Republican retirements already number at least five, creating open seat election opportunities for the Democrats as the GOP loses the enormous benefits of incumbency. Of the ten most competitive Senate seats, nine are now held by Republicans, only one by a Democrat. No wonder the Republicans are scared and depressed.
One of the closest Senate races will be in Minnesota, where the incumbent Norm Coleman is running for his first re-election for the seat previously occupied by flaming liberal Paul Wellstone, who died in a plane crash just before his anticipated re-election. Coleman is a supporter of the war in Iraq, and a loyalist to virtually all the policies of President George W. Bush.
This race is sure to attract national attention, because the likely Democratic nominee is a professional comedian and entertainer, Al Franken, running for office for the first time and starting pretty close to the top. It will be fun. Franken is a liberal who has promoted the agenda of the Democratic Party on radio and television while making his living telling jokes, a new way of starting a political career, but reminiscent of Ronald Reagan.
Franken has a national reputation. In comedy style he covered the 1992 presidential conventions on Comedy Central TV and has delivered his unique blend of humor, disrespect and analysis at many universities and corporations. He is never at a loss for words, comments and jokes. Franken keeps the listeners awake.
Al Franken's best friend and his partner in show business is Ben Stein, a mirror image, a hard-line conservative paired with a flaming liberal. Stein is an actor who was a speechwriter for President Richard Nixon, and believe it or not, writes a column for the New York Times business section every Sunday.
In their acts, the pair is presented as Stein/Franken, because, as Al jokes, Stein is older and thus more deserving. However, others tell them that a more descriptive name would be Franken/Stein, after the horror of the same name.
Of course, Ben Stein will not be a partner in the ascendancy, but the usually humorless Republicans may choose to play with the Franken name, making mistakes on purpose. The title of the novel “Frankenstein” refers to a scientist who creates a being in the likeness of man but people have tended to refer to the horrible creature, composed of body parts taken from the dead, as “Frankenstein.”
Will the new Senator use his formidable nickname to intimidate his political opponents? Or at least get Senator Lieberman to behave? If Senator Al begins to strut around the Senate floor in imitation of the strung-together monster, will he be censured for disrespect? Or will the Republicans bring Vice President Cheney to shoot this caricature of a manufactured Senator? In any case, there will be no love interest in this movie on C-SPAN and the tedium of the Senate will have been eased by a comic routine. A new day may be dawning in the U.S. Senate. And where is Senator Groucho Marx now that we need him?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
