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 19, 2007
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?
Monday, October 29, 2007
The Perils of Running for President
The Perils of Running for President
By Jerome Grossman
The last stage of the campaigns for the Democratic and Republican nominations for President has begun. The candidates have started to attack each other. No more nice guy - the gloves have come off - and as history shows - just about anything goes in American politics.
In the 2000 campaign, John McCain was probably the most popular politician in America, among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. His maverick positions, straight talk no nonsense style, combined with his war record as a wounded prisoner in the Vietnam War gave him cachet much more attractive than the establishment background of Texas Governor George W. Bush, who had the big money and the party apparatus behind him.
In a stunning upset, McCain defeated Bush in the New Hampshire primary by a massive 18 percentage points, becoming a serious threat for the nomination. But he had to confirm the victory in the next primary in South Carolina, to prove that the New Hampshire election was not a freak. People of unknown origin, perhaps associated with Bush, perhaps Bush supporters working on their own, organized a whispering campaign to destroy McCain’s reputation - and they succeeded.
Examples: Push telephone polls asked questions like, “If you knew that John McCain fathered a child out of wedlock, would you vote for him?” Whispering campaigns spread rumors that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child, that he was homosexual, that his wife was a drug addict, that he had committed treason as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, that he scorned the Confederate flag, etc..
Will there be similar dirty tricks or appeals to secret prejudices in the current elections?
Against Barack Obama on account of his color?
Against Hillary Clinton on account of her sex?
Against Mitt Romney on account of his Mormon religion?
These prejudices may not show up in the polls but they certainly exist in some people to some degree, influencing their conduct and their votes.
Keep in mind that the United States has had 45 presidents and all but one has been male, white, Protestant. Some Americans have a built-in idea of what a president should look like, his background, his voice, his personality. The only president to vary from the expected mold was John F. Kennedy, who fulfilled the built-in idea in every way except that he was a Roman Catholic.
Can another Roman Catholic be elected, for example Rudolph Giuliani, the GOP front runner? And if that factor is overcome, how about his ethnic Italian-American name? In the 1988 election, by far the most talented Democratic politician was the Governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, successful executive, recognized intellectual, powerful speaker, effective politician. Surprising the entire political world, Cuomo did not seek the Democratic nomination, opening the door for Governor Michael Dukakis. Cuomo told his intimates that he thought the country would never elect a person whose name ended in a vowel.
Another hurdle for Giuliani: at least one of his three marriages violated the marital rules of the Catholic Church. Will he be granted communion when he seeks to worship or will he be denied that right as was John Kerry in the 2004 campaign, denied in such a public manner that it became a political issue that probably cost Kerry votes.
The dangers are great, some obvious, some hidden like roadside bombs. It is impossible to prepare for all of them. But, then again, the reward is enormous - President of the U.S.A. - right now the equivalent of President of the World.
By Jerome Grossman
The last stage of the campaigns for the Democratic and Republican nominations for President has begun. The candidates have started to attack each other. No more nice guy - the gloves have come off - and as history shows - just about anything goes in American politics.
In the 2000 campaign, John McCain was probably the most popular politician in America, among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. His maverick positions, straight talk no nonsense style, combined with his war record as a wounded prisoner in the Vietnam War gave him cachet much more attractive than the establishment background of Texas Governor George W. Bush, who had the big money and the party apparatus behind him.
In a stunning upset, McCain defeated Bush in the New Hampshire primary by a massive 18 percentage points, becoming a serious threat for the nomination. But he had to confirm the victory in the next primary in South Carolina, to prove that the New Hampshire election was not a freak. People of unknown origin, perhaps associated with Bush, perhaps Bush supporters working on their own, organized a whispering campaign to destroy McCain’s reputation - and they succeeded.
Examples: Push telephone polls asked questions like, “If you knew that John McCain fathered a child out of wedlock, would you vote for him?” Whispering campaigns spread rumors that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child, that he was homosexual, that his wife was a drug addict, that he had committed treason as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, that he scorned the Confederate flag, etc..
Will there be similar dirty tricks or appeals to secret prejudices in the current elections?
Against Barack Obama on account of his color?
Against Hillary Clinton on account of her sex?
Against Mitt Romney on account of his Mormon religion?
These prejudices may not show up in the polls but they certainly exist in some people to some degree, influencing their conduct and their votes.
Keep in mind that the United States has had 45 presidents and all but one has been male, white, Protestant. Some Americans have a built-in idea of what a president should look like, his background, his voice, his personality. The only president to vary from the expected mold was John F. Kennedy, who fulfilled the built-in idea in every way except that he was a Roman Catholic.
Can another Roman Catholic be elected, for example Rudolph Giuliani, the GOP front runner? And if that factor is overcome, how about his ethnic Italian-American name? In the 1988 election, by far the most talented Democratic politician was the Governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, successful executive, recognized intellectual, powerful speaker, effective politician. Surprising the entire political world, Cuomo did not seek the Democratic nomination, opening the door for Governor Michael Dukakis. Cuomo told his intimates that he thought the country would never elect a person whose name ended in a vowel.
Another hurdle for Giuliani: at least one of his three marriages violated the marital rules of the Catholic Church. Will he be granted communion when he seeks to worship or will he be denied that right as was John Kerry in the 2004 campaign, denied in such a public manner that it became a political issue that probably cost Kerry votes.
The dangers are great, some obvious, some hidden like roadside bombs. It is impossible to prepare for all of them. But, then again, the reward is enormous - President of the U.S.A. - right now the equivalent of President of the World.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
The "Madness" of King George Bush
The "Madness" of King George Bush
By Jerome Grossman
On October 17, President George W. Bush issued a stark warning to the entire world, that if Iran obtained nuclear arms, it could lead to “World War III.” A few days later, Vice- President Richard Cheney reiterated the message, sending a more specific warning to Iran: “We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”
Why did President Bush use “World War III?” A U.S. attack on Iran need not involve other nations; Iran has no allies with the obligation, the power, and the inclination to come to their aid. Invoking a World War was a way to send an indirect threat to Russia and China to prevent them from helping Iran achieve nuclear weapons, now or in the future, even as eight other nations have done. Is Bush threatening to set the whole world on fire or did he make another speaking error?
The Russians were scheduled to ship nuclear fuel rods to the Iranian nuclear reactor in Bushehr in November. The contract is legal under the Non-Proliferation Treaty as long as the degree of enrichment is three to five percent. Weapons grade nuclear material must be enriched to a much higher level. The Iranians claim that the reactor will be used only to produce electric power and deny high enrichment.
However, if the reactor becomes operational in November, it would be impossible for the U.S. to bomb the installation. The fallout from the bombing would turn the city and surrounding area into another Chernobyl. In addition, the bombing would release radioactive material over a wide area, as happened in Chernobyl, contaminating the land and causing loss of life throughout neighboring countries in the Middle East, including Israel, perhaps into parts of Europe.
The U.S. wants to preserve its option to bomb Iran from the U.S. fleet in the Persian Gulf, U.S. bases in Europe and the Indian Ocean. The U.S. is trying to prevent Russia from making the shipment. Russia has already delayed once. In the meantime, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is in Eastern Europe suggesting that the U.S. defer installing missile defense hardware in Poland and Czech Republic, a program that deeply offends Russia. This could be the basis for a deal: no fuel rods for no missile defense system in Poland.
If U.S. intelligence reveals that the shipment of nuclear fuel rods is on the way, the U.S. will bomb Iran before arrival to prevent the Chernobyl effect.
Talk of World War III sounds extreme and even wild: the use of “madness” is a method to obtain concessions by threatening an irrational act. President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger liked to use it, frightening opponents into thinking that Nixon was irrational enough to do the unthinkable, thereby obtaining concessions to appease the seeming craziness, a very dangerous way to manage a nation and the world.
These people are playing with millions of human lives.
By Jerome Grossman
On October 17, President George W. Bush issued a stark warning to the entire world, that if Iran obtained nuclear arms, it could lead to “World War III.” A few days later, Vice- President Richard Cheney reiterated the message, sending a more specific warning to Iran: “We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”
Why did President Bush use “World War III?” A U.S. attack on Iran need not involve other nations; Iran has no allies with the obligation, the power, and the inclination to come to their aid. Invoking a World War was a way to send an indirect threat to Russia and China to prevent them from helping Iran achieve nuclear weapons, now or in the future, even as eight other nations have done. Is Bush threatening to set the whole world on fire or did he make another speaking error?
The Russians were scheduled to ship nuclear fuel rods to the Iranian nuclear reactor in Bushehr in November. The contract is legal under the Non-Proliferation Treaty as long as the degree of enrichment is three to five percent. Weapons grade nuclear material must be enriched to a much higher level. The Iranians claim that the reactor will be used only to produce electric power and deny high enrichment.
However, if the reactor becomes operational in November, it would be impossible for the U.S. to bomb the installation. The fallout from the bombing would turn the city and surrounding area into another Chernobyl. In addition, the bombing would release radioactive material over a wide area, as happened in Chernobyl, contaminating the land and causing loss of life throughout neighboring countries in the Middle East, including Israel, perhaps into parts of Europe.
The U.S. wants to preserve its option to bomb Iran from the U.S. fleet in the Persian Gulf, U.S. bases in Europe and the Indian Ocean. The U.S. is trying to prevent Russia from making the shipment. Russia has already delayed once. In the meantime, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is in Eastern Europe suggesting that the U.S. defer installing missile defense hardware in Poland and Czech Republic, a program that deeply offends Russia. This could be the basis for a deal: no fuel rods for no missile defense system in Poland.
If U.S. intelligence reveals that the shipment of nuclear fuel rods is on the way, the U.S. will bomb Iran before arrival to prevent the Chernobyl effect.
Talk of World War III sounds extreme and even wild: the use of “madness” is a method to obtain concessions by threatening an irrational act. President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger liked to use it, frightening opponents into thinking that Nixon was irrational enough to do the unthinkable, thereby obtaining concessions to appease the seeming craziness, a very dangerous way to manage a nation and the world.
These people are playing with millions of human lives.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Better to Jaw-Jaw Than to War-War
Better to Jaw-Jaw than to War-War
By Jerome Grossman
In the last five years we should have learned that military intervention in the Middle East is difficult, bloody, and expensive. The enormous advantages of the U.S. in equipment and trained personnel have not brought victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. The indigenous unorganized resistance has found ways to counter the awesome organized superpower.
Nevertheless, as incredible as it may appear, the Bush administration is moving our nation closer to another costly invasion in the Middle East, this time against Iran. It will be billed as virtually cost free; fire-power from the naval battle groups now in the Persian Gulf, B-2 bombers flying in from Missouri, primed to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq and any people who get in the way.
Also destroyed will be what is left of America's reputation. For the 1.3 billion Muslims world- wide, attacking three Muslim nations simultaneously will have all the earmarks of another crusade against them. They can be expected to attack U.S. interests everywhere. To the rest of the world of other faiths or no faith, a third war will be conclusive evidence of the determination of the U.S. to crush any challenge to its world hegemony.
Already, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has told his soldiers to prepare for more “unconventional” wars, that is, wars where the weak resisters become guerrillas with homemade weapons and tactics. Will this take the rest of the century?
This scenario is not in the long-term interests of the United States. Our quarrels with Iran over its nuclear programs can be negotiated through the International Atomic Energy Agency in a manner similar to the current successful solution to North Korea's nuclear program. Our objections to Iran's influence in Iraq can and should be negotiated by the so-called free and democratically elected government of Iraq, supported by the U.S.
Diplomacy should be the initial response to international arguments before sanctions and international pressure. Military action is a last resort and then only with the broadest international support, hopefully with the blessing of the United Nations. The government of Iran has repeatedly asked for meetings and negotiations but the U.S. response has been military threats and Congressional resolutions so harsh that they have been described on the floor of the U.S. Senate as “tantamount to a declaration of war.”
The stakes for the U.S. and the entire world are enormous. Let us remember the advice of a warrior, Winston Churchill, “Better to jaw-jaw, than to war-war.”
By Jerome Grossman
In the last five years we should have learned that military intervention in the Middle East is difficult, bloody, and expensive. The enormous advantages of the U.S. in equipment and trained personnel have not brought victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. The indigenous unorganized resistance has found ways to counter the awesome organized superpower.
Nevertheless, as incredible as it may appear, the Bush administration is moving our nation closer to another costly invasion in the Middle East, this time against Iran. It will be billed as virtually cost free; fire-power from the naval battle groups now in the Persian Gulf, B-2 bombers flying in from Missouri, primed to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq and any people who get in the way.
Also destroyed will be what is left of America's reputation. For the 1.3 billion Muslims world- wide, attacking three Muslim nations simultaneously will have all the earmarks of another crusade against them. They can be expected to attack U.S. interests everywhere. To the rest of the world of other faiths or no faith, a third war will be conclusive evidence of the determination of the U.S. to crush any challenge to its world hegemony.
Already, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has told his soldiers to prepare for more “unconventional” wars, that is, wars where the weak resisters become guerrillas with homemade weapons and tactics. Will this take the rest of the century?
This scenario is not in the long-term interests of the United States. Our quarrels with Iran over its nuclear programs can be negotiated through the International Atomic Energy Agency in a manner similar to the current successful solution to North Korea's nuclear program. Our objections to Iran's influence in Iraq can and should be negotiated by the so-called free and democratically elected government of Iraq, supported by the U.S.
Diplomacy should be the initial response to international arguments before sanctions and international pressure. Military action is a last resort and then only with the broadest international support, hopefully with the blessing of the United Nations. The government of Iran has repeatedly asked for meetings and negotiations but the U.S. response has been military threats and Congressional resolutions so harsh that they have been described on the floor of the U.S. Senate as “tantamount to a declaration of war.”
The stakes for the U.S. and the entire world are enormous. Let us remember the advice of a warrior, Winston Churchill, “Better to jaw-jaw, than to war-war.”
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
? Divide Iraq into Three States?
? Divide Iraq into Three States?
By Jerome Grossman
For several years, Senator Joseph Biden, D-Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been promoting a division of Iraq into three separate states, Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd, linked by a weak federal government. The theory is that the separation will allow each group to organize itself in accordance with its own traditions and objectives, to adopt separate policies, to elect its own leaders, thereby minimizing conflict and ending the civil war now raging for power and resources.
The plan needs to be taken seriously, because in September the U.S. Senate formally voted approval by 77 Democrats and Republicans. However, the Prime Minister of Iraq and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq immediately criticized the Biden plan as ineffective and unworkable.
Although each of the three groupings dominate particular areas, in many cities and towns they had been living together for years. Separation would require mass migrations involving loss of homes, jobs, as well as schools and associations that would be painful for all concerned and would certainly lead to local conflict in the very process of separation as people are forced to dispose of their assets.
How would the borders of each state be set? There are no natural divisions and the resolution of the border problem would surely lead to conflict.
How would the oil revenues be divided? Iraq lives off its oil with no other significant assets. In the likely Sunni area, there is no oil. Would they receive a fair division of the revenues? Would it be on a population basis, on area of land, on needs? How much would be stolen by people in the other two states?
Will each area have its own defense forces, or its own police? Would one area import enough arms and foreign soldiers in an attempt to conquer the other two? Would an arms race develop for defensive or offensive purposes?
Could each area afford the inevitable triplication of services notably more expensive than services by a single, unified government? Could each state support itself?
Would these three little weak countries be dominated or absorbed by powerful neighbors Iran and Saudi Arabia?
Would Turkey allow an independent or semi -- independent Kurdistan? The Kurds are the largest ethnic group, 25 million, in the world without their own country. They are anxious to unite their scattered people now residing in Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria. Those nations refuse to surrender any part of their territory to the Kurds. Right now, Turkey has many troops on the border of Kurdish Iraq to prevent Kurdish infiltration.
The fact that the U.S. Senate promotes the Biden plan is additional evidence of the dominance of the U.S. in Iraqi affairs. The U.S. has the controlling military power, as well as the political power through the puppets the U.S. selected, installed and supports. However, the Bush administration is unlikely to adopt the Biden plan. The practical difficulties are too great and partition is contrary to the prime U.S. interests in the Middle East. The U.S. needs Iraq as a military base to dominate the area where 60% of the Earth's oil reserves and 40% of the natural gas are located. Control of those reserves will give the U.S. another tool to influence the policies of other nations. The U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq without an exit strategy because it never intended to leave. The continuing occupation will have fewer problems with a unified Iraq. With 737 military bases already in 130 countries, control of Iraq will add another region to U.S. hegemony.
By Jerome Grossman
For several years, Senator Joseph Biden, D-Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been promoting a division of Iraq into three separate states, Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd, linked by a weak federal government. The theory is that the separation will allow each group to organize itself in accordance with its own traditions and objectives, to adopt separate policies, to elect its own leaders, thereby minimizing conflict and ending the civil war now raging for power and resources.
The plan needs to be taken seriously, because in September the U.S. Senate formally voted approval by 77 Democrats and Republicans. However, the Prime Minister of Iraq and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq immediately criticized the Biden plan as ineffective and unworkable.
Although each of the three groupings dominate particular areas, in many cities and towns they had been living together for years. Separation would require mass migrations involving loss of homes, jobs, as well as schools and associations that would be painful for all concerned and would certainly lead to local conflict in the very process of separation as people are forced to dispose of their assets.
How would the borders of each state be set? There are no natural divisions and the resolution of the border problem would surely lead to conflict.
How would the oil revenues be divided? Iraq lives off its oil with no other significant assets. In the likely Sunni area, there is no oil. Would they receive a fair division of the revenues? Would it be on a population basis, on area of land, on needs? How much would be stolen by people in the other two states?
Will each area have its own defense forces, or its own police? Would one area import enough arms and foreign soldiers in an attempt to conquer the other two? Would an arms race develop for defensive or offensive purposes?
Could each area afford the inevitable triplication of services notably more expensive than services by a single, unified government? Could each state support itself?
Would these three little weak countries be dominated or absorbed by powerful neighbors Iran and Saudi Arabia?
Would Turkey allow an independent or semi -- independent Kurdistan? The Kurds are the largest ethnic group, 25 million, in the world without their own country. They are anxious to unite their scattered people now residing in Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria. Those nations refuse to surrender any part of their territory to the Kurds. Right now, Turkey has many troops on the border of Kurdish Iraq to prevent Kurdish infiltration.
The fact that the U.S. Senate promotes the Biden plan is additional evidence of the dominance of the U.S. in Iraqi affairs. The U.S. has the controlling military power, as well as the political power through the puppets the U.S. selected, installed and supports. However, the Bush administration is unlikely to adopt the Biden plan. The practical difficulties are too great and partition is contrary to the prime U.S. interests in the Middle East. The U.S. needs Iraq as a military base to dominate the area where 60% of the Earth's oil reserves and 40% of the natural gas are located. Control of those reserves will give the U.S. another tool to influence the policies of other nations. The U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq without an exit strategy because it never intended to leave. The continuing occupation will have fewer problems with a unified Iraq. With 737 military bases already in 130 countries, control of Iraq will add another region to U.S. hegemony.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
