President Hillary Clinton
By Jerome Grossman
Let me repeat, I have not endorsed a candidate for President of the United States, scheduled to be elected in November 2008. First of all, as a relentless liberal, I have not found a candidate echoing my views on foreign and domestic policy with the exception of Dennis Kucinich. I am tempted to help this rank outsider. It would not be the first time I had endorsed a candidate at the very margins of American politics. However, I shall not endorse because I wish to retain my status as an analyst, in my writings and lectures. Objectivity is my goal as far as that is possible given the welter of experiences and prejudices we all bring to the table.
With that tortured disclaimer, I am absolutely sure that any Democrat nominated for President could beat any Republican. Not primarily on the issues, although this Republican administration has failed miserably to manage almost all, from immigration to Iraq, but because they are generally regarded as incompetent, from Bush to Brownie to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Gonzales, etc. etc. Moreover, they have begun to bore the voters, another mortal political sin. The Republicans are divided and demoralized by Bush, the Iraq failure (not the war) and immigration.
If you accept this general analysis, the next president will be the Democratic nominee. Hillary Clinton (notice Rodham is out) has large advantages in organization and money. In addition, she has a big edge in endorsements by powerful figures at the state levels: governors, mayors, donors, corporate leaders, and even some issue advocates. In eight years in The White House, Hillary and Bill did many favors for special pleaders, helped many candidates and corporations, and kept the Lincoln Bedroom occupied by the favored. There are thousands of chits outstanding in all fifty states, she knows where they are, and all will be collected before the first primary. While Bill was busy doing his thing in the Oval Office, Hillary was planning her political life: smart, strong, indefatigable, and ambitious.
The torrent of books and articles about Hillary uncovered little unknown previously. Our conservative nation could interpret her management of her stormy marriage as an example of preservation of a family. Her failure to achieve national universal healthcare was due primarily to her centrist attempt to protect the health industry and the insurance companies
It is remarkable that Hillary’s negatives are significantly higher than Bill’s. Hillary can take some comfort in her notoriety; most if not all of the negatives are already known to the voters, no more surprises expected. She made mistakes, mostly on issues, but they do not compare with Bill’s, in seriousness and in public impact. A plausible explanation is sex, that she is a woman, and our country still has misgivings about female ability and toughness. The U.S. lags far behind more than a dozen other countries who have overcome this prejudice by electing a woman to lead. Americans like to think of their country as exceptional, and on women they certainly are. Or perhaps they think only a man could govern an imperial nation with 737 military bases in 38 countries, that fought nine wars in the last 17 years.
In the contest for the Democratic nomination, Bill will be a great asset to the Hillary campaign. He is far and away the most popular politician in the Democratic Party, with every income level, with every ethnic and racial constituency. Bill is very unpopular with Republicans and Independents. After helping Hillary win the nomination, he will be exiled to political Siberia, not seen, not heard, only half remembered, to reappear in The White House on Inauguration Day. He is not a liberal and never ran as one. A founder of the conservative Democratic Leadership Council and its first president, he advocated small government at home that translated into cuts in social services. Abroad he initiated a series of wars called “ humanitarian interventions “ in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, Haiti and Iraq that, in retrospect, look entirely too similar to the current Bush adventure in Iraq “ to install democracy.” President Hillary Clinton will follow the centrist example of President Bill.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Take the Nuclear Option Off The Table
Take the Nuclear Option Off The Table
By Jerome Grossman
When American officials, generals, and politicians are asked about relations with Iran and North Korea, too often they reply threateningly, “No military option is off the table.” That is an implicit threat to use nuclear weapons and a violation of The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
One of the politicians making such a statement is Senator Barack Obama, Democratic candidate for President. In a recent national security speech, he declared “We must never take the military option off the table” in trying to stop the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea. Does he realize that that includes nuclear weapons? Do his supporters tell him not to threaten?
Terrorism is not confined to nonstate actors but is regularly used by nations. In 1958, Albert Wohlstetter, an influential cold warrior, said that the chief purpose of nuclear weapons is to terrorize. Since the dawn of the nuclear age, all of the nine nuclear powers; The United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea, have threatened to use nuclear weapons. That must stop. It could lead to nuclear war by accident, inadvertence or error with the most tragic consequences for all humanity. Most immediately, it encourages the spread of nuclear weapons to more nations.
The world needs a “No First Strike” commitment and the elimination of present policy of keeping nuclear weapons on hair trigger alerts ready to be launched within minutes at any perceived threat; real, imagined or mistaken.
To this day, the United States has never established a policy of “No First Strike” or “ No First Use” for nuclear weapons.
Of all the nuclear weapons states, only China has publicly stated a “No First Use” policy.
In 1982, the Soviet Union declared a “No First Use” policy, but the successor Russian government retracted the Soviet declaration a decade later.
When the Non-Proliferation Treaty was being negotiated in the 1960’s, non-nuclear states sought guarantees that renunciation of nuclear arms would not place them at a permanent military disadvantage or make them vulnerable to nuclear intimidation. This was an important consideration because nuclear intimidation encourages the intimidated to develop their own nukes and not sign the treaty.
While the Reagan administration itself developed nuclear weapons and threatened their use, the President himself said on April 17, 1982 that “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” He was right in his rhetoric but wrong in his policies-just as our own nation is today. It is time to match the pious words with pious actions, and take the nuclear option off the table.
By Jerome Grossman
When American officials, generals, and politicians are asked about relations with Iran and North Korea, too often they reply threateningly, “No military option is off the table.” That is an implicit threat to use nuclear weapons and a violation of The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
One of the politicians making such a statement is Senator Barack Obama, Democratic candidate for President. In a recent national security speech, he declared “We must never take the military option off the table” in trying to stop the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea. Does he realize that that includes nuclear weapons? Do his supporters tell him not to threaten?
Terrorism is not confined to nonstate actors but is regularly used by nations. In 1958, Albert Wohlstetter, an influential cold warrior, said that the chief purpose of nuclear weapons is to terrorize. Since the dawn of the nuclear age, all of the nine nuclear powers; The United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea, have threatened to use nuclear weapons. That must stop. It could lead to nuclear war by accident, inadvertence or error with the most tragic consequences for all humanity. Most immediately, it encourages the spread of nuclear weapons to more nations.
The world needs a “No First Strike” commitment and the elimination of present policy of keeping nuclear weapons on hair trigger alerts ready to be launched within minutes at any perceived threat; real, imagined or mistaken.
To this day, the United States has never established a policy of “No First Strike” or “ No First Use” for nuclear weapons.
Of all the nuclear weapons states, only China has publicly stated a “No First Use” policy.
In 1982, the Soviet Union declared a “No First Use” policy, but the successor Russian government retracted the Soviet declaration a decade later.
When the Non-Proliferation Treaty was being negotiated in the 1960’s, non-nuclear states sought guarantees that renunciation of nuclear arms would not place them at a permanent military disadvantage or make them vulnerable to nuclear intimidation. This was an important consideration because nuclear intimidation encourages the intimidated to develop their own nukes and not sign the treaty.
While the Reagan administration itself developed nuclear weapons and threatened their use, the President himself said on April 17, 1982 that “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” He was right in his rhetoric but wrong in his policies-just as our own nation is today. It is time to match the pious words with pious actions, and take the nuclear option off the table.
Monday, May 21, 2007
A New Immigration Policy: Practical and Humanitarian
A New Immigration Policy: Practical and Humanitarian
By Jerome Grossman
It is estimated that there are about 12 million illegal or undocumented immigrants in the United States. Most of them did not swim the Rio Grande, they overstayed their tourist or student visas, so there must be a record of their identities.
In 1986, with the enthusiastic assent of President Ronald Reagan, Congress granted amnesty, in effect legal residence to 2.7 million illegal aliens. Between 1986 and 2000, Congress granted six additional amnesties, legalizing more than three million.
While illegal immigration has increased since 1986, we certainly do not wish to discourage tourists or students from visiting our country, nor is it feasible to find, round up, and deport the 12 million illegals.
One way to get control of this difficult situation is to prevent employers from hiring illegals, and reducing the motivation and the flow of illegal immigrants. Employer based enforcement would deal with justified complaints from U.S. citizens that some employers exploit, mistreat, and underpay their illegals, turning away legal Americans looking for work.
A revised U.S. immigration policy should be humanitarian and practical, supporting human and civil rights for all immigrants, legal or illegal, as well as for the U.S. citizens affected.
Here are some suggested principles:
1. The U.S. must establish control of its borders and places of entry.
2. The U.S. must protect itself by preventing the entry of criminals and establishing standards of health.
3. The U.S. must establish regular and fair procedures that enhance respect for law and order.
4. The U.S. must establish a system of first come, first serve for all applying immigrants.
5. The U.S. must enforce fair labor practices for all workers at every level and make the hiring party responsible for enforcement.
6. The U.S. should encourage prospective immigrants to stay home and apply at U.S. embassies.
7. The U.S, should determine employment needs of industries and institutions to establish occupation quotas.
8. The U.S. quotas should have no preference of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion.
9. The U.S. should have generous procedures for admitting refugees in need of asylum.
10. The U.S. should support family reunification for immediate relatives.
11. The U.S. should not build walls to enforce its immigration procedures or militarize its borders.
12. The U.S. may require applicants to submit proof of previous occupation.
13. The U.S. should not have guest worker programs.
14. The U.S. must crack down on U.S. employers who employ illegal workers or violate laws on working conditions.
By Jerome Grossman
It is estimated that there are about 12 million illegal or undocumented immigrants in the United States. Most of them did not swim the Rio Grande, they overstayed their tourist or student visas, so there must be a record of their identities.
In 1986, with the enthusiastic assent of President Ronald Reagan, Congress granted amnesty, in effect legal residence to 2.7 million illegal aliens. Between 1986 and 2000, Congress granted six additional amnesties, legalizing more than three million.
While illegal immigration has increased since 1986, we certainly do not wish to discourage tourists or students from visiting our country, nor is it feasible to find, round up, and deport the 12 million illegals.
One way to get control of this difficult situation is to prevent employers from hiring illegals, and reducing the motivation and the flow of illegal immigrants. Employer based enforcement would deal with justified complaints from U.S. citizens that some employers exploit, mistreat, and underpay their illegals, turning away legal Americans looking for work.
A revised U.S. immigration policy should be humanitarian and practical, supporting human and civil rights for all immigrants, legal or illegal, as well as for the U.S. citizens affected.
Here are some suggested principles:
1. The U.S. must establish control of its borders and places of entry.
2. The U.S. must protect itself by preventing the entry of criminals and establishing standards of health.
3. The U.S. must establish regular and fair procedures that enhance respect for law and order.
4. The U.S. must establish a system of first come, first serve for all applying immigrants.
5. The U.S. must enforce fair labor practices for all workers at every level and make the hiring party responsible for enforcement.
6. The U.S. should encourage prospective immigrants to stay home and apply at U.S. embassies.
7. The U.S, should determine employment needs of industries and institutions to establish occupation quotas.
8. The U.S. quotas should have no preference of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion.
9. The U.S. should have generous procedures for admitting refugees in need of asylum.
10. The U.S. should support family reunification for immediate relatives.
11. The U.S. should not build walls to enforce its immigration procedures or militarize its borders.
12. The U.S. may require applicants to submit proof of previous occupation.
13. The U.S. should not have guest worker programs.
14. The U.S. must crack down on U.S. employers who employ illegal workers or violate laws on working conditions.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Eight Paths to the Presidential Nomination
Eight Paths to the Presidential Nomination
By Jerome Grossman
1) Control the party apparatus. This virtually guarantees nomination to incumbent presidents or to candidates like Walter Mondale, whose supporters were in key positions in 1984 to help him repel Gary Hart’s challenge.
2) Gain the allegiance of a personal national constituency. Building up such cadres over the years was the key to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s success in 1932 and Ronald Reagan’s in 1980.
3) Ride the crest of an overwhelming issue. The Vietnam War dominated national consciousness when George McGovern won nomination in 1972 by adopting a peace platform.
4) Engage in a permanent campaign. This requires lots of free time and plenty of early money. John F. Kennedy waged a perpetual campaign from 1956 to1960, as did Jimmy Carter between 1974 and 1976.
5) Run as a national hero. Hero credentials propelled Dwight Eisenhower, Theodore Roosevelt, Ulysses S. Grant, William Henry Harrison, and George Washington to the presidency. Do we have any national heroes?
6) Win Americans’ hearts with charismatic oratory. In U.S. political life, politics and entertainment have always been intertwined. Fiery orator William Jennings Bryan was a three-time nominee. Everyone acknowledges Ronald Reagan’s communications skills.
7) Become indispensable to party victory by representing a key region or constituency. Ticket balancing caters to regionalism and the craving for victory at any ideological price. Lyndon Johnson was supposed to bring the South and Southwest to Kennedy as John Nance Garner did for Roosevelt in 1932. In 1980 Reagan asked George Bush to be his running mate to satisfy moderate Republicans, then still a force in the party.
8) Be struck by lightning. Occasionally it happens. Wendell Willkie came out of nowhere in 1940, as did Gary Hart in 1984. The media are usually the lightning, striking the candidate whom they think is salable, who represents the American ideal. This typically means a man who is tall, handsome, of athletic appearance, not too old, with a full head of hair. Lightning doesn’t strike just anyone.
It’s important to keep in mind that there are two presidential contests – for the nomination and for the election. Each has a different electorate. For the nomination, party activists and issue-oriented ideologues tend to dominate. For the general election, personality is much more important.
People run for president for all sorts of reasons – to achieve national visibility, to be considered for vice president, to prepare for the next national election, to become a celebrity, etc. One recent candidate even ran to forestall federal indictment. A potential candidate who is only interested in winning ought to engage in self-examination to see if he or she qualifies for a trip down one of the historic eight paths to glory.
By Jerome Grossman
1) Control the party apparatus. This virtually guarantees nomination to incumbent presidents or to candidates like Walter Mondale, whose supporters were in key positions in 1984 to help him repel Gary Hart’s challenge.
2) Gain the allegiance of a personal national constituency. Building up such cadres over the years was the key to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s success in 1932 and Ronald Reagan’s in 1980.
3) Ride the crest of an overwhelming issue. The Vietnam War dominated national consciousness when George McGovern won nomination in 1972 by adopting a peace platform.
4) Engage in a permanent campaign. This requires lots of free time and plenty of early money. John F. Kennedy waged a perpetual campaign from 1956 to1960, as did Jimmy Carter between 1974 and 1976.
5) Run as a national hero. Hero credentials propelled Dwight Eisenhower, Theodore Roosevelt, Ulysses S. Grant, William Henry Harrison, and George Washington to the presidency. Do we have any national heroes?
6) Win Americans’ hearts with charismatic oratory. In U.S. political life, politics and entertainment have always been intertwined. Fiery orator William Jennings Bryan was a three-time nominee. Everyone acknowledges Ronald Reagan’s communications skills.
7) Become indispensable to party victory by representing a key region or constituency. Ticket balancing caters to regionalism and the craving for victory at any ideological price. Lyndon Johnson was supposed to bring the South and Southwest to Kennedy as John Nance Garner did for Roosevelt in 1932. In 1980 Reagan asked George Bush to be his running mate to satisfy moderate Republicans, then still a force in the party.
8) Be struck by lightning. Occasionally it happens. Wendell Willkie came out of nowhere in 1940, as did Gary Hart in 1984. The media are usually the lightning, striking the candidate whom they think is salable, who represents the American ideal. This typically means a man who is tall, handsome, of athletic appearance, not too old, with a full head of hair. Lightning doesn’t strike just anyone.
It’s important to keep in mind that there are two presidential contests – for the nomination and for the election. Each has a different electorate. For the nomination, party activists and issue-oriented ideologues tend to dominate. For the general election, personality is much more important.
People run for president for all sorts of reasons – to achieve national visibility, to be considered for vice president, to prepare for the next national election, to become a celebrity, etc. One recent candidate even ran to forestall federal indictment. A potential candidate who is only interested in winning ought to engage in self-examination to see if he or she qualifies for a trip down one of the historic eight paths to glory.
Monday, May 14, 2007
U.S. Threat Helped Inspire North Korean Nuclear Urge
U.S. Threat Helped Inspire North Korean Nuclear Urge
In his May 7 editorial-page commentary "Blame America First," Stephen Rademaker writes that North Korea's "pursuit of nuclear weapons appears to stem from Kim Jong Il's hunger for prestige and power. He claims that their reasons have nothing to do with Washington's nuclear policy, but in fact they do, and the roots go back more than 50 years. During the Korean War (1950-1953) the U.S. threatened several times to use nuclear weapons against the North. After the armistice, U.S. military forces remained and in 1958 began deploying many types of nuclear weapons to its army and air forces bases in South Korea. The U.S. nuclear arsenal in South Korea reached a peak of almost 1,000 warheads in 1967. Additional warheads were never far away on aircraft carrier battle groups patrolling the North Pacific. The number dropped to about 150 in the mid-1980s and in the fall of 1991 President George H.W. Bush ordered the removal of all of the remaining weapons.
The fact that North Korea was threatened with nuclear weapons during the Korean War, and that for decades afterwards U.S. weapons were deployed in the South with war plans to use them may have had something to do with why Kim Il Sung launched a nuclear weapons program of his own. With Soviet, Chinese and Pakistani help they eventually built the bomb.
As for the U.S. commitment to Article VI of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), the latest plans out of the Bush administration call for keeping thousands of nuclear warheads for decades to come. While the U.S. does not deserve all the blame for eroding the NPT, it does deserve some and should be doing more to strengthen it. Some concrete steps were outlined by Messrs. Shultz, Perry, Kissinger, and Nunn in these pages on Jan. 4.
Robert S. Norris, Ph.D.Senior Research AssociateNatural Resources Defense CouncilWashington
Excerpted from Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2007- Letters to the editor
In his May 7 editorial-page commentary "Blame America First," Stephen Rademaker writes that North Korea's "pursuit of nuclear weapons appears to stem from Kim Jong Il's hunger for prestige and power. He claims that their reasons have nothing to do with Washington's nuclear policy, but in fact they do, and the roots go back more than 50 years. During the Korean War (1950-1953) the U.S. threatened several times to use nuclear weapons against the North. After the armistice, U.S. military forces remained and in 1958 began deploying many types of nuclear weapons to its army and air forces bases in South Korea. The U.S. nuclear arsenal in South Korea reached a peak of almost 1,000 warheads in 1967. Additional warheads were never far away on aircraft carrier battle groups patrolling the North Pacific. The number dropped to about 150 in the mid-1980s and in the fall of 1991 President George H.W. Bush ordered the removal of all of the remaining weapons.
The fact that North Korea was threatened with nuclear weapons during the Korean War, and that for decades afterwards U.S. weapons were deployed in the South with war plans to use them may have had something to do with why Kim Il Sung launched a nuclear weapons program of his own. With Soviet, Chinese and Pakistani help they eventually built the bomb.
As for the U.S. commitment to Article VI of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), the latest plans out of the Bush administration call for keeping thousands of nuclear warheads for decades to come. While the U.S. does not deserve all the blame for eroding the NPT, it does deserve some and should be doing more to strengthen it. Some concrete steps were outlined by Messrs. Shultz, Perry, Kissinger, and Nunn in these pages on Jan. 4.
Robert S. Norris, Ph.D.Senior Research AssociateNatural Resources Defense CouncilWashington
Excerpted from Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2007- Letters to the editor
Friday, May 11, 2007
About Paul Wolfowitz and the World Bank
About Paul Wolfowitz and the World Bank
By Jerome Grossman
Paul Wolfowitz was Deputy Secretary of Defense under Donald Rumsfeld and a primary architect of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. As a reward for the Iraq failure, President Bush appointed him President of the World Bank, an international institution founded 62 years ago primarily help poor countries to develop their economies. The Bank has 13,000 employees from 140 countries, most of them highly trained professionals accustomed to a consultative style of management. Many felt that Wolfowitz, with no banking or management experience, brought a top down military culture to the Bank, exercised by aides he hired from the U.S. Department of Defense. While the U.S. is the largest contributor to the Bank, 18 percent of working capital, an unwritten agreement gives the U.S. President the right to appoint the head of the Bank. U.S. policies have usually dominated the allocation of funds and the policies supported. While the revolt against Wolfowitz was triggered by his handling of the position and salary of his female companion who also worked at the Bank, the situation is not primarily a sexual scandal. It is another negative fallout from the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the worldwide unpopularity of the U.S. because of its heavy-handed unilateral policies. While the U.S. is too powerful to be challenged militarily or economically, the attack on Wolfowitz is fundamentally a criticism of American policies, a small rebellion but sure to be applauded in the 140 countries by those who believe that the power of the American colossus should be reduced.
By Jerome Grossman
Paul Wolfowitz was Deputy Secretary of Defense under Donald Rumsfeld and a primary architect of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. As a reward for the Iraq failure, President Bush appointed him President of the World Bank, an international institution founded 62 years ago primarily help poor countries to develop their economies. The Bank has 13,000 employees from 140 countries, most of them highly trained professionals accustomed to a consultative style of management. Many felt that Wolfowitz, with no banking or management experience, brought a top down military culture to the Bank, exercised by aides he hired from the U.S. Department of Defense. While the U.S. is the largest contributor to the Bank, 18 percent of working capital, an unwritten agreement gives the U.S. President the right to appoint the head of the Bank. U.S. policies have usually dominated the allocation of funds and the policies supported. While the revolt against Wolfowitz was triggered by his handling of the position and salary of his female companion who also worked at the Bank, the situation is not primarily a sexual scandal. It is another negative fallout from the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the worldwide unpopularity of the U.S. because of its heavy-handed unilateral policies. While the U.S. is too powerful to be challenged militarily or economically, the attack on Wolfowitz is fundamentally a criticism of American policies, a small rebellion but sure to be applauded in the 140 countries by those who believe that the power of the American colossus should be reduced.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
What Happens in Nuclear War?
What Happens in Nuclear War?
In August 1945 the Untied States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, killing 300,000 human beings and creating continuing suffering in the lives of countless survivors.
Now nine nations have nuclear bombs and thirty more have the capacity to make them. These bombs are many times more powerful than the relatively small atomic bombs that we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Today there are, all over the earth, in combat readiness, enough nuclear bombs to wipe out the world population 690 times, and there is no defense.
Here is what happens in nuclear war. First, the blast creates enormous pressures, topples buildings and trees. It kills people by shockwave and wind, by flying debris, by throwing people against fixed objects, by crushing them in collapsing buildings.
Second, an enormous fireball is formed, causing flash burns and igniting raging firestorms. People far from the blast may be burned or blinded.
Third, enormous doses of radiation are released, killing people close to the explosion immediately. Smaller doses cause acute delayed radiation sickness and possibly death. Radiation affects future generations genetically.
Fourth, fallout radiation spreads out, sometimes killing people hundreds of miles from the explosion. It causes leukemia and other forms of cancer everywhere on earth for decades. It increases the incidence of stillbirths, tumors, congenital malformations, and cataracts.
Furthermore, nuclear explosions pollute water, earth, and air virtually forever. Forests and agricultural land are destroyed by heat and blast. Animals and birds die from radiation. Most bacteria, fungi, viruses, and insects will flourish because they are resistant to radiation.
The disorganization of society will be catastrophic. Medical facilities and energy production will be disrupted, government authority will break down, and disaster relief will be difficult. Diseases and epidemics will spread. Survivors will probably fight for scarce food supplies that might still be uncontaminated. Psychologically, there is likely to be despair at the overwhelming task of reconstruction, with the possibility of another nuclear war in the offing.
Excerpted from Relentless Liberal by Jerome Grossman
In August 1945 the Untied States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, killing 300,000 human beings and creating continuing suffering in the lives of countless survivors.
Now nine nations have nuclear bombs and thirty more have the capacity to make them. These bombs are many times more powerful than the relatively small atomic bombs that we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Today there are, all over the earth, in combat readiness, enough nuclear bombs to wipe out the world population 690 times, and there is no defense.
Here is what happens in nuclear war. First, the blast creates enormous pressures, topples buildings and trees. It kills people by shockwave and wind, by flying debris, by throwing people against fixed objects, by crushing them in collapsing buildings.
Second, an enormous fireball is formed, causing flash burns and igniting raging firestorms. People far from the blast may be burned or blinded.
Third, enormous doses of radiation are released, killing people close to the explosion immediately. Smaller doses cause acute delayed radiation sickness and possibly death. Radiation affects future generations genetically.
Fourth, fallout radiation spreads out, sometimes killing people hundreds of miles from the explosion. It causes leukemia and other forms of cancer everywhere on earth for decades. It increases the incidence of stillbirths, tumors, congenital malformations, and cataracts.
Furthermore, nuclear explosions pollute water, earth, and air virtually forever. Forests and agricultural land are destroyed by heat and blast. Animals and birds die from radiation. Most bacteria, fungi, viruses, and insects will flourish because they are resistant to radiation.
The disorganization of society will be catastrophic. Medical facilities and energy production will be disrupted, government authority will break down, and disaster relief will be difficult. Diseases and epidemics will spread. Survivors will probably fight for scarce food supplies that might still be uncontaminated. Psychologically, there is likely to be despair at the overwhelming task of reconstruction, with the possibility of another nuclear war in the offing.
Excerpted from Relentless Liberal by Jerome Grossman
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Are Americans Innocents Abroad?
Are Americans Innocents Abroad?
By Jerome Grossman
In The New Yorker Magazine of May 7, 2007, Senator Barack Obama is quoted on the U.S. invasion of Iraq that we knew it would be a terrible mistake, that this was American innocence at its most destructive, freedom at its most deceptive, universalism at its most naïve. “There was a dangerous innocence to thinking that we would be greeted as liberators, or that with a little bit of economic assistance and democratic training you’d have a Jeffersonian democracy blooming in the desert. There is a running thread in American history of idealism that can express itself powerfully and appropriately….”
Repeatedly television replays Secretary of State Colin Powell addressing the United Nations, making the Weapons of Mass Destruction case against Iraq with CIA Director George Tenet sitting behind him nodding in agreement when both knew the statements were fraudulent. U.S. intelligence spent $44 billion per year, had satellites in the sky photographing every inch of Iraq, had agents in Iraq, had information from the Chalabi expatriates, obtained information from Pentagon Special Forces dropped on Iraq – and then said we made an innocent mistake?
How innocent can America be when it has fought nine wars in the last seventeen years, when it has more than 725 military bases in 38 countries? Most Americans do not know that the U.S. dominates the world through its military power, with garrisons across the globe on every continent, and has done so since 1945, not only in vanquished Germany, Japan and South Korea but even in the new countries that were once part of the former Soviet Union.
The reality is that the U.S. is an imperial power with interests all over the Earth. We are not innocent, nor should we be. We did not attain this awesome power by practicing idealism. Occasionally the U.S. overreaches or encounters serious resistance as in Vietnam and Iraq. But its motives are similar to previous empires: to eliminate potential competition and to extend its preeminence.
To Senator Obama: realism is a better guide than sentimentality.
By Jerome Grossman
In The New Yorker Magazine of May 7, 2007, Senator Barack Obama is quoted on the U.S. invasion of Iraq that we knew it would be a terrible mistake, that this was American innocence at its most destructive, freedom at its most deceptive, universalism at its most naïve. “There was a dangerous innocence to thinking that we would be greeted as liberators, or that with a little bit of economic assistance and democratic training you’d have a Jeffersonian democracy blooming in the desert. There is a running thread in American history of idealism that can express itself powerfully and appropriately….”
Repeatedly television replays Secretary of State Colin Powell addressing the United Nations, making the Weapons of Mass Destruction case against Iraq with CIA Director George Tenet sitting behind him nodding in agreement when both knew the statements were fraudulent. U.S. intelligence spent $44 billion per year, had satellites in the sky photographing every inch of Iraq, had agents in Iraq, had information from the Chalabi expatriates, obtained information from Pentagon Special Forces dropped on Iraq – and then said we made an innocent mistake?
How innocent can America be when it has fought nine wars in the last seventeen years, when it has more than 725 military bases in 38 countries? Most Americans do not know that the U.S. dominates the world through its military power, with garrisons across the globe on every continent, and has done so since 1945, not only in vanquished Germany, Japan and South Korea but even in the new countries that were once part of the former Soviet Union.
The reality is that the U.S. is an imperial power with interests all over the Earth. We are not innocent, nor should we be. We did not attain this awesome power by practicing idealism. Occasionally the U.S. overreaches or encounters serious resistance as in Vietnam and Iraq. But its motives are similar to previous empires: to eliminate potential competition and to extend its preeminence.
To Senator Obama: realism is a better guide than sentimentality.
Monday, April 30, 2007
How to Reduce Deaths by Guns
How to Reduce Deaths by Guns
By Jerome Grossman
Despite a continuing decline in serious crime, the United States remains far and away the most violent industrialized nation in the entire world. In 1999, for example, the U.S. murder rate was six times as high as England’s. And the favorite weapon was a firearm.
Suicide is the eleventh leading cause of death of all Americans, usually about 30,000 per year. The majority, 55 percent, kill themselves with guns.
The U.S. has the world’s highest rate of private gun ownership, with 90 weapons per 100 civilians. Here are the numbers for other countries: Yemen 61, Finland 56, Switzerland 46, Iraq 39.
According to a Harvard School of Public Health study, the rate of suicide is nearly twice as high in the 15 states with the highest gun ownership rates than in the six states with the lowest gun ownership rates.
What can we do to protect our brothers, sisters, children, and parents from these dangers?
We are limited by a gun culture established by the westward expansion that brought us into centuries of conflict with the Native Indians, the English, the Spaniards, and the Mexicans. The long repression of the African slaves in the Southern states was enforced by firearms. Gun manufacturing in this country became a big business. It has not been easy to overcome this inheritance.
In addition, the men who wrote the U.S. Constitution, a model of simplicity and clarity, bequeathed to us the Second Amendment, so obscure that it is open to very different interpretations: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Some -- including President Bush -- interpret this to mean “that there is a right for people to bear arms.” Others believe it applies only to a militia organized to defend the nation.
Most Americans do agree on some federal regulations applying to all gun owners as qualifications: passing a written test, a physical test, and a mental test as well as training in using firearms.
These are merely the foundations for a safer and workable system. Every gun owner should have a reason to have a gun: military, security officer, police, hunter, target shooter. There should be uniform regulation in all states so that a person cannot buy a gun in one state but then take it to another state to evade regulations.
Enforcement should be the responsibility of the local police chiefs, who know the angry and unstable people in their area and who have self-interest because their officers are most often in the line of fire. All guns should be stored in the local police station, signed out for use, and then returned to the police station. No guns at home for a child to discover and then have an accident, or as a tool to settle an angry argument, or in a vehicle for use in road rage, or easily available in the grip of depression.
While the difficulties of installing such a system would be enormous, cost would be the least problem. Breaking the habits of centuries is far more challenging, even more than overcoming the opposition of the National Rifle Association, which protects the interests of the gun manufacturers.
Legitimate use of guns would be protected, even encouraged -- but murders, suicides, and deaths by gun accidents would be reduced dramatically. Americans should not have to be at greater risk than citizens of other civilized countries.
By Jerome Grossman
Despite a continuing decline in serious crime, the United States remains far and away the most violent industrialized nation in the entire world. In 1999, for example, the U.S. murder rate was six times as high as England’s. And the favorite weapon was a firearm.
Suicide is the eleventh leading cause of death of all Americans, usually about 30,000 per year. The majority, 55 percent, kill themselves with guns.
The U.S. has the world’s highest rate of private gun ownership, with 90 weapons per 100 civilians. Here are the numbers for other countries: Yemen 61, Finland 56, Switzerland 46, Iraq 39.
According to a Harvard School of Public Health study, the rate of suicide is nearly twice as high in the 15 states with the highest gun ownership rates than in the six states with the lowest gun ownership rates.
What can we do to protect our brothers, sisters, children, and parents from these dangers?
We are limited by a gun culture established by the westward expansion that brought us into centuries of conflict with the Native Indians, the English, the Spaniards, and the Mexicans. The long repression of the African slaves in the Southern states was enforced by firearms. Gun manufacturing in this country became a big business. It has not been easy to overcome this inheritance.
In addition, the men who wrote the U.S. Constitution, a model of simplicity and clarity, bequeathed to us the Second Amendment, so obscure that it is open to very different interpretations: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Some -- including President Bush -- interpret this to mean “that there is a right for people to bear arms.” Others believe it applies only to a militia organized to defend the nation.
Most Americans do agree on some federal regulations applying to all gun owners as qualifications: passing a written test, a physical test, and a mental test as well as training in using firearms.
These are merely the foundations for a safer and workable system. Every gun owner should have a reason to have a gun: military, security officer, police, hunter, target shooter. There should be uniform regulation in all states so that a person cannot buy a gun in one state but then take it to another state to evade regulations.
Enforcement should be the responsibility of the local police chiefs, who know the angry and unstable people in their area and who have self-interest because their officers are most often in the line of fire. All guns should be stored in the local police station, signed out for use, and then returned to the police station. No guns at home for a child to discover and then have an accident, or as a tool to settle an angry argument, or in a vehicle for use in road rage, or easily available in the grip of depression.
While the difficulties of installing such a system would be enormous, cost would be the least problem. Breaking the habits of centuries is far more challenging, even more than overcoming the opposition of the National Rifle Association, which protects the interests of the gun manufacturers.
Legitimate use of guns would be protected, even encouraged -- but murders, suicides, and deaths by gun accidents would be reduced dramatically. Americans should not have to be at greater risk than citizens of other civilized countries.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
A Liberal’s Creed: Seeking to Narrow the Gaps
A Liberal’s Creed: Seeking to Narrow the Gaps
By Jerome Grossman
Liberalism in the United States is different from classical liberalism, American as apple pie. It draws its inspiration from the Declaration of Independence: “that all men are created equal.” Equality is the master idea, in race, wealth, and gender. Yet liberalism does not advocate the absolute economic equality implied in socialist systems, because liberalism is restrained by its advocacy of the freedom of the individual and unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor. Liberals do not believe it is possible to create a perfect society but that we should try to reach the ideal.
Rooted in Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive movement, liberalism accepts with typical American pragmatism the dominance of business interests while seeking to modify the imbalances of political, social, and economic institutions. Big government is the instrument of modification for, as Theodore Roosevelt said, “There was a time when the limitation of governmental power meant increasing liberty for the people. In the present day, the limitation of governmental power, of governmental action, means the enslavement of the people by the great corporations.”
However, liberals are also wary of big government, unwilling even for the goals of equality to sacrifice the protection of individual rights, the rule of law, and personal freedoms. It is this tension between two objectives that makes it so demanding to be an American liberal: eternal vigilance is required.
Liberals know that absolute equality can never be achieved. But, optimistic believers in the essential goodness of humanity and in human rationality, they promote change that will allow the aggressive and the talented to benefit from their efforts while promoting reforms that will minimize the differences in benefits, thereby cutting the equality gap.
The motivations are moral and pragmatic: moral in that equality reflects our communitarian heritage and love for all human beings; pragmatic in the sense that inequality spawns revolution and crime.
While conservatives are by definition the party of the status quo, they demonstrate by their actions a realization of the moral and pragmatic problems. Their answer is private charity to relieve the pressures generated by economic inequality, and political tokenism to make up for the differences in power.
For liberals, the conservative answer is insufficient. Only the government, as the instrument of the entire nation, should be responsible for providing the minimum conditions necessary for a decent existence. These conditions include not only adequate food, clothing, and shelter, but also education and employment.
The growth of industrial society has produced great inequalities of wealth and power. Liberalism insists that it is in the interests of all parties to narrow the gaps. This is American pragmatic idealism at its best: right and practical at the same time.
By Jerome Grossman
Liberalism in the United States is different from classical liberalism, American as apple pie. It draws its inspiration from the Declaration of Independence: “that all men are created equal.” Equality is the master idea, in race, wealth, and gender. Yet liberalism does not advocate the absolute economic equality implied in socialist systems, because liberalism is restrained by its advocacy of the freedom of the individual and unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor. Liberals do not believe it is possible to create a perfect society but that we should try to reach the ideal.
Rooted in Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive movement, liberalism accepts with typical American pragmatism the dominance of business interests while seeking to modify the imbalances of political, social, and economic institutions. Big government is the instrument of modification for, as Theodore Roosevelt said, “There was a time when the limitation of governmental power meant increasing liberty for the people. In the present day, the limitation of governmental power, of governmental action, means the enslavement of the people by the great corporations.”
However, liberals are also wary of big government, unwilling even for the goals of equality to sacrifice the protection of individual rights, the rule of law, and personal freedoms. It is this tension between two objectives that makes it so demanding to be an American liberal: eternal vigilance is required.
Liberals know that absolute equality can never be achieved. But, optimistic believers in the essential goodness of humanity and in human rationality, they promote change that will allow the aggressive and the talented to benefit from their efforts while promoting reforms that will minimize the differences in benefits, thereby cutting the equality gap.
The motivations are moral and pragmatic: moral in that equality reflects our communitarian heritage and love for all human beings; pragmatic in the sense that inequality spawns revolution and crime.
While conservatives are by definition the party of the status quo, they demonstrate by their actions a realization of the moral and pragmatic problems. Their answer is private charity to relieve the pressures generated by economic inequality, and political tokenism to make up for the differences in power.
For liberals, the conservative answer is insufficient. Only the government, as the instrument of the entire nation, should be responsible for providing the minimum conditions necessary for a decent existence. These conditions include not only adequate food, clothing, and shelter, but also education and employment.
The growth of industrial society has produced great inequalities of wealth and power. Liberalism insists that it is in the interests of all parties to narrow the gaps. This is American pragmatic idealism at its best: right and practical at the same time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
