Recent decisions by President Barrack Obama and continuing revelations about former President Dick Cheney strengthen the argument that we need a US Truth Commission to cleanse the national soul and pave the way for freedom to be restored.
"The truth shall set you free" is not an injunction that is tied to any "religious" insight into life, but a maxim whose legitimacy is established by simple logic, the most basic moral values for the good life and the need for periodic or continual cleansing of sins/mistakes that inhibit future possibilities for right actions that promote human freedom and the protection of human rights.
President Obama's backtracking on the decision to release photos of detainees requested by the ACLU under the Freedom Of Information Act, the similar backtracking on the terrorism tribunals at Guantanamo and the revelation of Dick Cheney's direct involvement in ordering torture not for national security concerns but to support his own policy decisions provides the latest evidence that a comprehensive Truth Commission to determine possible US involvement in human rights violations is necessary because the official and unofficial centers of power will not allow it to happen according to law or by means of their own policital will.
This is not a matter of whether or not the truth will come out. Frank Rich, in a recent New York Times editorial, notes that Obama's decision, supposedly to protect US troops from increasing anti-American sentiment across the globe, is a "fools errand" becuase the photos will eventually come out. So, Rich argues, it is better for the President and the nation to get on the side of truth and transparency from the beginning. The same is true about a Truth Commission. It is not that the Truth Commission will have to uncover the truth; the truth will be uncovered. The Truth Commission would serve to put our people, our nation, our country on the side of truth and human rights instead of on the side of the Cheney crowd who denies the importance of human rights and covers up all the dirtly tricks to violate them. President Obama is not one who, as far as we know, could be subject to the investigations of the Truth Commission, but he makes himself complicit in the cover up with these recent decisions. Cheney, on the other hand, plays both sides to his advantage, asking for release of memos when he thinks they will support him, but having a perfect record as Vice-President in denying all request for information that could unveil the truth.
The trouble with the Cheney record and the Obama decisions is that while politicians are protected and the troops are seemingly supported, the country is damaged and we, the people, are denied knowledge of what is being done in our name around the world. And, since National Security is always cited as the reason for violations of human rights, the Truth Commission could help us redefine this term in a way that actually protects our security instead of protecting those who violate it. The agreement of the world on the international treaties for Human Rights is based upon a sound assumption: there is nothing more important for national or human security than respect for human rights. Every known national leader who violated human rights from Idi Aman to Pol Pot argued that national security trumped human rights. In the end it was never National Security that motivated these leaders, but personal power and hiding the truth.
If the United States stands for freedom, the place to begin to earn that reputation is to honor the age-old wisdom that "the truth shall set you free." The fear that a Truth Commmision would damage our reputation is exactly the kind of logic that leads to slavery. If we fear the truth, then slavery is our destiny.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Cheney Didn't, Doesn't and Won't Get It
According to TV commentators on CNN, former Vice-President Cheney criticized the decision of the Obama administration to release the memos on torture arguing, ironically, that more should be released on this same subject; specifically, the memos that show how much information was acquired through the torture methods.
At the same time, Presdient Obama was explaining to CIA personell his reasons for releasing the memos and banning torture as a method of gaining intellingence.
Cheney did not get it. Cheney believes, evidently. that a nation can act immorally if it gets what it wants from this immorral action. Such immorality has no negative cost.
President Obama, on the other hand, did not make the argument to discontinue torture based on intelligence gathering criteria, although such an arguement could have been made. Rather, he made the arguement from the Scriptures: "What does it profit a man (nation) if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul." Obama said that respect for the law and human rights is foundational to what America should be and that to lose this part of our soul puts the whole nation at risk.
This is the first time in a long time that a President has actually honored the age old Judeo-Christian values on morality, despite the fact that they all have said that they are profoundly religious. Just to be clear about it, the reason to be in sinc with Judeo-Christian valus on this issue is not to demonstrate some kind of faithfulness to ancient values of the faiths, but rather, because history has proven the prophetic version of truth to be reliable: that a nation or a society that violates what it knows are basic moral principles is a nation that is doomed to failure, and, no matter what the strength of their armies or, we might say, the effectiveness of their intelligence in producing informaiton, will eventually suffer because of this immorality.
In addition to the absolute hypocrisy of wanting more disclosure, considering Cheney's unfaltering defense of secrecy during his time in the White House, the arguement that knowing how much information we might get from prisoners by using torture might persuade us to join the ranks of the most brutal and immoral nations on the earth for the sake of gaining this information is an arguement that will, so to speak, send our nationa straight to hell. On the other hand, a person who does not mind lying to the nation and the world about the reasons to go to war, has already demonstrated that they have the requisite lack of morality necessary for destroying the soul of the nation, not to mention sending us all into economic tailspin and national bankruptcy.
At the same time, Presdient Obama was explaining to CIA personell his reasons for releasing the memos and banning torture as a method of gaining intellingence.
Cheney did not get it. Cheney believes, evidently. that a nation can act immorally if it gets what it wants from this immorral action. Such immorality has no negative cost.
President Obama, on the other hand, did not make the argument to discontinue torture based on intelligence gathering criteria, although such an arguement could have been made. Rather, he made the arguement from the Scriptures: "What does it profit a man (nation) if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul." Obama said that respect for the law and human rights is foundational to what America should be and that to lose this part of our soul puts the whole nation at risk.
This is the first time in a long time that a President has actually honored the age old Judeo-Christian values on morality, despite the fact that they all have said that they are profoundly religious. Just to be clear about it, the reason to be in sinc with Judeo-Christian valus on this issue is not to demonstrate some kind of faithfulness to ancient values of the faiths, but rather, because history has proven the prophetic version of truth to be reliable: that a nation or a society that violates what it knows are basic moral principles is a nation that is doomed to failure, and, no matter what the strength of their armies or, we might say, the effectiveness of their intelligence in producing informaiton, will eventually suffer because of this immorality.
In addition to the absolute hypocrisy of wanting more disclosure, considering Cheney's unfaltering defense of secrecy during his time in the White House, the arguement that knowing how much information we might get from prisoners by using torture might persuade us to join the ranks of the most brutal and immoral nations on the earth for the sake of gaining this information is an arguement that will, so to speak, send our nationa straight to hell. On the other hand, a person who does not mind lying to the nation and the world about the reasons to go to war, has already demonstrated that they have the requisite lack of morality necessary for destroying the soul of the nation, not to mention sending us all into economic tailspin and national bankruptcy.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
WHAT?
The decision of the US not to attend the Durban Conference on Racism seems strangely at odds with the Obama Administration's new openness to the world and, at the same time, will only increase the impression of the world that Israel drives our foreign policy, not ourselves. The African Amercian community will certainly have a hard time understanding this decision.
Of course, we have not seen the language of the document to be submitted to the conference for approval. The Obama Administration says that the one to be submitted is improved from the original. The explanation given by the administration does not seem to justify such a stark departure from the rather persistent and, up until now, consistent stance of openness to all conversation, meetings, encounters, dialogues. We can talk with Iran, but we cannot go to a UN sponsored conference on Racism.
In fact, it does beg the question. Is our foreign policy driven by Israel and not by ourselves?
Of course, we have not seen the language of the document to be submitted to the conference for approval. The Obama Administration says that the one to be submitted is improved from the original. The explanation given by the administration does not seem to justify such a stark departure from the rather persistent and, up until now, consistent stance of openness to all conversation, meetings, encounters, dialogues. We can talk with Iran, but we cannot go to a UN sponsored conference on Racism.
In fact, it does beg the question. Is our foreign policy driven by Israel and not by ourselves?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Hard CAll, Wrong Call
To prosecute or not to prosecute, that is the question when it comes to now well documented violations of the law primarily by those at the highest levels who signed off on various forms of torture to be used by the CIA. It is a hard call because there is hardly any precedent and it might seem to some that it is just plain political revenge by a Democratic administration against a previous Republican one. President Obama decided to release the incriminating records, but decided not to prosecute any of the possible offenders. Hard call, true, but the wrong call. A soldier just got life in prison for killing Iraquis because it is against the law. What makes the CIA different? Wouldn't the CIA's reputation go up with all of us if it even collaborated in strategic legal actions against the intellectual authors of policy that violate nationa and international law. Wouldn't that be a "new day" that current CIA director Panetta talks about even as he promises that the CIA will defend any agent against which legal actions are brought for involvement in torture.
"Impunity" is a very bad word for a society that claims to be a society committed to the rule of law. Panetta says the lesson is learned, but I don't think you could find a legitimate psychologist or social analyst anywhere who thinks that releasing papers documenting crimes while promising not to bring any of the criminals to justice is any kind of lesson other than that "impunity" continues for the intelligence community. The "torture" in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places during this last fit of rage we call the "War on Terror" is not the worst of violations of law, national and international, or of basic morality that the CIA has committed during its years of existence. President Obama just missed a historic opportunity for cleansing what is one of the dirtiest agencies of government whose gross violations of human rights in Latin America, for instance, justified on national security grounds, have done nothing for improving national security but have managed to give our nation a bad reputation around the globe.
Navy Adm. Dennis Blair gets it even more wrong when he intimates that any lebal action against Bush administration officials or CIA operatives would be a disrespect for the military primarily because the war in Iraq was unpopular. Excuse me, but whatever happened to the "we are defending the freedom of America" schtick. Is that freedom not predicated on respect for law? What should be more unpopular than the war is letting criminals go free.
Sorry, President Obama, for whom I voted, but you are making the mistake of so many presidents, Democrats and Republicans, in protecting the military and intelligence community from the most basic of all elements that could produce responsible behaviour - the law. It might have been a hard call, but it was a wrong call...and worse, it was a bad call.
"Impunity" is a very bad word for a society that claims to be a society committed to the rule of law. Panetta says the lesson is learned, but I don't think you could find a legitimate psychologist or social analyst anywhere who thinks that releasing papers documenting crimes while promising not to bring any of the criminals to justice is any kind of lesson other than that "impunity" continues for the intelligence community. The "torture" in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places during this last fit of rage we call the "War on Terror" is not the worst of violations of law, national and international, or of basic morality that the CIA has committed during its years of existence. President Obama just missed a historic opportunity for cleansing what is one of the dirtiest agencies of government whose gross violations of human rights in Latin America, for instance, justified on national security grounds, have done nothing for improving national security but have managed to give our nation a bad reputation around the globe.
Navy Adm. Dennis Blair gets it even more wrong when he intimates that any lebal action against Bush administration officials or CIA operatives would be a disrespect for the military primarily because the war in Iraq was unpopular. Excuse me, but whatever happened to the "we are defending the freedom of America" schtick. Is that freedom not predicated on respect for law? What should be more unpopular than the war is letting criminals go free.
Sorry, President Obama, for whom I voted, but you are making the mistake of so many presidents, Democrats and Republicans, in protecting the military and intelligence community from the most basic of all elements that could produce responsible behaviour - the law. It might have been a hard call, but it was a wrong call...and worse, it was a bad call.
Friday, April 3, 2009
US UNDER OBAMA BEGINS TO GROW UP
Was President Obama "successful" or not in his trip to the G20 meeting in London. This is a typical American question. "Successful" is what we want and it is always interpreted in the sense of whether we got the world to do as we want them to do. Good for us and the world, Obama was not successful in this sense. What Obama did was to help the US grow up, mature, begin to understand the world the way it is. Along the way, he got about as much as anyone could get from the Europeans and others by taking the mature approach to relationships in which the other is actually respected.
There is a good reason that Europeans do not agree to more stimulus. They do not need it the way we need it because they have not starved their states the way we have and the basic needs of citizens are met, to a larger degree than those of Americans are, by state programs of support for education and health care. The Europeans may not be as dynamic, economically speaking, but they are more mature in their approach to spending and taxes; their wealth is greater and more shared among the classes than in the US. China's situation is entirely different from the US and European problems. They do not lack for cosummers or demand internally. What the Chinese face is the drop in world wide demand for their goods...so it is exactly in their interest for the US to stimulate while they do not need to as their internal markets still outstrip their ability to produce goods for domestic use. Where they make money is in the trade with others. In fact, it was the Anglo (US/British) banking system and approach to economy that has led the world into the current depression and the rest of the world is absolutely committed to not paying for what we created.
The same is true on Afghanistan. The Europeans have a different view of the world that does not divide it into we and them in some kind of eternal battle between good and evil, so they can measure the threat versus the cost of containing it in a very different way than we have. The Europeans know that Afghanistan is a black hole, and, more importantly, that military action has a very limited role to play in any attempts to build a representative and effective state. And, they have decided that preventive measure at home is the way to address the terrorist threat combined with strategic alliances and intelligence work in the Muslim nations. it is a more relaxed approach to the terrorist threat that has a more realistic estimate of the threat that terrorism poses to the Western world.
We should be thankful that President Obama is beginning to understand, for us, that the world is made up of a variety of legitimate interests and approaches to solving problems from which we could learn a great deal, just as othes might learn some things from us. Stimulus is the way we have to go because we have starved the state and regulation is more important to European states whose economic stability is more secure than ours and thus, needs, for banks and financial institutions to act in a way that maximizes steady growth, not huge and temporary profit.
So, just to be American and measure success, we can say that Obama probably got almost 100% of what was possible to get from a world that has different needs and share a different level of responsibility for the current crisis in economy and war. Plus, he helped America begin to grow up, mature as a part of the global family, something that we and the world sorely need to happen.
There is a good reason that Europeans do not agree to more stimulus. They do not need it the way we need it because they have not starved their states the way we have and the basic needs of citizens are met, to a larger degree than those of Americans are, by state programs of support for education and health care. The Europeans may not be as dynamic, economically speaking, but they are more mature in their approach to spending and taxes; their wealth is greater and more shared among the classes than in the US. China's situation is entirely different from the US and European problems. They do not lack for cosummers or demand internally. What the Chinese face is the drop in world wide demand for their goods...so it is exactly in their interest for the US to stimulate while they do not need to as their internal markets still outstrip their ability to produce goods for domestic use. Where they make money is in the trade with others. In fact, it was the Anglo (US/British) banking system and approach to economy that has led the world into the current depression and the rest of the world is absolutely committed to not paying for what we created.
The same is true on Afghanistan. The Europeans have a different view of the world that does not divide it into we and them in some kind of eternal battle between good and evil, so they can measure the threat versus the cost of containing it in a very different way than we have. The Europeans know that Afghanistan is a black hole, and, more importantly, that military action has a very limited role to play in any attempts to build a representative and effective state. And, they have decided that preventive measure at home is the way to address the terrorist threat combined with strategic alliances and intelligence work in the Muslim nations. it is a more relaxed approach to the terrorist threat that has a more realistic estimate of the threat that terrorism poses to the Western world.
We should be thankful that President Obama is beginning to understand, for us, that the world is made up of a variety of legitimate interests and approaches to solving problems from which we could learn a great deal, just as othes might learn some things from us. Stimulus is the way we have to go because we have starved the state and regulation is more important to European states whose economic stability is more secure than ours and thus, needs, for banks and financial institutions to act in a way that maximizes steady growth, not huge and temporary profit.
So, just to be American and measure success, we can say that Obama probably got almost 100% of what was possible to get from a world that has different needs and share a different level of responsibility for the current crisis in economy and war. Plus, he helped America begin to grow up, mature as a part of the global family, something that we and the world sorely need to happen.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Newt Gingrich Reemerges, Thank God
Newt Gingrich is reemerging as a conservative leader. We should Thank God for this. It will be an ongoing reminder of why we should reject traditional conservative politics of unregulated capitalism and unquestioning support for military action. This is exactly how we got here, but Republicans in the Congress understand that they cannot get reelected by standing by the conservative platform as Gingrich proposes. This muddles the public debate on issues related to core values, so Gingrich, with his threat to participate in promoting a third party of "real" conservative values should be welcomed as a clarifying factor in the political landscape. Of course, this will serve to split the conservative vote and this is also good. It's just good all around and even better if Gingirich can spark a new party. Then maybe the Christian right can form another party in protest of the Republican lack of backbone in promoting the "Christian social agenda" and not wanting to associate itself with Gingrich's party due to his unsavory record on the family issues. This would be another blessing on America and would clearly identify those who do not have a clue as to who Jesus is. I do have one question that continues to bother me as a result of observing the Gingrich phenomena. I am just wondering how you can make a successful career of being publicly wrong, mean and immoral. Evidently it is a niche worthy of appearing on all the media outlets as an expert, but I am not sure if it is as expert in being wrong, mean or immoral or all three. Can somebody enlighten me?
Sunday, March 22, 2009
The Real Quagmire
That Iraq is a quagmire is certain, That Afghanistan is even more of a quagmire, is even more certain. These days, however, I get the feeling that the real quagmire we are experiencing is right here in the good ole USA. We have the met the quagmire and the quagmire is us.
The TV News: At the time, it seemed like a good idea - the 24 hour news channel. In fact, what it has turned out to be is a business looking to create a market for itself. There is very little news and a lot of opinion and the opinion is not necessarily thoughtful, it is commercial, and therefore, not as thoughtful, because thoughtful does not sell like radical, angst and anger producing, out of somebody's gut expressions that parade as opinions but really are just self commercials, trying to sell oneself to the public so that your ratings go up and your salary gets more ridiculous. So, what we get is concentration on one or two stories at a time; depending upon which story can produce the best ratings.
Who can really say that the AIG salary bonuses is the most important story of the last week. Really, in the big mix of things that we need to understand, address and resolve, the bonuses don't make much of a difference, but the majority of "news" time has been spent on the AIG story. Meanwhile, Lou Dobbs is tearing down most of the institutions in the nationa, Hannity is yelling who knows what (we all know what - it comes down to about two things normally - the democrats are wrong and gays and lesbians are subverting the country), and Nancy Grace is overscrutinizing every bizarre legal and police matter she can get her hands on. It's a quagmire because none of it nits on the matters about reality and the making of history that are helpful to constructing some kind of better society or even just understanding the world in which we live.
The Congress: Instead of looking into many matters that need to see some light and resolving a lot of national problems which go chronically unsolved, the Congress is engaged in posturing for the next election. So, we also get AIG and other sideline issues as the major meal served up by our representatives. Instead, we ought to have a full out debate on how to stimulate the alternative energy sector of the economy. This would be helpful. This might actually solve a real problem.
The President: I have to admit that the President seems like the only one who is actually focuses on the real job - solving the vast problems which plague our society. Almost every day or every other day, we get a new action out of the White House or some aspect of the executive branck of government. The Obama Administration may be wrong on some of the solutions, but they are actually working on solutions, not on trying to win an aelection, sell a commercial on the news channel or posture for looking good in front of the public. But the president faces the Congress/Media Quagmire.
The Private Sector: These area bunch of cry babies from the financial/banking sector to the major manufacturers. They all made millions and then when their decisions of greed led to economic recession, they want a bailout. The small businsess may be the exception as they need to actually perform a real service or make a real product that somebody needs to survice. But the big ones are just personal ATMs for the rich and greedy. The private sectors opposes everything that could help the public because it means taxes, yet they get more tax relief than the poor - just take medicare, for instance, which, in fact, is a get rich quick scheme for the pharmaceutical companies and the medical industry. If we didn't have medicare, they all would have 30% less clients. Since Jimmy Carter we knew that we needed a better, more fuel efficient car or an alternative energy car. Nobody got to work on it despite a huge amount of profit since that time. Where was it invested? The Private sector is a quagmire because it has come to believe that the nation exists to serve them, not them to serve the national interest.
The Churches: I really should not put the church close in category to the above as they have so little influence anymore. The reasons for this are many and increasing each day. Mostly they are caused by the quagmire the church created for itself when it decided to be "successful" instead of "faithful". But is it noteworthy, at least, that the self described "most Christian" nation on earth, heres littel or nothing from the churches on the most important issues of the day, except the usual banter of the Christian Right on its pet issues. The church has become obsolete because it does not speak up on the issues that any simple persons can see should be the issues that bother Christians (people who have some connection to Jesus) like poverty, abuse of children, war, discrimination and the issues of justice that have to do with providing access to those who have been marginated by our society. The churches do not speak up because it would damage their image of themselves as "successful". Instead, what we get from the churches is a steady diet of scandals where the church and God are being used to deceive the public, manipulate believers and abuse those who come to the church for healing. Oh, wait a minute, the churches have united recently to oppose anything the President might want to do to reduce the charitable donation deduction for the very rich. now there is an issue worthy of the church's attention!!!
The people of the US: I will get in trouble on this one. First, the disclaimer: there are many fine, upstanding, beautiful, intelligent people in the United States. Nevertheless, as a group, we lack focus and understanding that would lead us to take actions that would ensure a "good" life for us. We let Bush lead us into trillions of debt and tow wars not worthy winning. We still insist that all our politicians tell us that we are the "best, last hope of humankind", "the greatest nation on the earth" when these are not only arrogant, egotistical lies, but also absolutely meaningless in tersm of the struggle for a "good" life. These are things that "brain dead" nations like to hear. Instead, the "people" shoudl want to get to the bottom on things - like why we can go the moon and beyond, but we cannot produce a solar cell that makes solar energy economically viable, or why we don't use the vast millions of acres of land we have for building solar or wind energy plants that would essentially guarantee us energy self sufficiency for as long as we can see into the future and produce a less contaminated air to breath and water to drink. Instead, we sit around saying it is impossible to go much faster on the development of clean energy. We put up with a system of health care that denies 40 million people health care insurance. We accept that if doctors cannot be absolutely richer than 95% of the population then health care would decline. In short, we are part of the quagmire because we are complacent dupes of a system that uses our indifference and our fear of losing all we have to manipulate our opinion and repress what would be a normal tendency to protest and to demand better from our leaders.
We have clear goals to achieve: get the economy moving; develop clean and renewable energy sources, find a way to live in peace; quality health care for all. These are not huge problems for a creative and resourceful people, but they require that for a moment we give our attention to actually developing solutions instead of watching "reality" TV which has nothing to do with reality and of finding sources of informationa and analysis which actually are objective instead of calculated to make a profit or a name for someone.
Until that time when the American people demand information that is realiable, news that actually helps us understand the world around us and solutions from the private, goverment and public sectors, we will continue to be dragged down by the quagmire because the quagmire is us.
The TV News: At the time, it seemed like a good idea - the 24 hour news channel. In fact, what it has turned out to be is a business looking to create a market for itself. There is very little news and a lot of opinion and the opinion is not necessarily thoughtful, it is commercial, and therefore, not as thoughtful, because thoughtful does not sell like radical, angst and anger producing, out of somebody's gut expressions that parade as opinions but really are just self commercials, trying to sell oneself to the public so that your ratings go up and your salary gets more ridiculous. So, what we get is concentration on one or two stories at a time; depending upon which story can produce the best ratings.
Who can really say that the AIG salary bonuses is the most important story of the last week. Really, in the big mix of things that we need to understand, address and resolve, the bonuses don't make much of a difference, but the majority of "news" time has been spent on the AIG story. Meanwhile, Lou Dobbs is tearing down most of the institutions in the nationa, Hannity is yelling who knows what (we all know what - it comes down to about two things normally - the democrats are wrong and gays and lesbians are subverting the country), and Nancy Grace is overscrutinizing every bizarre legal and police matter she can get her hands on. It's a quagmire because none of it nits on the matters about reality and the making of history that are helpful to constructing some kind of better society or even just understanding the world in which we live.
The Congress: Instead of looking into many matters that need to see some light and resolving a lot of national problems which go chronically unsolved, the Congress is engaged in posturing for the next election. So, we also get AIG and other sideline issues as the major meal served up by our representatives. Instead, we ought to have a full out debate on how to stimulate the alternative energy sector of the economy. This would be helpful. This might actually solve a real problem.
The President: I have to admit that the President seems like the only one who is actually focuses on the real job - solving the vast problems which plague our society. Almost every day or every other day, we get a new action out of the White House or some aspect of the executive branck of government. The Obama Administration may be wrong on some of the solutions, but they are actually working on solutions, not on trying to win an aelection, sell a commercial on the news channel or posture for looking good in front of the public. But the president faces the Congress/Media Quagmire.
The Private Sector: These area bunch of cry babies from the financial/banking sector to the major manufacturers. They all made millions and then when their decisions of greed led to economic recession, they want a bailout. The small businsess may be the exception as they need to actually perform a real service or make a real product that somebody needs to survice. But the big ones are just personal ATMs for the rich and greedy. The private sectors opposes everything that could help the public because it means taxes, yet they get more tax relief than the poor - just take medicare, for instance, which, in fact, is a get rich quick scheme for the pharmaceutical companies and the medical industry. If we didn't have medicare, they all would have 30% less clients. Since Jimmy Carter we knew that we needed a better, more fuel efficient car or an alternative energy car. Nobody got to work on it despite a huge amount of profit since that time. Where was it invested? The Private sector is a quagmire because it has come to believe that the nation exists to serve them, not them to serve the national interest.
The Churches: I really should not put the church close in category to the above as they have so little influence anymore. The reasons for this are many and increasing each day. Mostly they are caused by the quagmire the church created for itself when it decided to be "successful" instead of "faithful". But is it noteworthy, at least, that the self described "most Christian" nation on earth, heres littel or nothing from the churches on the most important issues of the day, except the usual banter of the Christian Right on its pet issues. The church has become obsolete because it does not speak up on the issues that any simple persons can see should be the issues that bother Christians (people who have some connection to Jesus) like poverty, abuse of children, war, discrimination and the issues of justice that have to do with providing access to those who have been marginated by our society. The churches do not speak up because it would damage their image of themselves as "successful". Instead, what we get from the churches is a steady diet of scandals where the church and God are being used to deceive the public, manipulate believers and abuse those who come to the church for healing. Oh, wait a minute, the churches have united recently to oppose anything the President might want to do to reduce the charitable donation deduction for the very rich. now there is an issue worthy of the church's attention!!!
The people of the US: I will get in trouble on this one. First, the disclaimer: there are many fine, upstanding, beautiful, intelligent people in the United States. Nevertheless, as a group, we lack focus and understanding that would lead us to take actions that would ensure a "good" life for us. We let Bush lead us into trillions of debt and tow wars not worthy winning. We still insist that all our politicians tell us that we are the "best, last hope of humankind", "the greatest nation on the earth" when these are not only arrogant, egotistical lies, but also absolutely meaningless in tersm of the struggle for a "good" life. These are things that "brain dead" nations like to hear. Instead, the "people" shoudl want to get to the bottom on things - like why we can go the moon and beyond, but we cannot produce a solar cell that makes solar energy economically viable, or why we don't use the vast millions of acres of land we have for building solar or wind energy plants that would essentially guarantee us energy self sufficiency for as long as we can see into the future and produce a less contaminated air to breath and water to drink. Instead, we sit around saying it is impossible to go much faster on the development of clean energy. We put up with a system of health care that denies 40 million people health care insurance. We accept that if doctors cannot be absolutely richer than 95% of the population then health care would decline. In short, we are part of the quagmire because we are complacent dupes of a system that uses our indifference and our fear of losing all we have to manipulate our opinion and repress what would be a normal tendency to protest and to demand better from our leaders.
We have clear goals to achieve: get the economy moving; develop clean and renewable energy sources, find a way to live in peace; quality health care for all. These are not huge problems for a creative and resourceful people, but they require that for a moment we give our attention to actually developing solutions instead of watching "reality" TV which has nothing to do with reality and of finding sources of informationa and analysis which actually are objective instead of calculated to make a profit or a name for someone.
Until that time when the American people demand information that is realiable, news that actually helps us understand the world around us and solutions from the private, goverment and public sectors, we will continue to be dragged down by the quagmire because the quagmire is us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)