Enlightened Conflict

Tag Archives: thoughtful middle east solution

middle east thought for the day

November 18th, 2012

I read so much hate from people … mostly directed toward Israel, who do not even live in the Middle East, with regard to what is happening between Israel and Palestine.

How we have reached a point where we seem to be on the brink of a conventional on-the-ground war has been decades in the making.

One of which I have written about several times but suffice it to say Israel is on a geographic island surrounded by an ocean of people who would prefer Jews not have a country there <for some reasonable reasons … Muslim holy land … and some unreasonable reasons … Judaism is not a viable faith>.

I truly struggle with what I would do if I were in a decision making role with regard to going to ground war.

That is until I came across a visual posted by a teenager who I sense was also struggling with perspective.

The teen gave me perspective.

When I saw this graph I immediately starting thinking that for all those comments I have read about Israel being aggressive and ‘killers’ I wanted to jump online find the Israel haters and say “is it possible they are the most patient resilient country in the world?”

If anybody believes your own country wouldn’t have brought the wrath of Khan down on the missile shooters <on the ground, in the air and by water if they could find any> after looking at the chart I want whatever it is you are smoking.

It would have all been over by now if it were any of us.

news’s secret weapon

November 3rd, 2012

So.

I had to watch a boatload of news, in fact, significantly more news than any one person should ever be exposed to, to make sure I got this one right. I even bypassed my beloved ESPN several times to endure the background research. I watched Foxnews, MSNBC and CNN.

Why? In case you haven’t been paying attention … news on television has a new secret weapon – CNN. Yeah. I know CNN has been around for a while but they really have picked up their game lately.

And while I was fairly certain, mostly because I am a centrist, that CNN doesn’t skew republican/democrat/liberal/conservative I did do some personal research.

CNN has truly become the news network who’s vision is ‘enlightening people.’

In a world where TV ratings seem to be defined by one of two things, disaster <or negative> news coverage and telling people what they should think <to people who already want to think those things> CNN is truly differentiating themselves by … well … just making people think.

In Bruce words they day in and day out seem to focus on fighting ignorance with well-rounded information … their objective? Don’t tell people what to think just tell them what to think about. I love it.

MSNBC <which has so low ratings I am fairly sure liberals do not really watch TV> is definitely skewed liberal/democrat.

Fox is shamelessly skewed republican/conservative.

Both stations stock their newscasts with blabbing talking heads who speak directly to the viewership saying exactly what they either want to hear or what they should think <and felt that they should have been thinking just that anyway>.

CNN? Not only are they brutally bi-partisan/non-partisan showcasing an equal amount of biased talking heads <and brutally disagreeing with them on air> but they also have some really nice panels of people who are obviously skewed in their perspective but also fair with how they communicate and share ideas.

And when they don’t? The newscasters/news moderators shut them down.

Unfortunately <hence the reason I called this the news secret weapon> most tv viewers seemingly don’t want to think … they want someone else to think, and provide an opinion, for them.

I guess they want to only watch someone who pursues sharing information skewed to how they already think.

Tell ‘em what they want to hear seems to be the strategy.

Maybe that’s why CNN ratings aren’t as high.

Instead they, CNN, tell ‘em what they need to hear as a strategy.

I imagine I have always known this and that is why when I decide to watch the news I switch over to CNN <if I cannot get BBC>.

It is sad.

Because CNN’s ratings have hit record lows. The company is still making money thanks to an international presence, but U.S. viewers seem to rather watch the more opinionated competitors at MSNBC and Fox News.

And it is really sad because they really have dialed up their “open minded/open view” editorial attitude during this election period.

Maybe it is because we are in a political season where opinions are so skewed it gets scary, they seem to have sat down in an editorial meeting several months ago and decided to really dial up the non-partisanship delivery. And I mean REALLY dial it up.

Piers Morgan, while being respectful, has been bringing a dialed up British common sense bullshit meter rhetoric to his interviews.

Soledad O’Brien has been shutting down guest onscreen interviews when they simply are not answering the question and trying to deliver their ‘party line.’ And she isn’t just shutting them down subtly she is saying “if you won’t answer the question then, thanks, goodbye.” <by the way … I believe she may be one of the most underrated newscasters out there today>

They have probably the two best open minded partisan correspondent/experts onscreen …

This young guy named Will Cain who is clearly conservative but if all conservatives would actually be as articulate and pointed with regard to his thoughts as he is … well .. maybe we would understand what the heck politicians actually say. But … he is a prime example of a CNN correspondent relentlessly pursuing truth. He is young. Smart. Articulate. A great communicator … and listener.

<note: I don’t care your particular views … you should check him out … he is excellent>

On CNN’s “Starting Point” Will Cain confronted Debbie Wasserman Schultz about Congress’s refusal to tackle some of the tough fiscal issues until after the election.

-          “I think that’s an interesting quote you put up also recognizing the amount of work that you guys have to do over the next six months,” Cain said, addressing the Congresswoman. “You have what is equivalent of all of the Bush tax cuts expiring, you have the budget resolution, you have to come together on those forced cuts. I think the total package is over $4 trillion. Larger than any stimulus passed and any tax cut that’s ever passed. Why aren’t you working on it yet? Why are you waiting until supposedly after the November election to address these issues?”

“You guys?” Schultz asked.

“I’m not in Congress,” countered Cain.

“But Speaker Boehner is the leader of Congress and controls the agenda with Eric Cantor…” said Schultz.

“I’m not in Congress,” reiterated Cain. “I’m asking you because you are a member of Congress.”

“I’m a member of Congress in the minority, unfortunately, which I plan to help change in November,” Schultz shot back. “But the people who control the agenda right now in the House of Representatives are the Republicans. Ask them why they haven’t brought a single jobs bill to the floor since they took over the majority. Ask them why they are getting ready to allow the student loan interest rates to double.”

“So put out a package right now to extend the Bush tax cuts, you would be on board with that is what you’re saying?” Cain asked.

“No, I’d be opposed to that,” affirmed Schultz.

“Then you would be obstructing that,” observed Cain.

“The Bush tax cuts adds $700 billion to the deficit. Why would we extend them?” argued Schultz. “We need to continue to focus on President Obama’s agenda, giving tax breaks to the middle class and 18 different tax breaks he’s given to small businesses –”

Cain cut off the DNC chief in mid-sentence to point out Wasserman Schultz didn’t want to address the issues at hand.

“It’s clear all of the things coming up before the end of the year, you’re not interested in working on those right now,” said Cain.

<that was awesome … he was awesome … and all CNN correspondents have been just as awesome in this ‘frankness’ attitude>

and the second one at CNN is Fareed Zakaria, who I sense may be slightly liberal, but almost always errs on the side of common sense from a global perspective. His show, GPS, is a breath of fresh air providing broader longer view perspective amid all the senseless finger pointing which seems to occur over individual events. In general, foreign policy gwonks can just bludgeon you with a relentless array of boring factoids but Fareed has an incredibly common sense no bullshit way of articulating some fairly complex issues. In a landscape of partial truths he steps in and clearly states the situation and possible solutions. And he has absolutely no hesitation calling out politicians who abuse the facts.

And every once in a while CNN has a delightful guest named Ana Navarro, who is certainly a Republican pundit … who unabashedly says she is not a Romney fan.

They actually have a nice array of no-bullshit correspondents. The economic experts take the job reports, tear apart the ‘spin doctors’ rhetoric, tell you the truth behind the numbers and tell you what you should know <in a nice common sense way>. I have even seen one of the newscasters, I think maybe Erin Burnett, say on air, during an interview after hearing another politician spout forth the tried & true <and trite> same ole same ole sentences … “I will be glad when this is over and I will never have to hear those words again.” Nice honesty.

Awesome.

I wish more people would watch CNN.

I may be in a minority but I think it helps to hear some information, and views, that make you a little uncomfortable. I like the onscreen sparring of views. I think CNN has the best bullshit-ometer on television today … on any and all issues.

I like to see CNN for hard news. I like the intelligent commentators. I like their obvious non-bias toward any view other than a straightforward non-bullshit view.

They may not be as warm & fuzzy as the local news stations.

And they certainly aren’t as biased as other news networks.

But if you really want to understand the issues happening in the news, and you don’t have hours to research issues on your own online, CNN is a good home for your news viewing.

I do not begrudge biased viewing. It is always nice to hear someone articulate the complex nebulous thoughts you have in your own head well … in words you can repeat when asked your own opinion on things.

The difference is CNN makes you think. They may not give you your desired “sound bite to sound smart” they just make you think for yourself. It is harder work, harder viewing, but I find it hones my thoughts better than any station out there.

We could use more CNN-like vehicles today.

Iran says rural white US would rather have a beer with President of Iran Ahmadinejad than Obama

September 28th, 2012

Iran says rural white US voters would rather have a beer or go to a baseball game with President of Iran Ahmadinejad than Barack Obama

This is awesome.

You can’t make this shit up.

Well.  You actually can. The Onion did <the original story>.

And then the Iranian news agency Fars used the Onion article as actual news.

Yup. The satirical newspaper’s claim that Americans would rather hang out with Ahmadinejad over Obama was taken seriously in Tehran.

Wow. I guess my first question would be “did USA ratings of approval improve after the story?”

By the way … the original Onion article is a brilliant piece of satirical creative writing  (the Onion original: http://www.theonion.com/articles/gallup-poll-rural-whites-prefer-ahmadinejad-to-oba,29677/). The quote was an inspired idea and the use of a research source brilliant.

The article was beside the other fascinating piece <which I am surprised wasn’t also used .. “George W Bush Returns To America After Spending 4 Years In The Himalayas.”>

This is awesome stuff.

Here is the Guardian story <because they are better writers than I>:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is extremely popular in the US, according to Tehran’s Fars news agency (and the Onion).

So the white, rural gun-toting conspiracy theorists were right.

Put a secret Muslim president in the White House and next thing you know America’s in bed with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Except, according to Tehran’s Fars news agency, it is white rural Americans who are big fans of the Iranian president. They like him much more than Barack Obama.

In an article which has now been removed from the Fars feed, the news agency reported that 77% of rural white US voters said they’d rather have a beer or go to a baseball game with the anti-Semitic Iranian leader than their own president.

“I like him better,” Fars reported West Virginia resident Dale Swiderski as saying. “He takes national defense seriously, and he’d never let some gay protesters tell him how to run his country like Obama does.”

Fars also reported that according to the same Gallup poll, 60% of rural whites said they at least respected that Ahmadinejad doesn’t try to hide the fact that he’s Muslim.

Fars doesn’t say where it got its story but it seems to have missed out the equally exciting reports alongside the original: “George W Bush Returns To America After Spending 4 Years In The Himalayas”, “Neil Armstrong’s Wife Glad To Finally Get Rid Of All The Space Hobby Crap” and “DC Residents Can Remember Exactly Who They Were Murdering When Nationals Clinched First Ever Playoff Berth”.

For the Fars report is almost word for word copied from the satirical magazine The Onion.

But then, if you’re sitting in Tehran reporting the pronouncements of the Holocaust-denying Iranian leadership, George Bush hiding in the Himalayas may not seem so far-fetched.

Side note.

This may explain some things about Iran.

Anyway.

I wonder if Iran is interviewing New York PR agencies to help with their image?

israel and crazy horse

September 26th, 2012

This may be a crazy perspective but I am going to talk about Israel … and Crazy Horse. Not just so I can type something because I am bored but I actually have a point for my readers to think about.

I have been thinking about Israel and with everything happening in the Middle East and the fact Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon I know there has been a lot of discussion about Israel … and their aggressiveness to proactively <sometimes> protect themselves.

Now.

I believe it is difficult for Americans to grasp the Israel situation because our country is isolated by miles of water on two sides with cheap labor on another side and the world’s nicest people <and some Moose> on the other.

I cannot imagine what it would be like to be surrounded by people, on all borders, who, at minimum, would prefer you not being there and, at maximum, would like to eliminate you from the earth.

Oh. And many of them with guns & rockets.

What I do know is that I am not Jewish so I could never understand the cultural core within Judaism and the spiritual tie to the region.

What I do know is the Jewish people have forged something strong enough to withstand consistent attempts at genocide for thousands of years. And I do know it is stronger than simple borders of a country. And yet … the country … and its holy sites are also stronger than simply symbols.

I also know as I thought about Israel somewhere in my pea-like brain I began thinking about the American Indians.

It probably began when I saw this quote in National Geographic:

“They tried extermination, they tried assimilation, they broke every treaty they had with us, they took away our horses, they outlawed our language, they made our ceremonies forbidden. And yet our ceremonies survived, our language survived.” – Alex White Plume (Oglala Lakota/Sioux)

And, no, I am not an American Indian (native American, Sioux, Iroquois, whatever) and therefore could never presume to understand the true essence of their cultural being.

Yet.

I thought of both as I read a National Geographic article and had a long complex discussion with a friend about Israel and Palestine and the Middle East in general.

Rather than blather on in my own words let me just place a number of quotations from a variety of people and let you think about it a little as you read:

“We are going to make Israel not safe for Israelis. There will be no place they are safe … intend to murder jews wherever they are, they will be safe no place.” “ Hossein Safiadeen told a conference that included the Tehran-based representative of the Palestinian group Hamas and the ambassadors from Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian Authority.

“The whites were always trying to make the Indians give up their life and live like the white men – go to farming, work hard and do as they did – and the Indians did not know how to do that, and did not want to anyway….If the Indians had tried to make the whites live like them, the whites would have resisted, and it was the same with many Indians.” – Wamditanka (Big Eagle) of the Santee Sioux

Sayyid Ali Khamenei, Iran’s chief of state, also known as the supreme leader - “The fake Zionist government is a cancerous tumor and the cause of different diseases and political, economic calamity in the region … it is a cancerous tumor that must be removed … Israel is ‘an infidel that should be warred against.’ ”

In 1807, Thomas Jefferson said:  ”And … if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi … in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them”.

“We have always said that in our war with the Arabs we had a secret weapon — no alternative.” -Golda Meir, Israeli politician, prime minister

“Whole Indian Nations have melted away like snowballs in the sun before the white man’s advance. They leave scarcely a name of our people except those wrongly recorded by their destroyers. They have passed the mountains, and have settled upon Tsalagi (Cherokee) land. They wish to have that usurpation sanctioned by treaty. When that is gained, the same encroaching spirit will lead them upon other land of the Cherokees. New cessions will be asked. Finally the whole country, which the Cherokees and their fathers have so long occupied, will be demanded, and the remnant of the Ani Yvwiya, The Real People, once so great and formidable, will be compelled to seek refuge in some distant wilderness. There they will be permitted to stay only a short while, until they again behold the advancing banners of the same greedy host. Not being able to point out any further retreat for the Cherokees, the extinction of the whole race will be proclaimed. Should we not therefore run all risks, and incur all consequences, rather than to submit to further loss of our country? Such treaties may be alright for men who are too old to hunt or fight. As for me, I have my young warriors about me. We will hold our land.” -Dragging Canoe, Chickamauga Tsalagi

“It will be a war of annihilation. It will be a momentous massacre in history that will be talked about like the massacres of the Mongols or the Crusades.” – Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League

“We preferred hunting to a life of idleness on the reservation where we were driven against our will. We preferred our own way of living … all we wanted was peace and to be left alone.” – Crazy Horse

“The truth is that if Israel were to put down its arms there would be no more Israel. If the Arabs were to put down their arms there would be no more war.” – Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister

(testifying to the commission in 1891 after Wounded Knee – 12/29/1890 event)

“There was a woman with an infant in her arms who was killed as she almost touched the flag of truce … of course it would have been alright if only the men were killed … we would almost feel grateful for it. But the fact of killing of women, and more especially the killing of the young boys and girls who are going to make up the future strength of the Indian people, is the saddest part of the whole affair and we feel it very sorely.” – Oglala leader American Horse

Lastly.

In 1980 the US Supreme Court awarded $106million to the Sioux as reparations for the Black Hills. The Sioux rejected it. They insist the Black Hills will never be for sale. The Sioux asked everyone to think of this insult. Mt. Rushmore is in the Black Hills. “The leaders who broke every promise and every treaty with my people have their faces carved in our most holy place.”

My point in including this last quote was to say that a holy place has no price, in terms of dollars, I would assume it can only be measured in blood if it can not be bought but only taken.

So.

I imagine I have offended a number of people with this post as well as probably shown some naiveté in some form or fashion. I apologize. But I don’t apologize for making anyone think. Maybe open their mind up to different perspectives.

Every day I look around the world, and before I open my pie hole, I try and put myself in their shoes. I know it isn’t really possible but there has to be some value in the attempt.

Anyway.

Israel.

But, in the end, after all the religious & holy & statesmanship words … I believe Crazy Horse summed up why I thought about Israel and the Indians when he said … “We preferred our own way of living … all we wanted was peace and to be left alone.” – Crazy Horse

Isn’t that all Israel is asking?

piers and ahmadinejad

September 26th, 2012

I am not a huge Piers Morgan fan <CNN> but when I saw he was going to interview Iran president Ahmadinejad I had to tune in. Heck. My site is called enlightened conflict. How could I ignore the opportunity to hear from a source of conflict and possibly gain some perspective?

Reminder 1: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the sixth and current President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the main political leader of the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran, a coalition of conservative political groups in the country.

Reminder 2: Some things Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said in the past:

-          “Iranians defend and present their Islamic and Iranian identity to other people worldwide.”

-          “The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.”

-          “For this reason, the expansion of relations with all countries is on the agenda of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I mean balanced relationships, based on mutual respect and observation of each other’s rights.”

-          “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.”

-          “Israel has reached the end of its function and will soon disappear off the geographical domain.”

-          “We’ve never been anti-Semitic.”

Reminder 3: Let me note a president is a president. I know that may sound obvious, if not silly, but it is a reminder that no matter what perception you may have from sound bites and news flashes a leader of a country is charismatic, articulate, crafty-savvy and smart. He was all of these.

Reminder 4: He fully recognized CNN represented a global communications platform. Some of his answers were not answers and almost all of his words were measured but within the entire interview you certainly gained some perspective.

That said.

Some things he said:

Ahmadinejad: We condemn ‘extremism’

Ahmadinejad: Homosexuality ‘ugly’

Ahmadinejad: Iran has right to defend itself

Ahmadinejad: ‘Very close’ with Iran Jews

Here are some of my thoughts.

-          Americans should watch this interview. Your point of view may not change but taking a moment to look at how our actions can be seen thru another’s eyes is always worth a moment or two.

I will paraphrase this thought but as he noted the American 9/11 event as a tragedy where 3000 died he immediately qualified it by asking if it justified the reaction in which Muslims dying in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeded 900,000 and almost 1.7 million injured <combatants & civilians>.

Not saying I agree it is just perspective/point of view. Just pointing out if we wonder on occasion why the Middle East may have a chip on their shoulder.

-          He reminded me of something Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in his new book: “america needs to remember that its foreign policy is inextricably linked to domestic actions.”

Ahmadinejad said something like “the Arab spring was a reflection of the fact the middle east is in need of reform … in my eyes the entire world should be seeking to reform.” Ah. Reading between the lines …”doesn’t America need to reform?” … leading to “how dare America tell me what I can or cannot do when they can’t even keep their own house in order.” Beyond that … the implied was “would you quit talking to me about what I need to do to reform because I am not the only one who needs to.”

-          Governing within a religious construct suggests freedom with some pretty tight rules.

Some of the things he talked about (homosexuality in particular) sounded eerily like what a Christian fundamentalist would say. His answer with regard to his thoughts on homosexuality could have come straight out of the mouth of a Christian fundamentalist. I never begrudge anyone their religious beliefs and whether I agree or not with how they allow it to guide their lives I believe it is their choice. Oh.  That is called ‘freedom of choice.’ Extreme religious leadership imposes limitations on freedom of choice. My point? Individuals certainly can be guided in such a way n their own lives but an entire country creates issues <assuming 100% of the people will not agree all the time>.

-          With regard to that stupid amateur film disparaging the prophet he nailed the issue: “freedom of speech is not the same as abuse of speech.”

His words:

“Fundamentally, first of all, any action that is provocative, offends the religious thoughts and feelings of any people, we condemn, likewise, we condemn any type of extremism. Of course, what took place was ugly. Offending the Holy Prophet is quite ugly. This has very little or nothing to do with freedom and freedom of speech. This is the weakness of and the abuse of freedom, and in many places it is a crime. It shouldn’t take place, and I do hope the day will come in which politicians will not seek to offend those whom others hold holy.”

Personally I couldn’t agree with him any more on that one particular issue <not having much to do with freedom of speech>. I have written this before … freedom of speech is a responsibility. And it is also not freedom to be provocatively stupid, moronic & offensive to others’ beliefs.

Beyond that. He did not condone the violence. He walked a fine line on this topic – but I noted as I listened that I had to think hard about this. He governs within a religious construct – Iran is basically a religious state. We in America, and many nations for that matter, have elected to not govern that way. His response <in words and thoughts> is going to be different than most of ours. We see the film as a moronic example of freedom of speech. He sees the film as a religious affront. He doesn’t try to justify the reaction he simply gets aggravated we don’t understand the depths of the affront.

-          Whew. The Israel-Palestine discussion.

As a Muslim, and a Muslim leader, his perspective of self-determination skews his view to “don’t Palestinians have a right to determine their future.”

His words:

“If a group comes and occupies the United States of America, destroys homes while women and children are in those homes, incarcerate the youth of America, impose five different wars on many neighbors, and always threaten others, what would you do? What would you say? Would you help it? … Or would you help the people of the United States?”

Ahmadinejad asked in response to whether Israel should be “wiped off” the face of the map, as he once said.

“So when we say ‘to be wiped,’ we say for occupation to be wiped off from this world. For war-seeking to (be) wiped off and eradicated, the killing of women and children to be eradicated. And we propose the way. We propose the path. The path is to recognize the right of the Palestinians to self-governance.”

He is relentless with imposing ‘self-determination.’

Oh. He surprised me when asked how he would feel if his daughter fell in love with a Jew when he said “I would have to see who that Jewish man or woman would be. I see love amongst people as completely acceptable. There are many Jews living in Iran with whom we are very close. There are … some Muslims that marry into Jewish families or marry Christians.”

“I — we have no such problems,” he added.

Well. I cannot even come close to fathoming how he thinks on this. It is so far out of my dna I can’t grasp it.

Now. I honestly don’t believe it is quite as simple as that in Iran but given how measured he was on other touchy topics it was enlightening to hear him go on record with that <and I share my perspective on this in my conclusion>.

-          When asked whether he believes in a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Ahmadinejad declined to comment.

“I cannot express an opinion. That is their prerogative but the people of Palestine must be allowed by everyone, and helped by everyone, to allow them, to give them the right to choose for themselves.”

-          The Holocaust.

I won’t even touch the holocaust discussion. He will not admit there was ever a Holocaust or directly answer a question about whether $6million jewish people lost their lives in WW2. Suffice it to say he didn’t answer the question (did he believe the holocaust occurred) and there was certainly a point where it looked like if he had a holy scimitar handy he would have sliced Piers head off right then and there.

Bottom line on the interview?

1. Perspective.

I believe any time we can see our own actions thru others eyes it cannot hurt. Did I agree with at all? Absolutely not. Did it make me think a little? Absolutely yes.

Foreign policy is complex. It is not just “make a strong stance” <or drawing some colored line in the sand like kids getting ready to challenge each other>. He also reminded me of another thing Brzezinski said on TV the other day … “if we <America> act unwisely the region could erupt.” Because whether I agree with Ahmadinejad or not he said something like “some of US actions have prompted extremism.” The point? Taking actions in anyone’s backyard generates some response particularly if it is perceived as a religious affront. Do I believe if the West did nothing that there would be no activity? Surely not. Do I believe countries around the world believe USA is ‘soft’ or isn’t as dangerous as it ‘used to be’? Absolutely not. America has the strongest, most far reaching, capable military in the world. The struggle is actually America itself … the bulk of America talks tough about foreign policy but doesn’t really have the stomach <nor should they> for doing some of the things that would need to be done to step in.

Beyond that … Ahmadinejad clearly points toward the best path is one in which the Middle East resolves their own issues if it can be done that way. We Americans tend to like to think that everything is about us … but here is a truth about the Middle East situation – it is really a war between moderate Muslim and radical Muslim. At its heart & soul it is a religious war. The best person to manage Iran is a relative sharing the religion … not a distant neighbor who does not.

2. Frankly, Ahmadinejad concerned me for a number of reasons.

(a) He is smart, crafty smart.

He portrays himself as an enlightened, reasonable person who thinks everyone should just be left alone to do whatever they want in their own country. He complains about a world where Israel can threaten Iran over suspected nuclear ambitions and in the next breath refuses to recognize Israel as a state and has said that he wants the current Israeli political regime to cease to exist. Iran also funds and supports militants & terrorists on Israel’s border who have thousands of rockets aimed at Israeli population centers. The concept that Iran just wants to live in peace and security with its neighbors is a fiction … well … as long as Israel is one of its neighbors that is.

(b) He is intolerant within a religious construct.

This has nothing to do with Sharia law but everything to do with whether you believe the Koran <or Bible for that matter> is a metaphorical guide for actions or an actual guide for actions. Just as he wields ‘self-determination’ like a bludgeon <see c.> he wields the Koran as his unswerving constitutional guide … not just for moral direction but also for leadership action.

Think of it as almost exactly opposite of say Turkey.

This creates internal country issues but let’s imagine any country can elect to govern as they wish. However, it also creates massive external repercussions globally in dealing with other governmental constructs. And, more importantly, within the Middle East in which while he may chafe with his more moderate brethren he happens to have a neighbor, on the same street mind you, that has a country founded upon a completely different religious construct. With such a rigid, values based <which makes it a ‘divine’ construct> construct I cannot envision the tolerance and flexibility needed for realistic compromise that takes place in any diplomacy.

(c) He invokes “self-determination” nonstop (which invariably stokes resentment anytime anyone from the west decides to be involved in the region’s business).

This circles back to the crafty smart comment. Self-determination is an American foreign policy lynchpin established by Woodrow Wilson post WW1. It is stated beliefs that the established population has a right to self determine their future as a state/country.

Well, in a wildly imagination-driven world even I addressed this <in my ‘remapping the middle east’ post: http://brucemctague.com/a-new-map-of-the-middle-east) but there is always a relationship to the ‘bigger picture’ regardless of whether it simply be regional <Middle East> or globally <the globe>. Most self-determination type discussions involve domestic <what is right for me at home> and internationally <what impact will this have economically and exchange of trade/ideas/etc.>. he is only showing us one side of the coin.

He is also crafty with regard to self-determination and Israel.

This next thought may get me in trouble but here goes … Ahmadinejad may not be anti-Jewish but rather simply anti-Israel <he continues to refuse to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate state>. But, heck, he may not even give a flip about Israel … if it was say maybe located near Paraguay or Luxembourg.

The crux of this thought/concern? I do believe he would guide his country to take any steps possible to eliminate Israel from the Middle East but I believe his whole self-determination argument suggests that he believes the REGION would self-determine that Israel just didn’t belong there. It is a frightening argument. And one that takes you down an inevitable path where Israel is not going to simply move near Paraguay/Luxembourg therefore the leader of Iran is suggesting if they don’t move we will move them. Ultimately that is why this man, and this situation, is dangerous.

I am glad I watched.

It reminded me of something I wrote last week … it is becoming more and more difficult to discern the good guys from the bad guys. When reasonable is so intertwined with unreasonable it becomes easy to think ‘that makes sense’ and … well … just move on. What I have found is that the unreasonable are excellent at wielding the ‘reasonable’ thoughts like a surgeon … cutting into doubt just enough that you hesitate from saying what you know in your heart of hearts is the right thing.

Watch it.

It never hurts to listen.

manifesto book end thinking (a series of two)

April 4th, 2012

Ok.

This is going to be a 2 part series discussing 2 incredibly well written and often misunderstood documents. These two documents are a reflection of two of the most important and influential political theories ever created. Both documents continue to influence and provoke discussion on ideology, capitalism and government. And mostly I wanted to write about the documents because if you have ever doubted the power of the written word … and how words can impact how people think & act … read these documents and your doubt will cease to exist.

I, being me, will highlight 2 seemingly opposite manifestos in the series (hence the reason I call this idea ‘bookends’).

The 2 documents? The American Constitution and the Communist Manifesto.

Yup. They are bookends to me.

And two bookends everyone should have on their shelf. I don’t care where you live or what ideology floats your boat or what, culturally, your manifesto may be … well … manifested in. If you believe in enlightened conflict and having an enlightened point of view both documents should be at your fingertips.

And bookends because the creators thought about similar things and evolved into extremely well articulated documents. In 1843 (the communist manifesto was actually completed in 1848) Marx was a young student and more committed to a more democratic form of republicanism. Eventually evolving into what he formed as a communist for of ideology. In the 1780′s America’s founding fathers sought an environment of a combination of pluralism, socialism and democracy ultimately ending up with what America is today – a republic. They didnt trust an unfettered democracy and therefore set up a relatively unique (components had been utilized in Rome, Scotland and Latvia in years past) system of democratic checks & balances within a Republic concept.

Regardless of what your current ideology both documents are beautifully crafted, most portions remain timeless in their thinking may be two of the shortest most impactful documents of all time. Ok. The two documents I will discuss.

This first will be the constitution.

As I have stated before it is one of the most well written forward thinking “white papers” of all time. It is the standard for democratic (or people government driven) rules of the road of all time.

The second will be the Communist Manifesto.

Now.  This document is maybe one of the most concise, and well written, ‘power of the everyday people’ social documents of all time. It resonates today and parts of it are … well … relevant to many topics being discussing everywhere today.

Now.

I am not going to tear apart each document but rather try and take the parts that are being discussed today and … well … be enlightening.

Plus.

I get to discuss two documents I believe everyone should read.

And I get to discuss two documents I never tire of picking up and reviewing.

Some caveats.

I am fairly sure I got all the technical aspects correct. I am absolutely sure I got my opinions correct. And more than sure there are some grammatical and typing errors.

Enjoy.

bookend 1: american constitution

April 4th, 2012

“We may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land – nor, perhaps, the sun and stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to consult, and to obey. The chart is the Constitution.” – Daniel Webster

Ok.

I begin the two part series with the American Constitution. With all the dizzying rhetoric wrapped around the constitution these days let’s begin with a fact.

No interpretation.

The American constitution is probably the best written, best though out, best forward thinking practical “ideological white paper” of all time.

Take a look. Read it. Maybe even reread it. The stuff <thoughts, ideas, words> that they had the foresight to build into the document is boggling to the mind if you think about it.

(this link is to the transcript but it also has images of the original document: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html )

Anyway.

I began writing about the constitution because it is being so misused and abused by politicians it is making Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Hancock and any forefather you want to name , who actually participated in the tea party, turn over in their grave.

And how it is being discussed (tearing it apart word by word) is frightening … because … well … while the writers were extremely thoughtful with regard to individual words <incredibly so> the document was written with the intent to be taken in its entirety.

As the sum of its parts.

Plus.

I let the people on the Supreme Court figure out any nuances … they get paid the big bucks and, frankly, they have bigger brains. They were given a job and similar to the guy who was given the job to supervise the jack hammer construction workers, who I assume knows jack hammers better than I ever could, they have better skills at their job than I would.

Ok.

With that rant being aired out let me take a minute and share some information about the Constitution.

We the People.

What an opening.

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, inure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And with that opening I interpret some personal responsibility. “Personal” being you & I. And a responsibility to know the Constitution.

Research continues to show that the vast majority of Americans cherish the U.S. Constitution … but do not know much about it. if this isn’t an example of “choiceful ignorance” I don’t know what it. Why do I say that?
The same research indicates that most of us believe that the health of our Constitutional democracy depends on active and informed citizenry.
some facts from a survey done by the National Constitution center:

-          91% of Americans believe that the U.S. Constitution is important to them

-          84% believe that to work as intended, our system of government depends on active and informed citizens

But.

-          More than half of Americans don’t know the number of Senators <100 senators … 2 from each of the 50 states regardless of population … and as a bonus … The House of Representatives has 435 members … I think>

-          About 1 out of 3 don’t know the number of branches of the Federal Government <ok. I admit. I am embarrassed to say that I didn’t know this off the top of my head … there are three branches of government: The Executive Branch, The Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch. The Legislative Branch is Congress, Senate & House of Representatives, making laws. The Executive branch executes the laws made by the Legislative. Think the president as the Executive Branch. The Judicial branch big kahuna is the Supreme Court which is made up of nine justices. Each branch functions as a checks & balance for the system. Basically, the Legislative branch creates laws, the Judicial Branch interprets laws, and the Executive branch executes laws>

-          1 out of 6 believe that the Constitution establishes America as a Christian nation <not even close … freedom of religion, including islam, was encouraged and a number of documents from the founding fathers – Washington, Jefferson, Adams – support this belief>

-          20% believe that only lawyers can understand the Constitution <interpret portions maybe … but it is one of the most straightforward documents you will ever read>

-          Almost one-quarter cannot name a single right guaranteed to us by the First Amendment <freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly & petition of grievances … I usually miss press, assembly and grievances>

-          84% believe that the U.S. Constitution is the document that states that “all men are created equal” <that is the Declaration of Independence>.

Next.

When asked to describe in their own words what the U.S. Constitution means to them, Americans refer to the Constitution as the bedrock upon which our society and laws are based.

Q.: What Does The U.S. Constitution Mean To You?

  • Freedom (34%)
  • Basis of our rights (20%)
  • Our system of laws (11%)
  • Established this country (7%)
  • Established our government
  • Determines our quality of life (3%)
  • Everything (3%)

Yet, more than three quarters (83%) admit that they know only “some” or “very little” about the specifics of the document.

Ok.

So more people need to pay attention to the Constitution.

Reading & interpreting it.

People can generally agree on what the words of the Constitution says.  Typically we struggle with interpretation.

Generally speaking, there are two main ways in which court justices, judges, and legal analysts interpret laws and constitutions:

-          As living documents that evolve as the culture changes

-          As fixed documents whose meaning never changes from the time that they were written until now.

Simplistically most who lean toward a more liberal perspective tend to think of it as a living document and a more conservative perspective thinks of it as a fixed document <note: that is a generalization>.

But I say that to help highlight why so much heated discussion takes place over a variety of issues important to America … and how the constitution is being used, and abused, to further people’s initiatives.

Anyway. If you are interested … there is an excellent paper written by Yale Law Review called “How To Interpret the Constitution (and How Not To) by Michael Stokes Paulsen which provides an excellent perspective with sources, of course, to aim you toward more reading if you would like. (http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/115-8/Paulsen.pdf)

It is interesting to note that he suggests the best book of all time explaining the constitution is actually The Federalist written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. I say interesting because it was written so long ago and yet a contemporary Yale Law Journal contributor believes it to be so.

Ok, moving on.

States, federal & balance

It seems one of the wackiest discussions happening today centers on federal government (or how big and what role it should play).

And the popular rhetoric surrounds states and state’s rights.

Ok. Let’s be clear. I am not a big government guy.

Nor am I a state’s guy.

I am a balance guy. And a guy who believes the balance today will be different from the balance tomorrow.

And actually our forefathers were also <I am not suggesting I am as smart as any of our forefathers>.

Let me discuss “states’ rights” first (then how politicians abuse this issue … how we permit them to abuse it … and then the whole ‘rights of individuals themselves’).

Ok. What about states’ rights.  It is the hot topic du jour.

Many people suggest that The Tenth Amendment limits Congress to those areas in which the Constitution explicitly empowers it to act. And all other responsibility resides with the states.

But … well … no. <sorry … couldn’t figure out how else to say it>

The Constitution was actually written to provide balance (10th amendment included).

And the flexibility to provide different balance depending on different situations.

And it also has a variety of checks & balances with it (think of the Supreme Court decision making as the ultimate decision maker on balance).

All that said let’s take a minute to look at how balance between the Federal government and states is organized in the Constitution. The issue of states’ rights was very important to a key author of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson. He was the main arguer for the amendments we know as ‘The Bill of Rights’ where the ‘Tenth Amendment’ strikes a crucial balance between State and Federal power.

-              Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People – Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In addition, the powers of the Federal government were limited by design see ‘Section 8 Powers of Congress.’ The Federal government was intended to be the glue to hold the states into a nation.

The Federal government responsibilities?

According to the Constitution the Federal government should only handle things that must go into and between the state and national borders. Settle disputes between states, provide a unified defense, foreign and trade policy. War, immigration, postal system, currency and banking.

Oh. And the “biggie” … “promote the general Welfare.”

All other powers are reserved to the States or to the people.

Ok.

And before we start saying things like “the constitution suggests the government shouldn’t be in the business business (like car manufacturers).

Wrong.

In fact early forefather type governments recognized the government HAD to helps support some businesses until they got on their feet. Thankfully it was that attitude, and actions, that made America the global economic power that it is today.

Anyway.

States and people.

We the people.

Clearly stated.  Clearly defined.

States are always stated as “United States” in some document we like to call the Constitution. Oh. And the constitution replaced the articles of confederation (which was basically a states driven government constitution) to strengthen a federal government to balance the states’ rights.

So.

Here’s the deal (number 1): States.

States. States have rights as long as the individual parts strengthen the whole (the United States).

Federal. The federal government has rights as long as it strengthens the whole (the United States).

And they have the ability to step in when they see individual parts harming, or weakening, the whole. Individual parts may not like that and they may shout and stamp their feet and have a temper tantrum but someone (the federal government) has to look at the bigger picture.

Sorry. That’s the <American> gig.

If you don’t like that … well …

Here’s the deal (part 2): politicians (elected officials)

Politicians need to step up to the plate. Because here is where our selected politicians are failing us.  They are elected to balance our individual needs (their direct constituents) and the wholes needs (the USA).  That means sometimes they need to tell the truth to their local constituents (the ones who voted them in).

Yeah.  Something like “wow. It would be good for us but in the scheme of things what would be good for us may not represent the best for the whole (the USA). ”

Whew.  That doesn’t get you reelected (because it is not selfish enough).

But it is telling the truth.

Ok. Where am I going with this?

Here’s the deal (part 3): Us

We the people.  Us. You and I. Because in the end it comes down to us.  Seeking the truth and accepting the truth.  We the people are not “I the people.”

“The people make the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their own will, and lives only by their will.”
John Marshall, Chief Justice of The Supreme Court

Do we care what happens to us as individuals? Surely. As we live eat and breathe.

Do we need to weigh government <national> decisions as we versus I? Surely <as much as it may pain us to do so sometimes>.

We need to remember that ‘We the people’ is the United States. And despite any despicable behavior of elected constituents we need to take responsibility for their behavior.

And seek to encourage the behavior that reflect honesty so we can truly judge what is best not just for I but for we (no matter how painful that may be).

And today more than ever this is truth because we are making important budget decisions that are inevitably going to hurt somewhere at a local level (it would be naïve to suggest budget cuts are cutting ‘big government’ and that isn’t really ‘local jobs/business’).

But truth be told … the decisions will hurt at a minority of the local level.

And these budget decisions help the whole.

Let me go back to the ‘does this hurt a minority’?  Yup.

It is really easy to look at things that hurt your own wallet.  And your own house.  And your own family.  And are you wrong? Well. No.  And yes.

No in that your first consideration should be your own family and your own immediate needs.

Yes in that there is a bigger picture.

And what may hurt you today (and your family) may actually be okay in the end (several years from now).

And I imagine the reason I wrote about the constitution is that I believe not only has the everyday person (you & i) lost sight of what it meant when it was written but I also believe the politicians have lost sight of why we elect them.

We elect them to not only represent our personal needs but also to explain to us the greater needs.  And this is maybe where we fail them.

Because all we seem to focus on is “me” (or I depending on your grammatical preference).

Because, frankly, what is an elected official to do? Tell us the truth or rather fight to do something to benefit us (even if it is not in the nest interest of “us” – we the people.).

And that is where they sometimes elect to bastardize the constitution.

They play us (and shame on us for permitting that to happen).

They play the ‘rights of the state’ card versus the federal government point of view card.

Look.

There is no “pick one side or the other.”  It’s balance.

And the politicians who stand up and thump their chests and create some diatribe on one or the other is screwing with you.

It’s balance.

Sometimes the state carries the day and benefits what you need (and is right for the bigger picture).  Sometime the federal government sees the bigger picture and it hurts people locally but is really good for the bigger picture.

So we , the people, need to get our heads out of our asses and see the bigger picture and quit shoving something up our local representations ass trying to get something done (so he/she gets re-elected)  and let them do what they were elected to do.

And that is what our forefathers desired … fair state representation, all the time, keeping the USA in mind (the bigger picture) … all the time.

Ok.

Another thing (as we read the constitution).

Democracy, Republic, Socalism & Pluralism

We seem to forget some things.

We are a republic … not a democracy.

In a republic, the citizens do not rule directly but, instead, elect officeholders to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections. Thus, the United States is a republic, not a democracy.

Yup. Our form of government is called a Republic, not a Democracy where a majority rules. Here is a factoid for you.

The Founding fathers kind of disliked the idea of a pure democracy.

Thus they set up a system of limited government that was a federation of states.

In addition.

We need to remember that the Constitution was not written to protect the principles of the majority. James Madison, key writer of the Constitution, understood that in a democratic republic the rights of the majority need no such protection. In fact Madison and his fellow founding fathers believed that the greatest threat to American liberty would be the tyranny of a majority – a tyranny in which “the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker.”

Think about this.

Because it is tricky.

Make sure the majority has the ability to live life to its fullest and yet insure the majority doesn’t ‘oppress the weak’ … oh … and not be a socialist or communist system.

It becomes easy to see how those who opine actually have something to opine about.

All that said.

The constitution is a brilliant document.

And it is brilliantly crafted to enable balance.

And it implies a governing with a lack of selfishness in mind.

Governing with a greater good in mind.

Because the constitution, whether states’ rights believers or federal government believers, clearly has America’s greater good in mind.

Read it.

Interpret it. Discuss it. And hold elected officials accountable to truth.

Ok.

That said.

On to the next post and the next document (and the last in this series).

The next document doesn’t have a country in mind as the ‘greater good.’ It goes completely to the other end of the spectrum and focuses almost solely on a completely different interpretation of ‘we the people.’ It focuses solely on the greater good of people almost in a ‘global community’ frame of reference as nation boundaries

The Communist Manifesto.

Yup.

Speaking of people driven rules of the road you would have to be silly to ignore the communist manifesto.  Ignore all the trappings of “communist” and focus on the words.

It represents words of the people.

And it resonates as well today as did it then.

bookend 2: manifesto of the communist party

April 4th, 2012

This is the last of my “manifesto” series.

But it was maybe the first that I thought about. Because as I watch the news and see the pictures in Egypt and Sudan and the middle east <and everything else associated with a populace driven revolution> I thought about the manifesto of the communist party (more commonly known as The Communist Manifesto).

Now. I am not a communist. But all the things happening in the streets of … well … pretty much every city these days started thinking about the power of the common everyday people.

Or ‘every day people unite’ (which is actually the close to the manifesto).

So I plucked my copy of the manifesto off my shelf and reread it.

If you have never read it this comment may seem daunting.  But The Communist Manifesto is only 53 pages long.

Less if you skip the Communist Literature section (which was outdated almost at first publishing).

It is an astonishing little read.

And it is also astonishing to think it was written by a 30 and 28 year old (Marx and Engel respectively).  It is an amazingly concentrated brief document written with an intellectual stylishly personal perspective.

From its opening “a spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism” to the closing of “the proletariat have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.” the pamphlet is full of simplicity which still rings true today.

There are a couple of “truths” to think about before I get to the Manifesto.

-          Truth 1. Communism is better as a theoretical model then as a day to day reality.

-          Truth 2. Today’s world actually has nothing to do with the working class/common people … it is actually an uprising of the middle class who is losing what they had.

-          Truth 3. Some of the building block thoughts and components of the Communist Manifesto are insightful and truthful and when looked at with vision explain much of what we see around us in today’s world.

Interestingly … in a truly academic point of view … if you look at today’s world … socialism is more a middle class movement and communism a working class movement.

And socialism <or at least aspects of it to those who truly understand what it is> has always been quasi-respectable and communism not.

Marx suggested that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself. Communism therefore is the same as that of all proletariat (working class) parties – formation of the workers into a class and ultimately the overthrow of the bourgeois (wealthy elite) supremacy.  Therefore … communism is not based on ideas or principles but rather the rights of a “working class” of people.

Gosh.

When I type something like that … and think about today … well … it sure does make you think.

Anyway.

The Manifesto.

-          Note: where appropriate I substituted worker/worker class for proletariat and wealthy elite for bourgeoisie.

Capitalism leads to exploitation. The wealthy elite has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science into its paid wage laborers. It has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation. – Manifesto

-          Capitalism does lead to exploitation. However … capitalism also leads to innovation, improvement, increased standard of living as well as a variety of other positives. If I could have sat good ole Karl down I believe I would have suggested an additional word – “unfettered.” Unfettered (or un-managed) capitalism leads to exploitation. But. I am not as smart as Karl so I think I will leave it as is and suggest this is one of the few flaws in the Communist Manifesto. A big flaw but one of the few.

“The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the working class; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests” – Manifesto

-          “They defend their future interests.” Oh my. I believe something we tend to forget is that democracy and communism are both class based ideologies. And both are based on protecting the majority classes. I am not suggesting they are the same just have some basic ideological similarities. If you accept that, you can read the Communist Manifesto not as a communist but rather as someone interested in everyone getting a fair shake.

“soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of wealthy elite society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented. – Manifesto

-          This is Schumpeter’s Creative Destruction. Schumpeter was not a Marxist, communist nor a Capitalist. He was simply an economist who believed that <simplistically> the new will destroy the old as it evolved into a better place. That destructive crises naturally occurred as a way to replace that which is with what will be.

“In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.” – Manifesto

-          Basically Marx outlines a global economy, nation’s interdependent upon each other, as well as intellectual collaboration, before there was ever the world wide web. Go figure.

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. – Manifesto

-          Marx did a nice job of providing historical reference for classes and, ultimately, class conflict. Civilization is almost always defined by the struggle between have and have-nots. And the belief by the have nots, realistic or not, that someday they can become a ‘have.’ That being said one of the major flaws in the Communist theory is that it overlooks this basic human attitude (leading to behavior). Have-nots or Have-somes are just fine with the Haves as long as they believe (a) opportunity exists, if they work hard enough, to enter into the Have group and (b) the Haves don’t have disproportionate wealth versus the Have-nots. People inherently like working toward something … even if it is just a dream. Marx designed a utopian ideology where all are equal. In theory it is an interesting concept. In practicality the majority of people don’t desire that.

Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product. – Manifesto

-          This is interesting to me because ultimately the concept of Communism is dependent upon a society bereft of a real & viable middle class.  Just when communism could have taken hold worldwide capitalism permitted the working class to evolve into a viable thriving middle class. Today? The middle class feels threatened … as it is getting dragged down closer & closer to “proletariat” level. Therefore it is revolting (Occupy movement, Red Square protesters, Middle East upheaval, etc.)

But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalised, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes.” – Manifesto

-          While components of this are dead on … where Marx/Engel got it wrong was that the development of industry actually increased the strength of the middle class. That doesn’t make this thinking any less thoughtful, or brilliant.  That last sentence … makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes … summarizes exactly what is happening today.

“In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced …” – Manifesto

-          Marx recognized the emerging middle class it is just that he never envisioned it gaining such a stronghold in developed societies. But, once again, I would like to point out that those who “had” <once part of the ‘haves’> start the slippery slope of having to ‘not have’ <note: just by ‘not having’ does not mean you become a “have not”> they begin to feel supplementary rather than essential. I imagine my real point here is that the economic situation is almost as much about attitudes as it is about real economic issues.

“Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.”- Manifesto

-          Well. if there was ever a better written indictment against elitist driven governments I am not sure I have ever read one. The problem with any government in any country is the ability to do what is best for each constituent as well as the whole of the constituents. Unless there is a dictatorship the happiness <derived from some aspect of ‘what is best for me’> of the population dictates the overall success of not only the government but of the nation as a whole. Governments have to be careful they do not become a class in itself.

Ok.

I included this next portion not to really make any point other than many of us have a sense of the underpinnings of communism but they are typically tainted by our view of Communist Soviet Union. Marx/Engel had a vision. A complete vision. And while we may shiver at some aspects (those of us in a social democracy like America) there are other aspects which reflect the fact that Communism was viable on a number of levels:

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

-          Once again I say that aspects are too theoretical … and frightening to suggest that such power resides solely within “centralization” … and it is probably within that main flaw that communism was so wrongly implemented … but .. education, public transportation, equal opportunity employment, etc. All are aspects of which create a worthy society and economy. And, once again, I state that this little pamphlet, only 50+ pages, outline an entire ideology and economic and societal state. Pretty amazing stuff.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property.

-          Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … the popular American 1%/99% nomenclature of today … only stated at “the 10% at the expense of the 90%.”

So.

I just selected some passages from this incredibly well written pamphlet. Do I agree with everything in it? Absolutely not. But as far as ideological writing it is on par with the Constitution. Well articulated thoughts conducted in absolute brevity.

And.

One last thought.

“In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.” – Marx

In fairness to Marx, and in deference to the fact I call my site enlightened conflict always seeking to lessen hostility <or conflict> … Marx’s ultimate objective was ‘hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.”

So ends my reflection on two of the best written ideological documents of all time. Heck. Two of the best written documents, of any type, of all time.

In this post the Communist Manifesto and the one before the American Constitution.

Depending on where you live you will … well … live by some of these words.

But. Wherever you live you should read these two documents and think.

water water everywhere … but nary a drop

April 3rd, 2012

Day after day, day after day,

We stuck, nor breath nor motion;

As idle as a painted ship

Upon a painted ocean.

Water, water, every where,

And all the boards did shrink;

Water, water, every where,

Nor any drop to drink. – Coleridge (the Rime of the Ancient Mariner)

Nope. This isn’t going to be a literary post. This is about water. And access to it. And how a boatload of people doesn’t have access to water (and more will have that issue in years to come).

Think 10% of world (people) don’t have direct access sanitary water (I actually believe that number is low).

Seems kind of crazy doesn’t it?

Water?

Depending on where you live drinking water is … well … is just “there.” You have it. Not bottled water (which is a travesty of an industry). I mean running water. The stuff that comes out of some spigot. Maybe not the grandest of tasting water, but drinkable.

There is actually a World Water Forum where people gather to debate issues of global water policy.

And recently the UN announced that the millennium development goal target on water has been met, ahead of schedule.

Two billion more people now have access to drinking water than in 1990.

Yeah. I typed 2 billion. And we have maybe 7 billion people globally.

Think about that. The base changes (1990 to now) but simplistically that means almost 30% of the world didn’t have access to drinking water at some point.

(yikes)

For us folk with our fancy schmancy Kohler (or Wenzhou Lixin or GoldenPro or whatever your region has)  faucets that just doesn’t seem possible.

Oh.

And we are talking about “access” to drinking water … sanitation is a completely different Millennium goal.

Writing on the Poverty matters blog, Sanjay Wijesekera, chief of water, sanitation and hygiene for UNICEF, offered a reality check on progress:

783 million people still do not have access to drinking water, this most basic human right. That is more than one in 10 people in the world. It is perhaps particularly depressing when one considers who these people are, where they live, and the impact this has on their lives. In addition, the other part of the same millennium development goal target – relating to access to adequate sanitation – is still off track.

Yeah.

I just typed 783 million.

Think about that my friends. USA has about 311 million people. Over twice the US population does not have access to drinking water.

Ok.

And I think the situation is going to get even trickier.

The World Bank reports that 80 countries, yes, 80 countries now have water shortages that threaten health and economies making up that 780+ million have no access to clean water or sanitation. I share that so we do not believe this is an isolated issue.

I say that because water conflicts are not that far off.

Consider this.

More than a dozen nations receive most of their water from rivers that cross borders of neighboring countries viewed as hostile.

The countries include Botswana, Bulgaria, Cambodia, the Congo, Gambia, the Sudan, and Syria, all of whom receive 75 percent or more of their fresh water from the river flow of their sometimes hostile neighboring countries.

Oh. And ss if there isn’t enough to worry about in the Middle East … but then there is water and obtaining adequate water supplies for the people. It is becoming a significantly higher political priority.

For example, water has been a contentious issue in recent negotiations between Israel and Syria. In recent years, Iraq, Syria and Turkey have exchanged verbal threats over their use of shared rivers.

An interesting side note. I found a website that said “river” and “rival” share the same Latin root; a rival is “someone who shares the same stream.”

Anyway.

Water.

Even The Economist wrote a monster piece on the growing issue of water. Because even while there are steps being taken to increase access to the current situation it isn’t that simple … because the situation is changing.

Urbanization of the world.

A prime cause of the global water concern is the ever-increasing world population and its urbanization. As populations become more industrialized they inevitably become more urban. Africa’s population is quickly shifting to a more urban society. And, of course, as populations grow, industrial, agricultural and individual water demands escalate.

According to the World Bank, world-wide demand for water is doubling every 21 years, more in some regions. Current water supplies, let alone water distribution systems, cannot remotely keep pace with demand, as populations soar and cities explode.

To put this in perspective for some readers … google California and water. With the current population there is water rationing. I say that so we don’t solely think this is Botswana’s problem and not affecting us.

Anyway.

Urbanization also leads to a higher level of living standards. And living standards typically linked to water usage (you may not have thought of that but it becomes obvious as soon as it is stated).

So population growth alone does not account for increased water demand. Since 1900, there has been a six-fold increase in water use for only a two-fold increase in population size. This reflects greater water usage associated with rising standards of living (e.g., cleanliness associated with health and diets containing less grain and more meat).

Sanitation and Growth

Population increases lead to several things including “needs” and “waste.”

Needs. You have to feed people. And many places need to feed themselves. Water quality is deteriorating in many areas of the developing world as population increases and the productivity of the land, caused by industrial farming and over-extraction, decreases (for a variety of ground technical issues which I will not bore you with).

Oh. And waste. Think about this factoid … about 95 percent of the world’s cities still dump raw sewage into their waters. So not only are we short on water we are also decreasing the usability of the stuff we have.

Climate change

Ok. I am not going to get into a global warming discussion. Suffice it to say the climate changes over time … and it is changing (regardless of the cause/affect). This means many countries, and geographies, are suffering massive changes – parts of China face accelerating desertification and parts of Indonesia are facing accelerating monsoons.

This makes climate change the wild card. Climate change is occurring — and most experts now concur that it is — what effect will it have on water resources?

It will have a lot of effect. Some rivers will dry up … and some will significantly increase their flow (affecting any population within flood plains). And by saying that someone could quite easily suggest “doesn’t that net out as a zero sum change?” Well. Maybe.

But maybe the bigger discussion on this isn’t necessarily the effect on the actual water resources … but rather the shifting locations of water resources <this is where politics of water truly become an issue>.

Water resources is going to very quickly take on extreme politicalness.

People will have to move or gain access to water through new resources. Unfortunately water, or climate change, doesn’t follow country boundaries. Who “owns” the water will drive politics as it currently does in the Middle East … but in many many more places.

Water conflict

We often think of religion, and government styles, as creating cultural & country tension.  But how often do we think of water that way?

We need to. Because this isn’t an ideological issue or discussion. This is a base “needs” discussion. To survive people will do things and take action.

Regardless.

Water.

To most of us we don’t even think about it.

But for 783 million people they think about it a lot.

For 80 countries they think about it a lot.

Think about that (a lot).

message to those who will repair

March 30th, 2012

“We are many, many people and yet we are one. What we do today with our thinking, what we do tomorrow with our thoughts, what we do with our actions and our interactions with people determines the course of the universe itself. You are not powerless. You are not without power.” – Little Crow

This is a follow up to my rant on America and its ability to repair its faults. And, hopefully, a message to we happy few who will actually repair america.

I am hoping what I wrote kind of got some people thinking … and thinking about what we can do to repair. And maybe help repair what was the American dream <which is realistic in a semi utopian way>.

And repair in a mature perspective.

And repair with an America’s Kitchen table perspective.

And with that last thought … I figured I would use a couple of Americans’ words to the “repair-people” of America.

Oh.

Actually I imagine these words could pertain to anyone in any country.

I began with Little Crow to remind people that leaders of relatively small groups need to understand their role in the future.

There is a responsibility even among the “small voices” not just to be radicals … but to make their voice heard with a sense of the bigger picture.

Of course … someone could very rightly point out that Little Crow and his people got the shit kicked out of them but I would like to point out that they were actually in the right. Not in using violence or conflict to resolve their rights but rather that they stood up for what was right.

Anyway.

And I end with a good ole Teddy R quote. Teddy, who was a flawed leader, but a charismatic leader  nonetheless who fully understood that divisiveness was not effective in terms of reaching the desired goal.

In his quote he uses the word ‘squabbling’.

And “squabbling” is an excellent word.

And a word that seems to embody a lot of what is going on in America today.

And a word I wish some of our existing leaders would think about.

It sounds petty.

It sounds small.

And it sounds like it has nothing to do with possibilities but rather sounds like wasted energy.

“There is no room for hyphenated Americanism … the one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.” – Theodore Roosevelt

Ok.

That’s it for my ‘repairing’ thoughts. I need to go figure out what I can do to help the repairing begin.

Enlightened Conflict