A Promised Land

How does one get to be president of the United States, a position considered to be more powerful than just about anything else?  As in all cases Obama's road required many lucky breaks and the ability to take advantage of them.

He admits a strong desire for power, power to do things he feels need to be done.  He wrestles with the notion that it might be ego or unmet psychological needs.  Although Michelle supported him, she really fought against his political ambitions.  He was conscious that his decisions imposed sacrifices on others. 

As is evident in this book, he has a way with words.  Often his speeches seek to understand the root source of any issue.  He realizes that most important issues are complicated.  Almost everyone feels free to criticize presidential decisions complaining that the obvious choice was ignored.  Obama is well aware of all the choices, but also knows the practical restrictions.

How does one get power?  He was a man of learning and discipline.  He more often said the right thing at the right time.  The times were changing and events ever bending.  His first election was an education.  He had been told the first thing to do was get the necessary petition prepared.  He was skeptical, but it turned out to be the key.  Several of his opponents messed up their petitions including one who backtracked her promise not to run against him.  Once elected as an Illinois state senator he found himself on the minority side and unable to initiate legislation.

Most voters are something like Monday morning quarterbacks and we imagine that those in power have not really understood our great idea.  Not true in the case of Obama.  The decision making process is gone over for many issues.  The constraining factors include Congressional control by Republicans, filibuster rule, Democrats with different agendas, corporate support for business interests, media striving  for ratings and spreading misleading information.

He had made health care a high priority and was fortunate to make his first moves early.  He lost his margin in the Senate.  Palin had accused the plan of having a death panel, so instead of including a humane palliative service it was cut.  The mandate was attacked and also cut.  Here in Ontario several years ago it was mandated that everyone had to have insurance to drive a car and that made sense.  Although some people offer less risk they still have a risk. 

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill caught everyone off guard.  After assessing several options his decisions first drew attacks until it was finally brought under control and he was praised for his action.

He wanted immigration reform, but found his hands tied.  Racism and fear of cheap competition assured that members of both parties would vote against serious reform.  Obama was aware that many immigrants had come without intent or even awareness and had contributed to America's success.  Dreamers were given some protection, but are still under assault.

Iraq and Afghanistan were inherited, even though he voted against the Iraq invasion.  He describes Afghanistan as full of corruption, but felt no real viable options.  Lots of criticisms from politicians and military leaders. 

Israel is an American ally with solid electoral support that is obviously occupying Palestinian land.  Evangelicals with their apocalyptic vision are majorly responsible.   Like others Obama sees the need for compromise, but made little if any progress.

The Arab Spring got hopes up and a lot of discussion.  A lot of political maneuvering that led to a new autocratic rule in Egypt, a civil war in Syria, rise of ISIS and perhaps a fragile democracy in Tunisia.

Donald Trump should have been a footnote, but he inserted himself.  He brought up the issue of Obama's birth certificate, ignoring known facts.  Despite knowing better, the media kept the idea alive fanning racism and forcing Obama's effort to deal with it instead of working for the benefit of Americans.  At the White House Correspondent's dinner, Obama made some biting remarks about Trump while he was there.  Some have speculated that the humiliation inflicted on Trump is what spurred him to not only use his resources to run for president, but also to undo any legislation credited to Obama.

The book ends with the events leading up to and including the assassination of Osama bin Laden.  Secrecy was the key element and Obama admits they did not have certainty, but he was the one who made the final decision.  His luck was better than Jimmy Carter's.

The Benghazi incident was given some background, but the outcome will have to wait for the sequel. Very much looking forward to the sequel and for that matter anything else Obama cares to write.  We can be assured it will be well thought out.

The Great Leveler: Violence and Inequaltiy

Barack Obama thought, rising inequality "is the defining challenge of our time."  The future is intertwined with several concerns, climate change, pollution, nuclear tensions, but underlying them all is a feeling that the average person has no impact.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer has long been a cliche, but like most cliches there is a base element.  Inequality is natural and if unchecked tends to increase.  Not all bad as the pursuit of wealth has motivated many to innovate and work harder to improve the lives of the rest of us.  Scheidel uses some of the material uncovered by Thomas Piketty, although does not agree with all his conclusions.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/10/capital-in-twenty-first-century.html

Using a wide range of information Scheidel uses the Gini Co-Efficient to compare different societies at different times.  Obviously there is a limit imposed by the lack of numerical data for much of what he studies.  He improvises with such things as burial goods, size of housing, prices of different commodities.  His conclusions do not suffer.

Violence has proved to be the most reliable leveler of inequality.  The author classifies what he called the "Four Horsemen" the factors that have leveled inequality:  1). mass mobilization warfare;  2). transformative revolution;  3). state failure and 4). lethal pandemics.

In the course of over 300 pages he recounts instances of these leveling factors.  Inequality first became a fact with the agricultural revolution which made possible specialization and the accumulation of surpluses that enabled some to increase wealth and power.  Before in a hunter foraging economy everyone was important for overall survival and although some people are more talented or hard working than others they could be kept in line.  Two tools enabling inequality were land/livestock ownership and the ability to transmit wealth to future generations.

Many minor events could have a very temporary effect on inequality, but it takes a massive event to really level inequality with some examples being World War II, the Black Plague (followed in quick succession with other pandemics), the Russian Revolution, European invasion of the Americas  and the American occupation of Japan.  Some major events actually increase inequality or the wealthy are replaced with other wealthy people.  In all cases inequality restarts significantly over time.

What about the future?  The author concludes that the four leveling factors will have less likely impact in the future, so it seems likely inequality will always be with us.  Modernisms work both ways.  Those in power have more tools to stay in power.   The masses of people have more effective communication and ability to organize. 

There have been many suggestions to rectify or moderate inequality.  Progressive taxation, estate taxes, wealth taxation, boosting unions, universal medical insurance.  Poorer people tend to vote less than their wealthier fellow citizens suggesting perhaps that education might make a difference.  There will be resistance and costs to any radical solutions.

An earlier blog gives the perspective of John Maynard Keynes who thought the only purpose of economics should  be that everyone could live better.  He understood about the pendulum of the ups and downs of the economy.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/04/book-on-john-maynard-keynes.html

Although inequality has the advantage of offering incentives that generate innovation and hard work, there are disadvantages that become more evident as it becomes more extreme.  Number one is the inequality of opportunity that eventually hurts everyone when merit is secondary to connections.  Universal health care ensures that the poorest have an opportunity to receive preventive care that ensures the health of the rest.  A sense of fairness such as accepting that some people contribute more and deserve more is best achieved when the discrepancies are not too threatening.

My own thoughts on the inevitability of inequality.  If you took a random room of 100 people and were somehow able to redistribute the wealth to for example, $100,000 each, within minutes things would start to change.  Some would want to spend some to enjoy some of the things they had long wanted.  Others would see an opportunity to sell something, loan money so others could get what they want faster.  Some might be a bit fearful of the "rainy day" and keep their spending under (relative) control deferring gratification.  Some would steal from the others in the form of theft, intimidation, or fraud.  Of course some have more relevant talent than others.  It boils down to short term thinkers versus long term thinkers and yes a bit of luck, but essentially this has been our history.  

There is a lot of meat in the book provided by Walter Scheidel.  I found many of my thoughts debunked, but also gained a better understanding of the mechanisms that account for inequality.  The future is unpredictable, but many of the factors that will determine the life style of future generations are identified.

Confession.  I stumbled on this book because I had heard of a more recent book of the author, Walter Scheidel called "Escape from Rome."  Being cheap (and patient?) I just checked the library which had not yet ordered it, but had this other from the same author.  I have long concluded that there is more than one good book in any author and we often miss the early ones when they might have been more enthusiastic because they had not yet reached a tipping point.  I am on the look for "Escape from Rome" and for that matter other books by Walter Scheidel.

Obama, Americans and Cuba: Reaching out

My bias comes from having vacationed in Cuba four times and thoroughly enjoying it.  The weather and the all inclusive nature of hotel accommodation were certainly appreciated, but above all was the people.  Maybe being poor makes you appreciate the opportunity to serve visitors, but they certainly made us all feel welcome.

 Americans have had a peculiar relationship with Cuba.  Before the 1959 Revolution it was a fun spot for them as well.  For many others it was a tremendous opportunity to exploit the resources and the cheap labour.  Now there is a lot of anger, most often expressed in Florida where many sought refuge.  This anger has had an effect well beyond the narrow relations between two countries.  Obama's recent actions regarding Cuba have upset a few Americans, but his actions were long overdue.

Ernest Hemingway, an American literary hero loved Cuba and tourists are often taken to sights where he spent time.  A lot of professional baseball players have come from Cuba.

The best explanation I have stumbled on comes from LZ  Granderson.  After the Cuban Revolution, a lot of Batista supporters fled mainly to the United States.  As he points out the people complaining the loudest against the Castro regime seldom if ever talk about how they really got what they claim was taken away.  But they have exerted themselves on political platforms and it is a foolish politician who would ignore their concerns.  A few elections have hinged on Florida with perhaps the most monumental one being in 2000 that changed a whole lot of things which I would say were for the worse.

The hypocrisy boils down as so many other issues--how a political party (in this case both are a bit guilty) can maintain the support of a crucial and vocal minority who can tip the election scales either way.   Americans have found it ok to do business with China, Russia, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia and many nations criticized for human rights abuses.  Businesses salivate at the opportunity to sell to the Chinese or take advantage of the cheap labour

The Elian Gonzales case got a lot of attention.  Parental rights were ignored by very many before the law courts stepped in.  I can sympathize with those who feel a youngster was being sent back to a terrible life, but it works both ways.  If we want to assert parental rights on behalf of our fellow citizens we have to respect it when it works the other way.  This is not so much a criminal matter as a family matter.

I know everything was far from perfect in Cuba and that inevitably some people have been exploiting their power.  It has been a standard joke about defections at every opportunity.   I certainly saw a lot of poverty and have read of abuses.

Tour guides might have a slanted view, but our Cuban guides seemed fairly well informed.  Actually I don't think they are any more slanted than many American politicians or their supporters who see everything in a certain light.  One very helpful and humorous guide I remember had spent time in Canada.

Medical personnel were a high priority for Cuba and in fact one tour guide pointed out they were the nation's most critical economic resource.  They were the first in Haiti after the big earthquake as they have been for other disasters.  Medical personnel were traded for oil with Venezuela.   Lots of South Americans have bad feelings for the United States.  I am sure some of it is envy, but there is honest resentment as well.  Americans don't understand the reasons.

There is lots to love about Cuba.  Music and dance and hard work, but also enjoying life. Havana is a remarkable city, although in need of repair.  Of course the beaches.  There is so much to love.

I remember meeting a Cuban-American from Brooklyn on a vacation to Quebec City.  Family ties were important to him.

It is only a matter of time before we Canadians lose some of our favoured nation status and pay more for our vacations.  Hopefully more Americans will receive Cuban hospitality and understand it is better to be friends.

Photo Explanations:

In our hotel lobby some local musicians attracted the attention of some highland dancers visiting from Nova Scotia and after accompanying them everyone felt so good hugs just seemed natural

In a bar frequented by Ernest Hemingway is a photo of him with Fidel Castro.

A view from a very unique building called Obscurata Camera in Havana.  Apparently there were only two other facilities like it in the world.

A statue of an earlier Cuban patriot José Marti, although not nearly as famous as Che Guevera

A wall mural made from grains of sand.

MID TERM RESULTS

The U.S. mid term election results were very upsetting to us liberals.  Can American voters really be that dumb or that apathetic?  They very clearly voted against their own self interest, unless the individual was in the 1% crowd.  The media has to bear some of the blame as they were not at all forthcoming with keeping politicians honest.

It is not true that the Democratic economic policies were ineffective or that the Republican agenda would be an improvement.  It is not true that Obamacare was an abysmal failure.  It is not true that the White House screwed up the Mid East after the previous administration had gotten it under control.

It is true that the Republicans very deliberately  did everything in their power to block Democrat policies and to distort the results.  It is true that the Republicans did what they could to represent the interests of the 1% at the expense of the bottom 90%.  It is true that by denying climate change they are dangerously delaying any remedy.   It is true that Republicans spent a great deal of time and money stirring up false scandals instead of seeking workable compromises.  It is true that under Democrats the economy did improve significantly and that health care dramatically improved for millions of Americans.

Unfortunately we live in the "interesting times"  referred to in a Chinese curse.  Solutions to the many problems require a delicate balance.  Instead we are about to have the rhetorical heat edged up a few notches.

How did they do it?  FEAR, GREED and IGNORANCE.  It is easy to stir fear and greed amongst the ignorant.  People naturally want more out of life and fear a lot of things.  We all have a tendency to think short term, but decisions made today affect everyone for a long time, including our descendants. Everything affects our neighbourhood, but we need to look at a much larger picture.

I would like to run down a few issues to help explain my disappointment.  It may seem a bit disjointed as I should admit I am not in a good mood nor as coherent as I would like.

DEBT is not a good thing.  Yes, spending someone else's money is easy to do and can easily get out of hand.  Waste needs to be targeted, but also priorities within our limited resources need to be determined.  There are many problems that should be dealt with listed elsewhere.  Taxation is not a dirty word.   As others have said it is the price of civilization.  There are more than enough resources to give all the people a better opportunity to contribute and share the rewards.  The very rich benefit from a robust infrastructure, educated population, pollution free atmosphere, legal framework that prevents abuse, defence against our enemies and much more and if they are unwilling to pay their fair share we will all suffer.  Contrary to many perceptions the Democrats handled debt much better than the Republicans.

JOBS are important.  We all need to understand that jobs are generated by consumers, not just investors and innovators.  Not only are the jobless a drain on the economy, unable to support business, but idleness does create bad habits and resentment.  The government is really a facilitator.  Government workers help facilitate their country in countless ways.  Regulations may seem onerous and can certainly be overdone, but without them there would be a dog eat dog world.  We shouldn't be living to work, but we should be working to live. In the future, automation will make it possible for more people to contribute and to enjoy life.  We don't need greedy profiteers steering our future.

INEQUALITY is not just an abstract notion.  If gone too far it has negative impacts on everyone.  Eventually it can lead to revolution and violence.  To some degree it is inevitable, but at some point is unhealthy.  One solution is progressive taxes.  Everyone is entitled to necessities, but those who have benefited from society need to share some of the cost.  A delicate balance.

$4 BILLION CAMPAIGN EXPENSE  This ensures a number of negative things.  More time spent on fundraising than on resolving difficult issues.  More obligations to special interests. There is a need to understand the issues and how they connect, but currently that is all obscured with negative campaigns and manipulating data.  Debates to some extent are artificial, but offer an opportunity to thrash out the issues.  Too many candidates avoid debates and hard questioning.  Each serious candidate should have a platform to explain what they have to offer and why they are the best choice, but ideally this platform should be relatively equal so voters can make an objective choice.  Not likely to happen.

CLIMATE CHANGE:  Who do you believe?  Those with an interest in the status quo or those who have studied the issues in an objective atmosphere?  It requires individuals, but more importantly global co-operation.  We cannot expect the other guy to act first, but need to lead by example and by intelligent argument.  We are all losers if we don't soon come to grips with the problem.  Governments, even though some think they are the problem are necessary to co-ordinate an international response.  What is fair for those invested in current system and what is fair for those not so fortunate?  What are we leaving for future generations?  Some  serious delicate negotiations are required and soon.  Climate deniers need to get with it.

OBAMACARE--this is the most ironic of all.  The path chosen is one originally touted by Republicans.  Americans need to look at the rest of the world--medical costs and medical benefits are much more satisfactory in other developed countries.  Medical problems are not the major cause of bankruptcy in other nations.  Healthcare is essential for the economy and defence of a country.  It is amazing how ordinary people have been fooled on this one.  Republicans show a disdain for making it better.

INTERNATIONAL WAR AND PEACE.  The world can be a dangerous place.  There is distrust and fear that leads to violence.  Ignorance of different countries and cultures is unhealthy.  Americans would benefit from being more multi-lingual.  It seems likely the American posture will be more belligerent.

SOCIAL ISSUES are with some groups so powerful they overcome economic self interest.  Abortions and gay rights still seem to be wedge issues with some segments.  Abortion is the unhappy solution to what some people feel is a problem, an unwanted pregnancy.  Some die and others are rendered sterile in the effort and others end up in poverty.  Sex education and provision of contraceptives have proved to be effective, but are opposed by those who reveal their real motivation is that promiscuity should not be allowed.  That also seems to be a factor for those upset over gay rights.  Why should we reward people for having sinful "fun."  The world needs more love and less hate.

Racial attitudes seem unhealthy.  Many dismiss the "race card" but fail to acknowledge there are racial inequalities in America that go back centuries.  Racial injustice hurts all of us and perhaps this mid term is another example.

WHY?  who really gains from the election results?  The 1% must have gained something because they donated a lot of money for the result.  Surely the other 99% must realize it wasn't much to their benefit.  All of us are guilty of not making enough time and energy to study the issues and to vote our conscience.  The politicians have used their resources to take advantage of us.

I don't mean that one party has all the answers, but we need to examine which one is going in the direction we need.  What needs to change to go in that direction?  Campaign finance, fair voting districts, fairer voting regulations and perhaps most of all a mechanism for truth.  Democracy still seems like a great idea, but last night the American example is a bit tarnished.

MID TERM ELECTIONS ARE IMPORTANT. LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD

The choice is clear and the stakes are high.  Some powers are intent upon imposing obstacles between some American citizens and the ballot box.  But for some, voting is not worth the effort.  Fear and greed are the two most powerful weapons against rational thinking and that is another obstacle in the way of setting the American government on a better course..

Representing the interests of the 1% you have those who mock scientists, are dead set against health insurance coverage for the masses, .  You can argue that the other side don't do much to help the common man, but you would be overlooking they are handicapped.  It is also true that nobody gets elected without a lot of financial support that in fact ties their hands a bit.  Politics should not be a horse race, but rather a forum of ideas.

Barack Obama has his hands tied by Congress and his own obligations to those who finance him.  What is a voter to do?  Don't trust those who blame him for the problems.  Obama has offered solutions for the benefit of the common man and tried to surround himself with people who can help boost the country, but he is pretty well stymied.  Still the facts support he has done a good job and the attacks on him are mostly unworthy.

Affordable Health Care (socialized medicine if you prefer) has been an idea accepted by most of the developed world who have discovered that it is more cost effective than most of the alternatives.  Obama selected a plan that originally had been developed by Republicans and works within a market system.  It had been tried in Massachusetts with no major problems and many benefits ironically under a Republican governor who again ironically renounced  it while currying favour with Republican power brokers.  Since its partial implementation has proved itself capable of saving money as well as boosting health.  Republicans still rant against it, but their logic should not be accepted.

Foreign policy is always a delicate affair.  At one time a super power could impose its views on any dissenters.  Armament manufacturers do provide jobs and wealth and have pressured government leaders to use weapons to protect their interests.  The world is a complicated place with countless points of view and somehow we need to learn how to get along to solve global problems that can do us all in.  The Republicans took advantage of 9/11 to invade a country not connected to the event.  They thought they could force foreigners to their will, but found taking sides and deceiving people is not a good plan.  It is far better to take the time to understand the situation than to jump in.  Obama has been more cautious and long term in his thinking.

Immigration is another dicey problem.  Many businesses and individuals see it has a chance to get cheap labour.  Others feel their jobs threatened.    Still others distrust strangers with different cultural values.  The Republican rhetoric concentrates on sealing the border.  Their tough stance indicates that they think they can use this as a wedge issue where prejudice and fear make people irrational.  At the same time businesses like to have cheap labor and see immigrants as another way to minimize worker choice.  America has been made great by immigration and there is every reason to think they will actually benefit from future immigration.  There will have to be tough decisions, but they should not be based on prejudice and exploitation.  Obama seems to be more understanding.

Climate change is laughed at by Republicans who claim it has not been proved.  There has been an overwhelming conclusion by the global scientific community that this is the major problem in the world.  (I would just add aggravated by overpopulation).  Republicans have fossil fuel money and religious conservatives demanding the rejection of any plan to deal with the future disaster.  This alone is grounds for voting for an alternative to the Republicans

Inequality concerns are brushed off as envy.  Most Americans are unaware of just how much the 1% controls in their country.  Republicans claim the wealthy are job creators, but that overlooks outsourcing, union bashing and other practices.  The true job creators are consumers, but the bulk of Americans have less money and job security than in the past.

The Republicans are obstructionists.  What does that mean?  Instead of compromising and working together they vote against Democratic proposals on principle.  There may well be legitimate principles, but if they really want to serve their constituents they should be working to create laws that work.  There is a lot of money that could help fix the deficit and get Americans working, but the Republicans are far more interested in protecting their rich supporters.

The Presidential election stirs a lot of attention, however too many voters underestimate the importance of mid term elections.  The President certainly has a lot of power, but cannot accomplish what he promised without Congress.  At the moment the American Congress is very obstructive and ignoring the common man in favour of their rich donators.

Campaign financing has come to distort the discussion platform and if anything most Republicans would tilt it even further.  Corporations are not people, but are allowed to influence the outcome. At bottom campaign finance laws should be altered to limit the influence of money.

It is true that a lot is stacked against a single voter.  Those who have the most to gain by a Democratic victory seem to have the most hoops to jump through.  Those who are wishy washy will be bombarded with a lot of distortions.  Gerrymandering means single votes might have very little impact.  Even though the rules allow a party to dominate with fewer total votes the party with most votes does gain some moral leverage. Single votes do add up so make sure your vote is part of the equation.  You can be sure many others with different priorities will make it to the voting booth.

Why blame the Middle East problems on Obama?

Americans or at least some prominent ones are quick to criticize Obama's handling of the various Middle Eastern problems.  He is too soft, too indecisive and just plain wrong.

It is easy to fault any one action, but one should realize the choices are not all that clear.  People tend to forget the background to the decisions and overlook some of the critical details.

Where to start?  Palestine might be one logical place.  The Palestinians are continually pictured as less civilized and controlled by terrorists.  Why do they seem so ungrateful and hateful?  If you realize the fight is for land and for freedom you might understand why.  They too were promised things, but either they weren't forceful or clever enough and they have been effectively stifled.

Israel has an ancient history and we Westerners rightly consider it one of the essential sources of our culture.  Jews gave the world a monotheistic view.  They were forced out of their land and spread mostly across Europe and later around the globe.  By hard work, intelligence and focused behaviour they were successful to the point of stirring resentment some of which was expressed as anti-Semitism.  The Nazis took it to a new level of hate and after World War II the world realized six million were killed under horrifying circumstances.  Jews did not feel safe in Europe and worried about anti-Semitism wherever they located.  Political movements, mainly Zionism sought out a permanent home and the most logical was Palestine.  The only problem was that other people already were living there.

The world felt guilty and ironically anti-Semitism also played in role in agreeing to set aside land for the Jews in Palestine.  The newly formed United Nations had a vote which declared specific land for the Jews, but also land for the Palestinians.  An article by William R Polk reminds me that the British presided over the independence of India including partitioning off Pakistan that resulted in millions dying.  The British also controlled Palestine when it was divided and literally thousands also died and many others relocated.  Through a series of events (some self inflicted by the Palestinians) the Jewish territory expanded and the Palestinians never did get their promised share. Although oil rich Arabs surrounding the area did invest some of their money and lot of their rhetoric to support the Palestinian cause they never got the support that the Jews did from America, Europe and the rest of the world.    There is a mix of resentment and fear also mixed with some Biblical self-rightiousness.  Some of the significant support for the Jews actually comes from American Evangelicals who await the second coming of Christ and believe that for that to happen the Jews have to control the Holy Land.

An obvious source of distrust is that the Israelis persist in making Jewish settlements in occupied territory although they have been told (it is hard to believe they would need to be told) this is very offensive.  They restrict Palestinians in countless ways at the borders not only for crossing, but for business.  Yes Israeli Arabs are better off.

The Palestinians have been ignored and abused for many decades and they are pictured in our media as uneducated with an insane desire to kill Jews.  There very definitely are a lot of fanatics who hate Jews and unfortunately this number is probably increasing. They have their own version of the situation, but it hasn't gotten much credence in the American mainstream media.  But if you think about it there are some grounds for their resentment.  Other Muslims around the world use what they see as very unfair treatment of their co-religionists by Westerners in their fight against us.

Syria and Iraq.  Let's go back a few years.  Both countries had their borders defined after World War I to the convenience of the wheeling and dealing winning powers.  Ethnic and religious concerns were not considered as important as oil and European maneuverings for colonial power.   The western powers felt dealing with relatively secular dictators superior to fairness to the teeming masses.  It seemed likely that any alternative to the dictators might be religious fanatics who would be much more difficult to deal with.

George Bush Sr was confronted by a problem and was able to organize a coalition to force Iraq to give up Kuwait.  He stopped short of conquering Iraq and replacing Saddam Hussein and that upset some right wingers in the United States.  It was a very delicate situation.  The American government had received United Nations authorization and had negotiated a coalition of many nations with differing perspectives.  Saddam Hussein proved himself adept at taking advantage of the situation to restore himself to full dictatorial power.

9-11 caught a lot of people off guard.  Why would anyone want to do such a horrible thing?  There really is no justification for killing so many innocent people.  Ignorance, resentment and hate played a role.  Quickly it was realized that the deed had been organized in Afghanistan (a story in itself) and Americans planned to attack in order to root out the terrorists.  Nobody much quarreled with that decision, but others saw it as an opportunity to get back at Saddam Hussein who they felt had suckered Americans in their last conflict.  Saddam had more reason to fear Al Qaeda than did Americans, but nonetheless some political factions claimed there was a tie-in.

The Iraq invasion proved to be an expensive distraction that has hurt America immeasurably.   They had not captured Osama bin Ladin and although they had greatly diminished the Taliban, they had not replaced it with anything solid.  On one side the Taliban (with help from Pakistan, a supposed ally) rebuilt itself and became a major factor again.  On the other side where Iraq had not harboured Al Qaeda  now became a recruiting base for them.  Religious and ethnic factions became unbottled and in effect a civil war resulted.  The Americans made at least two big mistakes--they had been advised to go in with a much larger number of ground troops, but authorities ridiculed that notion.  They were never able to clamp down enough to control the situation.  The second big mistake was to get rid of the bureaucratic and military infrastructure, men and women with necessary skills and knowledge to get things done.  Underlying these game changing errors was a basic ignorance of the country.

Iran is another country often depicted as uncivilized.  Americans forget they engineered a coup d'etat of a democratically elected Iranian ruler.  If this is brought up, the right wing points out that the Iranians were planning to nationalize their own oil as if the Westerners should have total control over it.  The Western powers favoured the Shah of Iran who with their help set up a harsh secret police force to control the masses.  As the Pope helped bring down Communist dictators so Ayatollah Khomeini helped bring down the Shah.  The Americans were delighted when the Iraquis  decided to invade Iran and supported them with amongst others things poisonous gas.  We, in the West  looked at them as fanatics who stormed and controlled the American Embassy for 444 days.  So each side blames the other, but they had begun to work together for mutual concerns.  Although they had received some Iranian help in the fight against terrorists, the Americans thought to frame Iran as one of the "Axis of Evil."  Now Iran is trying to assert itself to become a nuclear power causing fear in the rest of the world.

The so-called "Arab Spring" opened up another big can of worms.  Many factors were involved such as food prices, youthful unemployment and political agitation.  The results are very mixed and again a lot of factions have seized the opportunity to force their ideas on others.  Americans could probably had been more helpful if their credibility and resources had not been depleted by mistakes before.  From a conservative point of view Egypt, Libya and Syria were all better off before, except even conservatives wouldn't accept dictatorships in their own country.

Obama has a very complicated mess and limited resources.  It is very easy to offend a faction who feels Israel should be the focus of American foreign policy or those who feel fanatics should be killed at every opportunity  or our energy needs ought to be protected.

Conservative Americans think we ought to forget George Bush Jr's mistakes as if they have no impact on today's circumstances, but how could they not?  Obama has to work with the little credibility we have and try to develop more trust.  He has to balance a lot of domestic (unemployment, inequality, immigration, climate change) and other foreign (Ukraine, North Korea) concerns when his party can easily be blocked by the Republicans in the House of Representatives.

The biggest problem is ignorance and it is on most sides.  Most Middle Easterners and Muslims around the world have many higher priorities than killing Jews or Americans.  Most Westerners have many higher priorities than killing Muslims.  Unfortunately most of us let those with an agenda dictate our agenda.  There are some bridges between cultures, but not nearly enough.  Shed enough light on the situation and you will realize we have more in common than we differ on.

A few thoughts on Roger Ebert

Roger, the well known movie reviewer and a prolific writer died yesterday after lengthy medical complications.  I did not have any personal contact and only have read a small portion of what he wrote, but he had a positive impact on me and millions of others.

I like to think I write movie reviews, but my goal is really to give a little different perspective and maybe a nudge.  Roger looked at movies in much more depth and consequently his perspective was more detailed than I aspire to. 

My local paper, The Hamilton Spectator carried his reviews and I found myself checking them as almost the first thing to read and learned to value his judgments.  I discovered his website and caught many items not covered in local papers.  Barrack Obama commented that if Roger didn't like a movie he was honest about it, but also strong in his praise of movies he did like.  His credibility was very important in drawing attention to worthy movies that otherwise couldn't attract attention.

Twitter has opened up a lot of doors.  Twitter is criticized for being full of trivial time wasting information.  Roger would sympathize with that view and tried to send only messages that he thought worth somebody's effort to read, most often with links to something meatier.  In one article he explained his philosophy on twitter.  I flagged it, but checking today it is not available.  As I remember he did feel Twitter was a useful way to get your messages out to a broader audience, but would be more effective if only used when you had something worthwhile to tell the world.  He wasn't one of those who sat by the Twitter feed, but rather somebody who worked out what he wanted to say and used some technical service to spread the tweets throughout the day.  His political and philosophical views were similar to mine, but his were better articulated.  Reflecting his ability to write Roger was the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize.

On his website were a lot of movie reviews of course, but some of them were by correspondents and he seemed fond of using people from different parts of the world with their own unique perspectives. Like many reviewers he liked doing a year end summary of his favorite movies.  One year he had two lists--one of the commercially released American movies and another of foreign art movies.  As someone who attended a lot of festivals he was well aware of movies that were essentially inaccessible to most Americans (and Canadians).  What most of us see are reviews of movies that are playing near our home town.

He didn't just attend festivals he supported them.  The Toronto International Film Festival (known as TIFF) gained a lot of credibility with his presence and his praise.  Festivals are where he would encounter not only foreign movies, but also independent movies (those not made and distributed by major studios).  His support enabled not only the movies to be more accessible, but to make movie lovers more aware of them.

I read his book "Life Itself."  He had a life that may have been focused on movies, but he had a broader view.  Went through a period of alcohol abuse and towards the end had more than his share of physical challenges.  He persevered with the encouragement of his wife Chaz and kept doing what he enjoyed and felt gave his life some meaning.  Movies are important and he made us think about them in more depth.

The Debate

Like many Canadians I have been following the American election.  Like many liberals I was very disappointed at the failure of Obama to fight back at a recent debate.  It is a bit of a mystery to me.  My hope is that voters will realize there is more to an election decision than the dynamics of a debate.

The purpose of a debate is to use logic to persuade people to your way of thinking.  In reality, emotions and perceptions play a critical role.

Excuses.  One I have heard of is the altitude of Denver which possibly is a secondary factor.  It might be more realistic to say Obama was fatigued, after all he has a full time job.  We will never know all the details of that job, but it is public knowledge that Turkey and Syria were shooting at each other and who knows what other problems the president may have to contend with.  Mitt Romney's job is running for president and he can afford to take time out to prepare and be rested.

I had also heard that Obama personally dislikes Romney and was advised to be cool so as not to display his anger.

Some people have been arguing that Obama was giving Romney rope.  That can be dangerous as some people will inevitably believe the lies and others won't care because they have locked themselves in.  

I think Obama was stunned by Romney's blatant claims.  Things Mitt had boasted about were now denied.  Mitt did it in such a confident manner that likely many people were falsely reassured by these new statements.  The next day Obama commented on the spirited man who called himself Mitt Romney but couldn't have been because the real Mitt had been making claims to the contrary.

One report I read suggested that Obama is not confrontational.  He would rather conciliate.  At the moment the other party seems steadfast and resistant to logic.  Definitely Barack has not made as much progress as voters would like, but can they overlook what obstacles have been placed in his way by many of the most vociferous critics.  A portion of the public seems upset that a black man with a Muslim father is running the show.  Big money resents restrictions that are intended to protect the public interest. The Republicans have decided the best strategy is not to co-operate any more than necessary and more than anything that is the cause of slow progress.

I accept that Romney is an intelligent man and also practical.  Like most politicians he realizes he had to jump through a lot of hoops to get to this platform.  Pleasing some people inevitably displeases others.  Barack has a similar problem, but seems to be more thoughtful and careful.  People are always saying politicians lie to get elected and there is a lot of truth to that, although I do not feel politicians really want to do it that way.  Nobody wants their taxes to be raised or their services to be cut or their rights to be limited.  And there are an awful lot of people that are essentially one issue voters that will ignore their own self interest.

If you actually look at what was said, Romney left himself exposed.  He made very bold statements, but avoided critical details.  He belittled green energy inaccurately and boasted of his interest in education.  Letting Big Bird symbolize PBS may prove to the biggest mistake of all.

Politics is a dirty business.  There is a lot of exaggeration, distortion and taking things out of context.  As someone said the best disinfectant is sunlight.  The world is a dangerous, complicated place and difficult choices will have to be made.  The debate was actually very revealing.

I BUILT IT ALL BY MYSELF! NOT

The title of this post reminds me of a youngster (could have been me) who has built something from play toys and is proud of him or her self.  In truth we should encourage him or her to be ambitious and continue to mature their skills.  But we know a lot had to happen before that youngster was able to build that construction and a lot more will happen before they contribute to society.

The mockery of what Obama actually said astounds me.   The ignorance and arrogance of many is amazing, but what really scares me is the willingness of others who know better to exploit a supposed gaffe that was actually truthful.  A distortion is not much different than a lie.  The meaning of something has to include the context or we are not better than smart ass bullies.

Stephen R Covey, a Mormon has my respect for emphasizing that the world is inter-dependent.  We are LUCKY to live in a western civilization that has optimized our inter dependence, at least more than in previous times.  We don't have to do what our parents did, we are relatively free to pursue our own path and fit into society in our own way.

It is the height of arrogance and ignorance to think that anyone achieved anything all by themselves. Obama was not trying to take away credit for the striving and efforts of people who have achieved success.  He was trying to restore a little balance.  Since then the opposition has put up a lineup of people who have done it on their own.  But none them has; they all got some boost from government.

It is far more basic than that.  For someone to succeed they have to sell something to someone who buys.  It might be a product, a service or an idea, but if nobody has the resources or inclination to buy whatever, it was stays on the shelf.  We have to survive a stage of helplessness until we reach a point of fending for ourselves and truly we never really reach that stage, else there would be no need for police or armies.  Somehow we must learn the ways of the world both formally and informally.

Communication and transportation, a legal system, a workable currency, a base of potential customers are the necessary foundation of every business.  Some of us benefit more than others from this foundation or you might say are able to exploit their resources more effectively.

There is a great need for balance.  It takes all sorts of people to make our society work.  Thank goodness there are ambitious people with talent, willing to work hard to get what they want.  They get what they want by satisfying desires of other people.  Thank goodness there are people willing to do the grubby work.  Thank goodness there are people willing to encourage us and teach the ways of the world.  Other people do whatever is left.  Some of us have big egos and resent anyone telling us what to do, but others are willing to fit in wherever they can.  We can all point to people who take, but don't give anything back, some are considered successful and others considered bums.  Teachers are often depicted as ones who couldn't get a real job, but they are key drivers of progress:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/11/what-teachers-make-by-taylor-mali.html

When those who have money are not willing to share, to help others follow their path, to help those who were not as lucky or talented as they were the whole society starts to decline.  We are disgusted with despotic rulers in the current and ancient world and realize we are much more fortunate.   The problem starts with someone leveraging their power at the expense of others.

Do some people deserve special status because they take risks? Maybe, but in fact the government has reduced the risk in many ways.  One thing many of us overlook is the designation "Ltd." which really means the risk is limited to the amount invested whereas before there was no limit. Bankruptcy rules protect not only consumers, but also companies.  Then there is the so called safety net.  What happens when reasonable risks don't work out?

There is a need to respect individual talent, ambition and hard work.  There is also a need to realize that we are inter-dependent.  I recognize that some people think they pay too much in taxes and some of them might be right.  I realize that regulation and bureaucracy can be wasteful and crush initiative. But we have to acknowledge that some people became successful by abusing others and actually kept some deserving people from getting a decent opportunity.  If you think about it there are a few very dangerous people who are trying to take advantage of the rest of us--who is going to protect us?   Most important let us not distort the meaning of the message-- what Obama actually said is very fundamental to making decisions that affect everyone and I think the key to our future.  Reject it or misunderstand it and I think we are headed for anarchy.   And no I do not think that is too strong a description.

"The Crisis of Zionism book review

As an outsider (in the sense of not being Jewish and not having ever visited Israel) I can easily be accused of ignorance.  On the other hand we all benefit from understanding what outsiders think even if they are totally wrong.  I grew up thinking of  "Exodus" as one of my favorite movies, however as I got older I became aware that it represented only one viewpoint.  I am now aware of other viewpoints.

Peter Beinart, who I have found in other contexts to be intelligent and objective has more of an insider perspective on Israel and is very concerned.  Peter might be described as a liberal Jew who sees Israel as not treating Palestinians fairly.  Most Jews in the United States seem to vote Democrat, but because they tend to be liberal they also tend to inter-marry more and are losing their Jewish identity.  Other Jews, especially older ones see themselves as victims and view Israel as a possible refuge or at least as a beacon.

The author is concerned that Israel is losing its democracy.  Many Israelis emphasize that they are victims and don't realize that they now have power and are using it to impose hardship on others.  A significant segment of American Jews support the right wing approach which essentially is to keep the Palestinians from having their own state.  Many of those who feel more liberal are gradually losing their identification with Israel.

Beinart is concerned that the current Israeli government is turning the world against Israel.  Including the occupied lands Palestinians are likely to become more populous in the near future and this will force a difficult choice.  Will Israel remain Jewish and will it also remain a democracy?

Barack Obama has a personal perspective on Jews which surprised me.  One of his early mentors was Arnold Jacob Wolf who believed Israel and American Jewish organizations had to be democratic and felt Jews should de-emphasize victim-hood.   Some liberal Jews were closely tied to Obama's education and to his political rise.  Obama spent part of his upbringing amongst Muslims and is well read on their perspective.  Beinhart thinks Obama was out maneuvered by Netanyahu and sees danger.

Benjamin Netanyahu  has a different vision for Israel and its role in the world. He sees the Palestinians as an obstacle to Israeli and Jewish security.  The settlements in the west bank are seen as a necessary and desirable move although Palestinians and many others see them as a threat to peace. There is a feeling amongst some hard liners that Jordan was taken away from them.

Evangelicals, particularly in the United States have an influence on the dynamics.  They believe Christ will come back, but only while Israel is ruled by Jews.  Several years ago at one  of my jobs I had my eyes opened by a fellow worker who I respected that the second coming was moving forward and would take place in Israel.

It is all very scary, but I believe Peter Beinart has a valid perspective that should be seriously considered.

for a more recent Peter Beinart post after the Hamas attack and Gaza followup  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2025/02/peter-beinarts-being-jewish-after.html

"Team of Rivals" has lessons for today

One of my goals in reading biographies is to seek out models of people who have dealt with life's problems in a more effective way than I have.  Doris Kearns Goodwin has turned her historical analysis on Abraham Lincoln in a comprehensive manner that lets her readers understand the context of his life.  Barack Obama has referred to the mechanics of the Lincoln administration.

Doris gets inside the minds of the people Lincoln had to deal with. She goes into diaries, newspaper accounts and personal correspondence to get a a fuller view of what people thought of Lincoln and how he dealt with it. He was a man of principle, deserving of the moniker "Honest Abe," but more importantly a practical man. He listened very carefully to understand what others thought and was forgiving of their mistakes.  He had a sense of humor that allowed him to deal with the stresses of life. On top of all that he was clever.  He dealt with (as we all do) people who had contrary interests, only he did it better.

The author starts off by giving a lot of background of two of Lincoln's presidential rivals, William Seward and Salmon Chase, both of whom expected to be president and felt entitled to the honor. Other key players included Edward Bates and Edwin Stanton. Lincoln picked these men because of what they were capable of doing for their country in its hour of greatest need. There was rivalry amongst them, but Lincoln was able to harness their efforts to re unify America.

Important events covered in detail include Lincoln's early political efforts, his presidential nomination and campaign, selecting his cabinet and changes over the years and of course the American Civil War and Emancipation. Always there was a reason why something shouldn't be done and usually Abraham was able to understand the people involved better than others, wait for the proper moment and eventually prevail.

Doris Kearns Goodwin dealt with some modern thoughts on Abraham Lincoln.  One was that his wife was very unreasonable, even insane.  When you understand some of the history you can appreciate she was part of his success.  In her own right she was knowledgeable about politics and very literate. She was from a wealthier, connected family, but chose Abraham over richer suitors. She did have stress including the death of a son while in the White House.  She was the butt of much resentment and sometimes over-reacted.

Another twist one hears is that Lincoln was gay or at least bisexual. Doris Kearns Goodwin points out that we make judgments based on our cultural base.  Abraham Lincoln shared his bed with men both in his youth and even at the White House.  He was open about it and we have to understand it was not an unusual event and certainly not necessarily an indication of homosexuality.

Another key point for me was that slavery was inherent in the American Constitution.  There are those who maintain that Americans should makes laws in accordance with the founders' wishes.  It is impossible to avoid internalizing a culture into the law and it is also true that compromise is necessary in a political context.  Nothing humanly framed should bind future generations that inevitably live in a different culture.  True justice is an elusive goal, but each generation deserves an opportunity to work closer to it.  It is true that we do not want popularity to determine the rights of those with less power so sober reflection is necessary to change anything that is critical to modifying the framework we must all live in.

We all know the end.  Lincoln's assassination is one of the better known historical events. The tragedy plays out today.  Lincoln would have been more forgiving and understanding of the defeated southern people.  Because he wasn't there to offset the vengeful efforts of those who picked up the slack, resentment built up that affects American politics today.

Abraham Lincoln is an excellent model to aim for and I am thankful the author identified him for his unique way of dealing with conflicts.   I have watched Doris Kearns Goodwin on tv a few times and always found her insightful for today's politics.  Obviously it flows from a strong historical understanding. My intention is to look for more of her insights.