The Iranian Dilemma

 Most of the western world is supportive of the Iranian women protesting restrictions on their lives.  Underneath there is a lot of resentment of being ruled by an autocratic theocracy.  The women hold the leverage of righteous indignation.  As in history men have tried to control women and looking back we have paid a price.  This time the women have garnered greater support from men. What are the dangers of pushing too hard?  

As one commentator pointed out how we got to this point is that we, especially Americans have usually taken the side of dictators and corporate interests against the will of the people.  This doesn't always work out the way it is anticipated.

In 1953 the Iranians had a democratically elected leader, Mohammad Mosaddeq who was trying to follow the example of an agreement between Saudi Arabia and Americans to share oil revenue.  The British resisted and requested help from the U.S.  After a successful coup, Mohammed was replaced by the Shah.  To consolidate his power he sought help from the C.I.A. to set up SAVAK, a secret police service.  One of the trainers was Norman Schwarzkopf, later famous for the Iraq invasion.  They also involved the Israeli MOSSAD.  The purpose was to track and control enemies of the Pahlavi family.  The Americans left and SAVAK took a turn for more brutality including torture, executions, censorship.  The first director was repelled, eventually becoming a dissident and was assassinated in such a way to appear an accident.  Agents spied on Iranian citizens to uncover dissidents and as a by product promote distrust among neighbors.

With the election of Jimmy Carter the Iranians were encouraged into alleviating torture and other abuses of power.  As the Catholic church in Poland was responsible for forcing the Communist government to eventually capitulate. a fundamentalist Shiite clergy forced out the Shah.  Ironically when the Iranian Revolution occurred in 1979, Carter also felt an obligation to support the Shah under siege.  This stirred resentment in Iran and led to the hostage crisis that helped undo Carter's re-election.  

The Iranian Revolution was sparked by civilian discontent.  As is often the case the people rallied behind fundamentalist clergy who in the end took control.  Similarly the Poles rebelled against the Soviets using the Catholic Church as a tool.  In another blog about corruption it was pointed out that when citizens have little room to protest they support fundamentalists.  see http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/07/thieves-of-state.html 

A few other ironies--during an oil boycott it was Carter who adopted a conservation strategy to make Americans less dependent on Mid-East oil.  This was ridiculed by Republicans who went on to ridicule climate change.  Another irony provided by the Republicans is that they spun an arms deal with the supposed enemy Iranians to finance an insurrection in Nicaragua.

After the Iranian Revolution Iraq thought it would take advantage of confusion in Iran to invade it starting in 1980.  Americans, concerned about the prospect of a prolonged war supported Saddam Hussein including providing expertise on chemical weapons that not only killed an estimated 100,000 Iranians but were also used on Kurdish civilians.  Iran was able to quickly repel the invaders, but the conflict dragged on until the United Nations brokered a ceasefire accepted by Iran in 1988.

In 1988 an Iranian passenger airline was shot done in Iranian territory by an American missile.  Americans claimed they mistook it for a military fighter.  All 290 people on board died.  Ronald Reagan expressed regret in a diplomatic note.  United States did not admit legal liability or offer a formal apology but did agree to a financial settlement of $61.8 million.

After 9/11 the Bush administration labeled Iran as part of an "axis of evil," although they had provided some intelligence for the crisis.  I have to admit that phrase came from David Frum, a Canadian conservative writer who I have come to like a bit.   

Trump not only broke the multi national Iran Agreement, he imposed sanctions not only for Americans, but also for their allies.  On top of that he approved assassination of Qaasem Soleimani, a prominent Iranian general.   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/05/alarm-bells-on-iran.html

Iranians are accused of terrorism, but they see themselves as defending the interests of Shiite followers in Lebanon, Yemen, Oman and Israel.. 

The current energy crisis greatly aggravated by Putin and OPEC is forcing difficult decisions.  At some point some vested interests will point out that we in the west are suffering for our support of Ukraine and might face a nuclear Armageddon.  Is it worth it?  For the sake of world peace and to solve other global problems like climate change and pandemics it is, but difficult decisions will have to be made.  Winter will soon be here.

How do we deal with Iran?  The government is resentful of our reactions (including in Canada and the U.S.) to the riots.  Canadians are proud that Ken Taylor, our ambassador to Iran helped Americans escape from the hostage situation at the American embassy.  Going back further they are upset about sanctions against them and American actions going back to at least the 1950's.  It is time to acknowledge American mistakes.

There is no easy way to deal with the oil shortage over the winter months.  Sacrifices are necessary in our support of Ukraine.  Long term we need to boost renewables.  Iran could be helpful and to a lesser extent so could Venezuela.

We are not likely to persuade old theocrats that they need to give more power to women.  We  can give the women some support, but really their willingness to risk dying is more critical.  The hijab symbolizes power.  Although many women prefer not to be objectified, others feel that should be their choice.  Beyond the symbolism women want property rights, access to jobs and education, the ability to divorce, freedom to express oneself as men do.  Women rights are human rights.

The Puritans won the English Civil War and imposed their morals on their subjects.  This included a ban  on playing cards, dancing, women on stage, etc.  These irked citizens no end and led eventually to the English Restoration.

Dealing with the heads of state is practical for the short run.  Autocrats tend to stick together as do democracies.  Human rights really are a global issue and if we are not to be hypocrites we need to do more to promote human rights.  We will all be better off if we can make the right moves to furthering human rights. 

The NON-INDICTABLE SINS OF TRUMP

He got in and there is very little that can be done before 2020.  There certainly were enablers, some of whom you can read about   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/07/trump-enablers.html

Any president should be allowed some mismanagement and to some degree all of them are guilty.  Too bad life threatening mistakes are legal, but at least some mismanagement can be amended with a new election.

Trump is admired by a significant portion of the population while others prefer to look elsewhere declaring that politics either bores them or is too many lies.  Unfortunately his mismanagement (much of which is deliberate) affects everyone and not just Americans.  Many people would add to my list, but in my mind he is guilty of GROSS mismanagement that needs to be punished.  Here are a few.

Pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement.  This is a global problem with global obstacles in the form of vested interests and ignorance.  United States despite a relatively small population contributes a major share of the problem.  They fancy themselves as global leaders and in this case I believe they should be.  While blaming China and others it is the U.S. that would make the most progress by setting an example.  Most other nations would follow their lead.  Obviously some of his supporters have a vested interest, but everyone, especially in the future will suffer.

Pulling out of the Iran agreement is inflammatory.  Not perfect, but the imperfections are more than tolerated when found elsewhere.  To build on what has already been agreed to not only by American negotiators, but also from Russia, Britain, China, France and Germany means other entities with their vested interests are  being ignored.  The purpose was to cut the proliferation of nuclear weapons that threaten us all.  Trump is catering to Saudi Arabia and Israel.  If Iran gets nuclear weapons Saudi Arabia will pressure to follow.  For Israel, temporary relief, but more importantly lost an opportunity to improve relations.

Spreading hatred against minorities especially immigrants.  Many Americans think their country should be white, but in truth diversity is strength and they need immigrants to keep growing.

Supposedly some people believe Trump is hurt that anyone would question his legitimacy and feels threatened by the suggestion that Russia helped him.  Maybe so, but nonetheless Russians seem to influence decisions.   They are the ones who want to break up international co-operation.

Vested interests are put in positions of power over finance, consumer protection and the environment.

The judicial system is being changed as something they are most proud of.  Many voters assume this will make abortion illegal and further assume it is the best way to minimize abortion.  At the same time they are tightening what Planned Parenthood can do.  I maintain the best way to reduce abortion is to increase sex education, accessibility to contraception, parental leave, financial assistance for young parents, health care for all, all things resisted by conservatives.

Obviously Trump wanted to please the anti abortion group that tends to be a one issue voter.  But the Supreme Court deals with many other issues and a conservative dominated court tends to favor big business and executive power.  It is galling that Mitch McConnell was able to stymie an Obama nomination.  Also that the Republicans rushed in Kavanagh despite some concerns that were not adequately addressed. 

I would also like to add that the tax reduction bill he supported was irresponsible as the U.S. already had hard to manage debt and favoring the very wealthy would only increase inequality.

Do subtitles scare you? Who knows what you are missing?

Some of my readers must be a bit annoyed at how often I write about foreign movies.  I apologize for boring or torturing you, but sincerely hope you take a closer look.

Foreign movies appeal to my curiosity about "foreign" people.  Helps to understand a different perspective on this big frightening world.  On top of it all there is a lot of artistry captured in foreign cultures that is pleasurable.

My parents when they were first married often drove out of town to a Chinese restaurant, but ordered regular Canadian food.  After several years and a few children somehow they were persuaded to try some Chinese food and were really turned on.  We all got to eat Chinese food and developed a liking for it.  A few years later somehow we discovered pizza.  What other exciting discoveries are out there?

Aside from exoticism, we are struck by similarities that we might not have expected.  Many foreign countries have adopted Western culture, but we often picture them wearing folk costumes.  We think they are simple minded and don't have the emotional ups and downs that we go through.  They lack our sophistication.

As with English movies there are a lot of ordinary and poor films in foreign tongues, but nonetheless many are copied (for an Angolphone audience, often poorly) and  many actors, directors, writers, composers, cinematographers, etc are lured over to English speaking production houses with bigger budgets . A lot of entertaining movies are out there if you are willing to cross a few borders.

Right now Westerners are very distrustful of Iran, but they don't understand the history that should make you marvel that they might not trust us--you also don't think they are much like us.  "Separation" isn't  political in any traditional way, but does demonstrate Iranians have the usual sort of human problems and try to handle them in similar ways to us.  This movie has an ambiguous ending that leaves you wondering.

The Korean movie pictured at the top, "Glove" illustrates more similarities.  What North American is not familiar with baseball?  Well they are in Korea as well and they have prima donna players, locker room conflicts, dramatic games and this movie illustrates all that.  It also follows a typical sports plot line, except victory comes a little differently and the particular drama is unique.  With the baseball connection you will find yourself pulled into the story which is very well done.   If you want to pursue Korean movies you will find a wide variety including very violent and thrilling, but also some of my favorites like "200 Pounds Beauty" and "Miss Granny" for laughs and romance and for philosophical insight,  "Spring, summer, fall, winter...and spring."  See an earlier post:     http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/04/a-slice-of-korean-cinema.html

Asia is now moving into our consciousness and since my youth at least has been perceived as very different.  Certainly there are things that might seem exotic or weird, but again you can see similarities with little effort.  Perhaps some of you may have seen "Shall We Dance" with Richard Gere, Susan Sarandon and Jennifer Lopez.  I was a little disappointed because I had previously stumbled on the original Japanese version.  It shook up some misperceptions I had about the Japanese and was a charming story.  Later on I learned both versions had the same writer.  The Japanese lost the war and suffered for it, but have moved on.  A very perceptive Japanese film maker was Akira Kurasawa who not only had some of his movies adapted for Hollywood, but also some of his techniques.  He filmed the early difficult times after the war.  Japanese films cover a wide range.  Animated films are easily adapted using English speaking voices.  Others are very perceptive of human dilemmas such as "Like Father Like Son." and "Departures."  More information on Japanese movies here:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/03/japanese-movies-are-more-than-godzilla.html

I love Bollywood and was partially hooked because I have always loved musicals, but there is a lot more depth (as well as some very beautiful music).  One to draw attention is "Dum Laga Ke Haisha" a love story between a regular guy and a fat girl--you will come to love her too.   read more  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/05/a-feel-good-movie-little-off-beaten-path.html "PK" a religious satire perhaps most suitable for India as it has large segments of a wide variety of religions.  see:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/03/pk.html

China is viewed as a Communist monolith, but like the ancient Romans the government tries to provide "bread and circuses"  Besides Chinese movies come from different sources including Taiwan and Singapore while Hong Kong has a long unique history.  Jackie Chan, Yun-Fat Chow and Li Gong have left their influence in China and North America.  For more information:   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/08/chinese-cinema-is-peek-into-their_1.html

Browsing one day I stumbled on "Bliss" introducing me to Turkish movies.   The book was of great interest as was the author who wrote the music for the movie.  The movie was about honor killing which is outmoded for most of Turkey but still real for some sectors of the population.  I did a post on a comparison of the book and movie at  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2011/05/turkish-delight-in-book-and-movie-form.html I have since seen a number of Turkish movies making me realize that our image of backward countries is not up to date.




Switching over to Europe I learned from "Mother of Mine" about some history from World War II that had escaped my attention.  Finland was in a very awkward position in that they were being attacked by the Russians  (our allies against the Nazis) and were greatly outnumbered.  Many of the children were transported to Swedish homes.  This is a story about a young boy who adjusted poorly at first then found it hard to leave his new mother.  To read about the sad movies that include other foreign titles check here:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/08/the-power-of-sad-movies.html



European films may seem a little closer to our English culture, but there are lots of interesting  choices.  I have enjoyed films from France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Italy, and Russia.   One of my very favorite movies is "After the Wedding" from Denmark.


For Anglophone Canadians we often overlook a foreign language source that often hits really close to home.  Our Quebec brethren are actually more prolific in movies as a way of maintaining their culture.  Yes, many of them want to separate, but many others want to explain themselves.  You can learn more at:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/09/french-canadian-films-are-world-class.html

Where I have not gone far--Africa--watched one low key romance comedy "Cape of Good Hope"  from South Africa, mostly in English, plus "Tsotsi" and one  Science Fiction-"District 9",  a Bollywood movie set there, "Race"   From the Hamilton Film fest  "The First Grader" about an 84 year old former freedom fighter who wanted an education.  I accept Africa will surge in a lot of endeavors over the next few decades and deserves more attention.

Hollywood to my way of thinking has developed some formulas that work to maximize their profits.  They provide some stimulus and like Pavlovian dogs the audience responds.  If it starts to seem repetitious they escalate the stimulus.  Although I find myself responding on cue often, I look for a different stimulus.  How about you?

Aside from thinking foreigners are weird and not nearly as sophisticated as us, another obstacle is subtitles.  I suffer from aging eyes, and declining attention span.  They actually help focus my attention and perhaps help me catch some subtleties (of which I might miss in a dubbed version).  Dubbed is an easier adjustment, but I dislike the voice not matching the lip movements or the actor's physicality.  You might feel more comfortable with a dubbed movie and maybe work your way up to subtitles.

Subtitles can be misleading--some writers avoid using profanity, often simplify words and it is not uncommon to spot spelling or grammar errors.  They can be slow, sometimes difficult to sort out which character said what.  A translator can make a  big difference in how you enjoy a book, and a good subtitle writer can also make a big difference.

A lot has to be left out but it is a very big world with lots of sights that our ancestors could only be aware after a lot of effort and often expense.  You can sample it effortlessly.  Your local library and Netflix are both ready and willing to help your exploration.  I hope I have whetted your appetite.

The Iran Nuclear Agreement

Most of the world seems to like the new agreement with Iran and six other nations, but others are threatening to block it anyway they can with one presidential candidate threatening to bomb Iran on his first day in office.  Many Americans feel they are "exceptional" and ought to be able to get their way no matter what.  It is actually not healthy when one side can bully everyone else.  Fear creates communication problems and ignorance begets poor choices.

At least four years in the making many politicians have denounced it before reading any details.  Obviously to them politics and appealing to a political base is more critical than serious study.

Obama explained the situation much better than I can so I may borrow a few of his thoughts.  Each side had some leverage and each is looking for ways to increase that power.  If you don't have anything the other person wants it creates an awkward situation.  The British started what became known as the Opium Wars essentially because the Chinese didn't want very much of what the English had to offer in exchange for tea which the British took a fancy to and so they did their best to create opium addictions.

The Iranians want to be able to sell more goods to the world and the West wants to stop the spread of nuclear weapons (particularly to unfriendly parties).  There are a lot of side issues such as prisoners being held hostage, conventional weapons being sent to terrorists, Sunni terrorists in Iraq and Syria, human rights violations.  One option is to use force, but that can be very expensive, not only in terms of money, but in lives and credibility.  Force in the Middle East often just reinforces their perception of being hated and the need to fight back.

I remember an example given in a sales talk.  The other person would probably be willing to pay 1¢ more for what you are selling and you would probably be willing to accept 1¢ less but how much effort and risk is that worth for that small reward.

As Obama pointed out they were able to put a coalition together that added more pressure to Iran, but each coalition member (United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany) have their own particular concerns.  They negotiated an agreement they felt comfortable with, but won't be pleased if the United States wants to renege.  Each member of congress has to recognize they are not just objecting to Obama, but also to the other coalition partners who helped force Iran to this agreement.  Congress also needs to realize that the coalition members may not wish to carry on sanctions and therefore Iran may well feel less pressure to give up further power.

The issue of trust is often brought up as if the Iranians were the only ones with a bad reputation.  It was the American CIA that arranged for a democratically elected Iranian leader to be deposed and replaced with a monarch way back in 1953 and then went on to help set up a secret service that controlled ordinary Iranians.  Iraq was encouraged to invade Iran.  Later  Ronald Reagan authorized a contra deal involving weapons with the Iranians.  Earlier after World War I European powers, mainly England and France split up the Middle East for their own greedy reasons.

Americans are upset that Hamas and Hezbollah are financed in part by Iran.  Iranians, at all levels do not see them as terrorists, but as freedom fighters.  There is a great deal of resentment in the Muslim world that Israelis financed by Americans are subjugating Palestinians.  There are a lot of facts and opinions to back that up.  It is fair to say Iranians do not share American sentiments on the issue.

There is a very delicate balance between keeping Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries satisfied.  The agreement will not please everyone in that area, but a revocation by one party will only exacerbate the situation.

Israel fears their Arab and Persian neighbours, but does work with some of them and is concerned that any new regimes (such as after the Arab Spring) might be more difficult.  Saudi Arabia seems to be the biggest source of terrorists and have Shiites wanting to be treated equally.  The people of almost all Muslim countries are sympathetic to the Palestinians and distrust those they feel abuse them.

The American negotiating team has been accused of naivety, but in fact Obama clearly understands there is a possibility the other side will not honour the agreement.  Punishments are laid for any violation and reasonable verification is in place.  Violations affect credibility.

Alternatives?? All seem to revolve around being tougher, more threatening.  There are a lot of complaints about Iran (and they have a few about us), but the underlying idea of these negotiations was to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and avoiding an escalation by other countries.

With the release of Iranian oil, the price at the pump is expected to go down.  This will have consequences.  Low cost oil will curtail expensive sources such as  Tar Sands and fracking.  Non oil countries will benefit with lower costs of living.  Climate change strategies may be delayed again, although green forces are gaining strength.  Arab countries and other oil producers will lose revenue.

Possibly the ISIL problem will be dealt with more effectively.  How will the Kurds fare as they contribute to the solution?

Israel and Sunnis and Shiites and Christians need to get along better--what plans do any of them have to facilitate that?

Photo is of the flags along the Benjamin Franklin Parkway in Philadelphia.

SUPPORT FOR THE PRESIDENT

The recent address by Benjamin Natanyahu to the American Congress illustrates vividly the hypocrisy of the Republican party.  It certainly appealed to deeply felt emotions and to significant fund raisers. Still it is a step too far.  The Republicans are entitled to their perspective on domestic arguments and should do their best to present their viewpoints on important issues for the American people.  They should also examine foreign issues carefully and do their duty to present alternative strategies to protect their country.

BUT they should not try to undermine the president when dealing with foreigners in very difficult negotiations.

A simplified synopsis of the Iranian negotiation crisis is subject to bias and prejudice, but here goes.  There is doubt in all quarters as to how far one should trust Iran.  Are they just trying to inch their way to having nuclear weapons?  Are they using that fear as leverage to get more of what they really want?  Can outsiders really prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons if they are really determined short of war?  Could the west win a war?  Each question is complex and there is far more to it.  Each side has members who want the negotiations to fail and nobody can really be sure of the consequences.

My suggestion would be that tensions should be turned down.  Israel ought to be exploring steps to relieve the dangers.  A greater danger might be increasing resentment of how they treat the Palestinians.  Iran is potentially an ally in a war against ISIS.  It is not a backward civilization and its citizens do not all hate the West.  There is a lot of history involved and Americans need to acknowledge they were responsible for replacing an elected Iranian with a dictator.  Should Iran develop a nuclear bomb it would likely cause other Middle East powers to do the same.

There are plenty of delicate international issues with plenty of differing views.  At some point someone has to represent the whole nation when confronting these issues.  That person is logically the President.  That does not mean that everyone has to agree, but it should mean efforts to undermine a united front are not acceptable.

The Republicans understood this when they made the decision to invade Iraq.  They ridiculed dissenters and shamed fence sitters to get bi partisan Congressional approval.  Politicians and the media were very strident against any differing views.  Traitorous was a common epithet for people who did not support military efforts or security changes.  It was unpatriotic to question decisions.  Anyone else remember that environment?

The Iraq War turned out to be disastrous, not only because of military considerations, but because of the essential dishonesty involved.  Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 disaster, they did not train Al Quaeda terrorists and they did not have weapons of mass destruction.  Although claims are made that intelligence pointed to a guilty Iraq, they were to a significant degree manufactured with plenty of dissenting opinions expressed.  They even revealed a secret agent in an effort to discredit one of the dissenters.

All politicians find it helpful to project a patriotic image and some like to denigrate the opposition's patriotism.  Voters are responsive to this image battle.

To my viewpoint, the Republicans were attempting to undermine delicate negotiations for what they thought would be political advantage.  Paint the Democrats as weak and poor negotiators and stick up for the Israeli victims.  Netanyahu cannot be totally blamed for trying to take advantage of an opportunity to present his undoubtedly sincere concerns, but he too was trying to portray himself as a tough negotiator for an election of his own.  Republicans would have been better advised to avoid seeming to take sides in another nation's election.

Republicans are not alone in their concern about the Iranian negotiations, but at some point they have to stop undermining the president and the voters have to trust the man the majority of voters supported in the last two presidential elections.

A lot of the conservative rhetoric is blatantly unfair and ridiculous.  For instance as a Canadian it is hard to stomach the misinformation that is shouted about Obamacare.  It is noted that once the same plan is identified as the Affordable Care Act it gains greater approval.  There are many difficult issues, but it is hard not to be impressed with how superior Obama's results have been compared to his Republican predecessor.  Republicans have a lot of chutzpah to not owning up not only to their Iraq debacle, but also how they messed up the economy.

As outsiders we can only express our opinions, but have to realize we will never know everything a president has to deal with.  Our judgment and our vote has to be based on what we do know and perhaps the key element is deciding who to trust and then respect the majority.  When difficult decisions have to be made at some point we have to trust and respect elected officials.  I do not believe the Republicans, particularly in the House of Representatives demonstrated that with respect to the recent visit by a foreign leader.

The photo at the top is of muralist Lester Coloma working on a fence painting that unfortunately is no longer there and I thought it should be remembered.

the price of gas and our future

Up until recently it seemed like the price of gas would just keep going up.  Alarmists were telling us that demand was up and supplies were drying up.  For several months the price has fallen and has caught many of us off guard.  What does it portend for our future?  Nobody really knows, but there are many factors involved and many decisions that can impact the trends.

At least three factors are responsible for the current lower price trend.  One is that demand has diminished due to economic slowdown that has impacted globally.  Secondly that new sources have been developed such as fracking.  Thirdly, Saudi Arabia has decided to keep up its supply even though it is very aware that it will keep the price low.

A big question is how long will that Saudi decision hold and why did they make it in the first place.  Speculation is that low prices will hurt some of their competitors who they are displeased with.  They want Iran to bend to the American nuclear negotiating.  They are also displeased with Russia,who has been supplying Syria who is also a concern of the Saudis.  ISIS is complicated so that the government feels threatened by it, but some Saudi religious elements support it financially and some in combat.  Furthermore the Saudis are worried that America will now be competitive with their fracking efforts.  I don't believe they have a quarrel with Canada, but the tar sands cannot generate a profit at a low price.  The Canadian dollar is tied fairly close to the price of oil so that has implications for all Canadian consumers and travellers.

Jeff Rubin once wrote that the reason for the Recession of 2008 was primarily the price of oil.  His argument included the cost of doing business was so high that the credit system could no longer support it.  Most other people were talking about over extended credit meaning consumers could not borrow money and could not afford to maintain their standard of living.  Now that the price has lowered how will that affect growth?   Read my post from August 20.2012 about Jeff's thinking back then http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/08/investors-and-environmentalists-should.html

For the time being people have more money to spend.  Some are spending it on more gas while others are buying consumer goods they couldn't afford a short time ago.  If the price remains low this means the extra spending will result in new jobs and could create pressure to raise wages.  Sounds pretty good, but of course it is not that simple.  First it means Americans cannot afford the expensive fracking and the Canadians cannot afford the expensive tar sands meaning those sources will shrink.  Previously it was thought the price would go up as the cost of acquiring oil would go up and it would become scarcer.  However what will eventually put the price up is when demand increases because more people are able to spend money.  This is a delicate balance as when price goes up demand tends to go down.  At the same time as the price goes up so can the supply.  Standard economic theory. There is still uncertainty so no one is counting on price remaining low for very long.

Climate change will become more of a factor.  Instead of looking for environmentally positive alternatives while gas prices are low most consumers will continue to use fossil fuels.  At some point and it might be sooner than expected citizens will be more conscious that climate change is not a fraud and I suspect at one point even the Tea Party will be demanding action.  Heavy storms and tornadoes, floods, droughts, rising water levels on coastal land, even earthquakes linked to fracking will be perceived as too dangerous to ignore.  Many actions will be expensive and adjustments demanding.  In the end pollution will diminish with all sorts of benefits, jobs will be created and the price of energy will lessen.  There will be some losers and they will resist.  Unfortunately they have a lot of resources to protect their sources of wealth.  Their credibility will decline, but some wealthy people will use their resources to diversify.

The tradeoffs will require decisions at all levels.  Consumers will choose with their available cash to conserve, look for alternatives or just stick to their routine.  The previously increasing price of oil has spurred the search for alternatives.  Long term thinking suggests that the true price of the fossil fuel industry will continue to increase while we strangle in its other effects.  Most of us are really short term thinkers looking for a momentary pleasure.

Jobs can be created by converting to alternative energy and/or by increased consumer spending.  We can all live healthier more productive lives.  Adjustments will be made one way or another.  Will they be long term or just short term?  Fracking right now is providing jobs directly and indirectly, but will decline if the price stays low.

There is a fork in the road ahead and we will have to wait to see how mankind proceeds.  The consequences will be more than interesting.

Photo is in Havana with the old cars they needed to retain.

The Pottery Barn Analogy underlies Mideast problems

In this mid term election process there are knee-jerk "experts" ready to pounce on any statement they can stretch to prove a point.  They are appalled by "no strategy," but really have little constructive to help make better decisions.  Political posturing needs to be minimized, hopefully not using the Bush methods to silence dissenters. 

Colin Powell is said to have given an analogy to George Bush when informed the administration had decided an invasion of Iraq was imminent.  As I understood it when you pick up a piece of pottery in a store and drop it you own it.  Americans despite all their access to modern technology really had a very poor understanding of Iraq.  Even so there was no real excuse to invade as there was no connection to 9-11 or proof of weapons of mass destruction.  If they thought about it, Saddam Hussein had more to fear from Al Qaeda than Americans.  Yes the rhetoric coming from Iraq was belligerent and all evidence points that Saddam was not very nice.  The White House dismissed the UN inspectors and put their reliance on suspect sources and their own (political) guts.

Instead of overwhelming the Iraquis, the administration brushed off suggestions of General Shenseki and failed to contain all the factions.  They then showed their priorities very quickly doing what they could to protect oil interests, but ignoring almost everything else.  As in any major civil disturbance there are criminal elements ready to take advantage, they let citizens fend for themselves.  They decided that since the Baath party had been in control all members should be prohibited from government.  They did not take into account that many members only joined for career survival reasons and that many of these people had vital knowledge and skills to offer a new governance.  As is true in situations where a minority controls the majority there would be vengeance seekers and resentment from those losing power.

Where there had been no Al Qaeda there was now a vacuum filled by jihadists from abroad, but who were able to recruit fighters from amongst dissatisfied members of the minority Sunnis, many of whom had military experience.  In Iraq there were other minorities that played significant roles, mainly the Kurds, but also Turkmen, Christians and others.  The Kurds have used the situation to leverage for more power and seemed to be most aligned to American interests.  Part of their motive is gain their own separate state.  This commendable aspiration is a big concern to neighboring powers such as Turkey, Iran and Syria who feel threatened by it.

The Arab Spring caught a lot of us off guard, but some were quick to credit George Bush with helping to get it going.  It has played out differently in the countries involved, but with some obvious benefits for democracy, but also with some outstanding concerns.  Where it has caused the most confusion seems to be Syria where a civil war has erupted.  Assad is another dictator abusing his country.  He seemed up against the wall, but has fought back and in the process unleashed elements nobody seems to be able to control.

The outcome of most concern seems to be ISIS which consists mainly of the most extreme fanatics who are able to use brutal tactics to conquer territory.  Their brutality is frightening, but there is also a level of sophistication that might be more frightening.  To be effective they had to have access to large amounts of financial support.  At this point they are self financing through kidnappings for ransom and oil.  They have started to "tax"some of their conquered people.

It is possible their brutality will create enemies for them.  I recall that the long ago English Civil War was started by those who frowned upon an arrogant monarchy.  The Puritans that took over, not only executed a monarch but restricted activities such as card playing and dancing that eventually the people rebelled against.  That seems to be happening in Syria and Iraq, but there are still those who think they use these brutal warriors for their own purposes.  Sunnis feeling displaced want power back, religious conservatives want to see religious laws guide government.  Assad, like many dictators likes to use the presence of a terrible alternative to justify his own power.

ISIS has successfully conquered territory in two national states and trying to provide a government bureaucracy to control it all.  They have tapped into a lot of resentment and brutalized their opponents.  It seems they cannot be defeated without an international effort.  The Americans of which Obama is a good example realized a major part of the problem was the Iraqui government controlled by Shiite factions created dissatisfaction amongst other factions weakening everyone.  They have taken steps to correct that situation while trying to respect sovereignity.

The big question seems to be can the Americans bomb ISIS in Syria without seeming to support Assad?  Can they avoid more "boots on the ground"?  Can they get more military support from countries that have a vested interest in the outcome and can that include Muslim nations?  A pretty delicate situation requiring care and attention to details.

A further complication is presented by Russia.  Their agenda apparently includes restoring at least part of their empire starting in Ukraine.  They have been allies of Syria and have tried to ameliorate  some of Syria's excesses, for example regarding chemical weapons.  They could possibly play a similar role, but they have other priorities.  Russians having become a major energy exporter are asserting what they feel is their imperial right to enlargen their sphere of influence while most of their former empire is increasing ties with EU and NATO. It is not reasonable to expect co-operation.

There are no good solutions and it must be acknowledged there are a wide variety of views on how best to handle the situation.  A little bit of honesty should be appreciated as there is "no strategy" that will not cause harm to relatively innocent participants.  A politically obstructive Congress" is a big part of the problem and should voters let themselves be influenced by political posturing with the November election the situation could become even more difficult.

The decisions made by the previous administration will impact the world for at least a generation.  We have opportunities to change direction in a more helpful way, but politics is making the difficult choices more difficult.

Syria, what a mess!

There are no good choices at this point.  No one should be condemned for however they vote or even for their motivation.  There are undoubtedly many who want to be associated with the majority without delving into the issues.  I do not understand all the issues and admit that it is more complex than can be dealt with in a short blog.

Part of the problem goes back to my biggest pet peeve which is short term thinking.

One primary problem is that America (and most of the rest of the world) feel most comfortable dealing with whoever is in power.  At some stage we are complicit in maintaining the status quo.  We can be self righteous about being superior and conscious that everything is not fair under a particular jurisdiction, but our tendency is to protect our own short term interest and do business with just about anyone.

China and Russia are in the equation and have decided that their best interest lies in supporting the Syrian government.  Russia sells weaponry to Syria.  China needs to keep all energy options open. Both are authoritarian and fear the idea of a successful revolution.  Oversimplified perhaps, but trying to overcome their UN security council veto could lead to further tension.

Iran is a player as it is allied with Syria.  Finally Iran has elected someone who is more open to solving the nuclear dilemma.  With few allies and a load of rhetoric, Iran has to be concerned to maintain its alliances.  At the same time some Westerners feel that striking against Syria is weakening Iran and perhaps forcing them to be more compliant.

In the Middle East an always underlying concern is Israel.  One really pertinent connection is the Golan Heights where Israel has conquered land they now feel is a buffer.  Israel has bombed Syria to cut nuclear development.  Part of the Syrian opposition comes from Islamists who see an opportunity to overthrow a government that is relatively tolerant of Christians and Jews and install a more fundamentalist  regime.  They are not looking for a two state solution, but many would work towards destroying Israel.

Israel is fearful of what its neighbors intend.  Palestinians are resentful and many are desperate. Israel has more powerful friends in the United States that protect it with money, weapons, political decisions including a UN veto.  There are many who want a two state solution, but others who feel more secure by occupying Palestine.  Still others on both sides have given up on the two state solution. Alleviating fear requires courage, patience and understanding.

Refugees have fled to Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and others.  In such numbers they create logistical problems and potentially are an unknown political force.

Recently became aware of another factor which you can read in more depth at http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/06/drought-helped-spark-syrias-civil-war-is-it-the-first-of-many-climate-wars-to-come/  I am struck at the number of people who belittle climate change, but their points strike me as being politically/economically linked.  Climate scientists for the most part seem very reluctant to draw links from climate change to weather problems such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts, but the links seem stronger almost daily.  I recall that the Arab Spring started with a protest of one man in Tunisia who was affected by food prices.  Food prices were affected by drought.  This is only one factor, but really unemployed youth and food prices have been critical.

Should the United States use a military strike against Syria and if so how can they contain it?  The risks are very high that the best they can achieve a rebel victory or less likely a chastened Assad. They will inevitably fan anti-American hatred.   Who knows how Russia, China, Iran might react. Mideast turmoil seems inevitable.  If not resolved the same question might be asked--can a regime do whatever it wants to suppress its own people?  Will any nation feel they can do what they want even against American threats?

What alternatives are available?  America needs international support.  The United Nations is frozen by veto's allowed to only five countries.  The Arab League has its own factions.  Turkey is a Muslim country that is negatively impacted by Syrian refugees and occasional stray bombs.  They have concerns over Kurds, another complicating issue itself.  Can United States afford to be the world's policeman without at least some economic support.

The Americans have been hurt and embarrassed by the efforts of the George W Bush government to deceive them with false information (some of which was deliberate) regarding the Iraq invasion.  I think they were stunned that the Iraqi people resisted and then learned that they had opened a hornet's nest.  At the same time a new President finds himself dealing with a polarized electorate.  A part of the electorate seems to feel that Obama is a Muslim or sympathetic to radical Muslims.  Seems ridiculous, but not something that can be ignored.  For some this seems an opportunity to make him look bad while on the other side some think this is an opportunity with respect to dealing with the sequester problem as well as the debt ceiling.  Some support as they feel the need to support a president, others to send a message about chemical warfare.  Others feel that we need to commit to democracy.

The rest of the world has its own perspective.  They are split in that they mostly seem to think that the Syrian government is guilty of using chemical weapons against their own people, but are skeptical of any course of action.  They fear potential spread of violence, even world war.

Are there alternatives?  I can't see a risk free short term alternative and either striking or not striking sends a powerful message with horrific consequences very likely.

The United Nations was created to deal with these types of problems, but many see a single country veto as insurmountable obstacle.  At the time it was thought to be an inducement to get participation of the winning Allies.  Since then many changes have occurred and newly empowered nations such as India, Brazil and others are left out.  My solution would be to negotiate a new deal such as a veto of one of the selected countries (or even two or three) can be overcome by 2/3 votes of General Assembly members representing 2/3 of the world's population.  China is a delicate issue as they might feel ganged up with a too low a population requirement as they represent approximately 25% of the world population.  This would also empower India.  We don't want them to have an effective veto based on population, but to gain their co-operation we don't want them to feel too threatened. This will only happen when the original veto holders see it in their best interest to accept world opinion.

The International Criminal Court is another  possible solution.  One of its weaknesses is that United States will not join as they feel they will be ganged upon.  Other countries resist to protect themselves.  Perhaps the UN veto and the International Criminal Court membership issues can be negotiated together. Perhaps that is naive, but other forces are making it a little more possible.

One of those forces is climate change.  It affects everyone, although not evenly.  The biggest problem is  distrust of science and economic short term self interest.  We in North America and Europe need to realize food prices even in remote parts of the world can have global effects.  We need to realize that floods, droughts, hurricanes although natural are being aggravated by our actions on an international scale.  War is one of the consequences.  To provide our own security in our backyard we need to be concerned about forces in areas we haven't given much thought to.

Did I cover all the issues?  Definitely not, but I hope that more people take a long term view so we can minimize future damage and get on the course to a more logical future for all mankind.  Syria is a mess, but it didn't happen overnight.

JIMMY CARTER, A MUCH MALIGNED HERO

When Jimmy Carter's name appears, too often it is derisively.  He is most remembered by some as a one term president who Ronald Reagan managed to belittle on his way to the White House.  Current commentators denigrate in passing.

I look at him differently.  He was a man of principle and of vision and not one who rested on his laurels.  He made his share of mistakes, but people too often overlook the good things he accomplished and the obstacles that were not his fault.  This past September 7th marked the point where Jimmy had the longest post White House career of any president--31 years.

Jimmy Carter trained as an engineer in the navy and later studied nuclear physics.  He is no dummy and has a closer view than most of one of the most powerful forces in the world today.

His first effort to run as a state senator in Georgia ran into some ballot box manipulation which with a lot of effort he was able to overcome.  He became conscious of ballot box abuses and later became involved with election monitoring.

When he decided to run for president his timing was good in that voters were sick of the corruption that Watergate symbolized and leading Democrats were sidelined.  He ran as an outsider and made some very good campaign moves.  For instance he took the traditionally early Iowa primary much more seriously than his rivals did and was able to build some momentum from there.  He used zero based budgeting as governor and as a campaigner.

For his inauguration he and Rosalynn stepped out of the official vehicle and walked.

Gerald Ford stirred up some resentment by pardoning Richard Nixon, but perhaps that was part of a necessary healing process.  Jimmy Carter's first act was to pardon Vietnam War draft dodgers.  A lot of hard feelings, but also helped to soften many wounds.

As an outsider he did not have any natural constituencies.  While trying to maintain his independence he offended many insiders.  As president you could say his honeymoon lasted about one year and things went downhill from there.

In a famous Playboy interview he was criticized for admitting that he had "lusted in his heart," but he was faithful to his wife.  Honesty is not always rewarded in politics.

First Ladies like to get involved in new non partisan initiatives.  Rosalynn chose mental health, a concern too many are reluctant to deal with.  She carried on this interest with the Carter Center by amongst other things encouraging journalism to cover some of the issues.  She was concerned to alleviate the stigma that complicated identifying and treating mental illnesses as well insurance concerns that also made it more difficult.

During his presidency the Arab oil cartel decided to use an embargo to express their frustration.  Jimmy Carter realized that America had to reduce their dependency on oil.  He encouraged alternative energy sources, but was also keen on conservation.  Famously he put solar panels on the White House which were dismantled by his successor Ronald Reagan who wanted to make a point.  Although Reagan left a bigger imprint on America at the time, I feel Jimmy was the better man with the better message.

When the Russians invaded Afghanistan Jimmy Carter decided to boycott the Moscow Olympics. This was greeted favorably at first, but later there was some resentment and of course the Russians reciprocated by boycotting the Los Angeles Olympics a few years later.  I have very mixed feelings as I have always thought of the Olympics as non political-- a chance to put differences aside.  At the same time there are few options available outside of war that would have as strong an impact.

His mother Lillian proved to be an asset to Jimmy, but his brother Billy an embarrassment.  Billy was alcoholic and non political.  He was used by other people and at one time became a lobbyist for Libya.

Carter was able to take advantage of Anwar Sadat's willingness to take a chance.  He invited Menachem Begin and Sadat  to Camp David.  The Israeli was very suspicious and fearful of any deal.  Egypt was the only Arab country that had any military strength to remotely rival Israel who had almost unlimited access to American resources.  There was a lot of going back and forth before a deal could be made.  

I had read that on a world tour, Jimmy asked Rosalynn where she would prefer to spend New Years Eve and she chose Teheran.  Although Americans dealt with all sorts of dictators around the world, Jimmy had a reputation of high moral standards.  Unfortunately his admiration for the Shah was about to blow up in his face.  Americans forget that under President Eisenhower, the Iranians staged a coup d'etat against an elected president and replaced him with the Shah.  The Shah organized secret police (with help from the CIA) and exiled Muslim leaders and used oil revenues for his own benefit.

During Jimmy's tenure the Iranian people rose up and caused the Shah to flee.  It soon developed that he required sophisticated medical treatment.  Carter consented to let the Shah seek it in America. This was a factor in Iranian students deciding to attack the American Embassy and take the staff hostage. For awhile there was some hope it might end soon, but it dragged on.  Carter seemed helpless and a failed rescue attempt made him seem more so.  In September Saddam Husein thought it an opportune time to attack Iran which further disrupted any progress Carter was having for the hostages.

Some of the circumstances around his 2nd presidential election are suspicious.  Most everyone cites the Iran hostage crisis as perhaps the most critical factor as it dragged on for 444 days.  Although you would think Ronald Reagan's tough words would encourage the Iranians to compromise with Jimmy, they in fact held off until Reagan's inauguration day.  I had read reports that the Republicans had arranged this behind the scenes and it is known that deals were done involving Iran and Nicaragua.

Could he have brought stagflation under control?  Perhaps some leaders with intelligent support from Congress, but realistically not very likely.  He did a lot of things to reduce a deficit that aggravated employment.

The Democrats did not unify under Jimmy Carter and he had to deal with a serious campaign from Ted Kennedy.  That obviously cut into his support and distracted his administration.  John Anderson ran a third party candidacy which also hurt.  For one of the debates his preparation notebook had been stolen and later given to the Reagan team.  In the end he got about 41% of the popular vote and Reagan got 51% and the essential electoral college votes.

Jimmy and his wife had been humiliated and went back home to Plains.  Before too long people asked for his help and advice.  Eventually he looked around and saw all sorts of problems that became challenges.

It is difficult to sort the variety of tasks he and Rosalynn tackled.  They formed the Carter Center to give some focus to all their efforts.

One interesting task was to supervise elections in Nicaragua.  He felt the Sandinistas were too confident and when they were rejected at the ballot box there was fear they would not accept the results.  Carter pointed out that losing an election was not the end of the world.  He became involved in numerous elections, not all of them going smoothly.  He had to leave places where he refused to compromise.  He pushed for fair elections.  It was not uncommon for violence to surround many of the elections he was involved in.  Many politicians recognized Jimmy gave credibility to the election results.   Other elections monitored included Haiti, Sudan, Ghana, Guyana and rural China.  Not everyone co-operated, but generally Carter played a positive role.

An issue that he pushed against as president was Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory.  He kept pressing the issue and at one point wrote a book, "Palestine, Peace not Apartheid" which was condemned by many politicians.  I believe he identified the key obstacle to peace in the Middle East. It is unfair to say that he was trying to harm the Israeli cause as he seemed to feel a resolution to this issue would better insure their long term security.

He has been involved in mediating some tough foreign situations including Korea and Haiti.  In 2002 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Although Americans manage to deal with China, Vietnam, and Venezuela, a solid core of anti Castro people in Florida have made it very difficult to have bi-lateral relations with Cuba that would benefit everyone.  In office Carter had lifted some restrictions with Cuba.  Jimmy didn't always see eye to eye with Fidel Castro, but he was able to push him to loosen up things a bit.  He also worked with Cuban medical resources in many of his disease campaigns..

Jimmy identified many diseases that were being neglected.  One they helped wrestle to almost distinction was guinea worm disease.  It is not fatal, but causes pain and debilitation.  One tool that combats the disease is netting that serves as a filter.  A deeper problem was that in some areas the water was considered sacred and he had to persuade many villagers that they had deal with the water in a practical manner.  In treating river blindness (onchocerciasis) they learned that a patented medicine for heartworm was effective and took steps to incorporate its use to alleviate a lot of suffering.

Another project Jimmy is associated with is Habitat for Humanity where he did manual work and helped organize the building of many houses all around the globe.  The idea wasn't just to hand over a house to some lucky people, but to teach responsibility.

The Carter Center will continue past him as he has been careful to involve and train staff to take overall his functions.  His celebrity and his talents helped get it started, but Jimmy sees the real value as ongoing.

I was pleased to learn that Jimmy Carter's grandson helped reveal a secret video of Mitt Romney that was very revealing and apparently critical for the 2012 election.

What we can learn from the Arab Spring

As far away observers some of us seem to feel that the Arabs are finally getting some things right. Others forget our side had a lot to do with their suppression. It suited us that their rulers would co-operate with us to give the world a reasonable level of cheap energy and help develop a Western oriented balance of power.

An important lesson we can learn has to do with democracy. We think we set the standards, but we might be a little near sighted. Most new electoral systems incorporate some form of proportional voting. We actually encourage it in foreign countries. Our concerns with Arab nations is not so benevolent, but reflects our fears that the fundamentalist extremists will gain control as under our first past the post system they could very easily do so. We fear that if they get control they will irreversibly institute things that we find offensive such as Sharia law, the banning of alcohol and ally themselves with our enemies. So we want to ensure that the minorities that are more Westernized have a strong influence and have figured out that proportional voting can help make that happen.

In Algeria the fundamentalists a few decades ago did get control and upset the international balance of power. In Iran fundamentalists threw out the Shah that had been propped up by western powers. Lately the situation is different. In Tunisia, although the fundamentalists have a very strong voice they are forced to acknowledge those who have different and even opposite concerns.

German election laws gave the Nazis legitimate power that they were able to leverage into total power that eventaully the whole world suffered from. We in North America should not be so self righteious. In the United States with the help of their Constitution, and the Supreme Court a president was elected with less than the plurality of votes and went on to set policies in such areas as war, environment, financial regulations and taxes that seriously impacted the majority that had voted otherwise.

In Canada in one province a leader with less than 30% of eligible voters and well less than majority of actual votes was able to declare a new holiday amongst other things. In national elections one party with less than 50% of the votes was finally able to do away with distribution of funds to all politcal parties in proportion to the number of votes they were able to attract. This means that in the future fund raising will be even more critical to a party's success. This hardly noticed change in law is very pernicious as the party making this hard to reverse decision saw it as helpful to its own future prospects.

To my mind the most critical change required for true democracy is campaign finance. In theory democracy is a battle of ideas, but in reality those with money have a bigger platform to make their points. Those with the money have greater influence. This is currently a bigger concern in the United States where the appointed Supreme Court has ruled corporations have in some circumstances have the same standing as human citizens, but is a concern in all democracies.

By now you may guessed that I very much favour proportional voting systems. Some critics might think it is a problem to have more than two parties as it leads to minority governments that paralyze decision making. That can be bad, however when there are no restraints the party in power can actually (and in fact often do) effectively ignore the will of the majority of people.

I think with even ten parties it is unlikely that very few people will agree 100% with every policy detail of any one party. But each voter has the right to have their own priorities and to minimize compromise in their decision. Compromises will be made amongst those elected. Those compromises will help determine future votes.

As always those in power do what they can to maintain and increase their power. They look for rules that increase their leverage.

Many new democracies realize the need to represent all viewpoints. Minorities are important. Sometimes they act as a conscience, sometimes they offer viable alternatives, often they are able to constructively criticize what those in dominant positions propose and always they are part of the team that needs to work together for the benefit of all.

Our democracy evolved to what it is today and still needs to evolve to be a truer democracy. We allow more people to vote, but actually the percentages seem to be on a downward trajectory. One reason might be because many people realize their vote will not count or have any significant influence. Our Arab brethren actually have more influence in many circumstances on what will happen than we do. Politicians have to take into account what the people want. When people realize they have influence they are more inclined to weigh it carefully and above all to exercise it.