This is a posting about a Russian analyst who believes the United States will not exist by 2010 and will be broken up into various parts owned by other countries. Sure, it’s silly stuff. But let’s look at the underlying reasons for such a prediction – while looking at ourselves.
LAS VEGAS, NV (January 3, 2009) – According to Igor Panarin, in two years I’ll be living here in Las Vegas under the government of the Peoples Republic of China.
Panarin is a Russian academic who has predicted that the United States would dissolve into four different countries and be run by other countries.
For example, the Northeast and parts of the Midwest would be part of the European Union. (Would that mean easier access to Amsterdam?)
The northern plains would be Canadian. (Think of how much better the NHL would be with fewer teams. And Canada almost certainly wins the gold medal in the winter Olympics.)
The Republic of Texas would be part of Mexico. (And this will bring one of the bloodiest civil wars of all time. Bush and Cheney would be the new el Presidentes, getting what they’ve wanted all along: controlling all oil reserves and declaring war on a group of people who are clearly evil — the drug traffickers.)
And folks like me in the Far West would be under China. (I can see us Las Vegans thinking that the gaming industry will prosper greatly. But I doubt our comrades in Idaho are going to be passive when it comes to the Chinese.)
And, here’s the best: Russia would get Alaska back. (Wouldn’t that be justice for Sarah Palin? If she’s still governor, she would be taking orders from Vlad Putin.)
Surely, this is silly stuff. Panarin is trained by the Kremlin so there is plenty of Russian wishful thinking. It makes me realize that Russian intelligence is as out of whack as ours was before 9/11.
I emailed the article to my friend, John Alexander, a PhD who consults for U.S. Special Forces. He wrote back: “While we have some significant problems, I suspect he (Panarin) is pretty far off base.”
Panarin really doesn’t appear (notice I said “doesn’t appear”) to “get” Americans. And I’d bet he never saw Casablanca. Remember the Nazi, Major Strasser. He asks Rick about German forces marching into New York City. Rick replies, “Well there are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn’t advise you to try to invade.” The same holds true today whether it’s Baltimore, Miami, LA, or Boise.
Apparently Panarin thinks Americans and Russians are alike. A Washington Post article offers some good counter-balance to Panarin. The article quotes Thomas Baerwald, an investigator in a project called “Beyond Borders” and past president of the Association of American Geographers. He compares Americans to the citizens who were living under the former Soviet Union.
“We constantly were corrected when we tried to use the term ‘Soviets’ as a catch-all phrase for residents of the U.S.S.R.,” Baerwald says. “People firmly told us that they were Russians or Lithuanians or Estonians or Ukrainians or other terms that identified a region or subregion that described their own geographical identity. In contrast, if you ask U.S. residents what term describes who they are, an enormous majority will reply ‘I am an American.’ Even in those places where regional loyalties are especially strong, such as Texas, loyalties to the U.S. are far greater than they are to states or regions.
Still, Panarin’s predictions resonate. He hits home in a slightly unsettling way. No one in America would have heard of Panarin if the Wall Street Journal didn’t publish a front-page story on his findings and the Russian media frenzy following him. Ironically, it is still the most read article on the Wall Street Journal online. Don’t negate this.
So, someone is obviously giving Panarin an ounce of “what if?”
And it’s for good reason, too. We are in a financial mess that most of us can’t figure out. We see our leaders – namely the supposedly smarts ones like Paulson and Bernanke – scratching their heads. President Obama has to put together a team that is non-partisan; in other words, they really have to work since going to Washington isn’t a perk anymore but a responsibility as a citizen of this country. He’s really serious and that scares us.
I’ve written about a possible Armageddon here. I still say you need to keep cash on reserve for 2009 and be prepared to protect yourself and your loved ones. Too often, I hear from friends – wealthy friends – who don’t sleep at night wondering if their fortunes are going to be wiped out.
We also hear from pundits, sure they seem extreme, who say we’re printing so much money that we will have devalued the dollar to nothing, leading us to a regional currency called the Amero that will include Mexico and Canada. Others say our debt is owned by China, Saudi Arabia, and Dubai: if we default, then they own us. Hey we trashed the analysts a few years ago who said we are headed for a housing collapse. Who wouldn’t at least listen to these new theories?
However, before you run for the hills with shot-guns and survivalist supplies or you start trying to speak a foreign language to get acquainted with your new oppressors or lawmakers, let me assure you I’m only making a point here. We’re not going to disintegrate.
However, Panarin’s theory is partially right. And this is the lesson we need to take from the theories of this Russian.
We have disintegrated as a country. We have strayed from our ideals. Am I condemning America? No, we suffered through 9/11 and its effects are far deeper than we imagined. As a result, we have, at times, stopped being the America we once were.
When President Bush and VP Cheney point to their enduring achievement, it’s that we were not attacked again on American soil after 9/11. They’re right. But they’re wrong, too. As a result of that goal, which we all clung to, we became a different country. We invaded Iraq. We told the rest of the world, “You’re either with us or against us.” We became a black and white country; we never saw the gray. Our leaders sounded like Fascists. We acted like Fascists, torturing to allegedly stop torture.
Am I condemning this out-going Administration? Not totally. I was not in their shoes. I don’t know what they faced. However in hindsight, they responded like frightened old men. They headed to the bunkers and failed to lead.
There’s a good book. It’s called, The Idea That Is America: Keeping Faith With Our Values In A Dangerous World. It’s written by Anne-Marie Slaughter.
She points out that America is currently in a state of trying to seek power as an end in itself and as a result the world looks at us as ignorant, immoral, and incompetent imperialists.
Slaughter also points out that these values are the foundation of our country: liberty, democracy, equality, justice, tolerance, humility and faith. She points out how we have failed to live up to them.
What we show the rest of the world too often is Madison Avenue, rich and loud American entertainers, sports figures, and business executives who are the extremist minority of America. For instance, we never questioned Bernie Madoff because he was exceedingly wealthy, but that was the reason we should have questioned him.
The world sees the lavish Super Bowl half-time show but is never taught the intricacies or beauties of the football game. I don’t know about you, but I have barely seen any Super Bowl half-time show.
One of the consequences of losing our real values is this economic downturn. This is my take, not necessarily Slaughter’s. We offered plenty of liberty to certain interest groups who had money and pull with our elected leaders while failing to create equality – especially in business. Our founding fathers were worried about “human fallacies” so they gave us a system of checks and balances. This Bush Administration and some Democrats in power discarded those values – especially the checks on greed in business.
The two values we need to concentrate on are humility and faith. As powerful and as smart as we Americans are, we don’t have all the answers. We need input from other countries. We also need to say every now and then to the world, “We screwed the pooch.” The War in Iraq and the economic downturn would be two good places to start.
Subconsciously, we Americans know this. That’s why we voted the way we did in November. That’s why some forward thinking people like Newt Gingrich, now in the minority, are telling the GOP to start being a party of ideas, not whining obstructionists.
I think Obama will at least give us a humble face to the rest of the world. We’ll see how long that lasts when he faces the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Surely, we need to stand with Israel, but we also need to make sure that the power of the Israeli military doesn’t create more conflict among the down-trodden Palestinians. It’s in our interest – and Israel’s – to have a prosperous Palestine.
And our faith. We’ve lost a lot of faith – thanks to religion. Slaughter points out that many of our religious institutions divide us rather than including some of the good secular themes such as tolerance. And the secularists are just as much to blame (maybe me too) by automatically dismissing all of the overly religious as stupid or intolerant.
So, don’t read Panarin — and his theories of Russian wishful thinking — with disdain. No, read it with some humility and faith, and then take away something to make America stronger.
This is a posting about a leaked report on the reconstruction of Iraq. The report is evidence that President Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents in our history and we Americans can truly be a dumb lot that allowed our nation to become weaker.
LAS VEGAS, NV (December 14, 2008) – A Republican friend told me at lunch a short while ago that he felt sorry for President Bush because so many bad things happened to him while he was in the White House. “Clinton had it much easier,” he said.
I didn’t know where to start without making my friend seem like an idiot. It was one of those conversations I knew would not end in any agreement since he had his facts that were not my facts. So, I kept quiet.
However, a study that will be published in February will give me plenty of fodder for anyone else who thinks our out-going president was a victim of circumstances.
Clearly, this president was doing the work of three men: Moe, Larry, and Curly. (Maybe the President was Larry while Cheney was Moe and Rumsfeld was Curly.)
Either way, the difference between the original Stooges and the ones in this Administration: things didn’t turn out so good for America’s stooges. And it’s not funny.
The report is entitled, “Hard Lessons: The Iraq Reconstruction Experience.” It was compiled by the Office of Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. The initial draft was leaked the New York Times. But before you go all right-wing whacko on this, know this: the leader of this office and the author of the report is Stuart Bowen, Jr., a Republican lawyer.
The report concludes that we were not prepared for the reconstruction effort and the Iraqis are far worse because of our failed efforts. That’s after $117 billion were spent – including $50 billion of direct taxpayer money.
What’s worse is the money was spent for political reasons – to get George W. Bush re-elected to a second term.
When the Office of Management and Budget balked at the American occupation authority’s abrupt request for about $20 billion in new reconstruction money in August 2003, a veteran Republican lobbyist working for the authority made a bluntly partisan appeal to Joshua B. Bolten, then the O.M.B. director and now the White House chief of staff. “To delay getting our funds would be a political disaster for the President,” wrote the lobbyist, Tom C. Korologos. “His election will hang for a large part on show of progress in Iraq and without the funding this year, progress will grind to a halt.” With administration backing, Congress allocated the money later that year.
This is Nixon-type stuff. I guess Iraq will smack of Vietnam.
There are plenty of implications if this report gains traction. (So far, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have not picked up the story. If anyone catches it elsewhere, let me know.)
First, it raises questions about our future efforts in Afghanistan. President-elect Obama wants to send more troops into that region to hunt down bin Laden and wipe out the Taliban. You have to wonder if the surge in Iraq can be replicated in the nomadic terrain of Afghanistan.
Second, the report makes us realize how impotent we are militarily and diplomatically overseas. We have the bombs, but not much else. Certainly the success of the surge in Iraq has taught us how to tame and work with a population to control an insurgency. But do we really have the resources to be doing this often? I don’t think so.
Granted, I contend that one of the reasons we went into Iraq was to gather intelligence on the world’s Islamic terrorists – that threatened another 9/11. Tactically, it made sense. We provoked all the world’s jihadists to come to Iraq so we could figure out who they were. And, it seems, we did a good job of killing of a number of their heads. But politically and diplomatically, it was a failure. We actually created more terrorists: young men with no education and no work who are angry at us. And morally, it was reprehensible. We provoked a war in a country to help with our intelligence aims. And I won’t even mention the oil.
The third implication is the transparency of government contractors. Although Blackwater is not cited in the Times story, it is clear the amount of money wasted and funneled to companies like that will be more scrutinized.
Fourth, the report will help the Republican Party regain its core beliefs. The GOP is – and should be — the party of business. It’s not just the party of big business. It’s the party of all businesses. And the main businesses that run this country are small businesses. And when you realize what this Administration has done to those business principles and the demise of the Republican Party, you can bet the business Republicans will be back in power soon – without the religious zealots and the near-fascist neo-cons.
And fifth: hopefully the report will show Democrats how power can corrupt and weaken our nation.
This posting allows me to forecast the future of politics and the media from what I’m seeing and reading today.
LAS VEGAS, NV (May 11, 2008) – John McCain is in; George W. Bush is out. David Brooks is in; Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly are out.
This is more than a trend. It’s a major shift in the philosophy of many Americans. As a result, you’ll see changes in the media and both political parties over the next decade.
We’re already seeing a rejection of the Neo-cons, the Religious Right, and possibly Fox News while we’re witnessing an embrace of moderate, intellectual, and business minded people with a conscience.
Why?
The first reason is the bungling of Iraq and Katrina. These disasters show the ineptitude of a low-tax, over-spending, special-interest government. This White House reduced everything to politics while abandoning sound economic theory. Read the books by Alan Greenspan and Bush’s former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill.
The second reason is our poor standing as a world leader. Mr. Bush and his minions squandered a mass of political capital and worldwide good will after 9/11. Most Americans feel alienated from the rest of the world.
I saw it in Ireland recently. The Shannon Airport has a gallery of photos of American Presidents of Irish descent. George H.W. Bush was there: not his son. Maybe I missed it, but the sentiment from Irish businessmen matched the missing photo.
The third reason is the changing world economy. Emerging markets are growing thanks to better education and lower wages. Smartly, they continue to feed our appetite for cheap goods, while foolishly we get fat and fail to see that we are educationally out of shape.
Reason four is the realization that we border on the rest of the world. To survive, we need to work with other countries. It’s interesting that we want to embargo Venezuelan oil in retaliation for Chavez’s backing of Colombian terrorists, but we’ll trigger even higher gas prices. Bringing down Chavez politically, without further damage to our economy, requires us to not go alone. In addition, solving the problems of higher food and energy prices will not be an exclusively American solution.
It’s the younger generation that has grasped this notion of a world community better than us baby-boomers. They’ve lived with the Internet and its ability to remove barriers. Not only that, many more teens and 20-somethings are either mixed race or they have friends who are mixed race. Opening our arms to the rest of the world will come easier as they age and lead us. Already, they’re affecting this presidential race by helping catapult Barack Obama toward the White House.
Reason five is the need for more education and re-training in America. We’re falling down on knowledge; this includes our children and ourselves in our jobs.
So what will this new America look like?
Politically, the Republicans will not resemble your father’s GOP. David Brooks, the New York Times columnist, had a great piece on the British Tories, England’s equivalent to the Republicans. These conservatives are making electoral gains by changing their ways.
The British conservative renovation begins with this insight: The central political debate of the 20th century was over the role of government. The right stood for individual freedom while the left stood for extending the role of the state. But the central debate of the 21st century is over quality of life. In this new debate, it is necessary but insufficient to talk about individual freedom. Political leaders have to also talk about, as one Tory politician put it, “the whole way we live our lives.”
That means, first, moving beyond the Thatcherite tendency to put economics first. As Oliver Letwin, one of the leading Tory strategists put it: “Politics, once econo-centric, must now become socio-centric.” David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, makes it clear that his primary focus is sociological. Last year he declared: “The great challenge of the 1970s and 1980s was economic revival. The great challenge in this decade and the next is social revival.” In another speech, he argued: “We used to stand for the individual. We still do. But individual freedoms count for little if society is disintegrating. Now we stand for the family, for the neighborhood — in a word, for society.”
Wow. That sounds – dare I say — liberal.
In America, things will seem more liberal. We will need more government intervention into our lives. After all, government it seems has abandoned too many of us in favor of special interests. Rugged individualism seems to only work for the rugged individuals.
However, we’re not swinging back to the extremes. For instance, conservatives and evangelicals are joining forces for the environment. Although you can’t say they’ve embraced Al Gore’s theories on global warming, they’re not roundly denouncing them either.
In the upcoming presidential race, assuming it’s McCain versus Obama, I can foresee a large number of party defections to one side or the other.
John McCain, though still flexing his muscles on Iraq, has offered a more conciliatory tone in foreign policy. Good grief, he’s making a speech on the environment this week. I still say if Mitt Romney acted like himself — the open-minded business executive and not trying to be a trumped up Ronald Reagan – he would have been the GOP nominee.
We shouldn’t be surprised. I wrote about these potential changes two and three years ago. Remember the fights in 2005 and 2006 on the immigration bill, the port security contracts, and even today on NAFTA. These issues divided politicians along the lines of free-traders and isolationists – something Tom Friedman, in his book The World Is Flat, predicted four years ago.
And have you noticed a Communist Marxist country is thriving now as it has slowly adopted capitalistic ways?
What about the media? Say what you want about the media being biased or being wagged by the politicians and special interests. There is some truth to it. But remember this. Media companies are for-profit entities. If this philosophical change becomes the rule, these media outlets will adapt.
Take Rupert Murdoch. He’s a businessman first; a political hack second. He now owns The Wall Street Journal, not the National Review.
Does this mean Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly will be gone? No. He still holds a solid audience. Granted, it’s a niche audience that is older and dwindling, but still passionate. In this niche world, O’Reilly will survive. However, he might not be the network’s standard bearer. Someone else who catches this new philosophy might be the next darling of Fox.
The same holds true for Rush Limbaugh and his radio ditto-heads. He’s not going anywhere in our Internet, Information Age. But like O’Reilly, he’s beginning to lose his political punch. If anything both of them, including people like Glen Beck and the rest of the Right Wing yakkers, they’ll be noted for their entertainment factor and not their political clout and insight.
In fact, they’ve lost most of their entertainment appeal to Jon Stewart’s Daily Show and The Colbert Report, two shows that pander to a growing audience that sees the silliness of the extremists – on the left and the right.
Instead, we’re turning more to thinkers – like David Brooks – who are thoughtful, even-tempered, intellectual, honest, while lacking a monetary special interest embedded in his work.
Thankfully, Brooks seems to be everywhere. I catch him on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer and on National Public Radio in addition to his twice weekly column. There’s a reason. He’s good and his observations correctly explain this new philosophy.
This is a posting about the week which saw a controversial debate, a not-so surprising investigation into the media being duped by the Pentagon, a defiant doggy act – and what you can do about two out of three.
LAS VEGAS (April 20, 2008) — Our puppy Nike was obviously angry. My wife and I were gone for five hours at a charity event. He was left in the portable kennel for five hours. When we returned, he went outside to pee. But then he ran upstairs and pooped in the bedroom; not in one area, but three different spots.
He’s a smart dog. He got his point across. But he also understood our anger. He hung his head and stayed stationary in a “time out” position. Hours later, he remained a model of good behavior.
We need to do the same – show our anger — with our elected officials and the media. But we also need to realize they are like pets: they have their own specific agenda and they’re not really aware of what’s going on with us. Too often we’re apathetic owners of this country we claim to so dearly love.
Let’s look at the Democratic debate last week. First, understand it was a TV debate. That means it needs to be entertaining and lack substance. So, I don’t have any problems with the questions to Barack Obama about what he said about angry people clinging to guns. I have no problem with people criticizing him for his less than stellar responses. I have no problems with him being asked about the stupid questions about whether his psycho pastor loves America or why he doesn’t wear a lapel pin.
My problem is that the debate was lopsided against Obama just as I thought some of the earlier debates were lopsided against Hillary Clinton. Why wasn’t Hillary grilled on her now former operative Mark Penn and his connections to a Colombian trade deal?
I’m a big fan of Charlie Gibson. So, I was disappointed in his performance as an entertainer more than a journalist that night. I doubt we would have seen that performance from the late Peter Jennings. George Stephanopoulos’ performance doesn’t surprise me. He’s not a journalist; he’s a political operative. We know this and he once worked for Bill Clinton’s White House.
(For the record, I have met and spent time with both Gibson and Jennings. I have never met Stephanopoulos.)
Here’s the point. Watch these debates for entertainment only. Don’t let these silly versions of reality game shows help you decide who to vote for.
As I write in my book, television is good for two things: immediacy and emotion. Depth of issues is something you get from books and websites using experts.
Like lax pet owners, we seem to forget the mounds of crap shoveled to us by George Bush that made us vote for him in 2000. We elected an intellectual lightweight who we thought he’d be a good guy to have at a backyard barbeque. We’re not deciding who our neighbors are. We’re electing a commander in chief who will have the fate of our jobs and our lives in his or her hands.
You need to reprimand both the candidates and the networks for their behavior. Did we really get any answers to Social Security, Medicare, the War in Iraq, immigration, energy independence from this debate? No. Frankly, any debate between Barack and Hillary is a waste. They agree on most issues, so it comes down to an ugly popularity contest.
Now let’s look at the New York Times investigation of the TV networks use of military experts who are controlled by the Pentagon and the Bush Administration.
My take: any general or military expert who helped push the WMD argument to get us into war should be banned from appearing on network TV. We’re fining networks for showing some skin on TV. So why wouldn’t you push a worse punishment for smart people who knowingly deceived the American public about going to war that has led to the deaths of four thousand troops? Frankly, I would prosecute them.
Many of these retired generals had jobs with defense contractors. They clearly put their own economic principles ahead of their duty to the United States people.
Again, I have no problems with their opinions. My anger is two-fold. One, they never disclosed that they were getting their talking points from the Pentagon. Two, they never disclosed they were working for defense contractors bidding on government contracts.
And the networks are as much to blame. They never vetted these so-called experts. Why? It’s to easy not to do that. That takes time and money. And if they found someone who’s an independent thinker, then that person won’t have access to the White House.
Again, TV is not an information medium. It’s an entertainment medium. Its main goal is to get ratings and if being a propaganda tool brings in ratings and dollars, the media will do it.
Watch CNBC. They no longer disclose what conflicts the guest analysts have with certain stocks they’re discussing. They were quite vigilant a few years ago after the Enron and Martha Stewart scandals. But not now.
And if CNBC was that worried about the truth why wouldn’t they have fired Jim Kramer of Mad Money. Two days before the collapse of Bear Stearns he yelled that Bear Stearns is fine. Kramer’s not on for his stock picking; he’s on for ratings. He’s an entertainer. Would you pick stocks or set up your portfolio based on that show? I hope not. (Some disclosure: I work for BNY Mellon Wealth Management. See how simple disclosure is.)
The same is true about the political debates. Why would you decide who to vote for based on this artificial, lack of substance debates on TV?
This is why you need to be the most important journalist in your life. You need to question everything you hear on TV news. Everyone has an agenda. That’s not to say there isn’t good information, but you need to be less accepting of its total veracity. And you need to realize that networks are cutting corners, so you’re not necessarily getting the best trained and most experienced journalists.
Again, please read my book. (Blatant disclosure: Yes, I’m trying to sell my book.) If not, then the media and the politicians will continue pooping on your bedroom floor.
This is a posting on the non-sense between the three presidential candidates about Obama’s recent comment about small town Americans. Frankly, they’re all missing the real issue – education. Also there’s a shameless plug on my part at the end.
LAS VEGAS, NV (April 14, 2008) – The bitter statement is a prime reason of why we need campaign season cut to three months. The candidates start saying benign things to hit the emotions of small cliques of voters.
The latest niche of voters is small town, Church-going Americans in the rust belt. Barack says they’re “bitter” because of the unfulfilled promises of politicians past. So they “cling” to guns and religion.
First, he was speaking to a bunch of elitists in San Francisco. What did you expect? An Elmer Fudd impersonation: “Wet’s go and shoot us some wabbits.”
Second, in my opinion, he was right on. I think many people in these areas felt left out of the economic boom of the previous years while they continue to pay now that the economy has dropped. Many of them turn to church and guns. Many of them resent the immigrants who come in and take their job. Many of them blame foreign countries like China and India. Many of them – now – blame George Bush.
After all, President Bush and the Republicans convinced these folks to vote for rich-folk tax cuts and other benefits which they haven’t seen.
Barack’s assessment, in my judgment, is right. I’m amazed there isn’t more rebellion or anger in these communities. They’re losing their homes while Bear Stearns gets bailed out.
John McCain and Hillary Clinton are grasping at straws. How can they call Obama an elitist? Instead, they’re taking a page from Karl Rove and they’re playing the religion card. It’s too predictable. This episode will only backfire on them.
Still, I have some problems with Barack. First, he should have used the term “some” or “many” or “a small majority” rather than making it a blanket statement about all people in small town America.
Second, he hasn’t offered a solution. Neither has Hillary. Both Democrats conveniently blame NAFTA, Mexico, and China. Johnny Mac has at least hinted at the solution, but when he mentioned it in Michigan, Mitt Romney handed him his political butt.
The solution is education.
Workers need to be re-trained. They should not be told their jobs are coming back. Those manufacturing jobs don’t exist unless they want to relocate to Ho Chi Minh City.
However, there are new jobs out there – for the newly trained. Education tax credits should be at the top of every candidate’s list of give-backs to voters. Programs to lower the cost of education and to expand the reach of education to small communities hit by job outsourcing are a must.
But no one is talking about it – with the slight exception of McCain three months ago.
If you get the ear of any of the campaigns, tell them this.
However, instead of relying on the government and our one-note, dissonant presidential candidates, though, take matters into your own hands.
For example, on this site here, you can connect to Real Money Show where dozens of internet marketers have programs that have made people millions by selling products and services throughout the world.
Shameless plug? Sure. But the more educated you are, the better chance of surviving and thriving in today’s Internet world.
This post is my initial reaction while listening to Barack Obama’s speech about his pastor.
LAS VEGAS, NV (March 18, 2008) – Senator Obama framed his argument around racism. Racism, however, is not the issue. The issue is extremism.
I’ll have more on this in greater length. I’ll also tell you about a friend, an African American woman, who heard Reverend Wright preach at a young age, and now wonders what happened to this once great preacher who is now, as she says, with a screw loose.
But keep this in mind. Extremism is not exclusive to Islam, Judaism, or Christianity. They all share it. By framing this as a racist issue, Barack and others ignore the pervasive problem that is damaging society. Reverend Wright is no different than the late Jerry Falwell, Iran’s President, David Duke, and Osama bin Laden.
The Christian extemism we experience in the United States was something fostered by the current Administration which has now blown up in their face.
LAS VEGAS, NV (March 2, 2008) – No Country For Old Men, the Oscar winning film for this year, usually elicits two responses.
The first is: “That’s the most haunting film I’ve ever seen and Javier Barden gives me nightmares.” The second is: “I don’t get it.”
I’ll address the second statement here. The first statement needs only this further comment: future film students will study this film for decades.
People “don’t get” the film’s ending, because there is none. Or better said: it’s not a Hollywood ending that offers secure irony or plot completion. No, this ending mirrors life and the haunting notion of not knowing.
If you need the writers and directors to deliver a film with a nice ending, then don’t see No Country For Old Men. Only the intellectually curious who can stand some domestic terror should witness this. It’s not a film that allows you to escape life as we know it. Instead, it rubs it in your face.
However, providing “You can handle the truth,” let me give you an underlying theme to place in the back of your mind as you watch this great flick.
Think about this: the failed American war on drugs.
Anton Chigurh, the character played by Javier Barden, is a Twenty-first Century Frankenstein and Hannibal Lecter – with a cattle prod gun and, as Jon Stewart said, “with a Dorothy Hammill haircut”. That’s as funny as it gets. He is a killing machine that leaves bodies in his wake. And he kills for one reason — to retrieve missing drug money.
Yes, there are moments in the film you need to suspend disbelief. My good buddy and writing partner, Eric Snyder, said there were times Anton Chigurh wouldn’t be able to walk away free from certain scenes. He’s right. But for the sake of this argument, many times we wonder how drug dealers like Pablo Escobar remained alive for so long as well.
In previous posts, I’ve mentioned Col. John B. Alexander, retired PhD. from the U.S. Army, the author of Winning The War: Advanced Weapons, Strategies, and Concepts for the Post 9/11 World, and a recent lunch guest of mine.
Although his book outlines winning the war on terror, he says the “illegal drug trade provides the largest source of terrorist funds.” In his book and at lunch, John explains that U.S. efforts to stop drug trafficking have only increased the price of drugs and the profits for drug warlords and cartels.
Besides reading John’s book, try this one – Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market by Eric Schlosser. He shows how the conservative, anti-drug sentiment in America has placed too many people behind bars for truly petty crimes while creating an untaxed, underground economy.
I consider myself a conservative on a number of issues. For instance, military service is something I think every American should be required to do for two years. I’m a fiscal conservative who understands that cutting taxes is only half of a responsible fiscal policy.
However, the drug war is not one of my conservative issues. I think the Republicans and moderate Democrats who refuse to repeal these laws put us in danger. As John Alexander writes, “The drug trade has been estimated to cause up to 80 percent of the crime against property and 50 percent of the violent crimes against people in the United States.”
Think about that.
First, marijuana should be legalized. The police efforts to stop pot-heads are a waste of money and resources. Sure, marijuana use can lead to the use of more addictive drugs. Sorry, I don’t buy the argument. I’ll endure a few more pot-heads for a massive reduction in crime. And I’ll put the responsibility back on parents and employers.
Next, we need a systematic approach to legalize and devaluing other illegal narcotics like cocaine. Going cold-turkey to legalize all street drugs would cause too much turmoil in the short run.
At least, let’s get a dialogue started. This way an Anton Chigurh will remain just a fictional character.
PITTSBURGH, PA (February 8, 2008) – Mitt’s out. So is my prediction.
On New Years Eve, I made my four year prediction for the presidential elections. I had done alright for the past five elections. But now I won’t even make the playoffs. I predicted Mitt and Hillary.
To be honest, I think the Hillary pick is in jeopardy, too: more on that in a later post.
So, where did I goof?
First, I failed to see the widespread mistrust of Mormons. The Wall Street Journal today had a poll that showed nearly half of the voters polled wouldn’t trust a Mormon to be president. Voting for a black or a woman was far more appealing.
My failure: I live in Las Vegas with a large community of Mormons. It’s not uncommon to have Mormons as friends here. I’m Catholic and yet I’ve been to numerous functions at LDS Churches. I’ve witnessed the kindness of LDS Church members to those less fortunate. And I’ve admired their efforts to “take care” of their own.
Am I saying every Mormon is perfect? No, they have their scoundrels, too. In fact, Utah has more scams than most states, according to the Utah Secretary of State’s office. The reason appears to be Mormons easily being taking advantage of by other unscrupulous Mormons who use the LDS card.
Ironically, a Mormon businessman once told me he hates doing business with his “own” because they figure they can get a much better deal or “something for nothing”. That doesn’t sound Mormon to me; it sounds more like human nature. The Scots, the Irish, and the Jews have all been accused of working any angle for deal.
The problem for the Mormons and Mitt Romney is that Mormons are not prevalent in other regions of the country. I simply forgot what homogenous life is like in New England – other than Massachusetts — and The South. At various times working and living in both regions, I heard the term “the land of steady habits” many times. And like voters in all regions, they vote on emotion – not facts.
And since that’s the case, Mitt and the Mormon hierarchy need to understand what the perceptions of their faith are. They’re too secretive. What’s behind that clean, perfect veneer. Mitt’s hair, like mine, won’t move in a hurricane-like wind. Mormon women are beautiful, but, as I heard someone say in Las Vegas, they’re “Stepford beautiful.”
A woman friend was the bride’s maid in a Mormon wedding for her best friend. But because she wasn’t Mormon she had to stand outside in her expensive dress while the ceremony took place in the temple. I’m OK with whatever the LDS Church does, but if they want to become more mainstream, they need to open up.
Despite my Catholic upbringing, I have a more egalitarian (others would say pessimistic) view of organized religion. I think all religions have elements of kookiness. In Catholicism, we drink the blood of Jesus. Think about the effect that could have on a kid, yet many of us don’t since it’s just cheap altar wine. However, those expressions of faith symbolize bigger themes, like the rewards of a good life in the here-after, that are the basis for keeping order in society.
Do I think a Mormon can become president? At some point, yes we might see an LDS President. But it will take time. The Mormon Church and Mitt Romney have some work to do to get their message out – or changed.
In fact, I think he needs to drop the Mormon message or make others realize it’s not a special religion – except to those who espouse it.
Clearly, Romney failed with his Mormon speech – the one that was supposed to elevate him to JFK status. As I mentioned in a previous post, David Brooks, the New York Times’ conservative columnist, said Romney failed to use religion to unify people; instead, he created a division between those of faith and those who don’t. Unlike the three remaining candidates, he showed little effort to reach across divisions. But he has those qualities. How else would he have become Governor of Catholic Massachusetts?
But there’s more to Romney’s defeats and more to my lack of perception than his religion.
The second reason is the GOP doesn’t go for upstarts. They are truly the corporate party. In the GOP, you climb the latter of experience slowly. Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bob Dole: they all had to run for President or pay their dues in the party before they could get the nomination.
Romney realizes that. He bowed out yesterday and vowed to work for the party. What better way to get to know a good Mormon: have him work with you.
Third, even most Republicans are fed up with George Bush. And clearly, Romney ran like he was George W. Bush. He was in favor of the war without much questioning its significance. He also favored permanent tax cuts while never mentioning spending cuts or any clue to fiscal responsibility.
Which leads to point number four: Romney ran a lousy campaign. Like Al Gore did in 2000, Romney was never himself. He tried to be Ronald Reagan or some composite of what the factions of the GOP like. In the end, he had a split personality and a fractured candidacy.
If he ran like he did as Governor of Massachusetts, he might have pissed off the far right-wingers, but pleased enough of the business Republicans. It worked for McCain. And like John Kerry did in 2004, Romney failed to explain the nuances of his stands. That’s no easy task. It’s nearly impossible for a candidate from Massachusetts to win the presidency. You try to appeal to national, conservative voter after dealing with a far more liberal constituency in a state that my good friend and Bay State native Jake The Weasel calls The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts.
Fifth, good business sense doesn’t mean good political sense. Romney is clearly a good business manager. Technically, he’s what we need in the White House – a tactician that can unemotionally look at the economy and create a sound plan. But Romney was seen as one of the guys on Wall Street; and right now those guys don’t look so bright or ethical in light of the financial debacle from the mortgage industry.
Clearly, I misread America and thought they would be looking for a manager after eight years of a myopic ideologue. I guess we want a more flexible ideologue – if you look at the three remaining contenders.
Sixth, Mitt’s wealth turned folks off. He made some brilliant moves in 2007 when he skirted federal fundraising laws and raised millions through state organizations he formed. Then he spent, as he says, some of his kids’ inheritance to keep the campaign running. Yet, most people don’t think that loss of money put a dent into the family portfolio to cause any family angst.
Next, what is going wrong with my Hillary pick.
LAS VEGAS, NV (January 27, 2008) – One of my mentors at Providence College was the late Rev. Tom Coskren. He was a Dominican Roman Catholic priest who taught an Arts Honors class called “Modalities of Religious Consciousness”. One day in that class had a great effect on me.
Fr. Tom brought out five different drinking glasses. They had different shapes. He then filled each glass with water. He explained that the water represented religion. Although it takes a different shape in each glass, it is still water. His message was clear: religion takes on different shapes whether it’s Christian, Muslim, Buddhism, etc.
It was an egalitarian and, in my belief, American way of accepting all religions.
That’s why I’m suspicious of emails sent to me explaining that the preambles of most state constitutions mentions God. The emails’ purpose is to scold the ACLU and federal judges for what most of us would say is upholding the laws.
Frankly, I’m tired of these misinformed missives. And it’s time to set the record straight.
What the Christian Right wants us to embrace is their form of religion; the same one that denies the credibility of the theory of evolution; believes that women should be subservient to men; and anyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ as their savior is damned to Hell for eternity.
That form of religion in any American constitution contradicts American values and wastes our time. At a time of economic strife, a questionable war, and a financial crisis facing our kids’ futures, we’re arguing whether the Ten Commandments or a Nativity scene should be on the town hall lawn. I’ll give the Christian Right their right to argue against abortion, although I disagree with them and their tactics. But when they interfere in people’s private lives like the Terry Schiavo case with no scientific or legal basis, they deserve rebukes.
Read John Meacham’s book, American Gospel. Meacham explains that the Founding Fathers’ religious belief was based on a God of Nature and Reason. Although Meacham sees religion’s benefits to society and American society, he dismisses the Christian Right’s belief that the Founding Fathers would be on their side.
Our Founding Fathers understood the oppression of religion. In fact, it was a 14-year-old boy who understood what religion has become in modern society.
“Through the reading of popular science books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state though lies; it was a crushing impression.”
The book’s author goes on about the boy.
His “rebellion against religious dogma had a profound effect on his general outlook toward perceived wisdom. It inculcated an allergic reaction against all forms of dogma and authority, which was to affect both his politics and his science. ‘Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience, an attitude which has never again left me,’ he later said. Indeed, it was this comfort with being a nonconformist that would define both his science and his social thinking for the rest of his life.”
Obviously, his suspicion of religion hurt his career. The 14-year-old boy was Albert Einstein. Those are excerpts from the book, Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson.
Go back to the “religion speech” of Mitt Romney. As I wrote in a previous blog, I quoted New York Times columnist David Brooks who pointed out that “Romney didn’t paint a picture of religious freedom in America, but a country of believers versus non-believers; in short, a war between the religious and the secularists.” This is a candidate pandering to the Christian Right.
It’s too bad that most of the Christian Right fails to adhere to the writings of St. Paul.
Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.
Archives
Categories
RSS Feed