A Canadian friend of mine emailed me last November, after President Obama’s election victory, and asked who the President-elect might nominate for Secretary of Peace.
I had never before considered such a question. What a concept.
Someone with the ear of the President, part of the inner circle of power in the most powerful nation in the world, whose responsibility was to promote and protect peace for Americans.
You might argue that is the job of the Secretary of Defense, but think about it. To use a sports metaphor, it’s like saying we need a defensive coach, but not someone who looks for new and effective ways to score points. You can’t win games that way.
Truth is, defending us from an imminent attack is not the same as anticipating what might disrupt peace in the near and distant future, and taking steps to avoid such situations.
If your neighbor keeps throwing his trash over the fence into your yard, you call the cops, and if you don’t get satisfaction that way, you raise the height of your fence so they can’t do it anymore. Defense (pardon the pun).
If instead, you went over to visit, you might find out they were doing that because your dog keeps pooping on their lawn and you never clean it up. They can’t let their toddler crawl around in the yard because of all the crap. You express surprise and regret, and promise to control your dog and clean up after him, they promise to stop tossing their trash into your yard. Peacemaking.
Or, you say “My dog is perfect. His poop don’t stink.” And sick your dog on their toddler. Then you express surprise when they pull out a gun and shoot you. And you make your way home and set fire to their house on the way. Defense.
When a new neighbor moves in, do you knock on their door and tell them to keep the hell off your property and raise your fence height so they can’t see your house? Defense. Or do you knock on the door with fresh-baked bread and a jar of homemade preserves and say “Welcome to our neighborhood.” Peacemaking.
We’ve talked about this before on this blog. Clearly we need both defense and peacemaking if we want to live in peace with the rest of the world. But the Secretary of State is the closest thing we have to a Secretary of Peace. When Secretary Clinton tries to meet with foreign governments, the right wingnuts say she’s weakening our defense.
If someone, anyone, points out that our nation’s behavior in the past might actually have something to do with why another country or group of people take offense and react violently, they are scolded for “blaming America first.”
President Obama is facing an incredibly momentous decision on what to do about Afghanistan. Do we send in more troops and settle in for the long haul? Set a goal of instituting a new democracy in that nation of fiefdoms? Set a goal of eliminating corruption in a government we don’t control – indeed a government that has never controlled that nation? Is the Taliban the enemy? Or is it al Qaeda? Or the heroin industry? Do we beef up our presence and start shooting everyone who might be associated with the Taliban? Or pick and choose only those who actually shoot at us, or provide funding and arms for those who do? And how do we identify them?
Or do we cut and run? We took on the Taliban, destroyed their government infrastructure, encouraged the people to defend themselves against them, and now we disappear, leaving them to fend for themselves?
Do we consider peacemaking? Using the billions we’re spending to build highways, power grids, schools, health clinics? Disarming the Taliban by competing for the hearts and minds of the Afghan people?
These are questions you can’t answer with knee-jerk patriotism. A defensive attitude doesn’t provide the answers to such a complex situation.
Pundits suggest the President’s decision is taking so long because it is based on protecting his job, his legacy. He does not want to be known for putting in place the “Obama surge”… That assumes President Obama’s main priority is keeping his job for 8 years instead of only 4. It assumes he has self-absorbed tunnel vision. Is it not possible that the President of the United States places the highest priority on determining what is the best course for America? What will work to ensure a safe and comfortable future for our children?
Let’s judge his process of decision-making when we see the results. Not the day after he makes his announcement, but 2 years from now – 10 years from now – 100 years from now. The job isn’t impressing the television pundits or quieting the defensive “no one can say anything bad about us” patriots. It’s keeping America at peace while respecting our constitution.
Don’t assume the new guy and his team have the same priorities as the previous guy.
JM
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Terrorists in American Jails?
Foreign terrorists in American jails? How dangerous is that? To listen to the opportunistic right wingers, you’d think American prisons were way too easy to break out of to take a chance incarcerating foreign terrorists in them.
Can someone please explain to them that there are already more than 300 terrorists in American prisons – 200+ foreigners, 100+ domestic terrorists. (Yes, America has produced a few terrorists of its own!) Take a look at the actual facilities in which we would keep them. No one in the world has better super high security prisons than we do. I won’t join those who insult our prison system.
The other big battle cry is that foreign terrorists don’t deserve a fair trial. For starters, we’ve convicted 190+ terrorists already – in our own judicial system. A fair trial is not the same thing as a free pass.
Second, we put these people in prison in Guantanamo because we had some evidence that they had committed a crime. We haven’t proved it yet. Do we somehow have the magical vision that allows us to determine guilt or innocence of foreigners without a trial, to the point that we’re willing to kill people or incarcerate them until they die?
If we have that vision for foreigners, why can’t we just use it domestically, too? Think of the money we could save if we just took a quick look at hearsay evidence and decided to execute the accused based on statements of a snitch who got paid a bounty for turning in that person?
Is that what America has become? Is that the America hundreds of thousands of our sons and daughters died to protect?
One phrase I keep hearing from my right-of-center friends is “slippery slope.” They use it to describe the change President Obama has in mind for policies like health care, rules governing CEOs of businesses that get government bailouts, allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military and teach in schools, talking with other governments about things we disagree on, and on and on.
Well, this is one slippery slope that seems quite real to me. When we decide to convict anyone without fair trial, we give away one of the most basic freedoms upon which this country was founded. That’s not OK with me.
Just imagine if some other country decided to take that approach with Americans who appear to have committed a crime overseas? If we do it ourselves, that is something we can look forward to. A very slippery slope indeed.
JM
Can someone please explain to them that there are already more than 300 terrorists in American prisons – 200+ foreigners, 100+ domestic terrorists. (Yes, America has produced a few terrorists of its own!) Take a look at the actual facilities in which we would keep them. No one in the world has better super high security prisons than we do. I won’t join those who insult our prison system.
The other big battle cry is that foreign terrorists don’t deserve a fair trial. For starters, we’ve convicted 190+ terrorists already – in our own judicial system. A fair trial is not the same thing as a free pass.
Second, we put these people in prison in Guantanamo because we had some evidence that they had committed a crime. We haven’t proved it yet. Do we somehow have the magical vision that allows us to determine guilt or innocence of foreigners without a trial, to the point that we’re willing to kill people or incarcerate them until they die?
If we have that vision for foreigners, why can’t we just use it domestically, too? Think of the money we could save if we just took a quick look at hearsay evidence and decided to execute the accused based on statements of a snitch who got paid a bounty for turning in that person?
Is that what America has become? Is that the America hundreds of thousands of our sons and daughters died to protect?
One phrase I keep hearing from my right-of-center friends is “slippery slope.” They use it to describe the change President Obama has in mind for policies like health care, rules governing CEOs of businesses that get government bailouts, allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military and teach in schools, talking with other governments about things we disagree on, and on and on.
Well, this is one slippery slope that seems quite real to me. When we decide to convict anyone without fair trial, we give away one of the most basic freedoms upon which this country was founded. That’s not OK with me.
Just imagine if some other country decided to take that approach with Americans who appear to have committed a crime overseas? If we do it ourselves, that is something we can look forward to. A very slippery slope indeed.
JM
Monday, November 16, 2009
Wow! Big News From Washington!
Lobbyists are writing the legislation!
What’s that you say? You already knew?
Apparently the health care “reform bill” from the House of Representatives is loaded with industry written components. One item from the Republican reform proposal that was added to House bill word-for-word, was originally written by Big Pharma. It gives them virtually unlimited patent rights on life-saving drugs, which then gives them the right to set the prices at outrageous levels – as high as $400,000 per year for some.
Passed without question.
A Genentech spokesperson defended it by saying this happens all the time, as we have been telling you on this blog. Does that make it OK?
We know the talking points were cleverly crafted by the paid talent of the health care industry, then parroted by the Democratic Representatives who signed on. A casual comparative reading of some of the politicans’ statements shows word-for-word copycatting.
How many other items in that bill were written by industry with the effect of handing over tax dollars in perpetuity?
Here’s the worst case scenario: the truth about this comes out in small town papers and blogs on both sides, the implications for future health care costs are calculated, and the possibility of health care reform goes down the drain.
No wait, it could be worse. The public option bites the dust (because that’s the single biggest government component of the bill) but the rest of the bill – the parts written by those who will profit from them - gets approved and signed by the President. We the people end up being forced to buy health insurance from a few select providers, and there are no controls on the cost of the services and products, jacking up the health care profitability even beyond the unacceptable levels we face now.
The best case: the truth about this comes out in small town papers and blogs on both sides, the implications for future health care costs are calculated, and the people demand that all those pig trough amendments be dropped, we keep the strong public option and then give that government plan the right to negotiate prices for services and products. True competition erupts, everyone is covered and over time, we pare down the relative costs, giving us back money for education, highways, and pay raises!
Which do you think is likely?
Unless the people stand up and demand responsible legislative behavior, I fear the worst of the worst. Lobbyists own Congress. Is there a majority of representatives and senators who will stand up to the health care industry pressure and do the right thing? I submit that will only happen if the people, literally, take to the streets, flood the mailrooms, crash the email servers, and clog up the phone lines.
Get busy!
* * * * * * * * * * * *
We’ve been “off the air” of the blog-o-sphere for the past couple of weeks, sitting back and watching things develop. Couldn’t keep our mouths shut forever, though. Keep watching… there’s more to come.
JM
What’s that you say? You already knew?
Apparently the health care “reform bill” from the House of Representatives is loaded with industry written components. One item from the Republican reform proposal that was added to House bill word-for-word, was originally written by Big Pharma. It gives them virtually unlimited patent rights on life-saving drugs, which then gives them the right to set the prices at outrageous levels – as high as $400,000 per year for some.
Passed without question.
A Genentech spokesperson defended it by saying this happens all the time, as we have been telling you on this blog. Does that make it OK?
We know the talking points were cleverly crafted by the paid talent of the health care industry, then parroted by the Democratic Representatives who signed on. A casual comparative reading of some of the politicans’ statements shows word-for-word copycatting.
How many other items in that bill were written by industry with the effect of handing over tax dollars in perpetuity?
Here’s the worst case scenario: the truth about this comes out in small town papers and blogs on both sides, the implications for future health care costs are calculated, and the possibility of health care reform goes down the drain.
No wait, it could be worse. The public option bites the dust (because that’s the single biggest government component of the bill) but the rest of the bill – the parts written by those who will profit from them - gets approved and signed by the President. We the people end up being forced to buy health insurance from a few select providers, and there are no controls on the cost of the services and products, jacking up the health care profitability even beyond the unacceptable levels we face now.
The best case: the truth about this comes out in small town papers and blogs on both sides, the implications for future health care costs are calculated, and the people demand that all those pig trough amendments be dropped, we keep the strong public option and then give that government plan the right to negotiate prices for services and products. True competition erupts, everyone is covered and over time, we pare down the relative costs, giving us back money for education, highways, and pay raises!
Which do you think is likely?
Unless the people stand up and demand responsible legislative behavior, I fear the worst of the worst. Lobbyists own Congress. Is there a majority of representatives and senators who will stand up to the health care industry pressure and do the right thing? I submit that will only happen if the people, literally, take to the streets, flood the mailrooms, crash the email servers, and clog up the phone lines.
Get busy!
* * * * * * * * * * * *
We’ve been “off the air” of the blog-o-sphere for the past couple of weeks, sitting back and watching things develop. Couldn’t keep our mouths shut forever, though. Keep watching… there’s more to come.
JM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)