Perspolis, Iran, Maus, and the Holocaust

Back on April 2nd, I attended a presentation and book signing for Marjane Satrapi, author of the graphic novel and movie "Persepolis". She spoke at the McLean Virginia Community Center and drew a full-house crowd of about 400. I had recently seen the movie and was very moved by it. It is the story of a young girl in Iran growing up around the time of the Islamic Revolution (1979), her family and people. It spans about 10 years or so in her life, much of it during the Iran-Iraq war.

There are a lot of areas of discussion that I am sure have already been covered, but at this presentation I learned a couple of new things.

First, Marjane discussed her inspiration for using the graphic novel (or "cartoon", the term she prefers) form. It comes from Art Spiegelman's book "Maus", which is a heart-wrenching story of the Holocaust.

Given all of the negative words that have been eminating from the current leadership in Iran, especially their denial of the Holocaust, it was wonderfully refreshing to find out that at least this person had not entered that terrible camp. From what I've heard from other Iranians in the U.S, this is also true of most of their population.

(Furthermore, there is a moving scene in the book where she sadly learns that her next-door neighbor in Tehran, a Jewish family, ends up being killed by Saddam's bombs during the war with Iraq. And let's keep in mind who was supporting Saddam - the United States.)

I asked her a question during the Q&A about the Iranian people's attitude towards Israel. I may not have worded it too well, as she began her answer speaking about "anti-semitism" - how it was really a "European" phenomenon, and how the Jewish people have lived in Iran for over 1000 years and have been treated with great respect (facts are, though, that many have left since 1979). But at the end, she stated that the people of Iran have no issue with Israel's existence, but feels very strongly that Israel does have some human rights issues. The last part of her response made me feel somewhat uncomfortable, but I was at least satisfied that it was not as bad as what the press says, and we could respectfully disagree and hopefully have some dialogue.

The picture is of Ms. Satrapi just before she signed my copy of her book. It was well-worth attending! (I immediately bought "Maus" afterwards).

Thank you for reading

An Open Letter to President Carter

This was sent to the Internatonal Herald Tribune, but it did not get published:


----- Original Message -----
To: opinion@iht.com
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 1:52 PM
Subject: An Open Letter to President Jimmy Carter
To President Carter:

I'd like to offer my view on your upcoming Mideast trip. Please understand that I say everything with the utmost respect and admiration for what you've done in the past.

You and I have the same goal: A permanent peace between Palestine and Israel. The question is: how do we get there?

In my view, we need to look at past and present. We all agree on Israel's right to exist. We all agree that the Palestinians have a right to their sovereign country. This was part of the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

Where we start to diverge is what happened during the 1947-1948 timeframe. In your book "Peace, Not Apartheid", you acknowldge that the Arab States opposed the UN Partition Plan. You also acknowledge that the Palestinians rejected it. You even acknowledge that the Arabs declared war on the new Jewish state.

Due to the war, as you pointed out, an estimated 750,000 Palestinians became displaced (or refugees). But it is not clear how, in every case, Palestinian families left their homes. I did hear of stories that the Israeli's forced some away. I heard of stories that the Arabs ordered families to move. I wasn't around at the time (I was born in 1954).

But most likely, the story is similar to those of my parents, who lived in Poland until 1939. My father (now deceased) saw the writing on the wall, and decided to leave Poland with my Mom (his new bride) and ended up spending 6 years in Russia. Eventually they ended up in America.

The book "The Faith Club", by Ranya Idliby, who is of Muslim/Palestinian descent (along with Priscilla Warner, a Jew, and Suzanne Oilver, a Christian) has this passage by Ms. Idilby:

""The overwhelming majority of Palestinians fled in fear as war broke out. They believed that they would return when conditions calmed down. The Israeli Army murdered Palestinians ... and frightened the Palestinians out of their homes".

So responsibility is a bit confusing, at best. Why couldn't there have been a compromise in 1947? Why were some of of the Israelis so cruel to the Palestinians?

But, President Carter, in your book, you seem to only ask the latter question, you ignore the first. You point responsibility only one way, even as you acknowledge the facts.

OK, so now let's look ahead. You wish to speak with Hamas. If speaking with them can help bring peace, fine. But they seem to be stuck in pre-1948 ideology.

And this is a little different, in my view, than 1980, when Andrew Young ('illegally") spoke to the PLO. The Palestinians have a representative now that is in favor of the 2-state solution. I believe your emphasis, if not sole purpose, should be to advance the cause of this leader, President.Mahmoud Abbas.

An analogy I think of: If my next door neighbor is claiming that my house is his, continually shoots at my house, refuses to talk about any agreement, what is my first obligation? Of course, it is to protect myself. Asking me to speak to this neighbor is a non-starter, since he doesn't want to talk to me. So Mr. Carter, what would you recommend in this instance?

I hope you understand that Hamas' intentions in this meeting is to gain acceptance, nothing more. And with this acceptance I only see more bloodshed, as they can use it as leverage against Abbas. If you know of another reason, please inform me.

So I hope you do the right thing and not meet with Hamas. If you do, I only pray that your name is not added to those who helped destroy a nation.

(Signature)

Thanks for reading this.

McCain Versus McCain: Iraq 2008 and Lebanon 1983

Amongst all of the sound bytes and cherry-picking that has been going on in this campaign, I find that it is important to do your own research. And I finally found the candidate who can best express the views that are the polar opposite of those expressed by Senator John McCain.

Senator John McCain.

A few weeks ago I went to my local library and borrowed several books, one of them being John McCain’s “Worth The Fighting For”. This book was originally published in 2002 – after 9/11, but before the invasion of Iraq (update: I found the book at B&N in their bargain section).

Chapter Five, entitled “In Opposition”, caught my attention. It pertains to the tragic events in Lebanon in 1983, when the Marine barracks in Lebanon were attacked by a suicide bomber, killing over 200 American soldiers. Just prior to this, then-Congressman McCain came to a conclusion “in opposition” to President Reagan – namely, in a vote on whether to grant President Reagan authority in the decision to maintain a Military presence. He voted against this authorization, which passed the House by 90 votes.

As I read the chapter, I felt a sense of “déjà vu”. McCain recalls that in Lebanon “ethnic identity politics was the only politics, there could be no strong, central government…particularly so when the central government America decided to strengthen and protect would be dominated by a sect of Christians ruling over a Muslim majority”. But in terms of American involvement, “our naval bombardment had made it rather plain that we were now engaged in Lebanese hostilities”.

So McCain recalls his speech of September 28, 1983, where he asks “will the Lebanese Army ever be strong enough to drive out the Syrians, let alone the PLO? If the answer to this question is no, as I believe it is, then we had better be prepared to accept a lengthy and deeper involvement”. It is notable that he also asserts “The longer we stay in Lebanon, the harder it will be for us to leave … I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave … But I firmly believe this will happen in any event … and I am prepared to accept the consequences of our withdrawl”.

There’s about 15 pages to this chapter on history, yet so much of it sounds to me like a parallel of today. As you read it, you can substitute “Iraq” for Lebanon, “Maliki” for Gemayel, “Al Qaeda” for Hizbullah and/or PLO, "Iran" for Syria. “McCain also describes the country as a “quagmire” for the marines. Aren’t we hearing this word by those opposed to the war today?

You might be compelled to conclude “9/11 changed things”. Maybe so. But I see no subsequent reflection by the author that results in a different conclusion. Furthermore, this book was published in 2002, and in the chapter McCain states “As events turned out, my opposition to the President would prove to be well-founded”. His afterward for the May 2003 paperback edition makes no mention of Lebanon.

So I respectfully ask: How does Senator McCain reconcile his opposition to the Commander In Chief in 1983 with his current claim on his campaign website that opposing it today “would gravely jeopardize American security”? If he acknowledged then that leaving was the best course despite the possibility of increased fighting, why isn’t that a serious option today?

Senator McCain has been known to be a “straight talker”, and a “maverick”. I desire a President who exhibits “wisdom” and “leadership”. And one who has not flipped-flopped in important policy decision philosphy.

As we look toward 2009 and beyond, questions loom about our future policy. Senator McCain states on his website that “there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq”. Well, how many troops are “enough”? And what if, in his policy that almost never mentions the word “diplomacy”, we are confronted with the need to act against the threats of anti-Americanism that exist today in Pakistan and Afghanistan, or the nuclear capabilities of Iran? How many troops will we need, and at what cost? How do we do this with a tax cut? Can we do this with an all-volunteer army? Straight talk, please!

The Bush administration ended up as McCain feared about Reagan, “trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the first place”. We have a chance to have a new administration change our direction.

I request you, the reader to look at McCain's (and all the candidates') writings on your own when you have the opportunity. Please do not be driven by sound bytes, or even my words.

Thanks for reading.

Mr. McCain's Laissez Faire

I wrote a letter to the Editor of the Washington Post on Sunday morning, it got published today.
This is a link to the Post letter. The original unedited letter follows:

To The Editor:

Mr. George Will applauds Senator McCain's "honorable" policy of "minimalism" in the current housing crisis, preferring little or no government intervention, allowing the housing market to first "find its bottom".

If this was a case of intervention on behalf of people taking paper losses on speculative investments, I would tend to agree.

But foreclosure is not that, it is something that forces families to move from their homes.

It appears that the Republican leadership is moving away even from "Compassionate Conservatism". I can understand not supporting irresponsible "bailouts". But what is our national consciousness? Do we instead allow a large "kick-out"?

Back in the 1980's, Mr. McCain wanted Charles Keating, his own constituent, to be "fairly treated" when Keating met with him and asked for intervention. Senator McCain asks for "fairness" as well today. Is he thus willing to meet with every single one of his Arizona constituents facing foreclosure?

I am fortunate - my house has a relatively low-interest, fixed-rate mortgage. But I do value some type of support to those less so.

This is a link to George Will's article.

My only regret was the removal of the line about "national consciousness", but I think I got my point across.

I did some research while writing the letter. I found a copy of a speech he recently gave regarding the housing crisis, and an article about the Keating scandal from an Arizona newspaper.

Since writing it I looked up what the foreclosure situation in Arizona is. According to this article the rate of sales that are foreclosures in Arizona more than doubled from 2006 to 2007 - from 3.4 percent to 7.4 percent . It didn't show the exact number of foreclosures, but I found in some Reeal Estate pages that it is in the low 4 digits per month. It's not the highest in the country - Nevada is - but I think it is above the National average.

I'll have more to say about the campaign in another blog. I have another letter about foreign policy that I hope someone will publish, so I'll wait a few days before adding it here. Please feel free to read the rest of my blog and comment.

Thank you for reading.

Fear, Hate, and Courage

A few weeks ago, I put 2 bumper stickers for Obama on my car. One in English, one in Hebrew.

This is what I found on my windshield last night.

When I first saw it, I was scared - is anyone intending on harm? After all, we are expecting our first child this year. But after looking at this a second time, I realized it was, in the words of Barack Obama (in his book) - "just talk".

I am also reminded of a letter that I wrote to the Miami Herald and the Associated Press back on November 11. 2006. I was in Florida for my Mother's 88th birthday (yes, she was born on the original Armistice Day). An article appeared in the Miami Herald that says "Al Qaeda Leader's Tape Mocks Bush" (see this link - you can get it at the Herald but they'll charge you). While I have disagreements with President Bush, I have no respect for the attitudes and methods of Al Qaeda, and this article is one example. The fact that this "leader" of Al Qaeda used an audiotape to spew his hatred and threats demonstrated his lack of willingness to directly confront those he disagreed with. This is also true of the person who placed the note on my windshield. Anyway, I wrote a letter to the editor about this, but it did not get published:

To the Editor:

I am not a Florida resident. I am in Pembroke Pines today celebrating the anniversary of my Mother’s birth. She was born in Poland on the day of the signing of the Treaty of Versailles and had to flee in 1939 due to the Nazi invasion.

Page 14a of today’s Miami Herald disturbs me deeply. Your editors published an article entitled “Al Qaeda leader’s tape mocks Bush”. In a letter to the Editor to the New York Times published October 2nd, I warned that the world media was “feeding the flames” of extremism.

This article is an example of a newspaper doing just that.

This AP article only states the extremist viewpoint. I did not see any attempt of rebuttal or debate. By publishing these articles (with the Herald’s editing), extremists are effectively made into heroes and icons. Aren't there enough people of prominence in the homelands of Al Qaeda who promote an peaceful approach to settling differences? How does your paper expect the world to at least give anti-terrorism a chance to succeed?

I am not a fan of President Bush, I voted Democratic. But I am still outraged that Al Qaeda's leadership is allowed to call Mr. Bush a “coward” away from his face. We can merely mock their words by using the common adage “It takes one to know one”. But, more importantly, I am hoping that other role models in that part of the world step up to the plate, dismiss this organization's views, and gain more worldwide support and media coverage than Al Qaeda currently gets.

My Mom is a survivor, she was fortunate. I wish future generations the chance to live in a world without fear. The Herald, in my opinion, has responsibilities to promote this, otherwise it, like many in the world of 1939, might someday cease to exist. I hope that the editors reconsider future content of these types of articles.

I will continue for now to display my bumper stickers. I doubt that the author of the hate note wears the flag pin himself. And he won't tell me what he feels to my face. But this is what we will have to put up with for awhile, until we can learn from Senator Obama's role model. I just hope we can.

Thanks for reading.

Required Reading from a Moderate We Lost

I stated in an earlier post that we needed more moderate leaders in the World, especially in the Middle East. Unfortunately, we just lost one in Benazir Bhutto. She had just finished her masterful book, "Reconciliation", when she met her untimely death. It is a manifesto for our times, rebuking Extremist Ideology point by point, explaining the moderate and more feminist interpretations of Islam, promoting dialogue, explaining what the West can do to defeat terrorism, and rejecting Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations".

After I attended Samantha Power's presentation at Politics and Prose, I went to BookTV to see if it would be scheduled for airing. It was not, but I found another segment that was hosted by Dr. Akbar Ahmed, who I mentioned in my earlier article helped inspire me to write. Dr. Akbar, who is Pakistani, interviewed Mark Siegel who asssisted Ms. Bhutto with the book.

http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9110&SectionName=After%20Words&PlayMedia=Yes

So I went out and bought the book. I strongly recommend it.

Some Other Published Letters

Here are some links to other things I got published:

1. Just this week, I got another letter published in the NY Times. This was a response to an article by David Brooks with the opinion that Senator Obama should take the high road after all of the personal attacks. I'm the 4th letter in the sequence.

2. Just found this.. my letter to the Editor to the International Herald Tribune right after the Annapolis Peace conference (look for "Annapolis Peacemaking"). I went down there to support the talks. We had a rally at Church Circle, about 1/2 mile from the Naval Academy gates. The organizers were told that they needed a permit to hold a rally near the gate. But I soon found out that the anti-conference demonstrators were there (CNN showed them). I also believe that there is more Palestinian support for the goals of the conference than the press would have you believe. I downloaded a poll that confirms this (but the AP wrote a misleading article about this poll).

My Latest Letter to the NY Times

My letter to the Editor of the Times got published today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/opinion/l10brooks.html



Here's the text:

To the Editor:

I agree with David Brooks’s analysis. I believe that Barack Obama needs to make statements on the character of the campaign without getting personal.

The aspect of claiming “victimization” when being challenged (such as the “Ken Starr” remark by an aide to Hillary Rodham Clinton) is not even adult, let alone presidential.

Of course, if Mr. Obama wished to play the game, he could accuse his opponent of using “Lee Atwater attacks” or, worse, “Karl Rove attacks.”

But I think all of us would rather have a person in our highest office who resolves conflicts than one who generates them. We don’t need a "fighter" if the next four years means nothing but fighting.

(You can probably guess my pro-Obama sentiment. The other letters that the Times published were largely in agreement.)

The last 2 sentences summarize my misgivings with the prospect of a Clinton presidency. I am seeing controversy ahead, and the last thing I want is for the President to be the issue. We have too many urgent problems to solve. This is not to say that people will not try to find some issues with Obama, it's just that in my view, Obama has less of a chip on his shoulder.

More to come.

Better Days Ahead

I am a software engineer, live in Rockville, MD, age 53, of Jewish faith. Originally from NYC. This is my first blog, ever.



However, I've written to Congress, newspapers, and other blogs. I do not want to spend much time doing this, but I'd like to get a few ideas out in the open.



I've always had an interest in Politics. These times are especially challenging.



Back in September 2006, I began my letter writing, which helped me focus and clarify my views. My first set of letters concerned Al-Qaeda. We've been trying to kill Osama for several years now, yet his organization appeared to be growing. I had seen a CNN special on him. Why, I thought, is this guy getting so much press coverage? Doesn't this attention help him? Shouldn't his views be challenged openly?



At the same time, right after the Israeli-Hizbullah war, I was reading Tom Friedman's book "From Beirut to Jerusalem". The amazing thing I got out of this book, which was written in the 1980's, was how History repeats itself. Just read the book and substitute Hizbullah for PLO. It's deja vu!



I then had a thought. Can we beat Al-Qaeda by forcing them into an open debate with moderates? I started to write my thoughts in the form of a letter to Mr. Friedman (it started with "Instead of killing Osama, why don't we debate him?"). Problem is, "who are the moderates"?



On September 10, 2006, I went to a rally called the Unity Walk. We had speakers from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The start of the event, held in a D.C synagogue, had an unbelievable variety of people of different cultures. The theme was peaceful coexistence and a celebration of diversity. I spoke briefly with Dr. Akbar Ahmed, a Muslim diplomat from Pakistan and a University Professor (one of the speakers).



On my way home, I realized "here's the moderate I'm looking for". So I finished up my letter and asked Dr. Ahmed's opinion (and even asked if he could be the spokesman). He relayed that I should send it to Friedman. So I did, via the NY Times.



I didn't hear back, but on September 29th, Tom Friedman wrote a Times column called "Islam and the Pope". One of the things it stated was that if internal debate happened in Islam, the moderates would win. It was a great article, and it inspired me to write a letter to the Editor, which was published on October 2, 2006 (Yom Kippur, perhaps ironically). This is what my letter (edited a bit by the Times) said:



To the Editor:
I agree with Thomas L. Friedman's views on Islam's leadership (''Islam and the Pope,'' column, Sept. 29). But tones of belligerence, fear, hate and blame are not confined to one religion or nationality. We need changes in leadership around the world and in media coverage.


We need people from all countries and faiths who can promote a compassionate, moderate view that can recognize the injustices in this world and promote an alternate path to their resolution. This is not unprecedented (think Nelson Mandela).


Television and radio programs worldwide are exploitive and feed the flames. While it is allowed in a free society to air extremist views, the media should give as much time to the moderates. Why does the media show Osama bin Laden's tapes, for example, without an immediate rebuttal or debate of his words?


The prevailing winds are blowing in a dangerous direction and need to change.



With this publication, I began to write much more extensively about leadership and media.

(A quick afternote: The editors took out my 2 last sentences. What I had was "The prevaling winds are blowing in a dangerous direction and need to change. Perhaps my views are naive. But are our current ways working"? I mention this because of the charge of naiviete on Senator Obama's policies. More on this later)



I tried to make sure that my themes were universal. Change was needed in many nations and Religions. I had stated in my letter to Friedman that we've had great leaders and role models in the 1990's but horrible ones since.



A few days later, I saw an article in Washingtonian Magazine about Barack Obama. It was speculating that he might run for President, but his wife Michelle was hedging. But what caught my eye was that the audio version of his autobiography "Dreams From My Father" (originally written in the mid-90's) had won a Grammy. Wow, what could be so good about it? I got a copy of the CD to find out.



On October 11th, the day Corey Lidle flew his plane into a building in Manhattan, I flew to White Plains NY on business. During my flight, I began to listen to the CD. I understood quickly why it won the award. It was gripping and moving. It not only told stories, it had messages.

One segment that stood out to me in particular was his discussion of "Nationalism", in this case the views of the Nation of Islam (which Minister Louis Farrakan heads). Mr. Obama showed how narrow-minded some of their views were - their scapegoating of other races and religions, their desire to uplift one group by demonizing another. This fit into my viewpoints of the failed leadership we've had in the world recently, whether it be Ahmadinejad, Bush, Saddam, Bin Laden, Arafat, or Sharon (and many others) . There are many groups in the world who use this tactic. They need to be exposed for what they are. Later, via his pastor's sermon "The Audacity of Hope", Obama's alternate view of the universality of our problems, hopes, and solutions was stated.

I wrote a short review of "Dreams" on Amazon a few weeks later mentioning my above reactions (I called it "An Important Book to Listen To"). At that point Obama did not decide on his candidacy, so I stated that whatever his ambitions are, his voice needed to be heard as he would make a terrific role model.
(See http://www.amazon.com/review/R3RDY3AT7V8B7F/ref=cm_srch_res_rtr_alt_1 for the full review)

A few weeks later, a friend of mine told me of an interesting new book called "The Faith Club". It was written by 3 women, one Muslim (Palestinian), one Christian, one Jewish, chronicalling their discussions on their faiths, fears, hopes and the Middle East issues. This book, in its approach to dialogue, moved me as well, and I have been recommending it to others. The book allowed me to see things from others' viewpoints.

I expanded my letter writing. I attended a pro-Jim Webb rally in Alexandria, and tried to personally hand my letters to Mr. Webb and President Clinton. I also wrote other letters to newspapers, the government of Iran (protesting the Holocaust conference, stating that my mother's words, one of a Holcaust survivor, is instantly more believeable than the conferences' "intellectuals and scholars"), and other politicians. I did meet with my Congressman's (Chris Van Hollen) staff to discuss the Middle East, mainly arguing that we needed to work on not excluding Iran, since my belief is that the people of that country do not wish war with Israel or the U.S. (I have an Iranian acquaintance who confirms this) and that total isolation would feed the flames of Iranian Nationalists.

On Inaugural Day 2007, I attended a party for my Congressman, and then proceeded to the office of Keith Ellison, our first Muslim Congressman. I met his brother Brian (who is Christian) and talked about "The Faith Club". I had written letters of support for Mr. Ellison's decision to use the Quran, arguing that this act was the most solemn, sincere, and honest way to swear to your God that you will defend America.

While I was on vacation later in January, Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy, and, to my surprise, Senator Obama said he was probably going to run. I sent letters to both their campaigns, outlining what I was looking for in a President:

1. Our leaders:
   
   Live the “Golden Rule”, and their actions in our country's interest will be based on this universal principle.
   
2. Believe in all Americans as Patriots until proven otherwise.
   
3. Show respect and tolerance for all citizens and nations and faiths. Promote respectful dialog between those of differing opinions.
   
4. Work for the common good - not focused on a “narrow group”. Only act unilaterally when it is a last resort.
   
5. Communicate with honesty. Tell the truth of costs (monetary and otherwise) of collective actions.
   
6. Take responsibility, shows true accountability. Do not scapegoat or blame. Refuse to lead by fear (e.g. “get them before they get us”).
   
7. Promote our values (show others the way) through leading by example.
   
8. Are not afraid to use force whenever necessary, but do not believe in pre-emptive war without concrete evidence of a clear threat

I was neutral at first, but intrigued as to how Obama would do. I wasn't sure if this was yet his time.

But with the world situation continuing to provide the challenge of producing the type of leader that I felt was necessary, it became clear to me that Senator Obama was the best candidate for our time.

I don't agree with everything he says - I believe he slipped when he spoke of attacking Pakistan (even if it was taken out of context, he needs to be careful) - but overall he has the way of thinking and acting that I want to see out of our next leader.

Senator Clinton is a brilliant and caring politician, but she is not stressing problem resolution in the same way as Obama. Unfortunately, for faults not entirely her own, her views and manner tend to create more problems than they resolve. But if she gets the nomination, I'll gladly vote for her. The Republican alternative does not promote any dialogue while it stresses only the military solutions (question for McCain: "can we fight in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and possibly Pakistan without either a draft and/or a tax increase?")

In recent days, I've been trying to push for greater support for the Annapolis Peace Conference. I've had disagreements with President Bush and Secretary Rice, but I strongly feel that when something good is attempted, we need to show strong bipartisan support. Sadly, I have not seen this from the U.S. Congress or from the candidates. I met Samantha Power (an Obama advisor) recently at her book-signing and asked her about this, but her major focus is on genocide issues such as Darfur, so she was not up on the Israel-Palestine issue. She did say, however, that we should not sit back and wait for the next administration to solve this problem.

I'm one who believes that there is similarities in how we deal with our own personal issues and how Nations and Religions deal with their conflicts. The narrow-minded sees only their own viewpoint, believes only in their "interests". I am of the universalist viewpoint. Try to see the other's way, whether it's with your spouse or another country. The narrow view, which I call "PatBuchannanism", is the easy way to go, since you merely adopt the viewpoints of the small circle you are a part of. The univeralist view is hard, because you are being told you are "surrendering". It has been called "naive". We lose our "sovereignity" and freedom, they say. But to me, many (but not all) of our issues are universal (such as the economy and Global Warming), and the attempts to use "self-interest" methods for their resolution will ultimately fail.

So we need "change". And if all goes well in our election, I see "Better Days Ahead".

That's it for today, more to come. Thanks for reading.

Alan







Free Counter