Better Days Ahead

Fear

2011-09-25T04:38:00.000-07:00

On November 4th, 1995, Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a lone gunman in Tel Aviv. As we mourned, and as President Clinton said "Shalom Haver" ("Goodbye, Friend"), I was struck with the idea that it was nothing less than fear that drove Yigal Amir to perform this horrible deed.

There was (and still is) a fear amongst a segment of the Israeli population that the world, especially the Arabs, want to take something significant away. Whether it is rational or not, we cannot deny the existence of this fear.

Near the time of the assassination, I was reflecting on this, and I wrote a long letter to an Israeli newspaper, and shipped it via Telex (this was pre-email days). I don't know if it got received or published, and I don't have a copy, but I remember a bit what I said.

Fear, I said, is one of the basic emotion that exists in humans. It preceeds mistrust and hate. Mistrust and hate preceed much of our violence.

We have seen this work at all levels of interaction - whether it is animal to animal, person to person, group to group, nationality to nationality, religious group to religious group, person to country, or country to country.

It is easy to see these days where fear exists: Many of the Israelis fear the Arabs and Persians, many of the Arabs (and Persians) fear the Israelis and the West. One side feels that the other side wishes to take away its wealth or pride or freedom or even existence.

Even domestically, there are fears by one ethnic group for another, by one race for another.

The fears are perpetuated from generation to generation. This is often done by a demagogue in a group. Also by our "teachers" - be it religious leaders, educators or politicians.

At the Million Man March, which was near the time of Rabin's assassination, I walked around the National Mall with a sign of protest. I stated that we should not be influenced by messages of fear, as I felt that Mr. Farrakhan was giving us just that. I caught some flak from the attendees, but I think many of the people there understood.

So let's take Israel and Palestine. There are many examples in the world, but this one is closer to my heart.

The Israeli people have recent history to help generate fear. Not just the Holocaust, but the current fear that Arabs do not want them in the land they currently reside in. They point to evidence such as the anti-Israel education in Arab schools.

The Arabs see Israelis as a powerful force (thanks to the US) that wishes to take away Arab land and pride.

The fear has given rise to leaders who perpetuate it.

The media promotes these leaders.

Looking from the outside on this, I see a way out, but it is going to have to start with one basic premise:
The fear must be eliminated - as much as possible.

This is as much grass-roots as top-down. For example, I attended the Unity Walk 2 Sundays ago. This was a gathering of all religions and cultures to find bonds and our commonalities. This was, for me, all about removing fear. Juan Williams got raked over the coals for confessing to his fears of other cultures (NPR took this way too far in my opinion), but in this Unity Walk setting, I could admit to my own fears and realize that the people there had more warmth, more trust, more in common with me than I ever thought, and I was able to form bonds, not walls.

We had leaders of each of the 3 major religious communities speak. These people were great speakers.
However, they spoke to our choir, and I do not hear their voices heard outside this safe gathering nearly enough.

Try to imagine what things would be like if we could expand our sense of community. Instead of placing all your trust in the closest family, friends and neighbors, imagine what the world would be like if we saw that many of our own fears were irrational. Our neighbors might be of a different culture but still possess the basic human elements of compassion.

I, a Jew, am trying to see this in those I am told are my "enemies", such as the Arabs of Palestine.

In reading Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish's incredible book "I Shall Not Hate", I see the expressions of compassions from a man I am initially supposed to hate. I am supposed to mistrust and hate him because he expresses the desire for a state for Palestine (which for many imply the elimination of the Jewish state). But I see in his book words that reach out with compassion. Not only that, but Izzeldin says that many of his countrymen agree with him, so I should try to replace my mistrust with trust.

And Izzeldin also says that most Israelis, whom he used to see on a daily basis at the hospital he worked at (as a Fertility Doctor) are perfectly capable of forming bonds of trust - once they know that the people facing them are not out to take things away. He says that if Palestinians and Israelis could only find their commonalities by simply having the simple positive interactions, we could go a long way in solving this conflict.

How can we build on this? How can we bring these 2 groups with a long, strong history of conflict together?

What I see as a partial solution is to tell others about Izzeldin's book and have them read it. At least that's a start. It might influence a few minds and hearts. We'll see.

I am also in touch with Dr. Abuelaish and hope to meet him soon, so that we can cement the bond we have recently formed, and come up with ideas as to how to influence others towards reducing our fears and increasing trust and respect.

Thanks for reading.

Israel and The Arab Spring

2011-08-21T05:48:00.000-07:00

A thought came to me today while I was reading Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish's book, "I Shall Not Hate", and having just read the newspaper about Syria and the growing tensions between Israel and Egypt (due to an accidental killing of Egyptians during an Israeli reprisal raid against Palestinian terrorist attacks):

The argument of some in Israel and the US is that we should fear the "Arab Spring", because it may let loose the "anti-Israel & anti-West" side of the Muslim Arabs and put them in power or influence.

I'm seeing this from another angle or perspective:

Basically it is this: If the dispute between Palestinians and Israelis was today fully settled, there would be absolutely nothing to fear in the Arab Spring.

This statement doesn't blame one side over another (in the failure to resolve the dispute). I've heard both sides of the argument and the only thing I blame is intransigence.

From reading Dr. Abuelaish and from what I see in the polls in Israel and Palestine, I believe that the people are ready to settle.

If the 2 sides had settled by now, we'd all be welcoming the Arab Spring in open arms, wouldn't we? We'd have states in the Mideast closer to the Israeli and democratic Arab model than we have today. Isn't this what we want, especially if neither side regards the other as a threat?

If you do fear the Arab Spring, what is your response? (If you believe I am naive, read my very first post.)

I'll have a review of Dr. Abuelaish's book in a future post.

Thanks for reading.

Somebody Else's Troubles

2011-08-07T22:22:00.000-07:00

I heard of replay of an old Steve Goodman song from the 1970's - "Somebody Else's Troubles". I decided to re-print the lyrics with one change on the third verse making it more appopros for today. In case you haven't heard of him, Steve wrote "City Of New Orleans" and was considered by many to be one of the best solo performers of his time. He was a high-school classmate of Hillary Rodham. Died of leukemia in 1984. This song makes a terriffic statement

Yesterday I went downtown and saw an old-time picture show
And the hero got a pie in the face.
He didn't like that and he stormed around the screen,
But everybody else was laughin' in that place.

That's cause it ain't hard to get along with somebody else's troubles
And they don't make you lose any sleep at night
As long as fate is out there burstin' somebody else's bubbles.
Everything is gonna be alright.
And everything is gonna be alright.

Did you ever pay for something that you didn't do ?
And did you ever figure out the reason why ?
And when the doctor says this gonna hurt me a lot more than this hurts you,
Did you ever figure out that that's a lie ?

He knows it ain't too hard to get along with somebody else's troubles
And they don't make you lose any sleep at night
As long as fate is out there burstin'somebody' else's bubbles.
Everything is gonna be alright.
And everything will be alright.

And I saw the politician, follow his party line,
He said, "We all have to tighten up our belts."
But he didn't look any thinner than he did a year ago
And I wonder just how hungry that man felt.

He knows it ain't too hard to get along with somebody else's troubles,
They don't make you lose any sleep at night.
Just as long as fate is out there burstin'somebody' else's bubbles.
Everything is gonna be alright.
And everything is gonna be alright.

So I asked the undertaker what it took to make him laugh
When all he ever saw is people cryin'.
First he hands me a bunch of flowers that he'd received on my behalf
He said, "Steve, business just gets better all the time."

And it ain't too hard it to get along with somebody else's troubles,
They don't make you lose any sleep at night.
As long as fate is out there burstin' somebody else's bubbles
Everything is gonna be alright.
And everything is gonna alright.

After The Latest Deluge - time for a new Party

2011-08-06T04:41:00.000-07:00

The major storm has passed, and we're picking up the pieces.

Congress passed the debt ceiling increase, contingent on many budget cuts. Both Republicans and Democrats are spinning their respective positions, and it's time for vacations.

It is yet to be seen whether or not I will have a job past November, when the DOD contract I am on runs out. I'm reasonably confident I'll either be refunded or find something else. But I am concerned about many Americans who have been made more vulnerable in the past few months.

Unemployment is very high. Layoffs have been slowing down (except for companies like Merck, who laid off 15,000), but the jobs have not been coming back. I do not see any slowing of foreclosure rates.

Yet the safety nets are being torn by those who believe we cannot afford them. As I've stated in an earlier post - what we do with our "pie" of money is totally our choice. Pure capitalism - everyone fending for themselves with little government intervention - is one of the choices. Whatever is chosen, some people gain and some people lose.

The reason some people lose is not necessarily because they don't try or know how to win. Think of a child brought up in a community of lower-income people and who gets a substandard education. Should we blame this child for being behind when he/she reaches adulthood? Let's consider our values about this.

So how do we create our pie, and how do we divide it up? I don't have the exact answer, but I definitely would like to see as large a pie as possible divided in an "equitable" (not "evenly") way. Here's where tough choices come in since you don't want to shrink the pie or cause the worst-off to have the smaller slices.

The budget deal (along with other policy decisions in the past year) is a "tradeoff" that will, unfortunately, impact those who can least afford it the most. What will be hit? Schools, housing, and the safety nets. What won't be hit? taxes on those who have high-paying jobs or investments.

It's clear how the tradeoff works in this case. And believe me, we really did have choices.

So we got worried about our debt. We focused less on unemployment. Funny, because interest rates did not go up. In fact, I'll be refinancing this week at almost an all-time low. The housing market doesn't suck because of government debt. It sucks because there was a bubble that burst (for reasons pointed out very well in the movie "Inside Job").

This Congress had choices. The Republicans had choices. The Democrats had choices. The President had choices.

I have come to the conclusion that it is time for another political party to take shape. It needs to be focused on the "center", acknowledging that everyone has responsibilities towards both themselves and others. I'm only beginning to think about who would lead this, but the name Colin Powell comes to mind. (Others are people like Bob Kerrey and Warren Rudman). Whoever it is must be on the bully pulpit at all times, clearly showing us direction.

On another subject: Congress wants a debt-elimination commission. Who to head it better than Bill Clinton? (sorry, Clinton haters, he IS the best man for the job)

More to come. Thanks for reading.

Intransigence

2011-08-04T08:00:00.000-07:00

If you care about Israel or Palestine, here is some must-see TV.

The link below is to a a video that features a debate-discussion  between Palestinian diplomat Saib Ariqat and an Israeli TV  reporter:

It tells, perhaps, the whole story about what is  going so wrong over in this region.

http://www.jerusalemonline.com/specials13.asp  

To me, it boils down to one word:
 intransigence. 
By  both sides. 

Both sides repeat their very emotional arguments. Although they   are civil, you can feel the enormous tension. (You can assume that  many of  the arguments made by the Israeli journalist represent the  government's  position.) 

The Palestinians need to hear the words "67 borders with land swaps", and  "stopping settlements" - otherwise there is no trust. The Israelis have to hear  "Jewish state", or there is no trust.

I firmly believe that the people of both countries would be willing to trade intransigence for peace. Just ask them..well, they've already been asked and they said so (see my earlier post).

Yes, Israelis would like to see the status quo changed. If we say to them "You can increase your prosperity, as from now on you would have to pay less taxes (less defense spending) and thus have even more economic freedom and security", wouldn't they take it?

Yes, Palestinians want out of their poverty and political isolation. If we say to them "You can have a free country that is world-accepted and your children can have a better future", wouldn't they take it?

So what is everyone waiting for?

The Answer: The leaders - who think only from their narrow nationalistic perspective.

With that comes the problem of the allowance of mainstream media to showcase the extreme viewpoints without adequate rebuttal time for the moderates (see my NY Times letter of September 2006). We see the flotillas and riots, not the people working behind the scenes for reconciliation. For every segment that displays the negative, why not interview someone like Dr. Abuelaish?

President Obama, unlike his predecessor, is, from day one, attempting to get each side to moderate their views. For this he is being told that he is not a "friend".  

"J Street"  and "Peace Now" does some good, but we need a unified, grass-roots multi-national,  multi-religious movement that can overcome purely nationalistic ones.  If someone can point me to them, please reply to this post. 

Thanks for reading.

P.S. My senator, Ben Cardin, wants Congress to state that they oppose the move by the Palestinians at the UN in September. I also believe that the Palestinian Government is making a mistake (it will only increase the intransigence) but if Cardin adds to the bill a call for a stop of Israeli settlements, a call for full (yes, repeated) Palestinian recognition of a Jewish state, and an agreement based on 1967-with-land-swaps, I would gladly support it. In its present form it is one-sided and does nothing for peace (which I assume Cardin really wants).  I want everything to be win-win. (BTW: J Street supports the UN move - I differ with J Street)

Flight Over the Debt Ceiling

2011-07-30T04:10:00.000-07:00

A public-service announcement:

(By popular demand, updated version, known as "The Director's Cut")

Scene 1: A view of a large airplane - United States Airlines.
The plane has over 300 million scared passengers.
There are 536 pilots. About half dressed in blue, half in red.

Pilot In Chief Barack Obama - We're running out of fuel, folks. This plane will crash soon. We have to do something now.
Rep. Eric Cantor - We can survive only by changing our gas to Red Gas.
Senator Harry Reid - Red Gas is what we used from 2001-2008 and we almost crashed. No, we need Blue Gas.
Republicans in unison - Red Gas!
Democrats in Unison - Blue Gas

Shot of odometer showing fuel declining closer to empty.
Passenger 1: C'mon, pilots, this is no way to fly a plane. Can't you all decide on some compromise?

Passenger 2 (an uncanny resemblance to AlanRockville): But we don't really need a compromise, we can just land and then decide which fuel to put in.

Cantor: Absolutely not! We do not land until we put the Red fuel in! That goes first!

Shot of odometer showing fuel declining closer to empty.
Reid: OK, I'll take 20 percent Blue, the rest Red.
Cantor: No way! This plane cannot run on any Blue fuel. Red fuel only!

Cantor walks over to Rep. John Boehner, who is dressed in a Santa Claus suit with a button "Prizes for over 200K only!". Rep. Paul Ryan comes over, made into a Scrooge lookalike, holding the Republican proposal.

Boehner: I've got it all together. I'll be Santa Claus once more.
Suddenly, Rep. Nancy Pelosi walks over, and starts speaking a Chico Marx accent.

Pelosi: C'mon Boehner, you know your proposal ain't got a Sanity Clause.

In the meantime, former Senators Byrd and Thurmond are having a discussion in Coach:

Thurmond: Sheeet, Byrdie. Obama ain’t gonna be layin’ no rap on yo, mo.

Byrd: Double-negativity Stromie, ain’t talkin’ correct man.

Senator John McCain, walking down the aisle, overhears and approaches

McCain: Excuse me, excuse me, I heard that. Don’t both of you know that Jive is passé? (Hip-hop beat starts playing in background)

McCain (dancing to the beat):

Oh-bama, Boeh-ner trashin’ talk

they don’t ever do the walk

(beat continues and McCain continues his rap as camera fades)

Engine starts to sputter, panic begins.

Passenger 3: Help, we're gonna die.
Republican Voice: What do we do?
Boehner: Don't worry, I brought our golden parachutes.

Reid: I want one.

Boehner whispers into Reid's ear.

Reid smiles, whispers back "Sure thing".

Both smile.

Passenger 2: I overheard that. No way, if this plane goes, they go first, just like the Titanic. The less fortunate get the parachutes.

Passenger 2 is ignored.

Former Senator Larry Craig approaches the laboratory, where former Rep. Anthony Weiner is waiting looking at pictures.

Craig (tapping and rubbing Weiner twice softly on the tush): Hey Tony, what’s up?

Weiner looks down below his belt buckle, turns back to Craig.
Weiner (smiling): Wanna see?

Obama: Any progress? We're running out of time.
Boehner: No unlimited frequent fliers for you.

Obama: I don't want frequent fliers. I just want to save this plane. Look, saving the plane doesn't mean we'll be using Blue Gas or Red gas in the future. We're just keeping THIS plane intact.

In the back of the plane, Congresswoman Michele Bachman is taping a commercial:
Bachman: I will never allow any gas to be placed on this plane. This plane has used way too much gas. The people of this country want to take it back from the pirates who currently fly it.

(Music of the "Batman" TV show theme song is crescendoing in background)

Bachman:Better it should crash. I have my parachute and I'm gonna use it.

Voice Chorus sings end of one-word Campaign Theme Song: Da-Da-Da-Da-Da-Da-Da-Da-Da-Da-Da-Da, Bach-Man!!!)

Back in the front, John Boehner is speaking to his Press Secretary about his Medicare article that was published by AARP:
Boehner:Those Democrats are trying to scare the old people with TV ads showing people falling off a cliff. It's wrong to use a scare tactic like that.

Press Secretary: Absolutely right, John.

Boehner: Let's tell them the truth, that if you go with the Democrats' plans you'll have 15 unelected bureaucrats who want to spend their time figuring out how they can deny Americans any health care.

Press Secretary: Sounds scary. Do you know those 15 people?

Boehner: Are you kidding? Nobody checks on this, don't worry.

Plane starts spinning out of control. Passengers assume crash positions and pray.

Scene is First Class cabin:

Former President Bill Clinton, in a soon-to-be-awarded-cameo, disheveled with glazed eyes says hoarsely:

I guess I picked the wrong week to quit smoking pot.

Screen is black, sound of someone “inhaling” a long toke.

Back to the cockpit.
Obama: This is an executive order. I order 10 Gallons of Blue gas and 5 of Red Gas to be placed on this plane immediately!

Just then Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas appear with Donald Trump.

Scalia: Sorry, Mr. President, you do not have authority to do this. Got five votes right here.

Obama: But this is National Security!

Thomas: The passengers want a government that does not allow the President to control their lives. Accordingly, they have chosen a special representative pilot to take over from here on.

Obama: Who's that?

Trump: Obama, you’re fired!

The Rescue music starts.

In walks a smiling Otto The Autopilot. First flight since his appearance in the "Airplane" movies.

Usual movie fade routine to show scene in the past (flashback)…

Congressman Barney Frank: ..Uh oh, the autopilot lost his air, gotta do something…

Frank proceeds to start to blow up the autopilot, suddenly Michele Bachman walks in, sees what is going on, and makes a sour face.

Bachman: This is disgusting, disgusting.

She begins to walk away, but stops and turns around, says after a pause:

Bachman: Hey Barney, can I try?

External shot of airplane. Then back to the cockpit.

Otto is on top of Bachman (she only knows one position on anything..).

Bachman: Going for number 29! Whee!

Leslie Nielsen suddenly walks in the door

Nielsen: I’d just like to say “Good Luck, we’re counting on you”.

Nieslon exits.

Fade: Back to the present

Congressman Barney Frank: Just got Otto inflated. Bachman agreed to help. Ready to go.

Bachman: God bless Otto, such great ideas. Paul, tell them what we decided.

Congressman Ryan, on the mike, to all Passengers and Crew: (Gotta fix my hair first...OK) All right everyone, Otto has a solution to get us some gas before we land. Everyone eat those beans really fast now - we're counting on you. Mr. Brooks, you too.

Eating and flatulating can be heard throughout the plane. Gas is emitted.

Obama: A true bipfartisan solution - and a small, shared sacrifice by every citizen.

Passenger 1: We're gonna make it. God bless America.

Patriotic music plays, and the plane lands successfully.

(The end)

Cast:
Barack Obama - Bill Cosby
Michele Bachman - Julia Louis-Dreyfus
John Boehner - Alec Baldwin
Eric Cantor - Charlie Sheen
Paul Ryan - Steven Colbert
Nancy Pelosi - Talia Shire
Larry Craig - John Waters
Anthony Weiner - Jon Stewart
Barney Frank - Jay Leno
Harry Reid - Woody Allen
Harry Byrd - Hal Holbrook
Strom Thurmond - Richard Dreyfuss
John McCain - Steve Martin
Trump and Clinton play themselves
(Still working on the others, but we could always use "Saturday Night Live" people)

Author's note: We are in a serious situation. We must all do our part to make sure the plane of our government continues to fly. A crash would mean a loss of net income for many of us. Isn't that even worse than getting your taxes raised?

Raising the debt ceiling does not increase the debt one penny, it just gives the government permission to borrow to pay its existing expenses. It does not make you pay a penny more of taxes, it does not cause you to lose one penny of benefits.

On a personal note, I was told by an employer that hiring is delayed because of the budget impasse. How many are in my shoes? Think about the Golden Rule, think about what you would do and then urge Congress to do the same.

By the way, here is Boehner's AARP article - I wasn't making this up.

http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-07-2011/republican-medicare-plan-john-boehner.html

To see the original Otto, here's the clip (with Hebrew subtitles, too). Now I can hear the sound effect when Otto is satisfied.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxcoe1Y2Ua8&feature=related

A Pending Debt Default and the Attack on My Country

2011-07-20T03:41:00.000-07:00

September 11, 2001 was an eye-opener for many of us, including myself. I remember looking at the computer screen at the live feed from NY in total astonishment and disbelief. After both towers were hit, I wondered what would happen next - was this an invasion? Was my fiance OK (she was in NY on business - I took the last shuttle back from NY to DC the prior night). Later I watched the white smoke rise from the Pentagon - I worked only 5 miles from it. It was all surreal and frightening.

In subsequent months I began to hear that the U.S. was "warned" of the attack, but no one believed it would really happen.

Today, July 20th 2011, on my wife's and my 9th wedding anniversary, I am fearing another attack.

I did not personally suffer from the 9/11 attack, but the one that may be coming will, I believe, bring hard times to many people of this country.

This "attack" is the massive slowdown in our economy, caused by the deliberate decision in the United States Congress to default on the debt - by refusing to raise the debt ceiling.

The projected effects are even more frightening than 9/11. First, it will effect more people. Millions. Higher interest rates will mean a slowdown and people will be laid off. Also, there will be less consumer borrowing - even on essentials such as housing. And, even more frightening, I believe people will die - because of a combination of increased stress and less money due to unemployment.

This attack can be easily stopped, we all know how to do it.

While I agree that we must tackle the deficit and debt, now is not the time. Not when we have 9.2 percent unemployment. The appropriate times are either the election or during the budget debate itself. We have a divided Congress. Democrats have to wake up as to who won in 2010 and Republicans have to remember that they only won one election that gave them control of only one of the three avenues of Government (the courts make a fourth). Posturing can really be done at any time except when our lives depend on decisions that have to do with survival.

I will not go into detail here about the proposed budget cuts and tax increases. For the record I will probably go along with a compromise that Congress and the President agree on.

But I want to make one thing absolutely clear - my warning to Congress:

Any member of Congress who allows the U.S. debt to default will commit the moral equivalent of deliberately allowing the United States of America to suffer a deadly military attack.

A member of Congress who forces a debt default will have committed an act of betrayal to my country equivalent to treason. I will personally move to make a citizens arrest. I will move to have this person impeached and removed from Congress.

I will not allow our people to suffer because of this attack.

To Congress: Please put reason and compassion in your decision-making.

Thanks for reading.
Update 7/25/11: I visited Congress last week and left letters that state what I said above. Please, if you agree, do the same.

Also, I'm trying to find a movie-maker who can, on short notice, produce an Internet film that would simulate the effects of the disaster that would occur if the US defaults or if interest rates rise. If you know anyone please respond to this post. (BTW: I had a post last year that has the same concept: http://alanrockville.blogspot.com/2010/04/defeating-tea-movement.html )

Analogy: Our debt default would be akin to "national" foreclosure.

"Think of America as being passengers on an airplane that is running out of gas with 535 pilots on board. Experts say the plane will crash unless a decision is made by the pilots either to land the plane now or put gas in. The problem is that half the pilots want Gas brand “R”, half want gas brand “D”.

"Nobody budges. Nobody wants to land the plane now, all pilots want to decide on the brand of gas BEFORE landing.

"OK, pilots, what do you do?

"And don’t tell me that the plane isn’t going to crash: If you would like to stay on the plane and be THE FIRST to suffer the consequences of the crash, be my guest. But I’m a passenger and I don’t want to crash!

Just land the plane!!! Now!!!!"

Update 7/26/11 - First: I went to Congress and dropped off about 20 copies of my letter which has the stuff that's above.
Second: Just thought of this: In their 2001-2008 budgets, the Republicans wanted to be Santa Claus. Now they want to be Scrooge. And their current budget plan has no sanity clause (Thanks, Chico)

Polls in Palestine (and Israel)

2010-06-24T20:54:00.000-07:00

We all see a lot of polls of Americans. But we do not see too many polls of countries abroad, especially those in the Middle East. What we get a lot of is breaking news (such as the Flotilla incident) and punditry. But what do "the people" think?

While I was reading an article in the Web version of the NY Times, a link to a poll of Palestinians was shown, and I went to check it out. What I found was very educational.

This is the link to the poll:
http://www.pcpsr.org/

I look at the data from this and I realize that most Israelis and most Palestinians want the same things, and that the main thing getting in the way is (lack of) trust. The lack of trust is due, in my opinion, to fear, and the fear is perpetuated by a combination of bad (extremist) leadership and sensationalist media.

I hope that everyone who looks at this poll makes an effort to tell others about it. Maybe some misperceptions can be removed. Ones about Israelis AND ones about Palestinians.

Thanks for reading.

Like Father Like Son?

2010-06-18T04:16:00.000-07:00

An Unpublished Letter to The Editor

From: Alan Rotnemer
To: letters@nytimes.com
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: For Paul Family, Libertarian Ethos Began at Home

To The Editor:

Mark Leibovich’s expose of the inheritance of traditions and values in the Paul family was both enlightening and intriguing. As I read it, I recalled a House vote for Resolution 951 in March 2008.

This resolution condemned Hamas’s terrorist rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. The vote on this resolution was 404 yea, 1 nay, 23 no vote/present.

At the time, I curiously looked up the details of the vote. Of the 24 non-affirmative votes, six were from representatives of our oil-rich state, Texas (the most by far of any state).

And the lone dissenting vote? None other than a Republican Presidential candidate from our Lone Star state, Mr. Ron Paul.

So now I ask – like father like son? Makes me wonder what kind of voice Nominee (for US Senator From Kentucky) Rand Paul will be on future Mideast policy.

The vote is documented here

Thanks for reading

Anthem of the (S-H-I-)Tea Party

2010-05-27T13:14:00.000-07:00

Came up with this the other day after hearing of Rand Paul's nomination. You know the tune:

Gimme an "S"
Gimme an "H"
Gimme an "I"
Gimme a "Tea"
What's that spell?
What's that spell?
What's that smell?

And it's 1-2-3 what are my taxes for?
Don't ask me I don't give a cent
I don't want no government
And it's 8-9-10 goes the unemployment rate
Well it ain't no ifs, ands, or buts, WHOOPEE for those budget cuts

Anthem of the (S-H-I-)Tea Party
(John Lennon- AlanRockville)

---
Imagine there's no taxes
My money's only mine
Government is narrow
Lives by the divine

Imagine all officials
Back out on the street

(Ha-ha-ah-ah)

Imagine there's no health care
No entitlement
No wasted UN bureaus
Our might will build our tent

Imagine all the people
Living for themselves

(You-ou-ou-ou)

You may say that I'm greedy
Well that's true but that’s okay
Cause we’ll win this battle
“World is one” will go away

Imagine there's no liberals
Socialism's dead
World’s gone where it should be
Liberty has spread

Imagine all the countries
Vying on their own

(You-ou-ou-ou)

You may say I'm uncaring
Well that's true but I don't care
Civility’s not for us
In our world we never share

(Join me next time for the flip-side "Give Banks a Chance")

Proof that Capitalism Works

2010-05-06T03:11:00.000-07:00

This is a trying time for the people of Louisiana, and I send my deepest sympathies to them.

But I couldn't help this:

I researched past articles about oil spills and found a VERY old copy of an article written in October, 1978 that provides a proposed capitalist (read: non-Government) solution to these spills using a combination of advanced technology and camels. The article was from a paper called "Not The New York Times", published when the NY Times was on strike (just substitute "New Orleans" for "Santa Barbara"). (The first picture is my scan, the second came from the Times itself (just search for it)).

So far I sent this to John Stewart's and Steven Colbert's blogs.

I'm also trying to contact one of the writers of "Not The NY Times" (Carl Bernstein) to see if he can identify the original author. That whole newspaper was an absolute classic, and I wish I can get a fresh copy.

Thanks for reading.

A Proposal to Generate American Jobs

2010-04-21T10:34:00.000-07:00

If I have not mentioned it before, my job, as well as those in my office, was replaced by people overseas (about 30 jobs total). Not only that, but I had to train my replacements (I hear that is common).

My time unemployed has given me the opportunity to think about how we can, in America, help keep our jobs. I have some ideas.

First, let me state that there is one aspect of our current Income Tax system that I find to be unfair. It's the Capital Gains Tax Rate. This allows people who are investors - as opposed to producers (laborers) - to pay a lower tax rate on income. Why should that be?

The answer frequently given by economists and politicians is that investment stimulates job growth. I am finding, however, that this is not always true. I'm a living example of the opposite. The company I used to work for is making record profits - did they really need to lay me off, or is this a matter of maximizing stockholder returns? I cannot blame upper management for this decision as they need to "listen" to the market, but if we can change the system, maybe we can save American jobs.

The solution I have is a potential win-win for American workers and those who invest in them.

First, end the "income inequity" that I mentioned before by bringing the Capital Gains rate back to the standard income rate.

Second, companies will need to show American jobs created or lost within a given year. If they have a net "gain" in American jobs (American new jobs gained minus jobs "lost" due to overseas hiring or outsourcing), they can produce a positive dividend for their stockholders. The dividend would be tax-free and could end up, for an individual stockholder, exceeding the amount they might have gained with the Capital Gains break. If however, the American jobs gain is negative, there would be a negative dividend on stockholders, with the proceeds going towards unemployment benefits.

If you think this is a good idea, please let me know by commenting. Even further, please let me know how I can promote this idea. Perhaps if we got a petition this could come up for a congressional vote.

Thanks for reading.

Gun Rallies - This is a Test!

2010-04-19T18:35:00.000-07:00

Just today, in my former home state of Virginia, there was a rally in a public park expressing support for those who wish to be able to carry their guns in public.

This is part of an overall movement to redefine the role of government. The "guns" issue is just part of the rally cry.

To the people at this rally, our government has become too intrusive, and we are weak in the world because we rely on alliances and world agreements to shape our policy (as opposed to letting us just act unilaterally).

I wish I could have been at the rally. I'd have a "conversation" with the group. I'd ask them: Are they against the following:
Prohibition of drugs
Prohibition of prostitution
Speed limits (hey, can't I drive as fast as I want - why would I buy a sports car anyway?)
(There are plenty of others that I'm sure you can think of, if you catch my drift)

For me, SOME prohibitions make common sense. To me, SOME regulation makes common sense. My dogma is no dogma, I take each case as it comes.

So the question for me is not whether they are right or wrong - they are wrong - but rather, what do we do about it?

There are 2 parts to this battle - the ideological and the tactical. Within that there is the logical and there is the emotional.

I've explained the ideological - their view is dogmatic, not flexible, and driven by fear and rage. It preaches that we cannot live the life "we want" because of government. Yet, as I explained above, it is full of contradictions. They'll go along with government control when it benefits them.

Tactically, what we need to do is continue to win at the ballot box. I know that there were recent losses in Virginia and Massachusets, but if we have an effective strategy, the moderates will be with us.

Part of the strategy is to make sure that people understand the impact of having virtually no government. Imagine having a country where anyone can carry an Uzi, where health care is totally free market, where anyone can do anything they want to our air and water. Let's have explicit commercials, books, and web sites that describe this world, and let's see then what people think.

Thanks for reading. Comments welcome.

Let's reload and pull the trigger

2010-04-17T06:26:00.000-07:00

I am fascinated as well as angered by the language and actions of those on the right. I can't get into their mindset, but they must be acting out of fear.

What am I talking about? the use of the "gun" metaphor in their remarks. Some examples:
1. Sarah Palin's statement that her backers need to "reload".
2. Senator McCain's statement that America has "pointed the gun, but not pulled the trigger" on Iran. (Just exactly what is he advocating?)

Given some events in my neighboring (and formerly home) state of Virginia, where guns are now allowed to be carried, we may be seeing the progression of an alarming trend. (I'll have more to say about the current administration in Virginia in a future post.)

What kind of country are we moving towards, and what can we do about this?
(See my earlier post on the Tea Party for some suggestions).

Thanks for reading.

Update 4/18 - It was reported that Secretary Gates was critical of the Obama administration on Iran policy, but he has since denied it. My comment about McCain stands - during the 2008 primary campaign I never heard him utter the word "diplomacy".

Defeating the Tea Movement

2010-04-17T04:35:00.000-07:00

A lot has been published recently around the Tea Party movement, especially given that they have become so visible during tax season. Much of what I have read attempts to mock, trivialize, or name-call their members. Some characterize them as racists or unfettered followers of a naive libertarian agenda (enabled by Fox News). But a recent poll shows that they are growing in size and are attracting mainstream Americans.

A recent Washington Post article by 2 Democrats has the view that we need to cave in to their views. I disagree.

In my view, the Tea Party is a well-organized political movement that has both top-down leadership and a grass-roots feel. However, I do not support most of its views, and I would like to suggest how those of us who support more progressive ideas can work together to come out on top at critical times, such as votes on important bills and at the next election.

The reason this movement is able to gain strength is that they are, like the Progressives of 2006 and 2008, NOT in power.

There are many problems on our President's plate and he has now been in office long enough to have "taken ownership" of them. This is what the Tea Party capitalizes on.

The former President Bush created many of the problems that exist today, such as the Mideast tensions (if you agree that we should have concentrated our efforts in Afghanistan we'd probably be out of there by now), the rise of Iran (and Hamas and Hezbollah). Needless to say, the state our economy has fallen to was mostly on Bush's watch and due to his tax-cutting-but-high-spending policy.

The Tea party shifts responsibility for our troubles to President Obama and the Democrats. Of course we know that's wrong, but how do we answer it?

It is correct for Obama to point out that we are on the path of improvement. But as we all know, it is slow and may not be complete. It may be too little too late for the 2010 and 2012 elections.

It is my view, therefore, that we point out the Tea Party's errors in judgment by PROJECTING what things would be like if THEY were currently in power, or got into power in 2010. The purpose of this would be to counteract their simple solutions of "lower taxes, less government".

The basic message of the Tea Party is appealing, we all would like freedom, minimal government intrusion, less adventurism abroad, and of course, less taxes.

But what would the world be like if we followed their agenda to the letter?

This is where leadership, a continuation of the 2007-2008 Progressive grass roots movement and creative use of the media come in.

The basic idea is this: come up with commercials, TV, and other media (books, web) "specials" that provide human-based stories of life under a Tea Party regime.

Don't be over-dramatic, make it look "realistic".

An example: let's say we have another Katrina. Let's "show" a major metropolitan area devastated by a natural disaster. But, for the twist, we show that there is no FEMA, and the Tea-party-based state governments have reduced their budgets to only pay for basic fire and police. Those who have the money (thanks to the high-bracket tax cuts) will be able to escape and rebuild (we could show them sipping some "gourmet tea"), but the middle class and lower will be shown suffering. The contrast would need to be clear, accurate, and emotional.

We could probably come up with great examples in health care, but I'll leave it up to you, the reader to think of ideas.

The promotion of these ideas would come top-down and grass roots. The former would gather funding to prepare the media and get it distributed and publicized (what's moveon.org doing these days?). The grass roots organizations would lead rallies to show that the people do not want Tea-Party leadership to happen.

I am convinced that there are many of us who want to see progressive government that isn't "socialist" but is practical in that it recognizes that it must regulate to protect people from being victims of powerlessness. Not just powerlessness against their governments, but powerlessness against the other "big" decision makers in society, such as banks and health insurance companies. Ultimately we want a world of "checks and balances" between government and business to ensure our individual freedom and influence.

It is for this reason that I feel the Tea Party (and especially Sarah Palin's) ideas are incorrect in that they only see "government" as the enemy. It's an easy scapegoat. But think about it - it was government that abolished slavery, that stopped child labor, that gave us Social Security and Medicare. In all cases, other forces (very much like the Tea Party) tried to stop this government regulation by claiming that it infringed on individual freedom, violated states rights and was bad for (free market) business. But I ask, do you want to return to those days?

Let's get moving, let's take on the Tea Party. But let's get this right so that we can get what we need out of our government.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. Looking forward to your commnets.

Update: May 7, 2010 - I wrote the above post prior to the Louisiana oil spill. People are complaining that Obama reacted too slowly. But imagine if a Tea Party administration - with no EPA or other cleanup agency - was in power.

Update May 21. 2010 - Now that Rand Paul was nominated, it will be incumbent upon us to keep track what he says and does. Let's not demonize him, but see how consistent he is (or isn't), what he tries to eliminate from government and what he tries to add to it. I'll post more as I get info.
By the way, I just composed a song for the Tea Party movement. I'll put the link to it when I get it posted.

The Gaza Survivor and His Message

2009-04-24T08:10:00.000-07:00

The word "orphan" refers to a person who has lost his or her parents. "Widow" or "widower" refers to one who loses a spouse.

But what word exists for one who loses a child? Especially three.

And what can we call someone who loses three children in a war but is not bitter and goes on promoting reconciliation?

Perhaps the most tear-jerking true story I have heard recently is the one of Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish, an Arab-Muslim doctor (OBGYN) in Gaza who works in Israeli and Palestinian hospitals. He and his family live in the Jabalia Camp in Gaza, Palestine (his parents are from the area near the Harat Shikmin ranch that is now occupied by the Sharon family). Last September 16th, Dr. Abuelaish became a widow as his wife succombed to leukemia. Exactly 4 months later, on January 16th, Dr. Abuelaish lost 3 of his 8 children to a tank shell in the Gaza war (the Israeli IDF has acknowledged shooting it as they suspected a militant hideout). During all of this time (and prior to the loss of his wife), the doctor was promoting reconciliation between Palestine and Israel. On the fatal day in January, Abuelaish was about to be interviewed by Israeli TV to give a first-hand account of the war (reporters were not let in) when the bomb hit. The moments afterward are documeted on TV (This is the raw segment).

Since that tragedy, Dr. Abuelaish made a conscious decision to make lemonade out of lemons. He came to the U.S. to speak to various groups. I saw him last Monday night at the "Peace Cafe", which is at the restaurant "Busboys and Poets" in Washington DC (the cafe is run by Ari Roth of the DC Jewish Community Center and Andy Shallal, a Iraqi-born American citizen and owner of Busboys). The event was sponsored by "Americans for Peace Now". (I also heard the audio of an event he was the speaker at on the following day.)

I forgot my cell phone, so I don't have any pictures of the event. Dr. Abuelaish is not too tall, a bit stocky, clean-shaven, and well-dressed. He speaks fluent Hebrew and his English is pretty good. In his message, he spoke of how he felt that this tragedy was divine fate (though it was "man-made"), with the message that he needs to pursue the message of reconciliation (he does not like the "vagueness" of the word "peace"). So he showed us pictures of Gaza, pictures of his children on the beach (they wrote a message on the sand as though they foresaw their own death, he said). He wishes to make something positive that is bigger than the tragedy itself. His main point was that prior to working out specifics of a policy or agreement, the two sides must truly begin to understand the "humanity" of each other (and he sees himself doing his part to fulfill that role, calling on others to take action to do the same). Finally, he said that he will establish a Foundation for Women's Health in his children's name, as it is "time for women to be the decision makers" in the world.

His speech reminded me of one I saw just a year ago at my nephew's graduation from Northeastern U in Boston. The main speaker was a student whose mother, a psychologist, was murdered 3 months prior. The student spoke of looking ahead and "making lemonade out of lemons".

I briefly spoke to Dr. Abuelaish afterwards about his work (I shared some personal stories about some life challenges). He was so kind and gave me his business card. I understand he is nominated for a Nobel Prize, so if he gets it I can call him personally - really cool!

If we only had more role models like Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish....

Thanks for reading.

Update 05 June 2010: I've been in recent contact with Dr. Abuelaish, he's safely in Canada working and teaching at a University. His philosophy has not changed. He has a website dedicated to a fund he has established to promote the advancement of women
Update 21 August 2011: Dr. Abuelaish was kind enough to send me a signed copy of his book: "I Shall Not Hate". I'm reading it now and will comment in a future post.

Mid-East Blues and Hopes

2009-04-08T03:24:00.000-07:00

There is so much mixed news coming out of the Middle East these days, and it's happening rather quickly.

First, President Obama sent New Year's greetings to the people of Iran, a strong gesture indicating a desire to change the animous relationship to one of mutual respect. We are not appeasing their government's development of the Bomb, nor are we condoning their government's support of Hamas and Hezbollah (my Iranian friend tells me that the people there were "hands off" on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute until the recent Gaza war). Ahmadinejad and Khameini responded by saying that they want actions rather than words. It'll be interesting to see what Obama's next step in this chess game is: will he offer diplomatic relations? This can have a bearing on the Iranian elections in June. I hope that the Reformists unite behind one candidate (I prefer Moussavi), since the Principalists will only have Ahmadinejad (see PressTV for their media coverage of the election). By the way, I've been blogging on PressTV to explain my support for the both the warming of relations and for Israel.

The Israeli events are more sobering. The new administration stated that the peace process "has reached a dead end". FM Lieberman does not want to be held to any time commitments. My worry is that there are now more walls being built, and the more you build the more you have to tear down. Unless you are prepared for a perpetual war. Obama, on the other hand, wants to move quickly, as he sees this issue as one that affects the U.S. and other democracies (e.g. the price of oil). So, while I'm OK with measures Israel takes to protect its own people (such as the recent testing of anti-missile hardware - which Obama supports), I'd really push the Netanyahu administration to resume serious talks with the Palestinians. Otherwise, U.S. foreign aid for offensive weapons will be endangered. As I've always stated, everyone wants the same thing in the end - peace - but we have to find the win-win way to get there.

Thanks for reading

Laissez-Faire Is Now Laissez-Failed

2009-04-08T02:34:00.000-07:00

One fun aspect of writing letters to newspapares is when one of their regular Op-Ed writer gives you an opening in their articles to comment.

Just about a month ago I published my blog entry entitled "Tradeoffs 101" where I spoke of the need to understand the "win-lose" dynamics of political decision making.

Then, last week, Charles Krauthammer published his op-ed in the Washington Post called "Obama's Ultimate Agenda", his lament of the increase of government authority under President Obama. OK, I thought, time to incorporate my earlier post into a letter to the WashPost.

I had fun with this one, especially the end. Poor Krauthammer is, I think, clutching at straws. Also, I got in my dig at those who lament "socialist redistribution of income" by pointing out that they, too, have policies that redistribute the other way. Can't income just be income? (the argument that cap gains cuts spur employment is bogus: first, how do we know the investments produce American jobs? Certainly investing in gold, short-selling, or job-reducing mergers and acquisitions doesn't. Second, if we really wanted to reward those who create American jobs, why not do it directly to employers who do exactly that, who can then pass those rewards down tax free to their investors?)

Here's my letter, published April 8th, 2009 in the Washington Post:

Charles Krauthammer lamented the "radical extension of the welfare state" because of the latest proposed "government intervention" in health care, education and energy.

As I'm sure Mr. Krauthammer knows, government intervention is not new. Lincoln intervened in the free-market system to end slavery. Child-labor laws, antitrust laws and minimum-wage laws are other examples. Lowering capital gains tax rates below the tax rates on wages also redistributes income to the non-producing rich.

Our collective decisions must be based on their practicality and their morality. Almost every one of them has tradeoffs -- someone wins, someone loses. A "free" market does not mean a morally responsible or equitable market, so we need checks and balances to get to the fairness level we collectively decide on. That is our democracy.

My difference with Mr. Krauthammer is where we draw our lines. I believe (especially for health care, education and energy) more in a just, partly regulated market than in the dogma of laissez-faire libertarianism.

The editors took out another example - the battle of the current budget between Obama and McCain. McCain's proposal is a win for the high-bracket taxpayer. We're not sure who loses because I have not seen the details of his budget and therefore what exactly gets cut (that's typical Republican way). Obama's budget will provide more jobs, but there will probably be a tax cost down the road (or higher inflation). For now I'll go along with Obama, since I have not heard any better ideas.

Thanks for reading.

Avigdor Lieberman - the George Wallace of Israel?

2009-03-23T17:45:00.000-07:00

Do you remember our Presidential election in 1968? We had 3 candidates: Hubert Humphrey, a moderate (liberal on social and economic issues but supported the Vietnam War); Richard Nixon, a conservative Republican, and the then Governor of Alabama, George Wallace.

Mr. Wallace (now deceased) was well known as the man who stood in front of the doors of the University of Alabama to stop the school from integrating. He wanted, at least at this educational level, the "separation" of races.

Wallace came in third in the election. Got ten million votes and 5 states. This was an ugly time in American history. (Four years later, he was nearly assassinated, the hospital he was brought to is 5 miles from my home.)

Fortunately, our country changed. Wallace himself changed, realized his mistakes, and reformed.

I don't think a man like Wallace would get 10,000,000 votes today. And an African-American has become our President - Thank God.

As we all know, Israel just had an election. The Kadima and Likud parties split the votes, and the third place finisher, in an upset, was Avigdor Lieberman, head of the Yisrael Beitenu party. Like the USA in 1968, there is much turmoil in Israel today, and this can lead to increased Nationalism and scapegoating. (Barack Obama has a great essay about "Black" Nationalism in his Autobiography.)

Like all of us, Lieberman wants a solution to the conflict with the Palestinians. However, like Mr. Wallace, Lieberman wants a "separation" of Jew and Arab from the land of Israel. At least, he doesn't want Arabs who, even though they might already be citizens, have not explicitly professed their "loyalty" towards Israel. This is like "Guilty until proven innocent"!

Lieberman published an Op-Ed in the American Jewish press recently, and I was obliged to respond. What we need to think about is what Zionism is, and what standards we hold ourselves to. Will we let the views of "Israel's George Wallace" prevail?

Here is my letter which got published in Washington Jewish Week.

Israeli Arabs -- loyal until proven otherwise

Perhaps Avigdor Lieberman has changed his tune a bit from his 2004 plan to accept only "loyal" Arabs in Israel ("The case for responsible citizenship in Israel," WJW, March 5). But in essence, I still have a profound disagreement with him on what is right for our Jewish state.

I feel we can follow the American model in this way: All immigrants, regardless of former nationality or religion, must be held to the same standard. In the U.S., all immigrants take an oath of citizenship in order to officially become Americans. For Israel, it can only be "all or nothing" -- either everyone or no one would take the oath.

Those who currently reside in Israel, regardless of religious beliefs, should be treated the same in one important respect -- they are "loyal citizens" until proven (by law) otherwise.

A deviation from this would, in my view, strengthen the Carter-Apartheid view of Israel, and that's the last thing we need.

Thanks for reading.

Update: 4/2/09 - Lieberman is now Foreign Minister of Israel, and has stated that the Annapolis process no longer applies. Meanwhile, a newly-elected Arab member of the Knesset declared that "the very concept of a Jewish state was "inherently racist," saying that Israel must be turned into a "state of all its citizens," which would eliminate its Jewish or Zionist nature".

I see clouds on the horizon.

Tradeoffs 101

2009-03-08T07:41:00.000-07:00

When you hear a politician say "This is good for America", or "This is good for the working man", do you buy it?

I'm turning 55 next month, but years ago I figured out a basic principle about politics - I'll call it "The Law of Tradeoffs".

Simply put: There is no one way for any government to do things right. All poltical decisions have tradeoffs".

This is true for your condo board, your county government, your school system, your state government, the federal government, and even the United Nations.

Every decision, poltical or economic, has winners and losers. Always keep this in mind as you hear a proposal or read a budget.

For example - this is an easy one - let's take tax policy. If President Obama wishes to cut taxes for the "average American", but raise taxes on the upper income bracket, it would appear that the middle and lower brackets are "winners" and the upper bracket the "loser". The Republicans, on the other hand, want to make the Bush upper bracket tax cuts permanent and give some additional tax cuts to businesses. Here the list of winners and losers are different (the Republicans claim a "trickle down" effect, but it's not clear that the trickling actually occurs).

Most of the time, the tradeoffs are more subtle. Let's take health care for example. There are a number of proposals out there. If we go to a single-payer system like Canada, who are the winners and who are the losers? I don't know for sure, but I can tell you with certainty that there will be some people on both sides of the win-lose fence. And it's not black and white, there are shades of gray. The "biggest" winner would probably be those who have the most medical needs and the least money, those who could not be insured. The biggest loser would probably be one who never felt he/she needed insurance and now has a mandate to pay for it each year. (Some are saying that this system can cause long waits, so maybe those affected would be losers as well.) But what about most of us, who have either private insurance that we pay for or is subsidozed by our employers or the government? Who will be the winners, who will be the losers? It's hard to tell.

Now sometimes you'll hear (even from me) that a policy is "win-win", as if everybody benefits. That may look right at the surface, but if you dig in, you'll find someone who will be worse off. I don't mean to be cynical, I will heartily support some policies that benefit many but adversely affect a few, but I just want to warn that we should never be misled.

So what do I do with this realization? If you look at my opening blog entry I spoke of "PatBuchannanism" and "Universalism". I stated that I do not share the former, a viewpoint that looks narrowly at self-interest at all levels of decision making. I'm more on the side of the Universalist, who wishes for decisions made for the the overall good. But I always have to remind myself of the "tradeoff" rule. Some people will be worse off by a policy. So I have to identify the winners and losers. Can I (or we as a nation) live with this choice? If the policy involves self-sacrifice for the overall good, can I accept it? (yep, even I will act out of self-interest at times, but I'll at least try to catch myself).

As we go through our current economic crisis and solutions are proposed, it will be wise for us to keep the tradeoff rule in mind. Who will bank bailouts help? Who will they hurt? Is the massive spending on infrastructure going to help one group but hurt another? If so, who and by how much? What sacrifices will I need to make to go green? Will it help my child (who is 8 months old)?

If you take a budget for your association or government, there are inflows and outflows. If it changes, ask about who pays more, who pays less, who gets more, and who gets less? It's quite that simple.

I think this is a better way to look at our politics than to assign labels such as "right-wing", "socialist", "liberal", or "conservative".

What I ask of all politicians is that they be honest - that they adopt the principal of "tradeoffs" and accurately identify to their constituents the potential winners and losers in any new policy proposal or budget change. With this information we will have what we've always wanted to have in America, an informed, engaged public, using our democratic institutions to make our lives and this country (and the world) a better place.

Thanks for reading.

The Politics of Our Current Economy

2009-03-04T20:01:00.000-08:00

This is what I tried to get published today, it sums up what I see going on in Washington:

It is good to see Senator McCain expressing his wrath over earmarks and pork by the big-bad government. But have we heard an equal expression of anger from him about how the people of this great country are being ripped off by greedy speculators, incompetent yet immensely powerful corporations, and Senators who vote for war and then hide the true cost of it? Has he shown compassion towards those who have truly lost during this economic crisis?

This is a man who will use every opportunity to be an opportunist. He needs to look at his own actions before being critical of our President's attempts to be honest. At least with Obama we now will have some transparency. (Senator, where where you with that? Where was your rage when Bush raised the deficit?)

My Friends, he claims to be a maverick, but he is just a sore loser

Thanks for reading.

Iran and the Jews

2009-03-04T19:48:00.000-08:00

After a long hiatus from writing, I decided to return. I got a letter to the Editor in the NY Times today in response to recent columns by Roger Cohen:

To the Editor:Re "Iran, the Jews and Germany," by Roger Cohen:

As a Jewish American, I have mixed feelings about Mr. Cohen's columns on Iran. Iranians as a whole are respectful of Jews. But anti-Zionist fervor and policy have existed in Iran's government since 1979, making Jews fearful of being attacked, resulting in counterthreats and more fear.

Yet I believe that we have a common bond with the people of Iran in that we all wish for a just two-state solution. (I know Iranians are very sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, but under the Shah they were friendlier toward Israel, and I believe this carries over to the present.)

In the United States, we have elected a man who, I hope, will work toward reconciliation. I hope that in their elections in June, Iranians will voice that they would like to be more constructive toward the Israel-Palestine conflict. It would be a win-win situation, as this would improve both Iran's relations with the world and its economy.

This is the link to the Cohen article, and this is the link to my letter:

Basically I see what Mr. Cohen is trying to do, which is similar to what I had to say in my post about Marjane Satrapi. Iran appears to me to be another example of a land whose people is far better than their current leaders. But, as bad as we think they are, we must show respect to the nation, and make overtures to mitigate the tension. We know there's a good chance theyare trying to build a nuclear bomb. I think we're in a race against time - if the Israel-Palestine issue can be resolved, Iran would be less of a threat. The vice-versa of this is also true, solving the U.S.-Iran issue will help solve Israel-Palestine. but I sincerely doubt it will be in that order. Israel-Palestine has to be solved first, and it better be soon.

More to come. Thanks for reading.

Perspolis, Iran, Maus, and the Holocaust

2008-04-21T07:01:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-15T03:48:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-08T03:38:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-08T03:00:00.000-07:00

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

2008-03-27T03:39:00.001-07:00

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

2008-03-25T03:52:00.000-07:00

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

2008-03-13T09:55:00.000-07:00

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

2008-03-11T14:00:00.000-07:00

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

2008-03-06T13:43:00.000-08:00

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:

Our leaders:

Live the “Golden Rule”, and their actions in our country's interest will be based on this universal principle.
Believe in all Americans as Patriots until proven otherwise.
Show respect and tolerance for all citizens and nations and faiths. Promote respectful dialog between those of differing opinions.
Work for the common good - not focused on a “narrow group”. Only act unilaterally when it is a last resort.
Communicate with honesty. Tell the truth of costs (monetary and otherwise) of collective actions.
Take responsibility, shows true accountability. Do not scapegoat or blame. Refuse to lead by fear (e.g. “get them before they get us”).
Promote our values (show others the way) through leading by example.
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