In following some of the recent Healthcare Reform debate and conflict I find much of what I hear often inane and shortsighted. I come back over and over again to a basic point: "What is the goal?"
A simple example of this is looking at proposed ideas and how they seemingly will or won't do what they are intended to do.
IF, for example we are looking at saving money and cutting the costs of healthcare or limiting the increases in costs then we need to look at Why healthcare in the U.S. is so expensive. Besides the issues of excessive uses of various testing equipment and the fears of malpractice and and such the basic costs of most prescription drugs is a significant issue related to the costs of healthcare. Simply pushing a public option healthcare plan will in no way help bridge the gap between drug costs in the U.S. and elsewhere. The simple facts that drug companies "own" the system now in the US and we pay dramatically higher costs for most drugs must be dealt with if we are to "compete" with Canada and other more progressive countries.
If, we focus upon "competition" and "choice" within a reformed system (which seems idiotic to me, but is often done), we should consider what will allow competition and real choice. Clearly, where I'm given choices of paying roughly $190-350/month for family coverage and others are facing choices of $800-1500/month for similar coverage, if they can get insurance at all, we don't have a truly competitive market. Where our health coverage is heavily subsidized and many others' isn't, the market they are a part of is likely to be exceedingly expensive and difficult to navigate through.
Besides the simple issue of subsidizing the costs of those whose incomes aren't very high and whose insurance isn't subsidized, we need to look at Why insurance costs will be high. One obvious factor is where the risk for the carrier exists. It would seem logical, for example, to consider creating more of an "open market" for health insurance options, if "competition" and "choice" are important.
To do this over time would seem to me to need creating less of a separation between "subsidized" and "unsubsidized" coverage. Taxing subsidized benefits is one way of doing this, but not the only way. Unsubsidized health plans could have a "free" or "low cost" assistance from the federal government in covering them for catastrophic costs. If, for example, such plans had no liability for health care costs over $10,000/year, the federal government would take on a Huge Liability, while the insurance industry would have an opportunity to offer a lot more healthcare options, not risking losing huge amounts of money on enrollees in their plans.
We definitely need to get away from the seeming naivete that healthcare reform is going to be "affordable" or "inexpensive". We also need to recognize that if we say that options such as single payer are off the table (as is said now), that it removes or makes much harder many areas of significant cost savings. Simply having a public option available to most, if not all, will not, in of itself lower healthcare costs and there rapid inflationary increases year by year.
We need, for a change, to look seriously at the options that we, as a country face. We need to look at the costs and benefits of these options. We also need to get away from the scare tactics and rhetoric where "socialism" and "free choice" and similar are used to avoid dealing with the real problems that we face.
I'm Not optimistic, because the desires for consensus and the short-sightedness of most of our congressional leadership will likely lead us to a "political solution" which at best will be marginally better than what we now have, and may be worse in some ways. As is common politically, the Democrats again will stick their foots in their mouths if they mess up, as was done in the early Clinton era.
The problem with Hillary and Bill Clinton's plans weren't with "the details" but rather with their total naivete in taking on the insurance industry and allied forces head on, without having any comparable force that had any chance at countering the lies and deceptions of those who would have lost their massive profits then. Our issues aren't that different today!
I hope that I will be proven wrong! We shall see!
Thanks!
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Feelin Bad - Pain and "Out of Control"
I have been very, very lucky with my health up to now - at age 58. I've never broken a bone, nor had a major illness or really serious injury. Where I've been sick or injured, it's always been something that healed itself within a few days- and wasn't really painful.
Recently I've been in increasing pain with what appears to be irritable bowel syndrome. After several weeks of it getting progressively worse after it was bothering me occasionally I went to see my doctor. She did blood work and briefly examined me and finding nothing wrong, referred me to a gastroenterologist who did a colonoscopy which appears to be "normal".
Meanwhile the pain has progressively increased. I went back to my doctor and she clarified what types of over-the-counter things I should use along with the prescription the stomach doctor had prescribed.
Now - 4 times today - it's 1:30 p.m. - I've had painful trips to the bathroom - the first lasting for close to an hour. During my time on the toilet usually I'm in various levels of pain - as my body struggles - to do what I had totally taken for granted up until recently. With the pain last evening and today so far, I'm cutting back on what I'm eating, to simply try to cut down a little the frequency and intensity of the pain.
I face a painful 15-70 minutes - at a stretch where I feel close to normal - within 5-10 minutes of my "activity". I can only imagine - what others must go through with Not having the breaks I have from the pain with back or other problems - though I can't imagine How I could survive without the - breaks from the pain, as intense as it is at times.
When we got flooded, I could then relate to some of the feelings that New Orleans former/current residents have since Katrina. Feeling the pains that I have now, I can imagine a little of what others must go through all too often.
I don't want sympathy - I just hope that the doctor will be right and that my pains will start to lessen instead of getting worse and worse within the next week or so.
Thanks!
Recently I've been in increasing pain with what appears to be irritable bowel syndrome. After several weeks of it getting progressively worse after it was bothering me occasionally I went to see my doctor. She did blood work and briefly examined me and finding nothing wrong, referred me to a gastroenterologist who did a colonoscopy which appears to be "normal".
Meanwhile the pain has progressively increased. I went back to my doctor and she clarified what types of over-the-counter things I should use along with the prescription the stomach doctor had prescribed.
Now - 4 times today - it's 1:30 p.m. - I've had painful trips to the bathroom - the first lasting for close to an hour. During my time on the toilet usually I'm in various levels of pain - as my body struggles - to do what I had totally taken for granted up until recently. With the pain last evening and today so far, I'm cutting back on what I'm eating, to simply try to cut down a little the frequency and intensity of the pain.
I face a painful 15-70 minutes - at a stretch where I feel close to normal - within 5-10 minutes of my "activity". I can only imagine - what others must go through with Not having the breaks I have from the pain with back or other problems - though I can't imagine How I could survive without the - breaks from the pain, as intense as it is at times.
When we got flooded, I could then relate to some of the feelings that New Orleans former/current residents have since Katrina. Feeling the pains that I have now, I can imagine a little of what others must go through all too often.
I don't want sympathy - I just hope that the doctor will be right and that my pains will start to lessen instead of getting worse and worse within the next week or so.
Thanks!
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
National Health Insurance (Again) !
Currently Congress and President Obama are grappling with the issues related to National Health Insurance. Quite reasonably they believe it important to try to pass legislation this year while re-election issues are a year away for many.
One may say:
1.) Why National Health Insurance at all?
a. Health insurance is not affordable absent one having a group plan,
b. Employers have increasing incentives Not to have health insurance plans
c. Health care costs in our current system are far higher than nearly all the comparably wealthy countries of the world and most of them have national systems,
d. "The market" - can not resolve this issue and it is no longer an issue that can be ignored without far more dire effects on our economy
2.) Why not have "a government option" that all could choose to take?
a. Such a plan would be prohibitively expensive for either the Federal Government, those enrolling in the plan or both.
b. People would enroll in the plan as their "best alternative" which would skim off a lot of healthy and younger people who would have better options other than it,
c. The costs - per enrolled individual or family would be very high - as there would be a strong incentive to enroll where one had high anticipated medical expenses and no better options.
d. Either a lot of people would not be able to afford the Government Option or a massive Government Subsidy would be necessary to fund it
3.) What options might exist besides a single-payer plan?
a. Continuation of the current system - very high costs which will continue to escalate - not viable - though will continue unless Congress passes a new plan.
b. Government Optional Plan - Such a plan - such as the current Medicare Plan - which per: www.medicare.gov includes in 2009:
1.) Hospital Coverage - $443/month (most get this for free),
2.) Doctor's Coverage - $96.40/month
3.) $1068 - deductible paid per hospitalization period - when an inpatient in a hospital
4.) $135 - yearly deductible on physician's bills
5.) 80% - of "customary and reasonable charges" paid for physician's bills beyond the $135/year deductible (also subject to "customary and reasonable charges"
6.) Prescription Drug coverage - sample - first listed company for King County Washington - costs $16.70/month with a $175/year deductible - with costs per prescription then from $4 and higher amounts depending upon type of prescription.
7.) It should be noted that the "customary and reasonable charge" may well be significantly below the amount physicians charge which makes the doctor's coverage more expensive.
c. Modifying the current system in some substantive way(s) such as:
1.) Providing some type of catastrophic health insurance coverage which is either optional or mandatory for all. This would mandate that the Federal Government paid for "high" medical costs above a ceiling - say: $10,000/year for example, subject to whatever limitations might exist. (Such a proposal might make potential liabilities for private health insurance carriers significantly lower and thereby allow both for more people to get health insurance and for the costs to be lower),
2.) Provide for a Government option or mandated coverage for whomever doesn't have other health insurance coverage,
3.) Allow - for all to enroll in the Federal Health Insurance plans which are currently open to federal employees and retirees, perhaps paying the "unsubsidized" costs of such plans - which for example, our Blue Cross - Basic - which costs us $216.48/month for family coverage ($92.44 for individual coverage) - would cost $865.43/month for family coverage or $369.76 for individual coverage.
d. National Health Insurance - Pro's and Con's?:
1.) If employers would pay into the system, it would cost employers who currently don't have coverage for their employees additional expenses per employee which would be a disincentive to hire employees who met the criteria for coverage,
2.) If employers would Not pay into the system, it would provide more of an incentive for employers to hire employees (particularly where they have health coverage and where the employees might be "risks" insurance wise),
3.) If employers would Not pay into the system, the costs of the system would be higher to either the individuals/families or the government itself,
4.) Start-up costs would be high - the Government would need to pay monies that currently are not its obligation,
5.) All would get equal coverage - which might result in "rationing" of some care or increased wait times for some treatments,
e. What's Best?
1.) I believe that we will pay costs regardless of what we do. The current system is not tenable. It will bankrupt our economy particularly as us "boomers" get older. Ideas such as making all eligible to enroll in the Federal System "at full cost", while perhaps marginally better, will Still not make coverage affordable to most who lack coverage or have poor coverage now.
2.) All the other options have clear High Costs and Liabilities,
3.) Any "optional plans" - will split off - the "haves" and "have nots" - making chronically ill and older citizens - paying much more and those who have low costs - paying relatively little (in comparison),
4.) I see only Two Viable Option Directions:
A. Single Payer - One Plan - for all - probably started with Medicare/Medicaid/Federal employees and expanded to others over time or,
B. Single Catastrophic - One Plan - for all - which doesn't deal with basic medical costs, but subsidizes the "high cost" care - of those who are chronically ill or have massive medical costs - such as with a $10,000/year deductible.
The latter option - basically leaves "the free market" - but recognizes that it can't pay for "high" expenses without leaving out virtually all with high expenses. The Lower its cap is: 1.) The more it costs the Government and 2.) The less discrimination will remain - for "high risk" people.
I think that Single Payer is the way to go. I could see Single Catastrophic as the "next best" option - perhaps - along with having a "government option" - such as Medicare - for all.
Any change that is substantive will be difficult to implement and need fine tuning! Not making substantive change will be Much Worse!
Thanks!
One may say:
1.) Why National Health Insurance at all?
a. Health insurance is not affordable absent one having a group plan,
b. Employers have increasing incentives Not to have health insurance plans
c. Health care costs in our current system are far higher than nearly all the comparably wealthy countries of the world and most of them have national systems,
d. "The market" - can not resolve this issue and it is no longer an issue that can be ignored without far more dire effects on our economy
2.) Why not have "a government option" that all could choose to take?
a. Such a plan would be prohibitively expensive for either the Federal Government, those enrolling in the plan or both.
b. People would enroll in the plan as their "best alternative" which would skim off a lot of healthy and younger people who would have better options other than it,
c. The costs - per enrolled individual or family would be very high - as there would be a strong incentive to enroll where one had high anticipated medical expenses and no better options.
d. Either a lot of people would not be able to afford the Government Option or a massive Government Subsidy would be necessary to fund it
3.) What options might exist besides a single-payer plan?
a. Continuation of the current system - very high costs which will continue to escalate - not viable - though will continue unless Congress passes a new plan.
b. Government Optional Plan - Such a plan - such as the current Medicare Plan - which per: www.medicare.gov includes in 2009:
1.) Hospital Coverage - $443/month (most get this for free),
2.) Doctor's Coverage - $96.40/month
3.) $1068 - deductible paid per hospitalization period - when an inpatient in a hospital
4.) $135 - yearly deductible on physician's bills
5.) 80% - of "customary and reasonable charges" paid for physician's bills beyond the $135/year deductible (also subject to "customary and reasonable charges"
6.) Prescription Drug coverage - sample - first listed company for King County Washington - costs $16.70/month with a $175/year deductible - with costs per prescription then from $4 and higher amounts depending upon type of prescription.
7.) It should be noted that the "customary and reasonable charge" may well be significantly below the amount physicians charge which makes the doctor's coverage more expensive.
c. Modifying the current system in some substantive way(s) such as:
1.) Providing some type of catastrophic health insurance coverage which is either optional or mandatory for all. This would mandate that the Federal Government paid for "high" medical costs above a ceiling - say: $10,000/year for example, subject to whatever limitations might exist. (Such a proposal might make potential liabilities for private health insurance carriers significantly lower and thereby allow both for more people to get health insurance and for the costs to be lower),
2.) Provide for a Government option or mandated coverage for whomever doesn't have other health insurance coverage,
3.) Allow - for all to enroll in the Federal Health Insurance plans which are currently open to federal employees and retirees, perhaps paying the "unsubsidized" costs of such plans - which for example, our Blue Cross - Basic - which costs us $216.48/month for family coverage ($92.44 for individual coverage) - would cost $865.43/month for family coverage or $369.76 for individual coverage.
d. National Health Insurance - Pro's and Con's?:
1.) If employers would pay into the system, it would cost employers who currently don't have coverage for their employees additional expenses per employee which would be a disincentive to hire employees who met the criteria for coverage,
2.) If employers would Not pay into the system, it would provide more of an incentive for employers to hire employees (particularly where they have health coverage and where the employees might be "risks" insurance wise),
3.) If employers would Not pay into the system, the costs of the system would be higher to either the individuals/families or the government itself,
4.) Start-up costs would be high - the Government would need to pay monies that currently are not its obligation,
5.) All would get equal coverage - which might result in "rationing" of some care or increased wait times for some treatments,
e. What's Best?
1.) I believe that we will pay costs regardless of what we do. The current system is not tenable. It will bankrupt our economy particularly as us "boomers" get older. Ideas such as making all eligible to enroll in the Federal System "at full cost", while perhaps marginally better, will Still not make coverage affordable to most who lack coverage or have poor coverage now.
2.) All the other options have clear High Costs and Liabilities,
3.) Any "optional plans" - will split off - the "haves" and "have nots" - making chronically ill and older citizens - paying much more and those who have low costs - paying relatively little (in comparison),
4.) I see only Two Viable Option Directions:
A. Single Payer - One Plan - for all - probably started with Medicare/Medicaid/Federal employees and expanded to others over time or,
B. Single Catastrophic - One Plan - for all - which doesn't deal with basic medical costs, but subsidizes the "high cost" care - of those who are chronically ill or have massive medical costs - such as with a $10,000/year deductible.
The latter option - basically leaves "the free market" - but recognizes that it can't pay for "high" expenses without leaving out virtually all with high expenses. The Lower its cap is: 1.) The more it costs the Government and 2.) The less discrimination will remain - for "high risk" people.
I think that Single Payer is the way to go. I could see Single Catastrophic as the "next best" option - perhaps - along with having a "government option" - such as Medicare - for all.
Any change that is substantive will be difficult to implement and need fine tuning! Not making substantive change will be Much Worse!
Thanks!
Monday, June 01, 2009
Ronald Takaki
I was saddened to hear of Professor Ronald Takaki's death after nearly 20 years of fighting multiple sclerosis. His writing of the Asian immigrants in California and Hawaii - their similarities and differences from each other was fascinating and helpful for me.
Below is a list of writings of his from Wikipedia.
Below is a list of writings of his from Wikipedia.
- 1971 -- A Pro-slavery Crusade: The Agitation to Reopen the African Slave Trade. New York: Free Press. 10-ISBN 0-029-32430-0; 13-ISBN 978-0-029-32430-1; OCLC 135218
- 1978 -- Iron cages: race and culture in nineteenth-century America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 10-ISBN 0-394-48310-3; 13-ISBN 978-0-394-48310-8; OCLC 5171987
- 1984 -- Pau Hana: Plantation Life and Labor in Hawaii, 1835-1920. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. 10-ISBN 0-824-80956-4; 13-ISBN 978-0-824-80956-0; OCLC 13847902
- 1989 -- Strangers from a Different Shore: A History of Asian Americans. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 10-ISBN 0-833-56169-3; 13-ISBN 978-0-833-56169-5; OCLC 80125499
- 1993 -- Violence in the Black Imagination: Essays and Documents. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10-ISBN 0-195-08249-4; 13-ISBN 978-0-195-08249-4; OCLC 26858128
- 1993 -- A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 10-ISBN 0-316-83112-3; 13-ISBN 978-0-316-83112-3; OCLC 243768090
- 1994 -- Issei and Nisei: The Settling of Japanese America, with Rebecca Steoff. New York: Facts On File. 10-ISBN 0791021793; 13-ISBN 9780791021798; OCLC 28675449
- 1994 -- From the Land of Morning Calm: The Koreans in America. New York: Chelsea House Publishers. 10-ISBN 0-791-02181-5; 13-ISBN 978-0-791-02181-1; OCLC 29478707
- 1994 -- From Different Shores: Perspectives on Race and Ethnicity in America. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10-ISBN 0-195-08368-7; 13-ISBN 978-0-195-08368-2; OCLC 28332474
- 1994 -- Ethnic Islands: The Emergence of Urban Chinese America. New York: Chelsea House. 10-ISBN 0-791-02180-7; 13-ISBN 978-0-791-02180-4; OCLC 28965757
- 1995 -- Lives of Notable Asian Americans: Business, Politics, Science with Angelo Ragaza. New York: Chelsea House. 10-ISBN 0-791-02189-0; 13-ISBN 978-0-791-02189-7; OCLC 31239410
- 1995 -- India in the West: South Asians in America. New York: Chelsea House. 10-ISBN 0-791-02186-6; 13-ISBN 978-0-791-02186-6; OCLC 30360857
- 1995 -- Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb. Boston: Little Brown and Company. 10-ISBN 0-316-83124-7; 13-ISBN 978-0-316-83124-6; OCLC 35272716
- 2001 -- Double Victory: A Multicultural History of America in World War II. Boston: Back Bay. 10-ISBN 0-316-83156-5; 13-ISBN 978-0-316-83156-7; OCLC 47828820
- 2002 -- Debating Diversity: Clashing Perspectives on Race and Ethnicity in America. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10-ISBN 0-195-14651-4; 13-ISBN 978-0-195-14651-6; OCLC 48013647
Sunday, May 31, 2009
White Men - and Justice Sotomayor
"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1
I am a White Man, now 58 years old. I grew up in an environment which was heavily White and Upper-Middle Class. I can imagine Some White Men who may have experienced Some of what it might take to understand (better than I can) the life experiences of Women and People of Color. One former classmate grew up as the sole boy in a household with five sisters. Even with that experience, I doubt that he would say he "knew" what it meant to be "female".
Where White People grow up as a small minority (ethnically) in a community dominated by People of Color they may have perceptions of Race that May faintly be similar to what People of Color such as Justice Sotomayor has experienced. At the same time they would still face the realities that "Whiteness" is valued in our society.
Most Senators such as Lindsay Graham [, who has recently strongly criticized Sotomayor's statement (and asked her to apologize/renounce it): "Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.", ]have not grown up in worlds where they logically would know and understand what it means to be poor, Of Color (or if Male) of being Female.
Reading part of Sotomayor's words (quoted above) I find her statement most understandable and logical! I can accept that Sotomayor may pose a "threat" to many. I can not however, accept that that "threat" is not a "good one" and one which - we White Men - readily deserve.
One need not agree with all of Sotomayor's words or positions to respect her and accept her as a good choice to be one of nine Supreme Court justices. It will be interesting to watch the Republican Senators - tip toe around - the issues of the nomination over the next 1-2 months. I have no doubt that as many as 20-30 of them will vote against her nomination. I will be surprised, however, if they try to filibuster. IF they do I would be shocked to find all the Republicans sticking together and/or any Democrats supporting the filibuster. It will also be interesting to see if the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee stick together and block a vote before the summer recess.
Thanks!
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor
It is simply amazing to learn how "racist" President Obama's new supreme court justice designate is as well as of all her other purported "liberal" tendencies which make her inappropriate for the Supreme Court. Our "Conservative Brothers" (some of whom are female of course) seem to feel that they have Strange rights to hold on to the reactionary positions of their brethren through the Supreme Court. One can only imagine what hysterics they will show if/when one of their fellow reactionaries retires from the Court.
It is also amusing to see how Republican Senators smell the winds of the present and future and are speaking a very different tune!
It is also amusing to see how Republican Senators smell the winds of the present and future and are speaking a very different tune!
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Terrorism - Obama and Others - Am I Crazy?
I find it incredible that United States Presidents and other supporters of The Government have the audacity to say to all of us and the world that they have the responsibility and right to imprison individuals because they are "terrorists" or "enemy combatants", yet they need not have trials to face Specific Charges relating to what they allegedly have done that merits imprisonment.
I could understand, faintly, the idea that where the U.S. is "at war" with a specific country that there could be "prisoners of war". I can also understand arresting an individual for a specific crime such as "attempted murder".
It is totally crazy to me that employees of the U.S. Government or their hired hands can and do seize individuals in other lands and determine that they are "enemy combatants" imprisoning them outside of the United States. Those arrested then have virtually no rights to confront their accusers or otherwise defend themselves.
I try to imagine how we could accept the Chinese Government or perhaps the South Korean Government or any other government coming into the United States and arresting individuals whether citizens of their own country, the United States, or another country.
I try to imagine how we could accept any foreign government arresting individuals totally outside of its borders. Let's assume for a moment that the Iranian Government were to arrest an Israeli National in Turkey. How different that would be viewed than our utterances of "terrorist" or "enemy combatant" as a justification for imprisoning so many.
I really wonder Why we don't get it that we are a lightening rod for hatred and real terrorist incidents from so many groups, who's commonality often is only a hatred of The United States Government.
We, of course, say that We Must do what we do because of "the terrorist threat". It seems much more reasonable for me to believe that ultimately we are "the bully" and "the terrorists" of the world - not as individuals - but as a "machine" of civilian and military leaders and those who follow their orders.
I try to imagine How Many people have been killed (or threatened to be killed) by our supposed enemies. Similarly, I think of how many have been killed and will continue to be killed by U.S. military actions, "mistakes", and other clandestine actions of the CIA and others - perhaps contractors with our Government.
I can easily accept that there are governments in other countries such as Iran and North Korea who are "not good" at best. In Iran though, there seemingly are possibilities of positive change, and the craziness of One leader there is often portrayed as if He "runs everything" - when he doesn't. Iran - also has in part been a force "for good" in Iraq - as its interests have in significant ways been in congruence with what our aims should have been.
I also try to remember that we are the United States who:
1.) Stole our country from Native Americans who "owned it" and shared it with us,
2.) Stole Texas - and really the West - from Mexico
3.) Enslaved Blacks until 1865
4.) Denied Blacks their rights formally until the mid-1960s' - 100 years later,
5.) Put Japanese Americans in concentration camps during World War II
6.) Has overthrown foreign governments in much of the world because they had the audacity to support their own people against business and other interests in the U.S.
7.) Is the only country who has killed and maimed people with nuclear weapons
8.) Consistently supported - "bad guys" - as "our buddies" - such as significant forces and leaders in the Two Counties we are seemingly "at war" in today - turning on them when they refused to play along with us with our changed priorities.
Who are we to be condemning others as we do?! We've got plenty of work still to do at home before we can justifiably condemn the misdeeds of many others.
I hope that I live to see a day when we will really be humble as a nation and work in cooperation with many others throughout the world, no longer being "the bully". It would seem amazing when we might work towards consensus with much of the rest of the world.
In such a "dream world" I could imagine "terrorists" being arrested by "legitimate governments" working in cooperation with each other in congruence with The United States.
Thanks!
I could understand, faintly, the idea that where the U.S. is "at war" with a specific country that there could be "prisoners of war". I can also understand arresting an individual for a specific crime such as "attempted murder".
It is totally crazy to me that employees of the U.S. Government or their hired hands can and do seize individuals in other lands and determine that they are "enemy combatants" imprisoning them outside of the United States. Those arrested then have virtually no rights to confront their accusers or otherwise defend themselves.
I try to imagine how we could accept the Chinese Government or perhaps the South Korean Government or any other government coming into the United States and arresting individuals whether citizens of their own country, the United States, or another country.
I try to imagine how we could accept any foreign government arresting individuals totally outside of its borders. Let's assume for a moment that the Iranian Government were to arrest an Israeli National in Turkey. How different that would be viewed than our utterances of "terrorist" or "enemy combatant" as a justification for imprisoning so many.
I really wonder Why we don't get it that we are a lightening rod for hatred and real terrorist incidents from so many groups, who's commonality often is only a hatred of The United States Government.
We, of course, say that We Must do what we do because of "the terrorist threat". It seems much more reasonable for me to believe that ultimately we are "the bully" and "the terrorists" of the world - not as individuals - but as a "machine" of civilian and military leaders and those who follow their orders.
I try to imagine How Many people have been killed (or threatened to be killed) by our supposed enemies. Similarly, I think of how many have been killed and will continue to be killed by U.S. military actions, "mistakes", and other clandestine actions of the CIA and others - perhaps contractors with our Government.
I can easily accept that there are governments in other countries such as Iran and North Korea who are "not good" at best. In Iran though, there seemingly are possibilities of positive change, and the craziness of One leader there is often portrayed as if He "runs everything" - when he doesn't. Iran - also has in part been a force "for good" in Iraq - as its interests have in significant ways been in congruence with what our aims should have been.
I also try to remember that we are the United States who:
1.) Stole our country from Native Americans who "owned it" and shared it with us,
2.) Stole Texas - and really the West - from Mexico
3.) Enslaved Blacks until 1865
4.) Denied Blacks their rights formally until the mid-1960s' - 100 years later,
5.) Put Japanese Americans in concentration camps during World War II
6.) Has overthrown foreign governments in much of the world because they had the audacity to support their own people against business and other interests in the U.S.
7.) Is the only country who has killed and maimed people with nuclear weapons
8.) Consistently supported - "bad guys" - as "our buddies" - such as significant forces and leaders in the Two Counties we are seemingly "at war" in today - turning on them when they refused to play along with us with our changed priorities.
Who are we to be condemning others as we do?! We've got plenty of work still to do at home before we can justifiably condemn the misdeeds of many others.
I hope that I live to see a day when we will really be humble as a nation and work in cooperation with many others throughout the world, no longer being "the bully". It would seem amazing when we might work towards consensus with much of the rest of the world.
In such a "dream world" I could imagine "terrorists" being arrested by "legitimate governments" working in cooperation with each other in congruence with The United States.
Thanks!
Monday, May 04, 2009
Kent and Jackson State - Killings - and Change
39 Years ago today- the killings of four students at Kent State University shook (particularly) college campuses in much of the U.S. Unlike today, when the word "killings' would signify a gun wielding "deranged" (usually) White Man, these were the National Guard killing students demonstrating against the War in Vietnam.
At that time (and subsequently) Kent State got far, far, far more publicity than the killings a week and a half later at Jackson State University in Mississippi - because the students were "normal" - e.g. White and Not Black. Racism - was clearly alive and vivid in those days.
The demonstrations then were really the last Huge ones of that era and there really hasn't been anything similar since. The following year there were smaller demonstrations with the invasion of Laos but they were mostly confined to places like Madison, Wisconsin - the "hot spots" - where I was in college.
Unfortunately the era ended in many, may ways badly. There was a reaction from the Right against "leftists" which Richard Nixon and others played upon eventually blaming - welfare mothers, Blacks, Gays - and "liberals" in general for their efforts to bring positive, progressive change to our country.
It was imagined and portrayed that equality - as in Civil Rights had been achieved and that now Blacks had to "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" and Whites should not "feel guilty" - nor did they need to do anything more.
Unions were "the enemy" subtly and not-so subtly and business was "good".
Since that day we first moved with the Republican "liberals" becoming more and more extinct over time as "the middle" moved steadily to the Right. The "Dirty Tricks" of U.S. diplomacy which had been there with Kennedy and other Democrats became more blatant and often became the public and private norm for new values.
Today - looking back - we can see both Hope and Concern for the future. Many pin a lot of hopes upon Barack Obama (and to a lesser degree to the new Democratic majorities in Congress). Hopefully, we will learn from the many lessons we can take from the 1960's and other eras. Perhaps we can get away from Manifest Destiny and Papa Knows Best and really accept others within our own society and the world - learning from others, rather than trying to tell them what They should do.
Thanks!
At that time (and subsequently) Kent State got far, far, far more publicity than the killings a week and a half later at Jackson State University in Mississippi - because the students were "normal" - e.g. White and Not Black. Racism - was clearly alive and vivid in those days.
The demonstrations then were really the last Huge ones of that era and there really hasn't been anything similar since. The following year there were smaller demonstrations with the invasion of Laos but they were mostly confined to places like Madison, Wisconsin - the "hot spots" - where I was in college.
Unfortunately the era ended in many, may ways badly. There was a reaction from the Right against "leftists" which Richard Nixon and others played upon eventually blaming - welfare mothers, Blacks, Gays - and "liberals" in general for their efforts to bring positive, progressive change to our country.
It was imagined and portrayed that equality - as in Civil Rights had been achieved and that now Blacks had to "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" and Whites should not "feel guilty" - nor did they need to do anything more.
Unions were "the enemy" subtly and not-so subtly and business was "good".
Since that day we first moved with the Republican "liberals" becoming more and more extinct over time as "the middle" moved steadily to the Right. The "Dirty Tricks" of U.S. diplomacy which had been there with Kennedy and other Democrats became more blatant and often became the public and private norm for new values.
Today - looking back - we can see both Hope and Concern for the future. Many pin a lot of hopes upon Barack Obama (and to a lesser degree to the new Democratic majorities in Congress). Hopefully, we will learn from the many lessons we can take from the 1960's and other eras. Perhaps we can get away from Manifest Destiny and Papa Knows Best and really accept others within our own society and the world - learning from others, rather than trying to tell them what They should do.
Thanks!
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The Freedom to have One's Childhood (or Life)
I think at times of how others in the world don't have the right or luxury to live "their own lives", in varying circumstances. There are those under fire - or extreme control as has happened recently in both Gaza and Iraq, and others who often can't simply live a "normal" life, as you or I might not even imagine. The right to go to a job and not get shot at in the process is something that most of us take for granted.
Last Friday I was walking, taking my step-son home from school. I made a joke - saying that he had to "suffer" for the next two days, with no school. My words were interrupted by a young Black girl, somewhere between 9-11 years old, who was about to enter a large commercial van near where we were walking. She spoke most earnestly to me about how she would love to have school 7 days a week. I realized, as I heard her words, that she had no "home" for her weekends - or possibly - a painful supervised trip with a family member (such as to a women's prison). She clearly was in some type of "supervised living" for children, most likely taken away from a parent or guardian. For her - the "good times" - were her times in school, where she could play and in many ways - "be normal". For her a weekend meant unpleasantness. It saddened me!
Last Friday I was walking, taking my step-son home from school. I made a joke - saying that he had to "suffer" for the next two days, with no school. My words were interrupted by a young Black girl, somewhere between 9-11 years old, who was about to enter a large commercial van near where we were walking. She spoke most earnestly to me about how she would love to have school 7 days a week. I realized, as I heard her words, that she had no "home" for her weekends - or possibly - a painful supervised trip with a family member (such as to a women's prison). She clearly was in some type of "supervised living" for children, most likely taken away from a parent or guardian. For her - the "good times" - were her times in school, where she could play and in many ways - "be normal". For her a weekend meant unpleasantness. It saddened me!
Sunday, April 12, 2009
The Housing Crisis - Some Common Sense ?
Listening to National Public Radio today I heard talk of offering homeowners, who were losing their houses/condos to repossession monies to leave sooner than otherwise would happen, leaving the dwelling in good shape. An example was given of a homeowner being given $2,500 to leave their unit in 30 days, rather than facing eviction. The homeowner in one example given owed $500,000 and it was estimated that the house would eventually be sold for around $189,000. While this example may be extreme, it brought ideas to my head.
Assume that these homeowners are delinquent on $500,000 owed on the house first. IF they owed such interest on a 30 year, 6% fixed interest loan, their payments would be close to $3000/month. If the interest rate was 8%, the payments would be almost $3700/month.
If the house were to be sold for $189,000 and the homeowner is paid $2500 to voluntary relinquish possession in 30 days, why couldn't another option the homeowner could have would be the following:
1.) a new $200,000 mortgage at 6% interest - payments of approximately $1200/month,
2.) a lien on the dwelling forbidding additional liens on the dwelling - essentially indicating that the lender "owned" the dwelling,
3.) provisions - that IF the dwelling was sold (or perhaps vacated) - that the lien holder would have certain rights, including a percentage of any profit, if the unit were sold.
Obviously, some homeowners could not qualify for the $200,000 loan, and thus couldn't qualify for such a plan. Where it might work, it would seemingly save everyone money and hassle.
I'm not trying to imply that creating such a program would be simple, however it would seem a good option to keep homeowner's in their homes and to save the government money.
Thanks!
Assume that these homeowners are delinquent on $500,000 owed on the house first. IF they owed such interest on a 30 year, 6% fixed interest loan, their payments would be close to $3000/month. If the interest rate was 8%, the payments would be almost $3700/month.
If the house were to be sold for $189,000 and the homeowner is paid $2500 to voluntary relinquish possession in 30 days, why couldn't another option the homeowner could have would be the following:
1.) a new $200,000 mortgage at 6% interest - payments of approximately $1200/month,
2.) a lien on the dwelling forbidding additional liens on the dwelling - essentially indicating that the lender "owned" the dwelling,
3.) provisions - that IF the dwelling was sold (or perhaps vacated) - that the lien holder would have certain rights, including a percentage of any profit, if the unit were sold.
Obviously, some homeowners could not qualify for the $200,000 loan, and thus couldn't qualify for such a plan. Where it might work, it would seemingly save everyone money and hassle.
I'm not trying to imply that creating such a program would be simple, however it would seem a good option to keep homeowner's in their homes and to save the government money.
Thanks!
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
"Flipping" - the "Oppressions"
It seems strange how:
"oppressions" - often seem flipped upside down.
Black Men in the South were lynched because they were "oppressing" the "victimized" Southerners (sometimes Women, sometimes not). The White people were somehow the oppressed class, rather than the Blacks. Strange - huh!
We U.Sians - are somehow "oppressed" by all these other countries in the world. Most of those "oppressing us" somehow seem smaller, often people of Color, and on the surface don't wield faintly close to the Power that we do, but....
In centuries past the Jews were somehow oppressing the Christians in countries (and needed to be attacked and sometimes killed as a result) where the Christians were generally a majority, and the Jews had no "military strength" and seemingly didn't have "the power" - but.....
We men often seemingly are oppressed by Women for various reasons. Obviously Sexism is no longer much of an issue huh....
Gazans - are somehow oppressing the Israelis horribly every day, as are the West Bank Residents who aren't Jewish as well. Arabs in general are seemingly oppressing the Christian-Judaic West in so many ways, but....
In all these situations - I see common threads including:
1. Change - bringing insecurities to people,
2. Powers that be - who prefer to Not have the attention focused upon themselves,
3. Scapegoating - people who have their own problems and issues,
4. A lack of clear insights - into what the Problems Really Are
5. Fear
In all these cases people really need to deal with their insecurities, confronting those who manipulate them, learning in depth what the real issues they face are and being strong and compassionate people who can grow and do better.
There are real instances where we are "attacked" for who we are. In such instances generally there is a "true" victimization of (relatively speaking) "powerless" people - such as elder abuse or racist attacks or a lashing out of (generally) really hurting people at Who they perceive as their oppressors (or those they can reach) such as might happen when Young Men are abused and then Abuse others or when Whites are attacked by People of Color - because they are White. In the latter type of instance - those attacked are "victims" - obviously, but really they aren't a "victim class" - because People of Color simply Lack the Power - in Total to keep us Poor White Folks - under control.
Thanks!
"oppressions" - often seem flipped upside down.
Black Men in the South were lynched because they were "oppressing" the "victimized" Southerners (sometimes Women, sometimes not). The White people were somehow the oppressed class, rather than the Blacks. Strange - huh!
We U.Sians - are somehow "oppressed" by all these other countries in the world. Most of those "oppressing us" somehow seem smaller, often people of Color, and on the surface don't wield faintly close to the Power that we do, but....
In centuries past the Jews were somehow oppressing the Christians in countries (and needed to be attacked and sometimes killed as a result) where the Christians were generally a majority, and the Jews had no "military strength" and seemingly didn't have "the power" - but.....
We men often seemingly are oppressed by Women for various reasons. Obviously Sexism is no longer much of an issue huh....
Gazans - are somehow oppressing the Israelis horribly every day, as are the West Bank Residents who aren't Jewish as well. Arabs in general are seemingly oppressing the Christian-Judaic West in so many ways, but....
In all these situations - I see common threads including:
1. Change - bringing insecurities to people,
2. Powers that be - who prefer to Not have the attention focused upon themselves,
3. Scapegoating - people who have their own problems and issues,
4. A lack of clear insights - into what the Problems Really Are
5. Fear
In all these cases people really need to deal with their insecurities, confronting those who manipulate them, learning in depth what the real issues they face are and being strong and compassionate people who can grow and do better.
There are real instances where we are "attacked" for who we are. In such instances generally there is a "true" victimization of (relatively speaking) "powerless" people - such as elder abuse or racist attacks or a lashing out of (generally) really hurting people at Who they perceive as their oppressors (or those they can reach) such as might happen when Young Men are abused and then Abuse others or when Whites are attacked by People of Color - because they are White. In the latter type of instance - those attacked are "victims" - obviously, but really they aren't a "victim class" - because People of Color simply Lack the Power - in Total to keep us Poor White Folks - under control.
Thanks!
Sunday, March 08, 2009
I Can't (and Why Not?)
Often we say things such as: "I'd like to but I can't ....." as in
>>> I'd like to travel to Europe this summer but I can't afford it.
Looking carefully at these statements there can be varying explanations of what we say and feel.
1.) Is it simply a "lie"?
*** I can't go to the store today because I have too many other things to do.
2.) Is it a rationalization for what we want to do, but we don't want to admit it?.
*** I'd like to go out to dinner with you sometime but it wouldn't be fair to my family.
3.) Is it next to impossible or impossible?
*** I can't afford a large screen television because my low income (under $30,000/year) and substantial debts make it not viable.
4.) Or, is it difficult to do but we're not willing to explore How to Make it Happen or are Unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary for it?
Many things in life are hard for us to do. Sometimes it is Not Worth it - too much to give up or it really would hurt others to get it. Sometimes it will break promises we don't want to break. Sometimes it takes a lot of courage.
Should we go there? Sometimes yes and of course sometimes no. Should we seriously explore IF we should try to go there? More frequently!
Thanks!
>>> I'd like to travel to Europe this summer but I can't afford it.
Looking carefully at these statements there can be varying explanations of what we say and feel.
1.) Is it simply a "lie"?
*** I can't go to the store today because I have too many other things to do.
2.) Is it a rationalization for what we want to do, but we don't want to admit it?.
*** I'd like to go out to dinner with you sometime but it wouldn't be fair to my family.
3.) Is it next to impossible or impossible?
*** I can't afford a large screen television because my low income (under $30,000/year) and substantial debts make it not viable.
4.) Or, is it difficult to do but we're not willing to explore How to Make it Happen or are Unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary for it?
Many things in life are hard for us to do. Sometimes it is Not Worth it - too much to give up or it really would hurt others to get it. Sometimes it will break promises we don't want to break. Sometimes it takes a lot of courage.
Should we go there? Sometimes yes and of course sometimes no. Should we seriously explore IF we should try to go there? More frequently!
Thanks!
Friday, March 06, 2009
My "Middle East Primer" (re: Israel)
While I find plenty of disagreements related to Israel and the Palestinians, I find myself clearly "highly prejudiced" and not fully understanding "the other side" in many ways. While I can understand the fears many Jews have of another Holocaust, my sense is that the real, major dangers are long-term continuing with the status quo.
I'd like to state a number of "facts" and try to talk separately about issues relating to them:
1. Jews were a tiny minority in Palestine, which began growing after World War I.
2. Palestinians were a diverse vast majority of the population in Palestine after World War I.
3. Turkey lost its control of Palestine after World War I
4. Conflicting promises were made promising both Palestinian and Jewish States beginning in 1918.
5. Increasingly after World War I the Jewish residents of Palestine gained in numbers and power which met increasing resistance from some Palestinians particularly in the riots of the late 1930's.
6. Palestinians in the period 1918-1948 - were not a single, unified group. The strongest Palestinian leader was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, however he had significant opposition amongst Palestinians.
7. The United Nations proposed the creation of separate Jewish and Palestinian States as hostilities increased in 1947 which was rejected by various Arab States and Palestinian leadership.
8. Israel declared its independence in May, 1948 and was invaded by several Arab armies.
9. There was no "Palestinian Army" and significant numbers of Palestinians did not fight against the new Israeli Army and State.
10. Significant numbers of Palestinians fled their homes often under pressure from the neighboring Israeli forces.
11. Other Palestinians remained within Israel and became Israeli citizens.
12. After the 1967 War, Israel took control of East Jerusalem, the West Bank (both of which had been in Jordan prior to the War), the Golan Heights (which had been in Syria previously) as well as a significant part of Sinai and the Gaza Strip (which had both been within Egypt previously).
13. Israel later negotiated peace treaties with Egypt and later Jordan. The peace treaty with Egypt resulted in a return of significant land in Sinai to Egypt. Jordan basically regained no substantive land.
14. Israel has unsuccessfully (to date) negotiated with Syria regarding making peace related in part to the proposed return of the Golan Heights to Syria.
15. Since the 1973 War the only serious military actions have been Israel's incursions into Lebanon and most recently in Gaza.
16. No country neighboring upon Israel poses a military threat to Israel. Israel's military strength is substantially greater than its neighbor's military forces.
17. Various efforts have been made to make a permanent, comprehensive peace between the Palestinians and Israel.
18. The Palestinians under the leadership of Yasir Arafat and his Fatah Party increasingly sought peace with Israel eventually recognizing Israel's right to exist.
19. The Oslo Accords of 1993 and the Camp David Summit of 2000 both did not lead to a permanent peace agreement. One major area of disagreement from Wikipedia was explained as: "Barak offered to form a Palestinian State initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10 to 25 years the West Bank area would expand to 90-91% (94% excluding greater Jerusalem).[1][2][3] As a result, "Israel would have withdrawn from 63 settlements."[4] The West Bank would be separated by a road from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea, with free passage for Palestinians although Israel reserved the right to close the road for passage in case of emergency. The Palestinian position was that the annexations would block existing road networks between major Palestinian populations. In return, the Israelis would cede 1% of their territory in the Negev Desert to Palestine. The Palestinians rejected this proposal."
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit )
20. In the United States criticism has been leveled at Arafat and the Palestinians for rejecting the Israeli proposals at Camp David in 2000. IF - Arafat had accepted the terms proposed by Israel he almost certainly would have lost power, most probably being assassinated because of how much the Palestinian leadership would have conceded to Israel - related to The West Bank, Jerusalem and the rights of refugees.
21. Towards the end of Arafat's life and since his death Hamas, a much more radical group, has increasingly gained power as the more moderate Fatah Party has failed to bring an independent Palestinian State into existence.
22. Free and fair elections were held in the West Bank and Gaza in 2006 at the urging of the United States and others.
23. Hamas won a significant victory in the 2006 elections.
24. The United States (in particular) has significantly Not recognized the leadership of Hamas because of its failure to fully recognize the existence of The State of Israel.
25. Violence in the West Bank and around Jerusalem has been minimal in recent years.
26. Problems have persisted in Gaza despite its supposed "independence" when Israel required its Jewish residents (who had occupied a huge amount of its land despite being a tiny minority of its population) to leave it.
27. Shelling of Israel coming from Hamas ceased after a ceasefire was established between Hamas and Israel. This ceasefire was broken by Israel, not Hamas in November, 2008.
28. Israeli's invasion of Gaza in December, 2008 was intended to stop the shelling and weaken the power of Hamas as well as ending the smuggling of arms from Egypt into Gaza.
29. Despite the killing of many in Gaza and a clear "military victory" the power of Hamas in Gaza has increased, not decreased as a result of the invasion.
I would argue that prior to 1973 there were serious threats to Israel coming from Egypt, Jordan and Syria, but that the Israeli military was stronger than the combined armies of those three countries. Since 1973 the only potentially serious threats to Israel from Middle Eastern countries have been from Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) and Iran at various times. Iraq and Iran are the only major Middle Eastern States where the Shia (as opposed to Sunni) Moslems are the majority population.
Hamas is no friend to the leadership of all the Middle Eastern countries currently with the possible exception of Iran.
Israeli settlements in the West Bank have grown substantially and continue to grow. Palestinian resentment and violence, where there has been violence, has often related to the expansion of these settlements as well as the expansions within the Jerusalem Area in formerly Palestinian dominated areas.
Peace is possible for Israel. Israel has long not wanted to make peace absent a serious expansion of its pre-1967 borders within the West Bank. Initially it had military concerns related in part to how narrow Israel is in the middle of its country. More recently the concerns are largely not military. The concerns now relate to the desires of some Jews, mostly highly religious, to keep control of: "Judea and Samaria" where an ancient Jewish history certainly exists. These desires inevitably conflict with Palestinian desires for their own country in the West Bank.
Peace is possible IF Israel will accept an independent state primarily of nearly all of the West Bank (with possible "land swaps" in small areas) and Gaza. The negotiations in these areas could result in peace within a relatively short period of time.
The more difficult negotiations will occur related to Jerusalem. Even there, there are certainly possible compromises which can result in peace.
It would seem highly logical to me for The United States - to pressure Israel to make peace with the Palestinians related to: 1.) Settling permanent boundaries in the West Bank and ceding Gaza and 2.) Creating a framework for negotiating related to Jerusalem.
Negotiating related to the rights of refugees won't be simple, but is also resolvable.
A Palestinian State would presumably be demilitarized and thereby not any military threat to Israel.
While I don't want to overly simplify things in my descriptions above, it really is not that complicated. The big issues are: 1.) The Radical Right forces that control much of Israel's political base, 2.) The powers that radicals in Israel (and to a lesser extent within the Palestinians) that sabotage the few honest efforts that are made, 3.) The necessity of negotiating with Hamas and holding them accountable with Serious Negotiations, 4.) The totally crazy - control that the U.S. has pushed in both letting Israel do what it wants and in rare instances doing things against Israeli interests to prevent peace.
We in the U.S. could force Israel to negotiate seriously and probably help bring about peace. Logically we would do this by listening to the moderate forces that exist elsewhere in Europe, Turkey and other places who would work with us if we genuinely sought peace.
Certainly, there are risks to trying to make peace as I've proposed above. I would argue though that the risks of Not Having Peace - are much greater both in the short-term and long-term. Israel will likely eventually lose its strategic importance as oil reserves run out in the Middle East in coming decades. It will likely gradually lose its strategic importance and support from the United States then (if not sooner). It is best to negotiate from a position of strength, not weakness.
The U.S. should focus its energy on making peace and dealing with Iran, which certainly potentially is much more dangerous (as well as Pakistan - which is far more dangerous).
Thank you!
I'd like to state a number of "facts" and try to talk separately about issues relating to them:
1. Jews were a tiny minority in Palestine, which began growing after World War I.
2. Palestinians were a diverse vast majority of the population in Palestine after World War I.
3. Turkey lost its control of Palestine after World War I
4. Conflicting promises were made promising both Palestinian and Jewish States beginning in 1918.
5. Increasingly after World War I the Jewish residents of Palestine gained in numbers and power which met increasing resistance from some Palestinians particularly in the riots of the late 1930's.
6. Palestinians in the period 1918-1948 - were not a single, unified group. The strongest Palestinian leader was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, however he had significant opposition amongst Palestinians.
7. The United Nations proposed the creation of separate Jewish and Palestinian States as hostilities increased in 1947 which was rejected by various Arab States and Palestinian leadership.
8. Israel declared its independence in May, 1948 and was invaded by several Arab armies.
9. There was no "Palestinian Army" and significant numbers of Palestinians did not fight against the new Israeli Army and State.
10. Significant numbers of Palestinians fled their homes often under pressure from the neighboring Israeli forces.
11. Other Palestinians remained within Israel and became Israeli citizens.
12. After the 1967 War, Israel took control of East Jerusalem, the West Bank (both of which had been in Jordan prior to the War), the Golan Heights (which had been in Syria previously) as well as a significant part of Sinai and the Gaza Strip (which had both been within Egypt previously).
13. Israel later negotiated peace treaties with Egypt and later Jordan. The peace treaty with Egypt resulted in a return of significant land in Sinai to Egypt. Jordan basically regained no substantive land.
14. Israel has unsuccessfully (to date) negotiated with Syria regarding making peace related in part to the proposed return of the Golan Heights to Syria.
15. Since the 1973 War the only serious military actions have been Israel's incursions into Lebanon and most recently in Gaza.
16. No country neighboring upon Israel poses a military threat to Israel. Israel's military strength is substantially greater than its neighbor's military forces.
17. Various efforts have been made to make a permanent, comprehensive peace between the Palestinians and Israel.
18. The Palestinians under the leadership of Yasir Arafat and his Fatah Party increasingly sought peace with Israel eventually recognizing Israel's right to exist.
19. The Oslo Accords of 1993 and the Camp David Summit of 2000 both did not lead to a permanent peace agreement. One major area of disagreement from Wikipedia was explained as: "Barak offered to form a Palestinian State initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10 to 25 years the West Bank area would expand to 90-91% (94% excluding greater Jerusalem).[1][2][3] As a result, "Israel would have withdrawn from 63 settlements."[4] The West Bank would be separated by a road from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea, with free passage for Palestinians although Israel reserved the right to close the road for passage in case of emergency. The Palestinian position was that the annexations would block existing road networks between major Palestinian populations. In return, the Israelis would cede 1% of their territory in the Negev Desert to Palestine. The Palestinians rejected this proposal."
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit )
20. In the United States criticism has been leveled at Arafat and the Palestinians for rejecting the Israeli proposals at Camp David in 2000. IF - Arafat had accepted the terms proposed by Israel he almost certainly would have lost power, most probably being assassinated because of how much the Palestinian leadership would have conceded to Israel - related to The West Bank, Jerusalem and the rights of refugees.
21. Towards the end of Arafat's life and since his death Hamas, a much more radical group, has increasingly gained power as the more moderate Fatah Party has failed to bring an independent Palestinian State into existence.
22. Free and fair elections were held in the West Bank and Gaza in 2006 at the urging of the United States and others.
23. Hamas won a significant victory in the 2006 elections.
24. The United States (in particular) has significantly Not recognized the leadership of Hamas because of its failure to fully recognize the existence of The State of Israel.
25. Violence in the West Bank and around Jerusalem has been minimal in recent years.
26. Problems have persisted in Gaza despite its supposed "independence" when Israel required its Jewish residents (who had occupied a huge amount of its land despite being a tiny minority of its population) to leave it.
27. Shelling of Israel coming from Hamas ceased after a ceasefire was established between Hamas and Israel. This ceasefire was broken by Israel, not Hamas in November, 2008.
28. Israeli's invasion of Gaza in December, 2008 was intended to stop the shelling and weaken the power of Hamas as well as ending the smuggling of arms from Egypt into Gaza.
29. Despite the killing of many in Gaza and a clear "military victory" the power of Hamas in Gaza has increased, not decreased as a result of the invasion.
I would argue that prior to 1973 there were serious threats to Israel coming from Egypt, Jordan and Syria, but that the Israeli military was stronger than the combined armies of those three countries. Since 1973 the only potentially serious threats to Israel from Middle Eastern countries have been from Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) and Iran at various times. Iraq and Iran are the only major Middle Eastern States where the Shia (as opposed to Sunni) Moslems are the majority population.
Hamas is no friend to the leadership of all the Middle Eastern countries currently with the possible exception of Iran.
Israeli settlements in the West Bank have grown substantially and continue to grow. Palestinian resentment and violence, where there has been violence, has often related to the expansion of these settlements as well as the expansions within the Jerusalem Area in formerly Palestinian dominated areas.
Peace is possible for Israel. Israel has long not wanted to make peace absent a serious expansion of its pre-1967 borders within the West Bank. Initially it had military concerns related in part to how narrow Israel is in the middle of its country. More recently the concerns are largely not military. The concerns now relate to the desires of some Jews, mostly highly religious, to keep control of: "Judea and Samaria" where an ancient Jewish history certainly exists. These desires inevitably conflict with Palestinian desires for their own country in the West Bank.
Peace is possible IF Israel will accept an independent state primarily of nearly all of the West Bank (with possible "land swaps" in small areas) and Gaza. The negotiations in these areas could result in peace within a relatively short period of time.
The more difficult negotiations will occur related to Jerusalem. Even there, there are certainly possible compromises which can result in peace.
It would seem highly logical to me for The United States - to pressure Israel to make peace with the Palestinians related to: 1.) Settling permanent boundaries in the West Bank and ceding Gaza and 2.) Creating a framework for negotiating related to Jerusalem.
Negotiating related to the rights of refugees won't be simple, but is also resolvable.
A Palestinian State would presumably be demilitarized and thereby not any military threat to Israel.
While I don't want to overly simplify things in my descriptions above, it really is not that complicated. The big issues are: 1.) The Radical Right forces that control much of Israel's political base, 2.) The powers that radicals in Israel (and to a lesser extent within the Palestinians) that sabotage the few honest efforts that are made, 3.) The necessity of negotiating with Hamas and holding them accountable with Serious Negotiations, 4.) The totally crazy - control that the U.S. has pushed in both letting Israel do what it wants and in rare instances doing things against Israeli interests to prevent peace.
We in the U.S. could force Israel to negotiate seriously and probably help bring about peace. Logically we would do this by listening to the moderate forces that exist elsewhere in Europe, Turkey and other places who would work with us if we genuinely sought peace.
Certainly, there are risks to trying to make peace as I've proposed above. I would argue though that the risks of Not Having Peace - are much greater both in the short-term and long-term. Israel will likely eventually lose its strategic importance as oil reserves run out in the Middle East in coming decades. It will likely gradually lose its strategic importance and support from the United States then (if not sooner). It is best to negotiate from a position of strength, not weakness.
The U.S. should focus its energy on making peace and dealing with Iran, which certainly potentially is much more dangerous (as well as Pakistan - which is far more dangerous).
Thank you!
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Feelings - regarding Erectile Dysfunction
In my August 27, 2007 blog entry I "came out" (amongst my tiny readership) about having erectile dysfunction issues. Though it is difficult to talk of such issues, it is important within me to not be silent - as we men often are - about our feelings particularly regarding issues which may be embarrassing to us.
In 1995 I first had questions about something being slightly wrong and gradually it has gotten worse since then. I have had one instance of faintly faintly satisfactory intercourse with the help of a vacuum pump over the past 1 1/2 to 2 years or so. I can feel aroused and orgasm (though orgasming is getting slightly more difficult to do gradually over time) but not get fully erect.
My most recent urologist indicated to me that most men he sees with these issues begin having problems in their 40's. I had naively assumed that it was a "late 50's and older" issue when clear medical causes didn't intervene at a younger age.
I would like to focus now upon feelings, rather than mechanics.
My feelings do not relate to feeling like I'm not a "man" or "real man". I certainly have feelings of insecurity. I wish that I could please my partner and feel good inside in a way that I used to take for granted. Thankfully she accepts me (for the most part) as I am.
The most prevalent feeling I have related to my erectile dysfunction is that I'm (symbolically) beginning a Path Towards Death - at its earliest stages. Logically I know that I could lose all sexual feeling in my penis and still be very much alive, but it doesn't feel that way.
I think of moving towards death as a process of increasing pains and lessening abilities physically and mentally. My getting slower in other areas is not yet as vivid within my imagination as my loss in my penis.
A related feeling is that of losing control (in this instance of Not Feeling what is there). I sense that women are forced as girls and women to cede control in ways that often as primarily het, White, middle class men we commonly don't face absent disabilities or traumas until we are really aging. We don't face menstruation, childbirth, nor being harassed because of our gender often by others we don't know.
I've been very lucky in my life to have never (so far) broken a bone nor had a really major injury or illness. For the most part until e.d. intervened, I was used to feeling like most things with my body were "earned" whether good or bad. I ate or drank too much or the wrong things and felt sick. I exercised and my body was and is in shape.
As a younger man sexual arousal and an erect penis went together. Sometimes in seemingly non-sexual situations I'd not be aware of something turning me on until I felt an erection tightening my pants. I used to enjoy sexual times with my lover for several hours at a minimum where I'd be aroused off and on and really enjoying the mutual touch. In such situations my sexual pleasure generally did not correlate with number or frequency of intercourse or orgasms. Getting turned on then was a feeling that tingled and moved me but had quite varying situations. Pleasing my partner and feeling a connection with her was the key ingredient then.
It has been increasingly disconcerting to have little or no sense of whether my penis is marginally erect or totally flaccid. To feel very sexually aroused and to be "totally soft" is unsettling to put it mildly.
In my earlier e.d. days I felt caught in a trap. I had trouble then sustaining erections and lost confidence that I could do so. Gradually my confidence would interfere more and more to the point where I never knew if my softening penis was of physiological or psychological origin.
I am thankful that both my partner and I value physical closeness, affection and touch itself. To feel oneself totally tied to one's penis - would make any man - totally lost with e.d. issues.
It is difficult though to deal with the conflicting feelings when her desires and needs are different from mine. I feel badly that I can't give her a pleasure that she would like to have with me. I want to try to pleasure her however she wants to be pleasured by me. At the same time, as in other areas in our lives, sometimes we both want something, but it's not the same thing. Sometimes we are both separately needy individuals wanting to have the other focusing upon our needs.
E.d. has helped me to realize how lucky I am in most areas in my life. I never felt great about my sex life on the whole, because I took for granted that it would remain as it was. I'm learning not to take other things for granted and to appreciate them more than I used to.
I feel sad to have the e.d. issues I do. I feel lucky in being able to try to share a little of one area of my emotional life here, despite how scary it is to open myself up as I am doing.
Thanks!
In 1995 I first had questions about something being slightly wrong and gradually it has gotten worse since then. I have had one instance of faintly faintly satisfactory intercourse with the help of a vacuum pump over the past 1 1/2 to 2 years or so. I can feel aroused and orgasm (though orgasming is getting slightly more difficult to do gradually over time) but not get fully erect.
My most recent urologist indicated to me that most men he sees with these issues begin having problems in their 40's. I had naively assumed that it was a "late 50's and older" issue when clear medical causes didn't intervene at a younger age.
I would like to focus now upon feelings, rather than mechanics.
My feelings do not relate to feeling like I'm not a "man" or "real man". I certainly have feelings of insecurity. I wish that I could please my partner and feel good inside in a way that I used to take for granted. Thankfully she accepts me (for the most part) as I am.
The most prevalent feeling I have related to my erectile dysfunction is that I'm (symbolically) beginning a Path Towards Death - at its earliest stages. Logically I know that I could lose all sexual feeling in my penis and still be very much alive, but it doesn't feel that way.
I think of moving towards death as a process of increasing pains and lessening abilities physically and mentally. My getting slower in other areas is not yet as vivid within my imagination as my loss in my penis.
A related feeling is that of losing control (in this instance of Not Feeling what is there). I sense that women are forced as girls and women to cede control in ways that often as primarily het, White, middle class men we commonly don't face absent disabilities or traumas until we are really aging. We don't face menstruation, childbirth, nor being harassed because of our gender often by others we don't know.
I've been very lucky in my life to have never (so far) broken a bone nor had a really major injury or illness. For the most part until e.d. intervened, I was used to feeling like most things with my body were "earned" whether good or bad. I ate or drank too much or the wrong things and felt sick. I exercised and my body was and is in shape.
As a younger man sexual arousal and an erect penis went together. Sometimes in seemingly non-sexual situations I'd not be aware of something turning me on until I felt an erection tightening my pants. I used to enjoy sexual times with my lover for several hours at a minimum where I'd be aroused off and on and really enjoying the mutual touch. In such situations my sexual pleasure generally did not correlate with number or frequency of intercourse or orgasms. Getting turned on then was a feeling that tingled and moved me but had quite varying situations. Pleasing my partner and feeling a connection with her was the key ingredient then.
It has been increasingly disconcerting to have little or no sense of whether my penis is marginally erect or totally flaccid. To feel very sexually aroused and to be "totally soft" is unsettling to put it mildly.
In my earlier e.d. days I felt caught in a trap. I had trouble then sustaining erections and lost confidence that I could do so. Gradually my confidence would interfere more and more to the point where I never knew if my softening penis was of physiological or psychological origin.
I am thankful that both my partner and I value physical closeness, affection and touch itself. To feel oneself totally tied to one's penis - would make any man - totally lost with e.d. issues.
It is difficult though to deal with the conflicting feelings when her desires and needs are different from mine. I feel badly that I can't give her a pleasure that she would like to have with me. I want to try to pleasure her however she wants to be pleasured by me. At the same time, as in other areas in our lives, sometimes we both want something, but it's not the same thing. Sometimes we are both separately needy individuals wanting to have the other focusing upon our needs.
E.d. has helped me to realize how lucky I am in most areas in my life. I never felt great about my sex life on the whole, because I took for granted that it would remain as it was. I'm learning not to take other things for granted and to appreciate them more than I used to.
I feel sad to have the e.d. issues I do. I feel lucky in being able to try to share a little of one area of my emotional life here, despite how scary it is to open myself up as I am doing.
Thanks!
Friday, February 20, 2009
Masculinity and Gran Turino
Clint Eastwood brilliantly portrays a great, stereotypically male role in Gran Turino.
He is the old racist, sexist male living in a decaying urban neighborhood with Hmong neighbors.
Eastwood "Names" his neighbors using crude, rude stereotyped names. The neighbor's daughter gently accepts and plays on his words, accepting him into their extended family community, using food as a prime mediator.
Eastwood's guns and guts in standing up to the local Hmong gang members, including the cousin of his neighbors earns their respect. His teaching their lost son how to "be male" includes the tough outer persona as well as his work ethic.
In Eastwood - we can see both the positives and more clearly the negative parts that push us as men to cope with fear, using ridicule as we muddle through things, trying to ignore our feelings.
The movie is a brilliant tale, despite its limitations in tolerance -race and gender.
Thanks!
He is the old racist, sexist male living in a decaying urban neighborhood with Hmong neighbors.
Eastwood "Names" his neighbors using crude, rude stereotyped names. The neighbor's daughter gently accepts and plays on his words, accepting him into their extended family community, using food as a prime mediator.
Eastwood's guns and guts in standing up to the local Hmong gang members, including the cousin of his neighbors earns their respect. His teaching their lost son how to "be male" includes the tough outer persona as well as his work ethic.
In Eastwood - we can see both the positives and more clearly the negative parts that push us as men to cope with fear, using ridicule as we muddle through things, trying to ignore our feelings.
The movie is a brilliant tale, despite its limitations in tolerance -race and gender.
Thanks!
Monday, February 16, 2009
Limitations on Executive Pay - for Bailed Out Companies
Recently in the news was talk of limiting executive compensation to a maximum of $500,000/year for executives of companies which receive federal bailout assistance. In response to this proposal was some mention of the "impossibility" of this for some executives living in Manhattan. The reported on costs such as: mortgage payments of $8,000/month with cooperative assessments of another $8,000/month for their residences which had an average purchase price of around $3,500,000. On top of these expenses were the costs of private school tuition for several children as well as various other significantly high expenses which were deemed necessary.
In reading this I wonder about those fellow citizens who have lost their jobs, and have minimal, if any, income coming in as well as the workers making $25,000, $50,000, or even $100,000/year who are working less hours and getting less pay, or losing their overtime pay. I think also of those living heavily on investments whose values may have dropped 30-35% or more now.
I heard no talk of how such executives might need to sell their co-op apartments and move to less expensive places to live, or send their children to public schools, or do many other things that "regular Americans" are needing to do as the economy crumbles.
It seems sad that some such people don't seem to "get it" related to the need to make significant sacrifices because of what has happened recently.
Thanks!
In reading this I wonder about those fellow citizens who have lost their jobs, and have minimal, if any, income coming in as well as the workers making $25,000, $50,000, or even $100,000/year who are working less hours and getting less pay, or losing their overtime pay. I think also of those living heavily on investments whose values may have dropped 30-35% or more now.
I heard no talk of how such executives might need to sell their co-op apartments and move to less expensive places to live, or send their children to public schools, or do many other things that "regular Americans" are needing to do as the economy crumbles.
It seems sad that some such people don't seem to "get it" related to the need to make significant sacrifices because of what has happened recently.
Thanks!
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Boycotting Israel - in Part -
I find this interesting and positive, whether one agrees or disagrees - from Jewish Peace News:
February 3 2009
Dear All,
Last week, with initial hesitation but finally strong conviction, I endorsed the Call for a U.S. Cultural and Academic Boycott of Israel. HYPERLINK "http://usacbi.wordpress.com/" http://usacbi.wordpress.com/ I’d like to offer my reasons to friends, family and comrades. I have tried in fullest conscience to think this through.
My hesitation: I profoundly believe in the visible/invisible liberatory social power of creative and intellectual boundary- crossings. I’ve been educated by these all my life, and by centuries-long cross-conversations about human freedom, justice and power—also, the forces that try to silence them.
As an American Jew, over almost 30 years, I’ve joined with other concerned Jews in various kinds of coalition-building and anti-Occupation work. I’ve seen the kinds of organized efforts to stifle—in the US and elsewhere-- critiques of Israel’s policies--the Occupation’s denial of Palestinian humanity, destruction of Palestinian lives and livelihoods, the “settlements,” the state’s physical and psychological walls against dialogue—and the efforts to condemn any critiques as anti-Semitism. Along with other activists and writers I’ve been named on right-wing “shit-lists” as “Israel-hating” or “Jew-hating.” I have also seen attacks within American academia and media on Arab American, Muslim, Jewish scholars and teachers whose work critically explores the foundations and practices of Israeli state and society.
Until now, as a believer in boundary-crossings, I would not have endorsed a cultural and academic boycott. But Israel’s continuing, annihilative assaults in Gaza, and the one-sided rationalizations for them have driven me to re-examine my thoughts about cultural exchanges. Israel’s blockading of information, compassionate aid, international witness and free cultural and scholarly expression has become extreme and morally stone-blind. Israeli Arab parties have been banned from the elections, Israeli Jewish dissidents arrested, Israeli youth imprisoned for conscientious refusal of military service. Academic institutions are surely only relative sites of power. But they are, in their funding and governance, implicated with state economic and military power. And US media, institutions and official policy have gone along with all this.
To boycott a repressive military state should not mean backing away from individuals struggling against the policies of that state. So, in continued solidarity with the Palestinian people’s long resistance, and also with those Israeli activists, teachers, students, artists, writers, intellectuals, journalists, refuseniks, feminists and others who oppose the means and ends of the Occupation, I have signed my name to this call.
Adrienne Rich
http://jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com/ = source
February 3 2009
Dear All,
Last week, with initial hesitation but finally strong conviction, I endorsed the Call for a U.S. Cultural and Academic Boycott of Israel. HYPERLINK "http://usacbi.wordpress.com/" http://usacbi.wordpress.com/ I’d like to offer my reasons to friends, family and comrades. I have tried in fullest conscience to think this through.
My hesitation: I profoundly believe in the visible/invisible liberatory social power of creative and intellectual boundary- crossings. I’ve been educated by these all my life, and by centuries-long cross-conversations about human freedom, justice and power—also, the forces that try to silence them.
As an American Jew, over almost 30 years, I’ve joined with other concerned Jews in various kinds of coalition-building and anti-Occupation work. I’ve seen the kinds of organized efforts to stifle—in the US and elsewhere-- critiques of Israel’s policies--the Occupation’s denial of Palestinian humanity, destruction of Palestinian lives and livelihoods, the “settlements,” the state’s physical and psychological walls against dialogue—and the efforts to condemn any critiques as anti-Semitism. Along with other activists and writers I’ve been named on right-wing “shit-lists” as “Israel-hating” or “Jew-hating.” I have also seen attacks within American academia and media on Arab American, Muslim, Jewish scholars and teachers whose work critically explores the foundations and practices of Israeli state and society.
Until now, as a believer in boundary-crossings, I would not have endorsed a cultural and academic boycott. But Israel’s continuing, annihilative assaults in Gaza, and the one-sided rationalizations for them have driven me to re-examine my thoughts about cultural exchanges. Israel’s blockading of information, compassionate aid, international witness and free cultural and scholarly expression has become extreme and morally stone-blind. Israeli Arab parties have been banned from the elections, Israeli Jewish dissidents arrested, Israeli youth imprisoned for conscientious refusal of military service. Academic institutions are surely only relative sites of power. But they are, in their funding and governance, implicated with state economic and military power. And US media, institutions and official policy have gone along with all this.
To boycott a repressive military state should not mean backing away from individuals struggling against the policies of that state. So, in continued solidarity with the Palestinian people’s long resistance, and also with those Israeli activists, teachers, students, artists, writers, intellectuals, journalists, refuseniks, feminists and others who oppose the means and ends of the Occupation, I have signed my name to this call.
Adrienne Rich
http://jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com/ = source
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Being "Delusional" - re: Helping Build Positive Change
What follows below is a response to a lengthy posting I made on a Jewish Facebook Group topical page:
--------------
"There was a truce - where there weren't rockets heading towards Israel. Israel violated the truce with a raid I believe November 4th or 5th, 2008."
I'm sorry, this was so ridiculous I had to reply. (By the way, what is with the dashes? It makes reading almost unbearable.)
The day after the truce was officially agreed upon, six rockets fired into Sderot. Dozens in the months following.
On November 4th, Israel shot at armed militants digging a tunnel into Israel, and you call that breaking the ceasefire?
Feh!
Hamas uses EYE GOUGING on Fatah members in the Gaza Strip, and that doesn't even make the news. You seem to be one of those "liberal" and "progressive" Jews, who thinks that all the Arabs really want is to live in peace with Israel, who is the mighty aggressor. That if Israel just played nice, everything would be all peaches and rainbows. Where I come from, we call you "delusional."
----------------
It is hard, and a waste of time, to respond directly to statements such as is noted above. Simply put "we don't speak the same language". For me Israel (and the U.S.) face a situation which has complexities but basically comes down to how one can find a way beyond the mistrust to make peace. I see Palestinians who basically want their own independent country, They want it to be free of interference from Israel and also free from the dictates of other Arab countries. I see a current impossibility of this occurring until Israel and the U.S. talk in good faith respecting the Palestinians and no longer Dictating the end result (which is a continuation of the status quo).
In all of this I see "extremists" both Palestinian and Israeli (and Jewish Americans) who bitterly fight anything that isn't their ideal future (Palestinian) or a minor modification of the status quo (Isreali/Jewish).
For the woman who I've quoted above probably nothing that I've said "speaks the truth". Part of me hesitates to guess what her reality is. I'd guess that some of the following are true for her. Palestinians and Arabs are killers who threaten to kill Israelis who have done nothing to deserve any aggressive behavior. Palestinians break agreements and Israelis follow them. Israel is a democracy and the Arabs have no democracies. If one negotiates with the Palestinians they will continue their past history of breaking agreements and Israel will "lose" no matter what is agreed upon. In the end Israel risks its own destruction and another holocaust if it doesn't remain militarily strong and vigilant against Arab aggression.
If we are to really succeed in the future at making peace we will need to confront the fears and help show that peace is possible. We also will need to break through much of the general ignorance and apathy of most Americans. People will need to see the costs in lives and money that U.S. foreign policy and Israeli policy force upon both others and ourselves.
Thanks!
--------------
"There was a truce - where there weren't rockets heading towards Israel. Israel violated the truce with a raid I believe November 4th or 5th, 2008."
I'm sorry, this was so ridiculous I had to reply. (By the way, what is with the dashes? It makes reading almost unbearable.)
The day after the truce was officially agreed upon, six rockets fired into Sderot. Dozens in the months following.
On November 4th, Israel shot at armed militants digging a tunnel into Israel, and you call that breaking the ceasefire?
Feh!
Hamas uses EYE GOUGING on Fatah members in the Gaza Strip, and that doesn't even make the news. You seem to be one of those "liberal" and "progressive" Jews, who thinks that all the Arabs really want is to live in peace with Israel, who is the mighty aggressor. That if Israel just played nice, everything would be all peaches and rainbows. Where I come from, we call you "delusional."
----------------
It is hard, and a waste of time, to respond directly to statements such as is noted above. Simply put "we don't speak the same language". For me Israel (and the U.S.) face a situation which has complexities but basically comes down to how one can find a way beyond the mistrust to make peace. I see Palestinians who basically want their own independent country, They want it to be free of interference from Israel and also free from the dictates of other Arab countries. I see a current impossibility of this occurring until Israel and the U.S. talk in good faith respecting the Palestinians and no longer Dictating the end result (which is a continuation of the status quo).
In all of this I see "extremists" both Palestinian and Israeli (and Jewish Americans) who bitterly fight anything that isn't their ideal future (Palestinian) or a minor modification of the status quo (Isreali/Jewish).
For the woman who I've quoted above probably nothing that I've said "speaks the truth". Part of me hesitates to guess what her reality is. I'd guess that some of the following are true for her. Palestinians and Arabs are killers who threaten to kill Israelis who have done nothing to deserve any aggressive behavior. Palestinians break agreements and Israelis follow them. Israel is a democracy and the Arabs have no democracies. If one negotiates with the Palestinians they will continue their past history of breaking agreements and Israel will "lose" no matter what is agreed upon. In the end Israel risks its own destruction and another holocaust if it doesn't remain militarily strong and vigilant against Arab aggression.
If we are to really succeed in the future at making peace we will need to confront the fears and help show that peace is possible. We also will need to break through much of the general ignorance and apathy of most Americans. People will need to see the costs in lives and money that U.S. foreign policy and Israeli policy force upon both others and ourselves.
Thanks!
Thursday, January 22, 2009
"Real History" - What is it ?
As individuals we face the "reality" of viewing the world in our own way. That way is shaped by whatever is critical within ourselves that pushes and pulls us.
Where we've been traumatized such as by violence when young, we may turn inward or outward to confront our demons. The abused child may turn into an abuser who pushes his/her pain onto others. Another person with a similar background may instead tear herself/himself apart through self-mutilation or substance abuse. In some cases another reaction to such an experience may be to seemingly transcend the hurt through hard work and be "balanced" and "sane".
In looking outward we may look at those in other countries in varying ways. Some of the criticisms of Obama and the Democrats are that they/we have a naive view of others - the terrorists and the like who need to be Confronted. In this type of a world (from my perspective) we are "good people" who are under threat from "bad people".
In my world view I try to see myself and those around us as "good", but "not great". I also try to see and understand those who are "different". I often feel like my fears of them are not necessarily rational or right, but rather are shaped by history and by often difficult realities.
Israel certainly faces hostility both to itself and to its Jewish citizens. Certainly this hostility is based in part on facts of its history and current realities.
As most Jews I was taught a history of "our people" which lead to an unquestioning support of Israel. As I've grown older I've read more and more which makes me question a lot of the basic presumptions I grew up with.
In talking with other Jews whose experiences aren't similar to mine, I need to recognize our differences and find common ground before I can expect to be heard at all. In talking with non-Jews I need to recognize how Israel and "Jewish concerns" may be very different to them, often much less important. Listening and being patient (which is hard) is important!
Besides dealing with these issues we also face "dominant paradigms" such as how the media and politicians have common "understandings" of the Middle East which continue to perpetrate perspectives which portray Palestinians and Arabs in general as "bad people" and certainly as not our equals.
The Middle East is but one example of where we have a lot of work to do before we can expect change to emanate seriously - from the U.S. Perhaps the recent "War" may help in the propaganda campaign, perhaps it will make things worse. Time will tell!
Thanks!
Where we've been traumatized such as by violence when young, we may turn inward or outward to confront our demons. The abused child may turn into an abuser who pushes his/her pain onto others. Another person with a similar background may instead tear herself/himself apart through self-mutilation or substance abuse. In some cases another reaction to such an experience may be to seemingly transcend the hurt through hard work and be "balanced" and "sane".
In looking outward we may look at those in other countries in varying ways. Some of the criticisms of Obama and the Democrats are that they/we have a naive view of others - the terrorists and the like who need to be Confronted. In this type of a world (from my perspective) we are "good people" who are under threat from "bad people".
In my world view I try to see myself and those around us as "good", but "not great". I also try to see and understand those who are "different". I often feel like my fears of them are not necessarily rational or right, but rather are shaped by history and by often difficult realities.
Israel certainly faces hostility both to itself and to its Jewish citizens. Certainly this hostility is based in part on facts of its history and current realities.
As most Jews I was taught a history of "our people" which lead to an unquestioning support of Israel. As I've grown older I've read more and more which makes me question a lot of the basic presumptions I grew up with.
In talking with other Jews whose experiences aren't similar to mine, I need to recognize our differences and find common ground before I can expect to be heard at all. In talking with non-Jews I need to recognize how Israel and "Jewish concerns" may be very different to them, often much less important. Listening and being patient (which is hard) is important!
Besides dealing with these issues we also face "dominant paradigms" such as how the media and politicians have common "understandings" of the Middle East which continue to perpetrate perspectives which portray Palestinians and Arabs in general as "bad people" and certainly as not our equals.
The Middle East is but one example of where we have a lot of work to do before we can expect change to emanate seriously - from the U.S. Perhaps the recent "War" may help in the propaganda campaign, perhaps it will make things worse. Time will tell!
Thanks!
Sunday, January 18, 2009
A Truce - After What ??
I have witnessed horrific deaths
Massacres if you will
Through images – through feelings
A war
1200+ deaths
– terror
no power, little food – no escape
- - Contrasting Greatly –
Perhaps little over
One Hundredth – of the Deaths
== Rockets who killed a Few
“Fear” – is of course Why
“Those People” – can only understand force
“Deterrence” (will stop them)
“We are the Good People”
They should now surrender
No longer killing or threatening
Our Souls – are singed –
We aren’t innocent
We are witnesses
To Madness – Murder
“I was abused as a Child,
so I, of course, must Kill,
Kill and Kill – to Prevent
Further Abuse of Myself
- Who – Strangely – Continue
- To Kill
- Not Seeing
- The Goodness in My Heart"
-
We are Naked
We are Weak
It is sad
Massacres if you will
Through images – through feelings
A war
1200+ deaths
– terror
no power, little food – no escape
- - Contrasting Greatly –
Perhaps little over
One Hundredth – of the Deaths
== Rockets who killed a Few
“Fear” – is of course Why
“Those People” – can only understand force
“Deterrence” (will stop them)
“We are the Good People”
They should now surrender
No longer killing or threatening
Our Souls – are singed –
We aren’t innocent
We are witnesses
To Madness – Murder
“I was abused as a Child,
so I, of course, must Kill,
Kill and Kill – to Prevent
Further Abuse of Myself
- Who – Strangely – Continue
- To Kill
- Not Seeing
- The Goodness in My Heart"
-
We are Naked
We are Weak
It is sad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)