I am of the opinion, developed over these last five years, that President Obama is on the verge of greatness! He appears to be using a principle of 'bottom-up' leadership, by which a leader leads through consensus building. The fundamental task in this type of leadership is to keep everybody focused on the aims and objectives he is intending to achieve.
Let's look at some of these objectives.
1. Obamacare. This objective is not only important for the country but for the entire mass of humanity. It will establish the wherewithal to monitor and control the healthcare of human beings received from recognized and approved healthcare providers.
To even establish the means for such a monumental project has been herculean, but to get the system functioning is a tribute to technological innovation and ingenuity!
Along the way, President Obama has had to step back looking for where consensus lie , ever mindful of the ultimate goal. Witness how he has yet again delayed implementing new standards for insurance policies. Opponents comment: Why doesn't he just give up?
2. Foreign policy. In Syria, he has been unable to reach consensus among US partners, principally, the EU. In the Ukraine, he is forging ahead of the EU, temporarily, by offering support including financial assistance. His objective is clear nonetheless: stop heavy-handed treatment of the poor and downtrodden by tyrants.
3. The Green Earth Project. Because of the need for a constant flow of oil, he has only kept the development of proven oil reserves to a minimum.
4. Upgrading the US military. Currently, the Administration is making the military technologically advanced beyond what anyone could possibly imagine. I applaud the President in his steadfastness to this objective, which is always at odds with Congressional interest to keep things as they are in their several districts.
Furthermore, he appears committed to ensuring the military's endeavors worldwide on behalf of peace are supported.
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Good Resources
I am recommending really great resources for ideas in stimulating thought and action! Currently, those below:
1. The GPS program of Fareed Zakaria on CNN Sundays can boast of a fine list of books on political matters, far better than CSPAN's-2. His list contains provocative entries and is consistently up-to-date in the point-of-views expressed having merit.
2. BBC-radio, heard in Las Vegas in the middle of the night, has notable in-depth analyses of current events occurring--especially in Africa. I've found the series on Nigeria that traces its military intervention into the political arena to the 1960s particularly enlightening.
3. When I was in El Paso, I discovered that travelers from South-of-the-Border brought with them rumors about what could be happening in the countries from which they had just come. These conjectures, though fanciful, were nonetheless useful in prompting me to do related factual research upon which the rumors might be based. (see "What's Up John?" 7/13/13 item,)
Here, in Las Vegas, I think, because visitors come from all over the globe, the rumor mill is churning out a veritable landfill! I find rumors, no matter how preposterous, fun; and grist for serious study on some topic of current interest.
4. I'm a good resource, too. I posted in scribblings today, May 10, 2014, an item in What's up? that can help my friends. If it proves useful, I'll continue to do so, but only under scribblings,
1. The GPS program of Fareed Zakaria on CNN Sundays can boast of a fine list of books on political matters, far better than CSPAN's-2. His list contains provocative entries and is consistently up-to-date in the point-of-views expressed having merit.
2. BBC-radio, heard in Las Vegas in the middle of the night, has notable in-depth analyses of current events occurring--especially in Africa. I've found the series on Nigeria that traces its military intervention into the political arena to the 1960s particularly enlightening.
3. When I was in El Paso, I discovered that travelers from South-of-the-Border brought with them rumors about what could be happening in the countries from which they had just come. These conjectures, though fanciful, were nonetheless useful in prompting me to do related factual research upon which the rumors might be based. (see "What's Up John?" 7/13/13 item,)
Here, in Las Vegas, I think, because visitors come from all over the globe, the rumor mill is churning out a veritable landfill! I find rumors, no matter how preposterous, fun; and grist for serious study on some topic of current interest.
4. I'm a good resource, too. I posted in scribblings today, May 10, 2014, an item in What's up? that can help my friends. If it proves useful, I'll continue to do so, but only under scribblings,
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Lessons from History I: Is Russia a Christian Nation?
Background material about my philosophy of history
I majored in history in undergraduate school. But I never developed a philosophy of history until I studied Jewish history under Rabbai Jonathan Plaut, who was the Rabbai in the Reformed tradition at Temple Emanuel, San Jose, California when I knew him. His father was an illustrous scholar in the Reformed movement before him. His instruction on the significance of history in understanding the Jewish mind enriched my discernment how one's past is embedded in one's own self-identity. Accordingly, I embrace some notion of the collective unconscious espoused by psychoanalysts, early in its analysis of the mental, such as (I think) Karl Jaspers.
Understanding history in terms of cultural clashes
To question the existence of the collective unconcious is to fail to take history seriously. Stalin, in an apparent effort to rid Russia of non-Russian ways, attempted to kill off its Armenian population, as had the Turks during WWI, Hitler tried to rid Germany of any remnant of Jewish influence by waging a holocaust on the Jewish people. Pol Pot of Cambodia aimed at killing off those who embraced Western ways, particularly, inculcated by the French, in order to return his nation to its humbler beginnings. Mao of China wanted to return his country to its agrarian beginnings, too, forsaking Western influence as alien to the Asian Mind. Today, the Afghans bolt at giving up their tribal traditions.
Some nations have attempted to integrate the "new" with the "old." You can see this in Africa, where Christianity is accepted within a broader framework of native religions whose elements still remain; and you can see this in Haiti whose people are known to practice indigenous voodo yet go to Catholic church on Sunday. The "old" in China is Confusianism that has been embedded into the very fabric of Chinese culture; and the "new" is Buddhism and Chrisitianity--the latter only accepted to a modest degree, today, because of its insistence on affecting the everyday life of the believer, whereas the former emphasizes a spiritual, non-practical ascendence of the believer through everyday religious practice. The important point is that the "old" has precedence within a cultural framework. The "new" must be integrated into its primordial foundation. Indeed, most cultures have a religious structure inherent to them, because it is the means by which a societal member is identified as a person or being of that culture. It is not an accident that churches in the US had retained the birth and death records of their parishoners long before the local government were given that task regarding its citizenry.
Let's look at Russia today as a case-in-point how instructive paying attention to the remembered beginnings of a people is. For, I regard the Russian mind today as molded from its origins when Russians were Tartars. Essentially nomadic, the Tartars were a fierce, rough society, strongly rooted in their traditions that could be carried with them and practiced wherever they went. Each clan was an outspoken group, dedicated to boldly insinuate their interests into the society at large. The Tsars had a tough time controlling these independent groups, who would go their own way; so did Stalin; and so does President Putin in 2014! Currently, the Muslims want their own independence to become just like the other satellite states who have asserted themselves as independent nations. Yet The Russian Confederation of Independent States, composed of its several states, each work together to retain the overall Federation structure, while maintaining their separate languages and their own governmental structure and politic.
It is true that the Eastern Orthodox Church was established centuries ago in Russia, but I see it as an "add-on" to be integrated with what had gone before.
One may ask, why did some Russian authorities urge me to stay on in Russia after I had provided input from the 1980s into the makings of the new Russian Constitution. It is because I understood their point of view and respected who they are as a people with longings and potentials especial to them.
I majored in history in undergraduate school. But I never developed a philosophy of history until I studied Jewish history under Rabbai Jonathan Plaut, who was the Rabbai in the Reformed tradition at Temple Emanuel, San Jose, California when I knew him. His father was an illustrous scholar in the Reformed movement before him. His instruction on the significance of history in understanding the Jewish mind enriched my discernment how one's past is embedded in one's own self-identity. Accordingly, I embrace some notion of the collective unconscious espoused by psychoanalysts, early in its analysis of the mental, such as (I think) Karl Jaspers.
Understanding history in terms of cultural clashes
To question the existence of the collective unconcious is to fail to take history seriously. Stalin, in an apparent effort to rid Russia of non-Russian ways, attempted to kill off its Armenian population, as had the Turks during WWI, Hitler tried to rid Germany of any remnant of Jewish influence by waging a holocaust on the Jewish people. Pol Pot of Cambodia aimed at killing off those who embraced Western ways, particularly, inculcated by the French, in order to return his nation to its humbler beginnings. Mao of China wanted to return his country to its agrarian beginnings, too, forsaking Western influence as alien to the Asian Mind. Today, the Afghans bolt at giving up their tribal traditions.
Some nations have attempted to integrate the "new" with the "old." You can see this in Africa, where Christianity is accepted within a broader framework of native religions whose elements still remain; and you can see this in Haiti whose people are known to practice indigenous voodo yet go to Catholic church on Sunday. The "old" in China is Confusianism that has been embedded into the very fabric of Chinese culture; and the "new" is Buddhism and Chrisitianity--the latter only accepted to a modest degree, today, because of its insistence on affecting the everyday life of the believer, whereas the former emphasizes a spiritual, non-practical ascendence of the believer through everyday religious practice. The important point is that the "old" has precedence within a cultural framework. The "new" must be integrated into its primordial foundation. Indeed, most cultures have a religious structure inherent to them, because it is the means by which a societal member is identified as a person or being of that culture. It is not an accident that churches in the US had retained the birth and death records of their parishoners long before the local government were given that task regarding its citizenry.
Let's look at Russia today as a case-in-point how instructive paying attention to the remembered beginnings of a people is. For, I regard the Russian mind today as molded from its origins when Russians were Tartars. Essentially nomadic, the Tartars were a fierce, rough society, strongly rooted in their traditions that could be carried with them and practiced wherever they went. Each clan was an outspoken group, dedicated to boldly insinuate their interests into the society at large. The Tsars had a tough time controlling these independent groups, who would go their own way; so did Stalin; and so does President Putin in 2014! Currently, the Muslims want their own independence to become just like the other satellite states who have asserted themselves as independent nations. Yet The Russian Confederation of Independent States, composed of its several states, each work together to retain the overall Federation structure, while maintaining their separate languages and their own governmental structure and politic.
It is true that the Eastern Orthodox Church was established centuries ago in Russia, but I see it as an "add-on" to be integrated with what had gone before.
One may ask, why did some Russian authorities urge me to stay on in Russia after I had provided input from the 1980s into the makings of the new Russian Constitution. It is because I understood their point of view and respected who they are as a people with longings and potentials especial to them.
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Follow Ups
The purpose of this item is to relate an item in one of my blogs to some event--expected or reported.
Globalization's regionalism as set forth in "SC: The Demise of the Western World," 8/27/2011 Social-X series and theorized about in "X. Globalization's Regionalism," under the label Whack-O Theory, 12/10/13 John's "What's Up?" series offers an explanation of China's military presence in Asian islands in the Pacific within the framework of the Globalization movement.
The item "Educative Learning Under Capitalism" 11/28/12 Ruminations series, picked up in India, apparently has resulted in parents' greater interest in the learning of their kids, as motivation toward greater student achievement.
The item "The Real Reason for US to stay in Afghanistan" 11/22/13 John's "What's Up?" series relates to the US insistence for military presence in that country past 2014.
The item "The Ukrainian Developing Nation!" 12/8/13 Ruminations series emphasizes the country's stance for independent status among the nations of the world, including its desire to look West toward the EU for business and commerce.
The item I just posted under John's "What's Up?" 5/10/14 will prove true by the end of 2014 for those who can take advantage of it.
Globalization's regionalism as set forth in "SC: The Demise of the Western World," 8/27/2011 Social-X series and theorized about in "X. Globalization's Regionalism," under the label Whack-O Theory, 12/10/13 John's "What's Up?" series offers an explanation of China's military presence in Asian islands in the Pacific within the framework of the Globalization movement.
The item "Educative Learning Under Capitalism" 11/28/12 Ruminations series, picked up in India, apparently has resulted in parents' greater interest in the learning of their kids, as motivation toward greater student achievement.
The item "The Real Reason for US to stay in Afghanistan" 11/22/13 John's "What's Up?" series relates to the US insistence for military presence in that country past 2014.
The item "The Ukrainian Developing Nation!" 12/8/13 Ruminations series emphasizes the country's stance for independent status among the nations of the world, including its desire to look West toward the EU for business and commerce.
The item I just posted under John's "What's Up?" 5/10/14 will prove true by the end of 2014 for those who can take advantage of it.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
The Theoretical vs. The Practical
In political theory, there's socialism, communism and capitalism--as if these are three competing theories, one of which is right; and the other two are wrong. I'm here to tell you (so long as I'm alive!) that they are all right and all wrong. From the practical world, each draws upon human experience as the foundation of its fundamental thesis. The trouble is they generalize too far--and when they do, they enter the world of absurdity, where nothing exists but fantasies! I recall sitting in on a lecture on Marxism. The lecturer was boldly stating without a smile on his face that, as Marx first stated, the world is inexorably headed toward a new era of never-ending peace once capitalism has been overthrown. No one need do anything to rid the world of capitalism, the forces of history will destroy it.
Now, there are instances when it's important to share equally one's wealth: after a physical catastrophe--a monstrous earthquake, a volcanic eruption of enormous proportions. Survivors help each other out of beneficence. So too, cooperatives emerge when people find that by pooling their assets, they can support a capital venture they could not afford and so could not benefit from--an "A" for socialism. And you can't motivate an individual to do something without giving him a reward--the old stimulus-response mechanism, the basic truth of capitalism. (As in the adage, work hard, and it will pay off in huge dividends!) So, every one of these theories is right--to a degree.
You may recall in chemistry or physics class, the mathematical equation of a law or principle was written on the board, and the professor expounded on its meaning. But the application made in the laboratory turned out to be a mere approximation of what was its precise meaning. In other words, a demonstration of a particular principle produces rarely the findings anticipated from its formula derivations. The "close enough" empirical, laboratory findings to the formula derivations are explained as variations due to the inability to sufficiently control the conditions of testing in the laboratory situation.
In other words, the world of thought, of intellectual perfectability is never that of the real, physical world. The chemist or physicist aims at producing findings in the laboratory that are only approximations, given the variances of testing conditions, to his theoretical expectations.
That same conclusion occurs in other contexts. For instance, interior home design. The interior decorator produces on his laptop a design of a room that contains the elements he wants to put in it at some physical location approximating what he believes are the home owner's expectations. But a property owner won't know if that's really the way he wants the room to look until he starts living in it! For instance, the interior designer may think the plasma TV will look great over the mantelpiece, distant from where the inhabitants will sit to see it; but in actuality, it's not in a location viewers will find comfortable to watch.
Similarly, computer system designers will schedule several re-iterations of coding based upon their dissatisfaction with how the programs actually mesh together into a coherent, systematic whole in practice. That is to say, systems design can't really achieved until it's beta-tested in various situations where it is to be used.
So, the perfect can't be a theoretical structure; but the physical, real instance of its application is by definition, perfect because it is real--which counters Plato's thesis of the real world being the ideal conceived in thought! Thought captures merely the repetitive elements of what occurs in reality. Another way of saying this, the practical world of physical things in interaction controls how we can change the world as we would want, our conceptions being sometimes no more what history can tell us regarding our past success in relating thought to action.
I think that's what I mean!
Now, there are instances when it's important to share equally one's wealth: after a physical catastrophe--a monstrous earthquake, a volcanic eruption of enormous proportions. Survivors help each other out of beneficence. So too, cooperatives emerge when people find that by pooling their assets, they can support a capital venture they could not afford and so could not benefit from--an "A" for socialism. And you can't motivate an individual to do something without giving him a reward--the old stimulus-response mechanism, the basic truth of capitalism. (As in the adage, work hard, and it will pay off in huge dividends!) So, every one of these theories is right--to a degree.
You may recall in chemistry or physics class, the mathematical equation of a law or principle was written on the board, and the professor expounded on its meaning. But the application made in the laboratory turned out to be a mere approximation of what was its precise meaning. In other words, a demonstration of a particular principle produces rarely the findings anticipated from its formula derivations. The "close enough" empirical, laboratory findings to the formula derivations are explained as variations due to the inability to sufficiently control the conditions of testing in the laboratory situation.
In other words, the world of thought, of intellectual perfectability is never that of the real, physical world. The chemist or physicist aims at producing findings in the laboratory that are only approximations, given the variances of testing conditions, to his theoretical expectations.
That same conclusion occurs in other contexts. For instance, interior home design. The interior decorator produces on his laptop a design of a room that contains the elements he wants to put in it at some physical location approximating what he believes are the home owner's expectations. But a property owner won't know if that's really the way he wants the room to look until he starts living in it! For instance, the interior designer may think the plasma TV will look great over the mantelpiece, distant from where the inhabitants will sit to see it; but in actuality, it's not in a location viewers will find comfortable to watch.
Similarly, computer system designers will schedule several re-iterations of coding based upon their dissatisfaction with how the programs actually mesh together into a coherent, systematic whole in practice. That is to say, systems design can't really achieved until it's beta-tested in various situations where it is to be used.
So, the perfect can't be a theoretical structure; but the physical, real instance of its application is by definition, perfect because it is real--which counters Plato's thesis of the real world being the ideal conceived in thought! Thought captures merely the repetitive elements of what occurs in reality. Another way of saying this, the practical world of physical things in interaction controls how we can change the world as we would want, our conceptions being sometimes no more what history can tell us regarding our past success in relating thought to action.
I think that's what I mean!
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Tea Partiers vs. High Rollers
Since the founding of the United States, there's always been an isolationist tendency. Europe and Asia are far away lands, so it's really difficult to think of the US as intimately tied to countries continents away. In today's politics, the Tea Party, to my mind, is of isolationist persuasion.
I am sympathetic to its message that the United States should be concerned with the ways it spends its monies. It ought not spend beyond its means of what it can afford. But here is the rub. Citizens think of the US economy in ways similar to their own financial situation. In a way, that can be a good thing: the bank where they put their money will tell them when they're overdrawn, the stores where they shop will tell them when they have exceeded their credit limit. The financial institution where they want to take out a loan for a house, boat, etc. will tell them how much they can borrow.
The point is it's not the family that decides what their financial limitations are--it's those with whom they seek additional financial resources, even if those be their own monies entrusted to some bank that provides them with a monthly statement of cash flow.
Now, it is the Tea Party who's proclaimed what the US' credit limits should be. Encouraged by sundry economists, to whom they turn for reassurance, and armed with their tried-and-true common sense (drawn from their limited financial experience), these would-be-do-gooders have judged that the US is spending too much, as if they really knew what the limits of credit are for the United States Government of America. I submit to these Tea Partiers who think the US has borrowed too much that they turn their attention to what our creditors think are its limits and to note what they believe when such limits have been exceeded, viz., when the US bonds are no longer in demand for purchase on the open market.
Contrast their knowledge of economics with that of the high rollers. These are the CEOs of giant corporations that deal on the international transactions on the open markets. They engage in investment speculation based on their empirical forecasts of the economic value of the good faith and credit of US on stock exchanges worldwide. They are betting that the worth of US assets is far greater than its debts. Accordingly, they, including banks around the globe, buy US treasury bonds for their portfolios; and more importantly, they exhibit confidence in the US ability to repay what it has borrowed. Now, if that confidence were found to be ill-founded, the markets where our bonds are exchanged would act much differently than they are: it's up to the markets to decide what are the limits to US credit; it's not for the Tea Party (despite their experiential knowledge base and the opinions of economists who advise them) to decide.
What the Tea-Party people don't take into account is what the US actually does on the international scene. It's as if the US government should aim to do solely what pleases the Tea Partiers! It should conform the US international and national transactions to their budgetary narrow interests and knowledge-base. So, no Obamacare--it's too expensive to save many more US citizen lives through a national health care program. So, bring the US military home; get rid of the nearly 1000 US military installations around the world and keep bases on home territory! That's the opinions, I would aver, the Tea Partiers would hold, if anybody were foolish enough to want to know what such opinions are, given the foundations. Well, the plain fact is that because of the US military presence around the world, we, globally, have entered an era where there is more peace and prosperity than heretofore witnessed on the planet. And, the President accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, as he said, on behalf of the US military for their much needed and appreciated endeavors around the world! That acknowledgement of US value in the world is translated, I believe, into economic confidence around the world that the US will pay off what it owes others, and specifically, will not default this month or at any future date.
So, what's this about the debt ceiling being debated in Congress? (a question posed in the style of John Stossel)
It seems that Congress would influence the interest rates on US Treasury bonds and notes by attempting to set its own "debt ceiling" and by, furthermore, instituting austerity measures as a coherent plan, such as the sequester, to give the impression to High Rollers that the US is reining in on US spending.
Nice try but no cigar! My bet is on the High Rollers, who through the marketplace exchanges will continue to determine the US credit limits for national and international transactions. Too bad, Tea Partiers; and too bad, US administration and Congress.
I am sympathetic to its message that the United States should be concerned with the ways it spends its monies. It ought not spend beyond its means of what it can afford. But here is the rub. Citizens think of the US economy in ways similar to their own financial situation. In a way, that can be a good thing: the bank where they put their money will tell them when they're overdrawn, the stores where they shop will tell them when they have exceeded their credit limit. The financial institution where they want to take out a loan for a house, boat, etc. will tell them how much they can borrow.
The point is it's not the family that decides what their financial limitations are--it's those with whom they seek additional financial resources, even if those be their own monies entrusted to some bank that provides them with a monthly statement of cash flow.
Now, it is the Tea Party who's proclaimed what the US' credit limits should be. Encouraged by sundry economists, to whom they turn for reassurance, and armed with their tried-and-true common sense (drawn from their limited financial experience), these would-be-do-gooders have judged that the US is spending too much, as if they really knew what the limits of credit are for the United States Government of America. I submit to these Tea Partiers who think the US has borrowed too much that they turn their attention to what our creditors think are its limits and to note what they believe when such limits have been exceeded, viz., when the US bonds are no longer in demand for purchase on the open market.
Contrast their knowledge of economics with that of the high rollers. These are the CEOs of giant corporations that deal on the international transactions on the open markets. They engage in investment speculation based on their empirical forecasts of the economic value of the good faith and credit of US on stock exchanges worldwide. They are betting that the worth of US assets is far greater than its debts. Accordingly, they, including banks around the globe, buy US treasury bonds for their portfolios; and more importantly, they exhibit confidence in the US ability to repay what it has borrowed. Now, if that confidence were found to be ill-founded, the markets where our bonds are exchanged would act much differently than they are: it's up to the markets to decide what are the limits to US credit; it's not for the Tea Party (despite their experiential knowledge base and the opinions of economists who advise them) to decide.
What the Tea-Party people don't take into account is what the US actually does on the international scene. It's as if the US government should aim to do solely what pleases the Tea Partiers! It should conform the US international and national transactions to their budgetary narrow interests and knowledge-base. So, no Obamacare--it's too expensive to save many more US citizen lives through a national health care program. So, bring the US military home; get rid of the nearly 1000 US military installations around the world and keep bases on home territory! That's the opinions, I would aver, the Tea Partiers would hold, if anybody were foolish enough to want to know what such opinions are, given the foundations. Well, the plain fact is that because of the US military presence around the world, we, globally, have entered an era where there is more peace and prosperity than heretofore witnessed on the planet. And, the President accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, as he said, on behalf of the US military for their much needed and appreciated endeavors around the world! That acknowledgement of US value in the world is translated, I believe, into economic confidence around the world that the US will pay off what it owes others, and specifically, will not default this month or at any future date.
So, what's this about the debt ceiling being debated in Congress? (a question posed in the style of John Stossel)
It seems that Congress would influence the interest rates on US Treasury bonds and notes by attempting to set its own "debt ceiling" and by, furthermore, instituting austerity measures as a coherent plan, such as the sequester, to give the impression to High Rollers that the US is reining in on US spending.
Nice try but no cigar! My bet is on the High Rollers, who through the marketplace exchanges will continue to determine the US credit limits for national and international transactions. Too bad, Tea Partiers; and too bad, US administration and Congress.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Israel vs. Iran
There are marked similarities between the two countries--Israel and Iran--as each strives for their own independent existence. For one thing, both are Middle-Eastern in orientation. For another, each lives in isolation in its neighborhood.
Israel's Isolation
I think it is right to say that, though the Jews who migrated to Israel were predominantly European, the country has still retained its historical, Middle-East roots; and because of this, Israelis should no longer be deemed Western culturally, anymore than the Afghans should be lumped in with the English to form a contrived, make-shift tradition. No, Israelis are vying with other peoples of the region for water rights, arable land and mega-city sites. Of course, they want West Bank settlements for their people, a growing population. Of course, they want Jerusalem as their nation's capital, because it is a thriving metropolis. Their interests and concerns are, since 1948, existentially and myopically zeroed-in to Middle-East locations. Nor have they shown interest that their country become an international power. It is not like Brazil, whose aspirations for power and prestige pervade the entire South American continent. The Israelis have made it clear; Israelis are self-absorbed with the land of Israel: they are developing a territory for their people--and; the world can go to hell! Moreover, it has made clear it does not take UN condemnation resolutions against Israeli actions seriously; nor has it shown any intention to join with other nations on matters of international concern, such as in signing the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons treaty, that several Middle-East nations have become a party to, including Iran in 1979.
Look, after the slaughter of 6 million Jews in Europe, their brothers and sisters, Jews are necessarily out for themselves! They have seen how others regard them. The Jews in Berlin prior to Hitler ingratiated themselves into the German Government; they wanted to be Germans first; Jews second. Look what it got them--a residence in some Nazi-run pogrom and ultimately, a place-name on one of the innumerable lists of Holocaust Victims.
This self-centered stance of the Israelis has caused isolation from their neighbors. Jordan is friendly, but that country is composed of Palestinians ousted from land now part of Israel. Who did the ousting is of no concern today; the point is, Jordan is not only Middle-Eastern but Islamic and Palestinian in sympathy.
Syria years ago attempted to develop nuclear capability and Israel bombed its nuclear site in 2007s. In fact, ever since 1967, when the neighboring Arab states lined up to throw Israelis into the Mediterranean sea--like any bullying nations gang up against some nation they perceive weak and undesirable--Israel has found good reason to live in isolation. Currently, it is trying to court weak African nations, e.g., Kenya and S. Sudan, who appear as beleaguered among stronghold leaders on the African Continent as Israel does amid the power forces in the Middle-East. It simply has no regionally friendly nations to cavort with. Turkey's out, since the 2010 fiasco in which Israel stopped humanitarian aid to flow to the Palestinians via Turkey ships. Eygpt is not against Israel, but nonetheless, Egyptians must look with horror at the treatment Palestinians are getting, because the Arab world as a block and Israel see little value in dealing with them. So, as things stand now, the Palestinians are low-men-on-the-Arab-totem-pole; and Israel's existence serves as an obnoxious reminder that the Arab states have not coalesced into a major political entity, and thus are not much better off than the Jewish state in the control over regional affairs, some affecting them.
Be it remembered, that the Zionists established Israel by double-crossing Great Britain, which had been given responsibility for the Sinai Peninsula by the major world powers. So from the start of their nation, the Israeli Jews have been turning off countries, who could help them, but who won't ever again.
The sad commentary on this lonely state among the Islamic countries surrounding it is the region could really benefit from Muslims intermingling with Jews! Israel could provide technical assistance in bringing the Sinai region into the 21st Century. Israel's prowess and expertese has been clearly demonstrated in all the wars it has waged with its neighbors; but what if they were not simply to dominate the region technologically and culturally but were to extend its influence--pouring goodwill beyond its borders to those it has defeated in battle many times since its inception? I think it shameful that after England had won the Falkand War, it let Argentina lie in rubble, rather than attempt to build friendship among those it had defeated, as the US did in Germany and Japan after World War II. Making allies out of combatant enemies is what the United States has accomplished--to its credit--revealing its exceptional character.
Remember too, that the United States, not China, initated trade agreements between the two countries, when China was existing as an international pariah. The Republicans at the time, I think, were really mad at President Nixon that he should seek out meetings in Beijing! And maybe, there would be no Republican support for him to remain in office after what Republicans believed was wrong for him to do in reaching out to China.
Finally, may I add a further comment that I believe, though can't prove, that the reason why Jews have been so badly isolated by neighboring Arabs is not so much because of Jewish insistence to make for themselves a comfortable home in the Middle-East (despite Islamic protestations and hostile actions); but I think the overarching reason is because it's the US Jews who made the Zionist cause succeed. Note that US support is not all that great, even if the US has provided Israel with nuclear capabilities, including the nuclear bomb. Have you seen American troops occupying Israeli soil or American military joining forces with the Israeli military in joint ventures? Has Israel become an Iraq or even a Philippines? Visible daily presence of American forces--like those present in Germany today--is what I consider championing a nation's existence that houses them. Rather, it appears to be that the US has simply given Israel's military toys to play with!
Iran's Isolation and its current attempts to break out
That the United States support for Israel is the real reason for the Islamic world's hatred of Israel may be open to debate, but there can be no debate that the United States' history of interference in the affairs of Iran has brought about Iran's present isolation. Indeed, many Congressmen and other politicians are right now calling for United States military action to overthrow the Iranian government and make another Iraq (but deleting aims involving becoming a nuclear power)! More nation-building in the offing?
Surrounding Iran are Afghanistan and Iraq--both invaded by United States troops, presumably to rid the area of Al Quaeda. Is Iran to be the next to experience US military occupation? Iranians might well think so.
Since the 1950s, the US has sent a clear message to Iran: the US will have a say in the Iranian affairs, even should that government be democratically elected. Why? Because Iran is an oil exporter. When Iran nationalized that industry, it effectively said goodby to the US and Britain big oil corporations, e.g., Gulf Oil, Socony-Mobil, Standard Oil of New Jersey, and Standard Oil of California. Iran was convinced at the time that those corporations were keeping up to 40% of profits for themselves from the newly state-created National Iranian Oil Company. It now sells oil to China, who already counts on 15% of its oil from Iranian wells. Moreover, China is benefitting from its entry into the Middle-East through Pakistan and Iran by inserting its own sphere of influence.
Russia continues to supply Iran with arms and in other ways, too, shows its support. So, though isolated by the contiguity of US-sponsored nation-states, Iran is aligning itself with powerful brokers that will enable it to remain existing independent despite attempts to topple its government, e.g., through sanctions. Some Arab states are concerned over Iran's current aggressive behavior in supporting Hezbollah and Syra.
Nevertheless, because the Arab world is so fractured, US corporations have held sway in controlling oil traffic through the US military predominant presence, particularly, that of the US navy.
Iran's Boldest Venture to Break Out of Multilateralism Isolation: Iraq
Al-Sadr, Iraqi Islamic leader, has recently returned from Iran. He sides with the Shiites, though is known to treat Sunnis fairly. Even as Al-Maliki turns up the heat for a Shiite-controlled national government without due representation of Shiites and Kurds, Al-Sadr in an Iraqi leadership role, to my mind, carries the interests of Iran onto Iraq's soil.
It has been said for years that certain members of the Iraqi government were beneficiaries of Iranian money in lieu of their promulgating policies favorable to Iran, but now with Al-Sadr back, I believe the Iranian dominance of the Shiite government will become even more pronounced and its support of local, terrorist Shiite-favored groups will become more visible.
We come now to the present state of affairs between Israel and Iran.
"Israel vs. Iran"
In occasional times of conflict between Islamic nations and Israel, Iran has sent its missiles onto Israeli soil--with little effect or harm. Iran for over 18 years has been attempting to develop nuclear capability, but the IAEA has just reported that Iran now has the technical know-how to make a nuclear bomb--after 18 years!
Be it noted that Iran is noted for its lack of hostile aggression over centuries of being tested and monitored!
The charge currently leveled against Iran's entry into the nuclear arena is that it would lead to proliferation of nuclear weaponry across the Arab world--with Saudis next in line to develop. I think it is necessary to admit who is really behind prohibiting Iran to develop nuclear capability that should enhance its prospects of self-automy: it's the big oil corporations with their sweet deals with oil-producing barons--the same oil corporations who are seeking, ever since the close of the Iraqi Awe-and-Shudder (I mean, Shock and Awe) War, to benefit from making deals with Iraq to control its oil production and distribution, along with the deals the Helliburton Corporation has been able to make there.
The United States is caught in a bind. It either makes good its threat to do all possible to prevent Iran from making nuclear weapons or it must be willing to give up on its American construct, its new Iraq. To be sure, should Romeny become President, the path becomes clear: He would promote American Big Business interests in the region (which sees more oil to profit from), and take on Iran, perhaps by bombing, perhaps by invading. He would curtail entitlements programs that aren't specified in the Constitution and carry on military campaigns for the sake of "security and protection," which are sanctioned in the Constitution. Be it observed that over the past 50 years, Big oil has manipulated the region's politics with the help of US military might and without much objection from home. American foreign policy in the Middle-East still is dictated by the oil giants.
No wonder the Arab world, including the Saudis, hate the US so! The US government has promoted the interests of Big Business at the expense of the citizenry in oil rich Arab countries!
Advocates of being tough with Iran frequently use the proliferation argument. If Iran were to develop nuclear capability, then other nations, such as Saudi Arabia, would follow its lead. This argument is the old domino theory applied to the Middle-East: If Vietnam were to fall to communism, the entire Asian continent would become communist, perhaps even the Philippines and Australia, too. There's nothing I know of that suggests every country--Egypt?--is anxious to become a nuclear power. Indeed, some have renounced such ambitions, already.
My personal take
I think the United States and other countries of the world can live with another nuclear power in the region. True, it might end Israel's monopoly, assuming that indeed France gave Israel the bomb in the 1960s, as is stated by some. Then too, nobody's shutting down North Korea, nor is intending to invade it. Of course, North Korea is not oil-producing and not of interest to major US corporations.
You know, it is said that lobbyists write regulatory legislation in their particular fields of interest for their governments, that really regulation of industries is a joke. After the 2008 melt-down of banks and investment companies, which seemingly were subject to close regulation, one gives pause to wonder whether there's truth in the thought that just about any government is in the hands of the corporations who can afford to control it, e.g., by buying politicians and by curtailing the funding of regulatory governmental agencies. Maybe, the US is not really the democracy it looks like and avows to be.
Israel's Isolation
I think it is right to say that, though the Jews who migrated to Israel were predominantly European, the country has still retained its historical, Middle-East roots; and because of this, Israelis should no longer be deemed Western culturally, anymore than the Afghans should be lumped in with the English to form a contrived, make-shift tradition. No, Israelis are vying with other peoples of the region for water rights, arable land and mega-city sites. Of course, they want West Bank settlements for their people, a growing population. Of course, they want Jerusalem as their nation's capital, because it is a thriving metropolis. Their interests and concerns are, since 1948, existentially and myopically zeroed-in to Middle-East locations. Nor have they shown interest that their country become an international power. It is not like Brazil, whose aspirations for power and prestige pervade the entire South American continent. The Israelis have made it clear; Israelis are self-absorbed with the land of Israel: they are developing a territory for their people--and; the world can go to hell! Moreover, it has made clear it does not take UN condemnation resolutions against Israeli actions seriously; nor has it shown any intention to join with other nations on matters of international concern, such as in signing the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons treaty, that several Middle-East nations have become a party to, including Iran in 1979.
Look, after the slaughter of 6 million Jews in Europe, their brothers and sisters, Jews are necessarily out for themselves! They have seen how others regard them. The Jews in Berlin prior to Hitler ingratiated themselves into the German Government; they wanted to be Germans first; Jews second. Look what it got them--a residence in some Nazi-run pogrom and ultimately, a place-name on one of the innumerable lists of Holocaust Victims.
This self-centered stance of the Israelis has caused isolation from their neighbors. Jordan is friendly, but that country is composed of Palestinians ousted from land now part of Israel. Who did the ousting is of no concern today; the point is, Jordan is not only Middle-Eastern but Islamic and Palestinian in sympathy.
Syria years ago attempted to develop nuclear capability and Israel bombed its nuclear site in 2007s. In fact, ever since 1967, when the neighboring Arab states lined up to throw Israelis into the Mediterranean sea--like any bullying nations gang up against some nation they perceive weak and undesirable--Israel has found good reason to live in isolation. Currently, it is trying to court weak African nations, e.g., Kenya and S. Sudan, who appear as beleaguered among stronghold leaders on the African Continent as Israel does amid the power forces in the Middle-East. It simply has no regionally friendly nations to cavort with. Turkey's out, since the 2010 fiasco in which Israel stopped humanitarian aid to flow to the Palestinians via Turkey ships. Eygpt is not against Israel, but nonetheless, Egyptians must look with horror at the treatment Palestinians are getting, because the Arab world as a block and Israel see little value in dealing with them. So, as things stand now, the Palestinians are low-men-on-the-Arab-totem-pole; and Israel's existence serves as an obnoxious reminder that the Arab states have not coalesced into a major political entity, and thus are not much better off than the Jewish state in the control over regional affairs, some affecting them.
Be it remembered, that the Zionists established Israel by double-crossing Great Britain, which had been given responsibility for the Sinai Peninsula by the major world powers. So from the start of their nation, the Israeli Jews have been turning off countries, who could help them, but who won't ever again.
The sad commentary on this lonely state among the Islamic countries surrounding it is the region could really benefit from Muslims intermingling with Jews! Israel could provide technical assistance in bringing the Sinai region into the 21st Century. Israel's prowess and expertese has been clearly demonstrated in all the wars it has waged with its neighbors; but what if they were not simply to dominate the region technologically and culturally but were to extend its influence--pouring goodwill beyond its borders to those it has defeated in battle many times since its inception? I think it shameful that after England had won the Falkand War, it let Argentina lie in rubble, rather than attempt to build friendship among those it had defeated, as the US did in Germany and Japan after World War II. Making allies out of combatant enemies is what the United States has accomplished--to its credit--revealing its exceptional character.
Remember too, that the United States, not China, initated trade agreements between the two countries, when China was existing as an international pariah. The Republicans at the time, I think, were really mad at President Nixon that he should seek out meetings in Beijing! And maybe, there would be no Republican support for him to remain in office after what Republicans believed was wrong for him to do in reaching out to China.
Finally, may I add a further comment that I believe, though can't prove, that the reason why Jews have been so badly isolated by neighboring Arabs is not so much because of Jewish insistence to make for themselves a comfortable home in the Middle-East (despite Islamic protestations and hostile actions); but I think the overarching reason is because it's the US Jews who made the Zionist cause succeed. Note that US support is not all that great, even if the US has provided Israel with nuclear capabilities, including the nuclear bomb. Have you seen American troops occupying Israeli soil or American military joining forces with the Israeli military in joint ventures? Has Israel become an Iraq or even a Philippines? Visible daily presence of American forces--like those present in Germany today--is what I consider championing a nation's existence that houses them. Rather, it appears to be that the US has simply given Israel's military toys to play with!
Iran's Isolation and its current attempts to break out
That the United States support for Israel is the real reason for the Islamic world's hatred of Israel may be open to debate, but there can be no debate that the United States' history of interference in the affairs of Iran has brought about Iran's present isolation. Indeed, many Congressmen and other politicians are right now calling for United States military action to overthrow the Iranian government and make another Iraq (but deleting aims involving becoming a nuclear power)! More nation-building in the offing?
Surrounding Iran are Afghanistan and Iraq--both invaded by United States troops, presumably to rid the area of Al Quaeda. Is Iran to be the next to experience US military occupation? Iranians might well think so.
Since the 1950s, the US has sent a clear message to Iran: the US will have a say in the Iranian affairs, even should that government be democratically elected. Why? Because Iran is an oil exporter. When Iran nationalized that industry, it effectively said goodby to the US and Britain big oil corporations, e.g., Gulf Oil, Socony-Mobil, Standard Oil of New Jersey, and Standard Oil of California. Iran was convinced at the time that those corporations were keeping up to 40% of profits for themselves from the newly state-created National Iranian Oil Company. It now sells oil to China, who already counts on 15% of its oil from Iranian wells. Moreover, China is benefitting from its entry into the Middle-East through Pakistan and Iran by inserting its own sphere of influence.
Russia continues to supply Iran with arms and in other ways, too, shows its support. So, though isolated by the contiguity of US-sponsored nation-states, Iran is aligning itself with powerful brokers that will enable it to remain existing independent despite attempts to topple its government, e.g., through sanctions. Some Arab states are concerned over Iran's current aggressive behavior in supporting Hezbollah and Syra.
Nevertheless, because the Arab world is so fractured, US corporations have held sway in controlling oil traffic through the US military predominant presence, particularly, that of the US navy.
Iran's Boldest Venture to Break Out of Multilateralism Isolation: Iraq
Al-Sadr, Iraqi Islamic leader, has recently returned from Iran. He sides with the Shiites, though is known to treat Sunnis fairly. Even as Al-Maliki turns up the heat for a Shiite-controlled national government without due representation of Shiites and Kurds, Al-Sadr in an Iraqi leadership role, to my mind, carries the interests of Iran onto Iraq's soil.
It has been said for years that certain members of the Iraqi government were beneficiaries of Iranian money in lieu of their promulgating policies favorable to Iran, but now with Al-Sadr back, I believe the Iranian dominance of the Shiite government will become even more pronounced and its support of local, terrorist Shiite-favored groups will become more visible.
We come now to the present state of affairs between Israel and Iran.
"Israel vs. Iran"
In occasional times of conflict between Islamic nations and Israel, Iran has sent its missiles onto Israeli soil--with little effect or harm. Iran for over 18 years has been attempting to develop nuclear capability, but the IAEA has just reported that Iran now has the technical know-how to make a nuclear bomb--after 18 years!
Be it noted that Iran is noted for its lack of hostile aggression over centuries of being tested and monitored!
The charge currently leveled against Iran's entry into the nuclear arena is that it would lead to proliferation of nuclear weaponry across the Arab world--with Saudis next in line to develop. I think it is necessary to admit who is really behind prohibiting Iran to develop nuclear capability that should enhance its prospects of self-automy: it's the big oil corporations with their sweet deals with oil-producing barons--the same oil corporations who are seeking, ever since the close of the Iraqi Awe-and-Shudder (I mean, Shock and Awe) War, to benefit from making deals with Iraq to control its oil production and distribution, along with the deals the Helliburton Corporation has been able to make there.
The United States is caught in a bind. It either makes good its threat to do all possible to prevent Iran from making nuclear weapons or it must be willing to give up on its American construct, its new Iraq. To be sure, should Romeny become President, the path becomes clear: He would promote American Big Business interests in the region (which sees more oil to profit from), and take on Iran, perhaps by bombing, perhaps by invading. He would curtail entitlements programs that aren't specified in the Constitution and carry on military campaigns for the sake of "security and protection," which are sanctioned in the Constitution. Be it observed that over the past 50 years, Big oil has manipulated the region's politics with the help of US military might and without much objection from home. American foreign policy in the Middle-East still is dictated by the oil giants.
No wonder the Arab world, including the Saudis, hate the US so! The US government has promoted the interests of Big Business at the expense of the citizenry in oil rich Arab countries!
Advocates of being tough with Iran frequently use the proliferation argument. If Iran were to develop nuclear capability, then other nations, such as Saudi Arabia, would follow its lead. This argument is the old domino theory applied to the Middle-East: If Vietnam were to fall to communism, the entire Asian continent would become communist, perhaps even the Philippines and Australia, too. There's nothing I know of that suggests every country--Egypt?--is anxious to become a nuclear power. Indeed, some have renounced such ambitions, already.
My personal take
I think the United States and other countries of the world can live with another nuclear power in the region. True, it might end Israel's monopoly, assuming that indeed France gave Israel the bomb in the 1960s, as is stated by some. Then too, nobody's shutting down North Korea, nor is intending to invade it. Of course, North Korea is not oil-producing and not of interest to major US corporations.
You know, it is said that lobbyists write regulatory legislation in their particular fields of interest for their governments, that really regulation of industries is a joke. After the 2008 melt-down of banks and investment companies, which seemingly were subject to close regulation, one gives pause to wonder whether there's truth in the thought that just about any government is in the hands of the corporations who can afford to control it, e.g., by buying politicians and by curtailing the funding of regulatory governmental agencies. Maybe, the US is not really the democracy it looks like and avows to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)