M. E Boundaries are Inviolable.

Exactly 100 years ago Archduke Franz Ferdinand was killed in Sarajevo on June 28 , 1914. His assassination set off a series of actions and counter reactions that ended up in one of the greatest tragedies of the 20^th century, World War I. This tragedy is relevant to us in more than one way. Obviously the most basic reason for recognizing this day is the hope that the more we think about these tragic events the less likely humanity will be subjected to them again. But another important reason for us is the idea that WW I was a perfect example of unintended consequences. No one wanted to start a world war but the assassination spiraled out of control and ended up in a war that lasted for over 4 years , and resulted in an estimated 37 million casualties.. But there is another reason for us to think about this issue and that is that it culminated in freeing the ME from 400 years of Ottoman rule.

So many articles and thinkers have written about how is it that we might be witnessing the end of Sykes Picot, an agreement that is often described in negative terms by Arabs and many even go as far as to claim that all our problems, and there are so many, can be traced to the political subdivisions that were drawn after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

I do not subscribe to that vision except in one detail. One can argue very convincingly that had it not been for WWI, the resulting Mandate and the Sykes Picot agreement then possibly the Balfour declaration/Promise might not have been issued and the ME would have been spared the last seventy years of instability related to the establishment of the state of Israel. But if we are to set aside the Balfour Declaration then I cannot find much that is at fault with Sykes Picot.

Note that  Figure1 is a map that would make it clear that the whole of the Arab world, including

North Africa, was ruled by the Ottoman Empire for four centuries . Roughly1516-1916.

                                                                

                            Figure 1: Ottoman Empire Arab World was under Ottoman Rule of Selim I

      

 Then in 1916 the infamous Sykes Picot subdivided part of the Ottoman Empire into two regions of influence, one British and one French. (figure 2) .

                  Figure 2: Note that Sykes Picot did not establish boundaries but only spheres of influence

The Sykes Picot agreement resulted in about 25 years of the

 Mandate Figure 3.

         Figure 3: The Mandate powers proceeded to carve out the current countries.(The French gave away Alexandreta to Turkey and initially planned an Alawite Republic as well as a Druze one).

 The two Western powers of France and Great Britain divided the area taken away from the Ottoman Empire into the current major countries of the M.E. Figure 3.

After Sykes Picot gave each of the two European powers an area of influence they then proceeded to carve up the countries that make up the current Middle East. But each of the countries created was able to become independent by the mid 1940’s. Figure 4.

                                     Figure 4: The current boundaries and dates of independence

This is an important point since it makes it clear that the mandate which created the boundaries between Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Palestine/Israel lasted only for 25 years.  

Based on the above and the accompanying maps one needs to ask again whether it was the 25 year mandate or the 400 year Ottoman rule that played a more crucial role in shaping the identity and culture of the people in this region.

If, as it is often claimed, that the current political borders created by the mandatory powers after the Sykes Picot agreement created political divisions that are not acceptable then why weren’t there any major movements to correct that flaw and redraw the borders. It is easier to protest a perceived injustice but is more difficult to prove that such an injustice has taken place. Would it have been better to the inhabitants of the mandated areas had these artificial boundaries not been created? Is there a shared national identity between the residents of these countries in question and are they ready to accept the other and accept the demands of democracy and responsibilities of citizenship that would be required in an efficient modern state? Even if the answer is yes then wouldn’t it be better to create a federation where each of the member states can control its own internal affairs.

I am willing to be a Giraffe ;put my neck out J; by saying that the “death of Sykes Picot has been exaggerated” and that the current map of the ME would hold with very little changes , if any. Ideally the most important radical change would be the settlement of the Israeli Palestinian question. The Kurdish issue would not be so much of a problem had Syria, Iran and Turkey been able to treat all their citizens equally, an autonomous Kurdish region might be the only other alteration of the current inviolable boundaries. I imagine that I am saying that ISIS will not fulfill its wish. No backward thinking group of people ever do.  

Figure 4 The mandate was relatively short lived.

Democracy Depends on a Consensus. Often, non-Optimal Choices May Be Acceptable and Even Very Prudent

I had an interesting conversation with colleagues during lunch today and at least one said that they won't vote for Hillary Clinton should she run for president. Some of the reasons cited was that she's openly for big business, that she didn't do anything while at the State Department, and that it's not appropriate to have an oligarchy of the Bushes and Clinton.

Well, I get all that, but in a democracy--as many times in life--we, personally, don't have the ideal choice. We may not have great choices either. We often take the "lesser of the two evils" and it makes sense, especially when one is truly evil, as I believe any serious Republican contender has been in my lifetime and will be in 2016.

Plus, elections have consequences as they can steer the country in a certain direction, elevate certain priorities, and articulate ideas. Successful policies, despite their flaws, convince people about their merits. Let's not forget, many people are conservative--can't imagine in the abstract or analyze ideology. There are many narratives out there. Sure, leadership matters, and that's why we have so many people choosing the ridiculous and want a society more fit for the Dark Ages. However, once they see that, say, Obamacare is generally good, that same-sex marriage doesn't destroy a state, etc, they accept it.

In the same light, I don't think most people readily accepted the ideas of the Enlightenment, of liberalism, or of civil rights for everyone. But, once those took hold (often imposed by elites like Jefferson, Madison, et al), people accepted them. We can see this today in our own country, from state to state--different sub-cultures with very opposing views on, say, gun control, religion, sex, political parties choice, etc. This also shows that most issues aren't decided on their merits, on evaluating the facts, because otherwise we wouldn't still be debating whether humans are responsible for global warming, evolution (and science in general), and the age of the Earth!

In yesterday's NYT, C. Blow's oped titled, "Religious Constriction," makes a similar point about the religiosity of our citizens--highest among affluent countries. You have to look to Greece, Italy, and the oil-rich Gulf countries to find higher religiosity. I maintain that--for most domains, issues, ideas, morality--if religion informs opinion then, most certainly, it's wrong, and imprudent. It is precisely because such opinions are held by so many of our citizens that we don't see the progress we could get nor do we solve many of our own problems.

***

 

I have to give another shout to a favorite, Paul Krugman, who he recently wrote [link] along the same lines of my argument:

"The fact that climate concerns rest on scientific consensus makes things even worse, because it plays into the anti-intellectualism that has always been a powerful force in American life, mainly on the right. It’s not really surprising that so many right-wing politicians and pundits quickly turned to conspiracy theories, to accusations that thousands of researchers around the world were colluding in a gigantic hoax whose real purpose was to justify a big-government power grab. After all, right-wingers never liked or trusted scientists in the first place.

So the real obstacle, as we try to confront global warming, is economic ideology reinforced by hostility to science. In some ways this makes the task easier: we do not, in fact, have to force people to accept large monetary losses. But we do have to overcome pride and willful ignorance, which is hard indeed." 

Some Thoughts on President(s)' Day

President(s)' Day today honoring... well, whatever states want, though the federal holiday is about George Washington who was born not today (2/17th but on the 22nd). Several states mark the occasion differently. Guess what? Lincoln's birthday (2/12) is included in this except in the South. I wonder why. So the third Monday in February is set for "president(s)" to sell all sorts of consumer stuff and some patriotic version of history.

The General with a maid in his headquarters, Newburgh, NY

I feel patriotic, so stop the caustic emails. But, this doesn't prevent me from trying to learn about the truth--as much as it can be ascertained--and examine causes and effects. Let's start by asking, what is patriotism? And, where, why did it start? The notion of patriotism begins with the notion of patris--country. So, how did the British citizens in the 13 colonies see themselves in the 1770s?

Musket warfare

Under the mercantile economic system, there was a zero-sum game: for every winner it had to have a loser. The colonies were a source of wealth for the then empires, and under imperial policy, the colonies were there to exploit the local resources and populations for the benefit of the mother country. It was forbidden for the colonies to trade with anyone else. But, that didn't prevent the American colonists from breaking the law to enrich themselves. When Britain turned the screws, they rebelled. Yes, the economic elites in the colonies had an economic reason for self-governance and thus a revolution.

The Tea Party rebellion? Well, it was triggered by Britain's decision to give the East India Co. the monopoly of the tea trade, thus crippling American economic interests, not withstanding that the EIC tea was cheaper and of better quality. The colonies had enjoyed a relative independence to conduct their own "internal" affairs and the New World had unique conditions, like the reality of the expanding frontier. All these factors made for a different breed of a citizen. 
 

Harbrouck House, New Paltz, NY.

Yet, even at the break of the revolution, most Americans in the colonies [let's not forget they were other "Americans" in the continent too] were British citizens. Even the Declaration of Independence demonstrates that the colonists believed they were denied their British rights of life, liberty and property, and, therefore, had a right, indeed a duty, to replace a government after a "long train of abuses."

The ideology of liberalism with its "natural rights for every man" that came out of the Enlightenment was used as the foundation of the regime of the new country to be. But, it would take a long time to turn those Americans into patriotic United States of America citizens. Patriotism primarily evolved along with the formation of the modern state in the last 2-3 centuries. Allegiance was to one's own tribe, ethnic or religious group, and later to a city-state or a larger state, like New York. Most Americans then identified their loyalties to their particular states, not the US. Fully 1/3 of the colonists remained loyal to Britain; most were expelled, many were killed, a few remained.

Class System, Order of the Universe

The belief that the universe had an ordained, divine order was widespread. A rigid class system prevailed too. Yes, it was possible for merchants to elbow their way into the upper caste--like the despised nouveau riche by the "old money" aristocracy--but everybody "knew their place." Old Europe operated on this scheme, so it's amazing that the ideas of liberalism sprouted and even used as ideals for a new state/country. Of course, anyone who has watched docudramas of the last 200 years or has visited the mansions of the rich knows how society worked those days.

The elites often went to war against each other for power and wealth, but they had their code of honor which meant that death would be visiting primarily the lower-class soldiers and civilians. It was against military honor to shoot at officers of the opposing army! George Washington could have been killed by British snipers on a couple occasions but he was spared because he was an officer. The Americans didn't shoot at British officers either...  Well, some American riflemen, often despised by both sides, broke this code by indiscriminately killing British infantry and officers. Nowadays, taking out the enemy command is standard military strategy; not back then, which is incredible if you think about it. The thinking, I'm going to let the enemy generals be so their army can be more effective against me and my side, is totally crazy unless....

At first, it seems natural that the French would side and aid the American colonists in their war of independence. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, as they say. But, it was a troubling decision since rebelling against the crown was a no-no among all royal houses of Europe. Yes, royal factions could engage each other, even in civil war, but challenging the notion of monarchy was evil. 

George Washington could have been king after the revolution, though to his credit he did not wish it and admonished those who proposed a monarchy for the new country. While in Newburgh, NY, he communicated with many domestic leaders and urged for a constitutional republic. The constitution of 1787 provided a blueprint for a federal country, which is still evolving today. Many of the good changes and ideas come from the top, the educated elites, but also as the result of bloody conflicts.

The country the presidents we're celebrating today knew is much different today, and I think for the better. It's OK to appreciate the effort and the good ideas of past leaders, but I don't think we need to idealize-idolize them. Some were very progressive while most were trapped in their time & culture. There's no divine order in human society; it's what we make of ourselves, our understanding of the important issues, and the policies we can muster for a good life for every citizen, indeed a human being.

Fictional rendition of the Delaware river crossing. (note the American flag)

"The Problem We All Live With" Some Thoughts on Martin Luther King Day, 2014

Norman Rockwell's "The Problem We All Live With"

On the occasion of the MLK day, I've read and heard several speeches of the slain civil rights leader and, of course, most of us today wonder why American society was so opposed to equal rights, or more specifically to blacks having equal treatment under the law and equal opportunity like anybody else.

It's conservatism! Being conservative is a disposition--an attitude towards change and something new. Conservatives exist in all political parties. This was particularly true in the 1950s and 1960s in the Democratic party. Many of the opponents to the Civil Rights acts, most from the old South, left the party and joined became Dixiecrat Republicans. President Lyndon Johnson said that the South would be lost for his party after he signed the CRA. It's been certainly true, but a couple states like Virginia and North Carolina may be trending the other way now.

There's a difference in disposition between conservatives and liberal-progressives. I think we have a better imagination and we are more confident over all. Why is imagination necessary? To evaluate abstract scenarios, to imagine change, whereas a conservative prefers the "tried and true," tradition, familiarity and can't imagine a different world. Blacks having same rights as whites? Oh, goodness, traditional society would collapse, a way of live (which included either slavery or later discrimination and separation of the races) of the old was preferable to a new order.

PBS's documentary, Slavery By Another Name, is a must-watch *

Confidence? Well, sameness is comforting. Confirmation bias, solidarity of thought and action is soothing to a conservative.  We all have this trait to some extent. We like to see our choices, thoughts, beliefs, customs, etc, confirmed; it validates our life...   Yet, some of us are willing to accept correction; we're open to revision, and seek the truth even if it's uncomfortable. Confidence doesn't mean stubbornness of a closed mind, but it means that the new, the different doesn't necessarily make us uncomfortable. And we can image a world with all races, creeds, and sexual orientation.

Isn't the same approach and the also the difference between the conservatives and liberals when it comes to same-sex marriage? My heterosexual makeup isn't threatened by homosexuality. My heterosexual marriage or relationship isn't threatened by homosexual unions or marriages. The right to marry a person of your choosing is having equal opportunity and treatment under the law. End of story (for a liberal).

Speaking the Tongue of the Natives

MLK was a great leader and even a better orator and thus motivated lots of people to meaningful action for civil rights. He spoke like a preacher, which, for me, isn't my favorite elocution. I don't want to be preached at. I don't want to be told that a certain action is good because it has the blessings of a god, or the God.  However, MLK spoke the language of religion in a deeply religious land, whereas both sides had used religious language to justify their positions.

But, many people on both sides were practicing confirmation bias--using the Bible to justify their positions. Guess what? The Bible has a little for every one. Am I glad that MLK's Bible quoting and religious messaging worked to help bring about change? Certainly! Because, this was a much-needed change. 

However, it should be noted that the Bible condones slavery! [source]  I would expect a messiah to preach against the evils of slavery, but Jesus didn't. The Gospels in the New Testament don't advocate for a slave-free world. On the contrary. Women's status? Subservient. We're talking about divine morality here. The word of God, good then, good today, and unalterable in the future!

Anyway, we have a long way to go despite our advances, many of which have been forcefully opposed by conservatives of all types. We're still very primitive in how act, think, and often treat each other. 


 * This PBS documentary examines the conditions of servitude that existed until the second part of the 20th century in the US. It's definitely worth a watch.

Net Neutrality Dead? Who Cares? We Are The Greatest, Free-est (ish?) Country in the Globe and the Internet Confirms This! {at least the sites I'm allowed to visit}

This past Tuesday a US Court of Appeals closed the door to the free internet and gave a huge victory to the telcos, which now could control the flow of information and commerce on cyberworld. But, this situation can be reversed if enough citizens mobilize and pressure the FCC and Congress to change this. Net Neurality ought to be the platform for the internet; common carriers shouldn't be monopolies or oligopolies.

Amazingly this is an issue--for net neutrality--that has attracted a very diverse coalition, from the conservative to the liberal side, because most people appreciate the equal access to the world wide web, without restrictions. In the past, there has been such large coalition that beat back the telcos efforts, but due to the lax and politicized FCC, the issue wasn't settled in favor of the consumer and for the citizens.

It is about good citizenship when anyone could go to any site at the same speed, through the same toll road. I could even argue why access to the internet should be completely free--as it is in some cities who have such networks. Nowadays, the internet is essential to finding a job, being informed, communicate, organize, know what our government is doing, and enhance the notion & practice of citizenship.

Tolls, bridges, roads

Imagine if a bridge is built, especially with government initiative, subsidies, and other beneficial regulations. Now the bridge is private and the owner can allow certain vehicles/people to cross it. And, that if you're allowed on the bride, you're put on a very sloooooooooow lane. Oh, yes, much, much slower that any other place in the advanced industrialized world. [the US lags way behind other countries in internet speed & infrastructure]

Let the free market operate, is the mantra of many talking heads on Fox and CNBC (and I'm sure elsewhere). How would companies invest if they don't know how much they'll make because of regulation?... they add. Bullshit, I say. Unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies (NO competition), child (slave) labor, no consumer protection, etc. It's been tried before you know. Any serious advanced country regulates the market place. American sports franchises do this to ensure competition. The NFL divides its huge media profits in 32 equal ways--a communist practice if you asked me. But, it works!

Imagine if you were told that once you paid the toll to get on the highway, you couldn't just take any exit, or that some exits cost more than others. Or, that you could travel on certain roads as a package. You know, like when you have the choices (not) of cable tv. It's an oligopoly at best--whereas there are two choices available. Where I've lived in the last several decades when cable tv was available, I had NO choice. One provider, and an expensive one at that.

Free Press has more information and course of action, but be alert in the near future. We have to retake this freedom from the telcos, so please mobilize and engage in active citizenship. It is about freedom, political and consumer. Everybody who uses the internet is affected.

We're Far Better than the Syrians and Zimbabwans, so Shut up and Wave the Flag!

As the new academic year begins, one has to think about the benefits of education and whether a country is better off with educated citizens. Of course, getting a job is important and a formal education makes is easier to get better paying jobs. Most countries realize that a basic education--to read and write--is necessary so they've instituted mandatory and free public education. 

But, it's getting harder, due to the rising tuition, to get into a higher education, either a 2 or 4 year college. Recently, student debt became larger than mortgage debt! In other words, graduates begin their professional life in a deep hole and now owe more that more established homeowners, who presumably have a job (or had one when they got their mortgage) and perhaps are more financially better off than a young, unemployed graduate.

We may be heading back to the old days when the children of the elite could go to college, and, perhaps, a few other token students from the lower classes. Since the 1970s, real wages have remained stagnant over all. The consumers' buying power increased however since those days, because most of the goods have become cheaper. Food, clothing, appliances, cars, etc, are now cheaper. A sense of prosperity also fueled by personal debt, plus a constant barrage of a mythic narrative about the American dream made many people content if not happy. Yet, reality eventually sinks in.

Rising Inequality

Aristotle argued that extremes aren't good for a good society, or for a society to be good for the majority of the people. Extremes of power of wealth work in the interest who have wealth, and who in turn acquire political power, at the very least to protect (and enhance, 'cause you can never have enough) their interests. The elites try to control (and they go a great job) the narrative--the story about who we are, what the country is, our greatness, the land of opportunity, freedom, etc. It seems that a system that allows some people to rise demands (and gets) that they adopt the narrative. After all, once you climb a few rungs of the ladder it may be natural to belief that anyone can make it. Those who don't have personal faults. Look at individuals like Gates, Jobs, Jordan who made it. It must be true what they say about the American dream.

Yes, we have been more mobile, successful, free in comparison to other countries over the last two centuries. But, we had slavery, oppression of women & minorities, limited free speech, authoritarian government, the Great Depression and the Gilded Age whose attributes we're began to emulate in the last 20-30 years. This is not good. We're going back to extremes.

There's been lots of reports over those years about the rising inequality. [Here's a collection from NPR/WNYC] Let me give you some food for thought. Sasha Abramsky's book, "The American Way of Poverty" is one source. This is from WNYC's interview [link]
 "Poverty in America is made up of both the long-term chronically poor and the new working poor—the tens of millions seriously affected by the economic downturn and cutbacks in social welfare programs. Sasha Abramsky argues that for the majority of Americans, financial insecurity has become the new norm. He looks at economic inequality and poverty, and suggests ways for devising a fairer and more equitable social contract. In The American Way of Poverty, he looks at topics from housing policy to wage protections to affordable higher education, and calls political changes and a new, more effective War on Poverty."


Paul Krugman [blog, The Conscience of a Liberal] wrote a recent article about "Rich Man's Recovery" showing that since 2009, 95% of the economic gains have been captured by the top 1%. It's even worse, as 60% of the same gains have gone to even a smaller number of Americans, the 1/10th of 1%! Those are the ones with incomes over $1.9 million a year! I'm sure that the same people have been racking it in for many years before this period.

The Roosevelt Institute (yes, it's about FDR's progressiveness) shows a study that last year, the top 1% took home the largest share of income since 1928. But, the rich pay a bigger share of the taxes, we often hear! Well, this is indeed outrageous! The system that allows them to have so much more money while the middle class and the poor can't pay more is unconscionable! 

Romney pays 12.9% in income taxes while I'm paying 30% of my meager income, while I feel this pain a lot more.  How ridiculous is to say that a billionaire who pays 5% in taxes, writes a check of $50 million, while a teacher with a $50K/yr, pays only $15K?!! I know, how dare those laggards, the teachers, complain about tax policies? The super rich pay more in taxes that all the teachers in America. It's a scandal. Tsk.

Pro-capitalist publications, like the Economist and the Wall Street Journal, aside from their editorials, have published numerous articles about the widening of the gap in the US, that we're falling behind class-conscious and glass-ceiling old Europe. 

Which brings us back to the value of education which has a way to open people's minds just by exposing them to possibilities, knowledge, and hopefully how to evaluate, reason, and enhance the ability to ask questions and to amend. A better affluent, secure, less stressful life also enhances citizenship. You're more likely to be engaged, interested, voting, mobilizing citizen if you have the resources and the time to do so.

But, maybe that's what the elites don't want. Instead they invest heavily in the narrative of "feel good and proud American" while cutting the social safety net. This while higher education is getting more expensive. Oh, and you know what else follows the same track? Politics! 

But, don't you worry, the rich have lots of spare change to finance multi-billion dollar campaigns. We just sit back and relax and enjoy the show. They love tired and passive viewers for the show they've designed for us. Popcorn anyone? You poor with your refrigerators, microwaves, and flat-screen tvs... what more do you want? Have you noticed how deplorable the conditions are in Syria and Zimbabwe? Shut up then.

Is there a moral obligation to do what is right? I imagine that most of us, one hopes all of us, would concur with the fact that if a wrong is done and if it is within ones power to right it then one must do so. This, very simply, is what Peter Singer, one of the world’s most influential philosophers has always argued for. He actually says that an application of the above principle would be sufficient to eliminate world poverty since the well off would give as much as it takes in order to bring up the level of welfare of the less advantaged to a level that is common to all. This very same principle can be applied, must be applied whenever the world is faced with a political situation where those that are in power maintain their hold on their populace only through fear, tyranny and intimidation. Yes, we do have a moral obligation to help alleviate the miserable living conditions whenever we can. It is not a choice but an obligation.

At times one has no choice but to sound redundant and even banal in an effort to make sure that one’s message is clear. With that in mind allow me to remind the readers of two popular sayings: (1) There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch and (2) deontological ethics. Based on the above what is implied is that if a loved one      commits a crime then that person should be responsible for the consequences of his/her act and that we should not hesitate in turning over that loved one, as much as it might hurt, to the authorities.

So what does any of the above has to do with the current Syrian situation? Allow me to submit that if one agrees with the above then the implications for those that have committed the violations in the case of unleashing chemical weapons in Syria are clear and severe. The first thing that this makes clear is that the personal association with the accused is not a valid excuse to shrink from ones moral obligation. In the same way that I would gladly hand over my brother to the authorities if he committed a crime then I should not let the issue of nationality or race cloud my judgment. If my government is found responsible for a set of crimes then as much as it might pain me I should actually encourage the international community when it decides to hold my government accountable. Obviously the above also rests on the idea that is justice is to be done then the guilty party will have to pay a price. The idea that “my country right or wrong” is dangerous, irrational and out of date. No one should ever want to protect a state when it violates international norms and agreements that it has signed only on the basis of patriotism. That would be tantamount to saying that my father is always right even when he commits egregious crimes.

The issue that we are facing in Syria is very simple. Chemical weapons have been used against innocent civilians and in violation of the Geneva Convention and the Treaty banning the use of such weapons. The first order of business under these circumstances is to agree that we all have a moral obligation to do whatever is in our power to hold the violators responsible for their crimes. Once that is done and it should be an easy and non contestable proposition then we have to agree on who is responsible for these illegal acts. Let me stress again, that no one wants to “punish” the innocent but once the preponderance of evidence, custody over the chemicals, means of delivery, finger prints of the delivery devices, report from the UN inspectors, intel intercepts…points rather conclusively to one party or the other then we must take action irrespective of the pain to our loved ones, our sense of patriotism, our racial identity, our religious affiliation or anything else that we can thing off. Nothing, absolutely nothing should protect the guilty.

Here's to You, America: A Couple Anthems to Mark the 4th of July

It may be that the meaning of the 4th of July varies, but it's got to be more than bbqs, or the lifeguards' sad moment that the summer's winding down.

So, as we proudly wave those American flags made in China, we should affirm our blind devotion to the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, USA #1 slogan, and the American dream.  OK, but, in addition a good order of skepticism is necessary.

The founders weren't perfect nor did they know everything. The US Constitution has 27 Amendments in efforts to improve it. The Declaration of Independence is an interesting document, whose couple beginning paragraphs are lofty, brilliant, and lay down the principles of a good polity--constitutional, democracy, republic, human rights for all, and individual liberty/choice. The rest of it is a laundry list of the crown's abuses against British citizens.

Since the early 1770s, [July 4th is the signing of the Declaration; the war of independence had already started], there's been a struggle for a better society of free people, for responsible and responsive government. Establishing a new country perhaps was the easiest task. Shaping it proved to be much harder. The process is going on. Hopefully we'll continue on a progressive path. 

Even in my life time, there have been tremendous changes. What I thought was appropriate it was considered radical 30 years ago. Today it's mainstream. Progressives have better imagination I reckon. It's worth-while for all of us to be alert and engaged in the political process--that's how things get done. 

Enjoy the 4th, the summer, indeed the whole life. And, isn't this the whole point? To make life better for as many people as possible so they can have access to opportunity to fulfill the own potential?

Here's to you America: (my favorite anthem)

Of Course We Need to Know What Our Government Is Doing In Our Name and On Our Behalf

It's fascinating that many liberally-minded people I know aren't bothered by our government's snooping and are more upset at Snowden for revealing the "state's secrets."  I fully understand that in order for us to enjoy our lives and freedoms we have to be safe, but at which point Big Brother-like government actions are not appropriate?

What did Edward Snowden reveal? Something that should not be secret anyway! We should know what and how our government invades our privacy. Do they follow proper constitutional procedure? When somebody collects information about me, I have to know about it, how they do it, and how they'll use this information. As consumers (never mind as citizens), we have to know. And, if we don't think it's appropriate, then we should be able to change that. This is what an advanced, liberal-social-democratic country should be.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Therefore, our government has to, "by oath or affirmation," obtain permission, and thus create a record that can be reviewed for abuses or even whether the act was necessary. We now know the snooping into many people's private affairs in the past was improper, wasteful, and not what an accountable government should be doing to its free citizens.

Not all leakers of government secrets are the same. When the government breaks the law, or lies to its people, or is corrupt, or wasteful, etc, the public's interest is at stake. We need to know! The Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Abu Graib, torture and rendition program, and so many other cases--revealed by conscientious people--served our country. 

This is not a banana republic where Big Brother knows best. Are we mature adults who care to know?

The Syrian Dictatorship, Like All Other Dictatorships, Is On A Path To Perdition

The popular adage “What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander” is meant to be a populist easy way to restate the Golden Rule which was best expressed by Mathew 7:12 as "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets” is also seen as the foundation of ethical reciprocity. An excellent illustration of this norm is practiced by the young in their first few years of schooling during birthday celebrations: one person cuts the cake while the other chooses which portion to take. If only grownups can keep these lessons alive as they grow up. Maybe some of us try to practice what we preach and attempt to be fair and consistent. Not the Syrian Government and not Bashar Assad though. How can they be just when their total existence from the inception of the regime is based on force, tyranny and illegitimacy? Their constant fear of truth must be the only logical explanation why they pretended to have elections. They forgot though that election proper rests on the intrinsic right to free speech and free expression. Elections are supposed to be a contest between various individuals who have different priorities about how to improve the level of welfare of the public at large. These candidates will explain to their constituents the various plans that they have and then the voters will weigh these programs and determine which they think is best for them. Elections in Syria have been a sham, every single one of them and the reason must be that those who were ruling forcefully and illegitimately did not trust those that they governed.

All dictators are afraid of the truth and that is why they set up these elaborate police systems in order to spread fear among their citizens. Well the Syrian dictatorship is one of the worst. It has lasted for over forty years by setting up what many have called the most cruel Stasi machine outside of the then GDR, East Germany. Actually the Syrian police whose role is to oppress, exploit and scare decent citizens was set up with the help of East Germany. Where is East Germany now? It has bitten the dust and as history teaches us all dictatorships will eventually bite the dust including the Syrian rulers.  

The Syrian uprising has been going on for over two years that have resulted in an abnormally high level of destruction, thanks to the selfish Syrian dictatorship that is willing to pay any price to continue its rule of terror. The losses, the real losses are not limited to the destruction of city quarters and infrastructure but have resulted in over 80,000 deaths so far. Even that grotesque price becomes small when compared to the price that the future generation will have to bare.  This war is robbing the youth of their future and nothing, absolutely nothing, can be crueler than that.

This monstrous regime is not satisfied to mete out its terror, which has also resulted in about a 1.5 million Syrians seeking refuge in neighbouring countries and at least an equal number of refugees within the country, but has the temerity to use an illegal militia from a neighbouring country in order to launch well coordinated attacks with heavy weapons on a city that had been overrun over a year ago by the opposition. This regime seeks the aid of a well equipped and well trained illegal militia while it is lambasting the opposition for its use of foreign fighters. The double standards do not stop here either. This same Syrian administration has been complaining to whoever would listen about light arms smuggling that has been coming into Syria to help arm the FSA and its supporters level the field against the Assad killing machine but yet this same administration has been smuggling, yes smuggling, sophisticated weapons to arm militant groups in Lebanon. It does not dawn on this administration apparently that if they have the rights to destabilize others then maybe the Syrian people have the right to obtain some arms to protect themselves from the common massacres committed against them by the Syrian forces.

The irony does not stop here either. This same Syrian government was proud to encourage and facilitate the crossing of Jihadists from all across the Moslem world into Iraq but now that some of these jihadists want to cross the border in the opposite direction this activity has become abominable.

As for those that believe the constant refrain that this Syrian reign of terror is justified because it is what is keeping Al Qaeda and other extremists from taking over Syria I have fertile land for sale in the Syrian dessert not to mention bridges in NYC:-) The Syrian people are asking for a chance to write a new constitution which guarantees their individual right to free expression, multiparty systems and open and free elections. They are entitled to elect whoever they choose. If they so happen to elect an extreme Islamist then so be it. The essence of democracy is to accept the will of the people. If they find out that their choice did not deliver what was promised then they will vote them out of office in the next round, they will not be forced to accept a leadership that passes from father to son. The common Syrian has the right to be heard and she will.    

Dictatorships are always on a path to self destruction. There is a limit to how much the public will take. Eventually enough courageous people will ask for their freedom and will shout from rooftops that the emperor has no cloths and that no one can enslave them because they are born free. The truth shall set them free. The Syrian dictatorship is not any different; it has been on its road to perdition for over four decades. That is inevitable.

Shame to the US Senate for Failing to Pass Sensible Gun Control Legislation. Let's hope They Stop the Gay Apocalypse, at Least!

 Ah, Freedom! Which one makes more sense?

In case you didn't figure it out, it's a wedding picture!

Which is more important item for freedom in the US? A gun or a vehicle? It's the latter for it allows freedom of mobility, access to jobs and opportunities, etc. Yet, we have to be tested as operators, we have to obey lots of laws and regulations, need to register, inspect, and insure our vehicle. But, do you want a gun, sure go ahead. Wait, are you crazy? Are you a criminal? No? OK, then, we'll trust your word, here's a semi-automatic weapon that fires 30 big caliber rounds in few seconds. Enjoy hunting or whatever you intend to do with this and the rest of the arsenal you're amassing. 

How Some Prostitutes Give a Bad Name to the Profession

Today the US Senate showed how our elected officials can go against the wishes of a big majority of the American people. Reasonable gun control, including background checks amendments didn't pass. Cornyn's (R-Dumbf@ckistan) amendment was the highest vote-getter, 57. This amendment would weaken gun control by requiring states with stricter laws to accept the licenses from states where anyone could get a gun.  Oh, wanna bet that these clowns take the opposite position when it comes to same-sex marriage?  Yeah, gays/lesbians are a bigger threat to society and their marriage would be like ..Hitler invading Poland if the Fed forced the states to recognize such marriages.

Systemic Problem

 The US political system was an experiment in government at a time when they weren't any liberal democracies. So the founders improvised, compromised, got a few things right, and some things very wrong.

One of the problems was to disperse power into three branches, but even within the legislative branch they created 2 chambers. These plus the president must pass identical bills before we have law. Unlike in other advanced democracies, our executive (the prez) doesn't control the legislature. So every president who runs on an agenda on the national level must get Congress to agree; and the members of Congress are elected from localities. Furthermore, Senate rules give a small minority the ability to kill legislation through the filibuster. 

I think it's time to use the so-called "nuclear option" and declare this rule unconstitutional so we can get things done more efficiently. The constitution provides for super majorities in the Senate for various decisions, like impeaching the president. Regular legislation should get the chance for an up or down vote. It was OK when only 3% of the bills were filibustered in the past. The minority could reject a few really objectionable bills. But, when nothing moves because of this obstruction tactic in the last decade, then there's something seriously wrong with this system.

The best way to fix some of our problems would be a couple constitutional amendments, but this is not very likely. The other way would be citizen engagement and mobilization. Let's see why a people's majority is so arrogantly ignored by some elected representatives. 

Change often comes because the people demand it. Let's prove that we do have a representative democracy, a system that works for the benefit of the people. Otherwise let's call it what it is and stay home. It's not enough to have myths, and slogans. We have to talk the talk and walk the walk!

The illegitimate Will Fall

Once upon a time there used to be a pleasant village whose people led a simple but yet productive lifestyles. One day a high ranking member of the army decided that this laid back life style was not good for the villagers and so he coordinated a takeover of the government of the village.

That was over forty years ago. About twelve years ago the officer who consolidated power in his own hands , surrounded himself with co religionists and ruled as a dictator who can never be crossed died. He was very clever though, and so he made sure that a son of his, an eye doctor, would take over from him when he dies.

The dictator who would not allow any opposition or dissenters died but made sure that his successor will be his totally inexperienced eye doctor son. The Ophthalmologist continued the rule of fear started by his father but yet made many promises along the way that he would encourage social equality. Unfortunately he did not put into practice any of the informed reforms that he had promised. Actually, as opportunities presented themselves the son God became ever more convinced that his subjects are not smart enough to rule themselves. He even preached that his one party rule is efficient and that his entourage is not capable of making any wrong calls. The party was infallible and all who would oppose it are traitors and imperialist pigs.

Life under the son-God became more difficult than what it was under his father and he thought that the people in his state are enamoured of him. One day though, a number of kids were playing an innocent ball game when they decided that it was about time that they show the authoritarian authorities that they have had enough and that they will not take it any longer.

Such acts of defiance were deemed to be extremely dangerous by the absolute son God king. He ordered his subordinates to make a lesson of everyone who dared question his authority. All the kids were to be arrested, beaten and then set free.

But the unforeseen took place. Thousands upon thousands from across the country joined the young and decided that the popular saying “Live free or die” was an idea whose time has come. They organized demonstrations and adopted acts of civil defiance in the hope that such peaceful moves will demonstrate that illegitimacy must go.

But as bad luck would have it, the son God decided that he will teach all those that dared demand what was theirs in the first place,a lesson. He ordered his henchman to go out and spread fear among these youthful souls through beatings, arrests, mistreatments and the random acts of violence. When these tactics did not prove to be sufficient to dampen the spirits of the freedom fighters the son-God ordered his tanks, fighter jets, attack helicopters and cluster bombs to be used indiscriminately. They were. The result has been close to 100,000 deaths, a million wounded and the leveling of one city quarter after another over its civilian inhabitants. None of this would frighten the courageous youth anymore. They had vowed that they will not stop short of victory.

The son-God did not like any of this. Minions had dared question his authority He ordered his personal guard to go out in the village and to wire all the building in the village with explosives. When after almost 4 years of this mayhem it became clear that he could no longer deny the inevitability of his demise he ordered that every single building in the village is to be blown up over all its inhabitants. He had to go out in a blaze of glory. What a meaningless loss and what a fool he was.

Americans Have No Idea About the True Wealth Inequality in this Country!

In my Comparative Politics class, we're discussing political economy these days and it's been an eye-opener for most, because what people think of reality, well, it isn't!

First, let's say that the purpose of civil society is to provide benefits to its members. In order for the political system to work for the benefit of the people--the common people, the majority of whom are in the middle class--it is best to pick a regime that has this foundation principle. In modern societies, this is a liberal-social democracy.

Liberal, because it safeguards and promotes individual rights and freedom. Social, because it provides a social safety net--services people need. Democracy, because it allows for popular participation and a government of-by-for the people.

A system needs legitimacy to be stable and for longevity. The modern state--a creation of the 18th-19th centuries--provided benefits but also a new narrative, myths, practices, and activities that turned people into citizens. Citizens who had obligations to the state but also benefits. Notions of patriotism and nationalism were forged out of this new reality. This has helped cohesion, elevated pride in one's country, and motivation.

If the system and the government are to work for the people, then we have to ask what, does this mean?  Well, I'm sure there are many views on this, but let me suggest a few items: happiness (yes, individually defined), good health, leisure, education, long life, less stress, stability, peace, clean environment, decent shelter, affluence, access to opportunity, economic mobility, justice, etc, etc.  This is the mission statement of a modern, advanced country. Obviously, this was not the mission of older systems, like the Old Regime.

In order to achieve the mission statement, societies/governments/rulers engaged in redistribution of resources and wealth.  Usually it was from the bottom up. This was not good unless you were a member of the elite. These members made all sorts of arguments (including might makes right) in favor of keeping their privileges. And, their appetite was insatiable. Louis the 14th needed more gold for his lavish palaces. Our modern super wealthy and their shills, most of the Republicans, have drawn the line that no tax increases, no matter how modest, should be applied to the upper classes.

 When Reality Escapes the American People

The Occupy Wall Street with its signs, "We're the 99%", brought needed attention to the upper 1% of the economic elites. Yet, the real magnitude of the problem is still unknown to the American people. The power of the myth, the cultural and political forces have managed to create a strong illusion. 

This illusion includes a good dose of patriotism and nationalism, but in a perverted way. "We're # one!"  Others are risking life and limb to get here. Look at the great things we've achieved, and still do. The American dream is alive! You can make it, like Bill Gates, Michael Jordan, and so many others. With hard work and a bit of luck anyone (most?) will make it ..big!  

It's hard to argue against the tendency to compare ourselves to societies far worse than ours. Somehow comparisons to other societies that have better outcomes aren't being made. Yes, there are several societies that have a better distribution of the economic pie, where people live longer, are healthier, more educated, have more leisure, live is safer environments, and report greater levels of happiness. Their political economies are, however, adjusted differently than the US.

As I speak with many students, I hear that they expect to be rich someday. Likewise, many ordinary Americans think they'll be rich one day, or at least part of the upper middle class. But, statistically speaking, this won't happen. 

Unfortunately, the reality isn't very rosy. The Economist, the Wall Street Journal--to name a couple pro-capitalist publications--have pointed out that economic mobility in the US has fallen behind western Europe! 

In a democracy where public opinion is important, where decisions are made based on people's perceptions, it matters greatly whether the public really knows the facts. 

For decades, studies have been consistent as to this public perception about economic reality in the US. People are asked what a fair society would be like. Then they're asked what they think the US is like in wealth distribution. Their guess is terrifyingly wrong!

Watch this video and forward it to everyone you know. 

 Wealth Inequality in the US

 

Who could have guessed it, that the top 1% control 40% of the wealth. That the bottom 80% of Americans have only 7% of the wealth, while the other top 19% own 53% of the wealth. Mind bungling.

SOTU 2013: A Progressive View of Government

There were two distinct views on the role of government as their speeches demonstrated by president Obama and GOP Senator Rubio on Tuesday. It also demonstrated the conservatives' anachronistic view of liberalism. 

The notion of freedom that came out of the Enlightenment was to define it by the individual; free countries weren't necessarily free unless their citizens had individual freedoms which were guaranteed by a social contract. 

After the American Revolution, the question was, what kind of political system should we have here?

Those early leaders of the new country-to-be chose liberalism, representative government, popular consensus, and the radical idea that the new entity should be a commonwealth--that is, work for the benefit of the people.

Ever since, and in order to fulfill this goal, government is engaged in the redistribution of resources, enhancing access to opportunity and maintain fair play. At least this has been the principle.  

Of-For-By The People

 Now, let's think how this social contract principle was implemented in the early days. "Of the people"? Well, not so much. Common people weren't invited into government. "By the people"? Not so much either. Only white men with property were allowed to vote. "For the people"? OK, more or less, if you excluded the slaves, the very poor, and the absence of a social safety net.

Since those days, there has been an evolution in the role of government, culture, society, gender roles, racial relations, economic activities, all sorts of ideas and views, etc, etc. And, our country has been better off, because of it. Look at any country where most of its citizens are faring well and you'll see that's a liberal, social democracy with an activist state.

FDR's New Deal put in practice the evolved liberalism--an expanded notion of freedom--which went beyond the narrow definition of the absence of restraint. What prevents a person from enjoying freedom is the absence of access to opportunity, lack of meaningful choices and actions. An in the absence of an activist state, the marketplace alone or even charity and human fellowship weren't enough to give individuals of the middle and lower classes a pathway to freedom.

It's the activist state--which according to the main principle of the social contract should serve the people--that helped create a more even playing field and ensured the rule of law. We still have a long way to go, so the conservatives' and libertarians' view that the state should be limited makes no sense whatsoever, unless, of course, this is designed to further the gap between the classes and ensure our system becomes plutocratic, unjust, immobile, and unfree!

The SOTU, 2013

 

Federal budget reflects the values and priorities of government. Here are some of the president's points that I share:

• Wages and benefits haven't risen in decades
• We're in this together
• Fairer tax burden; not fair for wealthy to pay less of a share than working class people
• Debt: health care costs rising; tuition debt
• Cuts in social services, job training, green economy are not good for us
• Medicare reform; Affordable Health Care Act necessary to improve the health of the nation, including access to medical treatment
• Social Contract should be maintained, and paid for; it's what a modern country does for its citizens.
• We shouldn't cut medicare and education, ss, for the benefit of preserving tax breaks to the wealthy.
• don't play with the credit and credibility of the USA
• A strong economy is based on a strong middle class
• Gov investing in green energy, innovation, scientific research
• Climate change is upon us, not a coincidence; Science v. wishful thinking
• Internet, infrastructure, efficient, less corrupt system, educated workforce, tolerance, etc.
• investment in education, early access to learning, makes individuals more productive, more successful, less prone to crime, etc. Better for US
• comprehensive immigration reform, now!
• Women's rights, like paycheck fairness act, more protection from violence
• minimum wage should rise
• shared prosperity
• end of war (started by previous prez)
• gay and straight in the military should have equal benefits and treatment
• right to vote, fundamental right; why do we place obstacles to voting? 
• reduce gun violence; sensible gun control laws;

Rubio

• I made it on my own; don't need Washington's help
• Free enterprise economy is the solution
• More government is the problem; but not if it has to do with intrusion into our privacy,  abortion, and the .."moral fitness of America"
• More government breeds more rules, laws, and taxes. Who needs that, right?
• No Obama care; without explaining the particulars since most Americans are in favor of the new health care law if its provisions are explained.
• Role of gov: security, night watchman, not much more
•  blah, blah, blah
• ....
• have some of the same medicine that got you sick in the first place....

The Nation is Sick With This Kind of Tragedies. This Senseless Violence Must End and Sandy Hook Elementary Should be the Starting Point

I don't know if the president has a plan other than to reassert his Xtian credentials, because he sounded more like a preacher tonight than a leader who has to now has to change the gun laws of this country as the public by overwhelming majority now demands.

I reserve my judgment until I see what he does in the next few days regarding federal legislation to ban assault weapons, high capacity magazines, require strict controls on handguns, etc. Maybe it's his strategy to grieve his the families and through the emotional path try to bring the necessary change.

However, enough with superstition and ignorance. What the hell is this supposed to mean, "God called back those children"??!!! Really, Mr. president? Then if God wanted to call those children in such horrible way--and you assume you know that--why should we blame the gunman or demand any change? If God is able and willing, he'll do whatever is necessary. Or, he won't... Why should we bother with anything really if this is the motto?

Someone has to speak up against this primitive superstitious and ignorant approach/reaction to tragedies. This should end. I'd like those who have access to megaphones and want a more critical thinking public would not bring out the voodoo dolls during times of crisis. It's the 21st century, we should be mature enough to handle reality, so references to the supernatural is a disservice and an action that further perpetuates wishful thinking, prejudice, servility, and superstition.

Federal laws must be passed as to what kind of firearms are allowed. It's a political choice of a secular regime! No hunter should get guided missiles, bombs, or machine guns to enjoy their sport. No one should get clips that hold dozens of bullets, and of course no assault weapons. The Second Amendment--written by people over 2 centuries ago whose idea of "arms" was much different than ours--has already been modified by reality: "the right to bear arms" doesn't mean today the right to have tanks, F16s, and nukes. Oh, and the argument that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government is so 18th century too. Out duty as engaged and informed citizens is to never reach that point of having to violently resist our own government, because if we do it'll be too late! The government will always have more, bigger, and powerful weapons.
 
It's absolutely ridiculous that in order to get a car you need to be tested for ability, obtain insurance, while the vehicle is registered and inspected, but getting a gun is simple matter of going to a gun show and buy one with no background check! This is totally insane. I'm fed up with going through the same motions of sadness, anger, grieving, promises of "never again", every time such a bloody event happens, but we don't do anything about it!

Children under 14 are 13 time more likely to be killed in the US (in advanced countries). Guns kill 30,000 Americans every year. The murder rate in other advanced countries is in the dozens whereas in the US is in the tens of thousands. Yes, there are complex reasons for having such a violent society--and we should start a national dialogue on this--but we certainly can do something about the means of violence.

Obama has done this kind of consoling after massacres 4 times during his tenure. Has he learned that the mass murderers used legally-obtained assault weapons? But, this is the president who signed 2 gun bills into law. One, to allow firearms into national parks and one to allow them on Amtrak! How's this for a radical president who'd confiscate all guns as the conservative nuts argued in 2008?...

Time is now for serious action and the president to lead. I understand the script, I understand that Obama has to speak a certain language, but no amount of comfort can bring back the innocent dead. However, if we change our attitudes and public policies we can prevent tragedies in the future. We'll all gain from this. We should come together when we face adversity and pain, but we should stop being masochists and fatalists now!