|
|
|
For more on Iraq than you find on the "Issues" page, go to the "Commentary" page of... www.politicalcommunity.us.
Look for:
>> April-May, 2007 - VICTORY IN IRAQ
>> April & May, 2007 - IRAQ
>> Jan. 31, 2005 - "On the Iraqi Elections"
>> August 16-25, 2006 --"Democracy in Iraq & America"
>> July 28-August 15, 2006 - "Lebanon and Iraq: Lessons Alike"
"Election on Iraq - Get it Right or Get Out" |
7/12/07
|
THE GLOBAL MEANING OF 9/11
Commentators of all stripes agree on one point: 9/11 was a defining moment in our history. Just as each of us can remember where we were and what we were doing when JFK was shot, most of us can recall “where” and “what” when the planes crashed into the twin towers. Such recollections, however, do not reveal just how 9/11 was a defining moment or ways to avoid another 9/11-type tragedy. What is the meaning of “9/11”?
Reread the biographical sketches of those who perished on that day and you will see the meaning of human life revealed. There is not only the courage underlined by the media; there is more -- such variety, so much potential and so much love. 9/11 highlights the value; indeed, the sacredness, of human life.
Among the killers, we see the true meaning of evil – human life destroyed. Instead of variety and potential, we see sameness – men driven by a single, rigid, closed-minded, life-limiting ideology. Instead of love, we see hate. Killers, actual or potential, are those who cannot see and respect the value of the lives of others. They look for sameness. Terrorists hate difference! They cannot see others different from themselves as individuals. They paint others with the same brush, the color of “not us,” of “infidels” not human. Then the destruction of hated differences is easily rationalized, as by Nazis during the Holocaust, by Hutus’ committing genocide in Rwanda, by Islamic terrorists murdering occupants of the towers, etc., ad nauseum.
The rationalization of killing is easier if the killer can see himself as serving a cause larger than himself. The 9/11 terrorists saw themselves as striking a body blow at a power they viewed as evil incarnate – the overpowering U.S.A. The cause? – defending Islam against the worldwide spread of American power and ideology, seen as undermining an Islamic way of life and offending Muslim dignity. This view seemed to be reinforced by delusions of grandeur -- of a glorious afterlife, and perhaps of leading the charge for a revival of past Muslim power.
Can 9/11 be seen as a catalytic event in a “war of civilizations?” Yes, in the sense that different ways of life are in conflict. The differences that count are few but crucial. We are the first nation founded on ideas, chief among them that there is a right to life and that the life of the individual has unique value and priority. Contrast this with the Taliban or terrorist’s view: That one’s group-identity is more important than the individual, whether the group be defined by the Taliban, other Islamo-fascists, earlier Nazi fascists, communists, David Koresh, Jim Jones, African tribes, some ethnic group or religious sect – any group whose definition is rigid, whose community of co-believers is closed and that establishes an “us” vs. “them” mentality.
Those fighting for self-determination in a globalised world would do better to adapt American ways rather than destroy American lives. For ours is a decentralized system that allows group self-determination and self-government as well as individual liberty. Where else can you see incredibly different ways of life and communities of groups thriving as in the U.S.A., for example: Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn, the Amish in Pennsylvania, the Baha’i community outside of Chicago, the Pilsen Mexican-American community in Chicago, Mormans in Utah, “Freestaters” in New Hampshire, Chinatowns nation wide, and many others? We provide the world’s best example of how to accommodate even radical differences in ways of life -- “E Pluribus Unum.”
For the global struggle is primarily a battle for group self-determination, group v. group in situations where one group finds its way of life threatened by another. Thus, our President is partially mistaken when he equates his “War on Terror” as a fight for democracy. If every group representing a distinctive way of life could have a piece of Earth in which their way of life could rule supreme, whether the rule was democratic or not, there would probably be no terrorism, at least not against us. The failure to understand this has already led to failings in U.S. policy even apart from those in Iraq; e.g., the failure of Western countries to support governments where members of organizations we call “terrorist” have been democratically elected, as in Palestine (Hamas) and in Lebanon (Hezbollah). Yet, we have supported both democracy and self-determination for the Kurds in Iraq and the Kosovars in Serbia, even though the militant wings of both have hardly differed from those of Hamas or Hezbollah. The Kurds respect us; the Kosovars love us.
At issue is the fight of groups and individuals to determine their own destiny in their own ways. So, we return to the ancient conflict of “differences.” What is the common denominator that can help bridge these? It is life among the living, the core features of which are almost identical between groups no matter who or what. Each of us is born. We live day to day lives of working, home-life, choosing mates, having and raising children. We retire and we die. We put on our clothes in the morning; we try to stay clean and healthy; we have relatives, friends and neighbors, etc. These core similarities far outweigh and outnumber those that cause us to differ.
And so, what is the meaning of 9/11? It lies with the lives lost. We honor those who died by recognizing the individual value of their lives and asking what we need to do to ensure that they have not died in vain. So, this author suggests that we should:
Ø Seek to influence the rest of the world far more by broadcasting our good example than by force (unless we are attacked by another nation), while working continually to improve our democratic Republic from within.
Ø Always err on the side of life; recognizing that human life is sacred.
Ø Seek to decentralize governmental power, both at home and abroad, to provide greater latitude for self-determination by self-governing communities.
Ø Enable and empower people to be able to “make a difference” in their own lives.
Ø Foster self-determination as well as democracy.
Ø Work to defeat terrorism through heightened vigilance and security that relies primarily on people’s own efforts and civil authorities, not “war” and the military.
Ø Recognize the need of others, like ourselves, for human dignity.
To the extent that we recognize and honor the meaning of 9/11, we are more likely to avoid another such tragedy.
Peter Bearse, welcoming comments here, via peterj@peterbearseforcongress.com, or via
peterJ@politicalcommunity.us.
___________________________________
ON GLOBAL WARMING & CLIMATE CHANGE
Also go to www.politicalcommunity.us & look in the Commentary section for:
>> February, 2007 - Global Warming
>> April-May, 2007 - GLOBAL WARMING: WHAT'S TO BE DONE?
_____________________________________
ON THE ECONOMY
Go to www.politicalcommunity.us & look in the Commentary section for: |
|
|
July, 2006 - Science & Competitiveness
___________________________________
FRANKS and EARMARKS:
PORKER HALLMARKS
Earmarks are so much in the Congressional news, you’d think Congress was in the livestock business. For originally, earmarks were notches that farmers put on ears of cattle or pigs to identify them. So, isn’t it cute how earmarks have come to be associated with political “pork” and Congressional porkers?
Then there are franks, as in Congressional “franking” (mailing) privileges, typically abused more than the pigs who squeal when their ears are notched. Isn’t it also funny how franks also arise from pigs, too, as in pork sausage? So, franks and earmarks are porker hallmarks, both.
Another, more troubling similarity is that Members of Congress (MoC’s) are addicted to both. There have been numerous attempts, and many more proposed, to reform both practices. Frankly, those aimed to reform abuse of the mailing privilege have repeatedly failed. Several to reform Congress’ drunken reliance upon “earmarks” are still under debate. Prognoses as to their ultimate success are not good.
Why?—Because franks and earmarks represent the deepest roots of corruption of our own, people’s branch of our 3-legged government, the Congress – “deepest” because they make the rest of us accomplices in corruption. Consider franks. Our Rep’s [e.g., Paul Hodes, D, CD2] claim that the mail sent out by their offices – costing over $175,000 of taxpayers’ money! -- are a basic tool of democracy – to provide information. Actually, the mail is mainly self-serving / self-promotion, a basic tool of un-democracy -- to cut competition for the office and greatly increase the odds of re-election based upon self-advertising rather than accountability.
We are made accomplices in the promotion game by the stationery and postage printed at our expense, prominently featuring our Rep. and his committee memberships, and by the illusion that real, good information about what’s going on in Congress is being provided. Who has the time to delve below the superficial impression of receiving “information from your Congressman” in order to find out what is NOT being reported or revealed? Who stops to recall that there are two ways to lie, by omission as well as by commission?
Constituent complicity in corruption is far less subtle in the case of earmarks. After all, getting a local project earmarked in the federal budget is part of a Congressman’s job, isn’t it? His District is just a teensy-weensy part of the budget, after all, isn’t it? Shouldn’t our District get a piece of the federal pie? What’s wrong with that?
What’s wrong is that our Rep’s are bribing us, again, to ensure their re-election(s). They don’t tell us the implications of local project pork any more than that of their “frank” mail. The fact of the matter is that earmarks have been shoehorned into federal budgets in rapidly increasing numbers over the past several years. Some shoehorns have been properly legislated and above board, some not and subrosa. Total outlays for earmarks nationwide have been budget busters. So, the MoC who takes credit for earmarks while claiming to be fighting the increasing federal deficit is a hypocrite. We constituents get turned into hypocrites, too. We’ve been lulled into rationalizing earmarks, as if we can eat our cake and have it, too.
Both franks and earmarks are like soft-core pornography -- something legal that many people enjoy but won’t admit to -- an area where self-policing fails. The standards for Congressional mail to qualify for taxpayer subsidy are set by who? – who else but a committee of Congress, just like Congress self-policing of Congressional ethics. Does anyone think that Congress’ standards for qualifying “earmarks” would do anything but avoid more “bridges to nowhere”?
The answers lie in independent citizens’ committee to set standards in both areas. Except more is needed to get Congress unhooked from earmarks. A lot more money is involved, often for worthy local projects like courthouses and roads. Here, let’s return to an important part of the Reagan legacy: “Let’s get power and money out of Washington and bring it down home to states and localities.” Remember General Revenue Sharing? Bring it back with a focus on localities more that states, so that local governments receive federal money for local projects with no strings attached.
Members: Will you rise to the challenge?
PETER BEARSE, Ph.D., International Consulting Economist and Member of the Budget Committee, Town of Fremont, NH, Feb. 15, 2008. Comments welcomed via peterj@politicalcommunity.us.
__________________________
ON THE NEED FOR A NEW PARTY TO MATCH THE NEEDS OF NEW TIMES
WEDNESDAY MORNING GROUP
CENTER-RIGHT COALTION MEETING OF FEB. 6, 2008
Presentation by Peter Bearse, Ph.D., International Consulting Economist
Candidate for Congress in NH CD 1
My book, WE THE PEOPLE, heralded the upsurge of people’s participation in politics that we’re now seeing via some of the presidential campaigns. It also sees the need for a “conservative populist”, people-based party. Will Republicans rise to the challenge or, like the Whigs, will the GOP gradually be replaced by another party? I’d like to think that the stage has been set for a “new birth of freedom” led by the Republican Party. Why? – because Republican values are already more consistent with the new age than those of the Democrats and because we Republicans are more oriented to the business community.
Chapter 7 of my book spells out a thesis that you won’t find elsewhere: Models and features of a better politics and government can be drawn from the business community. A prime test of leadership is how well these lessons are expressed and applied, politically. Here is a baker’s dozen of ways business has adapted to the new age:
- Flattening hierarchies.
- More flexible and open forms of organization.
- Decentralizing, so that even the subsidiaries of giant corporations are managed more entrepreneurially, like small-scale enterprises.
- Promoting intrapreneurship – entrepreneurship and innovation within large organizations.
- Enabling innovation company-wide, by putting advanced technologies in the hands of every employee as well as through incentives and reorganizations.
- Breaking down artificial, intra-corporate, departmental boxes to enable loops of communication that facilitate innovation and greater productivity.
- Enabling improvements from the shop floor and the bottom up; encouraging & enabling people to participate.
- Identifying, adapting and implementing “best practices” from industrywide and worldwide competition.
- Constant upgrading of human resources via training, retraining and education of personnel.
- Incentives for risk-taking and experimentation.
- Creating learning organizations that learn from experience, including failure.
- Open-book management; with transparency and accountability.
- Increasing collaboration, both within and between enterprises.
See the block diagram on page 226 of my book for more. The contrasts with political party committees (PPCs) could not be sharper. By comparison, with rare exceptions, PPCs are like organizational dinosaurs getting ready for extinction. They are hierarchical, closed, relatively rigid organizations that do very little to upgrade their people; to encourage innovation, collaboration and participation; identify and apply best-practices, break down artificial barriers, encourage openness, or act like “learning organizations.” [See books by MIT’s Peter Senge for more]
Is it any wonder that the “local political infrastructure” of the GOP suffers severe depreciation, and that the largest and fastest growing segment of the electorate is that of the “unenrolled” – political independents? The question is: What are you, political leaders all, going to do about it? --
v Try to distill, adapt and apply lessons from the advanced sectors of the American business community?
v Light fires under political committees nationwide and drive them with an agenda for real change – a PPC counterpart of Newt’s program for Real Change and “American Solutions”…OR would you…
v Assume that conventional forms of PPC organization, methods and behaviors are just fine and dandy while you continue to be surprised by the challenging flare-ups of the unconventional, like the Ron Paul campaign, the new populisms of Obama, Edwards, and Huckabee, and the political uses of IT/social interaction software of Facebook, My Place, Digg, etc. ??
v Work to elect more go-along, get-along, political business-as-usual types to Congress and to PPC positions?
Besides being an international consulting economist who has worked in Pakistan, Iraq and 13 other countries, I am an unconventional, independent challenger for the Republican nomination to Congress in New Hampshire’s 1st Congres-sional District. As such, I am the one to beat the incumbent, Carol Shea-Porter. Frank Guinta, Mayor of Manchester, has raised the most money, but he is a colorless political careerist who is poised to play the same old, go-along/get-along game as his predecessor, Jeb Bradley . The other monied challenger, Bob Bestani, is a technocrat who has never been elected to anything.
I need your support. If you want an innovative agent for real change who will work to empower a conservative populism, then check out www.peterbearseforcongress.com and click on “Take Action.”
Thank you again for your time and attention.
Peter Bearse, Ph.D., 8/6/09
|
