by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, December 24, 2009
Every other week, as my brother and I consider the many issues that divide us, we usually have several to choose from. Ultimately, one or the other of us will graciously accept the choice of the other and we then proceed to research and opine.
However, this week and this day we decided to “pull in the claws” and deliver a column upon which we both can agree – the season of Christmas.
There can be no denying that this special day is like no other on our calendar. Each year we lament the fact that commercial interests push the envelope of propriety and sanctity further and further out of shape, yet each year we submit to the pull and follow along, if not willingly, at least without much protest. The familiar songs and images greet us in every storefront and the advertisements that interrupt our TV viewing compel us to join in the annual charade.
Why do we get caught up in the flow of house-decorating, gift-giving, card-sending, goody-baking, family-greeting and party-making every year?
Why is this day and this season so special?
The history of mankind reveals our love for, and need for, tradition and ritual. I am sure that is one reason why this day grabs us no matter how hard we may try to resist. But biological or sociological needs tend to only draw us so far. There has to be another reason, a greater pull, a deeper calling that causes us to put up with the struggles of: untangling coils of lights in the bitter cold, finding the perfect gift, addressing and mailing cards to people we neglect 51 weeks out of 52, sweating over countertops and ovens as we cook and bake ourselves into sugar-highs, arranging and squeezing family get-togethers and parties onto calendars and day planners, etc. etc.
I suggest that this day is so very special only because the birth it represents was so special. The incarnation of the Supreme One may or may not have actually occurred upon the 25th day of December. I am not qualified to argue for its validity as the actual date of Christ’s birth – but I am qualified to discuss what I believe.
I believe that His birth changed our world forever, and no matter how commercial the season becomes, He will always outshine the synthetic glitter. There is a soft, still voice that whispers just beneath the clamor and it speaks volumes. It speaks of a Creator who became confined within his creation to redeem a rebellious creature.
I believe this small voice first broke the musty silence of a stable in Bethlehem in the form a baby’s whimper. Now, that voice speaks through the actions of those who reach out toward the less fortunate with gifts of mercy. It is that voice that comes through the sound of pocket change falling into a red kettle.
I believe our political and ideological differences melt away to insignificance as we get caught up in the spirit of this season. The message proclaimed on that Bethlehem hillside of “Peace on Earth, goodwill toward all men” is being repeated today too, as we send the cards and wrap the gifts. It is impossible for us to imagine a time when there will ever be Peace on Earth throughout our whole planet, but each year we should do our part to bring peace and good will to at least a small portion of it.
It is in that hope that I extend my hand to Keith and all our faithful readers. Let us forget our differences and share in the common belief that we are all God’s creatures and, for one day, at least, we are all speaking in one voice.
“Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.”
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Christmas Wishes
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, December 24, 2009
The holiday season is a special time of the year. My fondest memories as a child centered around gatherings of family and the returning home of my older siblings during the yuletide season. As an adult, despite the guilt and anxiety of the financial stresses of this commercialized time, I find the spirit irresistible as my own family congregates for Christmas Eve services, dinners and other festivities.
Every year, it gets harder to deny the uniqueness of the holidays and not just because seasonal commercials and ad fliers now start appearing on the scene in mid-October. During the last couple of weeks nearly everyone I encounter in businesses and stores has a smile to offer and a kind word. Salvation Army kettles fill with change and bills, even as a depressed economy leaves most of our friends and neighbors with fewer dollars in their wallets. Blood banks and soup kitchens find more participation and donations of time and resources.
However, I can’t simply attribute the power and spirit of the holidays to a Christian ideal. One must accept that the celebration of non-Christians during this season is as legitimate as those who celebrate Jesus’ birth. Devout Jews honor the sacred traditions of Hanukkah with every bit as much zeal as is evidenced in the carols and candle lighting of Christmas. Atheists even embrace the season despite the elements of Christendom.
In fact, the traditions of Christmas not only transcend Christianity, they have their origins in paganism. The yuletide was an observance of the winter festival of Germanic peoples. Customs such as caroling and trimming of trees come from these celebrations.
Still, there is a sense of miracle and magic that one can scarcely debate. Given this time of wonder, it seems natural to believe that our most ambitious wishes might come true. I would like to allow a glimpse at my Christmas list. Miracles and magic allow optimism to be limitless so my wishes aim high.
Since the season is a time for cheer, I have a couple desires on the lighter side. First, I wish for former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and TV and Radio personality Glenn Beck to announce bids for the 2012 Republican nomination. That would be a gift that would keep giving right through the primary debates.
Secondly, I wish for Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman to either adopt a Republican Party affiliation or step down from his position. I would rather see Democrats lose a vote to the other side of the aisle than continue to court someone who is trying to strip all that is meaningful from any legislation intended to bring change.
I wish for some important issues to be addressed as well.
I wish for politics to be removed from policy regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Policy-makers should examine the merits of these missions, and a responsible withdrawal from a futile occupation should be perceived as wisdom and not weakness.
I wish for financial and economic systems in the United States to be assessed honestly. We need to stop clinging to a false idealism of capitalism and stop rejecting progressive ideals out of fear of words like “socialism”, which have become perverted by years of abuse and misinformation.
I wish for the current health care plan in Congress to be thrown out. A new bill with a simpler solution should take its place. Medicare should be expanded to cover all who choose it. Private insurance companies should be limited in the influence of their lobby in Washington and should not be exempted from regulation or anti-trust laws. This would lower the cost of health care coverage and free up resources to help rid the Medicare system of waste and corruption.
In this season of peace, love and hope, there is room for optimism. One can wish for goodwill to all. One can wish for commonality among the divisiveness that plagues discourse. One can wish for peace on Earth. One can still believe in the miracle and magic of the season.
From Broader View Weekly, December 24, 2009
The holiday season is a special time of the year. My fondest memories as a child centered around gatherings of family and the returning home of my older siblings during the yuletide season. As an adult, despite the guilt and anxiety of the financial stresses of this commercialized time, I find the spirit irresistible as my own family congregates for Christmas Eve services, dinners and other festivities.
Every year, it gets harder to deny the uniqueness of the holidays and not just because seasonal commercials and ad fliers now start appearing on the scene in mid-October. During the last couple of weeks nearly everyone I encounter in businesses and stores has a smile to offer and a kind word. Salvation Army kettles fill with change and bills, even as a depressed economy leaves most of our friends and neighbors with fewer dollars in their wallets. Blood banks and soup kitchens find more participation and donations of time and resources.
However, I can’t simply attribute the power and spirit of the holidays to a Christian ideal. One must accept that the celebration of non-Christians during this season is as legitimate as those who celebrate Jesus’ birth. Devout Jews honor the sacred traditions of Hanukkah with every bit as much zeal as is evidenced in the carols and candle lighting of Christmas. Atheists even embrace the season despite the elements of Christendom.
In fact, the traditions of Christmas not only transcend Christianity, they have their origins in paganism. The yuletide was an observance of the winter festival of Germanic peoples. Customs such as caroling and trimming of trees come from these celebrations.
Still, there is a sense of miracle and magic that one can scarcely debate. Given this time of wonder, it seems natural to believe that our most ambitious wishes might come true. I would like to allow a glimpse at my Christmas list. Miracles and magic allow optimism to be limitless so my wishes aim high.
Since the season is a time for cheer, I have a couple desires on the lighter side. First, I wish for former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and TV and Radio personality Glenn Beck to announce bids for the 2012 Republican nomination. That would be a gift that would keep giving right through the primary debates.
Secondly, I wish for Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman to either adopt a Republican Party affiliation or step down from his position. I would rather see Democrats lose a vote to the other side of the aisle than continue to court someone who is trying to strip all that is meaningful from any legislation intended to bring change.
I wish for some important issues to be addressed as well.
I wish for politics to be removed from policy regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Policy-makers should examine the merits of these missions, and a responsible withdrawal from a futile occupation should be perceived as wisdom and not weakness.
I wish for financial and economic systems in the United States to be assessed honestly. We need to stop clinging to a false idealism of capitalism and stop rejecting progressive ideals out of fear of words like “socialism”, which have become perverted by years of abuse and misinformation.
I wish for the current health care plan in Congress to be thrown out. A new bill with a simpler solution should take its place. Medicare should be expanded to cover all who choose it. Private insurance companies should be limited in the influence of their lobby in Washington and should not be exempted from regulation or anti-trust laws. This would lower the cost of health care coverage and free up resources to help rid the Medicare system of waste and corruption.
In this season of peace, love and hope, there is room for optimism. One can wish for goodwill to all. One can wish for commonality among the divisiveness that plagues discourse. One can wish for peace on Earth. One can still believe in the miracle and magic of the season.
Obama’s Afghanistan Strategy
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, December 10, 2009
On Tuesday, December 1, President Barack Obama gave a primetime speech to the American public outlining his strategy going forward in the war in Afghanistan.
The thrust of the plan is a three-pronged approach intended to bring a successful end to our involvement there. The components were a commitment of 30,000 additional U.S. troops to stabilize the region; a civilian effort to provide security; and a partnership with Pakistan to combat the threat of terror in the border region.
While the address given before cadets at West Point Military Academy was far from Obama’s most eloquent and effective oration, I felt he presented a well-structured argument for an escalation of troops and a change of strategies with regard to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He dismissed criticisms from those who felt he took too much time to deliberate something as simple as dispatching young men and women into harm’s way, by discussing the weight of the decision and the fact that none of the existing requests called for action sooner than this near-immediate surge. He answered other critics who think we should remain in open-ended occupation there, by determining a timetable and exit strategy, something antithetical to the previous administration’s stay-the-course approach.
I found myself taking a hard look at my own opinions on Afghanistan. I have always recognized that the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated from strongholds in the region, and one of my greatest criticisms of the Bush administration was that it missed opportunities to capture al Qaeda leadership there because of a preoccupation with engaging in a war of choice in Iraq. So, when Obama spoke of the threat to national security that a strengthening al Qaeda would be, I couldn’t help but agree.
The president also spoke of the decline in conditions and the growing danger to Afghans and to our troops. I have to agree again. I see the growing dangers and I know that his mention of the problem reflects the assessments of the commander on the ground General Stanley McChrystal; ambassadors, and other experts. I accept that the security of our forces is – and should be – of primary concern to their commander in chief. I support any efforts to ensure that security.
That said, I found much of Obama’s announcement troubling. There is a tendency within mass media, and even with policy-makers, to oversimplify the situation. An outcry was spun into a frenzy by pundits who posited that Obama’s refusal to commit troops immediately upon McChrystal’s request was a sign of weakness. To me this deliberation signaled an understanding by the president that Afghanistan was a complex problem. The country is embroiled in a long civil war. Tribal conflicts beset the region. Corruption is rampant and hinders the function of government and civil bodies.
Furthermore, Obama’s description of that government was less than promising. While he admitted that the recent re-election of Afghan President Hamid Karzai was marred by corruption, he claimed that the Karzai government was “consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and constitution.” I would have felt more confident about support of an election that represented the will of the Afghan people. Unfortunately, the common mistrust among Afghanis of their governing powers is only exacerbated by our long-term presence there.
My apprehension about further commitment to this mission is echoed by many others. Former U.S. State Department representative to Zabul Province Matthew Hoh resigned in September from that position in protest stating that he failed “to see the value or the worth in continued U.S. casualties and expenditures of resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year-old civil war.” Likewise Congressman Eric Massa of New York’s 29th district has been vocal in his opposition to expanding the troop levels in Afghanistan. Among his reasons, he lists the enormous cost of the war at a time when our national treasury is strapped with debt and other commitments.
The economic cost of this war has become a focus of attention even within Congress. The Pentagon’s comptroller’s office submitted a recent report to congressional leaders in order to justify figures the administration has been using to valuate the proposed Afghanistan strategy. An estimated cost of $1 billion per 1,000 has been used to come up with the $30 billion Obama said would be spent in the next twelve months. As justification of part of that expenditure the Pentagon released the fact that a gallon of gasoline used to power vehicles and aircraft in the region costs an alarming $400. The details of the process of transporting fuel to the field (which contributes to this cost, are outlined in an October 15 article from The Hill) culminate in a figure known as the “fully burdened cost.” According to some analysts the fully burdened cost of fuel can be as high as $1,000 per gallon. The human toll of this war is alarming enough. The financial price tag in the midst of our crippled economy is staggering.
I look at my daughters, aged 19 and 21, and I realize the enormous price sending 30,000 American sons and daughters (the majority of them similar in ages). Then I look at the complexity of the situation and the near futility of the stated mission. Then I look at the double standard many employ with their support of committing human and financial resources to this war, while complaining about the tax burden of providing affordable health care to U.S. citizens. With these factors in view, I cannot lend my support to Obama’s proposed strategy in Afghanistan.
From Broader View Weekly, December 10, 2009
On Tuesday, December 1, President Barack Obama gave a primetime speech to the American public outlining his strategy going forward in the war in Afghanistan.
The thrust of the plan is a three-pronged approach intended to bring a successful end to our involvement there. The components were a commitment of 30,000 additional U.S. troops to stabilize the region; a civilian effort to provide security; and a partnership with Pakistan to combat the threat of terror in the border region.
While the address given before cadets at West Point Military Academy was far from Obama’s most eloquent and effective oration, I felt he presented a well-structured argument for an escalation of troops and a change of strategies with regard to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He dismissed criticisms from those who felt he took too much time to deliberate something as simple as dispatching young men and women into harm’s way, by discussing the weight of the decision and the fact that none of the existing requests called for action sooner than this near-immediate surge. He answered other critics who think we should remain in open-ended occupation there, by determining a timetable and exit strategy, something antithetical to the previous administration’s stay-the-course approach.
I found myself taking a hard look at my own opinions on Afghanistan. I have always recognized that the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated from strongholds in the region, and one of my greatest criticisms of the Bush administration was that it missed opportunities to capture al Qaeda leadership there because of a preoccupation with engaging in a war of choice in Iraq. So, when Obama spoke of the threat to national security that a strengthening al Qaeda would be, I couldn’t help but agree.
The president also spoke of the decline in conditions and the growing danger to Afghans and to our troops. I have to agree again. I see the growing dangers and I know that his mention of the problem reflects the assessments of the commander on the ground General Stanley McChrystal; ambassadors, and other experts. I accept that the security of our forces is – and should be – of primary concern to their commander in chief. I support any efforts to ensure that security.
That said, I found much of Obama’s announcement troubling. There is a tendency within mass media, and even with policy-makers, to oversimplify the situation. An outcry was spun into a frenzy by pundits who posited that Obama’s refusal to commit troops immediately upon McChrystal’s request was a sign of weakness. To me this deliberation signaled an understanding by the president that Afghanistan was a complex problem. The country is embroiled in a long civil war. Tribal conflicts beset the region. Corruption is rampant and hinders the function of government and civil bodies.
Furthermore, Obama’s description of that government was less than promising. While he admitted that the recent re-election of Afghan President Hamid Karzai was marred by corruption, he claimed that the Karzai government was “consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and constitution.” I would have felt more confident about support of an election that represented the will of the Afghan people. Unfortunately, the common mistrust among Afghanis of their governing powers is only exacerbated by our long-term presence there.
My apprehension about further commitment to this mission is echoed by many others. Former U.S. State Department representative to Zabul Province Matthew Hoh resigned in September from that position in protest stating that he failed “to see the value or the worth in continued U.S. casualties and expenditures of resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year-old civil war.” Likewise Congressman Eric Massa of New York’s 29th district has been vocal in his opposition to expanding the troop levels in Afghanistan. Among his reasons, he lists the enormous cost of the war at a time when our national treasury is strapped with debt and other commitments.
The economic cost of this war has become a focus of attention even within Congress. The Pentagon’s comptroller’s office submitted a recent report to congressional leaders in order to justify figures the administration has been using to valuate the proposed Afghanistan strategy. An estimated cost of $1 billion per 1,000 has been used to come up with the $30 billion Obama said would be spent in the next twelve months. As justification of part of that expenditure the Pentagon released the fact that a gallon of gasoline used to power vehicles and aircraft in the region costs an alarming $400. The details of the process of transporting fuel to the field (which contributes to this cost, are outlined in an October 15 article from The Hill) culminate in a figure known as the “fully burdened cost.” According to some analysts the fully burdened cost of fuel can be as high as $1,000 per gallon. The human toll of this war is alarming enough. The financial price tag in the midst of our crippled economy is staggering.
I look at my daughters, aged 19 and 21, and I realize the enormous price sending 30,000 American sons and daughters (the majority of them similar in ages). Then I look at the complexity of the situation and the near futility of the stated mission. Then I look at the double standard many employ with their support of committing human and financial resources to this war, while complaining about the tax burden of providing affordable health care to U.S. citizens. With these factors in view, I cannot lend my support to Obama’s proposed strategy in Afghanistan.
Too busy being fabulous
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, December 10, 2009
“You were just too busy being fabulous…
Too busy to think about us”
-Don Henley & Glenn Frey
The above words come from the song: “Busy Being Fabulous” performed by The Eagles on their latest album, Long Road Out of Eden. It is sad to say that our brave men and women struggling against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan could rightfully sing that chorus to Barack Obama. While they watch their leader travel the globe and as they watched him campaign in state governor races, they could justifiably wonder if he was just too busy being fabulous to think about them.
Our president appointed General McChrystal to take the leading role in the conflict in Afghanistan, who called upon Obama to provide him with the additional troops to carry out his mission. That request was made over 90 days ago.
Now, I am sure his supporters will look at his indecision as “careful deliberation”, and they will claim that Haste makes waste. I suspect that many of our fighting men and women would quickly counter with the opposite proverb that states He who hesitates is lost. Hesitation on the battlefield is a deadly and costly attribute.
What has Obama’s hesitancy cost us? The recent months have seen a rise in U.S. and British casualties and a loss of confidence among our allies. Growing frustration with Obama’s indecisiveness has surfaced in the foreign news media outlets, as British and French leaders expressed concern that the lack of determined leadership will harm the overall mission.
“What is the goal? Where is the road? And in the name of what? Where are the Americans?” Mr. Kouchner, French Foreign Minister, is quoted as asking in The Daily Telegraph. His words echo the same apprehension that caused Bob Ainsworth, the British Defense Secretary, to criticize Obama publicly for a “lack of clear direction” which has made it difficult for ministers to maintain troop morale and public approval for the mission.
The cost of “being fabulous” cannot be measured when one considers that, had McChrystal’s measured request for more troops been honored more swiftly, one single soldier’s death could have been prevented. As commander in chief of the sole superpower of the world, Obama must be aware that his decisions – or lack thereof – have far-reaching ramifications.
I am not suggesting a shoot from the hip approach to these heavy, policy-forming resolutions. I am, however, advocating a rapid, reasoned response that demonstrates a prioritized determination that lives are imperiled by protracted procrastination.
Now that his decision has finally been made, we can make the following observations: First of all, we can see that he really had no choice but to at least send some of the reinforcements requested by McChrystal. After all, he had repeatedly claimed during his campaign that Afghanistan was the necessary war, not that he really believed it, but merely because he had to oppose the Iraqi liberation that Bush had directed.
I almost felt sympathy for Obama as I read his words. This was a speech made by a man who was made by politics and a hungry media. He lacked both the executive experience and the definitive leadership qualities that are necessary to lead a nation or a battalion into battle, much less into a full-fledged war. Therefore, he was confined to trying to please the conservatives who would criticize him for “dithering” or being too dove-like, while at the same time, he had to keep one foot wiggling in the tents of the left-wing by offering up a “cost-vs.-reward” paragraph and then throwing them the bone of a totally unrealistic and unattainable exit date.
His procrastination has cost him the luxury of setting a real exit date as well as a valid cost analysis. By losing those precious 90 days, we have pushed the actual deployment dates of the 30,000 troops to, at best, late 2010 and, most likely, early 2011. So, to have them arrive in early 2011 and leave by July 2011 is not feasible, and you could see that he knew it wasn’t when he said it.
I agree with the overall goal of dismantling Al Qaeda and the Taliban, because I recognize the threat they represent to liberty. And I agree with the need to involve Pakistan in our strategy. I do not agree, however, with the assumption that we can work with the Karzai administration in any realistic form of nation-building from a central seat of power. The nations of Afghanistan and Pakistan are both bound by centuries of tribal alliances and rivalries. It is a very complex situation, and it cannot be solved in 18 short months.
We must, I believe, limit our approach to destroying the Islamic extremists while leaving the political future of the region to the vagaries of their populace. We should not be seen as propping up one party or tribe or sect.
I did applaud Obama, however, for finally acknowledging that America was not all bad and that we had “underwritten global security for six decades” and he even went as far as admitting that we were responsible for bringing walls down, opening markets, lifting billions from poverty and advancing the frontiers of human liberty. Hopefully, we can add the destruction of Al Qaeda to that list.
From Broader View Weekly, December 10, 2009
“You were just too busy being fabulous…
Too busy to think about us”
-Don Henley & Glenn Frey
The above words come from the song: “Busy Being Fabulous” performed by The Eagles on their latest album, Long Road Out of Eden. It is sad to say that our brave men and women struggling against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan could rightfully sing that chorus to Barack Obama. While they watch their leader travel the globe and as they watched him campaign in state governor races, they could justifiably wonder if he was just too busy being fabulous to think about them.
Our president appointed General McChrystal to take the leading role in the conflict in Afghanistan, who called upon Obama to provide him with the additional troops to carry out his mission. That request was made over 90 days ago.
Now, I am sure his supporters will look at his indecision as “careful deliberation”, and they will claim that Haste makes waste. I suspect that many of our fighting men and women would quickly counter with the opposite proverb that states He who hesitates is lost. Hesitation on the battlefield is a deadly and costly attribute.
What has Obama’s hesitancy cost us? The recent months have seen a rise in U.S. and British casualties and a loss of confidence among our allies. Growing frustration with Obama’s indecisiveness has surfaced in the foreign news media outlets, as British and French leaders expressed concern that the lack of determined leadership will harm the overall mission.
“What is the goal? Where is the road? And in the name of what? Where are the Americans?” Mr. Kouchner, French Foreign Minister, is quoted as asking in The Daily Telegraph. His words echo the same apprehension that caused Bob Ainsworth, the British Defense Secretary, to criticize Obama publicly for a “lack of clear direction” which has made it difficult for ministers to maintain troop morale and public approval for the mission.
The cost of “being fabulous” cannot be measured when one considers that, had McChrystal’s measured request for more troops been honored more swiftly, one single soldier’s death could have been prevented. As commander in chief of the sole superpower of the world, Obama must be aware that his decisions – or lack thereof – have far-reaching ramifications.
I am not suggesting a shoot from the hip approach to these heavy, policy-forming resolutions. I am, however, advocating a rapid, reasoned response that demonstrates a prioritized determination that lives are imperiled by protracted procrastination.
Now that his decision has finally been made, we can make the following observations: First of all, we can see that he really had no choice but to at least send some of the reinforcements requested by McChrystal. After all, he had repeatedly claimed during his campaign that Afghanistan was the necessary war, not that he really believed it, but merely because he had to oppose the Iraqi liberation that Bush had directed.
I almost felt sympathy for Obama as I read his words. This was a speech made by a man who was made by politics and a hungry media. He lacked both the executive experience and the definitive leadership qualities that are necessary to lead a nation or a battalion into battle, much less into a full-fledged war. Therefore, he was confined to trying to please the conservatives who would criticize him for “dithering” or being too dove-like, while at the same time, he had to keep one foot wiggling in the tents of the left-wing by offering up a “cost-vs.-reward” paragraph and then throwing them the bone of a totally unrealistic and unattainable exit date.
His procrastination has cost him the luxury of setting a real exit date as well as a valid cost analysis. By losing those precious 90 days, we have pushed the actual deployment dates of the 30,000 troops to, at best, late 2010 and, most likely, early 2011. So, to have them arrive in early 2011 and leave by July 2011 is not feasible, and you could see that he knew it wasn’t when he said it.
I agree with the overall goal of dismantling Al Qaeda and the Taliban, because I recognize the threat they represent to liberty. And I agree with the need to involve Pakistan in our strategy. I do not agree, however, with the assumption that we can work with the Karzai administration in any realistic form of nation-building from a central seat of power. The nations of Afghanistan and Pakistan are both bound by centuries of tribal alliances and rivalries. It is a very complex situation, and it cannot be solved in 18 short months.
We must, I believe, limit our approach to destroying the Islamic extremists while leaving the political future of the region to the vagaries of their populace. We should not be seen as propping up one party or tribe or sect.
I did applaud Obama, however, for finally acknowledging that America was not all bad and that we had “underwritten global security for six decades” and he even went as far as admitting that we were responsible for bringing walls down, opening markets, lifting billions from poverty and advancing the frontiers of human liberty. Hopefully, we can add the destruction of Al Qaeda to that list.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Potpourri or Hodgepodge Stew
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, November 19, 2009
Rather than revisiting the Health Care issue again, I decided that it might be a better idea to offer a collection of various observations that have occupied the synapses of my feeble mind during the past couple weeks. It will be up to you to decide whether this collection is a potpourri of sagacious thoughts or a hodgepodge stew of misguided meditations. I only ask that you take the time to read them carefully and I invite you to respond with your assessment.
First of all, we must take some time to analyze the results of the election held on November 3. I found it very interesting as I switched from one cable anchor to the next, during the broadcasting of the returns from that night; the same anchors who gleefully told us the ’08 election was the dawning of a new era in American thinking, and that Obama represented an unstoppable force of political energy that would usher in a wave of progressive sociological change. Some even went as far as to say time would soon be divided into the years B.O. (Before Obama) and A.O. (After Obama).
This year, however, these same anchors fell into line with the White House’s assessment that: “There really is nothing to see here, people. Just move along, now.” Well, I’m sorry, but I do think there is something to see here. I see a heavy investment of time, money and political capital (whatever that is) into three key contests that did not go as planned by the reigning party. Obama visited New Jersey and Virginia several times and Biden somehow found his way to the New York 23rd District, yet for all that effort they lost both governorships and only garnered 49% of the votes in the liberal congressional district.
Despite the insistence of the White House that this means nothing and the combined negligence of the mainstream media, I think you must agree with me that when an unknown CPA with the personality of a wet Fig Newton is able to come within 4% of defeating a liberal Democrat in a liberal district even after the Republican candidate dropped out and put her support behind the Democrat, it means something! When Obama makes the case that he needed to have Democrat governors in Virginia and New Jersey to keep his progressive ideals going forward and the voters respond to his pleas with deaf ears, it means something!
What it means to me is that after all the hype and hope for change, many voters seem to be saying that Obama’s force is not unstoppable and the wave of progressive sociological change may be only a ripple in the stream.
Another observation of the past week came to me as I watched our Attorney General tell the assembled reporters that he has decided to bring the terrorists who orchestrated the destruction of 9/11/01 back to the shores of New York City for a civilian trial. This was very disturbing to me as I considered all the ramifications of this decision. This could very easily become less a trial of the guilt or innocence of these vermin and more of a re-trial of the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism policy.
It serves no judicial or moral purpose to bring these creatures into a civilian court. It merely serves the political purpose of revisiting the successful campaign of Obama being the anti-Bush. The best case scenario given by most experts is that this trial would last months or possibly years as civilian lawyers hash and re-hash the interrogation techniques used by our CIA agents. There is also the real possibility this trial would invite another deadly terrorist attack upon NYC. Yet, this justice department assumes those risks to be worth the price if they can once again draw the line of difference between Obama and Bush.
Finally, I observed with pride the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall. It was such a remarkable feeling to watch the film of those people who took down that barrier to freedom with screwdrivers, chunks of rock and bare hands. It made me aware, once again, of how blessed I am to live in this nation. It was the same feeling I had as I watched those Iraqi citizens holding up their purple fingers. Despite the many faults in our past, (and if you don’t know what those faults are, just ask Obama) one cannot dispute the fact that those purple fingers and that crumbled wall would not have been possible without the decisive actions of Reagan and Bush.
So, there you have it - my potpourri of jumbled thoughts, I welcome you to send me yours.
From Broader View Weekly, November 19, 2009
Rather than revisiting the Health Care issue again, I decided that it might be a better idea to offer a collection of various observations that have occupied the synapses of my feeble mind during the past couple weeks. It will be up to you to decide whether this collection is a potpourri of sagacious thoughts or a hodgepodge stew of misguided meditations. I only ask that you take the time to read them carefully and I invite you to respond with your assessment.
First of all, we must take some time to analyze the results of the election held on November 3. I found it very interesting as I switched from one cable anchor to the next, during the broadcasting of the returns from that night; the same anchors who gleefully told us the ’08 election was the dawning of a new era in American thinking, and that Obama represented an unstoppable force of political energy that would usher in a wave of progressive sociological change. Some even went as far as to say time would soon be divided into the years B.O. (Before Obama) and A.O. (After Obama).
This year, however, these same anchors fell into line with the White House’s assessment that: “There really is nothing to see here, people. Just move along, now.” Well, I’m sorry, but I do think there is something to see here. I see a heavy investment of time, money and political capital (whatever that is) into three key contests that did not go as planned by the reigning party. Obama visited New Jersey and Virginia several times and Biden somehow found his way to the New York 23rd District, yet for all that effort they lost both governorships and only garnered 49% of the votes in the liberal congressional district.
Despite the insistence of the White House that this means nothing and the combined negligence of the mainstream media, I think you must agree with me that when an unknown CPA with the personality of a wet Fig Newton is able to come within 4% of defeating a liberal Democrat in a liberal district even after the Republican candidate dropped out and put her support behind the Democrat, it means something! When Obama makes the case that he needed to have Democrat governors in Virginia and New Jersey to keep his progressive ideals going forward and the voters respond to his pleas with deaf ears, it means something!
What it means to me is that after all the hype and hope for change, many voters seem to be saying that Obama’s force is not unstoppable and the wave of progressive sociological change may be only a ripple in the stream.
Another observation of the past week came to me as I watched our Attorney General tell the assembled reporters that he has decided to bring the terrorists who orchestrated the destruction of 9/11/01 back to the shores of New York City for a civilian trial. This was very disturbing to me as I considered all the ramifications of this decision. This could very easily become less a trial of the guilt or innocence of these vermin and more of a re-trial of the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism policy.
It serves no judicial or moral purpose to bring these creatures into a civilian court. It merely serves the political purpose of revisiting the successful campaign of Obama being the anti-Bush. The best case scenario given by most experts is that this trial would last months or possibly years as civilian lawyers hash and re-hash the interrogation techniques used by our CIA agents. There is also the real possibility this trial would invite another deadly terrorist attack upon NYC. Yet, this justice department assumes those risks to be worth the price if they can once again draw the line of difference between Obama and Bush.
Finally, I observed with pride the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall. It was such a remarkable feeling to watch the film of those people who took down that barrier to freedom with screwdrivers, chunks of rock and bare hands. It made me aware, once again, of how blessed I am to live in this nation. It was the same feeling I had as I watched those Iraqi citizens holding up their purple fingers. Despite the many faults in our past, (and if you don’t know what those faults are, just ask Obama) one cannot dispute the fact that those purple fingers and that crumbled wall would not have been possible without the decisive actions of Reagan and Bush.
So, there you have it - my potpourri of jumbled thoughts, I welcome you to send me yours.
Searching for Meaning
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, November 19, 2009
It has been two weeks since the last edition of “All in the Family” and a few events of note have occurred politically and otherwise over that short span.
As humans we are meaning-makers. We strive in every aspect of our life to connect effects to causes. It is a natural predisposition to attempt to assign grand meaning and purpose to everything that occurs. Media and journalists are not only party to that same disposition, they often are the sources that many seek out when looking for the deeper meaning of something. This becomes a problem when it suits a certain agenda to impose a specific reasoning as the ultimate and true one.
Even before the election results were tallied on Tuesday, November 3, the off-year contests all over the country were being called a referendum on President Obama’s approval numbers by media personalities. The three races most closely examined hinged, it seemed, not on the character, qualifications or competence of the candidates involved but on the collective attitude of the country after nine months of the Obama administration, as if the entire nation shared a common pulse beat. Yes, it is true that millions of dollars and the energy of the President and his administration were spent in an effort to support the efforts of two gubernatorial candidates. Yes, that expenditure fell short of delivering Democrats victory in Virginia and New Jersey. However, as with every event these races did not occur in a vacuum. Other factors, including alleged corruption and negative smear campaigning were also at play. In fact, one should seriously question the value of our democratic (small “d”) system, if the viability and strength of individual candidates are negligible, and the politics of party are king.
I think such a perversion took place in the New York Congressional District 23 during the recent special election. When the Republican Party offered a candidate in Dede Scozzafava who failed to pass muster with a certain segment of the party’s base, the big guns were brought out. Controversial but widely popular personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin were enlisted to drive Scozzafava from the race and prop up Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman in an unsuccessful bid for the seat which had been held by Republicans for the last 16 years. The sad thing is that while most of the country (and even most of New York State) knew little about the candidates, save the bad press and bashing Scozzafava was receiving from Republican Party loyalists, folks all over were chiming in and speculating about the “importance” of the election.
No one knows how these contests would have played out in an environment unmarred by the tug-of-war of party politics. It is frustrating to me that so much energy is expended in win/lose team loyalty aggression that progress and change are dashed on the rocks of political peril.
Another milestone of the past couple of weeks was the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Meaning-makers on the right have long offered only one factor that led to 1989’s monumental event. According to some Ronald Reagan’s channeling of the biblical Joshua and speaking of the words “tear down this wall” were enough to shake its foundation and bring its collapse. It is interesting that many of the same people who now laud the power and influence of grassroots efforts deny this same spirit in East Berliners and attribute credit instead to a legend that far overshadows the actual man on whom it is based.
Another event that demanded the nation’s attention was the tragic shootings at Fort Hood, Texas. On November 5, I happened to be tuning in to a cable news channel when the first reports of the rampage broke. Over the next few hours, speculation abounded regarding the motivation behind such an act. Initial analysis focused on the unique stresses and distresses experienced by the men and women we send into harms way to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. This careful condemnation of the violence while expressing sensitivity to the plight of our servicemen and women held until the name of the gunman was released. As soon as an Arab-sounding name was released to the media, networks from Fox News to CNN began using the word terrorism. This easy connection between Arabs and terrorism (and between Muslims and terrorism) provided the only meaning many viewers needed. Many of those who were calling into television and radio talk shows were calling the tragedy a terrorist attack. Pundits and media personalities were demanding a declaration of the same by President Obama.
Was Nidal Malik Hasan a Muslim? Yes he was. Did he disapprove of U.S. military involvement in the Middle East? Yes he did. Did he express that disapproval on many occasions? Yes he did. Did he correspond with a cleric who espoused radical views? Yes he did. Was he a terrorist? Despite those who seek to define it as such because it reinforces easy prejudice, he was not. One must look past the convenient labels and accept that terrorism is the product of organized and sanctioned aggression aimed toward a stated agenda. Hasan is a disturbed man, convinced that he had been victimized because of his religious belief, and influenced by radicals. He committed a heinous crime.
Again there were other factors at work. We will always seek meaning within events. That is our human nature. However, we must look beyond the shallow surface and past the media’s spoon-fed reasoning to find true meaning.
From Broader View Weekly, November 19, 2009
It has been two weeks since the last edition of “All in the Family” and a few events of note have occurred politically and otherwise over that short span.
As humans we are meaning-makers. We strive in every aspect of our life to connect effects to causes. It is a natural predisposition to attempt to assign grand meaning and purpose to everything that occurs. Media and journalists are not only party to that same disposition, they often are the sources that many seek out when looking for the deeper meaning of something. This becomes a problem when it suits a certain agenda to impose a specific reasoning as the ultimate and true one.
Even before the election results were tallied on Tuesday, November 3, the off-year contests all over the country were being called a referendum on President Obama’s approval numbers by media personalities. The three races most closely examined hinged, it seemed, not on the character, qualifications or competence of the candidates involved but on the collective attitude of the country after nine months of the Obama administration, as if the entire nation shared a common pulse beat. Yes, it is true that millions of dollars and the energy of the President and his administration were spent in an effort to support the efforts of two gubernatorial candidates. Yes, that expenditure fell short of delivering Democrats victory in Virginia and New Jersey. However, as with every event these races did not occur in a vacuum. Other factors, including alleged corruption and negative smear campaigning were also at play. In fact, one should seriously question the value of our democratic (small “d”) system, if the viability and strength of individual candidates are negligible, and the politics of party are king.
I think such a perversion took place in the New York Congressional District 23 during the recent special election. When the Republican Party offered a candidate in Dede Scozzafava who failed to pass muster with a certain segment of the party’s base, the big guns were brought out. Controversial but widely popular personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin were enlisted to drive Scozzafava from the race and prop up Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman in an unsuccessful bid for the seat which had been held by Republicans for the last 16 years. The sad thing is that while most of the country (and even most of New York State) knew little about the candidates, save the bad press and bashing Scozzafava was receiving from Republican Party loyalists, folks all over were chiming in and speculating about the “importance” of the election.
No one knows how these contests would have played out in an environment unmarred by the tug-of-war of party politics. It is frustrating to me that so much energy is expended in win/lose team loyalty aggression that progress and change are dashed on the rocks of political peril.
Another milestone of the past couple of weeks was the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Meaning-makers on the right have long offered only one factor that led to 1989’s monumental event. According to some Ronald Reagan’s channeling of the biblical Joshua and speaking of the words “tear down this wall” were enough to shake its foundation and bring its collapse. It is interesting that many of the same people who now laud the power and influence of grassroots efforts deny this same spirit in East Berliners and attribute credit instead to a legend that far overshadows the actual man on whom it is based.
Another event that demanded the nation’s attention was the tragic shootings at Fort Hood, Texas. On November 5, I happened to be tuning in to a cable news channel when the first reports of the rampage broke. Over the next few hours, speculation abounded regarding the motivation behind such an act. Initial analysis focused on the unique stresses and distresses experienced by the men and women we send into harms way to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. This careful condemnation of the violence while expressing sensitivity to the plight of our servicemen and women held until the name of the gunman was released. As soon as an Arab-sounding name was released to the media, networks from Fox News to CNN began using the word terrorism. This easy connection between Arabs and terrorism (and between Muslims and terrorism) provided the only meaning many viewers needed. Many of those who were calling into television and radio talk shows were calling the tragedy a terrorist attack. Pundits and media personalities were demanding a declaration of the same by President Obama.
Was Nidal Malik Hasan a Muslim? Yes he was. Did he disapprove of U.S. military involvement in the Middle East? Yes he did. Did he express that disapproval on many occasions? Yes he did. Did he correspond with a cleric who espoused radical views? Yes he did. Was he a terrorist? Despite those who seek to define it as such because it reinforces easy prejudice, he was not. One must look past the convenient labels and accept that terrorism is the product of organized and sanctioned aggression aimed toward a stated agenda. Hasan is a disturbed man, convinced that he had been victimized because of his religious belief, and influenced by radicals. He committed a heinous crime.
Again there were other factors at work. We will always seek meaning within events. That is our human nature. However, we must look beyond the shallow surface and past the media’s spoon-fed reasoning to find true meaning.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
A Health Care Revolution
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, November 6, 2009
In light of the shouts and murmurs rising from Tea Parties and town hall meetings, I am afraid that the use of the term “revolution” may classify me as part of a certain breed who seeks to reclaim some idealized vision of America from the grips of those currently in power. However, I believe that any real relief from the current healthcare crisis will have its roots in revolutionary thinking.
The bills in the works now on Capitol Hill are the products of flawed process dressed up as democratic compromise. The problem is that the process is so corrupt that the only victory that comes of it may be a political one. After the bills are loaded up with amendments and stripped to rags by concessions, Congressional leaders and the president will be able to say they struck a blow for health care reform. Unfortunately, partisan opposition has failed those who are truly in need of health care relief by hindering and obstructing benevolent intentions and neutering the legislative process.
At the risk of being characterized as naïve, allow me to submit an idea I would like to see emerge from Congress. I’ll admit that this is not a unique idea, though its quick condemnation by opponents seems to suggest it is a queer and ludicrous invention.
I propose, as do many others before me, a single-payer plan that is the expansion of Medicare to be offered to all regardless of age. This plan should have an opt-out mechanism to offer choice, and to satisfy those who prefer pricey private insurance or the opportunity to gamble with their health. This plan would also be more legislatively efficient because it would simply require an outline of adjustments to the current Medicare structure.
Some will argue that Medicare is flawed with waste and excess. I would agree in part, but the current private system with its vicious denial of claims and coverage is a much more flawed and I would argue much less patient-friendly approach. In fact, an expanded Medicare network would have greater resources with which to address waste and fraud. The large numbers of medical experts and practitioners who have voiced their advocacy for a “Medicare-for-all” model, attest to their confidence in the quality and viability of the concept.
“But,” the critics will cry “how will we pay for all of this?” I would echo the ideas presented by dozens of experts and politicians (including President Obama): eliminating tax cuts for the wealthiest among us; and rolling back tax rates to pre-Reagan administration levels. Of course, this is the kind of talk that gets sneered at by Obama-bashers as socialist redistribution of wealth. Never mind that lopsided corporate favoritism has grown the wealth/poverty gap to embarrassing levels and essentially eradicated the middle class. It’s time to accept the fact that supply-side Reaganomics was only successful in fattening the supply side of the equation while never actually trickling down to feed the working class.
Up until now, though the obstructionist would label it socialist drivel, my ideal option is far from revolutionary. It expands a current structure to cover more needy Americans. It offers choice and liberty, while paying for itself by righting wrongs exacted against hard-working citizens.
We as common citizens are held hostage. The idea that we cannot hope for real reform because the medical industry represents one-sixth of our economy is an embarrassment and a travesty. Something as vital as attainable health care should be the banner for everyone who claims to value human life, yet we have collectively allowed this essential human service to become a for-profit commodity. We have allowed powerful insurance companies to have nearly unfettered influence in legislation that has direct impact on their interests. We have caved in to pressure by pharmaceutical corporations. We have offered our support to the corporate health care machine against our own interests. We have done so, largely, because of a misguided allegiance to an ideal called capitalism and a belief that somehow the free market will right all wrongs. We have clung to this belief despite the worsening state of our for-profit health system and our plight as its consumers.
Let’s reclaim health care from the grasp of greed. Let’s break the monopolistic stranglehold of private insurance corporations whose legal obligations rest with their shareholders not their stakeholders. Let’s allow physicians and providers to focus on quality of care and not the quantity of patients. Let’s reduce the influence of pharmaceutical companies and put decisions back in the hands of qualified doctors (not patients dazed by the incessant bombardment of advertising). Let’s make the Hippocratic Oath mean as much as the beat cop’s commitment to protect and serve, or the school teacher’s commitment to impact a student’s life.
This is revolutionary change but it requires active participation. We the People must stand up and demand the attention of those chosen to represent us.
From Broader View Weekly, November 6, 2009
In light of the shouts and murmurs rising from Tea Parties and town hall meetings, I am afraid that the use of the term “revolution” may classify me as part of a certain breed who seeks to reclaim some idealized vision of America from the grips of those currently in power. However, I believe that any real relief from the current healthcare crisis will have its roots in revolutionary thinking.
The bills in the works now on Capitol Hill are the products of flawed process dressed up as democratic compromise. The problem is that the process is so corrupt that the only victory that comes of it may be a political one. After the bills are loaded up with amendments and stripped to rags by concessions, Congressional leaders and the president will be able to say they struck a blow for health care reform. Unfortunately, partisan opposition has failed those who are truly in need of health care relief by hindering and obstructing benevolent intentions and neutering the legislative process.
At the risk of being characterized as naïve, allow me to submit an idea I would like to see emerge from Congress. I’ll admit that this is not a unique idea, though its quick condemnation by opponents seems to suggest it is a queer and ludicrous invention.
I propose, as do many others before me, a single-payer plan that is the expansion of Medicare to be offered to all regardless of age. This plan should have an opt-out mechanism to offer choice, and to satisfy those who prefer pricey private insurance or the opportunity to gamble with their health. This plan would also be more legislatively efficient because it would simply require an outline of adjustments to the current Medicare structure.
Some will argue that Medicare is flawed with waste and excess. I would agree in part, but the current private system with its vicious denial of claims and coverage is a much more flawed and I would argue much less patient-friendly approach. In fact, an expanded Medicare network would have greater resources with which to address waste and fraud. The large numbers of medical experts and practitioners who have voiced their advocacy for a “Medicare-for-all” model, attest to their confidence in the quality and viability of the concept.
“But,” the critics will cry “how will we pay for all of this?” I would echo the ideas presented by dozens of experts and politicians (including President Obama): eliminating tax cuts for the wealthiest among us; and rolling back tax rates to pre-Reagan administration levels. Of course, this is the kind of talk that gets sneered at by Obama-bashers as socialist redistribution of wealth. Never mind that lopsided corporate favoritism has grown the wealth/poverty gap to embarrassing levels and essentially eradicated the middle class. It’s time to accept the fact that supply-side Reaganomics was only successful in fattening the supply side of the equation while never actually trickling down to feed the working class.
Up until now, though the obstructionist would label it socialist drivel, my ideal option is far from revolutionary. It expands a current structure to cover more needy Americans. It offers choice and liberty, while paying for itself by righting wrongs exacted against hard-working citizens.
We as common citizens are held hostage. The idea that we cannot hope for real reform because the medical industry represents one-sixth of our economy is an embarrassment and a travesty. Something as vital as attainable health care should be the banner for everyone who claims to value human life, yet we have collectively allowed this essential human service to become a for-profit commodity. We have allowed powerful insurance companies to have nearly unfettered influence in legislation that has direct impact on their interests. We have caved in to pressure by pharmaceutical corporations. We have offered our support to the corporate health care machine against our own interests. We have done so, largely, because of a misguided allegiance to an ideal called capitalism and a belief that somehow the free market will right all wrongs. We have clung to this belief despite the worsening state of our for-profit health system and our plight as its consumers.
Let’s reclaim health care from the grasp of greed. Let’s break the monopolistic stranglehold of private insurance corporations whose legal obligations rest with their shareholders not their stakeholders. Let’s allow physicians and providers to focus on quality of care and not the quantity of patients. Let’s reduce the influence of pharmaceutical companies and put decisions back in the hands of qualified doctors (not patients dazed by the incessant bombardment of advertising). Let’s make the Hippocratic Oath mean as much as the beat cop’s commitment to protect and serve, or the school teacher’s commitment to impact a student’s life.
This is revolutionary change but it requires active participation. We the People must stand up and demand the attention of those chosen to represent us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
