Hope trumps fear

When my family and I were in the States last summer, we bought a poster that now hangs in our home. It shows Martin Luther King Jr. at various stages of his public life, accompanied by excerpts from his speeches. We bought it because our son B. learned about Martin Luther King Jr. in eighth grade history class last year and in so doing, communicated a fascination about the man to his younger brother D. Last Spring, I listened to King’s famous “I have a dream” speech for the first time in its entirety, with D., enraptured, sitting next to me.

As I listened to Barack Obama’s victory speech yesterday, I heard many references to the African-American experience, and Obama’s effective use of repetition reminded me of the rhetorical techniques used in the speech given 45 years ago by the “preacher from Atlanta”. But what inspired me most was not that African-Americans must now have a “special pride”, as Senator McCain said in his concession speech. Rather, President-elect Obama made that experience stand for the universal dream of hope for a better future.

John McCain and his campaign tried to use fear to win votes, albeit a less toxic variety than the fear-mongering of the current administration. Fear that Barack Obama will raise taxes, fear that he hangs out with terrorists, fear that he’s a Muslim. (I’m glad that Colin Powell pointed out in his endorsement of Barack Obama that the real answer to the question “Is Barack Obama a Muslim?” is “So what if he were? Is there anything wrong with being a Muslim in America?”) Fortunately, it didn’t work. Hope has trumped fear.

As gracious and magnanimous as he was in his concession speech, I wish John McCain had addressed the question of hope vs. fear. Rather than saying that he would leave the job of analysis to others and leading the Republican party into the political wilderness, I wish he had said that now was the time for soul searching. Rather than taking the blame off his supporters and putting it onto himself, I wish he had recognized that a candidate is – or should be – a reflection of the electorate he represents, and it is the electorate that must now try to understand why it is out of phase with what the majority of the country’s voters want. Sure McCain made mistakes, but so did Obama. Those mistakes were not the only reason for McCain’s loss.

Obviously, this election represents a huge “first”: the first “person of color” to be elected to the presidency of the United States. But it represents some other less obvious firsts, too. Barack Obama is the first sitting member of Congress to be elected President of the United States since JFK. (John McCain would have been, too.) Maybe this indicates some kind of renewed faith in the people who have experience, however minimal, in the workings of the federal government.

Barack Obama is also the first urban, Northern liberal to be elected president since JFK. All other Democratic presidents since JFK have come from rural, Southern backgrounds. Arguably, they won the White House because they carried at least part of the Southern states. In all other presidential elections since 1964, the deep South has voted overwhelmingly against the Democratic party. Now in 2008, Obama has made important inroads into the South. Perhaps the strength of the African-American vote had something to do with that.

Or perhaps it was his charisma. Or his cool, even-keel command. Or that voters, regardless of the color of their skin and his, simply felt Obama’s vision of the future corresponded better to theirs.

Finally, this was the first presidential election in which neither major candidate was the incumbent president or vice-president since Adlai Stevenson faced Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952. I don't think any comment is needed as to why Dick Cheney was not the Republican candidate this time round.

I wonder how many American voters knew how closely this election campaign was being watched outside the United States, such as here in France. It absolutely dominated the airwaves and the press. You would have thought French people were going to vote, too. When I first moved here nearly 20 years ago, I naively discovered how much more “world news” there was than I had ever seen or read about back home. The United States became just another country among many others, albeit an important one. Yet over time, I realized that in many ways, people here really do look at the United States as a beacon, a country that can lead the way to redemption … or to crisis.

Viewed from afar, the United States has seemed over the past few years, to be turning ever more inward, shutting itself off from other points of view and dealing truculently with other nations. Indeed it seemed our motto had become “Speak loudly and carry a big stick.”

French people I know struggled to understand the appeal of a John McCain candidacy. Barack Obama’s win has polished up the tarnished image of a country where – French people now realize once again – everything is possible. Perhaps this is because “the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals – democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope.”

Toughen up the questions

It was recently reported that one of the vice-presidential candidates could not name a single Supreme Court decision she disagreed with other than Roe v. Wade. This got me to thinking.

So far debate moderators Gwen Ifill and Jim Lehrer have asked questions such as, “Who do you think was at fault for the sub-prime lending meltdown?” or “What promises have you and your campaigns made to the American people that you're not going to be able to keep?” These questions are too broad and easily avoidable.

What’s the use in asking these vague, sweeping questions about what the candidates would do once elected? What difference does it make? They’re going to break their promises anyway. So come on Gwen, come on Jim. You can ask tougher questions than that. My tenth grade history teacher could and did, and the only wounds my classmates and I sustained were temporary ones to our pride.

So rather than ask the candidates what they’ll do, why don’t we ask them what they know, on a wide variety of topics. Let’s focus on their knowledge of the past before we ask them to predict the future. After all, the past is all we have: the future is unknown, and the present is only a fleeting instant. Your reading of the first part of this post is already in the past.

Here is my proposed list of ten questions for the next presidential candidates debate (no wireless devices and no lifelines, please):

1) Name the nine Supreme Court justices and provide a brief biography of each.
2) An in-depth knowledge of our neighbors being necessary for the maintenance of a free state, who are your three favorite Russian authors/playwrights and how has their work informed the cultural heritage and collective unconscious of the Russian people?
3) How and when did Oklahoma become a state?
4) Compare and contrast the hotly contested US presidential elections of 1876 and 2000, including an explanation of how they were resolved and your conclusions, if any, about how our system for electing the president could be amended.
5) Who is the prime minister of Hungary?
6) Cite five of the [insert astronomical number] times your opponent has voted in favor of increasing taxes, including the names of the bills, their main provisions, and the approximate dates of the votes.
7) In studying the current financial crisis, what lessons can be drawn from the panics of 1837, 1873 and 1907 and the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930? Choose any two, giving specific examples from each period.
8) What are the main provisions of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution and how do they affect the lives of Americans today?
9) Summarize the primary scientific accomplishments and contributions of a) Niels Bohr, b) Linus Pauling, c) Marie Curie, d) Christiaan Barnard. (Choose any two.)
10) Which three 20th century economists do you most admire and why? In your answer, include an explanation of their economic theories and how you would use them if elected.

Now I suppose none of the candidates would excel on 100% of these questions, but wouldn’t it be a good way to separate the wheat from the chaff? Of course, we’d need a new slate of questions for each debate, lest the candidates study in the interim, but that shouldn’t be too difficult, either. Subjects abound!

Karl Rove, one of the great sages of our time, said in a recent Newsweek article that Ronald Reagan was a better leader than Woodrow Wilson, even though Wilson could have "given you 100 Supreme Court decisions he disagreed with whether you wanted to listen or not." Well, clearly Karl would not have wanted to listen, and the disdain for the lessons of history that he and his cronies have shown over the past eight years is what got us into the present mess. Oh, and personally, I think that Ronald Reagan was no better leader than Gary Cooper or John Wayne. He just had a larger stage on which to act.

Now I hear some people ask, “But what one person can answer all those questions? I bet only 1% of the population could.” This is exactly my point. I want the president of my country to be from that 1%. I don't want him or her to be a "regular guy" just like me. I don’t want an “elitist”, but I want someone from the country’s elite. Someone who's smarter than I am, who's better educated, more experienced, more dynamic, more courageous, more diplomatic, more articulate, more inspiring, more visionary, more compassionate, more able to multi-task, to analyze and to make the right decisions. It's a tall order, one I don't think an ordinary person can fill. But being president of the United States isn’t an ordinary job.

True to form

”It was a broiling August afternoon in New Orleans, Louisiana, the Big Easy, the City That Care Forgot. Those who ventured outside moved as if they were swimming in tupelo honey. Those inside paid silent homage to the man who invented air-conditioning as they watched TV "storm teams" warn of a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico. Nothing surprising there: Hurricanes in August are as much a part of life in this town as hangovers on Ash Wednesday.

”But the next day the storm gathered steam and drew a bead on the city. As the whirling maelstrom approached the coast, more than a million people evacuated to higher ground. Some 200,000 remained, however—the car-less, the homeless, the aged and infirm, and those die-hard New Orleanians who look for any excuse to throw a party. ”The storm hit Breton Sound with the fury of a nuclear warhead, pushing a deadly storm surge into Lake Pontchartrain. The water crept to the top of the massive berm that holds back the lake and then spilled over. Nearly 80 percent of New Orleans lies below sea level—more than eight feet below in places—so the water poured in. A liquid brown wall washed over the brick ranch homes of Gentilly, over the clapboard houses of the Ninth Ward, over the white-columned porches of the Garden District, until it raced through the bars and strip joints on Bourbon Street like the pale rider of the Apocalypse. As it reached 25 feet (eight meters) over parts of the city, people climbed onto roofs to escape it.

”Thousands drowned in the murky brew that was soon contaminated by sewage and industrial waste. Thousands more who survived the flood later perished from dehydration and disease as they waited to be rescued. It took two months to pump the city dry, and by then the Big Easy was buried under a blanket of putrid sediment, a million people were homeless, and 50,000 were dead. It was the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States.”

From “Gone With the Water”, National Geographic magazine, October, 2004

After painting this “hypothetical” picture, the National Geographic article went on to say that in 2003, the US Army Corps of Engineers had drawn up a $14bn, 30-year plan to protect what’s left of the Louisiana wetlands, which, in addition to levees, might have protect(ed) places like New Orleans from hurricane damage. But the Bush Administration turned it down. The article also explained how shipping, the oil industry and overall development have gradually stripped the area of its natural defenses. Of course the National Geographic is not the only voice to have called for better disaster planning over the years.

Sorry, even in the face of such unimaginable tragedy, I can’t suppress my anger and shame. The Bush administration’s response has been no better than that of a developing country with far fewer resources at its disposal. So since we’re talking about fantasy articles, here’s one I would have liked to hear when I turned on the radio or read when I went to the New York Times website this week:

BILOXI, September 2 - True to form, the President of the United States has reacted instantly to the crisis unfolding in four states on the Gulf coast. Beginning on Tuesday morning, August 30, he visited stricken villages, washed out ports and devastated resorts. He was tireless in the comfort he gave to residents, listening to their stories of grief and desperation, ensuring each of them individually that they would not be forgotten. To maintain order in New Orleans and elsewhere, he ordered 100,000 National Guardsmen to the Gulf coast immediately, many of them to be recalled from Iraq. In a press conference at the end of the day, he stated that in our eagerness to export American democratic ideals, we had forgotten to put aside resources “for a rainy day” back home, and he vowed that would never happen again. He said that a portion of his 1,600 acre Crawford, Texas ranch would be turned into a displaced persons camp for as long as necessary. A huge trailer park would be set up. Roads, a field hospital, and a helicopter pad would be built. Food and water distribution would be organized immediately, residents would have individual needs assessment interviews and counseling, and thousands of land-line and cellular phone connections would be brought in so that refugees could get in touch with their families. The president said, “Even if the cost of the Crawford camp alone runs into the billions of dollars, that’s OK. We’ll just come home from Iraq a few days early to make up for it.” Questioned about the effects of global warming on hurricane activity, President Bush said “I don’t personally agree that global warming is behind all these ills, but maybe my opinion has been colored by my background. Anyway, I’ve decided the risks of ignoring it are too great.” Accordingly he called on the Senate to ratify the Kyoto treaty without further delay, despite all its flaws, because “for the moment, it’s the best treaty we’ve got and we can’t afford to wait any longer”. He concluded by saying, addressing the survivors of the devastated region, “More important than grand ideas and future glory, however, I want you all to know that I will not rest until each of you has seen a semblance or order return to your lives.” At the end of Tuesday and each day since then, he has looked worn, haggard, emotionally drained.

But I didn’t. Instead, the real President Bush “toured” the stricken areas today, four days after the hurricane, and said the results of rescue efforts were “unacceptable”. He said there was an “issue” at the New Orleans convention center. This guy likes understatement, doesn’t he? He also said he was looking forward to the day when he could sit on the porch of former senator Trent Lott’s rebuilt house. Now there’s something the president can relate to. Now the disaster is starting to pull at his heartstrings. But if this was his attempt at an “I have a dream” speech, it was pitiful. Incidentally, I wonder what he and former senator Trent Lott will talk about during that future lazy morning on the porch. The good old days?

You can read the full New York Times article here.

Plame yogurt

The big news story here over the past week has been a story that is not yet a story: PepsiCo is about to launch a takeover bid on Danone.

Have they? Where have you seen that story, Steve? I haven’t, because it isn’t a story. It’s a rumor. About two weeks ago it was mentioned in Challenges, a French business magazine somewhat akin to Fortune, that PepsiCo had bought up around 3% of Danone’s stock. Since then, the rumor mill has been working more than 35 hours a week. The specter of an American company taking over one of France’s sacred cows – literally – has been raised and it won’t go away. On TV, the news programs have been interviewing dairy farmers who earn up to half their income selling milk to Danone. They’re sure that an American behemoth like PepsiCo will decide to source all of Danone’s milk for yogurt production in Poland or Morocco or China. They’re already talking of their current business in the past tense. Soon they’ll be nothing but numbers … in the unemployment line. In the meantime, the CEO of Danone gave an interview to Les Echos (subscription required, I think) in which he said no contact of any kind has been made with PepsiCo.

Act II: politicians of all stripes, from tie-dyes to pin-stripes are now up in arms. The hodgepodge, shuffle-and-deal government cobbled together after the no-vote fiasco have finally found something they can all agree on. Nicolas Sarkozy, back in the government as interior minister, after being forced to leave the government as economy minister to take on the position of president of the UMP political party, a post he still holds, said the government should “do everything it can” (“tout mettre en oeuvre”) to prevent a hostile takeover of Danone in an interview in Le Monde. Thierry Breton, the economy minister, said the government “will make very sure” (“veillera très scrupuleusement”) that Danone’s rights are protected. Dominique de Villepin, the prime minister, said the government plans to “defend the interests of France” (“défendre les intérêts de la France”). Last and some would say least (Sarkozy), President Jacques Chirac, while on a State visit to Madagascar, said that he was “particularly vigilant and ready to act” (“particulièrement vigilant et mobilisé”). One journalist I read said that as market interference goes, it’s been no worse that the current uproar in the US about a Chinese company wanting to take over Unocal. Not sure I agree with putting the USA and China on the same footing, but I’m digressing again.

Act III: If PepsiCo does try something, it’ll be fun to watch, especially as France has a nasty habit of getting what it wants in the EU.

One story that has not received much coverage here is the Valerie Plame outing. Who knows, after seeing pictures of her in this week’s Time magazine, Paris Match might someday write a story about “an outing with Valerie Plame”, but I doubt the news media will publish any pithy analysis of the situation unless it leads to an impeachment of the president (I’d be rubbing my hands together if I weren’t typing), in which case they wouldn’t be able to avoid it.

You see, I wonder how many people really understand it. Or could explain it to the French public in fewer words than it would take to explain the reasoning behind the infield fly rule to a non-baseball fan. But when you look into it, you can see that it has given rise to some of the most bizarre twists of fate in recent memory. Firstly, you have three journalists involved. The seat of the one who originally published the story “outing” CIA agent Valerie Plame, Robert Novak, is not the least bit warm (see Frank Rich’s recent column in the New York Times for some scathing comments about him). Conversely, the one who never published anything after having a conversation with her confidential source is the one now in prison.

Ego, I think, has got the better of the New York Times and its journalistic brethren. When you read the Times' reporting on the subject, you get the feeling that Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper are defending some noble, timeless cause, an immutable, inalienable right, that they're some sort of latter-day Nathan Hale or Patrick Henry.

The Times has institutionalized civil disobedience. The Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the land, refused to hear the case, meaning that the judges preferred to let the lower court’s ruling, that the journalists must reveal their sources, stand. But still the Times didn’t budge. It apparently answers to a higher authority.

Now does this apply to all journalists? For instance, let’s suppose I became privy to some "confidential" information, and that I published it here on my blog, keeping my source anonymous. Then some (smart!) news organization picked it up and syndicated it across the country (yeah, dream on!). Would the New York Times then be claiming that the whole Constitution of the United States would be in tatters were I forced to reveal my source?

Many professions have enshrined secrecy in their principles: banking, law and medicine to name a few. Let's take banking. Banks have a responsibility to protect the privacy of their clients. But if a court of law, say, the Supreme Court, requests information in connection with a money-laundering operation or terrorist organization, for example, the bank hands over the information. End of case. I don't recall any recent cases of bank civil disobedience. I think the same is true of medicine and law. As industries, surely these are as important as the press, no? Correct me if I’m wrong. Yell at me. ‘Splain to me!

A faithful reader of this blog sent me a link to the brief the news organizations filed with the DC Court of Appeals. Before it gets to the heart of the matter, it waxes poetic about the historical role of the press in American democracy. Quoting former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, it suggests that the press is an unofficial fourth-branch check on the federal government. Un-elected and self-appointed, but they forgot to mention that. Last time I checked, which was five minutes ago, the First Amendment to the US Constitution did not go quite so far. It said:

“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Fourth branch of government? A bit over the top. In fact, down the rabbit hole and through the looking-glass, too. You can’t take those Supreme Court justices too seriously, especially when they’re speaking at a law school sesquicentennial.

The brief then claims that a hearing should be held to determine whether a crime had been committed under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the reasoning being that this Act intended to carve out an exception to the press’ right to keep sources confidential, but only under very narrowly defined circumstances.

Now maybe I’m oversimplifying, but it seems there’s a Catch-22 here. It must first be proven that a crime was committed under this Act before a news organization should be required to turn over its confidential sources, yet logic would seem to dictate that the news organizations must first turn over their confidential sources before it can be proven whether or not a crime was committed.

But here’s the most ironic part: to prove their case, all the news media, liberal and conservative alike, must take the side of the conservative media, who of course maintain that no crime was committed! That’s their whole point! The brief even quotes, as supporting evidence, an article from the pages of the Washington Times, that beacon of independent reporting, to the effect that Plame’s identity had already been revealed to the Russians and the Cubans, ergo Karl Rove did nothing wrong, get it? So if the media get their way and win the right to keep their sources secret, then the case disappears, which is just what the conservatives want. If sources weren’t an issue, the Times and other liberal media would be having a Rove-bashing party. But in their brief to the court, they have to protect him and disparage his critics to further their case.

The Anheuser Busch ad

A friend in the US has just sent me the Anheuser Busch commercial that aired during the Super Bowl. For those who haven’t seen it, it shows an airport terminal scene, then American troops returning home, presumably from Iraq. As they file through the hall, people start clapping, first one person, then two, then five, then a standing ovation from everyone in the hall. It ends with the words “Thank you” printed on the screen.

I had a strange mixture of feelings after watching this ad. It all seemed very distant to me. (Needless to say there are no “Support our troops” bumper stickers here in France.) The scene was like a curtain call. The audience stood and applauded as if in the theater. Granted, the people in this romanticized short film had no other way of expressing their appreciation, short of running up and hugging the soldiers. But I asked myself: appreciation for what? For protecting our homes and our families? For protecting our way of life? Or was it plain admiration for their courage that prompted the ovation?

I feel admiration for US servicemen and women, too, but it’s empty admiration, because I can’t help feeling that it was all so needless. Like a student who spends hours on a difficult homework assignment, finally conquering it and getting the right answer only to find out the next day that he did the wrong assignment, these young Americans had been sent into battle on false pretenses. I would much rather they had stayed home. I felt sorry for them as I watched them file through the hall. Had I been there, I probably would have clapped, too, but for other reasons, namely for their bravery in obediently towing a line that didn’t need to be towed and generally making the best of a bad situation. There’s something Quixotic about the whole thing.

For me, the ad conjured up the image of an army fighting a war it never wanted to fight, but has to, because the war was foisted upon it as the result of an attack on our country or on our allies. Of course, there was an attack on our country, but it was unconnected with the war. That the soldiers might believe the two were connected was another reason I felt bad for them. Had the commercial aired during the 2002 Super Bowl, with the soldiers returning from Afghanistan, I would have felt a lot differently.

At the same time, right next to these feelings deep inside me was another one. I felt ashamed. I’m not sure if I was ashamed of my feelings or of the government of my country, or both.

The prisoner's dilemma

Stories about capital punishment in the US always make the news here in France and this week’s was no different. There seemed to be a little more emphasis in the European media I read (The Guardian and Le Monde) on the international pressure aspect than in my US papers of choice (New York Times and Washington Post). The nuance was not lost on Justice Scalia, either, who is apparently concerned that foreigners are telling Americans how to run their judicial system. How I would have liked to say to him, “No, only you, the nine Supreme Court justices, can interpret the US constitution, but to do so, you are allowed, even encouraged, to consult experts from around the world.” Indeed the United States would not have a constitution as strong as it is had its framers not taken ideas from many of the European philosophers of their day. There must be some valid “foreign” ideas, that at least deserve a place in the debate, no?

After more than 45 years on the planet, I’m still not sure where I stand on the issue of capital punishment in general. I used to think I was in favor of it for its value as a deterrent, for the certainty that an executed murderer will not be out on parole someday and back in circulation and for the money it saves not having to keep lifers fed, clothed and housed for the rest of their days. Now, with mounting demands for proper medical care for prisoners, we have the increasing prospect of older inmates on life sentences being allowed to live out their final years in relative comfort. This bothers me. Finally, terrorists never demand the release of dead prisoners, nor do dead terrorists ever direct operations from their prison cells.

On the other side there's the sanctity-of-life argument, but if the number of people who are pro-life/pro-capital punishment or pro-choice/anti-capital punishment is anything to go by, this argument would seem to be honored more in the breach than in the observance. (Aside: I recognize this is unfair; there are plenty of pro-life/anti-capital punishment folks, and pro-life/pro-capital punishment advocates who point out that the fetus hasn't done anything wrong.) Anyway, this isn’t what bothers me most, it’s the finality of capital punishment. How many mistakes do we make, which be definition, we can’t undo? I’m not sure any number is acceptable to me. I don’t know what the latest wisdom is on the deterrent argument, but the cost argument isn’t so clear anymore. So much money is spent appealing death row cases that in the end I’m not sure which solution costs society more, life in prison or capital punishment.

When the French media report about capital punishment, the US is often presented as one of the last bastions of a barbaric practice. They love it even more when the case reveals some contradiction or bizarre consequence of the sentence. That’s why this week’s news reminded me of an article I saw in Le Monde a couple of weeks ago about the case that led to the Supreme Court’s previous 2002 decision outlawing capital punishment for the mentally retarded. The article was entitled, “Le condamné Daryl R. Atkins a-t-il acquis le QI suffisant pour être exécuté ?” (Is the IQ of death row inmate Darrel R. Atkins now high enough for him to be executed?) Here’s my translation of the first paragraph:

Will Daryl Renard Atkins return to Death Row? A Supreme Court decision removed him from it in June 2002. He escaped the state of Virginia’s lethal injection because he showed slight mental retardation. But now, the prosecution claims that the efforts he has made to defend himself over the years have stimulated his intelligence to the point of making him once again eligible for capital punishment.

According to the article, Atkins’ IQ was measured at 59 at the time of his trial in 1998. In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled on his case, finding, 6-3, that executing someone with low intelligence would constitute “cruel and unusual punishment”. From 1998 onwards, however, Atkins had frequent contact with his lawyers and invested a lot of effort in his defense. A psychologist who studied the case said that he received more intellectual stimulation during that time than in all his adolescent years. When he was retested recently, his IQ was 76, higher than Virginia's threshold of 70, and the state plans to pursue the case. A classic Catch-22? A new twist on the “prisoner’s dilemma”? If the prisoner’s intelligence is below a certain threshold, he cannot be executed, but if he works hard to prove that his intelligence is below the threshold, his intelligence will rise and he’ll be eligible for the death penalty again.

I became aware of this latest development in the Atkins case not by reading the Le Monde article (which I subsequently found was based on a New York Times article), but by hearing a much more succinct version on the radio. My fear is that the average French radio listener came away from the news item with a confirmation of the notion he may already have, namely, “Ils sont fous, ces Américains !” (Those Americans are just crazy!)

When the going gets tough, the tough go skiing

The Kyoto treaty came into force this week and the French media are not painting a pretty picture of the Bush administration. Here’s my translation of the first paragraph of an article from Le Monde, entitled “Reluctantly, Washington is forced to change”:

“The first Bush administration’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol is one of the best examples of its indifference towards the US’s allies and partners. It took the president only three months after taking office in January 2001 to reject the treaty. The pretext – the same one that prompted Congress to refuse to ratify it in 1997 – was economic. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions would cost five million jobs nationwide. Washington believed, even hoped, that without its support, Kyoto would be doomed. Under the influence of the oil industry, the hostility of the Bush administration to environmental constraints was total.”

The article goes on to say that the administration has dismantled existing regulations, received significant campaign contributions from energy companies and cast doubt on the validity of global warming theories themselves. But public opinion in the United States is forcing the administration to change its tune, the article says, and at least pay lip service to global warming. Many Republican senators are coming round to the idea, and industrial companies themselves are realizing that sooner or later they will have to get serious about it.

The New York Times article from the same day, entitled, “Mixed Feelings as Treaty on Greenhouse Gases Takes Effect”, also highlighted this aspect, but the emphasis was on how European companies were less than enthusiastic, and even a little resentful, about implementing Kyoto, because Europe has already done a lot of work that other countries haven’t even begun to do. I had heard these criticisms here from other people (it comes up in translations). People complain about the quota system, too, saying that it’s unreasonable for it to be on a strict per-country basis.

In other news, following the assassination of Lebanon’s former prime minister, Condi Rice pointed out that the presence of foreign troops in the country was a destabilizing force. Hmmm. Both the US and France called for Syrian withdrawal. Politics makes strange bedfellows. Which reminds me, with the Syria-Iran link up, the axis of evil is indeed becoming an axis. Finally, John Negroponte’s new post is national intelligence czar. OK, I’m willing to give him a chance, he’s been a loyal servant of several presidents. But about his job selling the invasion of Iraq to the UN when he was the US ambassador there, his predecessor Richard Holbrooke said, “the only intelligence was bad”. In his new job, I hope he doesn’t make the mistake of thinking that “only the intelligence was bad”.

So many subjects, so little time. Almost makes me wish I weren’t going away skiing this week. But I am. Hey, this is France, and the snow-covered Alps are beckoning. See ya in a week or so.

Greetings after a sad New Year's

I know I’ve been silent for a while, and some people have asked me if I have “recovered” from the election. Indeed, I put so much energy into communicating during the run-up to it, that I have needed time to get back to the rest of my life. Although I was disappointed with the outcome, communicating with you was very rewarding. It was a good way to feel involved in the debate from afar.

I was in New York shortly after the election. Even though New York is not exactly a bastion of conservatism (au contraire !), I heard a variety of views. One person said the election came down to differing world views: one that is ready to accept the notion that there are limits to what the United States can do (environmentally, politically, militarily, etc.) and one that is unwilling to accept that notion. Another person said he voted for President Bush, because he (the voter) was more of a “nationalist” than an “internationalist”. It also seemed to me that many families split their votes. Meanwhile, some e-mail I received reflected the view that John Kerry’s campaign and the Democratic Party in general were driven by an “East and West Coast elite” whereas supporters of President Bush represented the “real” America. I began to wonder why it was that the Democratic party has seemed unable to forge a broad vision of the future. Moreover, I wondered why “the vision thing” was so important to begin with.

Finally, it seemed to me that there were two categories of people who voted against their economic self-interest in this election. This was nothing new for American politics – my mother used to analyze things this way when I was growing up – but the contrast seemed as stark as ever. Simplifying, the first group was that “elite”, if such a group indeed exists. To the extent these people are wealthy, higher taxes would not benefit them. Nor would more generous social programs. But they seem to think that with them, America as a whole would be better off. The other group was composed of those who have worked hard all their lives, earning a modest, but honest living. These people, it seems, resent the largesse of the social and entitlement programs and want more self-reliance in America. Lower taxes and stricter entitlement programs will not help them either, but they think they will make America overall better off. These are both noble, enlightened views. But I can’t escape the feeling that the second group was hoodwinked by the Bush administration into believing theirs.

The new year comes in the wake – literally – of tragic events halfway round the world, as it did last year after the earthquake in Iran. For the first two days of the crisis, the Bush administration’s response, if any, was inaudible here in Europe. Only after accusations of “stinginess” began to surface, did the president announce his multinational initiative. Regardless of the merit of those accusations, it was a shame the US government’s pledge to help had to come in that context.

When it did come, it was, initially, anything but generous. Senator Leahy said that we spend $35 million every day in Iraq before breakfast. He thought he was being sarcastic. In fact, if we assume that our troops are early risers and eat breakfast at 6am, then Senator Leahy’s estimate means we spend $140 million a day, or $51 billion a year. You be the judge of how close that is to reality.

This is not to say that Americans have not been generous. Americans themselves are as kind and warm-hearted as any people on Earth and have been showing it. Anyone who has visited or lived in America knows that. Yet America is viewed abroad as domineering and selfish, because the American government, which is thought to represent its people, gives the impression of putting America first just a little too often.

Why didn't George Bush show America’s greatness in those first few days? When will this administration understand that that’s what the world wants to see? Instead, after demanding, in no uncertain terms, that all nations stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States after September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration’s response to this natural catastrophe, seemed at the very least, insensitive. We can only hope they get things right in the long run. Colin Powell’s delegation will probably do a good job. Too bad he’s leaving….


On to Iraq, that fully sovereign nation we are helping to set free. This week’s Economist has an article that starts out like this:

THERE is only one traffic law in Ramadi these days: when Americans approach, Iraqis scatter. Horns blaring, brakes screaming, the midday traffic skids to the side of the road as a line of Humvee jeeps ferrying American marines rolls the wrong way up the main street. Every vehicle, that is, except one beat-up old taxi. Its elderly driver, flapping his outstretched hand, seems, amazingly, to be trying to turn the convoy back. Gun turrets swivel and lock on to him, as a hefty marine sergeant leaps into the road, levels an assault rifle at his turbanned head, and screams: “Back this bitch up, motherfucker!”

Now I don’t take issue with this sergeant’s methods, or even his language, as it is very difficult for people like me, sitting in my living room, to understand how men and women act under high stress. But I do take issue with the methods of the commanders of our armed forces. If this excerpt and the rest of the article, submitted by an embedded journalist, are anything to go by, the US military hasn’t got a clue as to who its enemies are and how to find them. As a person who earns his living in a language field, my first thought was that the severe lack of Arabic speakers mentioned in the article is perhaps the US military’s most serious handicap. By the way, I think it was a similar mix of fear, bewilderment and lack of respect that contributed to the Abu Ghraib scandal. Then, as now, I find it extraordinary that no heads rolled as a result of that one. I’m thinking in particular of the Secretary of Defense.

Click here for the full Economist article.
Let me know if access is limited to subscribers; I’ll send you the full text.

May peace be with you in 2005.

High Stakes for Church and State

This will probably be my last post before the election, so I'd like to pack as much in here as possible. For starters, I'd like to thank all the people who sent me the links that appear below.

If you follow all of them and read everything, you'll be busy from now until the election. In my opinion, if even one-tenth of the factual information presented in these article and sites is true or if you identify with only one-tenth of the ideas presented, you should have enough to make an informed decision to vote for John Kerry. But that's just my opinion. What's yours?

A week ago Sunday, an article appeared in the New York Times Magazine entitled "Without a Doubt". It was an overview of the president's thought process and how it has evolved over the years and especially since he has been in office. In the course of the article, the writer mentioned an evangelical pastor named Jim Wallis. Wallis is the founder of the Sojourners, a Christian organization President Bush consulted at the start of his term for advice on issues related to faith and poverty. According to the NYT article, Wallis has since become disillusioned with the president.
So I googled Jim Wallis and the Sojourners web site and this is what I found:
http://www.sojo.org/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0411&article=041110

Now I don’t pretend to be an expert in Christian theology or Christ’s teachings. Yet I found a lot of common ground between my personal beliefs and the ones expressed in this article. I also found it comforting that there are Christian voices of this type out there.

Here are some other sites that have been recommended to me.

The first is www.factcheck.org and comes right from Vice President Dick Cheney. You may remember that in the vice-presidential debate a few weeks ago, Cheney cited some statistic, then said - since they kept arguing about statistics - "This is true, you can look it up on factcheck.com." He meant to say factcheck.org, a non-partisan organization that researches, verifies and otherwise checks statements made by the candidates. I don't know how truly non-partisan it is, but it can't be entirely anti-Bush if Cheney suggested viewers go there.Anyway, http://www.factcheck.com/, an unrelated commercial advertising site, started getting bombarded with hits immediately after (or during!) the debate. After a day or two or this they decided to redirect traffic elsewhere, and make a political statement in the process. So they redirected traffic to http://www.georgesoros.com/. George Soros, the multi-billionaire investor, has been posting an anti-Bush blog for weeks. It took him and his team a day or two to figure out what was happening. Then they put up a notice on their home page, saying they had nothing to do with the switch, but that they weren't unhappy with the unintended visits! Anyway, even on www.factcheck.org, Cheney doesn't exactly come out smelling like a rose. Serves him right.

Other non-partisan sites that research and report on candidates statements include:
http://www.spinsanity.org/

The next link points to a speech given last week by Al Gore. Its thesis is that what many people view as President Bush's strength - his resolve against all odds - is actually his greatest weakness. The speech recounts, in one document, the crushing avalanche of information that has been widely reported elswhere. None of it should come as a surprise, but it's a bit overwhelming to read all in one place. It's long, but stick with it, especially if you're a Bush supporter or leaning towards Bush.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102004X.shtml
There seem to be many other interesting articles here, too.

Where the former VP's speech ends, the following song begins. When ideas are put to music, they can sometimes take on a new urgency. That's what I felt when I listened to this:
http://www.takinmycountryback.com/
If you like it, you can campaign in the shower!

On the next site, Alternet, have a look at "Mideast meets West" (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20233/), about a correspondence between an American man (an ex-Marine) and an Iraqi woman, and "I was one guy in a bubble" (http://www.alternet.org/election04/20275/), about the lack of outside input into President Bush's decision-making process, make very worthwhile reading. The second article is reminiscent of Mr. Gore's speech. Finally, "The world according to a Bush voter" (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20263/) shows the results of a survey of the beliefs held by supporters of President Bush.

Lastly, you've heard of Republicans for Kerry. Now here's:
http://www.bushrelativesforkerry.com/. Here is a link to an AP story about the site: AP story on CNN.com.

In closing, I'd like to introduce some historical perspective. In 2000, George Bush lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote. This had not happened since the 19th century. So I went to the Encyclopedia Britannica and looked up Grover Cleveland, who won the popular vote against Benjamin Harrison in 1888 but lost the electoral vote, and Rutherford B. Hayes, who lost the popular vote to Samuel Tilden in 1876, but won the electoral vote. Here is what the Britannica had to say about Hayes:

In 1875, during his third gubernatorial campaign, Hayes attracted national attention by his uncompromising advocacy of a sound currency backed by gold. The following year he became his state's favourite son at the national Republican nominating convention, where a shrewdly managed campaign won him the presidential nomination. Hayes's unblemished public record and high moral tone offered a striking contrast to widely publicized accusations of corruption in the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant (1869–77). An economic depression, however, and Northern disenchantment with Reconstruction policies in the South combined to give Hayes's Democratic opponent, Samuel J. Tilden, a popular majority, and early returns indicated a Democratic victory in the electoral college as well. Hayes's campaign managers challenged the validity of the returns from South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana, and as a result two sets of ballots were submitted from the three states. The ensuing electoral dispute became known as the Tilden-Hayes affair. Eventually a bipartisan majority of Congress created a special Electoral Commission to decide which votes should be counted. As originally conceived, the commission was to comprise seven Democrats, seven Republicans, and one independent, the Supreme Court justice David Davis. Davis refused to serve, however, and the Republican Joseph P. Bradley was named in his place. While the commission was deliberating, Republican allies of Hayes engaged in secret negotiations with moderate Southern Democrats aimed at securing acquiescence to Hayes's election. On March 2, 1877, the commission voted along strict party lines to award all the contested electoral votes to Hayes, who was thus elected with 185 electoral votes to Tilden's 184. The result was greeted with outrage and bitterness by some Northern Democrats, who thereafter referred to Hayes as “His Fraudulency.”

Hayes chose not to run for a second term, but according to the Britannica, he almost certainly would not have been renominated either. Hayes was not the only president to choose not to run for a second term. Much more recently, in 1968, Lyndon Johnson, mired in the Vietnam War, also decided not to seek re-election.

My other historical reference is to the Declaration of Independence. Some people have said to me that in times of such uncertainty, it's better not to change presidents. "At least with George Bush, you know what he stands for." This made me think of Thomas Jefferson's words:

"All Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed."

Of course, he then goes on to appeal to the risk-taking side of us.

May the better team win!

John Kerry's New York University speech

As I said a few weeks ago, this is the first election year in which I have made a contribution to a political campaign. Since then I have been receiving information by e-mail from the Democratic party. The latest one included the speech Senator Kerry gave at New York University.

I feel very strongly about the issues raised here, and I think it's important to share them with you. I think it's extremely important that as many people as possible read this, even - or especially - if they don't already agree with it. Indeed, if I were to send this post only to the circle of my acqaintainces who already agree with its contents, I would not be accomplishing much. Preaching to the converted, as the saying goes. So if you don't agree, that's fine. Please just read it. Preferably all of it. Then, please, tell me what you think

Living abroad has helped me understand that the United States is only one country among many. That the United States needs the support of other nations in the pursuit of its goals. That the United States cannot do whatever it wants whenever it wants and expect that everyone else will fall in line. I believe that "Nothing will hold us back" is no motto for a responsible, caring America.

Like a good novel, the speech gets off to a slow start, then suddenly gathers momentum and builds to a climax. I hope the same thing happens before Election Day, and that America will come to understand the truth about what is happening outside its borders and the image that America "enjoys" in the world today.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0920.html

Political contributions

I have just done something for the first time in my life. I have made a contribution to a US presidential campaign. As I can only vote once (unless the current administration finds a way to invalidate absentee ballots from overseas voters, in which case even my one vote won't count), I have decided that giving money is the next best thing. I fully recognize that it's only symbolic compared with what is needed to counter the actions of the opposing team, but boy did it feel good to write that check!

In an attempt to remain neutral and simply inform you of my civic initiative, I probably shouldn't tell you exactly who was the recipient of my contribution, but I'll give you a hint: if the candidate who's not from Massachusetts wins, it won't be because I didn't support his opponent.