July 16, 2010
I was awakened this morning by a vivid dream that I was in the midst of a conversation with President Obama. Never mind the context of when where and how. My dream directors provided a story line for bringing it about. All that matters is that we were alone in a small room sitting on metal folding chairs so close to each other that our knees touched. Obama was dressed as we often see him – in a good pair of navy blue pants, black leather shoes, and a white shirt with the top button unbuttoned and the sleeves rolled up to his elbows.
I was doing all the talking. Obama was listening intently. As I spoke, expressions of interest, distress, and pain passed across his face.
Of course, I cannot write an exact transcription of what I said. I remember that I started by quoting what John McCain wrote in the foreword of The Best and the Brightest by David Halberstam:
“War is far too horrible a thing to drag out unnecessarily,” he said. “It was a shameful thing to ask men to suffer and die, to persevere through god-awful afflictions and heartache, to endure the dehumanizing experiences that are unavoidable in combat, for a cause that the country wouldn’t support over time and that our leaders so wrongly believed could be achieved at a smaller cost than our enemy was prepared to make us pay.
“No other national endeavor requires as much unshakable resolve as war. If the nation and the government lack that resolve, it is criminal to expect men in the field to carry it alone.”
I told Obama: If you accept the view of war that McCain stated, then you sir, are a criminal.
The Best and the Brightest was a book about the Vietnam War. One basic fact that we should never forget is that THE UNITED STATES LOST THAT WAR! The Vietnam War tore our country apart. The military-industrial complex learned its lesson. American militarism survived by the abolishment of the draft. As long as their sons are not getting drafted, most Americans are willing to ignore America’s wars while they go shopping.
So Obama, how worthless is our war on Afghanistan? How much support is there from our people for that war? How can you order any American to die for the Karzai regime? How can you waste money that is desperately needed to fix our own country?
You blew it Obama. You could have been a good President just like LBJ could have been. And now,like LBJ, you’re going to say that we can’t just pull out because that would be disastrous. Maybe you’re right. The alternative is WE LOSE….AGAIN!
Obama said: So Joe, what should I do?
Hey, I know it’s not easy, Obama. Tell the people that you’ve made a mistake. You are suspending all American military operations overseas. Say that we are beginning a retraining program to put our military personnel into peaceful work to rebuild our own nation. Say that we will maintain a smaller military appropriately equipped as a security force to protect us from attacks. Military spending will be drastically cut and the funds redirected to support public education, parks, libraries and infrastructure.
And finally Obama, you will tell the people that once and for all we must convert to alternative energy sources, no matter what sacrifices that may require. Peace is more important than material abundance and there will be no peace until we give up our unsustainable oil-dependent lifestyle.
And then, Mr. O, we will see what happens. If the American public is worthy of you, you will be reelected and go on to earn your Nobel Peace Prize. If not, you will be voted out and America and the world will suffer the consequences.
Good luck.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Here is some cogent political commentary from my brother Len. It is filled with useful talking points you can use if you ever find yourself conversing with a conservative.
Do You Love Your Freedom?
This question has become the rallying cry from Sarah Palin, the canonized queen of the Tea Party movement. The fact that Ms. Palin chooses to raise this question at every $100,000 speaking opportunity of course presumes that the current denizens of the White House and Congressional majority don’t love their freedom and want to take it away from those that do. This is a devilishly effective oratorical ploy, as it serves to galvanize its intended conservative audience while simultaneously demonizing the political left. So here’s a shout-out to Ms. Palin: hats off for a job well done!
On the other side of the political divide, many observers and pundits dismiss the growing ranks of Tea Party-ists as stupid, stooges, or racists (or all of the above), who are whipped into a frenzy by self-aggrandizing opportunists like Beck, Limbaugh and Palin.
Such sweeping disdain is a very big and hypocritical mistake as deserving of scorn as Ms. Palin’s blanket condemnation of the “lamestream media”. Mother Gump’s admonition that “stupid is as stupid does” applies well here on both sides of the political spectrum.
The fact is, there is a genuine and legitimate divide in America over the question of the proper role and reach of the federal government that warrants serious political discourse, not the lowest common denominator of dismissive smear.
What makes this issue so heated is that opinions appear sharply divided not only at the extremes of the political spectrum, but far closer to the middle ground of centrist political thought. For example, in a recent NY Times Op-Ed, progressive conservative columnist David Brooks decried the Obama administration’s lurch to left wing “big government” policies, which Brooks contends has amplified Republican and Tea Party opposition. Brooks espouses a deep distrust of the federal government’s ability to effectively or efficiently address the problems that rank high on the Obama administration’s progressive change agenda. Brooks’ criticism is that President Obama has picked the wrong fights in the wrong sequence, which has driven the country into a paralyzed divide. As a self-declared “centrist” (just right of center to be precise) Brooks bemoans his growing isolation in a country which increasingly is gravitating towards political extremes.
As much as I admire Brooks’ clarity and profundity on most subjects, as a left leaning, free market centrist, I fundamentally disagree with his assessment of and opposition to Obama administration policies.*
At the heart of this debate are two diametrically opposed views of what drives President Obama’s governance philosophy. On the one side, most moderate to arch conservatives appear convinced that Obama is a slave to left wing big government activist ideology. Those inclined to more inflammatory rhetoric would have us pin a “socialist” tail on this donkey.
On the other side are left-leaning centrists to hard core Democrats who believe that Obama is taking a pragmatic and entirely necessary response to an unprecedented array of societal challenges, which call for more federal government intervention.
In short, the question comes down to whether one believes Obama’s approach is a pre-ordained solution looking for problems to solve or a pragmatic response to problems demanding the proposed solutions.
Let me explain why I support the latter.
There should be little debate over the breadth and range of problems that President Obama inherited upon taking office. Any short list would have to include:
q Imminent meltdown of the global financial system
q Imminent bankruptcy of wide swaths of the US auto industry
q A deep recession, double digit unemployment and a real threat of depression-level economic collapse
q A highly inefficient, inequitable and unsustainable health care system
q A public education system increasingly falling behind global standards
q Crumbling infrastructure across most modes of transportation and public services
q Deep divides over US immigration policy that by any accounting remains effete and ineffective
q An ongoing national addiction to petroleum sourced from geopolitically hostile regions
q Global disarray in tackling climate change and GHG emissions
q Threats of global terrorism with implications for homeland security, regional stability and nuclear proliferation
I may have missed a few hotspots, but this list is daunting enough to raise the question to those who generally oppose an activist federal government response: how do you suppose these problems are going to be addressed?
My kids have grown up under a generation of US Presidents, from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush whose governing philosophy was succinctly captured by Bill Clinton’s proclamation that “the era of big government is over.” ** I would argue that the cumulative impact of 28 years of largely laissez faire domestic policies has contributed to the myriad of economic and societal problems now confronting the US. We have proverbially “kicked the can down the road” far too long.
As such, conservatives, Tea Party-ists and Burkean proponents of minimalist government are profoundly incorrect in their assessment of the underlying motivations of the Obama administration. President Obama has not over-reached as a reflection of his predisposition to big government paternalism. Rather, he has inherited an economy and social fabric teetering on systemic failure on multiple fronts, requiring an urgent and sweeping reversal of decades of laissez faire federalism.
I share the frustrations of many over the tortuous process of Congressional lawmaking, which is fraught with enervating compromises, excessive lobbyist influence, political payoffs and a general lack of transparency. There is most certainly considerable room for improvement.
But if the history of the last quarter century should have taught us anything, it is that we have had too little, not too much government in dealing with the problems noted above. The president is right to respond with overdue federal initiatives.
Do You Love Your Freedom?
This question has become the rallying cry from Sarah Palin, the canonized queen of the Tea Party movement. The fact that Ms. Palin chooses to raise this question at every $100,000 speaking opportunity of course presumes that the current denizens of the White House and Congressional majority don’t love their freedom and want to take it away from those that do. This is a devilishly effective oratorical ploy, as it serves to galvanize its intended conservative audience while simultaneously demonizing the political left. So here’s a shout-out to Ms. Palin: hats off for a job well done!
On the other side of the political divide, many observers and pundits dismiss the growing ranks of Tea Party-ists as stupid, stooges, or racists (or all of the above), who are whipped into a frenzy by self-aggrandizing opportunists like Beck, Limbaugh and Palin.
Such sweeping disdain is a very big and hypocritical mistake as deserving of scorn as Ms. Palin’s blanket condemnation of the “lamestream media”. Mother Gump’s admonition that “stupid is as stupid does” applies well here on both sides of the political spectrum.
The fact is, there is a genuine and legitimate divide in America over the question of the proper role and reach of the federal government that warrants serious political discourse, not the lowest common denominator of dismissive smear.
What makes this issue so heated is that opinions appear sharply divided not only at the extremes of the political spectrum, but far closer to the middle ground of centrist political thought. For example, in a recent NY Times Op-Ed, progressive conservative columnist David Brooks decried the Obama administration’s lurch to left wing “big government” policies, which Brooks contends has amplified Republican and Tea Party opposition. Brooks espouses a deep distrust of the federal government’s ability to effectively or efficiently address the problems that rank high on the Obama administration’s progressive change agenda. Brooks’ criticism is that President Obama has picked the wrong fights in the wrong sequence, which has driven the country into a paralyzed divide. As a self-declared “centrist” (just right of center to be precise) Brooks bemoans his growing isolation in a country which increasingly is gravitating towards political extremes.
As much as I admire Brooks’ clarity and profundity on most subjects, as a left leaning, free market centrist, I fundamentally disagree with his assessment of and opposition to Obama administration policies.*
At the heart of this debate are two diametrically opposed views of what drives President Obama’s governance philosophy. On the one side, most moderate to arch conservatives appear convinced that Obama is a slave to left wing big government activist ideology. Those inclined to more inflammatory rhetoric would have us pin a “socialist” tail on this donkey.
On the other side are left-leaning centrists to hard core Democrats who believe that Obama is taking a pragmatic and entirely necessary response to an unprecedented array of societal challenges, which call for more federal government intervention.
In short, the question comes down to whether one believes Obama’s approach is a pre-ordained solution looking for problems to solve or a pragmatic response to problems demanding the proposed solutions.
Let me explain why I support the latter.
There should be little debate over the breadth and range of problems that President Obama inherited upon taking office. Any short list would have to include:
q Imminent meltdown of the global financial system
q Imminent bankruptcy of wide swaths of the US auto industry
q A deep recession, double digit unemployment and a real threat of depression-level economic collapse
q A highly inefficient, inequitable and unsustainable health care system
q A public education system increasingly falling behind global standards
q Crumbling infrastructure across most modes of transportation and public services
q Deep divides over US immigration policy that by any accounting remains effete and ineffective
q An ongoing national addiction to petroleum sourced from geopolitically hostile regions
q Global disarray in tackling climate change and GHG emissions
q Threats of global terrorism with implications for homeland security, regional stability and nuclear proliferation
I may have missed a few hotspots, but this list is daunting enough to raise the question to those who generally oppose an activist federal government response: how do you suppose these problems are going to be addressed?
My kids have grown up under a generation of US Presidents, from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush whose governing philosophy was succinctly captured by Bill Clinton’s proclamation that “the era of big government is over.” ** I would argue that the cumulative impact of 28 years of largely laissez faire domestic policies has contributed to the myriad of economic and societal problems now confronting the US. We have proverbially “kicked the can down the road” far too long.
As such, conservatives, Tea Party-ists and Burkean proponents of minimalist government are profoundly incorrect in their assessment of the underlying motivations of the Obama administration. President Obama has not over-reached as a reflection of his predisposition to big government paternalism. Rather, he has inherited an economy and social fabric teetering on systemic failure on multiple fronts, requiring an urgent and sweeping reversal of decades of laissez faire federalism.
I share the frustrations of many over the tortuous process of Congressional lawmaking, which is fraught with enervating compromises, excessive lobbyist influence, political payoffs and a general lack of transparency. There is most certainly considerable room for improvement.
But if the history of the last quarter century should have taught us anything, it is that we have had too little, not too much government in dealing with the problems noted above. The president is right to respond with overdue federal initiatives.
Monday, March 15, 2010
About Motherhood
BABIES AND THE MEANING OF LIFE
LOVE
..... But every child is needier than the most intolerably demanding friend or lover.
Imagine a novel in which a woman took in a stranger who was unable to walk or talk or even eat by himself. She fell completely in love with him at first sight, fed and clothed and washed him, gradually helped him to become competent and independent, spent more than half her income on him, nursed him through sickness, and thought about him more than about anything else. And after twenty years of this she helped him find a young wife and move far away. You couldn’t bear the sappiness of it. But that, quite simply, is just about every mother’s story. And it’s also the story of every human community – every constellation of mothers and fathers and socially monogamous mates, every group of siblings and babysitters and all parents. It’s not so much that we care for children because we love them as that we love them because we care for them.
.... Still, caring for children is an awfully fast and efficient way to experience at least a little saintliness.
--from Alison Gopnik. The Philosophical Baby: What Children’s Minds Tell Us About Truth, Love, and the Meaning of Life. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. 2009. Pp242-243.
LOVE
..... But every child is needier than the most intolerably demanding friend or lover.
Imagine a novel in which a woman took in a stranger who was unable to walk or talk or even eat by himself. She fell completely in love with him at first sight, fed and clothed and washed him, gradually helped him to become competent and independent, spent more than half her income on him, nursed him through sickness, and thought about him more than about anything else. And after twenty years of this she helped him find a young wife and move far away. You couldn’t bear the sappiness of it. But that, quite simply, is just about every mother’s story. And it’s also the story of every human community – every constellation of mothers and fathers and socially monogamous mates, every group of siblings and babysitters and all parents. It’s not so much that we care for children because we love them as that we love them because we care for them.
.... Still, caring for children is an awfully fast and efficient way to experience at least a little saintliness.
--from Alison Gopnik. The Philosophical Baby: What Children’s Minds Tell Us About Truth, Love, and the Meaning of Life. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. 2009. Pp242-243.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
JOB INTERVIEW ADVICE
This is for all of you who are in or are entering the job market. Imagine that you are at a job interview. After the opening handshake and greetings, your potential employer says: "Tell me about yourself."
Here's some good professional advice that I got and want to pass on to you.
Preparation: Before the interview,
* do research on the internet and elsewhere to learn as much as you can about the company you are interviewing with.
* cement into your brain the name of the person that you will be talking to so that it will be on the tip of your tongue and ready for you to use frequently as you talk to her or him.
Answering the "tell me about yourself question":
* DO NOT TELL YOUR LIFE STORY.
This is what you do:
Your answer will be two minutes long.
Prepare it and time it. Two minutes. No more.
The structure of your two minute answer:
Part 1: 15 SECONDS: State your name (the interviewer may already have forgotten it) and describe the kind of role you are seeking to fill in your next job -- not the specific job title.
Part 2: 45 SECONDS: Tell the part of your life story that highlights accomplishments that demonstrate the skills that are relevant to the company you are interviewing with.
Part 3: 45 SECONDS: Talk about the company you are interviewing with and what you admire about their mission, products, services. State what you know about how they operate and who their customers or clients are. THEN TELL THE INTERVIEWER HOW YOU CAN HELP THEM.
Part 4: 15 SECONDS: Call your interviewer by name again and conclude with an open-ended question about the company. In this way you take charge of how the conversation continues. This is better than sitting there passively waiting for the interviewer's next question.
I hope this is helpful. If you want to practice this 2-minute routine with me, I'll be happy to play the personnel officer role with you and give you feedback. Good luck.
Here's some good professional advice that I got and want to pass on to you.
Preparation: Before the interview,
* do research on the internet and elsewhere to learn as much as you can about the company you are interviewing with.
* cement into your brain the name of the person that you will be talking to so that it will be on the tip of your tongue and ready for you to use frequently as you talk to her or him.
Answering the "tell me about yourself question":
* DO NOT TELL YOUR LIFE STORY.
This is what you do:
Your answer will be two minutes long.
Prepare it and time it. Two minutes. No more.
The structure of your two minute answer:
Part 1: 15 SECONDS: State your name (the interviewer may already have forgotten it) and describe the kind of role you are seeking to fill in your next job -- not the specific job title.
Part 2: 45 SECONDS: Tell the part of your life story that highlights accomplishments that demonstrate the skills that are relevant to the company you are interviewing with.
Part 3: 45 SECONDS: Talk about the company you are interviewing with and what you admire about their mission, products, services. State what you know about how they operate and who their customers or clients are. THEN TELL THE INTERVIEWER HOW YOU CAN HELP THEM.
Part 4: 15 SECONDS: Call your interviewer by name again and conclude with an open-ended question about the company. In this way you take charge of how the conversation continues. This is better than sitting there passively waiting for the interviewer's next question.
I hope this is helpful. If you want to practice this 2-minute routine with me, I'll be happy to play the personnel officer role with you and give you feedback. Good luck.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
