Must international relations be as contentious as they have been throughout history? If not, then people of goodwill need to explore what revisions of human habits could bring about more international friendship and cooperation. National governments typically don't examine necessary and sufficient policies until all conventional ones have failed and crises have arrived. Are we there yet? It saddens me that US voters hold foreign-policy toughness and militancy in such high esteem.
What can be done about the tendency of heads of state to unify populaces or majorities by stirring up hatred or contempt for foreign peoples or minorities? Can such practices be exposed, ridiculed and curbed?
How should powerful nations like us regard prospective attacks by government-independent radicals? Would it suffice to treat them as criminal acts justifying intrusive international investigation and policing rather than war?
How should powerful nations like us regard suspected actions by unfriendly governments that appear to increase their capacity for mischief? Would containment, diplomacy and carrot/stick coercion suffice until an immediate existential danger is demonstrable?
Shouldn't "existential danger" be examined for definition? It may be that competition with large robust nations for resources is a bigger existential danger than overt attack by a small entity. Should foresighted adjustments of the American way of life be a policy - an internal existential shift?
We have spent >$200 billion (eventually >$400 billion) upsetting civil order in Iraq. What's the benefit? What else might we have done with that investment?
Ponder this. Why did we not use our influence to prevent expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory during recent decades? Weren't the consequences obvious?
Here's a plan that might have worked for the middle east about 4 decades ago. We, in cooperation with all wealthier peace-seeking countries, give every Palestinian adult a one-time gift of at least $10,000 of treasury bonds (of said countries and/or of Israel) or an index fund of stocks in international corporations doing business locally or local corporations (including those of Israel), the rule being that the securities cannot be traded or transfered but can be inherited equally among spouses and next-generation descendants. That would be an incentive to think well of the source nations or corporations or to treat them well regardless. It would also be an incentive to use birth control more responsibly. This plan might still be useful.
Before the Iraq war, we were hated by a minority of Muslims in several countries. As a result of that war, the US is held in contempt or hated by populations of most other countries, including our allies. It is reasonable to suspect that the war has made us less safe. My prewar plan for Iraq is described in Naive Iraq Plan.
In many countries we have a lot to answer for. We could start with apologies for meddling in various countries' politics, eg to Iran for interfering with their their election in the 1950s, to Argentina for assassinating their president, to Guatemala for overthrowing their leaders, etc.... We could lift embargoes and trade disadvantages based on political systems. We could continue by reconsidering those foreign-country characteristics of which we actively disapprove and reconsidering the methods by which we express disapproval. Do socialist governments deserve disapproval for that reason alone? I would propose female oppression and female genital mutilation as reasons for condemnation. I would propose gender equality and responsible family planning programs as reasons for praise and help.
The tools for expressing approval or condemnation need reconsideration. Trade policy, immigration policy and foreign aid might be used more effectively for this purpose. In general, it seems that less condemnation and a longer view would be in order. For example, Iran overall is neither the worst aspects of Iran today nor the worst moments of Iran's history; just as the US is neither the worst aspects of the US today nor the worst periods of US history.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Democrat Burden
> We Democrats are a bit like the dog who finally caught a car. Leading this great nation and the world back to ethical and responsible policies, programs and relations is a daunting prospect. It would be wise to give the Republican administration all the funding needed to achieve the best possible outcome in Iraq, insisting on a goal of achieving whatever success is possible by 2008, but recognizing that no outcome could justify the misery we have visited on the Iraqi people without cause.
> At the same time, we owe it to the American people and the world to investigate every detail of decision making that led to the invasion, thereby minimizing the odds that a future administration might repeat the experiment in unjust war. Prior to Bush's announcement of interest in an Iraq war, the national conversation was about failure to finish off Al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Bush's alleged insider-trading crime at Harken Energy. It was a propitious time to act on Karl Rove's recommendation that Republicans maximize the political advantage handed to them on 9/11/01.
> The announcement stifled talk of Afghanistan failure and Harken crime and gave Republicans undisputed power in all branches of government. Fearing the unpatriotic" label, virtually no one in government or journalism insisted on evidence and reason for invading Iraq, and celebrities speaking up were punished. Dick Cheney had a free hand to manufacture false charges and unethical doctrines, eg the 1% doctrine. Collin Powell should have known better than to lend his prestige to a campaign directed by Karl Rove, and he should have resigned rather than sell a war the evidence for which he had not seen.
> When the most powerful nation on earth elects to violate an international convention for peace (see Just-War Theory), then that convention becomes inoperative unless the lesson is learned, articulated and embraced.
> At the same time, we owe it to the American people and the world to investigate every detail of decision making that led to the invasion, thereby minimizing the odds that a future administration might repeat the experiment in unjust war. Prior to Bush's announcement of interest in an Iraq war, the national conversation was about failure to finish off Al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Bush's alleged insider-trading crime at Harken Energy. It was a propitious time to act on Karl Rove's recommendation that Republicans maximize the political advantage handed to them on 9/11/01.
> The announcement stifled talk of Afghanistan failure and Harken crime and gave Republicans undisputed power in all branches of government. Fearing the unpatriotic" label, virtually no one in government or journalism insisted on evidence and reason for invading Iraq, and celebrities speaking up were punished. Dick Cheney had a free hand to manufacture false charges and unethical doctrines, eg the 1% doctrine. Collin Powell should have known better than to lend his prestige to a campaign directed by Karl Rove, and he should have resigned rather than sell a war the evidence for which he had not seen.
> When the most powerful nation on earth elects to violate an international convention for peace (see Just-War Theory), then that convention becomes inoperative unless the lesson is learned, articulated and embraced.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Ethics Audits
> From time to time I have a radical and impractical thought, for example:
"ethics audits" of public policy. An ethics audit would estimate
anticipated and actual effects of a policy on happiness distribution.
> Happiness is linked to wealth in a diminishing-return relation, but
involves such factors as fairness, self respect, health, stability,
safety, comfort, convenience, cultural involvement, educational
opportunities, employment opportunities, recreational opportunities,
social opportunities, fellowship, love, hope, purposefulness,
accomplishment, relief of anxiety, ability to accept limits, etc.
> The imaginary ethics audits would analyze policy effects not only across the socioeconomic spectrum but also across genders, regions, ethnicities, nations, religions and especially across time to future generations.
> In my opinion, the main policies of Republican administrations
and congresses deserve negative ethics scores: passing tax laws that
further enrich the wealthy, cripple Social Security and burden future
generations with our expenditures; failing to address resource waste,
environmental degradation and the population explosion; ignoring export
of middle-class-ladder jobs to maximize corporate profits and trade
imbalance; killing 1/2 million and humiliating millions of Arabs for
reasons that would not justify war even if true.
"ethics audits" of public policy. An ethics audit would estimate
anticipated and actual effects of a policy on happiness distribution.
> Happiness is linked to wealth in a diminishing-return relation, but
involves such factors as fairness, self respect, health, stability,
safety, comfort, convenience, cultural involvement, educational
opportunities, employment opportunities, recreational opportunities,
social opportunities, fellowship, love, hope, purposefulness,
accomplishment, relief of anxiety, ability to accept limits, etc.
> The imaginary ethics audits would analyze policy effects not only across the socioeconomic spectrum but also across genders, regions, ethnicities, nations, religions and especially across time to future generations.
> In my opinion, the main policies of Republican administrations
and congresses deserve negative ethics scores: passing tax laws that
further enrich the wealthy, cripple Social Security and burden future
generations with our expenditures; failing to address resource waste,
environmental degradation and the population explosion; ignoring export
of middle-class-ladder jobs to maximize corporate profits and trade
imbalance; killing 1/2 million and humiliating millions of Arabs for
reasons that would not justify war even if true.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Liberals vs Conservatives
The contempt that conservatives have for liberals seems gratuitous to me. Liberals believe that sharing is an imperative and should be systematic, whereas conservatives believe that sharing should be optional, random and limited to ones own tribe.
Liberals are likely to respect and wish the best for people different from themselves as regards race, ethnicity, national origin, language, religious preference, gender, sexual orientation, age, economic status, geographic location and political system. I shudder to imagine America without such liberal initiatives as: the Bill of Rights, women's suffrage, abolition of slavery, public education, Social Security, child labor laws, limited working hours, minimum wage, integration of public accommodations, workplace safety, Medicare, affirmative action. Liberals are likely to believe that we should protect the environment, encourage cultural involvement, restrain the waste of nonrenewable resources, encourage family planning and regulate corporate behavior. Liberals are unlikely to quote authorities or doctrines. Considering how America benefits from the liberal agenda, it is hard to understand why so many people are receptive to sensationalistic, liberal-bashing talk-show hosts.
I would urge conservatives to imagine a society in which they have won every argument and all their wishes are public policy and to imagine a future with Republican domination of all branches of government. Do they really want a theocracy, more overpopulation worldwide, a military-industrial cleptocracy, a plutocracy, more federal deficit, more trade deficit, more people carrying fire arms, more disaffected citizens, more racial inequities, more global warming, more invasions of countries engaged in neither foreign aggression nor genocide? Do they believe their grandchildren would celebrate their success?
Liberals are likely to respect and wish the best for people different from themselves as regards race, ethnicity, national origin, language, religious preference, gender, sexual orientation, age, economic status, geographic location and political system. I shudder to imagine America without such liberal initiatives as: the Bill of Rights, women's suffrage, abolition of slavery, public education, Social Security, child labor laws, limited working hours, minimum wage, integration of public accommodations, workplace safety, Medicare, affirmative action. Liberals are likely to believe that we should protect the environment, encourage cultural involvement, restrain the waste of nonrenewable resources, encourage family planning and regulate corporate behavior. Liberals are unlikely to quote authorities or doctrines. Considering how America benefits from the liberal agenda, it is hard to understand why so many people are receptive to sensationalistic, liberal-bashing talk-show hosts.
I would urge conservatives to imagine a society in which they have won every argument and all their wishes are public policy and to imagine a future with Republican domination of all branches of government. Do they really want a theocracy, more overpopulation worldwide, a military-industrial cleptocracy, a plutocracy, more federal deficit, more trade deficit, more people carrying fire arms, more disaffected citizens, more racial inequities, more global warming, more invasions of countries engaged in neither foreign aggression nor genocide? Do they believe their grandchildren would celebrate their success?
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Sustainable Earth
* It is high time for more people to begin imagining a sustainable earth, how to achieve and occupy it peacefully and happily, how civilization and the economy will differ from what they are today.
* In numerous parts of the world, forests, grasslands and farmlands are giving way to desert; rivers, lakes and aquifers are being emptied and/or polluted; and sea life is being depleted toward the point of no return. Humankind and the earth are out of balance - all this with about half of the 6 billion people living very-small-footprint lives.
* The world is getting flat, ie many poorer nations are catching up to the richer ones, acquiring or expecting the resource-intensive conveniences to which richer nations are accustomed. Therefore, even if world population were stabilized, over-exploitation will certainly accelerate, and this will be compounded by further population expansion.
* Ethical nations, religions, races, cultures, tribes and families will do everything possible to promote birth control and small families within and outside themselves. Unethical ones won't - believing that war, famine, pestilence and population dislocation are OK, inevitable or in God's hands.
* Population shrinkage is necessary but not sufficient for a peaceful and happy future civilization on an hospitable earth. Additionally there will need to be a variety of adjustments of expectations, individual choices and economic organization, inasmuch as our economic opportunities today depend significantly on such drivers as population expansion, GDP growth, luxury lifestyles and wasteful behavior. How can a satisfactory economy and satisfactory opportunities prevail in absence of these drivers? How will employment be distributed? How will hard jobs get done? What will be sources of self respect and contentment?
* I suspect that we will eventually recognize the need for rational regulation, incentives and coercion. We will need an anti-Reagan revolution. So far, no utopian society has endured, so our prospects aren't good.
* In numerous parts of the world, forests, grasslands and farmlands are giving way to desert; rivers, lakes and aquifers are being emptied and/or polluted; and sea life is being depleted toward the point of no return. Humankind and the earth are out of balance - all this with about half of the 6 billion people living very-small-footprint lives.
* The world is getting flat, ie many poorer nations are catching up to the richer ones, acquiring or expecting the resource-intensive conveniences to which richer nations are accustomed. Therefore, even if world population were stabilized, over-exploitation will certainly accelerate, and this will be compounded by further population expansion.
* Ethical nations, religions, races, cultures, tribes and families will do everything possible to promote birth control and small families within and outside themselves. Unethical ones won't - believing that war, famine, pestilence and population dislocation are OK, inevitable or in God's hands.
* Population shrinkage is necessary but not sufficient for a peaceful and happy future civilization on an hospitable earth. Additionally there will need to be a variety of adjustments of expectations, individual choices and economic organization, inasmuch as our economic opportunities today depend significantly on such drivers as population expansion, GDP growth, luxury lifestyles and wasteful behavior. How can a satisfactory economy and satisfactory opportunities prevail in absence of these drivers? How will employment be distributed? How will hard jobs get done? What will be sources of self respect and contentment?
* I suspect that we will eventually recognize the need for rational regulation, incentives and coercion. We will need an anti-Reagan revolution. So far, no utopian society has endured, so our prospects aren't good.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Iraq-war runup
From Bush's announcement of Iraq-war contemplation through the invasion, my thoughts were:
a) This appears to be Karl Rove's way to stifle conversation about Bush's alleged crimes at Harken Energy and to ensure Republican victory in the mid-term elections.
b) Bush's reasons for invading Iraq are improbable and unproven, and congress should insist on proof. We don't condemn criminal suspects without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
c) We have no right to invade now, even if Bush's reasons were true, as there is no immediate threat.
d) Zero tolerance for potential harm to us can become terrorism by us.
e) It might be unwise to overturn one of the few anti-theocratic governments in the middle east.
f) Saddam won't live forever, and we can wait and see what Iraqis do after his death.
g) We and our allies were complicit or compliant in many of Saddam's crimes enumerated to stir up support for war.
h) Some of his crimes could be viewed as attempts to "Save the Union", the Iraqi union, and might have been committed by Lincoln if the relevant weapons existed in the 19th century. The casualty numbers were comparable.
i) Making war on a country that does not clearly and immediately threaten us encourages other countries to act likewise, which is a step backwards for civilization.
j) Fear of being labeled soft on national security may have caused many in congress, like John Kerry, to vote authorization for war, against their consciences.
k) Bush's claim, that Saddam could avoid invasion by proving the absence of WMD, is cynical, as is not possible to prove the absence of something, and Saddam isn't interfering with UN inspectors.
l) Cheney's predictions about the invasion and occupation exhibit a gross ignorance of human nature.
m) How sad to see Colin Powell, a courageous patriot, sell the UN on allegations that he must surely doubt.
n) Rumsfeld's bluster and pride about shock and awe reveal a lack of ethics, and his referring to Iraqis defending their homeland during the invasion as terrorists reveals rabid dishonesty.
o) Wearing flack jackets in 120 F temperates with sandflies all around will exhaust our troops, patrolling the streets with ambiguities about who is a threat will demoralize our troops and the prospect of these experiences will degrade recruitment.
p) Many thousands of innocent Iraqis will suffer and die because of our invasion and occupation, and that weighs negatively in the ethical equation, against any good that might be done. We have no right to sacrifice some Iraqis for the sake of others.
q) Sudden regime change in Iraq will likely lead to ethnic revenge, civil war, balkanization, enhanced terrorist recruitment and/or emergence of a theocratic or dictatorial police state.
r) Civil war in and balkanization of Iraq will trouble its neighbors.
s) Why aren't journalists asking the awkward questions?
t) Why aren't Christians discussing the ethics of elective war?
u) Why did Republicans, my fellow Americans, my fellow Christians and the Supreme Court give us a president so ill prepared to consider these matters?
v) We Christians need to think more about Jesus' goals - a happier and more peaceful civilization.
w) Why did my fellow Americans and fellow Christians condemn the French for declining to participate in an unjust war?
x) Civilization will be better when we all become suspicious of and bridle our tribal instincts.
y) The checks and balances of our representative system of government is failing to prevent irrational policies. The Karl-Rove/Rush-Limbaugh/Grover-Norquist/Tom-DeLay factor is too strong; the Garrison-Keiller/Al-Frankin/Robert-Reich/Leonard-Pitts factor is too
weak.
z) How would we feel if a few populous countries like China, India and Indonesia (about 3 billion people) formed a coalition to improve the United States - having concluded that we are a dangerous and unaccountable loose canon with an appetite for war, that we are self-indulgently wasting the worlds resources and polluting air and sea by driving SUVs, building suboptimally insulated McMansions for few inhabitants, that we are making policies to further enrich the rich and exploit the poor, resulting in a widening wealth gap, that our health-care system is wrong-headed, that we are not willing to pay for what we insist on getting, that we are hypocritical in our dealings with the third world, that our government has been corrupted by plutocrats and kleptocrats? That may all be true, but we would resist them with our lives. Would our resistance fighters be terrorists?
a) This appears to be Karl Rove's way to stifle conversation about Bush's alleged crimes at Harken Energy and to ensure Republican victory in the mid-term elections.
b) Bush's reasons for invading Iraq are improbable and unproven, and congress should insist on proof. We don't condemn criminal suspects without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
c) We have no right to invade now, even if Bush's reasons were true, as there is no immediate threat.
d) Zero tolerance for potential harm to us can become terrorism by us.
e) It might be unwise to overturn one of the few anti-theocratic governments in the middle east.
f) Saddam won't live forever, and we can wait and see what Iraqis do after his death.
g) We and our allies were complicit or compliant in many of Saddam's crimes enumerated to stir up support for war.
h) Some of his crimes could be viewed as attempts to "Save the Union", the Iraqi union, and might have been committed by Lincoln if the relevant weapons existed in the 19th century. The casualty numbers were comparable.
i) Making war on a country that does not clearly and immediately threaten us encourages other countries to act likewise, which is a step backwards for civilization.
j) Fear of being labeled soft on national security may have caused many in congress, like John Kerry, to vote authorization for war, against their consciences.
k) Bush's claim, that Saddam could avoid invasion by proving the absence of WMD, is cynical, as is not possible to prove the absence of something, and Saddam isn't interfering with UN inspectors.
l) Cheney's predictions about the invasion and occupation exhibit a gross ignorance of human nature.
m) How sad to see Colin Powell, a courageous patriot, sell the UN on allegations that he must surely doubt.
n) Rumsfeld's bluster and pride about shock and awe reveal a lack of ethics, and his referring to Iraqis defending their homeland during the invasion as terrorists reveals rabid dishonesty.
o) Wearing flack jackets in 120 F temperates with sandflies all around will exhaust our troops, patrolling the streets with ambiguities about who is a threat will demoralize our troops and the prospect of these experiences will degrade recruitment.
p) Many thousands of innocent Iraqis will suffer and die because of our invasion and occupation, and that weighs negatively in the ethical equation, against any good that might be done. We have no right to sacrifice some Iraqis for the sake of others.
q) Sudden regime change in Iraq will likely lead to ethnic revenge, civil war, balkanization, enhanced terrorist recruitment and/or emergence of a theocratic or dictatorial police state.
r) Civil war in and balkanization of Iraq will trouble its neighbors.
s) Why aren't journalists asking the awkward questions?
t) Why aren't Christians discussing the ethics of elective war?
u) Why did Republicans, my fellow Americans, my fellow Christians and the Supreme Court give us a president so ill prepared to consider these matters?
v) We Christians need to think more about Jesus' goals - a happier and more peaceful civilization.
w) Why did my fellow Americans and fellow Christians condemn the French for declining to participate in an unjust war?
x) Civilization will be better when we all become suspicious of and bridle our tribal instincts.
y) The checks and balances of our representative system of government is failing to prevent irrational policies. The Karl-Rove/Rush-Limbaugh/Grover-Norquist/Tom-DeLay factor is too strong; the Garrison-Keiller/Al-Frankin/Robert-Reich/Leonard-Pitts factor is too
weak.
z) How would we feel if a few populous countries like China, India and Indonesia (about 3 billion people) formed a coalition to improve the United States - having concluded that we are a dangerous and unaccountable loose canon with an appetite for war, that we are self-indulgently wasting the worlds resources and polluting air and sea by driving SUVs, building suboptimally insulated McMansions for few inhabitants, that we are making policies to further enrich the rich and exploit the poor, resulting in a widening wealth gap, that our health-care system is wrong-headed, that we are not willing to pay for what we insist on getting, that we are hypocritical in our dealings with the third world, that our government has been corrupted by plutocrats and kleptocrats? That may all be true, but we would resist them with our lives. Would our resistance fighters be terrorists?
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Spam, what is it good for
Spamming, as practiced today, abuses web providers and almost all recipients. It occupies a costly fraction of infrastructure and it wastes the time of busy desk workers. Effective spam-blocking systems interfere with legitimate traffic and require time-consuming procedures for senders and receivers of legitimate email. My centralized filtering system (bellsouth.net) successfully blocks porn but fails to block flesh-market, pharmacy, penny-stock, gambling and mortgage spam. That seems half hearted or incompetent.
Several years ago, federal anti-spam legislation was contemplated. During the public-comment period, I downloaded the bill in hopes of influencing the law. It was almost incomprehensible; but, from what I could tell, it would have stifled some useful email. Apparently the bill was dropped. It may be time for a class-action suit and a reconsideration of an anti-spam law.
It seems that providers could do much to identify spam sources and ban abusers from the web, possibly to block it upstream and disable relay software. If they don't already have one, providers should have an address for receiving spam forwarded from victims, the site having an artificial-intelligence system to learn spam characteristics as distinguished from non-spam characteristics, so that future email with spam-specific characteristics can be blocked at the source. Spam changes with time, but it may still be characterized by deceptive source names and addresses and deceptive subject lines, nonsense text, graphic text and presumably other deception technology.
That I receive only a few spams daily rather than 1000, suggests that the number of serious abusers is limited or there is an organization and clearing house for abusive spammers. If so, it should be possible to prosecute or sue them, were there a law forbidding abuse.
As an entrepreneur, I would love to do some shotgun emails. I recommend a law that forbids the kind of spam that we all get daily but allows non-abusive spamming, possibly once per year from a given sender to a given address for a given product. Details of how that could be implemented and enforced are over my head.
PS: Bellsouth.net has improved its filter recently (Feb '07), so I get very few spam each day.
Several years ago, federal anti-spam legislation was contemplated. During the public-comment period, I downloaded the bill in hopes of influencing the law. It was almost incomprehensible; but, from what I could tell, it would have stifled some useful email. Apparently the bill was dropped. It may be time for a class-action suit and a reconsideration of an anti-spam law.
It seems that providers could do much to identify spam sources and ban abusers from the web, possibly to block it upstream and disable relay software. If they don't already have one, providers should have an address for receiving spam forwarded from victims, the site having an artificial-intelligence system to learn spam characteristics as distinguished from non-spam characteristics, so that future email with spam-specific characteristics can be blocked at the source. Spam changes with time, but it may still be characterized by deceptive source names and addresses and deceptive subject lines, nonsense text, graphic text and presumably other deception technology.
That I receive only a few spams daily rather than 1000, suggests that the number of serious abusers is limited or there is an organization and clearing house for abusive spammers. If so, it should be possible to prosecute or sue them, were there a law forbidding abuse.
As an entrepreneur, I would love to do some shotgun emails. I recommend a law that forbids the kind of spam that we all get daily but allows non-abusive spamming, possibly once per year from a given sender to a given address for a given product. Details of how that could be implemented and enforced are over my head.
PS: Bellsouth.net has improved its filter recently (Feb '07), so I get very few spam each day.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Ethics Education
The purpose of my ethics musings is to have a happy, peaceful civilization on a healthy, hospitable earth and to pass these to our descendants. Both our civilization and our earth depend on the quality and quantity of my generation's ethics. Our record is abysmal, so we have plenty of data on what doesn't work.
Historically and to this day, we have depended on religions to inculcate ethical ideas, and we have depended on law and its enforcement to contain the failures. All well established religions have some form of the golden rule, which would be enough if fully embraced and broadly interpreted. Unfortunately, most people (me included) are attracted to religions that are encumbered by scientifically untenable cosmologies that offend most intellectuals. Also, many of those religions cultivate tribal attitudes that interfere with universal extension of concern and ethical action. It is somewhat encouraging that our schools now have programs to teach "character", and that presumably includes caring about others.
How are people persuaded to learn habits of goodwill, fairness, honesty, caring, responsibility, kindness, modesty, etc, that make for a happy, peaceful civilization? Most of these properties are internalized or not at an early age from family dynamics. Appropriate praise or scorn, celebration or disgrace, compensation or dismissal, reward or punishment, etc for exposed actions seem useful. (Honor societies are big on control and punishment and don't appeal to me.) Family ceremonies (eg regular dinners) provide opportunities to convey values of all kinds. Setting ethical examples is useful, but may need to be articulated as well as demonstrated. Jesus taught ethics by example and in parables, whereas Martin Luther King Jr appealed to our sense of justice in ways we couldn't ignore or gainsay. Both of these prophets changed hearts. Our popular culture contains numerous parables and examples of both positive and negative ethical value. This is my faith: If ones heart is right, ones choices will be right.
Policy makers should consider how much unhappy experience is good for a society. How much anxiety is needed to encourage hard work and responsibility? Should health care be such a big source of anxiety? How much taxation and sacrifice of time should be demanded of the citizens in support of the society? Shouldn't there be a contract between a society and those receiving public support, such as to limit the demands on the society?
I don't have firm positions on ethics-education content and methods, but hope these conjectures will stimulate wiser people to think about how to get a good civilization and healthy planet.
Historically and to this day, we have depended on religions to inculcate ethical ideas, and we have depended on law and its enforcement to contain the failures. All well established religions have some form of the golden rule, which would be enough if fully embraced and broadly interpreted. Unfortunately, most people (me included) are attracted to religions that are encumbered by scientifically untenable cosmologies that offend most intellectuals. Also, many of those religions cultivate tribal attitudes that interfere with universal extension of concern and ethical action. It is somewhat encouraging that our schools now have programs to teach "character", and that presumably includes caring about others.
How are people persuaded to learn habits of goodwill, fairness, honesty, caring, responsibility, kindness, modesty, etc, that make for a happy, peaceful civilization? Most of these properties are internalized or not at an early age from family dynamics. Appropriate praise or scorn, celebration or disgrace, compensation or dismissal, reward or punishment, etc for exposed actions seem useful. (Honor societies are big on control and punishment and don't appeal to me.) Family ceremonies (eg regular dinners) provide opportunities to convey values of all kinds. Setting ethical examples is useful, but may need to be articulated as well as demonstrated. Jesus taught ethics by example and in parables, whereas Martin Luther King Jr appealed to our sense of justice in ways we couldn't ignore or gainsay. Both of these prophets changed hearts. Our popular culture contains numerous parables and examples of both positive and negative ethical value. This is my faith: If ones heart is right, ones choices will be right.
Policy makers should consider how much unhappy experience is good for a society. How much anxiety is needed to encourage hard work and responsibility? Should health care be such a big source of anxiety? How much taxation and sacrifice of time should be demanded of the citizens in support of the society? Shouldn't there be a contract between a society and those receiving public support, such as to limit the demands on the society?
I don't have firm positions on ethics-education content and methods, but hope these conjectures will stimulate wiser people to think about how to get a good civilization and healthy planet.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Reaganism
Since the '50s, I have believed that our reproductive success would inevitably make the earth an inhospitable place, characterized by famines, diseases and wars. Since the '60s, I have worried about future energy availability and the fact that populations were already too dense to cope with the inevitable shortfall. Nixon took notice and advanced some energy-conserving proposals. In the '70s, inflation was rampant through the Ford and Carter administrations, and this was augmented by OPEC's embargo that resulted in severe gas shortages and price hikes. Carter began preparing us for some austerity, but he was hampered by the hostage crisis in Iran.
Then along came Reagan. During the 1980 campaign, I objected to his "are you better off?" line, considering the internal complexity and external causes of our problems. It seemed simple minded or dishonest for Reagan to claim that he could cut taxes, increase spending and balance the budget. In fact, these measures quadrupled the national debt in just a few years. It also seemed that deregulation and globalization would bankrupt many US businesses, decimate our manufacturing sector and expand our trade deficit. It angered me to hear him say that the American worker could compete with any in the world, if the government were off their backs. The result was a massive transfer of satisfaction from middle- and working-class families to the very rich. It angered me that he interfered with international family-planning services. His belief that the market place would solve all problems seemed extremely short sighted, as it would accelerate the unsustainable over-exploitation of resources. Regardez the SUV.
Reagan's policies succeeded in controlling inflation, which bankrupted many real-estate partnerships (to my detriment) but stimulated stock-market gambling (to my benefit). For me it was a wash.
After 26 years, Reaganism is so pervasive as to seem like the natural order. One result is that the US is behind other developed nations in resource-conserving technologies. Another is that overpopulation is bringing misery to many areas of the world. Still another is trillions in debt to other nations. It's time to re-examine Reagan doctrines.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Office of Intellectual Liaison
> In my retirement, I have gained much pleasure and satisfaction from activities that cost almost nothing: repairing broken things, composing and performing music and inventing things that aught to be. I joined a chapter of the United Inventors Association. It welcomes anyone wishing to protect or commercialize an idea or just hang out with kindred spirits. We encourage, help, learn from and get inspiration from one other. The best practical advice I have received in decades came from one of those meetings. It was, "Go back to school." In this state, retirees can attend any college or tech center for about $65/quarter.
> Inventors have peculiar minds. Received wisdom is questioned. Established procedures are re-examined. Tools are looked at without prejudice. Problems, failures and calamities are seen as opportunities. Half of my inventions came from bad news reported in the media, others from unmet needs while repairing things or performing music.
> There are chapters of the UIA all over the country, teaming with independent original thinkers. This organization could provide a conduit for the federal government and its agencies to query America's most creative people on matters of public policy and specific national problems. And for grounding we have associations of historians and philosophers. We need to balance the influence of economists and corporations.
> Were there a federal Office of Intellectual Liaison over the past 20 years, numerous disasters might have been avoided - the 9/11 hijackings, riots turning deadly, the intifada, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the kidnappings in Iraq, disproportionate and nonspecific responses to terrorist attacks, many transportation accidents and many gun crimes. Then there are the economy, environment, resource conservation, trade balance, industrial capacity, national debt, health care, Social Security, corporate citizenship and SPAM, none of which is being addressed rationally. The National Academy of Sciences and Advisory Boards and recognised think tanks apparently aren't sufficient.
> Inventors have peculiar minds. Received wisdom is questioned. Established procedures are re-examined. Tools are looked at without prejudice. Problems, failures and calamities are seen as opportunities. Half of my inventions came from bad news reported in the media, others from unmet needs while repairing things or performing music.
> There are chapters of the UIA all over the country, teaming with independent original thinkers. This organization could provide a conduit for the federal government and its agencies to query America's most creative people on matters of public policy and specific national problems. And for grounding we have associations of historians and philosophers. We need to balance the influence of economists and corporations.
> Were there a federal Office of Intellectual Liaison over the past 20 years, numerous disasters might have been avoided - the 9/11 hijackings, riots turning deadly, the intifada, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the kidnappings in Iraq, disproportionate and nonspecific responses to terrorist attacks, many transportation accidents and many gun crimes. Then there are the economy, environment, resource conservation, trade balance, industrial capacity, national debt, health care, Social Security, corporate citizenship and SPAM, none of which is being addressed rationally. The National Academy of Sciences and Advisory Boards and recognised think tanks apparently aren't sufficient.
Anti-intellectualism
> The term "anti-intellectual" came to my attention about 40 years ago. I assumed that it referred to new-age fascination with crystals and pyramids, the growth of cults, society's absorption with meaningless entertainment, young people dropping out of established systems and into counterculture or self-destructive pursuits, or growing mental sloth.
> Whatever it meant then, it seems to characterize today's Republican party with its penchant for name-calling (elitist liberals, femiNazis, tree huggers, gutless peacenics, godless socialists) and its irrational doctrines (making our grandchildren pay the taxes that we should pay for today's programs, failure to make progress away from polluting fuels, abandoning international conventions on the justification for war, labeling as "unpatriotic" those Americans with the insight to suspect Bush's lies and to predict the Iraqi mess, labeling as "ungrateful cowards" those foreign leaders trying to dissuade us from this misadventure).
> The noblest voices of the past 100 years were not those of the establishment. Consider where women, blacks, rivers, children, forests and retirees would be today if conservatives had won every legislative argument. Since half of the population is female and most of the other half have sisters or daughters, electoral successes of conservative politicians over the past three decades suggest failure of memory or of gratitude.
> Modern conservatives have promulgated ancient paradigms causing most Americans to believe that invading Iraq would be justified, beneficial and welcome. Had their thinking prevailed in the '50s, we would be in a nuclear winter. I dream of an administrative Department of Reason or a congressional Office of Intellectual Liaison to solicit, receive and weigh policy ideas from creative citizens, among other things to consider paradigms of peace, e.g. ideas for promoting gender equality and responsible reproduction worldwide.
> Whatever it meant then, it seems to characterize today's Republican party with its penchant for name-calling (elitist liberals, femiNazis, tree huggers, gutless peacenics, godless socialists) and its irrational doctrines (making our grandchildren pay the taxes that we should pay for today's programs, failure to make progress away from polluting fuels, abandoning international conventions on the justification for war, labeling as "unpatriotic" those Americans with the insight to suspect Bush's lies and to predict the Iraqi mess, labeling as "ungrateful cowards" those foreign leaders trying to dissuade us from this misadventure).
> The noblest voices of the past 100 years were not those of the establishment. Consider where women, blacks, rivers, children, forests and retirees would be today if conservatives had won every legislative argument. Since half of the population is female and most of the other half have sisters or daughters, electoral successes of conservative politicians over the past three decades suggest failure of memory or of gratitude.
> Modern conservatives have promulgated ancient paradigms causing most Americans to believe that invading Iraq would be justified, beneficial and welcome. Had their thinking prevailed in the '50s, we would be in a nuclear winter. I dream of an administrative Department of Reason or a congressional Office of Intellectual Liaison to solicit, receive and weigh policy ideas from creative citizens, among other things to consider paradigms of peace, e.g. ideas for promoting gender equality and responsible reproduction worldwide.
Naive Iraq Plan
* From the mid '90s until Bush's war began, I entertained a
carrot/stick initiative to limit the harm done by the Iraqi government
and by us in that area. My stick might have faced legal impediments,
and my carrot might have seemed soft on murderous tyrants.
* According to this reverie, Saddam and his closest ministers would be
told secretly that their history of fratricide and tyranny placed them outside
the pale of sovereign-leader protection. As a carrot, Iraq would be
offered: cessation of no-fly-zone patrols, normalization of trade
relations and almost full restoration of sovereignty. In exchange, Iraq
would be expected to: improve human-rights performance, improve ethnic
relations, demolish offensive weapons, host an American military base on
Iraqi soil, tolerate surveillance flyovers, and host weapons inspectors
and human-rights inspectors. As a stick, Iraqi leaders would understand
that failure to comply with these expectations would result in deep
bombing of unspecified palaces, government buildings and military sites.
This initiative would be cheap, low-risk and relatively beneficial.
* The military base would simply be moved from Saudi soil and enlarged as needed to support operations, protect itself and be a credible threat.
Surveillance flyovers would be cheaper and less destructive than
no-fly-zone patrols. The inspectors would be from the UN. There would
be little killing and wounding of Americans and Iraqis, little
destruction and gradual restoration of Iraqi infrastructure, and
immediate economic benefits to the Iraqi people. Leadership shuffling
would likely occur as palace coups with little risk of civil war.
* I wonder how the cost/benefit/risk analysis of the war planners
compares to this and to what actually happened in Iraq.
carrot/stick initiative to limit the harm done by the Iraqi government
and by us in that area. My stick might have faced legal impediments,
and my carrot might have seemed soft on murderous tyrants.
* According to this reverie, Saddam and his closest ministers would be
told secretly that their history of fratricide and tyranny placed them outside
the pale of sovereign-leader protection. As a carrot, Iraq would be
offered: cessation of no-fly-zone patrols, normalization of trade
relations and almost full restoration of sovereignty. In exchange, Iraq
would be expected to: improve human-rights performance, improve ethnic
relations, demolish offensive weapons, host an American military base on
Iraqi soil, tolerate surveillance flyovers, and host weapons inspectors
and human-rights inspectors. As a stick, Iraqi leaders would understand
that failure to comply with these expectations would result in deep
bombing of unspecified palaces, government buildings and military sites.
This initiative would be cheap, low-risk and relatively beneficial.
* The military base would simply be moved from Saudi soil and enlarged as needed to support operations, protect itself and be a credible threat.
Surveillance flyovers would be cheaper and less destructive than
no-fly-zone patrols. The inspectors would be from the UN. There would
be little killing and wounding of Americans and Iraqis, little
destruction and gradual restoration of Iraqi infrastructure, and
immediate economic benefits to the Iraqi people. Leadership shuffling
would likely occur as palace coups with little risk of civil war.
* I wonder how the cost/benefit/risk analysis of the war planners
compares to this and to what actually happened in Iraq.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Reproductive Ethics
* There are several measures that the US should and could take to encourage family planning in overpopulated countries. Our current policies are stupid.
* Fifty years ago, as a naive college student, I wrote an essay examining the ethics of reproductive choices. I was aware that a biological species, having all of its needs well satisfied, will expand exponentially - the needs including water, minerals, essential building blocks (containing carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, etc), energy source, waste separation, space to occupy, access to tolerable temperature, dearth of predators and germs. This prosperous circumstance, in which sentient beings are happy, is rarely found among species living in their historic habitats, for they have already expanded to the point where poor satisfaction of at least one need limits longevity and reproduction. Thus, pain and misery are common among wild sentient species, in the form of thirst, hunger, weakness, crowding, infectious disease, parasites, and fear and injury from competitors and predators.
* My thesis was that, given the contraceptive technologies of our time, human populations suffering resource deprivation can reduce their numbers peacefully, and human populations with all needs well satisfied can avoid expansion to the point of resource limitation and resulting misery, such as war, civil disorder, famine and pestilence. I predicted that political and religious leaders worldwide would soon espouse small families and that contraception would eventually be seen as mankind's most valuable technology. Had they done so over the last half century, today's local conflicts, wars, starving millions, population dislocations and migrations, environmental degradations and resource depletions could have been avoided.
* My generation has witnessed unspeakable atrocities, but none of them worse than the atrocity that we are visiting on future generations for lack of will to address overpopulation and its consequences. It is my generation's biggest ethical failure, bigger than our mindless waste and unjust wars. I recently read Lester R Brown's book, "Plan B 2.0", which documents the degradation of the natural support systems upon which populations depend as well as numerous policies and technologies that could restore those systems to support our 6 billion people comfortably, even an anticipated 9 billion. But that relief will be temporary without restraint of population expansion.
* With this agenda in mind, I tell people that world peace will be possible only when all religions and nations embrace gender equality, as that might provide the needed restraint. It would help if we could all learn to distrust and examine our tribal and chauvinistic instincts, but that's too much to hope for.
* Fifty years ago, as a naive college student, I wrote an essay examining the ethics of reproductive choices. I was aware that a biological species, having all of its needs well satisfied, will expand exponentially - the needs including water, minerals, essential building blocks (containing carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, etc), energy source, waste separation, space to occupy, access to tolerable temperature, dearth of predators and germs. This prosperous circumstance, in which sentient beings are happy, is rarely found among species living in their historic habitats, for they have already expanded to the point where poor satisfaction of at least one need limits longevity and reproduction. Thus, pain and misery are common among wild sentient species, in the form of thirst, hunger, weakness, crowding, infectious disease, parasites, and fear and injury from competitors and predators.
* My thesis was that, given the contraceptive technologies of our time, human populations suffering resource deprivation can reduce their numbers peacefully, and human populations with all needs well satisfied can avoid expansion to the point of resource limitation and resulting misery, such as war, civil disorder, famine and pestilence. I predicted that political and religious leaders worldwide would soon espouse small families and that contraception would eventually be seen as mankind's most valuable technology. Had they done so over the last half century, today's local conflicts, wars, starving millions, population dislocations and migrations, environmental degradations and resource depletions could have been avoided.
* My generation has witnessed unspeakable atrocities, but none of them worse than the atrocity that we are visiting on future generations for lack of will to address overpopulation and its consequences. It is my generation's biggest ethical failure, bigger than our mindless waste and unjust wars. I recently read Lester R Brown's book, "Plan B 2.0", which documents the degradation of the natural support systems upon which populations depend as well as numerous policies and technologies that could restore those systems to support our 6 billion people comfortably, even an anticipated 9 billion. But that relief will be temporary without restraint of population expansion.
* With this agenda in mind, I tell people that world peace will be possible only when all religions and nations embrace gender equality, as that might provide the needed restraint. It would help if we could all learn to distrust and examine our tribal and chauvinistic instincts, but that's too much to hope for.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Just-war theory
* Recent syndicated columns favoring the Iraq war evoke thoughts of Augustin's Just-War Theory, international conventions and rights of nations -- not to mention pragmatic considerations.
* According to Augustin's centuries-old theory, to be just: 1) War must be the last resort after all non-violent options are exhausted; 2) War must be waged by a legitimate government; 3) War must be defensive, in response to already inflicted injury, not in anticipation of potential harm; 4) War must be to restore peace, a peace that is preferable to that which would occur without the war; 5) War must have a reasonable chance of success, not spill blood for a hopeless cause; 6) Violence inflicted on an enemy must not be excessive relative to injury suffered from that enemy; 7) Effort must be made to minimize harm to non-combatants.
* The Iraq war was unjust according to items 1, 3 and 6; and, knowing the inability of Iraqi factions to share, it violated item 5.
* Modern experience has led to modifications of item 3. It is considered just to defend a friendly nation from assault, to intervene in an ongoing genocide, and to act preemptively in the face of certain, imminent, existential threat. The Iraq war was unjust by these modified criteria also.
Shouldn't a nation have the right not to be attacked in absence of any of these justifications?
* Our violation of Just-War principles invites other nations to do likewise. We have squandered our moral authority in international relations. The generation in power today has left its children with a worse civilization than it inherited. This could have been avoided with a little attention to history and ethics. That's why I espouse an "Office of Intellectual Liaison" in the federal government.
* According to Augustin's centuries-old theory, to be just: 1) War must be the last resort after all non-violent options are exhausted; 2) War must be waged by a legitimate government; 3) War must be defensive, in response to already inflicted injury, not in anticipation of potential harm; 4) War must be to restore peace, a peace that is preferable to that which would occur without the war; 5) War must have a reasonable chance of success, not spill blood for a hopeless cause; 6) Violence inflicted on an enemy must not be excessive relative to injury suffered from that enemy; 7) Effort must be made to minimize harm to non-combatants.
* The Iraq war was unjust according to items 1, 3 and 6; and, knowing the inability of Iraqi factions to share, it violated item 5.
* Modern experience has led to modifications of item 3. It is considered just to defend a friendly nation from assault, to intervene in an ongoing genocide, and to act preemptively in the face of certain, imminent, existential threat. The Iraq war was unjust by these modified criteria also.
Shouldn't a nation have the right not to be attacked in absence of any of these justifications?
* Our violation of Just-War principles invites other nations to do likewise. We have squandered our moral authority in international relations. The generation in power today has left its children with a worse civilization than it inherited. This could have been avoided with a little attention to history and ethics. That's why I espouse an "Office of Intellectual Liaison" in the federal government.
World better sans Saddam
* The president and numerous of his apologists brag that the world is a better place without Saddam. Indeed the world would be a better place without Saddam, had he lost power by any process other than our invasion of Iraq.
* The list of people for whom the world is better seems much shorter than the list of people for whom the world is worse. Is the world better or worse for: American soldiers killed or maimed in Iraq, or their families; Iraqi citizens killed, maimed, deprived, inconvenienced or ethnically cleansed in Iraq, or their families; neighboring countries coping with Iraqi refugees? Is unleashed ethnoreligious strife and cleansing better for Iraq than strong-man secular antitheocratic government where Shiites and Sunnis could be peaceful neighbors and intermarry? Is America better off having squandered goodwill, prestige and moral leadership? Are we better off with with massive additions to the federal debt, massive additions to our negative trade balance, rising middle- and working-class anxiety, little progress in development of green energy or energy conservation, contempt for us around the world, wider and deeper hatred of us in parts of the world, a bigger arena for perfecting terrorist technology and organization, a fatigued and degraded military with no prospect of victory or relief? Are Republicans better off having their political tricks, self-righteousness, elitism, cynicism and hypocrisy exposed, having produced an administration of intellectual Lilliputians that would involve us in an unjust war? Are Democrats better off having to disengage us from chaos not of their making? Are Africa, Latin America and the middle east better off with unrestrained population expansion combined with deteriorating natural support systems?
* One could reasonably suspect that the Iraq war did more harm than good and distracted us from opportunities to make the "world a better place".
* The list of people for whom the world is better seems much shorter than the list of people for whom the world is worse. Is the world better or worse for: American soldiers killed or maimed in Iraq, or their families; Iraqi citizens killed, maimed, deprived, inconvenienced or ethnically cleansed in Iraq, or their families; neighboring countries coping with Iraqi refugees? Is unleashed ethnoreligious strife and cleansing better for Iraq than strong-man secular antitheocratic government where Shiites and Sunnis could be peaceful neighbors and intermarry? Is America better off having squandered goodwill, prestige and moral leadership? Are we better off with with massive additions to the federal debt, massive additions to our negative trade balance, rising middle- and working-class anxiety, little progress in development of green energy or energy conservation, contempt for us around the world, wider and deeper hatred of us in parts of the world, a bigger arena for perfecting terrorist technology and organization, a fatigued and degraded military with no prospect of victory or relief? Are Republicans better off having their political tricks, self-righteousness, elitism, cynicism and hypocrisy exposed, having produced an administration of intellectual Lilliputians that would involve us in an unjust war? Are Democrats better off having to disengage us from chaos not of their making? Are Africa, Latin America and the middle east better off with unrestrained population expansion combined with deteriorating natural support systems?
* One could reasonably suspect that the Iraq war did more harm than good and distracted us from opportunities to make the "world a better place".
Ethics and Consequences
It is natural to weigh ones self, family, tribe, community, nation, race, gender, sexual orientation, political party, religion and generation as more worthy, righteous or deserving than others. This natural tendency is reinforced by education, tradition, media and leaders. Consider school spirit, evangelism, patriotism. We want to win; we want our children and our groups to win. Many think God wants the same things.
Ethical theories and teachings urge us to restrain this natural tendency, ie to care about the well being of others, including those outside our circles, to heed and practice the Golden Rule. They urge us to consider our choices objectively from the viewpoint of others affected, and they provide some mental experiments to help. For example, one may examine a choice by asking whether it would be good if most others made the same choice under similar circumstances. With respect to public policy, we can ask what choice we would support if we didn't know our status or group. Ethical behavior is the price we pay for a happier civilization on an hospitable earth.
Policy decisions often have long-term detrimental effects, and reasonable policy must await a crisis. Consider: 1) Our interference in Iran's politics in the 50s; 2) Deregulation of industries and globalization in the 80s and since; 3) An economy that depends on waste, deficit spending, population expansion, imported labor; 4) Failure to use all means at our disposal to encourage and support gender equality and family planning worldwide; 5) Failure to develop renewable-energy technology, energy-efficient codes and energy-efficient land-use planning; 6) Preemptive war on a nation that posed no immediate existential threat.
Ethical theories and teachings urge us to restrain this natural tendency, ie to care about the well being of others, including those outside our circles, to heed and practice the Golden Rule. They urge us to consider our choices objectively from the viewpoint of others affected, and they provide some mental experiments to help. For example, one may examine a choice by asking whether it would be good if most others made the same choice under similar circumstances. With respect to public policy, we can ask what choice we would support if we didn't know our status or group. Ethical behavior is the price we pay for a happier civilization on an hospitable earth.
Policy decisions often have long-term detrimental effects, and reasonable policy must await a crisis. Consider: 1) Our interference in Iran's politics in the 50s; 2) Deregulation of industries and globalization in the 80s and since; 3) An economy that depends on waste, deficit spending, population expansion, imported labor; 4) Failure to use all means at our disposal to encourage and support gender equality and family planning worldwide; 5) Failure to develop renewable-energy technology, energy-efficient codes and energy-efficient land-use planning; 6) Preemptive war on a nation that posed no immediate existential threat.
Iraq-War Decision
* Until recently, most critics of the Iraq war lamented its conduct. Only a few of us saw it as a destructive violation of ethically valuable international conventions from its conception. Now some early proponents of the war regret it, and some leaders regard the invasion of Iraq as our worst foreign-policy debacle ever. Nevertheless, we must try to leave Iraq in the best condition possible in a reasonable time; and that will cost much more of our treasure, many more of our soldiers' lives and many more innocent Iraqi lives on our watch.
* In hopes of avoiding a repeat of this gigantic ethical lapse, congress should use its subpoena power to discover the sequence of discussions about Iraq among administration advisers and deciders from the mid 90s up to the invasion.
* Why did the Neocons and Vulcans think it would be good to destroy one of the few antitheocratic regimes in the middle east? Why didn't Congress, journalists and Colin Powell insist on seeing raw, uncooked evidence for and against invading Iraq? By what dynamic did Cheney & Rumsfeld suppress evidence that Saddam hated al-Qaida and that claims of WMD in Iraq were phony? What charge did Rumsfeld give his Pentagon intelligence group? Consistent with his memo advising Republicans to maximize the political advantage handed to them by the 9/11 attack, did Karl Rove mention to the deciders or fellow advisers that attacking Iraq in 2003 would stop the national conversation about Bush's alleged insider-trading crimes at Harken Energy and that it would insure a landslide Republican victory in the upcoming mid-term elections, despite failure to cripple al-Qaida and Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan? What did Bush's spiritual advisers tell him about invading Iraq?
* It is with regret that I must suggest that the only way to prevent future think tanks and administrations from repeating such destructive policies is to heap disgrace on all participants in the decision to invade Iraq.
* In hopes of avoiding a repeat of this gigantic ethical lapse, congress should use its subpoena power to discover the sequence of discussions about Iraq among administration advisers and deciders from the mid 90s up to the invasion.
* Why did the Neocons and Vulcans think it would be good to destroy one of the few antitheocratic regimes in the middle east? Why didn't Congress, journalists and Colin Powell insist on seeing raw, uncooked evidence for and against invading Iraq? By what dynamic did Cheney & Rumsfeld suppress evidence that Saddam hated al-Qaida and that claims of WMD in Iraq were phony? What charge did Rumsfeld give his Pentagon intelligence group? Consistent with his memo advising Republicans to maximize the political advantage handed to them by the 9/11 attack, did Karl Rove mention to the deciders or fellow advisers that attacking Iraq in 2003 would stop the national conversation about Bush's alleged insider-trading crimes at Harken Energy and that it would insure a landslide Republican victory in the upcoming mid-term elections, despite failure to cripple al-Qaida and Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan? What did Bush's spiritual advisers tell him about invading Iraq?
* It is with regret that I must suggest that the only way to prevent future think tanks and administrations from repeating such destructive policies is to heap disgrace on all participants in the decision to invade Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)