Chekhov’s Mistess

I recently posted this on the page that I write at the Foreign Policy Association:

After the reception of President Bush’s request for help at the UN General Assembly in September, the Donor Conference for Iraq is not expected to be wildly successful in terms of raising international funds for reconstruction. Still, according to a report issued jointly by the UN and World Bank, $55 billion will be needed between 2004 and 2007. A large chunk of that will go toward such basic necessities as electrical and sanitation infrastructure. While some of the needs will be accounted for by oil revenues, press reports indicate a huge shortfall. The Donor Conference will be held in Madrid on October 24-25th.

Links:

UN/World Bank Present Iraq Reconstruction Needs To Core Group“, World Bank

IMF/World Bank information at the Foreign Policy Association

Ralph Nader, while musing over whether or not he should run again for the White House, says…

“The highest priority is to defeat President George W. Bush and his administration, which is running this country into the ground.”

It seems that Mr. Nader has a pretty short memory, since it was his run in the last election that contributed to putting Bush in the White House.

Do us all a favor and stop aggrandizing yourself, Mr. Nader!. Push your agenda behind the scenes so you don’t spoil another election.

Article: Nader Undecided on Presidential Bid. Salon.Com

Shortly after its release, my wife and I rented the Bowling for Columbine DVD. I typically have a short attention span for television, so I was armed with a bit of light reading to pick up as soon as I became bored with the movie. I didn’t do any reading that night, but enthusiastically followed Mr. Moore as he traveled around the country armed with nothing more than a camera, his wits and conviction – needing nothing more. We even watched the DVD extras, like Mr. Moore enjoying the limelight at Cannes.

One reason I’m so enthusiastic about this is that I was surprised. I have always looked upon Mr. Moore with a mixture of amusement and annoyance; amused at his antics, which I imagine most are familiar with by now, and annoyed that his narrow world-view is mostly couched in entertainment. I saw this scruffy voice of the working man a few years ago at a forum at the Columbia School of Journalism. CSJ always did a good job of getting extremely competent speakers on both sides of a debate and the discussions were always lively. That evening, Mr. Moore was pitted against P.J. O’Rourke. There were others there, but I don’t remember them. Mr. Moore spoke with such emotion and conviction (interestingly, only surpassed by Pat Buchanan in a previous debate) that the crowd was genuinely stirred. But then O’Rourke’s acerbic wit surprised everyone with lucid economic arguments that an open mind had no choice but to consider. The point of mentioning this event is that I think that public ranting should be backed up by a solid basis, and that night, logic trumped emotions – Mr. Moore seemed ill prepared to debate issues with someone unsympathetic to his views and came off as little more than a whiner.

I put off seeing “Bowling” for a while even though it was enjoying an extended play at close-by theater. I was still skeptical when I rented the video right up until I was drawn into it within just a few minutes. In the movie, Mr. Moore didn’t offer any solid conclusions, but only groped with questions that are so deep-rooted and complex that there are no answers. One cannot ask for any more than that. “Bowling for Columbine” takes its title from the morning activity of the kids who, later in the day, went on an unforgettable rampage through a high school in a Colorado suburb. The title alone, in emphasizing the contrast between the banality of suburban life with the outrageous dark and secret world that these kids lived in, speaks volumes as the movie unfolds. Moore, with an uncanny, nothing to lose interviewing style is able to hold up a mirror on society that can’t help to show some serious faults under a thick layer of makeup. Some of the interviews are absurd, such as the bank that gives away rifles upon opening an account. They leave one wondering, “what were they thinking???” And yet, many other interviews were poignant, like the one with the principle of a school where a little, six year old (if my memory serves me) boy shot another child.

One of the most impressive moments in the film, and I won’t give too much away, was Mr. Moore leading a couple of young men who survived Columbine, albeit with severe physical impairments to K-Mart corporate headquarters to protest their selling of ammunition for assault rifles; the protest was successful. In most of the film’s interviews, Mr. Moore lets his subjects fall squarely flat on their face, clearly not seeing the hypocrisy of their words. As a matter of fact, the only thing that I think lacking from the DVD is perhaps a sampling of the extra footage that didn’t make it into the final cut, as I would be interested to see any of the interviewees that made fools of themselves have a chance to have all that they said shown, even though I imagine they probably only dug deeper holes for themselves.

I heartily recommend this movie to anyone who wonders why a rich society such as ours has this violent undercurrent. And I adamantly recommend this movie to anyone who doesn’t  wonder.

I recently recieved in the mail the latest issue of the Paris Review. Enclosed with the issue was information about the Review’s 50th anniversary celebration to be held in October. It’s a sad irony that George Plimpton, one of the founders and its editor died just last week. I saw him, for the first and last time, hosting literature readings with Paul Auster and others in Central Park over the summer, another of the journal’s anniversary celebrations.

Mr. Plimpton’s New York Time’s obituary was one of the most interesting I’ve seen since reading Mark Twain’s some years ago. He seemed to have a passion for doing anything and everything, from propagating serious literature to farcical attempts at professional boxing and football – taking advantage of all that his privileged station in life offered.

Image from the New York Times

Included in the picture above: George Plimpton, William Styron, Truman Capote, Ralph Ellison, Mario Puzo…

For the next two days I will be at the Foreign Policy Association’s World Leadership Forum, which is one of the most interesting events this time of year, at least for those of us interested in foreign affairs, yet not professionally involved.One of the great things about this event and the FPA is that it is non-partisan, and the speakers and panels typically represent a wide range of views. This year the Presidents of Romania and Senegal will both be speaking. Last year there was an impassioned speach by Jeff Sachs of the Earth Institute at Columbia University that was unforgettable.

So, if you have an interest in foreign affairs, then the FPA is worth checking out.

As Bush goes back to the UN, defiant in manner, yet hat in hand, this little tidbit from Tom Delay back in March comes to mind. It speaks for itself…

From National Journal’s Congress Daily PM, Wednesday, March 12, 2003

“Meanwhile, Majority Leader DeLay today brushed aside arguments that the Bush administration should hold off plans to attack Iraq until it has secured approval from the United Nations, saying the international body has become irrelevant and outlived its useful life.They can talk until they’re blue in the face over at the U.N., DeLay told an America’s Community Bankers meeting today. I think the days of the United Nations have come to an end … because they can’t do anything.DeLay also said it was Congress’ duty in a time of war to significantly cut taxes. Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes, he said.”

In writing this blog, I am forced to confront my own opinions in a serious manner. Ever since I gave any thought to politics, my views have been informed by a strong sense of pragmatism and an equally strong desire not to succumb to any ideology that would, I feared, substitute for independent thinking. In fact, I have, over time, flirted with different views along the spectrum in sort of an agnostically open-minded manner. But, when one takes to writing down their views, we are forced to take sides.

Despite my disdain for labels, I suppose you could call me a “liberaltarian.” Now, I don’t mean that in the “vege-tarian” sense – it doesn’t mean that I only eat liberals. But it does mean that if you stacked up my hopes and desires for our society, they are liberal, but if you stacked up my solutions to real problems, they would be rather moderate. At the risk of oversimplification, I find liberal and libertarian ideas attractive, but I don’t think that either the liberals or libertarians (who are something like classical liberals anyway) in the U.S. provide practical answers to complex problems. I reject conservatism and the Republicans, particularly the religious-right Republicans, even though I used to feel that they, the Republican Party, at least were aligned with my ideal world of limited government and fiscal responsibility. That, in practice, was clearly wrong, even to the point of hypocrisy.

It seems that political parties in this country stand for little more than a place to hang ones hat, so I don’tmind not really fitting into any of them. I do share the concerns of those we call democrats, and having to choose one of the two major parties, I fit in mostly with the donkeys. To that end, I voted for the winner of the last Presidential election, Al Gore (oh so revealing!).

Now that I’m standing here naked, I can say that, despite sharing the concerns of those we call Democrats, I distrust the government’s efficacy, that is, the ability to actually get anything positive done (they sure are good at wrecking things though), and I question the right of the government to redistribute income (Whoa Nelly, drop the phone!). That admittedly puts me in some uncomfortable territory and I don’t honestly know how to reconcile all of my views. However, the basis for them, again, at the risk of oversimplifying, is this: I believe that deep down, this country’s defining characteristic is its unwavering demand for individual rights and its acceptance of the responsibility that accompanies those rights. I say deep down, because I think the see has sawed more toward the side of rights while responsibilities have been left aside. So here’s a  paradox for the pile, I think that the only way to even things out is with strong leadership. Leadership’s primary responsibility should be to foster the idea of taking responsibility for our actions, our selves, our families and our communities – all of which embody my concept of individualism – that we teach each other to (proverbially) fish, that we lend a hand to those around us and we act as good citizens. I would like to think that if we did that, to some extent, inequities would be wrought out of the system. “Gee, why the dreamy rhetoric”, you say. “Weren’t you just talking about practical solutions?” Yes, but I’m trying to reconcile solutions with ideals here and I’m trying to clarify what I said about government redistribution. Practically speaking, I think that really high taxes are counterproductive, and I think that those on the top of the scale always get around paying anyway. So, I think we should have a relatively flat tax rate with extremely limited deductions, which would be used to pay for only truly public goods (in the economic sense) and we should have a host of end-user or value-added taxes. The idea is that you pay for what you get and get what you pay for. This idea is most equitable if, we as individuals, corporate and personal, were willing to take more responsibility for the world around us – that is, take the stark inequities in the world and do something about it ourselves.

Moving on, I also question our role in the world or, more directly, the way we as a country and our elected leaders behave as global citizens. As a perusal of this blog will show, I adamantly oppose the Bush administration (and an adamantine wall it is, opposing these power mongers!) and the severe right turn that they are taking this country. I have believed from the start that their reasons for invading Iraq were spurious and I oppose our unilateralism militarily and with the U.N., the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Treaty. (I feel better now, having said that because those views lean more democratic than libertarian, again though, for more practical reasons than anything). I think that we should bring our troops home, and use our might only for humanitarian and defense purposes (defense in my book does not mean invading a country because its leader tried to kill your daddy).

Finally for now, I do believe in free markets and free trade, but unfortunately, in the real world, those things don’t exist, mostly because of selfishness on the part of individuals and states. So again, ideal is tempered by reality and I don’t for a second pretend to know how to make them work. In that same department, my dislike for labor unions comes from the same problem. Conceptually, I think that individuals should band together to counter the power of large corporations. Practically though, the labor unions I have observed used arcane rules only to perpetuate their existence and not to actually get any work done. I know that’s not fair to all of the unions out there, but my personal experience was appalling and it has stuck in my brain since.

Summarily, you can probably tell by this mess I’ve made for myself, I don’t believe that having philosophical underpinnings for your views will get you too far in a complicated world, they are only there for grounding. And I see the solution to most problems as, not, black or white, but some shade of gray. I am not only comfortable with that concept, but I thrive on it. In my view, most ideologies are a square peg, and the world is a polygonal hole.

But, it is quite difficult to put out one’s views lucidly on a piece of paper, particularly without rambling on for thousands upon thousands of words or taking much more time than I can devote to it, so I reserve the right to modify what I think and write here. And perhaps, since this indulgent little blog serves primarily my own pleasure of thinking out loud to no one in particular, if time permits, it will be a fun exercise to continue with “Where I’m Coming From” in order to muse over these problems. That’s probably more than our current POTUS can claim to have ever done.

New York Times’ Op-ed Columnist Nicholas Kristoff wrote this week about his experience hiking in the contentious Alaskan Arctic Wildlife Reserve, a relatively untouched piece of land in a sparse area that most Americans will never see. His observations lead him to believe that both sides of the debate on the region exaggerate their claims of the impact of drilling for oil. That’s a safe assumption, but then Kristoff concludes that he would support drilling in the barren coastal plains of the reserve. The locals, he says, are in favor of drilling. Apparently, these Alaskan “Beverly Hillbillies” want the windfall millions of dollars that they would receive from the use of the land. Kristoff believes though, that drilling is only okay if it if were part of a larger environmental plan that would increase fuel efficiency standards, etc, etc. That plan, he admits, is not forthcoming from the Bush Administration anytime soon, but I think that’s beside the point. Either you think that drilling in the region is right or wrong.

I do think though, that Kristoff is on the right track, only I would take it a step further. I think, like Gary Coleman, the child-star-cum-gubernatorial candidate of California, that we should drill in every natural park and every public place possible in the country. Whatchu talkin’ bout Willis? What I really mean is that we can no longer afford to rely on all of our energy needs from the Middle East. No amount of imperialism is going to change the fact that we can’t control what happens in the region and as long as we are reliant upon the kindness of sultans, we, as a country, are not masters of our own destiny.

Yeah, but, Mr. Parr, we don’t want to mess with our beautiful land any more than we already are! No, that’s true. However, I believe that if we took more responsibility for the resources that we use, we would be more apt to utilize them wisely. That’s why I also propose a $2 per gallon tax that would be used strictly for improving emissions standards, and developing alternative sources of fuel and public transportation, and otherwise funding reductions of emissions. I know that this is hugely regressive* and would cause widespread price hikes, but it isn’t any more realistic than my first proposal and I’m trying to make a simple point.

We in this country seem to believe that we have a God-given and constitutional right to use fuel and other resources with out any thought to the responsibilities that come along with that right. Even our so-called “values-based” leadership tells us that SUV’s are our right and its just okay. (For the record, I don’t have anything against SUV’s categorically – people do have legitimate needs for them, but they are probably mostly used as a fashion statement and that’s probably not a good reason for using an awful lot of gas. However, I do believe that Hummer’s are ridiculous and their owners are so conspicuously stupid and pretentious that it is beyond my comprehension.) Therefore, short of any leadership on this topic, I believe we need to be more accountable for our actions through paying enough direct taxes to fund the projects I mentioned above and begin earnestly looking at ways to develop our energy sources at home, even if that means drilling in Alaska or on the coast. Perhaps then we would think about the damage we are doing and spend less time and money trying to dominate a region where we could and should limit our involvement.

I just want to make it clear that the above proposals are strictly rhetorical. I wanted to start an oil drilling operation from our living room, but my wife wouldn’t let me. – Bud Parr 9-17-03

…and it’s our duty to send him home.

It’s hard to believe that we’re only about 14 months away from the opportunity to vote out President Bush, although I somehow doubt that will happen. Last week, the Democrats held a debate – inauspiciously scheduled for the same day that football season began – that more or less starts the process of narrowing the field to a candidate that could possibly make a credible challenger in ‘04.

Here’s the problem. Dean blazed into the campaign as the single candidate that, if nothing else, seems to represent the sensibility of a disaffected and vocal portion of the US population. My guess is that most of the people attending Dean rallies are the same conscientious folks that futilely marched for peace back in February (of which I was one). That’s great, let’s get excited! But that’s not enough to change the course of the election, or more importantly, move us away from the dangerous course that Mr. Bush’s puppet masters are directing us.

In the last election, some people were excited enough to vote for the Green Party’s candidate, Ralph Nader. These, I suppose, were voters that lacked confidence in Gore’s leadership abilities. That’s understandable. But, unfortunately, voting with your heart may have disastrous results. Arguably, had those that voted for Nader merely voted for the Democratic Party candidate, Bush would never have won (or stolen, depending on your point of view) that election. The Green Party is making impressive inroads in local races, but it is absolutely absurd to think that you can just march into the presidential election as a third party in a two-party system and accomplish anything other than a protest vote. Did Nader succeed in furthering a green agenda? Clearly not. (Just a quick google search will provide a bit of insight into this)

Dean’s candidacy is energizing the media and some voters and probably putting other POTUS wannabes on their toes. That’s good. But ultimately, we need a candidate that will not just say Bush is bad, and the war in Iraq is bad, but a candidate that will present credible strategies to meaningfully deal with the problems in the Middle East (not just Iraq), to get our budget mess back in order, to put the EPA back on track, and to do something about all those jobless people out there. Most importantly though, we need a candidate that can win, and that means appealing to an awful lot of people in this country. I hate to be a bore, but winning means a candidate that is probably a little more centrist and yes, a bit more boring than Dean.

Who that is, I don’t know yet, but I doubt that it’s Gephardt or Lieberman (this is represents little more than my impressions or biases at this point), but perhaps Kerry, or Clark, if he runs, might have the military background that will comfort a frightened country and understand what we are now up against with the hole that we’ve dug in Iraq, and perhaps be a good, honest leader – something that we’ve lacked for a long, long, time.

p.s. According to the latest count in the NYTs, there are 287 dead soldiers from the Iraq war now. Interesting, isn’t it, how those that call themselves patriots, those that exclaim, “we support our troops!” are the first to send those men and women to their death?

p.p.s. I stole the quote I used for the title of this post – but 192 Books, a bookstore in NYC, sells a t-shirt with it inscribed on the front for $20 at http://www.192books.com/news.htm

I recently wrote an article called Whither the Washington Consensus? that was published on the page that I host at the Foreign Policy Association. My opinion as expressed in the article is that essentially, reports of the demise of the Washington Consensus are greatly exaggerated.

As a postcript, there is an interesting opinion piece on the Financial Times site today written by the head of emerging markets at Morgan Stanley calling the Washington Consensus dead, but declaring it replaced by a “get growing mantra.” I would submit, and I don’t necessarily think his article is at odds with mine, that despite a new mantra, the Washington Consensus is only dead in name only.

The Washington Consensus Fades into History Financial Times, August 3rd, 2003
This may no longer be a free link.

This spot is to generate interest in a topic for anyone who wants to participate. We started off with a series of posts on Rilke. For now, we're coming up with something, so let us know if you want to make a suggestion »

• Bud Parr (1242) »
• Anne Landsman (1) »
• Jeffrey Frank (1) »
• imani (1) »
• amcorrea (3) »
• Member Login
  username:
  
  password:
  
  Auto-login on future visits
  Forgot your password?