The Remarkable Pope Francis: TIME's Person of the Year

He is Time's Person of the Year, and I embrace the choice. Regardless of your faith, if any at all, and regardless of whether he has addressed every church or social issue to your satisfaction, he addresses so clearly, so unambiguously, the larger issues of responsibility and accountability in our time--personal, interpersonal, and community issues, economic and governmental issues, national and international issues. And he does it with equanimity, wisdom and authority through the natural expression of his very identity. He does it with authentic humility. He is the right person, the right heart, the right understandings, and the right voice for this place and time--not just for this year, but for this time. He is the remarkable Pope Francis.

It is worth reading and learning more about him.

Link to Time article:
TIME's Person of the Year 2013 Pope Francis, The People's Pope | TIME.com

A Thousand Mornings, Three Poems, Mary Oliver

I’d been intending to share and speak about a few poems in Mary Oliver’s 2012 collection, A Thousand Mornings—but somehow just lost track of those good intentions. Here, now, three of those poems. First, “The Mockingbird.” It’s a perceptive reflection, and it’s not hard to see the analogy she draws to human nature and inclinations, the social and professional safety of mimicking what others do and repeating what they say. Yet, there is still the periodic inclination or need to speak openly and honestly about who we really are, the brighter and the darker, but most often only to ourselves and the ear of creation, to God, if you will—and even then, not as often as we should.

 

THE MOCKINGBIRD

 

All summer

the mockingbird

in his pearl-gray coat

and his white-windowed wings

 

flies

from the hedge to the top of the pine

and begins to sing, but it’s neither

lilting nor lovely,

 

for he is the thief of other sounds—

whistles and truck brakes and dry hinges

plus all the songs

of other birds in his neighborhood;

 

mimicking and elaborating,

he sings with humor and bravado,

so I have to wait a long time

for the softer voice of his own life

 

to come through. He begins

by giving up all his usual flutter

and settling down on the pine’s forelock

then looking around

 

as though to make sure he’s alone;

then he slaps each wing against his breast,

where his heart is,

and, copying nothing, begins

 

easing into it

as though it was not half so easy

as rollicking,

as though his subject now

 

was his true self,

which of course was as dark and secret

as anyone else’s,

and it was too hard—

 

perhaps you understand—

to speak or to sing it

to anything or anyone

but the sky.

 

I sometimes sense or see a connection between poems of different collections, even different authors (a particular joy), but not as often as poems of the same author and the same collection, which is the case here. And the connection here requires our human recognition and embrace of a journey, the seeking of our “true self,” and contemplating that identity largely in the quiet company of our self and that ear of creation, by whatever name and in whatever way that works for you. The second poem, I Have Decided, follows as a reasonable reorientation or choice of direction to me, a next step in that journey, and takes me from The Mockingbird to the third poem.

 

 

I HAVE DECIDED

 

I have decided to find myself a home

in the mountains, somewhere high up

where one learns to live peacefully in

the cold and the silence. It’s said that

in such a place certain revelations may

be discovered. That what the spirit

reaches for may be eventually felt, if not

exactly understood, Slowly, no doubt. I’m

not talking about a vacation.

 

Of course, at the same time I mean to

stay exactly where I am.

 

Are you following me?

 

 

So far so good, if you’ve sensed or connected with that direction or orientation, if you are following the poet's steps along a path less traveled. Yet, it can often be an elusive, misunderstood or unwanted connection. That it can take you to the still, quiet places where you can hear and find personal meaning in the voices that speak from within and without may not resonate or connect with you at all. And that connection, as it wends its way through the third poem, Today, may again appear elusive or be unwelcome to many, while welcomed and connecting so clearly with others.

 

           TODAY

 

Today I’m flying low and I’m

not saying a word.

I’m letting all the voodoos of ambition sleep.

The world goes on as it must,

the bees in the garden rumbling a little,

the fish leaping, the gnats getting eaten.

And so forth.

 

But I’m taking the day off.

Quiet as a feather. I hardly move though really I’m traveling

a terrific distance.

 

Stillness. One of the doors

into the temple.

 

 

But then, even for the welcoming, there are other days when these poems seem to relate less well to each other, and connect less well with us, when the ambitions of the day, or its demands and dictates, break the connections and press upon us the temporal identity and realities of time and place that are passing ever more quickly.

 

Gift & Thanks: W.S. Merwin

I like and read poetry. Most of you know that. But I’ve not been moved to post any poetry here or on my other sites for some time. In search of something special to think about—and also to share—I finally returned to old favorite W.S. Merwin, and pored over some of his earlier collections. Two poems, one each from a 1973 and a 1988 collection, connected with me because, in part at least, they seemed to be related and connected to each other.

Much is rightly made of the notions of identity, of talents or gifts received and shared, and to personal calling. This poem is about a gift given, and to be given again in its embrace and sharing with others. What that gift is, whether his muse and poetry, his poetic appreciation, some other, more spiritual sharing and direction, I leave to your understanding. Knowing something of his life, and his paths walked, I see the possibilities of those things and more. Let it speak to you as it will.

Gift¹

I have to trust what was given to me
if I am to trust anything
it led the stars over the shadowless mountain
what does it not remember in its night and silence
what does it not hope knowing itself no child of time

what did it not begin what will it not end
I have to hold it up in my hands as my ribs hold up my heart
I have to let it open its wings and fly among the gifts of the unknown
again in the mountain I have to turn
to the morning

I must be led by what was given to me
as streams are lead by it
and braiding flight of birds
the gropings of veins the learning of plants
the thankful days
breath by breath

I call to it Nameless One O Invisible
Untouchable Free
I am nameless I am divided
I am invisible I am untouchable
and empty
nomad live with me
be my eyes
my tongue and my hands
my sleep and my rising
out of chaos
come and be given


Gratitude is such a natural response to any life lived with  a sense of accomplishment, affirmation or possibilities, to the life attended by a measure of joy or hope, even for just the resolve to hold on and see if things won’t be better, more rewarding or comforting, tomorrow. In my faith, we are counseled to nurture a sense of gratitude in all things at all times. In this poem, whatever his gifts received and shared, W.S. Merwin reflects that same sentiment about life lived, but whether in times of plenty or penury, in satisfaction or despair, even if just for the relief of pulling the shade on another day full of pain, sadness, or resentment. It is a challenging, rather saintly disposition that he appears to assume or reflect.

That is one view of the poem. Let's read the poem, and then consider a second, very different view.

Thanks²

Listen
with the night falling we are saying thank you
we are stopping on the bridges to bow from the railings
we are running out of the glass rooms
with our mouths full of food to look at the sky
and say thank you
we are standing by the water thanking it
standing by the windows looking out
in our directions

back from a series of hospitals back from a mugging
after funerals we are saying thank you
after the news of the dead
whether or not we knew them we are saying thank you

over telephones we are saying thank you
in doorways and in the backs of cars and in elevators
remembering wars and the police at the door
and the beatings on stairs we are saying thank you
in the banks we are saying thank you
in the faces of the officials and the rich
and of all who will never change
we go on saying thank you thank you

with the animals dying around us
taking our feelings we are saying thank you
with the forests falling faster than the minutes
of our lives we are saying thank you
with the words going out like cells of a brain
with the cities growing over us
we are saying thank you faster and faster
with nobody listening we are saying thank you
thank you we are saying and waving
dark though it is

On the other hand, in “Thanks”, Merwin may not understand it that way at all—or, at least that may not be his principal message and rhetorical device. Consistent with the increasing sense of loss, sadness and darkness as the poem proceeds, it may be that he is employing a more cynical message and a rhetorical devise that in the end conveys exactly the opposite meaning. The “thank you” feels more and more hollow, empty, as the situations become more despairing and hopeless, and still more so as a false gratitude is elevated to “thank you, thank you, faster and faster."

 

So no, if this view is closer to the mark, then he is not holding up a Christian or other spiritual or philosophical notion of being thankful for all things at all times, however good, however bad. Rather, he is likely implying in strong rhetorical terms that, for most of the dispiriting circumstances in the latter half of the poem—and certainly with the cumulative weight of them all—only a relative few of we mortals might muster the emotional strength (or dissociation with human life) to feel and express honest, heart-felt gratitude—whether through religious faith, spiritual or philosophical disciplines, or one’s singular strength of personality.

 

Some background on M.S. Merwin: his earlier poetry was noted for its anti-Vietnam war and environmentalist sentiments in the Pulitzer Prize-winning collection The Carrier of Ladders (1970) and others. The son of a Presbyterian minister, he abandoned his Christian faith and turned his attention to his poetry, prose, and his more secular, social concerns. He then moved to Hawaii to pursue further his interest in advocating for the environment, and his growing interest in Zen Buddhism. He was and is an environmental warrior, albeit a gentle one. With that in mind, let's return to our conversation about “Thanks.”

 

Increasingly, as the poem moves toward its conclusion, there is the sense of futility in the nature and experience of mankind in dealing with mortality, human limitations and failings, the brittleness of his institutional constructs--and his inability to reform and change the things that seem so apparently in need of change. And the normal expression of gratitude, “thanks,” so appropriately employed in the first stanza, turns quickly into a hollow, cynical parody, a response that, by the inappropriateness of the circumstances of its use, makes clearer that the opposite meaning now likely adheres to it. It is now a wholly appropriate response of a very different nature, a subdued voice of disapproval, fear and distrust in the face of an unresponsive society, business world, or government that isn’t even paying attention. And so with each next insult to sense and sensibility, the refrain cynically drones on through the continuing despair: “Thank you, thank you.”

 

I like basic elements of both interpretations, and perhaps it's possible to craft an interpretation that incorporates the best of both. Or, perhaps it's sufficient to just recognize the way the use of the word "thanks" changes or evolves from the more normal context to the more inappropriate context, where its rhetorical use better dramatizes his point. And maybe there's more still to be found or experienced in this verse. I know I'm not satisfied with my understandings yet.

   ¹ W.S. Merwin, Writings To An Unfinished Accompaniment (1973) and The Second Four Books of Poems (1993)
   ² W.S. Merwin, The Rain in the Trees (1988) and  Migration: New and Selected Poems (2005)

Detroit Bankruptcy Begs Question, Where Next? (Issue: Unfunded Pensions & Healthcare)

Detroit is bankrupt. And while we'd rather not think about it, rather keep it out of sight and out of mind, an October 13th 60-minutes segment provides informative, deeply troubling, and occasionally hopeful views of the realities. It's worth opening our eyes slowly, one at a time, and taking a peek at what it has to show and tell us.

 

Link here or above:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50157064n%3Ftag%3Dfacebook

 

But Detroit is not alone in its financial distress--and for the same principal reasons: unfunded or underfunded employee pensions and healthcare. From The Economist:

Other states and cities should pay heed, not because they might end up like Detroit next year, but because the city is a flashing warning light on America's fiscal dashboard. Though some of it's woes are unique, a crucial one is not. Many other state and city governments across America have made impossible-to-keep promises to do with pensions and health care. Detroit shows what can happen when leaders put off reforming the public sector for too long.

---"America's Public Finances: The Unsteady States of America," The Economist, Leaders Section (7.27.2013)

It's not a new story, but it remains an important one. There have been other municipal bankruptcies in California, Rhode Island and elsewhere, but much smaller in scale than Detroit. It was not so long ago a Detroit bankruptcy was unthinkable to most people. But there are now many other municipalities, and some states, where the same problems threaten the same result. It's worth reading more about it, and this article in The Economist is a good place to start.

Link here or above:

 http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21582258-it-not-just-detroit-american-cities-and-states-must-promise-less-or-face-disaster?fb_action_ids=10201483504143189&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=scn%2Ffb_ec%2Fthe_unsteady_states_of_america&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

Ending the War in Afghanistan: Avoiding Failure on the Installment Plan

The ranks of our fallen in Afghanistan continue to increase daily, whether or not our government is shut down or supporting their bereaved families. But when and how will this war end, as it must? This article in Foreign Affairs by Stephen Biddle suggests that with the 2014 departure of most all our fighting men and women, the possibilities and our choices are few. From the article:

But the war will not end in 2014. The U.S. role may end, in whole or in part, but the war will continue--and its ultimate outcome is very much in doubt. 

Should current trends continue, U.S. combat troops are likely to leave behind a grinding stalemate between the Afghan government and the Taliban. The Afghan National Security Forces ["ANSF"] can probably sustain this deadlock, but only as long as the U.S. Congress pays the multibillion-dollar annual bills needed to keep them fighting. The war will thus become a contest in stamina between Congress and the Taliban. Unless Congress proves more patient than the Taliban leader Mullah Omar [and patience, never America's long suit, is fast running out with Afghanistan GH], funding for the ANSF will eventually shrink until Afghan forces can no longer hold their ground, and at that point, the country could easily descend into chaos. If it does, the war will be lost and U.S. aims forfeited.  

[The author later refers to this and variations like President Obama's current middle ground of "muddling through" as "failure on the installment plan." And so it appears to be.]  

A policy of simply handing off an ongoing war to an Afghan government that cannot afford the troops needed to win it is thus not a strategy for a "responsible end" to the conflict; it is closer to what the Nixon administration was willing to accept in the final stages of the Vietnam War, a "decent interval" between the United States' withdrawal and the eventual defeat of its local ally.  

There are only two real alternatives to this, neither of them pleasant. One is to get serious about negotiations with the Taliban. This is no panacea, but it is the only alternative to outright defeat. To its credit, the Obama administration has pursued such talks for over a year. What it has not done is spend the political capital needed for an actual deal. A settlement the United States could live with would require hard political engineering both in Kabul and on Capitol Hill, yet the administration has not followed through.  

The other defensible approach is for the United States to cut its losses and get all the way out of Afghanistan now, leaving behind no advisory presence and reducing its aid substantially. Outright withdrawal might damage the United States' prestige, but so would a slow-motion version of the same defeat -- only at a greater cost in blood and treasure. And although a speedy U.S. withdrawal would cost many Afghans their lives and freedoms, fighting on simply to postpone such consequences temporarily would needlessly sacrifice more American lives in a lost cause. 

---"Ending the War in Afghanistan: How to Avoid Failure on the Installment Plan," by Stephen Biddle, Foreign Affairs (September/October 2013)

Of course, what Professor Biddle refers to as the price in political capital both in Washington and Kabul is likely more than the essential parties are willing to offer for an agreement the Taliban would nonetheless be loath to accept. And that assumes that many other realities and problems can be overcome with a multiplicity of interested parties, including a corrupt and inept Afghan government in Kabul (which, in itself, is fatal to a successful plan) and a fragmented Taliban that probably would not trust any one group, even Mullah Omar's, to fairly represent all. And even if they could, why would they? With the U.S. fighting forces soon leaving, with the period of their continuing financial support of advisors, trainers and the ANSF very much in question, why wouldn't the more patient Taliban just wait out the withdrawal of U.S. fighting troops, and then test the resolve of the ANSF to fight this unending war, and the U.S resolve to continue financing them in it?

Professor Biddle, a recognized scholar on foreign policy and military strategy, spends much time outlining what an acceptable, negotiated role for the Taliban in Afghanistan might look like, and why the Taliban, too, might find elements of it appealing--if it were possible. But he spends more time more convincingly describing all the parties and reasons why it is highly unlikely. Still, he despairs, it is the only hope we have, the only course but outright and complete U.S. withdrawal of troops and military support, the only alternative to failure.

Since outlasting the Taliban is unlikely, the only realistic alternative to eventual defeat is a negotiated settlement. [Realistic, really?] The administration has pursued such a deal for well over a year, but so far the process has yielded little, and there is now widespread skepticism about the talks.

Many, for example, doubt the Taliban are serious about the negotiations. After all, in late 2011, they assassinated Burhanuddin Rabbani, the head of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's High Peace Council and the Kabul official charged with moving the talks forward. Since the Taliban can wait out the United States and win outright, why should they make concessions?  

 [And there is more to read in his article about the contours of such an agreement , a settlement, with the Taliban, Kabul, and the U.S. that might be possible, and more to read about serious players with serious objections to any such agreed role for the Taliban, notwithstanding the well-intentioned, humanistic concerns, interests and hopes of Professor Biddle--concerns interests and hopes many of us may share with him.]

[...] Yet despite these concerns, there is still a chance for a deal that offers more than just a fig leaf to conceal policy failure... There may be good reasons for the Taliban to explore a deal. Mullah Omar and his allies in the leadership have been living in exile in Pakistan for over a decade -- their children are growing up as Pakistanis -- and their movements are surely constrained by their Pakistani patrons. Afghans are famously nationalist, and the Afghan-Pakistani rivalry runs deep; exile across the border surely grates on the Afghan Taliban. Perhaps more important, they live under the constant threat of assassination by U.S. drones or commando raids: just ask Osama bin Laden or six of the last seven al Qaeda operations directors, all killed or captured in such attacks. And a stalemate wastes the lives and resources of the Taliban just as it does those of the Afghan forces and their allies. While the Taliban are probably able to pay this price indefinitely, and while they will surely not surrender just to stanch the bleeding, this does not mean they would prefer continued bloodletting to any possible settlement. The conflict is costly enough that the Taliban might consider an offer if it is not tantamount to capitulation.  

Still, on balance, the author articulates more realistic and powerful political and practical reasons that negotiations are unlikely to take place, and if they do, will nevertheless likely fail. In fairness--and in the interest of completing both sides of the ledger--he does his best to be positive about some circumstances that could influence the Taliban to look favorably on a negotiated settlement (e.g., as suggested above, having their families back in Afghanistan after so many years in Pakistan, where they are not fully free or welcomed, or remaining subject to the many deadly risks of continuing war, including drone attacks). But all that is very much within their way of life and accepted as necessary to achieving their goals. Those points ring weak, and the author more or less acknowledges it.

Regardless, the element of timing and the weakening current circumstances of the opposition work to the Taliban's advantage. And it would also be be wise to consult the long history of Afghanistan and it's fiercely territorial tribal culture, the Taliban and Mujahideen being just the more recent manifestations of it. Their resilience and capacity for long-term resistance and suffering to defend or regain possession of their ancestral homeland cannot be overestimated, which suggests strongly that neither compromise nor capitulation will likely play any part in the Taliban's plans.

Yet, Professor Biddle continues to treat the slimmest of possibilities of a negotiated agreement with the Taliban as though it is a failure for lack of sufficient effort on the part of the U.S. government--even when the circumstances he has presented and the arguments he makes all lead clearly to a set of challenges that are more than "daunting," they define a near impossible situation. Somehow, he finds in the efforts the government has continued to pursue an "unwillingness to accept the effort and costs that a serious settlement effort would entail." A more disinterested view might more openly call it what it clearly appears to be: a realistic, facts and circumstances assessment of the situation by the government, one that pays as much attention and respect to realistic probabilities as it does to the sums of costs and benefits.

But having found a way to blame the U.S. government for not achieving the near impossible--and at the same time making it clear that abandoning Afghanistan to its inevitable, internecine warring, is an answer he  is forced to by that failure of government--Professor Biddle does then cut to the bottom line:

As daunting as the obstacles to a negotiated settlement are, such a deal still represents the least bad option for the United States in Afghanistan. If the White House is unwilling to accept the costs that a serious settlement effort would entail, however, then it is time to cut American losses and get out of Afghanistan now.  

Some might see the Obama administration's current policy as a hedged version of such disengagement already. The U.S. military presence in Afghanistan will soon shrink to perhaps 8,000-12,000 advisers and trainers, and U.S. aid might decline to $4-$5 billion a year for the ANSF and $2-$3 billion in economic assistance, with the advisory presence costing perhaps another $8-$12 billion a year. This commitment is far smaller than the 100,000 U.S. troops and over $100 billion of 2011, and it offers some chance of muddling through to an acceptable outcome while discreetly concealing the United States' probable eventual failure behind a veil of continuing modest effort.  

Only in Washington, however, could $14-$20 billion a year be considered cheap. If this yielded a stable Afghanistan, it would indeed be a bargain, but if, as is likely without a settlement, it produces only a defeat drawn out over several years, it will mean needlessly wasting tens of billions of dollars. In a fiscal environment in which $8 billion a year for the Head Start preschool program or $36 billion a year for Pell Grant scholarships is controversial, it is hard to justify spending another $70-$100 billion in Afghanistan over, say, another half decade of stalemated warfare merely to disguise failure or defer its political consequences.  

It is harder still to ask Americans to die for such a cause. Even an advisory mission involves risk, and right now, thousands of U.S. soldiers are continuing to patrol the country. If failure is coming, many Afghans will inevitably die, but a faster withdrawal could at least save some American lives that would be sacrificed along the slower route.  

It would be preferable for the war to end a different way: through a negotiated compromise with the Taliban. Talks so complicated and fraught, of course, might fail even if the United States does everything possible to facilitate them. But without such efforts, the chances of success are minimal, and the result is likely to be just a slower, more expensive version of failure. Getting out now is a better policy than that.

And then, most recently, there is our poorly attended-to interest and reduced focus on China and the pivot to the East. Important negotiations on nuclear capability are going on in Iran, and chemical weapons in Syria. But it is difficult to remain properly focused on critically important foreign policy priorities when narrow-minded, politically self-protective, radical Republican ideologues--political anarchists, really--would place America, its economy, and its international interests at risk without apparent concern for the implications in China and Asia, in Afghanistan, the Middle East, the subcontinent, and the world economy.

Link to article here or in cite above:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139644/stephen-biddle/ending-the-war-
in-Afghanistan

References to earlier 2010 posts on the same topic:

1. Exiting Afghanistan

( http://hydeparkgh.blogspot.com/2010/07/exiting-afghanistan.html )

 

2. End Game: Pakistan & Its Taliban Strategy

( http://hydeparkgh.blogspot.com/2010/08/end-game-pakistan-its-taliban-strategy.html )

Top Scientists: Role of Humans Clear; Cap On Carbon Emissions Needed to Limit Climate Change

It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

[…] Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further global warming and changes in all components of the climate system…Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

---“Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis,” International Panel on Climate Control, Fifth Assessment Report (WGI AR5) (September 2013)

 

The strength of the evidence and expert opinion just keeps getting stronger. Of course, it has long been strong; it's just gone from "very likely" to "extremely likely." That equates to a 95% level of confidence as they define their terms. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established and overseen by the UN at the behest of many of its members, is the most authoritative and respected body in the world addressing issues of climate change. Periodically it selects teams from among the most accomplished and respected climate scientists in the world to perform meta-studies of the most recent climate change research and results. This, the fifth study, and first since 2007, involved 259 expert analysts, authors and reviewers from 39 countries. Every notable scientific organization, world-wide, and over 97% of all climate scientists have concurred in their work and conclusions.

A competent summary article by NBCNews.com, “Top scientists urge cap on carbon emissions to limit climate change,” by Matthew DeLuca, NBC News (Sep. 27, 2013) reviews the basic findings, increased confidence in the dominant role of we humans are playing in climate change, the implications, and the need for remedial initiatives. They also summarize the broader, longer term perspective of climate change scientists on the misplaced emphasis of climate-change deniers’ on elements of error in some projections and the recent period when air temperature averages appear not to have increased. Of course, you don’t have to be a top climate scientist to recognize that there are many other measures of increased temperatures in the oceans, at the polar caps, and many other climate change events and measures that not only confirm prior levels of confidence in climate change and mankind’s role in in it, they have increased the level of top scientist’s confidence in their conclusions.

If you find more confidence or assurance in the analysis and opinion of The Economist (as I often do across a range of issues), their most recent edition offers us another of its well balanced and well-considered Leaders essays, “Climate Science: Stubborn Things,” The Economist (October 5, 2013)

If you are interested in more layers of information, data and findings, this link (or the highlighted link, above) will take you to the full IPCC report: www.climatechange2013.org . It is long and exhaustive; even the executive summary is 36 pages long. If you are interested, I’d start with the data section about the study and participants linked on the front page. Then link to the executive study, and go deeper into the research data as you wish.

But the IPCC conclusions do not include confidence that major countries will timely act to reduce CO2 levels we continue to push into the atmosphere. So don’t expect people or their governments to react to address these problems until their effects become very personal, until the water is lapping up on their own doorsteps. But if you've been paying attention, like the IPCC scientist teams, you may have noticed that too is happening in more and more places.

 

John Boehner: His Legislative History and Legacy as Speaker

The linked NBC article is a most thoughtful and balanced treatment of John Boehner's tenure as Speaker of the House. From his history as an effective deal maker and legislator both within his party and across the aisle, to negotiator of the "grand bargain" with the President to avoid the 2011 debt ceiling disaster--then only to be abandoned in that effort and humiliated by the Tea Party conservatives, who have largely defined his captive role as Speaker ever since. But the realities and threatening implications of today's political dysfunction, largely a result of his Tea Party-dictated role as Speaker, render him an enigmatic, almost tragic figure.

Link to article above and below:
John Boehner’s legacy on the line in shutdown

No Laughing Matter, Andy, However Funny & Ironic Your Satire

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) said that he was disappointed after meeting with President Obama at the White House on Wednesday afternoon, telling reporters, “The President is stubbornly refusing to end the crisis I created.”

 

“Government is about teamwork,” Mr. Boehner continued. “I’ve done my part by putting together an entirely optional crisis that has shut down the government and will throw thousands out of work. Now it’s up to the President to do his part by ending it.”
 

---“The Borowitz Report,” (satire) by Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker (12.3.2013)

 

There is nothing to laugh about in the subject of this Borowitz piece (although I am usually a big fan). It's just that this time his satire takes on a topic too sobering and important, and his message is too true. The government shutdown was totally unnecessary, it has brought suffering to many already, and will bring suffering to many more. And Speaker Boehner, now boxed-in with the ridiculously demanding Tea Party conservatives of his base, will likely carry it forward and hold up the process of raising the debt ceiling, as well--which would do further damage to the country and the economy. And Boehner's response? The President and Senate refuse to negotiate a law of the land some of Boehner's constituents have ideological revulsion for. It's the President's and the Senate's fault.

 

And the precedent to be set? If a house of the government becomes dominated by one party--either house, either party--but the other house and the executive are of another party that earlier authored and managed to pass highly contested legislation, that law may still be at risk outside the normal legislative process. If that defeated majority party in the one house decides it really hates and wants to rescind all or parts of that particular law of the land, it merely has to threaten to stop the funding process and shut down the government. And more, if the timing is right, it could threaten to cut off the ability of the government to increase borrowing to pay existing debts. So then, all the other house and president have to do, of course, is agree to rescinding or changing the existing law, under funding duress, held hostage, so to speak, and the government can be right again. Done. That's all. It's that simple. Just threaten governmental anarchy, the one house--and give in to government anarchy, the other and the president.

 

Of course, that is not the Constitutional process by which legislation is rescinded or changed. In fact, it disrespects and disregards both the democratic and legislative process, and the rule of law. And since, in our case at hand, the Senate majority and the President rightly won't agree, it places approximately 18% of the population (a polling estimate of Tea Party supporters) in the center of an attempt to create an unprecedented and undemocratic back door to force their will over the majority even after a Congressional majority have properly, Constitutionally, passed the law.

 

Under the Constitution, to change an existing law, a new bill must be worked through, passed by both houses, and signed into law by the president, just the same way the original bill in question became law in the first place. This action by Boehner and the Tea Party conservatives is an extraordinary undermining of our legislative process and our representative democracy. Only a profoundly irresponsible and radically ideological group would be willing to risk that much damage to our system and people to get their way on a particular law they don't like. And then to blame the President and the Senate for not agreeing to change it or negotiate a partial change to it under threat of closing the Government of the United States? And more, considering denying the government needed access to additional financial resources? Boehner and the Tea Party conservatives are openly, brazenly, pursuing an unprecedented and frightening strategy of undermining our democratic legislative process of government. It needs to be recognized and called out for what it is.

 

The Syrian Crisis and the President's CIA Briefer - 60 Minutes Interview

Last Sunday's 60-minute episode addressed the role of the US in the Syrian civil war: what it might be, what it should be--especially with regard to a punitive US missile strike in response to Syria's broad and murderous use of chemical weapons. Interviews with Presidents Assad and Obama were instructive, but offered little new. It was the interview with Mike Morell, the recently retired No. 2 man at the CIA and a briefer/advisor on Syria to President Obama, that provided understanding of the narrow and tortuous path American policy and actions must negotiate to eventually achieve an acceptable and workable result in Syria.** We'll return to Mr. Morell's interview presently, but first some background and observations.

Many of us have supported the president's call for a time-limited missile attack on Syria, an attack that would target military infrastructure and chemical weapons stores (if they can be located), and generally weaken military capability. We agree with the importance of upholding the standing of international law, rules or norms--however characterized--banning use of chemical weapons. And the only way to uphold it is to enforce it by responding to chemical attacks with punitive measures. To allow deadly use of chemical weapons to proceed with impunity would surely increase the likelihood they would be used again--both in Syria and elsewhere.

Of course, others disagree, and argue that any punitive military response would sooner or later result in our deeper involvement in a civil war that neither our government nor people want. They fear that even a time-and-target-limited missile strike would unleash unpredictable consequences that will precipitate our slide down a slippery slope of expanded military involvement. Their concerns are worth bearing in mind; they are not without reason or merit.

And there is reasonable concern that an expanded military role for the US in Syria can only result in further complicating and damaging relationships among Syria's Middle-Eastern neighbors and their various factions, and U.S. relationships in the region. The disruptions, the instability, would likely spread ever more broadly in the region, a region where Syria's neighbors are already dealing with too many Syria-related problems. Most everyone's interests are better served by increasing stability in the region, including of course, those of the US. On that, most all agree.

The president's assurances that there will result no further military role for the US in Syria, that he would not allow it, have been largely dismissed by those folks most fearful of that very result. To the consternation of many, the president has responded by repeatedly stressing further the limited nature of the proposed missile strike to the point that many are asking whether it would be punitive or consequential in any military sense at all. He appears to be trying too hard to pacify too many camps at the same time, while not being clear about what his real policy and plans are.

Further confounding the analysis has been the complications of the parties to Syria's civil war. As repugnant and damnable as Assad and his regime's conduct have been, the rebel forces have been guilty of their own atrocities--and whether in retaliation or not, it does not help their image or sources of support. The forces making up the rebel opposition are a poorly coordinated, patchwork quilt of constructive, moderate factions and extremist factions with their own, differing aspirations. 

The majority of those Syrian freedom fighters are in the first group, those seeking a more moderate government reflecting more democratic values and real accountability to the Syrian people. But at the other extreme are radical Islamist and al Qaida-affiliated groups like the al Nusra Front and others. And although the extremist groups are reported to be a clear minority of the opposition forces, they are also reported to be by far the most effective in the field. Just below the surface, and a point sooner or later raised by many, is the concern that a victory by the rebels would only lead to a second military contest between the more moderate rebel forces and those related to Islamist or al Qaida organizations. And the reality-based fear is that the more moderate forces would lose.

So, a punitive missile attack that weakened Assad too much, enough that he would lose to the rebel opposition, ironically, would not likely produce the result most of the world was looking for. But to fail to respond militarily to the use of chemical weapons--and in the process to leave Assad too strong and continually re-armed and supported by Russia--would likely result in the eventual failure of the rebel opposition and the full reinstatement of Assad's unopposed, despotic rule. This is also not a result most of the world would embrace.

And here is where Mike Morell, the CIA's recently retired No. 2 man, offers us the background of his briefings and advice to President Obama--and helps us better understand and make sense of the president's policy and approach to the US role with regard to the Syrian crisis. If the president has at times sounded indecisive, unclear or confusing about just what his plan was--and he has--it was because he had to address a range of very fluid, dangerous and unpredictable factors. A strengthened rebel opposition (or weakened Syrian military), and a recognized stalemate in fact, appears to be the preferable goal. Why? Because--suggests Mr. Morell--that result offers the most expeditious circumstances for all parties to recognize the wisdom of a negotiated restructuring and staged transition of the Syrian political system and government, one that would better serve the interests of all Syrian people, the region, and the world. Is that a realistic process, an achievable goal? Mr. Morell appears to think so.**

This link, below, will take you to the 60-minutes interview with Mr. Morell. Seldom do we get this kind of candor and timely clarification of what a president is being advised, of what is moving his policy and animating his actions and pronouncements. Although I wish he had said more about the proposed missile strike, I found Mr. Morell's openness, directness and clarity riveting and fascinating. I think you will, too.

(And while you are there, you can access the interviews with Presidents Obama and Assad as well.)

Click on this link:
The Briefer: Ex-CIA No. 2 on Syria crisis - 60 Minutes - CBS News


[**Of course, many may think that the new proposal mediated by Syria's Russian patron, President Putin, may carry the day. Running with an off-hand comment by Secretary of State Kerry, Putin soon after announced that Syria will give up all it's chemical weapons stores for destruction if the US agrees to stand down on the threatened missile strike. With a sigh of relief, many thought this a workable solution and that it changed everything. After all, Syria's President agreed in principal, the United Nations supports the proposal, even the United States has agreed to discussions about the proposal.

But those closest to evaluation of this proposal, including President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry and experts throughout the US government, appear rightly skeptical of the purposes, approach, timing and clarity of what is being proposed. For, the more the process of discussions and negotiations can be delayed or protracted, the more it will work to both strengthen the position of Syria's Assad and make less likely the US missile strike. But the US will prudently keep all its options on the table.

And if the course of the discussions prove a dilatory or disingenuous approach by Assad, then we should be fully prepared to carry out that punitive missile strike on Syrian military targets. But if this process goes on too long without a satisfactory result, will we? Will a punitive strike, already weak on popular and political support, lose more momentum, and be more likely abandoned? If so, what does that portend for the resolution of the Syrian crisis (especially if Mr. Morell's analysis is correct)? Or what type and level of additional support to the moderate rebel forces would then be required (and can weapons provided be kept out of the hands of extremist factions)? And if not, what kind of a strike would then be needed to sufficiently weaken Assad, what scope, targets and duration? An appealing resolution could eventually and easily become a Trojan horse of further complications and challenges.]

Increased Coastal Flooding May Cost World $1 Trillion/Year by 2050 / A Denier's Declaration

They're talking about a cost of $1 trillion/year for increased coastal flooding in the world by 2050. I repeat, this is just for increased flooding of coastal areas, like New York, Miami and, of course, New Orleans, all up and down our coasts and coasts around the world. It doesn't include the additional costs for increased flooding we're already seeing in our inland areas and those elsewhere in the world.

 

I know, 2050 is out there 30-some years, but it's going to be increasing for those in-between years, too, as it works its way to something like that $1 trillion. And some experts quoted in the article linked below believe both the assumptions and the $1 trillion are too conservative. More, this is only the latest of several studies and articles I’ve seen on this.

 

To read the NBC News.com article (8.18.2013) discussing the study, click here, or on the link below:

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/increased-flooding-may-cost-world-1-trillion-2050-6C10937608

 

But, like some of you, I’ve become frustrated at the lack of response by the U.S. public and government—not to mention the deniers. We’ve observed study after study, and natural event  after natural event, each more conclusively confirming the existence and increasing impact of climate change and global warming—and the significant role played by human choices in it. After reading the article linked above, I found myself uncontrollably writing this rather sarcastic “denier’s declaration” that represents to me what global warming deniers seem to consistently say, but  consolidated into a couple paragraphs. Let’s just put it under the heading of personal catharsis. Here it is:

Of course, all we folks with common sense know there is no such thing as climate change and global warming--after all, someone is always crying wolf about something. And naturally, we keep listening closely to the TV and radio people who keep telling us the truth about that. We know all the pointy-headed scientists are smoking something. I mean, they get the rocket-to-Mars stuff right, and all the medical and technology stuff, too, but they just refuse to tell the truth about this climate change stuff. They have their own agenda.

But even if there were such a thing, and even if it were getting worse, it's not our fault. We’re Americans, and we have a right to satisfy what we think our needs and wants are at a price we can afford. We’ve earned it. And ridiculous efforts and costs to reduce environmental risk--even to avoid catastrophe--are an unnecessary and unfair burden on us. Tax someone else. We are not responsible for what we do not foresee (or later choose to ignore if it becomes an unexpected reality). We have a right to deny it, or deny responsibility for it, when it doesn't seem right or fair. And this isn’t fair.  Am I right, or am I right?

 

Doonesbury's Take: Republicans' Challenge With Women

This is the Doonesbury strip for Sunday, August 18, 2013. It can be found on the Slate site simply by Googling Doonesbury.

DOONESBURY




Okay, right up front: apologies to my Republican and conservative male friends, especially my, "...white, straight--sometimes or often angry--well-armed, evangelical" male friends. Apologies, of course, because the most effective political humor incorporates a certain amount of exaggeration, sometimes a considerable amount. But there is also enough truth in it to make the folks in question very uncomfortable, even angry. Against those criteria, this is a very effective and funny strip.

Please, all hate mail should be directed to the Doonesbury comic strip, not to me.

Replacing Ben Bernanke: Summers or Yellen? - TIME

Next January, Chairman Ben Bernanke will end his long-held and effective stewardship of the Federal Reserve, having steered us away from a depression and to recovery. And however much the economy continues to struggle back through slow growth, he deserves our gratitude for doing what the Fed reasonably could do while the Congress could agree on nothing, and did nothing.

Now President Obama must choose a replacement worthy of the continuing challenge. The two most likely choices appear to be Larry Summers and Janet Yellen, both accomplished and well qualified. But, as Rana Foroohar, Time's economics commentator ("The Curious Capitalist") explains, each brings differing strengths and some questions with their candidacy.

The author argues for the very capable Ms. Yellen, so the article (linked below) is understandably a little short on the considerable service and list of accomplishments of the highly respected, but more controversial, Mr. Summers. As for me, I need to read and think about it all some more. You might, too. But this article is as good a starting place as any. And either choice will doubtless raise some controversy and opposition in one camp or another.

Link:
Why Yellen Is a Smarter Choice for Federal Reserve Chief Than Summers - TIME

Taking Wing: Virtuosity & Vanity or Identity & Passion

I chanced upon a couple of my reflections from earlier but quite different times and circumstances. And, although they could appear conflicting, they nonetheless appeared to me to complement each other well--well enough that I placed them together among the information on my Face Book page. I thought I should do the same here.

• Like Icarus, we would fly closer to the sun, but consumed by our virtuosity and vanity, we forget we have but waxen wings to carry us there. Better we should find peace and joy in who we are, and what we can do, in the light and the life the sun provides.

• Yet, sometimes we just must do it (whatever it is), and do it with passion, because that is who we are, because it’s what we’re called to do, because it’s our journey. And we know it because it speaks to us from some unknown place at the core of our identity, and that is assurance enough. To ignore it is to become in some important way lost to who we are—and to leave a hole in the affairs of our time where we and our work were supposed to be.

Greg