War on Intellectualism?

As a country, we’ve always had difficulties with those who profess to know more than us.  It began with the British and to be frank, the British have been holding it over us for centuries.  What we did, collectively in the late 18^th and 19^th centuries, we took pride in the opposite.  We were a bit crude, we were loud and we thumbed our noses at the pretensions held by others.  Yet, there was still value on necessary knowledge – skills that could create or build.  It would seem we are hitting new lows and it will be difficult to re-emerge from our self-induced stupor.   

Probably the most obvious, lowest hanging fruit that I can bang away at is television and advertisement.  This time of year is always distressing for me.  It is not that I’m returning to work soon but I’m bombarded with commercials that tell kids that the most important part of returning to school is that they have the right clothes, the right technology and in general, appear the coolest.  On one hand, what else are they going to say but the emphasis is all consuming and teachers know that of which I speak – the first days of school and the first days after Christmas vacation are de facto fashion shows.  “Books?  Don’t sweat it, kid.  You’ll get further by looking better.” 

Of course, television programs consistently set new lows in depravity and stupidity.  It might be strange to hear but in other countries, as we once did, they have programs where people calmly discuss important political and social issues.  It is mature discussions on the events of the day or with the guest for the evening.  Today, the last refuge for such programming is PBS and even there, such discussion-oriented programming is rather thin on the ground.  The programs you would normally expect the most of but get the least from are news shows.  As I’ve mentioned before, I often watch the news wondering where the adults are.  Screaming and emotionalism are a far cry from what once watched even a decade ago.  As for reality programming, I don’t have enough space to address that issue.

 

Speaking of the aforementioned arena of education, we have the prominence of standardize testing.  Today, it is more important that you know an increasingly narrowed field of information – only what will be on the test.  From an early age, our students are taught that a large swath of information is not important because it will not be assessed.  From the earliest grades, we are teaching our students that the curiosity with which they entered school does not serve them well.  Only a passing test grade will land you into a good school and ergo a good career.  Yet, school officials on the national and state levels scratch their heads and profess dismay at increasingly worsening scores on international testing.  They’ve drunk the Kool-Aid and cannot think beyond their boxes.   

Lastly (only for the sake of this article), technology has emphasized that convenience is valued over substance.  Technology today, despite its proponents who champion educational apps and computer programs as its benefits, has done more to shorten our attention span and gnaw away at our intellectual stamina.  Additionally, for all the “enriching” aspects of technology, I don’t see people using it.  I see people pre-occupied with Twitter, Facebook and other social media outlets.  As a teacher, I’ve seen the degradation and it is disheartening and baffling.  Over the last couple of decades, we have treasured our students’ ability to emote and not think and we are paying for that misdirection. 

I hope the state of things is not as bad as I’m portraying.  I’ve come across students from time to time who buck the trend.  What makes it seem so dire is the prevalence of mass media and popular culture.  I find myself wondering if there is some network or programmer who would be willing to buck the trend and appeal to the country’s intellect.  Is there a celebrity who will do more for intellectual pursuits that posing for the “Read” posters found in libraries throughout the country?  It is fine to not put on airs or to lampoon pretentiousness but we must still value the mind and intellect.  If not, the great experiment might not last much longer. 

Hamas' Cynical Plan

Israel was not created in order to disappear – Israel will endure and flourish.  It is the child of hope and the home of the brave.  It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success.  It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom.

            President John F. Kennedy 

This past week, Permanent Observer of Palestine to the U.N. Riyad Mansour spoke of the recent troubles between his state and Israel.  He spoke of Israel breaking the recently agreed upon cease-fire and castigated the Jewish state for the massacre of Palestinians.  Interviewer Charlie Rose asked about the actions of Hamas, breaking the truce with thousands of rockets leading to the Israeli response.  Mr. Mansour, speaking with either shocking naïveté or willful obliviousness, said that Hamas does not represent the Abbas government and therefore, does not represent a violation of the cease-fire.  The U.N. Observer’s verbiage is characteristic of an unbalanced and cynical approach in the worsening climate of the Middle East. 

Since the Oslo Accord in 1993, Israel has been pushed into one agreement after another in which it sacrifices and Palestine does not.  Israel has ceded territory, has agreed to a needed two-state solution and nine years ago, it demolished a slew of Israeli settlements throughout Gaza and the West Bank to secure a possible peace.  It has entered into negotiations with the Abbas government who has shown, at times in the recent crisis, remarkable courage in speaking out against Hamas and those who support the terrorist group.  Yet, Hamas lies just outside the light of diplomacy and refuses to budge.  

Hamas has pursued a policy that calls for the destruction of Israel by inviting its fire and using ordinary Palestinians as shields.  Despite Mr. Mansour’s blithe understanding and acceptance of Hamas, the terrorist group has fired its many rockets out of homes, schools, mosques and areas that would ensure, in the retaliation, what Charles Krauthammer called the telegenic death of hundreds of innocent civilians.  The deaths of innocents televised are callously used as part of a public relations campaign that has won support throughout the world.  Morality does not matter, only the end result.  Hamas fires away at Israel while some throughout the world justify the means used.  I guess terrorism works.  

For all those who chastise and criticize Israel for its actions, it fails to offer an alternative.  Some have suggested at other times that Israel needs to negotiate.  To what end?  To lose more land or invite more rockets?  Other observers have correctly assessed that since Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank ended nearly a decade ago and Palestine has been able to pave its own path, vital economic and political institutions, needed infrastructure and stability has been absent.  Despite the fact that Israel gives the Palestinian state millions of dollars a year in aid and supplies, a periodically well-intentioned Mahmoud Abbas and the powerless Palestinian civilians have been in the grips of Hamas.  The terrorist organization has repeatedly sought to undermine any efforts of peace.  They want the destruction of Israel and if it can’t happen militarily, they will do so by cynically placing its own “constituents” in the line of fire to convince the world that Israel is in the wrong. 

Israel, to its credit, has failed to dove-tail into the culture of death and martyrdom that is being embraced in Gaza.  Israeli ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, referring to the words of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has come out to say that Israel will not glorify the Jews responsible for the reaction to the death of three Israeli teenagers.  Those who killed that young Palestinian man will not be hailed as heroes, will not have public squares named after them and will not be taught to young Israeli children.  All of which has happened in Palestine.   

It is difficult to say how Palestine and the ordinary citizen will be able to take control again of its future and its faith.  Thankfully, if recent international news coverage holds true, there has been a more even-handed reporting of the recent violence with a hard look being cast upon Hamas.  Israel has little open to them in the way of options.  Hamas is counting on that and hoping that the old formula will work once more.  Perhaps, people are starting to see the position with which Israel has wrestled over the last couple of decades.  If Hamas can be shown for what it is, it might bring the region closer to peace.  Sadly, I don’t expect to see it any time soon.

An Eagle Rising?

In 2000, there was much excitement in Mexico over the election of the first non-PRI candidate in nearly a century with the inauguration of Vincente Fox.  Mr. Fox came into office promising sweeping reforms and an attempt to roll back institutional corruption and graft that had held the Mexican economy and people back.  Felipe Caldorón, the former mayor of Mexico City, said many of the same things.  In 2012, PRI candidate Enrique Peña Nieto was swept into office with again, promises of reform.  However, with Mr. Peña, the world press has focused and sees a bright future for Mexico.  The question is whether Mr. Peña can succeed where his well-meaning predecessors failed. 

Several fronts need to be tackled, simultaneously, if Mexico hopes to realize its potential as a society and as an economy.  Mr. Peña has help that can prove instrumental.  One, he is the head of the leading party in the country but also enjoys support for his reforms from the party of his two predecessors, the Reform Party or PAN.  However, not all of his fellow PRI compadres will go along because some of Mr. Peña’s efforts and plans include checking the influence of the powerful unions.  Some PRI politicians are not going to take on that battle.  Still, Mr. Peña has the chance to make some changes by addressing three key areas – the economy, corruption and migration.   

Economically, while there are some parts of Mexico that are doing well, others are lagging dramatically behind.  No one party can lay claim to an economic plan that will save Mexico therefore, a new approach will need to be developed nationally, if not locally.  Nationally, the north is developing at a nice pace with GDP per person at some of the highest levels in the country (Nuevo León, $16,000; Coahuila, $11,100).  Outliers to this statistic include Quintana Roo on the Yucatán at $10,600 and the hub of money in the Federal District ($19,200).  Most of the country, including the bone-crushing poverty in the south in states like Chiapas ($3,600) and Oaxaca ($4,100) and those hovering around mediocrity such as Tabasco ($5,900) and Michoacán ($5,500), are in desperate need of increase investment and more business-friendly measures.  The only way this can happen is to loosen the power of the unions. 

The unions, along with politicians and the police, is a source of corruption and graft.  There can be no “business-friendly” atmosphere unless the level of crookedness and red tape can somehow be reduced.  It is not just the big corruption but the everyday, almost mundane levels of graft that is crippling Mexico.  In a study reported by Economist, Mexican households spend approximately $2.5b (32b pesos) annually on bribes for things ranging from “public” services to primary school.  For many international businesses, to go into Mexico is to accept a level of corruption that is seldom seen.  Of course, the same Mexicans who are paying these bribes cannot or will not express their outrage – many feeling that the problem is too big.   

Only by increasing the economy throughout the country, only by reducing corruption from the highest levels to that directly impacting each Mexican family, can there be any hope of curbing or regulating more effectively the migration issue.  It is true that recent emigration levels have dropped significantly but only because the economy of the U.S. is so uncertain.  The most recent Pew Research study show there are roughly 12m people in the U.S. who were born in Mexico.  Consider the talent and the intellect that is leaving the country - and in many cases, not returning.  Additionally, the cavalcade of children making their way into the U.S. highlights Mexico’s issue with immigration across its southern border.  Included in this tale are those who are entering the U.S. under the orders and threats of drug cartels.  The Mexican government, in recent years, has made progress against such forces but to suggest that the threat has reduced would be a fallacy. 

Several years ago, I visited Mexico City.  What I saw is a hard working population that is fighting uphill to make it to the end of the day.  Regularly, they see a government that does not seem to work while they pay their Danegeld each day with little to no long-term benefit.  Mr. Peña has a tough road to travel but he has the resources, both in the land and the people, to make Mexico the envy of the developing world.  A great many things need to fall in place but if political courage can rise with public outrage and indignation, the major problems of Mexico today could well be studied in the history books tomorrow.

Fear and Anxiety in the U.S.

If anyone on the verge of action should judge himself according to the outcome, he would never begin.
            Søren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling

Recently, I was thinking of the role that fear plays in our society.  When you ask people why they do what they do, eventually, fear creeps into the conversation.  Given how often people speak of fear, my next thought was what were the consequences of this thinking and obsessing about fear.  For millennium, philosophers and writers have considered this point.  Even though we live in one of the safest periods in U.S. history, our fear has inversely grown to absurd and mystifying proportions.  Its consequences to us and our way of life could be damaging and irreversible.  

When I speak of fear, I don’t speak of the fear of things from without.  We have traditionally been an isolationist country (some say we are returning to that) but such fears have tangible qualities that make the fear more understandable, more concrete.  When I speak of fear, I mean to say the fear around us.  I speak of the fear to act, the fear to explore, the fear implanted into us by politicians and the media.  What does this dread do to us?  How does our society change with consistent, pervasive fear?  More interestingly, why are we so fearful? 

A friend once told me that when a worrier has nothing to worry about, they turn on themselves.  We are a people who have vanquished our enemies and cured our diseases.  While terrorism lurks in the distance, it has not taken the place of the threat of the Soviet Union and communist world domination.  So, with the fears from without shrinking, we have decided that the real threat lies in our neighbors and our environment.  Lurking gunmen or pedophiles or the threat of being alone has spurred our fears.  To make matters worse, politicians make hay of these fears and industries sell our fear back to us.  Consequently, we are prodded and prompted to continually look around us and our anxiety grows and we became more irrational.   

So, how does it change our society?  It first makes us wary of the mundane and the innocent.  I want to go on a hike without my cell phone.  My wife, as sold to her by cell phone companies who extolled its products based on emergencies, tells me I must bring it because what if something happens and I’m trapped.  Parents worry about having their kids walk to school or down to the corner for some groceries because of lurking molesters waiting for the careless parent who sent their innocent child in harm’s way.  Obsessive-compulsive mothers follow their children around with anti-bacterial lotion, bathing them in it every five minutes or so.  A potential entrepreneur is scared to take the leap to own her own business because of regular news reports saying small businesses are collapsing each day.   

The fear makes us timid, it turns us inward and eventually, it could impact our way of life.  The more frighten we become, the less choices we make – the more we depend on the government to make those decisions.  The more we empower government, the more we lose our voice.  In general, we pass on our fears to our children and the cycle continues.  As an expectant parent, I worry about the parts of me that are not good and passing it on to our future daughter.  She should be aware but not scared.  Yet, our children are.  When we find ourselves surrendering to our fear, we have to ask what it is doing to us.  We have to ask questions about the decisions we make and whether there is truly anything about which to be concern.   

The Danish existentialist Søren Kierkegaard once said, “Life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced.”  Our fear is robbing us of a chance to experience.  Yes, bad things happen but living in constant vigilance against the worst case scenarios is no protection.  We each have a fate and it makes little difference if we spend our lives worrying about it.  Instead, as Kierkegaard said, we have to spend our lives embracing and soaking in that which is around us.  Perhaps, we will be happier.  It might be enough to not be so miserable and anxious.

 

The Devil in the Details

When Richard Nixon was out of office and dealing with the aftermath of Watergate, he was interviewed by British talk-show host, David Frost.  The Englishman pressed Mr. Nixon on the issues and legalities pertaining to the scandal.  In a particularly tense moment, the president, out of frustration said, “When the president does it, it means it is not illegal.”  I was reminded of this quote when listening to Obama administration officials and other supporters of the president’s swap of a soldier for five terrorists.  President Obama’s actions seem either the personification of President Nixon’s hubris or naïveté. 

This is not a rejection of Bowe Bergdahl’s parents or even his home town.  They have one of their own back after five years and their happiness needs no explanation or excuse.  My concerns are with the administration, which at present is under attack by Republicans, Democrats and foreign heads of state over this trade.  I’m taken aback by the fact the administration seems surprised at the response.  This suggests one of two approaches to this trade.  Either the administration never fully thought it out and its consequences, assuming that rescuing a soldier five years in the enemy’s hands would be a no-brainer for public support or they did think it through and did not feel objections or the law were important.  So, we have either an incompetent government (suggested by many) or a corrupt one (also, suggested by many). 

First, there are legal and security concerns.  To my knowledge, there are no military or security experts suggesting this trade is without some possibly dangerous repercussions.  We have done what we have always said we would not do – negotiate with terrorists.  In the past, the trading of prisoners is done after the war, after a victor is declared and the defeated is cowed.  We have ended the war but the Taliban and their allies have not.  We are still targets and still the face on their wall with darts protruding from it.  This coterie of terrorists taken from Guantanamo have not given up the struggle and as soon as they can, will be back in the field with increased knowledge of the U.S. and increased anger.   

Additionally and according to the law, the Congress was to be informed of such dealings a month before it took place.  The administration said there was not enough time to inform the Congress.  If the Congress allows this violation to go unanswered, it is not just an institution that loses prestige, power and a voice.  It is us as citizens who lose prestige, power and a voice.  The Congress is our voice as the most representative body in the government.  A rejection of Congressional oversight and authority is a rejection of the public’s.  This is one reason why there is such bipartisan congressional anger against the deal.   

On the other hand, there is the question of Sergeant Bergdahl himself.  This man is not the bastion of fealty and honor that the administration has portrayed him to be.  According to his fellow soldiers, this man quit on his platoon, placed them in danger and is responsible for the men who died searching for him.  There is little sympathy for Sgt. Bergdahl.  While some say he should be court-martialed and perhaps jailed, I think he has suffered enough for his actions assuming he was just a prisoner and not a collaborator.  However, that will be of little comfort to the families of those who died.  I do not begrudge the Bergdahl family’s joy but that joy came at a cost.  Are we, as a country, willing to pay that? 

President Obama cannot be as toned deaf as he appears to be with these various scandals that have rocked his administration but with which he claims little connection, knowledge or culpability.  However, we have history and it teaches us what happens to people who claim to be above the law.  Some in Congress have uttered the “impeachment” word but that is ridiculous.  He is only doing what his supporters and allies in Congress are allowing him to do.  Yet, the consequences of these actions could be an emasculated legislature and endangered Americans overseas. 

How Possible is a Ukrainian Paradox?

There has been so much going on in the last couple of weeks, it was difficult to know what to write.  However, the events in the Ukraine with a presidential election vote have led some to cast a worrying glance to eastward.  A great deal has been spoken with regards to the motives and designs of Russian President Vladimir Putin, including a couple of articles on this blog.  However, with the election, the question has to be asked about the intent and abilities of the new Ukrainian president.  How does one live next to a ravenous neighbor like Russia?  The Ukraine might want to consider the path taken by Finland as suggested by some but such a path is fraught with danger.

Former Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau once compared his country’s proximity to the U.S. with sleeping with an elephant – always keeping one eye open in the event it rolls over in the middle of the night.  The Ukraine finds itself in a similar situation.  In the years after World War II, Finland under the leadership of Juho Paasikivi and Urho Kekkonen navigated its relationship with the Soviet Union through a policy of capitulation and deference while maintaining its independence.  Certainly when one compares Finland to the besieged countries of Eastern Europe, the Finns held a special status.  The Ukraine’s political leaders can certainly endeavor to mollify the Russians but the country lacks the military strength and the united population that Finland enjoyed.   

The Ukrainian government must consider this because as the leadership of the U.S. and Europe are presently constituted, there is little chance that the former Soviet republic would get military help in the event of an invasion.  Unless the Ukrainians can build up a military that can force the Russians to hesitate, a la Finland or Cold War-era Yugoslavia, they must accept Russian dominance.  By recent news accounts, the new president of the Ukraine is the chocolatier magnet Petro Poroshenko and giving his connections in the eastern part of the country, he can follow the Finnish model of first placating the Russians.  First, he must reject NATO.  The Ukraine joining NATO is not going to happen without a more aggressive Russia knocking on its doors.  Mr. Poroshenko can then incorporate a neutral approach – to become the new Switzerland of Europe.  This would require the Ukraine to also reject military cooperation with the Russians but in order to build trust with its eastern neighbors.  The more committed to neutrality the Ukraine is, the less concerned the Russians will be.   

Post World War II, the Finns accepted the idea that the Soviets needed to be appeased.  Finland had a fairly united population which made the moves easier if not still controversial.  President Kekkonen’s “Finnish Paradox” which stated the closer Finland grew towards Russia, the freer they would be can only be achieved with a unified population.  It is just not there for the Ukraine.  For one, the vast majority of Ukrainians are more westward focused.  We are not talking about a large segment of the population that is supporting the thugs in the east – even in the east.  If, however, the new president made some innocuous gestures to the Russians, that might help alleviate tensions.  President-elect Poroshenko could renew natural gas talks with the President Putin and promise to regulate the country’s interactions with the European Union.  The western, pro-Europe Ukrainians will be nervous but there is a new reality with which to deal.  

Though some pundits have brought up Finland, it is not a fit here.  The Ukraine does not have the military prowess nor the united population that allowed Finland to remain more-or-less independent throughout the Cold War.  However, there are political maneuverings and neutrality options that could ease the concern of the Russians.  This said with the understanding that the U.S. and the Europeans have neither the will nor the leadership to take a stronger stance.  Given the limited options available to the Ukraine, it could be the best course of action to take.

The Scope of Free Speech

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
           Noam Chomsky

In recent weeks, a row has emerged from the owner of the National Basketball Association’s Los Angeles Clippers – Donald Sterling.  He’s the longest serving owner in the NBA but due to a couple of well-publicized incidents, he has often been thought of (when he was thought of) as a buffoon.  Last week, a secretly recorded tape showcased Mr. Sterling’s backward thinking and racism.  In the aftermath, the commissioner of the NBA, Adam Silver, banned him for life and is attempting to force the sale of his club to the league so that they may seek a more suitable owner.  As ridiculous as Mr. Sterling’s comments were, I’m confused and alarmed by the action taken and the players’ reaction to the owner.

There are two major things about this whole fiasco that bother me.  The first is the nature of the comments and the league’s reaction to the same.  So that my affiliation is clear, I don’t subscribe to Mr. Sterling’s point of view.  He is like the drunk uncle at family gatherings whose embarrassing paradigm is stuck about sixty years in the past.  That said, the NBA’s actions are a bit dangerous to me.  In my perfect world, people like Mr. Sterling are taken care of by the market and its refusal to patronize his product.  However, not many people, let alone sports fans, have the courage of their convictions when their “team” is the question.  So, they want somebody else to do something.  In steps the commissioner.  

Mr. Silver laid down the law that Donald Sterling’s words, secretly recorded in the privacy of his own home, are grounds for immediate and indefinite suspension.  However, my problem has to do with the basis for the commissioner’s actions.  As Dallas Mavericks’ owner Mark Cuban said, it is not against the law to be stupid and backwards.  So, what is the fallout if you make it a crime?  Some might say, what is wrong with taking action against a racist?  The problem is that it seldom stops there.  History shows us that people with the power to control the masses begin with the agreed upon.  People feel comfortable with the first salvos – who is going to defend the actions of a racist?  Yet, it is a slippery slope and I’m concerned about the precedent set.   

The other matter that I do not understand is the reaction from the players and observers.  It seems we are giving way too much attention to the thoughts and actions of an 80-year-old, publically insignificant figure that people wrote off as a joke years ago.  Players turning their jersey inside out in protest – I want to know the individual who, prior to, connected the name “Clippers” only to Donald Sterling and not the men on the court.  Players emotionally declared the level of hurt and pain this has caused.  Unfortunately, it is likely these young men have suffered in the past from racism.  This is the worst?  The private ramblings of a marginalized man has caused this much distress and emotion?  I would suggest to you this man has never been given so much attention in his life.   

I don’t have the answer to racism.  Yet the attention paid to Mr. Sterling is disproportionate to its impact.  Additionally, when an organization can punish thought and privately expressed thought at that, what does that mean?  As a Jew, I learned early that even the neo-Nazis should be able to speak their mind publicly.  Forbidden speech is emboldened speech.  The protection of speech, certainly what is said in the privacy of one’s home, is paramount in a free society.  Racists and others of their ilk, in a free society, will face condemnation and marginalization.  The actions of the NBA commissioner borders on the tyranny of the majority and in the end could prove just as destructive as the racists.