• Almost half the world — over 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.
• The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the 41 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (567 million people) is less than the wealth of the world’s 7 richest people combined.
• Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.
• Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn’t happen.
• 1 billion children live in poverty (1 in 2 children in the world). 640 million live without adequate shelter, 400 million have no access to safe water, 270 million have no access to health services. 10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (or roughly 29,000 children per day).

Two part question: can the free market “cure” these ills, and is it in their interest to do so?  Unfettered capitalism, no regulations, Adam Smith’s invisible hand at the wheel what happens?  Will putting a McDonald’s on ever street corner in China set the foundation for democracy and human rights in that country?  Will sending in Wal-Mart to Iran help topple the Ayatollah?

The ultimate question is an ethical one, what is the responsibility of the seller and what is the responsibility of the consumer?  Does the seller have any responsibility or does it all lie with the consumer?  In an interesting side note there was an article today that supported Tim Tebow’s right to make a pro-life ad during the Super Bowl.  Which I to think is fine, if you have the 30 million dollars it takes to pony up for the ad, do it.   I am a free thinking adult, what Tim Tebow believes (or anybody for that matter) thinks is not influencing me.  It all comes down to how much we want to think as consumers.  Should some 21 year old college football player really command our attention in this way and God help us if he actually does sway some people one way or another.  The same can be said of the MNC.   I use to have an anti Wal-Mart sticker on my car.  I thought it helped stick it to the man, but really it just leads to my car tires getting slashed.  If I want to stick it to Wal-Mart I won’t shop there, but if others shop there that is their prerogative.   Consumers have had every opportunity to educate themselves about the shady business practices of Wal-Mart, but if they still want to shop there so be it.  At some point it becomes up to the individual to make the right ethical choice.  I don’t know if this right or if it is just hogwash, what are your thoughts?

LOTS OF QUESTIONS IN THIS BLOG, MAKE SURE YOU GET TO THEM ALL IF YOU WANT ALL YOUR POINTS….

Globalization is a multidimensional concept that has cultural components, including the universal appeal of Brittany Spears or David Beckham; organizational components, such as the growth of transnational interest groups; and economic components, such as the expansion of trade and the increased mobility of capital and direct foreign investment… Among the 18 developed democracies analyzed, one might well expect increasingly uniform taxing and spending policies. It is plausible to argue that single nations cannot afford taxes that are too high, labor that is too expensive, or an environment that is protected too well without suffering investment losses as domestic businesses move abroad and inward investment seeks better climates.

The ideas of globalization and free trade are paramount to understanding this blog.  Please linked website for several articles that could help..

http://www.globalissues.org/issue/38/free-trade-and-globalization

Since over the break all I did was watch epsidoes of the West Wing, my mind as been deluged by Aaron Sorkin quotes.

In the “Big Block of Cheese” epsidoe from the Second Season (like you didn’t already know I was this nerdy) Toby Siegler the White House Communications Director goes to talk to some young radicals who oppose the IMF and Global Bank, Toby a liberal Presidents communication and domestic policy advisor, himself a diehard liberal, defends globalization and free trade.  In an impassioned speech he tells them that simply put globalization, free trade stops/prevents wars (feel free to youtube free trade and west wing to see the speech in its entire poetic form).   

What an unusal if not somewhat far fetched idea.  If we have free trade does it really stop war?  Is free trade the magic bullet that we didn’t even know we had?  Does free trade take a bite out of terrorism? Does it only end conventional wars? 

Kirby

            The sense of accomplish many liberal Democrats are feeling post passage of the House Healthcare bill is great.  However, let’s look at the inter-workings of the bill.  The two themes of the Healthcare debate are coverage and cost.  Should we cover everybody to heck with the cost, or should we deal with spiraling cost and maybe not get everybody covered.  The House bill is about covering a majority of Americans it doesn’t really deal with the cost.  Is the House leaving the cost up to the Senate? Are they planning to merge their coverage bill with the Senate cost bill?  Ultimately, the future success of this historic Act lies in the balance of these two themes, if at this crossroads in history our legislators fail to get this right then generations will suffer. 

            Currently we are at a crossroads in Afghanistan has well.  Again there are stark differences in policy.  On the one hand there is an argument to have a troop surge.  On the other hand there are voices calling for our withdrawal. And again, whichever decision is made it will be without a doubt one that reverberates throughout generations.

            I have said nothing of Iraq, spiraling debt, the collapse of Social Security, and failing public schools.  Our country is suffering from a lack of leadership, true vision, and principled stands on issues that matter.  Instead we have nuts killing doctors who perform abortions, states debating the legitimacy of same-sex marriage, and “Birthers” claiming our President is not a United States Citizen.   These second and third tier issues are distracting at best and maliciously manipulative at worst.  However, the masses seem to be stoked into frenzy with theses secondary issues and in the lack of any real leadership people will follow anybody.  It has become untenable for us (by us I mean those of us in APGOPO) to simply stand by and discuss these issues.  We must step up to the historical challenge and be heard.  “I am not old enough to vote is no longer a viable excuse.”  The way into politics is varied and accessible, participating in interest groups, or political action committees even getting involved with political parties are ways to access the system.  The call is for informed involvement and principled leadership. 

But I would also like to hear your voice on leadership and why we have had a dearth of strong leaders over the last 20 to 30 years.  I want to see people “think outside the box” (sorry for the cliché), but let’s think about leadership and politics and where the merger has collapsed.  Why did it collapse…if it every existed?

The history of political parties in this country date back to the Federalist and Anti-Federalist, their major problem with each other, was Federal government versus State government.  Federalist were in favor of a stronger national government.  Anti-Federalist supported the primacy of states rights.  Getting rid of fundamentalist on either side of the debate the problem is this, is the Federal government better equip to solve the problems of our country or are the states more equip to solve those problems.  In today’s political party language the Republicans play the role of the Anti-Federalist while Democrats play the role of the Federalist. 

This is an oversimplification, especially since the late 70’s when the Religious Right moved into the Republican Party and the more wildly progressive members of the Democratic Party came out of the woodwork.  These additions to the parties in the late 70’s have altered the political landscape.  The bottom line I would argue is still unchanged.  Who (Feds or State) is best equipped to serve/better our society? 

This 200 year old debate is rearing its ugly head again.  The Senate has brought forth a healthcare bill which includes a public option (yeah !).  The big BUT here is that there is the ability for states to “opt out” of the public option.  So here is the rub.  Should the States be able to “opt” out of a Federal program that according to the Washington Post most Americans favor?  At what point do our federally elected officials trump or do they trump our state officials?  Also feel free to comment on this most recent healthcare revelation.  Please also comment on whether or not you think it’s worthwhile or even “fair”, “accurate” to try and remove the radicals from either party, why/why not.

In 1934 a cross was erected by Veterans of Foreign Wars to honor the fallen. This was done without the permission of the government, on Sunrise Rock in the Mojave Desert (a National Park). In 1999 a Buddhist asked the National Parks Service for permission to erect a Buddhist shrine near the monument and was refused. A former park employee sued. Frank Buono said that the cross being on federal land was in violation of the First Amendment. The lower appellate courts agreed. The case is now before the Supreme Court, which is divided. Since this is federal land, in order to “resolve” the case, Congress transferred the patch of land where the cross stands to a private owner. This is seen by some of the justices as an attempt to sidestep several lower court rulings which stated that the cross does in fact violate the First Amendment and that it should be removed, while others feel that the transfer of land is a reasonable resolution.

If the court rules in favor of allowing the cross to remain it could set a precedent which overturns all previous cases. (Not allowing10 Commandments displayed in federal buildings or prayer in schools). Is it reasonable for the Court to allow the government to simply give away whatever portion of land or property they choose in order to remain in compliance with the First Amendment? Would allowing all other religions equal space resolve the issue or would this simply create a “dumping ground” for religious regalia in an effort to make sure all views are represented. And most importantly would a decision in favor of the cross go beyond the judicial role of interpretation and venture into establishing law? Our money says “In God We Trust.” We pledge allegiance to a flag that flies over “One Nation under God.” Are we already in violation of the First Amendment and is there really any way to separate church and state when they are so deeply and historically entwined?

There are two ideas flowing through this blog, respond to both.

“In my judgment,” he recalls saying, “war kills off great reform movements.” The American record is pretty clear: World War I brought the Progressive Era to a close. When Franklin D. Roosevelt was waging World War II, he was candid in saying that “Dr. New Deal” had given way to “Dr. Win the War.” Korea ended Harry Truman’s Fair Deal, and Vietnam brought Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society to an abrupt halt.

This is an excerpt from an interview E.J. Dionne had with Robert Dallek a member of Kennedy’s and Johnson’s Administrations.  I thought it was an interesting idea one I though we could explore in a blog.  The idea of Just War Theory has been around for 1600 years.  It is an idea bedded in the world of Faith that holds all violent action and retaliation to an almost impossible standard.  In other words the standard by which we engage in violent action must meet an incredibility stringent test, before any sorta of response is made.  Many Just War theorists believe that the standard has never been met before. 

In light of the above quote I think it is interesting to think how violence (some would argue unjust violence) killed progressive movements.  The role of Just War Theory should be to protect a countries interest as well as their people.  What would our Country look like if the progressive movement of the early part of the last century had continued unimpeded? 

Just War though it has no judicial power and can not be enforced is a good barometer of how a war is conducted.  It can help remind us of the brutality of war and our call to respect all human life.  It seems interesting to me that during the 20th century “great reform movements” have ended not because of a backlash of conservative ideology, but because of our engagement in wars.  I find this to be incredibly interesting.  Is there an undercurrent of progressive thought in this country that can and does drive our countries exponential change?  The movements that set up Medicare, Social Security, the GI Bill, pushed our country forward the wars that hampered the growth of those programs not only altered our understanding of war and global violence, but curtailed the formulation of programs that could have further altered our countries landscape.

As always this are big ideas and big questions.  Ideas like Just War and global violence aren’t easy, nor are the idea of social movements.  I would as always just like you best effort in untangling this mess.

Why are people so angry and belligerent, and so willing to express their anger publicly? Why has our civil discourse become so uncivil? What should we do about it?

 The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

Martin Luther King Jr., Strength to Love, 1963

I have had trouble coming up with a topic this week.  I guess I am feeling somewhat fatigued by everything that is going on.  So I went to one of my sources of inspiration http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2009/09/public_anger_and_belligerence/all.html

This website is about the intersection of my two favorite topics: religion and politics. The above question actually comes from one of their discussion topics.  In light of our current political climate and deep red and blue state divide (which is probably something the media created, but that is for another blog) am curious why has our society degenerated to the point where belligerent and angry protest seem to be the norm, whenever opposing views are mentioned.

            Maybe we have never been a civil society and maybe we have always resented those with opposite views.  And maybe we have always horded our belongings rather then sharing them openly and freely.  And maybe our lessons to our young about sharing and kindness are simply empty platitudes that we feed our young, because our adult actions certainly do not represent those ideas.  As I write this I realize that it is a very glass is half-empty approach.  And that we do have members of society who do care and they do teach civility and respect.  However, how do we (those who are civil) then get along with those who act “a fool”?

            The T.E.A. party members and the “Birthers” are fringe groups that have controlled our debate on Healthcare.  Why would we let fringe groups control the debate?  I am not opposed to a civil debate on the merits of Healthcare, but I am opposed to nut jobs with guns, and swastika dictating  our political climate.  Rev. King calls us out to be at our best during times of controversy, yet for most of us its controversy that we try and avoid. 

            I want to be crystal clear here.  This is NOT a call to go protest and march and generally rabble rouse.  This is NOT an endorsement of those activities (in fact I think often times those activities just add to the noise).  NO, please understand this, I am saying that the nut jobs on the right have plenty of company with the nut jobs on the left.  I am not a centrist; anybody who pays attention in class knows this, but what I am is someone who wants reasonable and rational discussion.  The left can be and often is just as destructive as the right.  The current fixation on race and racism is a good example.  Is a conversation about race and politics worth having, of course, but why take our eyes of the prize of meaningful healthcare reform?  We are very close to having real, substantial healthcare reform and instead the left gets sidetracked.  The message should be from the left, HEALTHCARE PERIOD.  And any deviation from that is detrimental to the goal of overhauling our healthcare system.  Instead of calling out a few fringe idiots that probably are racist and will probably always be racist, let’s focus our attention on insuring 47 million Americans and keeping the Insurance companies from bankrupting us as a country.

            In closing this up I long for the days when we can have political discourse without the fringe (left or right) shaping and controlling our conversations.  But until Middle America (those of us who hide from controversy) decide to step into the fray and force the fringes to the fringe then we will continue to have an impotent and dysfunctional political system.  What do you think?

It is 9/11 and I am lost in thoughts of peace.  I signed a peace pledge this morning at http://live.faithstreams.com/site/prayer_pledges/register, to spend a moment in prayer/mediation on 9/21.  September 21st is the United Nations Day of Peace and I wonder what if just this once Peace was allowed to blossom.  Before Peace blossoms and my silly Adam World burst into existence, we (me) should define peace.  Is Peace the absence of War, only? Or is it what Martin Luther King Jr. said, the absence of tension?  The absence of war is easier, believe it or not.  Ending war is actually easier, but the absence of tension is significantly harder.  If peace is the absence of tension our language, our culture, our lifestyles must change.  We have to become eco-sensitive, race sensitive, and gender aware.  And then comes the hard part turning loose of our unearned privilege letting go of those advantages we don’t even know we have.  For King the absence of tension runs deeper then just not waging war on al-Qaeda or Mexican Drug Lords.  For King the absence of tension is an overall change in our values, language and lifestyle.  It means the end of poverty.  Ending poverty is not just about ending a lack of finical well-being.  It is about drastically improving our education.  It is altering our understanding of our very well-being (thanks Leland).  In other words, health care is a right; all citizens are guaranteed a minimum salary that affords them dignity as well as stability.  Public education becomes something treated with respect and dignity; teachers are trained better and treated better by our society.  As a profession teachers truly do become the best and the brightest.

In a world free of tension our ideas and prejudices are not viable.  They are replaced by a world of compassion and understanding, one based on a true understanding of peace.  We lose the mantra of do-it your self capitalism and replace with a call to work together and live together not in spite of our differences, but because of them.  America use to be known as a melting pot (but soon the cries of individualist won out) and the image used to describe America became a tossed salad.  The idea behind this is simple, let us retain our individual characteristics while still working hard together to make a lovely salad.  Now as a way to maintain racial identity I can understand it, but what King is asking in his plea to live without tension is to eventually live under one human identity.

In other words where are you on the issue of peace?  Is it obtainable? How do we obtain it?  What form will/would it take?  Can peace be achieve despite our differences?  And maybe more importantly are we able to admit our “unearned privilege” and understand how that effect us?

Kirbs

Kirby

Two overarching ideas connected by one common thread, trust.  I was going to have you read the Arkansas Times article on Healthcare this week, but decided against it, since some of you would only dismiss the article as a liberal rag with no value.  Which got me thinking about trust.  Back in my early childhood there were only 3 news networks, ABC, NBC, and CBS.  These 3 stations aired the 5 o’clock news and we accepted it as unbiased and objective journalism.  Now however, we live not only in the land of cable news channels, but also the the 24/7 news cycle.  And this plethora of news channels allows for certain ones to claim idealogical high ground, in other words, niche marketing for our news.  This may seem like a good idea.  Let the left get their news from MSN and let the right get their news from Fox, but in fact I believe it is detrimental to our national health.  I would like to hear your thoughts on this, make sure to be thorough.

As promised this is a two fold blog.  I believe this issue of trust is also seen in our Public Schools.  Since we have been receiving our news from essentially ideologues (people motivated by political party self-interest)  the last 15 plus years our sense of community and kinship have been warped.  It is almost impossible to “love thy neighbor” if their world view is shaped by Fox and yours by MSN.  Again, looking for your comments here, but I would argue how you approach school (I mean public school here) is directly related to how and where you get your news.  In other words those in favor of vouchers more then likely get their news from Fox, while those opposed probably get their news from MSN.  I know this is an over simplification, but I believe there is more then a grain of truth to this idea.  Public education is a wonderful opportunity for us as Americans to continually add to the greatness of subsequent generations.

However in this current climate of mistrust and misinformation what gets hurt is our ability to teach and function at high levels in public education.  The volatile climate we now live in sets up a learning environment more concerned with ligation and test scores then one that produces critical thinkers capable of  analyzing and solving complex problems.  I am talking about character education here.  Should schools be involved in that?

If our news outlets only produce ideological muck, and our citizenry become torn, what suffers is our educational system.   We the members of the education system become caught in a political tug of war, test scores on one extreme and liberal censorship on the other extreme.  Both adversely affecting classroom instruction and limiting the teachers ability to truly teach.

So let’s hear it from you guys.  I have written a mouth full, but the bottom line is trust, media, and education.  Is the mistrust in our society fostered by media?  Is that one of many reasons or is it the primary reason our schools sucking?  Are the two connected at all?  Remember be specific and detailed in your answers.

Kirbs

As I have thought about Healthcare, I keep coming back to the same issue. What are we as individuals willing to give? The question is an age old one that reflects our predisposition towards Hobbes on one side and Locke on the other. How we come out on this question I believe determines our general view of state of nature and our role in serving humanity. Do we horde our own belongings, because we don’t trust the state to handle them or do we give freely of our belongings to serve the betterment of our brothers and sisters? This isn’t a question about giving to the soup kitchen or Goodwill! Both are fine organizations and serve a distinct purpose, but they will both be the first to tell you that they can’t solve or address the depth of the problems they minister to. What is at stake in this question is on one level our understanding and expectations of government and on another level our understanding and expectations of ourselves?

I can’t help but feel that part of the problem is the politics of fear one side working to undermine the outcomes of the others based solely on what’s good for themselves. I refer you to Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, Jon Stewart’s interview of Betsy McCaughey (who works at a conservative think tank). Now depending on where you come down on the issue you will see either Jon Stewart attacking and berating a bright conservative woman, or you’ll see a woman defending her position through subterfuge and misdirection. What is needed is an understanding of our own biases and shortcomings. We as an electorate need to honestly embrace our cultural dispositions and find ways to discuss our differences in productive ways. This may not be something you agree with and maybe misdirection and subterfuge are essential to politics and to ignore these would be to set in motion the destruction of our political system, but again I believe it comes down to the same central question, What are we as individuals willing to give?

I would like for us to search ourselves and see where we come out on this issue. Please do not write that you just want to give more money to the soup kitchen!

Shalom,

Kirbs

PS if you want to email me your response at adam.kirby@lrsd.org that could substitute for posting it online.