CGNorena Weekly

Change

Suddenly, the friendly but slightly unpredictable slate of democratic candidates has decided to make “change” the central theme of the 2008 presidential campaign. Apparently, Bill Clinton, the unofficial but all-powerful counselor to the group, has decided not to allow Senator Obama to monopolize the message of change. Hillary, Bill keeps on repeating, has been all her life an “agent of change.” At the risk of offending his majesty, I must remind Bill that if Hillary had been an efficient “agent of change” for thirty-five years, Obama and Edwards would not be seeking the change they are after.

Furthermore, the change Obama/Edwards (more the former than the latter) have in mind is precisely the kind of change Hillary and her husband are least likely to promote. It is not a change about specific problems such as the present tax code or universal health insurance, but a radical change about the central vision of America’s national identity in the world today. Mr. Clintom has been for too long on familiar terms with his buddy the senior Bush to be capable of escaping the overbearing clutches of the patriarch. Hillary, bright as she is, seems incapable of viewing the world from a perspective never before explored. Her talk about leaving “residual combat” forces in Iraq gives young Americans a somber deja vue feeling.

George W. Bush sees the world as a bunch of nations that can and should be kept in order by an hegemonic power. That order, that some Christians believe has been sanctioned by God himself, is often threatened (as the Manicheans would say) by the powers of darkness, by rogue nations, and by evil empires. The younger Bush thinks that America has been destined to change regimes, to send the Marines and the National Guard to secure liberty wherever liberty is under threat, anywhere on earth. The price for this terrible and old-fashioned certainty of which the Bushes are delusional victims, has brought death and devastation to tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and the global collapse of American moral authority in international affairs.

As President Carter intelligently observed, the first fifteen minutes of the inaugural speech on January the 3rd, 2008, could very well alter the way millions of people in the world think of Americans. The new President should and would hasten to solemnly announce that there is a new America on the map. An America that forever renounces unilateral, unfair, and unlawful wars of any kind. An America that seeks not only the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, but the total and universal destruction of nuclear weaponry of everybody, including the awesome and irrational American arsenal. This new America will shoulder with all the nations of the world the burden of fighting by any means available, poverty and disease, ignorance and religious fanaticism. An America that will proceed (cautiously but without delay) to dismantle all the American military bases on earth and to bring home all men and women in uniform.

Such moves do not in any way foreshadow a new policy of isolationism; they portend on the contrary a radically new form of human solidarity. Most Americans today do not feel any more like the all powerful leaders of humanity or the protectors of the weak. The three catastrophes of Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq have made us cautious and less arrogant than our forefathers. We prefer to be seen as the brothers and sisters of all the victims of AIDS and malaria, of all the children without school and of all the children kidnapped into sexual trafficking, slavery, or genocidal wars. We do relate to all the national leaders who signed the Kyoto protocol, to every human being who watches with increasing anxiety the demise of our snow-capped mountains and our iced-covered polar regions. America is more than ready to organize a highly mobile and technically equipped disaster relief team to assist all the victims of earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, plagues, droughts, and floods in any corner of our earth. No more Katrinas to overlook; no more Guantanamos to torture prisoners who have not even been charged with a crime; no more Kyoto protocols to dismiss summarily; no criticism of the United Nations; no genocides to forget; no famines to ignore; no fences between nations whether around Tel Aviv or between Hermosillo and Phoenix. Americans do not abandon even the hope of some day shaking the hands of Ahmedinajed or Chavez. Our leaders have taught us to be audaciously hopeful. We are trying to.

The supreme form of our audacity is to pray and to seek by any means possible the end to a centuries-long but perfectly irrational
distrust, fear, and even hostility between the Judaeo-Christian and the Muslim children of Abraham, all of whom adore the same God under different names, who want to believe that Allah the Compassionate is waiting for us behind all the clouds of unknowing, behind all the storms of doubt. In a way, it’s all very simple: Muslims, Jews, and Christians have to begin to respect each other. In the end, we shall be friends.

tell
Mormons vs. Baptists in the 2008 Campaign

At the last presidential debate in the George Bush Presidential Library (Texas) a young man holding the Bible in his hands had the audacity to ask the candidates whether they believed every word in the holy book.

The first correct answer to the question would have been to remind the young man that, although he had the right to ask any question, they, the candidates, had no obligation to answer it as an informal version of the “religious test” forbidden by Article VI.3 of the Constitution. According to the framers of the Constitution a test on the religious beliefs of any American citizen who seeks the presidency (or any public office) can never be required as “a qualification” for it. But the young man in Texas knew well what he was doing or what he was instructed to do: any candidate who would have publicly said in Texas, a state rich in conservative Christians, that he did not believe every word of the Bible, would certainly have lost millions of votes in the red states, no matter what the Constitution says. The Constitution, by the way, has nothing to say about the preferences of Christian voters in casting their votes. In fact, it’s perfectly rational for a Christian voter to prefer a Christian president, and that is why it was so important for Romney to “sound” as Christian as the preacher Huckabee, the sudden leader in the presidential polls. The presidential debate in Texas was not an exchange between Romney and the other presidential candidates, it was a mano a mano between Romney and the man who suddenly had become a threat to Romney’s mormonic ambitions. Not a single presidential candidate at the Presidential Library in Texas had the guts to refuse answering a question they had no obligation to answer. The first debater who declined to answer a complex question with either an infantile “show of hands” or with a one-minute-evasive ambiguity was former Senator Thompson in the republican debate of 12.13.07.

Furthermore, the question itself was based on an assumption that no theologian in his or her right mind would dare to make: the assumption namely that in order to be a good Christian one has to believe every word of the Bible. In fact, practically nobody does. The Pope certainly does not believe literally in every word of the Bible, some of which, if taken literally, amount almost to a blasphemy. To believe, for instance, that God rested in the seventh day after creating the world (Gen. II.2), makes us totally perplexed: does God get tired like we do on Friday nights? Does God need a little nap after creating so many things so fast? How can the alternations between day and night be experienced by
a being who is changeless through eternity?

One of the best Jewish theologians in history who, by the way, wrote in Arabic and was born in Cordoba (Spain) in the 12th century, Moses Maimonides, wrote an entire book to Guide the Perplexed, to help Jews, Christians and Muslims (yes, Jews, Christians and Muslims!) to overcome the perplexity provoked by their reading of the Jewish Bible (Old Testament), or the New Testament, or the Koran. Maimonides explains, as best as it can be done, how any alleged divine revelation of necessity becomes anthropomorphic (human-like) as it translates into an imperfect human language our finite understanding of the infinite. One of the reasons why the Founders were leery of religions based on written revelations was precisely the knowledge that such revelations are always divisive, time-conditioned, contextualized by geography and a particular culture, whether it be Mosaic, Christian, Muslim, or the clearly made-in-the-USA revelation to Mr. Smith, the founder of the Mormons. Then, as Jefferson said, as in the case of Christanity, the beautiful moral message of Jesus is overshadowed by the dogmatic “rags’” (his words) imposed by the fashionable culture. Theological quarrels among different religious “sects” soon ensue and become a dominant feature of the history of all religions, a particularly hideous and often violent one in the history of the Mormon Church, whose founder was murdered by a mob.

Romney’s first encounter with Mr. Huckabee – a former Mormon missionary vs. a former Arkansas southern Baptist preacher—was relatively polite. The fireworks between these two Christian leaders might become less “Christian” once the early primaries begin to shed some light on the next stage of the campaign. Giuliani and Tancredo (they sound like two medieval knights!) are sharpening their weapons in case the skirmish in Iowa and New Hampshire ends by exposing too much of the leading candidates. It might not be very edifying but it certainly will provide for juicy blog stuff.

The Numbing of America

It seems that an alarming number of Americans is becoming insouciant, bored, disinterested observers of the world around them. Many of them do not even read the local paper nor watch television news. They are so inured by the reports of local homicides, state wildfires, suicide bombers in Baghdad or Kabul, DUI car accidents, or the melting of polar ice, that they seek some relaxation by reading about Paris Hilton most recent drunkenness or by shooting it out in some infantile video games

Part of the blame for this national disease is the media’s obsession with crime. Without crime, newspapers, television channels and fiction writers would simply go bankrupt. In fact, the media manages to multiply at least by three the number of local crimes. The first day, television and newspapers show the police stretching the wretched crime scene yellow tape between two innocent trees. The body of the dead victim lays covered with a blanket on the pavement. The second day (after a second show of the above), the media presents a sadistic and manipulative interview with the mother, the widow, or the son of the dead person. Tears (naturally) flow. The third day (after repeating for the second time everything above), they show pictures of the funeral. If the case is still pending or intriguing, they send their evidence to Larry King, a talented interviewer mesmerized by crime, and to some of his favorite fellow workers (usually Geragos for the defense and Nancy Grace for the prosecution) to begin an endless series of interviews endlessly repeated in the weekends. The number of commercials sold per crime is, I guess, a professional secret. With a little luck, the story becomes a national best seller of the New York Times’ thriller novels.

One crime that has furnished American television with hours and hours of profitable showing, is, of course, the shameful war in Iraq.
Television producers have the disgusting idea that showing dead bodies of innocent victims on the streets of Baghdad or pictures of American soldiers kicking down the house doors of terrified women and children, will in some perverse manner foster among peaceful Americans a sense of pride in our young men and women who risk and lose their lives for a cause they have to know is not very popular at home. They seem to ignore that such a pride is inexorably mixed with a profound indignation toward the older politicians who put our young men and women in harm’s way just to promote their delusional political schemes.

TV producers seem also convinced that the daily showing of made-in-the-USA crimes and dantesque war atrocities will in some way discourage violence in our society. Unfortunately, most sociologists disagree with them: familiarity with violence arouses the criminal mind. President Bush is very proud that the killing takes place in the Ansar province of Iraq rather than in Peoria. As frequently, he is hopelessly wrong. Let him check the crime statistics of Richmond, California, or Camden, New Jersey.

American television news is not going now through one of its more memorable phases. The giants of the recent past (Cronkite, Brokaw, Rather, Barbara Walters, etc) have been replaced (not in all cases) by a not particularly intelligent bunch of reporters, or (in some cases) by a clique of pretty women and handsome guys who seem only interested in flirting with each other and with displaying their charming sense of humor, even when the news they share with us calls for tears rather than chuckles. Even intelligent and highly professional reporters, like Anderson Cooper or Wolf Blitzer, meekly submit to the adoption of commercial and childish sobriquets; Cooper is 360° (a Franco joke of my youth: “Could Franco change his mind?” Answer: “any moment, 360°!”), Blitzer is “the situation” (not “the situation room”).

To make things worse, some networks (for instance, the notorious Fox Network) have become 100% republican, they are as loyal to Bush as Goebbels was to you know whom. Some individual reporters forget about “reporting” and become unashamedly champions of some ideological issues. The propagandist du jour is Lou Dobbs, who is obsessively convinced that his job is to persuade rather than to inform others. In many channels, we do not get the news, but an individual’s spin on the news. Lou gets really mean and passionate whenever he speaks about illegal immigration (namely, all the time). Recently, he has recruited the help of a cold female beauty and a Latino fast-gun to spread his anti-immigration tirade. It goes without saying that the beauty and the Latino agree with their angry boss in everything he screams about. Is he running for President? According to his own polls, 99% of his audience (not bad, almost as many as those who voted for Saddam Hussein or for Franco) would now vote for an independent populist, as he advertises himself.

Some of the television shows that attempt to plumb the depth of Americans’ familiar knowledge (like Who Wants to be a Millionaire, or, in a more serious manner, Jeopardy) reveal in many cases minds practically immersed in irrelevant trivia: dates, titles of Hollywood movies; names of actors, actresses; dates of weddings or divorces; lyrics of songs, gold records, debuts in Broadway, etc, etc. Obviously, tabloids are much more read than serious journals and magazines, of which there is plenty to choose from. Celebrities are much better known than the leaders in Congress or the members of the state legislatures. Is this the best way to spread the blessings of democracy in the Middle East or anywhere in the world?

America is in trouble. Iowans: we count on you come January 3, 2008 to begin changing course, this time 180 degrees, at least.

Open Letter to Mr. Lou Dobbs:

Your obsessive reports on illegal immigration are quickly eroding my patience. Let me ask you a few questions:
When you talk about “securing our border,” you always mean the border with Mexico, never the border with Canada or our harbors in the Atlantic or the Pacific. Why?
-Do you know how many Mexican terrorists were part of the 9/11 group? Answer: not a single one.
-Do you know how many Mexican terrorists are (or have been) in Guantanamo (our national disgrace). Answer: not a single one-
-Do you know how many Mexicans were involved in the Oklahoma terrorist attack? Answer: not a single one.
-Do you know how many Mexicans were caught in the bombing of the commuter trains in Madrid? Answer: not a single one.
-Do you know how many Mexican terrorists were responsible for the suicide bombings in Bali, Indonesia? Answer: not a single one.
Conclusion: just your insinuation that a tight control (National Guard. high fence from coast to coast) of our border with Mexico is essential to our national security, is an undeserved insult to the people of Mexico, period.

-You seem to think that the poor Mexicans who cross the border (fence or no fence) are a threat to our national security, that they are (as Bush would probably say) potential ”terrorists.” The truth is that 90% of them come here seeking work; 10% come here to sell drugs. The latter group is sometimes (not always!) armed, but unlike the terrorists of London, Madrid or Bali, they do not kill innocent civilians but other drug dealers who invade their turf. To portray them as thirsty-for-American-blood members of “global terrorism.” is an integral part of the great American lie about the war on terror, a lie that is conveniently designed to support the President’s crash violations of the American Constitution regarding the separation of powers. It is the same lie that portrays as terrorists the poor Sunnis and Shiites of Iraq (who have been fighting each other for more than 1,000 years) who, once they get tired of killing each other, plan (as Bush says in other words) to swim across the seas to begin the killing of imperialist Americans in Miami or New Jersey.

The plain truth is that the Mexicans who come here to work on the fields are some of the nicest people on earth: they maintain the California rural economy and send millions of dollars to their families back in Mexico, thus supporting the trade between the USA and Mexico (second only in volume to our trade with Canada), In most cases Social Security taxes are deducted from their meager wages for benefits they will never receive! To call them “terrorists,” Mr. Dobbs, is simply ridiculous. To link in any way the illegal immigrants from Mexico with Osama Bin Laden is absolutely preposterous. Only a generation of Americans brain-washed by American newspapers and American television, can swallow such a monumental misrepresentation. But Bush keeps on smiling: ”as long as Americans fear, they will be apathetic and submissive,” so back to the helicopter for another photo-op in one of the red states.

It was truly pathetic to see Democratic candidates for the presidency (almost all of them) discussing with poorly controlled passion whether illegal immigrants should be given an American drivers’ license. One had the impression that the future of this nation depended on that!! Can you imagine the Latino great hunting going on our freeways if the High Way Patrol were told that most of those people who look brown are most likely illegal drivers, alien felonious fellows who take advantage of our emergency hospital rooms and our public school system? You forget, amigo Dobbs, that most of those children were born in the US and are as Americans as your pal Rick Sanchez, or you yourself, for that matter.

What the Democratic candidates had to say, though, pales by comparison with the diatribes of their Republican competitors in the CNN YouTube electoral debate. Every word they said was an echo of your jeremiads in the same television network, Mr. Dobbs.

With a little bit of luck, dear Lou, you could run for president as a member of the “populist party.” You might get 99% of the vote, but not mine, I’m happy to say.