...or maybe 1,000,000 more times. I don't know. I do know I'll be doing it as long as Barack Obama (D/R-Vichy) is in this thing. Is this racial? Fuck no. If it were Feingold or Wyden in her position, you'd have an argument. I'm neither Black nor Christian.
When I started this blog in August of 2005, there were two Democrats who really scalded my nuts: Jr. U.S. Senator Clinton (NY) and Jr. U.S. Senator Obama (IL). Both struck me as bad representatives of the Democratic party I joined at 18: corporatist, "wet" on hot-button social issues, "wet" on peace, but very very "dry" on "law-and-order," capital punishment, Christ, maximum punishment, their macroeconomic and trade views unclear. Moreover, their "rock-star" status put them in my face constantly. Both had impeded my preferred Connecticut Democratic senatorial nominee, Ned Lamont. Too bad for them, Lamont won.
Come the NY Senatorial primary, I voted for Jonathan Tassini because his views more closely matched mine. In the general election which pitted Clinton against Spencer, I voted "present."
Up in Connecticut, however, Bill and Hillary Clinton gave tepid support and money to Lamont, whose campaign was run by Jim Dean, brother of Howard and how head of his initial organization, DFA. "Fulsome" in his support for his senate "rabbi' Joe Lieberman (I-MustKillSaracens) was Barack Obama. We all know how that turned out.
Lieberman. Odd choice for a mentor. Dick Durbin's the logical choice, no? Or maybe Tom Harkin. Perhaps, Evan Bayh. Or Herbert Kohl. Or he was shopping for a Jew with some name recognition, Russ Feingold. All experienced Midwestern Democrats. No, Obama chose the most right-wing Democrat in the Senate and perhaps one of the most right-wing senators, period. The absolute most divisive figure in the party, but one of the most beloved by the chat shows. Ah, the penny drops. That "speech". It made me sick to begin with because it was so corny and was so well-received by the media. There was something else about it I couldn't quite put my finger on. Maybe it was the bit about "worshipping a mighty GAWD." Maybe it was the peculiar positioning of the word "gays" in the speech especially in the time following Governor Mitt Romney's signature into law the Gay Marriage bill in Massachusetts and the proposed Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment becoming such a litmus test for all other Republicans. I don't know why, but from that moment on I just didn't like that guy at all. Me cae mal, as we say. I guess I hate right-wing religious demagogues.
And as he was given such media prominence I studied him. And nothing I saw made me change my mind. Not his rhetoric, not his voting record, and certainly not his personality. The deal was sealed when he went on that Fundamentalist Christian tour with Warren and Dobson and those guys.
Many people find HRC's personality abrasive. I don't. She doesn't have The Dog's skill but she has her own way of doing things which is kind of by the books. Her senate career has been marked by a tremendous amount of activity but most of it committee and behind-the-scenes work. She observed a Senate protocol and gave Senior NY Senator Charles "Red-Light" Schumer his beloved face-time. I generally deal in specifics but as Obama has made this race about trying to catch smoke with a fly-swatter, I don't think I'm out of line thinking about personality. As much as Clinton's views were a bit DLC for my tastes, she had an air of class about her -- she was always tough as a bar of iron -- and the quantitative analyst in my really appreciated the way she left little to chance in her campaigns. I don't know. I just kind of liked her. Me cae bien. I became open to the thought of voting for her when, after stomping Tassini by 60 points in the primary, she refused to have a victory party. She knew there were people like me out there and she wasn't going to piss us off for no reason even thought we don't count.
Every now and then the fun side of her comes out. Her school-housing of McCain in the vodka shots contest. The "oh, we're just getting warmed up here, Wolf..." I have no idea of how the Clinton marriage arrangement works but I know a guy like the Big Dog is not staying married to a woman without a sense of humor.
I was not pleased at all by her vote for Kyl-Lieberman, but -- wow-- Obama (the non-politician) split the difference and voted "absent." That was the same guy who's the "anti-war" candidate, si o no? That was the same guy who believed in "talking with our enemies," si o no? Didn't Edwards --like -- sponsor something that promoted the war in Iraq?
In a perfect world Kucinich would be viable or Edwards would be for real or Paul wouldn't be crazy. It's a political world, though, and a democratic republic. No candidate gives you everything you want and all of them have to raise money and get into bed with all kinds of thugs and corporations and shady characters and deal with laundered money and so forth. As clean and honorable as I think Kucinich is, I have no idea how he would be if got back to the biggest of the bigtime. I know that he threw it all away on a point of principle in 1979 but how he got there to begin with in a city like Cleveland with all of its ethnic Democratic machines is anyone's guess. Municipal politics makes national politics look indeed like beanbag.
So, we come to Barack Obama. And some points to ponder. Every politician has skeletons in his closet. The Clintons have many, many: the "Wise Oriental Gentleman" Hu and Dan Lasater, to name but two extreme examples. McCain has the bones of a very bad boy named Charles Keating in his. Giuliani has a list as long as your arm, starting with Kerik and Larry "Twin Towers" Silverstein. Barack Obama, we now find out nationally, has Tony Rezko. Mr. Rezko was not some random person Obama did "5 hours of work for" on behalf of some church. Mr. Rezko was the man who taught Obama Chicago politics. Obama met Rezko while doing his little social experiment in the streets while Hillary Clinton was serving as a corporate lawyer on the board of Wal-Mart. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that an ambitious young pol would seek the guidance and money of an urban fixer. That's politics. Obama would have been silly not to have sought out a Rezko as a young man to show him how the gears meshed or grinded. What it is not is a "new kind of transformative politics that gets past the tired old politics of yesteryear." That's is how it's always been and how it always will be. And that's the problem with running as a a choir-boy who's "above all this." When it turns out that he's just another politican like everybody else, the sting is bad, bad, bad. So, in his moment of crisis, to whom does Obama run? Right into the welcoming arms of Pat Robertson. If that doesn't tell you everything you need to know about Obama, nothing will. Tony Rezko is nobody to be proud of but he scares me a lot less than Pat Robertson or Joe Lieberman do.
Obama's a Democrat by default because the Republican Party as an institution barely exists in America's big cities. Obama was living in Chicago when he decided to launch his political career so he had no choice but to be a Democrat. That didn't mean that he ever supported the national party platform. It merely meant that he had the letter "D" following his name and could pick a clubhouse from which to run. To Obama's credit he really hasn't hid what he believes. It's everything in the DLC or PPI handbook with a creamy sauce of Fundamentalist Christianity and homophobia on top. He has his own style of campaigning and we're all seeing it. He does the inspriational thing. He does the generational thing. He does the religious thing. He avoids the specifics but is always quick to pay homage and fealty to the Republicans. He does just what HRC said. He says whatever suits him and then denies it. He's a tough campaigner, though. HRC is beating him to a pulp but he's taking it and is not afraid to fight her at all.
I got a hint of this movie before during the Harold Ford, Jr., senatorial campaign in 2006. Ford, currently head of the DLC, ran a bit like Obama. He even looked a little like Obama, light-skinned African-American whom whites could tolerate because he ran on the whole "bootstraps" thing and was way religious. Ford, Jr., was even more "that way" than Obama is but when the loving press (and whom in politics does the press love more than a Black man who tells other Black men that their problems are "moral" and come from a lack of "personal responsibilty)found the picture of Ford with contributors and strippers at a private party following the previous year's Super Bowl, Ford said "I like women and I like football. What's the big deal?" I thought that was rad beyond belief and I said to myself, he's just won himself and election. Unfortunately, not so much. Black pol with White stripper at bacchanal played horribly in Tennessee not matter how cool an answer it was he gave. So, Ford's back to where he was selling Jesus by the pound and snake oil for anti-biotics. Obama has tried to learn from Ford's mistake. Ford has gone back to being the slightly anemic Alan Keyes and Obama's going to hew to the myth as long as he can. The thing is that Ford, Jr., is very politically wise beyond his years having grown up in the Memphis machine with a powerful father who was also a U.S. Rep.
Obama is not so resilient. He's a very cranky guy. I like cranky Black guys in the public eye, as a rule. I liked Dick Allen. Curt Flood. Barry Bonds. Brian Lara. Gary Sheffield. Stephon Marbury. I like them because I'm cranky myself. What I don't like are cranky guys who represent politics far to my right, are beloved by the media in spite of their crankiness (no rebellion points), and can affect the world in ways I can't predict, but, given their association with folks like Pat Robertson and Joe Lieberman, ways I don't expect to like.
If you want to know about Obama. Here's the guy to tell you. And don't forget to read all the stuff in the Chicago Tribune as well. http://www.taylormarsh.com/
Why not Edwards? Again, because I'm not buying. Because he doesn't really go for it as an anti-poverty crusader. Because he let Obama make fun of him two times in the second half of the debate without laying down the gin hand: "Barack, with all due respect you grew up wealthy and your experience "in the streets" was a social experiment; my dad was an intinerant millworker, so I know poverty from experience you know it from above, so don't condsecend to me...[camera pans to Edwards's father; Edwards mouths 'I love you, Dad,' and it's over]." Instead, HE not HRC played awkwardly the race/gender card.
Why Clinton? Well, don't waste your time telling me that she's not progressive. I'm nuts but I'm not stupid. I know exactly where she stands on all the issues. Slightly to Obama's left. I know she was a "Goldwater Girl" in high school and a "College Republican." That's not so bad. The flirtation with the Republicans that marks Obama's political career is a been-there-done-that thing for her. I appreciate that she has the best grasp on economics and finance of the three. While her foreign policy is too aggressive for me, Obama's all over the place, and it's of so little importance to Edwards that he's agreed not to provide any federal support to colleges and universities who ban US Military recruiters. That's great. We may lose a cure for cancer or not be able to pay the scholarship for the next Jackson Pollock so that the military can have more meat for the abbatoir.
I appreciate that she's loyal to the Democratic Party. I appreciate that she's about winning not about saving face. She's been crapped on and spat on so much already, what does it matter? Yet, in an odd way it does matter to her in the sense that she carries herself proudly and with class. I know how badly she wants to win and I like that. She's not going to leave anything to chance and she'll fight for every vote. Ambition's fine. I don't care that to some people it looks bad on a woman. It doesn't look bad to me. Show me a successful politician who didn't know how to fight and didn't have ambition. Most of all, I appreciate how seriously she's taken this campaign, how prepared she's been for every debate, how much recall of detail she's had, how tireless she's been.
The dynasty thing? Horseshit. Didn't Maureen Dowd tell us how it was glorious when the Bush restoration happened but it's dynastic if a Clinton one happens? Big deal. Just add another Anglo surname to the list of important ones.
I think I've closed the sale a number of times on Obama. My goal now I supposed is to fight another lonely battle -- convincing other American men that HRC's the one and to get the fuck off the "bitch" thing or the sense that you are not masculine if you vote for her. Let me tell you that you show that you are a bitch if you call her one. You're bold if you're not ashamed to admit you like her. I'll go further. The Panama connection is real. To all of my straight, male brothers, there is no shortage of Obama supporters who are metrosexuals getting their nails done each week, buying skin products and all that bullshit. Down here, there is no shortage of Clinton supporters who do all the baroque stuff you hear about in your favorite rap songs. And who are part of the left-wing of our PRD. So, what's it going to be then, eh?
Kelso's Nuts love you
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
You do realize this is all media drivel to justify their coverage of the election? With the primary schedule moving so far forward the period between Feb. 5 and the conventions is an eternity in political time. On Feb. 6 it will be all over for the Democrats and then what? 6 months of VP speculation?
Living in the Middle East and China and watching political discourse in a foreign language was more fun than listening to this crap on TV every day.
Kelso, I beg your pardon whilst I regurgitate for the record here:
After having a glimmer of hope that the articulate and intelligent Dennis Kucinich would at least be heard in the debates, I am once again disillusioned by the same old MSM BS. In spite of the public overwhelmingly wanting him in the 2000 debates they excluded Ralph Nader in similar fashion. I voted for Nader because he pointed out that the two major parties are essentially the same. That best represented my view and I feel that if more people could follow that, and more importantly be made aware of dissenting views (a big reason for my support of DK), then we would be on our way to REAL change.
It is depressing, not to mention dichotomous, that the U.S. Supreme Court can rule that campaign contributions are a form of protected free speech, but the two dominant political parties can conspire with the dominant corporatist media to shut out a dissenting voice from the free exchange of ideas. Squeezing DK out is once again cowardice of the highest order on the part of the MSM and the Democratic Party as well. I for one am through with them. I will not vote for their nominee. I am now convinced that Americans need things to get worse before they get better. People just aren't listening, and these middling campaigners, satisfying as a bowl of ramen noodles, are proof. They are caterers of a bland buffet of mashed potatoes with unsalted chicken gravy, cauliflower and navy beans. This country gets what it deserves for gorging at the Beltway sheep trough. Clinton or Obama, if they can out-juke the Rove juggernaut (and don't be surprised if they don't), will only be a band-aid for the ills that Bushism has wreaked.
PUBLICLY-FINANCED ELECTIONS NOW ! (right - a perfect world)
Anonymous:
I live in the Republic Of Panama. I watch the local news and the news on Caracol (Colombian Int'l channel) and read La Prensa. You don't think I know how it is? We have our tabloids, too. Sometimes, I'll read La Critica which is sort of the equivalent of the UK's Mirror. You get the crime stories, the human interest, the sex and cooking tips and the big sports section and an editorial page that leans left. La Prensa's a serious paper, kind of center-left, kind of like the old LA Times. It has so much display advertising that they really can fill it up with excellent content in every section. Like everywhere outside the USA, the news is THE NEWS. And a lot of it is really boring. The way it should be. Economic issues dominate. There are no hot-button social issues because Panama like most of modern South America has adopted a Western European approach to things. I have not heard a single word about abortion since I moved here, for example. It's available and it's paid for by national health. Full stop.
I like the laughs of American politics but more than that I follow American politics because American politics followed ME. American politics follows everyone. It's all just theater. Until it isn't. Believe me. Ask Don Siegelman or Maher Arrar.
O'TIM: You didn't actually expect anyone not the leaders nor the MSM would LET Kucinich debate in a short-handed format, did you? You've been watching these things. HRC could play him to a draw with her poise and preparedness but neither Obama nor Edwards would stand a chance debating Kucinich. Kucinich is a much more loyal Democrat that the most loyal of the big 3 (Clinton). He has better "ideas" than Obama. And he's been a tireless fighter for the poor and unfortunate for his entire career not as a campaign strategy like Edwards. And when has Dennish Kucinich ever been afraid to answer a question straight. Christ, the next two most straight-up guys in the party, Feingold and Sanders (Independent but caucuses with Dems) are a little too eely sometimes.
You are absolutely right. This charade will go along until somebody finds a court that can crack Buckley v Valeo. Clinton, Edwards and Obama are center-right Democrats. That's it. Of the three, I think I've chosen the best one and have called the worst one correctly. But the national party isn't so bad. The leaders suck but there's the CBC and the CPC and Dean. Kucinich just put up articles of impeachment. Nothing wrong with that.
Kelso, another truly SUPERLATIVE post.
I'm sure you are aware that your favorite paper, "The Tissue of Lies" has endorsed your candidate:
"The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president."
I tend to agree, but I think your endoresement is far more meaty.
On another, more note, I also think they have summed "RUDY" up nicely within the body of their endorsement of McCain:
"The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.
"Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn’t share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges.
"The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city’s and the country’s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign."
Hope all is well with you South of the Border.
AXN
AXN:
Thanks for the praise. Coming from you it means more than all the blogger awards in the world. You know what I think of your intelligence and writing ability.
Just like all MSM outlets they hate Clinton. They especially hate her because "Whitewater" was their baby with that jerk Gerth pretending he was the next Bob Woodward and instead of folding, the Clintons stared them down.
Time and again, the Tissue Of Lies was predicting and advocating the Dog's expulsion from the Presidency and had nary a word of praise for his wife.
They're stuck here. She's either going to be President or a U.S. Senator for a long time and they have to live with that. I appreciate the endorsement but with the glowing praise of Obama and the faint praise for Clinton, this is clearly a reluctant, practical, endorsement.
Now, as to Adolf Giuliani...when he was Mayor the Tissue was a big cheerleader for him. Bob Herbert was a lone voice in opposition. In addition to the softball Metro coverage, they'd run features like James Traub's "MY GIULIANI MOMENT," and shit like that. Once again, the Tissue has shown itself to be front-runners of the worst kind.
Personally, I think Mitt Romney is the most qualified Republican to be president and Ron Paul has the most intriguing ideas. I'm not happy with either Adolf or Walnuts.
And, remember my little lesson in Jewish English. There are only two curses "cancer" and "Hitler," so when I call him "Adolf", it means I'm serious, not being "cute."
Right on Kelso. Good job leaving the US for sunnier and happier locales. When you see the world for what it really is I bet you are glad to be gone.
I love it when the news is boring because I can think for myself rather than the continual op/ed that passes for news in the US.
There was a time in China last year when they opened up and let their citizens invest overseas in limited amounts. The news station spent 10 minutes explaining the process and how to go about applying, why diversification is important, what you can invest in along with the limits. Would you ever see that here? NO chance. I caught it on the English and Chinese language broadcast with my friend asking me questions afterwards about stocks. Boring? Yes. But I felt smarter after watching it rather than dumber after watching American TV.
BTW, I am convinced the best thing for this country would be a DK/FT trophy wife debate but sadly both dropped out.
Funny thing, ever since 1980 there has not been a Presidential election without a Bush or Clinton on the ballot.
Anonymous: Yeah, I'm not in a real big hurry to come back. There's good and bad in every country but this place suits me well.
As an ex-pat I would advise everyone to keep a real close watch on all legislative movements with regard to anything involving any type of identification: passports, drivers' licenses, the REAL ID ACT, etc. The "terrorist" and "illegal alien" things are canards. It is about control of Americans withing America's borders.
The current "National Security State" knows all too well that so long as you are a US resident THEY have the power. Once you've left and have established residency and a path to citizenship elsewhere YOU have the power. I believe that any wall they put up between the USA and Mexico has more to do with keeping Americans in than it does with keeping Mexicans out.
Internal passports and strong travel visa restrictions for everyone a la USSR are coming to America very soon. Be wary.
It's funny. I recall sometime during my first month living outside, a friend here asked me what's was up with the USA and he'd always thought it was a capitalist country and why had it suddenly become the world's 2nd biggest communist dictatorship?
kelso,
Americans identify themselves to the state to obtain drivers' licences, voting registration, passports, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security and to pay the IRS.
Americans further identify themselves to bureaucracies to obtain credit from banks, credit cards, forms of insurance, and to go to school and college.
It is possible to live "off the grid" in the US, but it seems like way too much work. Based on the small numbers of people who do, the feeling is widespread.
Meanwhile, "living off the grid" in cities is expensive. Managing small amounts of cash becomes a full-time occupation.
That aside, it is comical that some Americans feel it's possible for the government to have even more access to personal information than it has today.
If the federal and state governments want to know something about a citizen that isn't already documented, there's always Google.
Or websites that connect to court records and virtually every other record in which one's name appears. However, I'll give you one that has proven tougher to crack than nuclear secrets.
It is impossible for adoptees, such as myself, to obtain our original birth certificates if we were born in NY.
Adoptees born in NY in the last 20 years can get theirs. But older adoptees cannot.
To overcome this strange lunacy, organizations have sprung up that link biological relatives separated by adoptiion or foster care. Some of the methods used to get birth/biological information clearly involve bribery. But nobody on either side is questioning the tactics.
Thus, my perspective on Big Brother is this: for many years the government possessed information about me that I myself did not know, but dearly wanted to know.
I had no secrets from the government. But the government kept me from facts about myself. How bizarre.
Kelso:
I am not sure if you have checked out this organization but I highly recommend it to protect your rights as an expat.
http://www.aca.ch/index.htm
The government gives no rights to expats although they are willing to tax them.
Everywhere I went overseas people asked what went wrong with America. Why they are a nation that fights rather than espouses the values in the constitution. We went from having the sympathy of the world on 9/12/01 to being the most despised nation on the planet in less than 5 years. The country is not on the right track.
No_slappz:
I agree with what you wrote up to the part about adoptees about which I was completely ignorant, so I appreciate the information.
My view on the former is not so much one of instrumentality. You are absolutely right. Anything anyone wants to know about you, they may find out more or less at will. The authorities have a GLUT of information already. The problem for Big Brother is that despite all the money they get for surveillance and the entire anti-terror/criminal justice infrastructure, there's no getting around there being a handful of them and 10 zillion of us.
Again, not my fight. I don't live in the USA and don't intend to return, but I do have concern for family and friends and -- hard as this will be for you to believe -- I do have a whisper of patriotism in me. I don't want to see the USA go the way of the USSR.
I probably should have made this point more clearly in my comment.
Self-policing by the populace is the only way a country that large with relatively few people can be controlled by a very small number. This is why I think people should oppose all new surveillance measures even if as a material issue it doesn't matter, because without some resistance there will be thought police and I assure you they won't be run by liberal university professors insisting on politically-correct language vis-a-vis minorities and women. They will be your guys, buddy. And "politically incorrect" ideas will be loosely defined as anything that expresses displeasure with the government, religion or the largest corporations. Just as "politically incorrect" language in the Soviet Union was anything that even expressed displeasure or disagreement with the Communist Party and/or the writings of Marx as interpreted by the Central Soviet.
Anonymous: Thanks for the link. I'll check it out. I am well aware of these issues, trust me. Ex-patriation is a privilege not a right and it is a privilege that must be served, if one is to avail oneself of the protections from the USA offered by many nations abroad.
Anonymous: I just checked it out. It's very useful in terms as an information source but I can see plainly that it's about the LAST organization, I'd ever JOIN!
I'll tell you what an observant person learns real quick with regard to expatriation. The "necessarys" in no particular order are:
1) A well-connected attorney
2) Influential friends
3) Connections to the major political parties
4) Muscle
5) A respectful attitude, meaning YOU don't know BETTER about anything just because you're an American, meaning SPEAK AS LITTLE ENGLISH AS POSSIBLE, meaning when organizing your affairs, always present it as "how may i HELP ?(insert country, organization etc.)"
Anonymous:
I don't even know how often I'll visit that site. I've made an effort from the first day to blend in and be part of my host country's community. Language fluency and physical appearance help a lot. And I don't know if you've noticed this in your travels, but I've found that being fluent in Spanish and having an indeterminate "ethnic (to Americans)" appearance, I've been more or less EXCLUDED from the American ex-pat community here. They consist for the most part of White Gentiles from the South and Midwest, either retirees or ex-military or employees of corporations or people looking to get rich quick. I'm about the last person they want to have anything to do with. I'm just another "local" to them and that's fine by me. Or, if they twig to the fact that I'm American, again, by appearance by language fluency and comfort in the local community, I'm not of any interest to them. They have to "deal" with Panamanians all the time. Why would they be interested in the company of an American who's "gone native"?
Kelso:
You are going to have great success by choosing to fit into the local community rather than deal with the other expats. I have found that if you show a small amount of local knowledge/interest and know a bit of the local dialect people bend over backwards for you. In China, there were people who looked at me as an American who must be rich because he was an American and others who considered it lucky that an American would be doing business with them. The latter always gave me better prices so I kept going back.
There was a small low to middle class area by my apartment which I used to frequent all the time. After a month they all knew me and helped me learn a bit of Chinese so that when I went to buy something it was more commerce and less pointing. I actually spent more time with them and prefered their company to that of the expats. The language barrier then quickly broke down. I helped with English and they helped with Chinese. You have to keep your wits about you to seperate the good from the bad but thats par for the course in New York. After 3 months I actually cared about the married couple who ran the food and phone card stand when the wife had her baby. Happiest time of my life.
Middle East was the same thing. If you show a little respect and interest in the local culture people open up to you and will give you tremendous respect in return.
I wonder if where we went wrong was the government or our values but somewhere in the last 20 years we got off track as a country and I doubt we get on track anytime soon.
No_slappz:
I think Anonymous meant "the same thing" in terms of how best to approach life as an American ex-pat in China and the Middle East.
Luckily, for me down here the Arab (Muslim, Christian, Secular) and Jewish (Ashkenaz, Sephard--Religious or Secular) communities are very close and all of the stuff that has you in a lather is considered "cosas de afuera quen no tienen nada que ver con nosotros." But, to be fair, we're all businesspeople and have a lot in common. I don't see any "poverty" or "backwardness" in the Panamanian Arab community at all.
Yet, there's a special connection apart from that. It's very much like this: if you're Jewish and you meet an Arab, you're predisposed to like him and vice versa.
kelso, I know what anonymous meant.
The problem for him lies in his belief that somehow individual Americans can spread good will in muslim countries through building relations with the common muslim man. As though that's the key to peace with the middle east.
He's wrong. The problems are entirely the result of governing by the Koran. In other words, if you take the muslim out of the theocracy, friendly relations are possible, as you have experienced.
My neighborhood in Brooklyn sits at the nexus of Midwood -- seriously Jewish, as you most likely know -- and a muslim neighborhood, which is largely Pakistani.
No acts of terrorism have occurred here. No hate crimes, at least none involving muslims and Jews.
However, as long as muslim theocracies exist, trouble will boil. Hence, periodically removing an islamic despot is good for the world.
As you have seen, when factors other than religion bring different people together, they can enjoy productive relationships if the society in which they meet is free from government-mandated prejudice.
In short, if Iraq were like Panama, the country would become an international powerhouse.
No no_slappz, you did not know what I meant which is why you went on your rant.
Kelso was correct.
When you become an expat and choose to live in a foreign country you should show some respect for the country and its people since you are a 'guest.' Little things like learning simple phrases, counting from 0-9, etc. go a long way to bringing a cultural gap. It is not about spreading good will but showing respect for the culture in which you are residing.
anonymous:
"It is not about spreading good will but showing respect for the culture in which you are residing."
What you have advised is an essential element of good will.
kelso,
You mentioned something several days ago. Something to which I had intended to respond. But responding slipped my mind until a little while ago when I was at the Y with my older son.
He was on the basketball court wearing his Hudson Guild jersey. He played a number of games there last year when his school coach invited him to play on a non-school team. Nice place. His team suffered in those games, scoring about half the points of the opponents.
No_slappz:
There's no disagreement between you and "ANON". I think you over-interpreted his remarks. He wasn't saying Americans living in the Middle-East should be missionaries. He was saying the opposite. And like your in NYC experience, I bear Muslims no ill will. I loathe ALL religious extremists and draw no distinctions really.
But don't argue that point with me. It's just how I PERSONALLY approach things. I know there are opposing points of view which have validity, but I'm happy with my point of view.
My aunt lives in Midwood. Nice area.
Good read that Hudson Guild is still going with its youth sports programs. I don't know if the diminution in membership in the ILGWU -- and the de-Mitchell-Lama-izing of the ILG -- has affected the overall youth program or not but good to see the sports still afloat.
kelso,
Small detail. I live in West Midwood, which is adjacent to the Midwood you know. The two neighborhoods are different. West Midwood is several blocks of houses occupied by a big range of people. Mixed in every way.
Not the pure Jewish stronghold of Midwood. Instead, a stewpot of humanity.
Do you think when Barack gives a speech in Syracuse NY he will start by saying "What a crap day the Lord has made"?
Well, G'sB:
Since he didn't blame his loss in NH on "the Lord" I'd bet my house you won't be hearing about the Lord making any crap days not in Syracuse, Rochester nor Buffalo
Post a Comment