(Published in Delaware County Daily Times, on Saturday, October 25, 2008)
By Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
Times Guest Columnist
What does U. S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., mean when he says “My country first?”
Is he sincere, does he really mean it? Let us see. If one puts his country first, he would listen to his country. How does one listen to a country? Who represents a country? The answer is as clear as a full moon on a pitch-dark sky: The people talk for their country.
So the question that begs a quick and clear answer is, does McCain listen to the people? Hardly. McCain listens mostly to himself and revels in admiring what he hears. He is desperate to win and he makes enemies of his opponents in the process.
The glaring example of him not listening to our country is the Iraqi war. He hasn’t listened to the people of America, and he hasn’t listened to the Iraqis, and he hasn’t listened to our friends and allies. The people want us to pull out our troops from Iraq and spare the lives of our brave men and women in uniform, and the civilian victims of the war, and spare billions of dollars that have been bled from our economy. So his claim that he puts his country first is bogus!
In his current campaign for the presidency of America, he had focused, almost exclusively, on his opponent’s lack of experience and trashed him frequently with the “Not ready to lead” epithet until he selected his own nominee for vice president—a person whose credentials on answering questions are lacking, and whose idea of debate is not to debate, but to blurb whatever she had crammed during the night before the debate.
At his age (72), he can easily pass on at anytime, yet the person whom he had chosen to succeed him lacks real experience in governing much more so than his opponent. What do we call that? How about hypocrisy? His inconsistency and stubbornness is amazing. It seems to me McCain thinks that whatever he does or says is the right thing to do and to say, logic and reasoning could take a hike.
His demeanor and rudeness amaze me. During the first presidential debate he accused his opponent of being naïve. He also slugged him with “he does not understand,” and its derivatives many times. A polished politician does not do that. Instead he would let the listeners come to the conclusion, by putting his experience to action.
Who of the two candidates is better qualified to know the difference between the words "tactic" and "strategy?”McCain thought of these words as military terms only. His opponent must not be allowed to use them. In fact, his opponent was right.
Our strategy is to withdraw from Iraq, and we use tactics, such as sending more troops to the war theater, to support that strategy without further endangering our troops. In McCain’s case we can say we developed a strategy to win the war at any cost, and we use tactics, such as sending more troops to the war theater, to support that strategy.
Here is one more note about the debate. McCain never looked at his opponent (he was perhaps afraid to get charmed) and he never looked at the audience. Instead he looked at the moderator as if he was seeking his approval and his encouragement. That was a poor debating tactic to support a strategy of winning the debate!
Since my high school study of the history of Western Europe and my college freshman study of Western Civilization, I have admired Winston Churchill as the leader who saved Western Europe from the ambitions and travails Germany. But reading “Churchill, Hitler, and 'The Unnecessary War,' "by Patrick J. Buchanan, I came out with a different picture about Churchill.
Churchill was a racist and a White Supremacist. He had been the cause of all evil that beset the World during more than five decades of the 20th century. I know McCain is not racist, but he admires Churchill, and I hope he would not emulate him if he will become our president. The United States can always defend itself; unlike Britain who needed our help for its survival during two world wars. Yet his cry, “Victory at all cost,” worries me because of the language McCain uses when he talks about the war on Iraq, and the wars which he might wage if he becomes our president.
His age is not a problem unless he makes it one. People of his age are usually wise and less vindictive, calculating and less impulsive, steady and less erratic than younger candidates. Nevertheless, McCain, based on my observations, and from reading his book “Worth the Fighting For,” is driven by only one force: a desire to achieve the next higher goal for his life.
I am worried about his way of making decisions. He acts on the bases of instincts and hunches--no further consultation and assessment. Scientists use instincts and hunches too, but they use them as a first step. They move on to prove or disprove their guesses.
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is far from perfect, but he seems more capable than his opponent of looking to the future rather than the past.
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi, a retired professor of engineering, lives in Clifton Heights
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Bankers as Sophisticated Beggars
The Quotation:
“Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. were told [by the US Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson] they would each get $25 billion; Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co., $20 billion each (plus an additional $5 billion for their recent acquisitions); the Goldman Sacks Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, $10 billion each, with the Bank of New York Mellon Corp. and State Street Corp. each receiving $2 to $3. Wells Fargo will get $5 billion for its acquisition of Wachovia Corp., and Bank of America the same amount for its purchase of Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc..”
--- The Philadelphia Inquirer, Tuesday October 14, 2008
(Based on report in The New York Times)
The Comment:
Let us say that Corporations run the world, and banks run corporations. Wall Street is the playgrounds of the banks. Then, the small business owners and the middle class folks are objects that are screwed on the playgrounds.
Let them fall back to what they had been before the monetary inventions: Bankers. Let them fall back to banking and eliminate the gambling aspect of Wall Street: no financial derivatives, no financial instruments, no manipulating innocent people out of their pants, and no nonsense.
The bankers invented these so called instruments to facilitate sucking it to uninitiated ordinary people. Let them give back the millions they have had collected in salaries and bonuses. The banks that are mentioned in the above stated quote are internationals: they are connected by the rays of the sun as it moves around earth (scientifically speaking the earth moves around the sun) from the morning to the next morning, and on again.
Let banks do banking, and let banking be banking, and not horse race on horse race runs.
As a tax paying concerned citizen of this generous country, I want to know when will the bankers pay us back our money, and what is the interest we would be collecting.
Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
10-14-2008
“Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. were told [by the US Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson] they would each get $25 billion; Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co., $20 billion each (plus an additional $5 billion for their recent acquisitions); the Goldman Sacks Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, $10 billion each, with the Bank of New York Mellon Corp. and State Street Corp. each receiving $2 to $3. Wells Fargo will get $5 billion for its acquisition of Wachovia Corp., and Bank of America the same amount for its purchase of Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc..”
--- The Philadelphia Inquirer, Tuesday October 14, 2008
(Based on report in The New York Times)
The Comment:
Let us say that Corporations run the world, and banks run corporations. Wall Street is the playgrounds of the banks. Then, the small business owners and the middle class folks are objects that are screwed on the playgrounds.
Let them fall back to what they had been before the monetary inventions: Bankers. Let them fall back to banking and eliminate the gambling aspect of Wall Street: no financial derivatives, no financial instruments, no manipulating innocent people out of their pants, and no nonsense.
The bankers invented these so called instruments to facilitate sucking it to uninitiated ordinary people. Let them give back the millions they have had collected in salaries and bonuses. The banks that are mentioned in the above stated quote are internationals: they are connected by the rays of the sun as it moves around earth (scientifically speaking the earth moves around the sun) from the morning to the next morning, and on again.
Let banks do banking, and let banking be banking, and not horse race on horse race runs.
As a tax paying concerned citizen of this generous country, I want to know when will the bankers pay us back our money, and what is the interest we would be collecting.
Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
10-14-2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
For progress, tranquility, and peace, I will not vote for McCain on November 4, 2008
By Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
(1)
What does U.S. Sen., John McCain mean when he says “My country first”?
Is he sincere, does he really mean it? Let us see. If one puts his country first, he would listen to his country. How does one listen to a country? Who represents a country? The answer is as clear as a full moon on a pitch dark sky: the people talk for their country.
So the question that begs a quick and clear answer is “Does McCain listen to the people?” Hardly. McCain listens mostly to himself and revels in admiring what he hears. He is desperate to win and in the process, he makes enemies of his opponents.
The glaring example of him not listening to our country is the Iraqi war; he hasn’t listened to the people of America, and he hasn’t listened to the people of Iraq, and he hasn’t listened to our friends and allies. The people want us to pull out our troops from Iraq and spare the lives of our brave men and women in uniform, and the civilian victims of the war, and spare billions of dollars that have been bled from our economy. So his claim that he puts his country first is bogus!
(2)
In his current campaign for the presidency of America, he had focused, almost exclusively, on his opponent’s lack of experience, and trashed him frequently with the “Not ready to lead” epithet, until he selected his own nominee for vice president—a person whose credentials on answering questions are lacking, and whose idea of debate is not to debate, but to blurb whatever she had crammed during the night before the debate.
At his age (72), he can easily pass on at anytime, yet the person whom he had chosen to succeed him lacks real experience in governing much more so than his opponent. What do we call that? How about hypocrisy? His inconsistency and stubbornness is amazing. It seems to me that McCain thinks that whatever he does or says is the right thing to do and to say, logic and reasoning could take a hike.
(3)
His demeanor and rudeness astonish me. During the first presidential debate he accused his opponent of being naïve. He also slugged him with “he does not understand,” and its derivatives, many times. A polished politician does not do that. Instead he would let the listeners come to the conclusion, by putting his experience to action.
Who of the two candidates is better qualified to know the difference between the meanings of the words "tactic" and "strategy"? McCain thought of these words as military terms only, and therefore he has ownership of them. His opponent must not be allowed to use them. In fact, his opponent was right.
Our strategy is to withdraw from Iraq, and we use tactics, such as sending more troops to the war theater, to support that strategy without further endangering our troops. In McCain’s case we can say we developed a strategy to win the war at all cost, and we use tactics, such as sending more troops to the war theater, to support that strategy.
Here is one more note about the debate. McCain never looked at his opponent (he was perhaps afraid to get charmed) and he never looked at the audience. Instead he looked at the moderator as if he was seeking his approval and his encouragement. That was a poor debating tactic to support a strategy of winning the debate!
(4)
Since my high school study of the history of Western Europe and my college freshman study of Western Civilization, I have admired Winston Churchill as the leader who saved Western Europe from the ambitions and travails of Germany. But reading “Churchill, Hitler, and 'The Unnecessary War,' "by Patrick J. Buchanan, I came out with a different picture of Churchill.
Churchill was a racist and a White Supremacist. He had been the cause of all evil that beset the World during more than five decades of the 20th century. I know that McCain is not racist, but he admires Churchill, and I hope he would not emulate him if he becomes our president. The United States can always defend itself; unlike Britain who needed our help for its survival during two world wars. Yet his cry, “Victory at all cost,” worries me because of the language McCain uses when he talks about the war on Iraq, and the wars which he might wage if he will become our president.
(5)
His age is not a problem unless he makes it one. People of his age are usually wise and less vindictive, calculating and less impulsive, steady and less erratic than younger candidates. Nevertheless, McCain, based on my observations, and from reading his book “Worth the Fighting For,” is driven by only one force: a desire to achieve the next higher goal for his life.
I am worried about his way of making decisions. He acts on the bases of instincts and hunches. No further consultation and assessment. Scientists use instincts and hunches too, but they use them as a first step. They move on to prove or disprove their guesses.
(6)
I share my conclusion with that of Trudy Rubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who wrote on Wednesday, October 1, 2008, U.S. Sen., Barack Obama, D-Ill., “… is far from perfect, but he seems more capable than his opponent of looking to the future rather than the past.”
(1)
What does U.S. Sen., John McCain mean when he says “My country first”?
Is he sincere, does he really mean it? Let us see. If one puts his country first, he would listen to his country. How does one listen to a country? Who represents a country? The answer is as clear as a full moon on a pitch dark sky: the people talk for their country.
So the question that begs a quick and clear answer is “Does McCain listen to the people?” Hardly. McCain listens mostly to himself and revels in admiring what he hears. He is desperate to win and in the process, he makes enemies of his opponents.
The glaring example of him not listening to our country is the Iraqi war; he hasn’t listened to the people of America, and he hasn’t listened to the people of Iraq, and he hasn’t listened to our friends and allies. The people want us to pull out our troops from Iraq and spare the lives of our brave men and women in uniform, and the civilian victims of the war, and spare billions of dollars that have been bled from our economy. So his claim that he puts his country first is bogus!
(2)
In his current campaign for the presidency of America, he had focused, almost exclusively, on his opponent’s lack of experience, and trashed him frequently with the “Not ready to lead” epithet, until he selected his own nominee for vice president—a person whose credentials on answering questions are lacking, and whose idea of debate is not to debate, but to blurb whatever she had crammed during the night before the debate.
At his age (72), he can easily pass on at anytime, yet the person whom he had chosen to succeed him lacks real experience in governing much more so than his opponent. What do we call that? How about hypocrisy? His inconsistency and stubbornness is amazing. It seems to me that McCain thinks that whatever he does or says is the right thing to do and to say, logic and reasoning could take a hike.
(3)
His demeanor and rudeness astonish me. During the first presidential debate he accused his opponent of being naïve. He also slugged him with “he does not understand,” and its derivatives, many times. A polished politician does not do that. Instead he would let the listeners come to the conclusion, by putting his experience to action.
Who of the two candidates is better qualified to know the difference between the meanings of the words "tactic" and "strategy"? McCain thought of these words as military terms only, and therefore he has ownership of them. His opponent must not be allowed to use them. In fact, his opponent was right.
Our strategy is to withdraw from Iraq, and we use tactics, such as sending more troops to the war theater, to support that strategy without further endangering our troops. In McCain’s case we can say we developed a strategy to win the war at all cost, and we use tactics, such as sending more troops to the war theater, to support that strategy.
Here is one more note about the debate. McCain never looked at his opponent (he was perhaps afraid to get charmed) and he never looked at the audience. Instead he looked at the moderator as if he was seeking his approval and his encouragement. That was a poor debating tactic to support a strategy of winning the debate!
(4)
Since my high school study of the history of Western Europe and my college freshman study of Western Civilization, I have admired Winston Churchill as the leader who saved Western Europe from the ambitions and travails of Germany. But reading “Churchill, Hitler, and 'The Unnecessary War,' "by Patrick J. Buchanan, I came out with a different picture of Churchill.
Churchill was a racist and a White Supremacist. He had been the cause of all evil that beset the World during more than five decades of the 20th century. I know that McCain is not racist, but he admires Churchill, and I hope he would not emulate him if he becomes our president. The United States can always defend itself; unlike Britain who needed our help for its survival during two world wars. Yet his cry, “Victory at all cost,” worries me because of the language McCain uses when he talks about the war on Iraq, and the wars which he might wage if he will become our president.
(5)
His age is not a problem unless he makes it one. People of his age are usually wise and less vindictive, calculating and less impulsive, steady and less erratic than younger candidates. Nevertheless, McCain, based on my observations, and from reading his book “Worth the Fighting For,” is driven by only one force: a desire to achieve the next higher goal for his life.
I am worried about his way of making decisions. He acts on the bases of instincts and hunches. No further consultation and assessment. Scientists use instincts and hunches too, but they use them as a first step. They move on to prove or disprove their guesses.
(6)
I share my conclusion with that of Trudy Rubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who wrote on Wednesday, October 1, 2008, U.S. Sen., Barack Obama, D-Ill., “… is far from perfect, but he seems more capable than his opponent of looking to the future rather than the past.”
Thursday, August 14, 2008
McCain Should Have Shown Wisdom
By Mahmoud S. Audi
I understand the plight of a country and its people when it is invaded and occupied by a more powerful country, and its overwhelming war machinery. I understand it, because I am close to what has been going on in the Middle East, for more than sixty years, where only the military noise is heard, and diplomacy has been in a coma. I pray for the day when countries of armada military powers, to consider their neighbors as partners in prosperity, and not as masters and followers. This is not likely to happen soon.
So the United States as the greatest military and economic power in the World, should practice wisdom, and activate its moral power, which is the strongest ever, in its dealing with the Russian invasion of Georgia.
On a personal level, my heart goes for the terrorized Georgians, but as the President of the United States I should maintain active neutrality. I would not sit on my laurels while the fighting is going on. Instead, I would ask both sides to halt the fighting. Insist that they do stop the fighting without threatening, and without intimidation, send diplomats to convince both sides to stop while acknowledging the legitimate claims of each side of the fighting.
McCain demonstrated his thirst for … ; seemingly wars are his means of solving problems. When he went to the media microphone and said that he was speaking on behalf of all Americans, he made a mistake, he was presumptuous. His aids should remind him, that there is a sitting president (whether we like his policies or not) who is given the authority to represent us. You may or may not become president. Also, “We are all Berliners!” that is JFK’s sentence in Berlin, but he was president. McCain rushed to say “We are all Georgians!” first he does not have our authority to say that, second as an American, I want a president who would not take sides, instead, he would retain the position of a credible active mediator.
Mr. McCain, take it easy. Do not rush when you are talking, wait and think, when answering a question, look at the person who asked the question. Do not rush when you are walking. You seem to be out of breath; it's not worth it. Who knows we may be able to hear some wisdom rushing from your mouth.
I understand the plight of a country and its people when it is invaded and occupied by a more powerful country, and its overwhelming war machinery. I understand it, because I am close to what has been going on in the Middle East, for more than sixty years, where only the military noise is heard, and diplomacy has been in a coma. I pray for the day when countries of armada military powers, to consider their neighbors as partners in prosperity, and not as masters and followers. This is not likely to happen soon.
So the United States as the greatest military and economic power in the World, should practice wisdom, and activate its moral power, which is the strongest ever, in its dealing with the Russian invasion of Georgia.
On a personal level, my heart goes for the terrorized Georgians, but as the President of the United States I should maintain active neutrality. I would not sit on my laurels while the fighting is going on. Instead, I would ask both sides to halt the fighting. Insist that they do stop the fighting without threatening, and without intimidation, send diplomats to convince both sides to stop while acknowledging the legitimate claims of each side of the fighting.
McCain demonstrated his thirst for … ; seemingly wars are his means of solving problems. When he went to the media microphone and said that he was speaking on behalf of all Americans, he made a mistake, he was presumptuous. His aids should remind him, that there is a sitting president (whether we like his policies or not) who is given the authority to represent us. You may or may not become president. Also, “We are all Berliners!” that is JFK’s sentence in Berlin, but he was president. McCain rushed to say “We are all Georgians!” first he does not have our authority to say that, second as an American, I want a president who would not take sides, instead, he would retain the position of a credible active mediator.
Mr. McCain, take it easy. Do not rush when you are talking, wait and think, when answering a question, look at the person who asked the question. Do not rush when you are walking. You seem to be out of breath; it's not worth it. Who knows we may be able to hear some wisdom rushing from your mouth.
Monday, July 14, 2008
The Supreme Court—yes to “habeas corpus”—Scalia and Roberts were wrong!
By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
I started writing this article soon after the US Supreme Court passed a landmark decision, on Thursday, the 12th of June, 2008. But I couldn’t finish it because I needed the time to plan for my overseas vacation. Now I am back and free from the jetlag syndrome, I am ready to write, to inform, and to challenge you with my opinions.
In essence the Supreme Court ruling says no, to the suspension of the habeas corpus—the release of a person from unlawful constraint. Our government has been trying to exclude the detainees at Guantanamo Bay prison from the benefits of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court, in effect, said, five judges in the Majority and four in the Minority, no, to the government, you can’t do that. My opinion on this matter is very simple, although I am not writing to say that, because my knowledge of legal matters is as good as the knowledge of Judge Scalia about engineering matters. I am writing to show that Justice Scalia whose intellect and judicial prowess I respect and Chief Justice Roberts were wrong.
Justice Scalia was one of the four in the Minority Justices, which included Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Alito and Thomas, offered one of the two Minority opinions. The other Minority opinion was written by the Chief Justice himself.
The Chief Justice said that the decision of the Majority represented “overreaching” and left the court open to “charges of judicial activism.” Mr. Chief Justice, please read what Justice Scalia said. Let me help you. He said that the decision was not based on principle “but rather on inflated notion of judicial supremacy.” Is this a judicial statement or a political attack on the Majority Justices? Also read what he said: “the nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.” This could not be the judgment of a Justice of the Supreme Court. Instead, it sounds like what prophets say and do, or what the politicians say to frighten their constituents. Scalia prophesied that “devastation” and “disastrous consequences” from the decision of the Majority. This is the voice of an alarmist, not a Justice of the Supreme Court.
We need justices who are not prophets and who are not politicians. We need Justices who read the constitution, understand and apply it. We need Justices who leave the political work to the politicians but make sure that they do not break any law. We need justices who worry about the legality of the legislations of the legislators, and leave the worry about our security to the executive branch of our government.
On the other hand, what did the Majority say? Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the Majority opinion. He said “The laws and constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.” So, extraordinary times, like the attacks on 9/11 do not necessarily require suspending our laws. Instead, these times require vigilance in applying the laws, and preserving the constitution.
Going back to the decision, which gave the foreign detainees at Guantanamo Bay prison “constitutional rights to go to federal courts to challenge their continued detention,” and see if it makes sense. Well, our current government has anointed itself as the promoter and guardian of democracy and freedom throughout the world, specially the world from which these detainees had come from. So, why not start by applying what we preach to the people we have been holding as prisoners for a very long time. Give them the constitutional protection which we all enjoy, and be magnanimous. If our government applies what the Supreme Court has decided, and treats these detainees with our grace, then it may improve—probably a tiny bit—its credibility in the world.
On the 2008 presidential campaign: Obama went with the Majority ruling; he wins a point; McCain went with the Minority Justices; he lost a point! Please do not ask me about the total score; I keep losing my score book!
I started writing this article soon after the US Supreme Court passed a landmark decision, on Thursday, the 12th of June, 2008. But I couldn’t finish it because I needed the time to plan for my overseas vacation. Now I am back and free from the jetlag syndrome, I am ready to write, to inform, and to challenge you with my opinions.
In essence the Supreme Court ruling says no, to the suspension of the habeas corpus—the release of a person from unlawful constraint. Our government has been trying to exclude the detainees at Guantanamo Bay prison from the benefits of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court, in effect, said, five judges in the Majority and four in the Minority, no, to the government, you can’t do that. My opinion on this matter is very simple, although I am not writing to say that, because my knowledge of legal matters is as good as the knowledge of Judge Scalia about engineering matters. I am writing to show that Justice Scalia whose intellect and judicial prowess I respect and Chief Justice Roberts were wrong.
Justice Scalia was one of the four in the Minority Justices, which included Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Alito and Thomas, offered one of the two Minority opinions. The other Minority opinion was written by the Chief Justice himself.
The Chief Justice said that the decision of the Majority represented “overreaching” and left the court open to “charges of judicial activism.” Mr. Chief Justice, please read what Justice Scalia said. Let me help you. He said that the decision was not based on principle “but rather on inflated notion of judicial supremacy.” Is this a judicial statement or a political attack on the Majority Justices? Also read what he said: “the nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.” This could not be the judgment of a Justice of the Supreme Court. Instead, it sounds like what prophets say and do, or what the politicians say to frighten their constituents. Scalia prophesied that “devastation” and “disastrous consequences” from the decision of the Majority. This is the voice of an alarmist, not a Justice of the Supreme Court.
We need justices who are not prophets and who are not politicians. We need Justices who read the constitution, understand and apply it. We need Justices who leave the political work to the politicians but make sure that they do not break any law. We need justices who worry about the legality of the legislations of the legislators, and leave the worry about our security to the executive branch of our government.
On the other hand, what did the Majority say? Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the Majority opinion. He said “The laws and constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.” So, extraordinary times, like the attacks on 9/11 do not necessarily require suspending our laws. Instead, these times require vigilance in applying the laws, and preserving the constitution.
Going back to the decision, which gave the foreign detainees at Guantanamo Bay prison “constitutional rights to go to federal courts to challenge their continued detention,” and see if it makes sense. Well, our current government has anointed itself as the promoter and guardian of democracy and freedom throughout the world, specially the world from which these detainees had come from. So, why not start by applying what we preach to the people we have been holding as prisoners for a very long time. Give them the constitutional protection which we all enjoy, and be magnanimous. If our government applies what the Supreme Court has decided, and treats these detainees with our grace, then it may improve—probably a tiny bit—its credibility in the world.
On the 2008 presidential campaign: Obama went with the Majority ruling; he wins a point; McCain went with the Minority Justices; he lost a point! Please do not ask me about the total score; I keep losing my score book!
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Senator McCain—thanks for the invitation
By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
Last night, Tuesday, June 10, 2008, when I returned home from my weekly social with SPS, I checked my telephone answering machine, and found that a McCain campaigner had left a message for me at about 8:30 P.M.; it is an invitation to attend a town-hall meeting at the Constitution Center, downtown Philadelphia. The invitation also says that I could bring my family and friends with me, besides I would be allowed to ask the Senator from Arizona any question, I might have. I felt the invitation came too late, but I immediately thought that it was an opportunity I shouldn't miss. I would have the chance to shake hands with a probable next president of the United States. I might also be able (not in a million) to ask the question that might influence the policy and modify the unjust standing of the United States in the Middle East. I went to bed with this thought on my mind.
When I woke up this morning, Wednesday (6-11-08), it was already 8:30 A.M. the town-hall meeting would start at 9:30 A.M. and therefore there is no way that I could make it to the hall. I need at least half an hour to take a shower and dress, and I need at least forty minutes to get there because of the multi-stops and traffic lights. So I decided to sit down and write the questions I would have tried to ask the candidate—the Republican presumptive nominee—any of them, if I would have the chance.
Question 1:
Do you believe that Islam is a religion, to which at least one quarter of the population of Earth adheres, worthy of respect as Christianity and Judaism?
Question 2:
Do you agree to work with the United Nations to define terrorist acts, terrorist individuals, terrorist organizations, and terrorist countries?
Question 3:
Would you accept the results of internationally observed and certified elections although you may not like them?
Question 4:
Do you believe that God loves all of his children equally, and all of us are the children of the same God?
Question 5:
Do you accept that the nuclear ambition of Iran is not the problem, but weakening Iran and balkanizing it is the goal? Do you also accept that Darfour was created to weaken and balkanize Sudan?
Question 6:
Do you know that there are human beings called the Palestinians? If your answer is positive, do you know that they have been living in misery--and recently collectively imprisioned by security walls surrounding their towns and villages-- because of our unjust policy toward Palestine and Israel?
Question 7:
Do you accept the fact that the United States is the greatest, country on Earth, economically, militarily, and morally, and we should demonstrate that to the world, by our behavior?
Question 8:
Do you know that you and I have one thing in common, other than being citizens of the same country, and other than our unparalleled love to this country?
Mr. John McCain, I am registered Independent, but I have a Medal of Merit from the late President Reagan and I was a member of the Task Force for his reelection. So on because of belonging to no party, but based on my discovery of the candidates and their stands on principles and issues, I do vote.
Last night, Tuesday, June 10, 2008, when I returned home from my weekly social with SPS, I checked my telephone answering machine, and found that a McCain campaigner had left a message for me at about 8:30 P.M.; it is an invitation to attend a town-hall meeting at the Constitution Center, downtown Philadelphia. The invitation also says that I could bring my family and friends with me, besides I would be allowed to ask the Senator from Arizona any question, I might have. I felt the invitation came too late, but I immediately thought that it was an opportunity I shouldn't miss. I would have the chance to shake hands with a probable next president of the United States. I might also be able (not in a million) to ask the question that might influence the policy and modify the unjust standing of the United States in the Middle East. I went to bed with this thought on my mind.
When I woke up this morning, Wednesday (6-11-08), it was already 8:30 A.M. the town-hall meeting would start at 9:30 A.M. and therefore there is no way that I could make it to the hall. I need at least half an hour to take a shower and dress, and I need at least forty minutes to get there because of the multi-stops and traffic lights. So I decided to sit down and write the questions I would have tried to ask the candidate—the Republican presumptive nominee—any of them, if I would have the chance.
Question 1:
Do you believe that Islam is a religion, to which at least one quarter of the population of Earth adheres, worthy of respect as Christianity and Judaism?
Question 2:
Do you agree to work with the United Nations to define terrorist acts, terrorist individuals, terrorist organizations, and terrorist countries?
Question 3:
Would you accept the results of internationally observed and certified elections although you may not like them?
Question 4:
Do you believe that God loves all of his children equally, and all of us are the children of the same God?
Question 5:
Do you accept that the nuclear ambition of Iran is not the problem, but weakening Iran and balkanizing it is the goal? Do you also accept that Darfour was created to weaken and balkanize Sudan?
Question 6:
Do you know that there are human beings called the Palestinians? If your answer is positive, do you know that they have been living in misery--and recently collectively imprisioned by security walls surrounding their towns and villages-- because of our unjust policy toward Palestine and Israel?
Question 7:
Do you accept the fact that the United States is the greatest, country on Earth, economically, militarily, and morally, and we should demonstrate that to the world, by our behavior?
Question 8:
Do you know that you and I have one thing in common, other than being citizens of the same country, and other than our unparalleled love to this country?
Mr. John McCain, I am registered Independent, but I have a Medal of Merit from the late President Reagan and I was a member of the Task Force for his reelection. So on because of belonging to no party, but based on my discovery of the candidates and their stands on principles and issues, I do vote.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
The rules committee of the Democratic Party—Obama wins, Obama loses
By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
I watched, on television, some during the day on Saturday, May 31, 2008, and the rest after midnight, most of the deliberations of the Rules and Bylaws committee of the Democratic Party. The issue was the resolution of the problem that was created by the Florida and Michigan Democrats when they decided to hold their primaries at times different from those the committee had assigned. The numerical results are already known and published in the newspapers, but what went on during the meeting was a demonstration that race matters.
The African-American supporters of Obama were passionate and poetic, when they questioned the supporters of Clinton. I could see their passions in the tones of their voices and the gestures of their hands and on their faces, and the near absence of civility in the words of some of them. Even the African-American supporters of Hillary were not passionate enough for her, because their real passions were with Obama. Some of the uncommitted super delegates are really committed; their passions gave their secret real status away; for possible political gains, they chose to claim they were uncommitted.
If I were an African-American I might have behaved in the same manner. It is their awareness of their history in the United States that made them who they are today. It is always there; their personal failures and triumphs, and their collective failures and triumphs are always there.
However, the members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee should have blinded theselves to the differences among them and behaved more, like fair arbitors, and behaved responsibly in their deliberation; they did not do that, and their bias was crystal clear. They are thirty bright and experienced individuals who ought to have worked for the common good of their party. But they failed. The supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton sounded more reasonable, more responsible and more respectful of their colleagues and of their witnesses. They were also passionate, but most of them did not show their feelings.
By the action of the committee, Obama won delegates who did not vote for him, because his supporters were louder, aggressive, and more passionate. However, he won votes, but he would lose the election; he will not become president.
If the Senator and his supporters had shown some magnanimity, he could have easily unified the party, and considerably advanced his chances to win the election in November 08. No one should have felt that the deliberations were unfair. This is what he should have done. He should have given all what Hillary’s camp had asked for. Had this happened, Obama would still have more committed delegates than her, but the uncommitted delegates would see in him the unifier they wanted, and would have given him their votes, and their support: a winning combination.
But now I believe that most of the uncommitted delegate would still commit to him, few will continue to fight. Political games will overwhelm the media and the count down will start and continue until McCain wins in November 08.
I watched, on television, some during the day on Saturday, May 31, 2008, and the rest after midnight, most of the deliberations of the Rules and Bylaws committee of the Democratic Party. The issue was the resolution of the problem that was created by the Florida and Michigan Democrats when they decided to hold their primaries at times different from those the committee had assigned. The numerical results are already known and published in the newspapers, but what went on during the meeting was a demonstration that race matters.
The African-American supporters of Obama were passionate and poetic, when they questioned the supporters of Clinton. I could see their passions in the tones of their voices and the gestures of their hands and on their faces, and the near absence of civility in the words of some of them. Even the African-American supporters of Hillary were not passionate enough for her, because their real passions were with Obama. Some of the uncommitted super delegates are really committed; their passions gave their secret real status away; for possible political gains, they chose to claim they were uncommitted.
If I were an African-American I might have behaved in the same manner. It is their awareness of their history in the United States that made them who they are today. It is always there; their personal failures and triumphs, and their collective failures and triumphs are always there.
However, the members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee should have blinded theselves to the differences among them and behaved more, like fair arbitors, and behaved responsibly in their deliberation; they did not do that, and their bias was crystal clear. They are thirty bright and experienced individuals who ought to have worked for the common good of their party. But they failed. The supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton sounded more reasonable, more responsible and more respectful of their colleagues and of their witnesses. They were also passionate, but most of them did not show their feelings.
By the action of the committee, Obama won delegates who did not vote for him, because his supporters were louder, aggressive, and more passionate. However, he won votes, but he would lose the election; he will not become president.
If the Senator and his supporters had shown some magnanimity, he could have easily unified the party, and considerably advanced his chances to win the election in November 08. No one should have felt that the deliberations were unfair. This is what he should have done. He should have given all what Hillary’s camp had asked for. Had this happened, Obama would still have more committed delegates than her, but the uncommitted delegates would see in him the unifier they wanted, and would have given him their votes, and their support: a winning combination.
But now I believe that most of the uncommitted delegate would still commit to him, few will continue to fight. Political games will overwhelm the media and the count down will start and continue until McCain wins in November 08.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
In Search of a Homeland—Israelis for peace
By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
For a year in the early 1970s, I was the president of the Arab Students Association at Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York. The University had Arab students from a number of Arab countries including Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Tunisia.
By attending the Friends of Sabeel—North America, conference “In Search of a Homeland: The Quest for Place and Peace in the Middle East” at Villanova University, on April 25 and 26, 2008, memories of a politically proactive year came to my mind.
The relationship between the recent conference and the year of a distant past and the now 84 year-old Uri Avneri, the Israeli peace activist, whom I had met in that year, when he and I were about 36 years younger are the subject matters of this post. The more general notes would refer to the intersection of my life routes, that far in the past year of activism, and the recent Christian conference at Villanova University.
-1-
Governor Rockefeller of New York appointed in 1968 to the Senate Charles Goodell, to finish the term of the assassinated Senator Robert Kennedy. In the early 1970s that term was coming to an end. The senator was campaigning for a full term of his own, in the Senate. He came to Syracuse University. The Chapel was full. Four of us, from the Arab Students Association, were there. We sat where the available seats were, in the back, but we listened.
He began his partisan speech and continued until he came to the point to appease some in the audience. He said, in effect, that the government spends our tax money left and right, but it does not help Israel to defend itself against Naser (the President of Egypt and the President of the short lived United Arab Republic) who threatens to through the Jews to the sea.
During the question and answer period, I raised my hand to ask a question. When he picked me I said (in effect) you claim that Naser said he would throw the Jews to the sea, can you give me the exact quote, the date, and the place, when and where did Naser say that he would throw the Jews to the sea? He asked me to give him my name and address and he would send that information to me. I told him that he would not be able to do that, because it is a lie. On his way out of the Chapel others, from the Arab community, and I talked to him about the same subject. I remember this episode of my life every time I look at a picture where I appear with him. The Senator was not elected, and I vehemently deny any responsibility! Early in my life I learned that in America, the cradle of modern democracy one could express his political views without fear of retributions.
-2-
Also during this year, I received a telephone call from Khalidi, a physician at the Syracuse University Hospital, who was an active member of the Arab community. He suggested that we invite an Israeli peace activist who was on a lecture tour in the United States. The doctor said that the community would contribute toward the expenses. I told him that I would call him back in the evening and talk with him about the matter.
Later I understood that Noam Chomsky, a moderate Zionist, and a renowned linguist, and an anti-Vietnam War activist was the main sponsor of the speaker. Years later I learned that the speaker I had invited was the leader of the Israeli Communist Party. He was Uri Avneri.
When I finished talking with the doctor I went to Ms Torrelli, the International Student advisor. I told her that we, the Arab Students Association, wanted to invite an Israeli speaker to campus (I intentionally used the nationality of the speaker) and we need your help. She was excited as I expected and within less than a minute she said that she could contribute $200. I told her that I would talk with her about the details later in the week.
I called each of the members of the Arab Student Association executive committee and discussed with each of them the details of the activity. In the evening I called the doctor and told him how much we could contribute, and we wanted the community to help with the balance. He agreed and we talked about the rest of the details.
On the day of the lecture I went to the Airport, picked him up and brought him to a packed lecture hall in the Maxwell School of Government. I introduced him to the audience, and he followed by given an outstanding lecture. At the end he had numerous questions, which he wrote on a yellow pad, before he answered them. The audience was also balanced. Many Arabs, more Jews, and a majority of Christians attended the event. We congratulated ourselves, and I took Uri Avneri to the Airport. Ms Torrelli did not get what she was expecting, and here is the last act of the story:
Few weeks passed, the Israeli Students Association invited a Canadian Zionist to give a talk. Ms Torrelli covered the expenses. The location of the lecture was on my turf— in the main auditorium, of the Edwin Link Engineering Building—my office was in the basement. Six members of the Arab Student Association (including I) were there. They made about half the audience. The essence of his presentation went as follows: Palestine was a land of swamps with no population, and the Zionists came and reclaimed the land and settled in it.
When the speaker finished I asked him if he were an Israeli. He said he was Canadian. I asked him about how many times had he been to Israel. He said few times. I asked him if he saw any swamps that had been reclaimed. He said no. I asked him if he would allow me to tell him what did the Zionists do in Palestine. He said okay. I went to the blackboard and wrote the name of the village of my birth, and how did the Zionists change it. There activity was a failure.
-3-
During the same period, the late Israeli Yitzhak Rabin, a former Prime Minister of Israel, and a former Ambassador of Israel to the United States, planned to visit Syracuse University to address the community about the needs of Israel, among other stuff. We got the news, and sat out to prepare posters to protest his visit. Salwa was very active in this and other efforts of our Association. One of the posters, I still remember, one of the posters read ‘Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free,’ Salwa was a none; she knew her Bible. The visit was cancelled. There was a rumor that the Security Department of the University was afraid, violence might break out. The posters were trashed. Few weeks after the cancellation, unannounced, Rabin appeared at the Chapel. I called members of the executive committee, and told them about what happened; four of us were able to attend the speech. The Chapel was full.
He said many things, but one thing remains in my memory, that tells me a lot about the mentality of the Zionists, and their dreams. This is approximately what he said. Israel is a small poor country that needs your continuous help to defend itself. When he left Egypt, good old Moses, instead of turning right to the oil rich land, he turned left to Palestine a poor land. He did not elaborate. But what he meant was clear, and the audience laughed.
Fundraising from individuals, organizations, and governments, for Israel is a daily activity in the United States, and Western Europe. They say they need to pay to maintain the torch of freedom and democracy in the Middle East glowing. But the reality is different. Palestinians have been displaced, their homes demolished, their lands raped, their villages and towns encircled by high walls, they are being imprisoned and starved. All of that and more have been done in the name of democracy! There are many books that have recently been written about Israel and Palestine. The former president, Jimmy Carter’s book is one example.
Fundraising for the Palestinians is illegal in the United States.
-4-
There are Israelis who believe that the Israel policy toward the Palestinians is bad for the Palestinians and bad for Israel because and it tarnishes the image of Israel abroad. Some of them are peace activists.
Jeff Halper was one of the speakers at the conference. He is the Coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against [Palestinians] House Demolitions. As the conference pamphlet notes, he was a nominee for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize. The topic of his presentation was ‘Reframing of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A View from the Ground.’
He is an Israeli-American activist, a professor of anthology, an author and an internationally known speaker. He had taught at universities in the United States, Israel, and other countries. He has published two books and numerous articles. I met him at the conference and told him about myself, and my village in Palestine. I bought his book ‘An Israeli in Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel. I promised him, I will read it once I finish reading the latest book by Bill Moyer:
The thrust of his lecture was about the framing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is the human rights framing, the historical framing, the Israeli Zionist security framing. The contents of the lecture was creative, and it cast some interesting light on the different aspects of the problem and the tools needed to reframe the issue and make other understand.
He also talked about the different solutions of the problem: the two states solution, the Israel plus and Palestine minus solution, the one democratic state solution, and the confederation solution.
When he talked about peace activism in Israel he put the pictures of four Israelis on the screen. One of those was Uri Avneri. That was the connection between the time in the early 1970s and the Sabeel conference about 36 years later. The speaker told me that Avneri was still alive and still active at 84 years old.
Another Israeli-American speaker at the conference was Marc Ellis who is the director of the center for Jewish Studies at Baylor University, Waco, Texas. His presentation focused on the after math of the Israeli creation in 1948. He argues against the current political policies, which are based on the Jewish vulnerability, and calls for Jews to seek justice for all. Justice for the Isalelis and justice for the Palestinians. Justic now! Justice now!
For a year in the early 1970s, I was the president of the Arab Students Association at Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York. The University had Arab students from a number of Arab countries including Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Tunisia.
By attending the Friends of Sabeel—North America, conference “In Search of a Homeland: The Quest for Place and Peace in the Middle East” at Villanova University, on April 25 and 26, 2008, memories of a politically proactive year came to my mind.
The relationship between the recent conference and the year of a distant past and the now 84 year-old Uri Avneri, the Israeli peace activist, whom I had met in that year, when he and I were about 36 years younger are the subject matters of this post. The more general notes would refer to the intersection of my life routes, that far in the past year of activism, and the recent Christian conference at Villanova University.
-1-
Governor Rockefeller of New York appointed in 1968 to the Senate Charles Goodell, to finish the term of the assassinated Senator Robert Kennedy. In the early 1970s that term was coming to an end. The senator was campaigning for a full term of his own, in the Senate. He came to Syracuse University. The Chapel was full. Four of us, from the Arab Students Association, were there. We sat where the available seats were, in the back, but we listened.
He began his partisan speech and continued until he came to the point to appease some in the audience. He said, in effect, that the government spends our tax money left and right, but it does not help Israel to defend itself against Naser (the President of Egypt and the President of the short lived United Arab Republic) who threatens to through the Jews to the sea.
During the question and answer period, I raised my hand to ask a question. When he picked me I said (in effect) you claim that Naser said he would throw the Jews to the sea, can you give me the exact quote, the date, and the place, when and where did Naser say that he would throw the Jews to the sea? He asked me to give him my name and address and he would send that information to me. I told him that he would not be able to do that, because it is a lie. On his way out of the Chapel others, from the Arab community, and I talked to him about the same subject. I remember this episode of my life every time I look at a picture where I appear with him. The Senator was not elected, and I vehemently deny any responsibility! Early in my life I learned that in America, the cradle of modern democracy one could express his political views without fear of retributions.
-2-
Also during this year, I received a telephone call from Khalidi, a physician at the Syracuse University Hospital, who was an active member of the Arab community. He suggested that we invite an Israeli peace activist who was on a lecture tour in the United States. The doctor said that the community would contribute toward the expenses. I told him that I would call him back in the evening and talk with him about the matter.
Later I understood that Noam Chomsky, a moderate Zionist, and a renowned linguist, and an anti-Vietnam War activist was the main sponsor of the speaker. Years later I learned that the speaker I had invited was the leader of the Israeli Communist Party. He was Uri Avneri.
When I finished talking with the doctor I went to Ms Torrelli, the International Student advisor. I told her that we, the Arab Students Association, wanted to invite an Israeli speaker to campus (I intentionally used the nationality of the speaker) and we need your help. She was excited as I expected and within less than a minute she said that she could contribute $200. I told her that I would talk with her about the details later in the week.
I called each of the members of the Arab Student Association executive committee and discussed with each of them the details of the activity. In the evening I called the doctor and told him how much we could contribute, and we wanted the community to help with the balance. He agreed and we talked about the rest of the details.
On the day of the lecture I went to the Airport, picked him up and brought him to a packed lecture hall in the Maxwell School of Government. I introduced him to the audience, and he followed by given an outstanding lecture. At the end he had numerous questions, which he wrote on a yellow pad, before he answered them. The audience was also balanced. Many Arabs, more Jews, and a majority of Christians attended the event. We congratulated ourselves, and I took Uri Avneri to the Airport. Ms Torrelli did not get what she was expecting, and here is the last act of the story:
Few weeks passed, the Israeli Students Association invited a Canadian Zionist to give a talk. Ms Torrelli covered the expenses. The location of the lecture was on my turf— in the main auditorium, of the Edwin Link Engineering Building—my office was in the basement. Six members of the Arab Student Association (including I) were there. They made about half the audience. The essence of his presentation went as follows: Palestine was a land of swamps with no population, and the Zionists came and reclaimed the land and settled in it.
When the speaker finished I asked him if he were an Israeli. He said he was Canadian. I asked him about how many times had he been to Israel. He said few times. I asked him if he saw any swamps that had been reclaimed. He said no. I asked him if he would allow me to tell him what did the Zionists do in Palestine. He said okay. I went to the blackboard and wrote the name of the village of my birth, and how did the Zionists change it. There activity was a failure.
-3-
During the same period, the late Israeli Yitzhak Rabin, a former Prime Minister of Israel, and a former Ambassador of Israel to the United States, planned to visit Syracuse University to address the community about the needs of Israel, among other stuff. We got the news, and sat out to prepare posters to protest his visit. Salwa was very active in this and other efforts of our Association. One of the posters, I still remember, one of the posters read ‘Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free,’ Salwa was a none; she knew her Bible. The visit was cancelled. There was a rumor that the Security Department of the University was afraid, violence might break out. The posters were trashed. Few weeks after the cancellation, unannounced, Rabin appeared at the Chapel. I called members of the executive committee, and told them about what happened; four of us were able to attend the speech. The Chapel was full.
He said many things, but one thing remains in my memory, that tells me a lot about the mentality of the Zionists, and their dreams. This is approximately what he said. Israel is a small poor country that needs your continuous help to defend itself. When he left Egypt, good old Moses, instead of turning right to the oil rich land, he turned left to Palestine a poor land. He did not elaborate. But what he meant was clear, and the audience laughed.
Fundraising from individuals, organizations, and governments, for Israel is a daily activity in the United States, and Western Europe. They say they need to pay to maintain the torch of freedom and democracy in the Middle East glowing. But the reality is different. Palestinians have been displaced, their homes demolished, their lands raped, their villages and towns encircled by high walls, they are being imprisoned and starved. All of that and more have been done in the name of democracy! There are many books that have recently been written about Israel and Palestine. The former president, Jimmy Carter’s book is one example.
Fundraising for the Palestinians is illegal in the United States.
-4-
There are Israelis who believe that the Israel policy toward the Palestinians is bad for the Palestinians and bad for Israel because and it tarnishes the image of Israel abroad. Some of them are peace activists.
Jeff Halper was one of the speakers at the conference. He is the Coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against [Palestinians] House Demolitions. As the conference pamphlet notes, he was a nominee for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize. The topic of his presentation was ‘Reframing of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A View from the Ground.’
He is an Israeli-American activist, a professor of anthology, an author and an internationally known speaker. He had taught at universities in the United States, Israel, and other countries. He has published two books and numerous articles. I met him at the conference and told him about myself, and my village in Palestine. I bought his book ‘An Israeli in Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel. I promised him, I will read it once I finish reading the latest book by Bill Moyer:
The thrust of his lecture was about the framing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is the human rights framing, the historical framing, the Israeli Zionist security framing. The contents of the lecture was creative, and it cast some interesting light on the different aspects of the problem and the tools needed to reframe the issue and make other understand.
He also talked about the different solutions of the problem: the two states solution, the Israel plus and Palestine minus solution, the one democratic state solution, and the confederation solution.
When he talked about peace activism in Israel he put the pictures of four Israelis on the screen. One of those was Uri Avneri. That was the connection between the time in the early 1970s and the Sabeel conference about 36 years later. The speaker told me that Avneri was still alive and still active at 84 years old.
Another Israeli-American speaker at the conference was Marc Ellis who is the director of the center for Jewish Studies at Baylor University, Waco, Texas. His presentation focused on the after math of the Israeli creation in 1948. He argues against the current political policies, which are based on the Jewish vulnerability, and calls for Jews to seek justice for all. Justice for the Isalelis and justice for the Palestinians. Justic now! Justice now!
Friday, May 16, 2008
As an American I am ashamed of my president
By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
At the 60th anniversary of the creation of the state of Israel, the President said in the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) what no president of any country should have said. I am a proud American, but like many Americans, I am ashamed of this President. What he had said did not rise to the level of greatness of the American people, and did not rise to the level of dignity the President of this great nation should demonstrate.
He is so adamant in trying to dictate to history his shallow and unrealistic view of the World that no one can stop him from continuously trying. Even his attempt at fortune telling would not help—he claimed to see, by looking into the future, an image of the Middle East that reflects his childish understanding of history. He does not know that even false prophets will not accept him among their ranks!
I was expecting my president to stand in the Israeli Knesset and say I am here to congratulate you and to congratulate the Israelis and the Zionists for your defeat, around sixty years ago, of the unarmed and unorganized Palestinians. The tanks, the airplanes, and the training provided by the British and others helped. But, now it is time to reconcile and to live in peace with your neighbors. One state, two states, it does not matter, peace matters. Now is the time for serious negotiations (you have already exhausted all delaying tactics) with the Palestinians. The support of future American Presidents, Congresses, and other governments, may not come readily.
His infamous speech insults Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, and peace loving peoples of the World, including many great Americans, and some Jews. The speech ignored their feelings either because of the speaker’s ignorance, his lack of tact (diplomacy), or because he decided to ignore them, and treat them like dirt. In any case, he created more enemies, when he should have worked to make friends among all the people including them.
At the 60th anniversary of the creation of the state of Israel, the President said in the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) what no president of any country should have said. I am a proud American, but like many Americans, I am ashamed of this President. What he had said did not rise to the level of greatness of the American people, and did not rise to the level of dignity the President of this great nation should demonstrate.
He is so adamant in trying to dictate to history his shallow and unrealistic view of the World that no one can stop him from continuously trying. Even his attempt at fortune telling would not help—he claimed to see, by looking into the future, an image of the Middle East that reflects his childish understanding of history. He does not know that even false prophets will not accept him among their ranks!
I was expecting my president to stand in the Israeli Knesset and say I am here to congratulate you and to congratulate the Israelis and the Zionists for your defeat, around sixty years ago, of the unarmed and unorganized Palestinians. The tanks, the airplanes, and the training provided by the British and others helped. But, now it is time to reconcile and to live in peace with your neighbors. One state, two states, it does not matter, peace matters. Now is the time for serious negotiations (you have already exhausted all delaying tactics) with the Palestinians. The support of future American Presidents, Congresses, and other governments, may not come readily.
His infamous speech insults Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, and peace loving peoples of the World, including many great Americans, and some Jews. The speech ignored their feelings either because of the speaker’s ignorance, his lack of tact (diplomacy), or because he decided to ignore them, and treat them like dirt. In any case, he created more enemies, when he should have worked to make friends among all the people including them.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Obama’s promise of “Change” failed the test
By Mahmoud S. Audi
The core theme of Sen. Obama’s campaign for the nomination to run for President of the United States is “Change.” He has been repeating, nearly daily, that without changing the way the government in Washington runs, and changing the politicians who have been in Washington for a long time (in his estimate, more than six years), nothing will change. And he is the only presidential candidate, he claims, who should be trusted with the mission to affect the desired change: change the way the government is run, change the way we treat other countries and other peoples of the world, and the way we get into wars. He seems to believe that he has a monopoly on “Change,” and probably wishes he could protect the word by copyrights registration.
Observing Obama and reading his memoir, I came to believe that he is another politician with less than six years experience in the United States Senate. A true proponent of change would be inclusive in treating the different peoples of the world, and would not change the fairness principle as a result of the influence of lobbies.
A number of tests could be run to assess the seriousness and the credibility of Obama in the area of changing our foreign policy. I chose one test that is of most interest to me, and to many people of Earth; unfortunately, not to many of us in the United States. The lobbies stifle the undesired truths, and they do not allow us to face the daily trials and tribulations of suffering people. That problem is the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
In these days, the Jewish community and other Americans, are celebrating the 60th birthday of Israel, and claim that its creation “… is one of the biggest success stories of modern times.”
At the same time the victims of the creation of Israel, the Palestinians, are mourning the Naqbah (the catastrophe) that befell on them when Israel was created. For sixty years the Palestinians have been suffering from the absence of justice in the Holy Land.
I know that it is in the tradition of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (along with other religion) to help the poor and protect the weak. But our government in its lack of wisdom, and because of the influence of the Israeli Lobby in Washington, chose to stand with the militarily mighty and tread on the back of the weak. The war on the Palestinians has been going on for more than a century; the war on Iraq is still young. So, logically, Obama, the self proclaimed prophet of change, should, in addition to ending the war on Iraq, should also work on bringing a just resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli problem. Is there a sign that he might do that if he becomes President? No, but there are signs that he would be worse than Bush.
On Wednesday, April 16, just before the 08 Pennsylvania Primary, Obama met with the Philadelphia area Jewish leaders. I read an account of the meeting in the Philadelphia Inquirer. In that meeting he said everything the leaders wanted to hear: a typical politician—NOT AN AGENT OF CHANGE.
He said that his links with the Jewish community predate) his entry into politics (he was perhaps referring to the Jewish activist who gave him his first community organizer job), and would extend beyond his campaign. At the United Nations he would continue to veto any resolution, which Israel would not like, and he is for the security of Israel, but against the right of return of the Palestinians to their homes. He also said that he disagrees with former President Jimmy Carter who is pushing hard for a solution of the problem. I wish he said something positive to the peace loving peoples of the world and to the Palestinians who are longing for peace in Israel and Palestine.
He failed the test. He is just another politician, with little experience, and who puts a lot of work to compose his speeches.
The core theme of Sen. Obama’s campaign for the nomination to run for President of the United States is “Change.” He has been repeating, nearly daily, that without changing the way the government in Washington runs, and changing the politicians who have been in Washington for a long time (in his estimate, more than six years), nothing will change. And he is the only presidential candidate, he claims, who should be trusted with the mission to affect the desired change: change the way the government is run, change the way we treat other countries and other peoples of the world, and the way we get into wars. He seems to believe that he has a monopoly on “Change,” and probably wishes he could protect the word by copyrights registration.
Observing Obama and reading his memoir, I came to believe that he is another politician with less than six years experience in the United States Senate. A true proponent of change would be inclusive in treating the different peoples of the world, and would not change the fairness principle as a result of the influence of lobbies.
A number of tests could be run to assess the seriousness and the credibility of Obama in the area of changing our foreign policy. I chose one test that is of most interest to me, and to many people of Earth; unfortunately, not to many of us in the United States. The lobbies stifle the undesired truths, and they do not allow us to face the daily trials and tribulations of suffering people. That problem is the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
In these days, the Jewish community and other Americans, are celebrating the 60th birthday of Israel, and claim that its creation “… is one of the biggest success stories of modern times.”
At the same time the victims of the creation of Israel, the Palestinians, are mourning the Naqbah (the catastrophe) that befell on them when Israel was created. For sixty years the Palestinians have been suffering from the absence of justice in the Holy Land.
I know that it is in the tradition of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (along with other religion) to help the poor and protect the weak. But our government in its lack of wisdom, and because of the influence of the Israeli Lobby in Washington, chose to stand with the militarily mighty and tread on the back of the weak. The war on the Palestinians has been going on for more than a century; the war on Iraq is still young. So, logically, Obama, the self proclaimed prophet of change, should, in addition to ending the war on Iraq, should also work on bringing a just resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli problem. Is there a sign that he might do that if he becomes President? No, but there are signs that he would be worse than Bush.
On Wednesday, April 16, just before the 08 Pennsylvania Primary, Obama met with the Philadelphia area Jewish leaders. I read an account of the meeting in the Philadelphia Inquirer. In that meeting he said everything the leaders wanted to hear: a typical politician—NOT AN AGENT OF CHANGE.
He said that his links with the Jewish community predate) his entry into politics (he was perhaps referring to the Jewish activist who gave him his first community organizer job), and would extend beyond his campaign. At the United Nations he would continue to veto any resolution, which Israel would not like, and he is for the security of Israel, but against the right of return of the Palestinians to their homes. He also said that he disagrees with former President Jimmy Carter who is pushing hard for a solution of the problem. I wish he said something positive to the peace loving peoples of the world and to the Palestinians who are longing for peace in Israel and Palestine.
He failed the test. He is just another politician, with little experience, and who puts a lot of work to compose his speeches.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
In search of a homeland--the keynote speaker and I
A conference (some speakers called it retreat) of two days, April 25 and 26 was held at Villanova University. I had attended most of the two days. In this article, I am trying to introduce you to the keynote speaker, and what I have in common with him.
The Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek was the keynote speaker of the two-day conference. The title of the speech was “The quest and the crisis: What Americans can do?” It is about the quest for peace in Palestine and Israel, and the current crisis due to the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the oppression of the Palestinian. It is about the Naqbah (catastrophe) which befell on the Palestinians (Christians and Muslims) in 1948, sixty years ago, come May 15. It is about the biblical and other claims of the Zionists about Palestine, and the claims of the Palestinians that can be support by biblical text. And it is about enlightening of the American Christians about the plight of the Palestinian Christians and their Muslim brothers and sisters. It was a brilliant and a well-argued address that added considerable to my knowledge. I will try to get a copy of it once I join Sabeel.
The Rev was born in Beisan, an inland village of Galilee, Palestine. I was born in Az-Zeeb, a costal village of Galilee, Palestine. He and I are probably of the same age. We were both small children, of the same age, in 1948, when the Naqbah took place. For fear of massacres that took place, my family fled Palestine to Lebanon and we became, and remain, refugees. Naim and his family wanted to stay in Beisan, but the Zionists moved them to Nazareth, further to the east. He spent his childhood in this biblical city.
He earned his BA degree at Hardin-Simmons University, Abilene, TX, in 1963. I earned my BE degree at the American University of Beirut, Lebanon, in 1965. He earned his Master of Divinity degree at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific, Berkley, CA, in 1966. After four years of working in Saudi Arabia as an engineer, I immigrated to the United States in 1969, and earned my M.Sc. in Aerospace Engineering at Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York. The Rev returned to Galilee and started his ministry after he was ordained priest in the Episcopal Church. Later he became the Canon of the Episcopal St. George’s Cathedral in Jerusalem. In the 1980s he returned to the United States to earn a doctorate degree at San Francisco Theological Seminary. He returned to Jerusalem and started a career in theology that included the founding of Sabeel Liberation Theology Center. His activity on behalf of the Palestinian Christians and their Muslim brothers and sisters brought him world recognition and several honorary doctorate degrees and other distinction awards. I earned my Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering degree at Syracuse University in 1974. I taught, published, and engineered, until I became a full professor. That was the highest achievement of my career.
I did not have the chance to talk with the Rev, but I hope to meet him in Beisan or Az-Zeeb, and in the love of God, every thing is possible.
The Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek was the keynote speaker of the two-day conference. The title of the speech was “The quest and the crisis: What Americans can do?” It is about the quest for peace in Palestine and Israel, and the current crisis due to the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the oppression of the Palestinian. It is about the Naqbah (catastrophe) which befell on the Palestinians (Christians and Muslims) in 1948, sixty years ago, come May 15. It is about the biblical and other claims of the Zionists about Palestine, and the claims of the Palestinians that can be support by biblical text. And it is about enlightening of the American Christians about the plight of the Palestinian Christians and their Muslim brothers and sisters. It was a brilliant and a well-argued address that added considerable to my knowledge. I will try to get a copy of it once I join Sabeel.
The Rev was born in Beisan, an inland village of Galilee, Palestine. I was born in Az-Zeeb, a costal village of Galilee, Palestine. He and I are probably of the same age. We were both small children, of the same age, in 1948, when the Naqbah took place. For fear of massacres that took place, my family fled Palestine to Lebanon and we became, and remain, refugees. Naim and his family wanted to stay in Beisan, but the Zionists moved them to Nazareth, further to the east. He spent his childhood in this biblical city.
He earned his BA degree at Hardin-Simmons University, Abilene, TX, in 1963. I earned my BE degree at the American University of Beirut, Lebanon, in 1965. He earned his Master of Divinity degree at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific, Berkley, CA, in 1966. After four years of working in Saudi Arabia as an engineer, I immigrated to the United States in 1969, and earned my M.Sc. in Aerospace Engineering at Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York. The Rev returned to Galilee and started his ministry after he was ordained priest in the Episcopal Church. Later he became the Canon of the Episcopal St. George’s Cathedral in Jerusalem. In the 1980s he returned to the United States to earn a doctorate degree at San Francisco Theological Seminary. He returned to Jerusalem and started a career in theology that included the founding of Sabeel Liberation Theology Center. His activity on behalf of the Palestinian Christians and their Muslim brothers and sisters brought him world recognition and several honorary doctorate degrees and other distinction awards. I earned my Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering degree at Syracuse University in 1974. I taught, published, and engineered, until I became a full professor. That was the highest achievement of my career.
I did not have the chance to talk with the Rev, but I hope to meet him in Beisan or Az-Zeeb, and in the love of God, every thing is possible.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Hillary or Obama? It’s time to choose
Published in Delco Daily Times, on Monday, April 21, 2008 under the title shown above.
By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
U.S. Sen. Hilary Clinton, D-N.Y., believes she has the experience to make the tough decision if the telephone rings, after midnight, in the White House.
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., believes he has the judgment superiority to make the right decision, if the telephone rings.
Ordinary citizens know presidents do not make decisions in this manner. Instead, they consider and discuss problems with advisors, and others before a decision is made.
Nevertheless, it is instructive to examine the relationship between experience and judgment, and to shed some light on the merit of the claims of the candidates.
Dictionaries state experience is the accumulation of knowledge, or the learning of skills, from participation in events and activities. Judgment is the formation of an opinion, after consideration and deliberation. Beyond these definitions, the quality of the output, the judgment of the deliberation depends on the experiences of the participants. This truism underscores the relationship between experience and judgment. I acknowledge the relationship is not simple.
To help you understand what I am trying to say, simply note that experience and judgment are like trees and their fruits. Experience and judgment are neither apples, nor oranges; they are apples on apple trees, and oranges on orange trees. To wit, judgment depends on experience, figuratively, as fruits depend on the plants, and the trees that carry them.
Clinton claims she has the experience to perform the duties of president starting on her first day in office. Her years of experience in public service, including eight years as the first lady, qualify her for the job.
On the other hand, Obama claims that he, as a community organizer, and a civil rights attorney, has learned to differentiate between right and wrong. That kind of learning helped him conclude, before the war on Iraq started, that invasion was wrong.
On the other hand, Obama’s experienced opponent, Hilary Clinton, failed to produce, with her experience, a similarly acceptable result about the unpopular war. This is not to belittle her experience. On the contrary, experience is valuable in every field of human endeavor.
The problem is not what is experience and what are its benefits, it is the politicians, who are notorious for making irrational decisions. When a president stands in congress and uses patriotism and its language in presenting a case, he assures himself of enthusiastic applause, energetic standing ovation, and exciting march of the flock behind him.
For fear of stigma, rarely does a member of congress stand against a call to show patriotism, even when the member is not adequately convinced of the virtue of the case, and when his hunch tells him that the justification for war, for example, on Iraq was based on falsehood.
Further, experience is an indicator of the extent of learning, and the capacity to produce a well-reasoned judgment, or a plan of action. Theories inform us that learning is a process that goes through observations (collecting data), analyses, and generalizations. Internalization, and building new mental structures, or expanding existing ones follow, to complete the learning process.
Learning is not always easy; the ease and the speed of learning depend on the experience of the learner. An experienced person finds it easier to acquire new knowledge, and to absorb it faster, than a less experienced individual.
How experienced a president or those who aspire to become president should be? The constitution ignores this matter. At the time of the founding, only the elite held high positions in government, although the constitution does not spell that out. Today an idiot could become president of the United States as long as he or she is born in the U.S., thirty-five years of age or older, and wins the election.
For that reason, it is imperative that in addition to their own learning and their own experiences, presidents and leaders of all walks of life, should seek the services of advisors, consultants, and subordinates whose experiences, put together, widen and deepen the experience of the leader.
The impression that the experience of a person depends on his or her age, may not be true. An active younger person could become more experienced than an older less active one. Also, the younger person would be more likely to use the Internet, to enhance and accelerate her or his learning, than the older person.
To emphasize, experience and judgment are not to be compared to each other; they depend on each other. In a free situation, where politicians speak their minds without fear, better experience produces better judgments, but freedom may be claimed even when it does not exist, or when it is disabled. When experience and freedom to use it coexist, one can still produce bad judgments. In this situation the mistakes must be taken as learning opportunities.
Finally, neither the experience nor the judgment of the candidates should be our influencing criteria for electing a nominee, or a president. Similarly, age, gender, race, and detailed plans of promises should not be significant factors. Instead, we should pause virtual questions, to each candidate, and try to answer them ourselves.
Some of the questions are: like these. Do we trust the candidate to work for us fulltime once we put her or him in the Oval Office? Would she or he focus on finding solutions to the problems that beset us, the people? Would he or she learn from his or her mistakes and the mistakes of others, in the world? Would she or he be more inclined to solve problems peacefully, or she or he would tend to seek personal glory through wars? Would he or she seek to lead the world through love, instead of fear? Would she or she protect us from the greedy and powerful among us?
I am still thinking about questions and answers. I haven’t finished yet, but when the time comes, I will vote.
By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
U.S. Sen. Hilary Clinton, D-N.Y., believes she has the experience to make the tough decision if the telephone rings, after midnight, in the White House.
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., believes he has the judgment superiority to make the right decision, if the telephone rings.
Ordinary citizens know presidents do not make decisions in this manner. Instead, they consider and discuss problems with advisors, and others before a decision is made.
Nevertheless, it is instructive to examine the relationship between experience and judgment, and to shed some light on the merit of the claims of the candidates.
Dictionaries state experience is the accumulation of knowledge, or the learning of skills, from participation in events and activities. Judgment is the formation of an opinion, after consideration and deliberation. Beyond these definitions, the quality of the output, the judgment of the deliberation depends on the experiences of the participants. This truism underscores the relationship between experience and judgment. I acknowledge the relationship is not simple.
To help you understand what I am trying to say, simply note that experience and judgment are like trees and their fruits. Experience and judgment are neither apples, nor oranges; they are apples on apple trees, and oranges on orange trees. To wit, judgment depends on experience, figuratively, as fruits depend on the plants, and the trees that carry them.
Clinton claims she has the experience to perform the duties of president starting on her first day in office. Her years of experience in public service, including eight years as the first lady, qualify her for the job.
On the other hand, Obama claims that he, as a community organizer, and a civil rights attorney, has learned to differentiate between right and wrong. That kind of learning helped him conclude, before the war on Iraq started, that invasion was wrong.
On the other hand, Obama’s experienced opponent, Hilary Clinton, failed to produce, with her experience, a similarly acceptable result about the unpopular war. This is not to belittle her experience. On the contrary, experience is valuable in every field of human endeavor.
The problem is not what is experience and what are its benefits, it is the politicians, who are notorious for making irrational decisions. When a president stands in congress and uses patriotism and its language in presenting a case, he assures himself of enthusiastic applause, energetic standing ovation, and exciting march of the flock behind him.
For fear of stigma, rarely does a member of congress stand against a call to show patriotism, even when the member is not adequately convinced of the virtue of the case, and when his hunch tells him that the justification for war, for example, on Iraq was based on falsehood.
Further, experience is an indicator of the extent of learning, and the capacity to produce a well-reasoned judgment, or a plan of action. Theories inform us that learning is a process that goes through observations (collecting data), analyses, and generalizations. Internalization, and building new mental structures, or expanding existing ones follow, to complete the learning process.
Learning is not always easy; the ease and the speed of learning depend on the experience of the learner. An experienced person finds it easier to acquire new knowledge, and to absorb it faster, than a less experienced individual.
How experienced a president or those who aspire to become president should be? The constitution ignores this matter. At the time of the founding, only the elite held high positions in government, although the constitution does not spell that out. Today an idiot could become president of the United States as long as he or she is born in the U.S., thirty-five years of age or older, and wins the election.
For that reason, it is imperative that in addition to their own learning and their own experiences, presidents and leaders of all walks of life, should seek the services of advisors, consultants, and subordinates whose experiences, put together, widen and deepen the experience of the leader.
The impression that the experience of a person depends on his or her age, may not be true. An active younger person could become more experienced than an older less active one. Also, the younger person would be more likely to use the Internet, to enhance and accelerate her or his learning, than the older person.
To emphasize, experience and judgment are not to be compared to each other; they depend on each other. In a free situation, where politicians speak their minds without fear, better experience produces better judgments, but freedom may be claimed even when it does not exist, or when it is disabled. When experience and freedom to use it coexist, one can still produce bad judgments. In this situation the mistakes must be taken as learning opportunities.
Finally, neither the experience nor the judgment of the candidates should be our influencing criteria for electing a nominee, or a president. Similarly, age, gender, race, and detailed plans of promises should not be significant factors. Instead, we should pause virtual questions, to each candidate, and try to answer them ourselves.
Some of the questions are: like these. Do we trust the candidate to work for us fulltime once we put her or him in the Oval Office? Would she or he focus on finding solutions to the problems that beset us, the people? Would he or she learn from his or her mistakes and the mistakes of others, in the world? Would she or he be more inclined to solve problems peacefully, or she or he would tend to seek personal glory through wars? Would he or she seek to lead the world through love, instead of fear? Would she or she protect us from the greedy and powerful among us?
I am still thinking about questions and answers. I haven’t finished yet, but when the time comes, I will vote.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
In search of a homeland--A conference
By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
It is the main title of a two-day conference that will take place at Villanova University on April 25 and 26, 2008. I have just sent my registration card and the fee to the organizers. There will be one keynote speaker, and six other speakers, in addition to seven workshops, and a panel discussion. The topics will cover various aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian problems, including historical perspectives and current affairs. The main organisers are the "Friends of Sabeel--North America." Sabeel is an international peace movement started by Palestinian Christians in the Holy Land. At the end of the conference, I will write impressions, and personal thoughts about the issue, and how I relate to them.
It is the main title of a two-day conference that will take place at Villanova University on April 25 and 26, 2008. I have just sent my registration card and the fee to the organizers. There will be one keynote speaker, and six other speakers, in addition to seven workshops, and a panel discussion. The topics will cover various aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian problems, including historical perspectives and current affairs. The main organisers are the "Friends of Sabeel--North America." Sabeel is an international peace movement started by Palestinian Christians in the Holy Land. At the end of the conference, I will write impressions, and personal thoughts about the issue, and how I relate to them.
Friday, April 4, 2008
The sooner we 'cut and run' in Iraq, the better
This article was published in the Delaware County Daily Times, Monday, July 17, 2006.
By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
We say, we had free elections in Iraq. All ethnic and religious groups participated. The Iraqis formed a unity government.
We say, we will step down when the Iraqis step up. The Iraqis are building security forces. The militias will disarm. We say sectarian clashes will subside. We say, soon we will hand them the matters of their country and its security and say goodbye to them.
We say count on us, we are forever your friends. Call us if you get in trouble. We are forever allies. We say the Iraqis will live in freedom in a democratic system of government.
We wish what we say is real. But, it is not. It is a dream. Our democratically elected government is dreaming. When you are dreaming you can hardly hear the words of wisdom, and you can hardly see the truth.
When you are dreaming, and the dream brings you happiness, you want to dream more. The government is in a bind. We want to stay the course. Telling the truth about the quagmire we are in, and our need to bring the troops safely home, calls for statesmanship, and honest leadership, not impotent politicians. The sad matter, which scholars and novices acknowledge, is that in the final analysis we will “cut and run.”
We wish the dream comes true, but reality prevails. I haven’t seen in person or talked to any Iraqi in more than 14 years. But, I met a number of Iraqi professors from most universities of Iraq at the “1992 International Renewable Energy Conference.” They were from the north, the center, and the south of Iraq.
We talked about the first American invasion of Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Many of them said they disliked Saddam, they wanted more freedom and more democracy, but they hated the British and the Americans. Saddam is an Iraqi dictator, the product of the Iraqi situation. Eventually, the Iraqis would remove him. But the British and the Americans are colonial foreign invaders. These professors spoke for the Iraqis.
Iraqis like most Arabs believe that the West has never given them a chance to grow as independent strong nations. They got educated in London, Paris, Rome, and Berlin. They learned about nationalism of the late 19th century from Europe. They learned fragmented Germans united into one nation, one country. The independent city-states of Italy united into one nation.
The Arab scholars returned to their home countries and started nationalistic movements as contrasted with the religious status quo. They allied themselves with Britain and France and fought with them during WWI. The West deceived them. Instead of independence their lands were colonized. The mouths of the Arabs are still bitter from the suppressive actions of the West against their aspirations.
The Arabs were awakened again in the 20th century. The Muslim Brotherhood movement was getting stronger in Egypt on a daily basis, during the ‘30s and ‘40s.
Western educated Arabs started political parties modeled after West European political parties. The Ba’ath party was one. It started in Damascus by a Christian Arab educated at the Sorbonne, France. Their goal was to unite all the Arabs under the banner of Arab nationalism, not Islam. Their efforts culminated in the rise of Naser in Egypt. He persecuted the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, and adopted the Arab nationalism movement as the means of uniting the Arabs. The West fought Naser until his demise. The irony is he used the American Constitution to model a constitution for the United Arab States. With the disappearance of Naser, the Islamic movement started rising again.
Saddam was one of the inheritors of Naser on the Arab seen. He wanted to carry the banner for Arab nationalism. He opened the borders to all Arabs who wished to work in the oil-rich Iraq.
When the Islamic revolution came to power in Iran, many national and Islamic Arabs hailed the rise of Islam in Iran and became strong supporters. It seemed with the religious euphoria at its peak they would overrun the lands to the west until they reached the Mediterranean. The West did not like it, and Saddam, whose country would be the first to be overrun, did not like it either.
With One million Iraqi soldiers, western intelligence and weaponry of all kinds including WMDs, and money from the Arab Gulf states, and about ten years of war, Saddam was able to stop the Iranian Islamic revolution inside its borders. Saddam became a hero to the West, and a villain to the Islamic movements all over the world. But the United States and Great Britain soon forgot. The Iraqis are mainly Arab nationals, Kurdish national, minority Iranian Shiites, and other minorities. The Arab Iraqi nationals are the majority. They include the Shiite Arabs, the Sunni Arabs, and the Christian Arabs.
A minority of the Kurds and a minority of the Iranian Iraqis will align themselves with the majority Iraqis. The other Kurds will never stop dreaming of an independent Kurdish state. The other Iranian Iraqis have their loyalties in Iran, not necessarily because it is Iran, but because it is a Muslim state, and they are devout Muslims.
If we can understand the bitterness of the Arabs and Muslims against the West, in particular against Britain and the United States, then we can conclude that sooner or later all of them will turn against us. Our current Iraqi allies will become our latest Iraqi enemies. To be a national is to refuse any kind of occupation, under any name.
Yes, sooner or later we will “cut and run.” The sooner we recognize this situation the better we will be. But this administration will never do it. If we cut and run we will become stronger, because after that we will not go to war unless it is constitutional. Our great constitution contains all the safeguards if we follow it.
By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
We say, we had free elections in Iraq. All ethnic and religious groups participated. The Iraqis formed a unity government.
We say, we will step down when the Iraqis step up. The Iraqis are building security forces. The militias will disarm. We say sectarian clashes will subside. We say, soon we will hand them the matters of their country and its security and say goodbye to them.
We say count on us, we are forever your friends. Call us if you get in trouble. We are forever allies. We say the Iraqis will live in freedom in a democratic system of government.
We wish what we say is real. But, it is not. It is a dream. Our democratically elected government is dreaming. When you are dreaming you can hardly hear the words of wisdom, and you can hardly see the truth.
When you are dreaming, and the dream brings you happiness, you want to dream more. The government is in a bind. We want to stay the course. Telling the truth about the quagmire we are in, and our need to bring the troops safely home, calls for statesmanship, and honest leadership, not impotent politicians. The sad matter, which scholars and novices acknowledge, is that in the final analysis we will “cut and run.”
We wish the dream comes true, but reality prevails. I haven’t seen in person or talked to any Iraqi in more than 14 years. But, I met a number of Iraqi professors from most universities of Iraq at the “1992 International Renewable Energy Conference.” They were from the north, the center, and the south of Iraq.
We talked about the first American invasion of Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Many of them said they disliked Saddam, they wanted more freedom and more democracy, but they hated the British and the Americans. Saddam is an Iraqi dictator, the product of the Iraqi situation. Eventually, the Iraqis would remove him. But the British and the Americans are colonial foreign invaders. These professors spoke for the Iraqis.
Iraqis like most Arabs believe that the West has never given them a chance to grow as independent strong nations. They got educated in London, Paris, Rome, and Berlin. They learned about nationalism of the late 19th century from Europe. They learned fragmented Germans united into one nation, one country. The independent city-states of Italy united into one nation.
The Arab scholars returned to their home countries and started nationalistic movements as contrasted with the religious status quo. They allied themselves with Britain and France and fought with them during WWI. The West deceived them. Instead of independence their lands were colonized. The mouths of the Arabs are still bitter from the suppressive actions of the West against their aspirations.
The Arabs were awakened again in the 20th century. The Muslim Brotherhood movement was getting stronger in Egypt on a daily basis, during the ‘30s and ‘40s.
Western educated Arabs started political parties modeled after West European political parties. The Ba’ath party was one. It started in Damascus by a Christian Arab educated at the Sorbonne, France. Their goal was to unite all the Arabs under the banner of Arab nationalism, not Islam. Their efforts culminated in the rise of Naser in Egypt. He persecuted the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, and adopted the Arab nationalism movement as the means of uniting the Arabs. The West fought Naser until his demise. The irony is he used the American Constitution to model a constitution for the United Arab States. With the disappearance of Naser, the Islamic movement started rising again.
Saddam was one of the inheritors of Naser on the Arab seen. He wanted to carry the banner for Arab nationalism. He opened the borders to all Arabs who wished to work in the oil-rich Iraq.
When the Islamic revolution came to power in Iran, many national and Islamic Arabs hailed the rise of Islam in Iran and became strong supporters. It seemed with the religious euphoria at its peak they would overrun the lands to the west until they reached the Mediterranean. The West did not like it, and Saddam, whose country would be the first to be overrun, did not like it either.
With One million Iraqi soldiers, western intelligence and weaponry of all kinds including WMDs, and money from the Arab Gulf states, and about ten years of war, Saddam was able to stop the Iranian Islamic revolution inside its borders. Saddam became a hero to the West, and a villain to the Islamic movements all over the world. But the United States and Great Britain soon forgot. The Iraqis are mainly Arab nationals, Kurdish national, minority Iranian Shiites, and other minorities. The Arab Iraqi nationals are the majority. They include the Shiite Arabs, the Sunni Arabs, and the Christian Arabs.
A minority of the Kurds and a minority of the Iranian Iraqis will align themselves with the majority Iraqis. The other Kurds will never stop dreaming of an independent Kurdish state. The other Iranian Iraqis have their loyalties in Iran, not necessarily because it is Iran, but because it is a Muslim state, and they are devout Muslims.
If we can understand the bitterness of the Arabs and Muslims against the West, in particular against Britain and the United States, then we can conclude that sooner or later all of them will turn against us. Our current Iraqi allies will become our latest Iraqi enemies. To be a national is to refuse any kind of occupation, under any name.
Yes, sooner or later we will “cut and run.” The sooner we recognize this situation the better we will be. But this administration will never do it. If we cut and run we will become stronger, because after that we will not go to war unless it is constitutional. Our great constitution contains all the safeguards if we follow it.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
The experience of Hilary Clinton versus the judgment of Barack Obama
By
Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
Hilary Clinton believes she has the experience to make the tough decision, if the telephone rings, after midnight, in the White House. Barack Obama believes he has the judgment superiority to make the right decision, if the telephone rings. Ordinary citizens intuitively know that presidents do not make decisions in this manner. Instead, they consider and discuss problems with advisors, and others, before a decision is made.
Nevertheless, it is instructive to examine the relationship between experience and judgment, and to shed some light on the merit of the claims of the candidates.
Dictionaries state that experience is the accumulation of knowledge, or the learning of skills, from participation in events and activities. Judgment is the formation of an opinion, after consideration and deliberation. Beyond these definitions, the quality of the output, the judgment, of the deliberation depends on the experiences of the participants. This truism underscores the relationship between experience and judgment. At the same time, I acknowledge that the relationship is not simple. To help you understand what I am trying to say, simply note that experience and judgment are like trees and their fruits. To choose a frequently used fruits, experience and judgment are neither apples, nor oranges; they are apples on apple trees, and oranges on orange trees.
To wit, judgment depends on experience, figuratively, as fruits depend on the plants, and the trees that carry them.
Clinton claims she has the experience to perform the duties of president starting on her first day in office. Her years of experience in public service, including eight years as the first lady, qualify her for the job. On the other hand, Obama claims that he, as a community organizer, and a civil rights attorney, has learned to differentiate between right and wrong. That kind of learning helped him conclude, before the war on Iraq started, that invasion was wrong. The majority of Americans, after five years of carnage, denials, and false claims, still believe that the war on Iraq has been wrong from the beginning.
On the other hand, Obama’s experienced opponent, Hilary Clinton, failed to produce, with her experience, a similarly acceptable result about the unpopular war. This is not to belittle her experience. On the contrary, experience is valuable in every field of human endeavor. With experience farmers cultivate their lands more efficiently, engineers build better machines, mothers provide better care to their offspring, employees improve their productivity, and politicians learn what roads to follow, and which to abandon.
The problem is not what is experience and what are its benefits, it is the politicians, who are notorious for making irrational decisions. When a president stands in congress and uses patriotism and its language, in presenting a case, he assures himself of enthusiastic applause, energetic standing ovation, and exciting march of the flock behind him. For fear of stigma, rarely does a member of congress stand against a call to show patriotism, even when the member is not adequately convinced of the virtue of the case, and when his hunch tells him that the justification for war, for example, on Iraq was based on falsehood.
Further, experience is an indicator of the extent of learning, and the capacity to produce a well reasoned judgment, or a plan of action. Theories inform us that learning is a process that goes through observations (collecting data), analyses, and generalizations. Internalization, and building new mental structures, or expanding existing ones follow, to complete the learning process.
Learning is not always easy; the ease and the speed of learning depend on the experience of the learner. An experienced person finds it easier to acquire new knowledge, and to absorb it faster, than a less experienced individual.
How experienced a president or those who aspire to become president should be? The constitution ignores this matter. At the time of the founding, only the elite held high positions in government, although the constitution does not spell that out. Today an idiot could become president of the United States as long as he or she is born in the US, thirty-five years of age or older, and wins the election.
For that reason, it is imperative that in addition to their own learning and their own experiences, presidents and leaders of all walks of life, should seek the services of advisors, consultants, and subordinates whose experiences, put together, widen and deepen the experience of the leader.
The impression that the experience of a person depends on his or her age, may not be true. An active younger person could become more experienced than an older less active one. Also, the younger person would be more likely to use the Internet, to enhance and accelerate her or his learning, than the older person.
To emphasize, experience and judgment are not to be compared to each other; they depend on each other. In a free situation, where politicians speak their minds without fear, better experience produces better judgments, but freedom may be claimed even when it does not exist, or when it is disabled. When experience and freedom to use it coexist, one can still produce bad judgments. In this situation the mistakes must be taken as learning opportunities.
Finally, neither the experience nor the judgment of the candidates should be our influencing criteria for electing a nominee, or a president. Similarly, age, gender, race, and detailed plans of promises should not be significant factors in the process. Instead, we should pause virtual questions, to each candidate, and try to answer them ourselves. Some of the questions are like these. Do we trust the candidate to work for us fulltime once we put her or him in the Oval Office? Would she or he focus on finding solutions to the problems that beset us, the people? Would he or she learn from his or her mistakes and the mistakes of others, in the world? Would she or he be more inclined to solve problems peacefully, or she or he would tend to seek personal glory through wars? Would he or she seek to lead the world through love, instead of fear? Would he or she protect us from the greedy and powerful among us?
I am still thinking about questions and answers. I haven’t finished yet, but when the time comes, I will vote.
Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
Hilary Clinton believes she has the experience to make the tough decision, if the telephone rings, after midnight, in the White House. Barack Obama believes he has the judgment superiority to make the right decision, if the telephone rings. Ordinary citizens intuitively know that presidents do not make decisions in this manner. Instead, they consider and discuss problems with advisors, and others, before a decision is made.
Nevertheless, it is instructive to examine the relationship between experience and judgment, and to shed some light on the merit of the claims of the candidates.
Dictionaries state that experience is the accumulation of knowledge, or the learning of skills, from participation in events and activities. Judgment is the formation of an opinion, after consideration and deliberation. Beyond these definitions, the quality of the output, the judgment, of the deliberation depends on the experiences of the participants. This truism underscores the relationship between experience and judgment. At the same time, I acknowledge that the relationship is not simple. To help you understand what I am trying to say, simply note that experience and judgment are like trees and their fruits. To choose a frequently used fruits, experience and judgment are neither apples, nor oranges; they are apples on apple trees, and oranges on orange trees.
To wit, judgment depends on experience, figuratively, as fruits depend on the plants, and the trees that carry them.
Clinton claims she has the experience to perform the duties of president starting on her first day in office. Her years of experience in public service, including eight years as the first lady, qualify her for the job. On the other hand, Obama claims that he, as a community organizer, and a civil rights attorney, has learned to differentiate between right and wrong. That kind of learning helped him conclude, before the war on Iraq started, that invasion was wrong. The majority of Americans, after five years of carnage, denials, and false claims, still believe that the war on Iraq has been wrong from the beginning.
On the other hand, Obama’s experienced opponent, Hilary Clinton, failed to produce, with her experience, a similarly acceptable result about the unpopular war. This is not to belittle her experience. On the contrary, experience is valuable in every field of human endeavor. With experience farmers cultivate their lands more efficiently, engineers build better machines, mothers provide better care to their offspring, employees improve their productivity, and politicians learn what roads to follow, and which to abandon.
The problem is not what is experience and what are its benefits, it is the politicians, who are notorious for making irrational decisions. When a president stands in congress and uses patriotism and its language, in presenting a case, he assures himself of enthusiastic applause, energetic standing ovation, and exciting march of the flock behind him. For fear of stigma, rarely does a member of congress stand against a call to show patriotism, even when the member is not adequately convinced of the virtue of the case, and when his hunch tells him that the justification for war, for example, on Iraq was based on falsehood.
Further, experience is an indicator of the extent of learning, and the capacity to produce a well reasoned judgment, or a plan of action. Theories inform us that learning is a process that goes through observations (collecting data), analyses, and generalizations. Internalization, and building new mental structures, or expanding existing ones follow, to complete the learning process.
Learning is not always easy; the ease and the speed of learning depend on the experience of the learner. An experienced person finds it easier to acquire new knowledge, and to absorb it faster, than a less experienced individual.
How experienced a president or those who aspire to become president should be? The constitution ignores this matter. At the time of the founding, only the elite held high positions in government, although the constitution does not spell that out. Today an idiot could become president of the United States as long as he or she is born in the US, thirty-five years of age or older, and wins the election.
For that reason, it is imperative that in addition to their own learning and their own experiences, presidents and leaders of all walks of life, should seek the services of advisors, consultants, and subordinates whose experiences, put together, widen and deepen the experience of the leader.
The impression that the experience of a person depends on his or her age, may not be true. An active younger person could become more experienced than an older less active one. Also, the younger person would be more likely to use the Internet, to enhance and accelerate her or his learning, than the older person.
To emphasize, experience and judgment are not to be compared to each other; they depend on each other. In a free situation, where politicians speak their minds without fear, better experience produces better judgments, but freedom may be claimed even when it does not exist, or when it is disabled. When experience and freedom to use it coexist, one can still produce bad judgments. In this situation the mistakes must be taken as learning opportunities.
Finally, neither the experience nor the judgment of the candidates should be our influencing criteria for electing a nominee, or a president. Similarly, age, gender, race, and detailed plans of promises should not be significant factors in the process. Instead, we should pause virtual questions, to each candidate, and try to answer them ourselves. Some of the questions are like these. Do we trust the candidate to work for us fulltime once we put her or him in the Oval Office? Would she or he focus on finding solutions to the problems that beset us, the people? Would he or she learn from his or her mistakes and the mistakes of others, in the world? Would she or he be more inclined to solve problems peacefully, or she or he would tend to seek personal glory through wars? Would he or she seek to lead the world through love, instead of fear? Would he or she protect us from the greedy and powerful among us?
I am still thinking about questions and answers. I haven’t finished yet, but when the time comes, I will vote.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Stability in Iraq: How far is the U.S. willing to go?
This article was published in the Delaware County Daily Times, Monday, September 17, 2007.
By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
The picture of what is going on in Iraq is getting bleaker every day. The plethora of reports is making it murkier and the average citizen is confused. Most of the contents of the reports is true, but incomplete. The opposing parties underscore what supports their claims, and the public does not have the time or the background to sieve through mounds of reports and newspaper articles.
It is true some provinces of Iraq and some neighborhoods of Baghdad are enjoying an improved level of security. It is also true that the killing did not stop, and the loss of lives continues. It is true more insurgents are killed or captured, but it is also true more of them are still conducting deadly attacks. The information from the field is limited and it is manipulated to produce the most desirable outcome: sound bites and slick television commercials.
I am a bicultural, bilingual American. I understand the social paradigm, the politics, and the culture of my country of choice. I equally understand the social paradigm, the politics, and the cultures of the Arabs and the Muslims. So, when I hear politicians (and self anointed intellectuals), and when I read newspapers articles, I understand where the speaker or the writer is coming from. I understand the sounds of demagoguery, the mistakes of the ignorant, and the malice of those who have axes to grind.
I am driven by a desire to promote understanding and to bridge the gap, or narrow it, between the two worlds, so my children and my grandchildren live in peace and harmony with their neighbors in this great country.
The President could announce an end of our military mission in Iraq and inform Iraqis of our plans to withdraw the troops from their country. But neither the current President nor the next (even if he or she were a Democrat) would make the announcement, and inform the Iraqis of his decision.
A different approach would be for Congress to stop financing the war. But this wouldn’t happen regardless of which party controls Congress. A Democratic Congress would fear being labeled as weak on defense. A Republican Congress would not do it because it is the party (dominated by the Religious Right) that took us to this pre-emptive war. The extremists do not want to end the war, they want to expand it to include Iran and Syria.
The third possible way to end the war depends on action by Congress. It is true that Congress may not have the volition to do anything on its own about the war, but if there is a national cry, similar to that which helped end the Vietnam War, Congress may respond. Members of Congress would scurry to align themselves with the public and, perhaps, use the power of the purse to end the war.
A fourth eventuality is for our troops to withdraw in defeat. Our valiant soldiers do not deserve a shameful end to their sacrifice. But if the current situation (lack of security, electricity, water, jobs, and abundance of self centered politicians) does not improve, the insurgency would become stronger. Iraqis would join the freedom fighters for a patriotic goal: To liberate their country from the foreign occupiers.
The fifth possible action is for the President to attack Iran and nuke its nuclear and other military facilities. This action would not end the war; it would intensify and prolong it. At the same time he or his proxy would attack or perhaps occupy another part of Syria. Thus creating a dream security belt from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean. The expansion would not end the war, but it sure would extend it for decades to come.
A last possible option to end the war is to nuke Iraq from north to south and from east to west, as a former Marine told me, on the morning of September 11, 2001. This would not happen. The President may lack wisdom, as his political adversaries claim, but he is not a Nero, either.
The only option that makes sense (saves lives and capital) is to plan and execute the withdrawal of our troops, orderly and safely. But, the government, its loyal political pundits, and the allied spin junkies warn us of impending disasters.
They say the Iraqis would fight each other in a full scale and bloody civil war. The whole Middle East would be destabilized. The anti-American forces would rejoice in victory and put up their sails and follow us, to harm us, in our own homeland.
It’s scary. But remember that the Vietnam War took so long because of the scare of the domino theory and its effect on the citizenry.
Here is the more likely scenario. When the military forces begin to withdraw, the violence would increase, but soon (in about six months) it would subside because the majority of the current violence is directed against the coalition forces, the mercenaries, the collaborators, and the beneficiaries of the war.
Once the foreign forces leave Iraq, that violence would dwindle. But the fighting among the militias would rage in the streets and in the neighborhoods of most Iraqi cities. It would mainly be on land grapping and sectarian cleansing.
However, the end of the mayhem would come at the hands of a military unifier—a dictator, who could have been one of those trained by the Americans, not to become a dictator, but to create and preserve peace and tranquility. The new ruler would be supported and aided by Iran, but he would not establish an Iranian type theocracy. Instead the military would rule for a while. Then a limited democracy might be initiated, and in a decade or two, democracy might take hold.
On the other hand, if the United States intervenes to stop the new dictator, a situation like the one in Lebanon might arise and Iraq would become another State in the Middle East perpetually divided and dangerously unstable.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Democracy follows if you give them love
This article was published in the Delaware County Daily Times, Saturday, May 6, 2006.
By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
Pre-emptive wars against potential enemies, democratization of undemocratic and unfriendly governments, and the spread of freedom throughout the world, have been foreign policy goals of our government. One may argue whether this policy depicts our benevolence or our arrogance. Others may wish an aggressive policy to feed the poor, cure the sick and protect the week. The policy of invading a country to democratize its politics and to free its people must be challenged to preserve our own democracy and freedom.
Why would a superpower wage a preemptive war against a country with limited means of defending itself? The claim of stopping a war before it starts is unsubstantiated. In reality the war would be a war of aggression, occupation, domination and colonization.
For democratization of tyrant governments and for spreading freedom, we must have a more realistic approach. It does not take a rocket scientist to know wars do not democratize rotten systems, but antagonize the people living in that system. Freedom will not canvas the lands and hatred may spread, instead. Facing reality, one can see the current practice of our government needs modification.
But who am I to question the conduct of our government? I am just an immigrant who came to this country in search of peace, happiness and freedom. I must say that I am satisfied with what I have achieved, and I have enjoyed being an American. And as so, I feel empowered to voice my opinion.
Do we really need a preemptive wars policy? I say no. During the Cold War we did not have such a policy against the Soviet Union, which was the only union of countries that had the capacity to inflict horrendous destruction and pain on us. But, we were prepared and ready to strike back with immeasurable destruction and bane. The Soviet Union lost the Cold War, and the threat of what remained of it has been considerably diminished.
We are wooing China and India in becoming our trade partners. They will not be our enemies in the foreseeable future. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are our allies. The Europeans are our allies too. There is no fear of attacks against us from these countries.
We are left with many underdeveloped and poor countries that are ruled, in most cases, by undemocratic governments. Would these countries attack us for any reason? Do they have the capability to hurt us? The answer is no.
A more reasonable assumption to is that the self appointed rulers would seek to keep their people fed and quiet, to stay in power. They would not achieve that by attacking a superpower. Many believe attacking or invading any country in a so called pre-emptive war would hurt our pride and tarnish our image as a country of laws, not a country of rulers. Again, preemptive wars, if used by other countries, will spark chaos. The world will return to its pre United Nations era, during which the rule of the jungle prevailed.
We learned in school (Maslow’s Theory of needs and motivations) that people have needs to satisfy before they aspire to power that might be begotten from democracy. They want to stay alive. They need food, air, and water. They need to be safe from physical and psychological harm. They need affection and belonging. Then they may need democracy so they may feel important and strong.
It is hard to convince people that democracy is good for them if they were hungry, if they feel insecure, or if they feel unloved. Democracy will not have any chance to hold If people do not have a shelter to protect them from the elements of the weather, and if they do not have basic protection against predators.
They need jobs. They need to learn how to farm their land efficiently. They need factories to add value to their natural resources. They need health care to protect them against simple and pandemic diseases. They need love. If we give them love, they get their basic needs with it.
Democracies are fortresses that protect the dignity of man. Their foundations must go deep to the bedrock of the land. We must love them and make them grow to want democracy. Patience is required. Building democratic communities is not like building a car on an assembly line.
Also, which democracy do we wish to export to other countries? Is it the democracy that was the foundation of our country, or a democracy that might keep these democracies open to outside meddling? Is it the democracy that produces a government of the people, for the people, by the people, which sounds nice, or some other form of government that may be more efficient?
Alex de Tocqueville, a 19th century French historian, enlightened us about our own democracy and warned us against its vulnerability in the face of corruption. Democracy is not uniform but is a range with shades and colors. There is a French democracy, and English democracy. There are underdeveloped countries that seem to have different forms of democracy. Do we shun them because their democracies are different from ours, or do we try to understand their governments, and encourage them to keep developing their democracies until they mature?
What is wrong with tribal democracy? I wish scholars study tribal democracies and inform us of their strengths and weaknesses. A locally developed democracy based on local tradition and culture may be more effective than a totally imported democracy.
Democracy where individuals have a say in the making of their governments and in the functioning of its institutions is a blessing to the people who embrace it. But for our democracy to flourish in foreign soil it needs solid foundations. That foundation is love. The best way to democratize a country is to love its people, instead of dividing and colonizing them. It is better to love them and help them obtain their basic needs for survival. If we do that for them, some will love us, and they may trust us. Then, with time, democracy will follow.
By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
Pre-emptive wars against potential enemies, democratization of undemocratic and unfriendly governments, and the spread of freedom throughout the world, have been foreign policy goals of our government. One may argue whether this policy depicts our benevolence or our arrogance. Others may wish an aggressive policy to feed the poor, cure the sick and protect the week. The policy of invading a country to democratize its politics and to free its people must be challenged to preserve our own democracy and freedom.
Why would a superpower wage a preemptive war against a country with limited means of defending itself? The claim of stopping a war before it starts is unsubstantiated. In reality the war would be a war of aggression, occupation, domination and colonization.
For democratization of tyrant governments and for spreading freedom, we must have a more realistic approach. It does not take a rocket scientist to know wars do not democratize rotten systems, but antagonize the people living in that system. Freedom will not canvas the lands and hatred may spread, instead. Facing reality, one can see the current practice of our government needs modification.
But who am I to question the conduct of our government? I am just an immigrant who came to this country in search of peace, happiness and freedom. I must say that I am satisfied with what I have achieved, and I have enjoyed being an American. And as so, I feel empowered to voice my opinion.
Do we really need a preemptive wars policy? I say no. During the Cold War we did not have such a policy against the Soviet Union, which was the only union of countries that had the capacity to inflict horrendous destruction and pain on us. But, we were prepared and ready to strike back with immeasurable destruction and bane. The Soviet Union lost the Cold War, and the threat of what remained of it has been considerably diminished.
We are wooing China and India in becoming our trade partners. They will not be our enemies in the foreseeable future. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are our allies. The Europeans are our allies too. There is no fear of attacks against us from these countries.
We are left with many underdeveloped and poor countries that are ruled, in most cases, by undemocratic governments. Would these countries attack us for any reason? Do they have the capability to hurt us? The answer is no.
A more reasonable assumption to is that the self appointed rulers would seek to keep their people fed and quiet, to stay in power. They would not achieve that by attacking a superpower. Many believe attacking or invading any country in a so called pre-emptive war would hurt our pride and tarnish our image as a country of laws, not a country of rulers. Again, preemptive wars, if used by other countries, will spark chaos. The world will return to its pre United Nations era, during which the rule of the jungle prevailed.
We learned in school (Maslow’s Theory of needs and motivations) that people have needs to satisfy before they aspire to power that might be begotten from democracy. They want to stay alive. They need food, air, and water. They need to be safe from physical and psychological harm. They need affection and belonging. Then they may need democracy so they may feel important and strong.
It is hard to convince people that democracy is good for them if they were hungry, if they feel insecure, or if they feel unloved. Democracy will not have any chance to hold If people do not have a shelter to protect them from the elements of the weather, and if they do not have basic protection against predators.
They need jobs. They need to learn how to farm their land efficiently. They need factories to add value to their natural resources. They need health care to protect them against simple and pandemic diseases. They need love. If we give them love, they get their basic needs with it.
Democracies are fortresses that protect the dignity of man. Their foundations must go deep to the bedrock of the land. We must love them and make them grow to want democracy. Patience is required. Building democratic communities is not like building a car on an assembly line.
Also, which democracy do we wish to export to other countries? Is it the democracy that was the foundation of our country, or a democracy that might keep these democracies open to outside meddling? Is it the democracy that produces a government of the people, for the people, by the people, which sounds nice, or some other form of government that may be more efficient?
Alex de Tocqueville, a 19th century French historian, enlightened us about our own democracy and warned us against its vulnerability in the face of corruption. Democracy is not uniform but is a range with shades and colors. There is a French democracy, and English democracy. There are underdeveloped countries that seem to have different forms of democracy. Do we shun them because their democracies are different from ours, or do we try to understand their governments, and encourage them to keep developing their democracies until they mature?
What is wrong with tribal democracy? I wish scholars study tribal democracies and inform us of their strengths and weaknesses. A locally developed democracy based on local tradition and culture may be more effective than a totally imported democracy.
Democracy where individuals have a say in the making of their governments and in the functioning of its institutions is a blessing to the people who embrace it. But for our democracy to flourish in foreign soil it needs solid foundations. That foundation is love. The best way to democratize a country is to love its people, instead of dividing and colonizing them. It is better to love them and help them obtain their basic needs for survival. If we do that for them, some will love us, and they may trust us. Then, with time, democracy will follow.
Please take a minute and tell me what think.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
About me
Mahmoud S. Audi
Education: Bachelor of Engineering, the American University of Beirut, Lebanon
Master of Science (Aerospace Engineering), Syracuse University, New York
Ph.D. (Mechanical Engineering), Syracuse University, New York
Experience: Professor of Engineering, 24 years;
Professional Engineer including design of HVAC systems, 10 years;
Science and Math teacher, 6 years.
Publications: About 40 professional articles
A book on Solar Energy (Arabic)
Organized a conference on renewable energy "Renewable Energy: Research and Applications" and Edited its 2-volume proceedings
What am I doing now: Consulting and writing. I have written opinion newspaper articles about culture, politics, and religion, and I will continue to do so, as a civic duty. My articles present points of view from a different angle.
I have finished writing the first draft of a memoir Teaching and beyond: My Diary about Teaching, Living, and Traveling in Saudi Arabia. I am looking for an agent or a publisher.
Email address: draudiphd@yahoo.com or audi.mahmoud@gmail.com
To Google (or yahoo) me, write one of the following in the search field (box)
["Mahmoud S. Audi"] without the brackets, but keep the quotation marks.
or, ["Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi"] without the brackets, but keep the quotation marks.
or, ["M. S. Audi"] without the brackets, but keep the quotation marks.
or, ["Dr. M. S. Audi"] without the brackets, but keep the quotation marks.
Education: Bachelor of Engineering, the American University of Beirut, Lebanon
Master of Science (Aerospace Engineering), Syracuse University, New York
Ph.D. (Mechanical Engineering), Syracuse University, New York
Experience: Professor of Engineering, 24 years;
Professional Engineer including design of HVAC systems, 10 years;
Science and Math teacher, 6 years.
Publications: About 40 professional articles
A book on Solar Energy (Arabic)
Organized a conference on renewable energy "Renewable Energy: Research and Applications" and Edited its 2-volume proceedings
What am I doing now: Consulting and writing. I have written opinion newspaper articles about culture, politics, and religion, and I will continue to do so, as a civic duty. My articles present points of view from a different angle.
I have finished writing the first draft of a memoir Teaching and beyond: My Diary about Teaching, Living, and Traveling in Saudi Arabia. I am looking for an agent or a publisher.
Email address: draudiphd@yahoo.com or audi.mahmoud@gmail.com
To Google (or yahoo) me, write one of the following in the search field (box)
["Mahmoud S. Audi"] without the brackets, but keep the quotation marks.
or, ["Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi"] without the brackets, but keep the quotation marks.
or, ["M. S. Audi"] without the brackets, but keep the quotation marks.
or, ["Dr. M. S. Audi"] without the brackets, but keep the quotation marks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
