Allow me to ask this one question... I've never gotten a good answer, no matter how often or to whom I ask it:
Why was what Bill Clinton did with Lewinsky so morally and ethically unjustifiable, yet what Newt Gingrich was doing at the same time is not worth a second thought?
Both had affairs with interns while in office, both lied about them to their spouses and the voting public, and both have admitted to these lies openly since then. One is to be dismissed out-of-hand because of it, while the other is a serious contender for the nomination for the highest office in the land... how is that justifiable? How is that even rational?
If Clinton's lack of character and judgement was enough to warrant an attempt to remove him from office, why wouldn't Gingrich's actions be enough to exclude him from consideration for the same office? Neither was forthright or honest prior to the information about the affairs leaking out, and neither "resigned" their office once the information was out... why should I assume that Gingrich is any better suited for a position that Starr's investigation convinced so many that Clinton was unsuited for?
If the answer is that the character associated with each of these "judgement calls" is fundamentally different based on political positions, I can assure you that this discussion is going to get heated... very fast.
Hehe.
Friday, June 10, 2011
To clarify...
To address each of your points...
I might, indeed, have been unclear. It was a busy evening for me, as I don't usually "Bund" after work. My apologies.
#1) I know Mr. Ford is dead... I was being ironic.
#2) My position on Clinton is that 90% of everything that came out of the Starr investigation had nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged real estate purchases he was instructed to investigate in the first place. In fact, the "Whitewater" investigation fizzled almost immediately... but the Lewinsky scandal proved hot and juicy. So, eleven months and $70 million later, Starr finally gets Clinton to lie outright on camera ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman.")... victory is attained, right?
#3) My point is that the Starr investigation was 100% politically motivated. There isn't one iota of what that man brought to the public's eye (via a rabid media, too... since when does a Federal investigator use mainstream media as the conduit for his investigation information, anyway?) that was in the pervue of his initial investigative agenda... not one. My point is that there is a price to be paid for that sort of "public flogging", whether it is justified by "bad character" or not.
FDR was known to have had an affair for his entire Presidency (even Eleanor knew about it), but most people agree that it couldn't or wouldn't have done any "public" good to have exposed the man for his "bad character" while he was in office. The "price" I keep referring to is the cost associated with making the Office of the President (or any major office in the govenrment) look cheap and demeaned by poor judgement for no gain other than partisan politics.
Had Starr actually focused on alleged criminal activity by the President when he was still Governor, then the matter would have been resolved quickly and quietly, and a tangible stain that never really goes away would never have been placed on the White House. If you don't see what I am saying, then ask yourself this: When I say "tangible stain" in association or reference to the Lewinsky scandal... do you think about a stained dress? I do, and I don't think that is a good thing.
Yes, ultimately, the responsibility for that association lies with Clinton himself. He had the affair, he bears the blame for the results... I know this. I find it unfortunate, but it is true. Why then should Nixon NOT bear the responsibility for his "bad character"? Why is Ford justified in pardoning Nixon, if Clinton deserved what he got? That is my reasoning in stating that I can't decisively dismiss arguments against Ford's pardon. I think it was the right thing to do, but NOT because I think Nixon was not guilty. I think Nixon was guilty, just as I think Clinton was guilty... but neither Clinton nor Nixon suffered even a fraction as much as the country did, in each episode. Our nation's legacy, history, honor and prestige all suffered at the hands of men who exercised very, very bad judgement.
It all boils down to the question "Where does justice lay?" Is it handed out through our legal system, or is it handed out via the media circus and the court of public opinion? Nixon never saw his day in "court"... and the country was better off for it, but Clinton was charged, tried and "judged" by everyone watching TV or reading a newspaper, and the country is a little less than what it was because of it.
I'm still a little irked by the thought that I am having to justify my position (as opposed to clarifying it) to someone that so ardently defended the perceived "position" of another scandalized former President... Andrew Jackson. I'm expected to over-look or ignore his blanket disregard for the law and basic human understanding in light of the "good things" he did for the country... but I should expect each and every sitting public official to readily admit to each and every sexual or moral indiscretion that might have occured in their lives? If it all comes down to character and judgement... there aren't many that can stand up to the test, are there?
I might, indeed, have been unclear. It was a busy evening for me, as I don't usually "Bund" after work. My apologies.
#1) I know Mr. Ford is dead... I was being ironic.
#2) My position on Clinton is that 90% of everything that came out of the Starr investigation had nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged real estate purchases he was instructed to investigate in the first place. In fact, the "Whitewater" investigation fizzled almost immediately... but the Lewinsky scandal proved hot and juicy. So, eleven months and $70 million later, Starr finally gets Clinton to lie outright on camera ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman.")... victory is attained, right?
#3) My point is that the Starr investigation was 100% politically motivated. There isn't one iota of what that man brought to the public's eye (via a rabid media, too... since when does a Federal investigator use mainstream media as the conduit for his investigation information, anyway?) that was in the pervue of his initial investigative agenda... not one. My point is that there is a price to be paid for that sort of "public flogging", whether it is justified by "bad character" or not.
FDR was known to have had an affair for his entire Presidency (even Eleanor knew about it), but most people agree that it couldn't or wouldn't have done any "public" good to have exposed the man for his "bad character" while he was in office. The "price" I keep referring to is the cost associated with making the Office of the President (or any major office in the govenrment) look cheap and demeaned by poor judgement for no gain other than partisan politics.
Had Starr actually focused on alleged criminal activity by the President when he was still Governor, then the matter would have been resolved quickly and quietly, and a tangible stain that never really goes away would never have been placed on the White House. If you don't see what I am saying, then ask yourself this: When I say "tangible stain" in association or reference to the Lewinsky scandal... do you think about a stained dress? I do, and I don't think that is a good thing.
Yes, ultimately, the responsibility for that association lies with Clinton himself. He had the affair, he bears the blame for the results... I know this. I find it unfortunate, but it is true. Why then should Nixon NOT bear the responsibility for his "bad character"? Why is Ford justified in pardoning Nixon, if Clinton deserved what he got? That is my reasoning in stating that I can't decisively dismiss arguments against Ford's pardon. I think it was the right thing to do, but NOT because I think Nixon was not guilty. I think Nixon was guilty, just as I think Clinton was guilty... but neither Clinton nor Nixon suffered even a fraction as much as the country did, in each episode. Our nation's legacy, history, honor and prestige all suffered at the hands of men who exercised very, very bad judgement.
It all boils down to the question "Where does justice lay?" Is it handed out through our legal system, or is it handed out via the media circus and the court of public opinion? Nixon never saw his day in "court"... and the country was better off for it, but Clinton was charged, tried and "judged" by everyone watching TV or reading a newspaper, and the country is a little less than what it was because of it.
I'm still a little irked by the thought that I am having to justify my position (as opposed to clarifying it) to someone that so ardently defended the perceived "position" of another scandalized former President... Andrew Jackson. I'm expected to over-look or ignore his blanket disregard for the law and basic human understanding in light of the "good things" he did for the country... but I should expect each and every sitting public official to readily admit to each and every sexual or moral indiscretion that might have occured in their lives? If it all comes down to character and judgement... there aren't many that can stand up to the test, are there?
Thursday, June 9, 2011
What?
Truth be told, I invoked Starr's name just to needle you. "90's Democrats" react to that name the way current MSNBC pundits react to "Sarah Palin", you guys go into full body convulsions like a lab monkey on amphetamines.
But perhaps invoking that name worked a little too well, because I found your post rather, well, a tad incoherent.
First, I can't ask "Gerry" Ford, nor can anyone else, he's deceased.
But more to the point I don't really "get" your position on Clinton. You cop to his low moral character, but then offer some degree of, I guess, retroactive moral clemency because of his Senate acquittal? Nixon wasn't even tried. Was never brought up on a single charge. By your reasoning does he not then deserve an even greater degree of retroactive moral clemency? That just doesn't make sense to me. If you are going to admit that from Jennifer Flowers to Lewinski that Clinton was of low character, and lied straight faced to the nation numerous times, then do so. He wasn't being tried in Congress for banging women that weren't his wife, so I fail to see why how his acquittal factors into it. The bottom line is he'll forever be a punch line for cigar jokes, just as Nixon ensured the name "Dick" would forever be associated with the word "tricky" (man is there a mammoth joke in there somewhere!).
And speaking of Nixon...
Lumping the Ford pardon into this just seems bizarre to me. Clinton pardoned a Puerto Rican terrorist, reportedly to ensure Hillary's electability in New York. Lincoln pardoned Confederates. Men whom actively took up arms against their government. A pardon is a unique Constitutional Right of the CIC. You can argue which pardons were worthy of the signature and which weren't, but I wouldn't toss them into a debate about morality or lapses in judgement involving sex scandals.
In fact, I could argue Ford's pardoning of Millhouse was COURAGEOUS. Despite the best efforts of Chevy Chase on SNL, Ford was no dummy. He simply had to know how politically risky it was to pardon Nixon. He had to know that it may well cost him reelection, they had polling data back then. In fact his only shot may have been to crucify his former boss. Yet he didn't do the politically expedient thing for his own career. I always presumed that on the heels of Vietnam and Watergate he decided the country had had enough of being torn apart at the seams, and he put the nation's interests ahead of his own. Why else do something that would so obviously condemn his political future? And while freeing terrorists, like Slick Willy did, isn't what I would use the pardon for, it is an unquestionable Right of the chief executive and not something worth mentioning along side "Weiner-Gate." In my opinion this is particularly true with the Nixon pardon - Ford used the power of the pardon for precisely what it was designed to do, heal the nation and move on. I don't see a "judgement" parallel with sex tweeting, or phallic uses of a good stogie.
But perhaps invoking that name worked a little too well, because I found your post rather, well, a tad incoherent.
First, I can't ask "Gerry" Ford, nor can anyone else, he's deceased.
But more to the point I don't really "get" your position on Clinton. You cop to his low moral character, but then offer some degree of, I guess, retroactive moral clemency because of his Senate acquittal? Nixon wasn't even tried. Was never brought up on a single charge. By your reasoning does he not then deserve an even greater degree of retroactive moral clemency? That just doesn't make sense to me. If you are going to admit that from Jennifer Flowers to Lewinski that Clinton was of low character, and lied straight faced to the nation numerous times, then do so. He wasn't being tried in Congress for banging women that weren't his wife, so I fail to see why how his acquittal factors into it. The bottom line is he'll forever be a punch line for cigar jokes, just as Nixon ensured the name "Dick" would forever be associated with the word "tricky" (man is there a mammoth joke in there somewhere!).
And speaking of Nixon...
Lumping the Ford pardon into this just seems bizarre to me. Clinton pardoned a Puerto Rican terrorist, reportedly to ensure Hillary's electability in New York. Lincoln pardoned Confederates. Men whom actively took up arms against their government. A pardon is a unique Constitutional Right of the CIC. You can argue which pardons were worthy of the signature and which weren't, but I wouldn't toss them into a debate about morality or lapses in judgement involving sex scandals.
In fact, I could argue Ford's pardoning of Millhouse was COURAGEOUS. Despite the best efforts of Chevy Chase on SNL, Ford was no dummy. He simply had to know how politically risky it was to pardon Nixon. He had to know that it may well cost him reelection, they had polling data back then. In fact his only shot may have been to crucify his former boss. Yet he didn't do the politically expedient thing for his own career. I always presumed that on the heels of Vietnam and Watergate he decided the country had had enough of being torn apart at the seams, and he put the nation's interests ahead of his own. Why else do something that would so obviously condemn his political future? And while freeing terrorists, like Slick Willy did, isn't what I would use the pardon for, it is an unquestionable Right of the chief executive and not something worth mentioning along side "Weiner-Gate." In my opinion this is particularly true with the Nixon pardon - Ford used the power of the pardon for precisely what it was designed to do, heal the nation and move on. I don't see a "judgement" parallel with sex tweeting, or phallic uses of a good stogie.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
I was fine until you said "Ken Starr"...
I have no beef with what you wrote... character matters, no question about it. That is why we have the primary and general election system that we do: we have the opportunity, as a nation, to "vet" our candidates before deciding if they are ready to serve in office.
Wiener is just that... a wiener. He's an idiot of the first order, and the disaster that is his career and life right now is wholly his own doing. I don't feel sorry for him one bit.
So, having said that character matters, we move into your "justification" for the Ken Starr investigation. Without rehashing the whole affair... and why do that? There are only 470,000 pages of evidence and testimony that are available to read over if we choose... I really feel bound to point out that there is (in my mind) a difference between finding a "bad character" in an important position within our government, and conducting a "character assassination" for purely partisan political gains.
Clinton lied, and Clinton paid the price... but the United States Senate (all one hundred and one members present, too) found the man "not guilty" of both perjury and obstruction (the only charges to make it past the House of Representatives). Thus, by our own Constitutional system of government, the man was determined to NOT be a "bad character"... at least not bad enough to remove from office. No "high crimes or misdemeanors" in other words.
Furthermore, character is most often proven by judgements made and acted upon by the individual. Obviously, Clinton's judgement was questionable, to say the least... but he surely wasn't alone in that arena, was he?
President Richard Millhouse Nixon actively and knowingly obstructed an FBI criminal investigation via the CIA, and lied about it for more than two years. He resigned rather than face impeachment and conviction by the Senate (a certainty, I think)... but more than a dozen jurisdictions were gearing up for criminal cases within hours of his getting off of Marine One on August 9, 1974, at Andrews Air Force Base.
Which leads us to "judgement call #2"... President Gerald Ford giving Nixon a full, blanket pardon on Sept. 8, 1974. I'm sure all of us here agree that Ford's actions were the best actions for the nation... but "right" or not, he gave an alleged felon (on as many as 11 counts, too) a free pass, and many in this country (to this day) still think it was the WRONG thing to do. I'm convinced it is the single biggest contributor to Ford's loss in the 1976 general election.
Nixon's actions were politically motivated... of that I am utterly convinced. He wasn't "evil" and his crimes can't be equated with the likes of Jeffery Dalmer or Ted Bundy or Timothy McVeigh... but he was WRONG in his judgement and he was WRONG in his actions.
By extension, the same stain is cast on Gerald Ford... who am I to say that he was right when faced with the argument that he was wrong? Only someone as dense as granite would actually believe that the man could have beat a Senate conviction in an impeachment trial, or that he could have gotten out of a Federal obstruction and perjury charge once out of office... the man was hung by his own words on the tapes he tried so hard to keep hidden. Ford can justify his actions as "healing the wounds" of the nation, but it doesn't mean the argument that he was keeping an ex-President and a fellow GOP hack "SAFE" doesn't have weight, does it?
Your point that there is a price to be paid for letting "poor judgement" run wild in our government is perfectly valid. The point I am making is that there is a price to be paid for airing these cases of "bad judgement" in the manner and means that the Wiener-gate scandal has been handled, too... and it isn't the sort of price that can be measured easily, or quickly.
If you doubt me... ask Gerry Ford.
Wiener is just that... a wiener. He's an idiot of the first order, and the disaster that is his career and life right now is wholly his own doing. I don't feel sorry for him one bit.
So, having said that character matters, we move into your "justification" for the Ken Starr investigation. Without rehashing the whole affair... and why do that? There are only 470,000 pages of evidence and testimony that are available to read over if we choose... I really feel bound to point out that there is (in my mind) a difference between finding a "bad character" in an important position within our government, and conducting a "character assassination" for purely partisan political gains.
Clinton lied, and Clinton paid the price... but the United States Senate (all one hundred and one members present, too) found the man "not guilty" of both perjury and obstruction (the only charges to make it past the House of Representatives). Thus, by our own Constitutional system of government, the man was determined to NOT be a "bad character"... at least not bad enough to remove from office. No "high crimes or misdemeanors" in other words.
Furthermore, character is most often proven by judgements made and acted upon by the individual. Obviously, Clinton's judgement was questionable, to say the least... but he surely wasn't alone in that arena, was he?
President Richard Millhouse Nixon actively and knowingly obstructed an FBI criminal investigation via the CIA, and lied about it for more than two years. He resigned rather than face impeachment and conviction by the Senate (a certainty, I think)... but more than a dozen jurisdictions were gearing up for criminal cases within hours of his getting off of Marine One on August 9, 1974, at Andrews Air Force Base.
Which leads us to "judgement call #2"... President Gerald Ford giving Nixon a full, blanket pardon on Sept. 8, 1974. I'm sure all of us here agree that Ford's actions were the best actions for the nation... but "right" or not, he gave an alleged felon (on as many as 11 counts, too) a free pass, and many in this country (to this day) still think it was the WRONG thing to do. I'm convinced it is the single biggest contributor to Ford's loss in the 1976 general election.
Nixon's actions were politically motivated... of that I am utterly convinced. He wasn't "evil" and his crimes can't be equated with the likes of Jeffery Dalmer or Ted Bundy or Timothy McVeigh... but he was WRONG in his judgement and he was WRONG in his actions.
By extension, the same stain is cast on Gerald Ford... who am I to say that he was right when faced with the argument that he was wrong? Only someone as dense as granite would actually believe that the man could have beat a Senate conviction in an impeachment trial, or that he could have gotten out of a Federal obstruction and perjury charge once out of office... the man was hung by his own words on the tapes he tried so hard to keep hidden. Ford can justify his actions as "healing the wounds" of the nation, but it doesn't mean the argument that he was keeping an ex-President and a fellow GOP hack "SAFE" doesn't have weight, does it?
Your point that there is a price to be paid for letting "poor judgement" run wild in our government is perfectly valid. The point I am making is that there is a price to be paid for airing these cases of "bad judgement" in the manner and means that the Wiener-gate scandal has been handled, too... and it isn't the sort of price that can be measured easily, or quickly.
If you doubt me... ask Gerry Ford.
"I did not have text with that woman."
Can I make a serious point regarding "Wiener-gate?"
First, you must appreciate any story that can reduce even 50 year old men to snickering 7 year old boys.
Ok, my serious point ...
Netflix provides a plethora of documentaries, some good (WWII in HD for example), some bad (i.e. National Geographic's Alexander the Great). A good one, by PBS, is Egypt's Golden Age. And I viewed this some evenings ago. It was the story of how a succession of three Pharaohs starting around 1350 B.C. liberated Upper Egypt from the Hyksos and Lower Egypt from the Nubians, uniting the kingdom thus ushering in the golden era.
One of the areas of success for the Pharaohs was their spy network. It was more aggressive and sophisticated than their rivals.
1350 B.C. ... spy network, crucial.
Now fast forward to a spy world the three of us are more familiar with - the Cold War. Amidst all the groin jokes and absurdity, the several dozen pages of seedy text messages that have now come out, has it occurred to anyone how prime for black mail from a sovereign power this congressman was?
Now you may say he's just a congressman, and maybe he had access to some sensitive material, but he wasn't the national security advisor, etc. Ok, fine. But consider all the electronic communications this man put out into space and the ability, the "sophisticated and aggressive" ability, of nation states such as China, or Russia to capture that information. Now combine that with who Wiener's wife is - the former chief of staff and current top aide to Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State. Is this not exactly the type of "in", of angle the FSB (formerly the KGB) would look for? Do you see how few degrees of separation from the president himself this could be to spy masters?
The whole history of mankind is ripe with spies and their influence, and in the most technologically advanced point in the history of our species are we to believe that they aren't active NOW?
THIS is why character matters. THIS is why "sexual indiscretions" matter. THIS is why I (and Ken Starr, for that matter) was right about how serious interns and cigars are. Because while a man can separate his personal and public life, those two lives can not seperate the man. In other words a man can have two different worlds, but the same judgement governs both.
First, you must appreciate any story that can reduce even 50 year old men to snickering 7 year old boys.
Ok, my serious point ...
Netflix provides a plethora of documentaries, some good (WWII in HD for example), some bad (i.e. National Geographic's Alexander the Great). A good one, by PBS, is Egypt's Golden Age. And I viewed this some evenings ago. It was the story of how a succession of three Pharaohs starting around 1350 B.C. liberated Upper Egypt from the Hyksos and Lower Egypt from the Nubians, uniting the kingdom thus ushering in the golden era.
One of the areas of success for the Pharaohs was their spy network. It was more aggressive and sophisticated than their rivals.
1350 B.C. ... spy network, crucial.
Now fast forward to a spy world the three of us are more familiar with - the Cold War. Amidst all the groin jokes and absurdity, the several dozen pages of seedy text messages that have now come out, has it occurred to anyone how prime for black mail from a sovereign power this congressman was?
Now you may say he's just a congressman, and maybe he had access to some sensitive material, but he wasn't the national security advisor, etc. Ok, fine. But consider all the electronic communications this man put out into space and the ability, the "sophisticated and aggressive" ability, of nation states such as China, or Russia to capture that information. Now combine that with who Wiener's wife is - the former chief of staff and current top aide to Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State. Is this not exactly the type of "in", of angle the FSB (formerly the KGB) would look for? Do you see how few degrees of separation from the president himself this could be to spy masters?
The whole history of mankind is ripe with spies and their influence, and in the most technologically advanced point in the history of our species are we to believe that they aren't active NOW?
THIS is why character matters. THIS is why "sexual indiscretions" matter. THIS is why I (and Ken Starr, for that matter) was right about how serious interns and cigars are. Because while a man can separate his personal and public life, those two lives can not seperate the man. In other words a man can have two different worlds, but the same judgement governs both.
Monday, June 6, 2011
I thought this was interesting...
This article caught my eye, so I followed up and found it to be very accurate in its assessment.
Seems the author thinks that the Palestinian peace process is less complicated than anyone thought.
Obama has made numerous parallels between the violence in Israel today and the violence in Northern Ireland 20 years ago... so much so that his pick for Special Envoy was none other than George Mitchell, Clinton's former Special Envoy to Northern Ireland during the peace settlement between Ireland, Northern Ireland and the UK.
The Good Friday Accords have been a major success, and things have never been safer or more stable between the two nations since that time. I don't want anyone to think that I am taking away from that peace process... but is the peace process the only factor to consider here?
In 1970-71, 16% of the entire population of Northern Ireland was made up of men between the ages of 15 and 21 years of age. By 1998 (the year the Good Friday Accords were signed), that 16% well into their 40's, with families, jobs and mountains of responsibility (as well as a booming "Celtic Tiger" economy). No one wanted to fight anymore... or very few did. Peace was more profitable than fighting. Even more interestingly, though... the birthrate for Catholics was over 6 kids per family and over 5 kids per Protestant family. By 1995, it was under three for both demographics. The rate of population growth had fallen markedly for both sides, in other words.
Population numbers in Palestine are harder to come by, because it is in the best interest of the PA to keep them inflated to increase foreign aid to the populus... but if the WHO and the Israelis are to be believed, the birthrate is falling far faster than the PA wants to admit. The rate in the 1960s was over 8 kids per family... but now is closer to three, and more and more outsourcing by the Israelis to places like the West Bank for technical jobs is making a growing segment of the Palestinian population increasingly aware of how good life can be with "peace" the norm, rather than the exception.
In fact, if the trend of the last 8 years continues... less than two percent of the Palestinain population will be within that volatile 15-21 year old bracket by 2040 (its at 12% now), and the over-all population will be lower than the 28 million estimated right now (possibly by as much as 8%).
I'm not suggesting older populations can't or won't fight... 1940's America is proof positive that this is not the case... but they are less volatile, and less likely to fight for fighting's sake than a population of teenagers with no jobs and no prospects. Northern Ireland is proof of that.
The sad thing is, Obama must not see this. His pick for Special Envoy to Palestine, George Mitchell, went in to the job in 2009 with the clear intent of repeating his success in Northern Ireland... but resigned in utter failure only last May. Most of Obama's advice on Palestine now seems to stem from another Irish influence in the White House... Samantha Power. After resigning in some disgrace during the 2008 campaign run, she is now on at the NSA as a special expert on foreign affairs. This person also thinks that what worked in Northern Ireland in '98 can work in Palestine now... but no one really knows how.
First off... the Catholic and Protestant clergy of Northern Ireland, to a cleric, denounced violence as "a sin" of the greatest magnitude... while the majority of clerics in Palestine see violence against Israeli authority as a matter of course. Secondly, no "two state" solution would have or could have answered in Northern Ireland... ever... yet, that is the proscribed course to follow in Palestine according to this Administration. Furthermore, no economic revival or "boom" has occured in Palestine yet, the way Ireland (and by extension, Northern Ireland) did in the 90s. Jobless rates in the Republic were at record lows, and the country actually saw (for the first time ever) a decrease in the rate of emmigration and an increase in the rate of immigration. The population of Ireland was actually GROWING... but the population of the Palestinian territories is shrinking (in terms of Muslims, that is... the Israelis within the territories is a growing number, but that is another story).
Seems the author thinks that the Palestinian peace process is less complicated than anyone thought.
Obama has made numerous parallels between the violence in Israel today and the violence in Northern Ireland 20 years ago... so much so that his pick for Special Envoy was none other than George Mitchell, Clinton's former Special Envoy to Northern Ireland during the peace settlement between Ireland, Northern Ireland and the UK.
The Good Friday Accords have been a major success, and things have never been safer or more stable between the two nations since that time. I don't want anyone to think that I am taking away from that peace process... but is the peace process the only factor to consider here?
In 1970-71, 16% of the entire population of Northern Ireland was made up of men between the ages of 15 and 21 years of age. By 1998 (the year the Good Friday Accords were signed), that 16% well into their 40's, with families, jobs and mountains of responsibility (as well as a booming "Celtic Tiger" economy). No one wanted to fight anymore... or very few did. Peace was more profitable than fighting. Even more interestingly, though... the birthrate for Catholics was over 6 kids per family and over 5 kids per Protestant family. By 1995, it was under three for both demographics. The rate of population growth had fallen markedly for both sides, in other words.
Population numbers in Palestine are harder to come by, because it is in the best interest of the PA to keep them inflated to increase foreign aid to the populus... but if the WHO and the Israelis are to be believed, the birthrate is falling far faster than the PA wants to admit. The rate in the 1960s was over 8 kids per family... but now is closer to three, and more and more outsourcing by the Israelis to places like the West Bank for technical jobs is making a growing segment of the Palestinian population increasingly aware of how good life can be with "peace" the norm, rather than the exception.
In fact, if the trend of the last 8 years continues... less than two percent of the Palestinain population will be within that volatile 15-21 year old bracket by 2040 (its at 12% now), and the over-all population will be lower than the 28 million estimated right now (possibly by as much as 8%).
I'm not suggesting older populations can't or won't fight... 1940's America is proof positive that this is not the case... but they are less volatile, and less likely to fight for fighting's sake than a population of teenagers with no jobs and no prospects. Northern Ireland is proof of that.
The sad thing is, Obama must not see this. His pick for Special Envoy to Palestine, George Mitchell, went in to the job in 2009 with the clear intent of repeating his success in Northern Ireland... but resigned in utter failure only last May. Most of Obama's advice on Palestine now seems to stem from another Irish influence in the White House... Samantha Power. After resigning in some disgrace during the 2008 campaign run, she is now on at the NSA as a special expert on foreign affairs. This person also thinks that what worked in Northern Ireland in '98 can work in Palestine now... but no one really knows how.
First off... the Catholic and Protestant clergy of Northern Ireland, to a cleric, denounced violence as "a sin" of the greatest magnitude... while the majority of clerics in Palestine see violence against Israeli authority as a matter of course. Secondly, no "two state" solution would have or could have answered in Northern Ireland... ever... yet, that is the proscribed course to follow in Palestine according to this Administration. Furthermore, no economic revival or "boom" has occured in Palestine yet, the way Ireland (and by extension, Northern Ireland) did in the 90s. Jobless rates in the Republic were at record lows, and the country actually saw (for the first time ever) a decrease in the rate of emmigration and an increase in the rate of immigration. The population of Ireland was actually GROWING... but the population of the Palestinian territories is shrinking (in terms of Muslims, that is... the Israelis within the territories is a growing number, but that is another story).
Friday, June 3, 2011
My one day off...
I've worked eight-straight to get to this day, and I'll work another eight to get my next. One day out of 16, and what do I find?
No new posts from my Bund Brothers, that's for sure.
I'm off to change the liner in the pool, to see if we can get one more season out of that antique setup. At least it is a nice day... sunny, cool, clear and dry. Still, it would have been nice to see a post up that I didn't write myself.
{sigh}
No new posts from my Bund Brothers, that's for sure.
I'm off to change the liner in the pool, to see if we can get one more season out of that antique setup. At least it is a nice day... sunny, cool, clear and dry. Still, it would have been nice to see a post up that I didn't write myself.
{sigh}
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
