|
UPDATE Feb. 25: Correction: I received a very thoughtful e-mail from George Wen, pointing out that "there is no Fou Foong family. Charlie Soong worked at the Fou Foong Flour Mill, which was owned by the Sun family of Shouxian, Anhui. I know this because it is my mother's family that founded the mill...." Mr. Wen has written to author Sterling Seagrave (my source) to make this correction.
I appreciate the correction, and the brief glimpse into other details of Chines history that Mr. Wen provided.
Linking a book I just finished reading with one I just started.
John D. Rockefeller was the son of a snake-oil salesman and bigamist, who may have committed serious crimes--partly to come up with his sudden and unexplained windfalls of cash. Young John D. grew up thinking money was good, and there was nothing wrong with an intense craving for it. Yet thanks to the women in his life--his mother, to some extent his grandmother, and eventually his wife--he was always a pious Baptist. He often said it was good to make as much money as possible; save as much as possible; and give as much as possible to charity. From the time he had his first real job, he did give consistently to his church and to needy people. As he became the richest man in the world, his charitable giving also became spectacular.
His biographer, Ron Chernow, keeps saying that it is difficult to reconcile the two conspicuous sides of JDR: the utterly focussed, sometimes ruthless or voracious capitalist; and the careful, but almost superhumanly generous, Christian and donor to good causes. JDR never saw any contradiction. Somehow the "Baptist" rules, like the ones against drinking and cards, were associated with a regimen for health and hygiene--lots of sleep, chewing one's food x number of times, daily exercise, etc. Since all these rules were good, only a foolish person would question them--and JDR kept on proving their goodness by living to a ripe old age in excellent health. (His wife, however, was an invalid for decades; his daughters suffered various kinds of ill-health including, it seems, mental illness; and JDR Jr.--well, another story).
He may have been the only example he knew of someone who could get rich, and successful in business, while remaining in some ways unworldly. Even when he bought big properties, and appointed them with some luxury, it was mainly so that he could play golf in private. His colleagues tended to be ex-Baptists, or ex-Protestants of some kind, including several ex-ministers of the cloth. None of his children kept up the Baptist faith. JDR Jr. and his wife "rebelled" by dancing, even during their courtship; their Sunday observance as a couple was a walk in the woods rather than a church service. JDR Jr. may have done a lot to solidify the family's faith in medicine and other research rather than in anything supernatural.
JDR's successor as CEO of Standard Oil, H.M. Flagler, was probably even more ruthless than JDR in business--especially when it came to dominating the retail or consumer market by driving out competition. Flagler's private life was a bit extravagant. He began to spend grandly with his second wife, who gradually went insane. He had her committed, and changed his official state of residency so that he could marry for the third time. The marriage was once again a lavish one. Rockefeller "must have felt Flagler was making a spectacle of himself."
"Charlie Soong" was the founder of a kind of dynasty on the coast of China that remained important during the whole "revolutionary" period of about 1890 to the 1950s. One of his daughters was "Mrs. Sun Yat Sen," although the wedding was bigamous, and did not produce children. She later became a high official under Mao. Another became even more famous, at least in the West, as Madame Chiang Kai-shek. Again there were no children. The third daughter married a businessman; they had several children who established themselves in the States.
The lives of all these people were given a kind of official gloss by Westerners--especially by missionaries or their defenders, such as Henry Luce, founder of Time magazine, and his wife Clare Booth Luce. (Henry was the child of missionaries in China). Because Chiang ended up as the ultimate Chinese anti-Communist, he and everyone who worked with him or was closely related to him had to be somehow sanctified.
"Charlie Soong"--a kind of made-up English name which he used with English speakers--was raised by people who spent a lot of time trading with their big junks in the South China Sea--from the island of Hainan as far away as Java. Ethnically he was a Hakka--meaning a distinctive group, with a distinctive dialect, among the Chinese. The Hakka were "clannish." His family was in the chiu chao brotherhood. Shortly after he became a missionary around Shanghai, he joined a triad. He may always have been, at least partly, what he was brought up to be, which was more or less a pirate. Yet after he got some education in the States (through a combination of being brought there by an "uncle" who wanted to exploit his labour, using his wits to set out on his own, and having the good fortune to fall among people who could appreciate his good qualities), he always gave every appearance of being a pious Methodist.
Dr. Sun Yat Sen, a married man, proposed elopement with one of Soong's daughters before he eventually eloped with another. In both cases, Soong gave every appearance of being truly shocked at this self-indulgence. Soong, as treasurer of the revolutionary movement, gathered money from many sources--some probably illegal. He and Dr. Sun, along with Chiang Kai-shek, stood for the proposition that they could achieve revolution by converting the criminal triads to revolutionary activity, without working directly with the peasants. The communists eventually succeeded by working primarily with the peasants. Soong always gave every appearance of seeking respectability in Western eyes--his daughters were sent to college in the States, and some of them spoke English with a Southern accent, as Charlie himself did. He dressed Western, and built a house that reminded him of grand homes in the U.S. south. When he returned after his years in the States, he no longer even liked Chinese food, and he was more fluent in English than in Chinese. He liked to do his own gardening. No wonder American missionaries both for Christianity and for democracy were thrilled with him and his group.
John D. Rockefeller: 1839-1937
"Charlie Soong" (Han Chao-Shun): 1866-1918
1878:
Charlie, aged 12, goes to U.S. to apprentice with a Chinese "uncle" who has spent some time there
Rockefeller and Standard Oil are caught up in the "immediate shipment" controversy with oil producers in Pennsylvania (Standard Oil is still primarily in the refining and transportation (rail and pipeline) business. By the end of 1877 Rockefeller controlled nearly 90 per cent of the oil refined in the U.S. (still primarily refined for kerosene for lighting).
1879:
Charlie runs away from his "master" in Boston, and stows away in a cutter belonging to the U.S. Revenue Service. The captain, Eric Gabrielson, was a pious Methodist who took Charlie under his wing.
JDR among other officials faces criminal charges for conspiracy to monopolize the oil business, extort railroad rebates, and manipulate prices to cripple rivals.
1880:
Gabrielson introduces Charlie to many of the leading lights in Wilmington, North Carolina--mainly church-goers interested in missionary work in China. Charley is baptized in November.
At the end of 1879, Standard promised to end "immediate shipment," rebates, etc. in return for charges being dropped in Pennsylvania. None of the practices in question necessarily stopped. In 1880, a new pipeline that was supposed to help producers avoid the clutches of Standard Oil, began a formal cooperation with the company.
1881:
April: Charlie begins attendance at Trinity College, Durham--later Duke University.
1882:
Charlie transfers to Vanderbilt University in Nashville--possibly forced to do so because he took an interest in a Caucasian American girl.
Standard Oil trust agreement is finalized January 2, 1882. Incorporates Standard Oil subsidiaries in several states, allows a board in New York to control all related companies, and prevents each state from taxing Standard Oil property located outside the state, while technically complying with the letter of various state laws.
Standard Oil sends an agent to the Far East to make a two-year survey of the market.
JDR begins gifts that allow the establishment of Spelman College in Atlanta.
1883:
JDR moves family to New York. Brother William had operated Standard Oil of New York there for some time, and JDR and family had spent several winters there.
1885:
Charlie graduates from Vanderbilt and travels to China as a Methodist missionary.
Standard Oil moves into new headquarters at 26 Broadway.
1886:
Standard Oil starts a new pipeline company to monopolize crude oil from the new fields in Lima, Ohio. After a Standard scientist worked out how to make Lima oil usable, Standard bought up the fields themselves. "Complete control of the Lima field gave it unchallenged control of American oil in the 1890s."
1887:
Charlie marries in Shanghai.
1889:
JDR moves away from the idea of supporting the institution that eventually became Columbia University; begins his role as the major benefactor of the University of Chicago.
1889-91: Standard Oil of Indiana builds and opens "America's premier oil refinery at Whiting, Indiana, seventeen miles from downtown Chicago."
1892:
Spring: Charlie sets up his own printing business and resigns his position with the Southern Methodist China Mission.
1893-4:
With his printing business as a base, Charlie was approached by the Fou Foong family to manage a flour mill and profit from the ever-expanding noodle business. "Charlie became one of the first Chinese to import heavy industrial machinery for Chinese-owned factories. He was the chief English-language executive of the Fou Foong mills and held the lavishly-paid position for the rest of his life. He was rewarded with a major shareholding in the firm." Compradors who knew both the Chinese and the Western languages and worlds were essential for commerce, and could grow very rich.
This is getting too long. I must be an idiot to have started with the dates. A couple more:
In 1900 the Boxers went on a rampage, killing many foreigners including missionaries. Western armies then carried out retribution--killing many more people in return. It became known that the Westerners could be bought off in various ways--including concessions to Western companies. H.H. Kung, later Charlie's son in law, arranged things in Sansi province so that Western financial interests, including Standard Oil, became remarkably active.
1904: the first of Charlie's daughters goes to school in the States--in the first case, Wesleyan at Macon, Georgia. All three would eventually go. The youngest would also attend Wellesley in Massachusetts, while one son was attending Harvard.
August 1906: in the face of numerous lawsuits directed against Standard Oil, JDR formally requests to resign as president. His successor Archbold refused to accept his resignation. One executive explained to a writer later: "we told him that if any of us had to go to jail, he would have to go with us." Similar to a line in "It's a Wonderful Life": "Somebody's going to go to jail, old man, and it's not going to be me."
May 1918: Charlie dies, and there is very little official notice. Killed by business or political associates? Or died of a broken heart?
I know, I've hardly posted anything on Canada for a long time.
I have registered at the Globe and Mail, but they tell me I have to accept cookies to read a lot of articles. I don't particularly want to register for the Toronto Star. I read the paper copy most mornings.
So, link-free: Prime Minister Martin has resolved an issue with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia by ... spending a lot of money. These two provinces have always been "have-not" provinces--meaning they get equalization funding from the federal government, transferred from the "have" provinces. (Ontario and Alberta have been the only consistent "have" provinces for many years). The two "N's" are starting to make some revenue from off-shore oil and gas. Guess what? They don't want to suffer a so-called "claw back" of equalization. They want to keep all their equalization while also making the revenue which might ... eventually ... make them have provinces.
At the provincial level, this is like Clinton's obsession about the Earned Income Increment--if in moving from welfare to a job, you are immediately taxed on your wages back to the living standard you had on welfare, then there is no (or little) incentive to leave welfare. But surely provinces won't slide back into having no oil and gas industry? Why should the rest of Canada keep paying them the full amount based on their old low income, even when they now have a higher income?
Anyway, Martin paid. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is mad. He has said Trudeau never would have done this (or he should have said that), so Martin has said the great premiers of Ontario never would have whined so much about the price of building national unity.
One piece in one of those papers that require registration said there is now a pattern with Martin--postpone a decision until the good options are more difficult, if they are available at all, and then try to buy his way out of trouble. He did it with the latest health care accord--where supposedly he gave more autonomy to the provinces than Trudeau ever would have. On missile defence, he may have missed the opportunity to support Bush's plan with relatively little controversy--now he faces a lot more controversy.
Chretien could make quick, tough decisions. He could also procrastinate--but if he did, you could be reasonably sure it wasn't his blood that was dripping on the floor.
Chris Bosh has made the list of "All Star Snubs"--not invited to the All-Star Game despite playing well.
Over the whole season: 15.8 points per game, 8.3 rebounds. That doesn't put him among the leaders of the "All Star Snubs."
But here's the additional commentary:
"Chris Bosh is averaging 19.8 PPG and 9.1 RPG since December. After eclipsing 20-plus points in only four of his first 31 games, he has surpassed the number in half of his past 20 games."
On Saturday, the Raptors squeaked out a win over the Clippers in Toronto; Bosh notched his team-leading 19th double-double with 26 points and 10 rebounds. Rafer Alston scored 10 of his 18 points in the fourth quarter.
"Donyell Marshall made five 3-pointers and scored 17 points and Milt Palacio scored seven of his 13 points in the fourth quarter for Toronto, which made its decisive run with Jalen Rose on the bench. "
"Toronto halted a four-game slide with just its third win in 10 games."
The Raptors have been described as being in turmoil. On January 30, "Bosh tied a career high with 27 points for the Raptors, who lost their third game in a row."
Alston has had various confrontations with coach Sam Mitchell, and Alston was actually suspended for a couple of games at the beginning of February.
An overview:
? Early in the season, there was the month-long Vince Carter trade watch. It finally ended when the Raptors shipped the best player in franchise history to New Jersey for two draft picks, two players who rarely see action (Eric Williams and Aaron Williams) and a player they just cut loose after a reported $10 million contract buyout (Alonzo Mourning).
? Much of the Toronto craziness is the direct result of signing point guard Rafer Alston to a six-year, $26.25 million contract last summer.
Alston has threatened to retire, was suspended by the team for two games, then had another run-in with first-year coach Sam Mitchell two weeks ago in Cleveland. Mitchell and Alston reportedly went nose to nose in the locker room at halftime, and a teary-eyed Alston boarded the team bus at some point in the fourth quarter.
? After Alston's latest adventure, Eric Williams decided it was an opportune time to demand a trade, arguing, "It's a darn shame a guy has to be a (jerk) in order to get some attention around here," while looking in the direction of Alston's locker.
Several players report that Coach Mitchell likes to wrestle, partly to establish that he is their equal physically: "he thinks he can still play."
I may not have more than some disconnected thoughts here.
Warbloggers never want to hear about analogies between Iraq and Vietnam, but here goes one more. At some point during Vietnam, and for years afterward, many Americans felt it was a bad experience that should not be repeated; maybe just a failure against forces that turned out to be mysteriously strong; maybe a kind of moral wrong (although this was always mainly a response of the "European-loving left."
It seemed that there was a "Vietnam Syndrome." Partly this meant a dread of getting "entangled" in a similar "quagmire" again, and therefore extreme caution about getting into a real shooting war anywhere.
For many Americans, it seems 9/11 ended this syndrome or attitude, and brought a different attitude--more aggressive and morally confident--in its stead. Even or precisely when Bush says the primary or only reason to liberate other countries is to keep the U.S. safe--i.e. the self-interest of the United States--he also suggests everyone who is liberated should be grateful, and the rest of the world should applaud that justice is being done (for a change).
There is at least a similarity to the ancient Spartans. Early in Book VII (out of eight books), in his account of the eighteenth year of the war between Athens and Sparta, Thucydides prepares us for a new larger second stage of the war, which was separated from the first stage by various truces. He says this (VII.18):
In the meantime the Lacedaemonians prepared for their invasion of Attica, in accordance with their own previous resolve, and at the instigation of the Syracusans and Corinthians, who wished for an invasion to arrest the reinforcements which they heard that Athens was about to send to Sicily. Alcibiades also urgently advised the fortification of Decelea, and a vigorous prosecution of the war.
But the Lacedaemonians derived most encouragement from the belief that Athens, with two wars on her hands, against themselves and against the Siceliots, would be more easy to subdue, and from the conviction that she had been the first to infringe the truce.
In the former war, they considered, the offence had been more on their own side, both on account of the entrance of the Thebans into Plataea in time of peace, and also of their own refusal to listen to the Athenian offer of arbitration, in spite of the clause in the former treaty that where arbitration should be offered there should be no appeal to arms. For this reason they thought that they deserved their misfortunes, and took to heart seriously the disaster at Pylos and whatever else had befallen them. But when, besides the ravages from Pylos, which went on without any intermission, the thirty Athenian ships came out from Argos and wasted part of Epidaurus, Prasiae, and other places; when upon every dispute that arose as to the interpretation of any doubtful point in the treaty, their own offers of arbitration were always rejected by the Athenians, the Lacedaemonians at length decided that Athens had now committed the very same offence as they had before done, and had become the guilty party; and they began to be full of ardour for the war. They spent this winter in sending round to their allies for iron, and in getting ready the other implements for building their fort; and meanwhile began raising at home, and also by forced requisitions in the rest of Peloponnese, a force to be sent out in the merchantmen to their allies in Sicily. Winter thus ended, and with it the eighteenth year of this war of which Thucydides is the historian.
After 18 years of war, Sparta begins to be full of ardour for it, largely because they now feel they are in the right rather than the wrong. If they had seemed even slower and more cautious than usual for the first 17 years, to the point of playing the ludicrous role of the helpless giant, there was a specific reason for it. Now that reason has ended.
Sparta is still Sparta--cautious in foreign adventures, largely because of fear of what could happen if the leading Spartiate soldiers don't tend to things (including a huge slave population) at home. In practice their new zeal will come partly from the counsel of a new general--Alcibiades, who has been more or less driven out of Athens. Besides their sense of moral rightness, Thucydides says the Spartans are motivated by a belief that Athens is seriously weakened. At Book V, 105, the Athenian emissaries say, with a lot of support from Thucydides, that the Spartans as much as anyone identify what is useful and expedient for themselves with what is just.
My sense is that the change from Vietnam to Iraq, for Bush and others, is not based on some new optimism or discovery about human nature--that democracy is possible in far more countries than was previously thought, or that a kind of modern, progressive rationality can be established practically everywhere, and that John F. Kennedy and others from the Vietnam era were too pessimistic. Rather, the U.S. is driven by anger and fear to try to prevent another 9/11. When they reflect on the fact that an attack by a few individuals, barely if at all connected to any sovereign government, can be carried out so easily, they begin to think that the whole world must be brought to some kind of enlightenment in order for Americans to be safe at home--where they want to be. This is a very Spartan motive for bringing democracy and human rights to the entire world.
It's a bit like Bertrand Russell wanting the U.S. to nuke Moscow in 1945, but once the Soviets had the bomb, wanting the West to carry out unilateral disarmament. The common thread was keeping Russell safe.
I hasten to add: I don't think the reason for the "normal" isolation or caution of the U.S. is something like the Spartans'--the need to keep down a huge slave population. I don't agree with left-wing views that capitalists only engage in wars to provide a kind of release or entertainment, and distract concerns about political power and fairness. Somehow successful capitalism, in a big country, simply keeps people busy--gives them enough to do without seeking their fortune around the world.
Partly the Athenians, in Thucydides' account, wanted to conquer the world because they were erotic for what is strange and new. We might say they were romantic, and even that the philosophic or scientific spirit was present, to some degree, in many Athenians. Americans are the liberal bourgeois type of modern. Science has been pacified and regulated--it is practised by lots of people, every day. Beyond that, Americans (normally) don't have time for sentimentality about war and empire.
UPDATE: It may also be relevant that according to polls, many Americans think about one-quarter of the federal budget goes to foreign aid; the true figure is about 1%. No wonder they find the world distressingly ungrateful.
The latest is a detailed account of "extraordinary rendition"--the U.S. sending captives to countries that are willing to torture them. (Long version by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker; short version by Bob Herbert in the NYT; via Julian Sanchez, Hit and Run.
Marty Lederman has been all over the issue of the extent to which the Bush Administration has authorized any of its operatives to carry out what most of us would consider torture. (On Balkinization). The upshot seems to be that people at the level of Rumsfeld and above have tried to maintain deniability for the claim that "they support torture," but they have managed to convey the message to people in the field that they do. See here, here, and here.
Commenting on one of these posts, Mickey Kaus said we may be "asymptopically approaching the truth."
I want to post more on Iraq and democracy--both the Jonah Goldberg vs. Juan Cole controversy (was the recent Iran election good enough, the only problem is that the mullahs took back more power? So Iraq just has to follow that model? Or does the U.S. want Iraq to adopt a more secular model? Can the U.S. get what it wants in Iraq?); and the larger debate centering (now) around John Derbyshire: is there any reason for the U.S. to try to build "democracy," or "freedom," at enormous expense, when strrategically they really just have to keep everyone weak who might threaten them? Derbyshire might agree with Robert Conquest (British conservatives?) that much of the world isn't ready for democracy, it takes a long period of "liberalism" for democracy to work, etc.
But for now: Derbyshire responds to Cliff May, who has suggested that in the past the U.S. has done a lot of good by occupying countries, not leaving soon or promising to do so.
"In the 20th Century, the United States won its wars against European and Asian fascism--partly because there was no exit strategy. "
Cliff: There was another factor in our victory against European and Asian fascism. We turned their cities to charred rubble and killed an entire demographic cohort of their young men.
Even better: John Hood:
Theological dialogue is no substitute for intelligence, espionage, spreading freedom with missionary zeal, setting a good example at home, punishing killers, and taking vigorous military act when necessary. But it is a good complement.
This refers to a story about Yemen--which some have feared will become more of a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism--where the authorities claim they can talk would-be terrorists out of their radical views by appeals to the Koran (one of the authorities mentioned in Bush's recent speeches). The Bushies and their allies don't oppose "Islam itself."
But this somehow captures the Bush doctrine: theological dialogue is actually a weapon against the enemy; there is an ideological war afoot. The enemy might say, in secret meetings, Monty Python-style: "No, not theological dialogues! Those devils! They'll stop at nothing!" But Hood prudently cautions: theological dialogue won't be enough; we can't do entirely without "vigorous military action."
There's nothing specifically about tax cuts or reforming Social Security in the Hood passage, but maybe such domestic matters are all implied in "setting a good example at home."
I heard Gottlieb, one-time Canadian Ambassador to the U.S., speak yesterday.
He had two messages for us.
1. The U.S. treatment of our common border has changed, tightened up, and this is not going to go back to pre-9/11 anytime soon--it might even get worse. This is costing Canadian industry a lot--perhaps as much as tariffs were costing before NAFTA.
Any restriction on trade will hurt Canada more than the U.S.
We need to lobby as hard as we can for a common economic and security space. This does not mean immigration policy has to be the same--right now the U.S. uses humanitarian (family reunification) standards in admitting immigrants much more than Canada does. (Canada uses economic standards--already having credentials that are needed). Refugee policy is not different now in its main elements, but there are some differences in procedures that should probably be reconciled.
Gottlieb's proposal would not mean a loss of sovereignty. The European powers are more united than ever, yet no one doubts their sovereignty in setting out foreign policy--for example over Iraq.
2. In foreign policy, Bush is Woodrow Wilson on steroids. He wants to save the world by spreading a commitment to human rights, human dignity, and security. One can question the wisdom of this approach--Bush himself was opposed to nation-building before 9/11, and Gottlieb identified himself as an old-fashioned realist. But it is precisely realism that requires that Canada recognize what many Americans are thinking.
Bush forces us to realize some harsh truths. Who is going to help the suffering people of the world--whether victims of genocide, war, chronically vicious government, or whatever? International law has never done so. The UN basically gives an institutional face to the failure of international law. The sovereignty of each nation-state has been considered the keystone of the international system. What happens inside a country is basically that country's business. The international convention on genocide probably doesn't even speak of another country's or group of countries right to stop genocide. At most there is a mechanism to appeal to the Security Council (subject to veto), and then if everything goes well, intervene, but only if the genocide in one country somehow threatens the peace of other countries. Genocide in itself isn't a problem that "needs" to be solved, as Darfur is demonstrating. (Update: To give Brian Mulroney some credit--as PM he appointed Gottlieb--he said at the time of the Iraq invasion that human rights violations inside a country can no longer be considered that country's business alone, any more than domestic violence is protected any longer by the principle that "a man's home is his castle.")
It will take a powerful country to truly address the world's problems (or several countries working together); and if they are determined to do so, they will probably help a great many people. (Collective action combined with some kind of consensus or "legitimicacy"?) What will Bush's critics, beginning with the Democrats, do then? How can you be against saving the world? (Update: "Even" Michael Ignatieff, a critic of Bush, has said that if the U.S. is actually improving a country, unilateral action is OK. Gottlieb also joked that Bush now sounds like Lloyd Axworthy, except that in Axworthy's writings, he has said the main obstacle to protecting human rights around the world is the U.S. Those passages would have to be whited out. Also Axworthy, admitting the problems with the Security Council, has recommended appeals to the General Assembly, which is surely a much more complete waste of time).
Americans (at least the Bush supporters in a very divided country) see themselves as a 19th century nation state. So does China and India--two other powerful countries. Europe seems to have more of 21st century model ("the greatest political experiment of the 20th century"). Great powers benefit from co-operation; and they need more or less enforceable rules. It simply won't work to go it alone, 19th-century style. The Americans may need to re-discover this fact, and if they do, this should benefit Canada.
He didn't quite say the Americans are acting out of anger and fear, and they may eventually calm down a bit. His emphasis was more that Canada needs to smarten up. He said with heavy sarcasm that we are fortunate to have so many brilliant people working on Canada-U.S. issues.
My comment: It might be true that 9/11 woke the U.S. from a kind of slumber. We might not like everything they do, but they are likely to do more good than harm. There are already signs, such as with torture, that they are not only convinced the UN and international law are dead; they think they can do whatever they find convenient, or even experiment to find out what might be convenient, without appealing to their own traditions much less to any foreigner.
We might say they have gone from a kind of passive indifference to much of the world to this angry, moralistic determination to improve things, and indifference to what others think about their methods.
But even on whether "they have always been indifferent," Gottlieb put in a good word for the old days, with a story about Lyndon Johnson, way back when he was Majority Leader in the Senate. One of Gottlieb's predecessor's as Ambassador dealt only with the State Department, and never went to Congress on issues. (The latter practice really started with Gottlieb). In one case he was worried that a bill that had been introduced in the Senate, if it passed, would hurt Canada. His contact at State suggested he meet with LBJ, and even made the appointment for him. As soon as LBJ heard the facts, he said "son, is this the only problem you have?" Why yes, it is. "Well then, you don't have a problem." I don't quite follow. "I just fixed it." A tribute to the old days when the majority leaders and a few committee chairs, mostly in place because of seniority, actually ran things; but also a sign that if Americans actually thought about Canada, which they probably did very rarely, they really meant us good rather than harm.
I had my class read a little bit of Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind. I refreshed my memory of a few passages:
Sometimes the United States is attacked for failing to promote human rights; sometimes for wanting to impose "the American way of life" on all people without respect for their cultures....On the other hand, the Ayatollah was initally supported by some here because he represented true Iranian culture. Now he is attacked for violating human rights....When the critics of the U.S. in the name of culture, and of the Ayatollah in the name of human rights, are the same persons, which they often are, they are persons who want to eat their cake and have it, too.
This is a bit different from saying "here goes the tired old anti-American left."
Alterman's right: this piece at least deserves study in relation to "who kept buying Iraq's oil when Saddam was supposedly subject to "Oil for Food"?
The U.S., that's who.
Of the money that Saddam made from "smuggled" oil--not officially approved under the sanctions plan--somewhere from $5.7 million worth to $13.5 million--roughly 85% was traded with the direct approval of the United States.
UPDATE: Thanks to [link=http://www.slate.com/id/2113218/]Slate[/link], "In Other Magazines," two articles from TNR: one says Oil for Food and the UN both did what they were supposed to, and the "abuses" that are now the basis of complaint were carefully monitored and encouraged by the U.S. at the time; the other says the Volcker report should have laid more fault at Annan's door, and the UN could use a shake-up.
Unbelievably, this is actually on the White House web site (via Atrios):
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, she's asking about the cost of the transition. It's estimated about $600 billion over a 10-year period of time to get the personal accounts started on the -- the way we've suggested they grow. It's a good question.
Yes, ma'am.
Q -- really understand how is it the new plan is going to fix that problem?
THE PRESIDENT: Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised.
Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.
Okay, better? I'll keep working on it. (Laughter.)
The questioner actually asked about something I don't understand: why spend (and probably borrow) hundreds of billions of dollars (increasing to trillions after the first ten years, as Cheney has apparently confirmed) simply to achieve a transition to some kind of private plan? Why not just say: from a certain date, some of your dollars can go into a private plan?
|
Search This Site
Syndicate this blog site
Powered by BlogEasy
Free Blog Hosting
|