Time Again to Re-set the Doomsday Clock?

It can't get much closer; it's already at 11:58:20, the closest to midnight ever. Even in the '62 Cuban Missiles Crisis, it was only set at 11:53 and after the US and the USSR demonstrated in '53 that each had a thermonuclear ("Hydrogen") bomb it was set only at 11:58. Subsequent treaties allowed it to be set back; those treaties have all been allowed to lapse.

Today, Narendra Modi proudly announced that India has developed and tested a MIRV-version of their Agni V ICBM. How glibly we toss about acronyms like MIRV and ICBM; will these be the labels on mankind's self-auto-da-fey? 

When a fascist, nationalist already hostile to a nuclear-armed Chinese hegemon and to a nuclear-armed, militant neighbor has obtained a thermonuclear-tipped intercontinental missile, should not the world shudder? Are Hindu Nationalists any more rational than fearful Muslim Pakistanis or blustering Russians or gun-toting Christian Nationalists or vengeful Jewish Israelis or hate-driven Palestinians or self-doubting Chinese autocrats? Who's next? North Korea maybe already there? Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, South Korea, Japan?  

If it was I, I'd set the clock at 11:59:30. Last night, we awarded Oscars for the sobering movie Oppenheimer, about how we got ourselves into all this. Day before yesterday, we sprang forward into Daylight Saving Time. Now we appear to be falling forward, a face-plant into a perpetual nighttime abyss, proudly clutching our nuclear toys.

My Version of the Golden Rule

 I've been re-reading Karen Armstrong's The Great Transformation, the Beginnings of Our Religious Traditions. I am getting more out of this reading than the last, 17 years ago; perhaps that's just getting older. Still, the "Golden Rule" is the foundational theme -- compassion, selflessness, ahimsa. As I reflect on this, a new formulation comes to mind, one I rather like:

Do Onto Strangers What You Would Have Your Family Do Unto You 

There is injustice in the world, selfishness, evil intentions, willful harm. Were I to act selfishly, intolerantly, to inflict intentional harm, I would expect my family to confront, resist, and constrain me. I would expect them to expect, in turn, that I acknowledge those I have harmed and make amends. If it is unintentional harm I have caused, I would expect them to confront me, forgive me, and help me make amends. And when I am in pain and need, I would expect my family to succor and nourish me. 

So I likewise should do for are we not all "the other?"     All strangers?     All family?

Where do we stand? What do we stand for?

Someone among you will charge me with ignorance of the nuances of diplomacy and foreign policy; guilty, as charged. Others will challenge that I don't understand Israeli or Palestinian trauma and scar tissue. Also probably true. 

But nonetheless, as a citizen, I can read: On Feb 23^rd of last year, The White House issued National Security Memorandum #18, “for” the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, Commerce, and Energy, and “for” the Director of National Intelligence and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The subject: United States Conventional Arms Transfer Policy.

Having read that policy promulgated by the Biden White House (I urge you to do so: I couldn't get the link to work, so Google National Security Memorandum #18,) I must express my revulsion at our complicity in the Israeli – Palestinian struggle over how two peoples can occupy the same territory. Our veto of the UN call for a ceasefire is for me the final straw. Our nation’s back appears broken.

The ”policy” states

“Sec. 4.  Arms Transfers and Human Rights.  United States national security is strengthened by greater respect worldwide for human rights and international law, including international humanitarian law.  The legitimacy of and public support for arms transfers among the populations of both the United States and recipient nations depends on the protection of civilians from harm, and the United States distinguishes itself from other potential sources of arms transfers by elevating the importance of protecting civilians.  Strong United States human rights and security sector governance standards for arms transfers — in addition to ensuring compliance with end-use requirements and providing human rights and international humanitarian law training, as appropriate — encourage recipient governments to respect international law, human rights, and good governance, and help prevent violations of human rights or international humanitarian law.” 

That’s pretty clear, isn’t it?: we must curtail transfer of weapons to Israel.

Second, it appears to me that we should stop urging the two-state dead horse lying athwart Gaza, Israel, and the occupied West Bank to get up and move forward. The two-state idea is DOA, thoroughly killed by fundamentalist Jews and resentful Arabs in their disdain for one another’s views.

We also must stop dreaming of a single state in which Palestinians are treated as equals under the law; even Arab citizens of Israel are not equal, and are, today, having their citizenship rights further threatened by Bibi’s ultra-right partners who blackmail him with threat of jail.

Our veto of the security council’s call for a cease-fire shredded whatever residual respect the world might still have held for us as an exemplar of human rights and signatory of the UN Resolution on Human Rights, the lasting legacy of Eleanor Roosevelt. She would be ashamed, as am I.

“My Promised Land”, as Ari Shavit termed it, is a poisonous desert of distrust, discord, and duplicity. But we should be involved. We should be even-handed. We should encourage dialogue and listening. We should generously give medicine, food, supplies to and succor any people in need. We should press for an end to killing and support any cessation of hostilities, no matter how short or temporary, for only when the guns and bombs fall silent, can people hear one another. We should support and encourage – despite that this will be seen as “meddling” – those opposed to extremism on either side.

It's time to live up to our own ideals, even as the Israeli government, Hamas and the PLO do not live up theirs. 

My Month

Since the 12^th of January, Ann & I have spent 13 evenings here by ourselves. We have entertained friends and family four times, and attended one theatre production, one opera, eleven chamber music events, one symphony performance, and had four dinners out – three with each other and one with a large group of friends. I know – that’s 35 days out of 31 – it’s  nuts! E.g., Saturday, the 27^th : morning at Met’s Live in HD of Carmen and evening at SCMS's Winter Chamber Festival.

I’m not telling you this to tout lofty cultural taste or confess a psychotic, peripatetic drive but merely to confess it’s what we choose to do; perhaps a little too wound up in Seattle’s annual dead spot, especially in this year of no snow.

Well, that’s who Grandpa is, I guess. Still too tightly wound. (Is that wound, rhymes with sound, or wound, rhymes with spooned, which is how he likes to sleep?)

"Remove Barriers" and removing a barrier

 In a Zoom call this morning, friends and I discussed Biden's first campaign ad, his speech commemorating January 6th, and the likelihood of his winning the election. Our consensus was that the ad focused on Democracy was nice but insufficient and likely ineffective at moving people, getting people to feel an urgency to support and vote. His January 6th speech was likewise admired but found too removed from the public's immediate concerns for the welfare and security of their family. 

Someone of us suggested we ought to write a speech for Biden, and it was taken up as a challenge. In fact, two speeches were suggested: a campaign speech and the speech we'd like to hear Biden make. Here are my takes on each. 

First, Remove Barriers:

                                                                    A Biden Campaign Speech

My Fellow Americans:

I have been listening to your voices and concerns in face-to-face conversations with many of you across this great nation, through focus groups and surveys my campaign staff have conducted, through conversations with your Congressional Representatives and Senators, and through what you have been saying to interviewers and commentators. What I hear is that you are frustrated by barriers to achieving your goals and realizing your wishes for yourselves and your families.

I hear you. And I pledge to you tonight my dedication to removing those barriers. In fact, I intend to make “removal of barriers” the central theme of our Democratic Party, the central idea behind our proposals and the priorities of my administration – not waiting to start until after the election but to set out on this crusade to remove barriers right now, tonight, tomorrow morning.

What kind of barriers need to be removed?

•  The barriers of cost of education and the burden of student loans need to be lessened if not removed.
• The barrier of prescription drug costs, especially for the elderly, needs to be lowered. 
• The barrier of restricted access to Medicaid and Medicare needs to be removed.
• The barriers to fair, fast, compassionate and responsive processing of legal immigrants need to be removed – now -- but the barriers to illegal immigration need to be raised..
•  The barrier to affordable housing are beyond the powers of a President, of either party. But I pledge to understand and enact policies that will facilitate development, affordable financing, fair and equitable rental processes, and policies that will accommodate Federal Reserve support of affordable lending and mortgage rates.
• The barriers to unionization, to creating and joining a union, must be removed.
• The barriers to open and candid exploration of history and expression of ideas in whatever venue – books, school rooms, media of all sorts, must be removed.
• The barrier of monopoly and concentrated market power that stifles the innovator and entrepreneur must be reduced if not removed.
• The barriers to voting must be removed.

In short, we intend to address and reduce if not remove all the barriers that stand between you and good healthcare, between you and your and your grandchildren’s attainment of aspirations, between you and your comfort and security in the American middle class.

We have accomplished much these past three years, but we still have much to do. With your support Removal of Barriers will become synonymous with the Democratic Party and our guiding star as we prepare policies and programs and set priorities for 2025 and beyond. Give us your endorsement and support, and together we will remove barriers and make 21^st century America a beacon of democracy and of effective and compassionate capitalism, a beacon shining out to a world cowed by paranoid autocrats, centrally controlled economies -- a world hungry for optimism and freedom.

(Chant: REMOVE BARRIERS! REMOVE BARRIERS! REMOVE BARRIERS!)

Thank you, and God bless you and these United States of America. May God protect our troops.

True, this speech addresses only domestic issues and avoids the rocky rapids of Ukraine aid, of Israel and Palestine balance, of China and Taiwan. But I believe domestic issues are the ones that will hold the center-left and motivate independent voters.

And now, for removing a barrier --

The Biden Speech I Yearn For

My Fellow Americans: 

Tonight, I announce a decision I believe will invigorate our democratic republic and inject new energy into our American experiment to demonstrate that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people – to quote a great Republican, President Abraham Lincoln – shall bring to every American the freedom and opportunity to thrive and prosper in the 21^st Century.

Jill and I have been deliberating on the relentless passage of time; on the contributions we both have made over the last 24 years; on the pressures of national and world affairs with which we have dealt; and on the examples set by Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Jim Clyburn. Jill and I have decided that I will not accept the Democratic Party’s nomination for President in the election of 2024. Instead, I will stand aside and welcome a new generation of Democratic leadership.

AS BIDEN SPEAKS, CURTAINS PART BEHIND HIM, REVEALING A GROUP OF 24 SEATED ON RISERS BEHIND HIM.

Here are twenty-four young, talented, energetic Democratic leaders capable of managing our affairs of state and guiding the ship of our Republic. (INTRODUCING EACH TO STAND AND BE RECOGNIZED.)

Representative Pete Aguilar

Mayor Karen Bass

Secretary Antony Blinken

Senator Cory Booker

Secretary Pete Buttigieg

Secretary Julian Castro

Representative Juaquin Castro

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand

Vice President Kamala Harris

Senator Mazie Hirono

Governor Kathy Hochul

Representative Hakeem Jeffries

Secretary Deb Holland

Senator Amy Klobuchar

Governor Wes Moore

Governor Gavin Newsom

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Governor Jared Polis

Governor J. B. Pritzker

Representative Jamie Raskin

Representative Adam Schiff

Senator Jon Tester

Governor Gretchen Whitmer

Mayor Michele Wu

And these 24 are merely representative of many, many more Democrat leaders on whom we will call this year and in the future.

These folks and others of their peers are our future.

I am not endorsing any young Democrat tonight, but I will endorse and actively support any of these or any other energetic, competent, pragmatic Democrat the party nominates to be my successor.

Fellow Americans: Nancy Pelosi, Bill Belichick, Nick Saban, Pete Carroll all have recognized that it is time to move over and make ways for others. They go out winners -- and Jill and I have chosen to join them.

Ours Democratic Party is the Party of Progress, the Party of Plenty, the Party of Empathy and Compassion, the Party that develops leaders -- and here they are, today. 

God bless these men and women; God bless you; God bless these United States of America, and God protect our troops.

This speech would negate any chance of President Trump being returned to the White House and assure Democratic majorities in the Senate and House. I yearn for it.

Isn't it Past Time to Cancel The Nutcracker?

‘Tis the season to sit through another Nutcracker. Molly, our beautiful granddaughter, danced again as she has for several years, this year as a party guest, a snowflake, a flower, and so on. She is a lovely and graceful dancer; I love to watch her dance. She is also an awesomely powerful lacrosse mid-fielder with a wickedly accurate shot. I love to watch her play. But of the two, lacrosse is harmless and engrossing entertainment. The Nutcracker not so subtly, not so.

Don't misunderstand. Tchaikovsky's music is glorious; the costumes and sets in a good production are beautiful and evocative; the dancing, entrancing. It's the content I and many object to, and should be cancelled.  

It is disconcerting to hear myself talk of cancellation – I who believe proscription of speech is wrong and speech should only be judged appropriate or inappropriate after it has been delivered. But if found inappropriate many times year after year and in many places, is it not then OK to cancel it?

About The Nutcracker, of which Tchaikovsky said “ . . . in spite of all the sumptuousness it did turn out to be rather boring:” it is not merely boring but also unforgivably racist. The Chinese tea dance has attracted opprobrium for years, with New York, San Francisco, London, PNB and scores of other companies hoping that by revising it they’d minimize racist overtones and avoid offending Asians (Feministi, 2010; Dance magazine, 2013; New York Times, 2019, 2021, and lots more.)

But that’s not all; there’s the sexy Arabian Coffee number with stereotypical harem-pantalooned temptress; the good girl/bad boy stereotype; the violence; and I’m sure animal rights folks are lurking. And over it all the Freudian acting-out of adolescent dreams of heroic, macho princes rescuing virginal maidens.

Boredom, racism, ethnic and gender stereotypes, chauvinism, violence, and sexual repression – what’s not to dislike? OK, some of you will accuse me of being excessively woke. But explain away bored.

It is time to relegate to the music library this 19^thC pean to Czar Nicholas’s empire – for Tchaikovsky’s music is beloved – and anoint some new Christmas tale to render in dance.

A ballet ’Twas the Night Before Christmas, anyone? 

Hamas Has Won the War

Who wins a war? Those who kill the most people? Or those who achieve their political aims?

Hamas, not Palestine and not Israel, has already won this war at a fearsome cost of thousands of their constituents' lives, horrific displacement of millions of their hostage/constituent Gazans, and a senseless massacre of 1200-some Israelis. 

Israel can kill Palestinians and shoot down Hezbollah, Hamas, and Houthi rockets but can never kill the extremists' dreams of ridding the world of Jews. In the meantime, Hamas' war has 

• restored Palestine to Arab center stage; 
• disrupted the inevitable process of reconciling the Arab street to the existence of neighbor Israel; 
• resuscitated the nearly dead two-state necessity; 
• forced the world to look with opprobrium upon illegal settlements of occupied West Bank land; 
• dealt, perhaps, a death-blow to the political life of Binyamin Netanyahu; 
• strengthened the hand of progressive, liberal Israelis; 
• and -- most important -- weakened America's unquestioning resolve to support Israel.    

Big wins -- at horrific cost -- but big wins for Hamas.