Carols Writings About Current Issues

back to Carol's homepage
(also see Carol's publications)

The Contradictions in the Body Bush

Out of one side of his mouth come platitudes about freedom and democracy, while the other side authorizes torture and indefinite imprisonment without trial. 

With one eye, he envisions the profits from America’s industry saving the nation’s solvency, while the other sees America’s wealth as a limitless source of funds for his war.

On the one hand, he eulogizes family and religion, while on the other, he slashes the programs that help to keep families together, educate children well, feed and clothe the elderly, and protect women’s ability to make rational decisions about reproduction. 

One leg rests lightly on a display of international cooperation, while the other leans heavily on the international goodwill built up over decades by other administrations, civil society and individual Americans.

While one foot is being washed by proponents of Christian teachings about caring for the poor, the other is grinding into the ground those in need both at home and abroad.

©  Carol J. Pierce Colfer

return to top

‘Civilization’ and the Changing World

 I’ve typically avoided this term, civilization.  It is often used to differentiate “us” from “them”----“them” being people living in forests who neither produce nor have access to ‘modern technology.’  I reject this usage.

 But in recent times, I’ve realized that I do accept the idea that globally, we have developed higher standards for ourselves than was once the case.  We are in some ways more civilized than in times past. Most countries acknowledge (despite lapses) that we all have some basic human rights. Specific rights of women and children are accepted in many countries.  There are agreements among nations that we should protect our environment---biodiversity, reducing carbon emissions, protecting forests. We’ve made international agreements about the treatment of prisoners.  Most nations now have health systems that try to maintain people’s physical and emotional health.  More and more countries were allowing freedom of expression and of religion.  These have been real steps forward for humanity---so perhaps we should talk about civilization.

 But recently, rather than trying to move forward toward ever-higher levels of civilization (in this broader sense), our public debate has increasingly focused on the truly primitive:  warfare.  This obsession with the ‘war on terror’ makes no sense.  We know that attacks and retribution produce a perfectly predictable downward spiral of violence.  Somehow we (the media, the public) have come to accept the inevitability of this ‘war on terror’; when in fact it is neither sensible nor inevitable.  I do not question the violence and savagery that terrorists can exhibit, by the way.  What I question---no, what I flatly reject---is the idea that the answer to such barbarism is this concerted and sustained attack.  The real answer lies in looking at---and correcting---the underlying conditions that breed such violence.

 We live in a world of truly gross inequities in which the people of the West/North live comfortably (most, wastefully), while huge segments of the world live in abject poverty.    Once, we could have been excused for not knowing the level of poverty in the world---but with the communications systems we now have, we can no longer pretend ignorance.  Nor can we hide our own ever-increasing wealth from those with nothing.  Communications go both ways.  Such injustice also spawns violence.

 The planned wall between the US and Mexico is a perfect symbol of the doomed option we’re currently following.  We are trying to protect our privileged and unjust way of life by building walls around ourselves and our property.  To make matters worse, our government has adopted an arrogant and insulting attitude toward the rest of the world---an attitude straight out of the playground, where the biggest can bully the younger and smaller. We have managed to alienate virtually the entire world.  I live abroad, and I see the hatred that our recent policies have fostered, even among former friends and admirers of the US.  The route we are following leads clearly and inevitably to further violence and a very long state of war---as Rumsfeld acknowledged in a recent CNN documentary (‘Rumsfield:  Man of War’).  The nuclear option that so many countries now have means none of us can afford continued warfare.

 It is time to take the other option---the civilized option.  We need to move forward cooperatively with other nations (an approach we were following quite successfully prior to 9/11).  We, globally, need to work together towards improving conditions in parts of the world where people are suffering.  Collectively, we can reject the ongoing political violence in places like Darfur, alleviate the suffering of victims of natural disasters (Aceh, Pakistan, Bangladesh), and ostracize corrupt and/or dictatorial leaders (Sudan, Korea).

 Part of a return to this ‘civilized option’ will mean putting 9/11 in perspective.  There is no denying the suffering of those whose friends and family members died in that dramatic and tragic event.  But the deaths of these 3,000 people (from many countries) pale when compared to the routine deaths in Africa from malaria, HIV/AIDS, even diarrhea.  Millions have died in Ruanda and Darfur from political violence, and the world did not change.  The only reason 9/11 ‘changed the world’ is because the Bush Administration hoodwinked the country into accepting his primitive, anachronistic view of the world---the ‘bully in the playground’ view of the world, where ‘getting even’ and ‘winning’ are the goals, rather than ‘doing better,’ making the world a better place.

 We really need to move beyond ‘getting even’; we’re adults, not children.  This upcoming election provides an opportunity to do so.  A Democratic Congress can rein in this President gone mad, and perhaps save the world. 

 © Carol J. Pierce Colfer

Double Talk

 I came of age in the sixties, when we were full of social conscience and the conviction that an active citizenry was needed to monitor the actions of our own government.  We expressed our opinions---sometimes ad nauseum---about everything from the war in Vietnam to racism and sexism and all kinds of oppression.  This isn’t happening so much now, and I think we are paying the price.

 Coming from that era, I’m increasingly aware of the extent to which words and phrases have come to have different meanings in recent years, under the Bush Administration.  Here is a small sampling, in proper alphabetical order:

 A country’s right to defend itself – This used to mean when a country was attacked it could legitimately use its weapons and personnel to drive the attackers from its borders.  It now means that [certain] countries’ armies can bomb other countries to rubble, killing all in their path, in retribution for actions by sub-sections of the victim’s populace (such as kidnapping of a soldier, or alleged bombing of the World Trade Center).

 Democracy – Whereas this used to mean the right of the citizens to determine the government of their choice, it now has a central role as a banner to justify invading other countries.

 Environmental protection – Previously this referred to the need to care for our natural surroundings.  The phrase is now used to disguise legislation and other means of granting industry the right to do whatever it pleases to the environment, in its search for profit (now also considered legitimate by any means).

Family values – Although this phrase wasn’t in common usage, it would not have meant what it means now:  ignoring the needs of the poor and disenfranchised, while supporting the oppression by men (particularly wealthy men) of women and children, and reinforcing rigid traditional sex roles and a Fundamentalist vision of sexual mores.

 Fiscal responsibility – This has come to mean emptying the national treasury, rather than maintaining a surplus in case of need.

 Strong leader – Whereas previously this meant having lots of good ideas, with the charisma and competence to carry them out, including the ability to persuade and charm would-be followers; now, it means a tyrant, who reneges on global treaties, invades other countries, ignores national law, abridges civil liberties, etc., with impunity.

 Terrorist – This term was used to denote single individuals or small groups of individuals who behaved in violent ways against the innocent for political purposes, widely viewed with disapproval.  It is now often applied to the United States of America, as well as to other nation states---still with disapproval.

Valuing life – This---which once focused on the fundamental rights of functioning human beings to have their lives respected and protected---has come to be associated with a preference for saving the lives of a) the unborn over the living and b) older Americans in terrible pain or any American in a vegetative state over the human right to health and well being of the rest of us both in the US and abroad.

False Impotence

 I got a letter today from a friend from college---another of the famous ‘sixties generation’----in response to some of my political writings.  She reminded me of the “world historical manipulative patterns” and recommended that we solve today’s problems with “world transcendental meditation to tap into the quantum physics of world energy”.  This led me to wonder how many others of my generation are depending on what can surely only be a very long term potential solution.

 I sense that perhaps the lack of political activity from most of my generation, at this stage in our lives, comes from a sense of their own impotence, a sense that they personally can do little to alter the trajectory of current events.  I do not share this view---though it is certainly a self-fulfilling prophecy!

 I have lived a great deal of my life in other countries----Turkey, Iran, Oman, Indonesia---and I have traveled to many others in Asia, South America and Africa, always maintaining close links with family and friends in the US, via letters, email and routine visits.  I have seen the political systems at work in these other countries, which makes me truly value our own----warts and all. 

 My conclusion from these observations is that in fact the American electorate potentially represents the most powerful force on earth.  We are among the world’s most educated populace.  We are among those with the best access to global communications, and thus to information, of any peoples on earth. We have a comfortable standard of living.  And, most importantly, we still have a political system that allows us to make our views known.  We have a system whereby our elected officials---if they betray the public trust---can comparatively easily be elected out of office, and, somewhat more difficult, they can be impeached.  Yet we have not been using this power for the global (or even national) good.  Indeed, we seem to have abdicated our responsibilities, taking what is essentially a fatalistic view.

 I share some of the disenchantment with the Democratic party as it is currently functioning.  But its failures are a function of the lack of commitment, direction, and ethics of those within it (and those who have withdrawn from political activity---or even voting!---because of its failings).  There is no one else who can bring the American political system back to its ideal function of implementing the wishes of its citizenry.  Only we can do that.

 The US status as the last remaining ‘super power’ makes us the most powerful force on earth----IF we re-engage in the political process and make our views known: 

• that we want peace on earth,
• that we value cooperation among nations,
• that we respect the rights of all human beings (to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’, to reproductive and religious freedoms, etc.),
• that we care about our environment and our own health over and above the profits of industry,
• that we believe in a kind of fiscal responsibility that keeps the government solvent,
• that our leaders are as subject to the law as are our citizens,
• that we honor our international commitments
• and so on

We DO have this power, but only if we exercise our rights and perform our duties.  We have not been doing that.  Now is the time to start again---in time for the November election.

Carol J. Pierce Colfer ©

return to top

Framing the Debate; Stopping the Madness

The news media in recent weeks have been discussing at some length whether we, the US, should be deploying our troops and other resources in Afghanistan or Iraq.  The point is made---and it is probably true---that our foray into Iraq resulted in neglect of Afghanistan, with the result that the Taliban were able to re-group and re-arm.

But there is a fundamental flaw with such discussions.  The central question should not be how much of American wealth and personnel should go into occupying which country (though we have gotten ourselves into such a situation that we cannot ignore this question completely).  Rather it should be, how do we put a stop to the cycle of violence that we have been fostering?  How do we translate war into peace?

We are in a vicious cycle, in which each act of violence on one ‘side’ encourages further acts of violence on the other.  Every suicide bombing in Iraq strengthens Bush’s atavistic thirst for revenge; every Israeli (read: American) cluster bomb in Lebanon increases the level of hatred among Hezbollah’s supporters.  And the climate of conflict is growing as more and more countries line up behind the combatants---whether for religious or economic or cultural reasons.  There can be no winner in such a conflict; if one group should ultimately prevail, the amount of global destruction of life and property would surely negate the ‘win’.

The United States is the last remaining superpower, which means that we have a unique potential to be the peacemaker in this global morass.  No other country or entity has the power to stop the cycle of violence.  But to do it, we---the American people---have to begin to concentrate on making peace.  The question we all need to be asking is not ‘where should we make war?’, but ‘how can we make peace?’

Making peace will mean rejecting the climate of fear that the Bush administration has so assiduously created in the US.  It will mean abandoning the idea of vengeance.  It will mean recognizing that the kind of “security” Bush envisions is a chimera.  Whatever protections may be devised, intelligent, angry and persistent people can eventually breach them.  The fear other peoples now feel toward America---powerful as we are---is more justified than the fears the Bush Administration has instilled in Americans about terrorists.  Real security can only come when the lives of people around the world can be lived in dignity, consistent with their own desires and culture.  International cooperation and trust are the keys to real security.  But these must be re-built.  The Bush Administration has squandered what we had. 

It is time for those of us who see this to act.  Reject Bush’s climate of fear.  Clamor for peace.  Elect a Congress that will control Bush’s excesses.  Sing out against war.  Reject torture under any circumstances.  Support other countries’ efforts at self-determination.  Study how to resolve conflicts peacefully.  Work toward more equitable economic systems.  Protect the earth.  And speak out for global agreements that make us all safer and more civilized.  We, the American people, are probably the only force on earth that can stop this madness; but to do it, we must act.

Carol J. Pierce Colfer ©

return to top

Impeachment is not an action lightly taken in the United States.  Most of us were somewhat horrified about Congress’ effort to impeach Clinton for lying about his private affair with Monica Lewinsky.  But we have much stronger reasons to consider impeachment seriously this time around.  And I believe that we have to consider an unprecedented dual impeachment---of both President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.  I list here only three of the most egregious ‘errors’ committed by Bush, Cheney and their administration.

Consider: 

• Bush, Cheney and their cronies led the country to war on spurious grounds, resulting in thousands of lost lives, both from this country and in Iraq.  That these two men actively and repeatedly misled the citizenry, inaccurately linking the Al Qaeda threat with Saddam Hussein’s regime and providing false evidence of weapons of mass destruction, is clear.  They are ultimately responsible for the painful quagmire in which we find ourselves now.  They show neither remorse nor any signs that they are finding a reasonable solution.
• Bush mishandled Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath (arguably the worst natural disaster ever to strike American shores), by failing to mobilize his administration and the US military to deal with the situation in any kind of timely fashion---again resulting in lost lives and misery for thousands of people.  Besides both Bush and Cheney taking their own sweet time in responding personally, Bush had hired incompetent and/or unqualified people to lead powerful government institutions with serious responsibilities, such as Homeland Security and FEMA, and these ‘leaders’ failed utterly to lead.  The buck stops at the top.
• Bush authorized spying on American citizens.  I share the view that such actions are illegal and contrary to the rights and freedoms to which Americans have long been accustomed and which we hold dear.[1]
• Cheney’s failings are less traceable, because he has been able to be more secretive.  But his close links with Halliburton, the indictment of one of his closest aides along with multiple hints of his involvement in “outing” the CIA agent, as well as his recent lack of judgment in first shooting his hunting partner and then failing to ‘fess up immediately, all suggest a closer look is in order.

My point is that I think the time has come---with three more dangerous years of this administration ahead of us---to consider impeachment seriously.  The president and vice president are endangering American freedoms in a way that is even alarming their conservative constituency at this point.  And the havoc they are wreaking internationally is unprecedented in my lifetime (60 years). 

This is another election year; and we Democrats must get our act together.  We must come up with a coherent platform that is grounded in traditional Democratic values.  We must field strong candidates who will stand up for that platform, rather than striving to be ever closer to the ephemeral ‘middle of the road.’  In the single-minded pursuit of winning elections, we’ve let the spirit of compromise get out of hand; we’ve abandoned the values---at least in public---that characterized the Democratic party, and that most of us still stand for.

The last few months have brought a number of encouraging signs.  First, the press has begun to cover some of the cover-ups and snafus that they ignored for the previous five years.  Second, there have been signs that many Republicans themselves are getting fed up:  the 80 conservative Christian groups who recently came out in support of scientific conclusions about global warming, the Republican-dominated investigative committee that looked into the Katrina debacle and found all levels of government---including the top---falling short, and other Republicans breaking ranks over spying, deceit, and other problems. 

Third, Al Gore has found his voice.  He gave a passionate and coherent speech a few weeks back vilifying the policies that are endangering our freedoms and our soldiers and bankrupting our nation; and he did it with flair and charisma.  Given that many felt he won in the first round against Bush, is it not possible that he could take on Bush again, with the benefit of hindsight, learning from his failings, and with full recognition of the incredible shambles Bush and Cheney have made of domestic and foreign affairs?  Could not Gore’s righteous anger at the election that was stolen and the resulting state of our nation spur him to win the next election?

But for that to happen, we have to be clear on our core values:  We care about social, health and educational programs.  We care about equity between men and women, between young and old, between white, black and brown. We care about social security.  We care about the rights of women to control their reproductive lives and of gay people to live together in peace.  We care about the environment and maintaining it for the next generation.  We want to create a cooperative world in which nations work together to improve conditions for all humanity.  We believe that the best weapon against terrorism is improving the conditions that spawn it while strengthening international cooperation. We believe in keeping our promises, honoring our treaties. We even care about fiscal responsibility!

And we need to stick to our guns on these issues.  We can’t give wishy washy answers and try to ‘play it both ways.’  We either believe these things or we don’t.  The electorate is not fooled when we abandon our principles for short term and ephemeral electoral advantage.

But as we move forward on these fronts, let’s consider impeachment seriously.  I don’t think we can afford three more years of this continual erosion of our own liberties, our national budget, our environment, and the goodwill that we had built up internationally.

© (Carol J. Pierce Colfer)

Carol J. Pierce Colfer ©

return to top