tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24127635157034694302024-02-19T06:08:25.885-05:00The Power of WordsA site to exchange thoughts and ideas about any serious topic and add constructive viewpoints to issues of interest.Horst Woydehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17844498294032667416noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2412763515703469430.post-31003927943090496912012-01-04T16:46:00.001-05:002012-01-04T16:52:15.171-05:00An independent voter's observation<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Listening to what pundits of the American news media say about our country’s politics never ceases to puzzle me.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I come away believing that Americans appear to be incapable of thinking in any way or fashion other than in terms of absolutes – left or right, big or small, right or wrong, win or lose, all or nothing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It seems that they want us to ignore the wide gray areas that exist in between these extremes. Or is it that they know we easily get carried away by our boundless enthusiasm in pro or against any given premise?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I cringe when I hear some of the aspiring candidates to the 2012 Republican nomination for president disparage against the incumbent president, Barack Obama, accusing him of socialism, populism, etc.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>What a nonsense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To label Obama's agenda as socialism for the sole reason of his espousing a social agenda that seeks to respond to the needs of all the people is to forget the very foundations of our nation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let’s not forget that the premises of our Constitution—where it states that “<u>We the People</u> of the United States…”,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>or Abraham Lincoln’s most famous exhortation “…that government <u>of the people</u>, <u>by the people</u>, <u>for the people</u> shall not perish from the earth”—did reflect a certain collectivism. Both statements inherently promised a social agenda, certainly not socialism.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In this year’s election, the Republicans' efforts to whitewash and return to an economic system whose reckless inequities have produced terrible suffering to our middle and working classes, and to label as socialism an agenda of providing a much needed “social contract” for all the people, is sheer stupidity.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Having a social conscience doesn’t mean socialism. It simply means common sense. In any case, it is the government’s constitutional responsibility to protect all the people, not just some people.</span></div>Horst Woydehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17844498294032667416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2412763515703469430.post-89578361631149278882011-06-13T18:07:00.001-04:002011-06-13T18:10:25.766-04:007 Billion: A Demographic MilestoneAs we approach a new milestone−−7 billion of us trampling about the Earth−−it's time we ponder on where we, homo sapiens, are headed to. Are we advancing toward a brighter and ever more powerful future, as little gods in the making, poised to discover, colonize, and eventually exploit new extraterrestrial worlds? Or are we headed toward extinction like most pre−Man inhabitants of our planet Earth, only this time with an implosion metaphorically comparable to the Big Bang? <br />
Most people enthusiastically believe that our technology-driven world all but assures us of an infinite future. Only few will argue that Man is destroying the Earth; and often those who say it are vilipended, accused of being naysayers and fear mongers. So, where lies the truth? <br />
<br />
When 30 years ago Americans celebrated the first Earth Day, on April 22, 1970, universities across the country put a halt to their anti−war protests and instead rallied against pollution and population growth. The day would acquire historical significance, for it marked the beginning of a new era of reckoning. It also served to line up the two opposing forces that would govern the attitudes of people toward our environmental problems−−the unrelenting materialists who cling to the notion that nothing must be done that may hurt the economy, and those who see beyond the Now and warn us that unless we shift into reverse, not only our civilization but our Earth itself will be heading toward catastrophe. <br />
<br />
Global Footprint Network (GFN), an alliance of scientists who examines the Earth's sustainability, calculates that at our current growth rate, and using our current technology, we will soon need the land and water equivalent to more than 1.5 Earths to produce the resources we consume and absorb the waste we produce. GFN further warns us that we are growing at a rate that is using up the Earth's resources much faster than they can be sustainably replenished. At this very moment, our growth is using the equivalent of about 1.5 Earths. One doesn't have to be a mathematical genius to recognize that Mankind is facing a real problem.<br />
<br />
So, as we approach the demographic 7 billion mark, it'll be wise that we all−−government, industry, business, and we the people−−pause and reflect on what we'll be leaving to our children and grandchildren. Mankind will not become extinct in their lifetime; although in some unfathomable distant future, surely we will follow the fate of our Paleozoic Era predecessors.<br />
<br />
The future stares us into our eyes. We, the soon to be 7 billion, need to backpedal a little. We need to realize that an ever−expanding population produces an ever−expanding economy whose demands the Earth will not be able to sustain.Horst Woydehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17844498294032667416noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2412763515703469430.post-56694881306396518512011-01-07T18:35:00.001-05:002011-01-07T18:39:27.989-05:00In Defense of Literary FictionAs a writer–editor–translator working in a newsroom before my retirement and subsequent turn to trying my hand at writing literary fiction, I occasionally attend critique group meetings, which I find quite beneficial in terms of camaraderie, but somewhat wanting in effectiveness.<br />
In my humble opinion, one cannot expect a proper critique at a two–hours meeting with writers of different genres whose critiques are no more than attempts at editing or even proofreading. The absence of in–depth discussions of the work examined renders the effort meaningless. <br />
Expanding on the above, critique groups are mostly organized by excellent writers associations. Unfortunately for the literary–minded writer, most of these associations are mainly geared toward the commercial side of the written word, like genre fiction, mass–market fiction, self–publishing, etc., all in detriment of literature as an art, an expression of beauty and intellectual growth. It can justifiably be argued that today's explosion of commercial mass–media fiction is contributing, at least in part, to the demise of literary fiction in our culture. And many writers associations, wittingly or unwittingly, are participating in the killing. What a shame.<br />
It would be an excellent idea for writers associations to create special groups for established or aspiring writers of literary fiction. People who see in writing an art and not only a craft; who strive to get published the traditional way, knowing that this is the best proof of one's real worth as a writer.<br />
<br />
William H. Cole, in his essay "The Anatomy of a Wannabe Literary Writer," makes a wonderful case for what constitutes a literary writer, and what is required of him to become one. His essay can be found at http://www.storyinliteraryfiction.com/essays-on-writing/the-anatomy-of-a-wannabe-literary-fiction-writer/Horst Woydehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17844498294032667416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2412763515703469430.post-30058992992954128692010-11-09T12:44:00.001-05:002010-11-10T09:56:06.827-05:00How to Understand GlobalizationThe following is not meant to repudiate globalization, merely to open people's minds about its potential influence on the world's future if practiced without the restraints of strict regulations based on wisdom and morality.<br /><br /> What should we do to understand it<br /> <br />1. Follow the money trail, follow the power <br />2. Discern illusion from reality, especially with media outlets <br />3. Listen to experts who offer a meaningful critique <br />4. Study & verify sources and footnotes <br />5. Apply liberal doses of common sense<br /> <br />What is Globalization? It is the collective effect of purposeful and amoral manipulation that seeks to centralize economic, political, technological and societal forces in order to accrue maximum profit and political power to global banks, global corporations and the elitists who run them.<br />"Free Trade" is the central mantra. Globalization is set against national sovereignty, closed borders, trade tarrifs and anything that would restrict its goals and methods used to achieve them. <br />Globalization promotes regional and global government, a one-world economic system of trade and a form of fascism where global corporations and their elite control the policies and directives of individual governments. <br />The original and primary perpetrators of modern-day globalization number only in the 100's, representative of which, but not exclusively, are members of The Trilateral Commission.Horst Woydehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17844498294032667416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2412763515703469430.post-39793268994542489532010-11-02T15:15:00.008-04:002010-11-07T10:56:58.417-05:00Thoughts about the Slow Demise of Literary FictionNot too long ago, an aspiring writer worth his salt would follow the great masters of literature as his role models. Thus, the emergence of literary giants like Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Saul Bellow, Paul Bowles, William Faulkner, John Steinbeck, and many others. These writers wrote their novels at a time when fiction was an undivided part of literature. The term literary fiction wasn't even known then, for there was no need to distinguish between serious fiction and any other form of story writing.<br /> Only after World War II did we begin to hear about popular fiction, a form of paraliterature––by definition a less serious alternative to literary fiction.<br /> The post–war technological explosion, characterized mainly by television, marked the beginning of the decline in book reading as a major source of information and entertainment. Book publishers had to find ways to awaken new interests in a diversified readership base. They did this by targeting the less educated among us, who never were interested in literature. Publishers introduced what was and still is known as commercial fiction, also referred to as genre fiction––nonliterary work that includes categories of mystery, science fiction, fantasy, romance, western and horror. Genre fiction appealed to large segments of the American public, much to the delight of the traditional publishing houses. As their catalogues grew, the publishers encouraged promising young genre writers to submit their manuscripts. With this, great writers like Stephen King, Michael Connelly, Sue Grafton, and many others, appeared on the scene.<br /> At roughly the same time, however, the new digital era produced the first, albeit small, challenge to our traditional book–publishing industry by way of what was called Desktop Publishing. The writer himself could publish now his work, banging his computer to produce typeset–like pages to be later printed in book form by conventional printers.<br /> When this proved to be impractical, our ever-alert business hawks devised the ultimate publishing scheme. Entrepreneurial non–traditional publishers began to offer the unpublished writer ways to self-publish his books, bypassing the big traditional publishing houses. There was a catch, however. The writer would pay a fee, an amount rather small thanks to the inexpensive production costs made possible by the computer. <br /> The new self–publishing industry mushroomed. Anybody could now see his or her name in print, with their byline in a book, like a published writer. The number of new writers exploded, as evidenced by the hundreds of writers groups that sprouted all over the country. So did the self–publishing companies, the real beneficiaries of all this. Soon, this type of publishing would be known as Vanity Press. <br /> The genre fiction market exploded. More and more newcomers began clogging the serious writer's world. Writing–related entrepreneurs sprang up like mushrooms––print shops became publishers, unsuccessful writers often turned into proofreaders, editors, lecturers. All aiming to profit at the expense of the struggling aspiring writer.<br /> Without realizing it, these writers became potential customers. Instead of hoping to be paid advances so they could continue their work, they now paid an advance to see their byline in print. <br /> Fortunately the old system of traditional publishing isn't dead. Many new, inexperienced writers still see their future in the traditional publishing houses. However, the sheer number of unsolicited manuscripts overwhelmed the slush piles of the already overworked editors. The publishers erected barriers in the form of literary agents, who act as first perimeter firewalls by selecting manuscripts the traditional publishing houses might want to buy. For the unknown writer, this pretty much closed the gates to the traditional, advance–paying, publishing house.<br /> But the gates closed only so much. Like in any other endeavor, talent, perseverance and good work can still open them.<br /> Today's new writer should remember that none of the world's greatest authors got their first submissions published. And he should be wary of people who cater to mediocrity, for they will steer him in the wrong direction. <br /> Self-publishing may be all right for those who write for tiny readerships or for the desire to see their bylines in print. The serious writer, however, should think of his work as an art and not just a craft; an art that offers his readers an intellectual and spiritual journey into the realms of an unknown world.<br /> To summarize, instead of succumbing to what is considered nonliterary writing, the new writer should steer his aspirations toward higher grounds, where, if his efforts are worthy, they still are sought by traditional, advance–paying publishing houses.<br /> If you are a writer worth your salt, either of literary or genre fiction, seek a traditional publishing house over a self–publishing company.<br /> The Writers Guild of America doesn't recognize self-publishing as a standard for membership.Horst Woydehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17844498294032667416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2412763515703469430.post-80286780096030876442010-10-31T16:17:00.001-04:002010-11-10T10:00:26.833-05:00A Tiny Ray of Hope for the World?The other day, while researching some matters related to conservation, I lost myself in the maze of Twitter's tweets and retweets. As suspected, I found innumerable ideas––some trite, others well thought, many real good, and a few brilliant. <br /> One tweeter got my attention. In his tweet, he said, repeating the hackneyed thought: "When the last tree is cut, the last river poisoned and the last fish caught, we will discover that we can't eat money." Another tweeter answered, raising the ante a bit: "There's a simple solution: Let's stop idolizing the economy; scale down free enterprise; or else we'll all be dead soon." <br /> So here is the thing. Most people will agree on what the first tweeter said, even though he really hadn't said anything but a nice–sounding sentence that didn't propose any solution. The responder, on the other hand, proposed a solution, which many of the world's top scholars endorse, but do not express because of its unpopularity. <br /> Now, everyone with a clear mind knows that the pursuit of money alone, when morally unrestricted, can lead to a blind greed that recognizes no limits. As it happens, we, more than any other people in the world, idolize our free enterprise and economic systems, many times to the exclusion of other values of much greater import.<br /> When I raised this issue with my brother–in–law O, who lives in Uruguay, a peaceful, relatively prosperous country, he said to me, "That's precisely the problem with America. All that obsession with money––you guys live and die for it––is what makes your country so much admired, but also so much disliked." After I objected ardently saying that most likely his country wasn't much different, he said categorically, "No, no! Here the economy is important, but not exceedingly so," he said. "People here don't live exclusively for money. Maybe that's why most don't have much of it, but almost all of them will tell you that they are happy because of their relatively carefree life." <br /> To convince me, my brother–in–law said, "Why don't you come and spend time with us, and find out for yourself." With tongue–in–cheek he added, "Look, maybe you can help preserve the world's trees and clean its rivers and save it from self–destruction, by learning that there are alternatives to your kind of freedom and prosperity. Come visit us. Be our guest for as long as you like. All paid. You won't have to spend a penny. <br /> I kind of felt embarrassed. I discovered that perhaps he and his fellow citizens were richer than I and my fellow citizens.Horst Woydehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17844498294032667416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2412763515703469430.post-25395505072344719692010-10-11T11:16:00.002-04:002010-10-19T10:56:16.280-04:00Food for ThoughtRemember the day, when inspired by a speech given by President Dwight Eisenhower, the media and most of us aimed our collective venom guns at what he called the Military–Industrial Complex? When the president, himself a military man, warned against the collusion of these two powerful forces in our society, a complicity that eventually resulted in the Pentagon paying zillions of dollars for a lousy toilet seat? Well, it appears that yesteryear's corruption has turned our national ethos into a gigantic hydra. It poisoned our nation to the point where nobody talks about it anymore. Where most of us pay lip service to the myriad of immoral practices this hydra has unleashed upon us, the most damaging of these being the new mega collusion we may well call the Military-Industrial-Banking–Government Complex.<br /> We have seen this expanded complex playing out its hypocritical schemes. All the way from the time of the Reagan Administration's market economy––a practice that upended the applecart by changing the old moral–based equation of "cost plus reasonable profit" into the new immoral one of "whatever the market will bear," which opened the floodgates to irresponsible greed and price gouging––aided and abetted by our country's successive administrations' utter mismanagement of our nation's resources. <br /> And yet, We The People, keep relatively quiet, knowingly or unknowingly accepting everything that is thrown at us by Big Business, and yes, also by a government that always seems to side up with it, rarely with the middle class, almost never with the average John Does.<br /> But, is it possible that we are not as enlightened as we think we are?<br /> We heard that the Big Bailout of Wall Street, the auto industry, etc.––anybody but the middle class or the regular John Doe––smacked of socialism. Since when helping the richest is socialism? It is capitalism at its devious worst. <br /> As voters, come election time, we forget our dissatisfaction and fall for the ever–repetitious slogans and promises of the candidates, whose real interest too often is self–promotion and how best to fit into that golden cage, the military-industrial-banking–government complex.<br /> We stand by and allow big business, with government consent, to rob us clean – first by dumping on us a recession they and they alone created, then by misleading us into accepting new laws and regulations meant to help our people, but which at the end only benefit the big guys in business.<br /> Finally, Obama, who scared everyone out of their wits with his feared populist–socialist leanings, now appears to have fallen prey to the very same evils he so eloquently denounced when he came to us in the guise of a savior. <br /> My friends, nothing ever changes. Contrary to the old Western movie stereotype, where the hero cowboy rids the town of the robber barons who took it over, in our real world, the greedy, government–sanctioned, robber barons always win at the end of the day.Horst Woydehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17844498294032667416noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2412763515703469430.post-9192983202003850092009-10-15T10:22:00.005-04:002009-10-15T10:50:01.959-04:00A Sign of the TimeWhat’s going on in this world? Whatever happened to serious discourse in our society? Was Paul Fussell right in his wildly reviled assessment of us as a nation in his otherwise acclaimed book “Bad or, the Dumbing of America?”<br /><br />I thought of this the other evening when shooting the breeze with a group of friends the question of politics—what else?—came up. Now, I need to say at the outset that the subject of what I’m going to say is a delicate one, for at the core of it is this, my very blog, “The Power of Words.” I need to make sure that I don’t give the impression of being unable to take criticism. Believe me, as a translator and a writer I’m very much used to it.<br /><br />But coming back to what is at issue. As I said, the conversation turned to politics, with the usual, rather too emphatic, points and counterpoints regarding Obama and the current mega debate about our calamitous health care system.<br /><br />At some point, totally unintentionally on my part, my blog popped up in the conversation. Out of the blue one of my fellow breeze shooters said to me, “You know? You need to lighten your blog. Your subjects are too heavy. People don’t read this stuff. You bore them.”<br /><br />I was surprised when others echoed this opinion. Now again, I didn’t take this as a referendum on my writing, for as I said criticism comes with the job. But what shocked me was the shallowness of the statement, expressed by one and sheepishly repeated by others. Essentially, it was said that an open and constructive discourse about our country’s problems is boring, it requires too much effort; that instead I should lighten my blog by writing about less serious topics. I suggested tabloid gossip, maybe pornography. I couldn’t distinguish the yeas from the nays so, not wanting to be unfair to anybody, I’ll leave it at that.<br /><br />As to the above implied descent into shallowness, where many of us live in mediocrity, blind partisanship, denial, victims of our own gullibility, fleeced and gouged by a system gone wild, I say, Paul Fussell was right. We are witnessing the dumbing of America.<br /><br />It’s a sign of our time.Horst Woydehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17844498294032667416noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2412763515703469430.post-83132251788931122042009-10-08T10:33:00.002-04:002009-10-08T10:37:33.596-04:00Who in Congress really cares about AmericaI’m a news freak. I’ve been a news addict since Walter Lippmann opened my eyes not only to the dirt, but also to a lot of good, that came out of Washington in those post-World War II days. I really believe that it is to him that I owe, at least in part, my devotion to national and world events, although I’m not sure whether this is a blessing or a curse. In any event, this addiction of mine led me to become utterly opinionated, much to the chagrin of my wife and the rest of my family. Mea culpa, mea culpa.<br /><br />Now it so happens that fifty years after Walter Lippmann, I find that a lot has changed in America, but mainly at the grassroots level, where we the people have finally matured to the point of electing an African-American as our president. Something extraordinary in view of our almost 250 years of shameful bigotry. The American people deserve a big “atta boy” for this.<br /><br />Regretfully, at the congressional level, in those hallowed halls that were the cradle of our democracy, a beacon on which most of the world pinned their hopes for peace, freedom and a better live, very little has changed over the decades.<br /><br />Democrats and republicans are at each other’s throats, as usual. In yesteryears, when the democrats were the party out of power, they were the ones that vilified the republicans. Today, it’s the other way around. Except that the decibels are higher. The courtesy that should characterize the debates often turns into shouting matches and bitter exchanges. There is real anger, even hatred, in Congress.<br /><br />After having watched the deeds and misdeeds in Washington for all these years, I ask myself, what has happened here? Why is it that the issue of our country’s public health care system (and yes, it is public, since it involves the American public in general) is stirring up so much more debate and controversy than any other crucial issue facing our country? I think I know the answer. It is because over the years the insurance companies, aided and abetted by a Congress open to hidden deals, hungry for so called “contributions,” were allowed to entrench themselves, to gouge the millions of Americans who could afford to pay the ever increasing premiums, and who did so, loyal to a system of which they thought as being a part.<br /><br />But inevitably, the greed that for so long nourished the Wall Street behemoth and the insurance moguls who are ripping off Main Street turned out to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. The people got tired, and began asking questions. The clamor in Congress got louder, more acrimonious. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, Rush Limbaugh and Ed Schults got more strident.<br /><br />In the meantime the world is watching, puzzled, for it can’t understand what is happening here. In London’s pubs, Paris’ cafes, and Berlin’s cabarets there is laughter and satire directed at us. People there scratch their heads and ask, “What the devil is all the hullabaloo about. Why don’t the Yanks just come over and ask us how to do it?”<br /><br />In the meantime, here at home, we the regular folks scratch our heads and ask, “Don’t those bozos on Capitol Hill care for us? Who really cares there about America?”<br /><br />“Think I’m opinionated? Yeah, very much so.”Horst Woydehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17844498294032667416noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2412763515703469430.post-67984455898030871122009-10-02T11:48:00.009-04:002009-10-03T09:02:33.746-04:00Freedom has many Faces<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbw2ng05QYfmG7TadaVvbW_n1goISuKWe4BC2OG9mVyh31O7bwR9vvjhXiwAMMNpQl0w5E-QCB8wa9qlkn46s79X9MZzGBtHKP59l1PJyuMOwDaBmMQmHjGV7NHwNtGpVbiNA5Zm9ROVQ/s1600-h/Colleville-sur-Mer.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 301px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 174px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5388031241896106978" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbw2ng05QYfmG7TadaVvbW_n1goISuKWe4BC2OG9mVyh31O7bwR9vvjhXiwAMMNpQl0w5E-QCB8wa9qlkn46s79X9MZzGBtHKP59l1PJyuMOwDaBmMQmHjGV7NHwNtGpVbiNA5Zm9ROVQ/s320/Colleville-sur-Mer.jpg" /></a><br />A few years ago I visited the American war cemetery in Colleville-sur-Mer above Omaha beach, one of the landing points for the invasion on June 6, 1944, where thousands of American troops lie buried. While wandering among the many gravesites in this poignant and eminently beautiful and peaceful place overlooking the English Channel, I was approached by a man easily recognizable as a German national.<br /><br />“May I ask you a question, sir? You are an American, are you not?” he asked in heavily accented English.<br /><br />Puzzled and somewhat unsure of how to answer the stranger I replied that yes, I was.<br /><br />The stranger looked around and pointed an accusing finger at a group of American children running playfully between the Crosses and Stars of David in pursuit of some kiddy play known only to them.<br /><br />“Look at that. Isn’t this shameful? Desecrating a hallowed place like this? You as an American, should go back and ask your president to order Hollywood to stop making gangster films and instead make movies that teach people, especially the children, respect for their dead soldiers. You ought to be ashamed.”<br /><br />The man’s presumptuousness in lecturing me, and by extension my country, provoked me. I felt I had to answer him in kind.<br /><br />“You obviously don’t know much about the United States,” I said, trying to sound as condescending as possible. “First of all, in my country the president cannot order Hollywood or anyone else what to do or not do. We call that freedom. That’s exactly what those who are buried here fought and died for. Freedom. They gave their lives protecting that very freedom,” I finished, and turned away.<br /><br />The above event came to my mind today while listening to the acrimonious and often offensive invectives many conservatives in Congress throw against those who are seeking a comprehensive health care reform; seeing our society being polarized as never before; watching our overpolitized Congress as it leads us to the brink of social, economic and political catastrophe. A Congress where our elected representatives shamelessly give their own twist to our forebears’ ideals of a government of the people, by the people and for the people, where freedom and opportunity are distributed equally among all the people.<br /><br />Contrary to what I said to that man in the cemetery above Omaha beach, I now do ask the president to rally his party’s majority in Congress to crush the rabid opposition to a public option in a reformed health care system. A public competition to the entrenched private insurance companies is the only way to arrest the insatiable greed of a private sector gone wild and repair the mess caused by decades of political negligence.<br /><br />In a way, this too is a fight for freedom. Freedom for every American to have the health care we all deserve, without being gouged by the private insurance companies.Horst Woydehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17844498294032667416noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2412763515703469430.post-28141439239938089582009-09-12T19:05:00.003-04:002009-09-15T18:36:20.028-04:00Does Anything Ever Change In Politics?<p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">I can’t believe people’s fickleness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>At the end of the Bush era everybody got hoarse clamoring for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">CHANGE</i>, chanting <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">YES, WE CAN</i>, and now, only 8 months later, people let themselves be hoodwinked by a bunch of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>self-serving party hacks in the Congress of the United States, who instead of representing their constituents, side up with their real masters - the guys of Corporate America – in blocking that very change the majority of the people had demanded.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>One can only hope that at the very end wisdom will prevail, and people will finally come to realize that public options, like public schools, public transportation, public parks, public television, public safety, and yes, public health (like Medicare and Medicaid) don’t constitute socialism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Rather, they are what a modern democratic government is supposed to provide its citizens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Other countries, like the U.K., Canada, France, Argentina, and most others provide them, and nobody believes they are socialist countries.</span></p>Horst Woydehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17844498294032667416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2412763515703469430.post-8476342751791926502009-02-20T16:15:00.000-05:002009-02-20T16:20:10.120-05:00Book Review: The Forger, by Cioma SchonhausA story of survival in wartime Berlin<br /><br /><br />Schonhaus’ description of the horrible conditions that prevailed in wartime Berlin is quite good. In The Forger he provided this reader a sense of the place that was convincing. One can see that the author knows Berlin. However, it is a story that has been written many times over. The "Last Jews In Berlin," by Leonard Gross, comes to mind. Being presented in the first person increases the story’s poignancy. Schonhaus' characterization of himself is quite credible, and it must be assumed that the original German version must read well. Unfortunately, the English translation is not as good as it could be. Finally, Cioma's crossing the Suisse border was rendered as being much too easy. The reader gets the impression that the author was in a hurry to complete the story.Horst Woydehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17844498294032667416noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2412763515703469430.post-11539011259838396002009-02-20T11:09:00.000-05:002009-02-20T11:14:13.522-05:00Capitalism and the need for a Revolution in SpiritAn article by Benjamin Barber titled A Revolution in Spirit, published in the weekly The Nation, caught my attention not only for being well written but because it touches an issue dear to my heart, one that impacted my life in my younger years. In his article, Barber talks about the need for a revolution in the spirit in its relationship to culture, democracy, and ultimately to life. This, in my post-World War II years, was what some called Humanitarism, a doctrine that puts the spirit—with its ideals of peace, equality, and good will toward all—first. It is something I’d like to call now social capitalism.<br /><br />Much has been written about the spirit of America, the wonderful force that became a beacon of hope and a cause for envy in much of the world. A spirit that, to a large extent, evolved from the rugged individualism that characterized the beginnings of the American experience. A spirit that produced our brand of capitalism, a force that not only propelled our country to become the richest nation on earth, but also, in tandem with our democratic ideals, helped the less fortunate in the world to alleviate in some extent their pervasive poverty.<br /><br />But as the collapse of our present economic system demonstrates, not all is well with capitalism. Having won the Cold War, that not so symbolic struggle between Capitalism and Communism, we emerged as the sole undisputed super power. With our victory came the arrogance of the victor. The American spirit became the American hubris, and with it we began to lose many of the values that had made us great.<br /><br />And now, in comes Obama. Not only is he a novelty for being our first African American president. That by itself is a milestone in the American experience. But he is exceptional in that he brings to the White House a unique intellect that with few exceptions was absent in many of its prior occupants.<br /><br />One can only hope that President Obama’s call for change will help us break our cold and ruthless attitude toward what is right and wrong in our society. We definitely need a revolution in spirit, a reawakening of the spirit that once made us great.<br /><br />We Americans are afraid of socialism. Maybe understandably so. But reining in capitalism in its rudest, often inhuman forms, doesn’t constitute socialism. It simply means that the government is responsibly carrying out the regulatory and oversight functions it is entrusted to execute.<br /><br />The issue at hand these days is not the death of capitalism. I’d like to say that the real issue is to strengthen and purify capitalism, and thus prevent it from destroying our Western civilization as we know it.<br /><br />Capitalism without morality cannot endure.Horst Woydehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17844498294032667416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2412763515703469430.post-27796131516197257082008-02-28T12:21:00.000-05:002009-02-20T15:03:04.381-05:00The Danger of Information OverloadThe Internet, coupled with the gradually loosening-up of traditional restraints imposed on us over centuries by a ruthless hierarchical social system, is now confronting us with a new subtle but visible danger. Witness the 2008 presidential electoral process in the United States. For the first time our great nation is about to break a once thought unbreakable barrier erected by ossified traditions and a ruthless and corrupted socio-political system. This year’s election by one of our two major political parties of a presidential candidate —an African American or a woman—is proof that we, the people, have finally matured and truly deserve to think of ourselves as “We The People…” in the Land of the Free”.<br /><br />This liberating process, however, is being undermined by a misguided understanding of the meaning of freedom. And the Internet, that universal forum for free thought, where everyone can publish anything unhampered by editorial corroboration, is unwittingly corrupting the very freedom it was meant to promote.<br /><br />From the beginning of this year’s electoral campaign, our e-mail boxes are being overwhelmed by forwarded attachments—sent to us by friends and others—of uncorroborated writings by individuals often unknown to us extolling or decrying this or that virtue or vice of the candidates.<br /><br />The sheer volume of these attachments, plus the wealth of what is freely published and accessed in what former vice president Al Gore called the Information Super Highway, is overwhelming and cluttering our understanding now.<br /><br />The fact that at the same time we are being bombarded by a 24/7 news coverage that in its ceaseless need to appear up-to-date and newsworthy often resorts to a news coverage overload, dangerously flirting with irresponsible reporting, represents a clear and present danger to our democracy.<br /><br />Indeed, the information overload to which we are continuously exposed can easily be turned into disinformation, a development we cannot allow to happen.Horst Woydehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17844498294032667416noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2412763515703469430.post-80807004795360848242008-02-18T12:51:00.000-05:002009-02-20T15:03:04.381-05:00Thoughts about American LiteratureLooking through the shelves of our big bookstores and reading our major newspapers’ Book Sections, one cannot help but notice that the strength of American literature largely derives from our writers’ keen opposition to or enthusiastic support of our country’s political and economical life. Many of America’s best known authors appear to be either active protesters or ardent supporters of whatever political wind happens to be blowing. What has happened here? Many a fiction writer complains that this pragmatic outlook causes non-fiction books to rank higher on publishers’ lists than fictional literature. Is it possible that the cause of this can be found in the way our society developed over the years? More often than not the American novelist creates his or her work in isolation, in a large city or small town, in a towering skyscraper or on a pastoral farm. Our writers live in a country devoid of a café culture that enables social gatherings and cultural exchanges like those found in Paris, Madrid, or Buenos Aires, where writers meet other writers and share a spiritual home.<br /><br />As of late, American literature is handicapped by publishers, often controlled by foreigners, who only pursue financial success, who publish their books guided solely by the aim of promoting them to become bestsellers. The writer’s artistic output, therefore, is subject to commercialization—it is only a product that “has to be sold,” and that’s all. Unfortunately this trend is detrimental to the reader, and oftentimes fatal to the writer. In our new globalized order, it can be said that this persistent diminishing of our writers’ artistic endeavors vis-a-vis the publisher’s practical considerations and financial successes may be limiting the penetration that our American literature should be enjoying in the world.<br /><br />How likely is it that we will soon reach a new stage where literary merits are based on originality or boldness of style rather than the pragmatism of the idea or the commercial or political value of the covered subject?<br /><br />Unfortunately, American literature, like most other forms of our artistic output, is falling victim to the subtle but inexorable descend into mediocrity provoked by a relentless market-oriented economy.Horst Woydehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17844498294032667416noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2412763515703469430.post-19272336176024868242008-02-13T16:36:00.000-05:002009-02-20T15:03:04.381-05:00The Ultimate EmancipationWe Americans, as a nation, stand before our history’s ultimate test as roughly half of our population is to decide who will be the Democratic Party’s nominee for president in this year’s election. We have an opportunity, for the first time ever, to overcome old taboos and traditions and break the ultimate glass ceiling that stands in our way to become a truly United States of America, united not just within geographic boundaries but also by race and by gender.<br /><br />We like to think hyperbolically of ourselves as the “greatest nation in the world.” And true enough, we have done some extraordinary things not only for ourselves but also for the world in general. At the very beginnings of our history as a nation, we have inspired the French Revolution, a rebellion against tyranny that set the world on a new track towards freedom and democracy. We have fought our very own to preserve the Union that would make us great. We have emancipated our African-American population who some of our forebears mistreated horrendously. We championed the worldwide Suffragette movement that emancipated women long suppressed by giving them an equal right to vote. We overcame our own racial prejudices by enacting legislation that granted equal rights for all people under the law and little by little made us a kinder and gentler nation.<br /><br />We did all this and more. But one thing we haven’t done yet in our society. We haven’t raised the cultural barriers that prevented a black man or a woman from becoming president of the United States. Until recently it would have been unthinkable for either to aspire to become president of the mightiest country in the world. Whites would have rejected the idea of an African-American running for president, and most men would have rejected the idea of a woman becoming president and commander-in-chief of our armed forces. It would have been considered ludicrous. We kept telling ourselves that “the country wasn’t ready for it.”<br /><br />Now, finally, our nation is facing a decisive test. We are about to see the ultimate emancipation in our country’s history. History would correct itself by putting Barack Obama in the Oval Office. Why Obama and not Hillary Clinton? It’s not because Hillary isn’t qualified. It’s because White America owes a greater debt to our black compatriots than to our women.<br /><br />Sorry, Hillary. Next time it’ll be your turn.Horst Woydehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17844498294032667416noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2412763515703469430.post-84206294214750158172008-02-12T12:21:00.000-05:002009-02-20T15:03:04.381-05:00Sequel to We the PeopleThe other day I read in the paper’s Opinion Page a letter referring to the accountability or “unaccountability” (italics mine) of our government. In it the writer asked, “When are we, the people, going to make our government accountable?” The question not only begs to be answered, it invites a closer scrutiny. <br /> The writer puts her question quite rightly. She didn’t ask “When will the government be accountable?” Instead, she ask, “When will we, the people, make our government accountable. The emphasis is on “we the people.” It clearly shows that the burden is entirely on us. The truth is that we, as a people, are complainers. We are passive users and many times vocal abusers of a system that was given us by our inspired forefathers who saw in us, the people, a nation and not an economy, which regrettably is what lately we are being programmed to be. But in all fairness, even today there are innumerable examples of the government being accountable. Unfortunately the accountability appears to favor mainly the privileged among us, namely, those special interests groups who through their lobbies make their voices heard. We, the “mainstream” people, have few lobbies other than our representatives in Congress, who unfortunately, like Judas in another time, often succumb to the temptation of a few pieces of silver, and a handful of advocacy groups whose non-profit status many times ignores overly generous salaries and other pecuniary benefits for their executives. So how can “we the people” make our government accountable? Not by imitating the powerful corporate or political lobbies with their bribes and corruption, but by a more direct action at the grassroots level. By boycotting politicians whose track records are shady, instead of falling again and again for their empty promises and constant personality “reinventions;” by boycotting products and services whose prices are visibly not based on honest costs and returns but on “what the market can bear,” that fabulous market economy formula that legitimizes, indeed decriminalizes in some cases, the once reprehensible, if not illegal, price gouging; by doing “en masse” what that letter writer did – flood our newspapers’ opinion pages with our observations and yes, legitimate complaints; by shouting from our allegoric rooftops: “We wont take this anymore. We want our country back!”Horst Woydehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17844498294032667416noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2412763515703469430.post-43173176826689048932008-02-12T11:51:00.000-05:002009-02-20T15:03:04.381-05:00We the PeopleHonest Abe must be turning in his grave seeing how his Gettysburg address ending with the glorious words “…that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth,” often is being interpreted in our time as “…that government of the <strong><em>privileged</em></strong> people, by the <strong><em>privileged</em></strong> people, for the <strong><em>privileged</em></strong> people, shall not perish from the earth.”<br /><br />Clearly our country has been a shining example to the world as to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What is not so clear today, while we wallow in our much touted super abundance, is who the real beneficiaries of Lincoln’s proclamation are. It weren’t the Native Americans, or the African Americans, or too many of those who came to our shores in search of precisely those tenets. More and more it seems that the super privileged in our society—the big shots on Wall Street, the multinationals, the legions of foreign investors—created a new breed of capitalists who have gradually metamorphosed into today’s super capitalists. Individuals often unknown to the public who operate behind the scenes, spawning corporations so powerful as to eclipse the power of our elected leaders, who are turning into mockery our nation’s forefathers’ wisdom and foresight by establishing special interests groups and corrupting our institutions through their lobbyists, all under the aegis of the Constitution.<br /><br />The slow but inexorable descent into the abyss to which the unchecked greed of this convoluted amalgam commonly referred to as neoconservative, military-industrial complex has condemned our nation, finally seems to be reaching bottom. In their unpatriotic hubris of global dimensions, the special interests groups, aided by their lobbies, have pushed our government into a war of aggression (Iraq didn’t start this war), and are ruining our economy with total disregard of the people Lincoln’s words referred to, who find it harder and harder to pay their mortgages, their health insurance, even the gasoline they need to move around in our country grievously lacking a public transportation system worth mentioning.<br /><br />Sad as it is, the party of Lincoln is not heeding the words of the Great Emancipator. Perhaps in this election year, Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee, who promised to stand up to the special interests groups and the Washington lobbyists, will convert Honest Abe’s passionate vision into reality.<br /><br />There is no question that change is needed.Horst Woydehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17844498294032667416noreply@blogger.com0