A Bigger Picture

["John Gelles" <indexed-savings@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

                I     A Big Picture

We have been considering (a) an inadequate supply
of life's real economic necessities in Afghanistan and
Iraq (among other nations) and (b) inadequate demand
in America -- for what we produce, as well as an inade-
quate supply of what we need by way of both infrastruc-
ture and consumption of food and other necessities by
American people in need.

The picture of an American government that recognized
its responsibility to spend money to address (a), above,
but had yet to connect the dots that would suggest similar
responsibility to spend money on item (b), was drawn.

Now we are engaged in a debate of over the danger of
government action to replace the "free market" as the
responsible institution in these matters.

Even those who see government's responsibility to act,
are unable to reach agreement on changes in our monetary
system of production that might meet with success if they
were tried.

Perhaps there is a bigger picture to present to the voters
we expect to support changes from the path President
Bush appears to want to follow.

Admittedly, that path may not be the one declared in such
 words as "leave no child behind" and "we will find a job
for everyone looking for work".  The President has promised
to achieve these two goals in the evolution of human rights
-- albeit, they may be too Utopian for realists to believe his
intention.


               II     A Bigger Picture

One bigger picture begins with the difference between
(a) words, to capture and guide political will and action
and (b) money, to inform a free market of which way is
up -- and other hard facts of life as we now know it.

Words establish the qualitative analysis of possibilities.

Money horns in on quantitative measures that will other-
wise require an ordinal numerical code to qualitatively
define every thing and every element of process, as well
as a cardinal numerical measure of quantity over time for
every code. An Oracle database solution comes to mind as
one way to think about money.

The bigger picture at present has two versions. One sees a
police state as the only way an Oracle data base will ever
be called upon to help us solve our problems. The other,
which may be Keynesian, says,"au contraire":  police states
result from "words" that shun human rights in favor of
established rights -- no matter how disgusting they may be.

It seems to me the only way to look at this picture is through
concrete situations and positions. Let me hazard some
thoughts on these:


1. The G8 nations, (US, Russia, UK, Japan, Germany,
    France, Italy and Canada,) to which for this discussion
    I must add China and India, do not have in their sights
    a common enemy -- a maniac determined to enslave the
    world as a new Hitler would if he could.  Accordingly,
    the priorities they hold in common do not stand out
    like a sore thumb.

2  Yet, to a lesser degree, the world remains enslaved to
    scarcities -- of freedom and human rights;  benevolence;
    intelligence;  water and food;  energy;  housing;  and health
    care, etc.  And a new power structure to prevent slavery
    and tyranny is not firmly in place.

3.  Faced with the absence of a rapidly forming effective
    power structure, the United States has written out its
    strategic goal to maintain superior military and political
    power during the period that may elapse from now until
    human rights (and related institutions) can be protected
    by such a new structure.

4.  The US is going about these goals in ways on which not
    all of us agree.  The obvious power of Russia to destroy
    the US in a moment is not apparent in our plans.  We
    count on the humanitarian behavior of Russian leaders
    to protect the future, as our partner, without behaving
    toward Russia as some would suggest:

            Some of us believe the highest priority of the
            US ought to be to build two nations first, America
            and Russia, fully capable and desiring to sustain and
            enforce human political and economic rights.

    Parallel to such building, would be the same or similar
    building efforts, to see that Europe and Japan did not lag
    behind -- but, also,  did not intend to duplicate the military
    power of these first two powers. Rather, they would see
    common advantage to waiting until these super-powers
    enlarged control of super-weapons to a council of con-
    tinental nations.

5.  What about China and India?  By the end of this century
    these two, individually, will be as powerful, militarily,
    as any nation on earth.  By that future time, the emergence
    of a council of continental powers, four of whom, North
    America, Russia, China and India might be armed with
    the weaponry now limited to the US and Russia, and
    five others, Europe, South America, Africa, Islam and
    Australia, might have equal political power and lesser
    weaponry.

    Other sovereign human-rights-respecting nations would
    enjoy political power through a human-rights-respecting
    United Nations.

    Nations not respecting human rights would have been
    forcibly occupied by human-rights-respecting powers.
    African nations by African powers and Islamic nations
    by Islamic powers -- perhaps.

            These appear to be the present hot-spots on earth
            where cancer exists;  and they must not be allowed
            to destroy human rights everywhere.

    It may be that Islam and Africa present harder problems
    today than other places. But it was only yesterday that
    Germany, Italy, Japan and the USSR offered models of
    human rights abuse equal to the worst possible.

    The current United Nations, which was intended to solve
    these world security problems may, of course, reform
    and emerge as a credible alternative to new structures
    for peace. But, if the UN does not, there are other options
    that would recognize history and geography but not be
    designed to advance American hegemony. They would
    recognize the military power of Russia and future military
    power of China and India.   Still, they would not tolerate
    fascism or totalitarian threats that we, with freedom loving
    allies, could possibly crush.


              III     Conclusion

Words, money and space-age military weaponry will rule
the future.  Money not spent is like nothing at all -- in this
equation.  But money not spent can be a tool worth using
to spread economic security around the world.  We are
currently so focused away from Russia I fear our President
may be missing an opportunity to bring reason to bear on
our real security, environmental and political interests.

Who is our enemy and what is the problem?  These are the
questions the President faces. The enemy is NOT  "ourselves".
But it is disrespect for full human rights, economic as well as
political.

            To the degree that Americans define freedom without
            including freedom from want and freedom from fear,
            they are their own worst enemy.

But those two freedoms were defined by the English speaking
alliance to win the war against fascism.  Why have we sometimes
cast them aside?  In the war on the Bathist regime we have under-
taken to bring them back.  And we would be fools not to bring
them back at home.

That, in a way, is the bigger picture surrounding the question
of spending money and refusing to fail without a fair fight on
all the scarcities considered above.

    John Gelles