Monthly Archives: May 2011

The joy of a hot bike trip in Washington, DC

by

Memorial Day in Washington, DC.

Hot and humid. Concert and a parade, and many who flocked to the Arlington cemetery across the Potomac River, including president Obama, who made a speech and laid a wreath.

Many simply gathered in their gardens with family and friends, and the barbecue smoke hung in the air, everywhere. Others had left town and gone out to the beach resorts in Delaware, Maryland, or Virginia.  The city was really quite empty and the heat made it feel even emptier.

I took a bike ride while waiting for the barbecue in the afternoon, on Sligo Creek Trail along the Sligo Creek in Silver Spring, Maryland, just north of the border with Washington, DC. It was late morning, before the heat reached 95 degrees. Normally, I would never even have thought about exercising outdoors if it were not so that the bike path mostly ran in the shade of big trees and with water from Sligo Creek constantly running refreshingly along the route.

There were not many riders out on the almost 10 mile long trail, perhaps because of the heat. So there was plenty of room even though bikers must share the trail with joggers and families with strollers. It was quiet and peaceful and just one more of the many joys one can find in the green parks of the U.S. capital.

Medicare for all!

by

Medicare, Medicare, Medicare won the election on Tuesday in the 26th district in New York State, and the Democratic candidate Kathy Hochula became the beneficiary of the voters’ verdict in a surprising upset in the, usually, staunchly Republican district.

As a European, who has made America my home for many years, I am still partial to anything in the American health care system that smells like Canada or Europe – where health care is a fundamental right for everyone, like basic education, too important to leave to private market forces.

I like Medicare. I profit from it myself. So I completely understand the voters of the 26th district in voting down the Paul Ryan proposal to privatize Medicare. It works, unlike so much else in American health care.

For this reason, I am delighted that Vermont’s Democratic Governor, Peter Shumlin, today signed into law a new single payer health care system, which basically is Medicare for all, regardless of age. Shumlin said that the new law would make Vermont the first state in the nation to make health care “a right and not a privilege.”

I like Vermont, a State of proud firsts, as Amy Goodman writes, “first to join the 13 colonies. Its constitution was the first to ban slavery. It was the first to establish the right to free education for all – public education.” On “Democracy Now,” you can listen to Dr. Deb Richter, president of Vermont Health Care for All explain it all.

We will hear a lot more about this in the coming months. In fact, it is likely it will dominate the campaign rhetoric up until the election next year.

But, as E. J. Dionne points out in the Washington Post today, the election in New York State was not only about Medicare, it was Medicare combined with the promotion in the Republican budget proposal of further tax cuts for the wealthy. That made the whole thing into an issue of fairness. The Republicans have gone too far, they have no mandate for this.

The result in New York’s 26th district and the vote yesterday in the Senate on the Ryan budget proposal, with four moderate Republicans, two of them up for re-election next year, siding with the Democratic majority, are both clear signs how worried the Republicans have become. They mutter about “Mediscare,” but the truth is that to tamper with a popular program like Medicare has proven politically disastrous.

New secret film could mean Sarah Palin is running

by

A new documentary film about Sarah Palin, filmed in great secrecy by a conservative filmmaker, will premiere in June and looks like the start of a future presidential campaign by the former Republican Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate 2008.

The film’s existence is revealed by Scott Conroy at RealClearPolitics, a leading political news site, whose report tonight describes at length the content of the two-hour film, “The Undefeated”.

The film will likely premiere in Iowa where the first primary election battle takes place in January next year. The film will then be shown in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, all primary states.

“This film is a call to action for a campaign like 1976: Reagan vs. the establishment,” said filmmaker Stephen K. Bannon to RealClearPolitics. “Let’s have a good old-fashioned brouhaha.”

The film portrays Palin as “the only conservative leader who can both build on the legacy of the Reagan Revolution and bring the ideals of the tea party movement to the Oval Office.”

If the film means the start of a Palin presidential election campaign, it would mean a drastically new situation for the Republican party, which is right now dominated by confusion and lack of enthusiasm for any of the present candidates after four possible candidates decided not to run.

And for those who are still thinking about running, like former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, a Palin candidacy might make them decide not to run. For although Palin is controversial and polarizing, even within her own party, she is by far the best known of all the Republican candidates, with strong support from the Tea Party movement, and she would likely be very had to beat.

“Buckets of Rain” — buckets of joy

by

Today, Bob Dylan turned 70. He has been my musical companion for 50 of those years. What more can I say?

Let me just point you to John Bennet’s post, “Don’t Read This, Bob,” on the New Yorkers’ blog News Desk, where he features, among others, Ebony Hillbillies playing Dylan’s “Buckets of Rain.”

Listening this morning to this street band’s version of this lovely song brought me such immense joy.

Have a listen!

A fight about a mosque in the middle of Tennessee

by

On my way north during my recent little journey in the South, I eventually came to Tennessee, not really the deep South, but more of a border state, on the map low but wide.

I crossed into Tennessee at Chattanooga – which inspired Glenn Miller’s old hit from 1941 “Chattanooga Choo Choo” and is now the site of a historic hotel by that name – at the southernmost end of the Appalachian Mountains. Here, mountains are high and valleys are narrow. There were no cotton plantations here and much of eastern Tennessee sympathized with the Union, while the rest of Tennessee chose the Confederacy. The result was hundreds of bloody battles in the State during the Civil War. In the 1960s, many hard-fought battles took place during the civil rights movement.

In Murfreesboro today, a university city of just over 100 000 inhabitants in the geographical center of Tennessee, there is a different civil rights struggle taking place. It is not African-Americans fighting for their rights, but Arab-Americans, who want to build a mosque in their hometown.

The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro can be found on Middle Tennessee Boulevard, almost hidden behind some shops and parking lot. The city’s 250 Muslim families have gathered here every Friday for years to pray, often using the parking lot for the overflow crowd.

Last year, the congregation purchased land in the outskirts of the city to build a proper mosque and eventually a community center. The only neighbor was a Baptist church. No problem. Local authorities said yes. Freedom of religion is enshrined in the Constitution, and it was nothing more to it, it seemed, especially since the Muslims had legally bought the land and there were no zoning problems.

But, conservative activists began to protest, eventually supported by conservative forces from outside of Murfreesboro. The city’s politicians were sued. In spite of support of the Muslim community from various religious groups in the city, opposition to the mosque grew, resulting in vocal protests, even destruction of construction equipment.

“It has been polarizing, creating anxiety and fear in the community,” said Abdou Kattih, who is a pharmacist and originally from Syria, when we talked at the Islamic Center. His car outside carried a sticker, “Freedom of religion, for all”. He described the Muslim community, totaling around one thousand people or one percent of the city’s its population, as deeply rooted in Murfreesboro. He, himself, has four children, all born here, and it is here we want to live, he said.

On the Center’s website, it is written:

“Let us stand together and build bridges rather than barriers, openness rather than walls. Rather than borders, let us look at distant horizons together, in the common spirit of the value and dignity of a shared personhood as citizens in this great nation.”

The Muslim community was encouraged the other day when a local court ruled in its favor, allowing for the construction to begin. But final victory is not guaranteed, at least not yet – the opponents have vowed not to give up and have threatened to appeal.

New York Review of Books on the “moralist” Stieg Larsson

by

Americans, like millions in the rest of the world I should add, continue to be fascinated by Stieg Larsson and his Millennium trilogy.

I have blogged about it before, how Stieg Larsson and his books always come up in conversations with Americans when they hear that I come from Sweden. And that’s ok, of course. It always leads to a good debate about Sweden and our literature.

The latest comments on Larsson and his trilogy can be read in the New York Review of Books under the headline, “Stieg Larsson, moralist”. The article by Tim Parks, author and professor in Milan, Italy, runs of almost three pages in the new issue of the magazine. It does not seem to contain much new, at least not for Swedish readers, or for the many Larsson fans here in America, except perhaps his conclusion?

“It is the ingenuousness and sincerity of Larsson’s engagement with good and evil that give the trilogy its power to attract so many millions of people.”

New York Times on “Boy Genius” — best in the world

by

We all know that the international version of football, which Americans call soccer, is steadily gaining popularity in America, not least women’s soccer, where the U.S. has been one of the top teams for many years — I still recall the wonderful experience from the World Cup finals in Los Angeles in 1999 with 100,000 spectators all around me in the Rose Bowl, watching the U.S. defeated China after penalty kicks.

But it seems that it is only then, every four years with the World Cup, that America  wakes up and realizes that something big is happening, something that the rest of the world follows intently and passionately.  Major League Soccer (MLS) has pretty good crowds at the games, but true passion is limited to a rather narrow audience, often to be found among the large immigrant communities from Latin America, Europe or Africa.

The current playoffs in basketball (NBA) and ice hockey (NHL) as well as the first months of the baseball season completely dominate the sports coverage.

Huge tournaments, like the European Champions League, is attracting very little interest. The final is played on Saturday at Wembley Stadium in London between Barcelona of Spain and Manchester United of England, and hundreds of millions of people, maybe one billion or even more, will watch the game, all over the world.

Therefore, today’s New York Times should be noted. Better late than never for an American audience to read about this great athleete! The paper’s sports section contains three pages on the “Boy Genius” – Lionel Messi – from Barcelona and Argentina. If you are a follower of soccer, or if you just want to catch up and get ready for Saturday’s game, you should read this article about this fantastic little soccer player – best in the world.  Enjoy!

Will Obama’s speech help the peace process?

by

The discussions and comments after President Obama’s big speech today on the Middle East and North Africa have focused on the seemingly obvious – that peace between Israel and the Palestinians must be based on 1967 borders, before the Six Day War that year.

But, actually, Obama said something he had not said before:

“The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”

The speech was criticized immediately and harshly by the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who will meet Obama in the White House on Friday. It looks like it could be a tense meeting.

The Republicans, especially Republican presidential candidates, also harshly criticized Obama, which of course underlines that this issue is more politically charged than usual, here in the beginning of the presidential campaign. The challenge for the Republicans is to capture as many Jewish, and traditionally Democratic voters, as possible.

“Obama has thrown Israel under a bus,” said Mitt Romney; “Obama’s insistence that it’s 1967 borders is a mistaken and very dangerous demand,” said Tim Pawlenty; “Obama has betrayed Israel,” said Mike Huckabee, who is no longer a candidate.

Etc., etc..

Obama’s statement about a peace process based on the 1967 borders was reportedly made after intensive discussions within the Administration. The Israeli protests were expected, as the statement brings the United States a little closer to the Palestinian stance.

However, Obama stressed, the Palestinians should harbor no illusions about Israel and U.S. support for the Jewish state.

“For the Palestinians, effort to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist. “

But, he added:

“The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.”

President Obama said nothing in his speech on the future American role in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Such an active American role is needed, according to many observers, as the parties on their own cannot accomplish this.

Tom Friedman in yesterday’s New York Times:

“With a more democratic and pluralistic Arab world in Israel’s future … Israel needs to use every ounce of its creativity to explore ways to securely cede the West Bank to a Palestinian state.”

But he held no hopes that this would happen, for Netanyahu has so far not shown any interest in such negotiations.

David Ignatius in The Washington Post lamented the fact that Obama did not present a detailed plan on how peace negotiations should proceed but praised Obama’s speech in all, as striking the right principled and pragmatic balance.

Obama made it perfectly clear on which side the U.S. is during the ongoing Arab “spring.” He promised economic aid to Tunisia and Egypt, and stated that Syria’s Assad either has to initiate reforms, or step aside. But he did not call directly for Assad’s departure.

It remains now to see how the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu will go and if it will produce any results. It also remains to be seen how Obama on Sunday in his speech tackles the powerful Israeli lobby group AIPAC, and what Netanyahu himself will say in his speech to the U.S. Congress next week.

Perhaps already by next week we have the answer to the question if Obama’s speech today succeeded in bringing the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks back to life?

Debt ceiling reached — tough talks await

by

America officially hit the debt ceiling yesterday, 14 300 billion dollars, but we did not notice much. Everything feels pretty much the same as before, gasoline costs over four dollars a gallon, food and household products are more expensive, the stock market is a bit nervous and has declined, but there is no panic – the roof has not fallen in.

However, behind the scenes, warnings are being heard. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has talked about a catastrophe not only for the U.S. economy but for the whole world economy unless Congress decides to raise the debt ceiling. The deadline is August 2 – after that the U.S. would have to suspend all its payments.

Normally, an increase in the debt ceiling is pretty much routine. Congress has raised the debt ceiling of 78 times since 1960, according to the New York Times, as much as 18 times during Ronald Reagan’s eight years in the White House alone, and despite the fact that politics often entered into the decision. Such is the case this year – a lot of politics.

Republicans demand budget cuts – see Speaker John Boehner’s proposal of 2,000 billion dollars in cuts and no tax increases — if they are to approve raising the debt ceiling. Unacceptable, the Democrats have responded. That’s where we stand today even though everyone knows that there really is no choice – the debt ceiling must be raised.

Despite the warning signals there is confidence that some form of settlement will be reached. The question is whether it will be a comprehensive agreement, which includes an agreement on next year’s budget, or if it will be a narrower, perhaps even temporary, agreement. Tough negotiations await, perhaps all the way until just before the deadline on August 2.

The joy of public radio through Georgia

by

Just like President Eisenhower’s proposal in the 50′s to build the interstate freeway system crisscrossing the country revolutionized car travel for all Americans, the start, in 1970, of commercial-free, public radio — National Public Radio (NPR) – has revolutionized how Americans listened to radio.

The radio is an invaluable companion, particularly in the car, as I noticed recently during my trip in the South. But that was not always so.

I remember the time when it was little else but commercials, music, new commercials, and with the occasional news report. There is still of lot of radio like that and, in addition, there are now two types of stations that have grown rapidly in influence in recent times: religious stations and conservative talk shows with Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck and others.

Rush is the biggest. He is on 600 stations around the country and strong in the South — he can be heard on 22 stations only in Georgia. I tried and tried to listen to him in the car, between noon and 3 pm every day, not the least to try to understand his enormous popularity, but in the end his demagogic ramblings became too much.

Thankfully, I managed everywhere, even where it is often difficult to get hold of a good newspaper or even a good cup of coffee, to find a public radio station, often near a college or university. And with that came all the wonderful programs, “Morning Edition”; “All Things Considered”, “Fresh Air with Terry Gross” from Philadelphia, and “A Prairie Home Companion” with Garrison Keillor from St. Paul, Minnesota. Or news from the BBC, “Market Place” from Los Angeles with economic news, “Car Talk” with everything about cars, and lots of classical music.

There are now 920 public radio stations in America with almost 27 million listeners every week. NPR has become America’s second largest radio network and an invaluable element in the American political, cultural and social debate. I find it difficult today to imagine, like probably millions of Americans, an America without NPR, shielded from serious information and debate, shut out from the big world out there.

Many on the right hate NPR, calling it leftist and elitist, and in budget cutting times, it is often a target, although the savings would be miniscule. So far, those attempts have failed and I am happy for that in my car through Georgia.