This past Monday I was sitting in the dentist's chair having white fillings placed on two of my teeth. It is a procedure used for old codgers such as myself who have worn out their original teeth by either brushing too vigorously, or by grinding. Trial by dentistry found me guilty on both counts. The science in the process is amazing. I likened it to basically welding the new material onto the existing tooth using a cool welding torch. Obviously, I am not a student of dentistry. As the procedure was underway, I was thinking how fortunate I am to be living in a time and place where this painless treatment is available. While a shot of Novocain in the checkbook might have helped, I left the office thinking how great technology has been to my generation.
The next day I had a follow-up visit with my ophthalmologist to make a final check on a retinal reattachment he had recently performed. He was able to complete this repair job with laser surgery. In this procedure, my eye was dilated and the doc held a pencil-shaped device up to my eye and flashed a pattern of light bursts around the retina. I confess that it is similar to staring into the sun but it was essentially painless and best of all, it was successful. Again, I was impressed with the good benefits we have from living in a technologically advanced world. I have vision in both of my eyes today that would have been lost were it not for available technology. And if this were fifty years earlier, I would likely be feeling around for my false teeth each morning rather than enjoying sight and an extension on the life of my natural teeth.
On my drive home, while still glowing from these excellent feelings of technological good fortune, I recalled one of the points made in the book, The World Is Flat by Thomas Friedman. Although Friedman spends about two-thirds of his book describing how the world has become flattened, meaning the playing field of global economics and competition is now level (or flat) due to available technology, much of the planet remains unflattened. The areas that are unflattened are those that are lacking in technology or are suffering from repressive, totalitarian rule preventing their access to the global economy. As an example, much of certain areas in India and China are enjoying growth in their economies and advances in their educational infrastructures because they have been able to use Internet services and other technologies to their advantage. This has happened at a time when both countries were able to rid themselves of their former isolationist attitudes. It also happened at a time when both countries were abundantly supplied with workforces willing to work for less at jobs that some people might balk at. But even within these two countries, many of their citizens are still living a third world lifestyle. All it takes to be left out of the technology party is to be physically, educationally, or politically isolated from the resources required to use the technology.
A number of countries suffer from complete isolation and are missing almost all that technology has to offer. Some countries are missing out because they lack an educated workforce, some are lacking other resources, and some are still under repressive leaders who refuse to utilize the opportunities beneficial to their existence. Perhaps for ideological reasons, some countries refuse to join in free trade agreements, or just refuse to do business with diverse cultures.
If we look at where we are in this burst of technological growth, the picture looks bright and we are in a good place. That is, when the "we" refers to the people who are lucky enough to be consuming and benefiting from the advancing technologies. But if the "we" includes all inhabitants on spaceship Earth, then we are not all in a good place.
Friedman then describes a number of populations who suffer from repression on a variety of levels. His contention is that the countries that are isolated – whether by choice or by circumstance – are the homes to some of the world's most humiliated, and to the poorest of the poor. To state it very briefly, people living in poor conditions become susceptible to the influence of radical leaders. The very poor feel humiliated by the rest of the progressive world. They believe they have been humiliated by the rich. This humiliation leads to resentment. Another angle on that theme is the folks living outside the circle of wealth and progress blame their station in life on America and on countries backed by, or doing business with America. Taking this conclusion a step further shows us why the most isolated and poorest of all support attacks against America.
A reference is made to the article, We Are All Bin Laden written by the Muslim writer, Dr. Da'd Bin Telfa in the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. In this piece, the point is raised that "not a single fatwa has been issued calling for the killing of bin Laden, on the pretext that bin Laden proclaims u2018there is no God other than Allah'". The conclusion is made that much of the Islamic population supports the notion that America took one on the chin during the 9/11 attacks and that we deserved it.
I detected a number of zingers in the book. For me, a zinger is a piece of new information or a point that sticks in my memory. A zinger is a statement or realization with the volume turned all the way up. It follows you throughout the day and night just ringing away; the message blaring over and over. The book contains an abundance of zingers dealing with economics, education, world health, religion, politics, and a host of social issues. But the group of zingers that has the smoke pouring out of my ears describes how President Bush has handled the response to 9/11 and how this response affects the flattened as well as the unflattened world.
"Following the 9/11 attacks, instead of summoning the nation to make the necessary sacrifices and to address some of our fiscal, energy, science, and education shortfalls, our president summoned us to go shopping." Friedman compares (or contrasts) President Bush's 9/11 response to former president Kennedy's response to the post Sputnik era:
"President Kennedy understood that the competition with the Soviet Union was not a space race but a science race, which was really an education race. Yet the way he chose to get Americans excited about sacrificing and buckling down to do what it took to win the Cold War – which required a large-scale push in science and engineering – was by laying out the vision of putting a man on the moon, not a missile into Moscow. … If President Bush made energy independence his moon shot, in one fell swoop he would dry up revenue for terrorism, force Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia onto the path of reform – strengthen the dollar, and improve his own standing in Europe by doing something huge to reduce global warming."
Instead, Bush chose to export fear rather than hope. By exploiting the emotions surrounding 9/11 for political purposes, Bush drove a wedge between Americans and created an unprecedented political polarization. Further, by choosing to export fear, we chose to import everyone else's fears.
Friedman cites the article, Under Our Very Noses by Adrian Karatnycky (National Review, November 5, 2001) to show that the 9/11 hijackers were not religious fundamentalists but adherents of an extreme, violent political cult. Further, the founders of al-Qaeda were less of a religious phenomenon and more of a political one. It boils down to our enemies being more accurately described or defined by their hatred of being left out and humiliated than by their hatred toward Americans per se.
Immediately following the 9/11 attacks, I confess to supporting President Bush because he is the commander in chief of our armed forces and because we had been attacked on our home soil. Until that event, I had held a reserved opinion of Bush. He had not been someone who I could vote for or support, but the war veteran in me said the guy is the leader of our troops and like him or not, he had a job to do. I think my experience paralleled that of many vets and many Americans in general. The war on terror seemed to be the right action. The trouble was the enemy did not have an address. It was dissimilar from the attack on Pearl Harbor because at least the Japanese had a place they called home.
As the war on terror bogged down and the best targets in Afghanistan were turned to dust, we started hearing of Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 attacks. We were told the Iraqis fostered terrorism and supported Bin Laden. We were told they were building weapons capable of destroying us. We were shown satellite photos of factories where weapons of terror were being made. We were assured they had nukes and were readying their production for an attack on our country.
So Bush and his chickenhawks convinced most of the rest of Washington to support an attack on Iraq to take out the weapons, remove Saddam Hussein, and destroy that base of terror. We were told it would be a cakewalk. We expected the country to surrender to CNN reporters like they did in Gulf I under Bush41. The expense of the war would be paid by the oil we would take from Iraq. And the people would all be so happy to have Saddam ousted that they would welcome the American dream of democracy. I confess to believing the lies being told by the post turtle and his circle of toadies.
Well, here it is more than four years after the 9/11 attacks and American soldiers are being killed every day in Iraq. Our budget deficit is at a record high as we try to pay for this war that just will not stop. The citizens of Iraq apparently hate us, as do many others. The preemptive strike on Iraq has turned into a colossal mistake.
And here is my zinger: we are still there! Saddam is out, the weapons of mass destruction never existed, and the price of oil is at an all-time high, over 2,000 Americans gave their lives for this mistake, and we are still hiding for cover at every security flinch. And here is another: Nothing I have written here is news. This information was available to us before the '04 elections yet the war president still won re-election! So I guess that the onus of where we are (or aren't) belongs on us.
February 14, 2006
