Monthly Archives: April 2016

Donald Trump’s Way Back Foreign Policy Machine

wayback machine

It is dangerous to listen to someone like Donald Trump whose nostalgia date (his way-back machine) is set to the 60’s and 70’s. No problem if you’re just telling stories to your grandchildren but a “huge” problem if you are the President of the United States. Donald’s idea of winning – he said in this foreign policy speech – is our victory in WWII and he also gives America credit for winning the Cold War. Donald is another worshipper of the only “perfect” American President, Ronald Reagan. He likes an America that is pugilistic and muscular.

Trump believes we haven’t won a war since World War Two or the Cold War because we have been weak. He, perhaps, would have liked Ronald Reagan to be made President for Life. Alzheimer’s, sadly, would have put the kibosh on that. However, except for Saint Ronald (who if you studied real history was way less than perfect) no one else has measured up. According to Trump the weakest leader of all has been President Obama (who is never given the honorific) and Hillary Clinton will be just as bad.

But what Donald Trump, stuck in the old days, cannot see is that the very philosophy concerning the ways we participate in the world has evolved.
We have learned not to go to war lightly – well no we haven’t but we, at least, are not turning every skirmish into a world war, or every power hungry man into an existential threat (OK, we’re not perfect at that either but we’re trying). We have learned that nation building in far-flung corners of the globe is expensive and not often appreciated or even successful, which doesn’t mean we will actually refrain. We surely have had plenty of examples of the totally unforeseen consequences of regime change, although from time to time we still can’t seem to resist.  We especially can’t help injecting ourselves into the chaos in the nations of our nearest neighbors, often with horrifying results.

trump foreign policy3

Donald wants to bring this all back along with torture and secrecy and threats (even nukes). So while evidence suggests that tactics that we and others have used in the past will not actually make America great again, that the only thing resorting to these old military chestnuts can do is enhance our reputation as “ugly Americans”, Donald Trump, still stuck in that post-World War II glow, seems unaware of such evidence.

Trump blames Obama and Clinton for “the confusion, chaos, and disarray” in the world but many of us believe that the Bush administration opened the Pandora’s Box that has turned into the seething, painfully transitioning Middle East we see and deal with today. Whether the region tried to shake off their authoritarian leaders, or whether the Iraq war had a domino effect, or whether Americas had our hands in their fall from power, it is clear that the Middle East does not have a tradition of democratic rule and that is not the setting it reboots to. Perhaps we need to flood the area with reasons to join the developed world that make sense in relation to Muslim beliefs.

However, I contend, that we are actually at the point where war and the environment meet, because if we cannot work across nations, and stay somewhat peaceful and stable as the inhabitants of this planet we may be doomed. If we can’t work efficiently as caretakers and help create a sustainable lifestyle for the exploding population, then confusion, chaos and disarray will be the order of the day, every day. Old imperialistic and militaristic strategies may have once made America feel large and in charge, but these outdated attitudes towards our global neighbors, however un-neighborly, are not what we need now.

We could go with America First and decide, as we see our planet become a less hospitable place to live, to build those walls and annihilate our enemies (or be annihilated, because people will fight back). That’s one way to be sustainable, wipe out anyone who won’t accept our leadership. But where is the challenge in that. It is far more interesting to try to design global strategies that will give everyone a livable spot in a world exhibiting rapid climate change. It is far more intelligent to keep striving to colonize other planets than to turn this one into a radioactive nuclear wasteland.

a ruined planet2

Earth probably doesn’t care if we take care of it; it will live on without us. But if we want the Earth to support human life we may need to start cooperating pretty soon now. We can’t just take a boilerplate set of old war policies and rely on them to keep the flaws in human nature from sucking us under. The nations who understand the risks to our planet need to be strong, yes, but also cooperative, creative and nuanced; and we need a global design for where we would like things to go here on Earth – and for that we need peace, not war-mongering. The reason Donald Trump’s foreign policies, and in fact the foreign policy stances of the Republican Party are dangerous is because they will not meet the current and future needs of Americans or anyone else on Earth.

By Nancy Brisson

I Blame Donald Trump


Donald Trump has changed the 2016 primaries in so many ways. He has been like a deus ex machina who popped up in an enormous list of GOP characters with little to differentiate one from the next. He did not fit the mold but he was no more acceptable to me than any other Republican.

I didn’t think I could be shocked after six years of disrupters in Congress making ignorant suggestions to women that would set the culture back 50 years if heeded. I was afraid when the Supreme Court did not uphold the most essential section of the voting rights act, the requirement that certain states get clearance before changing their voting laws, but still I did not foresee how quickly the states would “celebrate” their “freedom” by repressing votes. Watching states break the law in respect to Roe v Wade by imposing bogus rules to close clinic after clinic seemed quite shocking enough, especially when courts backed them up. I had expected the courts to say “whoa Nellie” (because that’s the way these guys talk – remember the one who recommended that women practice birth control by putting an aspirin between their knees and keeping their knees closed around it). The courts did nothing. That’s when I realized how many Conservative judges had been appointed to courts in many of our states.

I could go on but my point is actually that Donald Trump managed to drive my “no they didn’t” reaction up several more notches. His remarks about Mexicans, about the “wall”, about China, deporting undocumented immigrants, Megan Fox, about women in general, about Muslims – well, you were there – you heard it. Then there was his apparent comfort with a physicality that we usually avoid in American politics. We usually use our words. His behavior made the shock waves of the Republican heresies over the past six years pale by comparison.

As we know the other Republican candidates did not seem any happier with Donald’s injection of himself into an already crowded race. He had been a Democrat. Conservatives who had been making a big point about GOP purity tests had to move over and include this famous person who had certainly not been tested for purity. And he was winning, pulling large crowds, taking up all the space on a 24/7 media that usually could be captured only temporarily by a particularly audacious act. Ted Cruz had attempted frequent newsworthy nonsense, but Donald did it practically nonstop.

However, Trump has also served as sort of a buffer between the Democratic primary race and the rest of the Republican slate, getting picked off one by one before our incredulous eyes. We expected to worry about Scott Walker and Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush, but instead every eye and ear was on Donald. For the most part, Hillary and Bernie were left alone to run their own race.

Trump’s presence in the race has also allowed Ted Cruz to take up the second position on the GOP side. He expects an open convention and he expects the coveted Republican nomination to eventually fall to him. I have watched Ted Cruz throughout the Obama administration and he made me very worried right from the first time I set eyes on him. In fact I wrote an article called Ted Cruz: Sinister or Cartoonish about my initial observations. I have predicted to myself that somehow he would “worm” his way into the White House and I have tried to speak out against this whenever possible. He is closer to the White House than he has ever been. He is intelligent, if inflexible, and he is strategic. He believes he is a genius. As geniuses go I can think of several I would prefer over him.

If Donald had not inserted himself into the primary would Cruz have made it this far? I don’t know, of course, no one does. But if I end up with Ted Cruz as my President in 2017, I will blame Donald. Who will I blame if we end up with Donald Trump in the White House? I will blame the Democrats. Hillary, there is a lot resting on your shoulders because if you win the nomination we are counting on you to beat the chosen one of these two guys and Donald has sort of fogged up everyone’s view. Ted Cruz is advancing almost under the radar, a stealth campaign.

By Nancy Brisson

“Go Big” or Regret It?


Lots of people seem to think that this is the moment to “go big”, to finally:

  • Get big money out of politics
  • Close the loopholes that have insured that the 1% is too well taken care of while the middle class is losing ground
  • Break up the big banks who have done wrong and deserve to be punished
  • Regulate Wall Street
  • Make sure American workers have certain protections like paid leave and a living wage and equal pay.

The “go big” people, the “feel the Bern” people, feel that the folks who advocate incremental change are killing the buzz. There is rarely a mass movement to address the way our supposedly democratic society has been set up to favor the wealthy and to widen the gap between social classes, they reason, and there should be because this is not the way we expect our democracy to operate.

Why would anyone back an incremental approach when there is all this momentum pushing the moment in the direction of “we the people”? It seems like the times are ripe for big change, revolutionary (peaceful of course) change. It looks as if this is the moment when “we the people” could force a fairer economic distribution, could take back some power that has been awarded, piece by piece, more and more to the elites in America (the wealthy).

The elitism in our election process, which has been recognized and bemoaned for decades, is suddenly being discussed and critiqued as if it was slipped by us secretly just last week. (How could Bernie Sanders, in Congress for 3o years, although not a member of the Democratic Party, not have known about super delegates?) It is good, however, for a new generation of voters to be aware of the true depth of actual disenfranchisement of voters who do not serve in government, to see how the government has set things up so that those who govern are chosen by the wealthy and by those who govern. This is actually true to the designs of our forefathers who did not trust the masses to govern well. Perhaps we will persevere and actually fix this this time, or perhaps we will get distracted by shinier objects and be surprised all over again in the next election cycle.

Trying to predict whether “go big” is the way to go, the way to get the best results from the next 4-8 years, or whether we will gain more ground from patiently working bill by bill, issue by issue is as fraught as any attempt to predict the future ever is. Arguments favor incrementalism. If we look at the makeup of Congress, if we look at years of tantrums that Republicans say will not end until we get “small government”, six long years of “go small”, will we end up with just two dug-in sides yelling conflicting messages at each other. Bernie feels that Americans will rise up, demonstrate, protest and tip the balance his way. This is not patience; this is passion. It is good to see such passion, although the fire has not spread to all of “we the people”.

Plodding through Robert’s Rules or whatever regular order governs Congress, watching the bargaining, vote counting, seemingly cynical compromising certainly does not sound as sexy as an impassioned storming of the elitist gates of governance, but it is the process, it is the way the system is designed. Can we make the system less elitist gradually (but not too gradually) and stay within the system as it exists? I think people will be so disappointed it Bernie loses that they may be even more likely to push his goals, which would help so many non-wealthy Americans. The objectives that make education affordable or even free are particularly appealing. Money is being extorted from young people at expensive trade schools and internet “colleges” taking advantage of high unemployment and fears of economic failure for the underprepared.

Bernie’s “go big” list of objectives tends to be a bit narrower than the vast pool of issues that we have been unable to address for the past six years. He does talk about infrastructure but rarely has a wider approach to the economy and he almost never talks about climate and environmental matters except to advocate banning fracking, although some people feel climate concerns should be the most pressing issues on our agenda (salt water is flooding Miami.)

It looks like a pragmatic, incremental attack on the wish list of “we the people” is going to win out. The problem is that once a path is chosen, you can’t, at least for a period of time, go back and choose the other path, so there will always be those who feel cheated. Hillary Clinton, so determined to win, had better be prepared to serve the people well if elected. “A word to the wise should be sufficient,” isn’t that what we say?

By Nancy Brisson

Purity by Jonathan Franzen – Book


Much has been said about purity in recent years. Food is one area where claims to purity add retail value for those who feel that eating healthy is actually now a cultural responsibility. Purity in relation to our energy sources – that they need to be carbon neutral and simple mechanisms that tame natural forces for our use (like heat from the sun and wind from earth’s air currents) – is another way the idea of purity has become an obsession for those who can choose. One test mentioned often in Republican circles is the test to determine how closely Conservative politicians adhere to right wing orthodoxy, or, in other words, a test of purity.

All these ideas of purity and more sit behind this story. And lots of impurity sits behind this story also. Purity is the birth name of the main character who leads us into the events Franzen creates for us. What some may find difficult about this offering is the way Franzen jumps to seemingly unrelated characters and then shows us the connection when he’s ready. However it all comes together in the end and I am guessing that the story structure is very deliberate.

Purity lives in a derelict house with Dreyfuss who is one loan modification away from losing his only possession. Three other people share the space with Purity and Dreyfuss; Stephen, Marie and Ramon. Purity is a telemarketer whose main goals in life are to get out from under her student loans and to have a relationship with Stephen which she cannot have because he is married to Marie. A strange German visitor, Annagret, offers Purity – known as Pip right now – an internship with a group called The Sunlight Project, which has far more humane goals than Pip’s current employer. The Sunlight Project is headed by a man named Andreas Wolf who is considered a cult hero. Annagret has Pip complete a weird interview and tells her she is qualified for the internship.

We jump to the story of Andreas Wolf, the legendary project leader of this WikiLeaks- style operation designed to expose world actors whose motives are less than pure. Wolf grew up in East Berlin in the years before the Berlin Wall came down. Does this tough beginning justify some of the traits we find in Andreas Wolf? You must decide.

Pip (Purity) spends lots of time talking to her agoraphobic mom, Anabel, who has every other possible phobia also, but who obviously loves her daughter, although we wonder who takes care of whom in this relationship. Would Anabel have had any kind of life if she did not have Pip? Purity has never been allowed to know who her father is and in fact Anabel says he abused her and that he is dangerous. Pip still wants to find her father. We eventually hear about the romance between Pip’s mom and a man named Tom Aberant (emphasis on the Ab), a relationship which was good for a while and then devolved into spite, anger, and revenge.

There is also a connection between Tom Aberant and Andreas Wolf which I will not explain because it is at the heart of this novel and because it might spoil the book for you.

Franzen wants, perhaps, to prepare us for how very difficult it is for flawed humans to attain anything approaching purity unless it is a name you give your child – a name that she is not even allowed to use. It is a pretty good microcosm of the way the developed world rolls in these early decades of the 21st century.

Jonathan Franzen is a great storyteller. He’s the kind of writer with enough craft that we forget to even be bothered by the words on the page because there are no flaws to distract us. The story is in the foreground, the writing underlies it, but we don’t notice it. Character development is more problematic in Purity because at times Franzen almost seems to be writing separate short stories. We are yanked out of one set of characters and settings into new characters and settings with little transition. But eventually Franzen ties his new characters back to the old characters and voila, the plot thickens and unfolds almost like a mystery story which we solve with the author’s help.

Another difficulty some may find with this story is that the message does not seem unique or profound enough to justify the length and complexity of the story or even to turn this into a truly great novel. On the other hand, it is a good social commentary and it is more substantial than some of the popular novels that are its contemporaries. Perhaps time will change my take on this. Some novels require a lengthier digestive period than others. I still recommend Purity by Jonathan Franzen because, although not perfect in my estimation, it is still a good read.

By Nancy Brisson

Sad That We Can’t Discuss Politics

closed minds2

Today I went to the post office and I ended up being there for quite a while because I used the wrong envelope and I had to start over. I let people go ahead of me but by the time I finished my new envelope the line had not moved at all. Someone was getting a passport, apparently a very exacting and time-consuming task. If you ever get behind someone filling in passport paperwork and having it checked over you might as well leave, do another errand and then come back. There was one other clerk but she had an Aussie gentleman with very complicated insurance and packaging issues. So we stood in line. (At least we had a counter to lean on.) We began to discuss our pets who are, apparently, all spoiled rotten.

As our wait continued we began to discuss the conditions that were keeping us waiting. We were nice and did not try to make anyone feel too badly. The man next to me in line knew that the desk was one clerk short because the missing clerk was his wife. She had a vacation day. We were pleasant and civil and just chatting. But it was primary day so I mentioned my anxiety as I waited to find out the results of the voting. I mentioned that I was looking forward to seeing Hillary Clinton win the New York primary. I was hoping people would pipe up and say who they would like to see win.

I know that politics is not a topic that is supposed to be discussed in polite company. But I, of course, can’t help myself. I wanted to know what people were thinking on this primary day. Sadly I believe it has become more difficult for us to discuss politics than ever. We should at least be able to talk about what we think we know about the candidates and where we got our information.

However, as soon as I said Hillary’s name a woman down the line made a sour face and said Hillary is a liar. Now I don’t think this woman knows Hillary personally. I could not really ask where the woman was from, although she had an accent, because as soon as I said Hillary’s name she made that disapproving prune face. If she came from another country maybe Hillary did something there that had upset her. After all, Hillary was the Secretary of State. I tried to probe gently, because I couldn’t accept an insult without some kind of backup, but the woman just repeated that Hillary is a liar.

Perhaps Hillary Clinton is a liar, after all everyone says she is, but I just tried to argue that the only way we know about Hillary is through the media and that it is always important to consider the slant of the particular media that is supposedly offering evidence against Hillary. When I have traced many of the “proofs” back to their source I have found the media to be right wing media. I would bet that the main source of news for this woman was FOX news. I will never know if that is true though.

The woman made an instant decision to dislike me because I had an opinion about Hillary Clinton that did not agree with hers. I would have loved to listen to the reasons why she had concluded that Hillary is a liar. I would have loved to share my reasons why I do not believe Hillary to be quite the monster that the media paints her. But the conversation was over and it was over with rancor on the part of one of us and dismay on the part of the other. Everyone else in that long post office line (we were there for about half an hour) said not one peep either during or after the exchange.

I can’t help thinking that it is sad that we can’t talk about politics at all in our free society, at least with anyone whose opinions differ from ours. People have chosen their favored media outlet and are not the least bit curious about what other media outlets have to say. We no longer take in all sides and try to make sense of all of the evidence. We make up our mind and any attempt to offer another point of view meets with a stone wall of anger and defensiveness. I know this has probably been true of every society from time to time when passions run high and answers are tough to come by, but it’s a shame and I hope such inflexibility disappears and that we will be able to try to analyze and decide important cultural matters with some sophistication and a spirit of mediation at some point in the near future.

By Nancy Brisson

The Primaries Come to the Boonies


This is truly an unusual primary. Usually New York State conducts its primaries quietly in solitary splendor. In general, the Empire State does not play a deciding role in selecting a general election candidate for either party, even though we have a lot of delegates. The New York primary is so late that the early states have already settled the issue.

So it is really quite bizarre to have the candidates I have been writing about traipsing around even the most out-of-the-way places in NY, such as my city (Syracuse), Utica, Rome, Dexter – Dexter!

It started two weeks ago with Hillary. She met her public in a large roofed shed usually used by crafters at the Farmer’s Market on summer weekends. I thought I would have to stand in a long line for hours, and I did stand in a longish line for about half an hour, before I walked through the metal detector and slid my shoulder bag over to the secret service so they could pat it down.

I did see Hillary. She looks nice in orange (SU was in the Final Four) and, when I left, when the concrete floor got too hard to stand on any longer, I still liked her and wanted to vote for her. I took a few pictures. One is of Adam (no last name) who was in line by me for a while. He is in the teacher’s union and had on his AFT tee shirt.



The second person is called Jovan (John to us), an eighty-four year old man who came to America from Macedonia and still has a thick accent. (He worked in Bldg. 7 at GE, my Dad was in Bldg. 5.) His children have done very well, one graduating from an Ivy League school, one a doctor trained at John Hopkins. He wants nothing to do with socialism even if it does have the word Democratic in front of it. Jovan has boundless confidence. He wended his way to the very front of the rally.



My third picture is of Hillary and was taken by the tall man in front of me – the one I had to sway back and forth to see beyond, taken with my camera. We yipped and cheered and raised our arms in the air and even did a slightly disorganized wave. No signs were handed out but I don’t know if the concerns were for security or cost. I bought three Hillary buttons on my way out.



Since then John Kasich came to town, Bernie Sanders has been here, then Ted Cruz, then Donald Trump, then Bill Clinton. I don’t think we have ever, in my lifetime been romanced by so many politicians in any election season. I did not go to any other rallies – I watched them on TV as if they were happening somewhere else. There are only so many concrete floors I will stand on in any two week period. But my spidey sense felt them buzzing around and I wish I could have hovered comfortably overhead, or been the proverbial “fly on the wall”. (I have no idea where all these bugs came from.)

It was interesting to see that Ted Cruz held his Syracuse rally in a northern suburb, Cicero, where a group of locals publish a newspaper called “The Patriot”, full of some well-known right wing conspiracy theories from which I culled the phrase “Luciferian Church of the United Nations”, because Agenda 21 and the UN plan for world domination.

Dexter – Donald Trump went to Dexter – a small rural town west of Watertown, NY on Ontario Lake, a town full of campers, hunters, fishermen, aging hippies, and farmers, and these days, very few factories. Fort Drum is nearby though, so perhaps he attracted a lot of soldiers and their families. That would have to be fact-checked. I’m sure Dexter is still in shock having rarely been singled out by such a famous (infamous) personality. It’s been a helluva* two weeks in the North Country (*also, until recently the name of a local cheese company).

It’s sort of fun feeling like the hot center of America for a while. We can use the excitement. Primary day is Tuesday, April 19th and then the entire circus will move on. Most candidates have left already. I think Donald Trump will be the last one out.

By Nancy Brisson


April 2016 Book List



Amazon (Editor’s Picks for Spring)- these might not all be available yet


Zero K by Don De Lillo

The Nest by Cynthis D’Aprix Sweeney

The Murder of Mary Russell by Laurie R. King

Jane Steele by Lyndsay Faye

The Sellout: A Novel by Paul Beatty

Everyone Brave is Forgiven by Chris Cleave

Everybody’s Fool by Richard Russo

Maestra: A Novel by Saleem Haddad

Fool Me Once by Harlan Coben

Most Wanted by Lisa Scottoline

LaRose by Louise Erdich

Miller’s Valley by Anna Quindlen

All Stories are Love Stories by Elizabeth Percer

As Close as Breathing: A Novel by Elizabeth Poliner

The 14th Colony: A Novel by Cotton Malone

The Trials of Apollo Book One The Hidden Oracle by Rick Riordan

Unashamed by LaCrae Moore

Lady Midnight (The Dark Artifices) by Cassandra Clare

Lust and Wonder: A Memoir by Augusten Burroughs


Independent Booksellers  – Always report what people have been buying.


The Nest by Cynthia D’Aprix Sweeney

Journey to Munich by Jacqueline Winspear

The Summer Before the War by Helen Simonson

The Little Red Chairs by Edna O’Brien

My Name is Lucy Barton by Elizabeth Strout

Fool Me Once by Harlan Coben

The Murder of Mary Russell by Laurie R. King

The Ancient Minstral by Jim Harrison

At the Edge of the Orchard by Tracy Chevalier

The Waters of Eternal Youth by Donna Leon

Lilac Girls by Martha Hall Kelly

Medicine Walk: A Novel by Richard Wagamese

My Grandmother Asked Me to Tell You She’s Sorry by Fredrick Backman

The Sellout by Paul Beatty

The Whites by Richard Price

Emma by Alexander McCall Smith

Uprooted by Naomi Novak

The Sympathizer by Viet Thanh Nguyen

Outline by Rachel Cush

My Sunshine Away by M. O. Walsh

The Turner House by Angela Flournoy

I Am Radar by Rief Larsen

A Darker Shade of Magic by VE Schwab

A Dangerous Place by Jacqueline Winspear

The Swans of Fifth Avenue by Melanie Benjamin

What is Yours is Not Yours by Helen Oyeyemi

Off the Grid by CJ Box

The Other Side of Silence by Philip Kerr

The Widow by Fiona Barton

The 14th Colony by Steve Berry

Felicity by Mary Oliver

Tuesday Nights in 1980 by Molly Prentiss

The Last Painting of Sara de Vos by Domenic Smith

Jane Steele by Lyndsay Faye

Family Jewels by Stuart Woods

For a Little While by Rick Bass

The Year of the Runaways by Sunjeev Sahota

Welcome to the Night Vale by Joseph Fink

The Passenger by Lisa Lutz

Glory Over Everything by Kathleen Grissom

The Story of Kullervo by J. R. R. Tolkien

All the Birds in the Sky by Charlie Jane Anders


Publisher’s Weekly – Some of these titles have not been published here yet


Booked by Kwame Alexander (Language, Literature and Soccer)

The Wild Robot by Peter Brown (Robot on rocky island) (YA)

I Will Find You by Joanna Connors

Agnostic: A Spirited Manifesto by Lesley Hazelton (NF)

Girl in the Blue Coat by Monica Hesse “riveting Holocaust novel”

The Nameless City by Faith Erin Hicks (Trilogy) (YA)

The Golden Condom and Other Essays on Love Lost and Found by Jeanne Safer (NF)

The Passion of Dolssa (1241) by Julie Berry

Golden Boys: A Novel by Sonya Hartnett

Vexation Lullaby by Justin Tussing

Agony by Mark Beyer

Fool Me Once by Harlan Coben

Wink Poppy Midnight by April Genevieve

I Will Miss You Tomorrow by Heine Bakkeid

The Savages, 4th volume by Sabri Louatah

Affections by Rodrigo Hasbùn (Bolivian) (not out yet)

Badlands by Arne Dahl (Swedish) (not out yet)

War Fairy by Daniela Tully (German) (not out yet)

The Substance of Evil by Luca D’Andrea (Italian) (not out yet)

Now Let’s Dance by JC Lattés (French) (not out yet)

Yoro by Marina Perezagua (Spanish) (not out yet)

Compiled by Nancy Brisson


Global Concerns


It is difficult to watch the strife and human abuse that we see daily on our planet, but it seems, at least on a global scale, that is all we can do. We have seen the consequences of meddling, or even just trying to tweak the progress of those who seem to have “right” on their side, those who seem to promise the best outcomes for their own people and everyone else on our world. And we have seen the fallout from trying to wreck those who seem to promise the worst outcomes.

We want to bridge the differences in the Middle East, we want to feed starving people (everywhere except in America it sometimes seems), we want to open up North Korea and reunite the North with the South, we want to be rid of crazy megalomaniacal leaders, we want some economic parity across nations and within nations so as to produce an income for each person that meets and exceeds basic needs. And we are told that small acts of mercy are not too intrusive, but stepping in like some kind of overlord, however benign, is not acceptable and more often than not has unintended consequences and possibly unconscious, but astonishingly selfish motives.

So what does a person do as s/he watches, as if human events are some kind of spectator sport, the parade of inhuman behavior which surrounds us (think of that awfully amazing Bosch painting, the Garden of Earthly Delights). We try to intervene gently here and nudge events there and stop, if at all possible the worst of the horrors, while repulsing any attempt to bring the mayhem to our side of the globe.

After all, we have our own internal concerns to attend to, our own problems to solve and we cannot even choose between some kind of self-interested tough love and good old-fashioned human compassion. Half of us want the Industrial Age back and half of us are looking to see what the future will bring and we hope it is something less materialistic, less back-breaking, and less harmful to the planet.

While it is tempting to turn inward and wall out the rest of the world, we know in our guts that it is impossible. We would just atrophy in a kind of unproductive inbreeding that would eventually destroy us. Injections of new energy are ever more necessary as the temptation to stagnate and rusticate grows stronger.

We hold before us, in the chemical pathways of our brains, a gleaming future where technology enfolds and surrounds us (perhaps also separate us), a sort of engineer-centric future in which governance is settled (although possibly quite ponderous) and ingenuity is the “coin of the realm”. The planet still has dark places and sad corners and back alleys but the main thrust is towards a mechanics that will propel us outward from this too tiny, destined-for-extinction planet, out into the vastness of the universe or universes, one human colony at a time. (What terrible imperialism will be practiced then depends on whether the universe is populated by others or exists just for our future expansion.) We call it Space, and it is the only future we can imagine that gives scope to our restless adventurous spirit and our insatiable need to know.

We are not ready to occupy all that beckoning Space right now. We are earth-bound on this beloved planet to either learn to survive this present chaos or not. So we watch. We watch the upheavals here on Earth. Is it just growing pains? Is it the beginnings of a better future? Will it resolve in decades or will it take centuries? Or will it be back to the Dark Ages, reboot, start over after whatever annihilation we perpetrate on each other?

Some people don’t want the world’s leaders to have a vision of a global future. They believe it betrays America to discuss some kind of orderly progression towards a more peaceful, and yet still free, global society. They believe the plan that exists (if there is one) get rid of nations (in other words gets rid of America) in favor of some kind of world government, world military, world police force, and global social structure. They want the future of the world to be an American future. They want America to govern the world (a prospect that is not looking at all doable right now seeing that we cannot even decide how to govern ourselves). I also harbor a desire to have the whole world become an American world. This is the nature of chauvinism. I think I could let this incarnation of America go if I thought a global government would strive for the same ideals. A global government seems almost as distant a goal as populating Space.

We may be able to sit back and watch the rest of the world as if through a VR headset, but we will not be able to keep our hands off world events in every case. We will be inspired to push here, prod there, rescue when necessary and if possible. This is a very difficult position we are in right now. I doubt we can maintain our distance for long. There is a cycle to this kind of seemingly omnipresent upheaval, I think, but are we at the low point or the high point? In the meantime we still need, at the very least, to call attention to atrocity where ever and whenever we see it. I think that it helps us to stop in the midst of all the myriad detailed problems to be addressed to step back and picture a hopeful future and to take a wide view at the entire world of human endeavor and possibility.

By Nancy Brisson

Become a Global Citizen at


Who Will End Obstructionism?

end obstruct3


I will fight for Hillary Clinton right to the end, whenever that is. I do think women can do as well in the Presidency as men have done. I am tired of women being expected to wait until some perfect moment which of course will never arrive. There are no perfect moments. Even Obama’s seemingly perfect moment was ruined by racism and obstruction. If we get Bernie I will be fine with that but I have to stay in the fight.

The only question that bugs me is which of these two will be able to bring back regular order to Congress, to send the “teabaggers” packing and the Evangelicals out to do good works?

The Conservatives hate Hillary possibly even more than they loathed the idea of an Obama Presidency. Their hate has become rabid and personal. Will we have four to eight more years of obstruction and hate speech, this time against women? Will they just vote over and over to impeach her? There could be 60+ more votes against the ACA. How many more votes will there be to defund Planned Parenthood? More of this will not be good for America. It will not be good for the world, although perhaps it is emotional baggage we must sort through. Does Hillary have a plan to change things just in case we don’t win some seats back in the Senate?

Can Bernie defuse and render harmless the Conservative push to pursue every policy that would be harmful to America? He certainly understands what is harmful about the right wing agenda and he will hold the line against any progress toward the Conservative way. But will he also be unable to breach the obstructive moves of a party that owns 3o state governments, both houses of Congress and the courts? Will it help that he pushes Republican buttons by pursuing policies that are far outside their ken? Will he blow them up to smithereens when he moves to break up the banks and rein in Wall Street? Will revolutionary zeal be better than the strategies of someone who knows everyone and knows her way around the politics of DC? Or will there just be two revolutionary groups in a war of words?

Is there any candidate the Democrats could have put forth who could “treat with” today’s GOP? If a Democrat wins the Presidency and the obstruction continues will the people finally get involved? Will we the people insist that it is not OK to go to Congress if it is your intention to hold the American government hostage until it does what Republicans want?

It is troubling that we cannot see into the future and know who would be able to make headway in America right now against the misguided and unenlightened mess that is today’s GOP. We can, though, and we should certainly contribute to the movements by the Democrats to change as many seats in Congress as possible in 2016. Emily’s List tries to get Democratic women elected. If you contribute to the DNC the dollars get spread around. Even Hillary donates some of her dollars to down ballot elections and Bernie is talking about doing that.

The people’s dollars are stretched thin by all the causes that need our contributions to fight for right, but at this moment winning the election must be a top priority. You don’t have to contribute much because small donations grow very big when millions of people contribute, and there are often richer donors who match or multiply small donations. Think of it as creating a war chest in case we need it.

By Nancy Brisson

Midnight Sun by Jo Nesbo – Book

Midnight Sun.jpe

Jo Nesbø wanted to write a book unlike his usual noir detective stories starring the ragged but morally straight Harry Hole. Nesbø says that he has always admired the Sámi cultural group (we know them as Laplanders) who occupy the northernmost reaches of Scandinavia including his home nation of Norway. The Sámi’s are hunters and reindeer herders and fishermen and, too often, drinkers. Their numbers are small and their towns are too, so most Sámi’s in a given community know each other well. Strangers do not visit the Sámi’s often. The climate is harsh; the sun is either low-in- the-sky and omnipresent, or is totally missing in action. These towns are not normally tourist destinations.

So when a “southerner” turns up in a Sámi town one day when the sun is still out at midnight townspeople guess that he may be on the run from something, but they don’t make a big deal of it. Jon’s first acquaintance when he gets off the bus in the town of Kasund is a native man called Mattis who, when asked says he can sleep in the church. Jon is obviously out of place. Mattis doesn’t even know the half of it, although he suspects. Jon has a gun tucked in the back of his pants. He is hiding a money belt full of stolen money. He is not a bad man really, but he is not a good man either. He is from Oslo and he is running away. He is running away more or less because of what he has not done than because of what he has done. He has suffered a great loss, but he is still trying to fight for his own life, although he is not sure why. He tells the man that his name is Ulf and that he came to hunt and he goes off to sleep in the church.

Then he meets Knut who is ten and his beautiful mother Lea who helps him before he even knows her name. She loans him her husband’s hunting rifle and hunting cabin. She’s a very good person whose father is a preacher in the very strict Læstadian Christian sect which is common among the Sámi people. Her husband is fishing but Ulf senses there is more to the story of this husband and wife than he is hearing.

Jon/Ulf is an unusual character for Nesbø to write about. He has a reputation as a killer but he has not actually killed anyone. He is a thief only because when he had to run he ran with a drug dealer’s money because it was there and it would have been stupid not to take it (although it was also stupid to take it). Jon worked for a low-life crime boss with a fearful reputation, called the Fisherman. The Fisherman does not let anyone who works for him do the things that Jon has done, or not do the things that Jon has not done.

Jon needed a large sum of money for a good reason, although I will not tell you what it was. I will tell you that I enjoyed Jon’s sojourn with the Sámi and the tale is certainly a departure for Jo Nesbø and I can also say that I think you might enjoy it. His Harry Hole books connect with those of us who live in modern cities much more than this short novel does, but the book is a nice tribute to the Sámi people and it is totally fair for an author to use his clout to bring this isolated group of people into our hearts and minds.

By Nancy Brisson