I'm coming around to a school of thought that espouses better relations with Iran. 

Yes, I know.  The same Iran that wants to destroy my homeland, Israel. 

But the point is, they won't.  Israel may be Iran's sworn enemy, but neither side is going to pre-emptively strike the other one. 

On the other hand, most Iranian officials honestly believe that America is a natural allies.  We mostly have the same enemies.  Neither has actually ever had a formal conflict with the other.  Even our societies are very similar.  Iran really wants one thing - power.  Is this totally unfair?  They are, by almost all standards, the most stable (and by the way the most democratic) Muslim country in the Middle East.  Their government is arguably as stable as Saudia Arabia, and the people of Iran elect their president.  The House of Saud continues to rule Saudia Arabia. 

Saddam Hussain used to proudly pay families of Palastinian suicide bombers.  Iran rejects violence.  Pakistan rejects that Taliban and Al Quaida leaders live safely within their borders; Iran would like to assist US troops in finding them and bringing them to justice.

So what's the problem?  Nuclear reactors.  Power.  Iran wants to prove that, while they are willing to partner with America, they will not be a minor player.  They want full partnership.  They want to replace the Soviet Union as the other side of the global Balance Of Power. They're willing to offer more than detente and cold war, but they want complete involvement and equal footing.

In return, Iran believes that they can maintain order in the Middle East.  Safety for Israel and Iraq.  Return to normalcy.  Marginalization of Al Quada.  Final elimination of the Taliban.  A new world order.

Is it worth it? 

Posted by Michael Humphries-Dolnick at 08:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Tonight is Monster Jam at Allstate Arena in Rosemont, IL.   This is another great event to take kids to, because behavior (good, bad, or otherwise) is of course optional. 

The kids will have their ear protection, of course, but we'll still all come home smelling like complex hydrocarbons.  Meanwhile, let them scream, yell, jump around, and act their ages.  I'll sit back, have some nachos and beer, and enjoy the show. 

Posted by Michael Humphries-Dolnick at 12:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Michael and Sharen Gravelle were sentenced to two years in prison for abuse of their 11 foster children, some of whom they kept in cages and made sleep in the bathtub.

This raises an interesting question.  What does society do with the really problem children?  Years ago, we simply placed them in state-run orphanages and forgot about them, usually until they were released at 18 and committed some crime, and then we put them in prison.  Today, society puts them in foster homes.  But the foster home system is not perfect, and it breeds these sorts of problems.

The underlying problem in this case is not unique, although it  is a bit extreme.  In most cases, parents who take in fosters are paid by the state.  Once one or two state incomes are not enough, some people take in more.  It's not widespread, but it does happen.  Then, problems come up.  Instead of being income, suddenly children born with crack or alcohol addictions are problems that foster parents must deal with.  And they often make very bad mistakes. 

I suspect that this is what we're seeing in this case.  I'm sure that the Gravelles were honestly trying as hard to do a good job raising their fosters as they could.  I would be willing to bet that they ended up over their heads because the allure of more state income for the next, and next, and next child they took ended them up with more children than they could handle.  And when they ended up over their heads, instead of offering the children the high level professional care that they required, they asked state social workers what to do.  And why not?  Foster program social workers should be qualified, right?  And they cost a lot less than shrinks.  Which is why we saw these derelicts testifying in court, on behalf of the defense, that the "tough love" approach was the best thing for the children.

What a bunch of hogwash.  

The Gravelles didn't want to deal with the problems, and neither did the social workers.  So they put the kids in cages and went on with their lives, collecting their state booty of course.  

I propose that the state foster systems need to adopt a "2 is the limit" rule that takes the profit motive out of foster care.  And they need to require better qualifications for their social workers and case workers.  And they need to provide better resources for foster  parents with children who, by no fault of their own, inherited behavior problems.   And they need to take away the licenses and jobs of social workers who tell parents to put their children in cages.  And oh yeah, they need to put people like the Gravelles behind bars, not testify in their defense.

Posted by Michael Humphries-Dolnick at 09:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Some of you may have missed that, others may not remember back this far.  But this is the first time I have openly supported a Democrat for President, since Ted Kennedy ran.  Poor Joe Biden.  Sure, I've voted for Dems.  But I haven't thrown my support behind one in a long time. 

 I think the abortive Kennedy run was part of why I haven't really supported a candidate in a long time.  That campaign, in 1980, was a catastrophe and was the last time that I ever volunteered to help a presidential campaign.  (Quick trivia: the previous campaign that I supported was that of Jimmy Carter.)

What's different this time?  I'm supporting Biden for one reason, and one reason only: because America desparately needs to regain it's leadership position in the world, and Joe Biden is the only candidate (so far) who can restore us to the level of leadership we've enjoyed in the past.  I probably will not support his tax policies, or his spending policies.  In fact, I'm fairly certain I'll hate his entire domestic agenda.  But I'm willing, as a good American, to give up four years of sensible domestic policy in order to gain the benefits of Joe Biden's experience and skills in world affairs.   

Posted by Michael Humphries-Dolnick at 06:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

GO BEARS!

Posted by Michael Humphries-Dolnick at 07:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Senator Joe Biden is in, officially, as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President.  Running against a large slate including Illinois Senator Barack Obama and NY Senator Clinton, Biden has a snowball's chance in hell of being nominated.  And it's too bad, too.

Joe Biden is a foreign relations maven.  Despite being a Democrat, which I won't hold against him, his experience and intuition give him the unique ability to know when to sooth and when to rattle sabres.   If anyone can fix America's lost leadership in the world, it is Joe Biden.  

I'll be watching the Biden race.  John McCain has already started losing me, by wooing the ultra-Right conservatives that serve as President Bush's power base.  McCain can go ahead and fashion himself the heir apparent to the Bush throne - we don't need any more of that.

But Joe Biden can heal what ails America abroad, and that would be a first step toward peace. 

Posted by Michael Humphries-Dolnick at 12:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)