Robert Krulwich had an excellent report on the ABC Evening News broadcast last night. He was asked to explain the current credit crisis in terms that most Americans can readily understand.  He came up with a wonderful animated segment that showed a banker lending out $100 to a farmer who then spends it on supplies.  The farm supply business then uses the $100 to order more items and then that business owner uses the money to pay for other goods and services and so on. Money circulates around the system and businesses can thrive and workers can get paid.  (You can see this great animation segment at the ABC News website.)

The report and the animation cut to the heart of the problem we are facing and explained why Congress needs to act quickly. The bank lending system is slowing to a dangerous crawl. This is not just a problem that affects Wall St firms. Small businesses in cities and towns across Massachusetts and the country are being adversely affected.

Senator Kerry held a press conference in Boston today to argue the urgency of the problem. At the press conference, the Senator stated his strong support for a balanced rescue plan that puts the interests of the taxpayers first and demands accountability and oversight in the process. The legislation he supports:

• Requires the Treasury to modify the loans they buy to help American families keep their homes and expands federal assistance to families facing foreclosure;
• Includes strong Congressional oversight, establishes a special Inspector General and allows Judicial review of the program;
• Requires companies that take advantage of this program provide warrants so taxpayers will benefit from any future growth of these companies;
• Includes important limitations on executive compensation for those participating in the program.

These provisions safeguard the investment the American taxpayers are being asked to make in the financial system. There will be no "golden parachutes" of money that reward corporate executives for failure. The money the plan dispenses will be carefully watched and used as necessary to help weather the financial storm, not reward the very people who might have helped worsen the storm.

The credit crunch is a problem for the whole country, not just Wall St.  Addressing these problems honestly and quickly will help small businesses and consumers alike. As Robert Krulwich explains in the ABC News segment, the lending and credit system cannot be allowed to freeze up. Too many jobs and businesses might never recover and the problems would only get worse. Congress needs to put aside partisan politics and concentrate on actions that serve the interests of the American people.  Congress should craft responsible legislation that is not a give-away to special interests, that has oversight built into it and that keeps the interests of the taxpayers first and foremost.  That is what the American people want and expect their leaders in Congress to do. 

 

###

The events of the last week have been bewildering to a lot of Americans. Talking heads on the news are screaming about a financial crisis that needs action and attention right now in order to save the country from terrible consequences. Americans grasp the outline of this, but the details are fuzzy at best. What is going on and what does it mean for people worried about their futures, their ability to keep their homes, provide for their families and put something away for retirement? Who is watching out for the interests of the people in this noisy and chaotic debate going on now?

The last thing this debate needed was an injection of partisan politics. Americans do not want to see their financial futures sacrificed for a game of political chicken that doesn't solve anything. The people want their elected representatives to do their jobs and find solutions that begin to address our problems, not posturing and finger pointing that accomplishes nothing.

Americans want to know that their interests are first and foremost in the minds of government officials. The current turmoil is not just about derivatives and credit swaps and other distant financial terms that only investment bankers and financial gurus seem to understand. This crisis directly affects millions of Americans who are worried about keeping their homes and jobs. It's about small business owners who want to make sure they are not an afterthought in this financial battle over the interests of huge banks and financial institutions.

Small business relies on access to credit. Restaurants and small shops on Main Street need access to loans and lines of credit to get their businesses started and to keep them running. The current financial crisis threatens that flow of credit.

Senator Kerry has filed legislation that would lift some of the restrictions that are preventing small businesses from using loan programs from the Small Business Administration. Credit from private banks has become too difficult to obtain for a lot of small businesses.  The new legislation aims to eliminates some fees in certain SBA programs and increase the loan size in other programs. These actions, and others in the legislation, aim to help small businesses get what they need to weather this crisis and preserve jobs.

It is vital that we look after the interests of small as well as big business in this financial crisis.  As Senator Kerry said in remarks about his new legislation:

"If we can spend $700 billion to fix Wall Street, we should be able to help our everyday entrepreneurs who employ half of America's workforce and pump almost a trillion dollars into the economy each year," Kerry said. "These owners are suffering today because of a credit crisis that is preventing them from gaining access to the capital they need to keep running - let alone to expand their firms to compete globally."

"At the root of this mess is a lack of oversight and severe deregulation of the financial industry, causing turmoil in America the likes of which we have not seen since the Great Depression," Kerry said. "In addition to reducing fees and regulatory burdens on programs that stimulate economic growth and job creation, and improve liquidity for small banks, my proposals also increase lender oversight." 

"My changes will fill the gap left by the private sector at a time when our nation's owners and employees on Main Street are wondering why the CEOs who created this crisis are receiving a bailout when they're struggling just to keep their doors open," Kerry said. "It's essential that we bring our economy back to life, but we must do so in a way that doesn't continue to punish America's hardworking entrepreneurs for the sins of Wall Street's titans."

 

 

The Community Redevelopment Act ("CRA")  was passed in 1977 to encourage banks to lend credit in their own communities.  This was an answer to the problem of "redlining" in which districts or areas of a community were being effectively shut out of getting home mortgage loans from local banks.  Banks with assets over $250 million dollars were required to show that they were not discriminating in their loan programs against residents because they lived in a predominantly minority or low-income area. The CRA was weakened in 2004-2005 when a bank had to have assets of $1 billion or more before it became subject to the CRA rules.

Investor's Business Daily and other right wing sites have started to blame the three decade old CRA for the current subprime mortgage crisis. They claim that the CRA forced banks to make loans to low-income customers who were unable to pay them back. This interference in the "free market," according to some right wing sources, is the cause of the current mortgage problems and the reason why banks, investment firms and so forth are in trouble.

 This is patently false. According to an independent study done by the firm Traiger & Hinckley LLP in a study release on January 7, 2008:

Our study suggests that without the CRA, the subprime crisis and related spike in foreclosures might have negatively impacted even more borrowers and neighborhoods. Compared to other lenders in their assessment areas, CRA Banks were less likely to make a high cost loan, charged less for the high cost loans that were made, and were substantially more likely to eschew the secondary market and hold high cost and other loans in portfolio. Moreover, branch availability is a key element of CRA compliance, and foreclosure rates were lower in metropolitan areas with proportionately greater numbers of bank branches.

The American Prospect, in an online article by Robert Gordon dated April 7, 2008, called out those who were blaming the CRA for the subprime crisis.  It noted:

The argument turns on a simple question: In the current mortgage meltdown, did lenders approve bad loans to comply with CRA, or to make money?

The evidence strongly suggests the latter. First, consider timing. CRA was enacted in 1977. The sub-prime lending at the heart of the current crisis exploded a full quarter century later. In the mid-1990s, new CRA regulations and a wave of mergers led to a flurry of CRA activity, but, as noted by the New America Foundation's Ellen Seidman (and by Harvard's Joint Center), that activity "largely came to an end by 2001." In late 2004, the Bush administration announced plans to sharply weaken CRA regulations, pulling small and mid-sized banks out from under the law's toughest standards. Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified -- at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened.

Second, it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn't even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan's Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.

Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the "tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending.? CRA, Yellen says, "has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

 There is plenty of blame to go around for the current financial crisis affecting Wall Street and the mortgage market.  The CRA, however, should not be sharing in that blame.

 

There's this idea that when you are on the attack, you're winning. Mean works. As contemptuous as you can get, that's as contemptuous as you should be.

I think it's all Zell Miller's fault. He gave a speech that was a spittle-laced, just-short-of-unhinged attack on John Kerry last election as part of an incredibly negative GOP convention, and the convention seemed to work. John Kerry's "negatives" went up, George W. Bush took a lead in the polls, and Kerry could never catch up. It didn't matter that the attacks were mostly lies and smears against a tremendously honorable man. It didn't seem to matter that the people delivering them had no particularly redeeming qualities of warmth or grace. Mean worked.

So, the GOP went back to the well last night. But they missed the real reason why they were able to smear John Kerry so successfully. It wasn't being mean that worked, it was being on message.

Every speaker advanced the same basic lie about John Kerry, a "for it before he was against it" line designed to cover up Bush's weakness by trying to portray Kerry as indecisive and weak. The meanness, the contempt seemed tied to a specific reason for contempt of that single person they were trying to defeat. And while people may have not particularly liked Zell Miller, thought he was too mean, they were left with a lasting negative impression of JK.

Which takes us to last night. During the speeches last night, I, like many others, flashed back to 2004 and thought this may be more effective than I thought. I mean, I found the whole thing to be incredibly hate-filled and alienating, but, if it worked in 2004, then maybe it'd work again.

And then I woke up this morning, and I honestly couldn't remember a single thing they attacked about. Oh, I could recall a few specifics if I really searched my memory, but the overall impression was only, "Boy, they really hate Obama." Which, frankly, just isn't good enough as a political attack. The overriding impression is just one of anger. I remember the attackers rather than the attack. This is not good.

Especially when paired with the second impression: "they are really contemptuous of a lot of Americans." The attacks seemed not tied to a specific candidate or a specific trait in that candidate, but instead it was just a soaring, bellicose anger directed outward and egged on by the delegates in the hall.

Really, the only things that really stuck with me were the bizarre derision of community organizing and a single moment from Rudy Giuliani. Rudy said, when talking about the story of Barack Obama, "Only in America." And he used it contemptuously.

Well, you know what Rudy? Screw you. "Only in America" is one of our proudest traditions. There's a freedom to strive and achieve here that really is different than much of the world. We have had one of the most complicated and at times brutal histories of race relations of any country, and yet we now have an African-American son of a single mom as the leader of our country's majority party. That's pretty damn cool. And, yeah, it's only in America.

In the convention last night, the effect was not so much a contempt of Obama as it was a contempt for an entire vision of America, a vision that's part of the fabric of the American Dream. Community organizing, pluralism, tolerance, compassion, respect, humility, optimism, the rule of law, a self-made man, all of it was subject to a sneering derision. Unless you were white, from a small town, loved country music, and hated everyone else, there was almost nothing for you. Well, unless you are an oil exec who wants more oil leases to sit on and boost your balance sheet. Then they were chanting sweet nothings just for you.

The speech people should be thinking of is not Zell Miller, but Pat Buchanan. Buchanan's 1992 culture war-cry has been widely considered as a major factor in George H.W. Bush's defeat to Bill Clinton. It was exclusionary and angry, and it turned many people off. It was, like last night, not so much an attack on Bill Clinton as an attack on whole swaths of America.

So, forget the pundits, and forget the snap judgments. Many people in 1992 thought Buchanan's speech was a success because it "rallied the base." It was only later that the impression of an angry party intent on pushing its narrow views on the country took hold and became the lasting legacy from that speech.

I suspect that's what we'll be saying about last night in a couple of months.

update: Here's Roland Martin on CNN getting angry about the attack on community organizers:

The first national decision of consequence that a nominee for President makes is the choice of a running mate. How this choice was made, what critieria (were) used to make the pick and what views and experience the vice presidential candidate brings to the ticket are legitimate areas for scrutiny. The selection process itself is a window into how the presidential nominee thinks. The choice reveals something about the judgment of the nominee and how that person will make decisions as President.

Senator McCain, at best, seems to have rushed into the choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. There are legitimate questions about her that have been overlooked in the vetting process itself. What foreign policy experience does Gov. Palin have? What is her thinking on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and American foreign policy in the Middle East and other troubled areas of the world? Senator McCain has made national security a paramount issue in his campaign for the presidency, yet his chosen V. P. candidate has no substantive national security experience. What does it say about the judgment of John McCain when he doesn't require his running mate to have experience in the very area McCain regards as critical to the future course of the United States?

Personal attacks on the Palin family are wrong. Senator Obama has clearly said that the children of a potential nominee should be off limits to partisan political attack. The choice of Gov. Palin for the Republican ticket is questionable on the merits of Palin's record and stated positions on the issues. Her selection raises questions about Senator McCain's judgment and the vetting process employed in selecting this Vice Presidential candidate. These are serious questions and deserve serious answers from the McCain campaign. The News Herald of Panama City, Florida had an editorial online that speaks to these concerns as well:

Media reports have raised concerns that the McCain campaign did not do a thorough job vetting Palin before she was chosen (a charge the campaign has vigorously rebutted). If the decision to tap the Alaskan was hasty, made from the gut without ample information, that makes the differentiation between Palin's experience and judgment even more acute. How deep is McCain's knowledge of the governor's performance? How much does he know about the way she made her decisions, the deals she cut and the compromises she made (or didn't make)? Is McCain confident that the initial burst of Palin stories was just the obligatory opening fanfare of media scrutiny that was to be expected, or has his campaign realized it has rappelled down a well whose bottom can't be seen?

The Los Angeles Times stated on Saturday that it found the choice of Gov. Palin, given her lack of national experience, to be a gamble for Senator McCain:

Let's be honest: The learning curve that confronts Palin is the steepest facing a vice presidential candidate in recent memory. That McCain was willing to take this gamble may not be a sign of desperation, but it gives a new and unsettling meaning to his claim to be a maverick.

The New York Times also weighed in with an editorial on Wednesday that asks what the choice of Gov. Palin says about the judgment of John McCain:

If John McCain wants voters to conclude, as he argues, that he has more independence and experience and better judgment than Barack Obama, he made a bad start by choosing Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.

Mr. McCain's supporters are valiantly trying to argue that the selection was a bold stroke that shows their candidate is a risk-taking maverick who - we can believe - will change Washington. (Mr. Obama's call for change - now "the change we need" - has become all the rage in St. Paul.)

To us, it says the opposite. Mr. McCain's snap choice of Ms. Palin reflects his impulsive streak: a wild play that he made after conservative activists warned him that he would face an all-out revolt in the party if he chose who he really wanted - Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.

The McCain campaign wants to pretend that any objections to Gov. Palin as a V.P. choice are somehow improper. Questioning the amount of time that went into this important choice and the depth of the vetting process itself is not improper. It is a way of sounding out the judgment that Senator McCain employed in making this choice. That judgment should be probed and questioned. It is a vital way to take a measure of Candidate McCain and project forward what his judgment and decision making process as President would look like. That is a very legitimate area for questions and something Candidate McCain should address.

Senator Kerry, appearing on the ABC News show This Week, was asked about John McCain's choice of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin to be his Vice Presidential pick and if that means that the McCain/Palin ticket might draw votes from former supporters of Senator Clinton. Senator Kerry strongly disagreed:

"The people who supported Hillary Clinton are not going to be seduced just because John McCain has picked a woman," Kerry said. "They're going to look at what she supports. The fact that she doesn't even support the notion that climate change is manmade -- she's back there with the Flat Earth Caucus. I think it's almost insulting to the Hillary supporters that they believe they would support somebody who is against almost everything that they believe in'.”

One of the things that Senator Clinton strongly believes in and worked for is the idea of equal pay for equal work. Senator Clinton, along with 42 other Senators including Senator Kerry, was a Co-Sponsor of the 2007 "Fair Pay Restoration Act." The bill was introduced to reverse the obvious discrimination that Lilly Ledbetter, a Goodyear Tire & Rubber plant manager from Alabama, had received in pay in her years of employment.  Ledbetter had shown that she was paid less after 19 years as a manager at that plant than a male employee with less experience or years of service.  The courts had initially backed Ledbetter, but the Supreme Court of the United States had thrown out her case because of a technicality.

Senator McCain did not show up for the vote in the Senate on the Fair Pay Restoration Act, but he told reporters that:

"I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems," the expected GOP presidential nominee told reporters. "This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system."

 Apparently, equality is fine, as long as no one is required to pay for it. Senator McCain did magnanimously explain how he thought women should go about getting equal pay for equal work:

"They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else,” McCain said. “And it’s hard for them to leave their families when they don’t have somebody to take care of them."

The solution for women who want equal pay for equal work, according to Senator McCain, is to go back to school and get more training.  Lilly Ledbetter spent 19 years performing her job as a manager at the Goodyear plant in Alabama.  Exactly how much training and experience should she be expected to get before she is paid the same amount of money as the men in her office for doing the same work? Isn't 19 years of on-the-job experience and training enough?

What does Gov. Palin think about this?  In her introductory remarks as a VP nominee, Palin talked about the "18 million cracks" that Senator Clinton and other women had put in the glass ceiling blocking opportunity for women. Does Gov. Palin believe in equal pay for equal work? Will she be the maverick that the Republicans are touting her as and call Senator McCain on his refusal to truly move forward on granting women full rights as workers in this country?

Or will she stand silently by as Republicans once again offer a "bait and switch" stance on equality for women that promises much and delivers nothing. There are indeed cracks in the glass ceiling that hold back equal opportunity for large groups of Americans.  Governor Palin should truly come out as as the force she claims to be and go to work for other" working moms" to erase the kinds of barriers of opportunity and pay that hold so many women back.  That would truly be the move of a "maverick" choice.

DENVER - Senator John Kerry spoke at the Democratic National Convention in Denver on Wednesday evening.

There is a video of Senator Kerry's speech at this link or at the home page of the www.johnkerry.com website.

The following are his remarks as prepared for delivery.

Four years ago, you gave me the honor of fighting our fight.

I was proud to stand with you then, and I am proud to stand with you now, to help elect Barack Obama as President of the United States. In 2004 we came so close to victory. We are even closer now and let me tell you - this time we're going to win.

Today, the call for change is more powerful than ever - and with more seats in Congress, with more seats in Congress, with more people with more passion engaged in our politics, and with a President Obama, we stand on the brink of the greatest opportunity of our generation to move this country forward.

The stakes could not be higher because we do know what a McCain Administration would look like.

Just like the past. Just like George Bush; and this country can't afford a third Bush term.

Just think: John McCain voted with George Bush 90% of the time - 90% of George Bush is just more than we can take.

Never in modern history has an administration squandered American power so recklessly.

Never has strategy been so replaced by ideology - never has extremism so crowded out common sense and fundamental American values. Never has short-term partisan politics so depleted the strength of America's bipartisan foreign policy.

George Bush, with John McCain at his side, promised to spread freedom, but delivered the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

They misread the threat and misled the country. Instead of freedom, it's Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, and dictators everywhere that are on the march. North Korea can build more bombs, and Iran is defiantly chasing one.

Our mission is to restore America's influence and position in the world. We must use all the weapons in our arsenal - above all, our values.

President Obama and Vice President Biden will shut down Guantanamo, respect the Constitution and make clear once and for all, the United States of America does not torture, not now, not ever.

We must listen and lead by example because even as a nation as powerful as the United States needs some friends in this world. We need a leader who understands all our security challenges: not just bombs and guns, but global warming, global terror and global AIDS. And Barack Obama understands there is no way for America to be secure until we create clean energy here at home - not with a little more oil in 10, 20 or 30 years, but with an energy revolution starting right now!

I have known and been friends with John McCain for almost 22 years. But every day now I learn something new about candidate McCain.

To those who still believe in the myth of a maverick instead of the reality of a politician: I say, let's compare Senator McCain to candidate McCain.

Candidate McCain now supports the wartime tax cuts that Senator McCain once called irresponsible.

Candidate McCain criticizes Senator McCain's own climate change bill.

Candidate McCain says he would now vote against the immigration bill that Senator McCain wrote.

Are you kidding? Talk about being for it before you're against it!

Let me tell you, before he ever debates Barack Obama, John McCain should finish the debate with himself.

And what's more, Senator McCain, who once railed against the smears of Karl Rove when he was the target, has morphed into candidate McCain who is using the same Rove tactics and the same Rove staff to repeat the same old politics of fear and smear.

Well, not this year. Not this time.

The Rove-McCain tactics are old and outworn, and America will reject them in 2008.

So remember - when we choose a commander-in-chief this November, we are electing judgment and character, not years in the Senate or years on this earth. Time and again, Barack Obama has seen farther, thought harder, and listened better - and time and time again, Barack Obama has been proven right.

John McCain stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier just three months after 9/11 and proclaimed: "Next up, Baghdad!"

Barack Obama had the judgment to see "an occupation of undetermined length, undetermined cost, and undetermined consequences" that would "only fan the flames of the Middle East."

Well, guess what? Mission Accomplished!

So who can we trust to keep America safe?

When Barack Obama promised to honor the best traditions of both parties and talk to our enemies John McCain scoffed. George Bush called it: "The false comfort of appeasement." But today, Bush's diplomats are doing exactly what Obama said: talking with Iran.

So who can we trust to keep America safe?

When democracy rolled out of Russia and the tanks rolled into Georgia, we saw John McCain respond immediately with the outdated thinking of the cold war. Barack Obama responded like a true friend of Georgia and a statesman of the 21st Century.

So who can we trust to keep America safe?

When Democrats called for a timetable to make Iraqis stand up for Iraq and bring our heroes home, John McCain called it "Cut and Run." But today, even President Bush has seen the light: He and Prime Minister Maliki agree on - guess what? - a timetable!

So who can we trust to keep America safe?

The McCain Bush republicans have been wrong again, and again, and again. And they know they will lose on the issues.

So, the candidate who once promised a campaign of ideas, not insults, now has nothing left but personal attacks.

How insulting to suggest that those who question the mission, question the troops?

How pathetic to suggest that those who question a failed policy doubt America itself?

How desperate to tell the son of a single mother who chose community service over money and privilege that he doesn't put America first?

No one can question Barack Obama's patriotism. Like all of us, he was taught what it means to be an American by his family. His grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line in World War II. His grandfather who marched in Patton's Army. And his great uncle who enlisted in the Army right out of high school at the height of the war, and on a spring day in 1945, he helped liberate one of the concentration camps at Buchenwald.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Barack Obama's uncle is here with us tonight. Please join me in saluting this American hero, Charlie Payne. Charlie, your nephew, Barack Obama, will end this politics of distortion and division. He will be a president who seek, not to perfect the lies of swiftboating, but to end them once and for all.

This election is a chance for America to tell the merchants of fear and division: You don't decide who love this country.

You don't decide who is a patriot.

You don't decide whose service counts and whose doesn't.

Four years ago I said - and I say it again tonight - that flag doesn't belong to any ideology. It doesn't belong to any political party. It is an enduring symbol of our nation and it belongs to all the American people.

After all, patriotism is not love of power; or some cheap trick to win votes - patriotism is love of country.

Years ago when we protected a war, people would weigh in against us saying: "My country right or wrong." Our answer?

Absolutely, my country right or wrong. When right, keep it right. When wrong, make it right.

Sometimes loving your country demands you must tell the truth to power. This is one of those times, and Barack Obama is telling those truths.

In closing, let me say, I will always remember how we stood together in 2004 - not just in a campaign, but for a cause.

Now again, we stand together in the ranks, ready to fight.

The choice is clear, our cause is just, and now is our time to make Barack Obama the next President of the United States of America.

Thank you.

###

Monday night at the Democratic National Convention in Denver featured a warm and stirring tribute video for Sen. Ted Kennedy.  You can see the Ken Burns directed video on the JohnKerry.com site by going to the multimedia section or clicking on this link.

 Sen. Kerry was interviewed by the Boston Herald about his part in the video tribute and his feelings for his long-time Massachusetts Senate colleague:

In an interview with the Herald yesterday, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) - featured prominently in tke Kennedy tribute video - said of Kennedy’s 46 years in the Senate, “Every major piece of legislation in that time, he’s had an impact on one way or the other.”

Kerry, who got one of his first political jobs working for Kennedy as a volunteer at age 18, said it has been hard to watch the dire health problems of his longtime colleague and friend.

“It’s tough on all his colleagues in the Senate,” Kerry said. “He’s been a great mentor and a great teacher. I’ve learned an enormous amount."

 

We are lucky to have another essay from Myra today about her family ties to Pakistan.  Though this essay is about the horror of war as it happened in Pakistan two generations ago, the feelings it brings up are as fresh as this morning's headline about the Republic of Georgia and the new war going on there. War doesn't care about the innocent and doesn't respect boundaries.  It is a testiment to the human spirit that hope can come from the type of horror and devastation that so many people around the world have experienced. I hope that happens in all the places in the world that are now consumed in fighting.

 

A Message of Hope and Determination

One thing will always be extremely dear to me: A letter that my Dadima (Paternal Grandmother) wrote to me about the 1947 Partition of India and Pakistan. At that time I was in fifth grade and was really moved by it. I have saved this wonderful piece of history in a special place where I keep all of my memories. Whenever I read it, it brings tears to my eyes. I am so glad that I was curious enough about my heritage and roots to ask Dadima to write to me about it. This is truly one piece of paper that I can never give up.

The partition, the biggest forced migration in the history of the world, was an extremely frightening and difficult time for the 14 million people who faced it. I find it hard to imagine how so many innocent people could be forced to leave their homes and to suffer from such a terrible ordeal. People who had once been friends and lived side by side became enemies. My family was lucky to escape their house just as their neighbor's house was being burned in the middle of the night, unexpectedly all of a sudden. They fled for their lives, and were forced to leave everything behind--all of their dreams, their home, and everything they had.

My great grandmother, Sara, quickly wore three shirts, one on top of the other. That is the only thing she had time for. My great grandfather was lucky enough to quickly pick up his and his children's degrees and a few important documents. There were people at the front of the house ready to kill them with guns as they would try to escape. Luckily they were able to jump over the back wall of the house. How scared they must have been. Hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives in this senseless killing. They ran, they walked, and they hid in dark jungles for three and a half days. They were lucky to head in the right direction and finally arrive at the UN refugee camp at the border with the newly created Pakistan. There they had their first meal in three and a half days, a meal of lentils and half a pita bread each (daal and roti).

My family had lost everything. All they had was each other and a spirit of hope and determination. In spite of their difficulties, they never gave up. After all they had the most precious gift of all--life. With hard work, love, and understanding they rebuilt their new lives together. I am proud to say that after much sacrifice and struggle they became doctors, lawyers, business people, engineers and professionals in many other fields.

Such is the story of my family and millions of other Pakistani's. It is a story that I can never forget, a story of endless possibilities when you do not give up, a story of hopes and the dreams that came true with the new-found independence. Everyone put aside their differences and united to build their new nation, Pakistan.

But somewhere along the way, the country lost its way. We need to help Pakistan find its way again and to bring back the hope. People and nations have suffered greatly. And it is important to bring back democracy to Pakistan, peace, security, and justice for all. We must not let all the sacrifices go waste. It is time for everyone to work together and to let the hope shine through.

Short term fixes will keep us going in circles and we have seen that. It is time for us here in America to realize how important it is to develop a long term strategic relationship with the people of Pakistan. We in America just cannot afford to loose in this vital area.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

There was a wonderful idea in the comments section of my article "Education and Poverty in Pakistan" that every Pakistani abroad should support the education of one poor child in Pakistan. I extend this challenge to all and I would not limit this to Pakistanis and Pakistan alone. Let all of us who can, support at least one struggling child to get education in some impoverished part of the world. Remember for most people the cost will be very little. Small efforts like this can truly help to make the world a better place.

Other articles in this series:

Hope Within Pakistan-July 5, 2008
Education and Poverty in Pakistan-July 13, 2008
Women of Pakistan-July, 28, 2008

A Message of Hope and Determination-August 12, 2008

Myra Chaudhary

Myra is a junior at Brandeis University. She is majoring in Economics and International and Global Studies.

Senator Kerry appeared on Meet the Press this morning with Senator Joe Lieberman to talk about the Presidential campaigns. Both Senators were asked about the recent ads that the McCain campaign has put out that features celebrities Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.  Senator Lieberman defended the ad saying he thought, "it's cute."  He went on to say that he thought the use of these two pop culture figures would make the point that, "Senator Obama is against offshore drilling for oil."

The ad in question doesn't talk about that issue or Barack Obama's stand on that issue. Kerry said, "it doesn't mention offshore drilling. What it talks about--it tries to insinuate that his celebrity is somehow all he has." That is the point.  The McCain campaign is trying to attack Barack Obama's character by bringing in questionable associations to people that have nothing to do with this Presidential campaign and nothing to do with the issues that the American people are grappling with this year.

Kerry referenced a speech that Joe Lieberman gave ten years ago on the Senate floor about morality in public discourse: "Even you, Joe, 10 years ago, you went to the floor of the United States Senate, and you said that our public life is coarsening. You said that the society's values are shrinking. That's an ad that plays to the worst instincts in America, which is to diminish someone's character."

Maybe Senator Lieberman would do well to review what he said on the Senate floor in that speech in July, 1998:

The news media, I am afraid to say, which itself has been infected by that anything-goes mentality--not always, but often infected by the anything-goes mentality pervading the entertainment culture--seems too often to fan the flames of controversy. The result is not so much an honest, engaged debate about values, but a culture war echo chamber that only heightens the average citizen's distorted sense that the country is locked in a mortal moral struggle.

We need that "honest, engaged debate" not some "cute" diversion that seeks to distort the facts on the important issues that face this country.  A campaign based on "look over here, bright shiny stuff" does not further the public debate, it coarsens it. Let's talk about the real issues that the American people face and put these negative, insulting attacks that are meant to demean the character of others on the shelf.  The country deserves better than this.