In Germany experts are becoming concerned about the welfare of the children of Neo-Nazis. They are growing up in isolated communities, being taught the values of their culture, often also how to use weapons. They are sometimes kept from public schools, taught to shun outsiders or be suspicious of them. They read Nazi-era books, put together puzzles showing maps of Germany with 1937 borders and attend ideological camps. The question is, is it time for the state to intervene? Do the values of a free and open society prevent intervention? Or, does the potential danger to society these youngsters pose warrant some kind of intervention? It may not be an easy question but is still one that ought to be seriously considered in Germany as well as in any country where the political right is gaining ground. The question brings up a host of sociological, psychological, political, ethical, philosophical and moral issues, yet, given the increasing presence of right-wing groups in Germany and elsewhere, one that cannot be ignored. A possible way to tackle it would be to consider the issue of harm. Where is the greater harm? Is it interfering with the rights of a group who sets themselves apart and whose values are not constructive? Or is it to allow them to be who they are at the risk of the danger they represent for others and for society?
July 2011
-
Intransigence and Democracy
I’ve long stopped looking at issues through either a Republican or a Democrat filter. While it takes a certain discipline not to let oneself fall one way or another, it yields a picture of a given situation that can either be more encouraging or more disconcerting. In the case of the discussions about raising the debt limit, when certain congress people took a stand divorced from the realities of the Market or the global economy or consequences to the average person, I am so saddened, for what their stance looked like to me is intransigence. I ask myself, what is the place of intransigence in a democracy? In a dictatorship or other form of authoritarian regime it’s clear, but in a system built to uphold democratic principles, wouldn’t intransigence erode those very principles?
Mike Duffy of Time Magazine commented during a recent television appearance that although in the past Congress always compromised, these days even the hint of compromise was seen as a surrender. His view reinforces the fact that whatever the outcome, the legacy of this protracted discussion can’t help but be an exercise in intransigence. Those members of congress who feel they must stand on their interpretation of principle and refuse compromise feel virtuous and right, unaware that their stand seen through a wider lens erodes the premise of the democracy they think they are defending. -
Impressive
Bangladeshi Workers sent home $11.65 billion in 2010—a record. The sum represents what 7 million Bangladeshi working abroad sent home, most in unskilled positions. The jobs were in countries of the Middle East, the U.K., Malaysia, Singapore, Italy and the U.S. among others. As a whole the remittances make up about 10% of the Bangladeshi economy of about $100 billion. Over the last five years, they have played a key role in lifting some 14 million people out of the poverty. Banks have made it easier to transmit money, so that the remittances can not only avoid the illegal system but also be used to boost the country’s foreign exchange reserves. The $11.65 billion figure is 6% over similar remittances the previous year. Even without the increase, one must admit it speaks of hard work, dedication, devotion, sacrifice, and a form of love that the more affluent West hasn’t needed—perhaps unfortunately—to develop.