But What Can I Do About the Crisis Facing Israel and the Jewish People?

March 09, 2008
But What Can I Do About the Crisis Facing Israel and the Jewish People?
By Rachel Neuwirth
More and more people have been saying to me, "I realize that Jews are facing a major crisis in Israel, here in America, in Europe, and everywhere in the world. But what can I do about it? I am just one person. Vast forces are threatening Israel. Can I stop anti-Israelism and anti-Judaism on my own? I feel helpless in the face of the vast forces that are arrayed against us."

These are natural and normal human feelings. I have felt them at times myself. The confluence of international forces that has gathered against the Jewish people and faith, including the spiritual and intellectual fifth column amongst us, is indeed a formidable adversary. Nevertheless, there are things we can do if we are willing to work together to protect our rights and stand up to the massive defamation campaign waged against us.

One very important thing that all of us can do is to counter the endless lies and distortions of Israel's history and character that appear in the press, mass media, on the Internet, and even in scholarly journals. These distortions and outright falsehoods are a major reason why Israel is in such deep trouble, and in danger of "going under." Because the entire world has been led to believe an inaccurate, grossly distorted "narrative" of the conflict, the government of Israel feels it has no choice but to make concessions to the demands of its enemies, in order to appease world opinion. But these concessions imperil Israel's existence.

Each of us can help to correct this appalling situation by acting immediately, whenever we encounter such a distortion in the press or mass media, to correct it with a letter to the editor or news manager. We can also actively monitor the mass media on the Internet in order to locate as many distortions as we can and correct them. Further, we can speak up to counter distortions in public lectures and meetings about the Arab-Israel conflict, and even in private conversations. All of this requires work and time, but it really does help. Each of us should devote as much time and energy to these tasks as we possibly can.

But in order to counter the endless flow of lies and distortions about Israel, we must first learn what the true facts of Israel's history are. Before we can answer the chorus of unfair criticisms leveled against Israel and her supporters in the United States and elsewhere, we must first educate ourselves.

What are the facts about the conflict over "Palestine" that Arab and other anti-Israel propagandists have distorted, misrepresented and covered up? The following are some, although by no means all, of the most important ones:

The Israelis are not colonialists or alien "settlers" in the Land of Israel with no past connection or relationship to the country; on the contrary, we Jews have lived in Israel for at least 3,200 years if not longer. This is far longer than most peoples have lived in their present national homelands. Our two glorious temples, wonders of the ancient world, were there for a thousand years. King David's kingdom endured for more than four hundred years; later, there was the independent Jewish state of the Maccabees. Jews had lived in the Land of Israel in large numbers for at least 1,800 years before the Arabs conquered it in 635 C.E. Moreover, while hundreds of thousands of Jews were expelled from their land or put to death in it by foreign conquerors, there have been at least some Jews living there almost continuously for 3,200 years.

There has never been a distinctive "Palestinian" Arab people or an Arab "Palestine" state or nation; while it is true that some Arabs have lived in the Land of Israel for many centuries, they have never been ethnically or culturally distinct or different from the Arabs who live in other lands, including the original Arab homeland, the Arabian Peninsula. The Jews, however, are a people who originated in the Land of Israel and never had any other national homeland.

During over a thousand years of Muslim rule, "Palestine" was rarely the name even of an administrative district, let alone a nation. Arabs referred to the entire land that now comprises Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel and the "occupied territories" as "al-Shams" (Syria), which they regarded as one country.

While the Land of Israel, also called "Palestine" by Romans and Europeans, was densely populated in ancient times, its population steadily declined during over 1,000 years of Muslim rule. In the nineteenth century, Israel/Palestine was very thinly settled. There was very little agriculture, and extensive abandoned and uninhabited "waste" lands. Most of the population, such as it was, lived in dire poverty. Brigandage was such an established and accepted way of life that it was impossible to travel on the roads without the payment of large bribes to the leading men of each village along the way. The roads themselves were no more than unpaved footpaths. Villages fought wars with each other. Nomadic Bedouin tribes frequently raided villages and even larger towns. The inhabitants of the few larger towns (there were no real cities) had to cower behind thick walls and locked gates every night for security.

The Arab population of Israel/Palestine only began to grow in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, at the same time that Jews began to resettle the land. Jewish immigrants brought with them modernized agriculture, including the growing of oranges, which had been previously unknown; a market for Arab agricultural goods; employment at Jewish farms and factories; modern hospitals and medicine that saved thousands of Arab lives; the draining of swamps that had caused thousands of deaths from malaria and other insect-born diseases; and vastly expanded Arab education funded by Jewish taxes.

The Arab population of Palestine has grown extensively, from under 500,000 in 1891 to over 3,600,000 today, partly because of increased life expectancy brought about by the economic and scientific progress introduced by Jewish immigrants/settlers, but also in part because of extensive immigration to Palestine from many Arab countries.

As a result, many of the Arabs who call themselves, or who are called by other Arabs "Palestinians," have ancestors who originated in Egypt, Syria, what are now Saudi Arabia, the Sudan and other Arab countries. These Arab countries ought rightfully to give these "Palestinians" citizenship, but refuse to do so.

The Arabs, including and especially the Palestinian Arabs, have been the aggressors throughout the nearly 100 years of the Arab-Israel conflict. This "one long war" began with the communal violence that convulsed Palestine between 1920 and 1948, even before Israel was founded.

Palestinian and other Arabs organized and carried out massive pogroms against the Jews of Palestine in 1920, 1921 and 1929, waged a sustained terrorist campaign against them from 1936 through 1939, and a full-scale jihad against them in 1947-48. Thousands of Palestinian terrorist/guerillas, the regular armies of six Arab states, and "volunteers" from throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds all participated in this aggressive war. Before the 1947-48 Arab attack against the Palestinian/Israeli Jews there had been few if any displaced Palestinian Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs were not innocent bystanders in the war that made them refugees. They initiated the war in which some, although not all, of them fled from parts of Israel in 1948. They killed over two thousand Jews in that war. The six invading Arab states killed over 4,300 more Jews.

The Israelis defended themselves as best they could against these unprovoked attacks. But they did not expel the Palestinian Arabs. Many Arab leaders as well as ordinary Palestinian Arabs have admitted that Arab leaders urged the Arabs living in Palestine to flee, promising them that Arab armies would soon defeat the Jews and allow them to return to their homes. Despite this bad advice, many Palestinian Arabs never left Israel, and became Israeli citizens, with full rights of citizenship. Today there are over one million Arab citizens and residents of Israel -- more than there were in 1947, before Israel was established.

Following this first major Arab-Israel war, the Arab states induced the United Nations to keep the Palestinian Arabs refugees and their descendants in "refugee camps" (actually segregated towns) for generations. All of the Arab states except Jordan denied the Palestinian Arabs citizenship and equal rights. Arab governments and the refugee camp administrations taught the Palestinians that it was their Arab duty to wage war against Israel in order to gain back the homes in what is now Israel where (some) of their ancestors had lived before 1948. This segregation and indoctrination of the Palestinian refugees, as well as their descendants to the third, fourth and all later generations, is the true origin of Palestinian terrorism, not Israeli "oppression" or "occupation."

Also following the Arab-Israel war of 1947-49, the Arab nations refused to sign peace treaties with Israel, sponsored Palestinian Arab terrorist raids into Israel in which hundreds of Israelis were killed, and waged war by economic boycott and propaganda as well. Last but not least, Egypt waged war by blockading Israeli shipping in the Suez Canal and in the Gulf of Aqaba (also called the Gulf of Eilat by Israelis). These acts of war severely damaged the Israeli economy in addition to causing widespread loss of life and injury to Israel's citizens.

Palestinian Arab terrorist attacks on, and raids into, Israel have been continuous since 1949. Whatever reprisal raids and counterterrorist operations Israel has conducted over these years against the Palestinian terrorists have been reluctant responses to aggression against Israeli civilians and soldiers--not deliberate attacks on Arab civilians, as Arab spokesman and much of the press in the West have misrepresented them.

Israel only "occupied" the so-called "occupied territories" in 1967 as a necessary act of self-defense, in response to a whole series of acts of aggression by the Arab world: two and a half years of Palestinian Arab terrorist raids sponsored by Syria; decades of Syrian shelling of Israeli border villages from artillery positions on the Golan Heights, the forced removal of United Nations peacekeepers from the Sinai by Egypt's President Nasser: a reinstatement of the Egyptian blockade of Israeli shipping in the Gulf of Eilat/Aqaba: the mobilization of the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian armies along Israel's three borders, and public declarations of war on Israel by Egypt's Nasser, the government of Syria and other Arab regimes. Israel "occupied" these territories only as a means of forestalling the publicly proclaimed, imminent Arab invasion, and to stop the Jordanian shelling of Israeli Jerusalem. This Jordanian barrage had killed 17 Israelis and wounded many more before Israel moved to occupy the "West Bank," (more accurately known as Judea and Samaria).

Israel has now withdrawn from 90% of the territories that it occupied in 1967, including all of the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza region, large parts of Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank"), and part of the Golan Heights. But these very substantial concessions have failed to persuade the Arab world to make peace with Israel.

All of the other Arab-Israeli wars were also initiated or heavily provoked by Arab states, usually working in tandem with the Palestinian Arab terrorist groups whom they sponsored. Egypt forced a war with Israel in 1956 by sponsoring Palestinian terrorist raids deep into Israeli territory for more than two years, and by blockading Israeli shipping in the Suez Canal and Gulf of Aqaba. In 1973, Egypt and Syria launched an unprovoked surprise attack on Israel on the holiest day of the Jewish year, Yom Kippur (the timing was surely no coincidence). Israel invaded Lebanon in 1981 only after years of Palestinian Arab terrorist attacks originating in that country; Israel withdrew completely from Lebanon in 2000, but was forced in 2006 to deal with renewed terrorist attacks into its territory from Lebanon -this time, by a Lebanese, not a Palestinian, terrorist organization, Hezbollah. Israel quickly withdrew from Lebanon again following a ceasefire.

Jewish settlements established since 1967 outside the pre-Six Day War ceasefire lines are not "illegal." The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, issued in 1922 with the unanimous support of the League member states and with the additional support of the United States (although it was not a member of the League), requires that the administration of Palestine "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency . . . close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes" (article 6). The International Court of Justice has ruled in a similar case (that of Southwest Africa) that the Mandate documents issued by the League of Nations remain international law, even though the League itself was disbanded in 1946, and its responsibilities transferred to the United Nations. The United Nations Charter (Article 80) states that the "rights of peoples" in the League of Nations Mandate documents remain in force, as well as the documents themselves.

The Israel "occupation" of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza is also legal according to international law, for three reasons: 1) Israel only occupied these territories in a defensive war; 2) her enemies continue to wage an aggressive war of terror from these territories, requiring a continued Israel military presence in them for self-defense. 3) Israel has a better title to these territories than any other nation, since the League of Nations Mandate document for Palestine, which has never been rescinded, specifies that the administration of these territories "shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home," The British Mandatory power ceased when the State of Israel was born but the rights of the Jewish people to the land remain intact, since they are a "sacred trust of civilization," as defined by the Covenant of the League of Nations, Art. 22. These permanent rights are enshrined in the Trusteeship Chapter of the UN Charter [Chapter XII, Art. 80]

There are many, many additional salient facts about the conflict that supporters of Israel should learn in order to combat the campaign of defamation and slander waged against her throughout the world. Here we have had space only to summarize a few of the most important points. But learning even these few important facts makes a useful start for those who wish to be activists in correcting the lies and distortions about Israel's history and character. They make important "talking points" for responding to these lies and distortions, whether in the mass media, on the Internet, at lectures and public meetings, or in private conversations.

We need to remember Benjamin Franklin's observation during the American Revolution: "if we don't hang together, then most assuredly we shall hang separately." We Americans, whether Jewish, Christian and even Muslim, cannot separate our own freedom and security from that of Israel.


John Landau contributed to this article.


Documentation: For the history of the Palestinian refugee problem, as well as good general introductions to the history of the Arab-Israel dispute, see Big Lies: Demolishing The Myths of the Propaganda War Against Israel by David Meir-Levi, Introduction by David Horowitz, and Arab and Jewish Refugees - The Contrast, by Eli E. Hertz For see Carta's Historical Atlas of Israel, the Jewish History Atlas, by Martin Gilbert, present the long and continuous history of the Jewish habitation of Israel/Palestine in clear, easy-to-follow language with visual aids. Also very helpful for this purpose is " Israel 's Story in Maps," produced by www.Israelinsider.com. For the condition of Palestine under Islamic rule before Jewish resettlement, see Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial, also Arnold Blumberg, Zion Before Zionism 1838-1880, and Saul S. Friedman, Land of Dust: Palestine at the Turn of the Century, Ms. Peters' book also contains documentation of the extensive Arab immigration to Palestine that went on at the same time as the Jewish resettlement. For the history of the Arab-Israel wars and Arab terrorism in Palestine, the best source is Neaten Lorch, One Long War: Arab versus Jew Since 1920, also excellent on this subject is Martin Gilbert, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: Its History in Maps. Another book by Netanel Lorch, The Edge of the Sword: Israel's War of Independence 1947-49, gives the best account of the Palestinian and other Arab aggression in which the Palestinian Arab refugee "exodus" occurred. Also useful guides to these events are Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, O Jerusalem; and Jon and David Kimche, Both Sides of the Hill, also published also under the alternative title A Clash of Destinies. For the legality of the Israeli settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and the legality of the Israeli administration of these areas, see Eli E. Hertz, "This land is My Land: Mandate for Palestine; The Legal Aspects of Jewish Rights; and Eugene V. Rostow, "Resolved: are the Settlements Legal?"

Professor Meir-Levi's pamphlet Big Lies can be downloaded from the www.frontpage.com web site, and can also be ordered in "hard copy" from that site. All of Mr. Eli E. Hertz's articles can all be downloaded from his www.mythsandfacts.org web site. Eugene V. Rostow's article can be found on the http://middleeastfacts.org web site and elsewhere on the web; it was originally published in the Oct. 21, 1991 issue of The New Republic. " Israel 's Story in Maps," is available for downloading on the www.Israelinsider.com web site, and can also be ordered on DVD. Carta's Historical Atlas of Israel can be ordered from eisenbrauns.com, TomFolio.com, Biblio-com, and Israel-catalog.com. Martin Gilbert's Jewish History Atlas and The Arab-Israeli Conflict: Its History in Maps can be ordered from Amazon.com. Joan Peters' From Time Immemorial can be ordered from http://shop.wnd.com/store, www.eretzyisroel.org, amazon.com, and other sites on the web. Professor Blumberg's Zion Before Zionism 1838-1880 can be ordered from amazon.com and antiqbook.com. Professor Friedman's Land of Dust can be obtained from www.Nowandtherebooks.com. Netanel Lorch's books One Long War and The Edge of the Sword can be ordered from Amazon.com and antiqbook.com. Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre's O Jerusalem are available through amazon.com and centuryone.com. Jon and David Kimche's Both Sides of the Hill can be ordered through amazon.com, AmericanaExchange.com, BookNet.com, and alibris.com.

Pro-Israel activists wishing to counter the constant misrepresentations of Israel's history and actions should obtain, and read, as many of these or similar books and articles as possible.

What I learned in Havana talking to ordinary Cubans

March 08, 2008
What I learned in Havana talking to ordinary Cubans
By David Paulin
The secret love affair between left-leaning elites and Cuba goes on no matter what. No sooner had Cuba's aging Fidel Castro resigned, tha a common narrative emerged in liberal papers like the New York Times: positive changes could be coming to the hemisphere's last bastion of communism.

On Cuba's northeast coast, meanwhile, 24 ordinary Cubans -- men, women, and children -- boarded a boat under cover of darkness. They set off across the Florida Strait to America -- presumably unaware of the media's upbeat Cuba narrative playing out in the country of their dreams. They landed in South Florida, reported the Miami Herald.

They're among tens of thousands of Cubans who have escaped their island in recent years. Coming when it did, their escape underscored yet again the glaring perception gap regarding Cuba dividing ordinary Cubans and leftist elites in America and abroad. You have to wonder if Cuba's apologists have ever talked with ordinary Cubans, those living in Cuba or who escaped from their island prison to America.

Nearly every night, boat loads of fleeing Cubans cross the Florida Straits -- and even more Cubans now take a longer and safer route through Mexico. That's according to official statistics cited in a New York Times article.

Given Raúl Castro's inability to inspire confidence among his subjects back then -- when he was acting president -- it's perplexing that the Times recently described Raúl as a "practical" and "no-nonsense" guy who is less wedded to ideology than his brother Fidel. All because of his "decision to begin his tenure by meeting the Vatican's top diplomat, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, a possible go-between with the United States and Europe."

Cuba, however, has played this game before -- inviting Pope John II to Cuba for a historic visit in January, 1998. Back then, many liberals also interpreted this as being a sign of Fidel's good intentions, evidence that positive changes were coming to Cuba.

It never happened.

Within a few years, the government cracked down on peaceful pro-democracy initiatives -- most notably the Valera Project -- by tightening its grip on power and making mass arrests. Kangaroo courts sentenced 30 journalists up to 28 years in prison in April, 2003, provoking international outrage.

So much for the Vatican's influence on Raúl and Fidel.

Why does nobody take Raúl at his word? After the National Assembly voted him president -- unanimously, of course -- he pledged to make no radical changes. And he noted that he'd closely consult with his ailing big brother. Members of Cuba's privileged communist elite must have been happy to hear all that.

Visiting Havana

The media's problematic reporting on the Castro brothers brought to mind a week-long reporting trip I made to Havana in 1996, 12 years ago, in mid-December. While reading recent news reports about Raúl Castro's government -- including cautiously upbeat ones -- I was struck by how things in Cuba today are as bad as they were when I visited.

Then and now, salaries average about $19 a month, not enough to pay for basic goods such as soap, cooking oil, and medicine. Then and now, Cubans giving interviews to foreign reporters insist that only their first names be used, fearing they'll be punished for speaking their minds. Some won't talk at all, of course.

It has been like this for nearly half a century. Accordingly, if Raúl Castro is indeed a democratic reformer in disguise, he'll face a major challenge in repairing the psychological and social damage that he, his brother, and members of the communist elite have wrought in state that owns all property, most businesses, and punishes those who dare to exercise civil liberties we take for granted. Some Cubans have bravely protested or fled the island. Others play along with the charade and pay lip service to it.


Take religion, for example. When I asked a Havana school teacher how she'd be spending Christmas, she told me: "Why, there is no Christmas in Cuba!" Pointing to a little girl, she added, "She has never known a Christmas!"

It was one of many telling anecdotes I gleaned during my week-long trip to the hemisphere's last bastion of communism. Coming to power in 1959, Fidel Castro eradicated nasty bourgeois influences such as Christmas -- a holiday no longer fit to celebrate under his communist ideology.

I was a Caracas-based journalist when I went to Havana. On assignment for the Dallas Morning News, my subject was what Cubans thought about the historic visit to Cuba being planned for Pope John Paul II.

Traveling alone is no fun. I'd gotten an absurdly low-priced package trip to Havana that was for two people, not one. So I invited along a Venezuelan acquaintance named Fiffy. She had a gift for putting people at ease, and she occasionally helped me out with my not-so-perfect Spanish.

Like more than a few sophisticated and well-educated Venezuelans, Fiffy was not a huge fan of the United States, but nor was she a raving anti-American. Neither of us had ever visited visited Cuba. The place fascinated us.

It was during our first afternoon stroll in Havana that a cheerful teacher beckoned us inside to visit her classroom, having spotted us looking into the grade school's street-level windows. She introduced us to her charming and smiling class of uniformed students. They greeted us on command. I didn't tell the teacher I was a journalist.

"We're tourists," I said. It seemed like the safe thing to say.

Soon after arriving the previous afternoon, I ran into serious problems with customs at Havana's Jose Marti airport -- all because my well-worn U.S. passport raised eyebrows among Cuban officials. They claimed it was too shabby to be taken seriously. Having traveled for years in the back pocket of my Levis, it was a bit creased around the edges. A tiny corner of my photo was unglued.

"No señor, this is not acceptable!" a man wearing dark military-style fatigues told me. "I don't think they'll let you in."


He added, "You'll have to take another flight back to Caracas."

Alternatively, he explained, I could spend a week in a detention facility and then leave on my return flight. "Don't worry. It's not like a prison."

It was the second strange thing to happen that day. The first occurred late that morning when Fiffy and I boarded a Russian-built jet flown by Cubana, the state airline. Settling into my seat, I discovered a problem: The seatbelt was broken. So we called over the stewardess.

"Oh, some irresponsible passenger must have broken it!" she brusquely declared.

We settled into two nearby seat. Puzzled, Fiffy looked at me. "Did you hear that?" How can anybody break a seatbelt?"

I leaned toward Fiffy's ear. "She probably can't apologize like you would in the states -- say there was no time to fix it or something. It's better to blame somebody else if you want to keep your job."

Fiffy stared straight ahead, thinking. Aside from the seat-belt problem, the rest of the flight was pleasant. We arrived at mid-afternoon.

In the terminal, however, customs promptly singled me out because of the shabby looking passport -- which had not raised eyebrows two days earlier at the Cuban Embassy in Caracas, when I'd presented it to get my travel papers.

Fiffy and I spent hours pleading my case with various officials, all of whom were dressed in dark military-style fatigues. Picking through my luggage, one official pulled out my camera. He narrowed his eyes and stared at me: "Are you a journalist?"

I looked at him, and I lied. "No! I'm a teacher! We're here for the film festival," I said, referring to the annual Havana Film Festival that was about to start. Technically, journalists needed permission to visit Cuba to write stories. However, my editor had advised me to just go as a tourist.

Curiously, a Venezuelan passenger from our flight who'd forgotten his passport was cleared right through customs. Could they be looking for a bribe? Nobody had dropped any hints along those lines that I picked up on. The thought of ending up in a detention center made me think of Miami -- a 30-minute fight away. At the time, I was making a few trips a year to Miami. Going through customs, my spirits always soared when the officer said: "Welcome home!"

Ah yes, Miami. So near and yet so far.

I was in a bind. I had insufficient cash for a plane ticket back to Caracas, and none of my credit cards were any good in Cuba due to Washington's economic embargo. Hearing about the hapless American, a good-hearted ticket agent at a Venezuelan airline offered to fly me back to Caracas for free.

At about 6 p.m. I told Fiffy to go to our beech-front hotel in Old Havana. "If I don't make it back, just try and enjoy yourself for the week. I don't want our tickets to go to waste."

I sat in a plastic chair in the empty airport terminal. Most of the customs officials had gone. The hours passed by, and I was exhausted. Toward midnight, a serious mustachioed man came up to me.

"Come with me!"

His fatigues were different and had Soviet-style epaulets. We went outside, and he opened the rear door of a Russian-built Lada. He sped off into the pitch-black night. I wondered where we were going.

Suddenly, a startling sight materialized in the headlights: Dozens of shabbily dressed bicyclists were right in front of us -- about to get run over. Awkwardly, they veered off wildly in every direction, missing the car by inches. The driver angrily blasted his horn, but never slowed down.

Inside a small office building, he pointed to some chairs in a waiting room, and he walked off. At a nearby desk was a young and pleasant blond-haired man in military fatigues. I sat in a big comfortable chair and quickly dozed off.

I felt a hand on my shoulder, and a soft voice. The blond-haired man took me to a nearby office. There, I pleaded my case again to a man behind a desk with a severe expression.


"Why are you carrying so little cash? Most tourists bring more."

"We've got a package," I said. He bawled me out, then returned my passport.

"OK, you can go. Enjoy the film festival."

Ah yes, the Havana Film Festival. It's a very big deal, a magnet for filmmakers such as John Sayles. Later that week, I spotted him at one of Havana's premier hotels -- the lovely colonial-style Hotel Nacional de Cuba. Sayles was showing his newest release, "Lone Star," an entertaining piece of social criticism touching on American and Mexican identity in Texas. Hip American filmmakers make annual pilgrimages to the Havana Film Festival -- though never with any films criticizing Cuba with the same venom they turn on America.

Back at the airport, I settled into a taxi. It was 2:30 a.m. The driver grinned and shook his head.

"So, you're the American with the ugly passport! All the taxi drivers waiting outside the terminal were talking about it."

Thirty minutes later, I checked into our seaside hotel in Old Havana. It was situated across the street from the famous Malecón, Cuba's lovely and famous seawall and broad sidewalk. Perfect for strolling and hanging out, it's popular among amorous couples and tourists, not to mention hustlers and prostitutes.

I turned the key, and the hotel door opened with a noisy jolt. Startled, Fiffy bolted up from under the covers. She seemed relieved to see me. But she was more concerned about an awkward problem. There was only a single bed -- not the two I had promised when I'd invited her on the trip. So, gallantly, I grabbed some blankets and slept on the floor. I slept badly. Not because of the hard floor but because of the airport trauma.

Old Havana

We both woke up around 8 a.m. I opened a window: It was a beautiful day. So I suggested we skip the hotel's breakfast and find a sidewalk cafe. Tired and giddy, I needed a few strong jolts of espresso, just like what I regularly had in Caracas. There, you had small cafes and pastry shops on just about every corner in rich and poor areas alike.

Bounding out the hotel door, we turned the corner onto a narrow street of Old Havana. We stopped and starred at a stunning sight: a city frozen in time. Presumably, nobody had painted or restored any buildings for 50 years. It had a beautiful shabby sort of splendor. It felt a little creepy, too. It was 9 a.m. yet not a car nor a pedestrian was in sight.

We felt like explorers as we walked tentatively down the middle of street. Where were the sidewalk cafes and pastry shops? I was getting a headache.

People obviously lived in these buildings. Everything looked neat and clear. But for block after block it was like a ghost town. There was no commercial activity. Only occasionally did a person emerge from or enter one of the shabby buildings. Finally, we came across a rickety wooden vending stand operated by a middle-aged woman with a light complexion. She had hardly anything to sell.

"Who own this stand?" I asked.

"The state," she said, an ironic smile on her lips.

She was friendly but seemed reluctant to say more. The best place for us to get some coffee and a pastry, she said, was back at the hotel. I suddenly realized my stupid mistake: We were in an area where Cubans lived, and they obviously had better ways to spend their $19-a-month than at a sidewalk cafe.

It's one thing to read about Cuba's communism -- the state ownership of property and most businesses. But to get a visceral feeling for such folly, you must meet a woman who works at a small state-owned vending stand.

"Hey, do you want to buy cigars?" a young man inquired as we headed to the hotel. I have Cohiba. Just one dollar."

Humm, I thought. Just what Fidel smokes. "OK, I said."

He told us to wait, and he'd go get one. But we walked off, anxious to keep moving. Ten minutes later, he ran up to us, out of breath. I can't imagine how he tracked us down. You couldn't have asked for better service.

Everywhere we went, we had such offers from cigar-selling entrepreneurs, including from people who said they had college degrees. It was part of Cuba's vibrant underground economy -- a way to earn the American greenbacks you need to buy things in well-stocked "dollar stores." Cubans working in cigar factories got a certain number of free cigars, and they sold them to buy hard currency.

In downtown Havana, tourists love to takes photos of a huge sign that for years has adored a building: "Socialism or Death." Yet a taxi driver in his late 40s told us: "There is capitalism for the tourists and foreign companies, and there is socialism for everybody else." By transporting tourists in his creaky 1957 Ford, the former mechanic said he earned more money in one afternoon than most Cubans, including doctors, made in one month.

Over the previous few years, Cuba's state had become more tolerant of religious freedom. So three years earlier, the taxi driver said he'd bought a Christmas tree. He hadn't been to church since he was a boy, he said, but might go next Christmas. "It's been many years, and the old traditions have been lost."

One day, we met a young Cuban man in his late 20s, Felix, who took us on a tour of Havana's medical facilities -- nice spotless ones for tourists, shabby crowded ones for ordinary Cubans. We gave him a few dollars. Although trained as a veterinarian, he said he earned more guiding tourist than he could working for the state.

"I'm proud to be Cuban. I love my country. But I'd like to go to Miami," a 29-year-old Cuban medical student told us. He would never dare to say that at the clinic where we met him. He was speaking freely at a privately owned restaurant where we'd invited him; such establishments were being allowed under a modest economic opening. The food was delicious. But the portly woman who owned the place was reluctant to talk about her business.

"If I tell you how much I make, the government will find a way to take it away from me," she said.

As we bid goodbye to the medical student, he handed us a letter. It had no return address and was addressed to a person in Miami. "Would you mail this when you get out of Cuba?" he said, and we gladly accepted it. The student, a Catholic, said he was deeply suspicious of Fidel Castro's motives for inviting the pope "after all these years of intolerance and war against the church."

"You can quote me but don't use my name."

Every day we talked with dozens of Cubans. Nearly all were friendly and eager to talk to outsiders, including an American like myself. Elsewhere in the Caribbean and Latin America, it's easy to find anti-American crackpots. Among ordinary Cubans, we never found one.

Cubans enjoy talking with tourists, so long as somebody in a uniform is not standing nearby. In a state with no free press, tourists are a valuable source of information, along with broadcasts from Miami radio stations.

One morning, we struck up a conversation with a charming young couple, a husband and wife in their early 20s. They showed us around, took us to their modest apartment, and gave us some of their precious tea. They never asked directly for money. But we ended up giving them a good chunk of a month's salary from his state employer: $5.

Walking past a state-owned fruit stand with the couple, I noted it contained only a few piles of oranges. So much for the state-run distribution system. Intrigued, I snapped a photo. The store's proprietor immediately ran outside.

"Who are you?" he angrily demanded. "Do you have a permit to take pictures!"

"They're just tourists. Leave them alone," the husband, Angel, then 28, said. We walked off as he glared at us from the middle of the street.

"Communist!" Angel muttered.

One day Angel showed up at our hotel to pick up some things we were giving him. His wife told us we'd have to go outside to meet him, because the hotel would not allow him inside. "It's because he's black. He looks too Cuban," she said.

For all of Havana's charm, you could never forget that this was a police state. Sometimes, people would clam up as soon as we asked a question, especially if somebody in a uniform was nearby. During an interview one day at small cafe in a tourism-oriented area, the proprietor became irked when it became obvious we were interviewing somebody, and talking politics. Immediately, he turned the music up full blast.

Another day, an amicable taxi driver gave us a tour of some nearby resorts outside Havana. Pointing out a group of young men picking up debris in a park, he said in an utterly neutral tone, without hinting at his personal feelings, "Those guys are from a mental hospital, but they aren't crazy." We knew what he was getting at.

At the time of our visit, a crack-down was being undertaken on prostitution, which had become so rampant that it was embarrassing the government: Cuba was earning a reputation a a hot sex tourism spot. Yet here and there, you still saw young prostitutes out at night.

"That poor thing is shivering," Fiffy said, as we walked past a leggy shapely woman in her early 30s in tight-fitting white shorts and a white blouse -- hardly enough clothing for the chill in the air. She was quite attractive, except for the goose bumps.

Later we passed two couples strolling arm-in-arm. The men were middle-aged -- Canadians I guessed. Their dates were absolutely stunning dark-haired woman in their late teens or early 20s. Fiffy immediately picked up on the incongruous pairings.

"They were beautiful!" she said, a bit shocked.

The irony of Cuba's prostitution problem is that Fidel Castro upon coming to power blamed America for turning his country into the Caribbean's whore house. However, no such outrage has ever been expressed when socialists were running things.

What's to account for the failure of Cuba's noble experiment? In America and abroad, leftist elites invariably blame Cuba's poverty on Washington's 46-year-economic embargo. But ordinary Cubans don't buy it. Not a single person with whom we spoke ever mentioned the embargo as being a source of their troubles; they blamed their government.

Reasonable people, of course, can debate the merits of the economic embargo. But no debate is acceptable when it comes to Cuba's rights abuses. Accordingly, some leftist elites simply ignore the abuses. In the Caribbean in particular, left-leaning political leaders and intellectuals have a tradition of this, as I noted in an Op-Ed http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/932425/posts

I wrote in June, 2003 for the Miami Herald: 2003: "Caribbean Leaders Ignore Cuba's Abuses."

Consider the hypocrisy displayed at a UNESCO-sponsored press-freedom conference I attended in Kingston, Jamaica in April, 2003. Months earlier, Cuba was rounding up and imprisoning journalists. Yet Jamaica's prime minister at the time, P.J. Patterson -- then head of the Caribbean Community trade block -- failed to join other speakers in condemning Cuba's crackdown. For the left-leaning Patterson, it was par for the course.

No wonder Cubans fleeing their island seldom head to other Caribbean islands. They go to America. If Cuba's history is anything to go by, expect more of the same under Raúl Castro.

David Paulin, a journalist, reported for a number years from Venezuela and the Caribbean. He blogs at The Big Carnival.

Entrevista de Médici para a Revista Veja

Entrevista de Médici para a Revista Veja
Entrevista dada no dia 16/05/1984

VEJA - Por que o senhor resolveu falar?

MEDICI - Pus para fora os sapos que engoli nestes dez anos. Mas, depois de observar a repercussão da minha conversa de 20 minutos com os jornalistas, em Porto Alegre, achei que falei demais. Falei o que não devia.

VEJA -A entrevista de Porto Alegre foi concedida depois de uma demorada conversa com o deputado Paulo Maluf. 0 senhor apóia sua candidatura à Presidência da República?

MEDICI - Eu nunca disse que apóio o Maluf. 0 máximo que disse é que o apoiarei se não aparecer outro melhor.

VEJA - Depois da derrota da emenda Dante de Oliveira, como o senhor vê a situação política brasileira?

MEDICI - Continuo a ver tudo escuro. 0 governo apresentou a sua emenda, mas não deve haver entendimento com a oposição porque os oposicionistas são intransigentes.

VEJA - De que modo o senhor sente sua imagem junto ao povo brasileiro, dez anos depois de deixar o governo?

MEDICI - Sempre que me reconhecem, nas ruas, sou cumprimentado. Geralmente são mulheres que me reconhecem e cumprimentam. Apenas uma vez, no Rio de Janeiro, uma senhora me reconheceu e criticou meu governo. Tentei dizer-lhe que estava equivocada, que estava indo na conversa da propaganda esquerdista, mas ela não quis discutir. Aí, desisti e fui embora.

VEJA - Essa propaganda esquerdista o incomoda?

MEDICI - 0 problema é que a propaganda é feita em defesa dos terroristas que queriam arrasar o país. Aquilo foi uma guerra... Lutamos contra o terrorismo nas ruas, no país inteiro, até na Amazônia. Enfrentamos seqüestros, assaltos, assassinatos, todo tipo de crime. Aquilo não podia continuar.

VEJA - Por isso o senhor adotou a censura à imprensa?

MEDICI - Foi uma contingência. Aquela guerrilha de Xambioá acabou antes que a população tomasse conhecimento de sua existência. Era preciso esconder as operações contra os guerrilheiros para que elas tivessem sucesso.
12/8/07
Eduardo
VEJA - Em que momento o senhor decidiu enfrentar rigorosamente o terrorismo de esquerda?

MEDICI - Uma vez seqüestraram mais um avião. 0 miistro da Aeronáutica, Márcío de Souza e Mello, me procurou e disse: "Isso não pode continuar". Perguntei-lhe: "Podemos pagar pra ver?" Ele respondeu: "Podemos". Resolvi: "Vamos pagar pra ver". Dei a ordem porque não podíamos ficar sem uma reação. Aí, jogamos uma espuma sobre o avião, invadimos o aparelho e prendemos os seqüestradores. Cinco meses depois, quando seqüestraram o embaixador suíço, chamei o ministro da Justiça, Alfredo Buzaid, e disse-lhe: "Na próxima vez, o caso será entregue ao Departamento de Polícia Federal, porque o caso é de polícia". Resolvi que não negociaríamos mais e nenhum outro seqüestro ocorreu depois disso.

VEJA - Os militares, porém, continuaram envolvidos nas operações antiterrorismo. Por quê?

MEDICI - Uma vez, os ministros militares quiseram usar as Forças Armadas para combater o terrorismo, mas eu não deixei: "Isso não é trabalho para vocês. É trabalho para a polícia", avisei. Mas houve um tiroteio num aparelho e um major morreu ao socorrer um sargento que foi ferido. Então, tive uma conversa com o ministro do Exército, general Orlando Geisel, e ponderei: "Só os nossos estão morrendo". Ele respondeu: "Nós não podemos matar, precisamos não desfazer a cadeia". Perguntei: "Mas só os nossos morrem? Quando invadirem um aparelho, terão de invadir metralhando. Estamos numa guerra e não podemos sacrificar os nossos". Ainda hoje, não há dúvida de que era uma guerra, depois da qual foi possível devolver a paz ao Brasil. Eu acabei com o terrorismo neste país. Se não aceitássemos a guerra, se não agíssemos drasticamente, até hoje teríamos o terrorismo.
12/8/07
Eduardo
VEJA - 0 senhor se sente injustiçado quando comentam sua participação nessa etapa histórica?

Medici - Fiz um governo que enfrentou até greve de mílitares, além de enfrentar a guerrilha. Eu tinha o AI-5, podia tudo. Mas não cassei ninguém. Nunca fechei o Congresso. Pelo contrário, exigi que o Congresso fosse reaberto para votar a indicação do meu nome para a Presidência da República. Tendo o AI-5, fiz o governo mais democrático da Revolução.

VEJA - Nada disso pareceu abalar seu controle sobre a área militar. Num discurso no final do governo, o senhor observou que o atravessara sem prontidão nos quartéis.

MEDICI - E não houve perturbação nem na área política. Sem nenhuma cassação ou casuísmo, vencemos muito bem as eleições parlamentares de 1970. A surra que demos no MDB foi tão grande que nossos adversários, naquela época, falavam até em autodissolução do partido!

VEJA - A tese da autodissolução não foi apresentada como uma forma de protesto do MDB contra o seu governo?

MEDICI - Eu nunca tive problema com os dois governadores da oposição - Negrão de Lima, na antiga Guanabara, e Israel Pinheiro, em Minas Gerais -, que ocupavam dois Estados importantes. 0 Negrão chegou a me procurar, nas eleições de 1970, para propor uma fórmula que garantiria a reeleição de um senador arenista, Gilberto Marinho, pelo seu Estado. Eram três vagas e o MDB lançaria apenas dois nomes, enquanto a Arena indicaria apenas o Gilberto. Os três seriam eleitos. Mas a Arena não aceitou, achando que poderia eleger mais de um senador. 0 Negrão me procurou outra vez e sugeriu outra fórmula: o MDB lançaria três nomes e a Arena indicaria o Gilberto e o Mendes de Morais. A Arena, porém, insistia em lançar três nomes porque achava que poderia vencer com todos. Aí, perdemos o Gilberto.
12/8/07
Eduardo
VEJA - Nesse caso, prevaleceu a decisão da Arena. Na administração do país, era o senhor quem impunha suas idéias?

MEDICI - As decisões do meu governo sempre foram minhas. A própria reunião das 9 horas da manhã no Palácio era apenas para despachos, restrita aos chefes do SNI, general Carlos Alberto Fontoura, do Gabinete Militar, general João Baptista Figueiredo, e do Gabinete Civil, professor Leitão de Abreu. Raramente outros ministros eram convocados para a reunião. Os ministros tinham poderes para escolher os auxiliares que quisessem, mas eram proibidos de decidir o que eu não quisesse. Aliás, até a indicação para presidente da República eu recusei, em 1969, exatamente porque não queria ser presidente se não pudesse decidir. Depois foram atrás de mim e me pediram para reconsiderar.

VEJA - Quem foi atrás do senhor?

MEDICI - Quando a Junta Militar me chamou ao Rio de Janeiro para comunicar minha escolha para presidente, em setembro de 1969, encontrei-me com os três ministros militares, os três chefes de Estado-Maior e o ministrochefe do EMFA. Eram sete. Quando me convidaram, apontei o dedo para cada um deles e fui perguntando, um por um, se aceitariam qualquer missão que eu lhes desse. Todos disseram que aceitavam. Aí, também aceitei a Presidência. Logo depois o Lyra perguntou: "Medici, você já pensou no seu vice?" Respondi:- "Já". 0 Lyra, então, fez outra pergunta: "Seria indiscrição saber quem é?" Respondi:" É o Rademaker". Disse o Lyra: "Ali,não pode... Não pode porque nós fizemos um acordo para ninguém aceitar nada". Quando ele acabou de falar eu levantei, peguei o meu quepe e me despedi: "0 problema é de vocês. Vou-me embora para mostrar como vocês escolheram errado. Eu havia perguntado a cada um se aceitavam qualquer missão que eu lhes desse. Vocês disseram que aceitavam. Mas, na primeira missão que eu dei, vocês recusaram". E saí. Fui-me embora do Rio para Porto Alegre.
12/8/07
Eduardo
VEJA - Como foi a volta?

MEDICI - Dois ou três dias depois, recebi em Porto Alegre uma mensagem, pelo rádio, perguntando se podia receber um emissário do Rademaker. Respondi que podia. Pouco mais tarde, fui procurado por um capitão-de-mar-e-guerra com uma carta do Rademaker em que ele aceitava a vice-presidência. Se eu não fizesse aquilo, eu não nomearia nem o meu ajudante-de-ordens. Nomeei todos os ministros. E respeitei um velho hábito meu: não deixar de nomear alguém por não ser meu amigo, nem nomear alguém por ser meu amigo.

VEJA - Nem a realização das grandes obras como a Transamazôníca e a ponte Rio-Niterói, que o senhor anunciou em cadeias nacionais de rádio e TV foi decidida pelo governo em conjunto?

MEDICI - Para a Transamazônica, já havia um projeto com o ministro dos Transportes, Mário Andreazza. Decidi construir a rodovia quando fiz uma viagem ao Nordeste: fi-
quei impressionado com o sofrimento, a miséria tremenda que eu nunca tinha visto. Fiz
aquele discurso, sobre o Nordeste, de próprio punho.

VEJA - Uma obra tão cara e difícil não deveria ser precedida de estudos mais
amplos?

MEDICI - Na volta da viagem ao Nordeste, no avião, perguntei: "E aquela estrada, Andreazza?" Ele respondeu: "Está aqui o plano, presidente". Perguntei: "Qual é o preço do quilômetro?" Andreazza respondeu: "1 milhão de cruzeiros". "Tem dinheiro?" Respondeu: "Não". Voltei-me para o Delfim Netto, ministro da Fazenda, e perguntei: "Delfim, não tem dinheiro para isso?" Delfim respondeu: "Só se tirarmos dos incentivos". Então botei a mão nos incentivos para construir a Transamazônica.
12/8/07
Eduardo
VEJA - Esse desvio de recursos dos incentivos fiscais para a Transamazônica não prejudicou os outros programas para a região?

MEDICI - Não. Tirei apenas 30% dos incentivos. Além disso, as empreiteiras começaram a trabalhar em outubro sabendo que só receberiam dinheiro em março do ano seguinte. Só gastei o dinheiro que já tinha. Usei o dinheiro apenas na época em que ele estaria disponível. Nada foi feito sem recursos certos.

VEJA - E como surgiu a decisão de concluir a ponte Rio-Niterói?

MEDICI - Foi outra decisão pessoal. A obra se arrastava. As construtoras estavam em insolvência. Chamei o Andreazza e lhe disse: "Vamos desapropriar a obra, formar uma empresa e terminá-la". Ele me perguntou: "Temos dinheiro?" Respondi: "Eu posso. Eu tenho o AI-5 na mão e, com ele, posso tudo. Se eu não posso, ninguém mais pode". Se não tomássemos a obra da ponte, a questão da insolvência das antigas empreiteiras iria para a Justiça. Então, quando seria resolvida? Nunca. 0 caso estaria na Justiça até hoje e não haveria ponte. Agora, a ponte está aí, praticamente paga, e colaborou na fusão dos antigos Estados da Guanabara e Rio de Janeiro.
12/8/07
Eduardo
VEJA - Foi mais cômodo tocar esses grandes projetos com o AI-5 à sua disposição?

MEDICI -Sim, mas também havia a determinação de fazer as coisas rigorosamente dentro do planejamento, sem improvisações ou desvios. Se eu combinava com o Delfim que teríamos treze desvalorizações do cruzeiro em doze meses, tínhamos treze desvalorizações do cruzeiro em doze meses. Eram minidesvalorizações até chegar ao total anual de 13%, conforme eu decidira um ano antes. No meu governo os projetos eram rigorosamente alcançados, e concluídos sem deixar ônus para o futuro.

VEJA - A seu favor, o senhor tinha um quadro econômico mais favorável, a inflação menor. Isso não ajudou?

MEDICI -Eu dava aumentos aos funcionários públicos acima da inflação. A inflação era de 20% e eu dava aumento de 30%. Depois é que a inflação subiu. Hoje em dia já se atribuiu a inflação até aos barbeiros...

VEJA - Não foi no seu governo que a nossa dívida externa começou a dar saltos?

MEDICI - Naquela época o crédito era fácil para o país lá fora. Os credores nos procuravam para oferecer dinheiro em excelentes condições. No final de 1969, a dívida era de 4,4 bilhões de dólares, contra 12,5 bilhões de dólares no fim de 1973. No entanto, no mesmo período, a nossa reserva em divisas cresceu dez vezes, passando de 656 milhões de dólares para 6,4 bilhões de dólares. Então, para cada 2 dólares que devíamos, tínhamos 1 na reserva, no final do meu governo. Hoje as reservas simplesmente desapareceram e a dívida chegou aos 100 bilhões de dólares. Além disso, no final de 1973, as exportações fecharam em 6,2 bilhões de dólares, o que equivalia exatamente à parte da dívida externa para a qual não tínhamos cobertura nas nossas reservas cambiais. Foi a mais baixa relação, nos últimos trinta anos, entre a dívida externa e as exportações.
12/8/07
Eduardo
Fonte: http://vejaonline.abril.com.br/notitia/servlet/newstorm.ns.presentation.NavigationServlet?publicationCode=1&pageCode=1267&textCode=93995

Ainda nesta edição tem uma entrevista com o Golbery.
Bem interessante a entrevista, mostra a opinião de dois generais que estiveram envolvidos com a politica nacional, onde mostram suas visões para o futuro.
Vale lembrar que Paulo Maluf não tinha apoio de boa parte dos militares, e que Tancredo tinha um certo "aval" destes.

O Budismo não é lá essas coisas

Prezados amigos, recebi a resposta abaixo sobre o texto de A. L. De Silva
que divulguei e respondo ao James DeMeo, um estudioso das influências
ambientais no comportamento humano, reenviando os comentários a todos vcs.

Oh my dear James, it was not a too long reply. Indeed, an excellent one.
Armored Buddhists are as bad as Christians or Muslim armored ones!!!
Even celibacy can be a good or a bad thing since the celibatic one is an
armored beeing or an open minded and hearted one. Your reply is excellent to
help people to realise the differences existing between what the Buddha
taught and what the "owners" of Buddhism are in fact practicing.
----- Original Message -----
From: "James DeMeo"
To: "Lino Guedes Pires M.D."
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2000 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Homosexuality and Theravada Buddhism


>My dear James, this text is not a pronouncement against anything. Please,
>read it more carefully and you will understand. Also, women have not been
>buried alive in Buddhist areas since Buddhism teachs people not to kill.
>Such things happened in the Hindu areas, what is a different thing.
>With love
>Lino
>-----

Dear Lino,

The article seemed to reveal part of the sexual problem underlying
Buddhism, namely the biological consequences of the demand for celibacy.

Yes, you are partly correct about Buddhist teachings, but one could
similarly say the ideas of Jesus were of peace and love and not killing,
etc. Buddha was the same himself, as was Ghandi and other peacemakers of
the world. I don't argue against the original ideas so much as what crazy
human beings have done with those teachings afterward. Buddhist philosophy
mixed with Confucianism in China, and with Hinduism in India, and became
part of a monstrous ideology which justified much brutality. Women are
still considered "unworthy" and lower than men in every major branch of
Buddhistic influence, which underlies the call for chastity for Buddhist
monks and priests (very similar to Christianity, and even Judiasm has
similar philosophical aspects). In Mongolia and to a lesser extent in
Tibet, prior to the Communists, about a third of the entire male
populations were celibate monks who were waited on, hand and foot, by the
rest of society -- except for the soldiers who in alliance with the priests
were the "enforcers". Homosexuality flourished in those male-only monastic
societies, as it does/did in Catholic seminaries. A third of the
populations in those same areas were peasant farmers who owned not even the
tools they used to work the land they also did not own. They were
basically slaves and serfs to the Buddhist monks and soldiers, who owned
everything and did little work themselves. We have probably both seen the
documentaries where devotees to the Buddhist monks prostrate themselves on
the ground, lowering their heads, etc., in a manner similar to what was
done in obedience to any King or Emperor.

This was the situation which bred at least some support for the communist
movement in Asia -- not that they proved to be any better! Today, nearly
all of China is a prison, and dissenters against the central authority in
Beijing are dealt with very harshly! But I would argue, that the
Buddhistic philosophy shares some of the blame for this, as outlined in
Saharasia. It never directly challenged the prevailing anti-sexual
patriarchal ethos which underlies the "Mass Psychology of Fascism", but
instead absorbed much of that same ethos into its own doctrines. So,
today, women remain second-class, lower persons than the men, espeically
the male Buddhist priesthood, who remain in charge. As a social movement,
the Buddhistic reformers failed miserably and it is today run by
power-elites. I've some personal experiences here, with Buddhistic
followers in Europe I met who became interested in orgonomy, and so Reich
became a growing influence in their thinking. This prompted "much concern"
by others in their communities.
I've seen Buddhists throw families out of their communities onto the
street, penniless in the middle of winter, when someone would challenge the
authority of the monks (in this partricular case, a man argued that workers
in that particular Buddhistic community should be paid a reasonable wage
for their work and labor, which was bringing in enormous amounts of money
to the Temple). In another case from Europe, which I know about directly,
the head Lama had some kind of sexual dominance of both men and women in
his small fiefdom. When one of the men broke from this bedroom hierarchy,
marrying a woman and having a child without approvals from the head Lama,
he was expelled -- again, penniless, after perhaps 15 years of hard work
for the "Buddhistic community". These are only two examples I know about
personally, so you can do the mathematics and estimate how frequently this
might be occurring around the world. Of course, the influence of Reich was
at work in both cases.

I write these sentences as the majority of people in the USA today are
celebrating the Murder of Christ (not his life, but rather his death on the
cross). The top political candidate of the Republican Party (Bush) has
openly called Jesus his "role model", and he says "before undertaking any
important law, I ask myself 'What Would Jesus Do?' " This hypocrite Bush
has a record number of executions during his governorship of Texas, so one
naturally wonders if Bush believes Jesus would approve of executing
criminals. This kind of hypocrisy also permeates the fascistic Buddhistic
regions of south Asia, such as Burma and Thailand, the former of which is a
brutal fascist state, and the latter of which has enslaved around 10% of
its female population as prostitutes for Western and Japanese businessmen.
Certainly, Hinduism shares some of the blame in those same regions, but
only some. I try to look beyond the basic claims of any religion about its
lofty goals (even Islam has lofty goals), and see how those philosophies
are carried out "on the ground". In this sense, Buddhism has also failed.

There's a German woman named June Campbell--- who was the "secret lover" of
a high Tibetan lama (he officially lived in celibacy, but enforced her
obedience and silence by threats). She got tired of constantly being
squashed and lied about, and finally went public with a book "Traveller in
Space: In search of Female Identity in Tibetan Buddhism". Most of the
world's Western-oriented Buddhistic groups have reacted to her book with
acid and hate, and even death threats. A similar scandal errupted here,
regarding an American Buddhist leader. Think about it, Lino, a priesthood
of men who claim divine enlightment beyond that attainable by ordinary
people -- or rather, as attainable by ordinary men, as women cannot attain
such enlightment. Isn't this the exact same problem we see everywhere else
in armored patristic society?

I wish it were otherwise, as Buddhism has many good things to speak for it.
If only the leaders of Buddhism would stop acting like small gods. Oiy,
this is too long of a reply to your short note!

Best wishes,

James

this is the original text I spread all over!

Dear friends, by change I found this text and I found it so good, so
enlightening that I am sending it to the ones I listed under "Lightworkers",
"Karma", "Environment", "South Africa", "Saúde Alternativa" and "Jornais".
Lino
Lino Guedes Pires MD
linpires@...
Wilhelm Reich body therapies - acupuncture
Rua Gal San Martin, 1212 - Leblon, Rio de Janeiro RJ
Brazil
Tel 55 031 21 294 8044 home 539 1668 mobile 9995 9422

Homosexuality and Theravada Buddhism
A. L. De Silva


Buddhism teaches to, and expects from, its followers a certain level of
ethical behaviour. The minimum that is required of the lay Buddhist is
embodied in what is called the Five Precepts (panca sila), the third of
which relates to sexual behaviour. Whether or not homosexuality, sexual
behaviour between people of the same sex, would be breaking the third
Precept is what I would like to examine here.

Homosexuality was known in ancient India; it is explicitly mentioned in the
Vinaya (monastic discipline) and prohibited. It is not singled out for
special condemnation, but rather simply mentioned along with a wide range of
other sexual behaviour as contravening the rule that requires monks and nuns
to be celibate. Sexual behaviour, whether with a member of the same or the
opposite sex, where the sexual organ enters any of the bodily orifices
(vagina, mouth or anus), is punishable by expulsion from the monastic order.
Other sexual behaviour like mutual masturbation or interfemural sex, while
considered a serious offense, does not entail expulsion but must be
confessed before the monastic community.

A type of person called a pandaka is occasionally mentioned in the Vinaya in
contexts that make it clear that such a person is some kind of sexual
non-conformist. The Vinaya also stipulates that pandakas are not allowed to
be ordained, and if, inadvertently, one has been, he is expelled. According
to commentary, this is because pandakas are "full of passions, unquenchable
lust and are dominated by the desire for sex." The word pandaka has been
translated as either hermaphrodite or eunuch, while Zwilling has recently
suggested that it may simply mean a homosexual. It is more probable that
ancient Indians, like most modern Asians, considered only the extremely
effeminate, exhibitionist homosexual (the screaming queen in popular
perception) to be deviant while the less obvious homosexual was simply
considered a little more opportunistic or a little less fussy than other
'normal' males. As the Buddha seems to have had a profound understanding of
human nature and have been remarkably free from prejudice, and as there is
not evidence that homosexuals are any more libidinous or that they have any
more difficulties in maintaining celibacy than heterosexuals, it seems
unlikely that the Buddha would exclude homosexuals per se from the monastic
life. The term pandaka therefore probably does not refer to homosexuals in
general but rather to the effeminate, self-advertising and promiscuous
homosexual.

The lay Buddhist is not required to be celibate, but she or he is advised to
avoid certain types of sexual behaviour. The third Precept actually says:
'Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami.' The word kama refers to
any form of sensual pleasure but with an emphasis on sexual pleasure and a
literal translation of the precept would be "I take the rule of training
(veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami) not to go the wrong way (micchacara) for
sexual pleasure (kamesu)". What constitutes "wrong" will not be clear until
we examine the criteria that Buddhism uses to make ethical judgments.

No one of the Buddha's discourses is devoted to systematic philosophical
inquiry into ethics such as one finds in the works of the Greek
philosophers. But it is possible to construct a criterion of right and wrong
out of material scattered in different places throughout the Pali Tipitaka,
the scriptural basis of Theravada Buddhism. The Buddha questioned many of
the assumptions existing in his society, including moral ones, and tried to
develop an ethics based upon reason and compassion rather than tradition,
superstitions and taboo. Indeed, in the famous Kalama Sutta he says that
revelation (anussana), tradition (parampara), the authority of the
scriptures (pitakasampada) and one's own point of view
(ditthinijjhanakkhanti) are inadequate means of determining right and wrong.

Having questioned the conventional basis of morality, the Buddha suggests
three criteria for making moral judgments. The first is what might be called
the universalisability principle - to act towards others the way we would
like them to act towards us. In the Samyutta Nikaya he uses this principle
to advise against adultery. He says: "What sort of Dhamma practice leads to
great good for oneself?... A noble disciple should reflect like this: 'If
someone were to have sexual intercourse with my spouse I would not like it.
Likewise, if I were to have sexual intercourse with another's spouse they
would not like that. For what is unpleasant to me must be unpleasant to
another, and how could I burden someone with that?' As a result of such
reflection one abstains from wrong sexual desire, encourages others to
abstain from it, and speaks in praise of such abstinence."

In the Bahitika Sutta, Ananda is asked how to distinguish between
praiseworthy and blameworthy behaviour. He answers that any behaviour which
causes harm to oneself and others could be called blameworthy while any
behaviour that causes no harm (and presumably which helps) oneself and
others could be called praiseworthy. The suggestion is, therefore, that in
determining right and wrong one has to look into the actual and possible
consequences of the action in relation to the agent and those affected by
the action. The Buddha makes this same point in the Dhammapada: "The deed
which causes remorse afterwards and results in weeping and tears is
ill-done. The deed which causes no remorse afterwards and results in joy and
happiness is well-done." This is what might be called the consequential
principle, that behaviour can be considered good or bad according to the
consequences or effects it has.

The third way of determining right and wrong is what might be called the
instrumental principle, that is, that behaviour can be considered right or
wrong according to whether or not it helps us to attain our goal. The
ultimate goal of Buddhism is Nirvana, a state of mental peace and purity and
anything that leads one in that direction is good. Someone once asked the
Buddha how after his death it would be possible to know what was and was not
his authentic teaching and he replied: "The doctrines of which you can say:
'These doctrines lead to letting go, giving up, stilling, calming, higher
knowledge, awakening and to Nirvana' - you can be certain that they are
Dhamma, they are discipline, they are the words of the Teacher."

This utilitarian attitude to ethics is highlighted by the fact that the
Buddha uses the term kusala to mean 'skillful' or 'appropriate' or its
opposite, akusala, when evaluating behaviour far more frequently than he
uses the terms punna, 'good', or papa, 'bad'. The other thing that is
important in evaluating behaviour is intention (cetacean). If a deed is
motivated by good (based upon generosity, love and understanding) intentions
it can be considered skillful. Evaluating ethical behaviour in Buddhism
requires more than obediently following commandments, it requires that we
develop a sympathy with others, that we be aware of our thoughts, speech and
actions, and that we be clear about our goals and aspirations.

Having briefly examined the rational foundations of Buddhist ethics we are
now in a better position to understand what sort of sexual behaviour
Buddhism would consider to be wrong or unskillful and why. The Buddha
specifically mentions several types of unskillful sexual behaviour, the most
common of which is adultery. This is unskillful because it requires
subterfuge and deceit, it means that solemn promises made at the time of
marriage are broken, and it amounts to a betrayal of trust. In another
passage, the Buddha says that someone practicing the third Precept "avoids
intercourse with girls still under the ward of their parents, brothers,
sisters or relatives, with married women, with female prisoners or with
those already engaged to another." Girls still under the protection of
others are presumably too young to make a responsible decision about sex,
prisoners are not in a position to make a free choice, while an engaged
woman has already made a commitment to another. Although only females are
mentioned here no doubt the same would apply to males in the same position.

As homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's
discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society's English
translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the
same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is
not specifically mentioned. In the case of the lay man and woman where there
is mutual consent, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual act
is an expression of love, respect, loyalty and warmth, it would not be
breaking the third Precept. And it is the same when the two people are of
the same gender. Likewise promiscuity, license and the disregard for the
feelings of others would make a sexual act unskillful whether it be
heterosexual or homosexual. All the principles we would use to evaluate a
heterosexual relationship we would also use to evaluate a homosexual one. In
Buddhism we could say that it is not the object of one's sexual desire that
determines whether a sexual act is unskillful or not, but rather the quality
of the emotions and intentions involved.

However, the Buddha sometimes advised against certain behaviour not because
it is wrong from the point of view of ethics but because it would put one at
odds with social norms or because its is subject to legal sanctions. In
these cases, the Buddha says that refraining from such behaviour will free
one from the anxiety and embarrassment caused by social disapproval or the
fear of punitive action. Homosexuality would certainly come under this type
of behaviour. In this case, the homosexual has to decide whether she or he
is going to acquiesce to what society expects or to try to change public
attitudes. In Western societies where attitudes towards sex in general have
been strongly influenced by the tribal taboos of the Old Testament and, in
the New Testament, by the ideas of highly neurotic people like St. Paul,
there is a strong case for changing public attitudes.

We will now briefly examine the various objections to homosexuality and give
Buddhist rebuttals to them. The most common Christian and Muslim objection
to homosexuality is that it is unnatural and "goes against the order of
nature". There seems to be little evidence for this. Miriam Rothschild, the
eminent biologist who played a crucial role in the fight to decriminalize
homosexuality in Britain, pointed out at the time that homosexual behaviour
has been observed in almost every known species of animal. Secondly, it
could be argued that while the biological function of sex is reproduction,
most sexual activity today is not for reproduction, but for recreation and
emotional fulfillment, and that this too is a legitimate function of sex.
This being so, while homosexuality is unnatural in that it cannot lead to
reproduction, it is quite natural for the homosexual in that for her or him
it provides physical and emotional fulfillment. Indeed, for him or her,
heterosexual behaviour is unnatural. Thirdly, even if we concede that
homosexuality "goes against the order of nature", we would have to admit
that so do many other types of human behaviour, including some religious
behaviour. The Roman Catholic Church has always condemned homosexuality
because of its supposed unnaturalness - but it has long idealized celibacy,
which, some might argue, is equally unnatural. Another Christian objection
to homosexuality is that it is condemned in the Bible, an argument that is
meaningful to those who accept that the Bible is the infallible word of God,
but which is meaningless to the majority who do not accept this. But while
there is no doubt that the Bible condemns homosexuality, it also stipulates
that women should be socially isolated while menstruating, that parents
should kill their children if they worship any god other than the Christian
God and that those who work on the Sabbath should be executed. Few
Christians today would agree with these ideas even though they are a part of
God's words, and yet they continue to condemn homosexuality simply because
it is condemned in the Bible.

One sometimes hears people say: "If homosexuality were not illegal, many
people, including the young, will become gay." This type of statement
reflects either a serious misunderstanding about the nature of homosexuality
or perhaps a latent homosexuality in the person who would make such a
statement. It is as silly as saying that if attempted suicide is not a
criminal offense then everyone will go out and commit suicide. Whatever the
cause of homosexuality (and there is great debate on the subject), one
certainly does not 'choose' to have homoerotic feelings in the same way one
would, for example, choose to have tea instead of coffee. It is either
inborn or develops in early childhood. And it is the same with
heterosexuality. Changing laws does not change people's sexual inclinations.

Some have argued that there must be something wrong with homosexuality
because so many homosexuals are emotionally disturbed. At first there seems
to be some truth in this. In the West, at least, many homosexuals suffer
from psychological problems, abuse alcohol, and indulge in obsessive sexual
behaviour. As a group, homosexuals have a high rate of suicide. But
observers have pointed out that such problems seem to be no more pronounced
amongst African and Asian homosexuals than they are in the societies in
which they live. It is very likely that homosexuals in the West are wounded
more by society's attitude to them than by their sexual proclivity, and, if
they are treated the same as everybody else, they will be the same as
everybody else. Indeed, this is the strongest argument for acceptance and
understanding towards homosexuals.

Christianity grew out of and owes much to Judaism with its tradition of
fiery prophets fiercely and publicly denouncing what they considered to be
moral laxity or injustice. Jesus was very much influenced by this tradition,
as have been the Christian responses to public and private morality
generally. At its best, this tradition in Christianity to loudly denounce
immorality and injustice has given the West its high degree of social
conscience. At its worst, it has meant that those who did not or could not
conform to Christian standards have been cruelly exposed and persecuted. The
Buddhist monk's role has always been very different from his Christian
counterpart. His job has been to teach the Dhamma and to act as a quiet
example of how it should be lived. This, together with Buddhism's rational
approach to ethics and the high regard it has always given to tolerance, has
meant that homosexuals in Buddhist societies have been treated very
differently form how they have been in the West. In countries like China,
Korea and Japan where Buddhism was profoundly influenced by Confucianism,
there have been periods when homosexuality has been looked upon with
disapproval and even been punishable under the law. But generally the
attitude has been one of tolerance. Matteo Ricci, the Jesuit missionary who
lived in China for twenty-seven years from 1583, expressed horror at the
open and tolerant attitude that the Chinese took to homosexuality and
naturally enough saw this as proof of the degeneracy of Chinese society.
"That which most shows the misery of these people is that no less than the
natural lusts, they practise unnatural ones that reverse the order of
things, and this is neither forbidden by law nor thought to be illicit nor
even a cause for shame. It is spoken of in public and practiced everywhere
without there being anyone to prevent it." In Korea the ideal of the hwarang
(flower boy) was often associated with homosexuality especially during the
Yi dynasty. In Japan, a whole genre of literature (novelettes, poems and
stories) on the love between samurais and even between Buddhist monks and
temple boys developed during the late mediaeval period.

Theravada Buddhist countries like Sri Lanka and Burma had no legal statutes
against homosexuality between consenting adults until the colonial era when
they were introduced by the British. Thailand, which had no colonial
experience, still has no such laws. This had led some Western homosexuals to
believe that homosexuality is quite accepted in Buddhist countries of South
and South-east Asia. This is certainly not true. In such countries, when
homosexuals are thought of at all, it is more likely to be in a good-humored
way or with a degree of pity. Certainly the loathing, fear and hatred that
the Western homosexual has so often had to endure is absent and this is due,
to a very large degree, to Buddhism's humane and tolerant influence.

A. L. De Silva


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Source: Buddhist Council of New South Wales, Australia, http://buddhism

A Bible study on poverty

A Bible study on poverty
Posted: March 07, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008

In a new book, "Red Letter Christians," Tony Campolo makes the case that Christians can fulfill their duty to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and shelter the homeless by electing politicians who will make this the collective responsibility of the government and all taxpayers.

For fear that even one Christian in America might be so misled by the noted evangelist and theologian, I decided to do something Campolo failed to do – consult the Bible.

Of course, that's not entirely fair. Campolo does offer a scriptural citation for his prescription for coercive wealth redistribution by government. It just doesn't apply. He cites Matthew 25:31-46, in which Jesus explains the responsibility each of us has individually to be compassionate to our neighbors in need.

Notice Jesus did not suggest those listening to Him lobby Herod to take care of the poor. Notice Jesus did not suggest this was Caesar's responsibility. Notice Jesus did not suggest people, listening to His words then or reading them 2,000 years later, should mug the rich and distribute their wealth to the poor.

Jesus didn't suggest anything remotely like that to help the poor and truly needy. Instead, he speaks to each of us individually. He lets us know about this because it is the best prescription for both the poor and for us who make the sacrifice to help.

Sacrifice is not meant to be easy. Sacrifice is not painless. And personal sacrifice is clearly what Jesus is prescribing for His followers in Matthew 25 – and throughout the rest of the Bible, for that matter.

Jesus doesn't suggest spreading the pain and sacrifice by forcing non-believers to carry the load. Jesus doesn't suggest reducing our own responsibility by foisting it upon the entire nation. Jesus doesn't suggest stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

But that's what Campolo's version of enlightened Christian socialism is all about. He specifically says problems like poverty are too big for the individual and too big for the church. Only government can tackle them, he says. Gee, I wonder why Jesus forgot to mention that to us?

When Jesus talked to the rich young ruler, He told Him to sell his goods and give the money to the poor. Even Jesus didn't force him to do so – which He certainly could have done. Had He forced Him, the rich young ruler would still not be in obedience and still not eligible for the rewards of the afterlife. That is the result only of a personal decision to follow God, not the result of coercion.

There's nothing compassionate about taking from those who have and redistributing it. In fact, it would deny the Zacchaeuses of the world (Luke 19) from the gifts of repentance, forgiveness and salvation.

Would that be biblical?

Go further two more chapters in Luke to learn of the kind of sacrifice God values. The poor widow who gave two mites, we learn, actually gave more than the rest. Why? Because it's not the amount that counts in God's eyes, it's the faith motivating the giving that counts. Campolo has this all upside down. God doesn't want or need our money to perfect His Creation. He requires our obedience and faithfulness.

The Bible does, however, warn us about people who use the poor as an excuse to sin, as a rationalization for sowing discord, as a means of undermining the very will of God.

We see this explored in John 12, where Judas condemns Mary for putting expensive, perfumed oil in Jesus' hair.

"Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?" demands the man who would betray Jesus.

The next verse goes to Judas' motivations: "This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein."

Judas was like so many "do-gooders" today who demand we show compassion for the poor by giving them, the do-gooders, our money. That's not the way it's supposed to work. You're supposed to help the poor. You don't need a middleman, a Judas, a tax collector, a bureaucrat, a politician taking a cut. It's no longer charity. It's no longer compassion. It's no longer obedience to God.

And what did Jesus say to rebuke Judas' insolence?

"Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always."

It seems eliminating poverty is not what God requires of us. The poor will always be with us, He says.

So why help the poor? Because God commands it. He doesn't tell us to solve global poverty. He doesn't tell us to pass the buck to others. He doesn't tell us to enlist government in the cause. He doesn't tell us to make the poor a political cause.

God wants us to look the poor person in the eye when we give. He wants us to show God's love when we do it. He doesn't want us writing bigger checks to the U.S. Treasury. He wants us serving Him. And through serving Him, we help spread the good news of His grace.

The Disaster of Sarbannes-Oxley

March 5, 2008
	Overseas Investments Investment U E-Letter: Issue # 507 Monday, January 30, 2006 Overseas Investments: Another Fine Mess For U.S. Stocks…and the Growing Case For Investing Abroad by Mark Skousen, Chairman, Investment U "It" - a new U.S. government regulation - is a costly monster. Just one provision of the law (the infamous section 404) cost the average company $4.36 million last year. Total compliance came to $6.1 billion to public companies overall. As a result of "it," the four largest accounting firms have raised their fees 78% to 134%. Professor Ivy Zhang at the University of Rochester calculates that "it" has resulted in a cumulative loss of $1.4 trillion in shareholder value since going into effect, an average loss of $460 for every person in America. Of course, those in Congress who voted for "it" said "it" was the price we had to pay to clean up Wall Street's image following the scandals of Enron and WorldCom. And while "it" might create some short-term setbacks, they believed Wall Street and the financial world would eventually get used to "it," all for the better. But now the truth about "it" is coming out, and from all appearances, the cure may be worse than the disease… No, "it" is not something you find on eBay. Rather, "it" is the dreaded Sarbanes-Oxley law passed in 2002 to prevent fraud and increase transparency and compliance of publicly traded companies. And with that comes the opportunities for overseas investments in 2006. But before we get into investing abroad, let's take a look at the many implications of Sarbanes-Oxley… The Growing Disaster Called "Sarbox" So far, Sarbox (as "it" is called) has completely backfired. Recently, The Wall Street Journal issued several negative reports on Sarbox: Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) have had to postpone going public due to increased compliance costs. Many pubic companies are now going overseas, especially outsourcing to India, to reduce the costs of compliance. And most importantly, last Thursday's Wall Street Journal (January 26, 2006) reported a dramatic fallout in the number of foreign companies listing their shares in New York. In fact, according to Citigroup, in 2000, nine out of every 10 dollars raised by foreign companies through new stock offerings were done in New York rather than London or Luxembourg - the two other main choices. Today, nine out of 10 dollars are raised overseas through new company listings in London or Luxembourg. The chart below illustrates the big migration: The cause of this sharp drop-off in foreign listings in New York? "The U.S. requirements are far more rigorous," said Gagan Banga, executive director of Indiabulls Financial Services, who decided to list in London instead. Foreigners blame the U.S. on two counts: Excessive accounting and disclosure rules of Sarbox Underperformance of the U.S. market. I think these two go hand in hand. The fact is that Sarbox is unnecessary. The private market was already cleaning up the accounting scandals without government help: Financial magazines exposed the frauds, accounting firms were establishing more rigorous standards, and the ivy league business schools (including Columbia, where I taught) were busy expanding courses in business ethics. What Should Investors Do? Consider Overseas Investments! It's pointless to write your Congressman and complain. Leave it up to the lobbyists. (The complaints by small business have been so intense that the SEC has recommended exempting companies with a market cap under $150 million from the ugly 404 regulations.) The best bet is to invest overseas. Foreign markets will continue to outperform U.S. markets due to the cost advantage of going abroad, and their economies are growing faster than ours. My Recommendations: Last week, I recommended investing in the MSCI Emerging Markets Fund (AMEX: EEM). It continues to rise. Today, I suggest you add The India Fund (NYSE: IFN) as an overseas investment to your portfolio. This is where companies are benefiting from outsourcing and Sarbox regulations. It's on the move. Today's IU Crib Sheet The unnecessary corporate expense due to the Sarbox legislation isn't the only reason to think about an overseas investment… Check out Investment U #497: Stock Market Predictions for 2006: A Huge Bull Market in Foreign Stocks! It's another case for putting your investment dollars to work outside of U.S. stocks…and into the burgeoning profitable sector of investing abroad. Good trading, Mark

A fire, and only minutes to make critical decisions

A fire, and only minutes to make critical decisions

BOSTON (MarketWatch) -- At 6:45 a.m. on Feb. 22 my daughter burst into my office yelling something about a fire in the chimney. There was no immediate danger, but smoke was building, there were flames shooting out the chimney cap and it was clear everyone needed to be out.

The fire department had been called, a few precautions were taken to minimize the fire and whatever fuel it had, and then my wife and I walked out of the house to meet the first officers to the scene.

And as soon as I stepped out of the house, I realized I had made a mistake. The "family disaster kit" had been left downstairs, back in my office, and there was no way the officers were going to let me back in to get it, regardless of the danger of the situation.

In the end, it turned out to be little more than a fire drill; the fire was extinguished within a half hour, there was minimal damage and, most importantly, everyone was safe.

In the scheme of disaster prevention, however, the drill was a mild failure, because in the five minutes I had to safeguard my family's life, I left behind the finances. Had this been a real disaster, it would have tested the veracity of the manufacturer's claims that I had purchased a fireproof box. (Several safety experts I talked with said that leaving behind the file in a fire is the right thing to do, that it only travels in disasters -- like hurricanes -- where evacuation comes with some advance warning.)

Moreover, when things calmed down, I checked the box and found some key areas where it would have let us down.

"Disasters can strike quickly and without warning," says Darlene Sparks-Washington, director for preparedness for the American Red Cross. "Taking action to prepare in advance can reduce the physical, emotional and financial impact of a disaster, and help you respond faster in a disaster situation where every second counts."

The idea behind any disaster file is to have the important, this-will-rebuild-your-life data in one place.

It's not the safe-keeping spot for one-of-a-kind documents, like birth certificates and marriage records, which belong in a safe-deposit box, but a certified copy of those papers in the disaster file is a good idea in case you need to produce them to get government assistance.

In a hurricane or earthquake, the same problem that destroys your home could endanger the bank vault of your safe-deposit box. Copies of the documents can also be left with a trusted friend or relative who lives in another city -- to guard against natural disasters -- although experts are split on this idea, noting that the documents in the file would be an identity thief's dream and inappropriate to give anyone.

What to include

The file -- kept in a waterproof/fireproof box -- should include your financial records and account numbers, along with contact details for those accounts. When I made my file a few years back, in the wake of all of the hurricanes that had been in the news, I simplified the process by following an expert tip to copy a month's worth of bills, plus bank and brokerage statements, thereby securing account numbers and customer-service phone lines, precisely what is necessary in case of emergency.

In a real catastrophe, it might seem frivolous to have credit-card numbers handy, but past disasters -- like those big hurricanes -- have been rife with tales of consumers who had to battle creditors over late fees and other charges. By calling immediately after the bad event, a consumer may be able to get some measure of leniency from lenders. Moreover, ignoring those responsibilities -- even during a crisis -- increases the potential for hassle.

Next, experts suggest adding in mortgage and loan information, employee-benefit statements and, perhaps most importantly, copies of insurance policies.

There are a number of software packages that include organizers that will help you create your inventory of key financial information. But software programs are only as good as the person keeping them, and copying information on your computer won't be much help if your computer is destroyed.

If, as a result, you prefer to stay low-tech, check out the "Your Important Records" section of "Your Financial Organizer," a booklet produced by TIAA-CREF. You can find the booklet by searching online at TIAA-CREF.org or you can go directly to the records page at https://www3.tiaa-cref.org/calcs/financial_organizer/section_3a.html.

Once your accounts are secure, include a copy of a "household inventory." Your inventory should contain as much detail as possible about purchase dates and prices, current value of an item and more, but it does not have to be a written record. Take a video camera and walk from one end of your home to the other, making a travelogue of everything you see. Or print pictures with descriptions on the back. The Insurance Information Institute offers free software for helping to prepare a home inventory; you can download it at www.knowyourstuff.org.

Don't forget cash

Jocelyn Silsby, manager of preparedness implementation for the Red Cross, said that the last thing to go into the disaster box is "enough cash to last you for three days, just because there are some disasters that could make it that the banks are closed, or the ATMs are not available, or you don't have your cards and can't get replacements for a few days."

A few experts suggest tossing the most recent tax return in the file, but there's a good chance the paperwork is on file with your tax preparer. Moreover, in the middle of a crisis, future dealings with the Internal Revenue Service are about the last thing a consumer needs to worry about.

The one plus to putting tax records into the file is that it creates a logical time to update the paperwork. Upon returning to my office after the chimney fire, I found several items out of date.

"Your file is only good if it's current," said Silsby. "The question becomes how many things have changed that you will forget about. ... I like the idea that when you change your clocks, you also change the batteries on your smoke detectors, and check your disaster file."

In other words, check in on your file this weekend, before or after you move the clocks. As the recent experience in my home proved, you never know when it's going to be your turn to have the disaster drill become your reality.