It always makes me happy when the news is slow enough that a political comic like the below makes headline news and ends up in controversy, indignant rage (because there actually was a 200 pound chimpanzee in fact recently shot, people):

That said, I can see where someone might believe that this fallen chimp might represent Barack Obama, which of course it doesn’t — because the current stimulus package isn’t Obama’s plan, it is the bastardized version that made its way through Congress and the Senate — the approved, dumbed-down Bill.  The one that was written by a monkey (well, an ape, a primate, a chimp).  Well, that’s my take.  However, I can totally see their point of view, now that I think about it a little more.  I guess I am, in fact, literal and post-race — it never occurred to me.

Via Media Bistro, Poynter Online, Gawker , Huffington Post,  the Twitterverse, blogosphere, and mainstream media.

If you have not been keeping on top of all of the great comments streaming in to the AH Poll entitled “If John McCain died or became incapacitated, would Sarah Palin be competent to be President?” you are really missing out! Some of them are the most insightful, thoughtful, and brilliant collection of thoughts representing the best and the worst of the right and the left! Roll up your sleeves and batten your hatches because you’re going to have one hell of a ride. Oh, also, these comments are in reverse-chronological order so the most recent are at the top. If you want to keep track of them live, please go visit them where they love and breathe. Read below for the most amazing Sarah Palin comment thread of the Internets!

And, here’s an embed of the poll, if I’ve piqued your interest by now:

I am very pleased that Senator Jim Webb was able to get his Bill, the Webb GI Bill, signed into law because I have been ashamed of the way our government shows its appreciation to our vets of foreign wars, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Senator Webb is right, some of the most important minds of the greatest generation took advantage of the very generous resources offered to World War II veterans in the form of the GI Bill.  So, here is the news release from the office of Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.). Thanks to my mom, another big fan of Senator Jim Webb, for sending me the below content.

WEBB GI BILL SIGNED INTO LAW

Monday, June 30, 2008

On Monday, June 30, President Bush signed into law landmark legislation introduced by Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.) to provide post-9/11 veterans with comprehensive educational benefits. Last week, the legislation was overwhelmingly passed by both the House of Representatives and Senate.

Senator Jim Webb introduced this bill eighteen months ago on his first day in office. The bipartisan measure– principally cosponsored by Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and John Warner (R-VA), has unprecedented support from all major veterans’ organizations, in addition to strong bipartisan support in Congress, with a House vote of 416 to 12, and a Senate vote of 92 to 6.

The following is a statement from Senator Webb:

“This is a great day for our veterans. This bill properly provides a modern and fair educational benefit to address the needs of those who answered the call of duty to our country–those who moved toward the sound of the guns–often at great sacrifice.

“Eighteen months ago, we began with the simple concept that those who have been serving since 9/11 should have the same opportunity for a first class educational future as those who served during World War II. Today, we have accomplished that goal.

“I would like to emphasize that this is not simply an expansion of veterans’ educational benefits. This is a new program, a deserved program. It has now been nearly seven years since 9/11 — seven years since those who have been serving in our military began earning the right for a proper wartime GI Bill.

“We have delivered this new, robust GI Bill with a great deal of collaboration and cooperation among members of the Senate, members of the House, and with the guidance and support of all of our nation’s leading veterans’ groups.

“It also gives me confidence and renewed hope that the Congress can begin working more effectively across party lines to do the work of the people.”

To read The Washington Post’s lead editorial, “What the GIs Deserve,” on Senator Webb’s efforts to pass a new GI Bill, please click here »

Please feel free to forward this newsletter to friends and family and invite them to do the same!

Jim Webb’s Website | Constituent Services | Newsroom | Photos | Contact | Subscribe | Unsubscribe

Lisa Hayes popped me an article by Denis Hayes, a man who suspiciously seems related to Lisa, “Fantastic new article by Denis Hayes about energy policy — please feel free to share far and wide!” Well, I am the biggest fan of Lisa and so here we go — my attempt to share this article a wee little further and wider: Climate Solutions: Charting a Bold Course A cap-and-trade system is not the answer, according to a leading alternative-energy advocate. To really tackle climate change, the U.S. must revolutionize its entire energy strategy.

Opinion: Climate Solutions: Charting a Bold Course

A cap-and-trade system is not the answer, according to a leading alternative-energy advocate. To really tackle climate change, the U.S. must revolutionize its entire energy strategy.

by Denis Hayes

More than 30 years ago, President Jimmy Carter called for a daring transition to a new energy future, an effort he likened to “the moral equivalent of war.” But the hard truth is that the United States is in far worse shape in the energy realm today than it was when Carter left office.

Since 1981, annual greenhouse gas emissions have grown from 4.7 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide to 5.9 billion metric tons. America imported 1.6 billion barrels of oil in 1981; by 2007 imports had ballooned to 3.7 billion barrels. Today, oil prices have surged past $130 per barrel, and the best evidence suggests that total global oil production is at or nearing its peak. Under President Carter, America dominated the world in renewable energy research, development, and commercialization, but in the ensuing decades our federal government has thrown away that lead.

With the economy now staggering from its addiction to oil, and with evidence of global warming having persuaded all but the knuckle-draggers, is America at last getting serious about freeing itself from carbon fuels?

Actually, no. Most environmentally sensitive politicians and even many national green groups are remarkably blithe that the Lieberman-Warner bill — a 500-page cap-and-trade law filled with more holes than a Madonna dance outfit — will take us there.

The tragedy is that we still have a chance to solve the global warming crisis, but we are blowing it by chasing false hopes in the form of an inadequate cap-and-trade bill.

Acting fast enough and on a large enough scale to avoid unthinkable climate consequences will require a more ambitious effort than the New Deal, the Interstate Highway System, and the Manhattan Project, all rolled into one. Serious efforts to stabilize the world’s climate will have dramatic consequences for industry, transportation, architecture, agriculture, leisure, and consumerism, and so, many of these changes will be fought tooth and nail — as was evident last week when Republican Senators attacked and derailed the Lieberman-Warner bill, forcing Democratic leaders to place the initiative on hold until a new president takes office.

The truth is that all our largest current energy sources will need to be replaced by new sources — over the ferocious opposition of the powerful companies that market them.

The story of how we got into this crunch is a tale of political opportunism and shortsightedness. For had America continued on the course we’d embarked upon in the mid-1970s, the task ahead would now be much less expensive, much less painful, and much more certain of success.

In 1979, after the Arab oil embargo, Carter announced that by the year 2000 America was to get at least one-fifth of all its energy from renewable sources — mainly solar energy, wind, and biofuels. The Solar Energy Research Institute, which I then served as director, was at the heart of this effort. Leading a team of scientists and analysts drawn from national labs and major universities, SERI prepared the detailed technical and policy blueprint to meet or surpass the 20 percent goal.

In 1981, halfway through his first year in office, President Ronald Reagan abandoned the 20 percent goal, reduced SERI’s $125 million budget by $100 million, and installed a dentist named Jim Edwards as Secretary of Energy. To demonstrate his contempt for the notion of alternative energy, Reagan ordered the solar water heaters ripped off the White House roof. We’ve never recovered.

The successive administrations of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, bobbing along on a sea of cheap oil, did little to shift America’s economy to renewable energy sources. And for the past seven years, the United States has been led by a president who projects such a breathtaking marriage of arrogance and incompetence that his refusal to even acknowledge the reality of climate change has not generally been considered one of his more glaring flaws.

As climate science has grown increasingly clear, many corporate CEOs have become convinced that global warming has a human signature. The brightest CEOs of Fortune 100 companies realized that once the Democrats took back control of Congress, it would be only a matter of time before climate legislation was enacted. The next president, whoever it is, will demand action. These CEOs all wanted to be at the table — in Washington, if you aren’t at the table, you’re likely to wind up on the menu.

Environmental groups soon found themselves being courted by business leaders who recognized that the climate threat would require a serious national response. They formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership and other alliances that offered benefits for environmentalists but also entailed subtle costs. The most obvious benefit was that environmental leaders are taken more seriously on Capitol Hill when they arrive linking arms with the CEOs of General Electric, Caterpillar, DuPont, and General Motors.

The cost was the natural downside of consensus building: Policies cannot significantly harm the core interests of any of the participants. When the participants include the world’s largest automobile company, the largest manufacturer of jet engines, the largest maker of mining equipment for coal and bituminous sands, etc., this is not an insignificant cost.

What emerged from this unexpected alliance was a consensus that the centerpiece of climate policy should be a cap on CO₂, generally applied as close to the point of emission as realistically possible. Additionally, there was widespread agreement that (a) between 25 percent and 80 percent of all emissions permits should be given away to major emitters for a transitional period; (b) the law should provide ample “offsets” available for purchase by companies failing to meet reduction targets; and (c) “safety valves” should permit relaxed enforcement in case greenhouse gas reductions cause temporary economic hardship.

Unfortunately, these are genuinely terrible ideas. They are not bad because they lack ambition; rather, they are bad because they move boldly in the wrong direction. They don’t merely ignore the way that the global economy responds to real-world policies; they ignore everything we have learned about human nature since Rousseau’s belief in humanity’s innate goodness crashed on the shoals of 18th-century reality.

So what should a serious energy and climate policy look like?

Carbon Must be Capped Where It Enters the Economy, Not Where It Leaves It

The backbone of any comprehensive policy to limit greenhouse gas emissions must cap carbon at the places — coal mines, oil fields, pipelines, ports — where it enters the economy. Instead, at the behest of corporate behemoths and their green enablers, our political leaders are focusing most of their attention on smokestacks, and when that is obviously impossible (e.g. with gasoline or propane) on refiners or distributors. They want to cap CO₂ where it enters the atmosphere — an approach that is guaranteed to fail because there are far too many point sources.

Europe has already attempted a cap-and-trade program, and it belly-flopped. Senators Warner and Lieberman, who should be applauded for at least acknowledging that global warming is a problem, failed to absorb some important lessons from Europe, including:

• The most important part of cap-and-trade is the “cap.” Any successful law must place an impermeable lid on the amount of carbon that enters the atmosphere. To whatever extent additional trees or windmills are used to “offset” additional carbon-based fuels, the exercise is self-defeating.
• In contrast to regulating a sea of smokestacks, the best course is to require carbon permits at the 2,000 sources where carbon enters the economy. It would be simple, straightforward, and impossible to “game.” It is vastly more effective than trying to police carbon dioxide wherever carbon is burned. In setting the number of carbon permits issued — and thus determining how much coal, oil, and gas can enter the economy — the government would be setting an absolute, easily-enforced cap on emissions.
• All carbon permits should be auctioned — not given away. In Europe, permits were given away to large carbon users to ease their transition to the new regime. Major polluters made cheap improvements, lowered their emissions, and sold their unneeded permits. This gave windfalls to the worst polluters, penalized companies that had already invested in efficient new factories and renewable energy, and helped guarantee that Europe would miss its Kyoto targets.Auctioning 100 percent of all carbon permits is fair and transparent; it eliminates backroom special-interest pleadings. By reducing the number of permits auctioned each year, the government can guarantee that its emissions targets are met.

Use Auction Revenues Intelligently

The most vital use for most of the revenues would be to serve such climate-related public purposes as building the infrastructure needed for a national “smart grid” for electricity and for high-speed electrified railroads, assuring large federal markets for the sunrise industries of the post-carbon economy, and finding ways to accelerate the solution of the climate problem through huge boosts in federal support for basic research. However, a portion of the revenues should compensate for the regressive nature of what is effectively a carbon tax, perhaps by using them to meet the shortfalls facing Medicare and Social Security and helping to underwrite training for green-collar jobs.

Promote Renewable Energy

Government has a long tradition of helping sunrise industries supplant their well-entrenched predecessors. Canals were encouraged as more efficient than horses. Railroads were viewed as a way to open the west. The interstate highway system replaced many of the functions performed by railroads.

Some renewable energy sources would benefit greatly from a focused, long-term federal commitment to R&D. Others are already poised to ride learning curves to lower prices through economies of mass production — but require guaranteed markets to elicit the necessary investment. (Computer chips went from being high-priced luxuries to cheap-as-dirt commodities only because the Air Force and NASA bought them in bulk until their prices fell to a level where the private market took over.)

The federal government should be buying photovoltaic devices in bulk and installing them on all federal buildings, military bases, and the backs of billboards, and pouring the power into the grid. The goal should be to grow the market in a rapid yet predictable way linked to constantly lower prices. The start-and-stop unpredictability of renewable energy tax credits over the last 30 years has severely undermined the wind and solar industries, and placed American companies at a huge disadvantage with foreign competitors. As recently as 1998, America was the world’s largest manufacturer of solar photovoltaics — a technology that was invented here. But Japan, with a long-term strategy, sped past the U.S. the following year. A few years later, led by Germany, much of Europe implemented tariffs that vaulted the solar field into hyperdrive. If current trends continue, annual global photovoltaic production by 2011 will be a stunning 30 gigawatts, of which the U.S. will contribute perhaps 4 percent.

Construct a Resilient Nationwide Smart Grid to Take Power from Anywhere to Anywhere

The arguments for a national smart grid are legion; the arguments against it don’t hold water. Many carbon-neutral renewable energy sources are intermittent or diurnal, and the best locations both for sources (sunlight, wind, geothermal) and for storage are widely dispersed. We need to be able to knit the nation together. Only the government can assemble the corridor rights to make such a development possible.

Get Serious about Automobile Mileage

In World War II — without Representative John Dingell Jr. to protect it from reality — Detroit was ordered to stop making cars and start making tanks. Today, Detroit needs to be ordered to stop making civilian tanks and start making cars. Manufacturers should be free to use any technology that can get 50 mpg by 2020 and 100 mpg by 2030. The world cannot afford yet another abysmal failure by the once-proud American automobile industry.

Build High-Speed Electrified Railways for Our Busiest Corridors

The answer to every intercity travel need is not an airplane or a car. America is the only industrial power on earth without high-speed electrified rail — a super-efficient mode of intercity travel that can be carbon-free. I don’t know a single American who has traveled on the bullet train from Tokyo to Osaka who hasn’t wondered, “Why can’t we do that from Boston to Washington? From San Francisco to LA?” It would require the same sort of government effort that built the interstate highway system — or, for that matter, the original railroads.

Set Strong Building Energy Performance Standards

We need to make all new buildings carbon-neutral by 2030, requiring vast increases in efficiency and walls and roofs that harvest energy directly from sunlight. The astonishing rate at which voluntary LEED standards have swept across the country suggests a deep hunger on the part of smart architects and builders for structures that will make sense throughout their 50-year lifetimes. We need to build on that momentum to create a new generation of energy efficient “living buildings.”

Train the Labor Force

Reversing climate change has an enormous potential to put America back to work. The greatest employment opportunities are for those who will transport and install solar modules, build and maintain wind farms, construct and operate the high-speed rail system and the “smart grid.” Programs, mostly at community colleges, to teach these new skills need to increase 100-fold, and a special emphasis should be placed on retraining the “losers” in the energy transitions — such as workers in coal mines and coal-fired power plants, etc. — and inner-city poor who have seen their job prospects disappear in the globalized economy.

The Time is Now

Following decades of political denial of climate science, America now lags far behind Europe and Japan in creating most of the basic building blocks for a carbon-neutral era. In several core renewable energy technologies, we have already been passed by China.

It’s not too late to get back in the game. But the global industry is rapidly expanding and maturing, and it has supportive government policies in Germany, Japan, the Nordic states, the Netherlands, South Korea, and China.

America has unparalleled scientific and engineering excellence, formidable financial muscle, bountiful natural resources, a democratic political system, and an entrepreneurial culture well-suited to helping to lead the world into a prosperous, carbon-neutral era. But we have been dragging our heels, as if this were a problem for our children to fix.

Global warming is our problem, and it’s time to get serious about solving it.

I am really proud of the work we at Abraham Harrison are doing on behalf of Jerry White’s new book, I Will Not Be Broken: Five Steps to Overcoming a Life Crisis, and new organization, SurvivorCorps. So excited am I that we really created a gorgeous Social Media News Release (SMNR) for the project, for both I Will Not Be Broken and SurvivorCorps — and I wrote about it over on Marketing Conversation — and here it is below:

When we work with clients, we tend to create what are called Social Media News Releases. During out promotion of the new book by Jerry White called I Will Not Be Broken, we created the following SMNR. You can see a CMS version here and the official static version here. The inline version is pasted below — as you can see, it pastes pretty well, which is important when you’re expecting bloggers to “steal” code, content, HTML, links, photos, and graphics directly from the SMNR and into their blog via coppy-and-paste into their rich-text editor. One can surely use too much style and CSS fu that could result in a difficult-to-integrate into a blog. Also, when I get the press kit from the client, it is essential to boil down — reduce — the content into web-friendly content: PDF and Word needs to be converted to PNG, GIF, JPG, and HTML — that’s all that matters online. Finally, try to pre-size the images into post-friendly sizes because most bloggers don’t have the sort of set-up that would allow them to convert “press-ready” portraits and “full-size” images into smaller, thumbnails, for a website: do as much of the premastication and blog-ready HTML as possible and make it a simple matter for your blogger. The easier, the better. Be a valet to your blogger — a facilitator!

I Will Not Be Broken: Five Steps to Overcoming a Life Crisis
by Jerry White

Copies of I Will Not Be Broken Now Available Online and at Stores Nationwide

Leveraging personal experience and a lifetime of wisdom, landmine survivor Jerry White outlines a very specific five-step program to coping with disaster; to achieving strength and hope; and to turning tragedy into triumph

News Facts

• I Will Not Be Broken: Five Steps to Overcoming a Life Crisis by Jerry White went on sale April 29th, 2008.
• The official I Will Not Be Broken web site http://www.iwillnotbebroken.org launched May 1, 2008.
• I Will Not Be Broken: Five Steps to Overcoming a Life Crisis by Jerry White will be available as an Audiobook
• Jerry White, author of I Will Not Be Broken: Five Steps to Overcoming a Life Crisis, is available for blog, podcast, and vlog interviews.

About I Will Not Be Broken, a Book by Jerry White

From a leader of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning movement to ban landmines and founder of Survivor Corps comes an astoundingly effective guide to recreating a happy and fulfilling life after catastrophe strikes—a book that Bob and Lee Woodruff call “a road map for the individual and their family to re-enter the land of the living.” In I WILL NOT BE BROKEN, Jerry White reframes the question “why do bad things happen to good people?” and asks, given that bad things do happen, how do people absorb the blows and move through them?

Tragedy happens to everyone. Whether it’s the loss of a loved one, a painful divorce, or a serious injury, we all face unavoidable moments that divide our lives into “before” and “after.” These events take a heavy toll on everyone, but there are those who have muscled their way through tough times and emerged stronger, wiser—even grateful for their struggle. Jerry White is one such example. In 1984, he lost his leg—and almost his life—in a landmine accident, and has personally endured the pain of loss and the challenge of rebuilding.

As co-founder of Survivor Corps, White has connected with thousands of victims of tragedy, and in I WILL NOT BE BROKEN, he shares their collective wisdom, which he distills into an effective five-step program for turning tragedy into triumph:

• Face facts
• Choose life
• Reach out
• Get moving
• Give back

In their own words, his fellow survivors share their stories—a group that includes the well known like Lance Armstrong, Elie Wiesel, and the late Princess Diana, but also everyday people including soldiers and veterans of the military. With compassion, White takes readers through the process of not only enduring tragedy and victimhood, but going on to thrive.

Book Digital Downloads

Download the Introduction to I Will Not Be Broken Download Chapter 1 of I Will Not Be Broken Download Intro & Chap 1 of I Will Not Be Broken Combined

Reviews and Testimonials

“In I Will Not Be Broken, Jerry White brings his insight and experience to bear expertly for those facing life’s unexpected challenges. He embodies the spirit of survivorship.”
Lance Armstrong, co-author of Every Second Counts

“We can choose happiness, even after the worst of times. Jerry White offers an excellent guide to navigating and overcoming the traumas we face in our lives.”
Deepak Chopra M.D., author of Buddha: A Story of Enlightenment

“This is an important book. Jerry White shares lessons learned from his experience recovering from a landmine accident to help trauma victims recover, survive, and thrive.”
Jane Goodall, author of Harvest for Hope

About Jerry White

Jerry White is a global survivor activist who has dedicated his life to helping victims of violent conflict. While camping in Northern Israel in 1984, he stepped on a landmine, and he spent nearly six months in Israeli hospitals learning to walk on an artificial leg. Since then, he has become a recognized leader of the historic International Campaign to Ban Landmines (winner of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize), and a co-founder of Survivor Corps. He has testified before the US Congress and the United Nations and appeared in hundreds of media interviews and profiles.

The Five Steps of I Will Not Be Broken

1. Face Facts. One must first accept the harsh reality about suffering and loss, however brutal. “This terrible thing has happened. It can’t be changed. I can’t rewind the clock. My family still needs me. So now what?”

2. Choose Life. That is, “I want to say yes to the future. I want my life to go on in a positive way.” Seizing life, not surrendering to death or stagnation, requires letting go of resentments and looking forward, not back. It can be a daily decision.

3. Reach Out. One must find peers, friends, and family to break the isolation and loneliness that come in the aftermath of crisis. Seek empathy, not pity, from people who have been through something similar. Let the people in your life into your life. “It’s up to me to reach for someone’s hand.”

4. Get Moving. Sitting back gets you nowhere. One must get out of bed and out of the house to generate momentum. We have to take responsibility for our actions. “How do I want to live the rest of my life? What steps can I take today?”

5. Give Back. Thriving, not just surviving, requires the capacity to give again, through service and acts of kindness. “How can I be an asset to those around me, and not a drain? Will I ever feel grateful again?” Yes, and by sharing your experience and talents, you will inspire others to do the same.

On Strength: “They say what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. It’s not quite that simple. I believe you have to decide it will make you stronger. Experience has taught me that happy endings can never be taken for granted. They must be chosen.”

On Surviving and Recovery: “We are surrounded by survivors who have gone before us, and their examples will help mark the way forward. Their experiences show us that, with the right support, everyone can recover and thrive. As we overcome hardship, there is laughter and hope and love waiting for each of us. But it is crucial for us to want those things.”

Growing Stronger from Crisis: “Is there really a way to grow stronger in crisis? You bet there is. I am convinced we not only can toughen under pressure, but also soar. Why? Because I did. And I have watched thousands of others transform tragedy into growth.”

The Bell Tolls for Everyone: “Because life will happen to all of us. Violence and terror can be visited upon just about anybody these days. Life explodes, and nothing is ever quite the same. I’m not just referring to a personal injury or illness, but also to the world where headlines of terrorism, violence, and natural disaster assault us with increasing frequency. Some of us seek consolation in the belief that tragedy is happening somewhere else, far away. But, eventually, the bell tolls for you.”

How to Move Forward After Tragedy: “I hope my story, and those of friends I’ve met around the world, will flicker light in the dark tunnel where too many people feel trapped in pain. Even better, the survivor stories in these pages can teach all of us about moving forward. All of us need to learn to manage life’s explosive moments. Life may change in an instant, like mine did in Israel, but instead of dreading them, I want to encourage all of us to honor our toughest dates—the tragedies that bind us—in an effort to transform victimhood into survivorship.”

Moving from Victimhood to Survivorship to Thriving: “Over the past twenty years, I have met and talked ‘survival’ with everyone from the famous—Diana, Princess of Wales, Elie Wiesel, King Hussein and Queen Noor of Jordan, John McCain, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Lance Armstrong—and the not so famous but equally strong—Katie, Ken, Elizabeth, Colleen and others. Each has something to teach us. They don’t just get by. They thrive. That’s what I aspire to do.”

The Path to Survival: “This book illuminates the path to survival—five steps that can guide a person from tragedy toward a new life of renewed purpose and hope. The steps are not always sequential; they can be taken simultaneously. They can also spiral, skip and repeat. Survivorship is different for each individual. But anyone who has overcome adversity and learned to thrive has come to understand the power of each step.”

Princess Diana on Survivorship: “Princess Diana understood that to survive means to endure something that could have killed you or ‘taken you down.’ Like the loss of a son or daughter. Like stepping on a landmine. These are experiences terrible and terrifying. Such trauma presents a threshold. The outcome, positive or negative, is not pre-ordained. We can do things to foster resilience and strength going forward. Can you recall your date? Your own before-and-after moment, when life is cut in two by horrible pain or shocking news?”

Facing the Facts to Move Forward: “This terrible thing has happened. It can’t be changed. So, now what? There’s little point wishing you hadn’t gotten into that car, or gotten the tumor, or been fired from that job. We must face some brutal facts of the here and now. It’s normal to question, but you will never get a satisfactory answer, and you’ll only waste time. The past is the past, and facts are facts.”

Your Emotions are Facts: “Emotions are facts too. But it is quite common to deny the initial experience. This is not happening to me. I will wake up from this nightmare soon. It is also quite common to feel the most intense range of emotions after a loss or crisis.”

How to Survive a Catastrophe: “How can we use the facts that confront us with unpleasant truth to help us survive catastrophe? Facing facts is so hard because it demands that we come to grips with our worst fears. It means admitting what we really think about disability, deformity and death—all scary stuff. Most of us would prefer to look away and carry on our merry way without thinking about these things. But without a closer look in the mirror, examining the wrinkles of our traumatized life, we can’t make sound decisions, and then proceed to change and grow.”

On Crisis and Pain: “Crisis and pain can hold us hostage for a time, but we still have a choice in how we will respond to our circumstances, no matter how dire. When something disrupts our life, how do we move forward? I’ve seen it time and time again in my work with victims of war atrocities—there are those who fight for their lives after devastating loss and those who succumb to their suffering. Why the difference? To truly thrive, we must consciously choose for our lives to go on in a positive way. I have had to do it more than once. Most of us have, or will.”

Choose Life: “By choosing life we step across the second threshold of survivorship. It may be one of the hardest steps. It requires imagination and perspective in the midst of pain. It comes on the heels of brutal facts and a long look in the mirror to see who we are and where we stand. How do you choose your way forward with scars and bitter memories? You don’t let your situation define you. You reframe how to think about it. You choose humor and connections and love—you choose to live. One of the essential ways we start to embrace life is by reaching out to others.”

It Takes a Village to Survive: “No one survives on their own, and no one thrives alone either. Yes, you might feel an excruciating loneliness after one of life’s hurtful blows. But we are simply not built to survive solo. Isolation will kill us, not protect us. We humans are social animals made for community. Even when family and friends annoy the hell out of us, they remain an essential part of our survivorship.”

Calling to God and to Faith: “Sometimes it feels as if we have no instruments, we have no leader, we have nothing. That’s when many of us call out to God. For many it takes a crisis, but in our darkest moments, most of us will reach out spiritually. It’s a cry for divine help. We need someone—anyone—out there to understand. Our prayers reflect an existential plea for empathy in the universe. I believe this is a great and useful thing. I can’t encourage people enough to pray, and then pray some more. Call out. Reach out. Your questions and search for meaning are enormously important. They reflect a desire to Choose Life and Reach Out simultaneously. Whatever you believe, religion can offer a positive source of social and spiritual oxygen.”

On John McCain: “I am always impressed by the strong bond among veterans, including well-known American prisoners of war in Vietnam such as John McCain. Their military code of conduct inculcates an attitude of mutual survival, with duty to country and to family. When I first met Senator McCain over lunch in the Senate dining room, I was immediately struck by his stubborn survivor spirit. McCain credits his five-plus years of perseverance in the face of torture to his sense of duty to and camaraderie with his fellow navy men and prisoners, and a sense of honor instilled in him by the military careers and character of his father and grandfather.”

Surviving and Thriving: “There is a difference between surviving and thriving. Thriving requires tapping into our gratitude and drawing on this well to give to others. Studies on gratitude and giving are starting to proliferate. Why? Because people are catching on to the secret of happiness—giving, not getting. It turns out that by giving we end up getting as well. It’s a loop. Ralph Waldo Emerson said, ‘It is one of the most beautiful compensations of life that no man can sincerely try to help another without helping himself.’”

We Benefit from Community: “We benefit from belonging, from contributing to a bigger thing called community. We all have a role, with talents and gifts to deploy. Each act of generosity seeds good will. Even by listening to another person tell their tale of woe—thereby affirming their path—you can help build community. Each of us is born with talents and gifts. And they are meant to be deployed, not for simple survival, but for the good of the community. A body is also a metaphor for community, and if any one part is hurting, the whole body is weak. We need to shore each other up and make sure we acknowledge with appreciation people who pray, forgive, connect the unconnected, and serve the more vulnerable among us.”

On Victimhood and Surviving: “Why do some people stay victims? Well, it’s strangely comfortable—a kind of defense mechanism after disaster strikes. We welcome sympathy in our hour of need. And then we invite it. Eventually, we must break the victim habit and resume taking full responsibility for our future.”

Survivors are Everyday People: “I’m here to tell you that survivors are everyday people in the car next to you, behind you in the grocery store, next door mowing the lawn. I meet these people everywhere, from every walk of life, on every continent. I only wish I could share more of their stories. I hope their examples will teach and inspire you to want to thrive. Just think: if someone can overcome that level of crisis or abuse, then maybe I can hang in there too, just long enough to get through my crisis.”

Life Experiences Nourish Us: “Life experience will nourish and make us stronger. For example, studies of emergency personnel indicate that having survived one traumatic experience increases resilience and, in a sense, inoculates workers who will face subsequent traumas at work. Most of us can point to early life experiences that afford us at least some practice in building resilience.”

Survivors can Survive Anything: “Josephine Hart observed, “Damaged people are dangerous. They know they can survive.” Every time we come through tough times, we should feel some sense of pride and achievement. After all, getting through the experience may have been the hardest thing we’ve ever done. And we might be surprised to discover an inner voice and competitive spirit coaching us: I refuse to be taken out by what happened to me. I will not be defeated by this. I still believe in the possibility of the future. Even when our loss is the death of a beloved, and we may not feel like going on without them, we still honor their memory by healing and living strong.”

Empathy Etiquette: “What do survivors say has been helpful during their tough times? I call it “empathy etiquette”—the way to support survivors in crisis by putting yourselves in their shoes. The good news is we can learn empathy etiquette, much like we can learn resilience. When we are going through something for the first time, neither we nor our friends know exactly how to behave. Nothing seems normal or real in a life-threatening storm.”

On Reading People in Need: “Just be ready to pick up on the hints people in crisis my give as to what is needed at any particular time. Try to make it about that person and not your own hang-ups or past traumas. Maybe your friend wants you to come by every day. Maybe it’s just once a week. You must assess and reassess the situation. Be open. Be kind. Bring food. Then run the vacuum and wipe down the kitchen counters after putting the leftovers away in the fridge.”

Grace is a Key to Surviving: “I think grace, in part, is what allows survivors to bring meaning to our stories. It’s available to all of us—moments of awakening. Without meaning, you may survive, but you will never inspire. And without meaning, you cannot ultimately thrive. Finding meaning in our lives is a way to dispel darkness and break through the barriers that imprison us.”

On Heroism and Being a Hero: “We don’t always have to look for larger-than-life heroes. We can be heroes for each other. We are just ordinary folk wanting to endure and live life well, even during the rough patches. But we can all benefit from role models who not only overcome adversity, but find the wherewithal to give back and serve the broader community. This is how we complete the cycle of survivorship, transforming our tragedy and blessing others in the process.”

Heroes Don’t Call Themselves Heroes: “None of the survivors interviewed in this book would call themselves heroes, or particularly courageous, for that matter. They simply did what they had to do.”

Thrivers Are All Around Us: “Thrivers are all around us, not distant in history or geography. They are most often applied optimists. Pessimists can also thrive, but they have to work a bit harder to push through their tendency toward negativity. Similarly, introverts sometimes find it harder to thrive than extroverts, given the need to reach out for support during and after a crisis. The key is to know yourself so you can work with or compensate for your natural tendencies.”

Final Words On The Five Steps: “The Five Steps on our survivor journey offer a way not just to recover, not just to survive, but to thrive. Step by step, we find power to convert our dates—the days that change us—to become more than we were before the illness or the accident. We understand survivorship is anything but linear: it’s a process that involves three steps forward, a flashback or two, and then a leap ahead. Each of us is a mixed breed of survivor and victim. Some days we can exhibit healthy survivor behavior and then reveal less attractive victim behavior the next. No one is perfectly resilient or consistent. But we progress, day by day, step by step, if we want.”

About Survivor Corps

Around the globe, people are inflicting harm on one another on an alarming scale with alarming ease. There were approximately 250 wars throughout the 20th century. Today, there are more than 39 conflicts raging in the world –from armed conflicts in Latin America to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to genocide in Darfur.

More than 35 million people have been displaced from these conflicts—innocent people who have been robbed of their dignity, their homes and their livelihoods. With no hope or tools to rise above their circumstances, far too many victims lash out, seeking revenge for their plight and perpetuating the cycle of violence and suffering. Something has to be done to break this downward spiral.

Survivor Corps operates under the credo that no one is better equipped to change the world than those who have been most scarred by what’s wrong with it. There is a way to break the cycle of violence, and it begins with showing survivors a new, more hopeful way forward.

What is the Survivor Corps philosophy? No one is better equipped to change the world than those most scarred by what’s wrong with it.

Whom does Survivor Corps you serve? We serve people who have been injured by global conflict, primarily through training and support of the organizations that serve conflict survivors at the local level.

Where does Survivor Corps work? Wherever communities are experiencing or recovering from conflict – currently in over 50 countries.

Why should I support Survivor Corps? We have a ten-year track record of results, improving health, creating economic opportunity, and changing laws & policies for survivors of conflict.

How does Survivor Corp work? We work across the spectrum of issues and organizations that affect the lives of survivors.

Can Survivor Corps really solve this problem? Yes. We believe that by showing survivors a new, more hopeful way forward, we can help break the cycle of violence.

Survivor Corps provides the tools and support survivors need to rise above their injuries and give back to their communities. Learn more at http://www.survivorcorps.org

For more information about Survivor Corps, visit: http://survivorcorps.smnr.us

Contacts

For Press Inquiries:
Contact Daniel Krueger at dkrueger@survivorcorps.org

For More Information:
Contact Elizabeth Miner
eminer@landminesurvivors.org
202-250-3929
2100 M St. NW, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20037

	Download Jerry White’s Headshot
	Download the I Will Not Be Broken Book Cover
	Download the Introduction to I Will Not Be Broken Download Chapter 1 of I Will Not Be Broken Download Intro & Chap 1 of I Will Not Be Broken
	Download the Survivor Corps Logo (525 x 652 px) Download the Survivor Corps Logo (222 x 275 px)

Additional Resources

Buy I Will Not Be Broken on Amazon.com

Buy I Will Not Be Broken from Barnes & Noble

Watch Jerry White on Landmine Accident

Join the I Will Not Be Broken Official Facebook Group

Add to del.icio.us | Digg it | Google Bookmark | reddit | StumbleUpon | Twit This

Tags

Survivor Corps | landmines | war | cluster munitions | assistance for war veterans | Jerry White | I Will Not Be Broken

Every once in a while Abraham Harrison gets a great activist client. Clients like Jerry White and the gang at Survivor Corps really make it easy to be the World’s Best Boss, because my staff loves public affairs and non-profit work, that’s for sure — clients who do good works and work to change the world for the better. Last time was when we helped pass the Energy Bill in 2007, 35 by 2020, and now we get to rally our passion and help Jerry promote the launch of Survivor Corps, which coincides with I Will Not Be Broken: Five Steps to Overcoming a Life Crisis, which is now on sale nationwide.

Anyway, we have put together a social media press release for both I Will Not be Broken and Survivor Corps and you should check them out. Feel free to read excerpts from the book and be my guest and enjoy the introduction and chapter one as a PDF download — sort of a “try before you buy.” We’re going to be doing a blogger outreach starting this weekend and we’re excited about it — we’re motivated and dedicated. Wish us luck!

I Will Not Be Broken: Five Steps to Overcoming a Life Crisis
by Jerry White

Copies of I Will Not Be Broken Now Available Online and at Stores Nationwide

Leveraging personal experience and lifetime of wisdom, landmine survivor Jerry White outlines a very specific five-step program to coping with disaster; to achieving strength
and hope; and to turning tragedy into triumph

Quick Links: News Facts | About I Will Not Be Broken | Reviews and Testimonials | About Jerry White | The Five Steps | Various Excerpts | About Survivor Corps | Contacts | Multimedia Elements | Additional Resources | Join Our Mailing List

News Facts

• I Will Not Be Broken: Five Steps to Overcoming a Life Crisis by Jerry White went on sale start April 29th, 2008.
• The official I Will Not Be Broken web site will be launched on the week of April 28.
• I Will Not Be Broken: Five Steps to Overcoming a Life Crisis by Jerry White will be available as an Audiobook
• Jerry White, author of I Will Not Be Broken: Five Steps to Overcoming a Life Crisis, is available for blog, podcast, and vlog interviews.

About I Will Not Be Broken, a Book by Jerry White

From a co-recipient of the Nobel Prize for Peace and founder of Survivor Corps comes an astoundingly effective guide to recreating a happy and fulfilling life after catastrophe strikes—a book that Bob and Lee Woodruff call “a road map for the individual and their family to re-enter the land of the living.” In I WILL NOT BE BROKEN, Jerry White reframes the question “why do bad things happen to good people?” and asks, given that bad things do happen, how do people absorb the blows and move through them?

Tragedy happens to everyone. Whether it’s the loss of a loved one, a painful divorce, or a serious injury, we all face unavoidable moments that divide our lives into “before” and “after.” These events take a heavy toll on everyone, but there are those who have muscled their way through tough times and emerged stronger, wiser—even grateful for their struggle. Jerry White is one such example. In 1984, he lost his leg—and almost his life—in a tragic accident, and has personally endured the pain of loss and the challenge of rebuilding.

As cofounder of Survivor Corps, White has connected with thousands of victims of tragedy, and in I WILL NOT BE BROKEN, he shares their collective wisdom, which he distills into an effective five-step program for turning tragedy into triumph:

• Face facts
• Choose life
• Reach out
• Get moving
• Give back

In their own words, his fellow survivors share their stories—a group that includes the well known like Lance Armstrong, Elie Wiesel, and the late Princess Diana, but also everyday people including soldiers and veterans of the military. With compassion, White takes readers through the process of not only enduring tragedy and victimhood, but going on to thrive.

Reviews and Testimonials

“In I Will Not Be Broken, Jerry White brings his insight and experience to bear expertly for those facing life’s unexpected challenges. He embodies the spirit of survivorship.”
Lance Armstrong, co-author of EverySecond Counts

“I have visited landmine survivors around the world with Jerry White. I have seen him reach out to others and walk with them on the path from victim to survivor. His courageous personal experience is a beacon for all who are searching to recover and reclaim life.”
Her Majesty Queen Noor of Jordan, author of Leap of Faith: Memoirs of an Unexpected Life

About Jerry White

Jerry White is a global survivor activist who has dedicated his life to helping victims of violent conflict. While camping in Northern Israel in 1984, he stepped on a landmine, and he spent nearly six months in Israeli hospitals learning to walk on an artificial leg. Since then, he has become a recognized leader of the historic International Campaign to Ban Landmines, co-recipient of the 1997 Nobel Prize for Peace; and a cofounder of Survivor Corps. He has testified before the US Congress and the United Nations and appeared in hundreds of media interviews and profiles.

The Five Steps of I Will Not Be Broken

1. Face Facts. One must first accept the harsh reality about suffering and loss, however brutal. “This terrible thing has happened. It can’t be changed. I can’t rewind the clock. My family still needs me. So now what?”

2. Choose Life. That is, “I want to say yes to the future. I want my life to go on in a positive way.” Seizing life, not surrendering to death or stagnation, requires letting go of resentments and looking forward, not back. It can be a daily decision.

3. Reach Out. One must find peers, friends, and family to break the isolation and loneliness that come in the aftermath of crisis. Seek empathy, not pity, from people who have been through something similar. Let the people in your life into your life. “It’s up to me to reach for someone’s hand.”

4. Get Moving. Sitting back gets you nowhere. One must get out of bed and out of the house to generate momentum. We have to take responsibility for our actions. “How do I want to live the rest of my life? What steps can I take today?”

5. Give Back. Thriving, not just surviving, requires the capacity to give again, through service and acts of kindness. “How can I be an asset to those around me, and not a drain? Will I ever feel grateful again?” Yes, and by sharing your experience and talents, you will inspire others to do the same.

On Strength:

“They say what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. It’s not quite that simple. I believe you have to decide it will make you stronger. Experience has taught me that happy endings can never be taken for granted. They must be chosen.”

On Surviving and Recovery:

“We are surrounded by survivors who have gone before us, and their examples will help mark the way forward. Their experiences show us that, with the right support, everyone can recover and thrive. As we overcome hardship, there is laughter and hope and love waiting for each of us. But it is crucial for us to want those things.”

Growing Stronger from Crisis:

“Is there really a way to grow stronger in crisis? You bet there is. I am convinced we not only can toughen under pressure, but also soar. Why? Because I did. And I have watched thousands of others transform tragedy into growth.”

The Bell Tolls for Everyone:

“Because life will happen to all of us. Violence and terror can be visited upon just about anybody these days. Life explodes, and nothing is ever quite the same. I’m not just referring to a personal injury or illness, but also to the world where headlines of terrorism, violence, and natural disaster assault us with increasing frequency. Some of us seek consolation in the belief that tragedy is happening somewhere else, far away. But, eventually, the bell tolls for you.”

How to Move Forward After Tragedy:

“I hope my story, and those of friends I’ve met around the world, will flicker light in the dark tunnel where too many people feel trapped in pain. Even better, the survivor stories in these pages can teach all of us about moving forward. All of us need to learn to manage life’s explosive moments. Life may change in an instant, like mine did in Israel, but instead of dreading them, I want to encourage all of us to honor our toughest dates—the tragedies that bind us—in an effort to transform victimhood into survivorship.”

Moving from Victimhood to Survivorship to Thriving:

“Over the past twenty years, I have met and talked ‘survival’ with everyone from the famous—Diana, Princess of Wales, Elie Wiesel, King Hussein and Queen Noor of Jordan, John McCain, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Lance Armstrong—and the not so famous but equally strong—Katie, Ken, Elizabeth, Colleen and others. Each has something to teach us. They don’t just get by. They thrive. That’s what I aspire to do.”

The Path to Survival:

“This book illuminates the path to survival—five steps that can guide a person from tragedy toward a new life of renewed purpose and hope. The steps are not always sequential; they can be taken simultaneously. They can also spiral, skip and repeat. Survivorship is different for each individual. But anyone who has overcome adversity and learned to thrive has come to understand the power of each step.”

Princess Diana on Survivorship:

“Princess Diana understood that to survive means to endure something that could have killed you or ‘taken you down.’ Like the loss of a son or daughter. Like stepping on a landmine. These are experiences terrible and terrifying. Such trauma presents a threshold. The outcome, positive or negative, is not pre-ordained. We can do things to foster resilience and strength going forward. Can you recall your date? Your own before-and-after moment, when life is cut in two by horrible pain or shocking news?”

Facing the Facts to Move Forward:

“This terrible thing has happened. It can’t be changed. So, now what? There’s little point wishing you hadn’t gotten into that car, or gotten the tumor, or been fired from that job. We must face some brutal facts of the here and now. It’s normal to question, but you will never get a satisfactory answer, and you’ll only waste time. The past is the past, and facts are facts.”

Your Emotions are Facts:

“Emotions are facts too. But it is quite common to deny the initial experience. This is not happening to me. I will wake up from this nightmare soon. It is also quite common to feel the most intense range of emotions after a loss or crisis.”

How to Survive a Catastrophe:

“How can we use the facts that confront us with unpleasant truth to help us survive catastrophe? Facing facts is so hard because it demands that we come to grips with our worst fears. It means admitting what we really think about disability, deformity and death—all scary stuff. Most of us would prefer to look away and carry on our merry way without thinking about these things. But without a closer look in the mirror, examining the wrinkles of our traumatized life, we can’t make sound decisions, and then proceed to change and grow.”

On Crisis and Pain:

“Crisis and pain can hold us hostage for a time, but we still have a choice in how we will respond to our circumstances, no matter how dire. When something disrupts our life, how do we move forward? I’ve seen it time and time again in my work with victims of war atrocities—there are those who fight for their lives after devastating loss and those who succumb to their suffering. Why the difference? To truly thrive, we must consciously choose for our lives to go on in a positive way. I have had to do it more than once. Most of us have, or will.”

Choose Life:

“By choosing life we step across the second threshold of survivorship. It may be one of the hardest steps. It requires imagination and perspective in the midst of pain. It comes on the heels of brutal facts and a long look in the mirror to see who we are and where we stand. How do you choose your way forward with scars and bitter memories? You don’t let your situation define you. You reframe how to think about it. You choose humor and connections and love—you choose to live. One of the essential ways we start to embrace life is by reaching out to others.”

It Takes a Village to Survive:

“No one survives on their own, and no one thrives alone either. Yes, you might feel an excruciating loneliness after one of life’s hurtful blows. But we are simply not built to survive solo. Isolation will kill us, not protect us. We humans are social animals made for community. Even when family and friends annoy the hell out of us, they remain an essential part of our survivorship.”

Calling to God and to Faith:

“Sometimes it feels as if we have no instruments, we have no leader, we have nothing. That’s when many of us call out to God. For many it takes a crisis, but in our darkest moments, most of us will reach out spiritually. It’s a cry for divine help. We need someone—anyone—out there to understand. Our prayers reflect an existential plea for empathy in the universe. I believe this is a great and useful thing. I can’t encourage people enough to pray, and then pray some more. Call out. Reach out. Your questions and search for meaning are enormously important. They reflect a desire to Choose Life and Reach Out simultaneously. Whatever you believe, religion can offer a positive source of social and spiritual oxygen.”

On John McCain:

“I am always impressed by the strong bond among veterans, including well-known American prisoners of war in Vietnam such as John McCain. Their military code of conduct inculcates an attitude of mutual survival, with duty to country and to family. When I first met Senator McCain over lunch in the Senate dining room, I was immediately struck by his stubborn survivor spirit. McCain credits his five-plus years of perseverance in the face of torture to his sense of duty to and camaraderie with his fellow navy men and prisoners, and a sense of honor instilled in him by the military careers and character of his father and grandfather.”

Surviving and Thriving:

“There is a difference between surviving and thriving. Thriving requires tapping into our gratitude and drawing on this well to give to others. Studies on gratitude and giving are starting to proliferate. Why? Because people are catching on to the secret of happiness—giving, not getting. It turns out that by giving we end up getting as well. It’s a loop. Ralph Waldo Emerson said, ‘It is one of the most beautiful compensations of life that no man can sincerely try to help another without helping himself.’”

We Benefit from Community:

“We benefit from belonging, from contributing to a bigger thing called community. We all have a role, with talents and gifts to deploy. Each act of generosity seeds good will. Even by listening to another person tell their tale of woe—thereby affirming their path—you can help build community. Each of us is born with talents and gifts. And they are meant to be deployed, not for simple survival, but for the good of the community. A body is also a metaphor for community, and if any one part is hurting, the whole body is weak. We need to shore each other up and make sure we acknowledge with appreciation people who pray, forgive, connect the unconnected, and serve the more vulnerable among us.”

On Victimhood and Serviving:

“Why do some people stay victims? Well, it’s strangely comfortable—a kind of defense mechanism after disaster strikes. We welcome sympathy in our hour of need. And then we invite it. Eventually, we must break the victim habit and resume taking full responsibility for our future.”

Survivors are Everyday People:

“I’m here to tell you that survivors are everyday people in the car next to you, behind you in the grocery store, next door mowing the lawn. I meet these people everywhere, from every walk of life, on every continent. I only wish I could share more of their stories. I hope their examples will teach and inspire you to want to thrive. Just think: if someone can overcome that level of crisis or abuse, then maybe I can hang in there too, just long enough to get through my crisis.”

Life Experiences Nourish Us:

“Life experience will nourish and make us stronger. For example, studies of emergency personnel indicate that having survived one traumatic experience increases resilience and, in a sense, inoculates workers who will face subsequent traumas at work. Most of us can point to early life experiences that afford us at least some practice in building resilience.”

Survivors can Survive Anything:

“Josephine Hart observed, “Damaged people are dangerous. They know they can survive.” Every time we come through tough times, we should feel some sense of pride and achievement. After all, getting through the experience may have been the hardest thing we’ve ever done. And we might be surprised to discover an inner voice and competitive spirit coaching us: I refuse to be taken out by what happened to me. I will not be defeated by this. I still believe in the possibility of the future. Even when our loss is the death of a beloved, and we may not feel like going on without them, we still honor their memory by healing and living strong.”

Empathy Etiquette:

“What do survivors say has been helpful during their tough times? I call it “empathy etiquette”—the way to support survivors in crisis by putting yourselves in their shoes. The good news is we can learn empathy etiquette, much like we can learn resilience. When we are going through something for the first time, neither we nor our friends know exactly how to behave. Nothing seems normal or real in a life-threatening storm.”

On Reading People in Need:

“Just be ready to pick up on the hints people in crisis my give as to what is needed at any particular time. Try to make it about that person and not your own hang-ups or past traumas. Maybe your friend wants you to come by every day. Maybe it’s just once a week. You must assess and reassess the situation. Be open. Be kind. Bring food. Then run the vacuum and wipe down the kitchen counters after putting the leftovers away in the fridge.”

Grace is a Key to Surviving:

“I think grace, in part, is what allows survivors to bring meaning to our stories. It’s available to all of us—moments of awakening. Without meaning, you may survive, but you will never inspire. And without meaning, you cannot ultimately thrive. Finding meaning in our lives is a way to dispel darkness and break through the barriers that imprison us.”

On Heroism and Being a Hero:

“We don’t always have to look for larger-than-life heroes. We can be heroes for each other. We are just ordinary folk wanting to endure and live life well, even during the rough patches. But we can all benefit from role models who not only overcome adversity, but find the wherewithal to give back and serve the broader community. This is how we complete the cycle of survivorship, transforming our tragedy and blessing others in the process.”

Heroes Don’t Call Themselves Heroes:

“None of the survivors interviewed in this book would call themselves heroes, or particularly courageous, for that matter. They simply did what they had to do.”

Thrivers Are All Around Us:

“Thrivers are all around us, not distant in history or geography. They are most often applied optimists. Pessimists can also thrive, but they have to work a bit harder to push through their tendency toward negativity. Similarly, introverts sometimes find it harder to thrive than extroverts, given the need to reach out for support during and after a crisis. The key is to know yourself so you can work with or compensate for your natural tendencies.”

Final Words On The Five Steps:

“The Five Steps on our survivor journey offer a way not just to recover, not just to survive, but to thrive. Step by step, we find power to convert our dates—the days that change us—to become more than we were before the illness or the accident. We understand survivorship is anything but linear: it’s a process that involves three steps forward, a flashback or two, and then a leap ahead. Each of us is a mixed breed of survivor and victim. Some days we can exhibit healthy survivor behavior and then reveal less attractive victim behavior the next. No one is perfectly resilient or consistent. But we progress, day by day, step by step, if we want.”

Around the globe, people are inflicting harm on one another on an alarming scale with alarming ease. There were approximately 250 wars throughout the 20th century. Today, there are more than 39 conflicts raging in the world –from armed conflicts in Latin America to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to genocide in Darfur.

More than 35 million people have been displaced from these conflicts—innocent people who have been robbed of their dignity, their homes and their livelihoods. With no hope or tools to rise above their circumstances, far too many victims lash out, seeking revenge for their plight and perpetuating the cycle of violence and suffering. Something has to be done to break this downward spiral.

Survivor Corps operates under the credo that no one is better equipped to change the world than those who have been most scarred by what’s wrong with it. There is a way to break the cycle of violence, and it begins with showing survivors a new, more hopeful way forward.

What is the Survivor Corps philosophy? No one is better equipped to change the world than those most scarred by what’s wrong with it.

Whom does Survivor Corps you serve? We serve people who have been injured by global conflict. Primarily through training and support of the organizations that serve victims of conflict.

Where does Survivor Corps work? Wherever communities are recovering from conflict – currently in over 50 countries.

Why should I support Survivor Corps? We have a ten-year track record of results, improving health, economic opportunity, and changing laws & policies for survivors of conflict.

How does Survivor Corp work? We work across the spectrum of issues and organizations that affect the lives of survivors.

Can Survivor Corps really solve this problem? Yes. We believe that by showing individual survivors a new, more hopeful way forward, we can help break the cycle of violence.

Survivor Corps provides the tools and support survivors need to rise above their injuries and give back to their communities.

For more information about Survivor Corps, visit: http://survivorcorps.smnr.us

Contacts

For Press Inquiries:

Contact Daniel Krueger at dkrueger@abrahamharrison.com

	Download Jerry White’s Headshot
	Download the I Will Not Be Broken Book Cover
	Download the Intro & Ch 1 of I Will Not Be Broken Download the Introduction to I Will Not Be Broken Download the Chapter 1 of I Will Not Be Broken Download the Chapter 2 of I Will Not Be Broken Download the Chapter 3 of I Will Not Be Broken
	Download the Survivor Corps Logo

Additional Resources

Basis and origin

The idea for a North American currency union was first proposed in 1999 by Canadian economist Herbert G. Grubel. A senior fellow of the conservative Fraser Institute think-tank, he published a book entitled The Case for the Amero in September 1999, the year that the euro became a virtual currency. Another Canadian think-tank, the C.D. Howe Institute, advocates the creation of a shared currency between Canada and the United States.

After the report came out, centre-left nationalist groups in Canada expressed their opposition to any currency union because they view it as an attempt by American businesses to gain access to Canada’s extensive natural resources while dismantling the nation’s social services. The 100,000 member strong Council of Canadians, a progressive advocacy group, has declared one of its central issues to be the threat of “deep integration”.

The idea envisioned is a currency union of the US dollar, Canadian dollar, and the peso, or the dollarization of Canada and Mexico.

Support

Canada

One argument is that it would save up to $3 billion in currency transactions. The same authors also stated that Canada’s GDP could rise by up to 33 percent in a 2-year period given the adoption of a single currency.

The idea of a common currency has historically received more support in Quebec than in the rest of Canada; in a 2001 poll over 50 percent of respondents favoured the idea.

Mexico

The possibility of a monetary merger has also been discussed in Mexico as a natural step to take after the NAFTA. Former Mexican president Vicente Fox echoed that view and expressed his hope for a greater integration of Canada, Mexico and the United States, including an eventual monetary union, while on a 2007 promotional tour for his book “Revolution of Hope.”

Support in other regions

Lower levels of currency cooperation have been practiced in the Americas before. A number of nations, such as Argentina, Brazil, and Canada, have at times tied their currency to the U.S. dollar. Quite a few, such as Aruba, Barbados, and Cuba, still do.

The U.S. dollar is officially accepted alongside local currencies in El Salvador (since 2001) and Panama (since independence in 1903), although in practice these countries are fully dollarized. In 2000, Ecuador officially adopted the U.S. dollar as its sole currency.

Unofficially, the U.S. dollar is treated as a de facto secondary currency in much of Central America and the Caribbean.

Criticisms and problems

Opposition to a North American currency union exists high up in the governments on both sides of the Canada–United States border. Herbert Grubel, the first proponent of the amero, admits that American officials show no interest in the topic. He concedes that “there wouldn’t be very much benefit for the United States” in an amero. Likewise, the Canadian Department of Finance strongly opposes the creation of a common currency with the United States, citing the loss of economic sovereignty. In briefing documents to Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty, finance officials concluded:

“A North American common currency would undoubtedly mean for Canada the adoption of the U.S. dollar and U.S. monetary policy. Canada would have to give up its control of domestic inflation and interest rates.”

Trade-offs

From the point of view of the Canadian and Mexican governments, a major obstacle to the creation of a unified currency is the sheer dominance of the United States in any such union. Unlike any country in the EU, the USA has a larger economy than the rest of its respective continent/union combined.

A University of California, Santa Barbara paper puts forward the idea that the United States simply has too many advantages from the status quo to move toward a single currency. The United States dollar already acts as a global currency, meaning any transition to a ‘new’ currency would risk compromising this position and could cause a shift toward the euro or yen. The U.S. dollar is currently being used in over half of all the world’s exports, double the total United States foreign trade. The adoption of the amero could threaten the seignorage that America currently gains from its American dollar. While seignorage would still be gained from the amero, this would be shared among the Bank of Canada, the Federal Reserve, and possibly the Banco de México. Therefore, even if the amero were used just as much as the U.S. dollar, the advantages would be shared among two or more countries, and not exclusively earned by the United States.

Differing economic policies & situations

Several problems could arise in regards to macroeconomic management. By submitting to a common currency, the countries would lose considerable autonomy in the management of the currency itself, including the setting of interest rates. Amongst the three potential participants, there is considerable difference in policy which would have to be reconciled.

Debt is a factor affecting currency prices. As of 2008, the debt of the United States continues to increase, while the debt of the Canadian federal government is being reduced. This is a clear advantage for Canadians, and it would not be reflected if the currencies were to merge. The importance of commodities also factors into this equation.

One possible problem with a North American currency union is the differing economic situations between each country, while the Eurozone is broadly similar being service-based economies based on high public spending (compared to the United States), high taxes and wealth being created by the sale of goods and services. North America on the other hand has three distinct economies, one based mainly on agriculture and manufacturing, with a demand for free trade (Mexico), one based on services such as retail, with low taxes and low public spending (United States), and an another based on services with higher taxes and higher public spending, with a large sector in primary goods such as oil, mining and lumber (Canada).

Political mandate

Lou Dobbs, a reporter and commentator for CNN, has posited that the formation of a “North American Union” is being approached without the knowledge and consent of the majority of the people who would be affected by this.

Conservative Caucus Chairman Howard Phillips, WND columnist and author Jerome Corsi, activist Phyllis Schlafly, among others, have formed a coalition against the amero. On January 22, 2007, Republican Representatives Virgil Goode of Virginia, Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Walter Jones of North Carolina, and Ron Paul of Texas were among the 43 federal lawmakers who introduced H. CON. RES. 40, a resolution that expressed:

“The sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union (NAU) with Mexico or Canada.”

Constitutionality

Some assert that having a single North American currency would be unconstitutional under the current U.S. constitution under Article 1, Section 8; which states that the United States Congress has the right to: “coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;”

This concern rests on the contention that the Federal Reserve, created in 1913, is unconstitutionally issuing and regulating American currency as it is a quasi-government entity and not part of the legislative branch of the United States government. While physical U.S. dollars are issued by the Department of the Treasury (in paper form by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, in coin form by the U.S. Mint), most dollars in existence are not in physical form, and the value of the dollar is largely controlled by the actions of the Federal Reserve in lending and purchasing government securities.^{[citation needed]}

In the arts and literature

• Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace takes place in the near future with a common North American Currency, and a strong US-led North American confederation.
• North American Union and Amero was also mentioned in Zeitgeist, The Movie, as a stepping stone toward a world government
• Montezuma Strip and The Mocking Program, both by Alan Dean Foster, take place along the U.S.-Mexican border in a North American Union. The police are called Federales.

Rumors of “amero coins”

In August 2007, rumors and conspiracy theories began circulating across the Internet regarding alleged United States Treasury issued “amero” coins.

The inspiration behind these rumors may have the posting of images of medallions created by coin designer Daniel Carr. Carr, who designed the New York and Rhode Island 2001 statehood quarters, sells medals and tokens of his own design on his commercial website, “Designs Computed” (also known as “DC Coin”). Among his designs are a series of silver and copper fantasy issues of “amero coins” ranging in denomination from one to one thousand. The coins have the legend “Union of North America” on the back with his company’s logo, a stylized “DC”, in small type. Concerning his “amero” designs, he mentions on his website:

Unauthorized postings of images taken from his website have been reposted widely across the Internet, often being used as supposed “proof” of the amero coinage. Notably, Internet radio talk show host Hal Turner ran a full article on the “amero coin”, claiming to have arranged for a United States Government minted “amero” to be smuggled out of the Treasury Department by an employee of that organization.

Following Turner’s assertions of federal minting of ameros, a web site marketing the curio coins released a statement debunking Turner’s claims of a government cover up regarding Daniel Carr’s amero products. The debunking website Snopes also ran a further debunking of Turner’s claims, stating:

“Neither the U.S. Mint nor the U.S. Treasury has a hand in creating these ‘ameros’. These coins are merely collectibles offered to the buying public by a private company in the business of manufacturing such curiosities.”

See also

• Monetary union
• North American Union
• Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
• United States dollar
• Canadian dollar
• Mexican peso
• World Currency Unit
• Zeitgeist, the Movie
• Eco (currency)
• Euro
• East Caribbean dollar
• Khaleeji
• Afro (currency)
• List of trade blocs

“Last week, Congress allowed itself to continue overspending by raising the maximum national debt. The new debt limit, $9,815,000,000,000, is $850,000,000,000 larger than it was before.” Via Heritage.

I just finished watching a 2004 episode of John McLaughlin’s “One on One” and had by doors blown off by Amy Chua, author of World on Fire, a three-year-old book that is more relevant now than ever before. I agree with every word.

Amy Chua
John M. Duff, Jr. Professor of Law
Amy Chua is the John M. Duff, Jr. Professor of Law at Yale Law School. She came to Yale in 2001 after teaching at Duke and serving as a visiting professor at Columbia, Stanford, and NYU. Her expertise is in international business transactions, law and development, ethnic conflict, and globalization and the law. She recently published the book World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability. Professor Chua has an A.B. and a J.D. from Harvard University.

Education
J.D., Harvard, 1987
A.B., Harvard, 1984

JOHN MCLAUGHLIN’S “ONE ON ONE”
GUEST: AMY CHUA, AUTHOR AND LAW PROFESSOR
SUBJECT: DEMOCRACY AND INTERNATIONAL STABILITY
BROADCAST: WEEKEND OF MAY 22-23, 2004

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Exporting chaos. Spreading democracy is the Bush administration’s answer to the perplexing problem of how to stabilize the Middle East. But what if democracy actually promotes instability under some conditions? From Indonesia to Zimbabwe to Bolivia, this author claims that democracy creates violent ethnic conflict. Iraq, she warns, is next. Is democracy our most lethal export? We’ll ask Yale Law School professor and noted author Amy Chua.

Professor Chua, welcome.

MS. CHUA: Thank you.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: In the introduction there was mention that the Bush administration feels that the best way to stabilize Iraq and that part of the world is through democracy. Do you believe that to be the case?

MS. CHUA: Well, ultimately I am in favor of democracy as sort of the best long-term optimal solution. But as we’re learning sort of the hard way, developing non-Western countries have ethnic, religious and social structures completely different from what we are familiar with here in the United States.

And in fact, in many — you know, most Americans tend to assume that markets and democracy kind of naturally go together, just reinforce each other. And that makes perfect sense if you look at our own country today. But in fact in many non-Western countries democratization can lead to not the kinds of results that we expect and sometimes can result in anti-market, anti-American results.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: We can get back to Iraq in a moment. But of those Western countries, would you think, for example, of Venezuela or Bolivia as instances where democracy has caused more problems than it actually relieved?

MS. CHUA: Yes. I would wouldn’t say that — I wouldn’t blame democracy. I think it’s an important point. It’s not democracy’s fault. But in both those countries, you had historically a situation where a tiny minority, basically a light-skinned, sort of Europeanized cosmopolitan elite –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Particularly Venezuela?

MS. CHUA: — particularly — well, in Venezuela — actually, just as much in Bolivia, really. The elite is very Europeanized, foreign-educated, elegant.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Why are they dominant?

MS. CHUA: There are many different reasons that these certain ethnic minorities come to dominate different countries.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Let’s speak about Venezuela specifically.

MS. CHUA: In that case, I think it’s really colonization. I think it’s — you know, the Spanish colonizers came over early on and basically, you know, took all the land. I don’t even think it was entrepreneurialism necessarily. Now that’s being a little bit unfair because there were subsequent waves of immigration. So you did have lots of, you know, small pools of immigration come in, and they were very entrepreneurial.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: How is the one class differentiated from the other? Is one called pardos?

MS. CHUA: No, not exactly. In Venezuela, it’s not — the ethnicity isn’t so stark. That is, from — it’s — from the point of view of an American, North America, somebody in the United States, if you go and see Venezuela, it strikes us that the elite, the wealthy seem white; that is, light hair, green eyes. But in the consciousness of the Venezuelans, they don’t think of race in the same way, and lots of people will say we’re all Venezuelans. But so it’s not as stark as black and white, you know, in this country.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Chavez was elected in a free election?

MS. CHUA: Yes. Chavez came to power. He’s a very good example of a democratically elected anti-market leader; that is — he — how did he get to power? Not by proposing sound economic policies, but really by scapegoating both the United States and these oligarchs internally, and the masses voted for him.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: So democracy brought us Chavez, and that is the problem?

MS. CHUA: That’s not the sole problem, but given the conditions that existed in Venezuela, yes. My point is that when you have overnight elections in countries with enormous poverty and a huge amount of frustration and wealth concentrated in the hands of a very, very small minority, democracy often brings to power leaders who may not be pro-market and, you know, observing the rule of law, and Chavez is a good example of that. He — it’s not entirely his fault, although I don’t think much of him at all. I mean, he’s a terrible president. The economy is tanking. But you also have to look at the underlying forces that led to the people voting for him, and I think that was — you know, he was able to capitalize on a huge amount of frustration and exclusion among the local population.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What about Bolivia?

MS. CHUA: Bolivia’s even a better example for the kinds of problems I’m interested in. There it’s different from Venezuela because the ethnic lines are more stark.

In Bolivia, like Ecuador and Peru, you have a country where almost a majority of the population are Amerindians, that is indigenous, principally Aymaran or Quechua Indians. And this majority, or near majority of indigenous peoples are extremely poor. They’ve been fatalistic — described as fatalistic for years. Many are extremely poorly educated, even illiterate. And then the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very small, maybe 7 percent, you could call “white” — I mean, they would look white to people from the United States — a white elite that has very good connections to the British and United States foreign investors.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Who was elected president there?

MS. CHUA: Well, Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada was the president there for many years, until last fall when he had to flee by helicopter. And Conzalo Sanchez de Lozada was a white president. They actually all him “El Gringo.” He actually spent much of his life exiled in Connecticut, and speaks Spanish with an English accent.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What happened?

MS. CHUA: He was a pro-U.S., pro-free trade, pro-foreign investment, pro-IMF president and, you know, put in a lot of pro- market policies, including the privatization of water, which just led to an explosion of frustration and anger among the majority, who are so poor to begin with, and suddenly realized, you know, that with free-market policies they now had to pay for water and couldn’t afford it.

So in the fall, there were a series of very, very popularly supported, probably majority supported, I guess you could call it democratically produced Indian movements, populist movements, that led to escalating violence. And ultimately, President de Lozada had to flee for his life by helicopter.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Was the president an honorable man?

MS. CHUA: I think he was quite a good president in many ways; short-sighted in some ways, but I don’t think he was, you know, unusually corrupt. I think he had some sound free-market policies to propose.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: But there was unleashed pent-up anti-his-class sentiment; correct?

MS. CHUA: Very much. And it was very explicitly –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Was it demagogued?

MS. CHUA: I think it was demagogue-fueled, although again, there was some — you have to realize, why do people go for these demagogues, what is these demagogues’ appeal?

Now, what’s interesting is that this is part of globalization. I mean, I had a student from Bolivia, about five years ago, who said we could never have an ethnic majority movement in our country, you know, it could be a class warfare, but we wouldn’t have an Indian-based kind of ethnic movement. And he wrote me an e-mail just a few years ago and said it’s changing; I take it back.

And this is part of — you know, one thing that globalization spreads that we don’t really focus on, which is it’s the spread of identity politics, ethnic demagogue –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Are you anti-globalist?

MS. CHUA: No. No. I’m — I see myself–

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Are you anti-free market?

MS. CHUA: No. I’m a pro-globalization, a very much pro-market person.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Are you anti-democracy?

MS. CHUA: Actually no, I’m not. I’m not in that camp. I’m very concerned — my point is that there are many different versions of free-market democracy, and I think that we have been exporting the wrong version, a caricature, really.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, what would you have favored in Bolivia? What would you have favored?

MS. CHUA: Much — I would have favored — first of all, on the market side, you know what we’ve been doing for the last 20 years, since 1989? There’s no Western nation today that has anything close to a laissez-faire system, right? We have taxation –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You mean a primitive form of capitalism?

MS. CHUA: Yeah, we don’t — we have progressive taxation, unemployment — we have –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: We have regulated democracy.

MS. CHUA: Yeah, anti-fraud laws, anti-insider trading laws.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: So are you saying that — going back to Iraq — the imposition of democracy in Iraq would be a one-man one-vote and it might unleash the Sunnis against the Shi’ites and that it is unregulated, unsophisticated and this has to be a more gradual process?

MS. CHUA: In many ways, it’s not necessarily a timing process. But yes — so on the market side, we’ve been exporting a primitive sort of version of raw capitalism with no mechanism –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: And laissez-fairism.

MS. CHUA: Yeah, and no mechanisms for regulating fraud and monopolies or redistributing wealth.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Did it take time for the United States to bring those mechanisms into existence?

MS. CHUA: Absolutely. We are not exporting the same kind of capitalism that we have now and it’s exactly the same with democracy. If you recall, our founding fathers — that is James Madison, many people who signed our Constitution — they were all terrified of overnight universal suffrage. They didn’t want the poor to be allowed to vote because they thought it would lead to chaos and, you know, the poor confiscating from the rich.

And in fact, what we’ve been exporting since 1989 is basically a really oversimplistic form of democracy — essentially, overnight elections with overnight universal suffrage at the national level. And I think that’s not what democracy is all about.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Is there criticism to go around? For example, aren’t you also critical of the IMF and the World Bank for doing the same thing?

MS. CHUA: Yes, on the market side, for sure.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: But they’re not as insistent as we are on the implementation of a primitive form of capitalism, are they? Don’t they allow — don’t they have time frames that permit the introduction of regulatory mechanisms to control the growth of capitalists and markets?

MS. CHUA: I think not. I think this is revisionist history. I think things are changing slightly now, with all the –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: We’re talking IMF and World Bank.

MS. CHUA: Yeah, but actually, in the late ’80s and ’90s, the United States and IMF and the World Bank shared very similar positions, and this makes sense to me. I mean, I’m critical, but I understand it. Look, after the Berlin Wall fell, you had the death of communism and everybody looked around and said, okay, we don’t want communism and we don’t like dictatorships, so the only thing left are markets and democracy. Let’s put these things in as fast as we can, and my point is that it’s just not that easy. You can’t plug in free-market democracy like a light bulb. But the IMF for sure in the ’80s and ’90s, their structural adjustment policies, their policies for Africa, the poorest countries of Southeast Asia was get rid of subsidies. It was a raw form of capitalism, nothing about redistributing wealth. It was, you know, let’s privatize everything; let’s let in foreign investment; remove the subsidies, resulting in unemployment; prices would go up.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: But you don’t — for example, Zimbabwe is in such terrible shape because of Robert Mugabe. Do you see your view, your model, operating in Zimbabwe?

MS. CHUA: Perfectly. My view is that there are numerous non- Western countries around the world that have what I call a market- dominant minority. We don’t have this in the United States. There are countries where a very small outsider ethnic minority controls huge amounts of the nation’s wealth.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Indonesia’s a perfect example –

MS. CHUA: Chinese.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: — where you have the Chinese.

MS. CHUA: Three percent of the population controlling 70 percent of the private economy.

But Zimbabwe’s a perfect example, too. For many, many years, really for decades, the white majority (sic) — just about 1 percent of the population — controlled 70 percent of the country’s best arable land in the form of very productive, very efficient commercial plantations. And you had, you know, poor, poor masses of black majority under apartheid.

Now what people like to forget — I mean, it’s easy to point the finger at Mugabe now, and I would be among those — he’s just a terrible disaster — but it’s important to remember that Mugabe himself is a product of democracy. He was elected in 1980 in very closely monitored free and fair elections. How did he come to power? What was his campaign slogan?

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: So he was democratically elected?

MS. CHUA: But do you know how he came to power? He campaigned — his campaign slogan was we need to take back the stolen land from the whites, and that’s why the black majority voted for him. He was as popular as Nelson Mandela under that platform. But he didn’t redistribute that land in the ensuing 20 years because of pressures — partly because of pressures from the IMF, the British government, the World Bank and the United States in foreign investment, and partly because of his own partly corrupt practice. He did not redistribute that land, and that’s why there was all this pent-up hostility among the majority. And every time elections came around, Robert Mugabe tried to play the race card by scapegoating the whites.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: All right. Well, how do you explain the situation in South Africa, where none of this has occurred? Although you think you see signs of what’s happening in Zimbabwe there, namely the unleashing of a pent-up, anti-white sentiment which was held in check perhaps because of that forgiveness amnesty program.

MS. CHUA: South Africa –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you see something happening in South Africa similar to Zimbabwe?

MS. CHUA: I think South Africa has two very, very positive things going for it. One is the presence of Nelson Mandela, who from the beginning amazingly has never played the ethnic or racial card. He’s always been inclusive, and that’s a gift. The second thing that South Africa has going for it is neighboring Zimbabwe. Everybody in that country looks over at Zimbabwe and says, you know, we don’t want to go that way. So President Mbeki has something going for him. He basically — they also — this is a country where a tiny white majority (sic) still controls, I would say, 70 percent of the country’s best arable land. And until they –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: But they have a constitution and they’re protected in their rights. The minority is protected, correct?

MS. CHUA: Well, it’s not so simple as that. With democracy –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Is there some give on that now taking place?

MS. CHUA: Very much so. The new black economic empowerment policy, which of course is majority-supported, is basically sort of like an affirmative action program for the majority. So it’s not affirmative action for the minority –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You mean they’re going to cut back on De Beers wines’ (sic) freedom of operation and maybe on some of its holdings?

MS. CHUA: Actually, yes. There was something called the Mining Nationalization Act that was just passed, and at first it was terrifying to the Oppenheimers and the whites. It called for something like 50 percent black ownership. But they negotiated that down, and now it’s a situation where, you know, the white minority, including the Oppenheimers and De Beers, are going to relinquish some of that — that is, bring in more black participation — and hopefully they are walking that line. I mean, they are trying to keep in markets, not scare away foreign investment, but also try to give the black majority more of a stake in markets.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: So the United States is promoting, in Iraq and elsewhere, a caricature of democracy and market economics. I’ll put this in another way. We are using our dominant world position economically and militarily to dictate political structures to other countries that are inappropriate to their cultural and historical circumstances, and if it comes about as a consequence of our pressure, what will happen is a worse set of realities than would otherwise exist. For example, Sunnis and Shi’as, you believe, could be at each other’s throats.

MS. CHUA: Oh –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: And motivation is not doctrinal; it’s commerce, and it’s material. Correct?

MS. CHUA: Not always. No, it’s not entirely material. And I wouldn’t quite have put it that way. I mean, I’m not a conspiracy theory person. I often think that — I think that in many ways the U.S. government has been driven by idealism as much as other factors.

But that’s exactly right. I think what you’re seeing in the administration now is they very idealistically, in some ways, said, “We’re going to put in democracy in Iraq” –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Have you heard of Robert Kaplan?

MS. CHUA: Yes. Sure –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Robert Kaplan, I think, holds the view that a benign autocracy is probably the best thing in some of these countries for a period of time.

MS. CHUA: Yes –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you agree with that?

MS. CHUA: No, I actually don’t.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you want — well, don’t you fight your own doctrine there –

MS. CHUA: No, I don’t.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: — if you want an election now?

MS. CHUA: No. I respect his position very much, but the reason that I’m not in the anti-democracy camp is for the simple reason –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, he’s not in that camp, either, really –

MS. CHUA: No, he is in favor of just holding off on democracy and maybe trying to find a beneficent dictator –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Right.

MS. CHUA: — or at least having an autocratic system that, you know, might be liberal.

Now I understand why. You can get lucky. Look at Lee Quan Yew in Singapore.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Yes.

MS. CHUA: Perfect example for Robert Kaplan. And he’s right.

My problem — the reason I struggle with that position is because how can you ever ensure that you’re going to get a beneficent dictator?

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: We’ll be right back.

(Announcements.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Is it arrogance or is it ignorance that makes America think that we can safely export our version of democracy to the rest of the world? We’ll put that question to our guest, but first, here is her distinguished profile.

Born: Champaign, Illinois. Forty-one years of age; husband Jed, two daughters. Reared Catholic. Politics: Independent.

Harvard University, B.A. Economics, Magna Cum Laude; Harvard University, Doctor of Laws, Cum Laude.

Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen and Hamilton, an international Wall Street law firm, where she represented, among other clients, Mexico in the privatization of its international telephone company, Telmex; four years.

Duke University, professor of law, seven years. Yale University, professor of law, three years and currently.

Author, a book, “World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability,” a best-seller now in paperback.

Hobbies: tennis, violin, piano.

Amy Lynn Chua.

Amy Lynn Chua, do you want to add to any of your biography? You were reared Catholic. That sounds like you are no longer Catholic?

MS. CHUA: Well, my husband is Jewish and my father was in a Protestant family and my mother’s parents were Buddhist. So I come from a very diverse background.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: How did you work that out with your husband, in the practical order? The religion question.

MS. CHUA: It was complicated. My children speak Chinese but they’re raised Jewish.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What was that?

MS. CHUA: My children are fluent in Chinese but they are raised Jewish.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Was that a deal?

MS. CHUA: Yes. (Chuckles.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: And it’s working?

MS. CHUA: Appears to be.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What do you think of — to get back to Iraq, because we don’t have much time — what do you think is going to happen if we try to impose democracy here?

MS. CHUA: It’s a real disaster, actually, if you just look at the demographics. And it seems that anybody who had thought about this beforehand would have seen this. You have a 60 or 70 percent Shi’ite majority; that’s a fact. And this is why the U.S. government cancelled the elections in Najaf last June. They realized, look, if we hold free and fair elections, this could go fundamentalist, and that’s why they cancelled the elections. And then there was this popular outcry, everybody was outraged; and then the U.S. government said, ok, no, we are going to put in elections.

But in fact, what the U.S. administration wants is democracy without majority rule, and that is pretty hard to do — impossible in fact. You have the demographics where the Sunni — in fact, the Ba’athist party tends to be the ones, this minority — again, they’re –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think we should just have an early departure and let them decide what sort of government they want and let them work it out? To what extent should we be intrusive in the process at this difficult time?

MS. CHUA: Well, we already were intrusive. So I think that it’s a — there is a question of responsibility at this point because –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: For them in the selection of their government?

MS. CHUA: No, but to make sure that we don’t leave just utter chaos. One of the ideas that I’m toying around with is — really, I think that the way to go in Iraq is to be promoting local democracy first.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Are we talking about Kurds and Shi’as and Sunnis?

MS. CHUA: Everywhere. You know, in the United States or the U.K., our democracies started locally. It wasn’t imposed at the national level all of a sudden. So instead of — I think you shouldn’t — instead of having national elections where everybody is fighting over the oil, and you’ve got a 70 percent Shi’ite majority that is long-oppressed, long-humiliated — they feel it’s their time to take back the country. I think that the better way to go would be to start locally with cities, towns, villages. You know, local democracy is the best instruction for national democracy.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Is this a Bosnia model?

MS. CHUA: No. I’m not in favor of breaking up the country. I mean, I don’t think that would work. But the idea is that, you know, you need to learn how democracy works and to have other things that you –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: And you think that should be a gradual process and it should be done on a sectoral basis.

MS. CHUA: I also think that if certain villages or certain towns go fundamentalist, we have to let that stand. We can’t just remove it and step in and intervene if we don’t like that result. But I think we need to secure other regions so that people can move with their feet and ultimately, you know, let democracy really play out.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: We’ll be right back.

(Announcements.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Professor Chua, thank you for being my guest.

MS. CHUA: Thank you for having me.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I have never read a book as complicated and as high-concept as your book that is so easy to read.

MS. CHUA: Thank you very much.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I really must commend you on it.

MS. CHUA: I appreciate it. Thank you very much.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: And I hope you will come back.

MS. CHUA: It would be my pleasure.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Is there a final thought that you would give to the White House and the Congress?

MS. CHUA: I think it would help if we knew a little bit more about the countries that we’re supposedly trying to help. I think that would be a good first step. And to understand that you can’t just, you know, put in markets and democracy overnight. Our process took a long time. And we need to put a lot more thought into that.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Thanks so much.

MS. CHUA: Thank you.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Good luck.

MS. CHUA: Thanks very much.

END OF REGULAR SEGMENT

PBS SEGMENT

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Amy Chua, talk to me about, if you would, talk to us about Russia.

MS. CHUA: Well, Russia is another country where, in the ’90s, in the sort of anarchic transition to capitalism, there were no laws. It was just a vacuum. And in this rapid transition from socialism to capitalism, basically seven men came to control about 50 percent of Russia’s massive natural resource wealth.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The oligarchs.

MS. CHUA: The oligarchs. And out of seven of them, six of them were well known to be Jewish. And this fact was not lost on the Russian population. And so you had this situation where markets produced this — or sort of un — primitive markets led to this enormous concentration of wealth. This produced tremendous resentment among the Russian people, who felt like they were just ripped off. They didn’t have anything.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Were they also feeding off the classic anti- Semitism that exists?

MS. CHUA: Yes, which has been in Russia for, you know, just hundreds of years. But yes, this actually produced — when you democratized there, it produced anti-Semitic political parties that explicitly called for expulsion of the Jews and taking back their assets. And so that’s partly the model. When you have markets with this kind of market-dominant minority, rapid democracy can give rise to ethnic scapegoating.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, do you think you really have here a dominant ethnic minority in the six who happened to be Jewish?

MORE

MS. CHUA: Well, it was certainly perceived as such. That’s the point. Ethnicity is not a science; it’s how people perceive it. And in this country Jews may not be an ethnic minority, but there –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, but also in Indonesia, when Suharto passed on that unleashed the killing of the Chinese, who owned 3 percent of the wealth over there.

MS. CHUA: Exactly, exactly. In –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: But there was nothing like that in Russia.

MS. CHUA: No –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What you have now is Chechnya. You had a warlike situation for a while between Georgia and Azerbaijan.

MS. CHUA: Yes.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: But that’s it. Otherwise everything is under control, remarkably enough, would you not say?

MS. CHUA: Remarkably. I think’s it’s under Putin. Putin is maybe a democratic leader in theory, but he has decidedly autocratic tendencies and he is keeping everything under his control right now. And in fact, specifically he’s targeted three of those Jewish oligarchs.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: So he’s the benign autocrat?

MS. CHUA: At the moment, he’s viewing very much in that direction, cracking down on –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Talk to me about anti-Americanism around the world.

MS. CHUA: Well, most of my research focuses on the very small ethnic minorities in countries like Indonesia or the Indians in East Africa, Chinese throughout Southeast Asia, whites –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think –

MS. CHUA: At the global level — I’m sorry?

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, go — I want to get this point in because we’re running out of time. In 50 years — 2050, 45 years from now, you’ll live to see it, whites are going to be in the minority –

MS. CHUA: In the United States.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: — in this country. Is there a problem with the whites assuming that status of a dominant minority, and could there be a rising up of the non-whites in this country — the Hispanics and the blacks — to do what happened in Indonesia, or is that just — is that just so far afield?

MS. CHUA: I think would be very –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What?

MS. CHUA: I think it would be very hard in this country to organize a movement that describes the whites in this country as outsiders, coming in to steal the wealth of the nation. That just doesn’t fit with our history if you look at our own history.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Even though they may be — they will be — in 45 years or so they will be in the minority?

MS. CHUA: It’s possible. I’ve discussed that; you know, the browning of America, and will — you know, will whites eventually reach that point. But the countries I look at, these ethnic minorities are viewed as outsiders, and I think it’s hard to view whites as outsiders.

Now at the global level, the United States has become, I think, a sort of global market-dominant minority. We’re perceived by the world — we’re just 4 percent of the world’s population, but we’re perceived everywhere as the principal engine and principal beneficiary of global (commerce ?) right now.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: So we are minorities worldwide?

MS. CHUA: Yes, and in part as a result of that we are also the object of mass, often demagogue-fueled resentment and hatred, you know, of the same kind, that’s directed at so many other of these market-dominant minorities around the world.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: And that accounts for widespread –

MS. CHUA: Partly. Not all. There are a lot of other things that we’ve done wrong to contribute to anti-Americanism. But certainly I think that’s part of the picture, the fact that we’re the world’s hyperpower. You know, we’re going to be held to a higher standard than everybody else.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What happens when China becomes a hyperpower?

MS. CHUA: That will be interesting if that happens. It will be interesting to see what happens.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What will happen to us then?

MS. CHUA: Well, it will be interesting to see. It will be interesting to see how our policies change.

I am freshly home from ten days in the UK. Most of the time was spent in Oxford while attending a conference at the University; the rest was spent with delightful friends nearer to London.

I am pretty sure that it’ll be easy to get over this particular brand of jetlag. Coming east to west is supposedly easier than the other way around.

What an amazing opportunity I had over the last ten-days. I spent the last five of them in Oxford; I spent the last five days as a participant of the first Renaissance Weekend outside the US. It was particularly amazing. Firstly, I stayed at Pembroke College’s student housing, Stairway 10, room 11. A very handsome student cell, I must add.

Some of the highlights I can share, as the Weekends are strictly off-the-record, is that I was honored to attend a Banquet Dinner in Charles I’s Parliament as well as the Dining Hall as featured in the first Harry Potter movie. Tudor Hall was built in 1529 and sits lovingly in the arms of Christ Church College.

On Friday last, I supped at the Bodleian Libray. The Bodeleian is supposedly the oldest library still in existance. The Library of Congress is a modern attempt at replicating the Bodleian. And of course, the Bodleian is also the library featured in Harry Potter as well.

Every morning, I tried to get up to eat breakfast in Pembroke Hall, but failed all but twice. The grounds of Pembroke and the grounds of all of the colleges of Oxford are amazingly lush and unforgivingly beautiful.

It seems odd but its true that everybody carried a sense of the seriousness and tradition of the University of Oxford — or at least the fellows of the University’s colleges.

The tourists and locals were plenty happy with going to the nightclubs and getting very pissed and eating huge pitas of donner kebab and chips; as did I on the nights when the youngins of Renaissance and I ran amok, enjoying the wet cobbled streets and the euphoric nature of the weekend and the collection of souls.

During the days, we collected in the Examination Schools wherein we discussed any number of topics, all of which were off-the-record and as such, amazingly open, honest, truthful, and expressive in much the same way that everyday isn’t.

I had an opportunity to meet, spend time, and get to know people who differ from me in age, religion, education, socioeconomics, politics, gender, race in an environment where none of that matters. And it doesn’t, as hard as that might be to truly accept.

It is a very rare experience; its an experience that is in fact not just a whole greater than the sum of its parts but in fact its a whole that is exponentially greater then the sum of its parts.

I have more to share, but this is good for now.

Posted Aug 06, 2002 – 12:53 PM