Former president George W. Bush made many decisions based on religious considerations. His faith-based politics at home are a good example. These were perfectly unconstitutional decisions. His premise in foreign policy was the same. He said he invaded Iraq after consulting with God and he wanted to subdue a Middle Eastern group of countries with Turkey as a model. In this process, he wanted to convert Ataturk’s laic (Secular) Turkey to a mildly Islamic country. Arabs don’t like Turks and did not want to have any part of it. Besides they were not ready for democracy. But in Turkey he found an ally in Recep Tayyip Erdogan who under the guise of abiding by the laic laws, wanted to Islamize Turkey. Ataturk’ political philosophy in respect to religion was very close to that of our Thomas Jefferson ["Jefferson & Ataturk, Political Philosophies" G.W.Sheldon, 2000 Peter Lang Publishing] Ataturk had made a revolution, among other things, llto separate State from Islam because Islam had been part of the problem in the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Thus the U.S. was returning a westernized Turkey to where Ottoman Empire had failed. While we were fighting Islamic radicals in Afghanistan and elsewhere, it makes no sense to convert a state like us to an Islamic republic, mildly or not.

Former president Bush proved to be an irrational man. In stead of consulting with his father, his Secretary of State, with the Pentagon, and with the CIA, he decided to make war on Iraq just by himself, by appealing to a “higher Father” for strength [Bob Woodward in Washington Post, 1-18-09] We know the result. His plans for Turkey were similarly flawed, irrational decisions.

There were, and there still are, two possibilities of dealing with Turkey.

1) Support the “laic” republic founded by Ataturk, that aimed at converting Turks to Westerners, culturally, technologically, educationally, and every which way. Such a government has been a truly friendly ally, politically, and culturally, was reliable, and would cooperate in our fight in Afghanistan against the Taliban and other Islamic radicals. An Ataturkist regime would be perfectly democratic, since they have practiced it for the last 89 years.

2) Support the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, that would Islamize Turkey to a weaker, unreliable, in-name only ally, that would be easier for the United States to manage as a “Puppet Regime” [Remember Brave New World!]. However, in time, it would slide to full Islamic policies, that would be anti-U.S., anti-Israel, pro-Russian, and pro-Iranian. This is now happening before our eyes. Mr. Erdogan is taking sides with Hamas in the Gaza conflict and alienating Turkey’s long time ally Israel. In his fury, he is now taking it from Turkish Jews. After his very public argument with President Perez at Davos, he said that he considers anti-Semitism a crime against humanity. Thus, Mr. Erdogan incriminated himself by what he is doing at home.

Which policies are more in the basic interests of the United States and of the world? Obviously, it is the first.

President Obama made a wise decision: The U.S. will not take sides in Turkish politics which also creates domestic unrest. I hope, this means, he will no longer push for a mildly Islamic Republic. But this would mean that he walked half-way in the right direction. In my opinion, real American interest would dictate that he should walk the whole way and help Turks getting rid of the dangerous anti-U.S. Islamic regime. The U.S. should not push Turkey into the laps of Putin and the Mullahs. We should instead help Turkey restore the modern Ataturkist principles and values..

I congratulate President Obama for his election with such a high percentage of the American vote and wish him much success in his programs, especially in straightening up our relations with Turkey.

R E A D ER’ S  C O M M E N T  O N     P U B L I C     E D U C A T I O N

Can Korman sent my article on Public Education to an American friend who stayed many years outside the U.S. Below is her comments. She seems to be happy with the Dewey system.

Hi Can,

…The education article is some thing I know a little more about and therefore have stronger opinion about. I thought grades1,2,6,and 7th grade history and geography. In summer sessions I thought grades 3 .and 4. I also was administrator of schools in Sofia, Yaounde, and Jakarta. From the teaching perspective I have been exposed to and practiced many techniques of teaching. My training/education was at UCLA and taught in Beverly Hills, CA. My own education, primary through university was in Los Angeles. Background. As an elementary school kid you might say I was exposed to the John Dewey System and for that I am so thankful! Why? I’ll give a little example. In grade 6 we studied Westward expansion. Our studies included building a log cabin furnished with stuff we made and items donated by our families who had relevant antiques at home. We also made a covered wagon, dressed in pioneer clothes, churned butter, made powder horns from horns obtained by our teacher from a slaughter house, trekked through some vacant land near our school. We studied routes followed by settlers and explorers, wars, treaties…. Now when I study history which I learned to love through that teaching method, I always want to know much more than a few memorized names and dates. I’m able to put myself in the shoes of people I can never know. We did memorize the multiplication tables and spelling words. We also enjoyed real music and art instruction…. The Ayn Rand admirers and other conservatives would have us “learn” a national set of “facts” and be tested on successful memorization at least once a year. Hello, No Child Left Behind in its present adaptation. Yes, learning is an individual mental process, but there are many techniques which are successful in teaching and not all of those techniques work for each individual child/person. There are many reasons for “failing” schools. Closing them does not cure them. Oh, Can, we/I could go on and on. Let’s talk about one day….But ,one more example of the fallacy, in my opinion, of Mr.Tarhan’s premise… . The state Department decided some years ago to adopt just one method of teaching foreign languages. That method was to listen and repeat. At least that’s what my Czech teacher said. I dropped the class after several weeks, because I cannot learn language that way. I must be able to see what is being said/taught. Same with Arabic. One size never fits all. Using some of the elements of the John Dewey system enable many of us to develop a life long love of learning and appreciation of the learning process.

An Anonymous Reader

W R I T E R’ S     R E S P O N S E

I thank the Anonymous lady for her comments.

It is obvious that what John Dewey called “class projects” such a Westward expansion is a lot of fun , both for people who teach it and those who learn it. A great deal of details is learned about a subject that covers at least several months time and the child misses to learn a systematic history of America during that time. In the boarding school in Istanbul (Galatasaray) a French physics teacher had led a project to build a glider. Participation was voluntary, and work was done evening. After two years he had tried to fly it. I did participate and we learned how to build structured wings, how to construct the whole thing as light as possible. But that was not done in stead of the physics courses, but in addition to. The regular physics course was still given. That school project was great fun too. Yes, learning must be fun, but the purpose of education does not consist of fun alone. There are so many things to learn and there is no question that our schools do not measure up to European and Japanese schools where kids are taught to think. In our schools still some one may ask “Does in your country the sun set from the East or from the West?”

I have no premise to learn foreign languages by hearing and repeating. I learned three foreign languages by immersing myself in environments where every one was speaking that language.

Ayn Rand is being misquoted. All she required was that kids learn by understanding. Once that happens there is no need to memorize. One remembers what one understands.

No Child Left Behind is a lousy program that would lower the knowledge level of the class to the level of the dumbest kid.

………………………………………………………………………………………….

To Readers’ Attention: Any one who wishes to receive THE ORHAN TARHAN LETTER should sent an e-mail to orhant@verizon.net with his/her full name, e-mail address , and PLEASE phone number, in case there is an interruption caused by the server, or in case of e-mail address change. It is free. Comments are welcome. These LETTERs are also published in AmericanChronicle.com

The aim of education in Turkey at the time of Ataturk was (a) to acquire modern knowledge, to learn to think analytically and (b) to acquire a modern conception of the world.( The problem with the Conception of the World will be discussed in an other article) According to the self-taught Eric Hoffer, the purpose should be to produce “learning” people, not “learned” people. As we will see, the U.S. does not achieve any of the two aims of the Ataturk era that were the same as European aims.

American public schools are the way they are because of the teaching method of John Dewey. Around

1900 large numbers of European peasants were immigrating to the U.S. Most of them were illiterate and did not speak English. It was a big task to train them and to convert them to useful citizens. The American Public Education System was “redesigned” for a specific purpose to meet this challenge. This job was given to the philosopher John Dewey (1850-1952) who became the most influential man in Public Education., in fact, he was called “The Father of American Education”. Dewey wanted to make education “child-centered”. In his book “The School and Society“ [The University of Chicago Press, Second Edition, 1915] he said, “The mere absorption of facts and truths is so exclusively individual an affair that it tends very naturally pass into selfishness. There is no obvious social motive for the acquirement of mere learning, there is no obvious social gain in success there at. Indeed almost the only measure for success is a competitive one, in the bad sense of the term….” He obviously did understand that learning is a purely individual mental process and there is no such thing as a collective learning. That apparently troubled him, because he believed in the supremacy of the society over the individual and all the other socialist failed ideas that eventually carried the socialist countries of the 20th century to destruction.

In practice, “Child-centered Education” meant that no theoretical (conceptual) knowledge was given to the child. He/she was taught practical (concrete) knowledge in form of so-called class projects, which would develop his/her “social spirit”. Thus, in stead of teaching systematically history, geography, physics, and chemistry, the teacher might, for example, talk about the preparation of woolen textiles, she can give children bits of information on the raising of sheep, the parts of the country, where sheep are raised, etc. The child sees and feels this material as part of his/her life. Hence the term, “child-centered”. Thus, the childen never get any comprehensive and systematic knowledge of history, geography, physics, chemistry, or what ever.

This system has very grave consequences. Ayn Rand, in her book “The new Left –The Anti-Industrial Revolution” [Signet books (1971) pp. 152-204] made an enlightening analysis of the Dewey System.. She said, “The perception of reality, the learning of facts, the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, are exclusively individual capacities; the mind is an exclusively individual “affair”; there is no such thing as a collective brain”. Sacrificing one’s knowledge and truth to any social pressure is what we call a lack of intellectual integrity. Thus, “the goal of the Dewey system is to stunt,, stifle, and destroy the child’s capacity to develop “intellectual integrity. Dewey encouraged learning by memorizing instead of learning by understanding.

Dewey’s system produced millions of Americans who have much practical knowledge, but are unable to think conceptually. The fact that “Johnnie can’t read” is a normal result of this system. After the Russians launched

the Sputnik, there was a revue of U.S. Education. In the 1980’s “The National Commission on Excellence in Education” was created. Their finding called “A Nation in Risk – An imperative in Education Reform” was published in 1983. It said “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well viewed it as an act of war.” Twenty six years passed since that report and nothing has changed. In competition with European and Japanese kids, ours can’t measure up. We cannot hope to stay as a superpower with an education like that. We should get rid of the Dewey system. Why isn’t anything ever done about it? It is inconceivable that a superpower that sends a man to the moon and back, may be unable to fix its own public education. It reminds me of “Brave New World”. (See Appendix) The governments under the influence of Business may not want a smart citizenry who would not swallow all the advertising garbage and would be easier buyers. Anyway, enough hard-minded kids will learn to think in spite of Dewey. Those are feeding the universities plus the foreign students who were taught to think. That deal was probably still adequate 26 years ago but it is no more valid. Business has changed. Things have gotten high-tech. Computers have invaded our country. Brave New World or not, the Dewey System must go!

To get rid of the Dewey system there are a number of things that must be done:

(1) A new curriculum must be written for the entire country for classes 1 – 12. that should be as strong as the French and Japanese curriculums that emphasize the teaching of thinking and philosophy in 12th grade.

(2) The influence of local ignorant school boards on this curriculum must be definitely prevented.

(3) The Department of Education must prepare yearly examination questions for all high schools and devise a cheat-proof way of using them that does not show the identity of the student to the grader of the paper.

(4) The schools must be judged by the percentage of successes and failures, and failing schools must be closed. Same, teachers must be judged by their success in educating their pupils.

If these things are done, U.S. Public schools can be brought to the level of European schools. Unfortunately,

to do the above four measures, one must act federally. But education is a job reserved to the states. Here, there are constitutional difficulties. These measures cannot be done without changing the constitution, and we know how difficult that is. If this nation does not want to keep on deteriorating under the stupid Dewey system and eventually crumble like the Ottoman Empire and the USSR, its Congress would find ways of fulfilling the above four conditions.

The new President-Elect Obama has campaigned on a platform of change. Education should be on top of his list, and here is a tough problem that requires his unusual authority and capabilities. I wish him much success.

A P P E N D I X

B R A V E N E W W O R L D

Aldous Huxley’s book “Brave New World” was a utopia first published in 1932. It described a society existing “700 years after Ford”, that produced its people, not by sex, but by mass incubation of human eggs (??). The society consisted of four working classes and a master class. Each class was prepared differently in the incubators., giving less intelligence to the working classes.

The TIME editor that prefaced the TIME edition of “Brave New World” in 1963 found that ”Life has imitated Huxley’s art” and many unusual ideas of the book have already been applied. Today we are going to add another one to that list.

………………………………………………………………………………………….

To Readers’ Attention: Any one who wishes to receive THE ORHAN TARHAN LETTER should sent an e-mail to orhant@verizon.net with his/her full name, e-mail address , and PLEASE phone number, in case there is an interruption caused by the server, or in case of e-mail address change. It is free. Comments are welcome. These LETTERs are also published in AmericanChronicle.com

Dear Orhan,

Sorry for the delay in responding to this important essay. The most hurtful aspect of what you write is that you are absolutely correct in your assessment but no hope for the solution you suggest.

Except for the middle class (not the middle earners that have been improperly identified as middle class) who understand the importance of schooling at all levels, our country is woefully deficient in educational issues. The day this country allowed REMEDIAL READNG at the college level (30 years ago) I understood that we had dangerously downsized educational standards to accommodate minorities. That did not help minorities who for the next thirty years failed by 50 % to take real advantage (or graduate) from institutions of higher learning.

Then there is the daily deluge of empty rhetoric sent over the TV airways and published in popular magazines: celebrity information that in no way fosters learning. Consumerism became the God of our country and now we are facing the consequences of second rate leadership, mindless greed and careless citizenry. Perhaps the new economic reality will force even the empty heads to take other paths than that of the department store, inane concerts posing as art and all the other endeavors they have substituted for living in purposeful life. Immediate gratification, day-to-day fulfillment like children in a candy store has exposed dire consequences at all levels, from those whose jobs are lost to the millionaires who thought Mr.Madoff was Jesus of Wall Street. Enough ranting. Thank you for writing. Merry Christmas and a Healthy New Year.

Joan Salemi

Good Morning Orhan,

Two thoughts as I read your letter, first, in my mind, the current problem in U.S. Education begins before high school. The education process seems to have degenerated into a “day care” system, with kids being put into ”Pre kindergarten” as soon as they are out of diapers. Young people are passed along grade to grade, and enter high school without being able to read adequately, have little or no math skills and virtually no knowledge of the country or the world they live in.

As you point out, the college/university system may be the make-up for high school today; I would submit that high school has become the make up for elementary school.

Second, as a product of the Depression, I always heard at home that not everyone was supposed to, nor necessarily entitled to, go to college. A lot had to do with money. Not everyone could afford to go. It was not a frivolous follow-on to high school but serious preparation for professional career fields

Colleges today are nothing to be admired, they are just another profit-making enterprise.

Robert Dickie.

Orhan bey;

Thank you. Excellent. This article reflects also many of my thoughts. I have found only very few books and articles on the subject, but not as powerful as yours. Unfortunately the government will continue to pride itself with improving the school buildings, student populations in classes, and all other peripheral issues, it will never address the main issue of course contents, claiming that it is a matter for the local education board and for teachers.

Universities also would refuse to change claiming that their last 200 years of experience proves that they are doing the right thing, like the auto industry. Success makes them arrogant to accept that there may be better methods of doing things, especially after 200 years.

Metin Camcigil.

You are making an assumption about professors and colleges. Professors seek positions in American universities to do research, not to teach. American universities hire and (more importantly) retain/promote professors who are able to bring in research grants or recognition to the university. Teaching is a wonderful

Side-benefit for those who are lucky to be able to afford tuitions to these schools.

Which brings me to sports. I’ll announce my bias up front. I am a big sports fan. College athletes are divided into three categories:

1. Men’s college football

2. Men’s college basketball

3. Everything else

#1 and #2 are massive revenue streams for universities. #3 is not. However, the number of scholarships awarded to athletes is something to also consider. In many cases the students receiving scholarships would never be able to otherwise afford tuition or have grades strong enough to earn academic scholarships.

K. Hayri Tarhan, Jr.

W R I T E R’ S R E S P O N S E S

I thank all my four readers for their comments. Joan Salemi’s complaints about the weakening educational level in this country are of course very true. They are a part of the greater picture in education. However, I had chosen a narrower subject :How to cut costs in higher education to make it affordable. From that narrower view point I did answer the question. I suggested several means of cutting costs that would actually make the colleges affordable. However, as Joan Salemi points out, I did not attempt to answer the “greater picture”.

Bob Dickie’s contention that the problem of Education starts before high school is absolutely correct. Bob

I made my high school education in Turkey and my university education in Germany. My high school education was equivalent to the French high schools of 1930′s which were the best in Europe. With what I learned in h igh school, I got directly in Chemical Engineering at the Technical University in Darmstadt.

Unfortunately the American High school is much weaker and a four-year college is needed to bring the high school graduate to a level at which he can be starting a professional studies. [See: Allan Bloom, "The Closing of the American mind", Simon & Schuster, 1987]

Thus, a first cost–cutting would be possible by strengthening the high school to the level of a European high school and thus, saving at least a few years. That would include a course in philosophy in 12th grade. That is perfectly possible. My grand-daughter Erin took university-level courses in high school and now has done the 4-year college in three years. But the highest gain would be obtained, when high school level courses would become strong enough not to need the 4-year college. At present rates, this would be a saving o about $120,000 per student. Youngsters would also eliminate four years from the duration of their education. They would start four years earlier in life.

A big difference between a German University and an American one, is that in Germany the university is just a place of learning. The living is done outside and outside of the interest of the university. Students live in private homes., as a sort of guests.. Many families have extra rooms they can rent. If one is lucky, as I was, one can be treated almost like a family member.

In American universities, learning and living are done in the same campus. Students, at least the first year, live in a new student society, where excessive drinking, hazing, and similar youthful acts are common. I propose to get rid of the campus living , primarily to cut costs. The together-living during the first year has also some advantages. One makes friends, just like in a boarding school or in the army. Eating together in the same cafeterias or restaurants will do just as well and Campus living can be eliminated. I understand that fraternities and sororities are not in the University budget.

Information coming from one nearby university indicates that fighting the energy waste might tremendously reduce operating costs. As example, the elimination of cafeteria trays is mentioned. The washing of the trays is eliminated which is an energy-intensive operation. Also, without trays, students do not take things they are not going to eat and food waste is reduced.

At Lehigh University, in Bethlehem, PA., some of my friends professors were experimenting with a new idea. They thought that, in stead of teaching the students by many second-class teachers, it is better to teach them by videos, or DVD’s, of the best professors and have an assistant present to answer questions. This too would save considerable money and besides, improve the teaching. Universities would then retain only a few of the very best professors. Those DVD’s would have to be often up-dated.

Of course teaching methods can be improved to cut costs. I remember one Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering in the U.S. who spent his time in class in developing and integrating complex differential equations. Since he was not teaching mathematics, he could have given us prints that show how the integration is done, and he could have taught the chemical engineering facts that he was supposed to teach during that time. If he would do that, he would need to teach a one hour a week course, in stead of three. Of course there are all sorts of other ways to cut costs by planning the lectures intelligently.

One of the heavy expenses of an American University are its sports teams and a high salaried coach in every sport. I propose to form an outside sports club and get the sports out of the university budget. Students who are interested in sports will become members of the Club. I was told that Football is a generator of income. I still think that show-sports should be divorced from the university.

These are some of the cost cutting ways that came to my mind. I am sure there are others too. I will conclude that it is perfectly feasible to make the universities affordable.

T H E  O R HAN  T A R H A N  L E T T E R

(Issued twice a month by M. Orhan Tarhan and distributed free by e-mail ).

Article No: 142 December 15 , 2008

……………………………………………………………………………………………..

To Readers’ Attention: Any one who wishes to receive THE ORHAN TARHAN LETTER should sent an e-mail to orhant@verizon.net with his/her full name, e-mail address , and PLEASE phone number, in case there is an interruption caused by the server, or in case of e-mail address change. It is free. Comments are welcome. These LETTERs are also published in AmericanChronicle.com

I have never heard in history that any state may want to change the constitution of its ally., because if it does that, it is no longer its ally. President Bush cooked a “Greater Middle East Project” (GMEP) to be applied to Turkey and to all Islamic countries. Turkey would be a model for them, but not the laic Turkey, but a mildly Islamic Turkey. The Islamic countries do not like Turkey and do not want to be like it. They do not want to get rid of the Shariah. So they did nothing.

In Turkey, after the voters fired in 2002 a coalition of incompetent and corrupt people, a religious party promised to abide by the laic constitution and was elected as the ruling party. They had some economic success. They eventually increased their votes to 46 %. Once they were entrenched, they began to Islamize the country. The Ataturk followers were alarmed.

Their prime minister Recep Tayiyp Erdogan likes the GMEP because he too would like to Islamize Turkey.. When he comes to Washington, he is all smiles, at home he does not do anything without asking Washington, so the U.S. considers him a “Puppet regime”. But at Home, he propagandize sharply against the U.S. and he is one of the reasons why pro-American vote in Turkey is still 12 %, the lowest in the World.

The Obama government must disown and abolish GMEP and reinstitute respect for the Turkish constitution. This would also pull the rug from under the feet of Mr. Erdogan.

I think right now the most important problem between U.S. and Turkey is the PKK problem. Obama would understand that it is unacceptable that an ally protects terrorists in areas it is domineering and allows them

to attack Turkish targets. This is clearly a casus-belli. These are one of President Bush’s deeds that disregards all laws of common decency, like breaking the Geneva Convention and the Westphalia Treaty and permitting torture.

The next U.S. Secretary of State, before starting her own program, will have to correct first President Bush’s misdeeds.

If the PKK problem is resolved, Turkey can be again a reliable, real ally.

R e n a i s s a n c e  o f  R e p u b I i c a n  P a r t y

George W. Bush let his party be hijacked by Evangelical Christians, in spite of the separation of Church and State in our Constitution. He made a lot of decisions on religious grounds. Evangelicals propagated some of their ideas as Republican ideas. He broke the Geneva Convention, the Westphalia Treaty and allowed torture. When he wanted to do anything, like listening to phones, he always stepped out of the legal area.

For the political process to work properly in the United States, we have now a large and strong Democratic Party. We must also have a strong Opposition party. If the Republican party got too small and too weak, it cannot be a good opposition. Therefore, the Republicans must shake themselves up, get rid of Bush’s illegal ballast, and then make their new program.

In the past the Republican party was known to be pro business. That is al right, if it does not also mean “against the people”. Exporting a computer trouble-shooter job to India may lower the computer cost a little bit, but messes up the life of a highly specialized and knowledgeable technical man. He may not be able to find another good job for a long time, or may accept a much lower salary. The party must adopt a new nick name such as “The People’s Party” and must try to live up to it.

……………………………………………………………………………………………..

To Readers’ Attention: Any one who wishes to receive THE ORHAN TARHAN LETTER should sent an e-mail to orhant@verizon.net with his/her full name, e-mail address , and PLEASE phone number, in case there is an interruption caused by the server, or in case of e-mail address change. It is free. Comments are welcome. These LETTERs are also published in AmericanChronicle.com

Obviously, the most urgent problem to solve is the economy. I do not think the people who were entrusted with the $700 Billions are sure of what they are doing. Midway, they are changing course. I wish I knew to tell the correct thing to do.. That reminds me about my mother’s paternal grandmother who was in her eighties. Her grand children did not know that she could not read and write, but great-grandma would listen to their reading homework and to their piano-playing and tell them what was wrong, and the kids corrected it. I too don’t know much about that sort of economics, but I am sensing that something is not right. To make things worse, The British P.M. Brown warned that what is being done in the U.S. is typically mercantilist idea and that it will result in a long recession. Besides it is bad capitalism. Why should we, the citizens, pay for the mistakes of big banks who’s top men are spending the money like drunken sailors? Toyota came across the Pacific and defeated our best automobile manufacturers. I thing our car companies have lousy managers. Because, if they have a good idea, like Ford’s Taurus, the engineers and workmen can produce a good car. I had three Taurus in a row and loved them. Why should we give another chance to the same managers with our hart earned dollars to make more mistakes? I hope President Obama will be tighter with our money.

President-Elect Obama promised during the campaign to finish the Iraq war. Both in Turkey and in the United States basic training in infantry takes only three months. With that training soldiers go to war. Iraqi soldiers have been trained for several years. If they are not yet ready to defend their country, it is just too bad. We are not obliged to defend their country. We should pull our forces as soon as possible, and without leaving any bases any where in Iraq. For an end with victory, we have neither the military forces, nor the money, nor the time.

The PKK is a Marxist-terrorist band of Turkish Kurds who have enjoyed safe-haven in Northern Iraq during the tenure of President Bush. From there they have attacked Turkey, killing soldiers and civilians, bombing cities, aiming eventually enlarging Kurdistan into Southern Turkey. Turkey is supposed to be a U.S. Ally . This is no way to treat an ally. This shameful situation must be resolved by the new Obama Government. No wonder that the percentage of pro-U.S. people in Turkey is only 12 %, the lowest in the world.

President Bush has disregarded many International obligations of the United States, which bears our signature, especially the Geneva Convention of treating prisoners of War. The Westphalia Treaty was signed in the17th Century, at a time when the United Stated did not exist yet. But This treaty has been a standard for almost 400 years, that every state accepts. It requires a “casus belli ” for attacking another state such as an attack by that state. President Bush gave himself the right to attack first Iraq, when he suspected that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, had relations with Al Qaeda, and would give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. Of course all the three reasons that replaced the casus belli were proven to be non-existent. It would be nice, if the new State Department would announce that United States still honors our commitment to the Geneva Convention and to the Westphalia Treaty and that we will not practice torture.

While President Obama will end the Iraq War, he wants to reinforce our forces in Afghanistan. That is the right move. The war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda must be definitely won. I hope he takes all the important measures needed to strengthen and rejuvenate our armed forces to win that war.

Our relations with Pakistan will play a big role in this effort. The Viziristan part of Pakistan is now a safe-haven for the Taliban. Either the Pakistanis must help us fight the Taliban in that region, or the U.S. must be permitted to enter that region. The basic difficulty is that the heart of Pakistanis are mostly with the Taliban. As part of that campaign Osama bin Laden must be caught.

Iran is continuing to develop its atomic bomb. There, the U.S. has only two options: Learning to live with a nuclear Iran or destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities. A nuclear Iran cannot be a threat to the United States even to Israel. It would be suicidal for Iran to use its nuclear bombs against the U.S. or Israel.. Iran’s religious leaders look like rational men. The only effect would be that Western petroleum men would have to kiss good bye the hope to get their hands on the Iranian oil. Using the other option would definitely start a new war in the Middle East. First Iranian nuclear facilities are mostly under ground and probably are duplicate. Finding and destroying them is not surely feasible. Once a War is started the Iranians will not finish it. We do not have additional forces to fight Iranians and the Taliban at the same time. This situation will not change very much, if the attack is made by Israeli planes.

The trouble with Russia was started by President Bush. The relations with President Putin (Now Prime Minister) were quite cordial. Out of a blue, President Bush announced an anti-missile missile system to be placed in Poland and Czech Republic to meet Iranian nuclear-headed missiles. But Iran has no long range missiles nor nuclear heads yet. To the Russians , it looked like some precaution against Russia and Putin was alarmed. He suggested that the anti-missile missiles be installed somewhere in Azerbaijan or Turkey , or on floating platform on the sea. Those could catch Iranian missiles if there are any, and would not be suspected to be against Russia.. President Bush rejected these suggestions and invited Putin to Kennebunkport in Maine, to his parents’ home to discuss the matter, but he could not convince him. Since then Putin has become pretty unfriendly. President Obama should find out whether we really need those anti-missile missiles, and, if we do, can they be placed somewhere where Russia would not feel uncomfortable. We do not want start another Cold War, do we? Besides, we need Russia politically.

There are other problems that I will discuss at a later date.

……………………………………………………………………………………………..

To Readers’ Attention: Any one who wishes to receive THE ORHAN TARHAN LETTER should sent an e-mail to orhant@verizon.net with his/her full name, e-mail address , and PLEASE phone number, in case there is an interruption caused by the server, or in case of e-mail address change. It is free. Comments are welcome. These LETTERs are also published in AmericanChronicle.com

I want to tell here my voting record. I grew up in Turkey and could first vote there at the age of 32, because I had first to go to Germany for six years of Engineering studies, and two more years to the obligatory military service. Elections were every 5 years (I think). I was working for the Turkish Iron & Steel Co. at Karabuk. Turkey had just become a multi-party country. The incumbent People’s Republican Party, had been started by Ataturk and most engineers belonged to it. I was not active in any party. The new “Democrat Party” promised a slightly different future. My wife knew personally the head of that party and was convinced to vote Democrat But a bunch of irresponsible candidate representative Democrats had came to Karabuk and promised to the workers, that if they will bring them ten signatures of complaining workers, they will get their supervisor fired. They soon had fired two of the best supervisors, who were not immediately replaceable I had to go to Ankara, to explain the real situation to some higher Democrat Party people and tell them how they were destroying the steel industry. The two supervisors were rehired but the moral in the company hit bottom. Although The Democrat Party was promising a brighter future, in view of their actions, I voted for the Incumbent People’s Republican Party. That was my first and last vote in Turkey. At that election in 1950 the Democrats won a landslide of a victory, but they thought they could do anything with such a majority and in 1960 the Democrat party was closed. The Peoples’ Republican Party was eventually hijacked by socialists, so there is no more party in Turkey that represents Ataturk’s legacy.

When I arrived in the U.S. and got naturalized, I registered as Republican, because I liked their platform of small government and private solution of public problems. From January 1960 on, I voted continuously as Republican. George W. Bush changed everything. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, where I had worked as a research engineer for almost a quarter of a century, was going bankrupt from poor management, but could not find a buyer, because of its obligations towards its retirees. President Bush, in stead of protecting the earned and promised pensions, life insurance, and health insurance of these retirees, allowed the Bethlehem Steel management to break their promise to the retirees, so that the corporation could be sold. Thanks to the ERISSA law passed by the Democrats a few years ago, my pension was taken over by the government, but I lost $26,000 of life insurance, and now It cost me $430.26 a month to replace the Bethlehem Steel health insurance that was robbed from me.

AARP wanted to import prescription drugs cheaper from Canada for its retired members. President Bush, in stead of helping AARP, vetoed it, It put the interest of drug companies ahead of that of the citizens who elected him.

President Bush allowed the evangelical religious groups to hijack his party. He gave funds to religious groups in spite of the separation of Church and State in our constitution. Even Tom Brokaw remarked that the U.S. was going towards a theocracy.

After 9/11 and the brief Afghanistan war, in stead of following those actions by stronger American forces, fully destroying the Taliban, and catching Osame bin Laden, the Iraq War was started under the influence of petroleum interests. Iraq was a secular country and had no relation with the Taliban or the Al Qaeda. The reasons advanced for this war were proven false.. It cost us almost $1 trillion, 4200 dead, 25000 wounded and 15 % of non-wounded soldiers having mental problems. In the coming election, ending the Iraq war soon and staying there until victory has become an important issue.

President Bush broke United States promises and signatures in the Geneva Convention, and in the Treaty of Westphalia which was the standard since the 17th Century. He put the United States in the position of an international Pariah. He gave Russia an alibi to attack his old USSR members.

The list is much longer, but this much is enough to characterize him and the party he changed. Of course George W. Bush is not running for re-election, but the one who is running from the Republican Party, John McCain, is almost a carbon-copy of President Bush. He boasts having voted 90 % with President Bush. He is clearly preferring corporations’ interest over citizen’s interest. Finally his choice of Vice President is too weak. Using an old Turkish expression, Governor Sarah Palin “need to eat 40 bakeries’ full of bread before she qualifies” as President of the United States.

I did not tell you how I am going to vote on November 4, 2008, did I ?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

To Readers’ Attention: Any one who wishes to receive THE ORHAN TARHAN LETTER should sent an e-mail to orhant@verizon.net with his/her full name, e-mail address , and PLEASE phone number, in case there is an interruption caused by the server, or in case of e-mail address change. It is free. Comments are welcome. These LETTERs are also published in AmericanChronicle.com

Jefferson opposed him as strongly as he could, because Hamilton’s agenda would destroy liberty and because, he, Jefferson, was taking Adam Smith’s warning against economic interventionism very seriously.

Wile during the last two centuries, Americans talked and praised Adam Smith, in time the corrupt mercantilist system was spread in America in most aspects of our lives.

In our elections, we the citizens vote, but the election expenses of our representatives, senators and presidents are met mostly by corporations, who then command the loyalty of these representatives , senators, and presidents to these corporations. The result of this system is that the country is run not according to the wishes of the voters, but according to the needs of the corporations. This certainly is no democracy. During the Independence War (1919-1922) a Turkish parliament opened up in Ankara and one of the first articles of a new constitution that passed was “Sovereignty belongs unconditionally to the people” . Using this way of expressing, we should say that in the United States of America “Sovereignty belongs unconditionally to the corporations”. This system can be democratized by adopting pubic funded elections, and forbidding receiving any other monies, but our Congress wouldn’t vote for it. Corporations’ money is apparently too sweet. Public-funded elections would completely change the government. The representatives, the senators, and the presidents will start acting according to the wishes of the voters.

Hamilton wanted a big government to borrow money, to take higher taxes, and to spend freely, solely to sell government bonds to the affluent people (business people). Those who would hold these bonds would vote for him. Jefferson, to the contrary, advocated minimal government .

Wall Street financiers liked Hamilton’s idea and became the supporters of the Federalist Party, and eventually, of the Whigs and Republicans. The bonds between Wall Street and the Federal Government were strengthened, when Wall Street got to market government bonds. Hamilton wanted to unite the propertied interests of the Eastern Seaboard into an administration party. He also transformed the financial transactions of the Treasury Department into an orgy of graft in which selected politicians participated. The political descendent of these 18th Century “propertied interests” is the $700 Billion Bailout Bill of 2008.

Hamilton is also known as the Founding Father of Central Banking. According to William Graham Sumner, “a national bank was not essential to the work of the Federal Government.” Sumner believed that “The real purpose of Hamilton’s bank was the interweaving of the interests of wealthy men with those of the government.” The bank provided cheap credit to business supporters of the Federal Party, “attempting to engineer boom-and-bust cycles to influence elections” . It was a disaster for the general public. Once it created 72 % inflation. So the Central Bank was closed several times, but it survived. In 1913 the FED was created. “The Wall Street elite’s response to all this central-bank induced monetary instability was even more centralized banking with the creation of the Federal Reserve Board. It may have meant instability to ordinary citizens, but was the source of great riches to the banking industry and other members of the politically well-connected class. Sound familiar?”

I said at the beginning that “Problems and crises must be solved all the way to their roots. I have defined and described the roots: it is the government itself with its Central Bank. It seems to me that the government is not going to get rid of its central bank to solve the present crisis. Thus, the crisis will last many years., while the $700 billion will enrich many people who are the makers of the crisis. The only possibility of solution will start with the adoption of public funded elections and taking the hands of corporations from the steering wheel of the government. To make sure that such a crisis does not recur, we must erase all influence of mercantilism from our economy. That would make us also freer.

I have been in this country for 55 years and so far never heard that the Central Banks create on purpose economic cycles to influence elections, not until a few days ago, when I read the Article of Thomas J. DiLorenzo. If it is true, it would be a scandal of Gargantuan proportions. In 1958 when I was caught in one of these cycles and suffered for nine months, I was told that these cycles belong to the nature of the capitalist system. No one knew that it was created by the Central Bank, or what ever it was called at that time. Millions of Middle-class people suffered with me, and they too did not know the cause of their suffering. Why didn’t the media enlightened us? It is not possible that they did not know. How about the people we elected? Could they not know too?

Now that the DiLorenzo article put the story in the public arena, what will the Government do? I am very curious.

Turkey and Greece were invited at the same time to join the Common Market, which later became the European Union (EU).  Greece accepted the invitation and is now one of the states of the EU. Bulent Ecevit, a Social Democrat, was the Turkish Prime minister at that time. He declined, saying that “Turkey is not yet ready”. In more recent times other Turkish governments thought that they were ready and applied for membership. This time EU set unbelievable stumbling blocks before Turkey, conditions that were not asked from the other applicants. It was obvious that Europe had changed its mind about inviting Turkey.  But for some inexplicable reason, Turkish governments did not want to see that.

E u r o p e’ s    V i e w s:

Most  of the EU states leaders have been officially supportive of Turkey’s membership application. Only Germany’s conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel wants that a partial membership be offered to Turkey. France’s Nicolas Sarkozy  is also against granting  full membership.  But the European populations are generally opposed to full membership.  Unofficially, Europe is dead set against Turkish membership but could not say so openly, diplomatically.  In stead of saying “no” they put such conditions, so that Turkey says “no”.

Here are statements of top EU leaders, after they retired:

Tom Spencer, Head of EU Foreign Affairs Committee, said in 1999: “I think that we did not behave correctly by promising to the Turks for 30  years that some day they will become a part of the EU. Because the truth is, that  EU has no intention to accept Turkey as a member.  Turkey is squeezed between the words that the Fundamentalists and we will not keep.  It would have been a more correct attitude for us to explain our true intentions.”

Valery Giscard d’Estaing, former Republic President of France, said in 2000: “Turkey will have no place in the European Union. Today no leader in Europe wants Turkey inside Europe.  They do not have any such intention for tomorrow, either. One is doing injustice to Turkey. Because Turkey is being deceived by the EU. To make it a candidate at Helsinki was to give it an empty hope ”

Helmut Schmidt, former Chancellor of Germany said in 2000:  “What ever may happen, Turkey has no place in Europe. We cannot allow to let 70 million Turkish citizens  to walk freely inside Europe. We cannot accept that Europe becomes neighbors with countries like  Iran, Syria, and Iraq across European borders. We should continue our economic relations with Turkey.  We should benefit from the purchasing power of the young and

fast-growing population. However, we should see that this country does not have the fundamental principles of Globalization, and  does not accept the international brotherhood.”

[The above statements have been translated from Turkish, that were in turn translated from English, French , or German.]

Although the EU is very much pro-secularism, in the case of Turkey they criticized the attempt of the courts to close the religious party for breaking almost every secularism rule. That was unbelievable.

T u r k e y’ s    D e s i r e    t o   be c o m e   a   E U   m e m b e r

Secularist Turkish governments before 2002 were insistently asking to become a EU member, and the EU systematically  asked that they fulfill undesirable conditions. Some Turkish representatives claimed that it was Turkey’s right to become a member. That was obviously not true.  Many Turks felt terribly insulted that they had defended the West during the Cold War, that former Soviet puppet countries were now easily accepted as EU-members, while their country was not.  While the three statements reported above happened in 2000 and before, Turkish governments did not take them seriously, because they did not like to hear that the EU does not want them.

On November 2002 there was an important election in Turkey. The Turkish people had enough of the incompetent and corrupt secular coalition of parties and voted them out of office.  A religious party, the AKP, promised during the election campaign that they are not a religious party, they are just a conservative party of Muslims, that   they will respect the secularism (Laicism) clause  of the constitution and would manage better. They also promised to carry Turkey in to the European Union.  That was odd, but the Turkish voters wanted to give them a chance. The AKP won a majority of seats in the Parliament.. 

Of course by 2002 the real intentions of the EU were known, and AKP’s promise to carry Turkey to  the EU was just a ruse. They knew that Europe will eventually say ”no” but mean while they would curb the capabilities of the military  to prevent their planned Islamization.  While it is downright immoral in Western culture to lie and cheat, it is just called “Takkiye” in Islam and is alright as long as it helps Islam. Thus, by Western standards EU’s  behavior is immoral.

AKP kept one promise: they managed the government much better than the socialist secularists. They brought the inflation rate from 50 – 75 %  down to single digit.  The per capita income of Turks increased., but they implemented  an extensive program of Islamization.  Since 1950’s they had started to re-educate the people  in religious schools by brain-washing them as fundamentalist Muslims.  Those graduates kept on increasing and were the important part of Islamization. The people were changed.  Those people were now all voting for the AKP.

Since 2002 AKP has put everywhere its own people, except in the military and the courts. During the last months the courts processed a request of the AKP to lift the ban of head scarves at Universities.  The EU had the same problem, mainly in France and the EU did not try to influence the court procedure.  The ban was not lifted and AKP lost.   Encouraged by this result , the Chief Prosecutor  accused the AKP  party and its main people to be breaking the laicism (Secularism) clause of the Constitution and wanted to close the AKP. His accusations were clear and many.  But meanwhile some people were retired and replaced in the Constitutional Court and the suit was rejected 7 to 6.  During this suite, EU heavily interfered by claiming that this suit was “destroying  democracy.”  If we accept their logic, if a party is once democratically elected, it has a license to break the constitution at will.  Europe has become horribly absurd. Now the last hope to get rid of the religious party was lost, even the courts are no more independent.

T h e    T u r k i s h    M i l i t a r y.

The Turkish Military is a unique institution.  It is not only a defender of Turkey, but it is also a defender of the Constitution.  I observed, that each time they interfered, they always returned to democracy in very few years. Western critics say that it is not the job of the military to interfere in the political process.  That is true for the West, because civilian governments in the West generally do their job right, they do not commit gross violations of their constitutions, so there never is need for military interference.  When Ataturk founded the Republic of Turkey, Turks’ literacy rate was 7 % and the Turkish Parliament’s occupants were not too much higher educated.  The Turkish Armed Forces were always very highly educated.  Ataturk left the military as a sort of guardian angels in case the civilians would go off the track. The military had the job of putting things back on the track and returning it to civilians. They always did that. The September 12, 1980 coup was the last full-fledged coup. After that, it was seen that a coup becomes counter-productive.  No one expects today  a military coup, but some how the people want that they play their role of guardian angel and help straightening things up. Even that is getting increasingly more difficult in a nation with an increasing percentage of fundamentalists.

W h a t    c a n   t h e   S e c u l a r i s t   P e o p l e   d o ? 

Many Secularist people still hope and wish that the military gets the chestnuts out of the fire for them, so,  they don’t have to do any thing. But that is now an unrealistic wish. Why don’t they think of doing something themselves?  After all, isn’t it their country too, where they would want to raise their children and grand-children?

The politically and legally healthy move should come from the secularist half of the population. They are disorganized, they should avoid the influence of socialists, form a Secular, Nationalist, Free-Market Economics party and engage in true opposition. They should tell the country that the European Membership is a hoax, Europe will never accept Turkey, Turkey should remain friends with Europe, continue its Economic relationship, but remain an independent country. They should convince the Parliament to tell Europe that they are retracting the membership application.  Thus, Europe should stop interfering in Turkey’s internal affairs. Ataturk said: “If a nation does not rely on its own effort, only on its own effort, it can became any body’s toy”.  The secularist half of the population should definitely avoid fragmenting and should elect themselves a good leader, who will commit himself to oppose the AKP. That can be now the only hope for Turkey.

Source : T H E   O R HAN   T A R H A N   L E T T E R