RBS> wrote:
The only changes I made to what JTC wrote were to run the spell checker and break it into paragraphs. It came to me as one gargantuan paragraph. I present JTC’s thoughts to prove that I am not a lone voice in the wilderness. It’s important to me not to be seen that way as the history of such individuals tends to be dismal. Ask John the Baptist.
JTC> wrote:
Feel free to post whatever, man If you want to re-write, give yourself co-authorship credit; some of my rhetoric may need a touch-up :-). J.
RBS> wrote:
Well said. Actually, I'd like to post what you wrote on my blog and credit you for it.
JTC> wrote:
Cool. I also think that Richardson has advantages (as does Edwards) and we have to get past the stupid idea that the Dems can win without a southerner or westerner on the ticket. We know that Bush (with assistance from his brother) stole the first election, and that because there had not been such blatant theft of the Presidency before, not a single Senator spoke up to investigate the Black Caucus' legitimate concerns re: vote fraud in several close states, including Florida. And we know that there was massive, systemic voter fraud in Ohio in 2004.
I don't think that Hillary or Obama can win, except as a VP candidate. They are just not seen by the south and west as being "our kind of people" even though their views are pretty solidly aligned with most of the country, including the south and the west. It has nothing to do with gender or race, it has to do with being perceived as northern liberals which in the south is as dirty a thing as one can call someone.
Richardson has the west, the Hispanic vote, and conservative credentials while being liberal enough on the policies that really count (environment, restoring the Constitution, etc.). Edwards has been attacked as a "trial lawyer" but in this particular election a competent person who has been fighting for the "little guy" against the overbearing Repiglicans can easily make that a plus.
Although I'd love to see Gore get back in the race--he can come back with a fire in his belly that his previously wooden demeanor would be erased by and can directly attack the President where most candidates can't or are afraid to.
He can say things like "if people think we can't set a deadline for Iraq to take over for itself, they must be drinking something stronger than coffee, because that makes us occupy that country forever"
or "if bringing the troops home before the mission is accomplished, let's not keep changing what we need to accomplish. We've done everything we can, and given them a democracy--if they can keep it, as Benjamin Franklin once said about America. We've sacrificed enough blood and treasure to allow the six different rival sects--not just two, but some people in the administration can't count up to six--to work together if they have to. With us there, they don't have to."
or "Rebuilding America is more important than rebuilding Iraq. When New Orleans and Mississippi and Florida are rebuilt, when we stop being the #1 reason young men are flocking to anti-American causes around the world, we become a stronger and safer society."
or even "what this country needs is someone who doesn't rely on faulty intelligence and the dreams of a self-styled Presidential Monarch. The President is the people's servant, not the official wiretapper, kidnapper, torturer, gulag-runner, Constitution-underminer of the nation. Let's make one thing clear: this President has broken the law and admitted it. He claims it was to keep us safer. Yet he cannot prove one single instance in which he's actually done that, while incidents of terrorism and hate for Americans world-wide have risen under his law-breaking policies.
We need something better in the white house than faulty intelligence. And we need something better than Senators and Representatives who ignore what their constituents want by an overwhelming margin just because they want to keep spreading fear. The only reason we are more fearful now, that the world is a more fearful place now, is that America is no longer the shining moral beacon it has been for centuries. And that is squarely on the heads of not all, but quite a number of Republicans, including this secretive, law-breaking President and his inept cronies from Rumsfeld to Brownie to Gonzales to Miers and the list goes on.
When the President jokes about his Vice-President shooting someone in the face as "the good old days" it's easy to see how he can ignore reality. He makes Nixon look like a Saint, and the Communist Dictators look like they were running an open society. That's why only 3 in 10 still believe a word he says.
And my friends, that is fewer than the number of people who believe that Elvis is alive, that there are aliens among us and that we never landed on the moon. We are never going to win over minds like that. But we've already won over the rest of America. Let's not let what happened before to us happen again. Let's not let our policies add to our enemies and reduce our safety. Let's not shred our Constitution in the name of supposedly better--and completely unproven--security."
Sorry I droned on a bit there :-). Hope to see you on the 7th. See you at work Monday!
J.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Ethical Realism - Report
I finished reading this book last week, but I wanted to process it a little before I expound on it. I highly recommend this book to every American citizen and especially to those holding or running for national office. There is some evidence that at least Bill Richardson and possibly Joe Biden understand the principles involved. The book is aimed squarely at foreign policy, but the principles work quite well for domestic issues and even on a personal level.
The key virtues of Ethical Realism: First and foremost, Prudence. A virtue badly missing in our internal and international policies. The Bush administration has been like Captain Janeway on the ill-fated series, Star Trek Voyager - lunging from one extreme to another and surviving primarily on unbelievable luck - surviving, but just barely. No sense of restraint, careful observation, and the steady, measured approach that are the hallmarks of courage.
Other key virtues: Humility, Study, Responsibility, and Patriotism. All quite missing in the current administration. These are the virtues that made the great moments in American history great - and that were conspicuously missing in our many darker moments. The authors point to several American Presidents who exhibited these virtues. They prominently mention Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, but their highest praise is reserved for Harry Truman.
While Truman and Eisenhower clearly despised each other, they followed and established the Cold War policies that kept our world from turning into a glowing radioactive ash heap. The authors argue that the current situation requires not another Cold War, but the kind of keen observation, revolutionary thinking, and frightfully subtle and hard-nosed diplomacy that made the Cold War successful. (The authors do make it clear they agreed with Eisenhower that the Cold War became too militaristic - their praise is primarily for the diplomatic and economic strategy).
Like Communism, radical Theocracy (in this case Islamic), thrives best in chaos. Therefore, creating wealth, stability, and popularizing scientific education is the best antidote. The authors present a number of very hard-nosed strategies to bring that about. The most interesting to me was their argument that the USA should insist that Europe take ownership of the Israli/Palestinian conflict. The USA can facilitate negotiations, but it will take extensive reparations to both the Jewish and Palestinian people - and this is owed to both by Europe.
According to the authors, Europe owes the Jewish people for centuries of displacement and terror - and the Palestinians for taking half their land to create a Jewish state in partial repayment of that debt. The authors argue that Israel and Palestine should be carved out of the Middle East and made part of the European Union - both as partial repayment of Europe’s debt and to take the countries out of the Middle East political system.
Another key diplomatic point would be for the USA to encourage Russia to host talks between the USA and Iran - to create the Moscow accords (giving Russia prestige and improving American/Russian relations). At all costs we must avoid a war with Iran. Iran is our natural ally in the Middle East. If only we can keep moderate pressure on the increasingly unpopular Iranian government, the people of Iran can gradually take control of their government and craft a moderate, democratic, Islamic state that would fit more closely with the attitudes of the average Iranian. The only thing that will make the Iranian government popular again would be an attack by a western power - particularly by the USA.
Very good book - highly recommended. I could say a lot more but I would just about have to write the entire thing out. This is the best foreign policy book I have read in a very long time.
rbs
The key virtues of Ethical Realism: First and foremost, Prudence. A virtue badly missing in our internal and international policies. The Bush administration has been like Captain Janeway on the ill-fated series, Star Trek Voyager - lunging from one extreme to another and surviving primarily on unbelievable luck - surviving, but just barely. No sense of restraint, careful observation, and the steady, measured approach that are the hallmarks of courage.
Other key virtues: Humility, Study, Responsibility, and Patriotism. All quite missing in the current administration. These are the virtues that made the great moments in American history great - and that were conspicuously missing in our many darker moments. The authors point to several American Presidents who exhibited these virtues. They prominently mention Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, but their highest praise is reserved for Harry Truman.
While Truman and Eisenhower clearly despised each other, they followed and established the Cold War policies that kept our world from turning into a glowing radioactive ash heap. The authors argue that the current situation requires not another Cold War, but the kind of keen observation, revolutionary thinking, and frightfully subtle and hard-nosed diplomacy that made the Cold War successful. (The authors do make it clear they agreed with Eisenhower that the Cold War became too militaristic - their praise is primarily for the diplomatic and economic strategy).
Like Communism, radical Theocracy (in this case Islamic), thrives best in chaos. Therefore, creating wealth, stability, and popularizing scientific education is the best antidote. The authors present a number of very hard-nosed strategies to bring that about. The most interesting to me was their argument that the USA should insist that Europe take ownership of the Israli/Palestinian conflict. The USA can facilitate negotiations, but it will take extensive reparations to both the Jewish and Palestinian people - and this is owed to both by Europe.
According to the authors, Europe owes the Jewish people for centuries of displacement and terror - and the Palestinians for taking half their land to create a Jewish state in partial repayment of that debt. The authors argue that Israel and Palestine should be carved out of the Middle East and made part of the European Union - both as partial repayment of Europe’s debt and to take the countries out of the Middle East political system.
Another key diplomatic point would be for the USA to encourage Russia to host talks between the USA and Iran - to create the Moscow accords (giving Russia prestige and improving American/Russian relations). At all costs we must avoid a war with Iran. Iran is our natural ally in the Middle East. If only we can keep moderate pressure on the increasingly unpopular Iranian government, the people of Iran can gradually take control of their government and craft a moderate, democratic, Islamic state that would fit more closely with the attitudes of the average Iranian. The only thing that will make the Iranian government popular again would be an attack by a western power - particularly by the USA.
Very good book - highly recommended. I could say a lot more but I would just about have to write the entire thing out. This is the best foreign policy book I have read in a very long time.
rbs
Monday, March 26, 2007
Crazy Like FOX
I’m about to take you down a very dark road, so strap in... Okay, time for a little logic here. It’s often assumed that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove, Rice, Gonzales, Bremer, et. al., are stupid. Liberals and a growing preponderance of Moderates point to the many terrible mistakes of this administration - the series of missteps in Iraq that made the country completely ungovernable, failure to respond to the human tragedy of Katrina, letting North Korea get the bomb, beating the war drums against Iran while we’re still embroiled in Iraq, pulling out of the Kyoto treaty when global climate change is so clear a threat, under-funding local police forces which leaves us wide open for another terrorist attack ... This has to be the most incompetent administration in American history - right?
But something doesn’t make sense here. Look at the players. Dr. Rice is probably one of the most intelligent people in the administration. Cheny, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz have been chasing each other around the halls of power for a half-century. Many of these people did not start out anywhere near as rich as they have become. And they are firmly in power. These are not the attributes of stupid people. So let’s assume, for the moment, that they aren’t...
Who could profit from letting New Orleans twist after the wind? The culture of this deeply Democratic, predominantly African American city is - with its population - scattered to the four winds. Whatever emerges from Lake Charles, it will not be the cultural powerhouse that New Orleans was - at least not any time soon.
Who could profit from pulling the USA out of Kyoto? Only the oil companies. The former CEO’s of some are now in the administration. And why make it impossible for the U.S. to pull out of Iraq by dismantling the Iraqi Army and purging the Baath Party? Unless, perhaps, there was no exit strategy because there was never meant to be an exit. As I write, the USA is building at least fourteen permanent American military bases in Iraq. An Iraq meant to be a puppet state in perpetuity, always under the American boot?
Certainly North Korea is more of a threat now, benefitting no one except the purveyors of the embarrassing failure of Star Wars. What about those war drums with Iran while the US armed forces are bogged down in Iraq? Well, we’re just going to have to hire more mercenaries who can more easily operate outside international law and standards.
Finally, what about leaving the USA open for another terrorist attack? Perhaps driven by some relatively low power nuclear weapons from North Korea? Or all that nuclear material we somehow failed to purchase from the former Soviet Union? Can you imagine how quickly Americans would accept draconian measures - even martial law - even an emergency dictatorship if someone blew up Los Angeles harbor with a small nuke?
So, are they stupid? Or are they crazy like FOX?
I think I’m going to go look for a nice big patch of sand to hide my head in.
rbs
But something doesn’t make sense here. Look at the players. Dr. Rice is probably one of the most intelligent people in the administration. Cheny, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz have been chasing each other around the halls of power for a half-century. Many of these people did not start out anywhere near as rich as they have become. And they are firmly in power. These are not the attributes of stupid people. So let’s assume, for the moment, that they aren’t...
Who could profit from letting New Orleans twist after the wind? The culture of this deeply Democratic, predominantly African American city is - with its population - scattered to the four winds. Whatever emerges from Lake Charles, it will not be the cultural powerhouse that New Orleans was - at least not any time soon.
Who could profit from pulling the USA out of Kyoto? Only the oil companies. The former CEO’s of some are now in the administration. And why make it impossible for the U.S. to pull out of Iraq by dismantling the Iraqi Army and purging the Baath Party? Unless, perhaps, there was no exit strategy because there was never meant to be an exit. As I write, the USA is building at least fourteen permanent American military bases in Iraq. An Iraq meant to be a puppet state in perpetuity, always under the American boot?
Certainly North Korea is more of a threat now, benefitting no one except the purveyors of the embarrassing failure of Star Wars. What about those war drums with Iran while the US armed forces are bogged down in Iraq? Well, we’re just going to have to hire more mercenaries who can more easily operate outside international law and standards.
Finally, what about leaving the USA open for another terrorist attack? Perhaps driven by some relatively low power nuclear weapons from North Korea? Or all that nuclear material we somehow failed to purchase from the former Soviet Union? Can you imagine how quickly Americans would accept draconian measures - even martial law - even an emergency dictatorship if someone blew up Los Angeles harbor with a small nuke?
So, are they stupid? Or are they crazy like FOX?
I think I’m going to go look for a nice big patch of sand to hide my head in.
rbs
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Gore Nader
In an unbelievably ironic twist of fate, Al Gore has become the Ralph Nader of the conservation movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore
rbs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore
rbs
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
AIR!!!!
(Submitted to the Indianapolis Star and NUVO, March 19, 2007. Think GLOBALLY. Act LOCALLY.)
I just got in from my evening walk and I feel like I was just poisoned. What is happening with the air in Indianapolis? When I moved here in 2003, this was a clean city. I don’t remember any bad air days. But these past two years our city has really started to stink.
Several mornings I have noticed that smell like a big old rotten french fry. I’ve been told that is the smell of boiling pigs bladders - used in the making of insulin. But tonight was different. Tonight (Monday, March 19, 2007) it was like breathing atomized nail polish. My tongue is numb. My eyes are watering. My head feels light. My nose is burning. It is really bad out there.
I live right in the heart of downtown - the most densely populated census tract in the State. What happens here affects all the students living at and around IUPUI, the teaming throngs of young professionals in Riley Towers, and the doctors and other professionals living along the canal.
Why does our city stink? What is being done to change it? Who is working on this? It’s really time to clear the air.
rbs
I just got in from my evening walk and I feel like I was just poisoned. What is happening with the air in Indianapolis? When I moved here in 2003, this was a clean city. I don’t remember any bad air days. But these past two years our city has really started to stink.
Several mornings I have noticed that smell like a big old rotten french fry. I’ve been told that is the smell of boiling pigs bladders - used in the making of insulin. But tonight was different. Tonight (Monday, March 19, 2007) it was like breathing atomized nail polish. My tongue is numb. My eyes are watering. My head feels light. My nose is burning. It is really bad out there.
I live right in the heart of downtown - the most densely populated census tract in the State. What happens here affects all the students living at and around IUPUI, the teaming throngs of young professionals in Riley Towers, and the doctors and other professionals living along the canal.
Why does our city stink? What is being done to change it? Who is working on this? It’s really time to clear the air.
rbs
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Shut Up and Sing
I saw this book - haven’t skimmed through it yet. But you can guess from the title it’s about the Dixie Chick who spouted off about George Bush to a country music crowd. Larry the Cable-Guy quipped, "That’s kind of like walking into a trailer park and yelling, ‘Wal-Mart sucks!!’" There seem to be quite a few people who think that entertainers should just entertain and keep their mouths shut about politics.
If you read my St. Patty’s Day post, you can guess my reaction to that attitude can be summed up in five words: "Blow it out your ass!" I have been performing on stage for more than twenty years - most of that time I have been the front man. I have spoken about my political and patriotic feelings many times from stage. But carefully - that’s just my style. I’m not trying to persuade people to do anything other than think about it. Just think about it. And there are plenty of political songs that are good for prodding the gray matter.
I am really concerned about this culture of not talking about politics. You can’t talk about politics at work - or you might lose your job. Talk about politics in a bar and you might get thrown out - or start a fist fight. Talk about politics with your friends and they get fidgety and really want to do something else. That’s just not American. Politics is our national sport. It should be a full contact sport with people fully intellectually engaged.
Look at our history - political newspapers printing all kinds of slander about each other, barroom arguments lasting late into the evening, rowdy public meetings that often devolved into shouting matches. This fear of speaking your mind about politics is something new - dates to the McCarthy era, but it seems like it’s become part of our culture. Be bland. Blend in. Keep your mouth shut. Shut up and work. Shut up and shop. Shut up and eat it. Shut up and sing. Just Shut up. Sieg Heil.
Not me. Not you either, I hope.
By the way - that Saint Patrick's Day thing below - I did that last night at Locals Only and again at Deano's Vino. No one came up to me and said, "How dare you talk about Iraq??" I did get a few people who said, "I'm with you brother!!" And I did notice quite a few people paid attention while I was saying it - and more than a few heads were nodding in agreement. Maybe some of those people will find their way here. I can hope.
rbs
If you read my St. Patty’s Day post, you can guess my reaction to that attitude can be summed up in five words: "Blow it out your ass!" I have been performing on stage for more than twenty years - most of that time I have been the front man. I have spoken about my political and patriotic feelings many times from stage. But carefully - that’s just my style. I’m not trying to persuade people to do anything other than think about it. Just think about it. And there are plenty of political songs that are good for prodding the gray matter.
I am really concerned about this culture of not talking about politics. You can’t talk about politics at work - or you might lose your job. Talk about politics in a bar and you might get thrown out - or start a fist fight. Talk about politics with your friends and they get fidgety and really want to do something else. That’s just not American. Politics is our national sport. It should be a full contact sport with people fully intellectually engaged.
Look at our history - political newspapers printing all kinds of slander about each other, barroom arguments lasting late into the evening, rowdy public meetings that often devolved into shouting matches. This fear of speaking your mind about politics is something new - dates to the McCarthy era, but it seems like it’s become part of our culture. Be bland. Blend in. Keep your mouth shut. Shut up and work. Shut up and shop. Shut up and eat it. Shut up and sing. Just Shut up. Sieg Heil.
Not me. Not you either, I hope.
By the way - that Saint Patrick's Day thing below - I did that last night at Locals Only and again at Deano's Vino. No one came up to me and said, "How dare you talk about Iraq??" I did get a few people who said, "I'm with you brother!!" And I did notice quite a few people paid attention while I was saying it - and more than a few heads were nodding in agreement. Maybe some of those people will find their way here. I can hope.
rbs
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Saint Patrick's Day
Dear Friends:
I'm giving you the lyrics to "The Wearing of the Green" and, for your amusement, a few of my thoughts to go along with them.
Please sing along - I'm using the first four lines as a chorus after each following verse:
Oh Paddy dear and did you hear the news that's going round
The Shamrock is by law forbid to grow on Irish ground
Saint Patrick's Day no more to keep, his color can't be seen
For there's a Bloody law against the wearing of the green
I met with Napper Tandy and he took me by the hand
And he said, "How's poor Ireland and where does she stand?"
She's the most distressful country that ever you have seen
For they're hanging men and women there for the wearing of the green
Then since the color we must wear is England's cruel red
Sure Ireland's sons will never forget the blood that they have shed
You can take the Shamrock from your hat and cast it on the sod
But it will take root and flourish there though under foot it's trod
When the law can stop the blades of grass from growing as they grow
And when the leaves of summertime their verdure dare not show
Then I will change the color that I wear in my corbeen
But till that day, please God, I'll stick to the wearing of the green
We take a punk approach to a lot of our music, which is why I'm not singing the last two verses. But here they are, for those sons and daughters of Ireland (of whom I may or may not be one, not really sure - sorry - I'm Scottish. And Choctaw. Primarily) who are with us today to celebrate Saint Patrick's Day.
But if at last our color should be torn from Ireland's heart
Her sons, with shame and sorrow, from the dear old soil will part
I've heard whispers of a country that lies far beyond the sea
Where rich and poor stand equal in the light of freedom's day
Oh Erin, must we leave you, driven by the tyrant's hand
Must we ask a mother's welcome from a strange but happier land?
Where the cruel cross of England's thraldom never shall be seen
And where, thank God, we'll live and die still wearing of the green!
Traditional upbeat, cheerful Irish melody. Lyrics by Dion Boucicault.
And they came, by the millions, to escape the great potato famine. And they were pretty much looked down on by established American society, even though, unlike most other immigrants, they spoke English reasonably well.
And when the got here, they were immediately drafted and sent by the tens of thousands to die in the American Civil War. A war that wasn't really about freeing the slaves, but it ended up being about that.
And the descendants of those Irish immigrants went on to settle the American West, wresting it mile by bloody mile from the American Indians, who weren't really all that wild about giving it up.
And today the descendants of those Irish immigrants, and the descendants of the African slaves they helped to free, and the descendants of the American Indians whose land they took (and I'm sure there are plenty of Americans who have all three bloodlines) are now embroiled in that horrible bloody mess over there in Iraq.
I'm not speaking for Jon, by the way, just for me. I just think this is a really good song to remember on Saint Patrick's day and I really hope you'll sing it along with me - here's the chorus again...
Oh Paddy dear and did you hear the news that's going round
The Shamrock is by law forbid to grow on Irish ground
Saint Patrick's Day no more to keep, his color can't be seen
For there's a Bloody law against the wearing of the green
If you want to know what I think about all this, that's why I've started blogging. If you come here, I hope you will share your deepest, most seriously considered thoughts by using the comment function for everyone to read. That conversation starts here. Thanks for coming.
Happy Saint Patty's Day!
rbs
I'm giving you the lyrics to "The Wearing of the Green" and, for your amusement, a few of my thoughts to go along with them.
Please sing along - I'm using the first four lines as a chorus after each following verse:
Oh Paddy dear and did you hear the news that's going round
The Shamrock is by law forbid to grow on Irish ground
Saint Patrick's Day no more to keep, his color can't be seen
For there's a Bloody law against the wearing of the green
I met with Napper Tandy and he took me by the hand
And he said, "How's poor Ireland and where does she stand?"
She's the most distressful country that ever you have seen
For they're hanging men and women there for the wearing of the green
Then since the color we must wear is England's cruel red
Sure Ireland's sons will never forget the blood that they have shed
You can take the Shamrock from your hat and cast it on the sod
But it will take root and flourish there though under foot it's trod
When the law can stop the blades of grass from growing as they grow
And when the leaves of summertime their verdure dare not show
Then I will change the color that I wear in my corbeen
But till that day, please God, I'll stick to the wearing of the green
We take a punk approach to a lot of our music, which is why I'm not singing the last two verses. But here they are, for those sons and daughters of Ireland (of whom I may or may not be one, not really sure - sorry - I'm Scottish. And Choctaw. Primarily) who are with us today to celebrate Saint Patrick's Day.
But if at last our color should be torn from Ireland's heart
Her sons, with shame and sorrow, from the dear old soil will part
I've heard whispers of a country that lies far beyond the sea
Where rich and poor stand equal in the light of freedom's day
Oh Erin, must we leave you, driven by the tyrant's hand
Must we ask a mother's welcome from a strange but happier land?
Where the cruel cross of England's thraldom never shall be seen
And where, thank God, we'll live and die still wearing of the green!
Traditional upbeat, cheerful Irish melody. Lyrics by Dion Boucicault.
And they came, by the millions, to escape the great potato famine. And they were pretty much looked down on by established American society, even though, unlike most other immigrants, they spoke English reasonably well.
And when the got here, they were immediately drafted and sent by the tens of thousands to die in the American Civil War. A war that wasn't really about freeing the slaves, but it ended up being about that.
And the descendants of those Irish immigrants went on to settle the American West, wresting it mile by bloody mile from the American Indians, who weren't really all that wild about giving it up.
And today the descendants of those Irish immigrants, and the descendants of the African slaves they helped to free, and the descendants of the American Indians whose land they took (and I'm sure there are plenty of Americans who have all three bloodlines) are now embroiled in that horrible bloody mess over there in Iraq.
I'm not speaking for Jon, by the way, just for me. I just think this is a really good song to remember on Saint Patrick's day and I really hope you'll sing it along with me - here's the chorus again...
Oh Paddy dear and did you hear the news that's going round
The Shamrock is by law forbid to grow on Irish ground
Saint Patrick's Day no more to keep, his color can't be seen
For there's a Bloody law against the wearing of the green
If you want to know what I think about all this, that's why I've started blogging. If you come here, I hope you will share your deepest, most seriously considered thoughts by using the comment function for everyone to read. That conversation starts here. Thanks for coming.
Happy Saint Patty's Day!
rbs
Friday, March 9, 2007
Why am I Blogging? (Part 2)
At this point, this blog has a readership of about two. Maybe four at the most. Do I want a larger readership? Eventually. But first, I want to persuade you. It is ourselves we must change.
I don’t think I can convey how unbelievably fortunate we are that a Missouri farmer accidentally became President and set us, against all odds, on a course of frightfully subtle economic, political, and diplomatic action that avoided direct war with the Soviet Union and Communist China while containing the one and courting the other. Call it blind, dumb luck. Call it the hidden hand of God. But please, don’t ever count on it happening again. That is not how our participative, representative democracy is designed to work.
I am blogging for two reasons.
I need a workshop in which to examine how to discharge my duty as a citizen of the United States and as a human. I cannot leave my burden of responsibility to the next person. I cannot entrust it to some leader - even one I vote for. My opportunities to discharge that duty are greatly limited by my need to scratch out a living, express myself artistically, and manage to get myself into better physical health. But from those to whom much is given, much is expected. And I have been given a lot. As a middle-class American, I am easily in the top 30% of the happiest, most comfortable people in the world. My debt, therefore, is enormous.
The second, and equally important reason is to persuade you, my at this moment two-or-at-the-most-four readers, to re-examine your duty as a citizen and as a human. I know you personally. I believe you have even more to offer in the way of serious thought and leadership than I do. I am not trying to persuade you to spread my world view. I am trying to persuade you to use your knowledge and involve your friends and everyone you trust as an intellectual, a humanist, and a patriot, to build a community that will create a new world view.
In my previous blogs, I discussed the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary process. But there is no Harry Truman. Maybe there is a JFK, but if you remember, JFK was no great visionary when elected. He was a fairly average American who experienced a stupendous revelation in the midst of the Bay of Pigs disaster. If it weren’t for that disaster and the soul searching it led Kennedy to do, our nation and our species might never have survived the Cuban missile crisis.
We cannot trust any leader. We must choose one, but even the best leader will be helpless to dig us out of our current crop of species-survival-threatening quagmires without a groundswell in popular American opinion about how to face these crises.
So I am asking you, as an intellectual, please get involved. Re-examine your world view. Re-examine everything you believe about America and our role in the world. Re-examine your ethics. And re-examine your ideas about what citizenship means. Can you help develop the philosophical and ethical underpinnings for such a critically needed sea change in American popular opinion? Can you help create the mechanisms that will create and guide that sea change?
rbs
I don’t think I can convey how unbelievably fortunate we are that a Missouri farmer accidentally became President and set us, against all odds, on a course of frightfully subtle economic, political, and diplomatic action that avoided direct war with the Soviet Union and Communist China while containing the one and courting the other. Call it blind, dumb luck. Call it the hidden hand of God. But please, don’t ever count on it happening again. That is not how our participative, representative democracy is designed to work.
I am blogging for two reasons.
I need a workshop in which to examine how to discharge my duty as a citizen of the United States and as a human. I cannot leave my burden of responsibility to the next person. I cannot entrust it to some leader - even one I vote for. My opportunities to discharge that duty are greatly limited by my need to scratch out a living, express myself artistically, and manage to get myself into better physical health. But from those to whom much is given, much is expected. And I have been given a lot. As a middle-class American, I am easily in the top 30% of the happiest, most comfortable people in the world. My debt, therefore, is enormous.
The second, and equally important reason is to persuade you, my at this moment two-or-at-the-most-four readers, to re-examine your duty as a citizen and as a human. I know you personally. I believe you have even more to offer in the way of serious thought and leadership than I do. I am not trying to persuade you to spread my world view. I am trying to persuade you to use your knowledge and involve your friends and everyone you trust as an intellectual, a humanist, and a patriot, to build a community that will create a new world view.
In my previous blogs, I discussed the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary process. But there is no Harry Truman. Maybe there is a JFK, but if you remember, JFK was no great visionary when elected. He was a fairly average American who experienced a stupendous revelation in the midst of the Bay of Pigs disaster. If it weren’t for that disaster and the soul searching it led Kennedy to do, our nation and our species might never have survived the Cuban missile crisis.
We cannot trust any leader. We must choose one, but even the best leader will be helpless to dig us out of our current crop of species-survival-threatening quagmires without a groundswell in popular American opinion about how to face these crises.
So I am asking you, as an intellectual, please get involved. Re-examine your world view. Re-examine everything you believe about America and our role in the world. Re-examine your ethics. And re-examine your ideas about what citizenship means. Can you help develop the philosophical and ethical underpinnings for such a critically needed sea change in American popular opinion? Can you help create the mechanisms that will create and guide that sea change?
rbs
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Ethical Realism
I am considering moving my blog from blogspot to myspace, where, as a prominent local musician with a prominent site, I may attract more readers. Because my political views are extremely moderate, I doubt it will harm the band - probably be helpful if what I have to say seems reasonable.
In my grazing through the various political chum for sale, I have come across another book that appears to cut through the debate to the core problems we are experiencing that are keeping us mired in a foreign policy of depraved morality and deprived of any sensible pragmatic foundation or direction.
The book is Ethical Realism by Anatol Lieven and John Hulsman. Here are the sentences that made me decide to purchase it for in depth study:
"Even after the debacle of Iraq, there is therefore at present no real opposition in America when it comes to foreign and security policy. The Democrats are bitterly, and rightly, critical of the monstrous incompetence displayed by the Bush administration. But they do not themselves have an alternative strategy or philosophy to offer, and too often content themselves with offering similar messianic platitudes about American greatness and the transformative power of democracy."
The authors, one a liberal British journalist and the other a former neo-con foreign policy wonk for the Heritage Foundation, claim to put forward a world view that would be more conducive to American national interests and at the same time have better ethical moorings - with the understanding that straying from our cultural moral underpinnings is ultimately destructive to our vital national interest.
After skimming through it (and I have now skimmed through dozens of political philosophical books) it looks like this will be as good if not a far better read than the Hart book - The Courage of Our Convictions. Interestingly enough, Gary Hart endorsed it quite strongly.I will post a book report soon enough.
rbs
In my grazing through the various political chum for sale, I have come across another book that appears to cut through the debate to the core problems we are experiencing that are keeping us mired in a foreign policy of depraved morality and deprived of any sensible pragmatic foundation or direction.
The book is Ethical Realism by Anatol Lieven and John Hulsman. Here are the sentences that made me decide to purchase it for in depth study:
"Even after the debacle of Iraq, there is therefore at present no real opposition in America when it comes to foreign and security policy. The Democrats are bitterly, and rightly, critical of the monstrous incompetence displayed by the Bush administration. But they do not themselves have an alternative strategy or philosophy to offer, and too often content themselves with offering similar messianic platitudes about American greatness and the transformative power of democracy."
The authors, one a liberal British journalist and the other a former neo-con foreign policy wonk for the Heritage Foundation, claim to put forward a world view that would be more conducive to American national interests and at the same time have better ethical moorings - with the understanding that straying from our cultural moral underpinnings is ultimately destructive to our vital national interest.
After skimming through it (and I have now skimmed through dozens of political philosophical books) it looks like this will be as good if not a far better read than the Hart book - The Courage of Our Convictions. Interestingly enough, Gary Hart endorsed it quite strongly.I will post a book report soon enough.
rbs
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Bloody Sunday comemmoration: Obama and Clinton
A few moments ago I watched addresses given by Senator Barak Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton using the commemoration of Bloody Sunday (the Selma Alabama bridge crossing, not the Irish one) to garner support from the critical African American portion of Democratic primary voters. While it is a grave political error to assume that American Blacks vote as a block, there is a powerful, if aging, demographic made up of the veterans of the civil rights movement of the mid 20th Century who play a critical role in the Democratic primary.
Neither Clinton nor Obama can simply assume the mantle of leadership for this critical voting block. They do not have time to earn it from their deeds - neither was old enough or geographically positioned to play a major role in that movement. They will have to earn it not with words, but rather with their ability to move people to action and inspire a belief in social justice.
Senator Obama based his address around a metaphor of Moses and Joshua. Dr. King deliberately compared himself to Moses - and the comparison is very clear. Obama called himself a member of the "Joshua generation" - a generation charged with completing the work of bringing the faithful to the promised land (an uncomfortable analogy if you read the account of the slaughter of Jericho closely.) It was a good address - not as comfortable and powerful as his announcement - but reasonably rousing. The most important point, in my mind, was a deliberate echo of JFK’s inauguration speech. "We must ask not only what government can do for us, but what we can do to help ourselves." Like many African American leaders, Obama was calling for positive change to start within the community.
Senator Clinton did far better than I expected. Her tone and presentation were more relaxed and friendly than I have seen before. Obama set forth his claim to Selma by talking about growing up black in America - "Don’t tell me I’m not coming home when I come to Selma..." Clinton’s approach was more oblique. She claimed the civil rights movement provided the opportunity to run for President to Senator Obama, Governor Richardson, "and yes, for me too." Clinton pointed out that as the civil rights movement was underway, it was still against the law in Alabama for women to serve on a jury: "I know where my chance came from and I am grateful to all of you."
For these senators, the commemoration ceremonies were not a time to talk about policy, but rather to court the old-guard civil rights warriors by demonstrating their commitment to equal rights and their passion to fight for the underprivileged in America. In this, I felt that Clinton was a bit more convincing. Both did quite well, bringing their respective audiences to their feet.
Some wag on one of the news channels said that this would be a win for both candidates. I think he was right.
rbs
Neither Clinton nor Obama can simply assume the mantle of leadership for this critical voting block. They do not have time to earn it from their deeds - neither was old enough or geographically positioned to play a major role in that movement. They will have to earn it not with words, but rather with their ability to move people to action and inspire a belief in social justice.
Senator Obama based his address around a metaphor of Moses and Joshua. Dr. King deliberately compared himself to Moses - and the comparison is very clear. Obama called himself a member of the "Joshua generation" - a generation charged with completing the work of bringing the faithful to the promised land (an uncomfortable analogy if you read the account of the slaughter of Jericho closely.) It was a good address - not as comfortable and powerful as his announcement - but reasonably rousing. The most important point, in my mind, was a deliberate echo of JFK’s inauguration speech. "We must ask not only what government can do for us, but what we can do to help ourselves." Like many African American leaders, Obama was calling for positive change to start within the community.
Senator Clinton did far better than I expected. Her tone and presentation were more relaxed and friendly than I have seen before. Obama set forth his claim to Selma by talking about growing up black in America - "Don’t tell me I’m not coming home when I come to Selma..." Clinton’s approach was more oblique. She claimed the civil rights movement provided the opportunity to run for President to Senator Obama, Governor Richardson, "and yes, for me too." Clinton pointed out that as the civil rights movement was underway, it was still against the law in Alabama for women to serve on a jury: "I know where my chance came from and I am grateful to all of you."
For these senators, the commemoration ceremonies were not a time to talk about policy, but rather to court the old-guard civil rights warriors by demonstrating their commitment to equal rights and their passion to fight for the underprivileged in America. In this, I felt that Clinton was a bit more convincing. Both did quite well, bringing their respective audiences to their feet.
Some wag on one of the news channels said that this would be a win for both candidates. I think he was right.
rbs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
