This is a running commentary on contemporary social, political and religious issues. From the Introduction of James Comey's book "A Higher Loyalty -- Truth, Lies and Leadership" "Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary" Reinhold Niebuhr
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
I couldn't help but wonder though how a person would want that for his son and be philosophically conservative at the same time. Conservative thought, it seems to me, is more of the sink or swim, live or die, rise or fall on your own but don't expect government to help you when you are down variety. I thought it stood for government is not the solution it is the problem. I thought conservatives now want the poor or the sick to rely more on the good will of others or their church (or synagogue) for any help they need. If they can't get it there then do not true conservatives think those are the breaks because life is harsh? These conservatives are often not too kindly especially when it comes to the bigger picture.
You say to your son "Whenever we are startled or inconvenienced by the siren of an ambulance, I offer a prayer that the EMT's will arrive in time to help whoever is in danger." Well, that person on the other end of the siren better have more than a prayer. He better have good health insurance coverage because his fate certainly rises or falls on that. What more of a dirty concept to conservatives than national health care. The outcomes of having cancer, which is an equal opportunity employer, favors the rich who have insurance over those middle class or poor who do not.
Conservatives always SOUND so sweet but in reality crush the poor, do not lend a helping hand and in reality care more about the buck than the person. The conservative response to Katrina is example par excellence of that fact.
Conservatives often are perfectly willing to send other kids into battle to get killed or maimed in useless unnecessary wars based on lies while their own kids are going off to Yale. So when you are telling your son that above all else be decent, kind and honest, explain to him how you square the group you philosophically advocate for with those qualities you urge him to be.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
When one gives government broad sweeping extra constitutional powers one can be sure someone somewhere in the government will abuse that power. For anyone in this country who has been a law abiding citizen who may disagree strongly with a government position to have to worry that someone may be looking in his mail, snooping into ones email, phone conversations or worry about other egregious infringements by government upon their rights we have become like those countries we have fought so hard against. This is a travesty. Worse than a travesty it takes up unnecessary time in our fight in the war against terror.
We need to be very prudent as to whom we investigate and limit our efforts to those people who indeed are nearly a certain risk. Wasting time, effort, manpower and money collecting humongous caches of information on those who clearly are benign entities is ridiculous and does more to make God forbid a terrorist act more likely because it drains the resources we need to use to fight the real threats.
Government becomes the problem when the powers the people bestow upon government are egregiously abridged. The Patriot Act, although I once benignly supported it, seems to have become the problem as those who enforce it can and will, if given the opportunity, most certainly abuse it.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Now I have changed my mind. Rove is, I have concluded, not that bright. In fact there is either a stupidity or smugness which leads to great stupidity that is the reason behind the error of the firing of the USA eight. This time I think Karl Rove has made a doozy. There was no reason on earth for Rove to orchestrate the firing of Republican US Attorneys especially, since there were only eight of them. Doing that changed nothing. Rove did not realize that removing USAs because they were not prosecuting Democrats with enough fervor or Republicans with enough restraint, was ethically problematic if not, indeed, criminal. That was, in fact, stupid.
His most egregious mistake -- a mistake which I think reflects the nature of extreme wing politics -- was that he never gave a damn about the FEELINGS of those eight Republican US attorneys. The colossal mistake was that he never thought that saying people were fired due to incompetence would hurt someone's feelings ESPECIALLY if that rationale was a false one against these eight USA's.
Perhaps Mr. Rove has never been on the other end of a cruel boss or on the other end of something that was said or done to an underling by a superior which was clearly wrong and not fair. It hurts. Not only does it hurt but it infuriates. Not only does it infuriate it makes a person somehow and in some way want to get even. Most times one cannot and one has to simply endure the shame and move on. In this case though, the shame, bad as it was personally that the rationale for firing them was said to be because of "poor performance," that lie was revealed publicly. THAT is what stung and that is what Mr. Rove was too stupid to realize! Now, because it is public, some completely justified revenge is possible and has, in part, already occurred. Rove's callousness and uncaring part of his twisted psyche came back and bit him in the posterior. For once in this sad administration I surely do hope justice ultimately prevails and Rove ends up behind the bars he so richly deserves!
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
The radical disruption of the 1968 convention was a huge mistake. The Democratic party was really the only friend we had despite Johnson's continuing of the war. I believe Humphrey would have ended it. Moreover, just like Nader did to elect George Bush, the radical movement, as I see it, ensured a never ending succession of right wing politicos. Our politics in hindsight drove the so called "moral majority" to the Republican extreme leaving Democrats with the taint of unpatriotic. It is unfortunate. When one thinks of the damage that has been inflicted by the Republican presidencies of Nixon, Reagan, and most especially the most extreme of right wing extremists George W. Bush we have reaped the opposite of what, I believe, we intended to sow. We did not have the majority of the American public's tactical support.
I hope it is not too late and that someday I experience the joys of Rooseveltesque leadership that brings creativity, academic excellence and humanitarian ideals to the presidency. I believe the radicalism of the 60's brought on to itself the worst of all possible worlds George W. Bush for not one term but two!
I ultimately turned adamantly against this war for so many different reasons seeing this president's utter lack of understanding of the historical context of Iraq and Middle East foreign policy. My friends still do not let me forget what my view was at that time. Unlike the president though, I have no problem apologizing. I apologize for my country's utter lack of understanding of historical context and its present leadership's incredible capacity and without conscience deliberately lie in order to perpetrate this utterly inhuman war to advance a delusional neocon agenda. George Bush and those with him have sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind of this absolutely reckless foreign policy blunder. I guess some would say we get what we deserve as someone had to support Mr. Bush and his cronies. Thankfully, I can say without shame, in both elections I did not.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Second Thoughts on the Second Amendment: Tom Hartmann of Air America was discussing the etiology of the Second Amendment. He often, to support his opinion, delivers a historical rant about what the Founding Fathers thought in relation to current affairs some 300 years later. Sometimes, I think that his historical analyses as it involves contemporary events are ridiculous. He attempts to make a case for present day policies by historically reviewing the revolutionary war and post revolutionary war period. That can be futile. What "the founders had in mind," especially with respect to the Second Amendment, can often not, it seems to me, be determined and if it can be determined by various writings of our founders, to attempt to apply it to contemporary times is inane. The Second Amendment, of course states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
What the Second Amendment meant to those who came out of the Enlightenment is different, I think, from what the Second Amendment means today. Our revolutionary fathers were about curtailing the power of the king. The king's standing army was a threat against people who had no guns. I think that is one general fair assessment of why they included the Second Amendment. They wanted the people to have the right to have guns to prevent a tyranny from oppressing any person in each state or that each state should have the right to defend itself from an invasion. The people in each individual state would be able to have guns just in case the government got out of hand or if another country invaded. The founders, I think, wanted the people on par with the government as well as each state to be able to defend itself individually and collectively.
American culture and society today certainly has evolved. The ownership of guns now has nothing really to do with the possibility of overthrowing the government. If one bought a gun with the intent of attacking the government especially now with respect to the Patriot Act they would be doing something treasonous and illegal. No one could overthrow this government with a gun or if a country invades it now is the federal government's responsibility to defend the people.
Guns presently are used not for defense against the government or foreign invaders but defense against individual criminals, sport or for collectors. The question is in this culture, forgetting the etiology of the Second Amendment which is, I believe, meaningless, do we need ad infinitum access with little oversight over the sales of guns even machine guns? The founders NEVER imagined our culture as it has metamorphosed today. Is the Second Amendment as the founders have written it even applicable to our current historical and social milieu? THAT is the question, I believe, one should debate. The etiology of our Second Amendment as it existed in the revolutionary period is nearly irrelevant to the question of gun control as it exists in contemporary times.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Rosie is NOT a news broadcaster or an academician. She is another personality on TV with her own opinion protected by, of course, our First Amendment. I certainly hope she was NOT defending that poor excuse for humanity KSM but she has every right to debate the legality of this administration's use of torture to extract evidence which is what I thought she was debating. Personally, I have very mixed emotions about the use of torture. One part of me thinks if it can save our lives who cares about those immoral bastards who would perpetrate a 9/11. On the other hand if it extracts phony confessions or imprisons without trial an innocent person, it could do more harm to us than good.
Whether on The View, Oprah, or Larry King, this question is not only Rosie's right or any other American's right to debate, it is our obligation to debate it as citizens of a great democratic country.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Monday, March 12, 2007
My father had a wife with severe emotional problems -- and I mean severe -- one daughter who died two weeks after birth, and his next daughter had polio. Ultimately my mother ended up a quadriplegic from a misdiagnosed benign spinal tumor and then a stroke, spent 20 years in a wheelchair, lots of time in home care and then in hospitals. My father took sole care of her for 7 years before she had surgery. He worked very hard, incurred huge medical expenses and took care of my mother, the house upkeep, cooking and even me in high school and he didn't take ONE not ONE day off from work. He went in every day without fail. If I, after two months of work, said I had to take care of my spouse because of depression how long would I have lasted at that job? About a minute and a half. I am always suspicious of a new hire when all of a sudden an excuse for an absence is given.
I wonder who is Gov. Patrick kidding? I am thinking Gov. Patrick cannot take the heat of the kitchen and that the job is not what he thought it would be. I am thinking he is in over his head and can't get out. In fairness I liked his handling of the illegals although it's dropped from the news and they are still in absentia. Gov. Patrick, I think, is simply not strong enough and cannot take the onslaught. What did he think that job would be like?
I hope I am wrong because I love having a liberal in a position of great power especially too now that a Supreme Court vacancy, because of Judge Sossman's death, has occurred but he must show that he can assume those responsibilities he signed on for irrespective of familial problems.
What did he think that job was all about? It should not be about accumulating as many perks as one can, it should not be about talking to companies to get them a favorable monetary result and, in my opinion, it really should not be about taking time off for his wife's depression as much as I am sympathetic to her and the family's plight. The Commonwealth has a lot of plights and we elected, and I voted for, Gov. Patrick to take care of them!
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
You have provided me with hope and have conducted a simply SUPERB prosecution of Mr. Libby and I commend you enthusiastically and thank you for your efforts on behalf of the people. The people once again have prevailed. I continue to hope this will be the first in a long line of holding these egregious betrayers of the public trust to task for the horrific sins they have committed.
You are an admirable and honorable man. I thank you for your Herculean efforts and thank you for the restorative powers of faith in our system you have precipitated!
Monday, March 05, 2007
Saturday, March 03, 2007
It's all well and good for the president to ask the citizens of this country to contribute yet again to another disaster. We have been called upon to contribute ad infinitum and we have answered the call. I can't help but feel, though, here we are the richest country on the face of the earth wasting billions in Iraq, billions lost and billions expended and more going to be expended. All that money! How many disasters could this Federal government have contributed to IF we had all that money back? Katrina, tornados, floods and so many other natural disasters our country has suffered during the Bush years could have been paid for entirely. Moreover, global warming, the probable cause of so much catastrophic weather could be reversed. I resent the American people being asked yet again to contribute. We DO contribute through our tax dollars. Too bad those tax dollars are not used to HELP our own people but are used to perpetrate one of the most destructive and costly wars in our country's history!!
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Suddenly, however, it perhaps has happened. Have my yearnings been answered? I don't know. What I do know is I love Al Gore. I have always thought our country lucky to have, in its darkest moments, a leader who emerged to pull us through. It happened in the revolutionary period, of course, with Washington, the Civil War period with Lincoln, during the Great Depression and WWII with Roosevelt but in 2001 when our country was so viciously attacked and indeed threatened with catastrophic damage there was ultimately no one there to lead.
Indeed, it was our country's misfortune to have a leader in the oval office who was so woefully inept, so sadly not up to the task of governing this nation, so communicatively challenged and intellectually incurious during this epically important time. Worse, the leadership that followed him as president into the office of the vice-presidency and Congress was phenomenally dishonest, violent and uncaring about illegalities and abridgments of power. We lost our innocence on 9/11 and we lost our ideals as a nation in its aftermath. Bush and his minions instead of doing the most important task of uniting us, turned their back on anyone who questioned their policies, catered to religious extremists, concocted an unnecessary war, disempowered and thus divided this country nearly worse than during the time of the Civil War period.
In my opinion, too, there is no Democratic candidate who is up to the task of assuming the presidency. Although I like Obama, Hillary Clinton and others, they simply, in my opinion, cannot win and are now beset by the child-like cattiness of infighting. Our Congressional Democratic victory in 2006 is not enough. We face the prospect of yet another Republican presidential possibility who will keep us quagmired in a business-as-usual mode which our country now can ill afford. We face another great divide and worse we face a catastrophic future.
We need if not a New Deal a New Day. We need a reverse course of years of horrendously dangerous policy both domestically and, most certainly, internationally. Perhaps things happen for a reason. Perhaps, Al Gore did not attain what was rightfully his in 2000 because he needed to do even more important things until the time was right for him to use that greatness he has acquired to finally lead our nation and reverse its suicidal course. We are running off a cliff and there is not much time.
I want Al Gore to claim his rightful place as President of this nation. Our nation needs him. We desperately need the intellectually savvy, verbally adept, honest and secure leadership he could provide. Nothing less than our survival is at stake. I believe we must prevail upon him to run. Someday maybe my faith can be restored in the historical greatness that I always thought was America and my dream of experiencing a great presidential leader will be fulfilled.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
I do not know one thing about the American Jewish Committee. I am a skeptic through and through especially if it has to do with politics or religion. I went to the American Jewish Committee web site and I enclose the link to it http://www.ajc.org
It carries the remarks by Larry Lowenthal at his 18th year celebration. You can read the text of his speech. There is really not much to disagree with and there is not much I really can disagree with as far as Rabbi Wascow's email which you sent as well except for one sentence.
To me the proof is often going deeper. Even George Bush's speeches often sound good on their face but delve a little deeper into what this man has really done, who makes up his entourage and if possible what they say in private then it becomes a different story.
I try to look at both sides of issues. There is no question to me that American foreign policy has committed egregious acts. Acts, through which, we reap what we have sewn. It MUST be reassessed and reworked if we are to live on this planet without perpetual and at some point, I think, catastrophic war. There must also be a solution to the Palestinian issue. Personally, I believe in a two state solution too.
However, angels do not exist anywhere. The problem is that religion uncompromising and extreme throws up roadblocks to peace everywhere. There is no arguing with people who think God is on their side, God put them where they are and there is especially no arguing with suicide bombers who kill thousands upon thousands of innocents and will not even argue their beliefs in the first place. There is no criticism of or rapprochement by much of the academic left or albeit in the Muslim world of Muslims who decapitate, burn and slaughter so many even of their own religion. Occasionally one hears a few but certainly not an outcry.
We must wade through, in my opinion, the supernatural hocus pocus sewers that are the monotheistic religions in their pure form. A daunting task. I am not even sure it can be done. Religion in my opinion is the single most threatening force known to man besides nature because it keeps free thought down and closes the door to dialogue and scientific truth. This is true probably of some in the AJC and it is no less true of certainly many in the Islamic world as well.
The sentence in Rabbi Wascow's article that I do not like was: "Indeed, they attacked a Jewish poet, playwright, and historian for questioning the possibility of a two-state solution when the most vigorous underminers of such a solution -- even more vigorous and more effective than murders by Palestinian terrorists -- have been the Israeli government." THAT I have a problem with. Both sides commit atrocities. Palestinians commit horrendous atrocities even against their own people. I venture to ask if Israel were to cease to exist as a Jewish state (a possibility) would there be peace in Palestine? I would not bet my wallet on it.
Many in all of the Islamic world, too, are not kidding when they say they want a second Holocaust and Jews should be driven into the sea. I take them at their word. The Jewish state unless annihilated (a possibility) is a reality. A two state solution is, in my opinion, the most desirable BUT when the left, as they so often do, start using phrases like the Israeli government is worse than terrorists they lose me and incur worse wrath of a lot of Jews. The title of Jimmy Carter's book did the same thing. If he truly wants peace he would not have used the title he did which sold his book but alienated a lot of others. A true mediator looks at both sides and tries at least to treat them equally and not inflame. Rabbi Wascow's title
"F*****T, the AJC" did nothing to advance his cause. It looked on the face of it profane.
There must be quiet dialogue with an attempt to diffuse not ignite. So far, on both sides, I see very few willing to do that.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Sunday, February 18, 2007
They, as I have said in many writings, do NOT dive a damn about the little guy OR the soldier. Bush and his cohorts in crime care about one thing only MONEY. When will the people of this nation see -- I mean REALLY see? Republicans in general are not about us they are about the huge corporation and the billions of bucks it generates for THEM and their campaigns but NOT for us. They do NOT care about us. We need to yell that loudly at the ballot box. They need to be swept out of office entirely and for good and if/when Democrats are elected they too cannot be allowed to cater to the money givers whom they need to get elected. They must put their money where they say there mouth is and cater to the people who need protection and government services. That is what government should be about.
The sale of Iraq is a COMPLETE abomination and the inattentiveness to the needs and safety of our precious soldiers who give up their lives is nothing less than criminal. Criminals and treason occupy the White House. Is this who we want to care about our soldiers who are spilling gallons of blood for a policy that is INSIPID and unwinnable? When will America wake up? Our life's blood is draining out of us and we cannot even get a useless non-binding resolution passed.
A mature nation realizes its mistake, stops the mistake and moves on. We desperately need a SMART, capable, communicatively adept leader in office. That is NOT who we have living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. We have living there quite the opposite. Shame on this leader for not providing our troops with everything they need and shame on us for "electing" him not once but twice!
Saturday, February 17, 2007
If Marilyn Monroe, Jack Kennedy, or Robert Kennedy were alive and youthful today could they ever have gotten away with so much of their behavior. If Marilyn Monroe were young today and died as she did how much news would be devoted to that? My guess is she would be covered 24/7
I think Anna Nicole Smith tried and indeed did remind so many of Marilyn. People in this country have, I think, never let go of the Monroe phenomenon. People still want her resurrected from the dead. In lieu of that, Anna Nicole Smith will suffice. Now the media, growing in technological sophistication, can give many what they want ... another Marilyn. This time though we can examine all the minutiae of her life and death something which at the time of Marilyn's death was not possible.
After the Smith saga has ended we will, of course, like Billy Flynn suggests about the character Roxie in the movie "Chicago," go on to the next bit of news junk. Instead of the public wanting to examine the complexities of American foreign policy or the metamorphosis of the history of Islam and the western thought, the superficialities of our culture will prevail and we will be glued to the next Anna Nicole Smith saga wherever that may be. It's sad because Smith's life is over but our lives, although not over yet, hang in the balance of war and diplomacy but our public wants entertainment and six party talks do not provide that!
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Thursday, February 08, 2007
It is also true we suffer from an obsessive American quick fix disorder. The doctors and the drug companies dutifully oblige. Our media is saturated with never ending, ceaseless drug advertising. Money is always in the equation. In my opinion in the case of Rebecca Riley, it will be determined that she was short changed by all parties involved i.e. the psychiatrist, the pharmacy, DSS and most especially her fractured, dysfuntional mentally disturbed parents. It does seem to me that a bright red flag should have gone up to the physician when a mother, of dubious mental stability, asked for more and more refills as the drugs became allegedly lost or allegedly degraded by water. Then again, doctors do what they have always done pushed pills for the drug giants. Many may, indeed, have good intentions and want to help people. In the case of this little girl, however, lack of profound oversight and error cost a little girl her life!
Monday, February 05, 2007
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Thursday, February 01, 2007
I watched PBS documentary about the Supreme Court. Although, I am not politically aligned with Justice Roberts, I wanted to email to say how much I enjoyed the various segments of his interview. He is obviously very well versed in the history of the Supreme Court and made, I thought, an excellent presentation and representation of the Court.
The foundations of our democracy are a wonder to me and are testament, even to this day, of the brilliance of these 18th century men of the Enlightenment. It is so interesting to see how the Supreme Court has evolved from barely an entity to one of the most powerful forces of US history. Our Constitution remains an exquisite document which lends itself not only to the law and its rigidity but also to the interpretation of that law and its flexibility. I thought Justice Roberts conducted a wonderful and informative interview. I yearned for more!
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
The men of peace whom you talk about such as Martin Luther King and Ghandi were assassinated. RFK was assassinated. Rabin and Sadat were assassinated. Hitler was replaced by Stalin. Stalin was replaced ultimately with religious fanaticism. Who does the US choose as a leader in these critical times? George W. Bush, intellectually limited wager-of-war-based-on-lies, religious fundamentalist denier of the truth of science and abridger of human rights supreme interested more in his oil buddies, corporate money and revenge than he is in the survival of the human race and life on this planet.
The world today is a MUCH worse and more threatening place then ever in the history of our species. Powers (plural) have the ability to destroy all life on earth forever. More and more nations will probably achieve that dubious nuclear capability distinction. My guess is they are simply, if you will pardon the pun, dying to use it. The US for all its talk of freedom, democracy and justice has been involved in a plethora of wars all over the globe since its history and many, with the exception of WWII, were unnecessary. We have killed hundreds of thousands sometimes necessarily so but sometimes not. War now prevails over peace and religious fundamentalism prevails over rational thought. Lies prevail over truth. Man is a violent, power loving, and corrupt creature whose world is blowing up or drowning and whose fate seems dismal at best. There is no one, absolutely no one, to stop this descent.
I suppose we can look at a half full glass but I do not see it as such. I see life as Hobbs saw it for what I think it is: nasty, brutish and short. There are no saviors, there are no protectors there is only a continual line of men of folly globally who know exactly how to wage war but little of how to sagaciously wage peace. Worse, they couch their reason for violence in irrational religious insanity. If you want a fairy tale protector or ending read a book because that is the only place I think you will get one.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Beautiful Barbaro: That beautiful Kentucky Derby horse winner Barbaro was euthanized today ultimately due to his original leg fracture when he tried to run the Preakness last year. It is a sad ending to a magnificent animal.
I have long thought horse and dog racing are cruel and inhumane “sports.” Humans are simply using those beautiful animals for their own pleasure and, of course, big money while stressing the animal's body to Olympian heights. Barbaro’s legs just could not stand the stress of it. It makes me sad. People say why do you care it's just an animal but I truly do believe animals have an intrinsic value and just as much right to a life on this planet as humans do without interrupting their natural life cycle. In a way, I see no difference between humans and animals. We are all animals but endowed with different traits. Yes, our brain makes us cleverer but does that mean we have more worth, for example, than a horse which can certainly run faster or a dog which can hunt better or a bird which can fly? Humans can certainly build better mouse traps but I do not think that entitles us to use and abuse other species and I especially loath animals used by humans for immense profit.
I believe we are all meant to be on this earth and to use whatever our capacities are to survive. I do believe in ultimately letting the earth and nature dictate all of our fates without humans imposing their will and being the determining factor of everything. Barbaro and each human too are beautiful and unique in and of themselves. I believe, their natural life cycle should not be negatively dominated by anyone else. Yes, I agree Barbaro needed to be euthanized because his quality of life was reduced so significantly that leading a life free of pain was simply not an option for him. I do to an extent agree with that for humans as well. I believe endless pain and suffering is not what life is meant to be and humans surely should not contribute to that for any specie. Human sport killed Barbaro. At least I agree with one thing, Barbaro is not suffering anymore.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Saturday, January 27, 2007
This should be sent to every member of Congress and that den of stupidity the White House. Maureen Dowd is a one-of-a-kind magnificently brilliant editorialist. Her editorial is below.
Daffy Does Doom
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: January 27, 2007
WASHINGTON
Dick Durbin went to the floor of the Senate on Thursday night to denounce the vice president as “delusional.”
It was shocking, and Senator Durbin should be ashamed of himself.
Delusional is far too mild a word to describe Dick Cheney. Delusional doesn’t begin to capture the profound, transcendental one-flew-over daftness of the man.
Has anyone in the history of the United States ever been so singularly wrong and misguided about such phenomenally important events and continued to insist he’s right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
It requires an exquisite kind of lunacy to spend hundreds of billions destroying America’s reputation in the world, exhausting the U.S. military, failing to catch Osama, enhancing Iran’s power in the Middle East and sending American kids to train and arm Iraqi forces so they can work against American interests.
Only someone with an inspired alienation from reality could, under the guise of exorcising the trauma of Vietnam, replicate the trauma of Vietnam.
You must have a real talent for derangement to stay wrong every step of the way, to remain in complete denial about Iraq’s civil war, to have a total misunderstanding of Arab culture, to be completely oblivious to the American mood and to be absolutely blind to how democracy works.
In a democracy, when you run a campaign that panders to homophobia by attacking gay marriage and then your lesbian daughter writes a book about politics and decides to have a baby with her partner, you cannot tell Wolf Blitzer he’s “out of line” when he gingerly raises the hypocrisy of your position.
Mr. Cheney acts more like a member of the James gang than the Jefferson gang. Asked by Wolf what would happen if the Senate passed a resolution critical of The Surge, Scary Cheney rumbled, “It won’t stop us.”
Such an exercise in democracy, he noted, would be “detrimental from the standpoint of the troops.”
Americans learned an important lesson from Vietnam about supporting the troops even when they did not support the war. From media organizations to Hollywood celebrities and lawmakers on both sides, everyone backs our troops.
It is W. and Vice who learned no lessons from Vietnam, probably because they worked so hard to avoid going. They rush into a war halfway around the world for no reason and with no foresight about the culture or the inevitable insurgency, and then assert that any criticism of their fumbling management of Iraq and Afghanistan is tantamount to criticizing the troops. Quel demagoguery.
“Bottom line,” Vice told Wolf, “is that we’ve had enormous successes, and we will continue to have enormous successes.” The biggest threat, he said, is that Americans may not “have the stomach for the fight.”
He should stop casting aspersions on the American stomach. We’ve had the stomach for more than 3,000 American deaths in a war sold as a cakewalk.
If W. were not so obsessed with being seen as tough, Mr. Cheney could not influence him with such tripe.
They are perpetually guided by the wrong part of the body. They are consumed by the fear of looking as if they don’t have guts, when they should be compelled by the desire to look as if they have brains.
After offering Congress an olive branch in the State of the Union, the president resumed mindless swaggering. Asked yesterday why he was ratcheting up despite the resolutions, W. replied, “In that I’m the decision maker, I had to come up with a way forward that precluded disaster.” (Or preordained it.)
The reality of Iraq, as The Times’s brilliant John Burns described it to Charlie Rose this week, is that a messy endgame could be far worse than Vietnam, leading to “a civil war on a scale with bloodshed that will absolutely dwarf what we’re seeing now,” and a “wider conflagration, with all kinds of implications for the world’s flow of oil, for the state of Israel. What happens to King Abdullah in Jordan if there’s complete chaos in the region?”
Mr. Cheney has turned his perversity into foreign policy.
He assumes that the more people think he’s crazy, the saner he must be. In Dr. No’s nutty world-view, anti-Americanism is a compliment. The proof that America is right is that everyone thinks it isn’t.
He sees himself as a prophet in the wilderness because he thinks anyone in the wilderness must be a prophet.
To borrow one of his many dismissive words, it’s hogwash.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Tragedy at Lincon/Sudbury Regional High: The violence and death of a student in the safety of his school would have been unthinkable in other eras. The most contraband which I brought to school was gum; the most dangerous weapon a pencil. Profanity and violence directed toward a student or teacher was not even a thought. Something has gone terribly wrong. Hoping to free ourselves from some of the ridiculous societal shackles of the 50's we, I think, reaped what we did not want exactly to sew.
I believe there is a general crudity which exists in this country, illustrated in our culture by the language used, the lack of civility in discourse and, worst of all, in the exhibition of violence without care or concern for the feelings of another. We are exposed to it every day, when we turn on television, watch the evening news, go to the movies, turn on the computer or simply walk into a mall. There is a cacophony of voices screaming at and not listening to each other. Until adults, liberal and conservative alike, learn to treat each other respectfully and to impose upon themselves self censorship, vulgarity and violence will be a way of life so that what happened in
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Barbara is an aging, single and devastatingly lonely history teacher who develops an emotional and even sexual attachment to the comparatively youngish, very pretty, newly hired, insecure art teacher, Sheba. Sheba's problematic family life adds to her loneliness. She is married to an older man and has two children who present her with hard-to-manage unanticipated consequential situations. One of her children is a seemingly rather difficult teenage girl and the other is a son with Downs Syndrome.
Wading through her loneliness and difficulties, Sheba commits an immoral act which Barbara inadvertently observes; the stage is set for unforeseen consequences. There is too much in this movie to relate the ensuing events nor would I want to be a spoiler. There are pertinent questions, though, I think a viewer of the movie could keep in mind.
Why do people do what they do? When must we say no to one's impulses? Where is the line we and society draw and is it ever understandable when we cross that line? What is the nature of friendship? Ayn Randian questions always plague me. Are people really altruistic or do we do things because, in the end, we alone need to do them? Does self-interest always prevail and does it doom us? Barbara befriends Sheba and Sheba develops a great misplaced trust. Because of that events unfold and Sheba's world is upended. Barbara, I think, really cares about no one except herself and yet I built up an intense empathy for Barbara whose loneliness literally drips from every pore of her being. Is she evil? Is she completely pathologic as she flits from one receptive flower to the next? Is Barbara's reaction to life understandable? Does Sheba reap what she alone has sewn through her immoral act? Who is the more immoral of the two? What is betrayal and is it ever right? Barbara after all, I think, really does not betray because of a sense of right but because of a jealous sense of wrong that she feels was committed against her.
Personally, although some kinds of altruism, I think, exist, I do believe most people do what it is in their own self interest to do. Barbara did not offer to help Sheba through her difficulties out of an altruistic friendship she offered to help Sheba because she needed and wanted to possess her. Sheba committed an immoral act without thought of consequences to anyone including her family because she, too, needed to do so. The two protagonists were using people to satisfy their own urges and remedy their own disappointments in life.
I do believe we as a society need to create morality and set certain albeit arbitrary standards because, in the end, humans are still primitive beings. Left to our own devices we would do anything we want and a kind of social anarchy would and does often prevail. This film was riveting. I highly recommend it.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
This psychologically and intellectually impaired president will simply veto everything the Democrats pass and Democrats won't have the cajones to override immoral vetoes. Whether it's ethics reform, stem cell research or the Iraq debacle he will veto all of Congress's attempt to rectify the horror he has wrought. He is a disgrace. I believe our people got what they wanted especially those so called conservatives of the mid-West and south. Many of them have paid the ultimate price with either their own life or that of their child and other loved ones. Bush is the gift that keeps on giving...and giving and giving and giving.
Sometimes I wonder, what if the US did not act in Iraq and left Hussein and his sons alone? Would he/they then have been in competition with Iran to build a nuclear bomb? That question can never be answered. What we do know now is that the terrorists in the form of Al Quaeda who attacked us on 9/11 and other terrorists from all over the region are certainly in Iraq now. They were not in Iraq under Hussein. Hussein suffered no tyrants except the tyranny of his own regime. It is possible that that regime if left in place would have ensured a terrorist free zone. We will never know.
Further, I also wonder if the Iraq War was not a pretext to ultimately bomb Iran's nuclear capabilities. If so it seems this could not have gone worse. Perhaps Bush didn't care how it went IF he could position our troops in Iraq to provide support for an ultimate air and sea attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Thursday, January 04, 2007
I cannot think of one human being that was more deserving of execution than Adolph Eichmann. However, when it was done I do not recall crowds in the street jumping up and down for joy at even his execution. To me it is because the whole endeavor, the whole rationale behind his execution was so sad and so horrific to the civilized mind that killing him did not produce joy. It produced sadness.
I felt similarly about Hussein. He perhaps was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not a million people and not just the few thousand he was charged with crimes against humanity about. His crimes against humanity were much larger. The whole episode from Hussein's crimes, to his invasions, to his war with Iran, to the two US responses have been hugely gruesome to many many innocents. So it is not joy that I feel at his execution but sadness that our human species is still after millions of years of evolution capable of this kind of brutality. One more man, Hussein, himself was yet another victim in the saga of slaughter. To me there should be no joy in Mudville but a profound and utter sadness that there still exists today men who act as beasts.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
A Ford and not a Lincoln: I have a different opinion of former President Gerald R. Ford now than I did before he died. The plethora of eulogies and kind remembrances metamorphosed my opinion. Before his death I thought his pardon of Richard Nixon was wrong, biased and ill conceived. I even thought, perhaps, he and Nixon had a gentleman’s agreement that Ford would assume the presidency and in return not hold Nixon accountable for the dismantling of our democratic process.
Then Ford died. Perhaps my former belief was in error. So many journalists and historians believe that Ford was the right man at the right time. Many believe his pardon spared a Watergate-weary nation from indicting a President for the high crimes he avoided through his resignation. Perhaps this was so. It seems now to me that Ford spared the nation a lot. Most importantly though, too, I liked Ford’s thoughts on feminism, abortion, a woman’s right to choose, and his thoughts today about homosexuality and gay marriage. I liked Betty Ford’s openness. I liked the fact that people seemed to think Ford was an honest man. He really was reminiscent of that old time Republican politics whereby an innate suspicion of government's involvement in the economic and personal lives of the population prevailed. Ford’s funeral was a return for a moment to that old time Republican political religion. Oh, yes, by the way, I also liked that Ford left a few choice uncomplimentary words for George W. Bush's Iraq debacle. Ah, for the good old days when honesty was indeed the best policy.
Monday, December 25, 2006
Two Climates of Fear: In Jeff Jacoby's 12/24 editorial in the Boston Globe entitled "Climate of Fear" he berates the scientists for creating a "climate of fear." He says "there is always a market for apocalyptic foreboding." I think he is right if it's not one fear it's another. Both George W. Bush and he are so fond of telling us whom and what to fear as well. The only thing the Republican party wants to promote to maintain their power is fear.