Evangelical Madness: Today Bill Moyers was about the fanatical alliance of a few Christian Evangelicals lead by John Hagee with their rabid advocacy, through violence if necessary, support of Israel. They are, of course, against the two state solution. It was a fantastic show because of especially the counter analysis of MJ Rosenberg of the IPF or Israel Policy Forum, which is dedicated to the two state solution. I wrote the following to the Moyers blog:
As usual Bill Moyers's discussion of John Hagee and the articulate MJ Rosenberg's counter analysis of this Christian fanatic was simply brilliant. I cannot think of one thing that Mr. Rosenberg said with which I could disagree. He was passionate, articulate and oh so absolutely correct. I, as a Jew, think what a curious phenomenon these Christian Evangelicals are. They have been, with respect to the Jewish people, all over the political map. It was not so long ago that I remember the Christian right as being rancid with anti-Semitic vitriol. Jews in this country were so often afraid of them. Now they present a new face and have become allegedly the Jew's best friend. They are, though, not that. There is a method to the Christian Fundamentalist madness and it is, of course, to ultimately convert the Jew. The New Testament is not a neutral document with respect to the Jew.
You bet the separation clause of the First Amendment is my friend because without it the Jew might not exist. The real threat to the Jew, Israel and the entire world is, in fact, religion itself. Each group claims they know what God wants. Each group claims they have right on their side and each group will resort to horrific violence to enforce what they think they know. The rest of us who love science, rational thought and the gift of a questioning mind will get swept up in the insanity. The only thing I, perhaps, disagree with Mr. Rosenberg on is that I am not quite as optimistic as he. I certainly hope he is right and the Armageddon that the Christian right and Islamic fanatics want never comes to be.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
There was much commentary on my commentary regarding the Bill Moyers interview of Dr. Cone. I said one final thing about my criticism. It was the following:
This will be my final comment. If there were a round table discussion perhaps I could get my points across more fully and could respond to some of your thoughts and accusations. The odd thing is there is MUCH of what others have said in response to what I said with which I agree. Much has been said eloquently. Some has not. Of course, I try to look at both ends and in the middle of all issues as nothing is all one way or the other. Of course I know people overcome huge odds and work diligently every day. Having said that one cannot deny some of what one sees. One doesn't necessarily have to see everything first hand but certain media reports are credible and SOME observations are true.
As for US policy I also do not see it all one way or the other. Human beings are not angels. This is a dangerous world and homo sapiens has an aggressive gene in us somewhere. The US is not to blame for all the world's problems BUT it does, no doubt about it, contribute to some. I consider myself left of center -- slightly left. The problem I have had with the left of this era is that sometimes they are utterly as blind as the right to the shades of gray.
The US has catapulted itself historically to be a nation of great wealth, power and influence. Which country in the world would eschew that power, wealth and influence if they had it? I am a realist. Would I like to change US policy both foreign and domestic ... a resounding yes. It needs change. In print it is not always possible to discuss all aspects of what one says. Suffice it to say I agree with parts of many who have written but I disagree with other parts. There is not room here nor do I have the time to constantly respond but at the risk of being labeled things I am not, I feel compelled to respond one last time.
To summarize: I believe great wrongs have been committed in our culture. I believe people have, in great part, overcome those wrongs. I applaud that. I do still think others languish in a horrific climate of fear, poverty, ill health, crime and other maladies. Perhaps as Shakespeare said "The fault dear Brutus is not in the stars but in ourselves." If one looks to our culture to do something about our plight one may have an awfully long wait. By the way, Bill Moyers is not simply a forum for the left. It is a forum for all. Bill Moyers has had figures on his program like conservative Richard Viguere and many many others with a right wing slant and with whom I whole heartedly disagree. I can think of no better forum than here to discuss a plethora of thoughts, feelings and ideas. This site does not say for left wingers only.
This will be my final comment. If there were a round table discussion perhaps I could get my points across more fully and could respond to some of your thoughts and accusations. The odd thing is there is MUCH of what others have said in response to what I said with which I agree. Much has been said eloquently. Some has not. Of course, I try to look at both ends and in the middle of all issues as nothing is all one way or the other. Of course I know people overcome huge odds and work diligently every day. Having said that one cannot deny some of what one sees. One doesn't necessarily have to see everything first hand but certain media reports are credible and SOME observations are true.
As for US policy I also do not see it all one way or the other. Human beings are not angels. This is a dangerous world and homo sapiens has an aggressive gene in us somewhere. The US is not to blame for all the world's problems BUT it does, no doubt about it, contribute to some. I consider myself left of center -- slightly left. The problem I have had with the left of this era is that sometimes they are utterly as blind as the right to the shades of gray.
The US has catapulted itself historically to be a nation of great wealth, power and influence. Which country in the world would eschew that power, wealth and influence if they had it? I am a realist. Would I like to change US policy both foreign and domestic ... a resounding yes. It needs change. In print it is not always possible to discuss all aspects of what one says. Suffice it to say I agree with parts of many who have written but I disagree with other parts. There is not room here nor do I have the time to constantly respond but at the risk of being labeled things I am not, I feel compelled to respond one last time.
To summarize: I believe great wrongs have been committed in our culture. I believe people have, in great part, overcome those wrongs. I applaud that. I do still think others languish in a horrific climate of fear, poverty, ill health, crime and other maladies. Perhaps as Shakespeare said "The fault dear Brutus is not in the stars but in ourselves." If one looks to our culture to do something about our plight one may have an awfully long wait. By the way, Bill Moyers is not simply a forum for the left. It is a forum for all. Bill Moyers has had figures on his program like conservative Richard Viguere and many many others with a right wing slant and with whom I whole heartedly disagree. I can think of no better forum than here to discuss a plethora of thoughts, feelings and ideas. This site does not say for left wingers only.
Monday, November 26, 2007
A dialog:
Bill Moyers last Friday had a discussion with a Dr. James Cone, a black theologian, which centered around the historical acknowledgment of white racism and the poisoning implication it had for the black experience in this country. They talked about white denial of this country's racist history. I did not much care for the interviewee because I thought I was being yelled at and preached to. As PBS explains Dr. Crone's credentials: "Professor James H. Cone is the Charles A. Briggs Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary. Dr. Cone is an ordained minister in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. He is the author of eleven books and over 150 articles and has lectured at more than 1,000 universities and community organizations throughout the United States, Europe, Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean."
My comment and other responses -- some quite impassioned -- to my comment were as follows.
My comment on Billy Moyers Journal:
A preface: I will always love Bill Moyers.
I am riveted to most Bill Moyers interviews. Unfortunately, Dr. James Cone's interview did not inspire. I always want to give my honest assessment and hope you will indulge me my criticism. I loath being preached to and yelled at. Dr. Cone's loud diatribe lost me and at one point I turned the channel. I have the UTMOST empathy for the historical plight of the black man in this country. I must because I am a Jew. I know full well the impact of racism and its exclusion and what it does to a people and to a human psyche. My people were slaughtered for centuries, ghettoized and excluded often seemingly with no hope. Anti-Semitism exists en mass to this day. Jews had to come back from their near extinction and did so wherever they could through savvy intelligence, communicative abilities, education and hard work. While no two group's experience is the same, the similarities of racism, I believe, are profound.
Dr. Cone's sentiments, I thought, were cacophonous high decibel rants. While we should never forget man's inhumanity to anyone, Dr. Cone's utterings were a bit tiresome. I utterly agree with Bill Cosby. At some point one must take responsibility for one's own life. There are so many contributions blacks have made in every field. Yet, when one looks at many black ghettos one sees violence, drug addiction, crime, all manner of other illegalities and commonplace immoralities. Worse, one sees gangs which refuse to work with authority, commit murder and impose their own "justice" which means no justice at all. I see white's responsibility in part for this historically but I see present day behavior of some black people to be responsible today for their own deep malaise.
In our culture most people care about their own day-to-day lives. Sadly, this is not a very caring culture. As difficult a reality as that may be, one has to work within that as best one can to create a better life because no one else will do that for him. Reading, education, effective communicative techniques, I believe, are some of the road maps out of the quagmire of poverty, horrific murder and crime. No one is going to give one the desire to achieve that. One must have those values instilled fundamentally in the family unit and one must use those values to make a better life.
I thought Bill Moyers was a little cowed by Dr. Cone and perhaps afraid to disagree or argue points with him either on race or religion. I thought Dr. Cone was preaching loudly to me and, frankly, I'm tired of the sermon.
Some agreed and others vociferously did not.
One said:
Of course Mr Drake, you wouldn't see it. First of all, there was no rationale put forward by Dr Cone to justify the current state of the African-American comumunity - that was imagined by Ms Rosen. His message was about America in general and the symbol of the noose in particular and our tendency to sweep that essential fact of our collective being under the proverbial carpet. And therefore the fact that we can't really become a real nation until we have dealt with it.
-----
If there had been a show about the meaning of the Holocaust and then I blogged afterward with a statement that approximated Ms Rosen's statement, it would read something like this:
"All these people that talk about Jewish suffering during the Holocaust are so strident. That's old history: the story today is that Israel persecutes Palestianians and they drop depleted uranium bombs on Lebanon . So therefore, because of Israel's current day actions, the Holocaust is nullified as a moral issue."
Please note that I am NOT saying this myself - and I don't believe that and neither does Norman Finkelstein (and if you're not aware of the struggles of this son of Holocaust survivors then you're ill equipped to enter into this debate). I am only creating the mirror image of Ms Rosen's statement in order to make her and other thoughtful Americans see the hidden racism in her statement.
--------
Because we are not yet in a culture where race does not play a factor in our opinions (as this blog makes so patently obvious) it is important that i present myself. I am white, 25% Jewish on my father's side yet my occupation is in African American culture. My ex wife is African American and I have also lived a year in post civil war Lebanon. I am also active in an anti war group whose leaders are for the most part of Jewish origin.
----
And i am 100% in agreement with Dr Cone and Dr Mike Jones about the fact that IF we did had more successfully dealt with the tradition of racial conflict in our own country, we would better equipped to equitably deal with the problems in the Middle East
------
A book that I recommend to all who are honest about their pursuits to purge America of it's ghosts and move on and "live up to the full meaning of it's creed"(as one oft cited American once said) is David K Shipler's(alas a Jew !) "A Country of Strangers- Blacks and Whites in America"
Peace (yet also Vigilance…)
Another said:
I am absolutely aghast at Ms. Rosen's disgusting contribution to this forum. It is just dripping with her own racism, which of course only she is permitted to exhibit in current day American culture exclusively because of her own ethnic origin which gives her "carte blanche" to dismiss the struggles of any people other than her own .
----
If she wants others to take her holocaust seriously, she should start by taking other people's holocausts seriously.
-----
---
-----
I am waiting for the first accusations of anti semitism from the JDL types like Ms Rosen to appear on this blog. Such a label is supposed to turn off the spigot of my first amendment rights to speak about this subject - a subject which has become even more 'sensitive ' in modern day USA than the nooses.
I dare anyone to find the slightest substanstiated example of racism in my text, I'm only calling for understanding, awareness and sensitivity.
-
AND A SUPPORTER SAID THIS:
Well said by Natalie Rosen. My reaction to the interview was very similar. Dripping with racism? You can't be serious!
I too was a little disappointed in Mr. Moyers. He came across less like a skilled interviewer and more like an awe-struck student sitting at the feet of the master. That's okay. Everybody has a bad day now and again.
------------------
My note: I certainly did evoke controversy and if one really READS my former statement it is, I think, fair. I acknowledge history but I also acknowledge the individual's responsibility to help himself.
I respond: I stand by what I said and think too Dr. Cone's discussion with Bill Moyers had NOTHING to do with the realities of the Holocaust and the existence of the State of Israel today. Israel is a fact and the Jewish people, as they always have, fight for their right to live. Even with nearly a century of annihilative threats, the Jewish people literally made flowers grow in the desert. They made a heretofore barely cultivated land thrive. That does not mean I am impervious to bad behavior when I see it. I am not. No state gets it all right all the time. The Jewish people knew, however, -- and in pertinent part to the interview -- that the only ones they could trust with their survival and advancement were themselves.
Bill Moyers last Friday had a discussion with a Dr. James Cone, a black theologian, which centered around the historical acknowledgment of white racism and the poisoning implication it had for the black experience in this country. They talked about white denial of this country's racist history. I did not much care for the interviewee because I thought I was being yelled at and preached to. As PBS explains Dr. Crone's credentials: "Professor James H. Cone is the Charles A. Briggs Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary. Dr. Cone is an ordained minister in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. He is the author of eleven books and over 150 articles and has lectured at more than 1,000 universities and community organizations throughout the United States, Europe, Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean."
My comment and other responses -- some quite impassioned -- to my comment were as follows.
My comment on Billy Moyers Journal:
A preface: I will always love Bill Moyers.
I am riveted to most Bill Moyers interviews. Unfortunately, Dr. James Cone's interview did not inspire. I always want to give my honest assessment and hope you will indulge me my criticism. I loath being preached to and yelled at. Dr. Cone's loud diatribe lost me and at one point I turned the channel. I have the UTMOST empathy for the historical plight of the black man in this country. I must because I am a Jew. I know full well the impact of racism and its exclusion and what it does to a people and to a human psyche. My people were slaughtered for centuries, ghettoized and excluded often seemingly with no hope. Anti-Semitism exists en mass to this day. Jews had to come back from their near extinction and did so wherever they could through savvy intelligence, communicative abilities, education and hard work. While no two group's experience is the same, the similarities of racism, I believe, are profound.
Dr. Cone's sentiments, I thought, were cacophonous high decibel rants. While we should never forget man's inhumanity to anyone, Dr. Cone's utterings were a bit tiresome. I utterly agree with Bill Cosby. At some point one must take responsibility for one's own life. There are so many contributions blacks have made in every field. Yet, when one looks at many black ghettos one sees violence, drug addiction, crime, all manner of other illegalities and commonplace immoralities. Worse, one sees gangs which refuse to work with authority, commit murder and impose their own "justice" which means no justice at all. I see white's responsibility in part for this historically but I see present day behavior of some black people to be responsible today for their own deep malaise.
In our culture most people care about their own day-to-day lives. Sadly, this is not a very caring culture. As difficult a reality as that may be, one has to work within that as best one can to create a better life because no one else will do that for him. Reading, education, effective communicative techniques, I believe, are some of the road maps out of the quagmire of poverty, horrific murder and crime. No one is going to give one the desire to achieve that. One must have those values instilled fundamentally in the family unit and one must use those values to make a better life.
I thought Bill Moyers was a little cowed by Dr. Cone and perhaps afraid to disagree or argue points with him either on race or religion. I thought Dr. Cone was preaching loudly to me and, frankly, I'm tired of the sermon.
Some agreed and others vociferously did not.
One said:
Of course Mr Drake, you wouldn't see it. First of all, there was no rationale put forward by Dr Cone to justify the current state of the African-American comumunity - that was imagined by Ms Rosen. His message was about America in general and the symbol of the noose in particular and our tendency to sweep that essential fact of our collective being under the proverbial carpet. And therefore the fact that we can't really become a real nation until we have dealt with it.
-----
If there had been a show about the meaning of the Holocaust and then I blogged afterward with a statement that approximated Ms Rosen's statement, it would read something like this:
"All these people that talk about Jewish suffering during the Holocaust are so strident. That's old history: the story today is that Israel persecutes Palestianians and they drop depleted uranium bombs on Lebanon . So therefore, because of Israel's current day actions, the Holocaust is nullified as a moral issue."
Please note that I am NOT saying this myself - and I don't believe that and neither does Norman Finkelstein (and if you're not aware of the struggles of this son of Holocaust survivors then you're ill equipped to enter into this debate). I am only creating the mirror image of Ms Rosen's statement in order to make her and other thoughtful Americans see the hidden racism in her statement.
--------
Because we are not yet in a culture where race does not play a factor in our opinions (as this blog makes so patently obvious) it is important that i present myself. I am white, 25% Jewish on my father's side yet my occupation is in African American culture. My ex wife is African American and I have also lived a year in post civil war Lebanon. I am also active in an anti war group whose leaders are for the most part of Jewish origin.
----
And i am 100% in agreement with Dr Cone and Dr Mike Jones about the fact that IF we did had more successfully dealt with the tradition of racial conflict in our own country, we would better equipped to equitably deal with the problems in the Middle East
------
A book that I recommend to all who are honest about their pursuits to purge America of it's ghosts and move on and "live up to the full meaning of it's creed"(as one oft cited American once said) is David K Shipler's(alas a Jew !) "A Country of Strangers- Blacks and Whites in America"
Peace (yet also Vigilance…)
Another said:
I am absolutely aghast at Ms. Rosen's disgusting contribution to this forum. It is just dripping with her own racism, which of course only she is permitted to exhibit in current day American culture exclusively because of her own ethnic origin which gives her "carte blanche" to dismiss the struggles of any people other than her own .
----
If she wants others to take her holocaust seriously, she should start by taking other people's holocausts seriously.
-----
---
-----
I am waiting for the first accusations of anti semitism from the JDL types like Ms Rosen to appear on this blog. Such a label is supposed to turn off the spigot of my first amendment rights to speak about this subject - a subject which has become even more 'sensitive ' in modern day USA than the nooses.
I dare anyone to find the slightest substanstiated example of racism in my text, I'm only calling for understanding, awareness and sensitivity.
-
AND A SUPPORTER SAID THIS:
Well said by Natalie Rosen. My reaction to the interview was very similar. Dripping with racism? You can't be serious!
I too was a little disappointed in Mr. Moyers. He came across less like a skilled interviewer and more like an awe-struck student sitting at the feet of the master. That's okay. Everybody has a bad day now and again.
------------------
My note: I certainly did evoke controversy and if one really READS my former statement it is, I think, fair. I acknowledge history but I also acknowledge the individual's responsibility to help himself.
I respond: I stand by what I said and think too Dr. Cone's discussion with Bill Moyers had NOTHING to do with the realities of the Holocaust and the existence of the State of Israel today. Israel is a fact and the Jewish people, as they always have, fight for their right to live. Even with nearly a century of annihilative threats, the Jewish people literally made flowers grow in the desert. They made a heretofore barely cultivated land thrive. That does not mean I am impervious to bad behavior when I see it. I am not. No state gets it all right all the time. The Jewish people knew, however, -- and in pertinent part to the interview -- that the only ones they could trust with their survival and advancement were themselves.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Tortured about torture: I am loath to think about the US torturing anybody. It goes against every amber wave of grain in every thought I have about my country. At any other time in history it would be unthinkable. I say no to torture and then a little voice in some buried synapse of my brain says the threats to our country are even worse than any imagined in the good war, World War II. No one had the bomb except us. Now so many have it and so many want it and there are possibly so many lose nukes out there for an enemy to potentially steal. So when I say no to torture and that little synapse says but what if, I say perhaps.
The Perils of Preaching Loudly
A preface: I will always love Bill Moyers.
I am riveted to most Bill Moyers interviews. Unfortunately, Dr. James Cone's interview did not inspire. I always want to give my honest assessment and hope you will indulge me my criticism. I loath being preached to and yelled at. Dr. Cone's loud diatribe lost me and at one point I turned the channel. I have the UTMOST empathy for the historical plight of the black man in this country. I must because I am a Jew. I know full well the impact of racism and its exclusion and what it does to a people and to a human psyche. My people were slaughtered for centuries, ghettoized and excluded often seemingly with no hope. Anti-Semitism exists en mass to this day. Jews had to come back from their near extinction and did so wherever they could through savvy intelligence, communicative abilities, education and hard work. While no two group's experience is the same, the similarities of racism, I believe, are profound.
Dr. Cone's sentiments, I thought, were cacophonous high decibel rants. While we should never forget man's inhumanity to anyone, Dr. Cone's utterings were a bit tiresome. I utterly agree with Bill Cosby. At some point one must take responsibility for one's own life. There are so many contributions blacks have made in every field. Yet, when one looks at many black ghettos one sees violence, drug addiction, crime, all manner of other illegalities and commonplace immoralities. Worse, one sees gangs which refuse to work with authority, commit murder and impose their own "justice" which means no justice at all. I see white's responsibility in part for this historically but I see present day behavior of some black people to be responsible today for their own deep malaise.
In our culture most people care about their own day-to-day lives. Sadly, this is not a very caring culture. As difficult a reality as that maybe be one has to work within that as best one can to create a better life because no one else will do that for him. Reading, education, effective communicative techniques, I believe, are some of the road maps out of the quagmire of poverty, horrific murder and crime. No one is going to give one the desire to achieve that. One must have those values instilled fundamentally in the family unit and one must use those values to make a better life.
I thought Bill Moyers was a little cowed by Dr. Cone and perhaps afraid to disagree or argue points with him either on race or religion. I thought Dr. Cone was preaching loudly to me and, frankly, I'm tired of the sermon.
A preface: I will always love Bill Moyers.
I am riveted to most Bill Moyers interviews. Unfortunately, Dr. James Cone's interview did not inspire. I always want to give my honest assessment and hope you will indulge me my criticism. I loath being preached to and yelled at. Dr. Cone's loud diatribe lost me and at one point I turned the channel. I have the UTMOST empathy for the historical plight of the black man in this country. I must because I am a Jew. I know full well the impact of racism and its exclusion and what it does to a people and to a human psyche. My people were slaughtered for centuries, ghettoized and excluded often seemingly with no hope. Anti-Semitism exists en mass to this day. Jews had to come back from their near extinction and did so wherever they could through savvy intelligence, communicative abilities, education and hard work. While no two group's experience is the same, the similarities of racism, I believe, are profound.
Dr. Cone's sentiments, I thought, were cacophonous high decibel rants. While we should never forget man's inhumanity to anyone, Dr. Cone's utterings were a bit tiresome. I utterly agree with Bill Cosby. At some point one must take responsibility for one's own life. There are so many contributions blacks have made in every field. Yet, when one looks at many black ghettos one sees violence, drug addiction, crime, all manner of other illegalities and commonplace immoralities. Worse, one sees gangs which refuse to work with authority, commit murder and impose their own "justice" which means no justice at all. I see white's responsibility in part for this historically but I see present day behavior of some black people to be responsible today for their own deep malaise.
In our culture most people care about their own day-to-day lives. Sadly, this is not a very caring culture. As difficult a reality as that maybe be one has to work within that as best one can to create a better life because no one else will do that for him. Reading, education, effective communicative techniques, I believe, are some of the road maps out of the quagmire of poverty, horrific murder and crime. No one is going to give one the desire to achieve that. One must have those values instilled fundamentally in the family unit and one must use those values to make a better life.
I thought Bill Moyers was a little cowed by Dr. Cone and perhaps afraid to disagree or argue points with him either on race or religion. I thought Dr. Cone was preaching loudly to me and, frankly, I'm tired of the sermon.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
The Reality of Empire: Two former military men were on an Air America talk. They supported the Iraq war and even support a future venture into Iran give the same rationales for the Iraq war that the US has given for all of its wars since its inception. They actually said it was for "truth, justice and the American way." I question the American public's cerebral abilities and wonder just what fuels these mythological beliefs and rationales for America going to war and why the American public is so easily duped when the consequences are so distinct and dire.
With the exception of World War II this country has made war consistently, invaded and with purpose tried to create an economic empire of influence throughout the entire world. Our empire has been somewhat different from those throughout history in that the US has never really had a taste to be an occupier but rather has been interested in using the military for accumulation of wealth and extending its influence. Money and power are companion bedfellows. One cannot thrive without the other. We are no different from what the goal of man has been since the dawn of time. I wish we would just say that instead of couching rationales in elementary school lies. After all, we are not children.
The US like any other empire is interested in the accumulation of influence as well as the money and power that come with that. Spreading so called truth, justice and the American way mean absolutely 100% nothing. It is indeed hubris and fiasco to think that through the barrel of a gun this country would stuff our so called way of life down the throats of people whether they want it or not. Those are verbal manifestations of rationales which sound so good and make a gullible public acquiesce to a variety of expensive and life expending ventures because the rationales for those ventures are couched in such glorious terms. Perhaps if they knew the real reasons they would not volunteer to put their blood on the line. If they knew that the war, in part, meant $3.00 plus a gallon for oil and that the immense profits go into just a very few coffers they would not be so quick to commit their sons and daughters so that CEO's of oil companies and wealthy Arab dictators would become very very very rich.
I personally believe that after the perhaps singular glorious fight of World War II we have been yearning to be seen as the strong democratic liberator. It is a nice thought. It is, though, hard to rationalize that when we have since WWII and even before supported and still support dictatorships all over the world without expending two thoughts about it. Vietnam was no exception and certainly most of all Iraq is a marvelous example. Botched wars do not a liberator make. We also forget, too, that the democracy we supposedly love in other countries sometimes can backfire and elect the very Islamic fundamentalists we abhor; witness the rise of Hamas.
The Iraqis are now enslaved by their own fractured populous which was induced by the invasion of a country by the US. Iraq was a country which did nothing to harm us. That is unheard of in recent times since the Hiterlian and Communist episodes of the 20th century. The true rationale for Iraq, as Alan Greenspan aptly said in his book "Age of Turbulence", is oil but it is also I believe a darker motivation of revenge. We wanted revenge for 9/11 and who could blame us. The problem is, as a caller quite correctly said, the money for 9/11 was gleaned through Pakistan and most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi in origin and Whabbi in spirit. Hussein had nothing to do with any of that so why invade Iraq? Invade and conquer Iraq we did because we could. Bush NEVER calculated on the fracturing of Iraq because in his oft laughed-about ignorance, he knew nothing about Iraq's history or its people. In addition, his perpetrating minions did not care about that nor did they, I believe, truly care about American lives or American treasure. We have paid a heavy price in blood and treasure for the miscalculations of the Iraq War. The yet-to-be-seen consequences may be of epic proportions.
The guests knew NOTHING about Iraq, much less about the Middle East, its history or even did they question all the pabulum they are fed by government to take us to war. I might even suggest that our species being what it is loves war. We claim to hate it; we claim to loath the gruesomeness of it but when push comes to shove most will go and feel that sense of glory in killing an enemy any enemy even one which did nothing to us. We claim to love democracy but label as traitors those who disagree with policy.
Norman Mailer recently said he was not at all surprised by what has happened in 20th century history. He said he believed most people were really fascists at heart. It is a sad commentary on who we are as a species but it is made even sadder because we as Americans claim to be much better than that. Are we? I wonder.
With the exception of World War II this country has made war consistently, invaded and with purpose tried to create an economic empire of influence throughout the entire world. Our empire has been somewhat different from those throughout history in that the US has never really had a taste to be an occupier but rather has been interested in using the military for accumulation of wealth and extending its influence. Money and power are companion bedfellows. One cannot thrive without the other. We are no different from what the goal of man has been since the dawn of time. I wish we would just say that instead of couching rationales in elementary school lies. After all, we are not children.
The US like any other empire is interested in the accumulation of influence as well as the money and power that come with that. Spreading so called truth, justice and the American way mean absolutely 100% nothing. It is indeed hubris and fiasco to think that through the barrel of a gun this country would stuff our so called way of life down the throats of people whether they want it or not. Those are verbal manifestations of rationales which sound so good and make a gullible public acquiesce to a variety of expensive and life expending ventures because the rationales for those ventures are couched in such glorious terms. Perhaps if they knew the real reasons they would not volunteer to put their blood on the line. If they knew that the war, in part, meant $3.00 plus a gallon for oil and that the immense profits go into just a very few coffers they would not be so quick to commit their sons and daughters so that CEO's of oil companies and wealthy Arab dictators would become very very very rich.
I personally believe that after the perhaps singular glorious fight of World War II we have been yearning to be seen as the strong democratic liberator. It is a nice thought. It is, though, hard to rationalize that when we have since WWII and even before supported and still support dictatorships all over the world without expending two thoughts about it. Vietnam was no exception and certainly most of all Iraq is a marvelous example. Botched wars do not a liberator make. We also forget, too, that the democracy we supposedly love in other countries sometimes can backfire and elect the very Islamic fundamentalists we abhor; witness the rise of Hamas.
The Iraqis are now enslaved by their own fractured populous which was induced by the invasion of a country by the US. Iraq was a country which did nothing to harm us. That is unheard of in recent times since the Hiterlian and Communist episodes of the 20th century. The true rationale for Iraq, as Alan Greenspan aptly said in his book "Age of Turbulence", is oil but it is also I believe a darker motivation of revenge. We wanted revenge for 9/11 and who could blame us. The problem is, as a caller quite correctly said, the money for 9/11 was gleaned through Pakistan and most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi in origin and Whabbi in spirit. Hussein had nothing to do with any of that so why invade Iraq? Invade and conquer Iraq we did because we could. Bush NEVER calculated on the fracturing of Iraq because in his oft laughed-about ignorance, he knew nothing about Iraq's history or its people. In addition, his perpetrating minions did not care about that nor did they, I believe, truly care about American lives or American treasure. We have paid a heavy price in blood and treasure for the miscalculations of the Iraq War. The yet-to-be-seen consequences may be of epic proportions.
The guests knew NOTHING about Iraq, much less about the Middle East, its history or even did they question all the pabulum they are fed by government to take us to war. I might even suggest that our species being what it is loves war. We claim to hate it; we claim to loath the gruesomeness of it but when push comes to shove most will go and feel that sense of glory in killing an enemy any enemy even one which did nothing to us. We claim to love democracy but label as traitors those who disagree with policy.
Norman Mailer recently said he was not at all surprised by what has happened in 20th century history. He said he believed most people were really fascists at heart. It is a sad commentary on who we are as a species but it is made even sadder because we as Americans claim to be much better than that. Are we? I wonder.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Malaise: Forgive the less than creative comment. Just had to vent: I tried to analyze why I am not tuning in to the Democratic message nearly as much as I did over the past two years. It's certainly not that I don't agree with the point of view. I do agree and emphatically so. I guess I feel a sense of hopelessness. The Democratic Congress is such a disappointment and the elation I felt with the 2006 victory which was ebullient now has waned. The high has dissipated and I fear the Democrats will nominate someone who cannot win the general. I am sickened by Romney's lead in Iowa and possibly NH. Why do not the Democrats go after him? He has flip flopped so many times. He's a great target for criticism. The walls of the Big Dig on his watch came down and killed a woman. They should blow his socks off with criticism. I am sickened that Iowa or ANY state's primary should in any way effect an outcome. All the primaries should be on the same day which would make one state not commanding the trajectory of an election.
All those scandals, ALL the corruption of a Republican administration gone wild, all the greed, all the theft of the public purse, the botched war which cost millions of uprooted lives, thousands killed and billion/trillions of treasure goes uninterrupted and Cheney, Bush and all those who conspired to put one over on us go free. No one is held accountable. Even Libby gets off and the furor dies down. Treason prevailed and no one cares. It's sad and I am sickened by it and I feel it's the same diatribe of liberal talk. What has it gotten us?
The electoral college is simply awful. It reduces our blue liberal states and is simply not fair. The red states a conglomeration of small electoral votes should not strategically impact the outcome of a presidential election electing the most powerful person on planet earth with a nuclear button at his/her disposal. Everyone should now be equal as the college is an archaic vestige of a more Spartan country. It's now ridiculous. The influence that these Bible belt states have is plain nuts and I resent it. The blue states pay the bill and the red reap the political rewards. This should not be so.
We cannot get that sticky paper of extremist religious wackoism off of our shoes. They drag us down and return us to another century. I want to advance in intellect and science and diminish our shoot from the hip first and ask questions later mentality. I want to reduce the cruelty that has to a large degree become this country. I am losing hope though because the Democrats the only ones who can return this country to sanity just do not show fortitude and we get Feinsteins and shockingly Shumer voting for a look the other way on torture attorney general. How does this happen? If a Democrat did what George Bush has done he would have been impeached long ago and even referred to the international courts for prosecution. He has committed mayhem under false pretenses. What could be worse?
We MUST be united. If Hillary Clinton gets the nod then we need to UNITE with her and likewise for Obama or Edwards. I am tired of the same old rants, the same old criticisms and tired of fearing our country will NEVER get out from the yoke of this horrendous Republican prison. Cutbacks on healthcare, environmental funds and nearly every humane program with the exceptions of programs for guns and war has been diminished. It's just sad. Is this how our country has evolved? I ask evolve into what? I am sad, and disillusioned and hopeless more than ever before. The liberal rants are now sadly falling on a deaf ear. I simply hope every day a Democrat ... ANY Democrat .... is seated once again in the oval office and sanity with humanity prevails within my lifetime.
All those scandals, ALL the corruption of a Republican administration gone wild, all the greed, all the theft of the public purse, the botched war which cost millions of uprooted lives, thousands killed and billion/trillions of treasure goes uninterrupted and Cheney, Bush and all those who conspired to put one over on us go free. No one is held accountable. Even Libby gets off and the furor dies down. Treason prevailed and no one cares. It's sad and I am sickened by it and I feel it's the same diatribe of liberal talk. What has it gotten us?
The electoral college is simply awful. It reduces our blue liberal states and is simply not fair. The red states a conglomeration of small electoral votes should not strategically impact the outcome of a presidential election electing the most powerful person on planet earth with a nuclear button at his/her disposal. Everyone should now be equal as the college is an archaic vestige of a more Spartan country. It's now ridiculous. The influence that these Bible belt states have is plain nuts and I resent it. The blue states pay the bill and the red reap the political rewards. This should not be so.
We cannot get that sticky paper of extremist religious wackoism off of our shoes. They drag us down and return us to another century. I want to advance in intellect and science and diminish our shoot from the hip first and ask questions later mentality. I want to reduce the cruelty that has to a large degree become this country. I am losing hope though because the Democrats the only ones who can return this country to sanity just do not show fortitude and we get Feinsteins and shockingly Shumer voting for a look the other way on torture attorney general. How does this happen? If a Democrat did what George Bush has done he would have been impeached long ago and even referred to the international courts for prosecution. He has committed mayhem under false pretenses. What could be worse?
We MUST be united. If Hillary Clinton gets the nod then we need to UNITE with her and likewise for Obama or Edwards. I am tired of the same old rants, the same old criticisms and tired of fearing our country will NEVER get out from the yoke of this horrendous Republican prison. Cutbacks on healthcare, environmental funds and nearly every humane program with the exceptions of programs for guns and war has been diminished. It's just sad. Is this how our country has evolved? I ask evolve into what? I am sad, and disillusioned and hopeless more than ever before. The liberal rants are now sadly falling on a deaf ear. I simply hope every day a Democrat ... ANY Democrat .... is seated once again in the oval office and sanity with humanity prevails within my lifetime.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
I saw the film Elmer Gantry last evening. I had seen it numerous times before including the first time it was shown in 1960. Then, at twelve years old, of course, I could not appreciate its profundity, know its history nor could I realize its prescient quality. I have never seen a more historically relevant film apply to contemporary times than does this astoundingly great work of art. Elmer Gantry, written by Sinclair Lewis of Babbit fame and directed by Richard Brooks, is one of my favorite films. It is an American classic.
Sinclair Lewis presents a criticism of American life, religion, capitalism and more which earned him the distinct honor as an author because his works, in the early 20th century, were "banned in Boston." In my opinion, if one's art was banned in Boston one created a formidable, brilliant and timelessly immortal work. I thank fate for giving us these authors of genius who are not afraid to challenge those things which are shoved down our social throats often choking off our psychology and institutionalizing the very evil they claim to abhor. They reveal underneath a field of flowers the cancer of hypocrisy.
How could Sinclair Lewis know that he would write a novel which one could superimpose upon the contemporary religious movements of our time? The similar Evangelical/fundamentalist movement which is the subject matter of the film, still insinuates its vitriol into the body politic. It squeezes the life blood out of our democracy contorting it into almost unrecognizable form. Religious charlatans with their utter corruption, mind numbing propaganda, infinite financial and sexual scandals infuse faith and its attendant Biblical myths to take over business and politics for money and power. They cast a net upon the masses capturing the human psyche and its greatest ability – its ability for reason.
And yet, as Gantry knew, people are hungry but not necessarily for food. They are thirsty but not necessarily for water. They are sick and need a cure. They see the inevitable death and want eternal life. It is no wonder that any person could be intoxicated by a religious brew which promises food and water for the spirit, a way out of pain and, most importantly a defeat of death. The actors are the essences of perfection. The scenes are filled with metaphors. There are burning crosses, burning churches and sinners leading the otherwise sinless into the devil's darkness. The characters are a picture of ourselves. Burt Lancaster, as Gantry, is a charlatan but he is appealing. Jean Simmons, as Sister Falconer, is sincere but a sinner. Even the atheist writer of the newspaper, reporting on the Gantry/Falconer faith phenomenon, sometimes gets swayed by the moment and bends his heretofore unbended knee.
Each character personifies particular parts of the American religious Fundamentalist movements. The ubiquitous temptation of sin, of course, is all around -- in whore houses, in gambling joints and in booze halls. Gantry and Simmons are, I think, the symbols of Christianity as it has run its course throughout history. It is a religion of love whose adherents often show hate. It is a religion of tolerance whose believers can be the most intolerant. This movie says so much about so much. The dichotomies of Christian belief are everywhere.
Wikipedia states that Sinclair Lewis "In his Nobel Prize lecture, lamented that 'in America most of us — not readers alone, but even writers — are still afraid of any literature which is not a glorification of everything American, a glorification of our faults as well as our virtues, and that America is 'the most contradictory, the most depressing, the most stirring, of any land in the world today.' "I think that says it all. Elmer Gantry is a must see.
Sinclair Lewis presents a criticism of American life, religion, capitalism and more which earned him the distinct honor as an author because his works, in the early 20th century, were "banned in Boston." In my opinion, if one's art was banned in Boston one created a formidable, brilliant and timelessly immortal work. I thank fate for giving us these authors of genius who are not afraid to challenge those things which are shoved down our social throats often choking off our psychology and institutionalizing the very evil they claim to abhor. They reveal underneath a field of flowers the cancer of hypocrisy.
How could Sinclair Lewis know that he would write a novel which one could superimpose upon the contemporary religious movements of our time? The similar Evangelical/fundamentalist movement which is the subject matter of the film, still insinuates its vitriol into the body politic. It squeezes the life blood out of our democracy contorting it into almost unrecognizable form. Religious charlatans with their utter corruption, mind numbing propaganda, infinite financial and sexual scandals infuse faith and its attendant Biblical myths to take over business and politics for money and power. They cast a net upon the masses capturing the human psyche and its greatest ability – its ability for reason.
And yet, as Gantry knew, people are hungry but not necessarily for food. They are thirsty but not necessarily for water. They are sick and need a cure. They see the inevitable death and want eternal life. It is no wonder that any person could be intoxicated by a religious brew which promises food and water for the spirit, a way out of pain and, most importantly a defeat of death. The actors are the essences of perfection. The scenes are filled with metaphors. There are burning crosses, burning churches and sinners leading the otherwise sinless into the devil's darkness. The characters are a picture of ourselves. Burt Lancaster, as Gantry, is a charlatan but he is appealing. Jean Simmons, as Sister Falconer, is sincere but a sinner. Even the atheist writer of the newspaper, reporting on the Gantry/Falconer faith phenomenon, sometimes gets swayed by the moment and bends his heretofore unbended knee.
Each character personifies particular parts of the American religious Fundamentalist movements. The ubiquitous temptation of sin, of course, is all around -- in whore houses, in gambling joints and in booze halls. Gantry and Simmons are, I think, the symbols of Christianity as it has run its course throughout history. It is a religion of love whose adherents often show hate. It is a religion of tolerance whose believers can be the most intolerant. This movie says so much about so much. The dichotomies of Christian belief are everywhere.
Wikipedia states that Sinclair Lewis "In his Nobel Prize lecture, lamented that 'in America most of us — not readers alone, but even writers — are still afraid of any literature which is not a glorification of everything American, a glorification of our faults as well as our virtues, and that America is 'the most contradictory, the most depressing, the most stirring, of any land in the world today.' "I think that says it all. Elmer Gantry is a must see.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
I am continuously proclaiming the virtues of Bill Moyers. Tonight's interview with two scholars, Justice Charles Fried and Attorney Frederick Swartz, regarding the overextension of the power of the presidency is no exception. Justice Fried, a staunch Republican and former Solicitor General under Reagan, argued for the sometimes acquiescence to wide use of presidential power -- even if illegal -- in certain instances while Attorney Swartz argued for executive restraint. Naturally, I had some thoughts and sent them to PBS:
I do not think the usurpation of unbridled power that has been the hallmark of the Bush II administration is really about lofty ideals. I think it rather is really about entrenching the Republican party and its corporate allies within the power base for decades to come. How convenient for Cheney that 9/11 happened on his watch because it gave him the perfect rationale for the retention of unparalleled power which he has wanted since the Nixon impeachment hearings. What Cheney, Bush, et al did not, it seems to me, predict is the Iraq war going sour resulting in the takeover by Democrats of Congress and the possibility of a Democrat occupying the oval office in 2008. I am quite sure all their talk about the presidency having ultimate Constitutional power eclipsing the Legislative branch even if it means the president commits illegalities will go out the window when and if the Republican party is out of office. All of a sudden then they will talk about the Founders meaning for a balance of power and that the presidency is simply one branch among three. When it is politically expedient and they are in power they will advocate an ultra strong presidency. When they no longer have power they will scream for a more balanced approach. I believe Cheney/Bush opinion has NOTHING to do with ideals and everything to do with the maintenance of their power and the accumulation of great wealth that comes from its base at all costs.
Those of us who really do care about the security of this country while maintaining checks on those who would abuse power sometimes do not know what to believe. Will government's extensive data mining include only those who would possibly commit egregious horrendous acts against this country possibly killing thousands or even millions if they could or will government unnecessarily snoop even into an email from Professor Fried wasting precious time and taxpayer money? Worse, could government detain utterly innocent people, picking them up in the dead of night, and ship them off to places unknown? What if they came for someone like Professor Fried simply because someone somewhere in government did not like what he said or a criticism he levied.
I believe government power does not give up that power easily and, more often, extends its power even more. I also do not trust all of my fellow men. Does Justice Fried worry about the trustworthiness of all men in government? Conversely, does Mr. Swartz worry about a dirty bomb? If data mining and a little warrantless wiretapping could uncover a plot to detonate such a bomb would it be worth it even if it means the extension ad infinitum of the power of the presidency? Those are, it seems to me, the epic questions of our time which have yet to be sufficiently addressed.
I do not think the usurpation of unbridled power that has been the hallmark of the Bush II administration is really about lofty ideals. I think it rather is really about entrenching the Republican party and its corporate allies within the power base for decades to come. How convenient for Cheney that 9/11 happened on his watch because it gave him the perfect rationale for the retention of unparalleled power which he has wanted since the Nixon impeachment hearings. What Cheney, Bush, et al did not, it seems to me, predict is the Iraq war going sour resulting in the takeover by Democrats of Congress and the possibility of a Democrat occupying the oval office in 2008. I am quite sure all their talk about the presidency having ultimate Constitutional power eclipsing the Legislative branch even if it means the president commits illegalities will go out the window when and if the Republican party is out of office. All of a sudden then they will talk about the Founders meaning for a balance of power and that the presidency is simply one branch among three. When it is politically expedient and they are in power they will advocate an ultra strong presidency. When they no longer have power they will scream for a more balanced approach. I believe Cheney/Bush opinion has NOTHING to do with ideals and everything to do with the maintenance of their power and the accumulation of great wealth that comes from its base at all costs.
Those of us who really do care about the security of this country while maintaining checks on those who would abuse power sometimes do not know what to believe. Will government's extensive data mining include only those who would possibly commit egregious horrendous acts against this country possibly killing thousands or even millions if they could or will government unnecessarily snoop even into an email from Professor Fried wasting precious time and taxpayer money? Worse, could government detain utterly innocent people, picking them up in the dead of night, and ship them off to places unknown? What if they came for someone like Professor Fried simply because someone somewhere in government did not like what he said or a criticism he levied.
I believe government power does not give up that power easily and, more often, extends its power even more. I also do not trust all of my fellow men. Does Justice Fried worry about the trustworthiness of all men in government? Conversely, does Mr. Swartz worry about a dirty bomb? If data mining and a little warrantless wiretapping could uncover a plot to detonate such a bomb would it be worth it even if it means the extension ad infinitum of the power of the presidency? Those are, it seems to me, the epic questions of our time which have yet to be sufficiently addressed.
I am continuously proclaiming the virtues of Bill Moyers. I am compelled to state yet again how absolutely marvelous his interviews are. Tonight's interview with Justice Charles Fried and Attorney Frederick Swartz regarding the overextension of the power of the presidency is no exception. Justice Fried argued for the sometimes acquiescence to wide use of presidential power while Attorney Swartz argued for executive restraint.
I do not think the usurpation of unbridled power that has been the hallmark of the Bush II administration is really about lofty ideals. I think it rather is really about entrenching the Republican party and its corporate allies within the power base for decades to come. How convenient for Cheney that 9/11 happened on his watch because it gave him the perfect rationale for the retention of unparalleled power which he has wanted since the Nixon impeachment hearings. What Cheney, Bush, et al did not, it seems to me, predict is the Iraq war going sour resulting in the takeover by Democrats of Congress and the possibility of a Democrat occupying the oval office in 2008. I am quite sure all their talk about the presidency having ultimate Constitutional power eclipsing the Legislative branch even if it means the president commits illegalities will go out the window when and if the Republican party is out of office. All of a sudden then they will talk about the Founders meaning for a balance of power and that the presidency is simply one branch among three. When it is politically expedient and they are in power they will advocate an ultra strong presidency. When they no longer have power they will scream for a more balanced approach. I believe Cheney/Bush opinion has NOTHING to do with ideals and everything to do with the maintenance of their power and the accumulation of great wealth that comes from its base at all costs.
Those of us who really do care about the security of this country while maintaining checks on those who would abuse power sometimes do not know what to believe. Will government's extensive data mining include only those who would possibly commit egregious horrendous acts against this country possibly killing thousands or even millions if they could or will government unnecessarily snoop even into an email from Professor Fried wasting precious time and taxpayer money? Worse, could government detain utterly innocent people, picking them up in the dead of night, and ship them off to places unknown? What if they came for someone like Professor Fried simply because someone somewhere in government did not like what he said or a criticism he levied.
I believe government power does not give up that power easily and, more often, extends its power even more. I also do not trust all of my fellow men. Does Justice Fried worry about the trustworthiness of all men in government? Conversely, does Mr. Swartz worry about a dirty bomb? If data mining and a little warrantless wiretapping could uncover a plot to detonate such a bomb would it be worth it even if it means the extension ad infinitum of the power of the presidency? Those are, it seems to me, the epic questions of our time which have yet to be sufficiently addressed.
I do not think the usurpation of unbridled power that has been the hallmark of the Bush II administration is really about lofty ideals. I think it rather is really about entrenching the Republican party and its corporate allies within the power base for decades to come. How convenient for Cheney that 9/11 happened on his watch because it gave him the perfect rationale for the retention of unparalleled power which he has wanted since the Nixon impeachment hearings. What Cheney, Bush, et al did not, it seems to me, predict is the Iraq war going sour resulting in the takeover by Democrats of Congress and the possibility of a Democrat occupying the oval office in 2008. I am quite sure all their talk about the presidency having ultimate Constitutional power eclipsing the Legislative branch even if it means the president commits illegalities will go out the window when and if the Republican party is out of office. All of a sudden then they will talk about the Founders meaning for a balance of power and that the presidency is simply one branch among three. When it is politically expedient and they are in power they will advocate an ultra strong presidency. When they no longer have power they will scream for a more balanced approach. I believe Cheney/Bush opinion has NOTHING to do with ideals and everything to do with the maintenance of their power and the accumulation of great wealth that comes from its base at all costs.
Those of us who really do care about the security of this country while maintaining checks on those who would abuse power sometimes do not know what to believe. Will government's extensive data mining include only those who would possibly commit egregious horrendous acts against this country possibly killing thousands or even millions if they could or will government unnecessarily snoop even into an email from Professor Fried wasting precious time and taxpayer money? Worse, could government detain utterly innocent people, picking them up in the dead of night, and ship them off to places unknown? What if they came for someone like Professor Fried simply because someone somewhere in government did not like what he said or a criticism he levied.
I believe government power does not give up that power easily and, more often, extends its power even more. I also do not trust all of my fellow men. Does Justice Fried worry about the trustworthiness of all men in government? Conversely, does Mr. Swartz worry about a dirty bomb? If data mining and a little warrantless wiretapping could uncover a plot to detonate such a bomb would it be worth it even if it means the extension ad infinitum of the power of the presidency? Those are, it seems to me, the epic questions of our time which have yet to be sufficiently addressed.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Deliver Me: I attach a link below which is a fabulously interesting Newsweek article entitled "War and Deliverance by Christopher Dickey (the son of the novelist and screenwriter for the film Deliverance) ." I think Mr. Dickey's "Deliverance" film metaphor is utterly correct. That film was, as I remember it, chilling. Contemporaneous historical events with our muddled president making reference to World War III, a public which just goes along and a vice president without conscience calling the shots behind the scenes are as blood curdling as the images of the "Deliverance" film were. It is a film like that and Mr. Dickey's appropriate analogy which bring other prescient novels to mind such as William Golding's "Lord of the Flies" and Orwell's "Animal Farm." These novelists bring to our culture words of great wisdom. One would think with Washington filled with degrees from Harvard, Yale, Princeton and the like, that those in power would finally get it. Unfortunately it seems time and again they do not.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/53461/page/1
http://www.newsweek.com/id/53461/page/1
A clearer view of New Testament Belief: I disagree emphatically with Matt Peirce's letter to the editor criticism of James Carroll's excellent op ed October 15 article "Religion and Nation". First, the Gospels are not evidence of historical veracity as they were written two decades and more after the death of Jesus. One cannot use as evidence items which clearly have an agenda to promote. The Gospels are not a neutral collection of documents and they differ in text. Second, it is interesting how certain fundamentalist Christians love to pick and choose which New Testament articulations they use for proof of their correctness on contemporary political stances. According to Mr. Pierce the Gospel of Mark referring to Genesis 2:24 concerning the creation is proof of Jesus'opposition to homosexuality. I doubt it was specifically said to indict homosexuality. That is conjecture. Most importantly, why doesn't Mr. Peirce quote Mark 10:9 which says what "God has joined together let no man put asunder" as a more authentic and clear indictment of heterosexual divorce?
Certainly, Jesus was not in favor of divorce but when it became politically expedient the articulation of Christianity changed and amended his words to accommodate history.
Certainly, Jesus was not in favor of divorce but when it became politically expedient the articulation of Christianity changed and amended his words to accommodate history.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
The Sagacity and Enigma of General Sanchez: The critical comments of General Sanchez, the general who commanded US forces in Iraq, were staggering. No matter what his motives were in uttering them, he was completely correct. This administration, the Congress and a complicit media were incompetent in their conduct and investigation of the war. They were derelict in their duty to our nation. Inept leadership has given us either a quagmire or a loss in Iraq and has ultimately put our nation at great risk. This is the enigma of our time.
The conduct of the war in Iraq is a national disgrace, a disgrace for all those across the world who supported us, a vindication for those who did not and an embarrassment to those of us who believed the lies and naivete of this administration which resulted in this unnecessary mess. General Sanchez is right. Those court-martialed should be not just the military hierarchy but everyone – the Congress, the State Department and an administration who did not do their homework, who did not speak out and who allowed millions to suffer and thousands to die without purpose.
What happened to erase our preeminence in the world? Inept leadership has utterly released itself from the boundaries of civilized conduct. Sanctioned by a complicit media, the ship of state ran aground. The magnitude and gravity of General Sanchez's critical comments about the Iraq war are necessary. Why he and others, including the media, did not deliver them sooner is, perhaps, the greatest enigma of all.
The conduct of the war in Iraq is a national disgrace, a disgrace for all those across the world who supported us, a vindication for those who did not and an embarrassment to those of us who believed the lies and naivete of this administration which resulted in this unnecessary mess. General Sanchez is right. Those court-martialed should be not just the military hierarchy but everyone – the Congress, the State Department and an administration who did not do their homework, who did not speak out and who allowed millions to suffer and thousands to die without purpose.
What happened to erase our preeminence in the world? Inept leadership has utterly released itself from the boundaries of civilized conduct. Sanctioned by a complicit media, the ship of state ran aground. The magnitude and gravity of General Sanchez's critical comments about the Iraq war are necessary. Why he and others, including the media, did not deliver them sooner is, perhaps, the greatest enigma of all.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Mad Men is Mighty: I watched the director and actors talk about the filming of Mad Men and the early 60's cultural context of the series. The director of this excellent show is right some situations have indeed remained the same even until this day. I worked in large corporate legal firms in Boston in the 1970's up to 2004. In very similar ways I can relate to a corporate environment which spanned decades. Much was like the machinations of the Sterling Cooper firm.
In one of my first comments about the series I sanctimoniously breathed a sigh of relief that thankfully I was working and living at a time in which those types of behaviors would not be sanctioned. The director, however, says yes, things changed but they also remained the same. This too is true. Still, I do believe profound changes have occurred so that heretofore powerless people now have at least SOME recourse.
Talk shows such as Oprah and many others make the once psychologically cornered person know that they are not alone and that they can exert at least some control to change their condition. The huge difference between the eras, I believe, is that we are allowed to at least TALK about things that heretofore were taboo. In the era of the late 50's and early 60's in which I grew up there was little talk or just a hint of talk but only on a psychiatrist's or analyst's couch which had just become fashionable and only for the well-to-do. Certainly there was not much introspection among persons in authority. Most definitely powerful men had to answer to nearly no one. Questioning authority is not the exception now it is the rule. Some of the absolutely vile, impertinent and condescending comments of those powerful men at Sterling Cooper towards especially the powerless women they work, have sex and live with would not fly. The courts are flooded with discrimination suits which attest to that fact.
While it is true human beings are human beings at all times, the social metamorphosis of the late 60's which encompassed the women's movement, the black movements, homosexuals and the like have given at least some voice and power over those strictly white men who once upon a time had usurped it all. Best of all at least in Boston one can barely find a place to smoke. That change saved lives.
I absolutely adore this show. It am transfixed!
In one of my first comments about the series I sanctimoniously breathed a sigh of relief that thankfully I was working and living at a time in which those types of behaviors would not be sanctioned. The director, however, says yes, things changed but they also remained the same. This too is true. Still, I do believe profound changes have occurred so that heretofore powerless people now have at least SOME recourse.
Talk shows such as Oprah and many others make the once psychologically cornered person know that they are not alone and that they can exert at least some control to change their condition. The huge difference between the eras, I believe, is that we are allowed to at least TALK about things that heretofore were taboo. In the era of the late 50's and early 60's in which I grew up there was little talk or just a hint of talk but only on a psychiatrist's or analyst's couch which had just become fashionable and only for the well-to-do. Certainly there was not much introspection among persons in authority. Most definitely powerful men had to answer to nearly no one. Questioning authority is not the exception now it is the rule. Some of the absolutely vile, impertinent and condescending comments of those powerful men at Sterling Cooper towards especially the powerless women they work, have sex and live with would not fly. The courts are flooded with discrimination suits which attest to that fact.
While it is true human beings are human beings at all times, the social metamorphosis of the late 60's which encompassed the women's movement, the black movements, homosexuals and the like have given at least some voice and power over those strictly white men who once upon a time had usurped it all. Best of all at least in Boston one can barely find a place to smoke. That change saved lives.
I absolutely adore this show. It am transfixed!
Friday, October 05, 2007
PBS Bill Moyers Journal: An American Depression? Christian Zionism: Yet again Bill Moyers Journal is riveting. The program An American Depression, as so many PBS programs, is excellence in journalism. This time, focusing on the Evangelical support of Israel, I, a Jew and a supporter of Israel cannot help but feel chilled after viewing this segment. I would love Bill Moyers to interview Christopher Hitchens who says in his new book God is Not Great "religion poisons everything". It was not so long ago that many right wing religionists were supremely anti-Semitic. One can hear that if one listens to recordings in Nixon's oval office itself with the master of religious fundamentalism Billy Graham or the radio broadcasts of Father Coughlin. Today, as one of his guests said, historical events are made to fit belief sentiments. Now, the object of Christian fundamentalist's hate has morphed from the Jew or the Communist to all Muslims or all Iranians. The focus has changed somewhat from what it was many years ago because politics and history have changed but the message of hate they deliver is still the same. If everyone claims to know the sentiments of a God then no one knows what God's sentiments really are. Religious zealotry whether Christian, Islamic or Jewish holds all of us who love rational thought hostage as their divisive beliefs engender the possibility of catastrophic war. This anti rationalism is insanity at best. Man is, indeed, an aggressive animal. Mr. Hitchens, with whom I do not always agree, is exactly correct about some things. Religion does poison everything.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Ken Burn's seven-part documentary series "The War" captures the enormity of World War II in both of its theaters by concentrating on the experiences of some of the inhabitants of four small American towns and cities (Waterbury, CT., Mobile, AL, Luverne, MN, and Sacramento, CA.). It is, without a doubt, nothing short of a masterpiece. It is sheer genius and, I think, the greatest documentary I have ever seen on anything. As wonderful as ALL of Ken Burns's documentaries are, I never would have thought he could surpass any one of them. But he has. "The War" should be seen by everyone. How quickly we forget or perhaps we never realized the extent to which that greatest generation gave of themselves to our nation and, indeed the world. One can only imagine the horror had the Allies had not won. From Batan, Iwo Jima, Normandy, Anzio and countless other places large and small this documentary film captures ever-so accurately the horror of war but the necessity of that one.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Justice in Jena -- It is truly the tragedy of this land that the issues of race still assault our national consciousness. How can it be that some four hundred years after the first slave ship deposited its human cargo, after the dehumanization of slavery itself, after a civil war to end it which took over one half million lives, the malignancy of this issue still burns brightly?
Who said what to whom in Jena may never be known with absolute surety. What is known is that a black young man needed to ask permission to sit under a simple tree. White youths decided they thought it would be funny to throw some nooses around that tree just in case the young black men who sat under the understood whites only tree did not know what their place REALLY was.
Those nooses hanging around that tree and the white boys who put them there began it all. Those nooses meant something and those boys knew it. Now the jack boots of neo-Nazi and Klan sympathizers defile that land as the mayor thanks them for their support and the tree no longer lives. There must be metaphor in that. Those boys who hung those nooses deserved a much stiffer penalty but received very little. It is de ja vu all over again and justice in Jena and in this nation is still is looking for a home.
Who said what to whom in Jena may never be known with absolute surety. What is known is that a black young man needed to ask permission to sit under a simple tree. White youths decided they thought it would be funny to throw some nooses around that tree just in case the young black men who sat under the understood whites only tree did not know what their place REALLY was.
Those nooses hanging around that tree and the white boys who put them there began it all. Those nooses meant something and those boys knew it. Now the jack boots of neo-Nazi and Klan sympathizers defile that land as the mayor thanks them for their support and the tree no longer lives. There must be metaphor in that. Those boys who hung those nooses deserved a much stiffer penalty but received very little. It is de ja vu all over again and justice in Jena and in this nation is still is looking for a home.
Friday, September 21, 2007
I sent this to PBS after viewing an exceptional Bill Moyers Journal about Rachael Carson, one of the first environmentalists who made environmentalism a household word with the publication of her 1964 best seller Silent Spring. It was a wonderful broadcast. If you want to know more about it go to the PBS web site or look to see when PBS will rebroadcast the show.
Yet again Bill Moyers presents a riveting documentary about Rachael Carson a gentle woman who, in her gentleness in the 1960's, hit mankind over the head with a wondrous truth illuminated in her book Silent Spring. Man is slowly, through his technological and chemical genius, destroying the most genius creation of all -- earth itself. Man through his unbridled conspicuous consumption and desire to eliminate his perceived enemies is upsetting the evolutionary balance of nature through the endless toxins, pesticides and insecticides he produces.
I am a child of the 50's and live in the same home on the same street at 58 years old that I did at 9 years old. I have seen things and people come and go. I have seen at 9 years old a dump located close to my house which spewed and belched its poison for decades. It was silenced not that long ago and has recently given way to the most modern recycling center. I have Rachel Carson, I think, in part, to thank for that.
Many of the people who occupied my street when I was young have died. Too many, I think, (including my own father) of cancer. I wonder in my uneasy sleep at night if, perhaps, that smoke which coughed so many years ago was the unobtrusive murderer of them all and will ultimately work its biological dark magic and be responsible for my death too. Time, I suppose, will tell. Thank you, Bill Moyers, for bringing this phenomenal woman and her contribution to life again.
Yet again Bill Moyers presents a riveting documentary about Rachael Carson a gentle woman who, in her gentleness in the 1960's, hit mankind over the head with a wondrous truth illuminated in her book Silent Spring. Man is slowly, through his technological and chemical genius, destroying the most genius creation of all -- earth itself. Man through his unbridled conspicuous consumption and desire to eliminate his perceived enemies is upsetting the evolutionary balance of nature through the endless toxins, pesticides and insecticides he produces.
I am a child of the 50's and live in the same home on the same street at 58 years old that I did at 9 years old. I have seen things and people come and go. I have seen at 9 years old a dump located close to my house which spewed and belched its poison for decades. It was silenced not that long ago and has recently given way to the most modern recycling center. I have Rachel Carson, I think, in part, to thank for that.
Many of the people who occupied my street when I was young have died. Too many, I think, (including my own father) of cancer. I wonder in my uneasy sleep at night if, perhaps, that smoke which coughed so many years ago was the unobtrusive murderer of them all and will ultimately work its biological dark magic and be responsible for my death too. Time, I suppose, will tell. Thank you, Bill Moyers, for bringing this phenomenal woman and her contribution to life again.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Greenspan or Gates: I do not see why the analysis of whether we went to war in Iraq, as Greenspan said, for oil or, as the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says, because of WMD, has to be an either or scenario. We went to war in Iraq for both and for many other reasons as well. There is no question that the Middle East holds special import for US policy. It is a region like none other for the obvious oil reasons. Combine that fact with the reality of 9/11, the Bush penchant for war and one had a special brew ready to ignite. The US probably invaded due to a plethora of reasons some of which were buttressed by the occurrence of 9/11, some of which were based on fear, some because of neocons philosophic fantasy and some because of the strategic oil importance of that region. Many on team Bush wanted the footprint of the US there to the ensure oil lines keep flowing, profits keep generating and to guard against any real or fancifully perceived terror threats. Some others, too, had pipe dreams of a democratically metamorphosed Middle East.
Were those reasons rationally correct to risk blood and treasure? Senator John Warner perceptively asked is the war in Iraq keeping us safe? I believe the Iraq invasion was a grievous error. Not only are we not safer but we are more at risk. There are Al Qaeda in Iraq where there never were before the invasion. We know, Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 nor did Iraq have anything to do with the emergence of new Al Qaeda terror cells before Gulf II. We have opened up a potpourri of insurgent groups, terrorists and unsavory characters who would and will do us harm when the opportunity to do so arises. We also have let loose a hornets' nest of many thousands of angry Arabs all over the world lying in wait for the possibility of avenging the west's occupation on their perceived holy land.
The oil would have kept flowing as it always had after the first Gulf war without an invasion of Iraq again. We could have fought the real terrorists, caught Bin Laden, and kept watch on the Hussein modus operandi at the same time which we had been doing for many years before the Gulf War II. The IAEA could have continued to monitor their nuclear capacity. The terrorist threat would have been containable. If we did not invade, we see in hindsight, we would have saved 4000 American lives, avoided the physical destruction of so many more lives, saved billions maybe trillions of dollars, and we would have rescued the lives of thousands of killed, maimed and displaced Iraqis. If only team Bush were honest before the war ensued. Hindsight is indeed 20/20.
Were those reasons rationally correct to risk blood and treasure? Senator John Warner perceptively asked is the war in Iraq keeping us safe? I believe the Iraq invasion was a grievous error. Not only are we not safer but we are more at risk. There are Al Qaeda in Iraq where there never were before the invasion. We know, Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 nor did Iraq have anything to do with the emergence of new Al Qaeda terror cells before Gulf II. We have opened up a potpourri of insurgent groups, terrorists and unsavory characters who would and will do us harm when the opportunity to do so arises. We also have let loose a hornets' nest of many thousands of angry Arabs all over the world lying in wait for the possibility of avenging the west's occupation on their perceived holy land.
The oil would have kept flowing as it always had after the first Gulf war without an invasion of Iraq again. We could have fought the real terrorists, caught Bin Laden, and kept watch on the Hussein modus operandi at the same time which we had been doing for many years before the Gulf War II. The IAEA could have continued to monitor their nuclear capacity. The terrorist threat would have been containable. If we did not invade, we see in hindsight, we would have saved 4000 American lives, avoided the physical destruction of so many more lives, saved billions maybe trillions of dollars, and we would have rescued the lives of thousands of killed, maimed and displaced Iraqis. If only team Bush were honest before the war ensued. Hindsight is indeed 20/20.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)