|
|
|
Seeds
March
29, 2008
The
Democratic Presidential Primary in the US has Senators Obama and Clinton
neck-to-neck in delegates, although Senator Obama enjoys a lead. The
campaign has gotten a little nasty as of late, and many speculate if
their rhetoric may be hurting the partys chances of winning in
the November election.
Governor
Richardson of New Mexico recently endorsed Senator Obama, even though
Richardson had previously worked for the Clinton administration. He
also ran for president this year, but did not garner enough popular
support.
James
Carvel, an outspoken supporter of the Clinton campaign, responded to
this endorsement by calling Gov. Richardson a traitor (to the Clintons),
and went so far as to infer a reference to Judas Iscariot. When confronted
by this remark later on, he did not apologize or soften his comment,
but reinforced it.
While
some people might admire this as hardball politics, and the media gleefully
embraces it like outrageous, fresh meat gossip, Mr. Carvels comments
are surely unacceptable.
There
is no doubt he was looking at Gov. Richardsons decision as a matter
of loyalty to the Clintons. By doing so, he provides us with a
perfect illustration of how the virtue of loyalty can be poorly utilized.
Mr.
Carvels obvious commitment to a single candidate, which cannot
be doubted, appears to have blinded him to the workings of the democratic
system. Votes and endorsements are supposed to come from the individuals
decision as to whom would make the better candidate for president. It
is a matter of conscience based on the good of the country, not some
political cabal. Partisan loyalty or friendship or previous favors have
nothing to do with it at all. Gov. Richardson deserves praise for his
endorsement, no matter who he endorses, as long as it is well thought
out and sincere.
The
virtue of loyalty is often a two edged sword that can lead in the wrong
direction. A healthy approach as to view loyalty according to a hierarchy
of priorities. One can be loyal to a friend who is running for office,
but that loyalty extends only so far when conscience points to another
person. Loyalty to the good of the nation is too important. We have
suffered enough from votes that were based on wedge issues or religious
affiliation or party loyalty that have thrown our well-being to the
lions.
The
question of loyalty remains, however. The person who endorses someone
based on previous debts, or friendship only, or blindly votes party
line, displays and ethical disloyalty to the larger issues of the nation.
Who takes the responsibility of citizenship more seriously? The person
who votes his or her conscience, or the one who votes as he or she is
expected by others? Who is the real traitor?
I
actually feel bad for James Carvel. His political zeal and obvious talents
have led his integrity astray, as zeal and talent often do. I feel worse,
however, for the American people, who must endure a political climate
that has lost its soul to the priorities of greed, competitiveness and
special interests.
March
25, 2008
When
Vice President Dick Cheney was recently told that two thirds of the
American people didn't agree with his hardline position on the War in
Iraq, he smirked and said "So?"
The news media and Democrats mildly picked
up on this, hardly expecting anything less. The Bush administration
has made it clear, over and over again in th elast seven years, that
they don't care about the opinions of the people they are supposed to
represent. They don't represent us at all, although they expect us to
confuse patriotism with backing up their special interests.
His arrogent response was taken for what
it was, confirming what most of us already know.
But it wasn't his "let them eat cake"
response that outraged me me when I heard it. It was his self-satisfied,
almost devilish smirk of a man who feels himself untouchable while getting
away with murder.
How can an elected leader smirk like that,
while our soldiers are dying every day in Iraq, due to his twisted manipulations?
How can President Bush dance around before reporters with the weight
of 600,000 dead Iraqis on his shoulders? All part of bringing honor
and dignity to the office?
And
yet they do this with confidence built on years of moral neglect, with
the support of people who refuse tot recognize the obscenity before
their eyes.
It seems the only thing we can look forward
to is cleaning the White House of their misrepresentation, and not making
the same mistake again.
March
7, 2008
Watching
the politics of a presidential election year is both amazing and frustrating.
I am amazed and frustrated by the lack
of original thinking of the candidates and their campaigns. They hire
campaign managers and consultants, who base thier own ideas on lessons
learned from past efforts, i.e.: what worked before and what didn't
work. What we see, then, is an appeal from politicians based on the
past, and not on present day needs. When people don't respond according
to their expectations, they try to learn new lessons, which will only
be passes the next time around.
I wish that politicians
would just shed this coat of the archaic and find their genuine honesty
and idealism. Unfortunately, the process is an uphill battle. Party
loyalties force them into predicatable and confining roles.
With that in mind, I offer
the article: Two
Party System.
June
15, 2007
It's
funny how clear the issues can seem while discussing them with a
friend.
Last night a friend of mine,
Rick, came to visit for the evening. As we often do in the warmer months,
we sat in the gazebo overlooking the pond and discussed social issues
and politics. For the most part, we agree with one another, so the discussion
gets lively as we feed on one another's ideas. Rick is thoughtful and
incredibly well read, and it is always a pleasure hearing his ideas.
The topics de jour included
politics, illegal immigration and Islamic fundamentalism.
During our discussion we
kept returning to the same conclusions. Our problems are cultural, or
more precisely, from the ill-defined nature of our culture, that seems
afraid to recognize itself. On one hand, we have liberals who seem to
resent Western culture. On th eother hand, we have conservatives trying
to shape what culture we have according to their own short-sighted principles.
The tension caused by both extremes has crippled our nation at almost
every level. There has to be a better way.
Moderates!
Where are You??? is a result of that discussion.
May
19, 2007
In
the U.S. we are being subjected to
early political debates for the office of the presidency.
A few nights ago, I was
watching the Republican debate, and was impressed by the serious questions
that were being asked. I started to think that the media was starting
to take their obligations seriously.
I was astounded, however,
by one incredible response.
One of the candidates (Ron
Paul) stated that the reason Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. on 9/11
was because we had already been in the Middle East bombing Iraq for
9 years. Rudy Guiliani quickly pounced on the comment by saying
how outragious it was to suggest such a thing. Al Qaeda, he insisted,
attacked us simply because they hate freedom, democracy and Western
values. The media loved his response and made no bones about saying
so.
What disturbs me about this
is that Rudy Guiliani has a strong possibility of becoming the Republican
candidate for the preseidency. I had no problem with that until I heard
this comment.
Yes, there is a wide difference
and conflict of belief between the West and Islamists. But when AL Qaeda
has openly declared their reason for attacking the U.S., and we ignore
that specific reason in order to instill fear and take political advantage,
then I think we have reason to be afraid.
Bin Laden's stated reason
for attacking the U.S. was because we had our troops in Saudi Arabia,
which he, and many others, view as a sacrilege to their religious beliefs.
I don't think 9/11 would have happened if we weren't there. And even
if it did, it seems strange to completely deny his stated reason as
it was announced, and replace it with our own theories, when we've been
nothing but wrong wiith our assumptions thus far.
This blindness really frightens
me.
What frightens me more is
the media's take on Guiliani's comments. They could have recognized
what was going on and pointed out the truth. Instead, they praised his
response as presidential, completely ignored the veracity of what he
said, and announced him as the winner!
They also treated Ron Paul
like someone in left field.
We don't need another president
who leads the country according to ignorant misconceptions. We've had
enough of that already. Yes, I believe there are deep philosophical
conflicts between the West and Islamists that must be confronted for
the sake of civiliztion. But shooting bombs haphazardly has only worsened
the situation. We are in danger of becoming what Bin Laden said we are
in the eyes of the world.
As you all know by my writing
here and elsewhere, I love our Western heritage, and work hard to solidify
what is best in it. I believe infighting for our deepest values, and
pointing out what I think is their proper direction..
But we have to hold our
leaders to speak the truth, or we are responsible for what happens.
The media as well. Poor Ron Paul was made to look like someone out of
touch with reality, when his assessment was probably the closest to
the truth.
After the last 6 years,
I am terrified about handing the power of the presidency to someone
who has no grasp of reality but a lot of misdirected "resolve."
It seems that Guliani, a strong supporter of President Bush, is just
such a man.
We have to write letters
or send emails to the media to be more discerning of the truth, and
to stop their pushing people's opinions in the direction of cheap celebrity.
Someone has to speak for
truth. Why not us?
May
13, 2007
Disastrous
Political Clichés
It's amazing how uncritical
we are of political clichés.
For example, certain leaders
tell us "we have to fight the war on terror over there, so
we don't have to fight it over here."
That certainly has a nice
ring to it that appeals to our sense of personal security. We feel safer
knowing that other people's lives are in jeopardy rather than our own.
But is it moral to willfully
sacrifice the Iraqi people on our behalf in order to fight Al Qaeda
"over there?" They were never connected to Al Qaeda, and now
their nation is being devastated by our supposed War on Terror.
I say "supposed," because our actions appear to be increasing
world terrorism rather than stopping it.
The statement also conjures
visions that thousands of Iraqi terrorists will be sniping and car bombing
citizens in the streets of our cities, like they do in Baghdad. Is that
realistic? Wouldn't it have happened already? Yes, 9-11 was a major
attack that seared its image into our collective conscience, but Al
Qaeda has not been able to attack us similarly again, and not because
we're keeping them busy fighting us in Iraq. It's because a) initiating
an attack over here is not easy; b) we are more alert now than prior
to 9-11; and c) it's a long way to swim
Meanwhile, by invading a
Middle Eastern nation, we have shown ourselves to be the Imperialist
threat that Al Qaeda always said we are, even though our intentions
are quite different. (At least our intentions. I'm not sure about our
leaders.)
Al Qaeda remains a threat,
but it is not as much of a threat as fear makes us believe. The United
States is a huge country. Armies of Muslim extremists are not going
to seriously invade us. The threat is limited. We are the world's only
superpower. They have far more reason to fear us, than we do of them.
That's not to say that there
will never be another terrorist attack on American soil. But we have
to put things into context, and not allow fear to be their greatest
weapon of all. More Americans die from car accidents than terrorist
attacks. We don't attack Detroit because of that, or insist that all
the accidents happen on Detroit alone. Our attention is better spent
on stopping people from driving under the influence.
Killing all the Muslims
who ultimately want us out of the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia,
is not the answer either.
We don't need to demonize
the terrorists. They've already done that. They persist on killing themselves
and others, and have nothing but blood and hatred to show for it. Their
reasoning is monstrous. We need to make sure that our reasoning never
swerves in that direction.
What we have to concentrate
on is making our world a safer place to live in on all fronts, and earn
the world's moral respect once again. Only then can we be viewed as
honest brokers of peace.
May
12, 2007
Whenever
I hear a catchy phrase, used as a slogan for whatever purpose, it
makes me wary. Such phrases are often used as sound bites to end further
discussion, or to support a cause that is probably more complex than
that special interest group wants to admit. I imagine some fancy marketing
specialist presenting the idea as a means to sway the opinions of a
drab, disinterested public. In other words, our intelligence is being
insulted. We are not expected to think beyond the short reasoning of
a slogan.
"Guns don't kill people - people
kill people."
That's true, but mostly people with guns.
"The surplus should go back
to the people. It's their tax dollars."
The debt belongs to the people as well.
Why should we be burdened with huge interest payments for the rest of
our lives, when we have the ability to pay it off now? We could merit
a real tax cut down the road if we do that. Seems like poor financial
reasoning to me.
"Marriage penalty."
See the subtle use of words in this? Originally,
the tax system was based on it being less expensive for two people to
live together than for one. This was a break on single people who had
to pay a rent or mortgage on one income, not a penalty on married couples.
"Homosexuals should not be
protected from discrimination. They are differentiated by chosen behavior,
not race or gender."
Behavior? Like generally being ideal citizens?
Like committing fewer crimes than the general population? Like sharing
with the world the fruits of their intelligence and creativity in a
greater proportion than the rest of us? Perhaps this refers to behavior
in the privacy of one's bedroom. Do we really want to be rated according
to that? And who decided that homosexuality a chosen behavior? A lot
of heterosexuals think it is, but most homosexuals do not. Who, I wonder,
is in a better position to know? I always a bit suspicious when a heterosexual
speaks with conviction about a behavior that he or she supposedly never
experienced. Are we to believe there is not a shred of bigotry in their
opinion?
"Minorities have no reason
to complain anymore. We live in a color-blind society."
Sounds good to us whites, from our perspective.
But how do minorities feel? Do they really go about their daily lives
without having to put up with suspicious looks, and close minded opinions?
How can they believe in a color-blind society while racial profiling
continues to insult their very existence? Can we really expect them
to ignore the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) prejudices constantly
aimed against them and affirm that "yes, brother, you have finally
arrived?"
"Affirmative Action isn't about
social improvement, it's about quotas."
This is a tough one. Healing the racial divide in this country is an
up hill battle, with many forces at play. Affirmative Action probably
is a failed policy. It certainly has left vast numbers of minorities
untouched, and created resentment in many whites who really never suffered
loss from this program. Is it about quotas? It's not supposed to be.
Some managers think it is, however. Some are guilty of playing a numbers
game, no matter what the outcome. Of course Affirmative Action has helped
some worthy individuals. But it has failed in its charge to offer a
helping hand where it is needed most. But then, one wonders how any
government program could succeed in this. People have to change before
cultures do. In lieu of people embracing change, and forging a truly
color-blind society, perhaps quotas are the best route to take after
all.
"All whites are racist."
Another case of lumping a lot of people
together under a convenient label. Whites are people. Complex. Infinitely
varied. Often nudged by many forces into a racially defensive and sometimes
offensive perspective. I think most whites just want racial tension
to go away, but feel caught in a dynamic that is long standing and out
of control. We inherited the sins of a number of early Americans who
had a cruel and twisted idea of human life. Most of our families did
not even arrive in this country until after the civil war, yet we feel
that the shadow of slavery and unending discrimination falls on all
of us. How could it be otherwise, in a land where so many people are
held back and hurt because of race. We resent this inheritance, so much
so that we even blame the victims for our guilt.
The only catch phrase I feel safe recommending
is "follow no one; think for yourself."
Return
|
|