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 party’s 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. Carvel’s comments are surely unacceptable.
     There is no doubt he was looking at Gov. Richardson’s decision as a matter of loyalty to the Clinton’s. By doing so, he provides us with a perfect illustration of how the virtue of loyalty can be poorly utilized.
     Mr. Carvel’s 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 individual’s 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