I’ve known my pal Curt for over fifteen years; he’s been my gun nail supplier, nail gun repair mechanic, and nail gun seller. I’ve traded guns in, gotten loaners, and in general done quite a bit of business with him. He’s competitive with nails, but he sells me guns for a very good price and is quite reasonable with repair costs; in fact, if I have a gun in the shop he gives me a free loaner if I need it. So, it is pretty good in general terms doing business with Curt. But then it starts to get way beyond simple business, if I need nails after closing or on weekends he goes to the shop and opens up, if a gun repair is pressing, he’ll do it in his off time. He takes exceptional care of this customer, not for the dollar, for the pride of the doing.
Curt has been in a wheelchair considerably longer than I’ve known him, since he was a young man, and he’s in his later seventies now. At the time the doctors told him he probably didn’t have long to live. He’s made them liars, though one thing or the other has had to be fixed through that time. I have never known of Curt to feel sorry for him self or take it easy. He’s always been a hardworking cheerful guy. Beyond the nail gun business, he makes wood parts, survey stakes, window packing parts, and so on. The shop is set up for his chair but it is still hard work, and he’s kept on smiling through the day. It is one of my favorite parts of my work to stop and get something from Curt. There’s always good conversation and good humored banter. Me, “Hey, ya ole goat!” Him, “Oh, you whipper-snapper!” (right, I’m 53) It never does get accomplished quickly…
A couple weeks ago the other shoe dropped, it’s cancer and it’s inoperable and it’s not long to go. I was one of the first to know and my heart was broken. Yes, it has been a good long run, but he wasn’t tired of it yet and I sure wasn’t tired of him. He told me with that crooked smile of his, the one that lets you know there’s a punch line somewhere, only the punch line was, “Oh well…” I didn’t quite cry, but my throat sure was locked up and my eyes felt pretty wet. That bothered him a little, but he perked right back up. I’d known before hand about this, but it was his place to tell me, so I hadn’t let on, but it surely hurt hearing it from his mouth.
I visit a bit more than I did before and other than that he’s a bit weaker you’d never know. There’s so much talk about heroes anymore, I won’t use the word, but his quiet bravery through all these years and especially now makes the kind of impact on me that all sorts of tales of derring-do might on others. I share this with you as a sort of monument to my friend’s achievements and to honor our friendship. Boy, I’m going to miss you, ya ole goat, thanks.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Thursday, September 07, 2006
I'm a Terrorist Supporter
Wowser!!! How the heck do you like that, I've graduated to the big time and I've done it publicly. (see Archives) I'd like to thank the Administration and in particular Mr Tony Snow for the nomination and award, taa daa.
"There have been some in the Democratic Party who have argued against the Patriot Act, against the terror surveillance program, against Guantanamo. In other words, there are some people who say that we shouldn't fight the war, we should not detain -- we shouldn't apprehend al Qaeda, we shouldn't detain al Qaeda, we shouldn't question al Qaeda, and we shouldn't listen to al Qaeda. In other words, they're all for winning the war on terror, but they're all against -- they're against providing the tools for winning that war. "
There you are - that's me. Yessiree, I have this outmoded eccentric belief that the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution applies to me and that the "Decider in Chief" swore an oath to support and uphold that document. His pissant Faux News Press Secretary can kiss my Democratic ass, and since he's nothing but a mouth piece, his handler can do the same.
Somehow becoming the thing that you're opposing strikes these people as a strategy. Somehow it seems to have escaped them and a sizable chunk of the USA that their dumbass selves using quaint ole standard police work had sufficient information to rollup the 9/11 bunch before they acted. OH YEAH, plain old LEGAL methods were sufficient, what wasn't suffiecient and what they have not addressed was the turf cutting and plain ole beaurocratic thumb twiddling that left the information hang until too late.
It also seems to have escaped their notice that the people they're objecting to didn't suggest that it was a good idea to ignore Afghanistan and Al Queda and go kick Iraq around. And those same people keep suggesting that maybe Iraq still isn't a good idea. The Greeks had a term, hubris, and the idea was that acting like a god was a good way to have the gods make it very plain to you that you aren't. Exactly how many times do these (explitive deleted) think they get to re-write history?
"Finally, one other point, which is, there is a reiteration of a call to replace or have Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stand down. The President strongly supports the Defense Secretary. It's not going to happen. Creating Don Rumsfeld as a boogeyman may make for good politics, but would make for a lousy strategy at this time. And, furthermore, if you listen to the speech that Secretary Rumsfeld gave last week, it was not only thoughtful, but comprehensive about trying to frame the ongoing war against terror, and also the war going on in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Mostly what the Boogeyman did was to call people who point out his failures "appeasers" and link them to Hitler. Ummm, Donnyboy, there is still a picture in existence that shows you nearly kissing Saddam Hussein a while back, and he was then, what he was when you all decided to kick his butt. I know, history and facts are awkward things, they should be dispensed with whenever possible.
Maybe it would pay these cretins to study the period from 1760-1789, some interesting things were happening and some interesting characters were in action. I'm pretty sure George II would be using some of his "tools" to deal with those who later became icons if they were around today, because they'd surely be figuring out a way to deal with him, and it wouldn't be over tea and bicuits. Come to think of it, since I seem to agree with the Founders and whole heartedly back their play, I am a terrorist supporter.
Now, let me be clear, capture or kill Ossama Bin Laden, capture or kill his organization and I really don't care if they use any weapon other than nukes. I really don't care if they have collateral damage amongst their allies, and for you nice people, don't look, I give a rat's patoot if women, children and old people get vaporized along with them. If you can't pay the ticket, don't come to the game. If you harbor and support those who would attack us, your lives are forfeit, we can try not to include you, but you screwed up. But plainly and simply, do it within the framework of the USA and our heritage, quit making up the rules as you go along. The Bill of Rights is explicitly about the relationship of the government to its citizens, every word of every Ammendment addresses that relationship, there are 10 of them.
"There have been some in the Democratic Party who have argued against the Patriot Act, against the terror surveillance program, against Guantanamo. In other words, there are some people who say that we shouldn't fight the war, we should not detain -- we shouldn't apprehend al Qaeda, we shouldn't detain al Qaeda, we shouldn't question al Qaeda, and we shouldn't listen to al Qaeda. In other words, they're all for winning the war on terror, but they're all against -- they're against providing the tools for winning that war. "
There you are - that's me. Yessiree, I have this outmoded eccentric belief that the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution applies to me and that the "Decider in Chief" swore an oath to support and uphold that document. His pissant Faux News Press Secretary can kiss my Democratic ass, and since he's nothing but a mouth piece, his handler can do the same.
Somehow becoming the thing that you're opposing strikes these people as a strategy. Somehow it seems to have escaped them and a sizable chunk of the USA that their dumbass selves using quaint ole standard police work had sufficient information to rollup the 9/11 bunch before they acted. OH YEAH, plain old LEGAL methods were sufficient, what wasn't suffiecient and what they have not addressed was the turf cutting and plain ole beaurocratic thumb twiddling that left the information hang until too late.
It also seems to have escaped their notice that the people they're objecting to didn't suggest that it was a good idea to ignore Afghanistan and Al Queda and go kick Iraq around. And those same people keep suggesting that maybe Iraq still isn't a good idea. The Greeks had a term, hubris, and the idea was that acting like a god was a good way to have the gods make it very plain to you that you aren't. Exactly how many times do these (explitive deleted) think they get to re-write history?
"Finally, one other point, which is, there is a reiteration of a call to replace or have Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stand down. The President strongly supports the Defense Secretary. It's not going to happen. Creating Don Rumsfeld as a boogeyman may make for good politics, but would make for a lousy strategy at this time. And, furthermore, if you listen to the speech that Secretary Rumsfeld gave last week, it was not only thoughtful, but comprehensive about trying to frame the ongoing war against terror, and also the war going on in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Mostly what the Boogeyman did was to call people who point out his failures "appeasers" and link them to Hitler. Ummm, Donnyboy, there is still a picture in existence that shows you nearly kissing Saddam Hussein a while back, and he was then, what he was when you all decided to kick his butt. I know, history and facts are awkward things, they should be dispensed with whenever possible.
Maybe it would pay these cretins to study the period from 1760-1789, some interesting things were happening and some interesting characters were in action. I'm pretty sure George II would be using some of his "tools" to deal with those who later became icons if they were around today, because they'd surely be figuring out a way to deal with him, and it wouldn't be over tea and bicuits. Come to think of it, since I seem to agree with the Founders and whole heartedly back their play, I am a terrorist supporter.
Now, let me be clear, capture or kill Ossama Bin Laden, capture or kill his organization and I really don't care if they use any weapon other than nukes. I really don't care if they have collateral damage amongst their allies, and for you nice people, don't look, I give a rat's patoot if women, children and old people get vaporized along with them. If you can't pay the ticket, don't come to the game. If you harbor and support those who would attack us, your lives are forfeit, we can try not to include you, but you screwed up. But plainly and simply, do it within the framework of the USA and our heritage, quit making up the rules as you go along. The Bill of Rights is explicitly about the relationship of the government to its citizens, every word of every Ammendment addresses that relationship, there are 10 of them.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Words and More Words
Words are such wonderful things, there's so much information included in them and in some usages so much music. They contain not only information and music but also feelings. Ah, words, I suppose it's obvious as a Blogger that I love words.
Well, mostly I do. The misuse of words infuriates me, the misappropriation of words can bring me to frothing fury.
Hero. What a great word, short, almost musical in itself, magical in its connotation, magnificent in its fact. What crap to apply it to people doing their ordinary job. Calling a supply seargent sitting at his desk a Hero devalues the word and hence the soldier risking his life by rescuing a comrade under heavy fire or holding a position at all odds. I watched a dashboard camera recording of a cop climbing onto the hood of a fully engulfed burning automobile to smash out the windshield and pull an unconscious woman out and get hit by the explosion within feet of the car while carrying that woman, now I can say the word hero and have a feeling in my eyes and throat and gut and know exactly what I meant and I didn't mean a cop writing a speeding ticket.
George Bush has brought up the Freedom Agenda, agenda is pretty non-commital but there's that word Freedom. Hey, 1776, the Emancipation Proclamation, VE Day, boy have we got some some background stuff for freedom. What the heck does freedom have to do with George Bush's oil and war profiteering inspired adventure in Iraq? And since he's linked it to terrorism, exactly how does the restriction of our civil libeties and abridgement of the Bill of Rights and violation of the Constitution have anything whatever to do with the word freedom? And he uses it to the American Legion? And they bought it?
Security is one of those double edged words, little kids have their security blanket, a warm soft concept and then there's the other side. The FBI sneak and peek, you know, Federal Agents breaking into your house without a warrant to get something to get a warrant. Then there's the comforting thought that the President of the United States says he can listen to your calls without court approval, because he says so. Now if you're fond of secure vacations from work, security means that if George Bush calls you an enemy combatant and you just disappear into the Federal Penal system, you don't get a trial. Now don't you have a warm soft feeling?
Cut and Run, there's a set of cold words. These are good for debasing someone. Cut and Run, oooh, cowardice all over it. We all remember those bang bang shoot 'em up westerns, the weasly shop owner cuts and runs while the brave cowpoke stands up to the desparadoes. Has anybody made a comparison to Vietnam and the draft and getting to fly jets in Texas and deferments out the kazooo for people now "running the show" and "staying the course"? Maybe I exaggerate, it has been proven dangerous to shoot caged pigeons. For other people.
Clean Air Act, Forest Preservation Act, Patriot Act, there's some nice sounding stuff. There was a near miss with Homeland Security, that one evokes swastikas. What the hell are these people doing to our words? Joseph Goebbles mangled German to abuse people and justify atrocities, is this where we're headed? Even if these people's politics didn't stink, for what they're doing to our language they've got to go.
Well, mostly I do. The misuse of words infuriates me, the misappropriation of words can bring me to frothing fury.
Hero. What a great word, short, almost musical in itself, magical in its connotation, magnificent in its fact. What crap to apply it to people doing their ordinary job. Calling a supply seargent sitting at his desk a Hero devalues the word and hence the soldier risking his life by rescuing a comrade under heavy fire or holding a position at all odds. I watched a dashboard camera recording of a cop climbing onto the hood of a fully engulfed burning automobile to smash out the windshield and pull an unconscious woman out and get hit by the explosion within feet of the car while carrying that woman, now I can say the word hero and have a feeling in my eyes and throat and gut and know exactly what I meant and I didn't mean a cop writing a speeding ticket.
George Bush has brought up the Freedom Agenda, agenda is pretty non-commital but there's that word Freedom. Hey, 1776, the Emancipation Proclamation, VE Day, boy have we got some some background stuff for freedom. What the heck does freedom have to do with George Bush's oil and war profiteering inspired adventure in Iraq? And since he's linked it to terrorism, exactly how does the restriction of our civil libeties and abridgement of the Bill of Rights and violation of the Constitution have anything whatever to do with the word freedom? And he uses it to the American Legion? And they bought it?
Security is one of those double edged words, little kids have their security blanket, a warm soft concept and then there's the other side. The FBI sneak and peek, you know, Federal Agents breaking into your house without a warrant to get something to get a warrant. Then there's the comforting thought that the President of the United States says he can listen to your calls without court approval, because he says so. Now if you're fond of secure vacations from work, security means that if George Bush calls you an enemy combatant and you just disappear into the Federal Penal system, you don't get a trial. Now don't you have a warm soft feeling?
Cut and Run, there's a set of cold words. These are good for debasing someone. Cut and Run, oooh, cowardice all over it. We all remember those bang bang shoot 'em up westerns, the weasly shop owner cuts and runs while the brave cowpoke stands up to the desparadoes. Has anybody made a comparison to Vietnam and the draft and getting to fly jets in Texas and deferments out the kazooo for people now "running the show" and "staying the course"? Maybe I exaggerate, it has been proven dangerous to shoot caged pigeons. For other people.
Clean Air Act, Forest Preservation Act, Patriot Act, there's some nice sounding stuff. There was a near miss with Homeland Security, that one evokes swastikas. What the hell are these people doing to our words? Joseph Goebbles mangled German to abuse people and justify atrocities, is this where we're headed? Even if these people's politics didn't stink, for what they're doing to our language they've got to go.
George W Bush is not an idiot ???
Rep Issen R-CA on Bill Mahr's "Real Time" said that "this President is not an idiot" ... paraphrase - 'he listens to the wrong people.' Ok, Rep Issen is running for Congress as a Republican so saying GWB is an idiot might not be politic.
Now I say the guy (ok, the President) is of moderate intelligence, but that he is seriously challenged in the intellect department. Look, he didn't quite fail at an Ivy League College and he didn't manage to fly a fighter jet into the dirt, so he's not retarded. Apparently he can manage the words in books I read in 9th Grade so the neurons are connected and every once in awhile full sentences don't challenge him, especially if they hearken to an old western. So we can quit calling him a moron.
Seriously challenged in the intellect is a different matter, this involves critical thinking and synergizing information into decisions. A critical thinker will look at information and ideas and take them apart into their relevant pieces and look at the pieces. Information and ideas are a great deal like jigsaw puzzles, they come to you as a pretty picture on the box but they're made up of many odd shapes and colors that have meaning. It is your job to make sense of those pieces, even though somebody has already given you the picture. I don't care if people have been paid to analyze something, you still need to pay enough attention to it to be sure you understand how the analysis was arrived at and that you've considered opposing analysis. This does mean that you need outside sources of information if you're inside an organization or "point of view."
Synergy is hugely important, nothing that is given as an argument for an idea contains the elements of other points of view and those view points may contain important information and ideas whether you are in agreement with their conclusions or not. No serious argument undertaken by an opposing view point can come from "thin air." It must be founded on something and that something could easily be of import to your decision. Consideration of those elements and their inclusion or modification for inclusion into a decision can be a make or break proposition for successful implementation of a decision process.
GWB is a failure as a President not because he's a moron, he's a failure because he's ignorant, and what's worse, proud of it. The man has surrounded himself with ideologues and pays no attention to anything else, while they pay no attention to anything except their inflated egos. Any particular piece of stupidity can have backers for it, there are plenty of people who will state quite seriously that the moon landings were faked, no evidence will convince them otherwise, they listen to each other and that's it. The President was surrounded by people who quite seriously believed that you could impose democracy at the point of a gun on people with no experience of it. Yes, we did that to Japan. We did it after we showed them in very simple terms that extermination was their alternative. Now this is important, the one time it has been accomplished was under the umbrella of two mushroom clouds, fire bombings and the near total destruction of infrastructure didn't do it, battlefield slaughter didn't do it, none of the usual accoutrements of warfare accomplished that end. The clear prospect of annihilation did.
Now I say the guy (ok, the President) is of moderate intelligence, but that he is seriously challenged in the intellect department. Look, he didn't quite fail at an Ivy League College and he didn't manage to fly a fighter jet into the dirt, so he's not retarded. Apparently he can manage the words in books I read in 9th Grade so the neurons are connected and every once in awhile full sentences don't challenge him, especially if they hearken to an old western. So we can quit calling him a moron.
Seriously challenged in the intellect is a different matter, this involves critical thinking and synergizing information into decisions. A critical thinker will look at information and ideas and take them apart into their relevant pieces and look at the pieces. Information and ideas are a great deal like jigsaw puzzles, they come to you as a pretty picture on the box but they're made up of many odd shapes and colors that have meaning. It is your job to make sense of those pieces, even though somebody has already given you the picture. I don't care if people have been paid to analyze something, you still need to pay enough attention to it to be sure you understand how the analysis was arrived at and that you've considered opposing analysis. This does mean that you need outside sources of information if you're inside an organization or "point of view."
Synergy is hugely important, nothing that is given as an argument for an idea contains the elements of other points of view and those view points may contain important information and ideas whether you are in agreement with their conclusions or not. No serious argument undertaken by an opposing view point can come from "thin air." It must be founded on something and that something could easily be of import to your decision. Consideration of those elements and their inclusion or modification for inclusion into a decision can be a make or break proposition for successful implementation of a decision process.
GWB is a failure as a President not because he's a moron, he's a failure because he's ignorant, and what's worse, proud of it. The man has surrounded himself with ideologues and pays no attention to anything else, while they pay no attention to anything except their inflated egos. Any particular piece of stupidity can have backers for it, there are plenty of people who will state quite seriously that the moon landings were faked, no evidence will convince them otherwise, they listen to each other and that's it. The President was surrounded by people who quite seriously believed that you could impose democracy at the point of a gun on people with no experience of it. Yes, we did that to Japan. We did it after we showed them in very simple terms that extermination was their alternative. Now this is important, the one time it has been accomplished was under the umbrella of two mushroom clouds, fire bombings and the near total destruction of infrastructure didn't do it, battlefield slaughter didn't do it, none of the usual accoutrements of warfare accomplished that end. The clear prospect of annihilation did.
Who wasn't paying attention?
You can run the list of Bush failures and find a commonality in every one, closed mindedness. No, this is not a sign of retardation, but idiotic...hmmm.
Fellow lefties, there's something here to pay attention to in regard to ourselves.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Iranian Stupidity
Every once in awhile I lose my mind and get the idea that somebody in George II's administration has brains and the ability to reason from facts. I know it's silliness and wishful thinking, but I just can't help having some faith in human beings. For pete's sake, some facts about Iran actually exist and are available to just about anyone with a 3rd grade education.
Iran has lots and lots of oil.
Iran has lots and lots of money.
Iran is a pretty big place.
Iran has quite a few people.
Iran has a strong military.
Iran has a strong government.
Iran has fought a bloody war against an implacable foe, to stalemate.
Iran has a populous willing to sacrifice for its country.
Iran is Muslim.
Iran shows no liking for the US government.
Iran has influence in the Middle East.
The US has no diplomatic relations with Iran and has some of its assets frozen.
There are a lot more facts around, but this isn't an encyclopedia.
Now the prevailing neo-con view seems to be that the US (and maybe UN) ought to make Iran act the way we want it to, and to do it while the US talks about possibly bombing the place or at least getting rid of its government. That would seem to fly in the face of the above facts, all of them. Since you're reading his I can assume you graduated 3rd grade and I don't need to point out the problems posed by those facts and those objectives. I could point out that those facts might lead to a different policy.
The above facts ought to indicate a stable powerful nation, however reprehensible its rhetoric. This is a simple reality, they may not be a likeable bunch, but it exists as is, not how we might wish. The simple act of establishing diplomatic relations is a recognition of fact, it does, also, carry the risk of a repeat of the Embassy taking, which might preclude a physical presence. Diplomatic relations might open the door to some talk about threats to Iranian security that might dispose Iran to feel nuclear arms are important. I find it intellectually challenging to propose that a country threatened by another high powered nuclear armed country should forego possessing the most powerful armaments possible. I find it even more challenging to imagine what sanctioning could accomplish in the case of a well financed resource backed economy. I do find some reason to think that recognition of a State and its right to exist unmolested could actually have a defusing effect. It is a fact that it exists, it is a fact that trying to molest it would be extremely risky and surely explosive for the region. There is no cost in reality to recognizing and reassuring Iran, we cannot do anything about it, anyhow.
Isolated nations tend to turn inward and amplify the very defects that caused their isolation. North Korea is an example, in its isolation it has become increasingly dangerous and extreme. During China's isolation it became increasingly dangerous and extreme, today, after RM Nixon's outreach China is less extreme, though more powerful. Iran can afford to politically and economically ignore the US, it cannot afford to ignore the US military in only one sense, nuclear capability. Iran, demonstrably need have no over-riding fear of the US conventional military capability; Iraq and Lebanon are military and political lessons. Its life could be made very difficult; but its survival is not threatened.
The real threat to Iran as extant is cultural. Their culture can only thrive in isolation from successful cultures. The stifling effect of the authority of a theocracy is not tolerable to a society that is not under open attack or threat. Such a government begins to lose its justifications in the citizenry's eyes without fear as a propaganda tool and the insidious forces of rationality and personal choice begin to gnaw away at the obeisance to authority. It is important to remember that the theocratic revolt against the Shah was against an imposed, authoritarian, secular government that without external pressure created a closed and isolated culture.
I do not suggest that in the near term the US and Iran will become "friends," I do propose that behavior change can better be accomplished with carrots than sticks and that in the long term actual change in Iran is more likely by cultural intercourse than isolation.
Iran has lots and lots of oil.
Iran has lots and lots of money.
Iran is a pretty big place.
Iran has quite a few people.
Iran has a strong military.
Iran has a strong government.
Iran has fought a bloody war against an implacable foe, to stalemate.
Iran has a populous willing to sacrifice for its country.
Iran is Muslim.
Iran shows no liking for the US government.
Iran has influence in the Middle East.
The US has no diplomatic relations with Iran and has some of its assets frozen.
There are a lot more facts around, but this isn't an encyclopedia.
Now the prevailing neo-con view seems to be that the US (and maybe UN) ought to make Iran act the way we want it to, and to do it while the US talks about possibly bombing the place or at least getting rid of its government. That would seem to fly in the face of the above facts, all of them. Since you're reading his I can assume you graduated 3rd grade and I don't need to point out the problems posed by those facts and those objectives. I could point out that those facts might lead to a different policy.
The above facts ought to indicate a stable powerful nation, however reprehensible its rhetoric. This is a simple reality, they may not be a likeable bunch, but it exists as is, not how we might wish. The simple act of establishing diplomatic relations is a recognition of fact, it does, also, carry the risk of a repeat of the Embassy taking, which might preclude a physical presence. Diplomatic relations might open the door to some talk about threats to Iranian security that might dispose Iran to feel nuclear arms are important. I find it intellectually challenging to propose that a country threatened by another high powered nuclear armed country should forego possessing the most powerful armaments possible. I find it even more challenging to imagine what sanctioning could accomplish in the case of a well financed resource backed economy. I do find some reason to think that recognition of a State and its right to exist unmolested could actually have a defusing effect. It is a fact that it exists, it is a fact that trying to molest it would be extremely risky and surely explosive for the region. There is no cost in reality to recognizing and reassuring Iran, we cannot do anything about it, anyhow.
Isolated nations tend to turn inward and amplify the very defects that caused their isolation. North Korea is an example, in its isolation it has become increasingly dangerous and extreme. During China's isolation it became increasingly dangerous and extreme, today, after RM Nixon's outreach China is less extreme, though more powerful. Iran can afford to politically and economically ignore the US, it cannot afford to ignore the US military in only one sense, nuclear capability. Iran, demonstrably need have no over-riding fear of the US conventional military capability; Iraq and Lebanon are military and political lessons. Its life could be made very difficult; but its survival is not threatened.
The real threat to Iran as extant is cultural. Their culture can only thrive in isolation from successful cultures. The stifling effect of the authority of a theocracy is not tolerable to a society that is not under open attack or threat. Such a government begins to lose its justifications in the citizenry's eyes without fear as a propaganda tool and the insidious forces of rationality and personal choice begin to gnaw away at the obeisance to authority. It is important to remember that the theocratic revolt against the Shah was against an imposed, authoritarian, secular government that without external pressure created a closed and isolated culture.
I do not suggest that in the near term the US and Iran will become "friends," I do propose that behavior change can better be accomplished with carrots than sticks and that in the long term actual change in Iran is more likely by cultural intercourse than isolation.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Re-elect RM Nixon
I KNOW he's dead. And I detested him, well before he was President, but here's what David Gergen had to say, paraphrased: Richard Nixon couldn't get elected today, he was too far left.
Had you thought of it that way, I don't mean, "was he a crook?" I mean how "far left" Nixon was, by today's standards. Now I don't put myself up as a rival to the advisor to 3 Presidents, but I'd propose that by today's standards nobody from FDR through Clinton would've been elected last time.
I do believe that what the Republicans hated about Clinton was that he ran on and won on their agenda and that was where the heavy tilt right in the Republican Party came from. If you hate him and oppose him at every turn, the only way to get out from under him is to move Right. A lot right. And then to call draconian rightism compassionate.
There was a pretty spirited comment section over at Preemptive Karma the other day about shifting tags of political persuasion. I called the tags laziness in regards to individuals and individual topics, but there is a usefulness in "tagging" the general political tenor. My real problem with left/center/right at this point is that the "right" isn't what it meant - conservative -when I learned the terms. I still can't get myself to call this bunch conservatives, I understood what they stood for, the best I can do with these guys is mean selfish religious pricks. There still are some conservatives around, I don't much agree with them, but at least I understand them. I can't make sense of the agenda of this crowd, no it's not the neo-con thing, though that's a part of it, it's the thing taken as a whole, it just doesn't hang together. For Pete's sake, Barry Goldwater's stuff had a consistency, it made sense whether you agreed or not.
If the destruction of the United States of America was the agenda, their stuff would almost make sense, I'm not talking about the dirt it's composed of, I mean the Declaration, Constitution, BOR, the spirit and philosophy. I'm a real "left" sorta guy, but that's not what I'm talking about, not politics, the basis of what we live is what I'm talking about. The Conservatives had a philosophy that informed their politics, these guys have...I don't know what. This just seems like some aberrant mess and calling them names doesn't address it.
When George II first ran, I thought he was too limited to be dangerous, I also didn't know who he hung around with, first mistake; I had some idea we still had a Congress and an opposition Party, mistake two; I didn't know something was hanging out there that could be used to scare a big chunk of the citizenry, mistake three - it was obvious; I didn't know these were the guys who'd be such political animals to do that, mistake four - wishful thinking. Now I'm a real smart guy - all those tests say so - but this list sure makes me look stupid. I don't like that.
I learn real quick...
Had you thought of it that way, I don't mean, "was he a crook?" I mean how "far left" Nixon was, by today's standards. Now I don't put myself up as a rival to the advisor to 3 Presidents, but I'd propose that by today's standards nobody from FDR through Clinton would've been elected last time.
I do believe that what the Republicans hated about Clinton was that he ran on and won on their agenda and that was where the heavy tilt right in the Republican Party came from. If you hate him and oppose him at every turn, the only way to get out from under him is to move Right. A lot right. And then to call draconian rightism compassionate.
There was a pretty spirited comment section over at Preemptive Karma the other day about shifting tags of political persuasion. I called the tags laziness in regards to individuals and individual topics, but there is a usefulness in "tagging" the general political tenor. My real problem with left/center/right at this point is that the "right" isn't what it meant - conservative -when I learned the terms. I still can't get myself to call this bunch conservatives, I understood what they stood for, the best I can do with these guys is mean selfish religious pricks. There still are some conservatives around, I don't much agree with them, but at least I understand them. I can't make sense of the agenda of this crowd, no it's not the neo-con thing, though that's a part of it, it's the thing taken as a whole, it just doesn't hang together. For Pete's sake, Barry Goldwater's stuff had a consistency, it made sense whether you agreed or not.
If the destruction of the United States of America was the agenda, their stuff would almost make sense, I'm not talking about the dirt it's composed of, I mean the Declaration, Constitution, BOR, the spirit and philosophy. I'm a real "left" sorta guy, but that's not what I'm talking about, not politics, the basis of what we live is what I'm talking about. The Conservatives had a philosophy that informed their politics, these guys have...I don't know what. This just seems like some aberrant mess and calling them names doesn't address it.
When George II first ran, I thought he was too limited to be dangerous, I also didn't know who he hung around with, first mistake; I had some idea we still had a Congress and an opposition Party, mistake two; I didn't know something was hanging out there that could be used to scare a big chunk of the citizenry, mistake three - it was obvious; I didn't know these were the guys who'd be such political animals to do that, mistake four - wishful thinking. Now I'm a real smart guy - all those tests say so - but this list sure makes me look stupid. I don't like that.
I learn real quick...
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
The Prez Sez
The Washington Post carried an article about GWB saying we are safer. Now I'm going to quote the end of the last line:
"...an extremist group of folks bound together by an ideology, willing to use terror to achieve their objectives."
Sound like anyone we know? Nearby?
Let's do a little defining and move on. Let's just suppose that the objectives are, gasp, achieving and maintaining political power - fairly common amongst terrorists.
Webster's 9th Collegiate says " terror ... 1 : a state of intense fear "
This is the most secretive administration in history, think about it, WWII, atom bombs, McCarthyism, this is the most secretive. Secrets are the antithesis to an informed involved populous, the "deciders" if you will.
Terror level alerts have gone up before each election since 9/11. The Republican and Administration mantra is we're strongest on terror so you'll be safer. 'you are scared now, aren't you?'
Iraq and Al Queda are linked - denied by the CIA and Saddam Hussein's own papers. You are safer because we're fighting them there - terror acts world wide have skyrocketed since the invasion.
Opponents of the Iraq War are the friends of terrorists - see above
A wartime President has extraordinary powers - Congress declares war, not GWB
The Bill of Rights can be suspended in wartime - what war? The 1st Ammendment is being whittled at, the 4th Ammendment has become virtually meaningless. The 5th and 6th Ammendments are being abused almost beyond belief, in full view of the public and in secret.
I'd say our homegrown, elected terrorists have moved very far foward with their objectives, people are scared, power is accrued to them, the people abjectly surrender their rights, and...
There are a couple ways to deal with situations like this, voting the rat bastards out is simplest and least wasteful...
"...an extremist group of folks bound together by an ideology, willing to use terror to achieve their objectives."
Sound like anyone we know? Nearby?
Let's do a little defining and move on. Let's just suppose that the objectives are, gasp, achieving and maintaining political power - fairly common amongst terrorists.
Webster's 9th Collegiate says " terror ... 1 : a state of intense fear "
This is the most secretive administration in history, think about it, WWII, atom bombs, McCarthyism, this is the most secretive. Secrets are the antithesis to an informed involved populous, the "deciders" if you will.
Terror level alerts have gone up before each election since 9/11. The Republican and Administration mantra is we're strongest on terror so you'll be safer. 'you are scared now, aren't you?'
Iraq and Al Queda are linked - denied by the CIA and Saddam Hussein's own papers. You are safer because we're fighting them there - terror acts world wide have skyrocketed since the invasion.
Opponents of the Iraq War are the friends of terrorists - see above
A wartime President has extraordinary powers - Congress declares war, not GWB
The Bill of Rights can be suspended in wartime - what war? The 1st Ammendment is being whittled at, the 4th Ammendment has become virtually meaningless. The 5th and 6th Ammendments are being abused almost beyond belief, in full view of the public and in secret.
I'd say our homegrown, elected terrorists have moved very far foward with their objectives, people are scared, power is accrued to them, the people abjectly surrender their rights, and...
There are a couple ways to deal with situations like this, voting the rat bastards out is simplest and least wasteful...
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Follow the Money
Seen a major news media story lately...or not seen one? There's a piece of analysis that would help your understanding, figure out what monied interest benefits. Whether the story supports your particular political bent or not stop and think about it.
I've complained about the constriction of media ownership before, and I'll do it again. There are vast amounts of money moving through the corporate owners of the media and their interests do not neccessarily coincide with the American public's interests. Let's back up in time a little and see what I'm talking about.
Enron. Right up until its collapse the corporation was touted as the wave of the "new" economy and an example of the benefits of de-regulation. But hey, there were warning signs all over the place that things were not as they seemed. Rolling blackouts in CA, skyrocketing energy prices, low profile complaints of gouging and manipulation by low profile (low readership) publications. These were ignored or ridiculed if noticed and certainly not ever mentioned after the collapse by major media. Of course little outfits don't have the resources to really investigate Big Business, but there are media companies with those resources, question is, do they have the will? Follow the money where? Enron got big and powerful through "de-regulation," that's the same philosophy that's created the media conglomorations, remember the mantra: lower prices, better service through the "free market." Yes, there are more money trails to be followed, but this is just a Blog, after all.
There are plenty of other examples that could be put up, but I've chosen one that is relatively uncontroversial and "politically neutral." If a story doesn't involve a local crime type issue the chances are it affects somebody's profit margin. Politics affect profit margins, ok that's not a news flash, but there seems to be a willingness to look at news as though it were news, sure there's the " I watch CNN and you watch FOX," type dispute, but even that is essentially meaningless, these medias are all controlled by a small group of very large corporations. The competition for viewers of one political bent over another is still nonsense as far as getting the truth about the world and our government, it is simply illustrative of the ability of a corporation to tailor the news to suit its ends.
One media outlet still exists as fairly open, the internet. Yes, there is a definite shortage of money for investigative reporting but the ability to quickly disseminate very local low budget discoveries gives it some clout - and interest to major media. So the story has to do with internet access, hmmm, where's the money? Do political types benefit? Do large money organizations benefit?
How about the Public's benefit?
I've complained about the constriction of media ownership before, and I'll do it again. There are vast amounts of money moving through the corporate owners of the media and their interests do not neccessarily coincide with the American public's interests. Let's back up in time a little and see what I'm talking about.
Enron. Right up until its collapse the corporation was touted as the wave of the "new" economy and an example of the benefits of de-regulation. But hey, there were warning signs all over the place that things were not as they seemed. Rolling blackouts in CA, skyrocketing energy prices, low profile complaints of gouging and manipulation by low profile (low readership) publications. These were ignored or ridiculed if noticed and certainly not ever mentioned after the collapse by major media. Of course little outfits don't have the resources to really investigate Big Business, but there are media companies with those resources, question is, do they have the will? Follow the money where? Enron got big and powerful through "de-regulation," that's the same philosophy that's created the media conglomorations, remember the mantra: lower prices, better service through the "free market." Yes, there are more money trails to be followed, but this is just a Blog, after all.
There are plenty of other examples that could be put up, but I've chosen one that is relatively uncontroversial and "politically neutral." If a story doesn't involve a local crime type issue the chances are it affects somebody's profit margin. Politics affect profit margins, ok that's not a news flash, but there seems to be a willingness to look at news as though it were news, sure there's the " I watch CNN and you watch FOX," type dispute, but even that is essentially meaningless, these medias are all controlled by a small group of very large corporations. The competition for viewers of one political bent over another is still nonsense as far as getting the truth about the world and our government, it is simply illustrative of the ability of a corporation to tailor the news to suit its ends.
One media outlet still exists as fairly open, the internet. Yes, there is a definite shortage of money for investigative reporting but the ability to quickly disseminate very local low budget discoveries gives it some clout - and interest to major media. So the story has to do with internet access, hmmm, where's the money? Do political types benefit? Do large money organizations benefit?
How about the Public's benefit?
People Are Trying To Kill Us
They really are, despite the political hyping and election timing of our government it's true. I doubt very many of us are pleased that this is so, it is somehow unappealing to mind your own business and yet be a target. The really unfortunate side of this is the unthinking responses.
The President and his lackies would have us believe that people want to kill us because they hate our freedom. Ummm... I find this concept a little hard to make rational, not that I find people willing to blow themselves and others up to make a point particularly rational, it just seems pretty farfetched as a hatred generator. To work oneself up to this point takes a little more than a abstract object. They certainly hate something, but I have an idea that it is much more concrete than our freedom. If someone does something to you or your family or nation, that's concrete.
In the West, our experience of tribalism is pretty distant history, excepting the American Indians, and we forget how tribes work. Tribalism is pretty recent history for the Middle East so it might be instructive to consider it. Tribes work because of a very narrow social structure, family, religion, and tribal members are very closely linked, those relationships are of extreme importance and marked out by rigid codes. Violation of those codes is met with extreme reaction, whether within or without the tribal unit. Anybody want to take the time to count the number of ways and times the US government has transgressed those codes and for what reasons?
Do the policy makers in our government really believe we're hated for our freedoms? If they do, they're stupider than they seem to think we are. Now with people actually trying to kill us, it's not a good idea to be led by stupid people, or, people who lie to you because they think you're stupid. Reality is a wonderful approach to use in potentially deadly situations.
Sure, it's pretty easy for me to be distinctly unafraid of terrorists, I hardly ever fly and Baker City, OR is pretty far down the terrorist target list, but I do give a damn if my fellow citizens are threatened. But trying to scare people out of their civil liberties and into voting against their own interests does nothing to secure them, and neither do military adventures with constantly changing justifications (lies). Finding out Who and Why is crucial, and then addressing the Whys and smaking the shit out of the Whos makes sense. Regarding the Whys, some are subject to negotiation and change, some are plain un-negotiable, figure it out and do it. The Whos sure aren't easily found, and it's a lot harder if you manufacture them at a hellbent pace with a stupid war instead of looking for them. There is no nation on earth with more power and resources than the US, we can't find these people? Well, there is oil in Iraq and we can make plenty more terrorists for the President to play politics with.
The President and his lackies would have us believe that people want to kill us because they hate our freedom. Ummm... I find this concept a little hard to make rational, not that I find people willing to blow themselves and others up to make a point particularly rational, it just seems pretty farfetched as a hatred generator. To work oneself up to this point takes a little more than a abstract object. They certainly hate something, but I have an idea that it is much more concrete than our freedom. If someone does something to you or your family or nation, that's concrete.
In the West, our experience of tribalism is pretty distant history, excepting the American Indians, and we forget how tribes work. Tribalism is pretty recent history for the Middle East so it might be instructive to consider it. Tribes work because of a very narrow social structure, family, religion, and tribal members are very closely linked, those relationships are of extreme importance and marked out by rigid codes. Violation of those codes is met with extreme reaction, whether within or without the tribal unit. Anybody want to take the time to count the number of ways and times the US government has transgressed those codes and for what reasons?
Do the policy makers in our government really believe we're hated for our freedoms? If they do, they're stupider than they seem to think we are. Now with people actually trying to kill us, it's not a good idea to be led by stupid people, or, people who lie to you because they think you're stupid. Reality is a wonderful approach to use in potentially deadly situations.
Sure, it's pretty easy for me to be distinctly unafraid of terrorists, I hardly ever fly and Baker City, OR is pretty far down the terrorist target list, but I do give a damn if my fellow citizens are threatened. But trying to scare people out of their civil liberties and into voting against their own interests does nothing to secure them, and neither do military adventures with constantly changing justifications (lies). Finding out Who and Why is crucial, and then addressing the Whys and smaking the shit out of the Whos makes sense. Regarding the Whys, some are subject to negotiation and change, some are plain un-negotiable, figure it out and do it. The Whos sure aren't easily found, and it's a lot harder if you manufacture them at a hellbent pace with a stupid war instead of looking for them. There is no nation on earth with more power and resources than the US, we can't find these people? Well, there is oil in Iraq and we can make plenty more terrorists for the President to play politics with.
Friday, August 11, 2006
A DPO Gun Owner's Caucus
Zach Johnson is working on establishing a DPO Gun Owner's Caucus and I'm proud to be a supporter. Go take a look at Multnomah County Democrats to get some details if it's the sort of thing that interests you. Sure, this is an internal action but support is a good thing and important to demonstrate a need. I really don't mind that the public gets the idea that Democrats own guns. This is a good thing for DPO, let Zach know.
Boy Am I Scared, Now
Holy Crappolla Batman, the Terror level just ratcheted up, airports are a mess and incumbents are losing...huh? What kind of sinister mind does it take to make that connection? Who's really scared, frequent fliers or incumbents? If I were an incumbent I'd be pretty nervous, and odds are that if I were one, I'd be a Republican and if it had anything to do with national clout I'd hope my pals in the Executive Branch could help me out, at least more than they have the past couple years.
I've looked at this plot scenario that's been in the media and there are at least a couple things that seem odd. Since the ingredients for this bomb had to be seperate to get past screening that would mean mixing the stuff on board, it is an odd behavior to be dumping aftershave into a toothpaste tube-ok-whatever. Then you detonate this mess with a cell phone. Why? If you're going to set this off in mid-air you're going with it, so why not set it off in your lap after you've mixed it? Why do you need a cell activated ignitor? How does this ignition system get missed by security?
I'm sure looking forward to getting all the little details on this one, if this disappears like so many of the Pre-2004 Election ones did, I'd be wondering... Do you suppose these arrested folks will make it to court before the Mid-terms? None of the 2004 stuff did. Well, this Administration has demonstrated enough times that they think we're really stupid...
Flag burning, gay marriage, tax breaks for minimum wage, oh hell, we really are pretty busy trying to survive, damn, they might pull it off again.
I've looked at this plot scenario that's been in the media and there are at least a couple things that seem odd. Since the ingredients for this bomb had to be seperate to get past screening that would mean mixing the stuff on board, it is an odd behavior to be dumping aftershave into a toothpaste tube-ok-whatever. Then you detonate this mess with a cell phone. Why? If you're going to set this off in mid-air you're going with it, so why not set it off in your lap after you've mixed it? Why do you need a cell activated ignitor? How does this ignition system get missed by security?
I'm sure looking forward to getting all the little details on this one, if this disappears like so many of the Pre-2004 Election ones did, I'd be wondering... Do you suppose these arrested folks will make it to court before the Mid-terms? None of the 2004 stuff did. Well, this Administration has demonstrated enough times that they think we're really stupid...
Flag burning, gay marriage, tax breaks for minimum wage, oh hell, we really are pretty busy trying to survive, damn, they might pull it off again.
Say It Ain't So, Joe
Joe Lieberman has managed to offend CT Democrats enough to lose the Democratic Primary to a newcomer and he doesn't like it. He doesn't like it enough so that he'll run as an Independent. Partisan politics gets the blame from his camp.
Now isn't that odd. They hold a Republican Primary and a Democratic Primary in CT and they're two separate things, um, Party things. Belonging to a Party makes you a Partisan. That doesn't mean all things the other Party gets up to are evil and nasty nor does it mean that the other Party can't have a good idea that's worth voting for, but it does mean that YOUR Party is mostly reflective of your Political Philosophy. It also means that when the other Party holds all the cards, part of your job description is to make them work for it, to have their stuff in order. Now I happen to have a fair memory, we went to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussien had WMDs and was a direct threat to the US and he was an Al Queda supporter. The Al Queda part was pure BS and any politician who "bought into it" was engaging in duplicity. The WMD part was stoked by the Bushies and stroked into good appearance, a lot of civvies, myself included, called BS, but it was pretty well dressed up, it also was fake. If Joe didn't catch on in the beginning, he ought to have when the WMDs refused to appear. Then the game changed, we were liberators, bringing Democracy to the Iraqis, something the Constitution Joe swore to uphold doesn't mention, and turned out to be something they don't particularly like us for. So we moved on to keeping order to protect the Democracy and fight terrorism and prevent a civil war. We seem to have been the cause of a civil war that's going on and to have created a breeding ground for terrorists and Joe seems to have missed all that. Now, apparently what we're doing in Iraq is "not giving in to terrorists," at least that's what I've been able to garner from the George II spokespeople. We're saving our "reputation," I guess. Looks like the CT Democrats agree with me and not with Joe.
Independent. Hmmm. What exactly does that mean? For Joe it seems to mean a marriage of convenience with the CT Democrats is now over. The "D" after his name doesn't mean what it means to a majority of CT Democrats whose registration also has that "D" so now he's neither fish nor fowl, he's...what? Ok, we know he's pissed off, but how do the rest of his votes square with the Democratic Party. Not well enough.
I'll bet he's felt pretty special, 3 term US Senator, a VP nomination, famously crossing Party lines, lots of media attention and whoooeee, big wheel backing, and now...a loser. It's been said that the Democrats don't need Joe Liebermans and evidently he doesn't think he needs Democrats, at least not Democrats who think being one means standing up to the Republican machine. There is a lesson here about Party politics and Joe didn't get it, people in Parties tend to think it means something. Joe has had three terms as US Senator to try to get his message across to the Democrats and they just aren't buying so maybe he should have paid attention. Voters tend to forgive quite a bit as long as their guy seems to be their's.
I've seen all kinds of prognostications of what this means to the Democrats, it doesn't mean squat to the Democrats, we vote them in or not, what it means to the politicians is another deal. It does say that their incumbencey is no guarantee and neither is the chance of winning the House or Senate a guarantee. There really isn't much sense in belonging to a Party if it doesn't mean any more than an alphabet designation. Hey Hillary, are you listening?
We Oregonians are pretty lucky, Sen Wyden is a Democrat and Sen Smith sure is a Republican and we can tell them apart. Maybe we can do something about Smith a little later, but it's a real clear cut choice. Rep Waldenbush doesn't leave much doubt about his loyalties, though I'm surprised that 2nd CD keeps sending him back considering where those loyalties lead him. Carol Voisin needs to give him time for his radio stations, she sure isn't a Waldenbush clone.
I wonder if Joe running as an Independent isn't a good thing, it'll be a nice real world test of what the Democratic politicians are made of and also a good test of just what good it is to be an Independent. Obviously I hope he'd get his butt kicked, but real world demonstrations are illustrative.
Now isn't that odd. They hold a Republican Primary and a Democratic Primary in CT and they're two separate things, um, Party things. Belonging to a Party makes you a Partisan. That doesn't mean all things the other Party gets up to are evil and nasty nor does it mean that the other Party can't have a good idea that's worth voting for, but it does mean that YOUR Party is mostly reflective of your Political Philosophy. It also means that when the other Party holds all the cards, part of your job description is to make them work for it, to have their stuff in order. Now I happen to have a fair memory, we went to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussien had WMDs and was a direct threat to the US and he was an Al Queda supporter. The Al Queda part was pure BS and any politician who "bought into it" was engaging in duplicity. The WMD part was stoked by the Bushies and stroked into good appearance, a lot of civvies, myself included, called BS, but it was pretty well dressed up, it also was fake. If Joe didn't catch on in the beginning, he ought to have when the WMDs refused to appear. Then the game changed, we were liberators, bringing Democracy to the Iraqis, something the Constitution Joe swore to uphold doesn't mention, and turned out to be something they don't particularly like us for. So we moved on to keeping order to protect the Democracy and fight terrorism and prevent a civil war. We seem to have been the cause of a civil war that's going on and to have created a breeding ground for terrorists and Joe seems to have missed all that. Now, apparently what we're doing in Iraq is "not giving in to terrorists," at least that's what I've been able to garner from the George II spokespeople. We're saving our "reputation," I guess. Looks like the CT Democrats agree with me and not with Joe.
Independent. Hmmm. What exactly does that mean? For Joe it seems to mean a marriage of convenience with the CT Democrats is now over. The "D" after his name doesn't mean what it means to a majority of CT Democrats whose registration also has that "D" so now he's neither fish nor fowl, he's...what? Ok, we know he's pissed off, but how do the rest of his votes square with the Democratic Party. Not well enough.
I'll bet he's felt pretty special, 3 term US Senator, a VP nomination, famously crossing Party lines, lots of media attention and whoooeee, big wheel backing, and now...a loser. It's been said that the Democrats don't need Joe Liebermans and evidently he doesn't think he needs Democrats, at least not Democrats who think being one means standing up to the Republican machine. There is a lesson here about Party politics and Joe didn't get it, people in Parties tend to think it means something. Joe has had three terms as US Senator to try to get his message across to the Democrats and they just aren't buying so maybe he should have paid attention. Voters tend to forgive quite a bit as long as their guy seems to be their's.
I've seen all kinds of prognostications of what this means to the Democrats, it doesn't mean squat to the Democrats, we vote them in or not, what it means to the politicians is another deal. It does say that their incumbencey is no guarantee and neither is the chance of winning the House or Senate a guarantee. There really isn't much sense in belonging to a Party if it doesn't mean any more than an alphabet designation. Hey Hillary, are you listening?
We Oregonians are pretty lucky, Sen Wyden is a Democrat and Sen Smith sure is a Republican and we can tell them apart. Maybe we can do something about Smith a little later, but it's a real clear cut choice. Rep Waldenbush doesn't leave much doubt about his loyalties, though I'm surprised that 2nd CD keeps sending him back considering where those loyalties lead him. Carol Voisin needs to give him time for his radio stations, she sure isn't a Waldenbush clone.
I wonder if Joe running as an Independent isn't a good thing, it'll be a nice real world test of what the Democratic politicians are made of and also a good test of just what good it is to be an Independent. Obviously I hope he'd get his butt kicked, but real world demonstrations are illustrative.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Just For Scale
Israel and Lebanon are pretty far away and pretty foreign, but for an idea of the scale and distances involved, think about this, Harney and Grant County, Oregon at war. Harney is Israel & Grant is Lebanon, square milage is very close. Of course, populations are a bit different with 7,000 in Harney and 6 million in Israel...
Oh well, Grant and Harney are probably just about as foreign as Israel and Lebanon to most, so I suppose the analogy is pointless...
Oh yeah, they're my neighbors, so it means something to me.
Oh well, Grant and Harney are probably just about as foreign as Israel and Lebanon to most, so I suppose the analogy is pointless...
Oh yeah, they're my neighbors, so it means something to me.
The Working Poor and the Poor, Poor Pitiful Rich
OK, working poor, you can have your raise in the Federal Minimum Wage, just as long as the downtrodden rich folk get an Estate Tax break. Think this mess will pass? "I (Republican Representative X) voted for the Minimum Wage Increase Bill, so this certainly shouldn't be an election issue..."
Do you suppose the electorate is as stupid as they seem to think? Aw, c'mon, they don't think we're stupid ... Gay Marriage...Flag Burning...Terry Schiavo...Stem Cells...
Well, Iraq.
How much of a plan do the Democrats have to have? "We can do better together" might be enough.
Do you suppose the electorate is as stupid as they seem to think? Aw, c'mon, they don't think we're stupid ... Gay Marriage...Flag Burning...Terry Schiavo...Stem Cells...
Well, Iraq.
How much of a plan do the Democrats have to have? "We can do better together" might be enough.
Middle East Game Change
I can't take credit for the ideas I'm about to put forward, Thomas Friedman of NY Times gets that, but I'm also not going to quote him since some of my own thinking is involved.
I ask you to bear with me a little while I run some calculations past you to get where I'm going.
Hezbollah set off the conflagration in Lebanon, I don't doubt Israel has been watching for a reason, but Hezbollah did provide it. The question is, who gains? Lebanon certainly does not, neither the government nor the citizens. Hezbollah is now directly engaged with a superior military force and launching around 100 of its rockets daily, rockets that no longer are held as a deterrent to Israel, this is not a win. The press and sympathies of Sunni Arab nations are generally not with Hezbollah. Hezbollah's civilian neighbors certainly may hate Israel more after being shelled and bombed, but they also probably don't appreciate being "shields" for Hezbollah. Israel was out of Lebanon, ever since 2000, now they're back, not a gain for anybody in Lebanon. So, apparently the winner is Iran, since their nuke program and associated stupidities are out of the headlines, news and diplomatic. But how much of a win is it to alarm much of the Arab world? The Sunni nations other than Syria are unhappy and that doesn't portend well for Iran's overtures to be a Middle East power center. There is entirely too much enmity between Persians and Arabs historically for this to work well. Israel is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario, a powerful well armed Hezbollah on their border is dangerous, going after a guerilla army is dangerous. Public opinion doesn't like civilian casualties, either.
Add to this scenario Hamas' difficulties. Israel had pulled out of Palestinian areas, now tanks rumble through them and a ruined economy is further destroyed. Hamas power figures are getting killed or taken. Palestinians may have been cheered by the tweaking of Israel's nose the kidnapping demonstrated, nothing cheerful about the outcome, however.
Syria is the land route for Hezbollah supplies and a major Hamas supporter. Being a pipeline for Iran's games kept them on the right side of a major military power and foe of their foe (GWB's regime change neo-cons) and as long as Hamas was gaining ground a Sunni Arab PR win. Now it looks a little different, they're looking a lot like the toady of the neighborhood bully to Sunnis and drawing the ire of large chunks of the international community. Bad relations with the US are now seriously bad.
What nation in the entire stew might be the game changer? How about Syria? If the US were to approach Syria with some other Sunni governments and something to offer, a serious offer, might they be approachable? There are some things Syria wants rather badly, the Golan Heights, regime security, and an economy that are probably available for a trade for cutting off Iranian supplies and tossing Hamas. This could put Syria back into the Sunni camp where they naturally belong, cut the chaos in their neighborhood (economic suicide), and ensure some things they'd like to have happen. Not to mention help isolate the Iranian infection. A peace agreement with Israel could have all sorts of salutory effects, for both. The US might look like much less of a threat in Iraq, and in fact be less of a threat to Syria with the terrorist links there broken. It wouldn't be inexpensive for the US and it certainly would mean making nice with a distinctly un-nice dictatorship, but it is also important to remember that it's a tough neighborhood and a bad place to be an altar-boy. It would mean a switch from regime change to behavior change as policy, but we really don't seem to be gaining much from the neo-con regime change game.
I'm certain it would be truly humiliating for the neo-cons to go ask Syria what they want to change the game, the problem is that the game as it's being played is a losing proposition across the board. That humiliation is also the reason it probably won't happen. So we can watch more GWB neo-con disasters unfold.
I ask you to bear with me a little while I run some calculations past you to get where I'm going.
Hezbollah set off the conflagration in Lebanon, I don't doubt Israel has been watching for a reason, but Hezbollah did provide it. The question is, who gains? Lebanon certainly does not, neither the government nor the citizens. Hezbollah is now directly engaged with a superior military force and launching around 100 of its rockets daily, rockets that no longer are held as a deterrent to Israel, this is not a win. The press and sympathies of Sunni Arab nations are generally not with Hezbollah. Hezbollah's civilian neighbors certainly may hate Israel more after being shelled and bombed, but they also probably don't appreciate being "shields" for Hezbollah. Israel was out of Lebanon, ever since 2000, now they're back, not a gain for anybody in Lebanon. So, apparently the winner is Iran, since their nuke program and associated stupidities are out of the headlines, news and diplomatic. But how much of a win is it to alarm much of the Arab world? The Sunni nations other than Syria are unhappy and that doesn't portend well for Iran's overtures to be a Middle East power center. There is entirely too much enmity between Persians and Arabs historically for this to work well. Israel is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario, a powerful well armed Hezbollah on their border is dangerous, going after a guerilla army is dangerous. Public opinion doesn't like civilian casualties, either.
Add to this scenario Hamas' difficulties. Israel had pulled out of Palestinian areas, now tanks rumble through them and a ruined economy is further destroyed. Hamas power figures are getting killed or taken. Palestinians may have been cheered by the tweaking of Israel's nose the kidnapping demonstrated, nothing cheerful about the outcome, however.
Syria is the land route for Hezbollah supplies and a major Hamas supporter. Being a pipeline for Iran's games kept them on the right side of a major military power and foe of their foe (GWB's regime change neo-cons) and as long as Hamas was gaining ground a Sunni Arab PR win. Now it looks a little different, they're looking a lot like the toady of the neighborhood bully to Sunnis and drawing the ire of large chunks of the international community. Bad relations with the US are now seriously bad.
What nation in the entire stew might be the game changer? How about Syria? If the US were to approach Syria with some other Sunni governments and something to offer, a serious offer, might they be approachable? There are some things Syria wants rather badly, the Golan Heights, regime security, and an economy that are probably available for a trade for cutting off Iranian supplies and tossing Hamas. This could put Syria back into the Sunni camp where they naturally belong, cut the chaos in their neighborhood (economic suicide), and ensure some things they'd like to have happen. Not to mention help isolate the Iranian infection. A peace agreement with Israel could have all sorts of salutory effects, for both. The US might look like much less of a threat in Iraq, and in fact be less of a threat to Syria with the terrorist links there broken. It wouldn't be inexpensive for the US and it certainly would mean making nice with a distinctly un-nice dictatorship, but it is also important to remember that it's a tough neighborhood and a bad place to be an altar-boy. It would mean a switch from regime change to behavior change as policy, but we really don't seem to be gaining much from the neo-con regime change game.
I'm certain it would be truly humiliating for the neo-cons to go ask Syria what they want to change the game, the problem is that the game as it's being played is a losing proposition across the board. That humiliation is also the reason it probably won't happen. So we can watch more GWB neo-con disasters unfold.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Political Poverty Bulls**t
Another Blog mentioned Carol Voisin's very small political warchest, like this is something surprising. Lets do some objective thinking about this, Waldenbush has or soon will have $ 1 Million to play with, he's an incumbent, his only apparent scandal is that he reliably votes for the interests of people who comprise maybe 0.0001% of the 2nd Congressional District, and he's Geo II's lap dog (well since T DeLay left). This isn't exactly a recipe for attracting big donors, and in a rather conservative district, being a liberal doesn't have a lot of big money backing. So...
During the Primary I wrote and said repeatedly that GW couldn't be beaten in the money game, that it had to be done differently. The money would have to come from the ordinary voters in dribs and drabs that would suffice to keep the thing breathing, the rest would have to be done through personal contacts, the candidate or surrogates. Now Carol's totals are not going cover even the most basic expenses, so she needs those dribs and drabs to start dribbling in. There's a link to her Actblue account in my sidebar, kick in something. If she gets starved out because you've decided this is a lost cause, then it is; if she can keep going she has a chance to do the hard work and so do her supporters. Waldenbush doesn't deserve a pass in this election.
Carol will be in Baker City for Miner's Jubilee 7/20-23, she'll have speaking opportunities and even get to ride in the Parade in my yellow SSR - top down. If you need an opportunity to have some fun that weekend, Miner's Jubilee in Baker City might be your ticket, and a chance to get to know my friend Carol Voisin. Thursday, 7/20, 7PM at the Presbyterian Church the Baker Co Democrats will have Carol available for speaking and meeting and greeting. Baker Co Democrats will have a booth at the Park Saturday, Carol will speak, and also be around for you to get acquainted. As an added attraction, I ought to be around somewhere...oh boy.
My Primary contribution total amounted to very little, but they enabled a fur-faced hick carpenter from the middle of nowhere with no staff and no time to get 11% of the vote, about 4,000 Democrats, the vast majority of whom had no previous contact with me. Those greatly appreciated dribs and drabs meant that something could get said and now I'm saying this, "It is utter bullshit to leave our Democratic candidate hanging by a thread and then criticize her for it." The money required to mount some kind of a campaign has to come from somewhere, from the folks or Waldenbush's kind of contributors, Carol is going to get it from "the folks" and that'll be to her credit and guess who a Representative with that base will represent.
This is not a "Voisin for Congress" site, she has her own, and I don't pretend to speak for Carol or to present her message. That's her job. But I also know Carol and I like her and I will stand up for her. You're darn right I'll vote for her and I'll encourage you to vote for her and to send her some of your hard earned cash, she'll make good use of it and she'll earn every nickle of it. Those of you who supported me believed that I don't engage in lying and spinning and do talk straight, well this is straight talk, Carol Voisin will better represent the 2nd CD than Waldenbush, hands down. This isn't Democratic Solidarity, it's just plain true, I wouldn't say it otherwise.
During the Primary I wrote and said repeatedly that GW couldn't be beaten in the money game, that it had to be done differently. The money would have to come from the ordinary voters in dribs and drabs that would suffice to keep the thing breathing, the rest would have to be done through personal contacts, the candidate or surrogates. Now Carol's totals are not going cover even the most basic expenses, so she needs those dribs and drabs to start dribbling in. There's a link to her Actblue account in my sidebar, kick in something. If she gets starved out because you've decided this is a lost cause, then it is; if she can keep going she has a chance to do the hard work and so do her supporters. Waldenbush doesn't deserve a pass in this election.
Carol will be in Baker City for Miner's Jubilee 7/20-23, she'll have speaking opportunities and even get to ride in the Parade in my yellow SSR - top down. If you need an opportunity to have some fun that weekend, Miner's Jubilee in Baker City might be your ticket, and a chance to get to know my friend Carol Voisin. Thursday, 7/20, 7PM at the Presbyterian Church the Baker Co Democrats will have Carol available for speaking and meeting and greeting. Baker Co Democrats will have a booth at the Park Saturday, Carol will speak, and also be around for you to get acquainted. As an added attraction, I ought to be around somewhere...oh boy.
My Primary contribution total amounted to very little, but they enabled a fur-faced hick carpenter from the middle of nowhere with no staff and no time to get 11% of the vote, about 4,000 Democrats, the vast majority of whom had no previous contact with me. Those greatly appreciated dribs and drabs meant that something could get said and now I'm saying this, "It is utter bullshit to leave our Democratic candidate hanging by a thread and then criticize her for it." The money required to mount some kind of a campaign has to come from somewhere, from the folks or Waldenbush's kind of contributors, Carol is going to get it from "the folks" and that'll be to her credit and guess who a Representative with that base will represent.
This is not a "Voisin for Congress" site, she has her own, and I don't pretend to speak for Carol or to present her message. That's her job. But I also know Carol and I like her and I will stand up for her. You're darn right I'll vote for her and I'll encourage you to vote for her and to send her some of your hard earned cash, she'll make good use of it and she'll earn every nickle of it. Those of you who supported me believed that I don't engage in lying and spinning and do talk straight, well this is straight talk, Carol Voisin will better represent the 2nd CD than Waldenbush, hands down. This isn't Democratic Solidarity, it's just plain true, I wouldn't say it otherwise.
Fed Sponsored Health Lies
The Washington Post, 7/18/06, describes how the Federal Government sponsors pregnancy centers lies regarding abortions. When asked about abortions the centers which receive federal funds stated that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, infertility, and "post-abortion syndrome" - a stress affliction. These centers are run by anti-abortion religious organizations and receive federal funds for "abstinence programs" which are to quote Care Net, "kept entirely separate." I also have a bridge for sale in NY,NY.
Let's see how this separation of funds works, I have program for abstinence which is something I want to do and I have an anti-abortion program which is something I want to do. Now I have a certain limitation of funds which might impede the operation of these two programs, so what I do is ask Uncle Sammy to give me money for one of these programs, the abstinence program since it's politically semi-neutral; now I have money to spread lies regarding abortion because George II likes to give money to Religions he likes (and nobody in Congress has the gonads to whack him for it).
Abortion is not a desirable thing, everybody's lives would be much better if there were none needed. The problem is that circumstances keep creating the necessity. Lying about health matters, whatever your religious orientation, is a serious matter, and considerably more serious if you represent yourself as a medical resource. Isn't it odd how lies and lying seem to surround George II and serious matters? Does it make you miss the days of an Oval Office blow-job as corruption?
Let's see how this separation of funds works, I have program for abstinence which is something I want to do and I have an anti-abortion program which is something I want to do. Now I have a certain limitation of funds which might impede the operation of these two programs, so what I do is ask Uncle Sammy to give me money for one of these programs, the abstinence program since it's politically semi-neutral; now I have money to spread lies regarding abortion because George II likes to give money to Religions he likes (and nobody in Congress has the gonads to whack him for it).
Abortion is not a desirable thing, everybody's lives would be much better if there were none needed. The problem is that circumstances keep creating the necessity. Lying about health matters, whatever your religious orientation, is a serious matter, and considerably more serious if you represent yourself as a medical resource. Isn't it odd how lies and lying seem to surround George II and serious matters? Does it make you miss the days of an Oval Office blow-job as corruption?
Conservative ???
Does anybody remember what conservative used to mean? I never was one, but I have some foggy remembrances. Political conservatives were all about budgeting and less government interference, that's what I remember.
Debt was a bad thing, deficits were the work of the weak of will. The idea seemed to be that spending money you don't have will come back to haunt you one day. The cost of government would become unmanageable as interest on the debt mounted and the economy overheated due to "printing money" which would lose its value by having nothing to back it.
Then there was government interference, the idea was that regulations and messing about with the Bill of Rights was a slippery slope into dictatorship. Federal regulations were seen as usurpation of the State's role or of a citizen's ability (or company) to control his destiny. Intertwined with regulatory abuse was the idea that the Bill of Rights would take hits. Any large program would encourage the government to snoop into your affairs and push you around. Churches that engaged in advocacy endangered their tax exempt status for backing Civil Rights, feminism, pacifism, etc. Government was seen as encouraging and subsidizing dissent. The Federal Education Dept was seen as usurping the role of local school boards and State standards, as well as a waste of tax dollars. The largest issue in the size of Federal programs seemed to be the increased influence in and power over ordinary citizens' lives. Big Brother was the bugaboo.
Something seems to have slipped, the entire Federal government is now in the hands of "conservatives" and the things they were railing about are now issues of national security. Big Brother now seems to be our pal and Uncle Fed definitely knows best. Listening to the Right today it appears that the Left is the weak sister defender of the old conservative values. Odd...
Debt was a bad thing, deficits were the work of the weak of will. The idea seemed to be that spending money you don't have will come back to haunt you one day. The cost of government would become unmanageable as interest on the debt mounted and the economy overheated due to "printing money" which would lose its value by having nothing to back it.
Then there was government interference, the idea was that regulations and messing about with the Bill of Rights was a slippery slope into dictatorship. Federal regulations were seen as usurpation of the State's role or of a citizen's ability (or company) to control his destiny. Intertwined with regulatory abuse was the idea that the Bill of Rights would take hits. Any large program would encourage the government to snoop into your affairs and push you around. Churches that engaged in advocacy endangered their tax exempt status for backing Civil Rights, feminism, pacifism, etc. Government was seen as encouraging and subsidizing dissent. The Federal Education Dept was seen as usurping the role of local school boards and State standards, as well as a waste of tax dollars. The largest issue in the size of Federal programs seemed to be the increased influence in and power over ordinary citizens' lives. Big Brother was the bugaboo.
Something seems to have slipped, the entire Federal government is now in the hands of "conservatives" and the things they were railing about are now issues of national security. Big Brother now seems to be our pal and Uncle Fed definitely knows best. Listening to the Right today it appears that the Left is the weak sister defender of the old conservative values. Odd...
Friday, July 14, 2006
Politics Is Local
I heard from the County Chair today that one of our Party members was so disgusted with the Democrats nationally that they were thinking about quitting. That's really not a good thing.
It sucks on several levels. Our County Party can't afford to lose active members, I don't think any can, but we get about a 1% involvement, that's not a lot of folks. (sure, Multnomah would have to rent a hall, we ain't them) This idea makes "us" responsible for people we have no contact with, for Pete's sake, Ron Wyden is the only national Democrat we have any responsibility for. Now here's the big part of it, those Democrats that this person is offended by were elected by somebody and you know what? They live somewhere (other than DC). They aren't so damn special, they have neighbors or old friends that aren't all that impressed by them, but some people worked to get them through a Primary and then a General Election, it took work to get them there. There must be a reason for that work. There are some Dems that I think ought to have an "R" after their name, evidently enough people didn't agree with me. Not my deal or this person's. Those "so-called Democrats" were elected by local folks.
Now I personally am a little insulted by this kind of idea. In the course of several years my presence has made some change in the viewpoint of the County Party, gotten a State Party Resolution passed, and resulted in the name of the County being linked Statewide to a Congressional Campaign, and that campaign wasn't psuedo-Republican. Now I'm not real special or real important, I've got friends, neighbors, and relatives who'll make sure you understand that, I'm an ordinary member of the County Party. Oh yeah, I've got a title, State Central Committee Delegate, so what? I'm also a PCP, what these titles mean is that I'm a Democrat, I'm breathing, and I put my hand up. But there it is, I put my hand up. I refuse to be ignored and discounted, that's local politics. Real local, local to the inside of your head. If you really don't like the looks of Democratic politics, put your hand up, refuse to be discounted, contribute to YOUR candidate (I don't care if it's a different state), and when a candidate you like IS from your area, get to work for them. That's how you quit being disgusted by where the Party is at.
I'm sorry, Non-affilliated Registration is one of the silliest things I can think of. It makes little or no sense to me to be so alienated by Parties that what you want to do is only have a vote after the Parties have decided who gets to run. Doesn't that guarantee that you'll be unhappy with your choices? How about having a say about the choices? How about taking that disgust and turning it into action? Nah, it's much easier to just bitch about it.
I don't care whether you voted for me or not, you were offered choices, the Democrats who bothered chose. The rest of you get to take what other people did. In this race, I don't think you got hurt, in other races that's not the case. I wouldn't vote for Joe Leiberman for national office, evidently enough Democrats from his state agree enough to put a credible challenge up in their Primary. That challenge will only succeed if the Locals put in the effort and money and VOTE. You want fire-breathing Democrats, choose them, support them, work for it. Don't just walk away.
It sucks on several levels. Our County Party can't afford to lose active members, I don't think any can, but we get about a 1% involvement, that's not a lot of folks. (sure, Multnomah would have to rent a hall, we ain't them) This idea makes "us" responsible for people we have no contact with, for Pete's sake, Ron Wyden is the only national Democrat we have any responsibility for. Now here's the big part of it, those Democrats that this person is offended by were elected by somebody and you know what? They live somewhere (other than DC). They aren't so damn special, they have neighbors or old friends that aren't all that impressed by them, but some people worked to get them through a Primary and then a General Election, it took work to get them there. There must be a reason for that work. There are some Dems that I think ought to have an "R" after their name, evidently enough people didn't agree with me. Not my deal or this person's. Those "so-called Democrats" were elected by local folks.
Now I personally am a little insulted by this kind of idea. In the course of several years my presence has made some change in the viewpoint of the County Party, gotten a State Party Resolution passed, and resulted in the name of the County being linked Statewide to a Congressional Campaign, and that campaign wasn't psuedo-Republican. Now I'm not real special or real important, I've got friends, neighbors, and relatives who'll make sure you understand that, I'm an ordinary member of the County Party. Oh yeah, I've got a title, State Central Committee Delegate, so what? I'm also a PCP, what these titles mean is that I'm a Democrat, I'm breathing, and I put my hand up. But there it is, I put my hand up. I refuse to be ignored and discounted, that's local politics. Real local, local to the inside of your head. If you really don't like the looks of Democratic politics, put your hand up, refuse to be discounted, contribute to YOUR candidate (I don't care if it's a different state), and when a candidate you like IS from your area, get to work for them. That's how you quit being disgusted by where the Party is at.
I'm sorry, Non-affilliated Registration is one of the silliest things I can think of. It makes little or no sense to me to be so alienated by Parties that what you want to do is only have a vote after the Parties have decided who gets to run. Doesn't that guarantee that you'll be unhappy with your choices? How about having a say about the choices? How about taking that disgust and turning it into action? Nah, it's much easier to just bitch about it.
I don't care whether you voted for me or not, you were offered choices, the Democrats who bothered chose. The rest of you get to take what other people did. In this race, I don't think you got hurt, in other races that's not the case. I wouldn't vote for Joe Leiberman for national office, evidently enough Democrats from his state agree enough to put a credible challenge up in their Primary. That challenge will only succeed if the Locals put in the effort and money and VOTE. You want fire-breathing Democrats, choose them, support them, work for it. Don't just walk away.
Eternity
Today I attended a memorial service for the father of a close friend and business associate, who died unexpectedly at 70 Sunday. The preacher had a lot to say about eternity, immortal soul, and other after death stuff and that we all seem to spend some considerable time thinking about it.
I don't.
So today I thought about it for awhile. I'm 53 and my parents are nearly 80 so death is a real consideration. I could pop off with the simple it's not knowable and so it's not important answer. That's really not quite good enough. We do die and things do go on after we're not here to participate so whether there's Pearly Gates or not, there certainly are consequences of us having been around. Some of us have kids, most of us have friends, and all of us have taken some form of action during our lives so what we have have done and what we've been will reverberate. I build houses for a living, long after I'm dust families will have the use and pleasure of my labor, that's something. I have 2 kids, they'll be who they are, and hopefully some of my good stuff will have rubbed off on them, and then their kids. I have friends that I am a better person for having, I hope the same is true for them. Awhile back I ran around a large chunk of Oregon talking about what I thought was important for a US Representative to do. I didn't win or even get a real big chunk of the vote, but I got enough to know that some listened and thought about it. What all this amounts to is that ordinary folks existence counts.
I guess I'll go ahead and not get all wrapped up in the Pearly Gates stuff the preacher was concerned with, I really don't have any opinion on it, and concentrate on the part I know about. We count, now and for some time after we're gone and we need to take care of that. It's not a matter of writing "The Great Book," or doing some huge thing, it's the small everyday stuff. I don't spend my day worrying about posterity, I spend my day trying to do a good job of it, the rest will take care of itself.
I don't.
So today I thought about it for awhile. I'm 53 and my parents are nearly 80 so death is a real consideration. I could pop off with the simple it's not knowable and so it's not important answer. That's really not quite good enough. We do die and things do go on after we're not here to participate so whether there's Pearly Gates or not, there certainly are consequences of us having been around. Some of us have kids, most of us have friends, and all of us have taken some form of action during our lives so what we have have done and what we've been will reverberate. I build houses for a living, long after I'm dust families will have the use and pleasure of my labor, that's something. I have 2 kids, they'll be who they are, and hopefully some of my good stuff will have rubbed off on them, and then their kids. I have friends that I am a better person for having, I hope the same is true for them. Awhile back I ran around a large chunk of Oregon talking about what I thought was important for a US Representative to do. I didn't win or even get a real big chunk of the vote, but I got enough to know that some listened and thought about it. What all this amounts to is that ordinary folks existence counts.
I guess I'll go ahead and not get all wrapped up in the Pearly Gates stuff the preacher was concerned with, I really don't have any opinion on it, and concentrate on the part I know about. We count, now and for some time after we're gone and we need to take care of that. It's not a matter of writing "The Great Book," or doing some huge thing, it's the small everyday stuff. I don't spend my day worrying about posterity, I spend my day trying to do a good job of it, the rest will take care of itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)