
Ship of Fools
(click to enlarge)
chres·tom·a·thy (kr-stm-th) n. pl. chres·tom·a·thies 1. A selection of literary passages, usually by one author. 2. An anthology used in studying a language. 3. Another damn stupid liberal blog
Good guys versus Bad guys.
White hats versus Black hats.
Anyone who deviates from this line of thinking is, in their opinion, wrong. Not just wrong, but doomed.
That's the Neo-con argument for Pre-Emptive warfare. Period.
Making a comparison between Radical Islam and Nazism is a dangerous one, mostly because they don't have much in common. Nazi Germany was a pervasive police state led by a sociopathic dictator who led a motley band of mafioso, knee-cap breakers, and assorted thugs into power. It was a well-oiled machine with a chillingly precise and uniform manner of conducting business.
By contrast, Radical Islam has no allegiance to a single state or a single philosophy. It's a movement that does not coalesce around any single nation or single manner of conducting business, regardless of what W and the rest of his followers would like you to believe. Fascism was certainly a potent threat in its day and age, but Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco played by different rules of conduct. What was true in 1939 is not true in 2008.
Comparing Fascism to Radical Islamic Terrorism is a lot like comparing apples to oranges. It just doesn't wash.
Radical Islam cannot be attacked by conventional tactics, because its membership cannot easily be defined. We're still arguing over why terrorism is created. The right has its own hypothesis. We on the left have our own.
By comparison, the reasons why the Nazis came to power are pretty much defined and agreed upon by historians. In short, the entire nation of Germany was in a state of depression and economic devastation so profound that it makes what we suffered in the Great Depression pale in comparison.
Radical Islam is comprised of a fringe element of determined followers, but it has no wholesale support among the greater community. The right peddles fear of the unknown very skillfully, as the right always will do. The right assumes that this threat will grow and spread until it infects the entire Middle East. We on the left believe differently.
The struggle we now face is that of trust versus fear and terrorism is just the latest variable in the ideological fight. Do you trust that we can negotiate with our enemies? Or, do you fear that doing so is not only dangerous, but will inevitably backfire?
Do you believe that radical Islam is like a cancerous growth that must be assaulted with massive doses of chemotherapy treatments, or do you concede that perhaps we had a hand in creating the mass division of cells in the first place?
That's where the argument has stalemated. The truth is somewhere in between.
I'm not surprised by Hillary Clinton's sweeping victory last night in West Virginia. Not only did she deliberately play the gender card by imploring women to vote for her even when she cannot win the nomination, she injected race into the minds of potential voters as well. In doing so, she ran up the score.
The voters of West Virginia lashed out and made their voices heard in the same way that voters of New Hampshire lashed out against the conventional wisdom back in January--handing their votes to Hillary Clinton rather than Barack Obama.
As an Obama supporter, I do not find the results troubling or upsetting, regardless of how the media would like to spin this out. Yes, West Virginia was, at one time, a Democratic stronghold but over the years it has become a conservative bastion, solidly red and solidly conservative. The last realigning Presidential election in 1968 turned the solidly Democratic south solidly GOP and the same dynamic is at play in West Virginia.
I don't fault Obama for not putting resources into West Virginia. We forget that these candidates are human being sometimes. Barack is, lest we forget, the father of two young girls and husband to Michelle. I would prefer he preserve his sanity, his marriage, and his peace of mind than to exhaust himself campaigning for a state he had no chance of winning. If he had gone into West Virginia gangbusters, he might have narrowed the gap, but he would not have won the Mountaineer state. The dynamics simply do not favor him, and no matter what the media says, most people will vote for the GOP come November in that state.
Hillary Clinton is not going to go away because her strategy now appears to be to make a compelling case why she should be Obama's Vice President. I would caution him strongly before putting her on the ticket. Indeed, she and Bill will likely use their strong hand with pledged delegates and super-delegates to directly influence the Cabinet of a presumptive Obama administration. The Clinton ego signals to me, at least, an uncomfortable marriage where he will be largely hamstrung by the whims of two egomanics: Hillary and Bill Clinton.
With Hillary Clinton on the ticket, the rust belt states that compromise Appalachia might be in play, but I strongly question whether Senator Obama should take the risk. The Clintons would not delegate responsibility well and I see them attempting to hijack his power and his administration for their own gains.
When the recipient of the two talents came, he said in turn, "Master, you entrusted me with two talents. Look, I made another two." "Well done, good and faithful servant," the master said to him. "You were faithful in managing something small. I will now put you in charge of something great. Share to the full your master's happiness."
Finally the recipient of the one talent came before him and said, "Master, I know you are a hard taskmaster. You reap where you have not sown and you store away what you have not winnowed. So I shrank from doing anything at all and went
But his master had an answer for him. "You lazy good-for-nothing fellow," he said to him, "you knew that I reap where I have not sown and store away what I have winnowed. Then you ought to have put my money in the bank and on my return I might have at least recovered my capital plus the interest. Therefore, take the talent away from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. Everyone who already has will receive more yet till he abounds in wealth, while the one who does not have will lose even what he has."
___________________________
I've held back telling this story for five years, but now seems the appropriate time. Those who choose to read this, kindly come with me to Southern Ontario, Canada, in August of 2003.
_____________________
At the time, I was a Unitarian Universalist. Proud of being a flaming liberal in a conservative state, I felt the very organic kind of paranoia, isolation, and the inevitable sensation of feeling misunderstood that characterizes any unapologetic leftist in a red state.
So it was that the Mid-South district, of which I was a member, needed a representative to visit the yearly young adult conference. I eagerly agreed to go. The annual meeting of the minds of young movers and shakers of the denomination seemed like an exciting prospect. I was twenty-two at the time and far more idealistic than I am now, and despite my youth, I was also blessed with an intensely pragmatic streak. The roots of this came directly from seeing my state turn a frustrating shade of red in every Presidential election I could remember.
What greeted me upon arrival was not peace, love, and understanding. Rather, I walked into the middle of a hornet's nest.
The hostility I was greeted with immediately upon arrival had been fostered by an unfortunate racial dynamic which had transpired a few days before my arrival. It had been introduced when a white female from somewhere up North (and rather open lesbian, as I recall)* had unfortunately automatically presumed that the leader of the Anti-Oppression/Anti-Racism training, an African-American female from Tennessee, was a bellhop. This incident, as it would be referred to later, had apparently occurred immediately after arrival, while in the process of loading up the car by which fellow con attendees would make the short trip from the Toronto airport to the campsite where the conference was to be held.
Pick up my bags, she'd said, unbelievably.
Well, suffice to say this kind of callous demand didn't go over very well and the results of it trickled over to every function. In doing so this tainted the entire conference.
At the time, I wasn't aware of what had transpired prior to my arrival, but when I heard of it weeks later, I shook my head in disgust. Being from the South, let it be known I know better than to say silly things like this. This kind of shockingly racist language is nothing that would even cross my mind, which is why it took me aback.
It's been beat into my head since birth that racism is simply not kosher. Since many Americans assume that racism only exists down here in the South, or at minimum, overtly racist acts happen down here and only here, I have a understandably large chip on my shoulder as a direct consequence of that presumption, which is rooted in stereotype, not fact.
I digress.
At any rate, what had been initially intended to be a helpful discussion intending to bring submerged racism and oppressive viewpoints to the forefront very quickly became let's hate on whitey. So here I was with my white face, male, presumably heterosexual, and with a pronounced southern drawl. Suffice to say no one gave me the benefit of the doubt when I opened my mouth. Or if they listened, no one stood with me.
I saw minority-majority politics pushed the forefront. Affirmative Action on steroids is the best way I can describe the way the conference was led. White males were asked directly not to speak first when meetings were led. Almost every position of authority was granted to a minority, regardless of their skill or talent level. The intent was not malicious, but what transpired was, at minimum, deeply unfair.
I joked bitterly that if a person was a male to female transgender, half Asian, half African-American, then she would stand the best chance of winning elective office. The pecking order was flipped upside down, but the end result was the same. Instead of putting aside dynamics that had kept minorities in shackles, liberal guilt-complex politics came to the forefront, instead. Reverse racism and reverse discrimination is what resulted.
Needless to say I was the low person on the totem pole.
We were all so young, though. I can't forget that as I muse upon these observations. The oldest member of the group of 100 or so souls at the meeting was thirty five years old, which is an age that I once saw as ancient, yet now am only a few years away from attaining myself.
Recently, these conferences have been rescinded by the Unitarian Universalist powers that be, and for good reason, since problems like these were far too commonplace. The point of me making light of this conference is not to stick it to UUs, or to try to clear my name, or to be patently controversial but rather to remind all of us that church politics, radical activism, and a lack of irony spell doom for all religious liberals if we do not temper our desire for social reform with a kind of pragmatism and moderation not at all in evidence by the recent rantings of Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright.
From the distance of five years, the proceedings I experienced appear ridiculous rather than racist. The wounds wrought seem indicative of a kind of narcissistic, naive navel-gazing, rather than anything substantial or of much consequence. But by the mere fact that this happened, I feel as though I can understand the fear of many conservatives when the idea of Barack Obama as President crosses their minds.
They are afraid of this kind of response, which although it is extreme and not likely to occur on any large scale, is rooted in more than just paranoid delusions of the right.
So let's ensure that radical voices are kept at bay and we entertain sensible, rational notions. Let's not be painted into a corner by GOP scare tactics.
Here is their fear.
As a Barack Obama supporter from the beginning, I could, if I so chose, take this opportunity to gloat.
But, following Senator Obama's example, I will refrain. I'm exhausted more than enthused, to be totally honest with you.
Even with Indiana's narrow victory for the junior Senator from New York, this was still Obama's night to celebrate. I never anticipated this kind of race. I fully expected Obama to finish a distant second place and pad his nest for future runs. However, with a combination of luck and good long-range planning, I must give credit where credit is due. I am thrilled at this outcome, but it isn't any resounding kind of rousing victory. This is the way the race ends-- rather like a whimper, instead of a resolute bang.
Those of us who wish to have politics as blood sport have been most displeased. Neither candidate is a knife fighter and there have been no snappy one-liners, devastating revelations, or knock-out punches thrown. There's a large part of me who is, admittedly, frustrated at this result. Perhaps I expect politics as usual.
That being said, those who love dirty politics I think are going to get more than their share when we have Obama versus McCain for the next five-six months. If you are thoroughly sick of Presidential politics, accusations, and mudslinging then kindly tune out starting now because it's going to get much worse and far louder. If you thrive on politics and the minutia of it, then it doesn't get much better than this, my fellow amateur policy wonks.
Now, let us entertain the inevitable speculation regarding Obama's Vice Presidential pick. It will run rampant through Democratic circles and innumerable blog posts for the foreseeable future. I'll probably chime in on that debate in depth later, but suffice to say that if I were Obama would pick Bill Richardson of New Mexico hands down; I believe that the historical precedent of an African-American and Latino on the same ticket would make a powerful statement to this nation and the rest of the world. That's just my two cents. Take it for what you will. No doubt you out there reading this have your equally valid pick and I look forward to seeing it for at least the next two weeks solid.
Let's heal our wounds and head to November. At long last, it seems to be over.
When you get right down to it, beliefs are certainly odd. As Bill Hicks said, just believing something doesn't make it real. It's all in how you were brought up or how your viewpoint was shaped by your environment and your life experiences.
The point I'm trying to get across is that though I hold strongly liberal points of view, I strive not to make idols of what I believe--these collectively explain, in my opinion, the way things really are and the way things ought to be. So as I have confronted the opposition conservative platform of John McCain and listened to the variety of factions within the Democratic party, I am left with more questions than answers. Perhaps this is not that surprising.I stand behind my strong opinions, but I always entertain the view that I could be wrong. Saying this does not imply that my faith in my own judgments is extremely weak, but rather it denotes that I have come to the conclusion that absolutes are few in this world. It is tempting for us to wish to live in a black and white paradigm, but I believe that the concept of shades of grey is the most accurate portrayal of the complexities of human existence, including political theory.
The same motifs we have always seen during every election cycle for the Presidency will be out in full force from now until November. We have seen them already and will seen them for the next six months: Experience versus Trust. Change versus Fear. Hawks versus Doves. And so on and so on.
The real answer is somewhere in between these polar extremes. So it is up to us to re-frame the paradigm. To be sure, many of the brightest, sharpest minds have been hard at work attempting that very same thing. And, be it known, I acknowledge their efforts and have even co-opted some of their ideas into my political canon. I've learned quite a bit from fellow bloggers and will continue to do so. I do know this---if we work together for a common goal, our power is limitless and massive. However, if we argue over semantics and nit-pick, we won't accomplish much of anything.
And in truth, if we were all completely honest with each other, we would concede that none of our theories are perfect. But so long as we debate them in a spirit of mutual respect, then all will be well and good. Nothing is as stale as an idea that no one bothers to debate. So long as people are re-honing and improving someone's pet idea, then we can correctly infer that this idea must have some relevance and resonance to the present day. I am as bad as anyone of getting my feelings hurt when someone dares to point out the flaws in my beloved argument, but I too need to heed my own advice and take criticism not as a mean-spirited swipe, but a desire to improve upon it.
Neuroticism | 100 |
Extraversion | 39 |
Openness to Experience | 99 |
Agreeableness | 13 |
Conscientiousness | 75 |
You are sensitive about what others think of you. Your concern about rejection and ridicule cause you to feel shy and uncomfortable around others. You are easily embarrassed and often feel ashamed. Your fears that others will criticize or make fun of you are exaggerated and unrealistic, but your awkwardness and discomfort may make these fears a self-fulfilling prophecy, however you experience panic, confusion, and helplessness when under pressure or stress. You tend to feel overwhelmed by, and therefore actively avoid, large crowds. You often need privacy and time for yourself. Familiar routines are good, but sometimes you like to spice up your life with a bit of adventure or activity. You are mostly a compassionate person, however you prefer to make objective judgments when possible, however you are not adverse to confrontation and will sometimes even intimidate others to get your own way. You strive hard to achieve excellence. Your drive to be recognized as successful keeps you on track toward your lofty goals. You often have a strong sense of direction in life, but may sometimes be too single-minded and obsessed with your work. |
Take a Personality Test now or view the full Personality Report. The best Ugg Boots |
Americans have historically been fearful and suspicious of paying taxes. This comes as no surprise to any of you, I am aware. From the American Revolution through today, speaking out against high taxes is a sure-fire applause line and thus no candidate for office would be caught dead advocating for its increase.
It is a traditional Democratic talking point to invoke populism and tax burden, particularly populism's sounding cry: the rich must be forced to bear and shoulder more of the burden.
While it is true that the economic policies of George W. Bush have benefited the haves at the expense of the have nots, what is often forgotten is the reality of taxation.
So raising taxes on the wealthy is not much of a solution. They won't pay their fair share no matter what strategies are proposed and implemented.
The other, cynical side of this premise is---Who will screw me over the least?
Raising taxes is no panacea. Smarter government is the solution.
I do believe government has a moral duty to assist and regulate businesses and individuals, but what I object to strongly is throwing money at a problem or increasing red tape and needless complications.
_____________
By this point, Democratic voters have had ample time to make up their minds between either Obama or Clinton. The next fight will be for the votes of independents, who need to be convinced why voting Democratic in November would be to their benefit. The all-important swing votes that will decide this election may find McCain an attractive alternative to either candidate.
So whomever secures the Democratic nomination better make a compelling case to independent voters or we will have another four years of GOP control of the executive branch.
In the Obama versus Clinton fight, many of us may have forgotten the big picture and the context of these times.
Don't get me wrong; I enjoy debating the merits of my chosen candidate as much as the next person. However, allow me to list a few pressing issues that are still very much dragging the United States down. I know these will come as no shock to anyone.
We continue to lose troops on a daily basis, but apparently in this day and age, they have to die in great number for us to pay attention to it. What's one or two human lives per day, more or less?
Here in Alabama, gas is pushing $3.60 a gallon and will likely be at $4 in the next month. In many other places, gas is far higher than that. This places a burden on our economy and raises the cost of many goods. For example, I've watched the slow steady uptick in prices of groceries. Certain items are a full dollar more than they were a year ago. Every week, items cost five to ten cents higher than they were even seven days before.
I feel the results of this directly, as I teach history to community college students. When students have to cut back in their lives, they cut out education to purchase and pay for food, gasoline, rent, mortgage payment and other essentials. College tuition shouldn't be as high as it is anyway, but that's another subject altogether and I digress.
_________________
We can debate the merits of candidates all day long, but if a Democrat is elected to the White House (here's hoping), my biggest concern is whether or not either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama will actually get needed reforms passed and implemented. I am notoriously skeptical of Washington politics and I know full well that whomever is elected will have his or her work cut out for them.