-- Main Page --

13 October 2005 - 21:55 UTC

“This is not America”

by Jack Grant

Back in the 80s, that decade where we thought it would all end in a nuclear inferno because Reagan and Andropov seemingly were on a truly MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) path, the movie The Falcon and the Snowman was released.

Regardless of the flaws of the movie, there was a song from the soundtrack sung by David Bowie, “This is not America”, that is striking a true resonance with me now.

I cannot escape the feeling we are on the wrong path.

A little piece of you
A little piece in me
Will die…

For, this is not America

Blossom fails to bloom
This season
Promise not to stare
Too long…

For this is not the miracle

Is what you see now the America of the dream that once inspired the world?

If it is not, what are you doing to change things so we can recover what we have lost?

It is our responsibility, and that of no one else.

Technorati Tags: ,



Trackback URL (right-click and choose the copy shortcut/link option)

-- Main Page --

13 October 2005 - 21:55 UTC

Unearned praise

by Jack Grant

As I slowly work my way through many links to blog posts, news stories, opinion pieces, and other information sources, trying to pull together something coherent at a time I feel is a critical juncture, with multiple trends reaching their point of maximum influence almost simultaneously, I occasionally run across a post that seems to be universally praised, at least among those with certain political leanings.

Yet, when I read the post itself, I find total, unredeemable drivel.

There are a small number who gained universal praise that was merited, where I could find few flaws in their prose or their arguments, although I disagreed with their conclusions. Stephen den Beste, before he quit writing because of exhaustion in arguing with those who refused to think, was in that rare group.

However, there were and still are those who post and gain widespread praise, undeserved in my opinion, those who have ill-thought-out positions, offer contentions that are insufficiently-proven, and make facile statements that if given any serious consideration would be regarded as laughably infantile.

Because those ill-thought-out positions, insufficiently-proven assertions, and facile statements are in alignment with the beliefs of many, then the posts receive praise beyond all merit, merely because they say something that the audience can shout “Hell, yeah!” to instead of think about.

As Vonnegut wrote in his despair, “And so it goes.”

Technorati Tags: , ,



Trackback URL (right-click and choose the copy shortcut/link option)

-- Main Page --

13 October 2005 - 20:46 UTC

The reason checks and balances are a requirement for any type of government

by Jack Grant

This is why I distrust any power structure that has no external mechanism for accountability:

Records show L.A. Catholic sex abuse cover-up
Church sent accused priests to therapy, new parishes, according to papers

Associated Press

Updated: 9:06 a.m. ET Oct. 12, 2005

LOS ANGELES - For decades, the Roman Catholic Church’s Los Angeles archdiocese ignored parishioners’ sex abuse complaints and shipped accused priests between therapy and new assignments, according to newly released personnel records involving 126 clergymen.

In many cases, there was little mention of child molestation in documents. Instead, euphemisms such as “boundary violations� were used to describe the conduct.

All too often, protecting the existing power structure overrides doing the right thing, even when the institution involved is supposed to be based upon morality and striving to overcome the human tendency to sin.

Technorati Tags: , , ,



Trackback URL (right-click and choose the copy shortcut/link option)

-- Main Page --

13 October 2005 - 18:04 UTC

…on the reaction to the Miers nomination

by Jack Grant

The nomination of Harriet Miers to fill the seat of retiring Associate Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner has created something of a furor among those who lean to the right-wing, almost resembling internecine war in some aspects.

I do understand and appreciate the points made by those for whom there are fundamental principles at stake, principles of competence, qualifications, the problem of at least the appearance of cronyism (if not the actual fact, which is difficult to dispute at this point).

The odd arguments coming from the White House attempting to justify the nomination serve as an exemplar of exactly the issues that critics of the administration have been pointing to as the fundamental causes of the mishandling of so many crises such as the aftermath of the “catastrophic success” in Iraq, the bizzare priorities of what is frighteningly termed “homeland security”, and the apparent indifference of the President in remaining on vacation when what was universally recognized as a major storm executed a slow-motion horror as it approached New Orleans and wreaked havoc that was documented for days afterward live on national and international television.

The crushing irony for me is I see those self-same people who feel their fundamental principles are being assaulted express shock and surprise at the tactics of attack being used by the Bush administration in defending the rationale behind this seemingly inexplicable choice of nominee, tactics that are now being aimed at Bush supporters who aren’t toeing the line rather than being directed at “the opposition.” The shock and surprise seem rather excessive given the Bush allies had no problems with the politics of destruction being used against others.

Those “others” are American citizens, and those “others” have their own fundamental principles that were derided and left for naught in the face of the attacks that had little to do with principle and everything to do with personal destruction for the sake of political gain to the attacker.

I have frequently pleaded both here and at other places I have the privilege to post (such as The Moderate Voice) for a real discussion of issues, to move away from the tactics of attack, for a removal from the politics of personal destruction, because what is being destroyed is not the people being attacked, but the very foundations of our system of self-government. Frequently, my pleas have been dismissed by those who lean right because they saw no problem with the tactics because “their side” was winning.

The problem now presented to the right-wing: those whom they thought were on “their side” were not interested in the fundamental principles, not interested in what they thought at all, the only interest was in gaining and keeping power. Those of us who looked a bit deeper than simple partisan victory saw that the fundamental principles were not even “honored in the breech” as the old saying goes. They were not honored at all, but merely paid lip-service to gain power.

Now, the utter lack of interest by the Bush administration in the fundamental principles held by those who supported the President has become obvious; the scales have fallen from the eyes of those who were not blind but would not see.

Some have even recognized how destructive the supposed “satire” and “humor” of Ann Coulter truly is to our system now that they are the targets, long, long after moderates pointed it out.

Yet, I have no joy in this discomfort being experienced by those who, in some cases, dismissed my concerns out of hand.

I have no gratification in saying, “I told you so,” regardless of how “earned” that statement may be.

This is damaging to the nation I love, MY country.

How could I find any joy in that?

Now, I am trying to find a way to show us all that we need to understand that NONE of us is 100% correct 100% of the time, and we need to listen to the views of others.

I am trying to find a way to show us all that we need to not advocate for the complete destruction of those who do not think the way we think (as I have read frequently on many weblogs, vitriol and calls for destroying not directed at foreign enemies, but at domestic political opponents, be they Democrats or Republicans).

I am trying to find a way to show us all that we need to follow in the tradition of those who wrote the Constitution we still follow after more than 200 years as the foundation of our system of self-government, but we need to follow the TRADITION, not merely the words of those who were desperately seeking a compromise among the competing interests of more than two centuries past.

I am trying to find a way to show us all that we need to find a better way.

Please help.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,



Trackback URL (right-click and choose the copy shortcut/link option)

-- Main Page --

13 October 2005 - 05:01 UTC

A lesson we have forgotten

by Jack Grant

Perhaps we can learn something from those we are ostensibly teaching the fundamentals of democracy:

Iraqis Reach Deal on the Constitution

Associated Press
Tue Oct 11, 5:38 PM ET

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi leaders reached a breakthrough deal on last minute changes in the constitution Tuesday, and at least one Sunni Arab party said it would reverse its rejection of the document and urge its supporters to approve it in next weekend’s referendum.

The politics of the absolute, no compromise approach is reaping what was sown in the United States, and what should be our greatest strength, our diversity and our tolerance of it, has faded and we now have a great weakness, a nation divided deeply enough to endanger our future.

Which is more important, an ephemeral victory of your side or the long-term success of our nation?

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,



Trackback URL (right-click and choose the copy shortcut/link option)