The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.
   -Mahatma Gandhi

I posted this quote from around 260 years past twenty days ago:

We have just enough religion to hate, but not enough to love one another.
   -Jonathan Swift

Despite the over two and one-half centuries since, the sentiment expressed continues to prove true.

This quote applies to thinking and feeling far beyond religion, if people are willing to go outside their own comfort-boxes.

I have been trying to process all the information available for the issues related to the purchase of the managing company of well over 20 facilities by the United Arab Emirates through their outright buying of the facilities, and beyond a remote 9/11 connection that is ill proven when it comes to the entities involved I have severe difficulties raising the cries and furor presented over the impending change of ownership.

For those who care to note such things, this means I am trying to sort through the real data associated with the issue and try to present to my readers a truly balanced yet reasoned opinion.

Unfortunately, agitators demand far more.

Read what you want, but remember that those who read only things that agree with their preferred point of view have only considered theur own point of view valid…

The math is easy, so do it.

Technorati Tags: commentary

Bloody Hell…

Darren McGavin and Don Knotts passing away (aka dying) in within days of each other.

Every day, another bit of my past departs.

…irrelevant considering that the Star Trek franchise has been killed by producers who have no clue as to what created the original furor and fandom that lasted over 30 years, until following a formula for profits became far more important than good storytelling that overcomes the bad special effects and hokey premise ruined the dreams. From a post at a prior incarnation of Random Fate lost to the ether years ago until resurrected now:

One hundred reasons why Kirk is better than Picard

100. Kirk is a leader, not a follower.

99. Kirk never really got into that kinky “Jumpsuit” look.

98. Kirk has sex more than once a season.

97. One Word: Hair.

96. Another Word: Pretty-good-looking-can’t-see-the-weave-WIG.

95. Kirk can beat up a Klingon bare-handed.

94. Picard is a French man with an English accent.

93. Kirk would date Beverly Crusher — and damn the consequences!!

92. Kirk never drinks tea. Ever.

91. Diplomacy for Kirk is a phaser and a smirk.

90. Kirk would personally throw Wesley off his bridge.

89. Two words: Shoulder Roll.

88. Kirk doesn’t wear dresses when admirals arrive for lunch.

87. Kirk once said: “I’ve got a belly-ache — and it’s a beauty.”

86. Kirk would never sing to children in a crisis.

85. Kirk can almost drive a stick shift.

84. Kirk, almost single-handedly, re-populated the Earth’s whale population.

83. Kirk says “Prime Directive? What Prime Directive?”

82. Kirk knows 20th Century curses.

81. Kirk was NEVER infiltrated by the Borg and used against the Federation.

80. Kirk ate little coloured cubes and still remained relatively healthy.

79. Kirk made do with obviously low performance technology.

78. Kirk never pretends to be a barber in order to gain a tactical advantage.

77. Kirk wasn’t shy about taking his shirt off –even around those pesky Yeomans.

76. Kirk would never waste a holodeck on something stupid like Dixon Hill.

75. Kirk never once stood up and had to straighten his shirt.

74. One Word: Velour.

73. Kirk can beat a Vulcan at Chess.

72. When Kirk was Picard’s age, he retired from Admiral and took to climbing rocks.

71. When Picard was 37, he was only Captain of the lowly freighter, Stargazer. When Kirk was 37, he was Captain of the flagship Enterprise.

70. Kirk liked a good belt of liquor every now and again.

69. One Word: Iman.

68. Kirk looks good with a ripped shirt.

67. If Kirk ever met a Ferengi, he would rip off its head and shit down its neck.

66. Kirk says “Shoot first and wait for retaliation.”

65. Kirk’s first officer NEVER tells him to stay on the bridge.

64. Kirk never leaves the room to bawl somebody out.

63. Kirk doesn’t rely on the wisdom of some dumb old janitor to get him out of intergalactic scrapes.

62. Two Words: Funky Sideburns.

61. Kirk never asks his bartender for advice.

60. Kirk never once said “Abandon ship! All hands abandon ship!”

59. Kirk is not politically correct.

58. Kirk never got “dumped” by a woman for an intergalactic busy body named after a letter of the alphabet.

57. Kirk never wore green tights and frolicked about in Sherwood Forest.

56. If there was ever a Klingon on Kirk’s bridge, Kirk would likely be dead.

55. Ever hear of a bar shooter called “Make it so?” No? How about a “Beam me up Scotty” then? See the difference?

54. One Word: Miniskirts.

53. Kirk’s girlfriends always look good in soft light.

52. Kirk never went anywhere without a whole bunch of guys in red shirts.

51. Kirk’s first officer didn’t play some wimpy instrument like the trombone.

50. Kirk had more dates than his first officer.

49. The extent of Kirk’s knowledge of Klingon vocabulary can be roughly translated as “GO F*CK YOURSELF.”

48. If something doesn’t speak English — it’s toast.

47. Kirk wasn’t some prissy archaeology fan.

46. Picard’s middle name isn’t tough or awe-inspiring like Tiberius is.

45. If Kirk finds a strange spinning probe, he blows it up.

44. Picard never met Joan Collins.

43. Picard flunked his entrance exams to Starfleet.

42 Picard hasn’t fathered any children; Kirk — probably millions.

41. Kirk has a cool phaser — not some pansy Braun mix-master.

40. Two Words: Line Delivery.

39. Picard grew up on a quaint little French vineyard, squishing grapes with his toes, while Kirk slung bails of wheat and hay in Iowa to put himself through school.

38. Kirk emphasizes his orations with pertinent hand gestures.

37. Kirk once made a cannon out of bamboo, sulphur, potassium nitrate, charcoal and then fired diamonds into the hearts of his enemies. (Need we say more?)

36. Kirk is not put off by green skin.

35. Kirk knows how to deal with peace loving hippy goofs.

34. Kirk once fought a Greek god. And won.

33. Kirk barely asks for suggestions. And if he does, he asks Spock only.

32. Kirk doesn’t let the doctor tell him what to do.

31. One Word: Fisticuffs.

30. Kirk’s name is hated throughout the galaxy.

29. Kirk appreciates Shakespeare, but he doesn’t let it show.

28. You can never lock up Kirk for very long.

27. Kirk’s eulogies can actually make you cry.

26. Kirk plays god with lesser cultures, and then exploits them for resources.

25. Kirk’s son would never drop out to become a musician.

24. Kirk can climb up a Jeffries Tube and fix anything.

23. Kirk never hired an engineer with punk glasses.

22. The Klingons didn’t have a word for surrender — until they met Kirk.

21. Kirk’s bridge is not beige.

20. Two Words: Crane Shots.

19. Picard likes wimpy violin music — and coerces Data into playing it.

18. Picard allows cats on board, while Kirk beams away even really cute things, like Tribbles.

17. Kirk is a cultural icon — Picard is just some guy who’s really nice.

16. Kirk specifically ordered a swivel LA-Z-BOY for the bridge.

15. Kirk would never touch SYNTHAHOL.

14. Kirk looks distinguished in reading glasses — and nobody dares to call him”four eyes.”

13. Kirk can infiltrate Gangsters, Nazis, and even the Pentagon — easily.

12. Picard likes painting nudes, for art’s sake.

11. When Kirk doesn’t trust the Romulans, he fires at them. When Picard doesn’t trust the Romulans, he gets fired at.

10. Kirk never once, ever, wore a wiener wrapping Speedo banana hammock on shore leave.

9. Kirk never gets his command codes locked out by some pimply acting ensign.

8. Kirk doesn’t test the engines — he just fires them up.

7. When Kirk says “Boldly Go,” he MEANS it.

6. Three Words: Flying Leg Kick

5. Picard’s crew would never ever think of him as a sexual object.

4. Kirk traveled through The Great Barrier, met God, and wasn’t even impressed.

3. Kirk’s bedroom is a passion pit with electric sheets.

2. Kirk would never let his Chief of Security wear a ponytail.

1. One Word: Balls

Technorati Tags: humor, Star Trek, random thoughts, Star Trek humor

I haven’t been tagged with this particular meme, but what the Hell, I’m opinionated enough to think that people care what I think about this stuff, so here goes:

1. Black and White or Color; how do you prefer your movies?

Intelligently written and competently directed, I don’t give a damn if they are color or black and white, as long as the format matches the message.

2. What is the one single subject that bores you to near-death?

Politics and partisanship, unfortunately, both play a key role in question number 5 below…

3. MP3s, CDs, Tapes or Records: what is your favorite medium for prerecorded music?

Hell, I still have tapes and records of my favorite artists back in the day I was buying all three formats available, CDs, tapes, AND records. I prefer whatever format gives me the best fidelity at a reasonable price, which tends to be CDs. For marginally interesting music I buy the AAC files from iTunes (slightly superior to typical MP3 files, but not by much… I’m a believer in using the most advanced technology that gives the desired result).

4. You are handed one first class trip plane ticket to anywhere in the world and ten million dollars cash. All of this is yours provided that you leave and not tell anyone where you are going … ever. This includes family, friends, everyone. Would you take the money and ticket and run?

Nope. Been there, done that. I moved to France alone, lived there for over a year and one-half alone, and returned alone (all except for a cat, who did NOT appreciate the change of venue, believe me). I’ve had enough of being alone, no matter what money might be “sacrificed” in the process.

5. Seriously, what do you consider the world’s most pressing issue now?

The idiots who think that security and freedom are a trade-off against each other and do not or refuse to understand that the two are complimentary instead of in opposition to each other.

6. How would you rectify the world’s most pressing issue?

I try to rectify this issue every day by posting to this weblog and every other venue available to me. I only wish I could spread the message wider. Want to help?

7. You are given the chance to go back and change one thing in your life; what would that be?

In MY life? To not get married to the wrong person like I did back when I was young and stupid.

8. You are given the chance to go back and change one event in world history, what would that be?

Damn, this one is tough, but somehow I think the crucifiction of Jesus would have prevented both the atrocities committed by the so-called Christians in the Middle Ages and possibly have changed the nature if not even the formation of Islam. Somehow, the easygoing nature of paganism exhibited in the Roman Empire is preferable to the religious zealotry demanding “death to the infidels” that has been shown by BOTH Christianity and Islam in the past millenium and one-half.

9. A night at the opera, or a night at the Grand Ole’ Opry — which do you choose?

I’ve been to both, and I prefer the opera. I’d like to see The Magic Flute by Mozart one of these days.

10. What is the one great unsolved crime of all time you’d like to solve?

Literally? The murders committed by Jack the Ripper. A more relevant crime? What really was the vote in Florida in 2000…

11. One famous author can come to dinner with you. Who would that be, and what would you serve for the meal?

It depends on who is considered an “author” because Sir Issac Newton was an author, and I’d love to have a discussion with him over Scotch and smoked salmon.

12. You discover that John Lennon was right, that there is no hell below us, and above us there is only sky — what’s the first immoral thing you might do to celebrate this fact?

Ummm, what if I already think that there is no Hell below us and above us only sky? Does that mean all my acts are already immoral? God is unknowable by us, and heaven and hell are mere creations to make us feel better in the face of the infinite.

The current tempest in a teapot over the impending sale of a British company that manages the operations of several important port facilities in the United States to a holding company based in Dubai of the United Arab Emirates, while devoid of real national security substance, serves to illustrate the lack of competence of the administration which was touted upon first being elected as a new era of good management since the President-elect of the time (a.k.a. Texas Governor George W. Bush) had an MBA.

Ironically enough for me, in the issue of the sale of the company that controls the management of several American ports, I agree with the Bush administration in substance that the change in ownership does not present a national security risk (surprise!!! especially to those who understand the true depths of my distaste for George W. Bush and his cronies).

What prompts the present furor?

In the end, it all comes down to a matter of competence.

A lack of competence all too clearly illustrated in terms unambiguous to all but the most rabid partisan, coupled with a lack of understanding of the process of accountability that currently exists for the executive branch in our system that has evolved substantially from the original intentions of the founders.

Let us start with a list:

(1)  the utterly inadequate response of the federal government to hurricane Katrina, not only due to the political crony completely unsuited to the job of heading FEMA but also because of the paralysis of the supposedly competent man appointed to run the Department of Homeland Security (the mere name of the department he heads brings the chill of harsh historical memory to those who are aware of such resonances)

(2)  the hash made of the post-invasion situation in Iraq (note the source of the link…), including the commencement of the occupation up to the recent threats of removal of US support directed towards the democratically elected representatives in that tattered and torn nation

(3)  the complete lack of preparation for the opening days of the new Medicare Prescription Drug Program(which was supposed to be one of the key accomplishments of the current administration, but after an entire month doesn’t seem to be ironed out…)

I’m at three strikes already without delving deeply in the least nor even bringing up how striking the metaphor of the recent incident where Vice President Cheney shot a hunting companion is for the entire administration of George W. Bush.

Competence…

It is an easy characteristic to identify, and even more readily recognized as lacking, as it so sorely and obviously is in the administration of President George W. Bush.

Brownie, you’re doing a heck-of-a-job…
    -President George W. Bush
    during a whirlwind image-restoration photo-op
    tour of the area devastated by hurricane Katrina,
    while people were still trapped in a flooded New Orleans

Hence the distrust of those who are members of both parties when it comes to the exhortations by the Bush administration of “trust us, we have reviewed the situation” in the matter of the management of several major ports of the United States (note this is the management of operations, not of security, which is still under the full control of the US government, for what that is worth…).

So where do we go from here with an administration that has shown beyond all reasonable doubt (partisans are NOT reasonable) that it is incompetent in actually administering US policy either domestically or abroad?

I’m damned if I know…

OK, boys and girls, the world is in serious danger of the wheels coming off when Velociman, hedonist extraordinaire, is starting to sound like me in saying “Think about it.”

Yikes! Things are worse than I thought…

A realist is one who knows that the pessimist is right.
   -Jeff Ehrlich

For the skeptic there remains only one consolation: if there should be such a thing as superhuman law it is administered with subhuman inefficiency.
   -Eric Ambler

Technorati Tags: quotes

It has been proclaimed by some that it is the “moral duty” of newspapers in “the West” to publish the cartoons that have been used by agitators and those with certain anti-Western agendas in the Arab world to inflame passions against the United States.

Yet many of similar political beliefs as those who proclaim this “moral duty” are decrying the publication by newspapers in “the West” of yet more photographs of the abuses at Abu Ghraib as “needlessly inflaming” that same Arab world.

Is morality truly so relative?

If it is, then should we ourselves not call for that which is called for by our enemies, the complete and total destruction of all who do not think and believe as we do?

Should we follow our enemies down the path which leads to the madness of nihilism?

Technorati Tags: Abu Ghraib, commentary, opinion

I was all ready to write a post about the misconceptions involved between port management and port security when it comes to who manages what, but Daniel at Bloggledygook has beaten me to it, and in the process expressed all the frustration I feel about those who react first instead of seeking out the facts and thinking before bloviating.

As I request repeatedly, think before you react.

Technorati Tags: blogging, blogs, left wing blogs, left wing weblogs, left-wing blogs, left-wing weblogs, port management, ports, right wing blogs, right wing weblogs, right-wing blogs, right-wing weblogs, seaport management, seaports, weblogs

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

—

Resolved … that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism— free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence.

—

Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

—

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.

—

I am really mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, a fact like this can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offence against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate. Is this then our freedom of religion? And are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason.

—

A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt. If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake.

   -Thomas Jefferson

Technorati Tags: commentary, quotes

Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice has posted on the conviction in Austria of British “historian” (in quotes because I think he does not deserve that appellation) David Irving for the crime of denying the Holocaust occurred. The outcome of the court case caught my eye earlier today because of the implications of a person being jailed because of something he wrote.

Think about those implications for a moment.

Yes, denying that the Holocaust occurred is criminal, but should it be a crime in a society that treasures liberty and wishes to avoid the very mindset that permitted something as horrible as the Holocaust to occur?

Note that criminal is defined “having the nature of a crime” while crime is “a violation of the law”, a subtle but distinct difference.

In other words, where does the line between true political speech the freedom of which does indeed protect a democracy from descent into the tyranny of creeping expansion of government power versus the equivalent of “crying fire in a crowded theater” lie?

Millions died in the Holocaust, a systematic extermination of a people based upon their religion that was perpetrated in a society where dissent was punished by at the least exclusion from society and legal protection if not by the very same extermination.

Where does the line lie between the “internment” advocated by some versus the concentration camps that the Nazis created with such efficiency?

Ponder that for the time it deserves: Dissent was punished in Germany in the 1930s; in other words, the lack of freedom of political speech helped make the Holocaust possible.

Yet some democracies now make denying the Holocaust a crime. What is to prevent those same democracies from making other “undesirable” speech a crime, and more importantly, who chooses what is “undesirable” speech?

If we allow those in power to make the choice, what is to prevent them from choosing speech that is in opposition to their policies or even to their remaining in power?

Respect for the law? It appears that the law can be over-ridden by simple legal opinions written by lawyers in the pay of those in power if recent events in the United States are taken as a guide, or to put it simply, the interpretation of the law is rather too fungible to rely upon it to prevent the choices by those in power to preserve that power for the sake of keeping power rather than protecting freedoms.

I have recently been writing posts that reference the fundamentals that form the foundations of our Constitution, allusions that have been misinterpreted by some as calls to a “strict constructionist” interpretation of the Constitution. I do not follow the constructionist interpretation, I prefer to review the fundamental freedoms as laid out in the writings of the founders in the light of the understanding and culture of today.

What exactly are the fundamentals that apply to freedom of speech?

Do those fundamentals include the suppression of photos taken by American troops at the US-run prison at Abu Ghraib, where acts that were taken, regardless of whether they were sanctioned “officially” or not, have lost for the US the trust of the Arab Muslim world?

Do those fundamentals include cooperating with a repressive regime in finding dissenters when we condemn those who cooperated 70 years ago with a different repressive regime?

What exactly do we believe in now, and what do we believe is worth sacrificing to preserve?

More importantly, what sacrifices are we willing to make?

Technorati Tags: commentary, freedom of speech, opinion, patterns in the white noise

In France, I drove a VW Golf with a diesel engine. It was a fine car with lots of torque, but it didn’t quite measure up to the car I had before I moved out of the US, a 2000 BMW 328i with the sport package.

Since my return to the US, I’ve been driving different rental cars, first a Buick LeSabre which was worse than the same model car I drove in the 1970s, then a Chevy Malibu which while not as badly engineered as the Buick still lacked a lot in terms of driving enjoyment.

Friday I picked up my new car from the dealer. I had gotten so used to driving the Malibu with an automatic transmission that when I pulled out of the dealership and merged with traffic, I put my foot down about 3/4 of the way on the accelerator pedal.

The BMW 330i with the sport suspension and 6-speed manual transmission thinks this is an opportunity to show its stuff, so I was pushed back into the contoured seat hard and instead of the casual finger purchase used in the overly controlled American cars I had to grip the steering wheel to keep my hands from flying off. I was over the 45 mph speed limit long before I had even expected to be at a good speed to merge into the traffic, and once I got onto the freeway I had problems keeping the car down to the 65 mph speed limit on that elevated highway.

During my initial, unexpected acceleration out of the dealership driveway a grin formed on my face that stayed for a full 10 minutes, and those who know me also realize I never smile for that long. I’m sure everyone who saw me driving back to work from the dealership on Friday thought I was completely insane.

Damn, it’s nice to have a real car again.

Technorati Tags: geek cool

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—

A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression.

—

Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents.

—

History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance.

—

To the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression.

—

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

   -James Madison

Technorati Tags: quotes, commentary

Am I the only one to see irony in the US Ambassador to Iraq threatening the Iraqi government with a “loss of support” if that government does not compromise with the minority parties?

Think about how often the current administration has chosen to compromise with the minority party in this country, and how often the administration has chosen to exercise raw political power in lieu of compromise.

It would help if we walked the walk that goes with the talk we talk.

Harry at The Kudzu Files passed on to me the meme of “What images of famous people do you have in your studio, study, office, or workspace?” with the words that he “failed it miserably.”

Is it even possible to FAIL a meme? (Other than being so late to respond to the tagging that the meme is dead, as it might be in this case…)

Perhaps… because I have a similar response to the question as Harry does, but I suspect for different reasons.

I’ve moved so often recently that my office at work, my living room in my house (where I’m writing this now), and my home office have nothing on the walls. In the case of the latter two locations, they are strewn with boxes and discarded packing materials. The one image I have that might remotely qualify is a huge photo of Albert “Big Al” Einstein leaning against the wall in my home office among other prints and photos to be re-hung. I got this photo over 20 years ago when I worked in a bookstore and they had used this as a placard hanging from the ceiling to advertise that they carried science books.

Of course, I have never been much of a follower anyway, so I tend to not surround myself with archetypal images to inspire me (or even to goad me through a reaction against them), and I’ve never worshiped so-called “sports heroes” (which is a rant I will spare you of reading)…

Now, if the question were what books are stacked around that I refer to or are in the process of reading, the answer would be quite different, but that’s a post for another time.

Technorati Tags: weblogs, memes

Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.

—

If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last… A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government.

—

Men are rather reasoning than reasonable animals, for the most part governed by the impulse of passion.

—

Let us recollect that peace or war will not always be left to our option; that however moderate or unambitious we may be, we cannot count upon the moderation, or hope to extinguish the ambition of others.

—

The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world to the sole disposal of a magistrate, created and circumstanced, as would be a President of the United States.

   -Alexander Hamilton

Technorati Tags: quotes, commentary

I wish I could take credit (given my native contrarianism myself) in asking these questions, but since I have been too busy to pose them, I will repeat what James Wolcott asked:

Why has Dick Cheney been allowed to be secret-agent vice president since 9/11? Everyone foolishly accepted that he needed to be in an undisclosed location in case of terrorist attack, but there hasn’t been a terrorist attack and Cheney has used the 9/11 moment as a permanent opaque bullet-proof shield between himself and accountability on everything pertaining to his office. Has there ever been an administration where the vice president was more aloof, arrogant, and stealthier than the president himself?

A reminder:

He’s an elected official, which he seems to have forgotten, as has the press, as has the Republican Party, as have the American people.

The incident in of itself would be inconsequential if the administration was viewed as an entity to be trusted.

So…

Think about the reaction, and more importantly, the reasons underlying the reaction.

Don’t resort to partisan talking points, look at the “why” both of the reaction of those you don’t agree with, and the gut reaction you experience.

THINK.

Technorati Tags: commentary, politics

I recently wrote a post asking a question regarding the funeral of Coretta Scott King. In that post, I skipped several steps in my thinking that led from the uproar over the speeches made at the funeral and the question that I posed, and in the process of skipping those steps I conveyed a message at best incomplete and more typically misinterpreted. So, here I will fill in the missing steps, and I hope to turn this into a broader post on a related topic, that of context, because the context of my life and recent events in my life drove my thinking which was unexplained in my post. Unfortunately, more than one blogger misunderstood the context of my question because I did not explain it.

Regular readers of Random Fate know at least some of the context in my life, that of the recent death of my father, and I have first-hand experience of both funeral planning and how things go off the preferred track.

You see, at my Dad’s funeral there was a Baptist preacher delivering the sermon, and a sermon it was, with the proselytizing characteristic of evangelicals that infuriates me, especially in the context of my father’s funeral, because he was not a proselytizing man.

The preacher deviated from my preference, but his sermon was comforting both to my Mom and my Dad’s mother. You see, funerals are not for the dead, they are for the living, and not all of the living get an equal vote.

I have not seen any articles reporting on the family of Mrs. King complaining about the speeches given at her funeral. Please correct me if I have missed news of this, but if there are no objections from the family, then who are we, bloggers, commentators, politicians, whoever, to claim that the events of the funeral were “inappropriate” if the family of Mrs. King through their silence give their approval?

This was one step I skipped, noting that those expressing their disapproval had no vote in the arranging of the funeral, nor any right to judge what the family wished.

Another step I did not explain was my reasoning chain that led to me asking when else could opposing views be presented directly to President George W. Bush, because the reason behind my question was to prompt thoughts on if we truly want a President who is so disconnected from opposition that he has to be confronted in seemingly inappropriate contexts, such as a funeral honoring a public figure that the President feels compelled to attend.

One of the most troubling aspects of the Presidency of George W. Bush to me has been the exclusion of anyone who even appears to present an opposing viewpoint from publicly funded events at which President Bush appears. If these were funded through the Republican Party, or through private sources, they would not be contrary to the spirit underlying our Constitution, but when events that we are all paying for are exclusive to only those who support the views of the President, that is positively un-American, regardless of what the mindless cheerleaders would want you to believe.

What is democracy about? What is America about?

Dissent…

Our nation was founded on dissent. We should never forget that the American Revolution was a rebellion against the legal, legitimate government of the colonies, and the Declaration of Independence was nothing more than an attempt to justify an illegal rebellion against a legitimate government.

Yet we now have a President who apparently cannot confront dissent directly.

Think about this in the context of our tradition, not the context of the current partisan furor.

Think, don’t just react.

In the framework of our tradition, along with the context of the apparent wishes of the family of Coretta Scott King, was my question, “When, exactly, since the so-called ‘debates’ during the election (which were so controlled as to be laughable if they weren’t the sole forum for direct confrontation between opposing viewpoints), has President Bush had any opposition presented to him publicly in a forum that was NOT controlled by the White House?” so out of line, or even partisan?

Context, while not everything, is important.

A recent link I posted was to a parody trailer for the movie Sleepless in Seattle, presenting it as a horror movie instead of the obvious chick-flick it was shows the effects that context has on our perceptions. Watch the movie file in the link and think about how the music and the narration “frame” the images in a way completely contrary to the actual film, although the individual scenes excerpted were not altered.

Even over a quarter of a century ago, when I was in my early teens, I would look at the copyright date of anything I read, short story, novel, nonfiction, whatever. It was important to me to understand the time and the culture which informed the writing of whatever I was reading, and I discovered it was especially true in the case of science fiction. This is a topic that merits its own post, if not a book.

Another example of context can be found in educational films made in the wake of World War II. For example, the Encyclopedia Britannica made a film on the dangers of despotism in 1946, only one year after the surrender of the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese. Thinking in the terms of that era, given what the British and Americans had so recently experienced, watch the film (NOTE - it is about 10 minutes in length, watch it through this link, or download it through clicking on the thumbnail image below):

Even though the context of the short film was in the immediate aftermath of World War II, with all that implies with respect to democracy and despotism, there is a resonance that rings through the years of the Cold War, when we claimed to be fighting against the evils of Communism as expressed by the Soviet Union and a decade or so later the so-called People’s Republic of China.

What exactly did we say we were fighting against?

Think about it, not in partisan terms, but in fundamental philosophical foundations.

The culture which formed the context in which I was raised said that we were fighting against the despotism of Communism that ignored the freedoms we had chosen to enshrine in our Bill of Rights.

The arts of the time, notably the television and movies, can give a feel for the times to those who did not experience them, and for those who did live then provide a useful reminder.

The Day After (1983) - a television miniseries that showed the likely effects of all-out nuclear war and frightened a nation when President Ronald Reagan labeled the Soviet Union as an “evil empire” that must be destroyed.

2010 (1984) - both the book and movie are filled with the Cold War anxiety of the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction that had the so rarely appropriate three letter acronym MAD

The Searchers (1956) - a movie made substantially earlier than either of the two referenced above, but one that is very instructive of both the attitudes and ambiguities of the time, especially when the treatment of the Native Americans is considered, along with the uncharacteristic antihero role played by John Wayne, a courageous man who is acting out of questionable motives, a contrast to his typical role of the quintessential American hero

Each of these need to be viewed in full and considered with respect to the context of the time in which they were made, not in the context of the time in which we live now.

Think about it. If we view the film on despotism linked to above in the context of our current time, it could be interpreted in myriad ways, most of them negative in the view of those who are partisan fans of George W. Bush.

Yet, the film itself was made before George Bush senior even entered politics, much less his son would have been thought of as possibly being President.

Consider the contrasts, the context of the time in which the film was made, and the tenor of politics today.

Think about how our environment and the “framing” of issues influences our thinking, even when we try to go outside our partisan boxes that constrain us and require certain reactions to each issue.

In the end, that is all I ask when I write for this weblog, try to go beyond the spin, beyond the framing, beyond even our current cultural context and partisan boxes. Try to reach back to first principles, the freedoms that the founders fought so hard to achieve and which have somehow survived to our present day.

Technorati Tags: commentary, culture, current events, freedom of speech, politics, popular culture, President Bush, President George W. Bush

I’m too darn tired to post anything today. Sorry…