From Steven Taylor, who is not known as a fan of liberal causes:

Look, I have already stated my incredulity at Obama winning the prize after so short a period of time on the world stage, but the fact of the matter is, it is actually in the national interest of the United States for its president to be liked and respected within the international system. I am not talking ponies and sunshine here, but simple facts-one of which is that diplomacy does matter and it is actually better to have one’s president receive accolades rather than being insulted on international television.

Some folks seem to have the bizarre opinion that it is actually better for the US if other countries dislike it. Even theorists who look solely at questions of power understand the importance of diplomacy and communication with other states. So even if the Nobel was awarded oddly, it makes all the sense in the world for the US government, especially the State Department, to try and use the situation to the US’ international advantage. That’s their job.

So what does it mean when the most vocal of those who are associated with the Republican Party are denouncing the award?

One wonders who has the best interests of our nation at heart.

—

Cross-posted between Random Fate and The Moderate Voice.

—

Technorati : politics
Del.icio.us : politics
Zooomr : politics
Flickr : politics

Nothing can so alienate a voter from the political system as backing a winning candidate.
- Mark B. Cohen

Some on the extreme left are disappointed with the performance of Presdent Barak Obama since his election and inaguration. He hasn’t pushed the radical changes they want.

It was once a reality that after elections, when in office to serve ALL the people, politicians had to compromise, and the most rabid (who are also the most vocal) would cry “betrayal!!!”.

Now, from one party at least, there is no more compromise, and apparrently no commitment to serve ALL the peoeple and not just “the base”.

If one party tries to compromise, makes changes, and the other refuses to budge, are they both serving ALL the people?

Politics was once the art of the possible, now it seems to be the art of forcing failure upon the opposition. Instead of acheiving what is possible that is positive, now the focus is upon denying success to anyone who doesn’t conform to the agenda of the vociferous radicals.

We now have verbally expressed hopes that the President fails, we have cheers when Presidental appeals are apparently rejected, and we have cries of outrage when the President is awarded, arguably prematurely, the Nobel Peace Prize.

Does any of this serve the United States?

My answer is no.

President Obama is not “leading” by making uncompromising statements, but instead outraging the most vocal of his supporters, those I ran into during the caucuses in Texas who annoyed me so much. He is trying to achieve the possible with an opposition whose rallying cry is “no compromise, no retreat, no progress, make him FAIL!”.

Who is serving our country better?

It is not that the right has no valid positions, because they do, just as the left has positions that are invalid. Compromise is the art of finding something that works by taking what is good from both sides.

Yet one side now refuses to cooperate at all, seeming to believe that only their supporters should be served, not the nation as a whole.

How do we change this? How do we make it better?

I fear we are on the road to ruin. Compromise is necessary in every part of life.

—

Cross-posted to Random Fate and The Moderate Voice .

—

Technorati : opinion, politics
Del.icio.us : opinion, politics
Zooomr : opinion, politics
Flickr : opinion, politics

Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.
- George Santayana

—

Technorati : fanacticism, politics, quotes
Del.icio.us : fanacticism, politics, quotes
Zooomr : fanacticism, politics, quotes
Flickr : fanacticism, politics, quotes

Too bad the only people who know how to run the country are busy driving cabs and cutting hair.
   -George Burns

I found this headline interesting, in the context of I do NOT recall ever seeing the like during the eight years of the administration of President George W. Bush:

White House To Meet With Anti-Abortion Activists Next Week

Did President George W. Bush ever meet with people who were in vocally public opposition to the policies and positions of his political base? I do not recall any…

It is the responsibility of we citizens to compare and contrast.

—

Cross-posted between Random Fate and The Moderate Voice.

—

Technorati : abortion, politics
Del.icio.us : abortion, politics
Zooomr : abortion, politics
Flickr : abortion, politics

Regarding Senator Joseph McCarthy:

His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind . . . We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason.
-Edward R. Murrow

Does that sound familiar at all, despite describing actions and circumstances of half a century ago?

Now, dissent and disagreement mixed with fear are regarded as permission to trash any and all people who don’t agree completely and identically. There is no longer any loyalty to our system of government, only towards those who “think right, by God!”

Benjamin Franklin when asked what kind of government was being created out of the Constitutional Convetion replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” It was a grand experiment at the time, for no truly representative government over such a large expanse had been attempted before. It was the American Experiment.

My fear is that the American Experiment has failed because we are willingly, and seemingly gladly, entering an Age of Unreason.

I am having difficulty finding refutations of that fear.

—

Cross-posted between Random Fate and The Moderate Voice.

—

Technorati : Age of Unreason, American Experiment, McCarthyism, current events, politics, quotes
Del.icio.us : Age of Unreason, American Experiment, McCarthyism, current events, politics, quotes
Zooomr : Age of Unreason, American Experiment, McCarthyism, current events, politics, quotes
Flickr : Age of Unreason, American Experiment, McCarthyism, current events, politics, quotes

This was said by a Republican:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts.
   -Alan Simpson

Contrast that to the attitude of the Republicans now…

In these days where the word Nazi is being used as a political tool to describe “offenses” that don’t even come close to approaching the crimes committed, and when idiot Americans are offering the “heil Hitler” salute to an elderly Jewish man who disagrees with their politics, we need to remember history.

World War II didn’t start with the invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, but it was a turning point. The crimes against humanity executed by the Nazis of Germany, the Fascists of Italy, and the Imperialists of Japan started long before that date, and the effects resonate down to the present.

It was said at the time, “Never forget!” Unfortunately, as evidenced by recent behavior, we have forgotten. It is past time for all good citizens to denounce the behaviors of those childish enough to use the word “Nazi” and behave boorishly, shouting down those who do not agree with them.

—
Cross-posted between Random Fate and The Moderate Voice.
—

…but I agree with the views expressed in the post linked below wholeheartedly. If you do not, I am sad for you.

Thomas Paine v. the Right’s torture defenders

—

Technorati : right wing, right wing apologists, right wing politics, right-wing, right-wing apologists, right-wing politics, torture, torture as practiced by the United States
Del.icio.us : right wing, right wing apologists, right wing politics, right-wing, right-wing apologists, right-wing politics, torture, torture as practiced by the United States
Zooomr : right wing, right wing apologists, right wing politics, right-wing, right-wing apologists, right-wing politics, torture, torture as practiced by the United States
Flickr : right wing, right wing apologists, right wing politics, right-wing, right-wing apologists, right-wing politics, torture, torture as practiced by the United States

This excerpt from The Daily Show titled “The Born Identity” illustrates exactly how idiotic the “birther movement” is:

—

Is it “post-partisan” to say that some political stance is idiotic?

I say it is, because if you cannot call a spade a spade (and before anyone gets upset, “spade” in this aphorism means “shovel“…) then there is no point in trying to have any discussion at all.

There are some so-called “political positions” that are so beyond the pale that they deserve to be ridiculed. The “birther movement” meets all the criteria.

This illustrates the key difference between what in the United States we call “conservative” extremists versus “liberal” extremists (“liberal” and “conservative” mean different things in Europe and the rest of the world… as with measurements, English units versus the metric system, we are unique, and not necessarily in a good way). The “conservative” extremists are exclusive, with their moronic focus on saying how those who don’t think like them “don’t belong” and should be rejected if not outright destroyed. The “liberal” extremists are naive, thinking that this Darwininan world will all come together in harmony if merely shown the rational path to success for all.

A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject
-Winston Churchill

Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.
-George Santayana

I miss the old definitions of “conservative” and “liberal“, those that held before the words and their meanings were perverted by the politics of fanaticism in the United States.

Which extremist view has the higher moral ground, the “conservative” view of destroying opponents, or the “liberal” view of success for all?

Before you cry “but you have used straw man arguments” take a moment to seriously examine the positions of the extremists and most critically, their motivations, then let your conscience be your judge.

—

Cross-posted to Random Fate and The Moderate Voice.

—

Technorati : birther movement, general stupidity, right wing, right wing idiocy, right-wing idiocy
Del.icio.us : birther movement, general stupidity, right wing, right wing idiocy, right-wing idiocy
Zooomr : birther movement, general stupidity, right wing, right wing idiocy, right-wing idiocy
Flickr : birther movement, general stupidity, right wing, right wing idiocy, right-wing idiocy

Obama confronts fear and defies it, in contrast to President George W. Bush, who appears to embrace fear.

Just a thought.

Technorati : Barak Obama, Obama, President-elect
Del.icio.us : Barak Obama, Obama, President-elect
Zooomr : Barak Obama, Obama, President-elect
Flickr : Barak Obama, Obama, President-elect

For many years I looked at the Roman Catholic Church, in the modern era despite the efforts of Pope John Paul II, as remarkably open-minded and receptive to ideas that were not necessarily compatible with the orthodoxy pronounced by the central authority. Part of this view was influenced by the first college I attended, Christian Brothers College, now Christian Brothers University, in Memphis, Tennessee, a school run by the Christian Brothers monastic order.

In other words, the Church recognized it was strong enough to actually discuss and intellectually consider the merits of ideas that upon facile examination were conflicting with the central ideology of the Church.

Unfortunately, the Catholic Church in the United States seems to be on the same path as the Baptists and other intolerant Protestant Christian denominations, see this:

    No Communion For Obama Supporters, Says South Carolina Priest

Yes, let’s return to the ages immediately after the Protestant Reformation, where any slight deviation from pronounced Orthodoxy merited the rejection from Communion, the most sacred ritual of the Catholic Church.

Yes, let’s return to the attitude that resulted in the imprisonment of Galileo Galilei, because of course that is a heirtage to be proud of.

The Church has been so effective at identifying “intrinsic evil”… (yes, note the sarcasm here)

I am so sick of the deliberate ignorance displayed by so many, and not just on topics related to religion.

I’ve had problems getting motivated to post lately, not entirely due to exhaustion arising from my busy personal life. There is an emotional drain on me from reading several weblogs whose authors once made rational arguments for their political views that have degenerated into throwing rocks at “the other side”.

Sadly, “the other side” is just as interested as they are in throwing rocks.

So both sides are busily pointing out the offenses of those they disagree with instead of pointing out why their own views are the most productive and would lead to the success of the nation and the most people.

Sigh…

While there never existed an age where political opponents were regarded with respect because the final goals were shared, my gut tells me that the vitriol and hatred is getting worse. I can’t read many blogs that once were on my “don’t miss” list because the content has degraded to “whatever my side does is fine, but whatever the other side does is evil, even if it matches the actions of my side!!”

I do have partisan views, and I do engage in some of the rock throwing at times. It is not my reason for existence, however. For far, far too many it has become the raison d’etre. It is draining and destructive, and I wish we would get beyond this idiocy.

Unfortunately, the world keeps creating more and better idiots.

…to those who invoke the “ticking bomb” scenario when trying to justify torture approved and perpitrated by our government:

No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency.
   -Theodore Roosevelt

Recently, I was reading something on the web that mocked the marketing of policies with the statement, “we are engaged in a ‘war on (insert threatening noun here)’”. The target of the mocking was the utterly misnamed “war on terror”, the naming of which follows a dubious legacy left by the “war on drugs” and the “war on poverty”, neither of which has been very successful by any meaningful, objective measure. Given how I have to be precise in my use of language in my job (mis-description can cost us a lot of money), I become particularly irritated by the continual use of the phrase “war on terror” to describe what to most people started on September 11, 2001. That was not the first day of conflict (it was indeed the second time the New York World Trade Center towers had been subject to a terrorist attack), and our collective ignorance of the world played no small role in the ultimate origins of the attacks.

Calling our efforts to counter terrorists attacks a “war” is elevating criminal acts above their true station, but if we insist upon using the term “war” then a more proper name is the blowback war.

“Blowback” refers to how the actions of the United States in Afghanistan and other regions in efforts to stymie the Soviet Union ended up creating more enemies of the United States than friends.

Using the correct terms may be the only way we can gain in this conflict, but unfortunately we are only capable of focusing on the here and now, not the too recent past.

“I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat.”
   -Will Rogers

That disorganization was certainly evident tonight in my precinct Democratic Party caucus. The photo above shows the most organized part of the evening, when people filed into the combination cafeteria/gym. There were questions about party rules regarding whether voters had to remain after signing in for their preferred candidate, and the Obama volunteers were loudly insisting their supporters remain so they could dominate the debate because the Clinton volunteers were supposedly going to challenge the vote count for delegates to the county convention.

It has been reported that the Clinton campaign was behind the curve in organizing for the caucuses in Texas, and that was evident in the lower numbers of Clinton volunteers than Obama volunteers, well out of proportion to the ratio of supporters of each candidate at the caucus. Unfortunately, the Obama volunteers were rather obnoxious, and the ill manners were not limited to the young cohort.

Eventually, after much commotion in setting up tables so that the disabled and those who had small children could have a shorter line to wait in before signing in their preference, a quasi-organization arose out of the confusion, and the registration of the caucus proceeded with reasonable smoothness. Although I have been hard on the Democratic Party organizers of the caucus, some acknowledgment must be made that at least ten times as many voters came to the caucus this year as compared to four years ago. Still, some better planning would have reduced the confusion.

Overall, it was an interesting experience, reminding me of how much I hate the inside maneuvering that is inherent in party politics.

Texas, a whole other country, that’s a slogan used to promote tourism a few years back, and there is more truth to it than most people realize. I live in Austin, which although it is the capital of the state does not really reflect the culture of the state as a whole. The main campus of the University of Texas is located in Austin, and both the students and the professors have a huge impact on the character of the city. Austin is much more liberal than the rest of the state, but that liberalism is tempered by a conservative streak that would seem contradictory but somehow makes sense here. The local support of Ron Paul is a result of this seeming dichotomy. There have been large signs, both printed and handmade, promoting Paul for President posted around town for months, even before the race truly began. Some of the posters have slogans that sound much like the ones we are now hearing from supporters of Barak Obama, with claims that Paul inspires hope.

In this strange political cycle, Texas is in the position of king-maker for the Democratic Party nomination, and it also may lock-up the nomination for John McCain on the Republican side. Ordinarily, Texas came too late to play any kind of role in the nominating process, and in the past few cycles has been considered a Republican stronghold in the general election, so the state tends to get ignored in campaigns beyond a potential source of donations. Not this year, with a nationally broadcast debate between the two Democratic contenders along with many public events, including a large, open air gathering of supporters of Barak Obama that closed down the center of Austin for an entire day.

Last night Senator Hillary Clinton held a “town hall” meeting at the Austin Convention Center followed by a campaign rally in the Berger Center, where many area high schools hold their graduation ceremonies along with using it for various indoor sports and other activities. I had the opportunity to attend the rally and hear Senator Clinton speak. It was very enlightening for me, because I found her a much more effective speaker than I expected, the short sound-bites typically included in the news shows do not convey the emotion that she obviously feels regarding public service. Despite my skepticism, and despite the widely held cynical view of her, she comes across as very genuine in what she wants to accomplish in terms of using government to help the less fortunate.

As the events of the last 8 years have illustrated, my mistrust of the Republican Party in preserving the rights of individuals against the powerful, such as corporations or even the government itself, was very well founded. The intolerance and religious zealotry endemic in the Republican Party has also disturbed me; the embracing of the endorsement of John Hagee by John McCain is a good example of how the party includes such tendencies. I tend to vote Democratic not because I have overwhelming support for the entirety of their platform, but because I feel they are less damaging than the Republicans. This year, my choice for whom to vote in the Texas Democratic primary has been difficult, because I do not like the appearance of political dynasty that would come from a victory by Senator Clinton. The roll of the Presidents starting in the 1980s would read Bush – Clinton – Bush – Clinton, which I do not believe would be healthy for our system of representative democracy. However, I have serious concerns about Senator Barak Obama in terms of both experience along with the feeling that there is more rhetoric than accomplishment behind his candidacy. I believe that only after many trips around the sun does one develop the judgment necessary for an office like President of the United States.

There is strong support for Senator Obama in Austin, likely reflecting the large student population of the University of Texas. I have seen people standing on street corners nowhere near early voting locations holding Obama for President signs. On my route in to work through a sparsely populated area, parked beside the road was an ancient RV with “Obama for President” painted on the front and a cowboy-hatted man standing on the roof with a handmade sign reading simply “Obama”. The Clinton supporters seem to be more targeted, clustering with signs and enthusiasm on curbs near the early-voting polls, and sending emails explaining the caucus process as practiced as part of the “Texas two-step primary”.

In Austin, at least, it seems to truly be coming down to the wire. It will be interesting to see what happens when I attend the caucus tonight.

…explained in 30 seconds by Russ Feingold:

I lived in France for just under two years. During that time the current version of FISA (which was just extended by voice vote for another 15 days to allow for more time to negotiate the next version) was in effect, and any of my phone calls home could have been monitored without judicial oversight, despite the fact I am an American citizen for whom no probable cause exists for any type of search.

“Trust us” wasn’t good enough for the founders, and it isn’t good enough for me.

The people I am most afraid of are those who are the most afraid.
   -Robert Frost

Let us take at face value the nominal, stated reasons as why various office-holders claim the have for taking their various actions.

So, President George W. Bush vetoes the recent renewal/expansion of the S-CHIP bill because he is concerned that it is “creeping socialism” that would ultimately result in publicly funded healthcare, which goes against the libertarian philosophy of self-sufficiency and avoiding governmental interference.

Yet, he promises also to veto any bill regarding the FISA courts and wiretapping statutes that limits the ability of the executive branch to monitor communications that the government claims are important to preventing “terrorists” from attacking.

In other words, do not trust the government to be involved at all in health care, but do trust the government to know when to and when to not monitor the activities, statements, communications, and other matters routinely regarded as private in order to “prevent terrorism”.

Do not trust the government when it comes to protecting collective heritages, such as the environment in the form of clean air, clean water in the rivers, and land preserved in its natural state, do not interfere with property rights, but it is OK to search citizens in the most personal way when they want to fly or have any other kind of interaction with the government such as attend court sessions.

Unfortunately, those in nominal opposition to George W. Bush are no better, promoting agendas that interfere with the rights of individuals when it comes to the “collective good” while decrying the individual invasions of quasi-impersonal searches using millimeter wave radar, which reveals in images far more than a pat down search without the indignity of having someone actually touch you in a far more invasive manner.

In the end, both the right and the left are hypocrites.

What we, the people, need to decide is what exactly is the role of government in our lives.

It has been publicly proclaimed by President George W. Bush that he feels that one of the primary goals of the United States’ government is to “protect the people from terrorists.”

Does that come under the fundamental right of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the preamble? That assertion would be debatable at best if the “protection” involved the invasion of “liberty” explicitly stated because of a self-proclaimed power of the Presidency to declare any US citizen as an “enemy combatant” who can be imprisoned indefinitely with no appeal, no access to legal counsel, and subject to treatment that by any reasonable definition would be called torture.

By contrast, one of the largest goals of the Democrats has been to establish a nationally financed system of health care. This is invasive upon liberties because it would force those who have large incomes to pay for the medical care of those who do not have have the same level of income.

Is that fair?

It depends upon what factors one chooses to consider in your personal calculus.

Both the left and the right are now on paths that lead to creeping authoritarianism, where the government knows what is best for you, The only difference lies in whether the government monitors your activities to make sure you are not a “terrorist” who threatens the authority of the state and its protection of the collective good against “terrorism” or whether the government monitors your activities to make sure you are not engaged in any behaviors that are a threat to your own good or the collective good as defined in fuzzy terms such as health and societally good or bad behaviors ensuring conformance to the notion that it is good for you.

Many like to label themselves as “small ‘L’ libertarians” yet they continue to participate in the kabuki play that we call our representative democracy, assuming they choose to vote at all.

Is that sufficient?

I say it is not.

Thomas Jefferson warned against the very situation in which we find ourselves, and he stated flatly, in no uncertain terms, “The tree of liberty occasionally needs to be refreshed with the blood of patriots.”

Where are our patriots, who are not beholden to parties, but to ideals?

Ideals are worth dying for, parties and ideologies are not.

Are the ideas and ideals of 1776 and 1790 still too radical for the majority to fully understand?

I fear they are…

—

Related links that you can parse for yourself:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21205942/

http://www.courierpostonline.com/specialreports/statesecrets/m062403b.htm

http://www.slate.com/id/2142155

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2004/01/012604.html

http://www.privacydigest.com/2007/09/20/state+secret+overreach+editorial+barry+siegel

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2006/05/70785?currentPage=2

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/09/1013076-supreme-court-refuses-torture-case

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/16/3876/

http://supreme.justia.com/us/345/1/case.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=345&invol=1