« Culturejammin' | Main | Remembrance »
The Tao Of Politics, Chapter 3 Revisited
[Editors Note: We are revisiting this part of our ongoing Sunday series examining the intersection of religion and politics and its relationship to our present state of democracy, written exclusively for the DCP, by Matthew Carnicelli. Mr. Carnicelli has been on an extended sabbatical in recent months are we eagerly await his return to this Sunday morning blogspace. I have chosen to report this piece, originally published early last year, because i think it is pertinent to the discussion and decision we are facing now and in the coming months about leadership. What leadership is, what it is not, and how we come to choose our country's leaders will be critical to our future. A serious examination of how leaders have been chosen in the past six years is necessary to expose the lies and careful crafting that has gone into creating the "false gods" of politics in the past. ]
In the third chapter of the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tse begins by touching on two seemingly unrelated ideas that actually hover around a central axis. Let us initially explore each thought separately.
If you overesteem great men,
people become powerless.
In this first sentence, Lao Tse is in my view describing our tendency to put inspirational leaders – like Martin Luther King and Mohandas Gandhi, for instance – on a pedestal, to make them seem as imposing and larger-than-life as a father or mother must appear to a small child.
In recent years, both King and Gandhi have been linked to forms of intimate expression that some argue tarnish their legacy. However, from my perspective, these revelations only make their lives that much more inspiring and empowering, if a bit more dangerous and true to life. For while they seemed perfect but distant, they remained on a pedestal, their remarkable lives perhaps just another illustration of God’s periodic intervention in human affairs.
But when these two men are revealed as simply human, bearing their crosses as best they could, wrestling with many of the same fears and compulsions as others, then there is suddenly no bar to mere mortals like you and me attempting to follow in their footsteps, and become the King and Gandhi of our generation.
And once that bar is lifted, their power to inspire us returns in all its former glory. Indeed, they become dangerous again – a danger to our complacency, to our habitual inaction, and lamentable self-absorption – which, come to think of it, is exactly how I suspect they’d prefer to be remembered.
With his second sentence in Chapter Three, Lao Tse shifts his focus from an unnatural esteem of particular people to things.
If you overvalue possessions,
people begin to steal.
Here Lao Tse is telling us that when material possessions are placed atop that same pedestal, when they are made virtual gods – as they appear to be to many in America, especially among that circle that President Bush describes as his “base” – then people will employ extraordinary means to obtain them, and keep them. Some will continue in this mode long after the day when they satisfied any reasonable urge to acquire either money or things.
Evidently, within this quasi-religious frame of self-reference, one’s demonstration of their superior virtue is best expressed through a progression from Chevrolet, to Mercedes, to Hummer or Rolls Royce. And just as naturally, those who cannot quite afford these gaudy symbols of economic virtue will nonetheless attempt to acquire them – using whatever means, legal or otherwise, they have at their disposal. Seen in the context of our aggressively materialistic consumer society, perhaps even stealing should be considered a form of faith-based activism!
With both of these passages, Lao Tse is again (as he did in Chapter 2) directing our attention back towards an awareness of the unhealthy dynamics introduced through dualistic thinking – good and bad, high and low, or great and not-great. This is a theme he will return to again and again.
He concludes this chapter by urging us to get beyond hero worship, materialism, intellectual complacency, and even the recently celebrated ideal of a “purpose-driven life”, and instead choose more emotionally centered, spiritually rich lives.
The Master leads
by emptying people's minds
and filling their cores,
by weakening their ambition
and toughening their resolve.
He helps people lose everything
they know, everything they desire,
and creates confusion
in those who think that they know.
Practice not-doing,
and everything will fall into place
Still, one wonders if even The Master could impact the mindset of the Bush Administration – where so many remain so sure that they know, even when each and every action they take beget greater uncertainty in the nation, and greater violence and confusion across the planet.
*****
This translation of the Tao Te Ching is by Stephen Mitchell, copyright 1988. It is available in paperback editions from Harper Perennial Classics (ISBN: 0060812451) and Harper Perennial Persona (ISBN: 0060812451).
Mr. Carnicelli lives in the United States and write about the intersection of politics and religion. His series, The Tao of Politics, has been nominated for a Koufax Award for Best Series. The other chapters in The Tao of Politics, as well as the full body of Mr. Carnicelli's writing for the Democracy Cell Project can be found here.
Lets just once again leave it that we agree to disagree, but I once again ask that we get off of the JK bashing. Been there done that here more times than I want to discuss. I presumed that we have moved way beyond that discussion here.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I call it "learning from our mistakes so that we don't repeat them" - not bashing. I hope in 2008 we don't run to candidate that is, supposedly, "electable" but with no message, repeating the mistakes of 2004. If such a candidate is nominated 2008, he/she will get no money or time from me and may not get my vote. I'm sick of a poorly run party with poor candidates... I will give money and time to Move On, True Majority, John Conyers.Com, Democracy for America, Progressive Democrats etc... which is now doing most of the work that the Dem party should be doing but can't/won't.
First
Remember that? Remember when we were full of the passion and centeredness that Matt speaks of here?
It's so easy to sit here on a Sunday morning and preach to the choir that what is needed is not a national face, or this particular canidate or that one, but a return to the passion that we use to have.
Slowly the campain season starts, We have been here over a year now, learning, whining, laughing,
once again it's feet to the ground time. Came back quick didn't it? Underneath all the corruption, underneath all the incomptence, underneath the acts of lawlessness still lies the America we love.
Make no mistake, our passion can be shown in many ways. The person who simply calls his Senator and writes a letter to the editor expresses passion as much as those who were in New York yesterday. The point is, now is the time.
From the Sunday Times (London??)
Impeachment Chorus Grows:
......A taste of the battle to come was provided last week by Senator Russ Feingold, a popular choice for the 2008 presidential nomination among Democrat anti-war activists. He proposed a motion of censure against Bush for authorising the National Security Agency to wiretap Americans suspected of links to terrorism without a court warrant.
Feingold gave notice that the party should stop "cowering" before Bush on national security issues. "If there'’s any Democrat out there who can'’t say the president has no right to make up his own laws, I don'’t know if that Democrat really is the right (presidential) candidate," he said.
Plenty of his Senate colleagues ducked for cover, fearful of alienating either party activists or swing voters. The eavesdropping issue is one of the few hot-button topics where Bush has public support. One leading supporter of Hillary Clinton acknowledged ruefully: "It's hard to beat the argument, 'If Al-Qaeda is on the line, we want to be listening'." ..........
@@@@@@@@@@@
Ah Hillary, you gone.... (have you heard of a "warrant"?? I guess not....)
Divide. Then. Conquer.
When your enemy is chewing off his own arm, give him a saw instead.
Earth To Republicans
By Christy Cole
Excuse me Republicans of the United States. May I have your attention please...?
Thank You.
Now normally I do not bother to do this whole 'reaching across the aisle' thing. I have seen what happens to my type, (The liberal type), when they are foolish enough to believe they have anything you need and may want to share. I would like to keep all my fingers.
Most liberals choose to turn the other cheek. I am not that kind of liberal. I prefer to be a pacifist. But we rarely get what we want, do we?
And speaking, of what we all want, I was just wondering when you were going to do something about the murderous mad man in the White House that is looting every trust fund he thinks no one is watching? I mean, in spite of the fact that I am a liberal, it kind of seems like you would want to do something about it. You know, like stop him.
Why You? He is, 'Your Boy', after, all.
WHY would you want to do something like that? Well, because it is your childrens' future he is destroying, too. You can pretend only my children, and those Cindy Sheehan gave birth to will suffer, but these days of pretending, now have passed. People are dying. In droves.
Let us quit pretending all together, shall we?
This is not Bill Clintons' fault. This is not the fault of liberals. The blame does not in any way; belong on any act of God. It was not the UN, France, nor was it my fault. Chavez did not get us into this situation, nor did Ambassador Wilson or the Dixie Chicks cause so many to die. Frankly, I am sick and tired of your lack of focus and inability to hold your own to account. It is a national embarrassment and disgrace.
Over two thousand of our beloved sons have died for a tragic and evil farce. Some reliable sources place the Iraqi toll at over 100,000 souls whos' sacrifice has yet to be justified in any way whatsoever. Osama is sitting in his luxury bat-cave right now laughing at your boy. Laughing at WE.
Our elections are completely rigged; no one can afford gas, or even medical insurance for our children, because our nation has been bled dry. You are more worried about the soul of a child my womb secrets, then you are about the soul of the children starving to death and homeless on your own streets. Do fully developed Iraqi embryos count in that Culture of Life thing? For the first time in my entire life the Elderly Food Commodity Program is ended while your boy plays the guitar and eats cake. And that was just while New Orleans was drowning.
The only way I can control my anger is to separate Republicans into two groups. The REAL republicans, like my brother, who take their principles seriously and can maintain their common sense despite their loyalties.
Then there is the Busheviks. You know what? I am going to stop right there for a moment because my damn head may explode if I do not kick something 'til it screams in pain. (Told you I am not that kind of liberal). At least I am honest about why I would be driven to torture something.
The Busheviks. 12345678910. Breathe in. Breathe...
Halliburton. Delay. Abramoff. Ken Lay. Harris, Frist, Roberts and Robertson, too. Fox News, The Blair Witch Project of the U.K.. Hamid Karzi. CurveBall. Judy Miller, Chris Matthews, Bill O'Rielly, and Little Lush Limpball, too. Rummy, Dick, and Jeff Gannon. Scalia, Rove, Myers, and Alberto 'The Electrode' Gonzales.
All Busheviks. We are infested with them. They have high jacked the G.O.P. What in the hell are REAL republicans going to do about it? People are still dying while you waffle in confusion. As Bush redefines the US Constitution to his own whims, you sit in a lock stepped silence.
Liberal like Gandhi. Breathe in. Breathe out. Honestly it is not working anymore. Which brings me back to this reaching out thing. Somebody better put a leash on your boy. It was all fun and games until people started dying for no reason at all. Do not think the people that got rich from those deaths are not suspect. I am sick of seeing REAL republicans, like John McCain grovel for scraps at the foot of this man and his friends. It is a disgusting display of the subjugation of good men.
Oh, and just so it is very clear, Bush did not 'mislead' you. He LIED to you, just like he did everybody else. Just because you are a registered republican does not give you a magic shield, that will some how let you avoid the ramifications of it. If thousands of people died because I lied you would have arrested me already, so what exactly are you waiting for? When is the right time to do the right thing?
The Republicans that protect the Busheviks and whitewash their crimes are the problem, not the solution. Do not pretend for a moment longer it is not your collective fault for choosing to protect a Saudi loving president even as he lies to you right to your faces. It is hard for me to believe that REAL republicans would sit there while McCain grovels to try to avoid more attacks on his wife and kids, but here we are in these times.
As it stands right now, the only way for liberals, democrats, independents, and moderate conservatives to do anything about it will require us to plant our collective feet right in the middle of your foreheads. Is that what you really, really want? I mean, REALLY?
See the kind of liberal that I am, says 'Let's Roll'. It would be much easier to slap you from your ivory towers then to explain, once again, that Bill Clinton has not been president for over 6 years, Michael Moore was never sued for slander, and, no, Saddam did not have a damn thing to do with 911.
Oh, and it DID happen on your boys watch. What did you EVER do about it? As far as I know, I am the only person in America who does not understand what the missile silos on top of the White House really are for then? Talk about the lap dogs that did not bark.
Now, to the REAL republicans, what exactly are you going to do about all this and when should we expect you to act to stop the murderous and greed driven acts of your leaders? I mean, it is only our entire empire and countless lives at stake. To identify the problem, please seek out a mirror. You do not have to sacrifice our nation for George W. Bush and nothing more. Look deep into that mirror, and know you have a choice.
It is either George or the Constitution. For one to continue and remain, the other must fall. That is the only choices you have left. It is the only choice he has left you with. Choose wisely.
If protecting George Bush from the accountability of his own administrations crimes is more important to you then upholding the US Constitution then you are NOT a real republican. You are a Bushevik. And history will roast you all over a spit in hell, where the cravenly and murderous belong.
http://rebellenation.blogspot.com/2006/03/earth-to-republicans.html
Kelpie Wilson: From Teapot Dome to Gale Norton
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031906Y.shtml
Kelpie Wilson writes that as the Teapot Dome scandal of Warren G. Harding's presidency was one milestone in the history of American resource piracy, the tenure of Gale Norton as Secretary of the Interior is surely another. Gale Norton's timely exit on the heels of the Abramoff scandal that implicates top Interior Department officials could mean that she is worried, but it is not likely that she will face any prosecution for her giveaways to industry.
Jason Leopold | Libby Attorneys Identify CIA Officials in Plame Leak
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031906Z.shtml
The identity of intelligence officials who are thought to have passed information about covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson to Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, surfaced in a federal court document filed Friday evening.
Excerpt:
However, in previous hearings, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has pointed out time and again that Plame Wilson's CIA status is not the issue. Rather it's Libby's repeated lies to the grand jury and the FBI that's at issue.
"We are trying a perjury case," Fitzgerald said during a February 24 court hearing on issues related to additional evidence Libby's attorneys were trying to obtain from Fitzgerald's probe. "What I am going to say to the jury in opening and closing and rebuttal is that Mr. Libby knowingly lied about what he did.
"And the issue is whether he knowingly lied or not," Fitzgerald added. "And if there is information about actual damage, whatever was caused or not caused that isn't in his mind, it is not a defense. If she turned out to be a postal driver mistaken for a CIA employee, it's not a defense if you lie in a grand jury under oath about what you said and you told people I didn't know he had a wife. That is what this case is about. It is about perjury, if he knowingly lied or not."
In Friday's filing, Libby's attorneys attempted to push the blame for the leak onto other officials at the CIA and the State Department and said these officials will likely be called to testify at next year's criminal trial. In doing so, the attorneys disclosed in the 39-page document the identities of four CIA employees who possibly provided their client with information about Plame Wilson's work for the CIA.
{{{It's amusing to see Libby's attorneys doing all this finger pointing when the ONLY issue at hand is whether or not Libby LIED. Duh.}}}
Posted by: Christy at March 19, 2006 01:16 PM
Wow, Christy. Powerful post. Sincere thanks.
The NY Times Book Review section's cover book review is of Kevin Phillip's new book, American Theocracy.
I think that many here will appreciate what the review has to say about the book.
read it here...
http://tinyurl.com/k6ym7
Christy... well said once again.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060318/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_s_straw_men
Bush Using Straw-Man Arguments in Speeches
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2092455,00.html
‘Impeach Bush’ chorus grows
Excerpt:
Some seasoned Democrat counsellors are warning party activists that voters are rarely interested in vengeful politics. In the 1998 mid-term elections, for example, the Republicans’ often mean-spirited efforts to impeach Clinton cost them seats that they had been expected to win.
Joe Lockhart, Clinton’s White House spokesman during the Lewinsky scandal, said: “If you are looking for a message to take back to the House and the Senate or White House, there are better ways to go about it.”
After the humiliating experience of her husband’s battle, Hillary Clinton almost certainly feels the same way. The most telling sign of the Democrats’ determination to get Bush is that she would rather hide than say it.
{{{The fact remains: nobody died when Clinton lied about a blow job. IMHO, it would NOT be "vengeful politics" to impeach The Cretin (and his administration) for LYING about WAR, reasons to illegally attack another country (it's a war crime under the Nuremberg judgement, and by all treaties the US signed over the years), reasons to stay in a war - all LIES, which have been exposed, and which have cost dearly in lives, money, and reputation worldwide, and it would NOT be "vengeful politics" to impeach on the grounds The Cretin spies on US citizens, thus going against the Fourth Amendment. Whole 'nuther situation entirely. Even if Hillary remains silent about impeachment, the least she could do is come out against The Cretin's war...!}}}
Speaking of books, my husband and I are reading two good books:
American Vertigo - Bernard Henri Levy
European Dream - Jeremy Rivkin
The 2nd has some amazing statistics. Both back up the need for change in the models we live by, as they were more appropriate for another time.
Then there is the Busheviks. You know what? I am going to stop right there for a moment because my damn head may explode if I do not kick something 'til it screams in pain. (Told you I am not that kind of liberal). At least I am honest about why I would be driven to torture something.
The Busheviks. 12345678910. Breathe in. Breathe...
Halliburton. Delay. Abramoff. Ken Lay. Harris, Frist, Roberts and Robertson, too. Fox News, The Blair Witch Project of the U.K.. Hamid Karzi. CurveBall. Judy Miller, Chris Matthews, Bill O'Rielly, and Little Lush Limpball, too. Rummy, Dick, and Jeff Gannon. Scalia, Rove, Myers, and Alberto 'The Electrode' Gonzales.
All Busheviks. We are infested with them. They have high jacked the G.O.P. What in the hell are REAL republicans going to do about it? People are still dying while you waffle in confusion. As Bush redefines the US Constitution to his own whims, you sit in a lock stepped silence.
@@@@@@@@@@@@
Impeachment Anyone???
Who are the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee??
BTW - the Bulsheviks have done more than hijack the Republican party - they now OWN it.....
Very refreshing to read one of Matt's thread heads. Very disappointing however that it was published about a year ago, and we have not seen any substantial change in the Bushco regime or modus operondi. But we still the perpetuation of mistake upon mistake-just as Christy posted.
Christy, nice to see you back and posting. In my ultraconservative district those really are fighting words. But, we may see a progressive Democrat (Cegelis) win the primary (I can only hope and vote), then the lines will be drawn between a progressive and a DeLay Republican (Cheney actually came here last week to campaign for the Republican) and people will have to take sides. That is, unless a write in candidate starts a campaign. Progressive is actually very accurate for her because she is looking to the future for solutions, and not focusing only on the mistakes of the past. Damn, I think she is good.
Ralph, your point is well taken. I do not contribute to blatently political organizations such as the DNC or the DCCC as I can not really control who gets my money. I will pick and choose various causes and candidates.
Posted by: Christy at March 19, 2006 01:16 PM
Kudos, Christy! :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~
Oncall: I hope Cegelis gets the nod. I read an article comparing her to Duckworth, and Cegelis has the experience, and Duckworth has zero (other than a severe wound in Iraq, which does not automatically qualify her for a political office, IMHO). Let Duckworth run for a local office to see how she does, get a track record, before running for a national political office....
~~~~~
Minnesota's sixth district, which has had Martin Sabo as their rep for many years, is up for grabs this fall. He just announced his retirement yesterday - and he was a state rep before that - he's never done anything but politics. (I don't live in that district, so can't vote for any reps from there.) His chief of staff once headed MN DFL and he's said he's running for Sabo's office, and this morning the news said maybe his daughter will also run - among other Dems who have said they'll run for Sabo's office. Will have to see how the caucuses and primaries sort it all out.
Posted by: NonnyO at March 19, 2006 01:40 PM
Vengeful is how the Bushco Propaganda machine wants it framed.
Now there is a word we haven't heard in a long time, but now with the campaign seaon back upon us, we have to incorporate that type of thinking into our communications.
Vengeful is how the Bushco Propaganda machine wants it framed.
Posted by: oncall at March 19, 2006 02:07 PM
I know. The neoCon propagandists have done all the framing for six long years, putting Dems on the defensive. They (and spinmeisters) are the ones who are proposing Hillary for '08, which irks me no end...! She might be good for NY, but since she has not come out against that stupid illegal Iraq war, she's not a viable candidate (to my mind). My brain is rebelling at the thought of neoCon propagandists and spinmeisters "choosing" Dem candidates. No one asked them to speak for the voters...!!!
I want to vote FOR someone who is pro-peace, anti-illegal-Iraq-war, and advocates bringing our Guard and Reserve troops home immediately, and re-deploying regular military elsewhere. Well, that's at the top of the very long list of what I want to be able to vote FOR in a candidate....
I want to vote myself rather than have a machine do it.
I want my vote to count. I want the election to be decided by more states. I want there to be balance in 2006 so there is even a contest in 2008.
Here's another piece I wrote during the early days of the Iraq debate, that I believe speaks eloquently to the issue of conscious and defensible leadership.
August 27, 2002
Dubya And Iraq: The Issue Is Consciousness
The Bush Administration has been beating the war drums on Iraq for many months now, as the President's obvious obsession with his father's enemy grows ever more out of control. Yesterday, Vice-President Cheney, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, outlined the supposed case for pre-emptive action in Iraq: that a nuclear-armed Hussein would "seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail."
The Bush Administration's perspective here is myopic and profoundly dangerous. While the prospect of Hussein having nuclear weapons is worrisome, the prospect of the Arab Street perceiving any pre-emptive military action as confirmation of their worst fears of an imposition of American hegemony over the entire region is far more threatening in the longer-term. For all of his bad qualities, Hussein is a manageable, conventional despot. He seeks, above all, survival, and the continuation of his regime, and therefore can be contained using the principles that worked so well during the Cold War - including the threat of overwhelming nuclear retaliation. What is most troubling about the enemy that emerged on September 11th is that he is not so easily contained by conventional methods - and might actually reap a huge windfall in terms of financial and popular support in the event of an invasion of Iraq that does not enjoy wide support from the nation states of the region, and is not perceived by the Islamic Street as fair and clearly warranted.
The Bush Administration has obviously lost the first phase of the political war on terrorism, as 80% of respondents in a fairly recent poll of Muslims outside of North America and Western Europe refused to believe that there was credible evidence that Osama Bin Laden and al Queda were behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. A pre-emptive strike against Iraq at this time, particularly during a period where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to burn out of control, and when Bush is even having trouble gathering enthusiastic support among NATO allies, is likely to only further inflame the hearts and minds of politically and economically disenfranchised Muslims around the world, and eventually lead to a far more dangerous turn of events.
Furthermore, there is as great a likelihood that al Queda (or any terrorist organization that might succeed them) could obtain nuclear weapons material, or other weapons of mass destruction, from the stockpiles of the former Soviet Union, China, or the potentially radical Islamic state that might well emerge in Pakistan in the aftermath of a Bush adventure gone wrong, than they might from any weapons program in Iraq.
Which is not to suggest that Bush should leave Hussein free to evade the military sanctions imposed in the aftermath of the Gulf War. However, the threat of an invasion by the United States military should be saved for use as a bargaining chip in the event that Hussein refuses the return of United Nations weapons inspectors, and a process of comprehensive removal of any weapons of mass destruction - or in the event of legitimate military provocation. Bush should also consider it his duty to offer aid and support to any forces inside of Iraq, or in exile, that seek the establishment of democracy; and, as a show of generosity and solidarity with its suffering people, work to unilaterally lift the remaining economic sanctions - that have obviously done nothing to loosen Hussein's grip on power, but much to extend the suffering of the Iraqi people, and, ironically, become a wonderful propaganda and enrollment tool for terrorists like Bin Laden.
George W. Bush has forgotten perhaps the greatest piece of foreign policy advice that any American president ever offered -- Teddy Roosevelt's admonition to "Walk Softly and Carry a Big Stick". He has instead become the embodiment of "The Ugly American", painting a vivid picture on the world stage of the United States as a colossus willing and able to impose its will - and at a moment when American military forces are already engaged in Afghanistan and the Balkans, and are significantly weaker than they were during the Gulf War. Perhaps this kind of bravado and mindless posturing might sell in Texas, and even parts of the United States, but it is clearly not selling in Western Europe, the Middle East or in Asia.
As he swaggers across TV screens around the world, Dubya is squandering the good will, empathy and compassion that were won for this country through the sacrifice of the heroes and victims of September 11th. Rather than making the world a safer place to live, he is potentially setting in motion forces that could one day bring nuclear destruction to a city within the continental United States. He is the living embodiment of why, in the future, a candidate's consciousness and emotional intelligence, and not their likeability, "character", physical looks or even their position on the "issues", need be the deciding factors when we choose our leaders.
http://www.hpleft.com/0827E1.html
Good timing on this anniv. wk end of this tragic war.
Allawi, former Iraqi PM, now says he believes Iraq is already in civil war, even though Rumsfeld insists not.
He is the living embodiment of why, in the future, a candidate's consciousness and emotional intelligence, and not their likeability, "character", physical looks or even their position on the "issues", need be the deciding factors when we choose our leaders.
Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at March 19, 2006 02:29 PM
Boy have we missed you!
It's that last sentence that intruiges me now. Just how do you do that? I've found myself lately telling those that I discuss this stuff with that ANY Dem will be better than ANY Republican, simply
because we've got to get back to a center. But that of course isn't quite right, close but no cigar. How does one evaluate emotional intelligence in a person one isn't apt to meet?
Charactor would seem to play a part, as does where they stand on issues. I remember opposing Bush in 2000, because as govenor he had never stayed an excution, and it was said that he spent less than 15 mins. studing a case. It seemed to me that it showed an inablity to be flexible, or even compassionate.
So, please, elaborate on that last sentence for us who are in the middle of primarys.
Media coverage
War's Third Anniversary Marked by Protest
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031906X.shtml
From Australia to Hollywood, people march to demand that troops be withdrawn. While some brought anti-war placards and petitions to Hollywood on Saturday, a group called Veterans for Peace crafted 100 flag-draped coffins from cardboard cartons and carried them down Sunset Boulevard to mark the more than 2,300 US troops killed in the Iraq war.
-- We are never alone, but we bear some response for the ringleader of the international neocons.
Another reason we have to stop the infighting and not only have hope but present hope:
Change of heartland
On the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, many Indianians are no longer strongly behind the war
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | March 19, 2006
SOUTH BEND, Ind. -- The third anniversary of the Iraq invasion unleashed a surge of pessimism at a local farmers' market here, where stalwart Republicans, standing amid aisles of produce and miracle cures, said President Bush has messed up a war that looks more like Vietnam every day.
oops..I forgot the link:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/03/19/change_of_heartland/
Really awsome article Christy. I think you've got the right message there.
http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1142780783.shtml
Republican 2006 Strategy Will Be To Define Foes And "Change The Subject"
by Joe Gandelman
Independent voters, those who believe elections are job performance reviews, and those who want to see the quality of political debate elevated in this country will not be heartened by a piece by Fred Barnes detailing how in the 2006 mid-term elections Republicans will try to avoid defending and explaining what they and George Bush have done the past few years.
How? By changing the subject — polarizing America in way that may earn the GOP a place in the Guinness Book of Records (just look under "Divisiveness"):
Politics is pretty simple. If the debate in an upcoming election puts your party at a disadvantage, it makes sense to try to change the debate. At the moment, the 2006 midterm election is framed as a referendum on the Bush administration and congressional Republicans, putting Republican candidates on the defensive. Party strategists, led by chairman Ken Mehlman, want to rejigger the debate so it's about a choice between candidates, putting Democratic candidates on the defensive as well. In short, they want it to be a choice election, not a referendum election.
Posted by: sparrow at March 19, 2006 03:26 PM
Then it is up to the Republican opponents to make the choice as easy as possible. Personally, if the Republicans want to make this an election about choice between candidates, then their opponents can reframe it as a simple question,"do you choose to support what the president has done?" Why should Democrats/third party candidates run from such a weak strategy?
The only way the Republicans can make their strategy work is if the swift boat all of their opponents - something I would not put past a desperate group of greedy, theocrats.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/03/19/change_of_heartland/
Posted by: sparrow at March 19, 2006 03:12 PM
I found the ending paragraphs of that article "entertaining":
All the talk lately about Bush and the problems with Iraq bemuses Susan Grimes, a waitress at the South Junction Café, a lonely outpost at the intersection of state roads 6 and 35. Grimes said listening to her customers complain has turned her off politics.
''I hear all these people come in and say: 'That President Bush, we got to get that guy out of there.' But you ask them who they voted for, and they hush up because they were the ones who voted him in. He's their boy."
~~~~~~~~~~
BTW, that also gives some of us Dems an excuse to say: "I told you so!" and ask "What were you thinking?!?"
The only way the Republicans can make their strategy work is if the swift boat all of their opponents - something I would not put past a desperate group of greedy, theocrats.
Posted by: oncall at March 19, 2006 03:59 PM
I fully expect neoCons to keep people's minds totally off of important issues like the illegal war in Iraq, the deficit, ending the illegal war, et cetera (they WILL change topics of any direct question and not answer a direct question with a direct answer in any debate - Dumbya and Chinkster did exactly that). I'm anticipating a whole bunch of slime-swift-boating ads this fall, just as they did in '04 against several candidates here - and 'won' on the lies they presented in ads.
Debunking and deconstructing the pro-war-propaganda ads was just an exercise for the future. I fully expect I'll be doing the exact same thing about other political ads on TV this fall.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060319/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_war_protests
War Opponents Protest Around the Globe
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060319/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney
Cheney Dismisses Suggestions of Shake-Up
Allawi, former Iraqi PM, now says he believes Iraq is already in civil war, even though Rumsfeld insists not.
Posted by: DiAnne at March 19, 2006 02:39 PM
Allawi is probably correct. Rummy doesn't exactly have a track record for telling the truth, but we already know he is very good at telling LIES.
From:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/hillary-panders-again_b_11851.html
Jonathon Tasini
December 2005:
.......At least that’s what Hillary Clinton believes. She has jumped on board with Pat Roberts, one of the most right-wing conservative members of the Senate, to co-sponsor an amendment that would criminalize flag-burning.
Clinton’s new bout of pandering is one reason I decided to challenge her and run in the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate. Just a day after I officially entered the race, it should be even more clear to progressives and New Yorkers why my opponent does not deserve another term: she will sacrifice any cherished American principle for the sake of political expediency.
The principle today? The First Amendment. I understand why some people find flag-burning objectionable. But, the beauty of the First Amendment is that it protects the views of the minority even when the majority of our society thinks otherwise.
What is perhaps most appalling is the bill Clinton supports equates flag-burning to cross-burning. Why should any African American vote for a politician who can’t see the difference between a cross-burning and flag-burning? The New York Times aptly said in today’s editorial entitled “Senator Clinton, In Pander Mode,” that there is no comparison: “Burning a cross is a unique act because of its inextricable connection to the Ku Klux Klan and to anti-black violence and intimidation. A black American who wakes up to see a cross burning on the front lawn has every right to feel personally, and physically, threatened. Flag-burning has no such history. It has, in fact, no history of being directed against any target but the government....
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
A Post to this Blog Thread:
Every night I get down on my knees and pray, "Dear God, please don't make Hillary the Democratic nominee for '08. (Or Joe Biden. Or, heaven forbid, John Kerry!)"
With friends like Hillary, who needs Republicans?
And remember this, Democrats, NO member of Congress has won the presidency since JFK. So stop with the foolish nominations. Nothing would make the GOP happier than having Sen. Clinton to oppose.
I was on her mailing list, but I'm asking her to remove me. The flag-burning amendment was the last straw. Who the heck does she consider her base?
By: vb on December 07, 2005 at 12:42pm
The heartland speaks (fewer empty minds here than there use to be).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060319/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_war_protests
More than 7,000 people marched through Chicago on Saturday in one of the largest U.S. protests, saying the war diverts money from domestic needs and demanding the U.S. pull out of Iraq. One sign read "Bush is a category 5 disaster."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060319/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney
Cheney Dismisses Suggestions of Shake-Up
Posted by: NonnyO at March 19, 2006 04:26 PM
That can mean only one thing: a shake-up is imminent...because we know it's always the opposite of what they say...("We're in the last throes of the insurgency...")
Can't wait to see which incompetent cronies they find this time...
So, please, elaborate on that last sentence for us who are in the middle of primarys.
Posted by: Ladytechie at March 19, 2006 02:53 PM
Well, I don't mean to be glib here, but if a candidate is telling friends that he thinks that God wants him to be President (or in the Congress), he's probably someone you should be worried about. Why bother listening to the advice of the Senate (or your constituents) when God has your ear?
Consider the new President of Iran - who is apparently a literal believer in the idea that "the Madhi", or the 12th Imam - who in Shiite tradition is said to have gone into occultation (that is, disappeared), but not to have physically died - is about to return. The Madhi, I should add, returns at the “end of days”, as in the end of the world. Isn’t that a reassuring thought?
This degree of absolute certainty about subjects that the rest of us are much less convinced of is probably a very good indicator of a candidate who may have a problem accommodating alternate views of reality.
And I don't mean to focus exclusively on strong religious beliefs as warning signs. There are obviously many ways that emotional imbalance or megalomania can express itself. Candidates with a history of exploiting people’s anger too enthusiastically, or who routinely dehumanize their opponents, would be another red flag for me; as would be a candidate who attempts to argue that a nuclear war can be "won".
If it appears that the kinds of people I’m describing are Republicans, I don’t mean it to – because there are people on the extreme left that strike me as being every bit as nutty as the craziest conservative politician.
How does one evaluate emotional intelligence in a person one isn't apt to meet?
Posted by: Ladytechie at March 19, 2006 02:53 PM
May I?
I CAN TELL YOU HOW.
Never, NEVER look at what a person says and believe him (generic gender implied) on face value of his words. LOOK AT HIS ACTIONS, PRESENT, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, PAST.
A very wise sage told me this years ago, and this advice has NEVER failed me. Not once.
Why? Because people have M.O.'s they acquire during late adolescence, early adulthood. And, short of what I consider a miracle, or divine intervention, they seldom, if ever, change their M.O.'s. It can be done, in the case of alcoholics and substance abusers, abused spouses, but NOT without serious and conscious effort to learn NEW ways of relating to the world around them, and implimentation of the new ways until they become new emotional and social skills.
I am so sorry I was busy working in the corporate world during the 2000 campaign that I didn't take the time to check out Dubya further. I bought the spin hook, line, and sinker. It was only as I grew increasingly wary and unhappy about the direction our country was going that I really paid attention. Up until the summer of 2004 I had never even heard of a blog.
That's when I found you guys!!! And yes, I HAVE noticed that you all have fine credentials, and all one has to do if wondering if this is a good place to hang and learn, is look at all your accomplishments over the years.
In the area of writing alone the Democracy Cell Project had many nominations for the Koufax award!! Not to mention again that Matthew Carnicelli's series The Tao of Politics was among those nominated for a Koufax award for best series! And, as you can tell by judging the thread header today as a sample of Matt's work, he brings diligence of purpose to his writing that is born of emotional intelligence, and that reflects in the excellence of his work.
Look at the standard of excellence here at the DCP!!! Karen and Dick are passionate and active and fit more activities into one week in the cause of social and political change than alot of people do in a year.
Excellence in writing, and teaching, and communicating, and sharing ideas, and listening, and encouraging are traits that abound here at the DCP!
Dwahzon researches ideas and articles and posts so that this site and this blog is credible and a symbol of excellence. Not only that but she is a tech goddess!
Casey does an outstanding job as blog editor and brings years of political experience and expertise to her contributions here.
Suz is the heart of the DCP in so many ways, and (cough) not to mention many of her posts were nominated for Koufax awards, too.
NonnyO and DiAnne put hours and hours into their contributions of news articles and varying perspectives on this blog. This along with putting feet to the ground and contacting representatives and the media through hours and hours of letter writing.
Fe brings perception that can be logical and loving and as clear as a bell. She can cut to the quick of a matter in one post.
Otter, Oncall, Ralph, Christy, Monkey, Madame DeFarge, Ally, and everyone else here brings alot of passion, great ideas and information, and a love and concern for their country and fellow man. Lady Techie, Battlebob , the two Marjories, April, and Linda E. too. If I have left anyone out please forgive me, because you are all people who are evolving, caring, passionate, and
sincere. I value and appreciate your contributions because not only do I get the news on this blog, I also get to read your perspectives and thoughts on varying subjects, and since I trust you, it helps me process my own opinions.
How to tell a person has a conscience, and emotional intelligence, integrity, and maturity?
Look at what they do, and have done, and not so much at what they say, unless their M.O. has shown them to be credible.
That is why I supported John Kerry in '04. He went to Vietnam, didn't go AWOL in the National Guard. He came home and stood up and told the truth about what was happening there. He fought for the POW's and their families years after that. He has stood up for disadvantaged people, and his entire career has been about helping people in the United States. He literally put his life on the line then, and he did it again in '04 when he campaigned his heart out. I think the way he handled himself again and again showed he has emotional intelligence and maturity.
Just my 02.33 1/3 cents.
Woops. I mean just my .0233 1/3 cents.
Posted by: madame defarge at March 19, 2006 04:52 PM
I don't know why, but Hadley's name keeps coming to me. Wonder if it has anything to do with Fitzpatrick's investigation?
Gonna try to stay on topic here- re the Tao- As i remember, both Martin Luther King and Gandhi used much the same tactics to achieve their goals. It was peaceful resistance- King's followers marched and laid down in the streets and were jailed and sprayed with fire hoses, but the publicity from such violent and disturbing acts changed the collective mind of the American people about civil rights.They refused to resist the beatings, they went along with the police peacefully, and that was awe inspiring. I remember watching it on TV and being horrified that these events were happening in Selma, Ala., not that far from my home. I was only a child at the time, but it taught me, very quickly, which side of the civil rights argument was moral and which was not. Gandhi used the same methods- he stood while the British beat hundreds of his followers senseless, not resisting, just standing there taking it until the shock of that atrocity led to a free India.
What I wonder today though, if either of those events would have the same effect on society? What we've seen with Abu Gharib is that the American people don't really care what happens to people who are different from them anymore- all sense of conscience seems to be gone. I'm not speaking of all the American people, of course, but about 35% of our society seems just not to care at all about anyone or anything who disagrees with them. Bullying and torturing the weak is ok, as long as it's what their leaders want, and they've evidently convinced themselves that God is behind their leader to the point that the words of their sacred book just don't matter at all. And as far as the statement of Lao Tse concerning possessions and giving too much value to them, I can still remember a time when labels on shirts weren't worn on the outside. If they were, if anyone knew what brand your clothes were without you telling them. you'd be a laughingstock. And you'd have to go into the closet and put your shirt back on rightside out. Everyone wore bobo shoes,but it didn't matter, because there was no such thing as bobo shoes. All this changed in the 80's under the Reagan administration. Materialism became king, and kids were beaten at school for their nikes and reboks, and things haven't gotten much better since then. Another thing changed then too- America started worshipping winners at all cost. The football teams that played the dirtiest won, and it's their jackets that kids began wearing to school every day. Kids from Florida and Alabama went to school in Raider's jackets- not Saint's jackets, or Dolphins jackets- but jackets from teams far away, just because that team was a "winner." If your own team lost, they were no good, useless, find one that can win. Loyalty and playing fair just disappeared and winning at all cost took it's place. It's nice to think that a new Gandhi or King could come along and change the world again without violence, but I'm afraid I just have problems believing it. When Christians aren't Christian anymore, and Muslims only want to kill, things are just really screwed up. Maybe we should all become Buddhists, I don't know. But I don't think peacefuu resistance could succeed anymore in the 21st century. It's a real shame, but civilization seems to be going backward into the violence of the caveman instead of forward. I wish it was just my imagination.
(From my sister...)
And you thought you were pissed at this administration...
Read this...it pretty much sums it all up...
Don't Impeach; Impale
By Will Durst, AlterNet. Posted March 15, 2006.
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/33598/
It's a real shame, but civilization seems to be going backward into the violence of the caveman instead of forward.
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at March 19, 2006 05:39 PM
Actually, Linda, archaeologists and anthropologists have not discovered any evidence of warfare during the paleolithic era.... The consensus among archaeologists and anthropologists seems to be that cave people were too busy trying to survive and care for an entire group of people to indulge in warfare. There are even skeletal remains of handicapped people who were obviously taken care of by the rest of the group. Of course, populations were sparse, land and territory were not an "issue" in hunter-gatherer societies, since land "ownership" was not a concept then. Later, when an agrarian existence came into being, and "ownership" of land became an issue, along with resources to grow crops and have places for livestock to graze, then warfare became part of the lives of human beings - and continued to be more commonplace as human beings "evolved."
When it comes to art work and tools from the ancient past, it seems that people of the paleolithic era were far more civilized than present-day human beings. They had cooperative hunts that enabled the greatest number of them to survive to produce young, and feed, clothe and care for an entire group, and that's reflected in cave paintings and weaponry designed to kill animals for food, but not weapons to kill each other.
As the world becomes increasingly over-populated, humans have devolved into less civilized beings. Not only do we kill each other, but we kill off other species and make whole regions uninhabitable with our waste products and our pollution at alarming rates, disrupting the balance once sustained by Mother Nature.
That's a sad commentary on our species.
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at March 19, 2006 05:15 PM
Those were really great words of encouragement, Truth.
You basically said it right. All of us have our gifts and we've learned to learn and evolved together. We may not agree with everything, but we're all here motivating each other and encouraging each other to keep up the good fight and not give up in days of darkness.
We so close to the next election. I am pleased to see some 'outsiders' running in my state...people like Marcenkowski (*spelling), Skinner, etc...I think these people share our passion and our angst against the direction of our gov't representatives.
We are very much at the crunch time, when we have to try to enlist our neighbors and friends to join the battle with us and fight back. We can not wait until August to decide to wake up the sheeple.
I very much feel that if we can get progressives elected we can stop the wrong direction of this country and put it instead on the right path again. These are things that outsiders "get": lobbyist reform, media refom, election reform, Out of Iraq, jobs, healthcare.
All across the country you've got "outsiders" giving it a try and I pray we can work together to take back our Congress.
Linda Enterkin
You have something here -
All this changed in the 80's under the Reagan administration. Materialism became king,
Truth Shall Prevail
You yourself have taught at least as much as you have learned!
I have a confession to make. A few days ago, I sent Oncall this link:
http://tinyurl.com/56t9u
And I think as a result we have lost Oncall to this red/blue game.
Oncall, if you need us to throw you the rescue line...just say the word!!!
But...in the meantime, this game can give us something to think about. If you focus, you can avoid the stuff being thrown at you and you can dodge and stay in the game. But the more you panic at the stuff being thrown out there, the jerkier your reflexes become and the more quickly you end the game in defeat.
So...the lesson for all of us is to stay focused. (And be ready to throw out the life-line!)
Posted by: Suz at March 19, 2006 07:25 PM
Smarty. I was going to tell you that was the secret to the game, but first I wanted to make it to at least a minute.
I am at 46.91. Ha!
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at March 19, 2006 07:34 PM
Well, I also meant that to be a metaphor for how we need to battle for our country.
Maybe we should send this game to all the dems with this message.
Then we can send it to the neocons for a little distraction.
You think that might work?
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at March 19, 2006 05:39 PM
Linda
I agree with you. You would think we'd be more civilized instead of less. You'd think we'd be more religiously tolerant and less violent.
I don't think we can change the world but we should stick with identifiable goals, such as...100% inspection at ports. Or National health care, etc...
Newfane, Vermont: Small Town Provokes Big Outrage
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0318-04.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060319/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_6
Bush Marks Anniversary, Never Says 'War'
{{{I do have to wonder what planet these people are living on to give such an "optimistic" opinion about how well the illegal war in Iraq is going....}}}
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060319/ap_on_bi_ge/america_for_sale
U.S. Ports Debate Spurs Ownership Talks
{{{Quite a lot of "American" companies mentioned that are all owned by anyone but Americans. Raise your hand if you think the economy could easily collapse and plunge the entire nation into another Great Depression (worse than the last one), thanks to credit card spending by this administration and this Congress, in particular - all counter to the "fiscally conservative" reputations once enjoyed by 'Republicans.' Well, okay. The neoCons deserve an economic collapse to teach them a lesson, even if the rest of us don't deserve it - but we would be taken down with them if/when it happens.}}}
Are Warrantless Searches Next?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031906B.shtml
In the dark days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a small group of lawyers from the White House and the Justice Department began meeting to debate a number of novel legal strategies to help prevent another attack. Soon after, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to begin conducting electronic eavesdropping on terrorism suspects in the United States, including American citizens, without court approval. Meeting in the FBI's state-of-the-art command center in the J. Edgar Hoover Building, the lawyers talked with senior FBI officials about using the same legal authority to conduct physical searches of homes and businesses of terrorism suspects - also without court approval.
Torture Before and After Abu Ghraib
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031906A.shtml
As the Iraqi insurgency intensified in early 2004, an elite Special Operations forces unit converted one of Saddam Hussein's former military bases near Baghdad into a top-secret detention center. There, American soldiers made one of the former Iraqi government's torture chambers into their own interrogation cell. They named it the Black Room.
DiAnne, what disturbs me is that whenever there is a swing in one direction, such as what happened in the Reagan era, the pendulum always swings back in the other direction eventually. It was not allowed to happen this time though, because of Bush's non-election in 2000. I think that the "super Americanism" and flag waving, and even to an extent, the conspicuous consumption of the Reagan era was a reaction to this country's being tired of being ashamed (under Nixon) and of losing (under Carter.) When Watergate happened, there was a lot of self-flagellation that went on in our country- we no longer believed in our public officials, we lost a war, and we didn't believe anymore in the basic honesty of our country. We elected Jimmy Carter because he was so much more moral than Nixon, but Carter gave away the Panama Canal and couldn't get our hostages out of Iran. America was looking desparately for a hero-I can remember when our team beat the Russians in hockey in the winter olympics during that time how incredibly big that was. We just needed to be winners again. Then along came the movie star hero and America worshipped him- some still do. Even if it was all smoke and mirrors, we needed that. And we became materialistic because Reagan told us we could spend our way into wealth- lower taxes would bring wealth to everyone, and no one had to pay any bills for it, not ever. We were AMERICANS, and we were such fine people all around that if you didn't succeed, it must be because you were lazy and incompetent. That's when all the materialism and the "labels on the outside of the clothing" that showed everyone we were successful (i.e. good) came into being. Then after George the first, we began to notice the deficit. He wasn't Reagan, so he couldn't convince us all was well as long as we were Americans. Something was off kilter, and we knew it. So, pappy Bush lost to Clinton. That swung the pendulum back towards a bit less materialism, a lot less flag waving, and reality began to set in. We paid off our debt, we stopped bragging constantly, and eventually, we were prosperous, but it wasn't the illusion of prosperity that it was in Reagan's administration, it was the real prosperity that comes of a balanced budget and everyone having a job. Clinton was only in office 8 years though, and had the election gone to Gore, as it should have, we might be at the nadir of the pendulum swing back in the right direction. Unfortunately, Bush's robbing us of the election in 2000 made the swing go violently back towards the Reagan years (before it was time for it to do so.) And now, because the pendulum didn't have time to gain it's full momentum with Clinton and then with Gore as it should have, I'm afraid it's spinning out of control, that's it's flown off it's base completely. I'm not sure that public opinion will be enough to get it back online this time- I'm very afraid that there might have to be a violent period of civil unrest before that can happen. And I'm not sure that the American people, so complacent in all their materialistic glory, are up to that anymore. I can't see the 60's happening again- I wish they could, but I just can't see it. Ok. So, I'm depressed tonight. Maybe it's because spring Break is over tomorrow. Whatever. It's really sad to know that the cavemen were more civilized than we are though, ya' know?
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at March 19, 2006 05:15 PM
Thanks for the encouragement... but don't forget to include yourself in that list, too. We are all learning from each other. :-)
If it had not been for following every link on the old Kerry blog, then here, plus reading and reading and reading other people's opinions and news from the internet, I wouldn't have any political knowledge other than what I could glean from Lamestream Media. (I'm so glad I got a computer and internet access before the '04 election cycle so I could find out what I'd suspected all along was correct, and I wasn't hearing ALL the news and views in Lamestream Media!)
The most valuable political assets we have are (1) asking questions; and (2) reading, reading, reading... to keep ourselves informed.
Posted by: Suz at March 19, 2006 07:25 PM
Suz, You missed some of my posts? That game is fun and challenging.
Madame, Will Durst took the words (everyone of them) right out of my mouth.
Posted by: NonnyO at March 19, 2006 08:02 PM
You're right nonnyo.
I use to be addicted to CNN. And I remember during the campaign feeling so down watching them. Then I came to the blog and discovered all the links. (Ok..admittedly I can laugh now at my own ineptness.) But at the time, I was afraid to even take a nick and blog.
I've been to various events and have had people express the same exact thought. Yet now, I feel that's exactly why we MUST blog or our words and message and hope would be completely shut out.
And now that the elections are nearing, we're all going to get antsy and want to see some action. We need to make that action happen. I'd love to see the whole blogosphere beat the pavement with messages. (I think that's why I love freeway blogger so much.)
Suz,
I know you meant it as a metaphor about how we should stay calm and focused. And you are right about that.
This morning just the thought of how many injustices this administration has gotten away with, and even more maddening, how many people are just apathetic about it, led me to a place where I felt rage like I haven't felt it in a while. It is damn maddening to watch the fat complacent in our society not caring about others unless it touches their pocket books or their loved ones. And yadda yadda I've said it all before. Just makes me want to kick something.
Posted by: oncall at March 19, 2006 08:07 PM
Well, I needed the lifeline after a bit, so I figured I'd check with you and see if you needed one too.
Posted by: NonnyO at March 19, 2006 07:54 PM
Nonny,
I posted something about "warrantless searches" the other night on the "commercials" thread.
In my book, warrantless physical searchs is called breaking and entering.
suz- the problem with that game is that the goal is to keep the red spot (states?) from escaping the influence of the blue. Also, that I can't get above a 14.
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at March 19, 2006 08:11 PM
Did you read that Will Durst link I put up? Check it out, then go kick something...
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/33598/
Posted by: madame defarge at March 19, 2006 06:11 PM
O.K. I feel better. I read Will Durst.
Madame, tell your sister thanks.
I am going to print that off and read it out loud every time I feel so mad I could spit.
Every single syllable of every word.
Posted by: madame defarge at March 19, 2006 08:19 PM
Kicking is too nice of action verb. (great link though.)
Linda Enterkin,
You've got mail.
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at March 19, 2006 08:13 PM
That's a rather serious problem. Sadly, you either need more to drink or you need to call the resident doctor for some well-earned tranquilizers.
Besides...don't feel bad. I'm not doing that much better.
But it is rather like a mudflinging contest and it's probably a reflection of what our progressive reps are feeling daily. (Don't know where to hide or go without someone targetting you.)
Posted by: Suz at March 19, 2006 08:26 PM
Suz, don't recommend the game to people who are paranoid. Just because everyone is after you doesn't mean everyone is after you.
LOL!
Sorry Linda Enterkin, you do not have mail.
My email to you came back.
(Sorry off topic.)
Truth- I know- I just checked my mail. I'm at the same handle at bellsouth.net now. Try sending it there. If I can pry myself away from this paranoia inducing game, I'll read ya' :-)
I am tired of Dems saying we need to rush toward the middle. Rememmber, we all hooted when Dumbo kept driving hard right, leaving everything else to the Dems. Well, guess what..it didn't work.
Why?
Because our campaign had trouble focusing on something that could counter the Repub war drums.
The JK campaign was about as good as possible facing that problem.
This time, we have to win by clearly articulating the magic three. No fooling around the margins.
Each politician needs to carry a shocker taped to their asses. Whenever they start politicalspeak, they get shocked.
Feingold must feel awfully lonely out there. To bad the wannabees are setting this one out.
I wonder what JK, HRC and the rest are using for execuses?
I hang out at another site...
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2346#more-2346
link: Durbin Gets Democrats Back on Track
Lot of LUTD folks there.
Read the post about Durbin and tell me if Dems have a clue.
Remmember speaking truth to power? I think Dem leadershiop forgot about that one!
If we aren't angry with these guys, we will loose.
Sorry for the poor typing...am so disgusted, can't type..
"Feingold did create a dilemma for Democrats when he blind sided Democratic leaders with his proposal. On the one hand, we certainly don’t want to be on the side against censure of Bush. On the other hand, calling for censure only helps fire up the GOP base–which is not something we need right now. One advantage we have had so far this year is that Democrats are far more fired up than Republicans." That's a quote from the blog battlebob just posted. That statement disgusts me too- the Republican base is still with George W Bush. They ARE the 35% who still support him in the polls. His base will always be with him. The people who have turned against him are moderate Republicans, nearly all Indys, and Democrats. The Republican base cannot win an election alone. They are not to be feared. And since the polls also show that the 65% or so who say he's not doing a good job also no longer like him on a personal basis, Bush will not get those voters back. New Orleans finally allowed them to look into those arrogant, cruel, beady eyes of his and see what they ever could accept before- that he really just doesn't give a damn about other human beings. Any Democrats who refuse to support Feingold because they're afraid of the Republican base should be ashamed of themselves. There's not much pride in being a Democrat this week, but it's still all we have. Battlebob is right. It's almost too disgusting to even think about.
BB,
I think that sometimes what is worse than not speaking truth to power is the apologists who defend the Washingtonians.
Sign up for Conference Call
Dismantling Empire, Building Democracy
Professor Noam Chomsky, Backbone Cabinet Nominee for Progressive Secretary of State
Monday, March 20th, 5:30 p.m. Pacific (8:30 p.m. Eastern)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.backbonecampaign.org
This week marks the third anniversary of the misguided and tragic U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. With a burgeoning anti-war and progressive movement here at home, and exponentially growing hatred of the U.S. abroad, there is a clear and urgent need for a new national security strategy and safeguards for democracy.
The Backbone Campaign is therefore honored to welcome Professor Noam Chomsky, Backbone Cabinet nominee for Secretary of State, to discuss with us how to end U.S. empire-building and instead create a U.S. democratic republic for the 21st century.
For more than four decades, MIT Professor Emeritus of linguistics Noam Chomsky has been an outspoken critic of U.S. foreign policy, rigorously and incisively challenging governmental and corporate abuse of citizens and communities worldwide. A renowned scholar, philosopher, political/social analyst and media critic, Professor Chomsky is the recipient of honorary degrees from prestigious universities around the globe, and recently was voted the “leading/living public intellectual” in the 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll conducted by the British magazine Prospect.
Chomsky has also written scores of compelling, candid articles and over 70 books on U.S. foreign policy and mass media/propaganda. His latest book, relevant to our forthcoming Conversation, is entitled Imperial Ambitions: Conversations with Noam Chomsky on the Post-9/11 World. About this book, Publisher's Weekly said, "... it's hard to dismiss Chomsky's indictment of the damage done by U.S. policies abroad, his scornful dissection of the lies and hypocrisies of those who defend them, his insistence that wealth and class interests dominate American politics, or his uncompromising attack on the thoughtless presumption of America's right to impose its will by force on other countries. A sardonic, meticulous and always bracing critic of the powers that be, Chomsky remains a must-read for any thoughtful citizen."
Join us for the privilege of a live conversation with one of America's most knowledgeable and eloquent dissidents.
----He may be a "pointy-headed intellectual" lefty academic but I studied his Linguistics theories in the '70s and read his political articles in the defunct "Ramparts" and I might listen in!
Linda Enterkin
I love your wisdom, historical perspective and observation of patterns and cycles. Then you take it a step further and talk about what could delay them, change them or throw them off.
It's really great!
Posted by: Suz at March 19, 2006 07:25 PM
Suz, that was not at all fair.. Now I'll never get the kitchen swept!
so far personal best is 3.499
Sky falls in on Bush the outcast
Plagued by Iraq, the President's own party is abandoning him as his poll ratings plunge. Paul Harris reports from New York
Sunday March 19, 2006 The Observer
When president George W Bush launched a high-profile series of speeches last week aimed at calming nerves about the Iraq war he chose to do so in the heart of Washington DC. At George Washington University, he asked America to stay the course through troubled times. It was a familiar message to an audience that had heard it all before.
What was new was the make-up of the crowd: only five Republican congressmen and one senator attended. As displays of loyalty go it left a lot to be desired. It seems Bush should worry less about the US abandoning Iraq and more about his party abandoning him.
Tarnished by the war and a never-ending flow of domestic scandals, Bush is increasingly being seen as a liability to Republicans facing November's mid-term elections. Many of the party's senior members are distancing themselves from their President with a new willingness to disobey orders from the White House.
The reason for the change is simple: disastrous polls. Four published last week put Bush's approval ratings at historically low levels. Gallup and NBC gave him 36 per cent, while CBS had him at 34 per cent and Pew on an anaemic 33 per cent. 'When the President is above 50 per cent then party unity follows. When you sink into the thirties it is every man and woman for themselves,' said Larry Haas, a political commentator and former staffer in the Bill Clinton White House.
While Bush will never fight another election, that is not true for many members of his party running in the congressional ballots. The Republicans now control both Houses of Congress, but fear that Bush's sinking popularity could drag them down too. Most worrying for them was a poll of independent voters - the political middle ground - that showed Bush's approval rating at 23 per cent, down from 54 per cent when he first took office.
Read the rest at
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1734222,00.html
How can we capitalize on this?
Keep linking party members to what has happened on their watch.
Also, 80 per cent of Americans believe Iraq is sliding into civil war and 52 per cent think troops should pull out.
Rumsfeld's Iraq-Germany analogy disputed
Former top officials disagree with comparison
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/19/rumsfeld.nazis
"Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis," Rumsfeld wrote in an opinion piece published Sunday -- the third anniversary of the beginning of the U.S.-led war in Iraq -- in the Washington Post.
(snip)
Henry Kissinger, who served with U.S. forces in Germany at the end of World War II and who served as secretary of state under Republican Presidents Nixon and Ford, said the situations are not analogous.
"In Germany, the opposition was completely crushed; there was no significant resistance movement," the German-born diplomat told CNN's "Late Edition."
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as national security adviser under President Carter, a Democrat, was less charitable.
"That is really absolutely crazy to anyone who knows history," he said. "There was no alternative to our presence. The Germans were totally crushed. For Secretary Rumsfeld to be talking this way suggests either he doesn't know history or he's simply demagoguing."
Each politician needs to carry a shocker taped to their asses. Whenever they start politicalspeak, they get shocked.
Posted by: battlebob at March 19, 2006 09:11 PM
Ha!! I like that one!!
Posted by: Ladyteche01 at March 19, 2006 10:31 PM
3.499? Is that 3 minutes and .499 seconds?
That beats my 46.91 seconds.
For Secretary Rumsfeld to be talking this way suggests either he doesn't know history or he's simply demagoguing."
Posted by: DiAnne at March 19, 2006 10:55 PM
I pick both.
Ladies and Gentlemen watch the Secretary of Defense pull a rabbit out of his ass.
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at March 19, 2006 05:21 PM
Make that Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation not Fitzpatrick's investigation.
I wonder if the "shake up" they are talking about in the administration and the White House has anything to do with Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation?
(And begorra to ya ~ St. Patrick's Day was this past Friday, and my boys each have Irish names ~ after their Irish father ~ I have Patricks and St. Patricks comin' out me ears.)
You'd have to be really stupid to compare Germany in 1945 to Irag in 2005. Really, very, stupid.
Chuck in Houston
Oops -- Irag = Iraq in the above. Sorry. Guess that was sort of stupid of me. Although, q and g and k are used a lot interchangeabely in that part of the world when transliterating into latin script.
Chuck in Houston
Posted by: Suz at March 19, 2006 07:25 PM
Yeah, I've been meaning to tell you. Thanks for the computer crack.
I MADE myself stop a ten times.
Okay, just five more...but then that's IT.
Posted by: sparrow at March 19, 2006 08:10 PM
My favorite depricating humor about myself is "My knowledge is hampered by my ignorance. I'm okay with the word 'ignorance' because it only means 'unlearned or untaught.' The cure for ignorance is knowledge, and I'm always willing to learn. In my personal lexicon, the definition for stupidity is 'a refusal to learn.' Ergo, I'm not stupid."
I had MUCH to catch up on in filling in political knowledge gaps before the '04 election, which is when I became addicted to clicking on every possible link to find out more. I certainly had not learned much in 2000 when I was a news junkie - couldn't do much else after back surgery but watch TV. (No cable, I don't get CNN or the other cable news stuff. I also did not have a computer or internet then.) The thing that tipped me over the edge of knowing for certain we were not getting all the news in Lamestream Media was when spinmeisters thought The Cretin did well in the debates, and when no one in media pursued the voter inequity in FL, and SCOTUS appointed Dumbya to his office - and I was crushed when Gore caved. I had journaled madly during that time of the debates, said over and over that if Dumbya was elected he would invade Iraq to finish his daddy's war and that this nation would go into a recession. I was wrong in not figuring out how badly in debt Dumbya would take this nation. I underestimated his 'credit card spending' mentality. He's bankrupted us with debt. We may not "officially" be in a recession, but if other nations call in their loans, this nation will have a financial crash (and neoCons deserve it, but the rest of us don't).
So, I figure while I have caught up on a lot of things, I still don't know everything politically, and I'm still in the process of learning, learning, learning. If I feel sufficiently knowledgeable about certain things, I share the info, write and write and write. Otherwise, I'm still trying to soak up knowledge and fill in the gaps where I still feel ignorant.
~~~~~~~~~~
In my book, warrantless physical searchs is called breaking and entering.
Posted by: oncall at March 19, 2006 08:12 PM
Yup, it is. "Back in the day" a case could be thrown out of court on technicalities if law enforcement personnel did not have a valid search warrant in advance. In re-worded terms, it's also called "sneak and peek." Totally illegal by 4th Amendment standards.
This nation needs to get back on track and follow the laws (local, state and federal) and international treaties as they existed prior to when The Cretin and his Criminal Cabal were given their offices in 2000.
Since we can't turn back time, the only other option left to us is trying to convince legislators they need to repeal 99.9% of the legislation passed after 2000 that's gotten us to this point. It may be decades before we can get back to anything resembling normal. Certainly, it will be decades before this nation will be respected internationally again....
Time to take my cold back to bed....
Paul D. Eaton, a retired U.S. Army major general, was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004.
He says for his failures, Rumsfeld must go....
Paul D. Eaton The New York Times
MONDAY, MARCH 20, 2006
FOX ISLAND, Washington During World War II, American soldiers en route to Britain before D-Day were given a pamphlet on how to behave while awaiting the invasion. The most important quote was: "It is impolite to criticize your host; it is militarily stupid to criticize your allies."
By that rule, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is not competent to lead America's armed forces. First, his failure to build coalitions with U.S. allies from what he dismissively called "old Europe" has imposed far greater demands and risks on American soldiers in Iraq than necessary. Second, he alienated his allies in the U.S. military, ignoring the advice of seasoned officers and denying subordinates any chance for input.
In sum, he has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to America's mission in Iraq. Rumsfeld must step down.
In the five years he has presided over the Pentagon, I have seen groupthink become dominant and a growing reluctance by experienced military men and civilians to challenge the notions of the senior leadership.
I thought we had a glimmer of hope last November when General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, faced off with Rumsfeld on the question of how U.S. soldiers should react if they witnessed illegal treatment of prisoners by Iraqi authorities. (Pace's view was that U.S. soldiers should intervene, while Rumsfeld's position was that they should simply report the incident to superiors.)
Unfortunately, the general backed down, giving the impression that America's senior man in uniform is just as intimidated by Rumsfeld as was his predecessor, General Richard Myers.
Rumsfeld has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his ego, his Cold Warrior's view of the world and his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower. As a result, the U.S. Army finds itself severely undermanned - cut to 10 active divisions but asked by the administration to support a foreign policy that requires at least 12 or 14.
Only General Eric Shinseki, the army chief of staff when President George W. Bush was elected, had the courage to challenge the downsizing plans. So Rumsfeld retaliated by naming Shinseki's successor more than a year before his scheduled retirement, effectively undercutting his authority. The rest of the senior brass got the message, and nobody has complained since.
Now the Pentagon's new Quadrennial Defense Review shows that Rumsfeld also fails to understand the nature of protracted counterinsurgency warfare in Iraq and the demands it places on ground forces. The document, amazingly, does not call for enlarging the army; rather, it increases only Special Operations forces, by a token 15 percent, maybe 1,500 troops.
Rumsfeld has also failed in terms of operations in Iraq. He rejected the so-called Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force and sent just enough tech-enhanced troops to complete what we called Phase III of the war - ground combat against the uniformed Iraqis. He ignored competent advisers like General Anthony Zinni and others who predicted that the Iraqi forces might melt away, leading to chaos.
It is all too clear that Shinseki was right: Several hundred thousand men would have made a big difference then, as we began Phase IV, or country reconstruction. There was never a question that we would make quick work of the Iraqi Army.
Last, you do not expect a secretary of defense to be criticized for tactical ineptness. Normally, tactics are the domain of the soldier on the ground. But in this case we all felt what L. Paul Bremer, the former viceroy in Iraq, has called the "8,000-mile screwdriver" reaching from the Pentagon.
******* Commanders in the field had their discretionary financing for things like rebuilding hospitals randomly cut; money to pay Iraqi construction companies to build barracks was withheld; contracts for purchasing military equipment for the new Iraqi army were rewritten back in Washington.*******
So, what to do?
more.....
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/19/opinion/edeaton.php
Here is a graphic that will make you think twice:
http:/