I'm against the occupation. I believe the only reason we are still in Iraq is because the Administration wants to get rights to Iraqi oil.
The Iraqis are smart enough to wait till we withdraw before settling their regional differences over oil revenues.
So maybe in 16 months, we will have withdrawn over 100,000 troops, leaving 10,000 to 15,000 for special ops and training and guarding the most expensive American embassy ever built anywhere!
I'm thinking most of them should also be out but I'm open to considering need for some very modest presence.
I'm open to allowing those troops who are working as volunteers on schools, hospitals, etc. to be able to be there, preferably under some international charity group auspices.
But the ones I really think need to leave as soon as possible are the 150,000 contract soldiers, mercenaries hired by Halliburton, Blackwater, and all the other corporations that won no bid contracts to provide security paid for by US taxpayers . . . at ten times per person the cost of enlisted US military personnel!
No one talks about them. And they are the ones under the least control and are most hated in Iraq. THEY REPRESENT THE U. S. in the eyes of the Iraqis as much as our regular military.
Get them out of Iraq.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
The Mainstream Media takes another look
Maybe the real journalists finally talked back to their producers. Maybe the advertisers spoke up to the executives. Maybe the Bush-McCain messages have finally become so unreal that even Republican-sympathizers among media circles are offended. Maybe the liberal blogosphere is finally being heard and supported more than the mainstream media.
Or, maybe the reality of the Obama change is finally sinking in and the corporations are wanting not to be on his bad side.
They know what it is like to get on the bad side of the Bush Administration. They are seeing what it is to be in the bad side of McCain. Now they may actually hope that Obama will win, knowing they will then have less to fear in terms of retaliation.
Now if only the Jim Adkissons of the world (the folks who think it is open season on anything liberal, even Unitarians), can somehow be reached and dissuaded from fulfilling the fantasies of O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and some of the other outspoken commentators. . . .
Or, maybe the reality of the Obama change is finally sinking in and the corporations are wanting not to be on his bad side.
They know what it is like to get on the bad side of the Bush Administration. They are seeing what it is to be in the bad side of McCain. Now they may actually hope that Obama will win, knowing they will then have less to fear in terms of retaliation.
Now if only the Jim Adkissons of the world (the folks who think it is open season on anything liberal, even Unitarians), can somehow be reached and dissuaded from fulfilling the fantasies of O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and some of the other outspoken commentators. . . .
Monday, July 21, 2008
"Big Men Avoid War"
In a review of a new book about the Cuban Missile Crisis, Jackie Kennedy Onassis is quoted as saying, “Small men start wars. Big men avoid them.”
The reference, of course, was to the decisions made when the Russians were shipping missiles to Cuba.
At the time, America had a major strategic advantage over the USSR with its missiles and atomic warheads. There were several key military leaders who felt that if we attempted a pre-emptive war with the reds, we’d easily win.
President Kennedy asked what would happen if even one Russian missile made it through. He was told that it would mean a half million deaths. He is said to have responded, “We lost that many during the Civil War a hundred years ago and the nation still has not recovered.”
He chose not to go with his military leaders.
He found some US missiles in Turkey that America had promised to remove years before but the military had dragged its feet. When he negotiated with Secretary Kruschev, he was able to “swap” missiles in Turkey for missiles in Cuba. Both men knew this was a face saving agreement but they knew it was used it for the larger goal of avoiding the deaths of millions of people.
It was to this decision that Jackie was speaking.
The impact of her words on me were very relevant to what I see in our rush to war in Iraq. Did our President ask how many people could be killed if we undertook the war? Would he have considered the Iraqis who would die? Did anyone anticipate the estimated million Iraqis killed and injured because of our invasion, many the “collateral damage” resulting from our military actions?
If no one had that foresight, it does not matter. Iraqis will not forget.
Big men avoid wars.
The reference, of course, was to the decisions made when the Russians were shipping missiles to Cuba.
At the time, America had a major strategic advantage over the USSR with its missiles and atomic warheads. There were several key military leaders who felt that if we attempted a pre-emptive war with the reds, we’d easily win.
President Kennedy asked what would happen if even one Russian missile made it through. He was told that it would mean a half million deaths. He is said to have responded, “We lost that many during the Civil War a hundred years ago and the nation still has not recovered.”
He chose not to go with his military leaders.
He found some US missiles in Turkey that America had promised to remove years before but the military had dragged its feet. When he negotiated with Secretary Kruschev, he was able to “swap” missiles in Turkey for missiles in Cuba. Both men knew this was a face saving agreement but they knew it was used it for the larger goal of avoiding the deaths of millions of people.
It was to this decision that Jackie was speaking.
The impact of her words on me were very relevant to what I see in our rush to war in Iraq. Did our President ask how many people could be killed if we undertook the war? Would he have considered the Iraqis who would die? Did anyone anticipate the estimated million Iraqis killed and injured because of our invasion, many the “collateral damage” resulting from our military actions?
If no one had that foresight, it does not matter. Iraqis will not forget.
Big men avoid wars.
Friday, July 18, 2008
A Proud American
(With acknowledgment and thanks to anthropologist Ralph Linton’s 1936 book THE STUDY OF MAN and French writer Sigrid Hunke's “Le soleil d'Allah Brille sur L'occident: Notre Héritage Arabe" which means “God’s Sun Shines on the West, Our Arab Heritage").
Ginger Shaw, a busy mother born and raised in Cairo (known by everyone who lives there as “Kay-Ro” though named after the ancient Arab capital city of Egypt), Illinois, was slow to roll off her damask ("demashk," a colorful fabric invented in Damascus) -covered mattress (“matrah,” developed by nomadic tribes in what is now the Arabian peninsula) . She put on her satin ("sataan", a silky and shiny cloth devised in an ancient Arab domain now in Northern Syria) robe, and wandered into her breakfast nook where she took a cup of coffee ("cahwa", made of coffee beans called "Arabica" and grown for thousands of years in Yemen) with one sugar ("sukkar" first grown in the Jordan Valley and refined into brown sugar in Palestine), sipped it leisurely as she sat on her ottoman ("othman", a comfortable stool that originated in Turkey and aptly named after the Ottomans) covered with Moroccan leather. She was careful not to spill her orange (imported plants from China and domesticated in the plains around Jaffa, the City of Oranges in Palestine) juice on her Persian (designed and made for hundreds of years in what is now Iran) carpet. She next helped herself to a glass (first made over thousands of years ago in Palestine) of water.
She wanted to prepare a nice meal for her friend who was coming at midday. She had chosen a capon (roosters first neutered in Egypt for the purpose of turning them tender and plump), rice ("ruzz" domesticated in Indonesia and South China and imported into the Middle East by Arab traders thousands of years before European traders discovered it), and spinach ("sabanegh" , its Arab ancestry is so old it is common all over the Middle East) with an artichoke (domesticated and grown along the Fertile Crescent from Iran through Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon to Palestine and whose Arabic name "Ardi chokeh" means "spiny ground fruit") salad. She thought a little saffron ("zaafaran" a common Arabian delicate spice also used as a dye) would add a touch of color to the rice. Cumin ("cammun" first used in what is now Palestine long before the Christian era) would spice up the capon a bit. And dessert would be apricot (first grown in Persia) tarts with Pistacchios ('pfustuk" first grown near Aleppo in Northern Syria) and a spoonful of orange sorbet ("sherbet" invented in Jaffa, Palestine) on the side. Lovely, she thought.
She took a few minutes to check the algebra ("al jabr", a form of mathemetics expanded upon by Arab scholars between 523 and 1300 AD) assignments her ninth grade daughter had completed. She also checked the logarithm ("al-khawarism," invented by Arab mathematicians during that same era, the mathematical language still used in advanced mathematics and computer analysis) assignment that her twelfth grade son asked her to go over before he turned it in.
She looked at the astrology (a study of the interplay of stars – astronomy which was developed and originally used by sailors in Iraq and the Gulf States -- and human life, established and widely used by Arab astronomers) section of the morning paper to see what to expect for her day.
The paper’s headlines spoke of troubles in the Middle East and Ginger ("zanjabil" also a plant root used as a spice first domesticated in what is now Yemen and Southern Saudi Arabia) thanked God (who, alone among a number of deities the Hebrews worshiped in the Arab wilderness, chose them to be His people) that she had nothing in common with those people and was one hundred percent American.
(Special thanks to Hasan Hammami, Sid Glaser, and Bob Grumman for information and editorial ideas.)
Ginger Shaw, a busy mother born and raised in Cairo (known by everyone who lives there as “Kay-Ro” though named after the ancient Arab capital city of Egypt), Illinois, was slow to roll off her damask ("demashk," a colorful fabric invented in Damascus) -covered mattress (“matrah,” developed by nomadic tribes in what is now the Arabian peninsula) . She put on her satin ("sataan", a silky and shiny cloth devised in an ancient Arab domain now in Northern Syria) robe, and wandered into her breakfast nook where she took a cup of coffee ("cahwa", made of coffee beans called "Arabica" and grown for thousands of years in Yemen) with one sugar ("sukkar" first grown in the Jordan Valley and refined into brown sugar in Palestine), sipped it leisurely as she sat on her ottoman ("othman", a comfortable stool that originated in Turkey and aptly named after the Ottomans) covered with Moroccan leather. She was careful not to spill her orange (imported plants from China and domesticated in the plains around Jaffa, the City of Oranges in Palestine) juice on her Persian (designed and made for hundreds of years in what is now Iran) carpet. She next helped herself to a glass (first made over thousands of years ago in Palestine) of water.
She wanted to prepare a nice meal for her friend who was coming at midday. She had chosen a capon (roosters first neutered in Egypt for the purpose of turning them tender and plump), rice ("ruzz" domesticated in Indonesia and South China and imported into the Middle East by Arab traders thousands of years before European traders discovered it), and spinach ("sabanegh" , its Arab ancestry is so old it is common all over the Middle East) with an artichoke (domesticated and grown along the Fertile Crescent from Iran through Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon to Palestine and whose Arabic name "Ardi chokeh" means "spiny ground fruit") salad. She thought a little saffron ("zaafaran" a common Arabian delicate spice also used as a dye) would add a touch of color to the rice. Cumin ("cammun" first used in what is now Palestine long before the Christian era) would spice up the capon a bit. And dessert would be apricot (first grown in Persia) tarts with Pistacchios ('pfustuk" first grown near Aleppo in Northern Syria) and a spoonful of orange sorbet ("sherbet" invented in Jaffa, Palestine) on the side. Lovely, she thought.
She took a few minutes to check the algebra ("al jabr", a form of mathemetics expanded upon by Arab scholars between 523 and 1300 AD) assignments her ninth grade daughter had completed. She also checked the logarithm ("al-khawarism," invented by Arab mathematicians during that same era, the mathematical language still used in advanced mathematics and computer analysis) assignment that her twelfth grade son asked her to go over before he turned it in.
She looked at the astrology (a study of the interplay of stars – astronomy which was developed and originally used by sailors in Iraq and the Gulf States -- and human life, established and widely used by Arab astronomers) section of the morning paper to see what to expect for her day.
The paper’s headlines spoke of troubles in the Middle East and Ginger ("zanjabil" also a plant root used as a spice first domesticated in what is now Yemen and Southern Saudi Arabia) thanked God (who, alone among a number of deities the Hebrews worshiped in the Arab wilderness, chose them to be His people) that she had nothing in common with those people and was one hundred percent American.
(Special thanks to Hasan Hammami, Sid Glaser, and Bob Grumman for information and editorial ideas.)
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Dear Brett
Dear Brett,
Remember that we love you dearly. We hope this kafuffle passes quickly.
As you said when you retired in March, you were having difficulty psyching up for the preparations to play. You were clear that Sundays would be something you could get excited about. And you said you expected to get the urge to return as the season approached. You and Deana talked at length. In March, you knew that to be the player you have been, it would take more than you could give.
You brought the rest of the country along with the pain of having to admit you were no longer able to do the whole job. You knew that on Sundays, you would miss the excitement, the camaraderie, the challenge. We saw the old fire horse raring to go when the bell rang, but whose will might not be counted upon the rest of the time. We wanted the best for you and retirement seemed like it was the best for you and for your family. We cried when you gave us your final word. We hoped you’d find something satisfying to be your new vocation.
Now you are telling us you really wanted to play all along and that you were pressured to retire,
If you were serious about coming back, you as a pro would have been working out very hard for the last two months, not just going over to the high school once in awhile. Think about what the other players have been doing. To do less would be to let them down.
If you were serious about coming back, you and your agent would have done the paperwork to retire to end your contractual ties to the Packers or to seek reinstatement through the commissioner’s office.
I wish it didn’t look this way but blaming the Packer organization for pressuring you, grousing about decisions the Packers made that went against your opinions, and asking for release sound more like sour grapes than a reality-based decision.
Here’s what I wished you’d have done:
1. Come back to Wisconsin for the charity softball game and golf outing.
2. Hung around during the voluntary training activities, working out with the guys.
3. Sat in on meetings with the new quarterbacks.
4. Accepted the role as elder statesman and accepted Aaron Rodgers in the number one role.
5. Asked for reinstatement if you felt at home doing the above.
6. Been willing to accept the possibility that the team might not need you unless there was a catastrophic injury to Aaron and accept returning to whatever status the team could pull you off of quickly in case of emergency.
7. Faced the fact that your iron-man record is ended and that you no longer bear the load of central player.
8. Faced the fact that Randy Moss gamed you into thinking he’d come to Green Bay but was really planning to get as much out of the Patriots as he could.
Here’s what would have happened:
All fans would be glad to have you around again along with the few who can’t get it through their heads that you have gotten older.
You’d have the fellowship of being a part of the team.
Because the life of a quarterback is so tenuous in light of the sophisticated defenses and athletic players, you would be on the field for those times Aaron goes down.
You would still have some moments when you make plays (I’m 73 and I can still shoot baskets and defend players bigger than me . . . though full court play is not possible yet as I recuperate from my latest physical setback!).
But there will be days when you wished you had stayed retired. The cold gets colder as we age (we moved to the south to get away from it!).
And you might find a new role to play as Rob Davis did. You might make the transition from player to coach or administrator over time.
We know you can thrive under coaching as you showed since Mike McCarthy came, even if you found it harder work than you had during the period between Mike Holmgren and McCarthy. Maybe another coach and another team will not push you the way the two Mikes did but you would never play as well, either.
Finally, you’ve told us that your dad insisted that you be a team player. If you want to be around the team and if you are willing to be a role player, good things will happen. But if you forget that, the chances are you will not regain your full potential ever again, no matter how pumped you are right now, no matter where you’d get to play.
We hope you find your way through this that is a credit to you and your family.
Respectfully,
Jerry
Remember that we love you dearly. We hope this kafuffle passes quickly.
As you said when you retired in March, you were having difficulty psyching up for the preparations to play. You were clear that Sundays would be something you could get excited about. And you said you expected to get the urge to return as the season approached. You and Deana talked at length. In March, you knew that to be the player you have been, it would take more than you could give.
You brought the rest of the country along with the pain of having to admit you were no longer able to do the whole job. You knew that on Sundays, you would miss the excitement, the camaraderie, the challenge. We saw the old fire horse raring to go when the bell rang, but whose will might not be counted upon the rest of the time. We wanted the best for you and retirement seemed like it was the best for you and for your family. We cried when you gave us your final word. We hoped you’d find something satisfying to be your new vocation.
Now you are telling us you really wanted to play all along and that you were pressured to retire,
If you were serious about coming back, you as a pro would have been working out very hard for the last two months, not just going over to the high school once in awhile. Think about what the other players have been doing. To do less would be to let them down.
If you were serious about coming back, you and your agent would have done the paperwork to retire to end your contractual ties to the Packers or to seek reinstatement through the commissioner’s office.
I wish it didn’t look this way but blaming the Packer organization for pressuring you, grousing about decisions the Packers made that went against your opinions, and asking for release sound more like sour grapes than a reality-based decision.
Here’s what I wished you’d have done:
1. Come back to Wisconsin for the charity softball game and golf outing.
2. Hung around during the voluntary training activities, working out with the guys.
3. Sat in on meetings with the new quarterbacks.
4. Accepted the role as elder statesman and accepted Aaron Rodgers in the number one role.
5. Asked for reinstatement if you felt at home doing the above.
6. Been willing to accept the possibility that the team might not need you unless there was a catastrophic injury to Aaron and accept returning to whatever status the team could pull you off of quickly in case of emergency.
7. Faced the fact that your iron-man record is ended and that you no longer bear the load of central player.
8. Faced the fact that Randy Moss gamed you into thinking he’d come to Green Bay but was really planning to get as much out of the Patriots as he could.
Here’s what would have happened:
All fans would be glad to have you around again along with the few who can’t get it through their heads that you have gotten older.
You’d have the fellowship of being a part of the team.
Because the life of a quarterback is so tenuous in light of the sophisticated defenses and athletic players, you would be on the field for those times Aaron goes down.
You would still have some moments when you make plays (I’m 73 and I can still shoot baskets and defend players bigger than me . . . though full court play is not possible yet as I recuperate from my latest physical setback!).
But there will be days when you wished you had stayed retired. The cold gets colder as we age (we moved to the south to get away from it!).
And you might find a new role to play as Rob Davis did. You might make the transition from player to coach or administrator over time.
We know you can thrive under coaching as you showed since Mike McCarthy came, even if you found it harder work than you had during the period between Mike Holmgren and McCarthy. Maybe another coach and another team will not push you the way the two Mikes did but you would never play as well, either.
Finally, you’ve told us that your dad insisted that you be a team player. If you want to be around the team and if you are willing to be a role player, good things will happen. But if you forget that, the chances are you will not regain your full potential ever again, no matter how pumped you are right now, no matter where you’d get to play.
We hope you find your way through this that is a credit to you and your family.
Respectfully,
Jerry
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Caregivers' Psalm
How can one smile watching a loved one wanting to die?
Perhaps not consciously wanting -- but an innate desire to "go home."
The Life Everlasting beckons --
The Earthly one cries, "Enough!"
And so it is with her. "I'm 88," she whispers. "Let me go!"
God quietly intervenes.
"I make the call. I'm the One Who gives. I'm the One Who takes.
You have miles to go, to serve, to do good."
What do you know of the future, of My plans?
You may have an old man to bury, to bid farewell --
Then Paradise will accept you both."
This is as it is written:
The Caregiver awaits you and you shall dwell together in the House of the Lord forever.
Art Davis
Copyright - used with permission
Perhaps not consciously wanting -- but an innate desire to "go home."
The Life Everlasting beckons --
The Earthly one cries, "Enough!"
And so it is with her. "I'm 88," she whispers. "Let me go!"
God quietly intervenes.
"I make the call. I'm the One Who gives. I'm the One Who takes.
You have miles to go, to serve, to do good."
What do you know of the future, of My plans?
You may have an old man to bury, to bid farewell --
Then Paradise will accept you both."
This is as it is written:
The Caregiver awaits you and you shall dwell together in the House of the Lord forever.
Art Davis
Copyright - used with permission
Friday, July 11, 2008
Those Limping Methodists
California's high court challenges the USA with respect to marrying of homosexual couples. Two United Methodist Annual Conferences challenge the UMC by supporting homosexual marriages and seeking no sanctions against over sixty retired clergy who are willing to violate church law to marry Gay and Lesbian partners.
In an article for United Methodist News Service by Marta Aldrich, the two approaches to the issue are clearly drawn. On the one side which the conferences have affirmed is the view that our image as an open Church requires pastoral sensitivity to the experience of the love between same-sex partners. The other side says that Scriptures are clear about the practice of homosexuality being against God's will.
The basic argument between the two sides is no less resolved on the national church level. The General Conference affirmed both in its quadrennial meeting in Fort Worth in late April.
The supporters of the authority of Scripture argue that 98% of world Methodists are against same-sex marriage. Those supporting such legal bonds say they find it hard to take seriously those who choose only some Scripture to be taken literally and others to be interpreted in other ways.
One anti-Gay marriage proponent reminds us through the Aldrich article that the issue seems to lay in the experience of the "pro" group but that there are three other grounds to examine an issue, Scripture, tradition, and reason.
General Conference was offered a resolution from the "Reason" approach but rejected it. In essence, the resolution (yes, it was mine) described how modern science has determined there are some genetic grounds for homosexuality to exist and some research showing that hormonal conditions of a mother at birth strongly determine the sexual orientation of her sons. If we are willing to accept this new scientific evidence, then we must admit that some homosexuals are God-made.
Social scientists have long known of how different cultures have dealt with homosexuals, many having good ways to integrate homosexual relationships (one being the "birdache" system among Native American tribes).
Social scientists have also observed that some homosexuality has its basis in psychological or socialogical pressures (such as needing to be "homosexual" in order to gain access to certain levels of some specialty vocations). So some homosexuality is man-made.
Since the Church has ministry to all, there really is no reason to be saying one side or the other is right.
Both sides have to look at what they have to offer to the various kinds of homosexuals.
The General Conference voted against a resolution which would have granted respect for two different views. Maybe when the science (Reason) is given its appropriate respect, we will move away from the kinds of fear and antagonism generated especially by those who are against same-sex unions of any sort and toward loving our neighbors as ourselves.
In an article for United Methodist News Service by Marta Aldrich, the two approaches to the issue are clearly drawn. On the one side which the conferences have affirmed is the view that our image as an open Church requires pastoral sensitivity to the experience of the love between same-sex partners. The other side says that Scriptures are clear about the practice of homosexuality being against God's will.
The basic argument between the two sides is no less resolved on the national church level. The General Conference affirmed both in its quadrennial meeting in Fort Worth in late April.
The supporters of the authority of Scripture argue that 98% of world Methodists are against same-sex marriage. Those supporting such legal bonds say they find it hard to take seriously those who choose only some Scripture to be taken literally and others to be interpreted in other ways.
One anti-Gay marriage proponent reminds us through the Aldrich article that the issue seems to lay in the experience of the "pro" group but that there are three other grounds to examine an issue, Scripture, tradition, and reason.
General Conference was offered a resolution from the "Reason" approach but rejected it. In essence, the resolution (yes, it was mine) described how modern science has determined there are some genetic grounds for homosexuality to exist and some research showing that hormonal conditions of a mother at birth strongly determine the sexual orientation of her sons. If we are willing to accept this new scientific evidence, then we must admit that some homosexuals are God-made.
Social scientists have long known of how different cultures have dealt with homosexuals, many having good ways to integrate homosexual relationships (one being the "birdache" system among Native American tribes).
Social scientists have also observed that some homosexuality has its basis in psychological or socialogical pressures (such as needing to be "homosexual" in order to gain access to certain levels of some specialty vocations). So some homosexuality is man-made.
Since the Church has ministry to all, there really is no reason to be saying one side or the other is right.
Both sides have to look at what they have to offer to the various kinds of homosexuals.
The General Conference voted against a resolution which would have granted respect for two different views. Maybe when the science (Reason) is given its appropriate respect, we will move away from the kinds of fear and antagonism generated especially by those who are against same-sex unions of any sort and toward loving our neighbors as ourselves.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Barak, Barak, Barak!
They have you turning into a Washington insider!
Your dream of being a different kind of politician is dissipating into becoming a proclaimer of positions from which you will have a hard time backing away. That allows your opponents to back you into corners and disturbs those who have been your friend.
Do you actually believe there are a lot of women who wait until the last two weeks of their pregnancy and then on a whim go for a late term abortion? I hope Hilary and Michelle and any other intelligent woman who knows you has gotten on your case big time!
You almost make a save by bringing in the concern for the medical necessity to save the mother with which nearly everyone agrees. But you let the questioner or your opponent or your advisors put forward something that is so unlikely that it is an urban myth.
Those ultra-conservatives who believe in welfare queens and careless abortions won't vote for you anyway! But now you are stuck with a public statement of policy which makes you sound like a wingnut.
That's the problem. Old time politics is made up making pronouncements. You've already had to go back and try to clear up something you just said a few hours before. Try not to let anyone set you up to make you have to do that.
If you have to do that, I appreciate it that you take responsibility yourself instead of letting someone else cover a mistake and speak for you.
But as I understand your basic political mode, it is to consult with those who know something about the concern, including the victims, practitioners, opponents, students, and scholars as well as politicians before making a decision.
Your best opinions on complex issues cannot possibly be formed in 95% of the areas you are being questioned about! Who cares about your damned opinion!
I know you can't put off all statements until you've had a chance to consult across the board and across the aisle. But you can at least leave us hopeful that you have not absolutely made up your mind on more than just a few very basic things, like knowing you don't yet have a full set of information on most things!
And that you cannot see the Iraq occupation continuing any longer than the safety of our troops and of those Iraqis who need to come out with us allows.
And that you can provide your fundamental principles without necessarily prejudging the best solutions.
All the folks who wish they were President want desperately to be able to make other people take their opinions, whether fully informed or not, as the last word. The current President thinks he is the decider. And no one really pays any attention to him any more, not even himself.
That is the "old" politics which allows for partisanship which tears apart the government.
Don't fall into that mental trap!
A philosophy professor once said to our class, "How do you know what you'd know if you knew what you don't know?"
Be cool. Be humble Be open. Don't let us feel like you've already made up your mind on things we know are really tough. Tell us your starting point but be careful not to tell us your last word on anything but the most basic things important to you and about which you really do know! If you really do know, then teach us so we understand how you got there, as you did on the issue of race.
Oh yeah, it would be great if you do that on any other major decision you have to make, preferably before you set that decision in stone.
Temptation to have to offer your opinions on everything is a power game you must avoid.
Your dream of being a different kind of politician is dissipating into becoming a proclaimer of positions from which you will have a hard time backing away. That allows your opponents to back you into corners and disturbs those who have been your friend.
Do you actually believe there are a lot of women who wait until the last two weeks of their pregnancy and then on a whim go for a late term abortion? I hope Hilary and Michelle and any other intelligent woman who knows you has gotten on your case big time!
You almost make a save by bringing in the concern for the medical necessity to save the mother with which nearly everyone agrees. But you let the questioner or your opponent or your advisors put forward something that is so unlikely that it is an urban myth.
Those ultra-conservatives who believe in welfare queens and careless abortions won't vote for you anyway! But now you are stuck with a public statement of policy which makes you sound like a wingnut.
That's the problem. Old time politics is made up making pronouncements. You've already had to go back and try to clear up something you just said a few hours before. Try not to let anyone set you up to make you have to do that.
If you have to do that, I appreciate it that you take responsibility yourself instead of letting someone else cover a mistake and speak for you.
But as I understand your basic political mode, it is to consult with those who know something about the concern, including the victims, practitioners, opponents, students, and scholars as well as politicians before making a decision.
Your best opinions on complex issues cannot possibly be formed in 95% of the areas you are being questioned about! Who cares about your damned opinion!
I know you can't put off all statements until you've had a chance to consult across the board and across the aisle. But you can at least leave us hopeful that you have not absolutely made up your mind on more than just a few very basic things, like knowing you don't yet have a full set of information on most things!
And that you cannot see the Iraq occupation continuing any longer than the safety of our troops and of those Iraqis who need to come out with us allows.
And that you can provide your fundamental principles without necessarily prejudging the best solutions.
All the folks who wish they were President want desperately to be able to make other people take their opinions, whether fully informed or not, as the last word. The current President thinks he is the decider. And no one really pays any attention to him any more, not even himself.
That is the "old" politics which allows for partisanship which tears apart the government.
Don't fall into that mental trap!
A philosophy professor once said to our class, "How do you know what you'd know if you knew what you don't know?"
Be cool. Be humble Be open. Don't let us feel like you've already made up your mind on things we know are really tough. Tell us your starting point but be careful not to tell us your last word on anything but the most basic things important to you and about which you really do know! If you really do know, then teach us so we understand how you got there, as you did on the issue of race.
Oh yeah, it would be great if you do that on any other major decision you have to make, preferably before you set that decision in stone.
Temptation to have to offer your opinions on everything is a power game you must avoid.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Caregiver's Lament
Our favorite poet, Art Davis, takes care of his wife full time nowadays. They are a devoted couple. Even while she is trying to recuperate from a number of things, operations and infections, she noticed that since she was going to be under the care of a therapist, he was free to come to writers' group. It's the first time since mid-March he felt he could attend.
Here is what he shared with us:
Days trudge down to uneasy calm.
Night arrives draped in fear of what might happen - -
based upon what has happened.
How I long for unfettered sleep.....
The sun sets again upon the undone.
The moon rises,
red from the warming,
Dimly lights my place,
this spit of sand.
The one I've loved so long
sleeps fitfully.
A body racked by age and Rx's.
Systems confused and dosed
by Science's fiction.
The night is kidnapped once again
by Dawn--relentless the routine.
The loved one awakes --
the one upon whom I shower care.
The one who reacts in temper to the
"Please Dear do's and don't's."My admonitions, attempted guidance.
Questioning, "Who prescribed,
Who said that?"
Of what reward is this?
The battles of therapy
continues unabated.
Therapy the enemy.
Pills the dwarfs of repair.
The caregiver, ever the necessary evil.
The bane of days--Vigilante 24/7.
Visitors visit. Prayers vented.
Love brings sustenance.
Mail brings love.
The Children come,
Bless them each.
They bring gifts, do things,
make decisions.
They cook, they clean, they depart.
The caregiver remains, to wonder,
fear, mop, launder, cook -- HA!
react to every sigh,
every move, as the past is recalled.....
Sleep still eludes each glue-footed moment -- every one.
Searching the clouds I pray -- mutely ask God,
"Have you heard my prayers?"
From what I've been told of God--
I suspect His answer would be,
"Why else are you courting another day to care, to love, to hope?"
5/30/08
Copyright- Art Davis
Here is what he shared with us:
Days trudge down to uneasy calm.
Night arrives draped in fear of what might happen - -
based upon what has happened.
How I long for unfettered sleep.....
The sun sets again upon the undone.
The moon rises,
red from the warming,
Dimly lights my place,
this spit of sand.
The one I've loved so long
sleeps fitfully.
A body racked by age and Rx's.
Systems confused and dosed
by Science's fiction.
The night is kidnapped once again
by Dawn--relentless the routine.
The loved one awakes --
the one upon whom I shower care.
The one who reacts in temper to the
"Please Dear do's and don't's."My admonitions, attempted guidance.
Questioning, "Who prescribed,
Who said that?"
Of what reward is this?
The battles of therapy
continues unabated.
Therapy the enemy.
Pills the dwarfs of repair.
The caregiver, ever the necessary evil.
The bane of days--Vigilante 24/7.
Visitors visit. Prayers vented.
Love brings sustenance.
Mail brings love.
The Children come,
Bless them each.
They bring gifts, do things,
make decisions.
They cook, they clean, they depart.
The caregiver remains, to wonder,
fear, mop, launder, cook -- HA!
react to every sigh,
every move, as the past is recalled.....
Sleep still eludes each glue-footed moment -- every one.
Searching the clouds I pray -- mutely ask God,
"Have you heard my prayers?"
From what I've been told of God--
I suspect His answer would be,
"Why else are you courting another day to care, to love, to hope?"
5/30/08
Copyright- Art Davis
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Republicaniztion of the media
After Tom Brokaw retired, I was not surprised to see Brian Williams take his chair on the NBC Nightly News. He had good ratings in MSNBC's 9 pm news and commentary slot. I was not real happy, though, because I found I could not watch him very long before seeing him ignore information and stories that put Republicans in a bad light. So I stayed away from NBC for news.
I thought that Peter Jennings was solid as a newscaster, and, like Tom Brokaw, had been even-handed, as far as I could tell. I usually watched Dan Rather but would switch to Jennings during special events because ABC was less repetitive in what they presented. Between the two, I felt I was getting a fair picture of the event.
But Jennings retired and Charlie Smith took over. It wasn't long before he sounded more like a Fox newsman than a true successor to Peter Jennings. I haven't watched ABC for any news since.
I stuck with Katie Couric after she took the Rather chair. I thought she was more fair about the news than any other network except PBS.
Then she had to take vacation (I do not know why she began to be away from the news desk so often . . . I presumed some was to be on assignment but I kept hearing "Katie is off tonight.")
She had been refused more time for her broadcasts (an hour was longer than CBS wanted to let her have) and so she had even less time to do the human stuff she is so good at as well as solid news which she also does well, I think. The ratings didn't agree with me.
She missed doing the news frequently this psta week or so. Harry Smith, the morning guy, took most of the nights and, like his "brother" Charlie, was more like Fox than anything. It was hard for me to listen to his ignoring things that I thought were common knowledge in order to spin the news in an unbalanced and unfair way. I couldn't wait for Russ Mitchel, who I have always trusted to be straight and solid.
But he is starting to slant things in ways I've never heard him do before. I got to wondering who writes for these people, the Republican Natiuonal Committee?
Obviously this is an opinion piece and not a documented statement. If I could have taped, transcribed, and then offered those moments when I felt betrayed by these otherwise admirable journalists, then you could see what I'm taking about.
Just watch for yourself. Watch to see if the texts they read ignore the real activities and voting record of John McCain and see how they keep finding fault with Barak Obama without providing the full context of Obama's words or actions.
It seems to me that something is happening beyond the media just trying to be sure there is a "horse race" in November to spur people's interest in watching their respective newscasts. Are the corporations that own the big three networks clamping down on their news departments? Do the former good guys have to now be good "soldiers" for their bosses?
How long will the news people with integrity last? Where will they work after they have been either discredited or "let go" in some kind of staff reorganization or programming reshuffle?
I wonder how long Jon Stewart and Stphen Colbert will last . . . .
The tragedy, of course, is that the networks are losing credibility just at a time when their honesty and truthfulness are most needed. They blew it when the Bush war machine rolled over Colin Powell and the rest of the country. Only Couric admitted she missed opportunities to follow up while Williams and Smith both claimed they did not fail in their duty as premier newscasters. Will they blow it as the Iraqi war winds down (hopefully!) and the elections draw near? Or will they rediscover integrity?
I thought that Peter Jennings was solid as a newscaster, and, like Tom Brokaw, had been even-handed, as far as I could tell. I usually watched Dan Rather but would switch to Jennings during special events because ABC was less repetitive in what they presented. Between the two, I felt I was getting a fair picture of the event.
But Jennings retired and Charlie Smith took over. It wasn't long before he sounded more like a Fox newsman than a true successor to Peter Jennings. I haven't watched ABC for any news since.
I stuck with Katie Couric after she took the Rather chair. I thought she was more fair about the news than any other network except PBS.
Then she had to take vacation (I do not know why she began to be away from the news desk so often . . . I presumed some was to be on assignment but I kept hearing "Katie is off tonight.")
She had been refused more time for her broadcasts (an hour was longer than CBS wanted to let her have) and so she had even less time to do the human stuff she is so good at as well as solid news which she also does well, I think. The ratings didn't agree with me.
She missed doing the news frequently this psta week or so. Harry Smith, the morning guy, took most of the nights and, like his "brother" Charlie, was more like Fox than anything. It was hard for me to listen to his ignoring things that I thought were common knowledge in order to spin the news in an unbalanced and unfair way. I couldn't wait for Russ Mitchel, who I have always trusted to be straight and solid.
But he is starting to slant things in ways I've never heard him do before. I got to wondering who writes for these people, the Republican Natiuonal Committee?
Obviously this is an opinion piece and not a documented statement. If I could have taped, transcribed, and then offered those moments when I felt betrayed by these otherwise admirable journalists, then you could see what I'm taking about.
Just watch for yourself. Watch to see if the texts they read ignore the real activities and voting record of John McCain and see how they keep finding fault with Barak Obama without providing the full context of Obama's words or actions.
It seems to me that something is happening beyond the media just trying to be sure there is a "horse race" in November to spur people's interest in watching their respective newscasts. Are the corporations that own the big three networks clamping down on their news departments? Do the former good guys have to now be good "soldiers" for their bosses?
How long will the news people with integrity last? Where will they work after they have been either discredited or "let go" in some kind of staff reorganization or programming reshuffle?
I wonder how long Jon Stewart and Stphen Colbert will last . . . .
The tragedy, of course, is that the networks are losing credibility just at a time when their honesty and truthfulness are most needed. They blew it when the Bush war machine rolled over Colin Powell and the rest of the country. Only Couric admitted she missed opportunities to follow up while Williams and Smith both claimed they did not fail in their duty as premier newscasters. Will they blow it as the Iraqi war winds down (hopefully!) and the elections draw near? Or will they rediscover integrity?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)