WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

Vietnamnurse,

Very nicie to see you here. And your experiment is interesting. Maybe I'll try it too.

And george,

Maybe you should as well. It will give you a good, good taste of how dangerous and subversive this crowd is. They are well organized, growing and and maglignant.

I guarantee that it will be an eye opener.

VNN -- YOur new avatar is lovely!

I haven't had the education-by-mail that you've had (ick!) but I do listen to Militant Christian Radio with fascination and horror. One hears the cadence, the ignorance, the self-assuredness, the complete detachment from reality.

On NPR yesterday, in the car, I heard about five minutes of a discussion of evangelism on "Talk of the Nation." What I'd forgotten (what maybe we all forget) is that protestantism in general is built on the notion of evangelism. Anyone can start a church, anyone with a conviction that he/she knows the way, truth, light. So much of this (anti-democratic, anti-education, anti-pragmatic) self-absorption is part of our political culture and always has been. We take it with us into the international arena -- most notably the anti-democratic part -- and are suffering the consequences of our national split personality right now.

tartarin, blatham,

I am a graduate of the Naval Academy and of Cal Tech (PhD in Engineering), and NOT of any Orwellian or fundamentalist school. I had a wonderful career in the Navy serving for over two decades as a Naval aviator and later as commander of an aircraft carrier, retiring a few years later as a senior officer. Since then I have followed a somewhat whimsical and varied career in the engineering/construction & environmental business, experiencing a little of everything, including one stunning failure, but mostly very satisfying success.

Sounds really interesting, even fun, George! What a life! My point about the military is that members of the military (particularly those who enlisted, were officers, stayed in) tend to be more vocal about "patriotism," more supportive of the military and the civilian government, than are those who have served in that way. Of course it's a strong part of the training (heel-click respect) and necessary to the vocation, but when it goes up against the more general education whose purpose is to train students to think for themselves, to take nothing for granted, to question everything, and to do this for the rest of our lives, there has to be some conflict.

There is no right or wrong in this, and I can understand how military training can affect the rest of one's life, but I do believe that it's incumbent on all of us shake that off, to question authority. If we don't, we risk losing freedom. There is nothing in the Constitution which implies we'd be better off if we let our elders and betters and above all our military tell us what reality is.

I think we ask each other, here in A2K, for "sources" too often meaning validation from some pundit or some list of statistics. Given the inevitable variation in realities and the range of experience offered by life in this century, we'd do better to explain ourselves more often in terms of personal experience.

Just one more thing your post made me think of: we have to remember every time we use "history" as a justification for our certainties that history is, of course, written by people, usually the victors. I cringe a bit over the broad interpretation of the Marshall Plan particularly because I have to dust my father's books and papers more often than I like, and among them are transcripts of questions before a Senate committee which show our eagerness to involve ourselves in ending of the Dutch colonial era in Indonesia.

Like much that we do as individuals and as a nation, the Marshall Plan -- wonderful though it was -- was a capacious carryall for all kinds of activities which we weren't advertising and which haven't carried down to this generation's understanding of that program. I always think of Hannah Arendt when I point this out because people never like to consider the multitude of motives behind just about everything a human being does. But that's the way we are, and we need to learn to take ourselves, our leadership, and our nation with a peck of salt (or humble pie) now and then.

PS -- The guy who built my well system here is a retired naval officer turned inventor and environmentalist who has put together a Rube Goldberg style structure which softens and aerates the hard, sulfurous water of this aquifer without adding any chemicals in the process. He's a wonderful person, a hero.

Well Tart, we're all heroes - good looking too. (Did I add that we are also generally accomplished bullshitters as well? Just as children's tales often begin with "Once upon a time...", good sea stories all start out with "This is no ****...")

I generally agree with your observations, particularly about recent history - it IS usually written by the winners. However after the passage of a generation or two the third or so revisionist view usually attains a degree of objectivity.

I was fascinated with your anecdote about your father's papers and the references to our systematic efforts to pressure the Dutch (and other European countries as well) to give up their old empires. In fact that was a major element of our policy both during and after the war. It was hardest on the British who had not only the most to lose but also generally the best run and most benevolent colonial governance. Despite that they did it and did it well. We had the most trouble with the French, who after copping out on WWII and supinely accommodating Hitler, insisted on restoring their pre war glory and empire in Lebanon, Syria, Algeria, equatorial Africa, Djibouti, and Indochina. (There appears to be no level to which the French will not stoop.) It is useful to contemplate this fact as one considers the current behavior of that country.

My father (who was near 50 when I was born) served in the Congress from 1934 to 1960. I heard a good deal about all of the post colonial pressures from him. (By the way he was a Democrat).

There wasn't that much heel clicking in our military. In fact I observed a much greater willingness to directly challenge the ideas of people in authority in the military than I do in business. At the same time there was much less underground subversion of authority and a greater emphasis on making things work once the options had been considered and the decisison made. Overall I recall a much higher degree of often cranky individuality and idiosynchratic behavior among my old squadron mates than I observe among the attorneys and MBAs who populate the world I now inhabit.

george wrote:


George,

I agree with what you've said above. I also agree that they have been doing this out of their own self interest (I agree with you that this is the motivating factor in everything a person or a nation does). I also see it as a positive sign of strength because, when less dependent on the U.S., the EU will have a strong sense of unity and potential power. This will make them better allies, which is good for them and good for us. But it will also make them a more formidable enemy. It's up to us to decide which we want them to be.

I agree with Blatham here, you seem to be saying since everyone is out for themselves, then anything goes. But I would like to point out that some methods of getting what you want, and some evaluations of what is in best self interest, are better than others. It's a matter of function. What works best given what we need. This is the evaluation that we have to be making. Are the tactics of the Bush administration destructive to the self interest of our nation? Are they destructive to the world community? I believe they are. It's not the fact that they want to achieve a position of power that's the problem. This is the way individuals and nations work. It's that they are going at it in a destructive way and will by doing so, eliminate what they seek. Power as a nation. And they will do a devastating amount of harm in the process.

Tartarin wrote:


And george replied:


George,

I agree with this statement of yours as well, or at least it is true of any fanatical religion or living style. My point is that it's the fanatical evangelical fundamentalist Christians who are gradually taking over our government. And they've already come a long way in their endeavor. There are non fanatical members and divisions of all belief systems, just as there are those who are fanatics. It is these people we all have to fear, whether Christian or Islamic or Unitarian, for that matter. But it's the fanatical Christians over here and the fanatical Muslims over there who are at this time fighting for control and in large part are presently successful. It's this that is the extreme danger. With two fanatical sides, the outcome will be disastrous. We're on our way with George Bush. If you want a republican in office, why doesn't your party work to get rid of the fanatics? You are denying the danger here. If you want to continue to deny it with a clear conscious, why don't you do as VNN did and as I will now do as well. Subscribe to a few of the fanatical evangelical's sites. See what you find there. We could easily compare their rhetoric with that of the fundamentalist Muslims. IMO, their doctrines are identical in this respect, "identify and defeat the infidel because we know best how everyone should live and we'll coerce others into submission to our convictions." In the meantime, our only hope of preserving sanity in the next several decades is to elect anyone but George Bush.


And again, about your concern about the secularists. I think you believe they are trying to eliminate your religion and teach your children and/or grandchildren their "religion" or method of thought. At least, this is what I believe your concern to be. So if we're to have Christian principles taught in our schools, will there be equal time provided for secular principles? How about Islamic principles? Will they get a fair chance to be taught? The world is now much more one complete system than it once was. For all the familiar reasons, what we do here influences what they do there and the other way around. Is it realistic or fair to maintain that the Christian values many of our citizens depend on are the only values that matter? If we do that, we will lose that which we want the most. Religious freedom. Or I take it that you want religious freedom. I know the fundamentalists of all religions do not.

george wrote:



Ah ha! You and Timber both. This is the reason you're both such trusting souls.

Well Lola, we are getting closer.

I don't have any problem with the desire of France and Germany to lead an EU that pursues a policy rather more independent of us than in the past. That is a natural inclination of people and governments. The only element of this that concerns me is the notion that their reasons and methods in this are somehow superior to ours merely because they find it convenient to hide behind some convenient legal formalisms as justification for their stance. That notion is grossly misleading and could lead us to make the wrong choices on some rather important strategic issues. The 'blame America' crowd at once ignores the obvious self serving elements in the motivation of our national rivals and searches assiduously for deep psychological explanations for our supposed chronic bad behavior. Nonsense !

I also agree that single-minded fanatics of all stripes have caused a large fraction of the human suffering in the world. Yes there are some fanatics among the so called 'religious right', however, I don't see any evidence that they are in charge. Does anyone complain that the several unsavory groups that so easily make the Democrat party dance to their tunes, are in control of the party? While they certainly get its attention, they are no more in charge than is Ralph Reed or any of the other boogey men of the 'religious right'.

I don't have any problem with the beliefs of modern secularists. We all should have as much freedom to believe what we choose, and to act on those beliefs, as public order and the rights of others will permit. What I don't like is their systematic attempt to exclude the beliefs of religious people from public discourse precisely because of the religious motivation behind them and blithely substitute their own - under government sanction even - and defend it because of the absence of religious motivation. Where the issues in question are those of social behavior and criminal law, it is the belief itself and not the motivation of the advocates involved that counts.

Yes, george, we are narrowing it down. We agree on almost all but the following:

george wrote:



I wish you wouldn't make me work so hard, but for you, I'll do it. They may not be "in control" in the sense that they are themselves (Ralph Reed for example, although I think he is to some degree) literally calling the shots (except that GW is one of them, as is Ashcroft, Karl Rove and Tom DeLay, to name a few) but they have a large percentage representation in Congress and the White House, as well as on school boards and in local and state government. And this percentage is increasing at an alarming rate. If we re-elect Bush, and they continue at their current success rate to add more congressmen both on the national as well as the state levels, there will no longer be anything to debate. The extremists in the Democratic party are not organized in any way potent enough to be in control of the government or to even influence it much. You are wrong if you think they are, or if you think the evangelicals are not. I'll work on the stats for you. I also think they are a lot more malignant and aggressive than you seem to think. These suckers are to be feared. I say so, as Tartarin suggested we should, out of my own personal knowledge and experience.

About those of us who believe Americans can be uglier than citizens of many other countries, on average.......I agree with Blatham and Tartarin and others. Americans are, I believe, more arrogant, boastful, anti-intellectual and supercilious than most. And GW represents the very worst of us. The man has to go. That will be the first step in reducing the power the evangelical right has in our government at this time. Whether our policies and military campaigns have been more coercive, I'll leave for those of you who know more about history than I do to decide that. I think they are at least as much so as other nations, but I don't know enough details to have a valid opinion on this subject.

That other nations pursue self-interest is undeniable. That the avenues pursued differ is also undeniable. Maybe the key isn't the binary approach to everything and the differentiation is relevant?

e.g.

"Nation A and nation B both pursue their interests."

It sounds like a fair statement. But...

"Nation A invaded a nation while pursuing its interests, nation b pursued it's interests by trying to block the unprovoked invasion from occurring."

By differentiating the course of action and what each is able to get away with the picture gains perspective.

That self interest exists on two sides of a fence is not as relevant as would be the fact that on one side violent aggression is used to secure the interests were it true. To simply note that "all have sinned" is to avoid the pointed question about whether a party is currently 'sinning'.

Just as you were writing the above, Lola, "All Things Considered" was doing a piece on what happened in Texas -- the rightwing Christian takeover. Need to hear that, if you missed it -- and so does George.

Lola -- I've come to condemn protestantism in general, not lightly, but because the non-fanatical churches -- which in my view should take their fanatical fellow Christians to task -- have not done so or have not done so publicly and effectively. One gets the feeling that so many go along to get along, something which is high on my list of moral no-no's!

Craven,

You are assuming the invasion was both unprovoked and absolutely wrong. I don't accept either proposition.

Tartarin,

I can't get the link of today's All Things Considered until 7:30 EPT tonight. So I'll have to wait to hear it. When I get it, I'll post it here for george and all.

I believe there exists the technology for "instant transcripts," and I wish NPR would use it!!

Coming up in a minute is the following story:

"White House press secretary Scott McClellan admits the White House had the "Mission Accomplished" banner made. Taking questions Tuesday, President Bush said that sailors, not his advance team, placed the banner behind him as he spoke on the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. The president asserted it was not put there to mean the war in Iraq was over, but instead that the aircraft carrier's mission was over."

The lies are now so transparent you can see a burning Constitution through them...

George,

I'm not assuming it, and I don't think the war was absolutely wrong. I am saying that that relevant issues are ignored by simple dualism.

Independently of what one thinks of the war I am addressing the concept. That while both sides can be pursuing self-interest the methods each side chooses to use can differ greatly.

No reasonable person expects America not to pursue its interests. What they might contend is that America uses methods that are not appropriate.

And when this is done, you simply point out that others pursue their interests too. I think that the "all have sinned" argument evades the comparison of tactics. Germany and France are, indeed, pursuing their interests. Recently their interests have been to slow the US march to invade Iraq. Our interest has been to invade Iraq. It's just an example I'm using in hopes of illustrating a the concept that pointing out that self interest exists on both sides doesn't make the methods used to pursue them equal and doesn't even address any discrepancies.

Craven,

I generally agree with what you wrote. My opinion is that Germany and France are counting on the U.S. to act in defense of itself (and inevitably all the Western nations as well), and are happy to pose as a friend of an inflamed Moslem while they help themselves in cementing a leadership role in the evolving EU and positioning it as an alternative to the U.S. in the eyes of the world.

It is not in our interest to see them succeed in this.

Is it possible that this could be a bit of an overstatement?

Depends on your eyesight, George.

Texas Firmly in GOP Hands


NPR's Wade Goodwyn chronicles the dramatic political change that has occurred in Texas. After nurturing such powerful Democrats as Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn, Texas today is dominated by Republicans. The party runs the legislature in Austin, and it counts Rep. Tom DeLay as a powerful ally in Washington. Many expect that the state's newly adopted redistricting plan will help the GOP increase its influence even more.

http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=2&prgDate=current

The evangelical influence is not addressed until the middle of the report. Enjoy, george.......