WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

When someone repeatedly posts bits of articles without including source material, it makes one wonder if the poster has "edited" the article to better suit his or her point of view. This is expecially relevant since a certain poster whose screen name ends in "ion" has frequently edited things he has posted by excising anything that (he thinks) doesn't fit his opinion. This is an example of intellectual dishonesty that taking a college class or two might remove from your repertoire. It certainly makes me, and I'm sure a few others here, take your postings less than seriously.

I'm sure you are at least a mildly inoffensive person once or twice a day. I admire your having flown fighters, and I'm sure that at least your mother if not loves, tolerates you. Why not try to raise the level of your posts to the same validity that the rest of us strive for?

One of the things I find offputting (is that a word?) in these message board political discussions is the generalized labels put on everything. It's either liberal/democrat/left wing or conservative/republican/right wing.

As an example, we were discussing group dynamics and used the Ethics in America roundtable discussions as an example of excellent discussion group dynamics. The discussion of ethics education immediately got characterized with an "us and them" liberal vs non liberal flavor. Is it not possible to speak of the issues of group dynamics or ethics and leave the partisanship out of it?

Agree to move further then the superficial finger pointing at labels and go after the meaty substance found in the answers to thought-provoking, probing questions. To do so requires an agreement to not only ask the thought-provoking questions of each other, but to also be willing to invest the same energy in the replies rather then a series of quickly retorted labels.

I'm not a label and the essence that defines me is not found in a single cubbyhole. I think that can be said of the rest of you too.

I'd like to put up a challenge to the folks on this thread. I dare you to continue your discussions here for one week without using the words liberal/democrat/left wing or conservative/republican/right wing. Think you can you do it?

LOL---are you trying to suggest that the articles you post are not guilty of the same journalistic abuse? Yours are certainly more intellectually satisfying----I will grant you that.




Ah yes there is the Gingrich strategy----that was effective and it must have been maddening.

The Impeachment-----are you trying to say that the man didn't deserve to be impeached-----when he looked straight into the camera and lied. It's not like the allegation that Bush lied----we think. Clinton lied to the whole world ------ or doesn't it count that it was about a personal affair? Are there different levels of ethics here? Sorta like the double standard we see every day when a guy cheats on his wife?

I don't know what you mean about the 92'convention and the party platform

If I were you I would ask for a refund on your education----that's not an insult Hobit ---I sincerely want to help you because your lack of class must surely embarrass you.

Lola

I just can't respond tonight----off to bed.

Comments like these invalidate anything else you might have to say. BTW, there is a reason the report post button is there. "Italgatoisms" like the above serve no purpose.

Hobitbob, I hope you aren't claiming innocence in the use of Italgatoisms. You threw in a few that provoked the responses you got from Perception. Stop poking each other with the pointy stick to see who blinks first so you can complain about it.



If you both don't knock it off, I'll ask Blatham to send you to your rooms without any dinner.

Here's the link for Perception's article.

National Review: The Liberal Hangover by Adam Wolfson

There is a big fat thesis waving at the top of this thread. Each of the three pieces I linked point to that thesis.

The thesis is that both this administration, and the political structure which put it into place and which supports it - the modern Republican Party - sit profoundly outside of tradition, and that the real depth of change is purposefully/deceitfully minimized, and that both are deeply dangerous.

It's not a simple thesis. It's complicated. And it addresses a number of different, but related, elements. Neither of the three authors of those pieces fall to the short-hand cartoonish rhetoric of a Carville or of that piece perc linked from NR. Each bring unusual intelligence and intellectual integrity and depth of learning to the subjects they address.

But asking a discussion board such as this one to take up that thesis and mull it over and work it around and see how it fits and doesn't fit, is asking too much. It hasn't worked. The denominator keeps drifting down to cliche.

As citizens, we have (perhaps) two responsibilities: to understand so well as we can what is going on, and to then put our shoulder to the wheel to make the community a better place. So both of those activities/goals will predictably be evidenced here in these discussions - the debate of ideas, and the activism.

I feel like I'm rambling a bit here, but I'm rather depressed with the trajectory of this thread, and moreso, with the factors which bring that about. And with the animosities which continue to rise up between people who, in other conditions, would likely gain much joy in the others' company and engagement.

Butterflynet

Your comments are appreciated at least from this end and thanks for posting the link ----- not that it makes any difference because as I said it was an obvious example of biased rhetoric. It mirrors other offerings from the a counter point of view-----all such articles merely cause immediate polarization no matter how much intellectual speak they contain.

Blatham and all

The only source( that I am aware of) for essays which nearly always avoid the appearance of having an immediate political "axe to grind" is the Foreign Affairs Magazine. I am posting a link for one from the latest edition which deals with a comparison with post war Germany to the current situation in Iraq.

Whoops sorry the only link available takes you to the page where the articles title and brief synopsis is located:


That Was Then: Allen W. Dulles on the Occupation of Germany
Allen W. Dulles
U.S. troops on conquered territory, infrastructure in ruins, international squabbling over reconstruction: a window onto occupied Germany seven months after V-E Day, when progress was still unsteady and Europe's future hung in the balance.
Read

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/current/

In an attempt to raise the quality of discourse on this thread which I consider the best on the forum, I will limit my posting of source material to articles of this nature.

perc

That's very cool...

Blatham

I have just read your last post ---- we passed each other in cyberspace.

I entered this thread late and only observed for a time----I read your 3 articles after I read George's response to the same articles but I came to the same conclusion as he, and since he writes much better than I was not about to offer any other comments. As you will note in my latest-----I did not detect any internal critique in any of those articles which you seem to want----they merely promote your point of view on a higher level.

I completely concur with Butrflynet that your desire to communicate more effectively, might be better served by attempting to eliminate the partisanship in our responses and place more emphasis on finding common ground------is that possible?

I agree with Butreflynet.........we're all guilty of Italgatoisms.......but to a much lesser degree, therefore I think the label (relating to this no longer present member) is an exaggeration. We do poke each other in a personal way. And we should strive not to do it. Hobitbob, you did to perc, IMO what you are angry with him for doing.

Hobitbob wrote:


the above quote is as bad, but no worse than:

perception wrote:


I think it would be much better if we tried to not do this to each other....let's try to stick to the issues.

This administration and the Republican party sit outside tradition----Yes I completely agree with your assessment----IMO due to the known and suspected nature of the threat,( we don't yet know the full ramifications of the threat) tradition must be set aside for the moment and a new strategy (with corresponding new tactics) must be adopted. We are in a massive transition at this moment-----(there is no way to change the course of an aircraft carrier without massive disruption of the water and ALL the fish in the surrounding water) We are adjusting simultaneously to :
1. A new global threat that can operate in every country on the face of the globe-----this causes a necessary re-examination of our diplomatic and economic relations with these countries.
2. There was/is a necessary re-examination of the "cozy" multilateralism that has been the status quo.
The recent upheaval of that previously known multilateral relationship has caused a total realignment of our friendly vs adversarial partnerships. This in turn has caused much anger at the US when the anger should be directed to failing leadership of those countries. These leaders have failed to recognize the GLOBAL threat and thus have failed to recognize their responsibilites to alter their goals and policies to match a global need. IMO they have retreated to a more narrow position which places them in direct conflict with the US much like mistaken interpretations here cause needless conflict.
3. We are adjusting to massive shifts in geo-policial and geo-economic policies due to the ever decreasing SUPPLY of energy against an ever-INCREASING demand globally for energy.
4. We must also adjust to the efforts of Europe to unite to counter the economic impact of the US.
5. Most importantly we must continually adjust our economic policies to combat the the shifts caused by movement of our manufacturing capability to other countries to find cheaper labor.

There are many other factors too numerous to mention that caused this administration to set aside traditional relationships (at least temporarily) in order to meet the new challenges of a rapidly changing world.

In order to accomplish all this the administration has been forced to change priorities and this change has upset you and millions of other people around the world

Your other premise : "The real depth of change has been purposefully and deceitfully minimized" Do you have any real proof of this allegation? While you and other intellectuals may SUSPECT it----its far from being proven. You need a crystal ball to even imagine the impact of your suspected "depth of change". You must first know the depth of change and it's impact before you can absolutely say it is dangerous. I was under the impression you were never guilty of "absolutisms".

Blatham, you have valid concerns, many of which I share because I don't pretend to know the actual consequences which will result from the transition. I do concur with the administrations shift toward not allowing other countries like or dislike of us, to influence our policy decisions. The Pres has a sworn duty to take into consideration the protection and furtherment of American interests which must be in parallel with the long term interests of global well being. Here again the global well being I believe is foremost in the minds of the administration simply because our survival depends on it.


I know this sounds sanctimonious and trite but it can't be helped. You can't expect too much from an uneducated former fighter pilot.

Lola

I completely agree with your "self policing" comments---yours and Blathams vigilance will be appreciated-----all I can do is to promise NOT to the first to pull the trigger.

Your comments to the article( I can't go back and look at the actual article but it was about aids and homo-sexuality) were very revealing about your views.
Wow---you were incensed.

Gotta run-----"Honey do-s beckon"

Interesting ... and encouraging, developments on this thread of late, even if much the same has been said before. Rote is a learning technique; maybe with enough of it the lesson will sink in.

Somehow, though, I doubt the topic will not be revisited frequently before substantive improvement of discoursive style becomes generally apparent. Labels, name-calling, and quoting partisan punditry are so much easier than actually thinking about issues and developing ideas.

Damn Timber---I won't ask if these acerbic comments were aimed at me in particular but I hope that your general pessimism is proven to be completely unjustified.

I was hoping that I had previously given a satisfactory rationale for what you allege is his apparent unwillingness to struggle with the complexities of living. Blatham declined to comment on this post of mine way back and you either didn't see it or also declined to comment. Therefore I am reposting it.

Lola

Glad you've decided to revive this thread because it was/is my favorite also. Let's go back and review parts of your last post----you said to me:

Lola wrote:
You are, perc, inclined to judge situations and people as black or white. You say so yourself. But I don't agree with you that this is an accurate picture of reality. It's a distortion of reality. In relationships with people, nothing is that simple or clear cut. We all have multiple motivations, and often our motivations conflict. So it takes some mature judgement about what is going on and what to do about it.


I admit to reducing factors as I see them down to the lowest common denominator-----the reason I tend to attempt this usually difficult feat is perhaps analogous to the reduction of masses of mathematical data to a simple equation. My final determination of either/or is only after Observing an event, Orienting myself to the observable factors surrounding that event, deciding what action is warranted and then acting as I see fit.
It much like the old survival tactic of fight or flight----it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that immediate action is required therefore if you analyse for a split second too long you're history.

It is my sincere belief that when action is required complex analysis must be performed with a profound sense of urgency however after all the KNOWN factors are analyzed the final decision might be taken based on whether it is----right --- or----wrong. I will argue all day long that Bush made his final decision because---IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.I also think this is where his strong moral code served him well. More importantly I would much rather have a man who knows he is fallible and asks for higher guidance than one who assumes the mantra of a living god such as Hitler and the Roman emperors. Now you and the left will say it wasn't legal. Legal according to whose rules? That can be answered by saying that it was according to international law as established by the UN Charter---that is completely outmoded because it mistakenly allows thugs to thumb their nose at the international community because they have found a flaw in the International law. Then the next question is----do we have a moral obligation to break recognized international law in the case of Iraq? The answer is yes because the alternative is horrific. Now this becomes a moral issue not a legal issue. Bush decided morality was on our side because we must free the Iraqi people from a man who has murdered hundreds of thousands of his people and has turned the country into his personal toy to play with as he chooses. After this reasoning is established then the question is how do we justify this action to the American people? This is where the blunder developed but the end result would have been the same IMO. If----he had gone to the people (and the congress) and said : We must remove this man because he is a tyrant who has murdered X number of people, has imprisoned and tortured X number of people, we know he is supporting terrorism which is causing instability all over the ME(it was a fact that he was sending checks to the families of suicide bombers) and we think it is essential that we try to establish a gov't in Iraq that will represent all it's people. Had he laid out this simple set of reasons I think the American people would have supported him through congress and we would have still gone war.

He and his advisors did not trust the American people so they used reasons that had been accepted by the Clinton administration as being justifiable reasons which were supported by the best intelligence that was available at that time( we now suspect that intelligence was flawed) (HINDSIGHT IS ALWAYS 20/20)

Now many of you---not all ---will grudgingly acknowledge that ---THE DECISION TO RID THE WORLD OF SADDAM--was the right decision.

It is also obvious that serious miscalcutations about the aftermath of the war, were made by Wolfowitz et al because they did not listen to the right people. Should he be fired-----I would not ----- because----he did have the guts to go there and see the mess for himself and realizes he screwed up----he is human after all and he still knows more about the situation than almost anyone else AND he wants to correct the situation more profoundly than anyone else..

Now if you want to call my reasoning flawed and simplistic be my guest-----I would say I'm guilty only of breaking the complexities down to simple explanations.

You all say perception only sees things as either/or----black or white. That is true----but only after analysing all the known factors and the suspected consequences but in the final analysis you either do or you don't ----- go to war.

perc wrote:


Dear perc,

Thank you for your response. Let me ask you the same question you asked about the legality of the war in regard to the following:

KNOWN factors
final decision might be taken based on whether it is right or wrong
IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
his strong moral code , etc..........

According to whom, perc? These are not objective facts and can never be. They are highly subjective and must be based on a systematic approach which allows doubt and struggle to forge the way to a tentative and hopefully workable solution. Right and wrong leaves no room for doubt. And doubt is necessary in a process that is aimed at solving a problem. I think in terms of what works, not what is right........or it's right only if it can be demonstrated, each time to be as optimally workable at this time.

And this test of function must always be open to the test of new information, technology and evaluation. I'm uncomfortable with taking our answers to be "morally" correct or "obviously right." Without doubt we have no hope of improvement. That's what's missing with this White House. And I wonder if you've considered the possibility that too much conviction of right/wrong may mitigate against better, more workable, less destructive methods.

It's function, I tell you! Does it work and how well? Not, is it right?

As for a belief in God or a higher being.......I see that as indistinguishable from blind faith in any human being or idol. Faith implies a lack of reality testing and, again without testing, without doubt, how do we know in what solution to place our faith. The problem I have with faith in any authority, including God, etc. is that it assigns exclusive significance to feelings and ignores the intellect. Intellect without feeling is also a danger, I think, because we must attend to our instincts for clues about function. It takes both, all the time.

I don't have faith without belief. And those beliefs are based on my best effort at observation and intuitive questioning. My guidance comes from my best efforts at understanding and trail and error.........learning. I agree we are fallible. But does that mean we have to throw up our hands and declare ourselves unable or unfit to do the best we can with what we have?

It is this very trend............., which has nothing to do with legality.....the unscientific, un-understood, uncurious disregard for other possibilities and unconscious motivations which cause so much alarm in me today about the direction of our government. George Bush has his head in the sand, and he feels safe and moral, but his fanny is wagging out in the breeze. We need to get that boy a panty! Because we can take cover, but we can't hide from the consequences of his ill conceived actions.

Lola

Yes---you have pointed out the fallacies of my thinking and presumably those of Bush-----but you haven't given me any tested or TESTABLE alternatives.

After analysing all KNOWN factors how can you as President make a predictable decision that you can honestly say is the THE correct decision. Since you don't believe in God-----how would you make a decision(after considering all the known factors) or would you just "put it off". Some people would refer to that as "analysis paralysis". With instant communication and the watchful press looking over your shoulder, and leaking administrative members it would soon be said that you could or would not make a decision and then that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

I absolutely see your point now please tell how you would go about making those difficult decisions. Decisions that he makes every day as you or I would decide whether or not to have a cup of coffee If you can show me an infallible way to make those difficult decisions and never look back, which of course means you would never have any regrets and the press could never second guess you-----then I will be your servant for life.

perc,

To start, I'd give up on "infallible" and go for "my best judgement at the time." And if I were to be pres.........which, I will never be..........I would check my hide every morning to make sure it was tough enough. I'll answer more later.......but not now.