posted on October 19, 2001 01:19:34 AM new
Someone whom we all know sent me this article tonight, http://www.msnbc.com/news/643212.asp?0si=- and I found much in it that I agree with. The article sums it all up pretty well, I think; perhaps trying to cover too many bases by the inclusion of the 'back to big business normal'. Her reactions are probably close to a universal set that most people could find agreeable in one aspect or more. What bothers me is that a new normal is being established for us. She hits on it by mentioning the limitless (nearly?) possibilities opened to right wing or corporate interests by the opening of the piggy bank. Bush et al are now free to restructure the way that we live, that we think, and what we believe to be appropriate ways of life in America. Nothing so insidious has happened before, and there's hardly a voice raised to question the process by anyone capable of attracting serious consideration. The country needs, and needs right now a Spartacus-a champion of such clear vision and irrefutable charisma that the people could come to believe in or even idolize him. There needs to be a person who could expose all of the dangers for even the simplest of us and who has that so rare and magical quality of being able by pure force of personality to raise the hackles of the American on the street against these so obvious manipulations. Woefully, there is no such leader, and more woefully it is apparent that there aren't enough who would accept one if there were.
Yet I do find that there are people who write of the sorts of things that I feel, and do so better than I could or would take the time to do. One of those is Lloyd J.Averill,professor emeritus from the University of Washington, who writes:
"The Constitution should be the focus of our patriotism, because everything else is just window dressing.But it's hard for people to be patriotic at a time like this. In our pain, anger and search for justice, we get caught up in the symbols of patriotism rather than the substance. We wave our flags at the terrorists and scream, "You've failed! We're still standing, still proud, still united, still Americans!" Which is true. But while we're waving our flags, our legislators are chipping away at the document that makes us great. They're expanding wiretapping authority, extending the time that people can be held without being charged with a crime, and signing over billions of dollars with carte blanche spending authority.
While we're proving with our symbols that the terrorists don't scare us, our government is leaning toward a guilty-until-proven-innocent model of profiling, hoping to secretly record the meetings of certain religious groups and pushing for wide-spread use of surveillance cameras coupled with face recognition software so that computers literally could know where any of us is at a particular moment.
If we're really committed in keeping terrorists from stealing our freedoms, then we must be true patriots to our Constitution. But in times like these, it's difficult for people to be patriotic. It's much easier to wave a flag.
A patriotism of dissent has been one of the most vital ingredients of American political life throughout history. It has always been in the national interest to "speak truth to power," and never more so than in times of crisis. We are now entering an era in which the nurture of an active patriotism of dissent will be a most difficult, but most essential task. Patriotic dissent is required if we hope to achieve anything approaching rational and moral balance in American policy and behavior. It is essential for people of faith and goodwill, who seek to honor the prophetic traditions of all religions, to explore what we can say to predispose such an outcome.
We need each other because, clearly, the national mood and political momentum generated by the events of Sept. 11 will move massively against patriotic dissent. It is an admirable sign of national strength when some disaster brings Americans together, and that strength has been shown in small and large ways since those sad September days. Expressions of unity demonstrate an awareness of a common humanity amid our great diversity, a capacity to come together in grief and in resolve, and the presence of shared bonds that are present but sometimes go unnoticed.
Unity is not, however,acquiescence, especially in a national tradition that values dissent. We share a common heritage, but a part of that heritage is respect for diversity of commitments, for differences in outlook and aspiration. So we must be vigilant lest the celebration of a kind of spiritual unity be turned into an expectation of, or worse a demand for, political uniformity.
I have no idea who first characterized the events in New York, Washington and western Pennsylvania as "war." The striking fact is that the characterization was taken up at once by President Bush and by his administrative apparatus, which made an immediate effort to persuade the American public that waging this new form of war would involve a long-term commitment.
Prior to the day of crisis, the president's approval rating had sunk to nearly 50 percent. He and his administration had been in trouble, even among congressional faithful, and had increasingly experienced political heavy weather among the public on a wide range of domestic and foreign issues. By late morning on Sept. 11 there was an instant transformation. Suddenly, the wartime leader of a nation victimized by cowardly attack, the president reduced his response to crisis to a few simplisms (Osama bin Laden "wanted dead or alive", spoke them with obvious conviction to a public desperately seeking firm assurance, and soared to an unprecedented 82 percent approval.
What is the same, of course, is the man, George W. Bush, with all of his limitations of political outlook and vision, though now with a stronger sense of mission to see them realized. He is surrounded by the same advisers, many with a Cold War mentality, now given fresh range and new opportunity. There has been no transformation of the Bush program with respect to missile defense, education, the environment, patients' rights, taxes or Social Security. Those issues still are what they were, with whatever strengths or defects they had before Sept. 11. But with the radically altered political climate, they now face a strikingly altered prospect.
Political philosopher Albert Camus once said that we must make a choice: between being murderers or the accomplices of murderers, and those who refuse to do so with all of the force of their being. As individuals and as a nation, in the post-Sept. 11 world, we will be facing some agonizingly difficult decisions. There is danger that, given their difficulty, individually we may simply permit others to make them for us, in which case we may find, too late, that we have sided with the murderers."
These things, so well presented, are at the root of what bothers me. I don't understand the mass hysteria for war and do not think that what has been called war today warrants the title at all. Vengeance-it is that. Is that what we are as Americans? Weilders of mighty swords of revenge against the world?
Political manipulation--it is clearly that. Bush himself has said that it is his legacy, his mark for all to see. As aside: it would not surprise me in the least to find that this 'war extends until November 2004, and ends within a few months after that. Mana for these who make ungodly amounts of money from us in such scenarios--it will prove to be one of the most lucrative in history.
posted on October 19, 2001 02:30:37 AM newI have no idea who first characterized the events in New York, Washington and western Pennsylvania as "war."
I'm reminded of the Bugs Bunny phrase: "You realize, of course, this means war."
The tom and I were discussing the difference in dealing with Slobodan Milosevic(sp? ) and bin Laden. While Slobby limited his atrocities to his own people, he is as big a monster as any produced in the last 50+ years. Yet people(and that includes our leaders) insisted he stand trial. It was years before he finally turned himself in and he is now on trial in Den Hague(and as unrepentant as ever). There was never any talk of hunting him down with Special Forces and taking him down. Beyond that one spate of bombing-and that was very limited and quite PC, despite the oops of blowing up the Chinese embassy-there wasn't even any military action taken against him. Heck, Slobby didn't even go into hiding!
Yet, our response to bin Laden was not actively working to bring him to justice but to try and bomb him off the face of the Earth.
Why was it okay to bring Slobby to trial but not bin Laden?
My gut says to take him out, make him pay for what he conspired, but my head says we're not responding rationally, that our gov't is using the terrorist attacks as a chance to further its own agenda.
I'm struggling to reconcile my gut feelings with my head thoughts but I'm not sure I'm succeeding.
posted on October 19, 2001 09:20:31 AM new
The Milosevitch (sp) thing was to appease the people's outrage...throw them a bone to assuage the anger.
The Bin Laden thing: I smell oil potentials near-by; don't know how near, how far...Need to start clearing the way.
You are right, ShadowKitty, I too, sense an ulterior motive.
BTW: I have always called you shadowKitty..If it should bother you, please, do let me know...Thanx
Edited the new Sig Line because the natives are restless... Gosh Shosh
Moi
[ edited by shoshanah on Oct 19, 2001 09:28 AM ]
posted on October 19, 2001 10:21:28 AM newShadowKitty...Thanx.. I sincerely hope the Kittens will be alright. What an awful time!
In regards to my post about my suspicions, can anyone please help me: I have absolutely no knowledge of world strategies...Duh.....
But could there be a (triangular) link between the US paving the way, as it were, in Afghanistan, and possibly Pakistan, and Bush's trip to China, since oil has allegedly been discovered in Tibet? Would the US need the way cleared in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in order to conduct business in Tibet?
Edited to add: and of course, we would need China, in order to get to Tibet...Yes? No?
posted on October 19, 2001 11:01:10 AM newcould there be a (triangular) link between the US paving the way, as it were, in Afghanistan, and possibly Pakistan, and Bush's trip to China, since oil has allegedly been discovered in Tibet?
Given enought time I'm sure I can come up with a oil company conspiracy that would satisfy some. I wouldn't be able to make it very believable to any that had a knowledge of what it actually takes to develope a producing oilfield, much less the enormous tasks of getting the product to market.
When I do give out this conspiracy you'll have to ignore the fact that the British, Australians, and Canadians are involved, and it would help to turn a blind eye to the support we are receiving from German, Japan, France, Italy, etc.. Then again maybe I can convince you that the US oil companies control the politics of the bulk of the western world.
posted on October 19, 2001 01:29:32 PM new"Then again maybe I can convince you that the US oil companies control the politics of the bulk of the western world".
That may be the easiest thing you've done in a life of ease, and in fact you have already done so several times through your descriptive admiration of the MacCarthur and Marshall Plans.
posted on October 19, 2001 01:31:25 PM new
uhhhh???? I am a little lost...All I did was ask a genuine question. I suppose I am no longer allowed to ask questions or profess any opnions about anything...Supression rules...Vive la Democracy...
posted on October 19, 2001 01:50:10 PM new I suppose I am no longer allowed to ask questions or profess any opnions about anything...Supression rules...Vive la Democracy
posted on October 19, 2001 01:58:27 PM new
No one is supressing you.
I always thought that when one asks a genuine question, one could expect a non-combative, sarcastic answer.
To hell with all this confrontation crap. I have no combat gear, so off I go where people are a little nicer...
My message was making light of the conspiracy theory. I wasn't silencing you in any way. I'm sorry you felt I was practing supression. This is more of what I feel
supressing others is about.
posted on October 19, 2001 02:41:52 PM new"....and soared to an unprecedented 82 percent approval."
The approval rating was based on how he was handling the "war", not how good a job he was doing as President.
I don't think people have forgotten Bush's platform. It's just been side-tracked for awhile. I think people are going to think twice about any decisions made on their behalf whether they approve of how he's handling the "war" or not. Besides, we only have another 3 years to go. To short a time to build anything.
posted on October 19, 2001 07:01:25 PM new
There is no "love it or leave" to what I said, that's a false analogy, I offered the irony of those that complain about this situation, not a false dilemma. It is about free choice. No one is holding a gun to anyones head and making them use oil, electricity, natural gas, or cars.
The Amish don't use these things. They make a free choice not to. The oil companies have no effect on their lives. Big business has no effect on their lives.
We the consumers have created "big business" and "big oil". Stop buying and they will disappear faster than they appeared.
It reminds me of the sports fans that complain about ticket prices, player salaries, or pay per view games. They complain but still buy the tickets, or pay to watch the games on TV. The irony is that if they stopped consuming the sports entertainment, the ticket prices would fall,pay per view would disappear,and player salaries would spiral down. If everyone stopped consuming sports entertainment, the industry would disappear.
The same applies to "big oil" and "big business". Consumers have total power to end any business or cartel.
posted on October 19, 2001 07:11:45 PM new
RAEMOND, most of us don't live in an agrarian society and can't transition to such independence swiftly. If someone doesn't have a lot of cash, what could he/she do to make their apartment more energy efficient? Is there transportation that allows them to live without cars? It's easy to say if you don't like big oil,become independent from it; but it's quite another thing to do that.
posted on October 19, 2001 07:16:32 PM new
What a great article and thread...I especially liked this paragraph from the intoduction to this thread.
"Unity is not, however,acquiescence, especially in a national tradition that values dissent. We share a common heritage, but a part of that heritage is respect for diversity of commitments, for differences in outlook and aspiration. So we must be vigilant lest the celebration of a kind of spiritual unity be turned into an expectation of, or worse a demand for, political uniformity."
I am looking for a book by LLoyd J. Averill, mentioned in the introduction to this post. I wonder if he writes for a newspaper.
posted on October 19, 2001 07:43:01 PM new
Saab- What makes you think you must be agrarian to become more energy independant ?
Most Amish work at jobs off the farms now. They walk, ride bikes or horses to factories and shops. Rising land prices and falling farm commodity prices, along with their inefficient organic farming methods, put many of them out of full time farming nearly a generation ago.
There is nothing to keep us from living within walking distance of our job.
I think what we may be getting at is that being energy independant would not be easy, but it is far from impossible, no matter where you live.
The problem is that we can no longer even imagine living without the convieniences that energy brings us.
We are two generations removed from the introduction of the internal combustion engine and electricity. Living without them isn't even on our radar screen.
If we are unable to give up these things, then it really makes no difference who runs oil companies or big business, or who they are in cahoots with. All we are debating is who the master might be, as we have already determined that we are slaves.
posted on October 19, 2001 08:55:16 PM new
Completely ridiculous, reamond.
Here, for example, a firefighter is not paid sufficiently to live within thirty miles of his job. His schedule at work is such as to preclude any creative adjustments, he does reside in a separate county and no public transport exists which will enable him to meet the schedule he's given to work.
Now tell me that he should then go back to the farm which he has no way to purchase or that he should be paid more which won't happen without a dedicated increase in tax base which would then put him back to his pre-increase levels. While you do that he'll drive to work because he has to to meet his familial obligations.
This entire culture and society is based on and dependent upon fossil fuels, or other fuels provided in such quantities as to be beyond the reach of everyman to provide. That the corporations which provide oil do so is set into their stone of survival by their inability to fund research and changeover to anything else. Your example of the Archaic Amish will not last another generation, no matter how romantic you find them to be.
Every person is dependent on the corporate provision of oil and your advise amounts to the 'love it or leave it; analogy entirely. No significant number has the choices that you so unrealistically present.
add
Yes. Slaves. And you are enslaved as well reamond, so there's no use in your premises for anyone. You are, at this moment, sitting before a puddle of oil corporation provided oil in the form of a computer. Without that puddle you'd be left to rant to the wind.
posted on October 20, 2001 07:56:21 PM new
krs- So... the only thing is this wide world the fireman can do is be a fireman ? S/He is locked into that job and can do nothing else ?
You don't have to live on a farm to be energy independant. There are urban communes and co-operatives in many cities that use little energy, share one vehicle, run a food co-op, share child rearing duties, recycle clothes and anything else they can.
It sounds as though you want your cars and all the modern luxuries, but you don't want to pay for them.
If enough people opt out of the oil economy, it will cease to exist.
I imagine 150 years ago there were those that complained that there was a conspiracy in the pricing of hay and oats for the horses and whale oil for the lamps.
If you build your life around fossil fuels, you get what you deserve, both the good and the bad.
posted on October 20, 2001 08:29:20 PM new
Oh sure, old news. I've been exposed to these ideas for over thirty years and have known at least a dozen people so enamored of them in their idealistic youths that they tried it. Sooner or later they all realized their hypocrisy when it dawned on them that the food they coop shopped for was brought by trucks, the clothing they recycled was in part made with nylon and other polyester compounds, and even the one car that they shared still ran on one hydrocarbon producer or another.
If all you originally meant was to promote an increase of economy of the use of oil products, well gosh, even the daily newspaper says that, but you did say that "If enough people opt out of the oil economy, it will cease to exist", didn't you? Before your ideas will carry any weight there had better be a cessation of posted pictures of stellar jays by you as your camera, it's media, even it's lens are constructed of petroleum byproducts.
posted on October 20, 2001 08:43:49 PM new
While Big Oil gets many tax breaks and carte blanche to drill and destroy anything they damn well please, the government (our legislators that is, i.e. financed by Big Oil) has been very stingy about giving tax breaks to anyone/any company that wanted to explore alternatives to oil/electric consumption.
That is why Big Oil is corrupt. They buy the lawmakers, laws, and variances they need to operate anyway they want to. Anyone with a workable alternative is squashed by the legislators bought and paid for by Big Oil. Now that sure doesn't sound like free enterprise to me.
posted on October 20, 2001 09:33:51 PM new
" Before your ideas will carry any weight there had better be a cessation of posted pictures of stellar jays by you as your camera, it's media, even it's lens are constructed of petroleum byproducts."
That'd be why you've not listed any auctions lately via your Mavica FD-71, Ken...
It is far too easy to get into bashing each other for the photographic technology we utilize to list our eBay auctions, or even the cars we drive (gas gauzzling SUV's) to get us to the post office.
Sometime down the road, we're going to have to confront the very real fact that this earth cannot sustain six billion (or more) people -- all of whom wish to drive Mercedes coupes (and why shouldn't they?). Someone -- somewhere -- is going to have to tell people the truth: there simply aren't enough global resources to enable all the world's people to enjoy a Western-European or American lifestyle. Rather than have this "news" break as an earth-shattering event, I'd like it to be the seriously understood actuality from which future "global" discussions arise...
before it's too late.
posted on October 20, 2001 09:59:58 PM new
No, I'm listing under another ID--have been for a little while. I buy some things with 'krs', but otherwise it's inactive. They've evven sent a warning that they might remove the powerseller status if krs doesn't get busy, LOL! Why they imagine that I care about that is beyond me.
posted on October 21, 2001 05:59:05 AM new
To completely remove yourself from buying any petroleum products is not practical but it is practical to minimize your dependancy. They don't have you by the throat because you buy a camera with a plastic lens - but they do have a hold on you if it takes 20 gallons of gas a week to get to your job.
I happen to believe that we could have 6 billion people with a mercedes coupe if the car was built to run on hydrogen or electric - to last 20 or 30 years and made so it was easy to work on and maintain with lots of thought to being able to 100% recycle the parts back to metal/plastic and glass, including the tires and batteries. The answer is not to go back to an agrarian culture and less technology but to move forward to better technologies including space based economies.
posted on October 21, 2001 08:13:00 AM new
krs- I'm not the one COMPLAINING about big oil and big business. I'll use as much oil and any other luxury as I can afford.
However, if you do despise the oil industry, opt out, use as little energy as possible. If enough people just cut back 20% of their usage, it will have an effect.
But like I said earlier, using an alternative economy isn't as easy as using the oil economy.
I don't disagree that we are in an oil economy, as we surely are.
However, if individuals can not practice an alternative to the oil economy, then it really makes no difference who is running the oil companies.
posted on October 21, 2001 08:28:07 AM new
Reamond,
Once again you've missed the point. I have no problem with an oil industry existence; I have a problem with that industry driving national policy to the point of war and other international adventures because human lives are too often expended like renewable resources in order to further their profit driven aims, and I have a problem with any industry having overriding effects on the quality and substance of the political sphere at home in this country insofar as those interests act to set conditions of life for the citizens.
Your aberrant misconstructions have taken this thread far from it's original premises, so far that I think it's time that someone suggest to you that you begin a thread specific to your rants. If you'd like a catchy title I could perhaps help you with that.
