Go to The Crystal Earth
- Add a comment
- Go to North Korea Raising Stakes In Nuclear Gamble
JJ: I'm a cynical one, too. However, as to my suggestion of what we
need to do as a country does not in any way reflect what I think this country will actually do. Third parties in this country are treated like red-headed stepchildren.
About your education: 150 hours is quite a lot without a degree. I remember when I had to go and register for my degrees (double major in History and English, neither of which were of much use, except as wallpaper, and I gave them to my parents to use as windows on those dull West Virginia walls). The lady doing the paperwork was god-awfully old and she took a look at my transcript, then at me, adjusted her cat-eye glasses (with dangling chains, no less), pointed a gnarled finger at me and rasped, "Why haven't you been in to see me before this? You have a ridiculous amount of hours and no degree." I told her that I didn't think I was ready. She looked at me for a few more seconds, then simply returned to filling out the requisite form(s) for my degrees. And, like you, JJ, the education was great but I've not made the best use of it. I feel as if I'm always being glowered at by people telling me I have a ridiculous amount of education.
About the right-wingers: I think that the rightist movement in this country is only gaining momentum, and it's being fostered (festered) by the growing political awareness of the conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Christian groups. I believe that in the future, Bush's contribution to historical debate will be as the president who engendered, promoted and fostered the infancy of a huge right leaning conservative movement that will dictate this country's future for the next several decades. Inheriting the general population's digust and moral backlash from the Clinton administration, Dubya's tenure as president will undoubtedly be seen as the beginning of government by a succession of the politico-religious self-righteous. (But let's keep our fingers crossed -- not to be confused with a crucifix).
And sometimes I hear the quiet passing movement of air that is the sound of one hand clapping.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 14, 2005 at 4:10 PM
| link to this | reply
Saul,
I re-read your comment to me that I responded to a minute ago, and I missed a couple of points.
I totally agree with your comment on Bush and his religious affiliations. Unfortunately, that entire thing was a necessary result of the struggle for votes. Without that bunch, he never would have made it. The terrible result is visible even on Blogit. The self-righteous have become grossly more self-righteous. The mandate that I feared they would assume, they have assumed, and that, I fear, is going to be the worst result of the Bush administration. It is incredibly divisive. It's as if we're going back to the thinking of the Civil War period. I see some toning down of the fanatical, but I don't think it's nearly sufficient. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. (Not to be confused with a Crucifix.)
And I agree that we need a total revision of the political system that we have. I'm not sure that grass roots will work. Your faith in mankind must surpass my own by light years. I have seen too much of the ways of man. His thinking is totally befuddled by emotion. Reason, the thought process necessary for social progress, has been flushed down the toilet. Emotions totally rule the minds of 95% of the population. Government can't do it. Government would create a Frankenstein baby that was the product of special interests. The idea of political reform has been talked about for so long that I have given up on it.
I think I'll sit down on a riverbank
and have Buddha tell me the sound
of one hand clapping. 
JJ
posted by
Jack_Flash
on May 14, 2005 at 11:32 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul,
It has been pleasant to talk with you on these issues. Your studies in History and Political Science certainly give me an understanding of your open-mindedness on issues. I spend very little time or effort in discussing such things with those who turn the discussion into a ''who can give the snappiest insult'' mudsling. (A Pillsbury Insultoff?) Our own conversation here has had no elements of that which I can recall. It is too easy to start off that way when you encounter it so often.
I have somewhere around 150 sem hrs in an assortment of areas that could only be defined as Liberal Arts, but I varied my interests and my major so many times that I don't have a specific degree. It isn't a disadvantage in education, but it certainly is a disadvantage in employability. I can't even come up with an acceptable label for myself. I guess, in a way, that's what my subconcious wanted me to acheive. ????
Anyway, I'm sure we'll talk again. Maybe we can get the world straightened out. JJ
Jack is my official, birth certificate, first name if you prefer that. Either is OK with me.
posted by
Jack_Flash
on May 14, 2005 at 10:57 AM
| link to this | reply
JJ_Wilde:
Thanks for the compliment; and it is refreshing to find people who can discuss politics without devolving into puerile "mine is better than yours" statements.
About Kerry: that part about his tours in Viet Nam was always a sticky point with me also. It is extremely difficult to walk a thin line between pride in service and country and fellow servicemen when knocking said same (or parts thereof). And it is even more difficult for a politician, especially one whose entire life looks like a scrapbook for political advancement.
I try to approach most peices of the political puzzle with an open mind -- it may be a reflection of my education: a degree in history and just a few credit hours short of one in political science. Still, with all that "expertise", I will not walk into a bar and yell, "Bush sucks National Guard c**k!!" And I agree with you that Bush probably is finally listening to his advisors more, especially after all the debacles about intelligence and memos, etc., that have been coming back to bite him in his political posterior. However, advice usually is only as good as the advisors dispensing it -- and quite a few of his advisors aren't worth the time it takes to type the end of this sentence. The most important thing about Bush is his personal beleif system, and his use of it during his presidency: his contacts with and use of the religious right have focused a lot of power into the hands of some seriously controlling and intolerant people -- and that is dangerous, and getting moreso by the day. His Faith-Based Initiative has got to be one of the most inflammatory and disgusting abuses of presidential power we've ever seen in this country, not to mention its overt nose-thumbing at the separation of church and state.
JJ (if you don't mind the diminutive), I do believe we need a massive restructuring of the political party system in this country, something that will take a massive grass-roots level movement to accomplish, but I also have the nauseating feeling that we (the people of the U.S.) are too involved in our willingness to be polarized in two categories (and sometimes a couple more, but that takes an open-mindedness a lot of people aren't ready for).
posted by
saul_relative
on May 14, 2005 at 10:21 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul,
P.S.
It's refreshing to read and talk to someone who can discuss politics without flying into a temper tantrum. Thanks. I find too few people like that. JJ
posted by
Jack_Flash
on May 13, 2005 at 7:44 PM
| link to this | reply
Saul,
I guess we are pretty much in agreement in our political views. My main problem with Bush, clear back to before the election, was that I feared that the ultra-right, Christian Fundamentalists would take his election as a mandate for them to shove their views down everyone's throats. Unfortunately, I was right in that fear.
I stand pretty much where you do on the liberal/conservative spectrum, but I think too many people are knee-jerk reactors to Bush. Fortunately, I think that he does listen more to his staff than he used to, and he can't really be held directly responsible for the religious right. I don't think he is exactly what they think he is, but that doesn't keep them from responding as if he were. I think he has a PR problem, but part of that comes from his inability to handle the job well.
Kerry? He stands out in my memory clear back to the Viet Nam era. I was heavily involved in the anti-war movement at the time, and there was still something about him that bothered me. For the last election he trumpeted his military success in that stupid mess, a drastic change from his old tune. I know too many people who did tours as Marines and Combat Infantrymen for the full 18 months, yet they came back with fewer medals than he bandied about. I don't trust him because he is such a typical politician. Did he get Purple Hearts for being a brave soldier, a stumblebum, or someone in pursuit of a short tour? That hasn't been answered to my satisfation. JJ
posted by
Jack_Flash
on May 13, 2005 at 7:35 PM
| link to this | reply
JJ_Wilde:
Both points noted and agreed. If I'd've been blogging during the Clinton years, I believe I may have had quite a few remarks directed at his presidency also, not to mention the smear he allowed to cover the office of the presidency with his sexcapades.
I don't know if Kerry would have made a better president, but I wasn't afraid to let him have a shot at it. Lord knows, he couldn't have done any worse than Dubya.
You are also right about the liberalness of this sight. I could be wrong, but I beleive that a good percentage of people on the web are more liberal-minded (but I could be wrong). I classify myself as a middle of the road liberal with conservative tendencies. Politically, I'm an independent. I'm an equal-opportunity politician basher.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 13, 2005 at 6:34 PM
| link to this | reply
Saul,
Another point. Although our President may be far less than a foreign policy expert, in addition to other faults that dismay me even more, North Korea has had nuclear devices for some time. I can't even recall how long ago their testing was first detected. Clinton was in office for eight years, why was nothing done during his administration? What were his monumental successes in foreign policy? Was he tied up with a Hollywood Haircut, locking up air traffic at LAX? Was he busy with his secretary in the Oval Office? He was a liberal Democrat, a grand leader of the nation, much better than that conservative maniac Bush. Why was nothing accomplished by that superior Master of The Presidency?
JJ
posted by
Jack_Flash
on May 12, 2005 at 3:21 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul,
I'm not really interested in discussing your opinion of Bush. I'm aware of the general opinion of Bush that is held by a majority of people on this site. It is simply liberal (Democrat) animosity hashed, rehashed, rehashed, and rehashed, ad nauseum. There are a number of things about Bush that I dislike but, unlike most liberals, I do not take my personal opinions of the President, whomever he may be, and expand them to include criticism of the entire nation and its government. As you have said, some of the agencies of our country are the best in the world. We could have found a better tenant for the White House, but none was a candidate.
It is my opinion that this nation, and no other in the world, has never had a perfect leader. To allow dislike of a leader to destroy the unity of the nation is inexcusable, no matter from which quarter it comes. Neither you nor I, as individuals, have any control over that, but it is not necessary to join in on the insanity. JJ
posted by
Jack_Flash
on May 12, 2005 at 2:57 AM
| link to this | reply
JJ Wilde: the fact that ships were stopped at sea
for reasons of international safety does not take away from the fact that Bush is a self-aggrandizing hypocritcal megalomaniac. The fact that our intelligence agencies and our military forces are possibly the best at their jobs in the world is in no way attributable to our bumbling leader. Dubya has the power of executive order and veto at his fingertips, making him an extraordinarily powerful man with the ability to affect policy change and international politics with an utterance and the stroke of a pen. His blanket refusal to sit down in a bilateral discussion with the North Koreans shows him at his diplomatic best -- which is to say, nonexistent. Bush is a shining example of American arrogance stretched to the point of stupidity. Instead of meddling in the affairs of the Baltic states and the Russias, instead of posturing about standing against the tyranny of terrorism rampant in the Middle East, instead of pounding his chest for the exportation of democracy, Bush would do his legacy well by taking a few pages from the Nixon/Kissinger diplomatic books on how to deal in international politics.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 11, 2005 at 5:20 PM
| link to this | reply
Saul,
Since you have done a job of Bush Bashing here, and I am sure that the ''weapons of mass destruction'' issue is important to you, I would like to mention one other thing to you that also relates to North Korea.
Were you aware that a number of ships en route from North Korea to Iraq were stopped at sea? Does this effect, in any way, your opinion that Bush is ''wasting time elsewhere,'' and is ''a total idiot?'' I would think that perhaps you might consider the facts. JJ
posted by
Jack_Flash
on May 11, 2005 at 4:56 PM
| link to this | reply
No doubt, FactorFiction. I have been away from blogging for just a
couple of days, but the world seems to still want to go to hell whether or not I (or you or anyone else) want to pay attention or not.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 11, 2005 at 4:52 PM
| link to this | reply
Damn, it's no wonder I prefer to stick my head in the sand
for a lot of things. It's too depressing, scary, anxiety-provoking, etc. out here!
posted by
FactorFiction
on May 11, 2005 at 4:38 PM
| link to this | reply