Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY college!

It dawned on me as I drove to work that now that it's been pointed out that I lacked attribution on a list, and used a word incorrectly, that if I were a Democrat running for office, I'd now be widely known as a plagiarist and liar.

However, if I were a Republican running for office, I'd be called "down home", "endearing" and maybe even "cute".

And needless to say, the gist of my points would be lost.

This sounds like a debating technique as well. Does anyone know if it has a name?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fredatgolf\";p=\"96183)</div>

I appreciate the kind words and I can see where you are coming from as I see things in the conservative agenda that are troublesome to me (similar to the agenda by democratics). I would say I am more a fiscal/environmental Democrat and a moral Republican (not inferring that Democrats are ammoral). For better or for worse, there isn't a party that fits my beliefs 100%.

Perhaps in the context I was using the word, manipulation was too strong. I was not trying to imply Machivallian (sp?), back-room get them to do as we want so that we can hurt them. Rather, I was referring more to the general idea that people (including politicians) generally already have a stance on an issue that they believe is "right" and that we want others to have our same stance. Once we have formed an opinion, we all tend to have a confirmation bias that shows us how right we are and we feel the need to get others to see our "right view".

I would agree that we gravitate to good, but don't see manipulation (in the way I was trying to use it) as evil, but as part of our nature in believing we are right, finding evidence that we are and discounting evidence that doesn't confirm to our right view. I will freely admit that part of this stems from my beliefs in original sin and other things that I think are "right."

I am not discounting that upper echelons of any political group (including the Republican party) lose sight of good will from time to time. However, I reject the opinion that the Republican party as a whole has thrown out good will. There are certainly things that I don't think will help everyone (like tax cuts) that Bush does, but I don't question that his heart is in the right place in that he really thinks it will be helpful. Making overgeneralizations about either group is a dangerous habit in my opinion.


(Disclaimer--I have use the terms Republicans and Democrats in lieu of conservative and liberal for simplicity and to get away from the negative connotations. I am not trying to ignore the fact that there are conservatives and liberal individuals in both parties).

 

Michael, for those of us who value religion, once the ego goes to the Father, being "right" becomes less relevant. That time will come.

 

I'm quite sure that all the neo-cons believe they're doing the right thing.

As far as I can tell, they believe that climate change and the impending oil crisis are inevitable. They don't believe that anything like the Kyoto treaty will be enough to actually have a significant effect.

As such the best thing they can do is try and deal with the situation by making sure that the US is the dominant power and able to use overwhelming military force to control its borders and population, and to be in a position to control oil supply as much as is possible.

As far as that goes, that is possibly a noble aim, if you believe you're elected/appointed to look after the US. Obviously, it's not optimal for the other 95% of the planet's population.

Unfortunately, their basic approach isn't that palatable to many Americans, and given that the US is nominally a democracy, they need to get elected, but they can't really come out up-front and stand on this platform. Instead they have to talk about other less real "imminent threats", WMDs, gay marriage, abortion, tax cuts etc etc to appeal to their target voters in the populace. They also deny the existance of climate change, as a way of justifying their apparent lack of action.

Now, they see nothing wrong in that, as the ends justify the means. They need to be in charge to provide the strong leadership for the turbulent century ahead, so they have to do whatever it takes to stay in power. Their basic view is that the people "can't handle the truth". Look up Leo Strauss - the philosophical father of the neocon movement. The tenets of his philosophy was that it was the job of a political elite to lead the masses, and that meant creating "narratives" to guide them in the correct direction. They've found that religion serves as a great way to unify the masses.

When you get onto the subject of tax cuts and corporatism, that's a slightly different agenda. From the neocon's point of view, I think it is partly self-interest, but it's also important to sustain the power of the elite group (inheritance tax cuts help particularly). Plus it helps limit the power of the people. When you've got so many super-rich people in politics, the whole system moves from "one man one vote" towards "one dollar one vote". The average citizen becomes largely insignificant.

Politicians need money to get elected - they give tax cuts to their rich sponsors who then use some of the money to fund their further campaigns. Cute. Plus, corporations are far less accountable than government - it's much easier to work within a corporate structure, and it's a great way of channeling money into your causes. And of course, they've managed to persuade much of the population that "the Government" is the enemy. When in reality, the Government should be "we the people", standing up for their rights...

The tax cuts are largely bogus of course - they mostly go to the rich, and on top of that they're spending more and more on the military, leaving a huge shortfall. They're not actually doing the "small government" thing that many of their supporters believe in - they're massively expanding government. This then leads on to the gutting of all sorts of government programs to help the less well off, plus the raiding of social security funds.

 

KMO, very well put.

Your post should be the last word on this, but I feel that the Bush house of cards just might be starting to collapse right now. Thus I feel the time is ripe to keep raising some of the issues that could just get this country back on track. Assuming of course that anyone is still reading anything posted by prius04 anymore.

When you mentioned how that elite feel they need to manage the masses was right on target. I've often tried to point out how people like GW are victims of the "Plantation" mentality". They do care about America, but the masses are not America. The masses are just the hired help. They are NOT evil and they really do care about America. They just have a world view that has existed for hundreds of years, that got damaged in the American 20th century, and now they want to re-install that world view.**

What many Americans fail to appreciate is just how restricted common Americans were when the Constitution was written. That document greatly expanded the rights of people and did so by saying that a people had rights because they were endowed by them by their creator, and NOT because they were born into a nobility or close friends with the King. This was earth shaking at the time, but the founding fathers weren't referring to all of us. They were referring to property owners that were male and white.

Gradually over the 19th century, more and more common Americans got more and more real rights. I think sometime in the 1870s they finally got to vote for senators. We still can't quite directly vote for President.

Those rights exploded in the 20th century and even started to apply to woman and non-whites. That empowering of the masses expanded further with progressive taxation, limitation of the monopolies, workers rights and numerous other changes. Pretty soon, it got to the point that the common people were almost running the country!!!

So that elite realized they had to do something. It took them 25 years, but they are well on their way to getting it back in order. And they've been spending billions to do it.

Personally, I think society works better when the elite are weakened and the masses are empowered. And I think the American 20th century proves that. Yes, there were mistakes, like 4th generation still on welfare, but by and large it worked and worked well. But the elite don't agree.

I'm not optimistic about the people getting all that empowerment back. The elite are just too organized and wealthy. And common people are too easily diverted but "religion", gay rights, and "Survivor". But I do hope that at least we can slow it down.


** Yes, I know where Cambridge is. I'm citing the process of how the elite versus the masses and the relative empowerment of each changed over the 20th century in the USA. And what that result was for the USA. This process also happened in England, Europe, and it happened violently in Russia -- though it was really just changing one elite for another in Russia. Boy did the masses get screwed there. But I'm not as aware of how it panned out in your country. And I'm not entirely sure where you will be going.

But I do think that if Europe can empower it's masses, like it seems intent on doing, the 21st century will be Europe's like the 20th was ours.

(Let's hope that China stays patriachal. If they empower their masses like we did, there is nothing that can stop them. They may become the world's factory, but without empowering their masses, they will never really own the century.)

 

You guys just don't sound like Bush and Blair. Are you sure you are from the same two countries?

I remember reading an article in Time Magazine 44 years ago that shocked me tremendously at the time but would not surprise me today. The journalist who had covered Nixon's campaign on Nixon's aircraft was posturing that despite his loss, Nixon was a great politician. He said that Nixon cautioned his staff not to try to educate the public that they had more control over them if they kept them relatively dumb. I couldn't believe what I was reading, but sure enough, he later used the strategy and won and subsequently the strategy has been emulated to a tee. This is for those of you that think we are not manipulated consciously. Some of you (Not I because Clinton sponsored open think tanks for years before his campaign.) may think Clinton capable of this, but certainly none of you will think that Jimmy Carter was capable of the same kind of thing or that George Bush is not capable of that kind of thinking. Let's get an oil lobyist to oversee and edit our energy policy.

 

KMO!!! Finally a thinking person joins the ranks!! What you said.

 

KMO -
You are right on the mark with regards to the neo-cons currently in power. If anyone wants confirmation of this, you have only to go to their own web site: http://www.newamericancentury.org/

The "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC) membership list is a who's-who list of the current US administration, and Washington insiders. It includes:
Elliot Abrams is a senior member of the National Security Council, who pled guilty to the charge of lying to Congress in the Iran/Contra scandal. He is an original signer of the PNAC statement of principles.
Kenneth Adelman is a member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. He is not an original signer of the PNAC statement of principles, but has signed one of its position papers sent as a letter to president George W. Bush in 2002.
Richard V. Allen is a member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board and the National Security Advisory Group.
John R. Bolton, currently Bush's nominee as ambassador to the United Nations, served as Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs. He is not an original signer of the PNAC statement of principles, but has signed at least five PNAC position papers sent as letters to presidents and members of congress advocating military aggression abroad.
Stephen Cambone is Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
Dick Cheney is Vice President and an original signer of the PNAC statement of principles.
Seth Cropsey is Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau.
Devon Gaffney Cross is a member of the Defense Policy Board and Donors Forum on International Affairs.
Paula Dobriansky is Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs.
Aaron Friedberg is the Vice President's Deputy National Security Advisor and the Vice President's Director of Policy Planning.
Francis Fukuyama is a member of the Cloning Panel, President's Council on Bioethics.
Daniel Goure is a member of the 2001 DoD Transition Team.
Fred C. Ikle is a member of the Defense Policy Board.
Zalmay Khalilzad was appointed in December 2002 as the president's "special envoy and ambassador at large for free Iraqis." According to the White House announcement, Khalilzad would "serve as the focal point for contacts and coordination among free Iraqis for the U.S. government and for preparations for a post-Saddam Iraq." Khalilzad's qualifications include not only advocating Saddam's ouster since the 1980s, but also his proven prowess in orchestrating the installation of the Hamid Karzai regime in Afghanistan after being appointed special U.S. envoy to Afghanistan in December 2001. He is an original signer of the PNAC statement of principles.
Jeane J. Kirkpatrick is the U.S. Representative to the United Nations Human Rights Commission.
John F. Lehman is a member of the National Commission to Investigate Attacks on the U.S. (9-11 Commission).
I. Lewis Scooter Libby is Chief of Staff and the Vice President's Assistant for National Security Affairs to Dick Cheney and an original signer of the PNAC statement of principles.
Richard N. Perle became chairman of the 30-member Defense Policy Board in July 2001, which meets regularly with Rumsfeld. The board's meetings are classified and members are allowed access to top-secret intelligence reports. He resigned in early 2003 upon allegations that he was essentially profiting from insider trading with classified defense intelligence. Perle is not an original signer of the PNAC statement of principles, but has signed at least eight PNAC position papers sent as letters to presidents and members of congress advocating military aggression abroad.
J. Danforth Quayle is a member of the Defense Policy Board.
Peter W. Rodman is Asst. Defense Secretary for International Security Affairs.
Henry S. Rowen is a member of the Defense Policy Board.
Donald Rumsfeld is US Secretary of Defense and an original signer of the PNAC statement of principles in 1997.
William Schneider, Jr. is Chairman of the Defense Science Board.
Abram Shulsky is Director of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans.
Chris Williams is a member of the Defense Policy Board and Deterrence Concepts Advisory Panel, as well as Special Assistant to Rumsfeld on Policy, 2001.
Paul Dundes Wolfowitz is Deputy Secretary of Defense and an original signer of the PNAC statement of principles.
R. James Woolsey, Jr. served as director of Central Intelligence for the CIA from 1993-95, and was ambassador to the negotiation on conventional armed forces in Europe from 1989-91. Woolsey went to Geneva as delegate at large to the U.S.-Soviet Strategic Arms Reduction Talks and Nuclear and Space Arms Talks from 1983-86. He was also Under Secretary of the Navy and advised the U.S. delegation to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. Woolsey, one of the most high-profile hawks in the war against Iraq and a key member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, is a director of the Washington-based private equity firm Paladin Capital. The company was set up three months after the terrorist attacks on New York and sees the events and aftermath of September 11, 2001 as a business opportunity which 'offer substantial promise for homeland security investment'. He is not an original signer of the PNAC statement of principles, but has signed at least seven of its position papers sent as letters to presidents and members of congress advocating military aggression abroad. According to RightWeb, Woolsey is a member of the Defense Policy Board, the Deterrence Concepts Advisory Panel, and a special envoy of Rumsfeld to investigate the Czech-al Qaeda connection (?).[1] (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/charts/gwb-pnac.php)
Dov S. Zakheim is DoD Comptroller.
Robert Bruce Zoellick was appointed United States Trade Representative.
(This list is from: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...merican_Century )

PNAC called for the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Hussein while Clinton was still in office. This is a matter of public record, and documented on their own web site http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclin...intonletter.htm )

PNAC basically believes in Pax Americana - that the US should dictate the path that the whole world takes. It didn't work for the Romans - why should it work for us?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"96922)</div>

I sat on the sidelines of this topic for several pages, but this really bugs me. It's racist in a vague sort of way or at best some sort of protectionist jingoism. Why shouldn't the chinese achieve the same sort of success that has occurred in Europe, N. America and the Pacific Rim? This is the sort of thinking that is really behind the rejection of the EU constitution by old Europe because they know new Europe will eat their lunch in a free market. In fact, I would argue a full belly and cool gadgets are a precursor and necessity before concerns about social justice and the environment can come to the front.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Greyskye\";p=\"96989)</div>

Well Rome did hang around a thousand years give or take. But this reminds me of the scene in Monty Python's "Life of Brian" where the Judean Liberation Front is plotting the overthrow of the Romans but are having a hard time getting motivated because... “All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?â€

 

Ron,

You are absolutely right about the racism/jingoism inherent in my comment about the Chinese. Actually, I personally feel that the best plan would be for all of us to move forward, together. I guess I just wanted people to think about the evils of patriachy, or the "Plantation mentality", or the lack of freedom. Bad way to do it. I apologize to anyone who may be offended. (Once the Prius starts being built in China, maybe I can aplogize directly to a new Chinese owner and Priuschat member.)

And as for Rome, Rome did accomplish quite a bit. But wasn't it built on being permanently at war?

And wasn't slavery an inherent part of their success?

And wasn't pillage an important part of their wealth?

And Rome may have been good for some Romans, but was it really that good for it's neighbors? The world?

And was the world really that much better off towards the end of the Roman Empire?

(I think Rome, as we know it, lasted 400 years, though 1000 versus 400 has no affect on your points.)

Personally, I think it's a strong argument that Rome collapsed because it really was not based upon the inherent rights and worth of all men and women. Some had more rights than others.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"97121)</div>

Well that description pretty much applies to every society up to and for some time after Rome including the biblical ones. I guess you could say the Romans were better at it. Like technological development, moral development takes time.

 

When the Roman empire collapsed, Europe went into the Dark Ages for maybe six centuries. Certainly Roman civilisation meant progress in the short term, but the following "recession" was massive, so it's not clear to me how beneficial its effect was in the long term.

I do like that Judean People's Liberation Front quote though. Or was it the People's Liberation Front of Judea?

 

Fascinationg Editorial in NYT today. Almost wonder if the guy reads Priuschat.

Requires registration but it's free.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/opinion/.../10krugman.html


Paul Krugman
Losing Our Country

Baby boomers like me grew up in a relatively equal society. In the 1960's America was a place in which very few people were extremely wealthy, many blue-collar workers earned wages that placed them comfortably in the middle class, and working families could expect steadily rising living standards and a reasonable degree of economic security.

But as The Times's series on class in America reminds us, that was another country. The middle-class society I grew up in no longer exists.
.....

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

Sweet! I used to read Krugman's column every week online, but then they started requiring a paid subscription, even for the latest two. Apparently they changed their minds about that. Thanks for bringing that to my attention (albeit unintentionally)!!!

I was thinking about getting a subscription for awhile, just to read his column... he is that good.

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

You know, the one thing that chaps my hide, and I've seen it said in the posts on this thread, is that our Founding Fathers were much like Bush as far as wearing their relgions on their sleeve, and this is the way our country was founded. This is what the religious right would have us believe. This is not only insulting to our majority population's intelligence, but it is also blatant misinformation. The Religious Right tailors the words of "The Bible" to suit their needs in a given situation (i.e. abortion, Terry Schiavo, right to life, oh and the list goes on and on, and sickeningly so). Our Founding Fathers would have impeached Bush after his first year in office on his religious ferver and principles alone. When you talk about Naterprius' comments and his intents to protest the "President's" speech, and tell him that he is out of line, those of you opposed to this need to take a step back and think about what you're saying....naterprius' comments are exactly in line with what our founding fathers believed, and on the foundation in which our country was built. Deism being the operative word.

Unlike the revealed religions, Deism makes no unreasonable claims. The revealed religions encourage people to give up, or at least to suspend, their God-given reason. They like to call it faith. For example, how logical is it to believe that Moses parted the Red Sea, or that Jesus walked on water, or that Mohammed received the Koran from an angel? Suspending your reason enough to believe these tales only sets a precedent that leads to believing a Jim Jones or David Koresh.

Deism teaches self-reliance and encourages people to constantly use their reason. Deism teaches to question authority no matter what the cost. This is what our founding fathers believed in, and this is what our country was built upon as a civilization both politically and religiously from its inception.

Much of the evil in the world could be overcome or removed if humanity had embraced our God-given reason from our earliest evolutionary stages. After all, all the laws of nature that we've discovered and learned to use to our advantage that make everything from computers to medicine to space travel have existed eternally. But we've decided we'd rather live in superstition and fear instead of learning and gaining knowledge. It's much more soothing to believe we're not responsible for our own actions than to actually do the hard work required for success.

Deism doesn't claim to have all the answers to everything, but rather claim to be on the right path to those answers.

In that respect, naterprius' views, actions, and intentions for the signing of the petition and full page ad towards GW, was more in line with what our country was founded on. Instead, those "right wing" conservatives would rather challenge his views and quote Lincoln and elude to our Founding Fathers as a benchmark for their beliefs. Sorry to say, but the founding fathers of our country would rather hang themselves by the neck than be associated with what we've come to know today as radical republicans or the religious right. I appreciate your topic naterprius, I, for one, only wish I had seen it sooner.

In case anyone was wondering, I'm really not active in any church culture, but would consider myself mostly a Deist (which is different from an Atheist). I get asked alot what the difference is. An Atheist doesn't believe in God. Deism rejects the "revelations" of the "revealed" religions but does not reject God.

Anyways, take that for what it's worth, and thanks for letting me rant.

Dave.

 

Hybrid Dave:
I agree with everything you say about the religious right and am concerned that most Americans are not aware of how much they are influencing policy. I am glad, also, that you profess to be open to all thoughtful possibilities. Here's one - that God's dominion includes the fact that spiritual reality is supreme and, in fact, is the basis for the so called miracles you refer to. Great spiritual thinkers, demonstrating a highly attenuated awareness of reality proved beyond the limited material based thinking that does not recognize God's dominion.

Thanks for your "rant"ing, I enjoyed it.

 

Prius04, I encourage you to continue reading Krugman. He's so enlightened that he agrees with you completely.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fredatgolf\";p=\"100054)</div>

No problem. I completely agree with your statement on God's dominion as well. As you can imagine, both my political and religious beliefs are somewhat out of place in a setting like Virginia (as Republican and Religiously entrenched as it is typically), but I enjoy talking with neighbors and friends on my differing views politically. Really keeps the spice in the relationship :wink: Realize though the the Religious Right only really influences policy and dictates its agenda when there is a President like Bush in the White House who holds the same "beliefs", as radical as they may seem. The balance between the incumbant President and any faction of religion should be as fair as our legislative/judicial branches of government (and I use that reference very loosely after all the circus entertainment we've seen over the past year). But alas, I feel we will never again have that balance between church and state unless we as a people collectively change our thinking and do some proverbial and spiritual housecleaning when it comes to our "elected officials" in the White House (again, I use that term very loosely as well).

Dave.

 

I am out of place as well. People in our two states are not making the connection that we are describing. When I say anything to my well heeled friends, they dismiss it and claim the religious right has very little to do with what Bush does.