Dr. Forbush Thinks

If the American people don’t question would they see and hear from any politician they are doing a disservice to American Democracy.

One thing that bothers me is how the congress spins an issue into sound bites that sound good for the person making the sound bite, and slings mud at the other side of the aisle. This is a general statement, because I realize that both sides do this, but if we don’t examine these things we will never get to the truth and our leaders will continue to pass laws that benefit themselves personally instead of passing laws that benefit the “Common Good” of the American people.

Let’s look at the recent immigration legislation as an example of how our politicians spin the truth into looking like they did the opposite of what they really did.

In December of 2005 the House of Representatives passed an immigration bill that would make it a felony to be illegally in the United States. This was passed by the Republican lead House mainly by a party line vote. Therefore, most Republicans were on record as voting for the criminalization of 12 million illegal immigrants. The result of this law, if it were to be enforced, would be to arrest and deport 12 million illegal immigrants back to the country that they came from. Since many of these people actually have children who are legal US citizens we would need to send many parents of legal US citizens to another country leaving these children parentless, or forcing these children to go with their parents to a country that they have never even been to.

When protests to this law began to materialize across the country politicians began to sit up and take notice. Republican lawmakers who passed this law realized that the law would do quite a bit of harm to many families. It isn’t quite family values to break up millions of families, is it?

Well, during the debate in the House there was a vote on an amendment to change the law to make illegal status a misdemeanor instead of a felony. Democrats who were opposed to either a misdemeanor or felony status voted against the amendment. Now, the Republicans have attempted to use this vote against the Democrats by saying that voting against the amendment was the same as voting to make illegal status a felony. And, to the uninitiated person listening to The Republican National Committee’s radio ad on April 17 titled “Protect Border & Honor Immigrants.” will not understand that the Republicans voted to make illegal immigrants felons before they voted against it. The 60-second ad is in Spanish and will be broadcast throughout the week on Hispanic radio stations in Phoenix, Tucson, Reno and Las Vegas. This sounds like a classic “flip-flop” to me.

But, where are the Democrats? Why can’t they get out there and make this message clear? Republicans have the advantage that this action in the House is complicated and most people will be confused. For example, why would Republicans vote to make this a felony before they changed their minds and voted to make it a misdemeanor? This doesn’t seem to fit the conventional wisdom that Republicans don’t change their minds. People that already believe that Republicans don’t change their minds will start believing that the liberal media has manipulated this information in some way.

What we need now are Democrats who are willing to get out there and point out how this spin is just plain wrong. We need Democrats who will play it straight and tell the truth, or the average Joe and Jane will only be driven further from politics and into the world of Celebrity Chefs or some other nonsense.








Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics, Borders, Immigration, Lies, Deception, Republicans

There has been a lot of criticism of the Democrats as of late. Why haven’t the Democrats seized the moment and kicked some Republican ass? People who ask this question don’t understand the fundamental nature of the two political parties in America today.

If there is one unifying factor of the Democrats today it is the goal to reach a government that is for the “Common Good” of the American people. Since America is a diverse country there are many different groups that seek power by unifying under the umbrella of the Democratic Party. Power is found in unity and working together to solve diverse problem is in the common interest of Americans everywhere.

Unfortunately working for the “Common Good” is a complex message that doesn’t play well in sound bites.

Republicans see the unification of these diverse groups as a threat to the status quo. This might not seem clear at first, but it becomes clear when we look at what the status quo is, and how the Republicans use various means to maintain the status quo.

The status quo in America is that there are a small number of very wealthy capitalists that control much of what America does. These wealthy capitalists became capitalists by acquiring vast sums of money through inheritance and believe that they deserve to be calling the shots. It is exceedingly rare for a common person to do what Bill Gates did and break into the group of top 1% of the wealthy Americans who control the Republican Party. Of course, one should be careful to remember that these wealthy Republicans are by no means all of the wealthy Americans in the top 1%. They are the wealthy Americans that “fear” loosing their money and power. There are many wealthy Americans that have a different view of their wealth and they tend to contribute to charities and believe in the “Common Good” of America. People with these resources and these beliefs largely tend to be supporters of the Democrats.

The key once again is the goal of somehow achieving the “Common Good” for the American people, not just the wealthy upper class that seeks to protect their privileged status.

The problem with this noble goal is that seeking the “common good” does not always raise the funds needed to run a successful campaign. The people who see this goal as an important (meaning: positively life changing) issue are the people that have been taken advantage of in one way or another. People who are on the top of the heap tend to have expendable income they are willing to contribute to political causes. People who are being crushed by the heap are doing everything they can just to get by.

In order to raise money to support the goal of establishing a “common good” for “all” Americans the Democrats have approached organizations representing people who have high proportions those who have been abused by the current system. These groups are organized by common interest, like most groups are. Some examples of these organizations are NAACP, teachers unions, Teamsters, United Farm Workers and similar groups. These groups have traditionally fought for fairness and rights for their members. And, like any organized group they seek to get as much as they can. It isn’t their job to worry about their impact on other workers or other groups. So, these groups contribute to Democrats in order to get their voices heard.

Democrats, like any political group, find themselves facing the problems associated with conflict of interest from time to time. Democrats stand for the “common good” of all Americans, and the take money from people who seek to remedy the shortcomings of the current system. But, some of the shortcomings are worse than other shortcomings. Some solutions to the shortcomings effect members who contribute to the overall cause. Democrats tend to be successful Democrats when they understand the nuance of the many complex issues that effect all of the different groups of Americans.

One would think that a politician who understands the nuance of the issues would be the type of politicians that every American would like for their leaders. But, not everyone cares about others. Especially people who have been raised in homogeneous environments. If you don’t experience different people, then you are not likely to care what happens to them. People with this attitude don’t believe in the “Common Good” for all Americans. Instead, they seek the common good for their particular group. The leaders of the Republican Party have seized this and used it for their advantage. Since the main goal of the Republican elite is to maintain the status quo they solicit their message to people who are doing reasonably well and they wish to maintain the status quo. However, even this group isn’t large enough to elect Republicans at every election. The problem is that this group of satisfied people changes depending on the economy, and in bad times Republicans could not be elected because this group grows very small.

So, Republicans have resorted to tactics to attract larger groups of people to their party. They have sought people who wish to maintain the status quo in many different ways, including social issues. They have sought religious people who have felt that society has grown less religious. So, they appeal to these people to win votes and they promise to return the country to the religious authority of years gone by. They create a vision of times past where everyone did the “right thing” because they followed the law - the divine law. The vision of everyone doing the “right thing” tends to keep people from questioning whether society is working for the “common good.” The directors of the Republican Party know that pursuing the “Common Good” is not good for the wealthy, because it brings up questions of fairness in education, potential jobs and ability to reach the affluence that Republicans sell as the American Dream.

The final strategy of the Republican Party is use fear and ignorance of the electorate to their advantage. Fear and ignorance prevent people from questioning the status quo. Fear and ignorance make people afraid to question authority. Fear and ignorance prevent society from reaching the Democrats goal of a “Common Good” for all Americans.

So, if the Democrats have any hope of getting a unified message out to the general public it need to be in the form of sound bites promoting the “Common Good” of “All” Americans. The common good means a clean environment for all Americans. The common good means potential for a good education for all Americans. The common good means unification of diverse groups seeking to make a better America for all.







Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

 

What do you do when you want to test the destructive power of a nuclear weapon, but you don’t want to use a nuclear weapon?

The answer is “Divine Strake.”

Divine strake is a huge conventional pile of explosives (700 tons) which would do the damage of a small nuclear weapon. And the test is set for June 2, 2006 in the Nevada Desert.

But, the question doesn’t really have anything to do with the environmental damage of such an explosion. Instead, it has to do with, why do we want to test such a huge detonation. This can be answered by trying to understand why such a large explosion needs to be tested, and what is being tested.

By reading about “Divine Strake” on the global security web site we can determine that this weapon is meant to be a “bunker buster” test, looking at the extent of damage that can be done to an extensive underground bunker. But, it is quite clear that no one from the US military is going to pile 700 tons of explosives on top of someone’s bunker. It is also clear that no airplane can carry a 700 ton bomb to someone’s bunker. So, the only answer that makes any sense at all is that the administration wants to know what a small nuclear weapon would do to someone’s bunker.

The idea that the US would use nuclear weapons on a first strike was believed to be nonsense only five years ago, but the religious extremists that have taken over the Republican Party don’t see the harm in using a small nuclear weapon. They don’t see any harm in preemptive attacks on countries that we don’t like.

So, if we add one and one it looks like Seymour Hersh was right Iran is next on the list of countries these Religious extremists are planning to attack.

 

 

 

Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit

 

Politics

 

Crazy as it may sound to some, I believe that people need to take some responsibility for their own health. The information is out there, but by the looks of it there are quite a few people who ignore it.

Basic health begins with taking care of yourself. Before anyone needs to be concerned with regular check ups or seeing a doctor when they feel sick they need to learn the truth about exercise and nutrition. Ignorance of the general population about these issues costs us, the taxpayers and users of medical care, thousands of dollars.

When people ignore the facts about exercise and nutrition their bodies deteriorate at a much more rapid rate than they would if they take care of themselves. Rapidly deteriorating bodies need medical intervention at a higher rate than healthy bodies. These people who do not take care of themselves use resources that could have been used in a more efficient way.

This may sound confusing at first, but we should realize that health care has limited resources. There are a limited number of doctors, nurses and medical technicians. These resources are distributed by economics. Those who can afford health care with cash or medical insurance get first dibs on these resources. People who have Medicare or veteran benefits are on the next tier. And, the poor that have no medical coverage can only use these resources when they have a life threatening disease. This is the current system, like it or not.

When more people need to use these resources the demand increases. And, based on the supply and demand curve of economics the price must go up in order to limit the use of those resources to those who can afford them. Therefore we have a situation where many people who abuse their bodies but have medical insurance are allowed to use limited resources that people who may lack health insurance, but take care of themselves can not afford to use when they need access to these resources. This leads to people who lack insurance going years without having a simple medical check-up. These people miss opportunities for early intervention into diseases that could be diagnosed and cured before more damage is done. When these people experience major symptoms it could be to late to save their lives, or require much more expensive treatments that these people can not afford. The cost for these treatments eventually gets passed on to the healthy carriers of health insurance.

By taking a step back and looking at the big picture it is clear that people who abuse their bodies are taking the resources of health care from the rest of us. This being the case we need to encourage people to live healthier lives, because it does effect us all. We should not be swayed by the argument that some “self-abusers” make that it is their body and they can do what they want with it. Every time you see an obese person walking through the grocery store eating a box of Ice-cream sandwiches because they can’t wait until they get home they are taking a doctor’s time away from the rest of us.

The fact of the matter is that our country in general is overweight and the reason revolves around easy access to calories and lack of will to burn them. Consider that the average person only burns around 1500 calories per day. Now consider that one pound of fat corresponds to 3500 calories of stored energy. That means that if you sat around all day and didn’t eat anything at all you could only loose less than half a pound of stored fat. You would need to starve yourself for more than two days to loose one pound of stored fat. Obviously this is not a healthy way to diet, but this is just to illustrate the extreme measures that one needs to take if one wants to loose weight without doing exercise. Starvation is not only a difficult solution, it is not a healthy solution. By burning only the stored fat your body does not get nutrients such as vitamins and minerals needed for a healthy life.

However, exercise offers an important option to those who really want to loose weight and live a healthy life. For example, by using a treadmill for an hour and ten minutes I was able to burn 1000 calories, according to the display on the machine. This means that I could eat a balanced diet of 500 calories per meal for three meals over a day and still loose a pound of fat every three days. There is no need to starve. Obviously the real world is more complicated than this, but if one considers a calorie budget where exercise buys the opportunity to eat more calories and even a small amount of exercise can help map a path to a healthy life. For example, walking 30 minutes a day might burn about 400 calories. This might not seem like much, but if you add this to your routine and don’t eat any more than you already do you can loose a pound of fat every nine days. Obviously doing a little more will result in more weight loss, but at least knowing this will help devise a plan for your objective. So, cutting back on your calorie intake by 400 calories per day and walking 30 minutes per day will result in loosing a pound of fat every 4.5 days. By doing this for 45 days will result in loosing 10 pounds of fat and so on.

Knowing these simple facts should go a long way in fighting the battle for personal health. But if America can be convinced to turn themselves around and live healthier lives it will benefit us all by freeing up the limited health care resources we have in this country.

Be a patriot and take care of yourself.


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit

Politics, Health Care, Exercise, Patriotism

It seems like health care continues to be a major point of concern for me personally, so I tend to write about it quite often. But, this time I’m not writing about US health care, but instead Iraqi health care.

It turns out that the RAND corporation has just released an important report on the failures of the US to win the hearts and minds of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan after the US lead invasions. It turns out that when people are upset about life in general they get upset with those who are in charge. This shouldn’t be a surprise, but apparently the Bush administration didn’t think this through.


Well, actually maybe the Bush administration did think this through. They don’t believe that Americans living in the good ol’ USA don’t deserve health care, so why should the Iraqis or Afghanis?

Well, it seems to be par for the course. That’s what we get when we have George W Bush the Decider.









Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

Maybe it’s time to take a lesson from Jesus and work a little on our ability to forgive those who do those stupid things that really rile us.

Three years ago George W Bush invaded Iraq. At the time there were a large number of people who believed what the President said and they believed that America was protecting itself from an evil dictator that was about to drop a nuclear weapon on us. The people who bought into this idea worried that if they didn’t do anything the bomb could be dropped at any time. The fear spread through the country from 9/11 was still fresh in everyone’s mind and fear makes people believe just about anything.

I know how fear works, because I have experienced it. I am sure that many people have. It makes you do irrational things. It makes you paranoid. A suggestion can begin to consume you.

When I was a teenager I got the idea to hop a fence at a local pool and go in for a midnight dip. It sounded like a lot of fun, so a few of us found a pool that seemed to be secluded enough that swimming in it wouldn’t attract attention. We hopped the fence easily and we went into the changing area to take our clothes off. The changing area was a concrete structure and the traffic noise from the road seemed quite loud inside the building at night. After getting changed we began to think that someone might be outside. The traffic noise was so loud that if someone were outside we probably wouldn’t be able to distinguish their noise from the traffic noise. We began to imagine someone outside the building and fear began to overtake us. We thought about going out into the pool, but it no longer sounded like a good idea because we had become paranoid that someone might catch us. In a few minutes we had put our clothes back on and we were back over the fence. When I think about this story I can still sense some of the fear I felt when we were in that changing room. Fear had influenced our decision not to swim in that pool that day.

It may seem obvious that people should be fearful when they are doing something wrong. Going swimming in a neighborhood pool was certainly wrong, and that fear could have been a good thing. After all, penalties for breaking the laws are supposed to deter people from breaking the laws. But, there is more to fear than just fear of breaking the laws. Terrorism itself is based on fear. During the French Revolution terror was used to scare the people into joining the revolt. The French Revolution was not about defense of a nation, but it was an uprising against the ruling class. Terror created fear in the people and that fear made them do things that they might not have done if they had been thinking rational thoughts.

But, after a while people are no longer afraid. The fear goes away, and people feel free to act in rational ways again. Just because I was fearful to go swimming in that neighborhood pool one midnight did not prevent me from going swimming with my friends on other nights. We just found another place that seemed to be safer and we were less fearful. We ended up finding a secluded beach at the lake instead.

Similarly, three years ago many people were afraid of Iraq attacking us with nuclear bombs. The fear made them rally behind a stupid idea of invading Iraq. Based on opinion polls, a large majority of Americans agree that the Iraq War is a major debacle. This could have only happened if people changed their minds. Americans have changed their minds because they no longer fear Iraq attacking us with nuclear weapons. Many of these people still believe that there are people in Iraq that might wish us harm. But, the major fear of nuclear weapons no longer exists.

Some people have always been against the Iraq War. They never feared the nuclear attack. They saw the war as a war for oil, or power in the Middle East. They weren’t afraid of Iraq. They may have been afraid of the Bush administration, but for whatever reason they chose to oppose the Iraq War early on. And, these people find it hard to forgive those who had supported the Iraq War and later changed their minds. After all, those who had recently changed their minds had listened perhaps all of the death, destruction and wasted money could have been preserved. It is certainly hard to forgive this sin.

However, I am here to tell you that we must forgive these people and accept them into the anti-war movement. We need to make these people feel welcome because there is strength in unity. After all, Jesus taught us to forgive the sinner.








Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

What should society be tolerant too? Where should the line be drawn?

The religious right likes to say “tolerance to a point, there are laws that should not be broken.” We shouldn't tolerate the breaking of laws. Should we have tolerance for a murderer? He chooses to kill people as a lifestyle choice. A rapist or a pedophile chooses their lifestyle as well. Should we have tolerance for these people?

The difference is that murderers effect the social structure of general population. Homosexuals don’t do that based on their lifestyle choice. On the other hand, rapists and pedophiles like murders do put society at risk.

Unfortunately the religious right can’t see the difference between rapists, pedophiles and homosexuals. I am guessing that that is a lifestyle choice. I believe that they can be taught to understand the difference, but they choose not to. Perhaps if they had some help from the leaders in the church this could change. But, it seems that the leaders of these churches are the most ignorant of all.

What can be done when people choose to be ignorant?

Instead of reading the story of Jesus, where he set an example by eating with the sinners, the ignorant choose to bend the teachings in the Bible to support their own ignorance. As we read and think about the life of Jesus we realize that the key confrontation is between Jesus and the Pharisees. Jesus is the radical that stands up against the popular teaching of the time that sin causes our misfortune. And, this sin is defined by long lists of dietary restrictions, rituals that should be followed and peculiar ideas not based in fact. Jesus comes back against these ideas by saying that love is more important than these silly ideas, rituals and restrictions. So, if the law has a basis in love of humanity, then it is valid.

Of course the Pharisees put Jesus to death because of this heresy. But the legacy of Jesus lived on, teaching us that the value of love beyond the written law. We should remember that the laws that Jesus questioned were written in the Bible. He worked a miracle on the Sabbath, proving to the Pharisees that Jesus could not have come from God. Breaking the Sabbath was more important than an obscure writing in Leviticus saying that a man should not lie with a man like a woman. But, the present day Pharisees have presented themselves as the leaders of the fundamentalists and the hatred they show by their ignorance isn’t any different than the ignorance the Pharisees who put Jesus to death. And, that hatred fans out to society.

How many Christians truly believe that Jesus would approve of the intolerance for homosexuals that the religious right spread among its crowd? I can hear the echo, “Crucify Him, Crucify Him,” that originated from the mouths of our present day Pharisees.









Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Religion, Homosexuals, Ignorance, NeoPharisees, Fundamentalists, Christians

Why should be believe George W Bush?

“I'm sick and tired of games and deception,” George W Bush in January 2003 discussing Saddam Hussein.

I know exactly the feeling that President Bush was trying to communicate to the American people back in 2003. But I feel it toward George W Bush. The frustration of a regime that would play games and use deception cuts at the very idea of a government by the people and for the people. But, Iraq never proclaimed itself to have a government by the people or for the people. However, the United States of American not only declares this, but it enshrines it in the idea of American culture. The United States of America proclaims this as a principle of American society and it claims that it should be exported around the world. So, when I see the games and deceptions emanating from the Bush administration I feel sick to my stomach and tired of the never ending excuses given to the citizens of the United States.

Today at the White House Press conference Scott McClellen was swatting questions like flies. Helen Thomas asked him if the US was going to attack Iran. The answer from Scott McClellen was that we were using diplomacy. Now, this sounds extremely familiar. Back in 2002 the Bush administration insisted that we were using diplomacy in order to win the support of the United Nations in the run up to the war in Iraq as we stationed American troops around Iraq. It is pretty clear today that the United States didn’t really care what the UN would say, the were going to get regime change with or without the support of the UN. But that isn’t what was said at the time. For example, from a press briefing in September 2002:

Q So the President agrees with Secretary Powell that there must be an international coalition consensus before there is any attack on Iraq?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President has always said that he will consult. The President has always said that through leadership, others follow. That creates coalitions and that continues to be the President's view and the Secretary's view and the administration's view.

Q And Vice President Cheney agrees that there -- with Secretary Powell on the need for inspectors to go back in?

MR. FLEISCHER: The American position, as the Vice President said in his remarks, and Secretary Powell said, and as the President has said, is that arms inspectors in Iraq are a means to an end, but the end is knowledge that Iraq has lived up to its promises that it made to end the Gulf War, that it has in fact disarmed, that it does not possess weapons of mass destruction. And the President's position, the Vice President's position, the Secretary's position consistently have been --

Click here for the entire Press Briefing.

And, the actions of the President seemed to suggest that the US was going into Iraq regardless of what public thought about the idea of invading Iraq. The question was put to Ari Fleischer:

Q There's a widespread public impression based upon the statements that the President and others in the administration have already made that he seeks a military solution, whether it is correct or incorrect. Don't you run the risk of backing yourselves into a corner where no other solution is possible unless he speaks out soon?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think this issue raises one of the most fundamental matters of a democracy, of a presidency, leadership, Congress' role as well. And these are the very difficult judgments that Presidents of the United States are called upon to make, where they have to ascertain at what point is the price of inaction greater than the price of action. At what point do the dangers presented outweigh the risks of doing nothing. And these are why nations have elections, why they elect leaders, why these leaders have authority to use, why these leaders use this authority in conjunction with the Congress. But again, it presupposes a decision made. No decision such made, but the President understands the vital importance of all the various issues that you're raising. These are the right issues to raise. The President is aware of them all.

Click here for the entire Press Briefing.


And, even after Congress gave authority to the president to wage war in Iraq, the Bush administration wasn’t honest about its intention. In this press briefing the White House seems to suggest that this request for the use of force is just a technicality. Ari Fleischer is trying to assure reporters that it isn’t likely that the President Bush would actually use this authority unless he had overwhelming support for the operation.

Q Is regime change, though, part of the goal of what you're trying to accomplish through the U.N.?

MR. FLEISCHER: The goal of what we're trying to accomplish through the U.N. is exactly what the President laid out last week, which begins with disarmament and Iraq's honoring the resolutions to destroy all their weapons of mass destruction; to cease the repression of minorities; the return of prisoners that were taken in the '91 war; to renounce Iraq's involvement with terrorism; to permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq; and to cease its violation of the oil-for-food programs. Those are the issues the President brought to the attention of the United Nations.

Q Ari, if I could follow up on Sandra's question. Now that the President has secured the bipartisan agreement of the leadership of Congress to pass a resolution authorizing him to use force, is he prepared to share with the American people, to level with the American people, about what the use of force actually, practically means? For instance, is the administration, now that this debate is underway and will take place in the next couple of days, prepared to say how long will American soldiers be in Iraq, should the President use this authority he is seeking?

MR. FLEISCHER: Make no doubt, if this gets to the point where the President decides that force is the route to go in order to preserve the greatest chance for world peace, and for regional peace, the President will, of course, speak to the American people. The President is in the middle of a process where he began at the United Nations talking to the world about the importance of the United Nations showing its relevance. And the President has started this process as a result of the consultations not only with the Congress, the United Nations, but, of course, the American people have a right to hear what the President thinks. And that, if it comes to that point, the President will do that at the appropriate time.

Q But the Congress is now at the sticking point, at the point at which members and senators have to decide, based on what their constituents' view is, in part, to give the President the authority to use this force. They now have to make the decision. And don't they need the answer to the question, if we give you this force, this authority to use force, how long will American soldiers be in --

MR. FLEISCHER: The President will continue to talk about this publicly and in various forums and in various ways. And at the appropriate time, in his judgment, he will talk to the American people more directly about it.

Q One more question. He expects the Congress to vote to authorize him to use force before he answers the question how long American soldiers would be expected to be in Iraq and what government the United States would support, post Saddam?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think Congress is asking the appropriate questions in the hearings that it has, so that Congress can make the appropriate decisions as they approach a vote on a resolution. And I think Congress is satisfied with what they are hearing from the President and are hearing from the administration witnesses that are going up there this week, today, tomorrow and the next day. Anything beyond that, I don't want to speculate about the timing of it, but the President understands, of course, the importance of talking to the country about it. It's a vital part of the job of the President.

Click here for the entire Press Briefing.

And, today we have Scott McClellen and George W Bush asserting that the idea of attacking Iran is wild speculation. It may be speculation, but it certainly isn’t that wild if we consider the history of the administration using deception to gain support for the attack on Iraq…











Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

Why didn’t Ronald Reagan get stung for the Iran Contra scandal? The answer is Plausible Deniability. Reagan was able to convince the American people that he didn’t know the details of what was going on. After all, that was why he had such a great staff. Each staff member delegated general tasks, and the details were dealt with down the chain of command. There wasn’t any need to know the details if you trust your henchmen employees; it is admirable to trust your employees.

The Republicans, who had been caught off guard when Richard Nixon’s evil deeds were revealed, realized that Plausible Deniability was the perfect strategy. Plausible Deniability allowed the administration to operate in what ever way they wanted, and as long as the President could claim plausible deniability he was safe. The President determines the administration, and as long as he was safe the administration was protected.

The ideal President for the Republicans was no longer an intellectual politician that knew how to pull all the strings. Instead the ideal President was a frontman who was capable of delivering the Republican Party line from time to time in order to give the public the appearance that everything is in control while the team makes all the decisions with little regard to the President. George W Bush fit the bill perfectly. The American people got a President that told them what they wanted to hear and the Republicans got the ability to do just about anything they wanted to do. If something went wrong, the President could claim plausible deniability keeping him safe, and he could keep the rest of the staff protected from investigation and dismissal.

During the first term in office the administration needed to be careful, if they wanted to win re-election. After all, pushing the envelope to far could push approval polls into the depths and hence destroy any hopes of re-election. In the second term, without concern for re-election the administration knows that it does not need to be as careful, and information has slowly begun to trickle out of the administration.

The latest news was that Scooter Libby has testified that he got authority to leak classified information in order to bolster the support for the Iraq War. For those of you who don’t believe that the President lies, this case demonstrates how fine a line he is willing to walk in order to deceive the public without actually straight out lying. Christians out there may take notice that the Bible doesn’t actually say “lie” but “bear false witness,” which amounts to what the president did here.

Since the discovery of the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name the President has told the American people that leaking classified information was a serious problem and it would be dealt with severely. Now, if classified information was declassified and leaked by the President hairs are certainly being split to deceive the public. But, technically he wouldn’t be lying, because the information was no longer classified. However, declassifying only the information that supports the case for war is certainly deceptive. Not putting the entire document out into the public to be studied in order to see the entire assessment of the cause for war would normally be considered propaganda. These are the kinds of arguments used against the Soviet Union. And it is sad that America is going down the same road.

So, technically if George W Bush told Dick Cheney to get “our” information out to the press. George W Bush technically wouldn’t know what Dick Cheney did and he could claim plausible deniability. George W Bush delegated the ability to declassify documents to Dick Cheney, so the President wouldn’t need to get his hands dirty in any detailed way. Now, George W Bush can claim that he doesn’t like the problem of leaks in public and technically tell the truth without knowing that he actually authorized the leak himself. This is the disgusting way the Bush administration misleads the public and manages to get away with it.










Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

If we assume that the purpose of religion is to enhance the human experience by giving us solace in our existence, then we can try to understand in broad terms what the difference is between religious conservatives and religious liberals.

In general everyone would like his or her life to be better than it is. A conservative is a person who is generally happy with the way things are and they would only like to change the status quo if there is a high expectation that the change will make things better. A liberal on the other hand is a person who is generally not happy with the way things are. They are willing to change things in the hope that things will get better, because they can’t get much worse.

You can change the statement to a religion perspective easily by restating what I said this way:

Everyone wants religious solace in some way. A religious conservative is someone who finds this solace in his religion and is pretty happy about this. Any change to finding this comfort and consolation may be attempted only if they are certain that the change will help, not harm the arrangement. A religious liberal is not happy about how she/he finds his/her religious solace. This person is always in search of trying to make the religious experience better by many different methods. They may read the Bible in search of new understanding, or they may explore different religions or religious ideas in different ways.

Obviously this is quite abstract and general, but it is a good place to start to look at the different behavior of religious conservatives and religious liberals. There are religious conservatives in every faith, and they each believe that they have found the true religious way. The degree of conservative nature could be measured by asking how strongly one believes that they have found the one and only way to religious solace. Obviously the vocabulary differs from religion to religion, and different religions have different names for “religious solace.” Even an atheist has some level of comfort in his understanding of his place in the Universe. The agnostic would be more liberal if they search for solace, but are skeptical about the existence of God than the conservative atheist that knows for certain that God does not exist.

This helps to explain why each group behaves the way that they do. Conservative groups need assurance that they are right about what they believe, because doubt brings fear that they might be wrong. Other religious groups present a doubt to the conservative’s status quo. Thinking about problems in religious understanding lead to doubt, unless those questions are quickly answered. This behavior explains the need for annotated Bibles that have the answers for typical questions noted through out the book. Lingering questions can lead to doubt and doubt can lead to fear and fear can lead to less religious solace. Fear of losing religious solace permeates the religious conservative culture on many levels. And, it explains why it is so important for religious conservatives to prove that they have all the answers to life’s questions. These answers are often found in lists of laws and the adherence to strict rules and rituals.

Religious liberals typically believe that their faith is a good starting place to understand their place in the Universe. Being human and imperfect means that they can’t expect perfect solace, but they try any way. Religion is seen as a good suggestion for human behavior and trying to understand religious teachings gives insight into how to better live ones life. The exceptions and details of how to apply each rule, law or ritual gives insight, but they do not give all the answers. Answers can be found anywhere and in any aspect of life. Human imagination offers hypothetical situations that challenge laws and rules and these challenges offer insight that each situation is specific. This leads to the idea of situational ethics that liberals accept and conservatives deny.

The main point is that questions and indecision with respect to religion are feared by the conservative if they challenge his/her understanding of his religious foundation. The liberal already feels that her/his religious experience is less than it could be and questions about his/her understanding is already common place. Answering those questions is a hope for the religious liberal, but not the expectation.

Where you find yourself on the spectrum from religious liberal to religious conservative is most likely to be in the center for most people. There are issues and ideas that you believe and you fear challenges to those ideas. There are issues and ideas that you have doubts about and you wonder how they should be resolved. Conservative groups looking for members look for people who are searching, and they offer concrete answers in the hope that these answers will give the person religious solace. Conservatives find comfort in knowing that others agree with them, giving strength to their religious foundation. Liberal groups have a completely different attitude, believing that people looking for religious solace may stumble in and take some solace from community worship. Liberals expect that people will gain insight if they need it and people generally find what they need from the range of rituals, law and rules offered.


Liberal or Conservative, it doesn’t really matter because we are all looking for the same thing. The paths to religious solace are varied and many…








Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics