[Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Sat Sep 1 20:00:55 PDT 2012
I'm with Sunil on this topic.
With Obama getting no traction on getting out of either front (Iraq or
Afghanistan), with his willingness to go into Libya (at least with air
support), with his inability to get Gitmo closed down and those
incarcerated to stand a real trial, and with his willingness to run the
assassination-by-drone program, I can come up with only two possible
conclusions about Obama:
1. Obama is just like any other politician, he jumped on the "change"
bandwagon and has turned out to be cut from the same cloth as everyone
else. He talks a good game, but has no intention of actually doing what
he says. This is my basic assumption. It's a horrible thing,
especially since I fell for his "change" and "see, I'm not like Bush"
lies. But it's better than this possibility:
2. The Office of the President has for all intents and purposes lost
control of this nation's military. Basically, those in control are so
powerful that a sitting President will bow to their will despite their
ideological differences.
Let's hope it's only the first one.
Paul
On 09/01/2012 05:59 PM, Sunil Ramalingam wrote:
> Joe,
>
> I agree with you on the first half of your argument. Given his
> willingness to cave in to the Republicans (well, is it caving, or does
> he believe in what he does?) as well as his willingness to put Social
> Security and Medicare on the table, I don't agree with the second half
> of your argument.
>
> But for me, by continuing the Bush foreign policy he forfeits my
> support, meaningless as that is. I think people who are against that
> foreign policy need to say "I will not vote for anyone who does this."
> Without that message, the policies will continue. I don't expect
> better from the Republicans on this point, but I do expect better from
> the guy who promised change. I think we are fools to reward him for
> spitting in our faces.
>
> And it's bigger than just the foreign policy issue. Cusack and Turley
> also talk about the meaning of the decision to let the torturers walk,
> and the assassination policy. The latter is an unconstitutional power
> grab. Bush went to town violating the Constitution, and Obama is doing
> the same. Do you think the next president will be any different? We're
> on the road to hell if we don't say 'No.'
>
> People who think the Constitution and it's balance of power and due
> process are important are not supporting those values if they vote for
> Obama.
>
> Sunil
>
> > Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 15:34:37 -0700
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers
> > From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> > To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
> > CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> >
> > My argument is more like this: Romney and Obama are the same when it
> > comes to foreign policy but Obama is better when it comes to the
> > policies within our borders. Joe
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Sunil Ramalingam
> > <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Joe,
> > >
> > > I understand a lot of people say that as they continue to support
> Obama, and
> > > this is ultimately their position:
> > >
> > > 'I don't care about atrocities he commits outside our borders, as
> long as I
> > > can support his policies within our borders.'
> > >
> > > I can't go along with that any more. I'm not pretending Romney
> will be any
> > > better on foreign policy, but he can't get much worse.
> > >
> > > Sunil
> > >
> > >> Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 14:52:54 -0700
> > >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers
> > >> From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> > >> To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
> > >> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > >>
> > >> It is a tough decision. I agree with you that Obama was no better in
> > >> many respects than Bush, not wrt military involvement at least. But I
> > >> fear that if a Republican gets elected there will be a rollback of
> > >> abortion rights and other rights. Joe
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Sunil Ramalingam
> > >> <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > 'Party loyalty is blind...and deaf and dumb...and cruel.'
> > >> >
> > >> > I'm about half way through this interview of Jonathan Turley by
> John
> > >> > Cusack,
> > >> > looking at Obama's repugnant foreign policy:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11264-john-cusack-and-jonathan-turley-on-obamas-constitution
> > >> >
> > >> > A s long as we support the people implementing these policies,
> they will
> > >> > go
> > >> > on. I'm not voting for Obama again, because of this.
> > >> >
> > >> > Sunil
> > >> >
> > >> >> From: betsyd at turbonet.com
> > >> >> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > >> >> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:57:13 -0700
> > >> >> Subject: [Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> >> From: Betsy Dickow [mailto:betsyd at turbonet.com]
> > >> >> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 10:57 AM
> > >> >> To: 'Joe Campbell'
> > >> >> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Party of Strivers
> > >> >>
> > >> >> And most of the poor will be poor through not fault of their
> own...how
> > >> >> many
> > >> >> people are working hard and often overtime at the University
> of Idaho
> > >> >> and
> > >> >> not making ends meet...many many many. And here it's no
> different from
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> Wall Street corporate model...administrators win big and
> everyone else
> > >> >> is
> > >> >> a
> > >> >> peon, working for peanuts.
> > >> >> This is democracy? No, this is the will of a few billionaires
> and the
> > >> >> Republican Party...Get your head out of the sand and stop
> thinking in
> > >> >> terms
> > >> >> of party loyalty.
> > >> >> Party loyalty is blind...and deaf and dumb...and cruel.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> >> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
> > >> >> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
> > >> >> On Behalf Of Joe Campbell
> > >> >> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 10:46 AM
> > >> >> To: lfalen
> > >> >> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > >> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Party of Strivers
> > >> >>
> > >> >> How is Ayn Rand's philosophy basically correct? Do you think
> the poor
> > >> >> are
> > >> >> lazy? Do you disagree that some people have a bad lot and
> without some
> > >> >> kind
> > >> >> of outside assistance, they are unlikely to realize the
> American dream?
> > >> >> If
> > >> >> so, then Rand is just plain wrong. Tweaking her view to allow for
> > >> >> compassion
> > >> >> is in this case equivalent to rejecting her view. That is what
> > >> >> separates
> > >> >> Rand's philosophy from the kind of view that Brooks is suggesting.
> > >> >> Brooks'
> > >> >> offers a much better, more realistic take on humanity, as I
> see it. Joe
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:18 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> wrote:
> > >> >> > I am not a big fan of David Brooks, but this is not a bad
> article. I
> > >> >> > like
> > >> >> Rice also. I have some problems with Ayn Rand. Her philosophy is
> > >> >> basicly
> > >> >> correct, but it need s to be tempered by some compassion,
> which she
> > >> >> seems
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> lack.
> > >> >> > Roger
> > >> >> > -----Original message-----
> > >> >> > From: Art Deco art.deco.studios at gmail.com
> > >> >> > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 03:51:28 -0700
> > >> >> > To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > >> >> > Subject: [Vision2020] Party of Strivers
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=ww
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> w.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> 1=34aeaaa2/80e4ddbc&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787508c_nyt5&ad
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> =BOSW_120x60_June13_NoText&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ec
> > >> >> >> om%2Fbeastsofthesouthernwild>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> ------------------------------
> > >> >> >> August 30, 2012
> > >> >> >> Party of Strivers By DAVID
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> BROOKS<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/c
> > >> >> >> olumnists/davidbrooks/index.html>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> America was built by materialistic and sometimes superficial
> > >> >> >> strivers. It was built by pioneers who voluntarily subjected
> > >> >> >> themselves to stone-age conditions on the frontier fired by
> dreams
> > >> >> >> of
> > >> >> >> riches. It was built by immigrants who crammed themselves into
> > >> >> >> hellish tenements because they thought it would lead, for their
> > >> >> >> children, to big houses, big cars and big lives.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> America has always been defined by this ferocious
> commercial energy,
> > >> >> >> this zealotry for self-transformation, which leads its
> citizens to
> > >> >> >> vacation less, work longer, consume more and invent more.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Many Americans, and many foreign observers, are ambivalent
> about or
> > >> >> >> offended by this driving material ambition. Read "The Great
> Gatsby."
> > >> >> >> Read D.H. Lawrence on Benjamin Franklin.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> But today's Republican Party unabashedly celebrates this
> ambition
> > >> >> >> and
> > >> >> >> definition of success. Speaker after speaker at the
> convention in
> > >> >> >> Tampa, Fla., celebrated the striver, who started small,
> struggled
> > >> >> >> hard, looked within and became wealthy. Speaker after
> speaker argued
> > >> >> >> that this ideal of success is under assault by Democrats
> who look
> > >> >> >> down on strivers, who undermine self-reliance with government
> > >> >> >> dependency, who smother ambition under regulations.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Republicans promised to get government out of the way.
> Reduce the
> > >> >> >> burden of debt. Offer Americans an open field and a fair
> chance to
> > >> >> >> let their ambition run.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> If you believe, as I do, that American institutions are
> hitting a
> > >> >> >> creaky middle age, then you have a lot of time for this
> argument. If
> > >> >> >> you believe that there has been a hardening of the national
> arteries
> > >> >> >> caused by a labyrinthine tax code, an unsustainable
> Medicare program
> > >> >> >> and a suicidal addiction to deficits, then you appreciate this
> > >> >> >> streamlining agenda, even if you don't buy into the whole Ayn
> > >> >> Rand-influenced gospel of wealth.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> On the one hand, you see the Republicans taking the initiative,
> > >> >> >> offering rejuvenating reform. On the other hand, you see an
> > >> >> >> exhausted
> > >> >> >> Democratic Party, which says: We don't have an agenda, but
> we really
> > >> >> >> don't like theirs. Given these options, the choice is
> pretty clear.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> But there is a flaw in the vision the Republicans offered
> in Tampa.
> > >> >> >> It is contained in its rampant hyperindividualism. Speaker
> after
> > >> >> >> speaker celebrated the solitary and heroic individual.
> There was
> > >> >> >> almost no talk of community and compassionate conservatism.
> There
> > >> >> >> was
> > >> >> >> certainly no conservatism as Edmund Burke understood it, in
> which
> > >> >> >> individuals are embedded in webs of customs, traditions,
> habits and
> > >> >> governing institutions.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Today's Republicans strongly believe that individuals determine
> > >> >> >> their
> > >> >> >> own fates. In a Pew Research Center
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> poll<http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/partisan-polarization-sur
> > >> >> >> ges-in-bush-obama-years/>, for example, 57 percent of
> Republicans
> > >> >> >> believe people are poor because they don't work hard. Only 28
> > >> >> >> percent
> > >> >> >> believe people are poor because of circumstances beyond their
> > >> >> >> control. These Republicans believe that if only government
> gets out
> > >> >> >> of the way, then people's innate qualities will enable them to
> > >> >> >> flourish.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> But there's a problem. I see what the G.O.P. is offering the
> > >> >> >> engineering major from Purdue or the business major from
> Arizona
> > >> >> >> State. The party is offering skilled people the freedom to
> run their
> > >> >> >> race. I don't see what the party is offering the waitress
> with two
> > >> >> >> kids, or the warehouse worker whose wages have stagnated for a
> > >> >> >> decade, or the factory worker whose skills are now obsolete.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> The fact is our destinies are shaped by social forces much
> more than
> > >> >> >> the current G.O.P. is willing to admit. The skills that enable
> > >> >> >> people
> > >> >> >> to flourish are not innate but constructed by circumstances.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Government does not always undermine initiative. Some
> government
> > >> >> >> programs, like the G.I. Bill, inflame ambition. Others
> depress it.
> > >> >> >> What matters is not whether a program is public or private
> but its
> > >> >> >> effect
> > >> >> on character.
> > >> >> >> Today's Republicans, who see every government program as a
> step on
> > >> >> >> the road to serfdom, are often blind to that. They
> celebrate the
> > >> >> >> race
> > >> >> >> to success but don't know how to give everyone access to
> that race.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> The wisest speech departed from the prevailing story line.
> It was
> > >> >> >> delivered by Condoleezza Rice. It echoed an older, less
> libertarian
> > >> >> >> conservatism, which harkens back to Washington, Tocqueville and
> > >> >> >> Lincoln. The powerful words in her speech were not "I" and
> "me" -
> > >> >> >> the
> > >> >> >> heroic individual They were "we" and "us" - citizens who
> emerge out
> > >> >> >> of and exist as participants in a great national project.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Rice celebrated material striving but also larger national
> goals -
> > >> >> >> the long national struggle to extend benefits and mobilize
> all human
> > >> >> >> potential. She subtly emphasized how our individual
> destinies are
> > >> >> >> dependent upon the social fabric and upon public
> institutions like
> > >> >> >> schools, just laws and our mission in the world. She put less
> > >> >> >> emphasis on commerce and more on citizenship.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Today's Republican Party may be able to perform useful
> tasks with
> > >> >> >> its
> > >> >> >> current hyperindividualistic mentality. But its commercial
> soul is
> > >> >> >> too narrow. It won't be a worthy governing party until it
> treads the
> > >> >> >> course Lincoln trod: starting with individual ambition but
> ascending
> > >> >> >> to a larger vision and creating a national environment that
> arouses
> > >> >> >> ambition and nurtures success.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> --
> > >> >> >> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> > >> >> >> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > =======================================================
> > >> >> > List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
> > >> >> > communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > >> >> > http://www.fsr.net
> > >> >> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > >> >> > =======================================================
> > >> >>
> > >> >> =======================================================
> > >> >> List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
> > >> >> communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > >> >> http://www.fsr.net
> > >> >> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > >> >> =======================================================
> > >> >>
> > >> >> =======================================================
> > >> >> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > >> >> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > >> >> http://www.fsr.net
> > >> >> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > >> >> =======================================================
> > >> >
> > >> > =======================================================
> > >> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > >> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > >> > http://www.fsr.net
> > >> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > >> > =======================================================
> > >
> > > =======================================================
> > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120901/09803c90/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list