[Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers
Tom Hansen
thansen at moscow.com
Sun Sep 2 07:59:07 PDT 2012
And another question . . .
What evidence is there that President Obama "has no control over the military"?
Seeya round town, Moscow.
Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho
"We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students. The college students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."
- Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)
On Sep 2, 2012, at 7:51 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
> How can "Obama is just like all the other politicians" or "It doesn't
> matter who is President since he has no control over the military" be
> a reason for NOT voting for Obama rather than some other guy? You go
> into a restaurant and there are two tables. The hostess asks you if
> you want to sit in table A or table B. You say: "Well table A is just
> like table B, so I don't want to sit there." Makes no sense.
>
> Of course, if both tables are equally bad you might not want to sit at
> either. But in this case eventually you'll be sitting at one of the
> tables. They are both the same in one respect (evil foreign policy)
> but one is considerably better in another respect (one has an evil
> domestic policy as well).
>
> I don't like the fact that my presidential choices are often choosing
> between the lesser of two evils but given that this one is ...
> Personally, I wouldn't be comforted by not voting, by saying "I'm not
> the one who elected that guy," especially given that our country is
> structured such that it doesn't matter who's in charge. There is
> something wrong with the US foreign policy and like it or not we're
> all implicated in that wrongness in some small way for letting it get
> this bad.
>
> The big problem with our political system is that we want someone who
> is perfect, no spots on their record. But no one who is an eligible
> presidential candidate -- over 45 (practically speaking) and rich --
> is going to be perfect. What we get are folks who look perfect because
> they've been careful their whole lives to be deceptive and seem good,
> and honest, and socially conscious while all the time being selfish,
> and egotistical, and power hungry. A lot like divorce lawyers, so our
> presidency is hardly the only part of our society where this
> phenomenon exists.
>
> On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>> 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
> =======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list