[Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers
Tom Hansen
thansen at moscow.com
Sun Sep 2 10:32:51 PDT 2012
Our combat troops ARE out of Iraq.
Obama's intent today is the same as it was then . . . to have our troops out of Iraq by 2014.
The Department of Defense has been reporting that those incarcerated at GITMO are being charged . . . one by one . . . case by case . . . ever so slowly but surely. For example:
GITMO detainee Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Haza al Darbi
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15544
And, although this will result in nasty icky comments thrown my direction . . .
The use of unmanned drones has proven to be extremely beneficial in gathering intelligence.
Now, about "Obama-care" versus "Romney-don't-care" . , .
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 10:10 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Both choices were just conjecture on my part. How do you reconcile Obama's failure to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, close Gitmo, give those incarcerated a fair trial, support the assassination-by-drone program, and all the other things we've been talking about? Blame it on Romney?
>
> Paul
>
> On 09/02/2012 07:59 AM, Tom Hansen wrote:
>> 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