The level of rage and the violent imagery of some far-right speakers is deeply disturbing. Agreed.
However, there is too much over-generalization in your analysis and I find there is a certain over-zealousness in demonizing on the one hand, and lumping in on the other.
In the last federal election I did my own detailed analysis of all of the presidential candidates' political platforms. The candidates I endorsed were, in no particular order Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Cynthia McKinney.
The one thing these individuals had in common that I was particularly interested in was a conviction that our foreign military adventures were wrong and that they would end them if elected president.
In light of this, many wondered whether Ron Paul was making a mistake remaining in the Republican Party, rather than running as an independent. Mr. Paul did respond to these concerns forthrightly by explaining that he always felt most at home ideologically in the republican camp.
I believe that it ought to give us pause amidst the din of the peripheral riff raff that Ron Paul won that recent straw poll at a republican party gathering - however narrow the margins. It was apparently enough to cause the republican party establishment to fall over themselves in their attempts to poo poo and minimize the significance of it.
If Mr. Paul beats out the rest of them by popular vote, it seems to me it has to have everything to do with what Mr. Paul stands for. And one of the most important things he stands for is the vision of America's founding fathers as a republic that encourages others to do good when it comes to foreign affairs, and certainly to enjoy trade with other nations, while limiting ourselves when it comes to military intervention rather than making enemies for ourselves all over the planet.
A note on Mr. Rich's sideswipe against 9/11 'truthers'. I find it more than just a little disappointing that Americans, including a group of over one thousand structural engineers who are trying to demand the investigation of evidence, of facts, on 9/11 - would be denigrated as nut jobs.
Post-9/11 was one of the worst periods for lack of journalistic integrity in the history of the American press. There is no reason whatever not to recover from past mistakes. Some NYT readership will not be happy with the truth if it runs counter to assumptions or preconceptions. But if the world is to avoid any more war we must have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
With Obama saying out of one side of his mouth that he wants to help reduce the number of nukes in the world, while agreeing to vastly increase the budget for nuclear bombs out of the other side, it is going to take all of us working together to see us all through to a better day.
At the moment, the parallels between Orwell's '1984' and the current American government grow starker. War is NOT peace. And Building Seven was not hit by any plane but it fell straight down in seconds anyway.
www.mcloughlinpost.blogspot.com
However, there is too much over-generalization in your analysis and I find there is a certain over-zealousness in demonizing on the one hand, and lumping in on the other.
In the last federal election I did my own detailed analysis of all of the presidential candidates' political platforms. The candidates I endorsed were, in no particular order Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Cynthia McKinney.
The one thing these individuals had in common that I was particularly interested in was a conviction that our foreign military adventures were wrong and that they would end them if elected president.
In light of this, many wondered whether Ron Paul was making a mistake remaining in the Republican Party, rather than running as an independent. Mr. Paul did respond to these concerns forthrightly by explaining that he always felt most at home ideologically in the republican camp.
I believe that it ought to give us pause amidst the din of the peripheral riff raff that Ron Paul won that recent straw poll at a republican party gathering - however narrow the margins. It was apparently enough to cause the republican party establishment to fall over themselves in their attempts to poo poo and minimize the significance of it.
If Mr. Paul beats out the rest of them by popular vote, it seems to me it has to have everything to do with what Mr. Paul stands for. And one of the most important things he stands for is the vision of America's founding fathers as a republic that encourages others to do good when it comes to foreign affairs, and certainly to enjoy trade with other nations, while limiting ourselves when it comes to military intervention rather than making enemies for ourselves all over the planet.
A note on Mr. Rich's sideswipe against 9/11 'truthers'. I find it more than just a little disappointing that Americans, including a group of over one thousand structural engineers who are trying to demand the investigation of evidence, of facts, on 9/11 - would be denigrated as nut jobs.
Post-9/11 was one of the worst periods for lack of journalistic integrity in the history of the American press. There is no reason whatever not to recover from past mistakes. Some NYT readership will not be happy with the truth if it runs counter to assumptions or preconceptions. But if the world is to avoid any more war we must have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
With Obama saying out of one side of his mouth that he wants to help reduce the number of nukes in the world, while agreeing to vastly increase the budget for nuclear bombs out of the other side, it is going to take all of us working together to see us all through to a better day.
At the moment, the parallels between Orwell's '1984' and the current American government grow starker. War is NOT peace. And Building Seven was not hit by any plane but it fell straight down in seconds anyway.
www.mcloughlinpost.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment