I can't believe Blogspot hasn't kicked me off their servers by now.
Those who know me probably aren't surprised to know that I would gladly argue about anything for that long. Can you imagine what life would be like for my co-workers or my family if I didn't empty my spleen in this forum once in a while? Someone should do some research on the longevity of marriages where 'blogs are present. I suppose it's no more than a higher-tech diary, but there's got to be a research grant out there for some pot smoker to maintain his slacker/eternal student lifestyle by studying those effects. (I'm just trying to do my part to support academia)
I had the flu a few weeks ago and was stuck on the couch for four days. At the urging of my co-workers, I finally watched Saving Private Ryan during that spell. (yup, saw it for the first time last month) I gotta be honest here, I'm not a war movie fan, and this movie wasn't much more than a war movie... like a million others only with a bigger budget... to me. However, the character study made it better as did the fact that Cpt. Miller was an English teacher in his previous life.
I also looked back through this collection of three years of crap (Poup, technically). When I read the whining I included during my Iraq days and compared my job and circumstances there to Captain John Miller's experience in the movie, I felt like a real baby. I recently read the Bronze Star award citation that a family friend received in Vietnam and felt the same way. But as I read through Poup 2005, and 6 and 7, I was pleased to see a theme of hope (early on, anyway) and healthy doses of humor so as to not take myself too seriously, throughout. That helped a little. But what allows me to stand by what I wrote back then in my naive youth, was the real frustration at the meaninglessness of the war. That's what I whined about more than anything. And it isn't any less real regardless of the cozy comfort I was afforded in Iraq.
I can't help but think that I would have felt that frustration in Vietnam too. I'm sure many troops did. The fictional Captain Miller believed he was saving the world from the Nazis, and retaliating against the Japanese, so that probably helped him, but what was I doing? What were those guys in Vietnam doing? What has our 4000th OIF troop died for? That frustration was real regardless of the relative luxury I experienced in Iraq and since the questions still haven't been answered, I don't back away from anything I wrote then.
I was fortunate enough to never see actual combat. Bullets hit where I worked. Rockets landed weekly where I lived and worked, but I never went looking for it. In exchange for that relative safety, I had too much time to think about when that luck would run out and why we were all being subjected to this - especially those whose jobs took them out of the safety I had. I'm not saying active combat roles would be more fun (duh) I'm just saying it's probably a little easier to accept the propaganda... or even forget about the lack of an overall objective when your immediate objective is staying alive for another few mintues, and keeping your buddy alive while you're at it.
I hope no one ever interprets anything I've written here in a way that diminishes that individual mission (of staying alive) that combat troops in this or any previous war face(d). I hope I've made it clear that I truly believe the majority of troops on the ground do what they think is right whenever they can and I deeply respect the sacrifices those less fortunate than me have made. The vast majority of American troops are good people doing the best job they can under crappy circumstances, both physical and political and they deserve all the praise we can give them. I just wish we'd save that extreme commitment and willingness to sacrifice for a worthy cause. The safety of knowing that people like those I met in Iraq are on our side, defending our beliefs, is comforting. Knowing that if a real threat ever were leveled on this country those folks would stand between that threat and us, is a good feeling. If only we had the same level of effectiveness in identifying those threats.
Over the years I've also been encouraged by the ability of our nation's civilians to distinguish between the stupidity of this war and the obligation of its soldiers. Returning Vietnam vets deserved that and many didn't get it. In fact, given that today's force is entirely volunteer and many of the Vietnam troops were drafted, I think we kind of got it backward. But the point is, when troops enlist, they don't get the option of a signing statement. They don't get to pick one war to sit out. When their president calls them, they go. I've heard it said that were there a draft today, we might see the same reactions to the war that we saw during Vietnam. Perhaps that's true, but I'd like to think not. I won't waste much time on it cuz it's hard to compare when today's advice is to "go shopping."
When I went to OEF, I wasn't 100% sold, but I figured the rest would be explained to me and to the rest of the world later... on a need to know basis, that kind of thing. We'd shoved the Taliban back into Pakistan putting a serious dent in the future of Al Qaeda there (granted, we'd armed them a few years prior, but hey, how did we know they'd turn out to be such jerks.) We even curbed poppy production in Afghanistan, ensured their first free election in a long time, and were well on the way to handing the Afghanis their very own version of a democracy. Life was good. My involvement was mild, and I came home with a sense of having contributed to something.
Then we all but abandoned the Afghanis to invade Iraq. Between the bad intelligence, the brilliant exit strategy, the fact that we've pissed off and inspired more potential terrorists than we've killed, that my grandkids will pay for it, that we re-elected the genius who took us there AFTER we saw his plans unfold with our very eyes, and there are no signs of stopping it, well, you know the drill.
That still pisses me off. That frustration is still very real... for the 4000 of ours dead and for the 100,000 plus others and so I'll probably keep writing about it and lots of other things that piss me off. I hope I can keep writing about it until it stops.
I'm a pretty lucky guy. I get to write about the things that make me smile on occasion too and with my military retirement now counted down in months, there's a lot to smile about. Just imagine what kind of stuff I'll put here once I'm free of the bonds of the Uniform Code of Military Justice!!
Or when I find out my career field is under the stop-loss provision!
Anyhoo,
Thanks for sharing the ride with me. Make no mistake, I do this primarily for my own entertainment but, like sex, it's always more fun when others are involved!!
I look forward to further involvement.
Luth,
Out
Monday, March 31, 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Other's interpretations of my thoughts on faith
My wife was surprised when I said I'd love to go see my daughter sing in the church choir she was recruited into while attending a practice with one of her friends. I was on the road when I learned of this, and my wife's email was something like, "I know how you feel about it, but I'm going to church if she sings."
I told her I was going too and I feel great about it. So I thought I'd clear up what I think are some misconceptions about my recently congealed thoughts on faith.
Churches do good things.
Fellowship alone is enough reason to perpetuate their existence. In fact, in spite of what I suspect a lot of people actually believe, fellowship drives church membership anyway. That's a good thing. It reminds us that there's more to life than just us... we're part of a bigger system and our thoughts, concerns, needs, sometimes pale to the groups'. Whether being part of the group just broadens our perspective of our own concerns or whether it actually leads us to a more enlightened view of the bigger world, it's a good thing. It offers a lot of ways to improve our lot... different ways for different folks. It's really a good thing.
Philanthropy is a natural result of this fellowship. And the cool thing about this natural result is that the power of the group is such that it oftens exceeds the power of even the most altruistic individual. Strength in numbers comes both in the form of more hands to fill sandbags before the river crests as well as in the brainstorm-like creativity of feeding off of one another to creatively solve problems that one might not come up with alone. What's not to like about that? In fact, when it comes to service, philanthropy and fellowship often go hand in hand. I don't need to explain the role churches have played in doing good work in this respect. I'm all for it.
Prayer too is a good thing for humans. I'll put in my plug here for the Trinity United Church of Christ... the one in my hometown, not the one in Chicago! It was there that I "learned how to pray." I learned that prayer is really about introspection. It requires one to assess needs - ours and those of others in our world, to be thankful for what we have, and to think about what we can do to make the world a better place. What's not to like? The unexamined life is not worth living and prayer is a great tool for such examination.
It provides the focus that only thorough, serious introspection allows. How many people wander aimlessly through life, just paying their bills, passing their time, regardless of their actual talents and abilities, simply because they don't take the time to do an inventory... they don't pause for introspection... they never consider who they are, where they are, or what they might be capable of. Prayer really does address this, and folks who do it regularly, I have to believe, make much more progress toward self-actualization than those who don't. If only they sought such examination on their own rather than because they think they owe it to someone or something else.
So prayer, fellowship, and philanthropy are all good things, right? I have no argument with them and, at least in our society, they're all most readily associated with church. Churches do a lot of good things. There, I said it.
BUT... you knew that was coming, right?
It's my belief that each of these activities is inherently good. Service, Fellowship, introspection all have intrinsic value. Doing them is good for the sake of good, not because you expect the favor to be returned, not because you believe in kharma, not becuase you seek the approval of some ultimate authority, and not in exchange for everlasting life. In fact, performing these acts under the canopy of a church builds in the notion of reward... the notion of ulterior motive. Doing these things because your church expects you to, and promises you some reward cheapens the acts. I'm not suggesting there are no purely altruistic churchgoers, but by definition, faith offers a reward thus tarninshing the pure altruism associated with the actions.
Even if you could convince me that these acts, when performed by a church, are done without the thought of the church's promised reward - which you can't - there also exists the idea of the acts being accompanied by a price. The price of accepting the kindnesses of the church is also accepting the church's rules. No one will doubt the works of Mother Theresa in helping the poor throughout the world. Her personal sacrifice is without question and her actions speak loudly in support of her motivation - God's reward. Not only does this mean that her motivation was not truly altruistic (by definition), but she also adhered to policy that harmed as many people as it helped in order to be faithful to her religion. When condom distribution could have saved the lives of millions, she combined the message against it with her acts thus convincing her subjects that condoms were morally wrong, thus playing a small, but real role in spreading disease and death. Likewise, her church's beliefs regarding the subjugation of women were perpetuated by her actions, associated with her good deeds, and accepted by her subjects. Mother Theresa's lifetime of great service was inextricably combined with a lifetime of spreading ill-conceived "morals" which have perpetuated some of the most inhumane conditions that still exist throughout the world. This is only because her good work couldn't be separated from the message her church sought to spread. Her good works were a package deal... they came with a price.
Finally, consider how much more effective these good works might actually be if there were a way to spread them without having to associate them with mythical gods and strange, inexplicable, irrational rules. Differing interpretations of the Bible lead to divisions among different faiths. When introduced to instrinsically good acts through one of those faiths, one accepts the divisions and the rules, often to the point of not performing works one would formerly have believed were intrinsically good. If instead of using faith to convince people that altruism were inherently good, we could simply allow our individually chosen version of altruism to bring us together - without the baggage of ill-conceived "morals" or mythical creatures, how much more good work might we do? Granted, there would still be disagreements regarding which altrusitic acts were most useful, but we could toss the "my God is better than your God" crap right off the table and get to the real discussions, and solutions much more quickly. If science were allowed to proceed without the yoke of religious restrictions, how many diseases might we have cured? If protecting muslims throughout the world didn't dominate US foriegn policy over the last 20 years, how much more sense might our response to 911 might have made? If opposing sects of Islam wouldn't martyr themselves in order to eliminate the others, how much more stable might the middle east be?
We don't need the baggage of religion to forward the value of introspection, philanthropic service, and fellowship. The value of these things is inalienable and as such, independent of any religiously derived restrictions. The sooner we all admit that, the more effective we can become in those pursuits. Take prayer for instance. (I purposely left this out of the above treatment of prayer in order to say it now) If you didn't learn how to do it formally, like I did, you might think that uttering the words is enough... then you sit back and wait for God to make it so. Ironically enough, my church taught me that that's not how it works. My church taught me that waiting around for God to make the changes we can effect only makes the wait longer. Okay, the teacher didn't use those exact words, but I learned my action was a vital part. Faith, in general, however comes with the notion that our role is minimal and we can sit back and just leave it to God. It's worse than that in some cases... the Apocalypse not only urges us to just sit back and be powerless, it tells us we're all powerless to the impending DOOM! How can that possibly serve the purpose of mankind? What progress will that bring in our lives? How is it even remotely moral to follow that advice?
We don't need the baggage of faith to know that that which reduces human suffering is good aka moral. That which does not, is bad, aka immoral. That which actually causes human suffering, well, do we really need a church to judge that?
Churches do some good things. As humans, we could do better by dropping the baggage, removing the causes of violent division, and moving on. I'm not proposing outlawing churches, or a new version of the crusades or anything like that. I'm just making it my mission to lay out the process that led me to this conclusion. If I can save a few of those around me from wasting their lives, and getting closer to realizing their potential contribution to humakind, then I'll feel pretty good about it. In the meantime, I might attend a church function or two, if I believe the greater good can be served by doing so. I don't consider it joining the enemy, just the price of doing business. All I'm asking is that we do what we all know we can to reduce that price and make doing the right thing more affordable for everyone.
Luth,
Out
I told her I was going too and I feel great about it. So I thought I'd clear up what I think are some misconceptions about my recently congealed thoughts on faith.
Churches do good things.
Fellowship alone is enough reason to perpetuate their existence. In fact, in spite of what I suspect a lot of people actually believe, fellowship drives church membership anyway. That's a good thing. It reminds us that there's more to life than just us... we're part of a bigger system and our thoughts, concerns, needs, sometimes pale to the groups'. Whether being part of the group just broadens our perspective of our own concerns or whether it actually leads us to a more enlightened view of the bigger world, it's a good thing. It offers a lot of ways to improve our lot... different ways for different folks. It's really a good thing.
Philanthropy is a natural result of this fellowship. And the cool thing about this natural result is that the power of the group is such that it oftens exceeds the power of even the most altruistic individual. Strength in numbers comes both in the form of more hands to fill sandbags before the river crests as well as in the brainstorm-like creativity of feeding off of one another to creatively solve problems that one might not come up with alone. What's not to like about that? In fact, when it comes to service, philanthropy and fellowship often go hand in hand. I don't need to explain the role churches have played in doing good work in this respect. I'm all for it.
Prayer too is a good thing for humans. I'll put in my plug here for the Trinity United Church of Christ... the one in my hometown, not the one in Chicago! It was there that I "learned how to pray." I learned that prayer is really about introspection. It requires one to assess needs - ours and those of others in our world, to be thankful for what we have, and to think about what we can do to make the world a better place. What's not to like? The unexamined life is not worth living and prayer is a great tool for such examination.
It provides the focus that only thorough, serious introspection allows. How many people wander aimlessly through life, just paying their bills, passing their time, regardless of their actual talents and abilities, simply because they don't take the time to do an inventory... they don't pause for introspection... they never consider who they are, where they are, or what they might be capable of. Prayer really does address this, and folks who do it regularly, I have to believe, make much more progress toward self-actualization than those who don't. If only they sought such examination on their own rather than because they think they owe it to someone or something else.
So prayer, fellowship, and philanthropy are all good things, right? I have no argument with them and, at least in our society, they're all most readily associated with church. Churches do a lot of good things. There, I said it.
BUT... you knew that was coming, right?
It's my belief that each of these activities is inherently good. Service, Fellowship, introspection all have intrinsic value. Doing them is good for the sake of good, not because you expect the favor to be returned, not because you believe in kharma, not becuase you seek the approval of some ultimate authority, and not in exchange for everlasting life. In fact, performing these acts under the canopy of a church builds in the notion of reward... the notion of ulterior motive. Doing these things because your church expects you to, and promises you some reward cheapens the acts. I'm not suggesting there are no purely altruistic churchgoers, but by definition, faith offers a reward thus tarninshing the pure altruism associated with the actions.
Even if you could convince me that these acts, when performed by a church, are done without the thought of the church's promised reward - which you can't - there also exists the idea of the acts being accompanied by a price. The price of accepting the kindnesses of the church is also accepting the church's rules. No one will doubt the works of Mother Theresa in helping the poor throughout the world. Her personal sacrifice is without question and her actions speak loudly in support of her motivation - God's reward. Not only does this mean that her motivation was not truly altruistic (by definition), but she also adhered to policy that harmed as many people as it helped in order to be faithful to her religion. When condom distribution could have saved the lives of millions, she combined the message against it with her acts thus convincing her subjects that condoms were morally wrong, thus playing a small, but real role in spreading disease and death. Likewise, her church's beliefs regarding the subjugation of women were perpetuated by her actions, associated with her good deeds, and accepted by her subjects. Mother Theresa's lifetime of great service was inextricably combined with a lifetime of spreading ill-conceived "morals" which have perpetuated some of the most inhumane conditions that still exist throughout the world. This is only because her good work couldn't be separated from the message her church sought to spread. Her good works were a package deal... they came with a price.
Finally, consider how much more effective these good works might actually be if there were a way to spread them without having to associate them with mythical gods and strange, inexplicable, irrational rules. Differing interpretations of the Bible lead to divisions among different faiths. When introduced to instrinsically good acts through one of those faiths, one accepts the divisions and the rules, often to the point of not performing works one would formerly have believed were intrinsically good. If instead of using faith to convince people that altruism were inherently good, we could simply allow our individually chosen version of altruism to bring us together - without the baggage of ill-conceived "morals" or mythical creatures, how much more good work might we do? Granted, there would still be disagreements regarding which altrusitic acts were most useful, but we could toss the "my God is better than your God" crap right off the table and get to the real discussions, and solutions much more quickly. If science were allowed to proceed without the yoke of religious restrictions, how many diseases might we have cured? If protecting muslims throughout the world didn't dominate US foriegn policy over the last 20 years, how much more sense might our response to 911 might have made? If opposing sects of Islam wouldn't martyr themselves in order to eliminate the others, how much more stable might the middle east be?
We don't need the baggage of religion to forward the value of introspection, philanthropic service, and fellowship. The value of these things is inalienable and as such, independent of any religiously derived restrictions. The sooner we all admit that, the more effective we can become in those pursuits. Take prayer for instance. (I purposely left this out of the above treatment of prayer in order to say it now) If you didn't learn how to do it formally, like I did, you might think that uttering the words is enough... then you sit back and wait for God to make it so. Ironically enough, my church taught me that that's not how it works. My church taught me that waiting around for God to make the changes we can effect only makes the wait longer. Okay, the teacher didn't use those exact words, but I learned my action was a vital part. Faith, in general, however comes with the notion that our role is minimal and we can sit back and just leave it to God. It's worse than that in some cases... the Apocalypse not only urges us to just sit back and be powerless, it tells us we're all powerless to the impending DOOM! How can that possibly serve the purpose of mankind? What progress will that bring in our lives? How is it even remotely moral to follow that advice?
We don't need the baggage of faith to know that that which reduces human suffering is good aka moral. That which does not, is bad, aka immoral. That which actually causes human suffering, well, do we really need a church to judge that?
Churches do some good things. As humans, we could do better by dropping the baggage, removing the causes of violent division, and moving on. I'm not proposing outlawing churches, or a new version of the crusades or anything like that. I'm just making it my mission to lay out the process that led me to this conclusion. If I can save a few of those around me from wasting their lives, and getting closer to realizing their potential contribution to humakind, then I'll feel pretty good about it. In the meantime, I might attend a church function or two, if I believe the greater good can be served by doing so. I don't consider it joining the enemy, just the price of doing business. All I'm asking is that we do what we all know we can to reduce that price and make doing the right thing more affordable for everyone.
Luth,
Out
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Obama lacking experience?!
Even if the title of this post were true, is that such a bad thing?
Some folks whose opinions I generally value mentioned they were a little leery of Barack Obama because he, their words, not mine, “came out of nowhere.” Another person, whom I don’t know as well, but generally have pretty good regard for, added that Glenn Beck had been running commercials calling Obama the anti-Christ for this very reason. As though Obama’s amazingly rapid rise could only be the result of some supernatural intervention.
Since I’m still, perhaps naively, excited about the prospect of a President Obama, this concerned me. These folks, while perhaps a little more educated than the general population, are as Joe-beercan as the people I know get. I thought about their words the whole way home from National Guard duty last weekend.
I put it out of my mind for a while, but the other afternoon, while waiting for my daughter to find out that she needs new glasses (along with orthodonture and a new wardrobe, especially shoes) I ran across an article in TIME comparing the experience of the top three candidates - McCain, Clinton and Obama. I wasn’t surprised to learn that Hillary and Barack are actually pretty close in actual experience. Granted, Hillary was first lady for 8 years, but as Chris Rock says, “My wife’s been married to me for as long as I’ve been a comedian, but she’s never been on stage. She’s not funny.” (or something like that) Take away those eight years in the White House, and they're actually pretty close.
So when it comes to actual experience, though some of Obama’s was only at the state level, he may not be fully loaded, but he definitely didn't come from nowhere. I guess what strikes me most about learning this, rather than just having a vague idea about it, is that his political experience places him well ahead of our current president. Let alone the successful business ventures Obama has been a part of, just one of which places him well ahead of our current president, but hey, it's too late to worry about that, and as I've made obnoxiously clear, I didn't vote for the guy. Back to Obama... if elected in 2008, he'd be the 19th (out of 43) most experienced president we've elected, according to an article in THE ST. PETERSBURG TIMES.
To complicate the issue even more, the TIME article covered the idea that experience isn’t a magic bullet. Kennedy, Lincoln and both Roosevelts had relatively limited political experience. Kennedy even cited his lack of it in his confession of mishandling the Bay of Pigs invasion. Yet each of these candidates was fairly well received and remembered. Along the same confusing lines, each of them faced situations for which no amount of experience could have prepared them.
On the other hand, many of our worst presidents, Nixon, Ohio's own Warren Harding (who even admits he was a bad president) had tons of experience, which, in each of their cases, turned out to be called patronage from another perspective. Add the current discussions about super delegates whose job it was, at one point at least, to prevent such patronage-styled ascendancies, and you’ve got a million questions to answer before you can cast a semi-intelligent vote. Good luck with that!
It's sad for me now that the Republican party has capitulated to its weak slate. For a while there, I was really thinking that for the first time in my voting life, a Romney vs. Obama ticket would actually provide two good choices rather than the lesser of two evils. Yes, I joked about Ron Paul, and seriously like some of his ideas, but he's crazy. Although, I have to admit, I'd probably go ahead and toss my vote their way if he teamed up with Ralph Nader!
As far as the Dems go, I concede that Hillary seems to be a very capable politician with whom I agree on several of the bigger issues, but my decision was made a while back when Romney and Obama emerged as the only contenders who did NOT cast a vote in favor of the war in Iraq. Granted, Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, didn't get the chance to do so, but that was good enough for me at that point. Still is. And that's the issue that pushes Obama far ahead of Hillary for me.
I admire John McCain. He's one of few senators who has routinely put partisanship aside and hammered out compromises and solved tough fights in the senate. I appreciate his service to the country as a service member and as a senator, but his war vote and his strange support of the president who conned us into it are the deal breaker there. I just can't figure him out and I'm not willing to gamble given the recent past.
Obama, on the other hand, may have limited political experience, but that's one of his most endearing qualities given the past 25 years worth of presidents. I like the guy like I like what I've learned about Bobby Kennedy. He's an idealist with the charisma to get things done. Some of those same people mentioned at the start of this post fear that people like their backwoods friends might shoot Obama because of the color of his skin were he elected, and we'd have to start over again, but I'm going to give today's secret service more credit than that. Granted, it's hard to stop a mad man even if the madness stems from psychotic ignorance, but I think we're a little better at those kinds of things these days... and I think, again, perhaps naively, that those secret societies who may have perpetrated such an attempt in the past have suffered a bit of a brain drain over the years. I'll put my money on the secret service getting better enough to take them.
Anyhoo, let's all put our collective brain power into staying out of Iran now that Bush has driven out William Fallon... yet another respected-across-the-board expert (who fought against invading Iran) to leave this highly praised administration.
Oh, and at some point, we've got to continue to discuss mankind's developments on the religious front. I'll leave you with this unoriginal thought:
The Greeks and Romans marked a great leap forward in reason when they reduced the number of gods they worshipped from many to one. We're poised to leave as our legacy the final chapter in the age of reason by continuing that trend if only we can reduce the number one more time!
Luth
Out
Some folks whose opinions I generally value mentioned they were a little leery of Barack Obama because he, their words, not mine, “came out of nowhere.” Another person, whom I don’t know as well, but generally have pretty good regard for, added that Glenn Beck had been running commercials calling Obama the anti-Christ for this very reason. As though Obama’s amazingly rapid rise could only be the result of some supernatural intervention.
Since I’m still, perhaps naively, excited about the prospect of a President Obama, this concerned me. These folks, while perhaps a little more educated than the general population, are as Joe-beercan as the people I know get. I thought about their words the whole way home from National Guard duty last weekend.
I put it out of my mind for a while, but the other afternoon, while waiting for my daughter to find out that she needs new glasses (along with orthodonture and a new wardrobe, especially shoes) I ran across an article in TIME comparing the experience of the top three candidates - McCain, Clinton and Obama. I wasn’t surprised to learn that Hillary and Barack are actually pretty close in actual experience. Granted, Hillary was first lady for 8 years, but as Chris Rock says, “My wife’s been married to me for as long as I’ve been a comedian, but she’s never been on stage. She’s not funny.” (or something like that) Take away those eight years in the White House, and they're actually pretty close.
So when it comes to actual experience, though some of Obama’s was only at the state level, he may not be fully loaded, but he definitely didn't come from nowhere. I guess what strikes me most about learning this, rather than just having a vague idea about it, is that his political experience places him well ahead of our current president. Let alone the successful business ventures Obama has been a part of, just one of which places him well ahead of our current president, but hey, it's too late to worry about that, and as I've made obnoxiously clear, I didn't vote for the guy. Back to Obama... if elected in 2008, he'd be the 19th (out of 43) most experienced president we've elected, according to an article in THE ST. PETERSBURG TIMES.
To complicate the issue even more, the TIME article covered the idea that experience isn’t a magic bullet. Kennedy, Lincoln and both Roosevelts had relatively limited political experience. Kennedy even cited his lack of it in his confession of mishandling the Bay of Pigs invasion. Yet each of these candidates was fairly well received and remembered. Along the same confusing lines, each of them faced situations for which no amount of experience could have prepared them.
On the other hand, many of our worst presidents, Nixon, Ohio's own Warren Harding (who even admits he was a bad president) had tons of experience, which, in each of their cases, turned out to be called patronage from another perspective. Add the current discussions about super delegates whose job it was, at one point at least, to prevent such patronage-styled ascendancies, and you’ve got a million questions to answer before you can cast a semi-intelligent vote. Good luck with that!
It's sad for me now that the Republican party has capitulated to its weak slate. For a while there, I was really thinking that for the first time in my voting life, a Romney vs. Obama ticket would actually provide two good choices rather than the lesser of two evils. Yes, I joked about Ron Paul, and seriously like some of his ideas, but he's crazy. Although, I have to admit, I'd probably go ahead and toss my vote their way if he teamed up with Ralph Nader!
As far as the Dems go, I concede that Hillary seems to be a very capable politician with whom I agree on several of the bigger issues, but my decision was made a while back when Romney and Obama emerged as the only contenders who did NOT cast a vote in favor of the war in Iraq. Granted, Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, didn't get the chance to do so, but that was good enough for me at that point. Still is. And that's the issue that pushes Obama far ahead of Hillary for me.
I admire John McCain. He's one of few senators who has routinely put partisanship aside and hammered out compromises and solved tough fights in the senate. I appreciate his service to the country as a service member and as a senator, but his war vote and his strange support of the president who conned us into it are the deal breaker there. I just can't figure him out and I'm not willing to gamble given the recent past.
Obama, on the other hand, may have limited political experience, but that's one of his most endearing qualities given the past 25 years worth of presidents. I like the guy like I like what I've learned about Bobby Kennedy. He's an idealist with the charisma to get things done. Some of those same people mentioned at the start of this post fear that people like their backwoods friends might shoot Obama because of the color of his skin were he elected, and we'd have to start over again, but I'm going to give today's secret service more credit than that. Granted, it's hard to stop a mad man even if the madness stems from psychotic ignorance, but I think we're a little better at those kinds of things these days... and I think, again, perhaps naively, that those secret societies who may have perpetrated such an attempt in the past have suffered a bit of a brain drain over the years. I'll put my money on the secret service getting better enough to take them.
Anyhoo, let's all put our collective brain power into staying out of Iran now that Bush has driven out William Fallon... yet another respected-across-the-board expert (who fought against invading Iran) to leave this highly praised administration.
Oh, and at some point, we've got to continue to discuss mankind's developments on the religious front. I'll leave you with this unoriginal thought:
The Greeks and Romans marked a great leap forward in reason when they reduced the number of gods they worshipped from many to one. We're poised to leave as our legacy the final chapter in the age of reason by continuing that trend if only we can reduce the number one more time!
Luth
Out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)