Sunday, January 21, 2007
NOT WHAT THEY SEEM?
In his Psalm of Life, Longfellow put it this way:
Tell me not in mournful numbers,
"Life is but n empty dream!"
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.
What if things are not what they seem? This query for contemplation may not be all that easy to express, but let us give it a try.
Based upon our experience, expectations of Mr. Bush are quite low. His utterances frequently fall short of truth and reality. But what if thee is something more behind this troop "surge" in Iraq than appears?
Just as we give Mr. Bush little credit, we tend to extend this to his corps of advisors. Further, since the generals have been under the thumb of the Bush administration, we give them little credit for being competent. We think they have said what they were told to say.
Now there is a different defense secretry, and a new general of repute moves into command in Iraq. The president asks for more troops, but we do not buy his explanation for that need. Are his military people brighter than we think? Is there something new afoot? What would it be?
Let us put a few things together and speculate. We are talking assertively about disbanding the Mahdi militia of the radical Shiite cleric, Al Sadr. The prime minister, Maliki, depends on Al Sadr's support, but he seems to be waffling in his protection of him from American forces. We are again warning Iran and Syria about intervention inside Irq. Iran has raised our ire by atomic activities, support of Middle East terrorist groups, and now aggressive organizing against us in other oil producing countries such as Venezuela. We have moved still another aircraft carrier group into the Persian Gulf. Other Arab nations express concern about Iran's atomic and military build-up. We are still refusing to make diplomatic initiatives toward Iran or Syria, as was advised by the Iraq Commission.
Putting all this together with the "surge," what does all this mean? Will we attack Al Sadr's militia? Does it mean an "incursion" into Iran or Syria to deal with weapons supplies? Doe it mean a bombing campaign of atomic or other key facilities in Iran? Are we becoming aware of the nature of the Shiite versus Sunni civil war in Iraq, and now planning a strategy to deal with the militant Shiite base of the government in place? Are we refusing to talk with Iran and Syria because we still have some actions planned first?
Maybe our usual expectations are correct, and the record of deception and inept leadership in Iraq will just continue on course. But what if there is something new afoot? Will it help or hinder our situation? Just what are these new plans, and how different are they? What if there are secret plans underway which will broaden the conflict and further complicate our world relations? Is Mr. Bush preparing to go beyond the authorization of Congress? Would he admit it, if he were?
The Militant Moderate believes there is a basis for an uneasy concern in America.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Monday, January 15, 2007
DUMB, DELUSIONAL, OR CRAFTY?
Some have thought for years that George W. Bush is as dumb as a post. That may or may not be correct. Certainly most of the major events of his presidency would make it seem so, as well as his everyday mannerisms and verbal expressions. His lack of culture and erudition has been obvious.
Many of this president's actions and proposals have had signs of an obsessed, delusional ideologue, i.e. a person who sees only one side of an issue and is blind to any logic on the other side. His Social Security privatization proposals and his lying about its timing and "going broke" are examples. Add to this his "stay the course," "we're winning" utterances and statements of position on Iraq, capped by his famous "as long as I am president, we will stay in Iraq" speech. The denial of reality in these utterances and behaviors is an indicator of a delusional person.
The question then arises: Is George W. Bush delusional, or is he just dumb enough to be brainwashed and become the tool of the neo-con ideologues who have been bunched around him, and who have conistently shielded him from outside information and influences? Self-confessed as not being much of a reader, who does not read newpapers or listen to TV news, who claims an aversion to intellectualism, who looks in other leaders' eyes and sees their souls, who makes his decisions by faith and under the influence of a higher power, and who believes himself as not only above the law but one whose word is law -- all these characteristics make Mr. Bush vulnerable to manipulation by brighter persons around him.
There has to be something behind the decision to escalate the war in Iraq at a time when two-thirds of the people and nearly every sensible leader, as revealed in the Iraq Study Commission, find a military solution unworkable. It could be that our president is just dumb, arrogant, and stubborn. Or, maybe he is indeed delusional to the point of being mentally ill. Then, again, perhaps he has been brainwashed by his advisory corps of ideologues into thinking that this is somehow a good solution. Since escalation of the war is not a reasonable decision, there must be some other explanation.
Let us consider the possibility of a crafty Bush, or at least the hypothesis of crafty political advisors.
If functioning sensibly at all, this president must face the reality of an unwinnable quagmire in Iraq. (At least, it is un-winnable in the definition of his redneck conservative base.) He is told by everybody that there is no good solution. There is no way to turn. There is no way out. What does one do?
A crafty politician would find a way to blame somebody else for the failure.
One could easily argue that Mr. Bush and his advisors are craftily trying to force the democrats to call his hand and stop him. Suppose the democrats succeed in thwarting Mr. Bush's escalation, and it fails -- as it is bound to do? Then this president has found his way out. He will then blame the democrats for preventing his "success," and only then will he make an exit move.
Should we sacrifice another thousand soldiers' lives, and the wounding of many more, in order to allow Mr. Bush to save his political face?
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Monday, January 08, 2007
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
This week the Militant Moderate received a telephone call with a recorded message from a congressman in another state. The call was terminated shortly after its purpose was announced to be "to stop abortion on demand."
There is something repugnant about the twisting of language to give the subject a bad connotation, whether deserved or not. This is similar to using the term "death tax" for the inheritance tax, or use of the language "government schools" in a disparaging tone to speak of public schools, recognized since Jefferson as the foundation of democracy. Teachers and other public servants, most of which are underpaid but serve admirably, are often depicted as "tax hogs" or "feeding at the public trough." Some insult public workers as "never having held down a real job."
This disparaging language comes from ignorant or prejudiced people -- or those who just do not want to pay taxes. They want government services, but they don't want to pay. The nation is running huge deficits because of foolish tax cuts and reckless expenditures.
Strangely enough, some of the same people who do not want government regulation (or taxation) of their businesses to protect workers, consumers, or the environment are the same ones who are advocating government interference in personal and family affairs. Some things are government business, and some things are not. We need to get these properly sorted out.
The government needs to regulate drugs and the food supply. The government needs to build roads and to protect the environment. The government must referee the adversarial relations of workers and companies. The government must regulate air traffic, imports, and immigration. The masses of the nation must be educated at public expense. Government must protect the public from any rapacious conduct of corporations, and stockholders from the greed of managers.
The government must levy and collect taxes to pay for its services.
The government is prohibited from establishing a religion or interfering with religious freedom. Therefore, it is inappropriate for any religion, or religious coalition, to try to take over government and enact its religious tenets into law for the country. It is inappropriate, and should remain illegal, for a group of religiously zealous citizens to take away the personal liberties of other American citizens.
Some things are personal business, and not government business. Personal freedom has been one of the wonderful notions upon which America was founded and upon which it has thrived. We must keep government from intruding into matters of personal and religious freedom.
Each of us must continue to worship in accordance with the dictates of our own conscience. We must retain the freedom to make personal decisions based upon our own conscience and religious beliefs. Individual rights must be protected from religious usurpers, who want to write their own beliefs into law for all of us.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
There is something repugnant about the twisting of language to give the subject a bad connotation, whether deserved or not. This is similar to using the term "death tax" for the inheritance tax, or use of the language "government schools" in a disparaging tone to speak of public schools, recognized since Jefferson as the foundation of democracy. Teachers and other public servants, most of which are underpaid but serve admirably, are often depicted as "tax hogs" or "feeding at the public trough." Some insult public workers as "never having held down a real job."
This disparaging language comes from ignorant or prejudiced people -- or those who just do not want to pay taxes. They want government services, but they don't want to pay. The nation is running huge deficits because of foolish tax cuts and reckless expenditures.
Strangely enough, some of the same people who do not want government regulation (or taxation) of their businesses to protect workers, consumers, or the environment are the same ones who are advocating government interference in personal and family affairs. Some things are government business, and some things are not. We need to get these properly sorted out.
The government needs to regulate drugs and the food supply. The government needs to build roads and to protect the environment. The government must referee the adversarial relations of workers and companies. The government must regulate air traffic, imports, and immigration. The masses of the nation must be educated at public expense. Government must protect the public from any rapacious conduct of corporations, and stockholders from the greed of managers.
The government must levy and collect taxes to pay for its services.
The government is prohibited from establishing a religion or interfering with religious freedom. Therefore, it is inappropriate for any religion, or religious coalition, to try to take over government and enact its religious tenets into law for the country. It is inappropriate, and should remain illegal, for a group of religiously zealous citizens to take away the personal liberties of other American citizens.
Some things are personal business, and not government business. Personal freedom has been one of the wonderful notions upon which America was founded and upon which it has thrived. We must keep government from intruding into matters of personal and religious freedom.
Each of us must continue to worship in accordance with the dictates of our own conscience. We must retain the freedom to make personal decisions based upon our own conscience and religious beliefs. Individual rights must be protected from religious usurpers, who want to write their own beliefs into law for all of us.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
