Random thoughts on why I’m a liberal:

Crime -- A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad.

Bush administration -- Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.

Why the government should help the unemployed -- Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.

Why school taxes aren’t bad -- I am a part of everything that I have read.

Wall Street investors -- I don't pity any man who does hard work worth doing. I admire him. I pity the creature who does not work, at whichever end of the social scale he may regard himself as being.

Bush administration (2) -- I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is softness of head.

Corporate tax breaks -- It is difficult to make our material condition better by the best law, but it is easy enough to ruin it by bad laws.

Unions -- It is essential that there should be organization of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize.

Bush’s background -- Never throughout history has a man who lived a life of ease left a name worth remembering.

Terrorists’ Constitutional rights -- No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it.

Terrorists’ Constitutional rights (2) -- No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expedience.

On the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections -- No people is wholly civilized where a distinction is drawn between stealing an office and stealing a purse.

Bush administration (3) (Scooter Libby’s commutation) -- Obedience of the law is demanded; not asked as a favor.

Terrorists’ Constitutional rights (3) (Patriot Act) -- Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive.

Bush administration (4) -- People ask the difference between a leader and a boss. The leader works in the open, and the boss in covert. The leader leads, and the boss drives.

Bush administration (5) -- Some men can live up to their loftiest ideals without ever going higher than a basement.

Bush accepting responsibility for mistakes -- The boy who is going to make a great man must not make up his mind merely to overcome a thousand obstacles, but to win in spite of a thousand repulses and defeats.

Terrorists’ Constitutional rights (4) -- The government is us; we are the government, you and I.

Bush administration (6) (Katrina relief failure) -- The most practical kind of politics is the politics of decency.

Terrorists’ Constitutional rights (5) -- The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.

Bush administration (7) -- To announce that there must be no criticism of the president... is morally treasonable to the American public.

Now that I've got it down, I have to admit.

There's an irony to all this.

I stole the thoughts from a Republican leader:

Teddy Roosevelt!

Take care,

jim

Political Perspective Challenge

I'll make the assumption that whoever happens on this blog understands my perception of the capabilities of the person I lovingly call "The Imbecile in Chief" to handle the affairs of state in these United States.

Ignoring aspersions to the legality of the vote count which put him in office, I'm stuck with him, and assume, there are some who are content to follow him to the end of his term, and some who would like him removed, and some who are ambivalent for some pragmatic reason.

Since this blog is aimed at exchanging ideas, I'm interested in hearing why those who may read these notes either believe the current leader is worthy of continuing service, or as a contrary opinion, why he shouldn't remain in office.

Since I don't believe there is binary logic (the concept there is "only" yes-no; right-wrong; black-white; moral-immoral in all decisions), I'd be interested in hearing any pragmatic discussion on the nuances which may tilt the scale nearer one of the polar opposites I posit above, yet not to the opposite as a final solution (a "moderate" position for those who are in tune with the differences between polarity and gradual leanings toward decisions).

Please offer some logical ideas here!

Offer some!

Take care,

jim

"Liberal"; "Neocon"; "Right"; "Left"; "Democrat"; "Republican"; "Christian"; "Muslim"; "Jew"; "Commie"; "Islamo-Fascist" -- on Being Played for Saps

My first encounter with the talk radio phenomena was in 1996 while taking a cross country automobile trip with my favorite companion -- my wife.

Our idea was to merge a first visit to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan for either of us with a search for the "real" America by staying away from the interstates on a trip to the Pacific Northwest.

Driving along US 2 in a family van equipped with an AM / FM receiver, it became tough to stay in touch with the outside world as the highway left the last “big” city in upper Michigan and wound toward Duluth.

As the population density shrank, the towns got farther and farther apart, and my wife’s search of the dial looking for any news from the path ahead, would catch the edge of a 1000-watt AM station offering a selection among a preachy woman's voice talking about morality and responsibility, or a loud man's lofty language expressing what was causing "the problems" in our society, or an atonal preacher urging us to follow the Bible, or country music.

Since I’m not fond of country music, and can only take the preacher until he tells me he's the only one who knows how Jesus wants me to live my life, the option was to hear out the preachy woman and the loud man while waiting for news and weather at the next time check or travel in silence without the outside information we sought.

It turned out to be a daily dose of Dr. Laura and then Rush, or Rush and then Dr. Laura marching one behind the other on a schedule between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. weekdays. The only variety was as one station faded and a new one encountered, we may get an instant rerun of the broadcast from the last zone.

It seemed as though every station manager used Rush and Dr. Laura interchangeably to fill those six hours regardless of the time zone.

As we focused more on the background sound while we drove across the sameness of North Dakota’s prairie farms and found fewer "new" things to point out to each other while we rode, I discovered that the tone of the message was "liberal influence is ruining our lives."

Fancying myself one during the Vietnam era, at first I was offended until I realized that what was purported to be "liberal" didn't match what beliefs I held.

"Liberal" was "duped by the media" (I could separate information from manipulation), pro-homosexual (I was ambivalent as long as I wasn't invited to participate), pro-government (not during Vietnam anyway), anti-gun (I'm not fond, but see a use in some instances particularly as we traversed the outback of Montana), anti-individual (I felt free and easy and didn't really care about another being such so long as they didn't interfere with my freeness and easiness), against religion (I thought myself religious), pro-abortion (I wasn't), anti-family (I was taking a trip with my wife because we enjoyed each other's company), unwilling to take responsibility for mistakes (well, I knew we were on our own if something went wrong during the trip), and generally anti-American (I was looking for a broader perspective of the real America!).

How could the speakers get it so wrong?

Having been trained in communications and the media, I guessed the region’s demographics along the Canadian border was pretty much people seeking reinforcement of their isolated beliefs.

Logic didn't matter so long as they were convinced the speaker was "with" them.

It drew listeners to justify ad time on the prairies, the "business" behind commercial radio no matter where broadcast.

So, what became more interesting than the lecturing was the types of callers who would show up on the airwaves to be abused by the hosts. I couldn't figure whether they were seeing their 15-minutes of fame, or were so removed from reality that they didn't realize they were being used. The debate was authoritarian – you’re either with me or wrong.

And, for the most part, the callers left the impression they’d join up with the radio voiced “debater.”

It was then I began to question the crutch – the shortened description of the “problem” which always seemed to creep into the answer. Dr. Laura’s “liberal” was different from Rush’s, but in either instance, its application was ruining whatever semblance of order the microphone owners urged on their listeners between commercial breaks.

Were we children, the “logic” associated with using the term was the same which kept us from looking beneath the bed for fear of finding the “boogie man.”

Having been born and raised and largely oriented to a bigger metropolitan region than I encountered around Grand Forks, Glasgow, Kalispell, Sandpoint, Coeur d’ Alene and Spokane, I thought the phenomena unique to relatively small towns – until we hit Seattle, where we’d still encounter the voices while surfing through the (thankfully) broader variety of entertainment and information (KIRO -- 710 became the regional favorite).

The “boogie man” shtick was a staple no matter what the demographic.

But wait, before those who don’t like a Rush, or a Dr. Laura, or an O'Reilly begin nodding wisely about those talkers' flaccid logic, apply the same “boogie man” definition to the terms in the title used by lesser known radio harranguers who justify their ad time with a "different" perspective.

The single word philosophies are staples in discussion whether you live where the vote was red or blue or the philosophy tends toward right of left.

Many live in a sound bite society where taking the time to think about the ideas behind the terms isn’t as easy as latching on emotionally to a term and following where the pundits who throw it out lead us. We don’t have time to discuss, so, instead, we shout terms at each other in “debate.”

And, every time we shout one of those terms we’re asserting “my boogie man is scarier than your boogie man” and limiting debate to how frequently and loudly we can shout our selected boogie man name.

All it does is herd us behind the few who coin the terms – the one’s who we allow to play us for saps.

Take care,

jim