I am a Canadian who finds American politics an endless source of fascination. Over the past year I felt that President Obama was headed for the distinction of being a one-term president. This feeling was based on OBAMA 1.0, a politician who spoke in generalities, blamed others for failings, whined too much and ducked his leadership role.
BUT I HAVE CHANGED MY MIND.
Last night’s State of the Union Address revealed a new Obama. Let’s call him OBAMA 2.0. The new Obama is a significant upgrade over OBAMA 1.0. Key features, included:
He was positive
He was passionate
He provided a credible and coherent blueprint to restore the American economy and its people.
He was the leader we’ve been waiting for
OBAMA 2.0 provides a roadmap for practical change we can believe in. His vision recognizes both the power and limits of markets. It recognizes both the power and limits of government. It recognizes most of all that it’s people coming together and working together that will fire the great American engine once again.
It provides a formidable alternative to the cartoon capitalism espoused by the aspiring Republican presidential candidates.
Posted in provocations at 12:50 am by Administrator
Free speech is essential condition of a free society. But when does a major media corporation cross the line?
A useful case study is ABC’s interview of Marianne Gingrich, the embittered, angry, vengeful second wife of former Speaker of the House and Republican candidate for President Newt Gingrich.
Consider the facts:
The interview was aired January 19, 2012 two days before the South Carolina Republican Primary on January 21.
The interview did not contain new information. Marianne Gingrich has hung out her version of Newt’s dirty laundry from their nasty divorce in the 1990s before - notable to Esquire magazine in 2010. It is clear the marriage ended badly. Most of us know that the narratives of couple who have split up are heavily coloured by emotion rather than fact. And to a person it is a self-serving narrative.
No facts were presented beyond the fact that Marianne Gingrich is a living testament to the truth that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
Was the public interest served? Only in the sense that it revealed ABC inserting itself into the political process. It is now a participant, not an independent observer, not an honest reporter. It was attempted character assassination by the woman, aided and abetted by ABC. While her motives are obvious, ABC’s are not.
Is there a need for the public interest to be served by all media? Arguably not. The public interest is served in allowing free speech.
Is there a need for the public to be advised of the political interests of the network and program and/or moderator/participants? Arguably yes. Just as financial advisors are required to declare their connections with companies they promote, media participants should be required to declare their political connections.
Was ABC’s interest served? Probably not. Whatever the motivation for the segment, it clearly backfired.
Was democracy served? Not at all. ABC’s move reinforced a growing cynicism that the political system is not transparent and unknown players with power and/or money are manipulating it.
Arguably, the provocative story of the week was about the four marines urinating on the dead bodies of Taliban. The story had legs of moral outrage. Piers Morgan, among others, declared that he was horrified by the video footage. Really?
Homer tells us in graphic detail the horrors and brutality of war. When Achilles kills Hector, his soldiers gather round Hector’s dead body to gloat and stab Hector’s body themselves.
The Biblical story of David and Goliath show David desecrating the slain Goliath by cutting off Goliath’s head and holding it up to the Philistines in a show of defiance. After the Philistines ran off, David took Goliath’s head back to Jerusalem. For his efforts, Yahweh made David King of Israel.
Obviously Piers Morgan has never read Homer or the Bible. Nor should he. He would be horrified.
When we ask people to kill for our country, we ask them to give up their humanity.
We take law-abiding citizens and transform them into soldiers with a license to kill the enemy. This requires the soldier to dehumanize another human so that they can kill them with a clear conscience. Once dead, the residual body is nothing more than a potential health hazard that must be discarded quickly.
A related story this week was Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL who had been labeled by insurgents as “the Devil of Rahmadi.” Chris made an appearance January 14, and signed copies of his new book, “American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History.” Chris has more than 150 kills to his name, and is the recipient of several medals for bravery, including two Silver Stars, and five Bronze Stars.
Why is Chris Kyle a hero for murder, while the four hapless marines urinating on dead Taliban may be facing charges?
How can we claim a dead body is more sacred than a live one?
What is the ideal?
Perhaps robot soldiers who kill living souls efficiently but then treat the corpse with tender loving care and send warm letters of condolence to family and friends.
One of the great challenges in blogging is a frame of reference. All bloggers should be able to answer the question: Why do I blog?
Some blogs are well-focused, some are random reflections, some well thought out, some not.
Twitter has helped the blogosphere by providing a home to those of limited thought to reach out to those of limited attention span. Twitting is to communication what candy floss is to nutrition. Initially a quick hit, but, in the end, unsatisfying. Read the rest of this entry »
One of my favorite quotations is Ecclesiastes 9:11 (New King James Version)
11 I returned and saw under the sun that-
The race is not to the swift,
Nor the battle to the strong,
Nor bread to the wise,
Nor riches to men of understanding,
Nor favor to men of skill;
But time and chance happen to them all.
George Orwell (”Politics and the English Language,” in Shooting an Elephant and Other Essays [New York, 1950,]p84 “translated” the verse into nominalized modern sociological jargon:
“Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits not tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must be invariably be taken into account.”
Jaan Puhvel, professor of classics and Indo-European Studies at the University of California notes that Orwell’s rendering amounts to parody (retaining content, but debasing form)
Or, as the popular idiom puts it, life is a crapshoot.
One of the great challenges in blogging is a frame of reference. All bloggers should be able to answer the question: Why do I blog?
