burgermeister

vanity

2009-02-25T13:36:00.000-08:00

"For you are dust, and to dust you shall return."
Genesis 3:19 [Bible, Revised Standard Version, 1952]

"I have seen everything that is done under the sun,
and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind."
Ecclesiastes 1:14 [Bible, Revised Standard Version, 1952]

keep on truckin'

2009-02-24T05:59:00.000-08:00

It is the history of America and the many crises that almost destroyed us, and the stories of the heroes that led us out of the darkness, that give me hope and strength, not anger or despair. Whatever the consequences of the current economic disaster, we will emerge a stronger nation, though it may be not apparent in terms of economic or political might. I really do place my trust in the minds of those who are working to navigate us through the next few years. No doubt there will be less than perfect decisions. Whether or not we like it, we all must accept it; that the course of events is not now within our purview, at least not mine. All the hand-wringing and debate, all the gurus, prophets,and armchair wizards will fade in the ever changing realities of the situation at hand.

We will endure and we will survive and we will emerge with integrity.

What Is Truth ?

2009-02-01T16:26:00.000-08:00

The old man turned off the radio, said:
"Where did all of the old songs go?
"Kids sure play funny music these days.
"They play it in the strangest ways".
Said: "It looks to me like they've all gone wild.
"It was peaceful back when I was a child."
Well, man could it be that the girls and boys,
Are trying to be heard above your noise?
And the lonely voice of youth cries:
"What is truth?"

A little boy of three sittin' on the floor,
Looks up and says: "Daddy, what is war?"
"Son, that's when people fight and die."
A little boy of three says: "Daddy, why?"
A young man of seventeen in Sunday school,
Being taught the golden rule.
And by the time another year has gone around,
It may be his turn to lay his life down.
Can you blame the voice of youth for asking:
"What is truth?"

A young man sittin' on the witness stand,
The man with the book says: "Raise your hand.
"Repeat after me: I solemnly swear."
The man looked down at his long hair.
And although the young man solemnly swore,
Nobody seemed to hear anymore.
And it didn't really matter if the truth was there:
It was the cut of his clothes and the length of his hair.
And the lonely voice of youth cries:
"What is truth?"

The young girl dancing to the latest beat,
Has found new ways to move her feet.
The young man speaking in the city square,
Is trying to tell somebody that he cares.
Yeah, the ones that you're calling wild,
Are going to be the leaders in a little while.
This whole world's wakin' to a new born day,
And I solemnly swear that it'll be their way.
You better help that voice of youth find:
"What is truth."
And the lonely voice of youth cries:
"What is Truth?"

Written by John R. Cash.
(© Songs of Cash/Bughouse.)
Single release: © 1970, CBS Records.

poetry in motion

2007-12-28T16:00:00.000-08:00

unrequited

how much longer must i squat

before i submit

the spirit rot

beneath the bar

chained to the pain

addicted to the quest for perfection.

its a dead end my friend

alas in vain

muscle and might i will not gain.

o god of iron yes set me free

let me go

its not me.

Changing of the Guard (written 2005, un-revised)

2007-12-26T14:22:00.000-08:00

The only thing I would say differently today is that I have no idea whether I will vote for a Democrat, Republican, or something else in next year's election. I'm hoping that John McCain can rise from the dead.

`The two-party system has flourished in the United States for as long as anyone alive today can remember, for well over a century. Between 1901 and 2005, a Republican has occupied the Office of President for a total of 56 years, and a Democrat for 48 years. Since 1941, It has been an even split at 32 years each. Here is the breakdown.

1901-1913 Republican
1913-1921 Democrat
1921-1933 Republican
1933-1953 Democrat
1953-1961 Republican
1961-1969 Democrat
1969-1977 Republican
1977-1981 Democrat
1981-1993 Republican
1993-2001 Democrat
2001-2005 Republican

The two parties have dominated because each was able to develop and maintain an entrenched power base largely impenetrable by any other political party. Over time, ideologies and voter constituencies have changed, but each party has been able to energize a substantial chunk of the "party faithful" every four years. The pendulum swings one way, then the other. The change-over is usually brought about by a defining event, a culmination of excesses, or dearth. Wars, depressions, recessions, inflation, scandals are a few. To win, the challenging party must convince the electorate that something is wrong, and that they can do better. Election campaigns today are carefully formulated marketing efforts, targeting specific segments of the populace which can tip the balance.

It is interesting to note that the Republicans and Democrats, repectively, have supported widely varying policies over the years, and rarely could one be neatly characterized as being either "conservative" or "liberal". Abraham Lincoln, the "Great Emancipator", was the first Republican President. Teddy Roosevelt (also Republican), the "Trust-Buster" and great conservationist, was considered progressive. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, lead us into World War I. Prior to World War II, isolationists had the upper hand in the Republican Party. Franklin D. Roosevelt was the New Deal and the War President. Truman(Democrat) dropped the atomic bomb. Kennedy and Johnson(Democrats) mired us in Vietnam. Although the Democratic "Solid South" was the great bastion of racial segregation for decades, Kennedy and Johnson ushered in racial integration and the social reforms of the "Great Society." Bill Clinton was pro-business: he "grew the economy" and balanced the budget.

Geore W. Bush claims to be a compassionate conservative. Today, instead of the "tax and spend" democratic liberals, we now have the "borrow and spend" Republicans who have created by far the largest budget deficit in history. The Bush administration seems to want to change everything, and spend more money. Is this what one calls conservatism? I think not.

I agree with Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, and Ralph Nader: The Republicans and Democrats are more alike than they are different. They both thrive off the same system which is self-perpetuating.

I don't consider myself a Democratic party faithful, though I don't remember ever voting for a Republican candidate, so I am as close as one gets. I would like to think that I vote for the candidate whose character, record, and platform best represent my ideals. However I am a pragmatist and must consider also his or her electability, leadership potential, experience, and ability to get things done.

The point of this lengthy dissertation is that it will be the Democrat's turn in 2008, if they don't blow it. They must present an electable candidate, a platform, and get out the vote. Assuming that such a candidate is selected and an identifiable platform is presented (these are big IF's), then victory will depend upon persuading and mobilizing the masses, and getting the swing vote.

I do believe that Howard Dean is the right man in the right position (DNC) to do this. The seeds of the next campaign have been sowed and are growing. But we must do a better job of reaching the people than the opposition. We must get the country to open its eyes so we the people can "take back" the country.

Assuming the political landscape remains about the same between now and 2008, I will probably vote Democrat in '08. I am not happy with our current leadership or the direction they our taking our country. So lets get going!

Get off your butt. Speak out. Write. Organize. March. Get involved!'

Posted by t.h.e. Brig at 6:20 PM

0 comments:

Polarity

2007-12-22T07:59:00.000-08:00

Why must so many people divide persons and things into categories (i.e. stereoyping). Is it the simplest way to view "the rest of the human race?" Does it arise from a psychologic need, or is it simply the easiest way to avoid mental exertion?

Liberals are ..., Conservatives are ...., Religious people...., Muslims are ..., Jewish people ...., College professors ..., The media ..., and ad infinitem. How about "He's a pretty nice guy, except he's a communist"; or "stay away from him, he's a born-again."

All stereotyping stems from prejudice, based on prior teaching(often mythology), formative environment, and maybe specific experiences. Most people, it seems to me, use personal anecdotes to reinforce previously held beliefs.
Wouldn't it be more respectful to give each human being the dignity of being an individual who can think and act for himself?

The thinking is similar when it it comes to situations or ideas in pertaining to life in general. Most people [it seems to me] initially see solutions in terms of polarized trains of thought: we must do this(extreme measure), or do that(other end of spectrum). Some follow this train to the bitter end, others proceed to find a solution somewhere between the poles.

One example is Darwinism vs. Creationism. In today's world, the two can coexist in harmony; with the understanding that neither the terms [Darwinism(evolution), or Creationism] represent a coherent or unified set of principles or beliefs. The more accepted theory of evolution today does not equate to Darwinism as postulated around 1850. Nor does Creationism necessarily equate to a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis (in the Christian Bible). Theories evolve over time, and an individual can develop his own theory which contains elements of different theories. Once again, the naming of a theory usually just serves to establish a broad category which may be convenient but also serves to polarize people's beliefs. After all, a theory is a unified set of principles that purports to describe some aspect of reality; thus by definition does not represent a set of proven facts.

These simple thoughts represent a plea to all to strive for a truly open(and active) mind. This entails the willingness to temporarily discard all predjudices and examine a subject objectively using something akin to "the scientific method."

End of Today's Lecture

The Wisdom of Will Rogers

2007-12-01T05:17:00.000-08:00

"You know horses are smarter than people. You never heard of a horse going broke betting on people."

more philosophy

2007-02-27T07:32:00.000-08:00

"Our relationship with God is like the relationship of a drop of water to the ocean."
Yogi Shanti Desai, of Ocean City, New Jersey.

Since there are very few if any original ideas, it is pointless for me to fill up blogspace with my personal observations. It is really just an exercise in ego for me to do so, mostly with self serving and superficial motives. In doing so I am only borrowing others' ideas and displaying them as if my I had some part in developing them; or trying to present myself as a messenger of "truth".

Thus the emphasis on quotations which over the years have had a profound effect on my thinking.

"The universe that we see is a projection of our own mind."
Yogi Shanti Desai, YOGA Holistic Practice Manual

life

2007-02-27T07:20:00.000-08:00

pain builds character;
character builds faith;
faith can move mountains.

(author unknown)

thoughts in rhyme

2007-02-25T17:51:00.000-08:00

to persist
or to desist;

to ride
or to decide;

to hold
or to fold;

to stay
or to go away;

is it the sands of time or
the healing hands of time?

coming home

2007-02-25T12:09:00.001-08:00

famous quote:

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.

Thomas Stearns Eliot (1888-1965),
from Little Giddings, a poem.

Satanstoe

2007-02-25T11:31:00.000-08:00

"The foundations of great events are often remotely laid in very capricious and un-calculated passions, motives, or impulses. Chance has usually as much to do with the fortunes of states, as with those of individuals; or, if there be any calculations connected with them at all , they are the calculations of a power superior to any that exists in man."

James Fenimore Cooper(1789-1851), in his preface to Satanstoe.

New Surroundings

2007-02-25T06:21:00.000-08:00

LAKE OTSEGO

----- o'er no sweeter lake
Shall morning break or noon-cloud sail,--
No fairer face than thine shall take
The sunset's golden veil.

This portion of a verse by John Greenleaf Whittier( 1807-1892 ) appears in a book entitled "James Fenimore Cooper" By Mary Elizabeth Phillips, published 1912.

By "googling" the verse I found no references to Otsego in connection with the above verse, however on Project Gutenburg I found the poem "Lake Kenoza" containing the identical verse referencing Kenoza vice Otsego. Lake Kenoza is in East Haverhill Massachussets, of which Whittier had fond childhood memories. "Kenoza" is purported to mean "pickerel" in the local Native American language at the time.

I must do some research to find out if this is a mis-representation , or if there is a valid historical basis for the substitution which appears on the surface to be somewhat bogus.

In either case I think these are beautiful words.

Please enlighten me if you have any information about the verse(s).

Wither too

2006-10-19T11:48:00.000-07:00

Its been awhile - I haven't been inspired.

A year or so ago I wrote down these words:

"Is it
the sands of time,
or the healing hands of time."

I thought it might be the seed for a poem.

Several months later I came across a poem by a fellow named George Wither(1588-1667, English):

I grow and wither
both together.

Can it get more concise?

A few months later I came across another poem, author unknown:

There once was a fisherman named Devine
He said life's a cafeteria
You get one trip through the line.

Quite perceptive, eh?

I'm convinced that poetry is the path to freeing the soul.

I was a Poet (but didn't know it)

2005-12-23T10:44:00.000-08:00

i 2 b

who am i - and why ?

what do i desire
and to what do i aspire ?

i want to see
and to feel -

and to love
and to sing.

i want to be free
to do the right thing -

and to be free
to do my own thing -

i want to be
all i can be.

do i want to be me ?

The skeptic

2005-12-17T15:14:00.000-08:00

Brig's Maxims

Don't believe everything you see - it's quite possibly an illusion.

Don't believe anything you hear - it might be another's imagination.

Don't believe everything you think - it's quite possibly a delusion.

Don't believe everything you read - it's only ink on paper.

DO believe in what you do - it becomes the truth.

and don't forget:

Everything is relative.
Everything is temporary.
Its all subjuct to interpretation;

and,
It depends.

but remember:
Perception is reality.

"I think, therefore I am." Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
( translated from the Latin "cogito, ergo sum" )

What Next ?

2005-06-24T06:25:00.000-07:00

I've come to the conclusion that focusing on current events serves only a transient need. The dynamic nature of world politics renders my articles very quickly irrelevant. The only benefit of retaining the old posts is for the personal satisfaction of saying (to myself) "I told you so." Then followed by a frown or grimace, shaking my head, "too bad no one listens". So I am going to migrate to a focus on philosophical subjects, hopefully of a more enduring nature, though equally irrelevant in the eyes of the majority.

On the international front, the truth is coming out gradually, as it always does. The problem is, most people have a selective memory of even the most recent history; thus opinions tend to represent a "knee-jerk" reaction to an event from a warped perspective; or more likely just a repetition of something heard down at the barbershop or local tavern. Did you ever notice that when somebody makes a statement in an authoritative tone it is usually accepted as fact? In other words, If he talks like a tough guy, he must be right.

The following would surprise some who might have assumed I have a "liberal" bent.

1. I am opposed to withdrawal of troops from Iraq, or even publishing a timetable for such, anytime soon, for essentially the same reasons I was opposed to going to war. From the outset, my position was that the cost was too great for what was at stake. My position is also based on what I heard referred to as the pottery barn principle: "we broke it, now we own it." It would be a terrible injustice to the Iraqi people, and to the rest of the world, if we were to withdraw before the new government and military were cable of keeping the peace. I do believe that since we created the mess, we need to stay there until we can turn things over in a manageable state.

2. I am in favor of re-activating the military draft. I could be persuaded into substituting another type of national service for those who are not able or suited for military service. I believe that mandatory service would be beneficial to the vast majority of conscriptees, providing discipline and instilling a sense of national identity. I also believe that with more at stake, the general populace would be less apt to favor war if other options were available. When deliberating a decision to go to war, each citizen should ask himself "Is it worth [me or a family member] dying for?"

I like to believe that I am a patriot, and a pragmatist. Our nation, as would any, must put our interests first, but in a global context with respect for human dignity.

Why is there air ?

2005-06-15T06:00:00.000-07:00

The following is dialog between myself and my son Robert, in response to his blog post whic follows:

A Fairy Tale World
Why, people? Why are you trying to promote the world's best known fairy tale as something more than it is? Let's teach our kids science in schools, and keep the bible-thumping limited to Church and Sunday School. Thanks!

posted by Rob at 10:40 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Comments:
t.h.e. Brig said...
If you propose to have an open mind, you must be open to ALL ideas. You are displaying "contempt prior to investigation". Until you have an understanding of the book which is referred to "the Bible", do not dismiss it as a fairy tale. I have a rudimentary knowledge of the bible, have read parts of it, also many references to and excerpts from. Know that it contains much documented historical data, and is regarded even by non-believers as one of the greatest pieces of literature of all time. The tale of creation in the Book of Genesis takes up approx 1 page, and has many interpretations. The Bible runs over 1000 pages.
I studied portions of the Bible in College(Hobart) as part of my 5 semester "Western Civ" requirement. I also took a course on the history of religion. Understand that the history of religion is inseparable from the history of mankind. No facet of life has had as much influence through the ages.
I have not studied the creationist theories that are being circulated today. Therefore I have no opinion. Thanks for listening. DAD.

3:45 PM
Rob said...
I probably wasn't specific enough in that post. I was referring specifically to the "theory" of Creation and the the recent attempts in some parts of the country to add it to grade-school curricula. If the Bible is ever introduced into our public schools system, it should be considered nothing more than a literary work. I don't think the story of Creation has a place being taught, or even mentioned alongside evolution. If we start allowing that, how long will it be before Creation/Intelligent Design replaces evolution as the primary explanation for our origins?

Intelligent Design presents itself as a more "scientific" way to counter the theory of evolution. I don't know much about it myself, but it's a non-specific, non-demoninational way of saying that we were created, and did not evolve. It seems to focus heavily on the idea that certain recurring patterns in the universe are too complex to have simply evolved over billions of years.

I think these ideas are interesting fodder for discussion, but don't belong in an academic setting, other than as part of a literature course.

5:40 PM
Rob said...
As an additional note, I no longer claim to have an open mind about everything. I'd like be able to say that my mind is open, and that I embrace every idea and every person, but some things that I hear coming from people these days have to be some of the dumbest things I've ever heard. I will not embrace things that I find to be completely absurd.

5:50 PM
t.h.e. Brig said...
Remember that having an open mind doesn't mean that you accept or embrace all ideas, it just means that you do not comletely shut them down. By all means, question everything and take a stand, but be objective. I think that in order for one to have a meaningful opinion it must be an educated opinion.(this is obviously not the way of the majority).
I agree with most of your statements. I think the idea of "intelligent design" has merit. There are many theories and beliefs, [regarding man's beginnings & development] all which will remain forever unproven. Remember that almost every principle pertaining to history is a theory. "Scientific" theories are constantly changing as we discover more. Some principles stand the test of time, but how much time is that? Many of Darwin's postulates are no longer accepted by "the scientific community"; although I believe that the evidence coupled with logic [to support the principle of evolution] is overwhelming. Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which blew open Newton's Laws of Motion, is no longer accepted in its entirety. The introduction of these two theories were tremendous breakthroughs in the evolution of scientific theory. What they did was allow more avenues for discovery.

So you see where I'm going.

"God does not play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein. (many would agree, many would disagree).

Changing of the Guard

2005-05-05T18:20:00.000-07:00

The two-party system has flourished in the United States for as long as anyone alive today can remember, for well over a century. Between 1901 and 2005, a Republican has occupied the Office of President for a total of 56 years, and a Democrat for 48 years. Since 1941, It has been an even split at 32 years each. Here is the breakdown.

1901-1913 Republican
1913-1921 Democrat
1921-1933 Republican
1933-1953 Democrat
1953-1961 Republican
1961-1969 Democrat
1969-1977 Republican
1977-1981 Democrat
1981-1993 Republican
1993-2001 Democrat
2001-2005 Republican

The two parties have dominated because each was able to develop and maintain an entrenched power base largely impenetrable by any other political party. Over time, ideologies and voter constituencies have changed, but each party has been able to energize a substantial chunk of the "party faithful" every four years. The pendulum swings one way, then the other. The change-over is usually brought about by a defining event, a culmination of excesses, or dearth. Wars, depressions, recessions, inflation, scandals are a few. To win, the challenging party must convince the electorate that something is wrong, and that they can do better. Election campaigns today are carefully formulated marketing efforts, targeting specific segments of the populace which can tip the balance.

It is interesting to note that the Republicans and Democrats, repectively, have supported widely varying policies over the years, and rarely could one be neatly characterized as being either "conservative" or "liberal". Abraham Lincoln, the "Great Emancipator", was the first Republican President. Teddy Roosevelt (also Republican), the "Trust-Buster" and great conservationist, was considered progressive. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, lead us into World War I. Prior to World War II, isolationists had the upper hand in the Republican Party. Franklin D. Roosevelt was the New Deal and the War President. Truman(Democrat) dropped the atomic bomb. Kennedy and Johnson(Democrats) mired us in Vietnam. Although the Democratic "Solid South" was the great bastion of racial segregation for decades, Kennedy and Johnson ushered in racial integration and the social reforms of the "Great Society." Bill Clinton was pro-business: he "grew the economy" and balanced the budget.

Geore W. Bush claims to be a compassionate conservative. Today, instead of the "tax and spend" democratic liberals, we now have the "borrow and spend" Republicans who have created by far the largest budget deficit in history. The Bush administration seems to want to change everything, and spend more money. Is this what one calls conservatism? I think not.

I agree with Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, and Ralph Nader: The Republicans and Democrats are more alike than they are different. They both thrive off the same system which is self-perpetuating.

I don't consider myself a Democratic party faithful, though I don't remember ever voting for a Republican candidate, so I am as close as one gets. I would like to think that I vote for the candidate whose character, record, and platform best represent my ideals. However I am a pragmatist and must consider also his or her electability, leadership potential, experience, and ability to get things done.

The point of this lengthy dissertation is that it will be the Democrat's turn in 2008, if they don't blow it. They must present an electable candidate, a platform, and get out the vote. Assuming that such a candidate is selected and an identifiable platform is presented (these are big IF's), then victory will depend upon persuading and mobilizing the masses, and getting the swing vote.

I do believe that Howard Dean is the right man in the right position (DNC) to do this. The seeds of the next campaign have been sowed and are growing. But we must do a better job of reaching the people than the opposition. We must get the country to open its eyes so we the people can "take back" the country.

Assuming the political landscape remains about the same between now and 2008, I will probably vote Democrat in '08. I am not happy with our current leadership or the direction they our taking our country. So lets get going!

Get off your butt. Speak out. Write. Organize. March. Get involved!

The Post 9-11 World (updated)

2005-03-24T17:00:00.000-08:00

Did the World change after Sept 11, 2001, when planes guided by Islamic terrorists demolished the World Trade Center in New York City? Most certainly, the immediate changes in the New York area were obvious: the death and destruction, the disruption of life, the panic and despair of the people, and the devastation in the lives of all the families and friends of the nearly 3000 people who died. Much has been written. The entire nation felt for the dead and afflicted. It was a wake up call for America, the realization that terrorism was real, and that we were not immune to being attacked on our own soil.

But did the world really change? Certainly there was worldwide compassion for the victims and the American people (though not universal). Other than what happened in New York, the world itself did not really change. Terrorism was nothing new, and the majority of the people in the world continued with business as usual. What really changed was the awareness and attitudes of the American people.

Now let’s put things in global perspective.
Of the 6.4 billion people in the world, 280 million live in the United States, comprising 1/23 (4.3%) of the world's population. China's population is approximately 1.35 billion (21% of world), India's is 1.1 Billion. What we used to call the U.S.S.R. has about 290 million, a little more than the U.S.. It is estimated that about 5.2 billion people live in the "less developed" countries and 1.2 billion live in the "more developed" countries. (All of these numbers are estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau). Its a good chance that a substantial number of people, especially those in less developed and remote areas were not even aware of the event, at least not until a much a later date.

Let’s look at some disasters of recent years. Hurricane Mitch (1998) killed 18,000 people in Central America. In Iran, 43,000 died in as a result of a massive earthquake (2003). The recent genocide in the Sudan has resulted in an estimated 70,000 deaths. The Rwanda massacres of 1994 killed 800,000; in Bosnia-Herzegovina (1992-1995), 200,000 dead. The Tsunami of December 2004 took about 200,000 lives.

During the invasion of Afghanistan (2001-2003), 3500 Afghan civilians lost there lives as well as 8600 combatants. About 150 American Servicemen were killed during the period.

The Iraq War (2003-2005) has left an estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilians and 30,000 military dead. Most certainly these people had nothing to do with attacking America. The U.S. has lost over 1500 troops in Iraq, other coalition fatalities total about 200. ( March 24, 2005 ).

I began by suggesting that maybe it was not so much the world that changed, but people's attitudes. Attitudes turned into actions, and now the world has changed. America lives in a new awareness and under new security measures. By virtue of the fact that the United States is the most powerful military, political, and economic force in the world, our policies and actions have changed the world. The world now lives with the doctrine of pre-emptive strike, though this seems to be only the choice of superpowers (who cannot be challenged). This can also be interpreted as the doctrine of "Might makes Right." The rest of the world has had to adapt to our policies and our behavior, which in turn have changed the attitudes and behaviors of other peoples.

I pass no judgment, draw no conclusions. This is only an attempt to look at the bigger picture, and stimulate some questions. What is obvious to the rest of the world is that the U.S. places a much higher value on American lives than on those of other nations. This is natural and understandable, particularly in wartime, but it is nonetheless extremely arrogant and ethno-centric. When such an attitude becomes a the basis for policy and a rationalization for violence, I believe it only serves to perpetuate more of the same.

Are we not all God’s children?

Would we not want to treat others as we would like to be treated?

Peace.

United We Stand

2004-11-04T11:22:00.000-08:00

Despite all of the talk of divisiveness and antagonism from within, the United States will survive in noble fashion. The people have spoken - a clear victory for George W. Bush. This is what we will live with for the next four years. Moaning and groaning and predicting gloom and doom will not improve our lot. Talking divisiveness will promote divisiveness. Talking unity will promote unity. Over time all this will level out, as our attentions return to other issues, most notably our families, vocations, communities, football, holidays, etc... There are enough voices of reason in the government to curtail any attempts by the current administration to implement extreme or irrational policies. We have no choice but to rely on our elected representatives to do the best they can do to move forward. Keep the faith - believe in America.

The State of the Nation

2004-10-29T07:41:00.000-07:00

Let's skip the name-calling and emotional tirades in our discussion of the presidential election. Let's give each candidate the benefit of the doubt and assume that each is intelligent, informed, and acting in good faith. Let's look at the events of the last four years, the facts as we know them, and the current state of the nation.

The Bush Administration presided over the single most lethal attack on American citizens ever sustained, the result of a catastrophic intelligence failure. We can not blame the administration for the attack; the failing intelligence system and lack of preparedness were largely the product of previous regimes. Nonetheless it happened on the Bush watch, and he had to accept responsibility, which he did. President Bush performed admirably in rallying the country at this time of great crisis and in the months following.

The invasion of Afghanistan was necessary and well executed by our military, destroying the terrorist operations base, routing the Taliban, and expelling the Al Qaeda leadership. However the follow-up was short-changed by the diversion of resources to Iraq. There remains a massive reconstruction effort, and the fledgling Afghan regime needs a lot of help transitioning to a stable and effective government. The perpetrator of the September 11 attack has yet to be apprehended.

The invasion of Iraq was ill-conceived and we are now awash in the mess we created, a result of poor planning and bad decisions. The American people were misled into believing that the invasion was necessary and of a very urgent nature. Monetary, military, and intelligence resources have been poured into Iraq, weakening our effort to dismantle terrorist networks worldwide. Our military is now stretched to its limits, leaving us more vulnerable to other threats. A battle may have been won but the war has been prolonged. In fact we are sowing the seeds for more terrorism in generations to come.

Does anyone really believe that we are only spending $200 billion for the Iraq war? The effort will consume that many times over before long. Can anyone really justify the loss of life in support of this unnecessary war? If the war is just and truly necessary for national defense then what are we citizens prepared to sacrifice?

Through arrogant diplomacy and unilateral action we have alienated much of the world, whose cooperation we desperately need in the fight against terrorism. We are now back in the business of nation building, and trying to police the world. These policies have never worked in the past, and are extremely costly.

We are more secure at home because of the increased security measures, in particular with respect to our transportation system. However we are now saddled with yet another gigantic beaurocracy, the Homeland Security Department. Where is smaller government?

The Bush Administration inherited a $230 billion budget surplus, by far the largest in American History. In 2004, the United States has its largest budget deficit ever, approaching $500 billion. The solution: more tax cuts. Where is fiscal responsibility?

Has the economy turned the corner? ... Where are the Jobs? … What about the health care crisis? ...What about the environment?…What about education?...What happened to the stock market?... Is the price of gas coming down? Are we making progress in these areas? Is there a plan to address these problems (other than more tax cuts)? Take a good look.

How did we get here?
Step by step, as a result of calculated decisions and subsequent actions of the Bush Administration.

Is there any reason to believe that what is not working will suddenly start working?

Is it time for a change? You decide, and then vote.

Please Vote

2004-10-25T10:35:00.000-07:00

Please vote in the upcoming Election. Please vote regardless of your political inclination. We cannot even hope to approximate a functional democracy if the people do not participate in the process. There are choices, very important choices. If you haven't decided, then decide, and VOTE !

today

2004-10-24T11:56:00.000-07:00

The big mystery, which has perplexed man's greatest minds since mankind first emerged , is what or who is God. Since no-one claims to know exactly what it/he/she is, then any debate over the subject is irrelevant. We are all aware of individual or groups of individuals who claim that their brand of "religion" is the real thing and the only acceptable faith, that which supercedes all others.
The most dangerous of these today are the groups of extreme Islamic Fundamentalists who believe that massacre of innocent people in the name of their "God" is not only permissable but laudable. History is full of examples of this type of behavior resulting from a distorted interpretation of one faith or another.
On another subject, do you think we have had enough analysis of the presidential campaign? Only the final tally matters, so lets wait and see. My prediction is that Bush will win with a clear margin. This opinion is based on my observation that the majority of voters vote their "gut feeling" based on their perception of the candidate and one or two of the issues. Very few actually examine the respective platforms or records based on an anlysis of the issues from a factual standpoint.

A Citizen Speaks

2002-03-01T03:01:00.000-08:00

I am a proud and patriotic citizen of the greatest country on earth, the United States of America. I was born here, and I am a direct descendent of 17th century settlers of New England. I am a veteran of the United States Navy, and retired from the United States Naval Reserve with 24 years of service. I have worked for our federal government as a civil servant for the past 25 years. I am currently an active volunteer in a national organization that augments homeland security. I have always felt an obligation to do whatever I can to help preserve our freedoms and combat injustice. I firmly believe that patriotism is best exemplified by the willingness to make personal sacrifices, and by taking action toward building a better nation.

It is because of my experience and my dedication to our country that I am deeply concerned about our nation's current international policy. As a citizen of this nation I feel compelled to exercise my right to speak out for that which I truly believe.

I am opposed to the idea of the United States initiating a war against Iraq unless 1) we have international support (sanctioned by the United Nations), and 2) it is the last resort. I read the papers, watch the news, and listen to the speeches of our leaders, but I do not buy their line of reasoning. The justification for war sometimes sounds plausible but does not hold up when put in a global perspective. I believe that the costs and consequences of war outweigh any perceived benefit. The immediate result of war is always death and destruction. A human life cannot be replaced. The cost of reconstruction, peacekeeping, and then indefinitely sustaining a new government would be astronomical. A unilateral and preemptive invasion would violate international protocol and more likely spawn future conflict than contribute to a lasting peace. It would most certainly end the inspection process and render the U.N. irrelevant. Much damage has already been done by our narrow minded and arrogant diplomacy.

It is the U.S. administration that has pushed the issue of Iraq's disarmament to the brink of international crisis, through its persistent war rhetoric, aggressive diplomacy, and military buildup. I do give our leaders credit for addressing the problem, and it is in fact the threat of military force that has caused Saddam Hussein to begin limited cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Coupled with international pressure the inspection process is working, albeit not as fast as we would like. The weapons inspectors are asking for months, not years. If we maintain the pressure, the process can continue to work, and we can achieve the goal of disarming Iraq.

I fully support our soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, coastguardsmen and anyone else who is in harms way. What I do question is the intent of our leaders who have placed them there, and the direction this march to war is taking our country, and the world. I believe that as the most powerful nation in the world we have a responsibility to lead the way in seeking the most equitable and sane solution.

Many seem to think that war is inevitable. I say it is inevitable if we think and speak and act as if it were inevitable. I do not question the fact that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator, or that he continues to attempt to deceive the world about his chemical and biological weapons. I do believe that the disarming of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein are in the best interest of the world community. The question is, are there other methods of solving this problem? Of course there are. Military force may at some point be necessary, but other options are still available. The ball is in our court. We have the power to slow the pace or alter the course. I urge all citizens, whatever your belief, to speak up, speak out, demonstrate, write your elected representatives, let your voice be heard. We can all work together toward a victory without war.