Barr seeks Libertarian pres nomination

Finally, a potentially significant third party candidate? Former Rep Bob Barr is seeking the Libertarian presidential bid. Problem for McCain or for Obama? Barr's stated objectives are not exactly in line with GOP, and could take votes from Obama as well. Still early yet, but this could have interesting repercussions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051200889.html

It's the economy AND the war, stupid!

America's apathy toward foreign affairs is still alive and well, as her sensitivity toward pocketbook pains is much greater than the lives and money lost in a war of choice. Obama must hit these issues hard and go after McCain. Imagine the economic state that this country would be in had billions of dollars not gotten wasted on the Iraq invasion and occupation. This point must be hammered home to the voters. Can we afford a third-term of Bush? A McBush administration? Now Obama can focus his attention on November.

It's Obama vs. McCain

Just a short one to declare that Hillary is done. Stick a fork in it! It's only a matter of time before she unplugs her campaign, and Obama will be the nominee. Hallelujah! I said to Michelle last night that a big win in NC for Obama and a narrow victory for Clinton in IN are two losses for Hillary.

Now let's really get down to some Dem vs. Rep, liberal vs. conservative talk. BRM, I know it's been really quiet, but you have yet to respond to my earlier questions about what the conservatives have achieved for America. I refer to the Feb 28 post entitled, "Opportunity to come together?"

Obama '08! All the way to the White House!

Waaaaaaay Too Quiet...

Gentlemen: As there has been zippo activity - and I don't mean of a lighter fare (sorry, but if things are going to be this quiet, bad puns will happen to fill space) - I pose the following two questions for your consumption, mastication, and regurgitation. Should you accept the challenge, to make this more fun (at least for me as I read your responses), I seek thoughtful responses grounded in objective analysis, not merely personal opinion.

1. I doubt Hillary Clinton spends many nights losing sleep while ruminating on the classic Clash question, "Should I Stay Or Should I Go?" However, plenty of prognosticators have done plenty of ruminating on the question for her. I turn it over to you: Should Hillary continue her quest, or should she get out of Barack Obama's way? In either case, what is the impact of her doing so?

2. Is John McCain using well this time of a seemingly never-ending battle between Democrats for the right to compete against him in the general election? What else could/should he be doing to improve his chances in November?

Discuss...

Are conservatives happier than liberals?

Here's a fun little thing to read. I look forward to your comments. Are conservatives really happier than liberals?
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10924082&CFID=260729&CFTOKEN=53292394
After you finish grunting about what a ridiculous proposition this is, go to a WashingtonPost.com blog (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/community/groups/index.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aa70e3396-6663-4a8d-ba19-e44939d3c44fForum%3aa8bc6fd8-cf9f-43ca-99a4-05fdb4342697Discussion%3a0ad1b8de-734f-4dc8-a85d-5651bdeee313) to read what others of the lefty persuasion have suggested as apologist explanations. Goodness knows, it couldn't actually be true, could it?

Cheers (oops, I mean, "sincerely")
BRM

Bush's War - Frontline

In case you missed it or just want to view it at your leisure...They should really call it Cheney and Rumsfeld's War: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

Political Discourse and Digital Media

I know BGA started a thread a while back regarding the impact of digital media on the Internet (e.g. YouTube) on the current election cycle, the Obama campaign, etc. Here's an interesting NYT article on the YouTube video of an Obama supporter, Derrick Ashong, who is about as well-informed as anyone in the country. Kudos to DNA; this is the kind of story that inspires the patriot in me. God bless America!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/business/media/17carr.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kica8hmSdAM (Ashong's man-in-the-street response. Well done!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2zO5d-XZWA&feature=related (Ashong's follow-up)

I'm still debating whether to open up our blog to the rest of Google users or the entire Internet. It would be wonderful to get a numerous variety of responses across the political spectrum from people like Ashong, but I'm not interested in quick, one-off, infrahumanizing shots that would inevitably get injected into our conversations. However, I'm not opposed to any of you inviting someone you know well who would take the time to be involved in our discussions. I definitely would like more conservative views represented.

Dems and Race

While I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans thrilled to see the intra-party self-destruction happening among the Democrats over race, and while I certainly see all sorts of opportunities for the Republicans to exploit this idiocy for partisan advantage, I'm so upset that it's happening and want to shake both the Clinton and Obama folks for the repulsive spillover this will have in society and our politics overall. What thoughts do you guys have on the factor of RACE in the Democrats' nomination race, and where do you think this will ultimately go?

Young's (Not So) Excellent Adventure in 2000 Election

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:00:13 -0800 (PST)
From: "Young H. Kim"
Subject: RE: Young's (Not So) Excellent Adventure in 2000 Election - Re: Real Intolerance

Right, Mike, I was so naive about the whole thing, knowing that we had offices in Texas; I knew I wouldn't change anyone's mind, but I actually thought I could have an effect on the undecided voters who, as I recall, were plentiful right up to voting day. "Liberals Only"...I know, you can spot liberals just by looking at them. ;-)


--- Michael Busick wrote:
Young, if only you had set that e-mail to send to "Liberals Only", none of that would've happened. :)


From: Brian Menard
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:31:10 -0500
Young: Yep, putting aside the corporate policy faux paux, it seems like familiar
territory in the reaction department and subsequent concern about standing in the organization.


----- Original Message -----
From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 6:40 PM

At the risk of revisiting a topic that is beyond stale, I would like to share my experience at work during the 2000 presidential election. Not sure if I shared this with any of you, so pardon me if I'm repeating. I was barely a year into my new job as a Software Test Engineer at a company called Metapath Software International (MSI) in the heart of downtown Bellevue. I happened across an article in the New Yorker about how the Gore/Bush matchup has turned into a mere personality contest ("I can imagine having a beer with Bush, but not Gore."). In my naivete and poor judgment of workplace email policy, I forwarded, no, spammed this article company-wide to the offices in the US. I invite you to imagine the reaction I received. Here's the link to an abstract of the article as The New Yorker does not have the full article online, but you'll get the idea:
They've Got Personality

Pretty harmless, wouldn't you say? ;-) I mean, in hindsight, it's truer now than it was then. Naturally, I received some but few email in favor and in agreement with my political leanings. And there were brutal, personal attacks against me personally and intellectually. So I know, BRM, when you talked about the fear of losing your job for voicing your political opinion, especially when one of the most vocal criticism came from the Senior VP in charge of the engineering division, who is from and works in Richardson, TX, a suburb of Dallas--sort of a "Don't mess with Texas!" attitude. I am still looking for the email and the replies I saved somewhere. Suffice to say, I received negative reaction in the following vein:
1) Don't fill my inbox with your biased political crap.
2) Cease and desist from such abuse of company mail lists.
3) The New Yorker is a rag whose objectivity is more than questionable. (YHK: It was obviously an op-ed piece.)
4) Send your liberal pablum somewhere else. (YHK: Morton Downey, Jr. popularized the word "pablum".)
5) Yet another example of bleeding-heart, knee-jerk, elitist liberal position. Get better informed about the information you're spreading around.

Fortunately, I only got a slap on the wrist from my manager and director afterward, "Young, you know better than that. But I trust that this will never happen again." Needless to say, I learned a big lesson about using intra-company email. In any case, at the time, I just couldn't believe that a man like Dubya actually had a shot against a much more qualified Al Gore. I still believe that Gore would be the Dem nominee this year if he chose to run.

-----------------
Couple of quotes that are popular among Dems about the Bush Years:"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plainfolks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

Intolerance, First Amendment, Military Commissions Act

From: "Brian Menard" <brian_menard@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Young's (Not So) Excellent Adventure in 2000 Election - Re: Real Intolerance
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:53:42 -0500

Not trying to weasel out of anything. Just looking for consistency in argument instead of allowing for potential myopia. Gotta be fair now. If grounds for criticism is good for one side, they're good for both sides. That's the difference between attempting objective analysis and launching partisan attacks.

----- Original Message -----

From: Young H. Kim

Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 11:53 PM

Subject: Re: Young's (Not So) Excellent Adventure in 2000 Election - Re: Real Intolerance
 

All in the course of daily party politics, I know, but why is it that the GOP
supporters always like to lay some blame at the preceding Dem administration when
the current Rep administration obviously botched things up? Here's a list for more
context:
1) Dems would charge that Nixon expanded the Vietnam War by bombings in Cambodia and
Laos, but Reps would always comeback to saying that it was the JFK administration
that really escalated the war in the first place (no duh re: LBJ admin, of course).
I don't think any Dem would argue that point really, but somehow that must be said
as if to "balance" out the expansion of the war by Nixon, even after his own
campaign promise to end the war.
2) Reagan ran up a huge deficit to continue the arms race with USSR, but the Reps
would always point out that the Carter admin had carried the debt before Reagan.
3) After 9/11 one would hear a lot about how the Clinton admin had a shot at going
after and taking out Bin Laden but didn't/couldn't do it. Never mind that the Dubya
admin had plenty of warnings before 9/11 about what al-Qaeda was planning to do,
namely a daily intelligence briefing blatantly titled "Bin Laden determined to
attack inside the U.S.", with mention of hijackings contained in it, given to the
prez only a month before 9/11.

The reverse is true, too, if something went right re: economy during a Dem admin,
then Reps love to point out that the course was already laid out by the previous Rep
admin, or that it was the Rep-controlled Congress who should get the credit. Now
this comment about the Clinton admin on Iraq. What is this about, BRM? Both Rummy
and Wolfy, among others, practically pleaded Bubba to take out Saddam, but he wisely
did no such thing, other than bombing runs (according to PBS Frontline). What
actions by the Clinton admin on Iraq are you referring to?

Yes, much better to discuss what to do now, and it certainly is less pressure to
talk about the future, instead of arguing how the whole disaster should not have
happened in the first place. Frustrating, indeed...


--- Brian Menard <brian_menard@hotmail.com> wrote:

Of course, to be consistent, you'd have to include every president from Truman on
as violators of the "declared war" theory before conducting military action. I'm
not disagreeing with its merit, just looking for consistency in the expectation of
its application. And a number of these presidents from both parties have
suspended rights to some degree in the process.

As for Bush and our current war, your comment about fighting people instead of a
country is fundamental to why declaring war simply doesn't fit as a model
applicable to these circumstances. How do you declare war on a group of people,
particularly when they travel between borders and - at a minimum - aren't being
dealt with by the nations in which they are found? (I direct that to Afghanistan.
Iraq is a separate issue with a separate argument dealing with the same flawed
intelligence that directed the actions of the Clinton Administration.)

As for Iraq, I don't think you'll find many - maybe Rummy - who would argue that
mistakes weren't made and the action could have been prosecuted better from the
start and all along. The practical question, though, is: What do we do now?

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick<mailto:misterb_46@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 9:40 PM
Subject: RE: Young's (Not So) Excellent Adventure in 2000 Election - Re: Real Intolerance


Bush has vacillated between saying we're at war and not saying we're at war.

Personally, I don't believe we're at war until it's been officially declared by
Congress -- and to my knowledge, it hasn't yet been declared. If we're not
declaring war, then Bush doesn't get to suspend any part of the Constitution.

We're not using all of out military might in either Afghanistan or Iraq. We're
only using what we believe is enough to accomplish our goal (which, I believe we
can all agree, has shifted like an Arabian sand dune over the past five years).
We're not even fighting a country (which is probably a fairly common occurrence as
we look back through history), we're fighting a group of people in that country
that don't like us.

This Iraq conflict could've gone a lot better if any number of things had been
done differently -- and it doesn't take a genius to figure out where the mistakes
happened.

1) U.S. soldiers guarding the oil fields upon the initial invasion, but leaving
the museums open for looting.

2) The U.S. solider who temporarily draped an American flag over the statue of
Saddam.

3) Not listening to those generals who said either don't invade or if you do
invade, bring more troops. Bush likes to talk about how he doesn't listen to focus
groups, only generals on the ground. Well, it seems he only listens to those
generals who agree with his plan.

4) With still no infrastructure in Iraq outside the Green Zone, many Iraqi men
have nothing to do but stand around unemployed, or have their lives threatened
if/when they join the Iraqi police force or help the U.S. military, or ponder the
possibility of joining the insurgency.

As for Bush's policies saving lives and preventing attacks, I am reminded of a
quote from comedian George Gobel on the Tonight Show in 1969. He told Johnny that
when he was serving in WWII, he was stationed in the Oklahoma National Guard. He
figured that the military must have wanted him there or they wouldn't have put him
there and he figures he must've been useful because, as we can all recall, not a
single Japanese fighter plane ever made it past Tulsa.

It's my belief that we're no safer with Bush in the White House than we would've
been with Gore in the White House. I believe a Gore administration would not have
been populated with as many (any?) people who were left over from the Nixon
administration (Cheney and Rumsfeld) who believe there's unfinished business in
the Middle East and would look for any excuse to send our brave soldiers into Iraq
even though there were quite a few other countries that were ahead of them on that
"get what's comin' to em" list. :)

I'm actually surprised we haven't been hit again and I don't think the Bush
administration has had anything to do with that because our ports are still open,
our water supply is still unguarded and our borders are still unsecured. However,
U.S. citizens who bring atlases onto commercial airlines are being detained
(happened here at SeaTac a few years ago) and our emails and international phone
calls are being recorded, so hey, I guess we know where to find the next bunch of
bad guys.

Doesn't anyone else find it interesting that our emails are being saved
recorded, but the White House can somehow lose millions of emails that might make
them look bad (fired U.S. attorney scandal or the Plame leak scandal or just pick
one of many).

Not only does this administration have no credibility left when it comes to
anything (economy, security, etc.), this country has no credibility left when it
comes to anything involving the Middle East. Going back just 50 years, it's
obvious the only side we've stayed on is the side that benefits our economy. So
when Bush asks OPEC (like he did last week) to increase oil production because the
high prices are hurting our economy (which they are, but whose fault is that,
really?), I can almost hear the Saudi oil barons laughing from here.

If there are tax breaks or rebates coming, I hope they come from the extra money
the U.S. oil companies have been raking in since the invasion started.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 01:52:47 +0000

Wow, I did not know, or remember any of that-Very tough situation, working for
intolerant people, or an intolerant company. I think, in the case of your example,
the word 'intolerant' may not be adequate enough to describe how difficult and
unfortunate that situation must have been-I am sorry. It is interesting how
radical we might appear to one-another until we know where the other is coming
from.

As far as sending an email in reply to Intolerance and the First Amendment, I
have a lot to say about this-but, I don't know where to begin? It's a hard thing
to talk about, kind of like our Seattle diatribe, or my lame defense of American
Imperialism. It was meant, in a spirit of dialog and I must confess, I was pulling
chains or pushing buttons a little bit...But, it's hard to have a discussion about
things that are not morally sound but may be wise in a prudent, or 'real Politik
way. For example, I wanted to point out that, some of our best presidents have
advanced agendas of imperialism and even dictatorship. I did not, however, want to
be known as the "imperialist pig" (sorry, Young, no offense-I know you were just
kidding) who was defending and probably deep down agreed with some elements of
American hegemony or imperialistic policy. So, it's hard to talk about these
things without offending people. And it's hard to talk about some things without
appearing to be an advocate of those things. In other words, is it possible to defend war,
imperialism, or in this case the sacrifice of our freedoms for security and
safety, without appearing to be a proponent of these difficult and unpopular
views?

Thus, I believe that you might have been trying to ignite a discussion about
the military commissions act. I think that you wanted to begin a discussion on our
loss of personal freedoms and make connections between certain political
philosophies and the loss of those freedoms?

Certainly, the first amendment protects our freedoms, the very freedoms in
fact that, the military commission act suspends or revokes "during a time of
national emergency or war."

So, what freedoms have we lost and why have we lost them? I believe that we
could identify many of these points rather quickly. Also, however, I think that
you (Young) would like to examine why we have sacrificed those freedoms in an
attempt to allow our government to keep us more safe and secure?

Of course, we all know the 'Catch-22'- As Olbermann more aptly summarized it,
"The Military Commissions Act has sacrificed our freedoms to a government more
dangerous to our own liberty than the enemy, it claims to protect us from."

My question is two-fold. Do we all agree with the above preceding statement?
And are there any circumstances that we could imagine, that would require a
suspension of individual freedom and liberties? Bush argues, that the time is now.
Is now the time? Has there ever been a time when the military commission act was
necessary? Further, Bush has argued that the military commission act has saved
lives and prevented terrorist attacks-If this is correct, is Bush, right?

B

Obama can't win big states?

It seems to me that Obama still has trouble winning the big-delegate states. This presents a serious problem for him later on, should he win the nomination. This article on the Pennsylvania poll results is interesting. Obama certainly is not getting the older white women vote.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080314/pl_rasmussen/paprimary2008031320080314

Bill Moyers Journal: Mickey Edwards - Reclaiming Conservatism

Totally forgot to mention that I watched Mickey Edwards on Bill Moyers Journal last Friday, 3/7. Very interesting and educational. If only more conservatives actually thought this way...Here's a link to the show's transcript. Look for Edwards' name in the latter half.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03072008/transcript4.html

--- Brian Menard wrote:

Subject: Fw: Mickey Edwards - Reclaiming Conservatism: How a Great American
Political Movement Got Lost - and How It Can Find Its Way Back
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:54:55 -0500

Mom (an alumna of Rutgers' MA program in political science and an Eagleton Institute fellow while there) just sent this to me. Thought it might be interesting to you, given our recent topic of conversation. Mickey Edwards was still on the Hill when I worked there. It should be an interesting book.
BRM

2008 Albert W. Lewitt Lecture
Mickey Edwards
Reclaiming Conservatism: How a Great American Political Movement Got Lost - and How It Can Find Its Way Back
Thursday, March 6
5:30 pm - Reception
6:00 pm - Program
Eagleton Institute of Politics
Directions available here
.
Served eight terms as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives(R-OK) between 1977-1993
.
Chaired the American Conservative Union and was one of three foundingtrustees of the Heritage Foundation
.
Faculty member at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
.
Contributed as a regular columnist for the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times and a weekly commentator on National Public Radio's All Things Considered

In his latest book, Edwards argues that conservatives today have abandoned their principles and now champion that which they once most feared. The American conservative movement drew its inspiration from the United States Constitution - in particular, an overriding belief in individual liberty and limited government. But today, so-called "conservative" beliefs and policies threaten the entire constitutional system of government. By abetting an imperial presidency, "conservatives" have gutted the system of checks and balances, abandoned due process, and trampled upon cherished civil liberties. Once they fought to protect citizens from government intrusion; today, they seem to recognize few limits on what government can do. Touching upon many current issues, Edwards offers a blueprint for reclaiming the essence of conservatism in America.
RSVP to eagleton.events@rutgers.edu or 732-932-9384, ext. 331.
Books will be available for purchase.
The Albert W. Lewitt lecture was established by Mrs. Benjamin Leon in memory of her brother, who worked on Capitol Hill in the 1940's.

Eliot Spitzer

I'm not at all interested in the actual scandal or its details, but here's how I see this story. It says a lot about politics and power in this country:

1) Don't piss off and send to jail a bunch of Wall Street bankers and investors. They will come after you. It seems he made too many enemies in high places.
2) When do we start separating the public life from the private life of powerful and influential politicians? Will there be anyone left to lead or to govern? Seriously, who's gonna tell me that those with power and influence don't screw around? Should someone like FDR have resigned as well for infidelity? Did that make him unfit to be president?
3) Resign over violations or corruption that directly relate to the job, not over some sordid, salacious and very expensive trysts, unless the person somehow embezzled public funds to satisfy his urges, granted technically he did break some federal laws. See: http://www.slate.com/id/2186345/
4) Don't know all the details but seems like even Democrats hated Spitzer and probably triggered his downfall. All the more evidence that most, if not all, politicians have something to hide, instead of supporting a self-proclaimed crusader like Spitzer, and that has nothing to do with partisanship.
5) Such petty politics and powerplay in NY? What was Spitzer even thinking? Probably nothing since he certainly is not the only one paying for escorts.
6) Spitzer was foolishly hypocritical. Apparently, he took down the Wall Street bankers for practices that most in Wall Street knew well and generally accepted. See Slate article: http://www.slate.com/id/2186249/

Surely, Spitzer sealed his own fate over lustful temptations, but I don't believe that automatically disqualifies him to be governor. It's just a given in the American psyche that any sex that is not with your own wife should disqualify you for public office. Much harder to impeach a president for it, though, we've discovered...O that Slick Willie...

One More Voter for Democrats

Just wanted to mention that after being in the U.S. for 20 years, Michelle is now a naturalized U.S. citizen as of March 10, 2008. I am also happy to say that she will most likely vote for a Democrat in November, although she is not a fan of Obama. I believe the gender factor is probably at play here. :-)

Infrahumanization

Interesting op-ed from an assoc. editor of Newsweek. "Infrahumanization"...I'll have to remember that...Bashing on Hillary or the Clintons or their supporters is certainly not new.

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/03/07/the-real-problem-with-power-s-monster-remark.aspx

Happy Blogging

Hey, guys, it's great to have this up and running. Thanks again, Young, for making it operational. Just look at how much we can accomplish when we work together instead of against each other!

I look forward to blogging with you guys.

BRM

Opportunity to come together?

From:"Brian Menard"
Date:Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:38:37 -0500

Young: Good questions and comments. I read them quickly, and look forward to responding in kind. I'm jammed time-wise at least through the weekend, though. Two snow days, one of which cancelled an all-day principal shadowing experience that sets up big assignment that consists of a huge part of my grade in one of my last to MEd classes, has put me into an undesirable circumstance. Sucks for me. So, anyway, it may take a while to offer the thorough response your quality contribution deserves. Bear with me, and keep the posts rolling even though I may seem like I'm ducking out. One process thought, though. In all your computerness, do you have the knowledge, skills, and platform to move us from e-mails to blog format? It might make things easier to follow, especially with threading, and would certainly make it easier to trace back and see what we've done. (I know I've deleted a lot of posts from all four of us that I'd like to pull up again.)
-----------------

Date:Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:26:58 -0800 (PST)
From:"Young H. Kim"

I think we all agree that the four of us are not merely "conservative" or "liberal"in the labeling-sense of the word. Here's one thing that does bother me about the Reps attacking the New Deal or the "welfare state". You can't tell me that there were no problems of urban jungles or rural trailer parks before FDR; poverty existed all through history. What have the conservative Reps done for the poor and the working class that even comes close to what FDR and LBJ achieved, especially in terms of helping those who are less fortunate and less privileged? What have conservatism offered to the nation in terms of being morally responsible in a capitalist society? Kemp's "enterprise zones"? Are these successful today? I have no idea, actually.If the conservatives in the past had their way, we wouldn't even have Social Security, Medicare, the Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Acts. Is this not the case? There is a reason why blacks moved from the Rep party to the Dems. Was it Dem disinformation and deception that caused this shift? I don't think so. Dems proposed and enacted policies that favored the poor and the minorities. Of course,the results of those acts are not without flaws and abuses, but I guess I'm asking for the compassionate or idealistic conservative model for a better society. It can't be just about the trickle-down economics because we've already had a quite unsuccessful application of it.To me, the definition of "conservative" for the last half century or more has been"reactionary" and "maintaining status quo". How has conservatism progressed to put forth policies for the betterment of our nation today? I absolutely agree that American conservatism has lost its way; I believe many Americans are for individual liberty and limited government, but liberty as freedom from what? And how limited should gov't be? Unregulated free market? Remove government from education and social welfare? Conservatives/Republicans are constantly critical of liberals/Democrats, but what are the alternatives they have championed that would make our capitalist society more compassionate or ideal? Why don't pro-choice,affirmative action and gun control policies fit into the concept of making a better society? Is it about separating the social and political conservatism?I assume that there have been things proposed that fall in line with the brand of conservatism that you support, but they probably were never really given a full chance for one reason or another; this is where there is a definite disconnect between conservatives and Republicans, between ideology and party politics, just asthere's a disconnect between progressives/liberals and Democrats--what the ideologues support is not (necessarily) what gets implemented through party politics. I believe we also have to make a distinction between the ideological and the partisan political arguments.If anything, our discussion is helping me to rethink and refine my own sense of what it means to be a liberal or a progressive, so I thank you all for that.
---------------------

From: "Brian Menard"
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:06:07 -0500

One of the squarepegroundhole difficulties I have always had in fitting on this side or that side is that I generally appreciate the idealism of liberals, but so often the means pursued are so based in the policy equivalent of Dream Whip that they habitually screw things up just as much - if not worse - that things as they are. Conservatives, on the other hand, are more inclined to settle for falling back upon "keep what works, and maximize freedom" as a panacea that ignores our collective imperative to improve ourselves and society. This is one reason I loved Jack Kemp. He was an idealistic conservative...steadfastly conservative in the means he prescribed in pursuit of admirable ideals. This is different, I think, from George Bush's "compassionate conservative" mantra. I lauded Bush for his efforts to make compassion respectable in conservatism, and am content to describe myself as a compassionate conservative. However, I think the idealistic conservatism of Kemp describes me better. Compassion is an important quality to have, but it is more one-way than idealism. Compassion lets you care about others, help others, improve the lot of others. Idealism, on the other hand, allows for a Platonic recognition of conceptual ideals - however unattainable they may be in reality - that we can all strive to achieve for the betterment of ourselves and others as individuals as well as collectively. The question becomes: How do we do this? Fixing creating new problems in the process of trying to fix old ones (whether or not the old ones actually get fixed) is not progress, it's just new problems. For example, Johnson's War on Poverty and the Great Society did not succeed, but they did create a massive welfare state (built on FDR's foundation for the massive welfare state established decades before) that locked generations in poverty in urban jungles and rural trailer parks with no hope and no opportunity for escape. Would the hardcore conservative "solution" of "do nothing, but remind these people that they have freedom" have done better? No, it wouldn't. But creating programs that would create real opportunity for those who actually care about doing something to escape from dire economic circumstances has a positive benefit. Jack Kemp's "enterprise zones" are one example of addressing needs and striving for improvement through more positive means based in human nature instead of in denial of human nature. Similarly, my melding of idealism and practicality recognizes that something different or foreign or new need not be something bad, yet, recognizes also that ideas and culture matter: the philosophical ideas that shaped our system and culture are not inherently bad and provide a core that in some regards draw us together and in other regards are crucial for the successful continuation of our nation as a nation. As a nation of immigrants, and a nation founded on a bold experiment in implementing enlightened political philosophy, we must be open to ideas and practices that enrich us further, but we must also be cautious of things contrary to the essence of what makes us "one from many".

----- Original Message -----
From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 8:38 PM

Brian M--I really appreciate you making the effort to explain your views to the left coast. I hope that you don't get too frustrated with our tone; We're just trying to understand how you guys see it. Further, it's obvious that your not too right of center or extreme--I appreciate that. I think that we all have a lot of emotion, that does not always find an appropriate outlet. Anyway, here's to understanding.I like listening to music as I write and send emails, thus all of the links.John Cruz (again)--Check out the end of the song, when he alters the lyrics, very funny.http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=07SrFYQDiAE&feature=related

B.
---------------

From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Subject: Communism, a Failure of Reason
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:11:30 +0000

One of the problems with blurring economic and political systems, is an inability to make important distinctions between the two. Certainly, some right-wing think tanks have purposed that capitalism will help bring about democracy. I believe this to be a fallacious assumption. Capitalism exists quite well without democracy. China is only the latest in a large number of examples.
Further, socialism can exist with democracy. I am reminded of democratic-socialist nations like Sweden. Can anyone argue that Sweden is not a democracy?
Yes, Marxist-Leninist doctrine--Or communism, or whatever one might call it--Is a complete fairy-tale and a total failure. Marx was a brilliant philosopher with many great ideas and insights--Nevertheless, his philosophy was inherently flawed, as humans are flawed. Anyone, who has ever been in the Army, or lived in a commune has a pretty good idea of why communism is completely unrealistic. In fact, even Marx believed that communism was just the final step in a process that would lead to Utopia.
Utopia, like Heaven cannot exist on Earth. Luckily, communism has been largely discredited. My concern however, when the extreme forces on the left fell--the extreme forces on the right took credit and gained something from it.
B.
-----------------

From:"Brian Menard"
Date:Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:32:06 -0500

Young: Thanks for the extended version cum responses to my response to your contracted version. After getting more of your thoughts, I think we agree in a lot of these areas than it first appeared to me. A few additional response thoughts...

China: No, this is not a true communist nation. Marx would be critical were he to see it today. I think the spirit in which Marx offered his theory was somewhat romantic, in that he really wanted to create a Utopian society in place of the darkness and devastation he saw around him sweeping through the aristocratic-based unchecked capitalism that de facto locked people into their castes. I wonder if you remember the portion of Ms. Carr's "poetry notebook" assignment when we shared a favorite song with the class. I, the Nixon-worshipping heartless fascist Republican, did John Lennon's "Imagine". After I read the lyrics and played the song, Dave Lutz (who thought it would be hilarious to do the Rolling Stones' "Brown Sugar" in Ms. Carr's class) immediately piped in, "Why, that's COMMUNISM!" A discussion on the distinction between theory and practice and idealism versus prudence versus pragmatism was not in order at the time, so I don't think I spent much time explaining that while I thought it was a nice thing to "Imagine", I did not confuse Utopian dreams with accomplishable targets. Anyway, China is an exciting and scary place in the world in an exciting and scary phase of development. Part of the underlying theory behind U.S. policy toward China for 35 years has been the expectation that if we can just plant the seeds of capitalism there, it will eventually flourish and ultimately blossom into democracy that the Party dictatorship cannot suppress. Meanwhile, the Party leadership understands that Mao led China into "communism" without first going through the capitalist phase Marx believed was required to provide a nation with the infrastructure that enables communist society to exist as it does; thus, I am convinced, they are using this current experiment in capitalism as a means to a more perfect communist end, all the while aware that they need to grow it in a controlled way or risk what U.S. policy hopes will result. Tiananmen Square is the most obvious example of what results from the tension, and I fully expect that at some point another and more wide-scale example will occur.

----- Original Message -----
From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:17 PM

BRM, I intentionally kept my initial response short due to time, so I see that that has created some miscommunication and misunderstanding. You make it quite difficult for me to restrain myself from responding, but I mean that in the best way possible,and I certainly harbor no wrath toward you being "overly academic" though my comments must have come across to you that way; no, I welcome it, and I apologize for any offense in that regard.However, I wonder if by outlining the academic theories, you are also defending theactual practice of conservative ideology or the conservative movement. I believe weagree that the theory and the practice/reality are quite different from each other,whether it be conservatism, liberalism, capitalism or communism. I certainly am no expert on Western thought, philosophy or intellectual/political history, so I freely defer to you the details on those subjects. Please see below for a clarification of my previous comments.

YHK: Of course, there is plenty of blame on both sides; I'm not discounting anything. Michael Moore is an example of liberal extremists that comes to mind, and I certainly do not agree with all liberals or believe that all liberalism is free from blame or perfect. I certainly am not an atheist or a relativist or even a"philosophical anarchist" (remember this label that was put on me in the past by your mother, I think?). However, if you're comparing Al Franken and Michael Moore vs. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, I'll have to defend the left insofar as they align with my beliefs and world view. And I can only speak and have been speaking from what I believe, feel, and understand to be right and just.

YHK: I didn't mean to say that Marx took into account human nature. I was only talking about my view of human nature in simple terms. It's my understanding that his better known theories are purely based in political and economic terms. I don't consider him a philosopher per se who provides insight into human nature. However, I believe that he does more or less accurately describe the flaws and dangers of capitalism, as did Adam Smith. A pure communist state will be difficult to create,I agree, but what would you say of China today? A mere dictatorship? ;-)

YHK: Do you see capitalism practiced this way today, where the haves see it is in their interest to help the have-nots? I don't. Do you see that the have-nots of the world are capable of destroying the haves? Seems unlikely. USA is the superpower and even post-9/11 hasn't made the world see us as helping the have-nots. Same can be said domestically. I believe it is more likely that our nation destroys itself from within. And I see conservatism at the heart of not being morally responsible to the have-nots, and liberalism doing a frustratingly piss-poor job of looking out for and helping the interests of the have-nots. There was a very interesting series by the LA Times a while back on how philanthropic organizations like the Gates Foundation actually do more harm to the people they help through charity by keeping investments in those companies whose business practices damage their environment and hurt their living standards. This is just one paradox of capitalism today.

YHK: I am not as optimistic of Smithian capitalism as you are. I agree that Marxism as practiced in history failed because human beings need to be rewarded for individuality, entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity. A free market system must be regulated, as liberals tout, and thereby improved because left alone to human nature, it will surely fail in theory and practice. Unregulated capitalism rewards the robber barons and the Gordon Geckoes of the world, and I feel that is pretty much what we have today.
--------------------

From:"Michael Busick"
Date:Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:00:11 -0800

Actually, I was just pointing out the irony in the following: This administration espouses installing a democracy in Iraq (where none have ever flourished) while being in favor of illegal wiretaps, out-of-country secret torture/interrogation facilities, and the Patriot Act in this country. This administration goes on and on about how our enemy hates our freedom and then they come out in favor of a constitutional ban on gay marriage. It just seemed to me as thought this administration doesn't really want to throw out our enemy's entire playbook. :) Doesn't Iraq have universal health care now? Aren't schools being rebuilt there while they're falling apart here? Again, since 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, how come we didn't bomb them back to the stone age?
------------------

From:"Brian Menard"
Date:Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:32:15 -0500

Young: Do I take it from your response that you discount liberals from blame and rest it exclusively on conservative shoulders? If so, I think you're being disingenuous or self-delusional, either of which would surprise me. I go to great lengths to assess my side of the political debate fairly and evenhandedly, freely admitting the faults of folks professing views akin to mine. Do you not do the same because you honestly don't think your side has such faults, because you think your responsibility in this dialogue is merely to point out one side's view, or some other reason? It is one thing to assess allegations differently; something else to discount them altogether. Would you accept my challenge for you to name three recognized liberals - in politics, media, however they are known - and offer criticism of each of them? I'm happy to do the same on the conservative side. I'll even extend the challenge to all four of us, and match the combined liberal list with conservatives. As for human nature, I would agree with your assessment of such negative components of it. I would add that I believe, as did the establishers of the American flavor of political theory a couple centuries ago, that there are also higher elements of human nature (compassion, love, gratitude, etc.) that balance its negative elements (greed, self-interest, meanness, spite, etc.). At the risk of incurring your wrath again for being overly academic, the irony I find in your comment, though, is that human nature is something that Marx left out of his little equation. The reason that true communism will never be tried and that socialism fails to achieve its goals is that they build human nature out of the model. They fail to trust the positive side and fail to compensate for the negative side. Capitalism, in Gordon Gecko's "greed is good" sense, is flawed for other reasons. Adam Smith never advocated capitalism as a means for powerful individuals to profit at the expense of everyone else. His book "Capital" has a complementary volume, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments". A complete view of capitalism sees the economic principals of capitalism guided by the moral principals of humanity, so that capitalism is the tool for moral society to use for its overall benefit. Tocqueville illustrates similar ideas in "Democracy in America" when he discusses the concept of self interest rightly understood. Rather than being something for individuals to practice with reckless abandon for their unending financial benefit, individuals should understand that such practice will ultimately lead to the downfall of the haves at the hands of the have-nots. Thus, those more blessed on this Earth not only have a moral responsibility to take care of those less fortunate (which allows people to say, "Okay, I choose not to be morally responsible, so screw 'em!"), but it is actually in their own broader interest to do so. Every human system put into practice has flaws, but I see the flaws of Marx as deficiencies of theory (and thus condemned to fail from the start) while the flaws of Smith are deficiencies of practice (and thus improvable). I have no doubt I'll catch things coming back my way in response, so I look forward to what folks think on the matter. Cheers,Brian

----- Original Message -----

From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:57:12 -0800 (PST)

Whoa, you're blowing my mind with the Hegelian reference, but loving it! Just toreply briefly, I believe there is always an opportunity and a willingness to cometogether, but it is dependent on whether the people who are in control or the peoplewho represent us have true leaders and statesmen among them to open those doors ofopportunity. But, truly, I just don't see the conservative movement (at least thecurrent version of it) as exhibiting a willingness to share ideas, wealth, or power,and I don't mean just in the political sense. As long as we always think inUs-vs.-Them terms, whether domestically or internationally, the door will stayclosed. I know that is cliche, but it is the simplest way to put it.But in the philosophical sense, I think Hegel and Marx is still right on abouthistorical determinism and the engine of political struggle, especially given thatthe world is now full-on capitalist again; I wouldn't say doomed, but the world is acontentious place because the ones that have the power will always seek to controlit by whatever means necessary, and the ones that do not have power will always seekto take it away or destroy it, even little by little. This struggle will always beUs-vs.-Them. That is my ultimate view of human nature.
--------------------

From: brian_menard@hotmail
Subject: Opportunity to come together?
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:45:38 -0500

"(...wouldn't that just seriously piss off their patriarchal society?) and tell them where they can stick it in the sand."

Intentionally or not, I think Michael has opened a door to collaboration that has often frustrated and confounded me about why it seems always to stay closed. To be stereotypical, liberals like to complain about all that is wrong/unfair/unjust that must be made right, and conservatives like to complain about why others can't just do things OUR way. Liberals think conservatives have no problem criticizing folks around the world, while hypocritically being apologists for insufficiencies at home; conservatives think liberals have no problem criticizing us at home, while hypocritically giving a pass to regimes around the world that do things far worse than what we live with here.

My question: Is there sufficient willingness for both sides to listen more than they talk and to prioritize action in those areas of agreement over politicizing areas of contention, or are we doomed to swing back and forth between periods of control by one side or the other as the Hegelian force of History shall determine?
--------------------

From:"Michael Busick"
Subject:RE: News Media Bias?
Date:Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:34:36 -0800

Given that the Bush administration has been getting away with much worse than what Clinton tried to get away on the Lewinsky scandal -- when it comes to media attention and scrutiny -- I honestly don't see how the media can be left-leaning. I also believe the only reason why the media isn't trying harder to "get the goods" on the Bush administration is that the Bushies have denied media access to anyone who consistently criticizes them. Therefore, no reporter wants to get "Dowded" so they've been keeping their mouth shut -- and guys like Jeff Gannon (real name Jeff Guckert -- and seriously, shouldn't a reporter be arrested for not providing a real name in order to get access to the White House press room?) from "Talon News" get free rein to lob softball questions. There's no logical reason why a waged military conflict based on lies isn't at least as big a story as an extramarital affair in the White House. I figure the buzz after that Yahoo article which counted the number of Bushie lies that led up to the invasion -- and continued through the occupation of -- Iraq (counting over 900 and still climbing) lasted about three days before the American public moved on (or back) to Britney Spears' and Lindsay Lohan's latest travails. Also, the media consolidation during the last 5-10 years hasn't been favoring the left because the mega-media companies gobbling up stations (like Clear Channel) are right-leaning. I blame Congress for this Iraq mess as much as I blame the media -- which is also as much as I blame the American people for not doing more to protest it. It seems to me that if our enemy hates our freedoms, we shouldn't continue to try to take them away -- while claiming to win said battle against the enemy. If they don't like our freedoms, then hey, let's start with legalized gay marriage, legalized marijuana use, universal health care, and equal rights for women (wouldn't that just seriously piss off their patriarchal society?) and tell them where they can stick it in the sand. :)

Freedom of Speech vs. National Security

[Following was in reply to my 2000 election story, but of course, spawned a different topic. -yhk]


From: Brian Menard
Sent: Mon, January 21, 2008 11:29:09 AM
Subject: Re: Young's (Not So) Excellent Adventure in 2000 Election - Re: Real Intolerance

I think the best way for me to respond to the thrust of this is to put it into context by parroting the position of Henry J. Abraham, one of the few non-lawyers in modern times to be on a short list for the  Supreme Court.  Abraham's academic career was built on the idea that the process of resolving constitutional arguments is an exercise in line-drawing.  There are two extremes to every right - totally unrestricted and totally negated - and the wide array of points in between these extremes.  Governments, and in particular the courts, must draw lines that establish how the concepts of particular rights manifest in actual practice.  For example, we can say we support the freedom of speech, but does that freedom mean always and everywhere, or are there circumstances in which we limit things.  The SC says that we DO limit that right, with one of the earliest limitations being the "clear and present danger" test (e.g., you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater).  Other lines the SC has drawn on the speech question deal with conduct, profanity, immediacy, pornography (with the infamous, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" quote), student speech in schools, and more.  From the collection of previous e-mails, it seems none of us argues that the freedom of speech is unlimited.  So the question really is what lines do we each advocate drawing.  In the world of constitutional law, such lines - at least in theory - are supposed to be applied evenly and consistently, which can be a challenge.  The same line-drawing exercise applies to the other rights guaranteed to us, including the Fourth Amendment rights that seem cogent to this discussion.

As for Olbermann's view, no I don't agree at all.  Do I advocate surrendering individual rights blindly and completely in the name of security from external threats?  Absolutely not, for dangers to our freedom can be either foreign or domestic.  Nor am I wholly comfortable with all that has been done in the wake of 9-11.  However, when putting this potential threat side-by-side with what our enemies profess (and have demonstrated) they would do without hesitation if given the chance, I'll take the former over the latter any time.

BRM

----- Original Message -----

From: b.adamson@comcast.net

Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 8:52 PM

Subject: Re: Young's (Not So) Excellent Adventure in 2000 Election - Re: Real Intolerance

Wow, I did not know, or remember any of that-Very tough situation, working for intolerant people, or an intolerant company.  I think, in the case of your example, the word 'intolerant' may not be adequate enough to describe how difficult and unfortunate that situation must have been-I am sorry.  It is interesting how radical we might appear to one-another until we know where the other is coming from.

As far as sending an email in reply to Intolerance and the First Amendment, I have a lot to say about this-but, I don't know where to begin?  It's a hard thing to talk about, kind of like our Seattle diatribe, or my lame defense of American Imperialism.  It was meant, in a spirit of dialog and I must confess, I was pulling chains or pushing buttons a little bit...But, it's hard to have a discussion about things that are not morally sound but may be wise in a prudent, or 'real Politik way.  For example, I  wanted to point out that, some of our best presidents have advanced agendas of imperialism and even dictatorship.  I did not, however, want to be known as the "imperialist pig" (sorry, Young, no offense-I know you were just kidding) who was defending and probably deep down agreed with some elements of American hegemony or imperialistic policy.  So, it's hard to talk about these things without offending people.  And it's hard to talk about some things without appearing to be an advocate of those things.  In other words, is it possible to defend war, imperialism, or in this case the sacrifice of our freedoms for security and safety, without appearing to be a proponent of these difficult and unpopular views?

Thus, I believe that you might have been trying to ignite a discussion about the military commissions act.  I think that you wanted to begin a discussion on our loss of personal freedoms and make connections between certain political philosophies and the loss of those freedoms?

Certainly, the first amendment protects our freedoms, the very freedoms in fact that, the military commission act suspends or revokes "during a time of national emergency or war." 

So, what freedoms have we lost and why have we lost them?  I believe that we could identify many of these points rather quickly.  Also, however, I think that you (Young) would like to examine why we have sacrificed those freedoms in an attempt to allow our government to keep us more safe and secure?

Of course, we all know the 'Catch-22'- As Olbermann more aptly summarized it, "The Military Commissions Act has sacrificed our freedoms to a government more dangerous to our own liberty than the enemy, it claims to protect us from."

My question is two-fold.  Do we all agree with the above preceding statement?  And are there any circumstances that we could imagine, that would require a suspension of individual freedom and liberties?  Bush argues, that the time is now.  Is now the time?  Has there ever been a time when the military commission act was necessary?  Further, Bush has argued that the military commission act has saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks-If this is correct, is Bush, right?

B

Young's (Not So) Excellent Adventure in 2000 Election - Re: Real Intolerance

From: Michael Busick

Sent: Sun, January 20, 2008 6:41:27 PM
Subject: RE: Young's (Not So) Excellent Adventure in 2000 Election - Re: Real Intolerance

Young, if only you had set that e-mail to send to "Liberals Only", none of that would've happened. :)

---

From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:31:10 -0500

Young:  Yep, putting aside the corporate policy faux paux, it seems like familiar territory in the reaction department and subsequent concern about standing in the organization.

----- Original Message -----

From: Young H. Kim

Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 6:40 PM

Subject: Young's (Not So) Excellent Adventure in 2000 Election - Re: Real Intolerance

At the risk of revisiting a topic that is beyond stale, I would like to share my experience at work during the 2000 presidential election.  Not sure if I shared this with any of you, so pardon me if I'm repeating.

I was barely a year into my new job as a Software Test Engineer at a company called Metapath Software International (MSI) in the heart of downtown Bellevue.  I happened across an article in the New Yorker about how the Gore/Bush matchup has turned into a mere personality contest ("I can imagine having a beer with Bush, but not Gore.").

 In my naivete and poor judgment of workplace email policy, I forwarded, no, spammed this article company-wide to the offices in the US.  I invite you to imagine the reaction I received.  Here's the link to an abstract of the article as The New Yorker does not have the full article online, but you'll get the idea:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2000/11/06/2000_11_06_037_TNY_LIBRY_000022012?printable=true

Pretty harmless, wouldn't you say? ;-) I mean, in hindsight, it's truer now than it was then.  Naturally, I received some but few email in favor and in agreement with my political leanings.  And there were brutal, personal attacks against me personally and intellectually.  So I know, BRM, when you talked about the fear of losing your job for voicing your political opinion, especially when one of the most

vocal criticism came from the Senior VP in charge of the engineering division, who is from and works in Richardson, TX, a suburb of Dallas--sort of a "Don't mess with Texas!" attitude.  I am still looking for the email and the replies I saved somewhere.

Suffice to say, I received negative reaction in the following vein:

1) Don't fill my inbox with your biased political crap.

2) Cease and desist from such abuse of company mail lists.

3) The New Yorker is a rag whose objectivity is more than questionable. (YHK: It was obviously an op-ed piece.)

4) Send your liberal pablum somewhere else. (YHK: Morton Downey, Jr. popularized the word "pablum".)

5) Yet another example of bleeding-heart, knee-jerk, elitist liberal position.  Get better informed about the information you're spreading around.

Fortunately, I only got a slap on the wrist from my manager and director afterward, "Young, you know better than that.  But I trust that this will never happen again."  Needless to say, I learned a big lesson about using intra-company email.  In any case, at the time, I just couldn't believe that a man like Dubya actually had a shot against a much more qualified Al Gore.  I still believe that Gore would be the Dem nominee this year if he chose to run.

------------------

Couple of quotes that are popular among Dems about the Bush Years:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."  -Benjamin Franklin

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."  -H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

"They Thought They Were Free" - Milgram Experiment - Re: Human Nature?

From: Michael Busick
Subject: RE: "They Thought They Were Free" - Milgram Experiment - Re: Human Nature?
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:42:35 -0800

Well, sure, but it works otherwise, right? :)

---

From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: "They Thought They Were Free" - Milgram Experiment - Re: Human Nature?
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:41:44 -0500

One problem with your "Minutemen" allusion: our movement against the oppression of England started home-grown. Theirs, by virtue of the descriptor "insurgent", started as a turf-grabbing effort of ideological foreigners from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. to take over Iraq in the wake of Saddam's removal and establish a new base since Afghanistan wasn't hospitable anymore.

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael Busick
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:04 PM
Subject: RE: "They Thought They Were Free" - Milgram Experiment - Re: Human Nature?

I wish more people would view the Iraqi insurgents as "Minutemen". The nation is trying to become independent from a monarch/tyrant, after all. It might put this whole mess into a different perspective. :)

Of course, not all of the insurgents are home-grown -- and the weapons being used are a lot more advanced -- so this situation is a wee bit different. :)

---

From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: "They Thought They Were Free" - Milgram Experiment - Re: Human Nature?
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:47:52 -0500

It's ironic, isn't it, that we have trouble with guerrilla conflicts, given that we invented guerrilla tactics in the 1770s?

----- Original Message -----

From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: "They Thought They Were Free" - Milgram Experiment - Re: Human Nature?

Yes, I believe all four of us are in agreement regarding more civic involvement.
The real trick is in discussing what separates us. We agree to a point, yet, we
probably do not agree on further military action, or course of action to fight
terrorism. This al-Qaeda brand of terrorism is guerrilla warfare on a global scale
with the kamikaze suicide element thrown in. US will most assuredly be victorious
vs. a warring state, but our record vs. guerrilla warfare is not at all encouraging.
This conflict we're embroiled in is more similar to the Northern Ireland conflict
that made UK suffer for all those years. And what was the ultimate solution to
that? Bringing all sides to negotiate w/o demonizing or villifying any one party.
Same could be said for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I'm not saying that we should legitimize al-Qaeda right now, but there are
diplomatic channels that can put pressure on al-Qaeda as an organization and limit
their recruitment vehicles. Demonizing Iran certainly is not what I mean.

BRM, in my previous email, I was not trying to slam you or anyone about the Iraq
War. I was just pointing out my observation of general partisan response from GOP supporters. I understand that you don't entirely support the Dubya admin actions in Iraq. I will, however, question any statement that comes across to me as needing some elaboration. I, too, immensely appreciate the time everyone is putting in to keep our conversation going. Thank you all!

--- Brian Menard wrote:

"'Who watches the Watchers?' The answer can be found by looking at a mirror..."

Agreed! I've been waiting for an opportunity to throw in one of my favorite
quotes from The Federalist. In Federalist #1, Hamilton (writing as "Publius")
says that the new Constitution is an experiment to test whether people actually
can govern themselves through reflection and choice or whether we are forever
doomed to be ruled by accident and force. Our governing system presupposes (and necessitates) involvement by the people. The power of sovereignty allotted to the people exists whether we claim it or not. If we do, that power is held in check
by us. If we do not, that power does not disappear, it merely gets claimed by
brokers happy to pick up and use to their advantage what we choose not to claim
because its responsibility is too onerous. This is one topic about which I am
passionate. That's why I've been involved in politics and governmetn most of my
life. That's why I started a civic education organization in the mid-90s. That's
why I became a government teacher. That's why I participate in e-mail exchanges
with others who care about the condition of our government even if we disagree
over how to care about it. Kudos to you for asking the question, and to all of us
for doing our part in answering it in our own ways!

----- Original Message -----
From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:20 AM
Subject: "They Thought They Were Free" - Milgram Experiment - Re: Human Nature?

Yes, of course, I believe we agree that there is evil. How we define evil may
be where we disagree, but if I may steer this thread to a slightly different
direction...The experiment you're referring to, BGA, is the Milgram Experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
(Not so much that I "rely" on Wikipedia, but it is a great source for quick
overview and as a starting point for further research. Footnote: Peter Gabriel has a
song on album "So" called "We Do What We're Told (Miligram's 37)", since only three out of 40 participants defied the experimenter in one variation of the test.) This experiment definitely grew out of the questions regarding Nazi Germany. Given the Iraq War and many examples in US history where we have hurt other nations or peoples more than we helped them, I feel that all Americans are no different than the Milgram subjects who not only did not refuse to continue with the experiment but did not ask about the release or the condition of the "person" supposedly receiving the shocks.

Americans feel or should feel safe about living here daily. However, we are all
complicit in the suffering and the deaths of the Iraqi people that have occurred
since the invasion. Same can be said for the plight of the Afghan people.
Political incorrectness alert, the tragedy of 9/11 does not even compare to the
deaths and injuries caused by the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. "We do what
we're told" whether directly or indirectly. America is very good at turning a blind
eye.  To be frank, I have no idea what freedoms or liberties I have lost since 9/11;
I'd argue that you'd be hard pressed to name examples that has affected you directly to the point where you say to yourself, "I am outraged! I need to do something about this now!" And it is in this sense that our nation is not that far from the early phases of Nazi Germany.

In deference to "They Thought They Were Free", America came for American
Indians, Blacks, Chinese, Japanese, Communists, Socialists, Gays and now Terrorists and radical Muslims. Attack against liberals have been happening for a while, so pardon me if I sound contentious and off-putting. To follow the now-defunct Fairness Doctrine, the conservatives and evangelicals also feel that they are under attack.  Perhaps this tension is what kept America from swinging too far to one side or the other. Hallelujah for the First Amendment!

Through it all America has marched on, so our country now continues in marking
out "enemies" in the broadest sense possible. The danger is already here; we need
to decide not whether to speak up but rather how loudly we need to speak. "Who
watches the Watchers?" The answer can be found by looking at a mirror...

--- Brian Menard wrote:

Two thoughts. First, to discuss evil it seems to me that we first have to
acknowledge that there is evil, which requires an absolute statement. Second,
another reading suggestion would be to hit some Cato and Cicero, who wrote as
the Roman Republic fell into disarray amid internal cult of personality conflicts
and then fell apart. Might be interesting to compare with current doom-and-gloom
predictions for the U.S. 

----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Adamson
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 4:08 PM
Subject: Human Nature?

It's Japanese 'soap' day. Eriko has the computer, so I'll make this short.
I sent the link about 'Nazi Germany' for the same reasons that you found it
interesting (Young). I've even read portions of the article to relatives
aloud over the phone, powerful stuff. It is a profound article because it makes
you think about human nature and about the nature of evil. It makes you think
about yourself. Would I recognize evil and would I respond to evil? Profound
questions? Not easily answerable, but worth debating. Remember that Hitler
was powerful because of what he was able to get others to do, because of
fear, ignorance, or whatever...In other words, he didn't physically kill millions,
he ordered their destruction, and others acted on those orders. Why?

Interesting why people feel compelled to follow orders, or to do nothing in
the face of things that are wrong.

You're right, the article is not just about Nazi Germany. Rather, the
article is one that should be read over and over again and reflected upon. How can good people be brought to do the bidding of evil people, and how can we recognize evil? Further, if we do recognize evil, are we likely to respond to it?
Fascinating questions and not easily answerable?

I thought about this a lot in the army. Most people there, will do whatever
they are told, because that is their job. The average soldier does not seem
to believe that questioning an order, be it an immoral or evil order or what
not, is within their job title. I remember being briefed about torture and the
Geneva conventions. Our drill sergeant left the class to the end of the day
and kept the information to a minimum. He said something like, "I'm supposed to
brief you about what the Geneva conventions dictate we do, or not do in war,
and all that crap...Like you're not supposed to kill someone while they're
trying to surrender. But, men-when the time comes you'll know what to do (he winked and laughed). Was I then surprised when I heard about torture at Gitmo? Hec, no!  Thoughts?

Also, although many soldiers went to church and were very religious and also
decent people; religion did not always combat this tendency toward obedience
toward authority.

Does anyone remember the famous 'shock experiment' where people would follow the orders of a perceived authority, even when they thought that it might cause intense pain, or worse?

I think that when someone does something moral, in the heat of war or
combat, or intense fear-it is the exception to the rule and not the typical response.
When at war, we tend to dehumanize the enemy. Shakespeare, described that rare 'goodness' that can be found in man under duress, as a "quality of mercy."
I hope that "quality of mercy" is growing and not declining in American
society. Nevertheless, our growing appetite for reality television, infotainment, sex,
drugs, and violence to name a few things on the internet and television-make me
wonder where we are going as a society?  Have we lost the ability to relate with
one-another and to sympathize/empathize with other humans hardship and pain? 
And, are we becoming a society that has lost its quality of mercy (empathy) and
are heading toward an ever increasing degree of barbarism?

B.
--
"...remember the past
but do not dwell there,
    face the future
where all our hopes stand."
          -Israel Kamakawiwo'ole