[Vision2020] [corrected] FW: Party of Strivers

Sun Sep 2 11:49:29 PDT 2012

Tom,

Obama would have left the troops in Iraq if he could have worked out a Status of Forces agreement that would not allow Iraq to charge our military members for committing crimes there. And we have mercenaries there, and wasn't the State deparment going to use its own drones there? Are you defending the use of drones again?

The people held at Gitmo are being charged in the sham tribunals that the Bush Administration started and that Obama has embraced. Are you seriously claiming that we are doing justice there? Slowly but surely? The whole thing is a tub of shit. 

Sunil

From: thansen at moscow.com
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 10:39:44 -0700
To: godshatter at yahoo.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [corrected] FW: Party of Strivers

Our combat troops ARE out of Iraq.

Obama's intent today is the same as it was then . . . to have our troops out of Afghanistan by 2014.

The Department of Defense has been reporting that those incarcerated at GITMO are being charged . . . one by one . . . case by case . . . ever so slowly but surely.  For example:

GITMO detainee Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed Haza al Darbi
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15544

And, although this will result in nasty icky comments thrown my direction . . .

The use of unmanned drones has proven to be extremely beneficial in gathering intelligence.

Now, about "Obama-care" versus "Romney-don't-care" . , .

Seeya round town, Moscow.
Tom HansenMoscow, Idaho "We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students.  The college students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."
- Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007) 
On Sep 2, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

Both choices were just conjecture on my part.  How do you reconcile Obama's failure to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, close Gitmo, give those incarcerated a fair trial, support the assassination-by-drone program, and all the other things we've been talking about?  Blame it on Romney?

Paul

On 09/02/2012 07:59 AM, Tom Hansen wrote:
And another question . . .

What evidence is there that President Obama "has no control over the military"?

Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho
  "We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students.  The college students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."

- Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)

On Sep 2, 2012, at 7:51 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:

How can "Obama is just like all the other politicians" or "It doesn't
matter who is President since he has no control over the military" be
a reason for NOT voting for Obama rather than some other guy? You go
into a restaurant and there are two tables. The hostess asks you if
you want to sit in table A or table B. You say: "Well table A is just
like table B, so I don't want to sit there." Makes no sense.

Of course, if both tables are equally bad you might not want to sit at
either. But in this case eventually you'll be sitting at one of the
tables. They are both the same in one respect (evil foreign policy)
but one is considerably better in another respect (one has an evil
domestic policy as well).

I don't like the fact that my presidential choices are often choosing
between the lesser of two evils but given that this one is ...
Personally, I wouldn't be comforted by not voting, by saying "I'm not
the one who elected that guy," especially given that our country is
structured such that it doesn't matter who's in charge. There is
something wrong with the US foreign policy and like it or not we're
all implicated in that wrongness in some small way for letting it get
this bad.

The big problem with our political system is that we want someone who
is perfect, no spots on their record. But no one who is an eligible
presidential candidate -- over 45 (practically speaking) and rich --
is going to be perfect. What we get are folks who look perfect because
they've been careful their whole lives to be deceptive and seem good,
and honest, and socially conscious while all the time being selfish,
and egotistical, and power hungry. A lot like divorce lawyers, so our
presidency is hardly the only part of our society where this
phenomenon exists.

On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm with Sunil on this topic.

With Obama getting no traction on getting out of either front (Iraq or
Afghanistan), with his willingness to go into Libya (at least with air
support), with his inability to get Gitmo closed down and those incarcerated
to stand a real trial, and with his willingness to run the
assassination-by-drone program, I can come up with only two possible
conclusions about Obama:

1.  Obama is just like any other politician, he jumped on the "change"
bandwagon and has turned out to be cut from the same cloth as everyone else.
He talks a good game, but has no intention of actually doing what he says.
This is my basic assumption.  It's a horrible thing, especially since I fell
for his "change" and "see, I'm not like Bush" lies.  But it's better than
this possibility:

2.  The Office of the President has for all intents and purposes lost
control of this nation's military.  Basically, those in control are so
powerful that a sitting President will bow to their will despite their
ideological differences.

Let's hope it's only the first one.

Paul

On 09/01/2012 05:59 PM, Sunil Ramalingam wrote:

Joe,

I agree with you on the first half of your argument. Given his willingness
to cave in to the Republicans (well, is it caving, or does he believe in
what he does?) as well as his willingness to put Social Security and
Medicare on the table, I don't agree with the second half of your argument.

But for me, by continuing the Bush foreign policy he forfeits my support,
meaningless as that is. I think people who are against that foreign policy
need to say "I will not vote for anyone who does this." Without that
message, the policies will continue. I don't expect better from the
Republicans on this point, but I do expect better from the guy who promised
change. I think we are fools to reward him for spitting in our faces.

And it's bigger than just the foreign policy issue. Cusack and Turley also
talk about the meaning of the decision to let the torturers walk, and the
assassination policy. The latter is an unconstitutional power grab. Bush
went to town violating the Constitution, and Obama is doing the same. Do you
think the next president will be any different? We're on the road to hell if
we don't say 'No.'

People who think the Constitution and it's balance of power and due process
are important are not supporting those values if they vote for Obama.

Sunil

Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 15:34:37 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers
From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com

My argument is more like this: Romney and Obama are the same when it
comes to foreign policy but Obama is better when it comes to the
policies within our borders. Joe

On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Sunil Ramalingam
<sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
Joe,

I understand a lot of people say that as they continue to support Obama,
and
this is ultimately their position:

'I don't care about atrocities he commits outside our borders, as long
as I
can support his policies within our borders.'

I can't go along with that any more. I'm not pretending Romney will be
any
better on foreign policy, but he can't get much worse.

Sunil

Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 14:52:54 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers
From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com

It is a tough decision. I agree with you that Obama was no better in
many respects than Bush, not wrt military involvement at least. But I
fear that if a Republican gets elected there will be a rollback of
abortion rights and other rights. Joe

On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Sunil Ramalingam
<sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
'Party loyalty is blind...and deaf and dumb...and cruel.'

I'm about half way through this interview of Jonathan Turley by John
Cusack,
looking at Obama's repugnant foreign policy:

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11264-john-cusack-and-jonathan-turley-on-obamas-constitution

A s long as we support the people implementing these policies, they
will
go
on. I'm not voting for Obama again, because of this.

Sunil

From: betsyd at turbonet.com
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:57:13 -0700
Subject: [Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers

-----Original Message-----
From: Betsy Dickow [mailto:betsyd at turbonet.com]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 10:57 AM
To: 'Joe Campbell'
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Party of Strivers

And most of the poor will be poor through not fault of their
own...how
many
people are working hard and often overtime at the University of
Idaho
and
not making ends meet...many many many. And here it's no different
from
the
Wall Street corporate model...administrators win big and everyone
else
is
a
peon, working for peanuts.
This is democracy? No, this is the will of a few billionaires and
the
Republican Party...Get your head out of the sand and stop thinking
in
terms
of party loyalty.
Party loyalty is blind...and deaf and dumb...and cruel.

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Joe Campbell
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 10:46 AM
To: lfalen
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Party of Strivers

How is Ayn Rand's philosophy basically correct? Do you think the
poor
are
lazy? Do you disagree that some people have a bad lot and without
some
kind
of outside assistance, they are unlikely to realize the American
dream?
If
so, then Rand is just plain wrong. Tweaking her view to allow for
compassion
is in this case equivalent to rejecting her view. That is what
separates
Rand's philosophy from the kind of view that Brooks is suggesting.
Brooks'
offers a much better, more realistic take on humanity, as I see it.
Joe

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:18 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
wrote:
I am not a big fan of David Brooks, but this is not a bad article.
I
like
Rice also. I have some problems with Ayn Rand. Her philosophy is
basicly
correct, but it need s to be tempered by some compassion, which she
seems
to
lack.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: Art Deco art.deco.studios at gmail.com
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 03:51:28 -0700
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Party of Strivers

[image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>

<http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=ww

w.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn

1=34aeaaa2/80e4ddbc&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787508c_nyt5&ad

=BOSW_120x60_June13_NoText&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ec
om%2Fbeastsofthesouthernwild>

------------------------------
August 30, 2012
Party of Strivers By DAVID

BROOKS<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/c
olumnists/davidbrooks/index.html>

America was built by materialistic and sometimes superficial
strivers. It was built by pioneers who voluntarily subjected
themselves to stone-age conditions on the frontier fired by
dreams
of
riches. It was built by immigrants who crammed themselves into
hellish tenements because they thought it would lead, for their
children, to big houses, big cars and big lives.

America has always been defined by this ferocious commercial
energy,
this zealotry for self-transformation, which leads its citizens
to
vacation less, work longer, consume more and invent more.

Many Americans, and many foreign observers, are ambivalent about
or
offended by this driving material ambition. Read "The Great
Gatsby."
Read D.H. Lawrence on Benjamin Franklin.

But today's Republican Party unabashedly celebrates this ambition
and
definition of success. Speaker after speaker at the convention in
Tampa, Fla., celebrated the striver, who started small, struggled
hard, looked within and became wealthy. Speaker after speaker
argued
that this ideal of success is under assault by Democrats who look
down on strivers, who undermine self-reliance with government
dependency, who smother ambition under regulations.

Republicans promised to get government out of the way. Reduce the
burden of debt. Offer Americans an open field and a fair chance
to
let their ambition run.

If you believe, as I do, that American institutions are hitting a
creaky middle age, then you have a lot of time for this argument.
If
you believe that there has been a hardening of the national
arteries
caused by a labyrinthine tax code, an unsustainable Medicare
program
and a suicidal addiction to deficits, then you appreciate this
streamlining agenda, even if you don't buy into the whole Ayn
Rand-influenced gospel of wealth.
On the one hand, you see the Republicans taking the initiative,
offering rejuvenating reform. On the other hand, you see an
exhausted
Democratic Party, which says: We don't have an agenda, but we
really
don't like theirs. Given these options, the choice is pretty
clear.

But there is a flaw in the vision the Republicans offered in
Tampa.
It is contained in its rampant hyperindividualism. Speaker after
speaker celebrated the solitary and heroic individual. There was
almost no talk of community and compassionate conservatism. There
was
certainly no conservatism as Edmund Burke understood it, in which
individuals are embedded in webs of customs, traditions, habits
and
governing institutions.
Today's Republicans strongly believe that individuals determine
their
own fates. In a Pew Research Center

poll<http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/partisan-polarization-sur
ges-in-bush-obama-years/>, for example, 57 percent of Republicans
believe people are poor because they don't work hard. Only 28
percent
believe people are poor because of circumstances beyond their
control. These Republicans believe that if only government gets
out
of the way, then people's innate qualities will enable them to
flourish.

But there's a problem. I see what the G.O.P. is offering the
engineering major from Purdue or the business major from Arizona
State. The party is offering skilled people the freedom to run
their
race. I don't see what the party is offering the waitress with
two
kids, or the warehouse worker whose wages have stagnated for a
decade, or the factory worker whose skills are now obsolete.

The fact is our destinies are shaped by social forces much more
than
the current G.O.P. is willing to admit. The skills that enable
people
to flourish are not innate but constructed by circumstances.

Government does not always undermine initiative. Some government
programs, like the G.I. Bill, inflame ambition. Others depress
it.
What matters is not whether a program is public or private but
its
effect
on character.
Today's Republicans, who see every government program as a step
on
the road to serfdom, are often blind to that. They celebrate the
race
to success but don't know how to give everyone access to that
race.

The wisest speech departed from the prevailing story line. It was
delivered by Condoleezza Rice. It echoed an older, less
libertarian
conservatism, which harkens back to Washington, Tocqueville and
Lincoln. The powerful words in her speech were not "I" and "me" -
the
heroic individual They were "we" and "us" - citizens who emerge
out
of and exist as participants in a great national project.

Rice celebrated material striving but also larger national goals
-
the long national struggle to extend benefits and mobilize all
human
potential. She subtly emphasized how our individual destinies are
dependent upon the social fabric and upon public institutions
like
schools, just laws and our mission in the world. She put less
emphasis on commerce and more on citizenship.

Today's Republican Party may be able to perform useful tasks with
its
current hyperindividualistic mentality. But its commercial soul
is
too narrow. It won't be a worthy governing party until it treads
the
course Lincoln trod: starting with individual ambition but
ascending
to a larger vision and creating a national environment that
arouses
ambition and nurtures success.

--
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
======================================================= 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120902/7447f739/attachment-0001.html>