Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Laughing and Crying with Thomas Friedman
I often laugh and cry at the absurdities of Thomas Friedman, the New York Times' arch-liberal columnist that we love to hate. Recently Tom wrote that he sometimes both laughs and cries too, as he did at an Onion satire that had Rudy Giuliani running for "president of 9/11." But Tom's anti-Rudy passion turned him serious and inspired him to actually write something really intelligent:
"Since 9/11, we've become "The United States of Fighting Terrorism." ... Our government has been exporting fear, not hope." Tom even confessed that he bears some of the blame for our plunge ever deeper into fear: "Our reaction to 9/11 -- mine included -- has knocked America completely out of balance ... We don't need another president of 9/11. We need a president for 9/12 ... who will unite us around a common purpose, not a common enemy."
Coming after a string of thoughtful environmentalist columns, this piece made me wonder if Tom had really converted to the party of common sense. So I was prepared to laugh along with him yesterday at his own satire, cleverly explaining why the Republicans resist Democrat David Obey's plan for a special tax to fund the war in Iraq: Republicans know that the tooth fairy pays for wars. She borrows the money from China and leaves it under Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's pillow. And what a big pillow it is!
I was still chuckling as I read further on that Obey doesn't really expect his tax plan to become law. He's offering it as a piece of political theater, to dramatize the point that the American people don't want to pay for this war. They want the war to end.
But my laughter turned to tears, and my hope for Tom's political soul faded, as he returned to his usual neo-liberal form. The war in Iraq is just a sideshow, he sternly reminded us. "The struggle against radical Islam is the fight of our generation. We all need to pitch in."
Tom, is this how you think we'll "get things right again" and "unite around a common purpose, not a common enemy"? Don't you see that your "struggle against radical Islam" is just as much a theatrical production as Bush's war or Obey's tax proposal? The only difference is that Obey's script can inspire a small ray of hope, just as your "president for 9/12" column did.
But when you fall back to mouthing the old platitudes of the "global war on terrorism," you are just mounting another horror show. Or perhaps it's a classic Western, where the guys in the white hats have to keep shooting until all the black hats bite the dust. Did you forget that just a week ago you told us so eloquently why these kinds of shows are really bad for us all?
(By the way Tom, since words are the only tools you have for earning a living, you ought to be careful with them. There is indeed "radical Islam," which wants to transform the roots of Islam to lead it in more progressive directions. But that's not the enemy you want us to fight. Your villain is "reactionary Islam," the kind that wants to pretend the challenges of modernity have never happened. For dramatic purposes, though, you can just call it "bad Islam." The audience will get the point. )
Friedman's vacillating words matter because he is perhaps the most widely read and (pardon me while I choke) best respected foreign policy pundit in the nation. More importantly, he's a bellwether of the (pardon me while I choke again) more liberal wing of the Democratic elite.
If a Democrat becomes president in '09, he or she will get advice from a broad spectrum of foreign policy advisors. Some will be liberal hawks, of the kind Tony Judt condemned on the same page as Friedman's "fight of our generation" warning. The hawks will urge the president to show America's toughness at every turn. The only buffer against their muscular policy will be the more "moderate" liberals of the Friedman and Judt variety.
What policies will these "moderates" urge? They'll surely continue to live by Friedman's famous motto: "The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell-Douglas." They may just advise brandishing that fist a bit less often.
Judt illustrates the point when he argues that the hawks who cheered us on in Iraq have done untold harm because, after a miserably failed war, "United States military intervention in urgent cases will be much harder to justify and explain in future." Apparently that's a shame.
Judt's example of an "urgent case" is Kosovo in 1998, where "there was a demonstrable and immediate threat to rights and lives." The threat that upset him came from Serbs responding to the violence of U.S. - backed Albanians. Judt does not say whether there was any urgency after the Albanians took over and ethnically cleansed the Serbs, while the U.S. conveniently looked the other way.
Judt does inform us that "war should always be the last resort," though the source he cites to endorse this view is a curious one: Britain's fierce war leader, Winston Churchill, who would have made the ideal 9/11 president. Judt agrees with Churchill that there really are bad guys out there who understand only the fist. But he leaves us to grapple on our own with the question of when a case is so urgent that the U.S. should brandish that selectively-hidden fist.
With advisors like these on the left hand to balance the hawks on the right, a Democratic president is likely to be another 9/11 president, staging yet another production of the GWOT Show, talking much about common purpose but still uniting us around a common enemy, talking much about hope but still exporting fear.
There is still a glimmer of real hope, though. If Tom Friedman could see the light, even on just one day, and explain so clearly the need for a radically new direction for U.S. policy and political culture, perhaps he will see that light again, and again. Perhaps others in the liberal foreign policy elite will begin to see that light too. Tony Judt surely understands the point, even if he's not ready to fully endorse it.
That's a good enough reason to vote for the Democratic candidate for president, whomever it is. The lesser of two evils is still lesser. It's also a good enough reason to keep pressuring the Dems everywhere and every way we can to read, re-read, and ponder deeply Friedman's confession. Since 9/11 he, and all of them, have been following Bush and Cheney down the road of fear and despair. Republicans are incapable of taking the other road. Perhaps Democrats can at least catch a glimpse of it.
Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin. chernus@colorado.edu
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
46 Comments so far
Show AllFrom Jack London's IRON HEEL: "You have forgotten the editors. They draw their salaries for the policy they maintain. Their policy is to print nothing that is a vital menace to the established. The Bishop's utterance was a violent assault upon the established morality. It was heresy. They led him from the platform to prevent him from uttering more heresy. The newspapers will purge his heresy in the oblivion of silence. The press of the United States? It is a parasitic growth that battens on the capitalist class. Its function is to serve the established by moulding public opinion, and right well it serves it."
Good luck America.
Hoa binh
Incredible quote namvet67. Thank-you.
A consideration i think is that when IRON HEEL was published (1908) there was no internet. Communications these days can be orders of magnitude faster and this could make things worse or it could offer hope. Personally, i'm not sure it could get much worse, so i think it offers hope.
Also quote from the article above: "the lesser of two evils is still lesser" - you have got to be kidding me aren't you? If not, are you saying that we can do no better than evil? I think not.
Peace,
Ken Hausle
Professor Chernus I read all of your pieces because you seem to have balance and tolerance. This is one of your best.
However, I have to agree with Ken Hausle. I see no "lesser" of two evils in the apparent "choice" being shoved down our throats.
if guilliani gets the republican nod to run for president then you will see the 9/11 issue front and center the whole way through to voting day.
he knew what was happening that day.
he was on the inside.
he knew that the towers 1 and 2 were coming down - he told peter jennings on abc - though he denies it now.
say what you want mr snake man but the video is on youtube.
he knew building 7 - home of the nyc emergency bunker - was coming down, that's why he left.
he walked around exuding confidence because he knew the "attack" was over and there was no danger.
you can run you little bastard but you will not hide.
no one has made more money off of 9/11 than guilliani.
he has become so rich that he thinks himself appropriate for the presidency - true he is a heartless and uncaring lizard but a president that does not make.
we, the 9/11 truth movement, will also take him to task for encouraging people to return to their homes and businesses immediately after the bombings, knowing full well the health risks posed by the toxic dust that covered manhattan and several other boroughs of nyc.
in doing so, he killed thousands more new yorkers - though their deaths will be slow and painful from breathing related diseases and cancers.
his candidacy will bring 9/11 into the light and finally, the curtain will be drawn back.
burn in hell guilliani!
"Arch-liberal"? Thomas Friedman, "arch-liberal"???
'Lesser of two evils' does not work on me, and should not work on you.
We are talking about electing REPRESENTATIVES, not executioners. I don't want the 'lesser' of anything, whenever you vote for the 'lesser' of anything you end up with nothing but 'lesser' representation. Oh, and LESS representation, but that's the same thing just made more explicit.
"The lesser of two evils is still lesser."
This one caught my eye too. My equation is: Lessor of two evils = evil. I will never, ever vote for evil. Period.
Vote Kucinich in the primaries. If you can't vote for a Dim, just don't vote for a Repug front runner. Maybe Huckabee? In the actual election? I don't have a clue. But it won't be for evil.
P.S. I believe that Hillary is a war monger and evil.
There is a battle against Islam, but it isn't in Iraq. It's in Europe, where Muslim activists and delegates of the Organization of the Islamic Conference are demanding that western democracies pass blasphemy laws to punish people for making fun of Muhammad (the warlord and polygamist). It's in American public bathrooms (built with our tax money) where Muslims are demanding footwashing stations for prayer. It's in American factories, where Muslims demand special prayer breaks. In the name of "tolerance" and "sensitivity" they demand society restructure itself to accommodate their religion, rather than vice versa.
militantliberal:
That's nothing different than the christians in this country demand and very often get. You're just used to that, so you recognize it less. If you're not christian, it becomes a lot more obvious.
Nothing short of the full eviction of religion --all religion, my religion, our religion, every religion-- from the public square and the complete pushback of it into private space can allow full and equal rights for all.
Personally, I'm more concerned with what our vaunted Senators are doing in "American public bathrooms (built with our tax money)" than with what Muslims want to do in there.
I'm also scratching my head over the designation "arch-liberal", unless an "arch-liberal" is the same as a "militantliberal"-- which I take to be a contraction of "military anti-liberal".
And I'm sorry to find Professor Chernus throwing a sop to Lesser-Evilism. Lesser-Evilism is the belief that one can carefully raise the lid of Pandora's Box, feel around with eyes closed, and pull Hope out from under the pile without disturbing the Greater Evils. The thing pulled out always turns out to be something less than Hope, but the self-confirming perverse ideal of Lesser-Evilism is always content with its method and result, and thinks to choose more effectively next time... ad infinitum.
kitty_tc writes:
Nothing short of the full eviction of religion –all religion, my religion, our religion, every religion– from the public square and the complete pushback of it into private space can allow full and equal rights for all.
-----------
well said kity.
reading list item:
"god is not great" by the deeply flawed but brilliant christopher hitchens
""Arch-liberal"? Thomas Friedman, "arch-liberal"???"
My thought exactly!
"What policies will these "moderates" urge? They'll surely continue to live by Friedman's famous motto: "The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell-Douglas." They may just advise brandishing that fist a bit less often"
This is probably the most honest thing that the dwarf-who-married-into-money Friedman has ever typed.
The fist is never hidden from those who are hit by it, of course; generally Tiny Tom has been one of those paid to help hide it.
Militantliberal, why do the majority of american food products bear a mark certifying that they're kosher?
http://www.ok.org/Content.asp?ID=2
Generally it's only the whitepower volks who get upset over this.
The European governments have a self-created problem, in two phases: first, by enticing workers from the former colonies to come to their countries; second, by passing laws criminalizing the no-gas-chambers crowd. But they are far more committed to the principle of secularity than Americans are, and it's only the gutter press internationally which is trying to make the very small Muslim minority in Europe -- in the vicinity of 4-6% of a population of 425 MILLION -- into an apocalyptic threat.
Friedman liberal? News flash: He doesn't need words to make a living. He (and his wife's inheritance) is one of the wealthiest men in the country. Keep that in mind as you read his columns.
OK. I've been waiting for an opening, and some previous posters provided it, so here goes. Not exactly on-topic - sorry Scott.
God Words
Talking about God is probably the easiest thing for humans to do. Because God is the summation of everything we do not know, anyone, at any time in any place can expound upon God, and because no rebuttals come forth from the void, the most foolish stupidity of man can be attributed to the unfathomable but all-powerful will of God
When someone mentions God in public everyone else stops and listens, knowing through long experience that the ideas the speaker will attach to that word are likely to be their most closely held beliefs. Even enemies pause to consider their opponents' words concerning God, for even if in the end they are denounced, they are at least considered because, after all, it is the unknown. We all fundamentally and instinctively agree that God is what we wish upon the unknown.
God has the answer for all that we don't understand. What happens when I die? God knows. Is there a meaning or purpose to my life – of all of human life? God knows. How can humanity, our existence, be so full of beauty and love and at the same time seethe with so much ugliness and hatred? God knows.
But God is not telling. God cannot say, because God is the embodiment of all our ignorance. God is an idea that men, in fear and in hope, have carried through all of civilization into the present day. If answers to any of the above questions were revealed they would cease to be the purview of God, because God is the great unknown.
The world hasn't witnessed a living species that doesn't strive to continue living. Just as we carry our fear forward, we project our hopes into the future. To be alive is good, and to be alive and happy even better. Some individuals – humans mostly – do choose to cease living, usually when fear overwhelms hope. Families of whales beach themselves for reasons that seem unclear, but those acts are probably attempts to escape unbearable environmental aggravations, a dysfunctional act of survival.
A rogue and an iconoclast, I am often a fool. Once, standing on a treeless hilltop as an angry-looking storm gathered, I looked to the sky and shouted loudly "COME ON, HIT ME IF YOU'RE ABLE!" Cursing, the guys working with me scattered down the hill as fast as their feet could carry them and as far from me as they could get, and I pointed and laughed as they fled. But I didn't wait around too long - I know the statistics and didn't want to become a modern day parable for televangelists. And as I quietly followed them down the hill I did look over my shoulder more than once, wondering if a stern gaze might be considering me. Such are widely held modern beliefs nurtured on traditional visualizations.
Of course my associates did not like having their fear so suddenly and urgently exposed, and I suspect they later wished that my challenge to the roiling clouds had been affirmatively answered. I felt like a fool for causing the embarrassing situation and straining whatever friendship we shared. I took for granted this fear we all know, and should have stopped to consider.
We are young compared to the universe, the solar system, and to the earth. In a macro view, just as on a micro scale, adolescence has given us the appearance of maturity without the guiding wisdom of age. God is just and merciful. God is all-powerful and incomprehensible. God is strict and vengeful. God will smite the wicked and reward the pure. God is love and forgiveness. God is… well, you fill in the blank, and your hopes or your fears, or both, will determine your conclusion.
We may never pierce the veil of death with our conscience minds and we may never know if the appearance of our species in this world had an intrinsic purpose, or if our spontaneous endeavors have fashioned any plausible purpose. In the absence of such fundamental certainty we should all carefully consider whether we wish God to be the champion of our hopes, or to remain the shadow of our fears. For, in the end, this choice is what we will project into the unknown future.
Justaman
I don't quite get what Chernus has against the Judt piece. It seems fairly sane to me, given the NYTimes' context of insanity.
Certainly we all hope for big changes. And change could come quickly with modern communication, but in only 12 or 13 months, I don't think so. With humans and politics the lesser of evils is a given. Let's not get so idealistic that we allow the worst case to win.
Zoya--Chernus is right to knock Judt for supporting the NATO bombardment of Serbia. On the other hand, Judt is not in the same category as Friedman. Friedman was a big supporter of the Iraq invasion. Judt certainly was not. Judt has also written that Americans could learn something from Mearsheimer and Walt, not the sort of thing any of the NYT regulars will ever say. I have little hope that advisors to a future Democratic president will be as sane as Judt.
As for our friends above, the Democrats are, in important ways, the lesser evil. Not on foreign policy--in some ways, they may be worse. But Democrats won't appoint people chosen by industry to be the regulators of industry. Democrats won't constantly attempt to turn back the clock on abortion, gay rights, and environmentalism. On these issues,there are differences.
Greg R - why not in 12 or 13 months???? Honestly, why not?
And listen - the lesser of evil way of thinking is starting to bump into ecological collapse for humanity. This pending collapse calls for some serious thinking such as that in Vince Lawrence's post. The probabilities are such that "business as usual" ought no longer even be considered an option. Therefore, the democrats who in all ways seem to be advocating continued "business as usual" just with them calling the shots are not really any less evil. In fact, they may be worse. I'm not sure evil can even be differentiated. Evil is evil.
I want something better.
Ken Hausle
Charlotte, NC
We should remember that Tom is of the "privileged class by birth/and or marriage. He is remaining true to to his paymasters.
Meanwhile, the fear-mongering campaign aginst the "others" is picking up steam.
Ira Chernus: But my laughter turned to tears, and my hope for Tom's political soul faded, as he returned to his usual neo-liberal form. The war in Iraq is just a sideshow, he sternly reminded us. "The struggle against radical Islam is the fight of our generation. We all need to pitch in."
I wonder if some people think that the struggle against radical Christianity is the fight of their generation.
My god can kick your god's ass and I'm willing to destroy the earth to prove it.
Let us by all means keep on killing in the name of God. I'm sure it pleases Him greatly.
And, Vince Lawrence wrote: God is… well, you fill in the blank, and your hopes or your fears, or both, will determine your conclusion.
Fill in the blank? How about NONEXISTENT ?
kent shaw: that would be my put, but I realize that is not where most of humanity resides. Oh well.
I might suggest here reading Ken Wilbur's "A Theory Of Everything." I almost threw it into the garbage can for the first few chapters, but I persevered, and I am still consdidering the dillema(sp?) that he postulates.
Thomas Friedman is not a liberal. He is an establishment imperialist who thinks up cute little titles, as does Maurine Dowd, that lack real substance. Consider his diatribe againist Hugo Chávez called :Filler up with dictators. A truly pathetic article where his recommendations were to stop supporting petroleum exporting countries by putting a tax on gasoline. What a lame, and tgotally impossible, scheme. If Friedman really does have influence with anyone, the U.S. is forever lost. The claim that the NYT is a liberal newspaper is an absurdity. I refer you to the book, The Record of the Paper about the NYT ideological slant. The Times, by the way, refused to review the book. Typical of establishment imperialists.
If you become a top politician or an influential journalist in America, you'll be able to have power over other people's lives, have thousands of them killed, hundreds of thousands of children (as in Iraq) - and nothing will happen to you! In fact, if you do support the killing, your party will put on expensive fund raisers with big name guests in attendance, just for you. You'll get American voters to put up signs in their yards advertising for you, even though they know you're a killer, they like you because you're at the top. They have ways of blocking out the nasty stuff you do. For example, they might say you are the "lessor of two evils," but, how do they know? Are they counting the bodies?
An ordinary black man can be executed just for being in the neighborhood when a killing takes place or driving the car a killer rode in. No campaign contributions for him.
What does he mean - arch-liberal? Does he mean arch-neo-liberal (if there is such a thing)?
Ken Hausle-We all want something better-alot better, but turning American politics, habits, complacency in one year aint gonna happen. All we mules can do is keep kickin in our stalls, talking big change, working for little changes, and hope others are smart enough to not wait too long.
Wall Street is the fulcrum of the world economy........
He who controls Wall Street controls the world
Much of the money earmarked for 'the war' gets funneled back into Wall Street, mostly to retire massive debts incurred after the dot-com bubble, and then this beyond-bizarre housing fiasco..... it is THE answer to "WHY ARE THE DEMOCRATS BACKING EVERYTHING BUSH WANTS?".....the year 2013 is the best estimate at how long it will take to purge this housing bubble debt, along with the derivatives that foisted it...from the system. This war is costing twelve times what Vietnam cost and yet this war is only using one-twelfth the munitions etc... The Dems signed off on all the fiscal machinations that got us into this and are unavoidable complicit.......it all adds up....as unbelievably ugly as it is......it all adds up.
Dichterfreund wrote: Militantliberal, why do the majority of american food products bear a mark certifying that they're kosher?
That's interesting. I didn't know that. But so far as I know it doesn't inconvenience anyone and it's not being paid for with tax dollars.
tc_kitty wrote: That's nothing different than the christians in this country demand and very often get. You're just used to that, so you recognize it less. If you're not christian, it becomes a lot more obvious.
Perhaps, but I'm not prepared to cancel everyone's Christmas vacations. Even atheists celebrate that. But if you're offended by 10 Commandments monuments in courthouses and nativity scenes on government property, consider that religious-specific government accommodations for Muslims will make them easier.
Little Brother wrote: I'm also scratching my head over the designation "arch-liberal", unless an "arch-liberal" is the same as a "militantliberal"– which I take to be a contraction of "military anti-liberal".
Now, now, ad hominem attacks are an evasion not a reasoned refutation. Why would a liberal detest Islam? Let's see...death penalty for consensual sex outside marriage, legal and social subordination of women and non-Muslims, suppression of free expression, jihad, clerical courts with the power to impose fines, imprisonment or death, heritage of imperialism and ethnic cleansing(like the West but with less firepower). Whatever galls you about the Judeo-Christian tradition is also in Islam while its high points aren't. This stuff isn't just in the Quran and the Hadith, they're applying it right now. Islam has had no Enlightenment. Our fundamentalists want to stop gays from marrying, theirs stop them from breathing. Check out this new story on the arrest of an accused witch in our friend and ally Saudi Arabia: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iwujRNiby1JA5eW_lvtEAIA0klrw. Your petro-dollars at work. Of course, none of this is a reason to invade Islamic countries, slaughter their peoples or steal their oil (let alone gutting our Constitution), but it is a reason to resist bringing Western countries into compliance with Islamic law.
As for Mr. Chernus, I don't agree we should vote Democratic in 2008 unless the Congress gets us out of Iraq. Otherwise I'm voting Green.
militantliberal: my thinking runs in the same vein as yours, but I believe the veneer of religion is just that - a veneer. The West has, at every turn, repressed and exploited the people of the Gulf region for oil of course (I even suspect that some intellectual think-tankers of the early 20th century purposely set up "Iraq" to fail in this time period, realizing as they did that America had already pumped our lifeblood out of our soil - largely to defend our allies in Europe during WWI & II.) ((reference David Howard Davis, "Energy Politics"))
The keepers of the spiritual realm in Iran and other devoutly "Islamic" countries realize that they won't be able to keep'em down on the farm once they've seen the big city. They connot let let the "decadent" West gain a foothold on the populace or the game is over. That already happened under the reign of the Shah, which is why that country seems such a puzzle to us in our comfortable complacency. Are the Mullahs spiritual leaders or nationalists, or cultural gate-keepers?
I've been reading more of Friedman's stuff ever since he went on NPR to basically absolve himself of his part in cheerleading for the Iraq war.
There's nothing liberal about Friedman, nothing at all. He's as uncaring and coldhearted and lie-ridden and incapable of shame as Rush Limbaugh.
When will we come to hold business accountable for the millions that live in poverty, the millions without healthcare, the millions without educational opportunity, the millions living in sub-standard housing or without housing at all?
When will we come to hold business accountable for the sour environment?
When will we come to hold business accountable?
But what if "the best choice" for the next President never even gets offered "on a ballot near you"? For the past several elections I have had the unfortunate task of deciding to (1) either not vote for anyone (because the choices I WANTED on the ballot weren't there) - or (2) vote for the "lesser of two evils" because I wanted my vote to at least try to avoid awarding our Country's highest office to a really bad choice vs. a really lousy choice. I would LOVE to be able to vote on a ticket of - let's say for example - Dennis Kucinich vs. Ron Paul. However, at least in MY state of residence, I doubt I will ever get the chance to vote for either of these two contenders because some OTHER state (or two) will determine who all the rest of the states get to vote for because of our cockamamie primary election system. So, I am gearing myself up to more than likely have to stare at ANOTHER crucial Presidential ballot that will probably look something like Hillary Clinton vs. Rudi Giuliani...
I am afraid that until we somehow develop a true multi-party system (i.e. choices other than just a Democrat vs. Republican candidate - and, typically, a truly lame Libertarian candidate) we will be forced into having to constantly "choose the lesser of two evils".
I'm also scratching my head over the designation "arch-liberal"...
You shouldn't be.
Around the world, "liberal", or more often "neoliberal", means a supporter or rapacious lazzez-faire capitalism, which is Tom Friedman to a "T". For example, the Australian party closest to the US Republican party is called the "Liberal Party".
Vince Lawrence October 8th, 2007 1:32 pm wrote:
"Professor Chernus I read all of your pieces because you seem to have balance and tolerance. This is one of your best.
However, I have to agree with Ken Hausle. I see no 'lesser' of two evils in the apparent "choice" being shoved down our throats."
Right, and if I remember correctly, before the 2004 election Norman Solomon, of all people, admonished us to vote Democratic, and it was a lesser of two evils type argument again if memory serves.
Here we go again. As much as I respect Chernus and Solomon - the answer is no. Don;t we all understand by now the dangers of settling?
JG Miller
Greg R - 13 months from now is November 2008.
How About this Headline: US Citizens Show "Who is Boss" and Elect ???????? (put whatever name you want here, but let it not be evil in any way - there are some better choices they just aren't the current choices of the "establishment").
Peace,
Ken Hausle
Namvet
The IRon Heel (Jack London) is like reading the here and now.
Everyone should read it.
I think that Ayn Rand took Iron Heel and turned it on it's head with "Atlas Shrugged"...plagerism of the worst sort.
I like your writings.
vince, coudn't agree more. people need somewhere to turn because they do not want to face up to their mortality. it's fear, and some cannot deal with that. personally, for me, when it's over, it's over. i'm o.k. with that. i'm an old guy, and i realised at an early age that we are on our own. it makes things a lot less complicated, and it gives one the freedom of mind to deal with the here and now. it's all we have. enjoy, and make the most of it. all the best to you. terry
The profound failure of American politics about which the astute Prof. Chernus writes was spelled out at length by the equally profound Anatol Lieven at www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/28/opinion/edlieven.php.
It's worth your time!
Since GWOT has multiplied America's 'enemies' and homeland security isn't really up to much (borders holier than Archangel Gabriels's backside) the US is definitely going to have a change from a '9/11 president, but to 'insert-date-here calamity' president.
And won't the elite be happy about it.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. My vote is for Kucinich. I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don't want and get it.
Let's face it: Tom Friedman (or, as I call him, Tommy Freedom) is a bought off Neo-Con political writer and AIPAC apologist. He may sound sensible now and then, but he always comes back to his Neo-Con point of view. He is definitely a Godfather in the Jewish Mafia!
Eye of the Abyss - Incredible article that you posted. Many have seen this coming. The question now is do we have the will to do anything about it???
Peace is what we need.
Peace,
Ken Hausle
militant liberal
To others here: sorry for the off-topic rant:
I am an atheist, and I do not celebrate Christmas. It is a terrific inconvenience. (Ever try to buy a card for someone whose birthday is in December/early January? Slim pickings, as the shelves are filled with Christmas cards. And if you want to wrap a present for him/her, that's worse).
Let's not forget the annoyance of the constant intrusion of Christmas music (and advertising) inflicted on us around the clock, on radio and television, in nearly every public place, and often on the street as well, where it is unavoidable by any means other than staying at home (with the tv and radio off).
Also annoying are co-workers, who try to drag everyone into their excesses, from 'secret Santa' to office parties.
If you need to get something done - business of any kind, emergency plumbing or emergency dentistry included - you're really up the creek. And if you want to mail anything anywhere, it will take a lot longer because of the clog of Christmas garbage in the system.
Then, it's a day and a half that the supermarket is closed, which is particularly difficult for someone like me: both absent-minded and of unsteady health.
Just one week later, we go through the inconvenience all over again for New Year's - and if they fall on week-ends, the fewer work-days in the week between make getting anything done nearly impossible.
You really think I celebrate that?!
By the way, there are several sects of Christianity whose members don't celebrate Christmas with an orgy of consumerism, in at least one sect, not even giving/receiving small gifts within their own households.
Tom Friedman is a spokesman for the Israeli agenda, which in its deepest philosophical, religious and historical depths depends for its existence on the domination and eradication of "Islamic extremism," namely their perennial neighbors and competitors in that unhappy, God-saturated part of the world. Tom's political convictions are occasionally upended by inexplicable eruptions of intelligence (he is not an idiot) but at the end of the day he is not going to pull himself up by his zionist roots.
Vince Lawrence: You're right. Your God rant is not on topic, although it is more interesting to me than a Friedman critique. We'll talk later, possibly on one of the Richard Dawkins pieces that appear here from time to time. My guess is that you are of the empirical persuasion, and that you think about God really a lot. Your assertion that God is another name for our ignorance is intended to be dismissive of the fearful and gullible peasantry who must concoct fictions for reasons of existential comfort. You're almost correct, but not quite. Your forebears just failed to pass along a mysticism gene, so it might be that daring an imaginary God to strike you dead is as far along the path to illumination as you are going to get.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FldsUGZBX_A