quick link for the day

Haven't forgotten about my promised thoughts on my "republican manifesto" ideas lol... still have some refining to do.

In the mean time... i am not a Huffington Post afficionado to say the least, but it happens to have both text and the video version of Obama's Cairo speech.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/obama-speech-in-cairo-vid_n_211215.html

There has been fair amount of quibbling of course, especially from the right... but all in all... i thought this was a dang good speech. Kudos to the speechwriters ;)... i'll try to respond to this as well, hopefully this weekend.

quick follow up - the Specter Aftermath

Side note - Specter is switching. Of course some in the GOP are arguing "good riddance"; i even read comments somehow arguing that the GOP was more excited about having "30 principled senators" than to have members like Specter. I am much more inclined to agree with Olympia Snowe, a senator who i have increasingly grown to respect over the past several years: (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/opinion/29snowe.html - This is a fantastic Op-Ed by the senator and definitely worth reading...). I think one of the key statements she makes in the op-ed was the following:

There is no plausible scenario under which Republicans can grow into a majority while shrinking our ideological confines and continuing to retract into a regional party. Ideological purity is not the ticket back to the promised land of governing majorities — indeed, it was when we began to emphasize social issues to the detriment of some of our basic tenets as a party that we encountered an electoral backlash.

Again... this is not a time for the Republicans to push further right! Its not as if the voting trends around the nation show an eagerness for Republicans to move further right -- states are, in the words of some analysts, turning purple as they move from red to blue - not at all the other way. Again i say, if the GOP wants to stop the bleeding they have to remove the "bunker" mentality and instead get out in the field. America doesn't need more Limbaugh; it doesn't need more Reagan memorial bumper stickers; or accusations of "socialism." What we need is a real debate over the biggest issues; where we can debate the merits of the direction our foreign policy is headed rather than whether Obama "should" have "bowed" to a foreign dignitary; where we can debate our country's fiscal future without ignoring that under the watch of the Republican majority, and a Republican president, our national debt soared. Rather than making worn-out speeches about " the free market" and offering up vague alternatives - what if Republicans could devise actual, detailed working solutions to our nation's fiscal woes? what if more than 3 senators decided to actually come to the discussion table and attempted to provide balance to the majority rather than "toeing the party line" and sitting on the outside like children being benched at a soccer game for misbehaving?


This does not have to signal the end. Rather, i believe wholeheartedly that this is an opportunity for Republicans to not only "re-brand" the party, but even more so to rebuild the party.

UPDATE: hahaha... so i have been writing these thoughts on and off over the past week, and ironically apparently the "rebranding" has begun - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/02/AR2009050202082.html ; http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/03/cantor-weve-got-a-lot-to-learn-from-obama/;

I'll have to provide some thoughts on this later...

at long last. a post.

So i haven't posted on this blog since Jan. - since the inauguration. Ironically i think this post will more or less coincide with the end of the media-hyped "first 100 days" of the Obama administration. He's had a fairly measured past three months - not too many spectacular highs - or lows. In short, he has performed as I have expected - even-handed, unafraid to use his post-election momentum to push his key domestic agenda items, and careful not to either lose his base, nor bow to the often unrealistic demands of the congressional Democratic leadership (esp. in the House).
To me the "story" of these past 100 days - and really, leading up to '08 election, is actually about the Republican party. It has been a journey that has been alternately fascinating and horrifying, watching the once dominant majority struggle with its new place on the political and cultural scene.
Watching this struggle has reminded me of one of my quirky habits. One of my favorite ways to waste time on the internet when i'm bored is to read the press releases/comments of various entities who have clearly screwed up but are in a state of significant denial. This ranges from the crazed blogging of fans of historically bad teams, to statements by lawyers defending obvious crooks, to supporters of a candidate who has just been badly beaten in an election. I have lately added to my list uber-Conservative blogs/ press releases from Congressional Republicans. I think i had initially hoped that after the '08 election results, there would be some serious soul-searching among Republicans/conservatives which would lead to a movement to make the party more inclusive and relevant. But as life tends to work out, it was not to be.
The aftermath of the 06 and 08 elections have inspired a myriad of responses. Those with a staunch liberal leaning have proclaimed in so many words that this marks the beginning of the end of both the Republican party and "conservatism" in general, while those with a more staunch right-wing leaning have declared this to be an opportunity for the previously erstwhile party to "re-discover" itself, and rebuild upon its "base" and "core values."

Unsurprisingly, i happen to believe that neither perception is true. The more i read various blog posts and news articles, and speak to my peers, the more i have begun to realize that I am not alone in my assessment that a moderate Republican party will be a thriving Republican party.

One of the most brilliant tactics by the Democrats has been to associate talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity with the Republican leadership; a mantle that both gentleman have gleefully seized upon. While both of these man have their fair share of supporters and devoted followers, they absolutely should not be seen as "leading" the Republican Party (read this great article that sums up my frustrations nicely, at least in regards to Rush: http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279).

Neither men has any desire for compromise or discussion with those holding opposing views; they consistently refuse to acknowledge past mistakes and errors; they are infatuated with a nearly mythical past ( All Hail "Reagan Conservatism," thank you Hannity); and they paint complex issues with overly broad strokes (how many times have you seen the word "socialism" thrown out in reference to anything coming out of Washington D.C. these days???). You know what? That is their job. That is how they gain followers, and spark controversies. They can say what they will about whatever b.s. mission they have -- the truth of the matter is that both Limbaugh and Hannity live and die ultimately by ratings. And that is absolutely fine. However, these are NOT the leaders that the Republican Party needs. There has been far too much "ratings" catering by the Party - empty soundbites, vapid populist "anger" -- and no answers. No viable alternatives. It is one thing to lobby fire and brimstone at the "socialists" in D.C. - its quite another to provide a realistic blueprint for a nation to follow. It doesn't take a veteran political strategist to realize that this blueprint is going to have to represent honest and real change from the tired storylines currently being shopped around by the GOP. My next few posts are going to be my ramblings on what i think the "next steps" should incorporate....

declaration of conscience (we need more politicians with this type of thoughtfulness)

Ok so on my previous post i mentioned my displeasure with the unhealthy political polarization of our current era.... and on even earlier posts i listed my fears for where the Republican party was heading.... Lo and behold, during my daily blog check i stumbled upon a post where someone presented a copy of the "Declaration of Conscience" given by Margaret Chase Smith, a Republican (!!) senator from Maine during the height of the McCarthy Paranoia. I'm going to re-post it here because it is incredibly pertinent for today:

For Release Upon Delivery
Statement of Senator Margaret Chase Smith
June 1, 1950

"Mr. President:

I would like to speak briefly and simply about a serious national condition. It is a national feeling of fear and frustration that could result in national suicide and the end of everything that we Americans hold dear. It is a condition that comes from the lack of effective leadership in either the Legislative Branch or the Executive Branch of our Government.

That leadership is so lacking that serious and responsible proposals are being made that national advisory commissions be appointed to provide such critically needed leadership.

I speak as briefly as possible because too much harm has already been done with irresponsible words of bitterness and selfish political opportunism. I speak as simply as possible because the issue is too great to be obscured by eloquence. I speak simply and briefly in the hope that my words will be taken to heart.

I speak as a Republican, I speak as a woman. I speak as a United States Senator. I speak as an American.

The United States Senate has long enjoyed worldwide respect as the greatest deliberative body in the world. But recently that deliberative character has too often been debased to the level of a forum of hate and character assassination sheltered by the shield of congressional immunity.

It is ironical that we Senators can in debate in the Senate directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to any American, who is not a Senator, any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming an American -- and without that non-Senator American having any legal redress against us -- yet if we say the same thing in the Senate about our colleagues we can be stopped on the grounds of being out of order.

It is strange that we can verbally attack anyone else without restraint and with full protection and yet we hold ourselves above the same type of criticism here on the Senate Floor. Surely the United States Senate is big enough to take self-criticism and self-appraisal. Surely we should be able to take the same kind of character attacks that we dish out to outsiders.

I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its members to do some soul searching -- for us to weigh our consciences -- on the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America -- on the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.

I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. I think that it is high time that we remembered; that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.

Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.

Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism --

The right to criticize;

The right to hold unpopular beliefs;

The right to protest;

The right of independent thought.

The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know some one who holds unpopular beliefs. Who of us doesn't? Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own. Otherwise thought control would have set in.

The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as "Communists" or "Fascists" by their opponents. Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America. It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others. The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed. But there have been enough proved cases to cause nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.

As a Republican, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the Republican Party faces a challenge today that is not unlike the challenge that it faced back in Lincoln's day. The Republican Party so successfully met that challenge that it emerged from the Civil War as the champion of a united nation -- in addition to being a Party that unrelentingly fought loose spending and loose programs.

Today our country is being psychologically divided by the confusion and the suspicions that are bred in the United States Senate to spread like cancerous tentacles of "know nothing, suspect everything" attitudes. Today we have a Democratic Administration that has developed a mania for loose spending and loose programs. History is repeating itself -- and the Republican Party again has the opportunity to emerge as the champion of unity and prudence.

The record of the present Democratic Administration has provided us with sufficient campaign issues without the necessity of resorting to political smears. America is rapidly losing its position as leader of the world simply because the Democratic Administration has pitifully failed to provide effective leadership.

The Democratic Administration has completely confused the American people by its daily contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances -- that show the people that our Democratic Administration has no idea of where it is going.

The Democratic Administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia through key officials of the Democratic Administration. There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges.

Surely these are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that it is time for a change and that a Republican victory is necessary to the security of this country. Surely it is clear that this nation will continue to suffer as long as it is governed by the present ineffective Democratic Administration.

Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or intellectual honesty would prove equally disastrous to this nation. The nation sorely needs a Republican victory. But I don't want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny -- Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry and Smear.

I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I don't believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest. Surely we Republicans aren't that desperate for victory.

I don't want to see the Republican Party win that way. While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people. Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one party system.

As members of the Minority Party, we do not have the primary authority to formulate the policy of our Government. But we do have the responsibility of rendering constructive criticism, of clarifying issues, of allaying fears by acting as responsible citizens.

As a woman, I wonder how the mothers, wives, sisters and daughters feel about the way in which members of their families have been politically mangled in Senate debate -- and I use the word 'debate' advisedly.

As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for irresponsible sensationalism. I am not proud of the reckless abandon in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle. I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges that have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.

I don't like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity. I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the Floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the Floor of the Senate.

As an American, I am shocked at the way Republicans and Democrats alike are playing directly into the Communist design of "confuse, divide and conquer." As an American, I don't want a Democratic Administration "white wash" or "cover up" any more than I want a Republican smear or witch hunt.

As an American, I condemn a Republican "Fascist" just as much as I condemn a Democrat "Communist." I condemn a Democrat "fascist" just as much as I condemn a Republican "Communist." They are equally dangerous to you and me and to our country. As an American, I want to see our nation recapture the strength and unity it once had when we fought the enemy instead of ourselves.

It is with these thoughts I have drafted what I call a "Declaration of Conscience." I am gratified that Senator Tobey, Senator Aiken, Senator Morse, Senator Ives, Senator Thye and Senator Hendrickson, have concurred in that declaration and have authorized me to announce their concurrence."

(from http://www.mcslibrary.org/program/library/declaration.htm)

the obligatory inauguration post

a new day has arrived for our country with the inauguration of Barack Obama. My conservative friends have tended to bemoan and belittle the occasion, while my more left-leaning compatriots have been barely able to contain their glee. My own thoughts are of course somewhat more nuanced (big shock there right?). I explained these feelings about the event in a message to one of my old professors - i'm pasting a copy of it here, with some edits/additional thoughts:

To describe the onset of the new administration as a "relief" from the seemingly continual disaster of the past seven years (W gets a pass in 2001) would perhaps be a gross understatement. From W's foreign policy colossal mistakes, to his domestic blunders, to his enabling of one of the most poisonous partisan eras in recent memory... there's nothing i wanted more than for Jan. 20th to finally arrive.
I'm not going to sit here and pretend that every single negative event since after 2001 should somehow be attributed to our 43rd president. To lay the blame at his feet for every catastrophe, every failure, would be naive at best, and misguidedly hateful at worse. "W" inherited an increasingly troubled world... the specter of terrorism in a way that our country has never known, the inevitable bursting of the technology-fueled bubble, a complicated international scene.... and in many ways mishandled opportunity after opportunity. Honestly though, two of the biggest problems i had with the previous administration involved perception, for lack of a better word.
(1) His handling of international affairs was embarrassing on the whole. His administration, with few exceptions, seemed incapable of understanding the nuances of being a superpower in a world that has grown markedly less hegemonic. Gone were the days of the world being carved into two by the US and the Soviet Union. Gone also were the days where the US sat alone at the top, with the capital (economically, militarily and politically) to have its way in the world arena. The rise of China, the growing economic power of the EU, and the return to political significance of un-democratic regimes such as Iran all represented an international system that was entirely different than one that many of Bush's policy advisers had lived their lives in. And they blew their opportunity to make a positive lasting impact in this 21st century world. If the U.S. was a corporation, our "international image" would be about to equal to that of Enron's right now.

(2) His administration's continued refusal to handle the "war on terrorism" with accountability, openness, and a willingness to make changes sparked an incredibly deep partisan rift in our nation that will take years to repair. I'm not at all attempting to condemn partisanship in itself but rather the level of intolerance, irrationality, and antagonism that marked the partisanship of the past eight years. His acceptance speech and inaugural speech after the divisive 2000 election proclaimed the age both of "compassionate conservatism" and bipartisanship. Eight years later, i think its fair to state that neither was achieved by the Bush administration. I've written previously about the former failure; the latter failure is less esoteric but still very real. Try having a conversation with someone who has a different political opinion than you these days. I venture to guess 80-90% of the time that conversation will get tense and antagonistic - regardless of who started it. I honestly believe that the Bush "doctrines" and policies directly impacted the severe polarization of our society, and more than anyone, he had failed to live up to his potential to set a tone that would allow for dialogue and conversation rather than accusations and denials.

So having cleared the air some about my feelings on the past... what of the future? some of my friends have been surprised that i haven't seemed to really celebrate the coming of our 44th president, or grasp the incredible historical significance of what has happened.

This is not at all true. I simply have chosen to remain "cautiously hopeful" (this blog would not be complete without some poetic political paradox right?)...
The inauguration was indeed awe-inspiring, even for someone as "post-racial" (haha) as me, to see something that honestly i didn't expect to happen before i hit my mid-life crisis... a biracial son of an African immigrant has ascended to the most powerful position in our country. I dont know if i can even begin to accurately depict the significance of that...

But that said.... I still think moderation is very much called for. If i am ironic about the rise of Obama at times - it is my "quiet" way of showing that my excitement is still tempered by reality. I understand that Obama has an unbelievable level of popularity, his party in power, and an adoring media at hand. I respect and admire him-- in many ways if i were to ever act on my little political ambitions i would follow his blueprint closely. BUT he shouldn't get a free pass either; he's not above being judged when its necessary, and many of the Obama fans have exhibited a rather scary level of fanaticism over what he's capable of doing, and ignoring any missteps. i'm excited, but i'm tempering it because, simply put, he hasn't actually achieved anything yet as President (this is not a knock on him by any means, i simply am trying to say that i'm not going to be creating any marble busts until after he actually begins making decisions as a president). How many times have we seen politicians on the rise, with such promise, who can never quite deliver? Call me cynical, but i want to be able to judge our new President on his merits and achievements when they happen, and not simply because "he's not bush" or because he ran a phenomenal campaign. In his own words:

"In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom."

And i think thats the root of any "tempered" emotions that i might exhibit-- i am excited about this man's potential. And am excited about the fruition in some ways of the Civil Rights struggles that have been going on for decades and longer. But i'm not going to be bestowing any mantles of "greatness" on him until he does indeed earn it as President.

friday morning hits

quick hits for the day:

yesterday supreme court struck D.C. ban on handguns.... here's the actual decision....
-- Obama's response is um...er...interesting...

Also, here is a summary of semi-important people's reaction to the decision....

and just to mix things up a bit... i'll throw a little global warming/climate change news in ...No, i haven't started drinking the Al Gore Kool-Aid ... but this isn't something we should scoff at either...

FYI...

p.s. i moved my Proust Questionnaire responses to my other blog ... trying to keep them organized ;-)... it seemed more fitting for that one, since its more of an off-topic site....

pouting in a corner...

a quickie ...
apparently Dr. Dobson, who if you aren't aware, is apparently the Official Spokesperson for all that is right and true, is pissed off at Obama...
man its a good thing that Dobson is urging people to vote for McCain as an alternative then, right?
oh wait. Forgot that he is apparently too saintly to vote this year.
Great strategy though... "his" Republican candidate(s) didn't get nominated, so he decides to question the "religiosity" of McCain while simultaneously condemning Obama...that way, no matter who wins, Mr. Dobson can sit back and tell his listeners "I told you so."
Great civics lesson for you young people too... despite what your parents tell you, whining and pouting when you don't get your way, is apparently the "courageous" thing to do.
I'm not arguing against whether Dobson's comments against Obama were well-founded or not... both men made valid points, and i need a whole new post to sort that out. However, his political/civic irresponsiblity is absolutely despicable. This is easily one of THE most important, most politically and socially signficant elections that we have had in america since at least the 1980 election. There is so much at stake, ranging from the War in Iraq, to appointments in the Supreme Court, to healthcare policy to strategies dealing with the impending energy crisis, to immigration, to same-sex marriage, to foreign relations with Iran and Syria and N. Korea.
You want an election to NOT vote in? Try in 1996, Dole vs. Clinton. But 2008? Ridiculous. There is too much at stake, and yet Dr. Dobson is using his position of influence as a rallying cry for Christians to further become simply a sub-culture on the American Scene. Not vote for the President? Give me a break.
Congratulations Mr. Dobson, for proving yet again that the Founders were so incredibly wise to put in checks and balances creating a separation of church and state to protect BOTH institutions from each other.
This genuinely ticks me off....

an uneasy truce....

so there is a truce set in Gaza .... i wish i could say that this really could be the start of something significant on the peace front....
but i doubt it.

an interesting corollary to this article is this story that i found...

sometime soon i shall type up a full fledged middle-east post...

Men's Studies 101

So a very good friend of mine sent me this link to enjoy...http://men.msn.com/articlees.aspx?cp-documentid=7542349&GT1=32001

... and of course my all-too-often-over-analytical-brain decided to write a quick post about what i foresee to be a potentially bigger "philosophical" issue behind this mostly light-hearted list...
I took one women's studies class as an undergrad (stop laughing!), entitled "Women & Politics." We covered the political implications, the history, and the many different elements of modern feminism. As tempting as it would be to spend lots of time blogging about THAT class... i think what i took away the most was essentially one question: What about the men?
Now i realize that there have been plenty of jokes about having "men's studies classes"... but in all seriousness - i do believe that perhaps one of the most overlooked consequences or side effects of the incredible progress of the women's rights movement has been an ever expanding identity crisis for men. Its interesting to watch just how incredibly different the perception of what men should be, and what it means to be "a man" have changed over the last three to four generations (Baby Boomers to GenX to Generation Y). Before i go any further, i want to clarify that i am not at all suggesting that the women's rights movement of the 20th century wasn't on the whole long overdue, and incredibly necessary; on the contrary, the secondary status that women had in American society and the strict gender roles that were assigned to them are inexcusable. What I am getting at is as society has moved on past these old roles for women, the natural consequence is that we've also had to move on past the old roles for men as well... and i honestly believe that has left a very significant vacuum in the male search for identity and understanding what it means to "be a man."
I see firsthand - from my own father to others his age, to my coworkers, to my peers, to the kids who are growing up with my little siblings -- that so many of us guys no longer no "how to act." We have a society that on the one hand is constantly telling guys that they need to tone down their testosterone, to be gentler, more mild...and at the very same time is criticizing men for not taking charge, not stepping up to take on more responsibilities, for not being aggressive when it counts. i come from a generation that was raised to understand that women were more than sex objects, more than superficial beauty and appearances - and yet i feel that this same generation, perhaps more than any of our predecessors, is constantly bombarded and obsessed with image, unrealistic standards of "beauty", and unabashed sexual objectification in every advertisement, every pop song, every billboard. To say that guys today are sent mixed messages is clearly an understatement.
So getting back to the list... i like the concept. The idea that there are certain accomplishments, certain traits or qualities to be attained or developed that will truly enhance me not only as an individual but as a man. And the fact that i can take similar ideas and pass them along to the young men that i will influence - be it my siblings, or future children, or any young person i have the privilege of interacting with. I think i take this especially to heart as a young black man. Now those of you who know me even just decently well know that i am never one to 'play the race card.' But i think the facts are undeniable -- no other group is suffering more directly and more obviously from a lack of positive, strong male influence than African-Americans. Single-parent homes, with either a mom or grandmother struggling to make ends meet, are far too common. The replacement of positive male role models with either rap stars or gang members is far too tragic. Young black males need more than "lists" from Esquire -- but i think the underlying principle behind such lists represents a good start. Those of us men who have been blessed with better opportunities should be doing everything in our power to actively pass along a new set of standards, a new set of goals to a lost generation. A set of standards that acknowledges the incredible progress of the past century by honoring and respecting women as equals in the classroom, the playground, the workplace, and the home. But also a set of standards that pushes us as men to value such traits as integrity, loyalty, courage, and responsibility.
anyways.... time to climb off the soapbox....

thanks a lot, Augustine.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Politics are not the task of a Christian.
Gandhi: Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.


The underlying contradiction behind these two ideas has been bothering me ever since i first started reading Augustine in college...

I'm not always sure where i stand... i mean i tend to be more Gandhi than Bonhoeffer.... but there are times.... when the world of politics, even good politics, seems to be completely incompatible with the world of faith....

oh my head hurts...

this ain't 1980...

At long last...
so many thoughts... so little time...
--- first just some thoughts on a recent memo that some consultants sent out to Republican leadership - http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/05/22/a_republican_memo_the_deepest.html#jump

Soo...apparently the GOP is hurting from its identification with George W. Bush? No way! This reminds me in a sense of Scott McClellan's "shocking" revelations ...The Bush administration had a vested interest in pushing for the Iraq War? No way! Sarcasm aside, i think this memo represents some valid points/principles that the Republican leadership absolutely needs to hold on to. This is a party that is truly is suffering from "brand identification" issues... and while i could probably write pages of my responses to the various points made in the memo, i just want to highlight one that has continued to strike a chord with me....
"The final image problem the Republican brand is suffering is a perception fostered by the media of being intolerant. The media has assisted in helping Democrats by saying that the Republican Party is closed to moderates while Democrats are now open to conservatives such as Heath Schuler, Travis Childers, and others. This turns off swing voters who may be conservative on pocketbook or defense issues but more moderate on social issues. Another key issue to the base in which the media and Democrats have cast Republicans as intolerant to great success has been immigration reform. While this issue remains a fissure issue, Democrats have been able with the media’s assistance to paint Republicans as anti-Hispanic and against all immigration. A key message that has been missing in this argument is that the Party is against illegal immigration but for legal immigration."
This is at the very heart of my argument for the return of "Compassionate Conservatism." As one of those "swing voters" I feel that this analysis of the GOP image problem is dead-on, and could just as easily be applied to main-stream evangelical Christianity -- where its members are being increasingly cast as "intolerant" and known more for who they are against than for Whom they are supposed to be living for.
The GOP leadership needs to get over itself, and take a good hard look at what it is that the American people are NOT getting from the party. I genuinely believe that especially with my generation ("Generation Y" , the current 20-somethings, and Gen-X, the current 30-40 somethings) we are so tired of the same rants, the same fear-monging, the same blame-games.... This is not to say that the Democratic Party, or its new Figurehead (Mr. Obama) are necessarily the answers, as much to say that they have done a much better job of really attempting to connect with the issues and underlying concerns that are bugging so many of us. I am personally skeptical of Obama's campaign for "Hope" (more on that in another blog posting, i promise), but i admire the fact that atleast he has tried to tap into the general feeling among americans that we need a revitalized government, with revitalized leadership. And the Republican party as it stands doesn't even come close to offering this. I think some of the leadership realizes this, as we were pounded constantly during the primary season with worshipful calls back to "Reaganism" and a return to "True Conservatism." While the idolation of Reagan is a little ridiculous, he represented the absolute zenith of the GOP in terms of its relationship with the American voters. News flash to GOP leadership: Reagan is dead, and he's not coming back. As Conservatives, i think the inherent tendency is to constantly "look back" at the "good ole days." Well, here in the post 9/11, technology-driven, globalized society that we are living in, i think we need less longing looks in the rear view mirror...and more attention on the direction we are heading in right now, and into the future. Until the GOP can deliver a platform with a clearer vision for our present and future, it will continue to be a party associated with backwardness, defensiveness, and good ole-fashioned reactionary-ism.... and it will continue to struggle to compete for the attention and votes of our generation....

On Veterans Day

Thank you
I don’t want to be political.
Or trite.
Here’s what I want to say:

Thank you.
To every vet.
To every reserve.
To every serviceman and servicewoman on duty.
To their families.
I can’t thank you enough.

Today was Monday.

Millions of us Americans woke up this morning to yet another day.
We yawned, we drank our coffees, we groaned about yet another week of work or school.

Thank you for your incredible sacrifices so that we could work and learn freely.

So that we could go about our mundane lives and enjoy the Veterans Day sales or the federal holiday.

Thank you.

If I am lucky enough to ever have children, one of the things that I want to pass on is this gratitude.
For the vets who have protected us from some of the greatest dangers and evils history has ever known.
For those on active duty, whether stationed at home or abroad, who continue to keep us safe.
For the reserves, those who are willing to serve at a moments notice.
For the families who have let these men and women do their jobs.

I am grateful. And I want both my generation and the next to feel the same.

Happy Veterans Day.

"the future of freedom"

Part of the earlier rant deals with the sense of dissatisfaction with the current political environment which I believe is shared by many across the country. Not in an irresponsible, anarchical way, but from the fact that “the American people” are tired of the games, of the status quo, of a government (especially legislature and executive) that has continued to disappoint and underachieve.

Fareed Zakaria has a great little book titled “The Future of Freedom.” In it, he asks some very pointed questions, and in the tradition of Tocqueville, takes an open and honest look at some very “American” ideals that we take for granted w/o a second thought – democracy and liberty.

Here’s the leading question he poses, and I believe he gets close to what we are currently struggling with – both here at home, and across the globe:

“But what if liberty comes not from chaos but from some measure of order as well – not from unfettered, direct democracy but from regulated, representative democracy? What if, as in much of life, we need guides and constraints? And what if liberty is truly secure only when these guardrails are strong?”

And later he continues by qualifying – “To undertake a restoration is not to seek the return of an old order. We like the democratic changes that we have lived through and cherish their achievements. The goal is liberal democracy not as it was practiced in the nineteenth century but as it should be practiced in the twenty-first century. Democratic societies need new buffers and guides, designed for modern problems and times.”

The essential philosophical question that is both implied here and is more explicitly stated elsewhere in this book is this – can there be such a thing as “too much democracy”? I’m going to cheat and give you Zakaria’s answer – Yes.

Zakaria is NOT advocating for the end of democracy. And neither am I for that matter. But I earnestly believe in this concept of needing a restoration of balance in our political system. We need a press that is not only critical – but is discerning and responsible. We need religious organizations and groups that are actively engaged in society. We need a revitalization of both civic pride and activism – extending above and beyond corporate lobbying and wealthy neighborhoods fighting to create their own cities and counties.

These are the “buffers and guides,” in my opinion, that Zakaria is advocating for.

I’ll return to this later…

so...whatever happened to compassionate conservatism?

P.S. Props to a friend of mine for helping me think "out loud" :)

Why is helping the poor a mantra not used more by conservatives and the “religious right”?

Obama has tried to push for a more “crossover” audience – the religious… arguing that the Republicans shouldn’t have the monopoly on this particular “idea” or movement… While I could debate or discuss this point…It made me think of a related issue – why is it that “liberals”/Democrats seem to have the market on the idea of helping the poor and the disadvantaged?

For too long I think candidates have hid behind mantras like “Reaganomics” and “free market principles” and the ever popular claims of “socialist welfare” and not provided answers to the critical problems that millions of Americans face every day. Michael Moore is an idiot, and a farce, but you don’t need an overhyped “documentary” like “Sicko” to realize that all is not well in our country.

Nearly 8 years ago, George W. Bush ran a campaign with the seemingly oxymoronic slogan of “Compassionate Conservatism.”

Someone needs to bring that crap back.

Ok that sounds ridiculous.

I know.

No I have not lost my mind. And no you won’t be seeing any W Stickers on my car.

But really….think about this. There are roles society should play in helping those who need it. The key word in that phrase is of course “society” – which I purposely used rather than “government.” I’ll get back to that.

For the religious conservatives, for the evangelical Christians… If we neglect the fatherless, the widows, the destitute… we are in essence neglecting Christ himself. Don’t take my word for it – take His ( references). Our priorities are so mixed up. We spend so much energy bashing the “popular culture” and and fighting the Hillary Clintons and Michael Moores of the world. We’ve got advocacy groups and legal teams that fight the good fight on capitol hill.

Where are we on fighting the good fight for the welfare moms? For the fatherless children on the streets? For those who are struggling with alcoholism and drug addictions? For the teen parents? For the families who can’t afford even basic health care?

Our job is not to make excuses – nor is it to judge the circumstances and situations of others. It is not to set up yet another empty program – or give another empty speech.

We are called to serve.

So don’t sell me another political ad, nor do I want another Christian “leaders” anti-liberal rant on the radio or television…. Here is a radical idea want to hear from a candidate: How are you planning to truly effect change for those that need it most? How are you going to rally communities and individuals to rise up and make a difference?

A brief explanation

"It is the collision of the two, divinity and depravity, that meet ... i believe art aspires to this. when it happens it is a moment of the divine stepping into our human experience. it is our ascending. it is his descending." ~ david crowder band

this is an incredible concept, especially in the context of art... I'll explore this more later!

garden state philosophy

warning for those looking for a nice, well-crafted blog post: most of these are just scattered notes that i jotted down while re-watching Garden State the other day; at some point if i get bored enough (lol) i will get these into a coherent a lil essay perhaps..but for now, here's a few of those thoughts.
- Themes of : My generation (American Twenty-somethings, born in the 80s, raised in the 90s) suffering not from fear (1950s) or rebellion (60s) or anger (70s) or even greed (80s-90s)...instead there seems to be a prevailing culture quasi-pyschological phenomenon of what i'll call "Numbness" (see in the movie Andrew's "headaches" and his own comments about numbness) - it is this feeling of Emptiness and our attempts to satisfy these feelings that i believe will truly define my generation more than perhaps any other quality or issue; compare our use of drugs today versus 15, 20, 30 years ago -- so many of us have been prescribed (or otherwise inclined or obligated) to somehow synthesize happiness with neuropharmeucticals (think Prozak and friends) - there was even a direct reference in the movie to Huxley's Brave New World, to prove my point (more on that later)...
We hate the hypocricy of our current religious environment, and many decry the existence of God (or any higher being for that matter) - but yet it is difficult to deny that many do in fact wish that He (or Someone like Him) did exist, and somehow cared about our petty, insignificant lives (a concept that many find too fantastical or good to be true) - think about Andrew's character and his semi-religious perspective vs. Sam's agnostic-pragmatic view that "this is all we have."
our friendships are both a blessing and a curse, as we crave companionship and people who can "understand" - but are so often ultimately disappointed because our natural human flaws. (see Andrew's old friends)
we desire so much to be unique, to be different, to carve a name for ourselves - but we have a generation or two above us (our parents) who for the most part push on us little more than mediocre and "safe" ambitions and goals (the best intentions not withstanding - see in the movie Andrew's dad!)
we are misunderstood very often.
our parental relationships, which are so critical, and which deep down each one of us wishes was as good as possible - are too often dysfunctional and badly flawed. Dads are endangered species. (see Andrew's overbearing/misguided father, Sam's lack of a father altogether). Mothers are too worn out to truly be able to reach out and offer the hug that each of us, regardless of our age, occupation, or gender, truly needs sometimes.
we need hugs.
we misunderstand ourselves sometimes, and spend so much of our life confused as to what it is that we really want, where it is that we really want to go, and who exactly we should be.
in relationships, we can desire to find That person, who we can be safe with, who we can - no matter where we are- enjoy the feeling of "home" with - but we have no idea how to find that person, and mix up sexual frustration with deep-set desires for true intimacy.
there is a saying "we laugh because we cannot cry." i think for many of us, we get to a point of numbness, a point of "routine" if you will, that allows for neither laughing or crying. We desperately want a reason to do both (see Sam's comments to Andrew in the bar).
to be continued...
i'll talk about Zach Braff's analogy that love is letting someone blow their nose on your sleeve ;-).... i know, i'm a tease... :)

ambition

i want to be great.
not Great - with an impressive title, or the adoration of my peers...
but great...taking advantage of the opportunities to rise above the chronic mediocrity of my world, my society...grasping hold of the concept of leading by example, and leading by service...
during job interviews, i've been asked the question in various forms regarding what i ultimately want to do in life - what am i striving for?
i want greatness. to be able to achieve what has yet to be grasped, to make a difference in a way that has never before been done.
greatness.

Hegel once postulated that that human history has been driven by our desire for recognition; Francis Fukuyama argued that the unstoppable movement of liberal democracy was the final frontier in this regards because it provided the best means for individual recognition.....regardless of whether you buy into the "End of History" theories, the observation about our desire and need of recognition remains valid.... to me, these philosophers are inadvertently agreeing with a very basic relationship/psychology principle about human nature

"Never forget how much you are loved and admired."
"To be manifestly loved, to be openly admired are human needs as basic as breathing. Why, then, wanting them so much ourselves, do we deny them so often to others?" - both from Arthur Gordon's "A Touch of Wonder."

What a deceptively simple concept this is! And yet I'm almost embarrassed at how little I have shown affection for those closest to me over the past few years. I know in my own life the incredible value that a simple word or act of encouragement or understanding can bring.

oh leo...

two posts in one day...exciting, no? :-)...this is actually from a fantastic email exchange i had over the break, so this is a, um, recycled mini-post....:-)

...going to back to War and Peace, I think I might have found one of the most significant parts in the whole novel– near the beginning of Part Three, Tolstoy writes “Man lives consciously for himself, but is an unconscious instrument in the attainment of the historic, universal, aims of humanity. A deed done is irrevocable, and its result coinciding in time with the actions of millions of other men assumes an historic significance. The higher a man stands on the social ladder, the more people he is connected with and the more power he has over others, the more evident is the predestination and inevitability of his every action. ‘The king’s heart is in the hands of the Lord.’ A king is history’s slave. History, that is the unconscious, general, swarm-life of mankind, uses every moment of the life of kings as a tool for its own purposes.”
At first glance, I felt almost as if Tolstoy was stating the obvious – of course every thing we do has a ripple effect/chain-reaction that is much broader and deeper than might at first be evident – this is an idea that has been brought up and re-hashed for ages (e.g., the rather odd movie “The Butterfly Effect” that came out a few years ago). However, after some thought, and then reading the following Tolstoy quote (“Every act of theirs, which appears to them an act of their own will, is in an historical sense involuntary, and is related to the whole course of history and predestined from eternity.”), I realize that there is something much more profound at work in Tolstoy’s historical “philosophy,” particularly his emphasis on the role of individuals in positions of power, and the thought-provoking concept of being an “unconscious” part in a movement/process whose goal or main end is simply impossible to ascertain."

whew. this deserves a follow up too. dang it. i've already got homework assignments for my blog ;-).