Barack,
I caught some of your speech in Cairo. Well done!! It's good to hear sense come from the mouth of a politician. I loved the inclusiveness and the caring for objective truth. I'm impressed by the no nonsense way you addressed the failings of all the players in the middle east, the US included. I applaud your call for honest dialogue.
If we put aside the hatreds and grievances of the past, we can achieve a peace and understanding. If we don't then we will continue to add to them, ad infinitum. The result, death and destruction. A result only the insane could wish for.
As in life, first we must accept the reality of our situation. There is no point in railing against the injustice of circumstance, or running around apportioning blame. What is done, is done.We must move forward, with the knowledge of the past to warn us of pitfalls,because we have no other choice. Let us not continue to make the mistakes of the past.There will be enough new mistakes to keep us busy, after all, none of us really KNOW what's going on, the best we can do is the best we can do.
You have my support. Ed
Friday, June 5, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Israel
Dear Barack,
It's been awhile since I had a chance to write. I've been stranded in town by flooding of the area that I live in. Fortunately, I have not suffered any loss as a result.
I'm glad to see that you are taking a harder line with the Israelis over their treatment of the Palestinians than previous administrations have.I understand that they are the US's main ally in the region, but to ignore their inhumane policies would be to fall in the old trap that the US has been falling into for decades, namely supporting tyranny because the tyrants are "friendly" to the US.We know how those situations have turned out. If the US wants to be seen as having some sort of moral high ground, you have to try to reign in their excesses.
The Palestinians of course do not make things easy. Firing rockets into civilian areas continues to inflame the nationalistic sentiments of the more extreme of the Israelis,but we have to cut them some slack, after all they have been dispossessed of their lands and homes, and continue to be harassed and mistreated by not only the extreme Zionists, but also the government of Israel.One must also take into account the power imbalance between the two parties.
It amazes me that the Jewish people, after the treatment they had inflicted on them by the Nazis, and their constant referencing to those events, now find themselves treating the Palestinians in similar, though admittedly not as extreme, ways. I guess they are driven by a "never again shall we allow this to happen to us" attitude, which is somewhat understandable, though to then oppress another people shows no gain in empathy or understanding.They condemn the monsters of the past whilst becoming monsters themselves.
I agree that probably the only hope of peace is a " two state" solution. It's a pity that so far the Israelis have not agreed to this idea. You need to insist, perhaps even withdraw some support and aid, to help them come to a realisation that they are becoming that which they fear. It is an easy thing to do, and we are all at risk of this happening to us, but we have to find the courage and the empathy to move beyond our fears, as individuals and as nations.
Keep up the good work, Ed
It's been awhile since I had a chance to write. I've been stranded in town by flooding of the area that I live in. Fortunately, I have not suffered any loss as a result.
I'm glad to see that you are taking a harder line with the Israelis over their treatment of the Palestinians than previous administrations have.I understand that they are the US's main ally in the region, but to ignore their inhumane policies would be to fall in the old trap that the US has been falling into for decades, namely supporting tyranny because the tyrants are "friendly" to the US.We know how those situations have turned out. If the US wants to be seen as having some sort of moral high ground, you have to try to reign in their excesses.
The Palestinians of course do not make things easy. Firing rockets into civilian areas continues to inflame the nationalistic sentiments of the more extreme of the Israelis,but we have to cut them some slack, after all they have been dispossessed of their lands and homes, and continue to be harassed and mistreated by not only the extreme Zionists, but also the government of Israel.One must also take into account the power imbalance between the two parties.
It amazes me that the Jewish people, after the treatment they had inflicted on them by the Nazis, and their constant referencing to those events, now find themselves treating the Palestinians in similar, though admittedly not as extreme, ways. I guess they are driven by a "never again shall we allow this to happen to us" attitude, which is somewhat understandable, though to then oppress another people shows no gain in empathy or understanding.They condemn the monsters of the past whilst becoming monsters themselves.
I agree that probably the only hope of peace is a " two state" solution. It's a pity that so far the Israelis have not agreed to this idea. You need to insist, perhaps even withdraw some support and aid, to help them come to a realisation that they are becoming that which they fear. It is an easy thing to do, and we are all at risk of this happening to us, but we have to find the courage and the empathy to move beyond our fears, as individuals and as nations.
Keep up the good work, Ed
Friday, May 8, 2009
Afghanistan
Dear Barack,
Tonight I'm going to look at the situation in Afghanistan.
I understand the reasons why the US and others invaded Afghanistan. The Taliban seems to be a bunch of violent thugs that use Islam as an excuse to oppress the general population. We are also lead to believe that they harbour and train terrorists, Osama Bin Laden being the most famous of these psychotics. It's a pity that your predecessor felt it necessary to lie to the world about Iraq and it's non existent weapons and links to the attack on the World Trade Center, and then invade Iraq, thus taking the main thrust away from actually achieving what was the ostensible reason for all the military action.
So Osama Bin Laden has still not been found, the Taliban is now becoming stronger in Afghanistan and on the verge of destabilising Pakistan.Iraq is a mess and thousands of innocent civilians have been killed, both by the Western coalition and the internal power struggles unleashed by the removal of the original power structures. (however odious we may have found them).And our soldiers are dying for little gain.
Why have the local populations not embraced the Democracy that we have imposed on them?
Are the new leaders real democrats or just another lot of thugs taking advantage of the US's desire to have the situation appear to be democratic?
I think that the main reason that we have not won over the population is the use of air strikes on villages to kill suspected fighters. Do you think killing innocent women and children and other noncombatants wins over the people? These are tribal warriors that have codes of honour. I would imagine that these attacks look like the work of cowards and not much different in effect than what the Russians did. If you want to earn the respect of the people then you'll have to do it the hard way. Security on the ground. Only attacking fighters. Real improvement in infrastructure that the people want. And even then we are still foreign invaders. Ask yourself how Americans would feel if the Taliban invaded America "for your own good"?
The only way to achieve peace with warfare is genocide. I can't think of any invader that achieved peace in the invaded country without destruction of the indigenous culture, can you?
I know that you didn't start any of this, and you are pulling the troops out of Iraq and I hope that diplomacy will work and hold the country together. But I have my doubts. I think Saddam was all that held it together. We shall see.
I think that in Afghanistan you won't achieve peace with force. The people are the key, it's their country, they will have to make the choice to throw off the Taliban. Did we learn nothing from Vietnam, the cold war, Northern Ireland etc, etc.
I understand that you need to safeguard the US from terrorist attack, which seems to be going well as there hasn't been any of late, so use intelligence and if absolutely necessary tightly targeted action, but invasion only stirs up the hornets.
It must be the hardest part of being President, especially for someone that has such an humane view, I don't envy you this.
Good luck with it all, and search your heart for the right path,
Ed
Tonight I'm going to look at the situation in Afghanistan.
I understand the reasons why the US and others invaded Afghanistan. The Taliban seems to be a bunch of violent thugs that use Islam as an excuse to oppress the general population. We are also lead to believe that they harbour and train terrorists, Osama Bin Laden being the most famous of these psychotics. It's a pity that your predecessor felt it necessary to lie to the world about Iraq and it's non existent weapons and links to the attack on the World Trade Center, and then invade Iraq, thus taking the main thrust away from actually achieving what was the ostensible reason for all the military action.
So Osama Bin Laden has still not been found, the Taliban is now becoming stronger in Afghanistan and on the verge of destabilising Pakistan.Iraq is a mess and thousands of innocent civilians have been killed, both by the Western coalition and the internal power struggles unleashed by the removal of the original power structures. (however odious we may have found them).And our soldiers are dying for little gain.
Why have the local populations not embraced the Democracy that we have imposed on them?
Are the new leaders real democrats or just another lot of thugs taking advantage of the US's desire to have the situation appear to be democratic?
I think that the main reason that we have not won over the population is the use of air strikes on villages to kill suspected fighters. Do you think killing innocent women and children and other noncombatants wins over the people? These are tribal warriors that have codes of honour. I would imagine that these attacks look like the work of cowards and not much different in effect than what the Russians did. If you want to earn the respect of the people then you'll have to do it the hard way. Security on the ground. Only attacking fighters. Real improvement in infrastructure that the people want. And even then we are still foreign invaders. Ask yourself how Americans would feel if the Taliban invaded America "for your own good"?
The only way to achieve peace with warfare is genocide. I can't think of any invader that achieved peace in the invaded country without destruction of the indigenous culture, can you?
I know that you didn't start any of this, and you are pulling the troops out of Iraq and I hope that diplomacy will work and hold the country together. But I have my doubts. I think Saddam was all that held it together. We shall see.
I think that in Afghanistan you won't achieve peace with force. The people are the key, it's their country, they will have to make the choice to throw off the Taliban. Did we learn nothing from Vietnam, the cold war, Northern Ireland etc, etc.
I understand that you need to safeguard the US from terrorist attack, which seems to be going well as there hasn't been any of late, so use intelligence and if absolutely necessary tightly targeted action, but invasion only stirs up the hornets.
It must be the hardest part of being President, especially for someone that has such an humane view, I don't envy you this.
Good luck with it all, and search your heart for the right path,
Ed
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Human Rights
Dear Barack,
I've been thinking allot about human rights. I have strong reservations about having a bill of rights. It seems to me that rather than protecting the rights of the individual, they actually go a long way to taking them away.
Is it the right of government to dictate limits to a citizen? Are we not actually free in our natural state?Unless imprisoned, can we not do what ever we like, anyway?Are we really protected by "rights" that are being constantly bent and broken by both governments, lawyers, and circumstance?
Unless we are chattels of the state, as in a feudal system, then the state (or government) is a construct to serve the needs of a collection of individuals. It is the role of government to administer those things that it is impossible or difficult for the individual to carry out. Things such as roads, health, electricity etc. It is not the role of government to dictate behaviour.
This last point comes from the basis that we are all equal in our personal sovereignty. It is not my place to tell others what to do, and conversely it is not the not place of others to dictate behavior to me. Does this mean I advocate a free for all? Yes and no. We have to remember that whatever the action, or even inaction, there are consequences.
So if we expect this freedom and sovereignty for ourselves, we can do no less than grant it to others.Therefore our actions must not harm others, as this would be a restriction of their freedom.
That's the gist of this thought. The ideal where we are all free and responsible for our own actions, and have to face life on it's own terms. Unfortunately, it would seem that we have away to go to achieve this sort of society. We are beset with people who would inflict violence and other forms of compulsion upon others to achieve their goals, whether it be for financial gain, political power, sexual dominance, or just fear of the other. Our governments are great at promoting these destructive values whilst claiming the good of the people.
The sad thing about all this is that all these anti freedom impulses are caused by fear. I'll do a post about that eventually.
So how do we live together? What do we mostly do now? We cooperate. We care for one another. And in our individual views of the world we allow others to have their view with equal respect. And it makes sense that we look after the needs of those who for whatever reason can't do for themselves, for there will most probably come a time in our lives that misfortune or illness could reduce our ability to look after ourselves.
And Government. Scrap it. It's a hang over from monarchy when the powerful believed that god had given them the people as their private property.What we need is Administration. The provision of services that the populace require can be provided by public enterprise or private enterprise. If properly managed either would be OK. If PROPERLY MANAGED public enterprise can be very cost effective. That's all material for another post as well.
How would this improvement look? Who knows. As with the theories that the market economy should be self regulating, this would be much the same, only with a difference of intent. It would be sure to have better education and health services for all. There would be greater equity, though there would be no impediment to amassing wealth. And there would be no reason for the wealthy to hoard and savagely protect their privilege. With the knowledge that they will be treated equally, perhaps people would be less inclined to prey on others and the crime rates would start to drop. It all sounds a little Utopian, but we must keep focused on our innate personal sovereignty, and if we do so, maybe we can get to Utopia one day.
These ideas are really what we've been trying to do, we just haven't taken them to their logical conclusions as yet.
I've been thinking allot about human rights. I have strong reservations about having a bill of rights. It seems to me that rather than protecting the rights of the individual, they actually go a long way to taking them away.
Is it the right of government to dictate limits to a citizen? Are we not actually free in our natural state?Unless imprisoned, can we not do what ever we like, anyway?Are we really protected by "rights" that are being constantly bent and broken by both governments, lawyers, and circumstance?
Unless we are chattels of the state, as in a feudal system, then the state (or government) is a construct to serve the needs of a collection of individuals. It is the role of government to administer those things that it is impossible or difficult for the individual to carry out. Things such as roads, health, electricity etc. It is not the role of government to dictate behaviour.
This last point comes from the basis that we are all equal in our personal sovereignty. It is not my place to tell others what to do, and conversely it is not the not place of others to dictate behavior to me. Does this mean I advocate a free for all? Yes and no. We have to remember that whatever the action, or even inaction, there are consequences.
So if we expect this freedom and sovereignty for ourselves, we can do no less than grant it to others.Therefore our actions must not harm others, as this would be a restriction of their freedom.
That's the gist of this thought. The ideal where we are all free and responsible for our own actions, and have to face life on it's own terms. Unfortunately, it would seem that we have away to go to achieve this sort of society. We are beset with people who would inflict violence and other forms of compulsion upon others to achieve their goals, whether it be for financial gain, political power, sexual dominance, or just fear of the other. Our governments are great at promoting these destructive values whilst claiming the good of the people.
The sad thing about all this is that all these anti freedom impulses are caused by fear. I'll do a post about that eventually.
So how do we live together? What do we mostly do now? We cooperate. We care for one another. And in our individual views of the world we allow others to have their view with equal respect. And it makes sense that we look after the needs of those who for whatever reason can't do for themselves, for there will most probably come a time in our lives that misfortune or illness could reduce our ability to look after ourselves.
And Government. Scrap it. It's a hang over from monarchy when the powerful believed that god had given them the people as their private property.What we need is Administration. The provision of services that the populace require can be provided by public enterprise or private enterprise. If properly managed either would be OK. If PROPERLY MANAGED public enterprise can be very cost effective. That's all material for another post as well.
How would this improvement look? Who knows. As with the theories that the market economy should be self regulating, this would be much the same, only with a difference of intent. It would be sure to have better education and health services for all. There would be greater equity, though there would be no impediment to amassing wealth. And there would be no reason for the wealthy to hoard and savagely protect their privilege. With the knowledge that they will be treated equally, perhaps people would be less inclined to prey on others and the crime rates would start to drop. It all sounds a little Utopian, but we must keep focused on our innate personal sovereignty, and if we do so, maybe we can get to Utopia one day.
These ideas are really what we've been trying to do, we just haven't taken them to their logical conclusions as yet.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Here goes
Dear Barack,
I'm going to dive right in here and say that you are the most impressive public figure (person) that I have ever become aware of.
I guess I first became aware of you sometime early on in the Democratic nomination circus.I saw a speech you made, can't remember which one, doesn't matter, and my ears pricked up. "This man can speak" I thought. As the speech continue I got more and more excited. Instead of Hilary's " I this, and I that, and I've been around ALL the goings on, so I know how to play the game" With you we got issues. Issues devoid of all the crap that goes on in politics. A call to a new vision in the political arena, where well reasoned pragmatism would hold sway rather than ideology. (The linguistic link with idiot always makes me smile.) A regime where the problems faced would be met with a caring attempt to do the best possible.
Other speeches followed and I realised that you had spent a great deal of effort thinking about what it is to be human. I saw an insight into the lives of those of us who are less fortunate and a compassion that moves you. I saw sentiment, yet at the same time a steely determination. Not to get your own way, but to facilitate a coming together of the disparate threads of society, to weave a new cloth of the people, by the people
I watched in amazement as the way opened up for you. People responded to your message and I started to feel that there was hope that the US could clean up it's act. As the nominations dragged on, it gave you more of an opportunity to display your way of sticking to the issues and not playing the man (or woman in this case). When you got the nomination, I knew, short of some disaster, that we were going to have a remarkable man in the White House.
And that acceptance speech. Grace and magnanimity, confidence and humility. And to top it all, your inaugural speech. I stayed up till some ungodly hour to catch it live.By halfway through I was in tears, and I'm not even an American. To have somebody finally talk some sense and say it with your own face, to call to the better nature of man, to encourage us to common ground rather than the battle field. And all said with heart and force and not a little cool.
I've since read your book Dreams from my Father, and I can see how you got to where you are (spiritually/ethically). I admire a man that takes adversity and forges from it an understanding that allows him to be generous with his spirit, and in that generosity sees that all of us live with adversity of varying kinds. I guess that you've come to the realisation that if we all work together to help each other, then the world could be a WHOLE lot better.Simple isn't it?
I'm in the middle of reading The Audacity of Hope. I'm pleased that you've given allot of thought to your families needs in all this.One needs to keep a balanced life to see clearly.
Well I'm getting tired now so I'll end here, have a good day Barack,
Ed
I'm going to dive right in here and say that you are the most impressive public figure (person) that I have ever become aware of.
I guess I first became aware of you sometime early on in the Democratic nomination circus.I saw a speech you made, can't remember which one, doesn't matter, and my ears pricked up. "This man can speak" I thought. As the speech continue I got more and more excited. Instead of Hilary's " I this, and I that, and I've been around ALL the goings on, so I know how to play the game" With you we got issues. Issues devoid of all the crap that goes on in politics. A call to a new vision in the political arena, where well reasoned pragmatism would hold sway rather than ideology. (The linguistic link with idiot always makes me smile.) A regime where the problems faced would be met with a caring attempt to do the best possible.
Other speeches followed and I realised that you had spent a great deal of effort thinking about what it is to be human. I saw an insight into the lives of those of us who are less fortunate and a compassion that moves you. I saw sentiment, yet at the same time a steely determination. Not to get your own way, but to facilitate a coming together of the disparate threads of society, to weave a new cloth of the people, by the people
I watched in amazement as the way opened up for you. People responded to your message and I started to feel that there was hope that the US could clean up it's act. As the nominations dragged on, it gave you more of an opportunity to display your way of sticking to the issues and not playing the man (or woman in this case). When you got the nomination, I knew, short of some disaster, that we were going to have a remarkable man in the White House.
And that acceptance speech. Grace and magnanimity, confidence and humility. And to top it all, your inaugural speech. I stayed up till some ungodly hour to catch it live.By halfway through I was in tears, and I'm not even an American. To have somebody finally talk some sense and say it with your own face, to call to the better nature of man, to encourage us to common ground rather than the battle field. And all said with heart and force and not a little cool.
I've since read your book Dreams from my Father, and I can see how you got to where you are (spiritually/ethically). I admire a man that takes adversity and forges from it an understanding that allows him to be generous with his spirit, and in that generosity sees that all of us live with adversity of varying kinds. I guess that you've come to the realisation that if we all work together to help each other, then the world could be a WHOLE lot better.Simple isn't it?
I'm in the middle of reading The Audacity of Hope. I'm pleased that you've given allot of thought to your families needs in all this.One needs to keep a balanced life to see clearly.
Well I'm getting tired now so I'll end here, have a good day Barack,
Ed
What? Why?
Allthough it is highly unlikely that this will turn into a dialog , I will post my thoughts as a personal note to Barack. (If you ever see this Barack, feel free to reply).
This blog is just going to be a random collection of thoughts and ideas and feelings about Barack and his ideas and comment on policies and actions of his government.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
