Multiplex: What's New | Site Map | Community | News My Multiplex Account | Sign In 
in Search

The Teal Integral Revolution Begins With OBAMA

Last post 07-25-2008, 2:41 PM by innerline. 269 replies.
Page 6 of 18 (270 items)   « First ... < Previous 4 5 6 7 8 Next > ... Last »
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  04-27-2008, 1:30 PM 48386 in reply to 48353

    Re: Those Who Liked Bush in '04 Will Prefer Obama Over McCain

    what can i say? under the guise of "reporting what American's feel" according to what you believe, what can i say?

    I honestly do not think that the situation and circumstances of 04 are as they are in 08. I do not think that you can set up Bush:Kerry with McCain:Obama. Obama attracts an entirely new, different, more invigorated electorate. New voter registration is being blown out of the water, largely democract registrations. Bush was an incumbent in a time of war, a war that four years later has proved to been a relative disaster. We are seeing for the first time the chance for a woman and the black man to be president of this great country. I did not try to assert anything, I was just saying that you cannot just set up an equation so easily (I don't think).

    And I will comment on war protesting. I marched on washington in september 2024 to oppose the war. What I saw were alot of good-minded and caring people who were in effect wasting their time. The food was nice, the music pretty cool---but was Bush looking out his window? I feel that this war has shown the futility of a protest when the government has asserted absolute control. Cheney has a stand up comedy routine mocking the middle finger they gave to the whole american public, Bush has his country song. I stopped attending war rallies because, while they are fantastic in spreading a secular message of peace and love, their effectiveness in actually getting the government has dwindled with each year of this administration. Now you could tell me that if I really opposed the war, I'd go to every rally that I could, or that my life is a contradition by not attending and "making my voice heard." I consider it being realistic, tragically as that may sound and really is. I feel like 4 years later there will be more voters, irrespective of party, that simply want to be governed by people who would listen to them if they had something to say.

    You speak of retribution and I do not have much to say. You speak of not giving a damn about Iran and Syria. You speak of being non-communicative out of vengence or anger or grudge.

    I cannot accept that these would be our living from our highest self. There is something incredibly aspiritual about what you are saying; perhaps it is an accurate representation of how things are.  Your firm belief that the terrorists have "religious beliefs that can never be reconciled to the american way of life" I find defeatest, non-reconciling, destructive and simply terrifying. If that is your attitude then I wonder how you ever forsee our altercations in the middle east being resolved? Is it not religious tolerance? Is it not listening to one another?

    A child hits my son and then wants to talk to me about it; if I can have an open discussion with my son and his abuser; if I can help instill in both of the boys a sense of the futility of violence, the ignorance that is violence. I do not doubt that there are many who would not feel this way. There probably is a population of people who don't have any interest in reconciling with terrorists or finding common ground. What I'm saying is we have a candidate who is willing to listen and we may vote him down because of it (as you're saying).

    Also a question no one ever asks: why are the terrorists terrorists? Why do they do what they do?

    Lastly, I do realize you are reflecting what you sense is the political atmosphere rather than saying your views necessarily. Perhaps I was at fault in attributing what you said specifically to you. That said, I feel that I am also representing the views of a similarly large section of the electorate. The question may be which electorate remains the largest or which one grows larger.

    "identity which is not convulsive ceases to exist" ---breton

    Nine Ways Not to Talk about God
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  04-27-2008, 2:35 PM 48390 in reply to 48362

    Re: Those Who Liked Bush in '04 Will Prefer Obama Over McCain


    Hey, thanks for sincerely sharing your spiral. I think I can see what you are talking about.

    I have a real close friend from college. We were both very green and open in the late 70s. There was nothing that we did not extend equal validity to. He then got into the real world and felt he needed to re-connect with red to make sense of the world. He could not support the degradation of basic morality and decency in America. He went back to church and became a member of the American Legion (he is a Marine Corps vet). He was disgusted with the flimsy "spine" that our boomer green colleagues came to represent in the late-80s and 90s. I think a lot of it had to do with the relativist attitude on the campus where he teaches. I now sense he is looking to pull past green and transcend and include it. He is sensing that red does not give him the sustenance he needs.

    I followed a similar trajectory but without going back to red. I dove into orange pretty well. But having just spent 20 years in the Navy, I guess I got all the red I need there.

    Anyways, if you are ever in the Northwest part of the Northwest, drop by and we'll cook some salmon over the cedars. And if you like that, I'll take you out with some of my Makah Indian friends to get some whale steak! Harvested of course from a nice teal hue.


    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  04-27-2008, 3:59 PM 48393 in reply to 48386

    The Dignity of Red


    I applaud you for marching! I sincerely mean that.

    At the same time, you mention that it is now apparent that protests are futile. Whoa! How many times have you dogged on your Congressmen? How many books or articles have you written? One march and you give up? And then you go on to talk to me about "defeatism?" Come on man, if you are against the war, keep banging the drum!

    Organized any marches in your home town? Forget Washington. That is Homeland Security Central. Find 100 persons in your neighborhood against the war and march on the local mayor's office and demand that your town be declared as a non-supporter of the war. You'll be on the news, and 1,000 other groups will be emboldened to do the same thing. We'll see how far it resonates.  

    You mention that the question "may be" which electorate remains the largest or which one grows larger. I would go one step farther - the question "is" that.

    You ask a good question - why are the terrorists terrorists?

    There are probably 1,000 different valid points that can be made. My sense though is that at the heart of it, we have the following: a culture very tightly bound up with a religion which each day sees the flow of information seeping in and giving its youth and women new understandings and ideas that threaten the old order. They are acting in an extreme way toward a crisis of intelligence sharing which will inevitably lead to a dissolution of old and stupid structures. I am talking about the role and rights of women. Tribal ordering of power. Censorship. Etc. They do not like it, are terrified of where it leads, and are lashing out to prevent modernization.

    You suggest that the Middle East problems will be resolved through dialogue. And listening. How long have we been talking? How many times have the same solutions been proposed? And how many times has one side or the other called off the agreement, claiming a violation of terms by the other side?

    There is an old idiom that may go back to the Chinese General Sun Tzu. It goes like this, "talk, talk, fight, fight." What it means is this. When you are dealing with an adversary who is committed to acting in bad faith and who will only be satisfied with your destruction, the best strategy is this: sit down at the table and talk and talk. And then go out and fight and fight. And then go back to the table and talk and talk some more. But, the critical point is this, never ever delude yourself into thinking that talking and talking will lead to anything of value. Always be ready to go back out and fight.

    I agree that it can be labeled as "defeatest, non-reconciling, destructive and simply terrifying" - but when you are dealing with people acting in bad faith who will only be satisfied with your destruction, this is the smart strategy.

    I am convinced that Hillary understands and employs the talk, talk, fight, fight strategy. That is why she is perceived as being willing to say or do anything. That is exactly what you do when you get a taste of "tan, tan, da, da." There is no end to the machinations because you are dealing with a foe who will never act in good faith with you.

    And sometimes in life, you do not deal. Period. You just grind and grind.

    I have a friend who worked in a prison. He told me that most felons are infinitely smarter and more clever than we are. They have powers of manipulation that we cannot even fathom! They will say the right thing, smile at the right time, agree to the right terms, and bow at the right time. And then when you cut them slack or release them, they will do the same damn thing again and be back behind bars.

    The prevailing wisdom on how to deal with a committed felon is to just grind the hell out of them. Nothing violent or mean. Just day in and day out you grind them slowly until they give up. You give them mundane jobs, you keep them moderately irritated, you feed them food that is kind of off, you just grate them slowly until they lose the will to hurt you or anyone else because they are sapped.

    It may very well be the case that the terrorists can only be dealt with by grinding them hard for years and years until a substantial number of the youth within their community ascend to levels where they can see that the belief structures and methods are insane and fundamentally not helpful.

    You mention that for the first time we have the chance for a woman or a black man to be President. How does this remotely matter? What is it about Hillary's organs or the melatonin in Obama's skin that makes the slightest bit of difference? In many ways, Romney is more of a woman than Hillary. I know that sounds odd, but from a very fundamental perspective it is true.

    I agree with the message of MLK - we need to get to the point where the skin color is irrelevant.

    And, by the way, I regard Obama as white. His mother was certainly white. If I was Obama's mother, I would be pissed to high heaven to hear that my son is "black." As if I, as his mother, had no substantial input into the matter! Obama is as white as he is black. Let's start using terms that reflect this properly, eh?

    Oh, and so was his grandmother from whom he learned much.

    I could give a shit about race, personally. My wife is most definitely not white. I tell my children that they are human beings. They are free to call themselves whatever they want. It does not change the fact that I love them and that if anyone tries to harm them I will personally kick their ass.  

    I'll tell you where I first saw this in action. One night, I was out throwing rocks at telephone poles with my buddies. Someone missed and hit a car. 3 police cars came to our house. Lights flashing, radios squacking, the whole nine yards. They are rounding us all up in my front yard. Big police machine has taken charge in our front yard.  

    My old man comes out of the house in his bathrobe, takes one look at the situation and walks straight up to the biggest cop in the bunch. Everyone stops to watch this. He asks what they are doing in our yard. The cop explains that the kids were vandalizing the neighborhood. My old man asks, "is anyone under arrest?" They say "no." So my old man tells the cop, "if no one is under arrest, then get the fuck off my property right now!" This was an epic moment. He did not care in the least if they arrested him or liked him or whatever. That was not the point.  

    You see, there are some things in life that are more important than chit chat and negotiation. The cops did not need to come out with their lights flashing with multiple squad cars. My old man knew right away that this scene was too much. This was just another example of the machine breaking people's balls. And what he did - I will tell you that that single act in 20 seconds sent a lifelong message to every lad standing there, "you will stand up for your family. You will demand respect. You will exercise your freedom to own your soul and not let anyone take it from you. If life means anything, it means that you defend your family's freedom and dignity in a direct way."

    This is the kind of attitude that Sharpton is trying to instill. This is our community. Own it! This is your life! Don't let the machine steal your soul! That is why I love Sharpton. We need more Sharptons in America. A lot more Sharptons. A guy with common sense and guts who will speak the truth and challenge people to own their lives.

    Neither Hillary or Obama would have taken the McCain approach when offered individual freedom at the expense of his comrades in the jungle of Vietnam. The McCain approach was "a man does not live with himself if he accepts freedom and leaves his comrades behind. No amount of physical torture is equal to the loss of human dignity in this."  

    And it is this same basic notion of ownership over our national dignity and the memory of the victims that I believe lies at the root of most voters' minds right now.

    I know you will not like the tone of this. But this is the tone that McCain is perceived as resonating with.

    By the way, did you read the Wyatt Earp correspondence between Ken Wilber and those who were trying to snipe at him? Wilber made some of the same points. At times, you just have to lay into people when they are beyond the pale of reason or fairness. He was advised of the 100 ways it would be unwise for him to lash these people. But he chose to do it for reasons similar to those I am trying to give voice to.









    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  04-27-2008, 5:08 PM 48395 in reply to 48393

    Re: The Dignity of Red

    i did not only march on washington. my town marches quite often actually. a few years ago we organized a peacefest to hold on campus. and you're right there is a lot of news coverage etc. my point is that we do march every year and there are people that respond and that this does happen all over the country. i try to live by the mantra of change your inside first, then the world changes; as time went on, vainly "beating the drum" seemed like the worse option for me. so no i haven't written books, not yet at least. but i am learning and growing in my faith which is my highest priority.

    how does it remotely matter that we may have a woman or a black man as president? ...... well. it matters because its happening and its indicative of a change in mindset, at least for a portion of the country. you consider obama white? and yet you say it shouldn't matter?  it isn't hillary's organs. it isn't barack's melatonin. that isn't what i said. but she is a woman and there are gender and sexist issues all across the country. barack is a perceived as a black man and there are race and discrimination issues. of course the color is "irrelevant"---but how can you say it isn't even remotely significant that we might elect our first black president? this is america, a land build in part on the backs of slaves. this seems like an important evolution.

    or when you say that the structures of society in these islamic countries are stupid dumb and old. you suggest grinding on them. fighting with them. again. and again. and again. terrorists are the exception, not the rule. terrorists do far far far more damage to their own people and infrastructure than they ever do for us. terrorism is largely from an insecurity about the future, and we can point to things like modernism and secularization as aspects of this insecurity. but also involved is the unwillingness by the local and state governments there o offer aid to the people. grinding against these countries to put even more financial pressure on these countries will only exacerbate the problem. we need to encourage human rights and tolerance and religious understanding and that takes all of us. GDP is directly correlated with all sorts of human development indexes and we have to encourage that. we have to set the human rights example and we certainly have not done that with our conduct in Iraq in recent years.

    on the one hand you are saying that felons are incredibly manipulative, and then you taut their grinded treatment as the only thing that works. why do you think the felons are so diabolical? why do you think they get out and offend again? why do you think they become masters of manipulation? why do you think that a grinding and inhumane technique that has now brought our country to record inmate levels and ever escalating crime---you laud this in the name of what?

    you seem prideful, I am sorry to say. you speak as though there is no way you are possibly wrong. you are right; i do not like such a tone. you seem to suggest that the best thing to do is to keep trying the same old techniques that have been employed for forever and which have never lead to greater tolerance or understanding. you speak to me as though I have no life experience of my own. I am just saying that in my experience talking, listening, not getting boisterous and obnoxious--these are what gets people past problems and into solutions. it doesn't always have to be a fight. and i don't think these are incompatible. i doubt we are as far seperated as the rhetoric may suggest.

    Carter on his trip to Hamas and showing what can be achieved when we stop labeling people and work towards understandings.... and don't just insist on grinding away with old tactics---Pariah Diplomacy  

    some people want change and a new way of conducting business, while others think things will always be the way they are and there's nothing to do about it. which of those stays large and which grows larger, i agree, is the big question of this election.

    "identity which is not convulsive ceases to exist" ---breton

    Nine Ways Not to Talk about God
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  04-27-2008, 5:13 PM 48396 in reply to 48393

    • whisperingted is not online. Last active: 05-31-2008, 11:03 PM whisperingted
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on 12-12-2007
    • Posts 2
    • Points 25

    Re: The Dignity of Red

    As an Australian with a long association with Americans I hope you get the changes you need. At present as a nation you have squandered any thought of an ethical stance by torture, kidnap, wanton distruction of peoples lives and building concentration camps. Your main ability is to kill but you are faced by those that not only don't mind dying but are willing to kill themselves as long as they can kill you.

    I can't judge the candidates from here, even the selection process seems opague drawn out and tedious. It does seem that Obama offers a new direction. Good luck

    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  04-27-2008, 9:06 PM 48404 in reply to 48396

    Re: The Dignity of Red

    Whisperingted, you have proven that you can give us the pluralistic perspective, some of which is valid. Congratulations; that is no small feat. Now, try to see some other perspectives. Try to understand, for one thing, that terrorists cannot be reasoned with. You cannot simply capture one and say "Please don't do it again" and then let them go. They would only be too happy to bomb people with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. It is naive to think that the threat is anything less than that. I'm not saying that everything the Bush administration has done is right, but appeasement, which Europe, for example, is so good at, is not the answer.

    Schalk, I agree with much of what you say. I'd like to go over a few points.

    "What I keep trying to point at in an imperfect way is this: Hillary has come to be perceived by many as the epitome of the incredibly smart person who is driven to obtain massive personal power. Power without regard for simple principles."

    If you can't come up with any evidence for Hillary being driven by the desire for power, you are either psychic or are experiencing a projection. We all have Red; it could be dissociating with yours. Of course, I know that all kinds of people agree with you, that all sorts of conservatives and liberals have picked up on the smear campaign and repeated it as often as they can, but this does not make any of it true. For it to be considered true, we have to have some evidence. That you just have the "sense" she is a "power freak" isn't enough.


    I trust almost nothing she says. Nothing can be taken at face value. Everything is done for an ulterior motive that has nothing to do with communicating the simple truth of a matter.  

    Wow! C'mon, she can't be that bad! You're describing the most unscrupulous person the world has ever known--which, when you aren't coming up with any evidence, does make one think that there is some projection going on.

    She longs to get some payback! Tom Delay, Karl Rove, and all of that crowd know what they need to do to prepare the day Hillary becomes President.

    Do you have any evidence for this? Actually, I think it's the Nancy Pelosis and Bill Richardsons that have to worry, if anyone, but they deserve it!  :)


    I cannot see Hillary ever stepping aside, no matter what harm her presence is bringing, as long as she has one bullet left. And that, my friend, is what I mean when I say that her personal needs take priority over what is good for the country.

    There's no reason she should step out of the race. She continues because she knows she is better qualified than either McCain, who admits he doesn't know anything about running the economy and may well continue the same failed Republican economics (the Reagan and H. W. Bush administrations racked up the biggest deficits ever, only to be eclipsed by the G. W. Bush administration).

    This business about disregarding the popular vote at the convention is a perfect example. The Democrats wailed about Gore and the popular vote in 2024. It is absolutely hypocritical for Hillary to even intone the notion that the Super Delegates should consider trumping the popular vote now.

    For one thing, if Obama and his lawyers and supporters hadn't blocked a re-vote in Florida and Michigan (a little-reported fact), Hillary might well have taken the lead in the popular vote. Therefore, it is hypocritical of Obama to claim that he is somehow the people's choice. Really? When he's blocked a re-vote in two of the most important states? Also, I don't remember people being primarily upset about the popular vote in 2024. People were upset about Florida and the Supreme Court decision. And of course it's appropriate and fully legal for the super delegates to elect whoever they think would be the best for the country and the party. No one even questioned that until Obama supporters began trying to change the rules. That is why the superdelegates exist--to guide the process--and they have every right under the rules to do so.

    - now is not the time to squabble amongst ourselves;

    I agree with this, but I think it's naive to think that it won't happen given the drastic differences in worldviews people have. Amber, Orange, and Green simply will not be in agreement on things and will fight to see that their worldview prevails. When you say that now is not the time to squabble, I can only think that you are hoping that those who disagree with, say, McCain will simply fall silent. I'm a fan of McCain and I wouldn't be unhappy with him as president. I might even prefer him to Obama, but I don't think he has nearly the sophistication of Hillary, and we really need that for these complex problems. We need a Teal president--Hillary!

    -now is not the time to be or even appear weak;

    I agree: McCain or Hillary. Obama could be okay, but there are too many things he has said that call that into question.

    -now is not the time to engage in bold social experiments (e.g. socialized medicine);

    Hillary's health care plan cannot be characterized simply as "socialized." Everyone who has health insurance can, and probably will, keep it--in other words, corporations and, for government employees, the government will continue to supply their health care. We already have a lot of socialized health care with Social Security and things like that. Hillary's plan would lower the price of health insurance and give vouchers to some people, so to some extent it would mean a little more socialized medicine, but it would still mostly be privatized. And socialized medicine isn't necessarily a bad thing. The systems in England and France are working a lot better than ours. Did you see Michael Moore's Sicko?

    -now is not the time to wage war on business interests (e.g. dusting off Bill Clinton's anti-trust suit against Microsoft);

    I agree (though Microsoft may have deserved it).

    -now is not the time to run the country with a lawyer's mentality (which the Democrats excel at) but instead, with a businessman's mentality;

    That's what we've had for 8 years with Bush-Cheney, and it's been a disaster!


    -now is not the time to do anything except be fair, use common sense, deal strictly with external threats, and show a commitment at a basic level to religious and spiritual credos of a traditional nature that may be kooky in many ways but which also come with some simple and powerful moral principles that the Democrats, in their sophisticated and brilliant way, often scoff at.

    I agree with this--Democrats have to integrate a little conservatism. But that is a hard sell. Even most folks who have gotten into integral don't understand that integral politics means intergrating some conservatism, and they fight the idea pretty stubbornly.

    I can live with Hillary as President. I can live with Obama as President. This is me personally. But, I am getting the distinct feeling that many people are seeing McCain as the stablest choice. 

    Hillary is also a stable choice.

    The Democrat position at almost every turn leads to what people would define as a weakening of the nation. It may be wiser, more compassionate, more helpful, more friendly and more just. Be it is weaker. Mythical times do not permit giving full play to the more delicate virtues.

    The liberals would make the country weaker--not Hillary, a new Democrat. Keep in mind, many liberals do not like the Clintons (the "new democrats") just because they believe in many of the things you have been saying here.

    You ask, what positions should they take? I believe that Obama and Clinton can win themselves the election by saying two things: "during my Presidency, I promise you one thing, we will absolutely continue to stay the course in Iraq, and we will rout out every terrorist element swiftly and without debate.

    I also believed this, but now I wonder if the democrat's perspective, that our leaving might force the Iraqi government to take responsibility, might have some validity to it.

    And secondly, I fully support the right of every American to bear arms, and I will veto any legislation that infringes that right."

    As long as there are things like backround checks and certain limits. You're right it is a big issue politically. A lot of people in 2024, such as in West Virginia, honestly believed that "Al Gore would take away their guns," which is absurd, of course. They just believed the republican propaganda. And if Gore had won West Virginia it would have given him the presidency (Bush won it by about 40,000 votes and the electoral college by 5, the exact number of WV delegates).




    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  04-27-2008, 9:29 PM 48405 in reply to 48404

    The Teal-Obama thread--please stop changing thread titles; it's confusing

    Schalk, you really should read this article about McCain's foreign policy. I just read it after I wrote my last post to you. It's by an analyst I have a lot of respect for and have been listening to for years, Fareed Zakaria. Here is an excerpt:

    "On March 26, McCain gave a speech on foreign policy in Los Angeles that was billed as his most comprehensive statement on the subject. It contained within it the most radical idea put forward by a major candidate for the presidency in 25 years. Yet almost no one noticed.

    In his speech McCain proposed that the United States expel Russia from the G8, the group of advanced industrial countries. Moscow was included in this body in the 1990s to recognize and reward it for peacefully ending the cold war on Western terms, dismantling the Soviet empire and withdrawing from large chunks of the old Russian Empire as well. McCain also proposed that the United States should expand the G8 by taking in India and Brazil—but pointedly excluded China from the councils of power.

    We have spent months debating Barack Obama's suggestion that he might, under some circumstances, meet with Iranians and Venezuelans. It is a sign of what is wrong with the foreign-policy debate that this idea is treated as a revolution in U.S. policy while McCain's proposal has barely registered. What McCain has announced is momentous—that the United States should adopt a policy of active exclusion and hostility toward two major global powers. It would reverse a decades-old bipartisan American policy of integrating these two countries into the global order, a policy that began under Richard Nixon (with Beijing) and continued under Ronald Reagan (with Moscow). It is a policy that would alienate many countries in Europe and Asia who would see it as an attempt by Washington to begin a new cold war."


    Is that strength or foolishness? I think it might be foolishness.



    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  04-28-2008, 12:17 AM 48415 in reply to 48405

    Re: The Teal-Obama thread--please stop changing thread titles; it's confusing


    You write with great focus and always hit on central issues. Good to hear your voice.

    I did read Zakaria's article. He forgot to mention that the G8 is a forum for advanced industrial democracies. And he forgot to mention that Russia was admitted to this forum because it promised to practice democracy. And that Russia is showing every sign of returning to dictatorship practices.

    McCain's comments may be just what Russia needs to be reminded that the dues they have to pay include practicing democracy. President-by-Proxy Putin may pick up on this.

    A larger point I would like to share is that we like to speak of peace and harmony in the world as if they are fossilized states to achieve. It may be more fruitful to see them as states emerging from healthy dynamic tension. It is OK to prod Russia and China when they start slipping. There are many things that China is doing right, but the fact is, they still do not understand that human beings matter. And until they understand and practice this, they must not be rewarded.

    McCain's comment does not mean he intends to renew the Cold War. Zakaria really ran into left field with this one. But he forgot to mention a few of the other things McCain said in his speech. Items such as:

    - "Today we are not alone," McCain said. "Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed."

    - In the speech, McCain renewed his call for a "global compact -- a League of Democracies" that would unite the world's free countries against tyranny, disease and environmental destruction. As he did in Europe last week, he played down unilateral action and stressed cooperation on global warming, torture of prisoners and trade.

    - "We need to listen -- we need to listen -- to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies," McCain said. "When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them."

    A fundamental theme that distinguishes McCain from Obama is this: Obama would talk with everyone - no hierarchical distinctions. Kind of like when you go to a party, knock back a few beers, and just engage with whoever you bump into.

    McCain's point is that with modern democracies based on human rights and rationality, you engage on everything. With countries like China, you engage strategically, but prod them so that they earn the right to engage in other areas. And with countries like Syria, you engage only when they demonstrate that they intend to practice responsible behavior. Until then, you lean on them.

    If you have carrots, you do not dump them all in the road and let the horse chomp on them. You hold them out one by one until you get to the destination, then you let the horse chomp on the ones that are left.

    You know MonkMonk, we have talked about the candidates, but we have not really talked about their Administrations. I think this is a topic that warrants a lot more discussion. The fundamental question is: what kinds of people does the candidate intend to bring with her or him to the Executive?

    It seems to me that we are owed a little more advance explanation of who these people will be. Bush should have had to tell us that Rumsfeld would be our SecDef, for example. Rumsfeld of course being the man that Kissinger once referred to as the single most belligerent person he had ever met in his life. That would have told us a lot about where he was going in 2024.

    And I think that what frightens a lot of people about Obama is that we could very well get a disjointed team of neophytes each with their own agendas. I mean honestly, there is the very real possibility that we will get some goofballs on the Obama team. (He is already trying to stave off this concern by saying how General Petraeus will be his top military man.) For starters, there will be at least 2 people from Illinois ward politics whose only qualification is that he owes them big time. We will also probably see Oprah Winfrey as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Etc.

    On the other hand, with Hillary, you can bet we are going to get a very competent and savvy group of people who are at the top of their game in their respective fields. More needs to be made of this.  

    You know, I have been thinking about the whole issue of the vast right wing conspiracy and how it will go after Hillary. And I am starting to wonder if that is such a big deal. Fine, let Rush Limbaugh vent. Let the Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay machine crank it up. It may just be the dying moans of a dinosaur. We can probably weather it. And unlike Bill, I doubt that Hillary has any more baggage to discuss that was not already aired 10 years ago. 

    Do you think America is still interested in moral drama and if so, won't Bill certainly do something as the First Spouse to rev that machine up again? I mean honestly, put Bill in charge of First Spouse shmoozing for four years and the mojo will be rising to levels never seen. Does this matter?  

    I wondered out loud previously why it matters whether we get a woman or a 1/2 black President. Let me take it another step. If it does matter, then by all rights the next step should be for a woman. Because at a very fundamental level, looking from a long-view and world view, women have been excluded more extensively than men of any race from the circles of governance.

    Black men and half-black men have been just as bad as brown and white and yellow men in treating women as second class citizens, going back to about the time we crawled out of the sea and stood up on our hind legs. If that isn't something that is overdue for some correction, then change is just not in the cards.

    By the way, have you heard Obama mention anything of the need to empower women? Isn't the solution to the Middle East problems the empowerment of women?

    Election of Hillary will do two things: it will be a major empowerment of women, not only in the US, but around the world. Empowerment of women will go a lot farther toward moving humanity up the ladder than empowerment of African-Americans.

    And, it will challenge men to start exercising new perspectives and learning to speak a foreign language (i.e. the language of women) which is currently spoken by roughly one half of the people of the world. And a lot of the dinosaur behavior we are suffering through will be solved with this upgrade.

    I could very well support Hillary. And let me think way out of the box for a second. I could get enormously interested by a McCain/Hillary ticket.

    Anyone have a problem with that? If it's time for a change, then its time to get rid of another dinosaur and it is this whole frat house party bullshit that decides who we get to select from. No more pork pie hats and elephants and donkeys and all of that other crap. I would absolutely love to see either McCain or Hillary abandon their party to join the other in what would probably be the most potent and wise team ever to run the country.

    I still believe that Hillary will do whatever it takes. And if Obama takes the nod in Denver and McCain offers her the seat, she will take it. And McCain is just the kind of guy who will do something like this. There is absolutely no way Obama could ever beat McCain/Hillary. That my friend would be a government to be proud of.

    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  04-28-2008, 6:46 AM 48433 in reply to 48415

    Re: The Teal-Obama thread--please stop changing thread titles; it's confusing

    schalk asked:
    And I think that what frightens a lot of people about Obama is that we could very well get a disjointed team of neophytes each with their own agendas.
    Your comment reminded me of this:
    When considering any presidential hopeful's foreign-policy promises, it's important to remember that what candidates say is, at best, an imperfect guide to their actions in office. What proves to be a more reliable indicator of presidential behavior is a candidate's roster of advisers. (If the press had paid better attention, the country would have seen through Bush's pitch about a humble foreign policy and realized that many of his advisers, including Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, were conspiracy-minded warmongers.) Obama's foreign-policy advisers come from diverse backgrounds. They are former aides to Democratic mandarins like Tom Daschle and Lee Hamilton (Denis McDonough and Ben Rhodes, respectively); veterans of the Clinton administration's left flank (Tony Lake and Susan Rice); a human-rights advocate who helped write the Army's and Marine Corps' much-lauded counterinsurgency field manual (Sarah Sewall); a retired general who helped run the air war during the invasion of Iraq (Scott Gration); and a former journalist who revolutionized the study of U.S. foreign policy (Samantha Power). Yet they form a committed, intellectually coherent, and surprisingly united foreign-affairs team. (Shortly before this piece went to press, Power resigned from the campaign after making an intemperate remark to a reporter.)

    I don't know if the above appeals to you but it might be of some interest.
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  04-28-2008, 11:23 PM 48484 in reply to 48433

    Re: The Teal-Obama thread--please stop changing thread titles; it's confusing

    Thank you, Shalk. I really enjoy your posts as well. It's great to converse with someone who really understands that integral politics means as much conservatism as liberalism.

    That's a good point about the G8 being for democracies. We should consider another perspective in addition to that, however. Ken made the point, at the beginning of the Bush administration, how those Cold War tactics were just increasing paranoia. Remember the plane incident with China? Toughness is great, and Reagan gave us that, and during the Cold War even more was appropriate. But if they are pushed into paranoia that is something else. Actually, I understand it was a good thing that the KGB was pushed into paranoia during the Cold War--they thought everyone was comprimised; they couldn't trust eachother. But Russia is already a paranoid country after having been invaded so many times. Now Nato is marching right up to its doorstep. It might be the right move, but that it might be simply making them paranoid is also something to consider.

    Another very important point is that a dictatorship might actually be approrpriate for Russia right now, something the Bush administration doesn't get at all. They need to be pushed and moved forward, but at the right speed. Asking for more than they can come up with right now may not be that productive. Yes, more toughness may be what Russia needs--and Obama would likely not provide that--but it has to be carefully measured.

    I agree about not rewarding bad behavior as well. Obama recently said something like, "It's hard to be critical of your banker." That's exactly what we don't need. China may have some leverage, but they certainly don't have all the power, as Obama seems to think. I really don't think he woud be right for the country right now, though in the future he could be a good president.

    By the way, the Russians are really worried that McCain will be president. Apparently he has said an awful lot of bad things about them. But we have to ask ourselves: Is an adverserial stance the right way to go? It probably needs to be a combination of toughness and cooperation. Zakaria makes a great point that we need Russia's cooperation for nuclear non-prolifieration and the war on terrorism, among other things. They also have a seat on the security council, so if they are antoganized too much, they can cause problems for us. Has McCain's toughness lapsed into disrespect or antogonism?

    But I do like McCain, and it was good to read the quotes you offered. It reminds me he is not the neocon or fundamentalist he occassionally acts like during this campaign to satisfy the "Republican wing of the Republican party," to paraphrase Dean ("I belong to the Democratic wing of the Democratic party" !!!--in an indignant Green tone of voice :) ).

    By the way, have you heard that Bill Richardson went down to Venezuela to talk to Hugo Chavez about hostages? I would hope that if hostages are released that would hurt Obama more than help him.

    I agree completely about Obama's advisors. Many of them were apart of the Clinton administration, but on the fringes of it. If he becomes president, he needs the most experienced people around him, not a bunch of starry-eyed neophytes. I agree more needs to be made of this. A candidates advisors should be held up to scrutiny as well during a campaign. All of these people on both sides need to be questioned as if they are running for office, not just as spokespersons for their candidates.

    Yeah,  that's what I think about the conservative reaction to Hillary. It probably won't be as bad as people's imaginations. Also, she really is more conservative than she was in the 90s, and some conservatives recognize this. Ann Coulter even said she would vote for Hillary over McCain because she is more conservative!

    Yes, I've been wondering also which is a more important milestone, an African American president or a woman president. I also wonder which is encountering more resistance. The bar Hillary has to cross, of course, is whether she is tough enough, like Margaret Thatcher. This is why she talks about obliterating Iran and such, though it's also to appeal to Reagan Democrats. And Obama needs to show he is really post-racial, which the Rev. Wright flap does not help with at all, nor his wife's comments.

    A McCain/Hillary ticket. That is interesting. I wonder how they get along. I thought Joe Lieberman would make a great VP for McCain, but he has already said he's not interested. The VP choice is going to be really important there. Colin Powell would be good on either side, but I'm not sure if he's interested either. I haven't seen any short lists. Chuck Hagel would be good with McCain. But it might be someone like the Florida governor, Christy. That wouldn't suprise me. They might be tough to beat in Florida with that ticket. If Hillary wins the nomination she is pretty much going to have to name an African American VP. Maybe Obama or Colin Powell; I don't know who else. I think I've already said that Obama-Richardson is my worst nightmare. Obama-Kerry would be better than that. Clinton-Edwards wouldn't be bad except that it would alienate African Americans, so it's probably out of the question


    Anothereye, thank you. That is interesting. There would be some good people in there--Zbigniew Brzezinski is another--but the only thing that troubles me is that too many of them may be from the "left flank" as the extract puts it. Being too much to the left is Obama's weakness; he needs some people in the center to balance him out. Kerry would do that ever so slightly, but he's really to the left himself, but not as much as Richardson or Daschel probably. A lot of those Obama advisors, like Rice and Power, look a little young to me.

    By the way, I heard that in continental Europe they like Obama but in the UK they like Clinton---is that true? I imagine McCain's not looked on too favorably there--did his recent trip help things?







    • Post Points: 50
    • Report abuse
  •  04-29-2008, 12:02 AM 48485 in reply to 48484

    Re: The Teal-Obama thread--please stop changing thread titles; it's confusing

    I cannot speak objectively for the UK or Europe; Bush is so unpopular over here that McCain is tarred with the same brush (though personally I think he has a load more integrity). Amongst my circles; Clinton is more popular among most, not all, women. Having said that, it's not as if everyones talking about the race that much.
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  04-29-2008, 12:53 AM 48488 in reply to 48404

    • whisperingted is not online. Last active: 05-31-2008, 11:03 PM whisperingted
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on 12-12-2007
    • Posts 2
    • Points 25

    Re: The Dignity of Red

    Greetings, why do you assume that all the people killed by US or other troops are terrorists? Many people are arrested by jumpy disorientated troops or mercenaries only to be released after "investigation". The dead? They can't talk. It seems that every time the troops leave their camps they make enemies. It is very true that one should protect oneself from violence from any source, but at the same time one must take steps to undermine the thought processes that lead to violence and create alternatives. In this respect Iraq is an abject failure. Your Mr McCain's 100 years looks more likely, except the US will be bankrupt by then. This  being one of the stated aims of Bin Laden. He is boosting of course, he is only one player. As for the use of nuclear weapons against our fellow humans I need not state the obvious. You critise the European approach. Bosnia cost the UK 6 billion, Kosavo 250 million and Macedonia 18 million. They are learning. There an interesting litte tome called "Why Europe will run the 21st Centuary" by Mark Leonard that is worth a read. Perhaps you could consider a more world-centric view.

    Good luck, I hope you get the leader you need.

    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  04-29-2008, 2:11 PM 48529 in reply to 48484

    Re: The Teal-Obama thread--please stop changing thread titles; it's confusing

    Holy turds monkmonk. Your statement ("Anothereye, thank you. That is interesting. There would be some good people in there--Zbigniew Brzezinski is another--but the only thing that troubles me is that too many of them may be from the "left flank" as the extract puts it.").


    Have you researched Zbigniew Brzezinski? He is a total nightmare.

    Barack Obama: Old package in a new wrapping

    Is integral helping to create global fascism? What the F**K.

    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  04-29-2008, 3:51 PM 48532 in reply to 48529

    Re: The Teal-Obama thread--please stop changing thread titles; it's confusing

    Hi Innerline,

    I don't think Brzezinski is that bad. He is not a neocon. He was Carter's National Security Advisor. Carter needed someone with a little toughness, and Brzezinski fit the bill. Here is a quote from the article you linked:


     . . . it is correct to assert that America has become, as President Clinton put it, the world “indispensible nation.” . . . Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long, the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today's Eurasia but of the world more generally. [p. 195]


    This isn't a statement of neocon imperialism or anything. He's simply saying that there are some real fascists out there like the Chinese and the North Koreans and fundamentalist regimes like Iran that would cause real trouble if the U.S. wasn't out there keeping the peace and keeping trade routes open. If the U.S. hadn't had bases in Europe after WWII, for example, the Soviet Union would have run rough shod over Europe. Europe doesn't want the U.S. to shut down its bases there now, because there still is something of a threat, and they don't want to spend more on their militaries.

    Integral means integrating both liberalism and conservatism, and this hard-nosed conservatism that Brzezinski offers--though Brzezinski may be integral himself--is very important to include. He was against the invasion of Iraq, by the way.






    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  04-29-2008, 4:25 PM 48537 in reply to 48529

    Re: The Teal-Obama thread--please stop changing thread titles; it's confusing

    Friends: we have got to take some serious re-stock of the Obama phenomenon here and now. He is sinking hard.

    "On Monday, Wright criticized the U.S. government as imperialist and stood by his suggestion that the United States invented the HIV virus as a means of genocide against minorities. "Based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything," he said."

    "And perhaps even worse for Obama, Wright suggested that the church congregant secretly concurs."

    Item 1: On a scale of one to ten, how much damage is Reverend Wright doing to Obama's chances? One is negligible. Ten is a fatal blow.

    I say 8. In the eyes of Americans, you are with whom you associate. Wright is a wreck and Obama can never be trusted for snuggling up with this guy back in Chicago.  

    Item 2: On a scale of one to ten, how much involvement did Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and Vernon Jordan have in getting Wright onto the stage over the past week where everyone can hear him?

    I say 9. The timing is too perfect and the Clintons would never ever pass up a tactic like this. Bill has to be absolutely wetting himself with glee.

    (MonkMonk: I was starting to feel good about Hillary. But you know, I have absolutely zero evidence for this, but I am convinced in my bones that the good Reverend's recent appearance was a puppet job staged by the Clintons. And I'll bet Vernon Jordan was the one to cut the deal with the Reverend. Am wondering what the quid pro quo was. Pardons. Appointments. Money. Contracts for friends. All of these?

    By the way, a recent Newsweek poll shows that Hillary far outstrips Obama or McCain in being mistrusted by Americans.

    To put it another way, I am confident that the Reverend, left to his own devices, would recognize the importance of remaining silent and not hurting Obama. He has been put up to this by forces larger than himself.)

    Item 3: Scale of one to ten: how hard is Obama kicking himself for sticking around the good Reverend's church after he was put on notice that the guy is a nutjob?

    I say 10. This was the point I made earlier. He was using Wright and now he is getting used by others who are using Wright.

    Item 4: Scale of one to ten, how pissed off is Michele Obama right now?

    If she had a nuclear weapon in her hands right now, she would use it on Reverend Wright. There is no word that can describe how pissed off she is right now.  

    Item 5: How hard is Oprah going to crush those who