George F. Will piece or peace? (6-2-08)

The topic of Empire has surfaced. [George F Will and a waste of history let alone 9/11]
(Sent but not printed by Seattle PI, Sept. 10th, 2002)

The George F. Will piece, "What we’ve learned from 9/11 and from 12/7" is a waste of words and a waste of lives, if that is all we’ve learned. I make light of neither, but what I have learned from both is to speak up in the face of these wastes. This will honor the lives both military and civilian that were lost on these tragic historical occasions.

If his point is that we have a destiny and that we are in an ever-present danger for it, then we have not learned enough. He surmises that "For all Americans, being a focus of furies - which a muscular nation, extending almost 5,000 miles from the cavity in Southern Manhattan to the Arizona’s hull, will be - is a dangerous destiny." He concludes simply: "A powerful nation embodying a powerful idea spanning six time zones is permanently exposed to dangers from all the other 18." Aside from being obvious, he fails to clarify that powerful idea, unless it is his immediate reference to the USS Baltimore as "the course of empire takes its way".

It is not the 5,000 miles or the six time zones that presumes this destiny, if that is the "idea". It is the, "how we got there" and "where are we going" that pose the risk to our history. It is the how and why of that idea that needs clarity if we want to distinguish ourselves with a destiny different from others. If we fail to learn much more from these events, we will fail to even clarify our destiny let alone honor our dead. If we investigate further we may not only change our history but the world’s future.

(6-2-08: only the title has been added with some editing of the quotations marks)

[NOTE: TWO PIECES IN THIS POST]

Revised Sent to Eastside Journal Dec. 7th.
IDEOLOGY AND PROCESS

A letter to the editor by Wilbur Mann, Dec. 3rd, "Electoral System Works" typically misinterpreted Donald Kaul's (EJ Nov. 24th) piece, "Anti-war rallies don't have the power to change politicians' hearts". Kaul also focused on the difficulties caused by being too tied to ideology, resulting in those too extreme or dissatisfied leaving the confines of a party, and how this impacts our governmental process. Third party spoilers end up muting voices rather than give them representation.

While Kaul lamented the failures of both the voices and the system in its last two cycles, the letter actually supported the piece by Kaul. It suggested "The electors themselves can be eliminated: they don't even appear on the ballot anymore, and there is nothing to stop them from changing their votes once elected. But let's keep the process." Contradictions aside, this seems to support a system without a voice.

Oddly I concur that we keep the process, but giving the electors a voice is one of the points in its favor. Mann would seem to concur with the Supreme Court, where it similarly had so many contradictions it could not set precedence, yet managed to eliminate some voices (Florida’s voters, legislature, judiciary, and electors).

The frequent disdain for moderate "politicians" who might be using their own judgment or will compromise for the sake of progress over ideology, leaves us all between a rock and a hard place or rather between partisanship and politics (neither of which need vilification) squashing the voices of reason.


Sent to Dori Monson and Dave Ross on KIRO 710 radio.
[December 6th, 2002]

Dear Dori: (Copy to Dave)
To be honest, I must say that I am coming to deeply despise your inflammatory choice of words. In particular your reference to the "no Iraq war" crowd as the "hate America crowd" with "their heads in the sand". First I feel that if one hates America one could simply leave as they used to say and not take the risks of speaking out, but in reality it is those that would shut them up that have other options than to remain in America. Since there is the element of choice here don’t accuse me of actually suggesting this. I simply mean that if one hated America they have the choice of leaving, but those who love their country still have the choice of both speaking out as well as breaking laws and going to jail as a point of principle. What a great country!

As far as having heads in the sand, no matter how many terrible points that you feel are being ignored, they do not make up for others like you having their head in the sand in other directions. Some tout responsibility, but want to forget the past. Indeed I agree with a kernel of what you say, where any regime that chooses to ignore international law should be changed. Did you know that the Bush administration has made that choice a policy? Well I won’t provide the details since if your head is not in the sand you should know them, nor do I want to play a lawyer since they get no more respect than laws or legislators.

It’s hard to rap this up with something more inflammatory when I’ve already made my points. However, since you said conditionally that relief from such evil was not necessarily the goal of the administration. But would just be somewhat of an "accidental" outcome of war with Iraq. I must say that it may be a long time before your head will be safe in the sand again. Bush said recently, "You cannot wage war defensively." I say, you cannot wage peace offensively. Nor, as a guest on Dave Ross’ show before yours said, by demonizing others. That would sure leave some talk shows cold. In fact the guest would gladly go to jail to get the "principles" of the administration out of the sand and into a court of law.

Sent to Eastside Journal Dec. 3rd.
IDEOLOGY AND PROCESS

Wilbur Mann (EJ Dec. 3rd) in his letter to the editor, "Electoral System Works" typically misinterpreted Donald Kaul's (EJ Nov. 24th) piece, "Anti-war rallies don't have the power to change politicians' hearts". Beyond the system Kaul also focused on the difficulties caused by being too tied to ideology. These difficulties arise from those too extreme or dissatisfied leaving the confines of a party, and how this works in our political system which gives us the House, Senate and electoral process. This system and its winner take all nature, allows spoilers to mute voices rather than give them representation.

While Kaul lamented the failures of both the voices and the system in it's last two cycles, Mann typically chose to focus on a point so poorly supported it actually supported the piece by Kaul. Mann concludes, "The electors themselves can be eliminated: they don't even appear on the ballot anymore, and there is nothing to stop them from changing their votes once elected. But let's keep the process." Sorting the contradictions contained in these sentences seems needless, since whether we eliminate the electors themselves or keep the process, Mann prefers a system without a voice.

Oddly I concur that we keep the process, but giving the electors a voice is one of the points in its favor. Mann would seem to concur with the Supreme Court, where it similarly had so many contradictions it could not set precedence, yet managed to eliminate some voices (Florida voters, Florida legislature, Florida judiciary, and Florida electors).

The Kaul piece did not so much indict the electoral process, but the voters who were too impatient with more moderate voices that tend to legislate or campaign, for whatever reasons, less ideologically. There is frequent disdain for politicians who may use their judgment or simply compromise for the sake of progress over partisan agendas. It seems to me there are those across the spectrum who would rather see the process not work than to work it. That leaves us all between a rock and a hard place or rather between partisanship and politics squashing the voice of reason.