If you’d like a little inspiration for the long haul, take a look at U.S. Senator Mark Dayton’s (D. Minn) impassioned speech against the nomination of Condoleeza Rice:
http://dayton.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=230921&&
In it he outlines Rice’s — and the administration’s — pattern of deception on Iraq, and why it is corrosive to the American polity.
This pattern is being repeated on the Social Security issue. See the article in the Jan. 16 New York Times Magazine by Roger Lowenstein, A Question of Numbers
In his inaugural address, George W. Bush said,
“So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”
He could start in Saudi Arabia. Should be a pushover.
Remember the “Baby on Board” signs people used to hang in their cars? (Yeah, I had one briefly.) They seemed like so obviously a good idea that we never took a moment to think whether there was really a point. “Oh, there’s a baby onboard, I guess it’d be wrong to ram into that one at high speed.”
The latest version of this vehicular high-mindedness is the “Support Our Troops” magnetic “ribbon.” What the hell is this supposed to mean?
Lobby against efforts to deprive them of food and ammunition? No such effort exists.
Support a war that never should have happened, putting our troops at risk unnecessarily? Sorry, I think that’s nonsense.
Support the architects of the war, who sent our troops on a poorly planned mission, with inadequate equipment? Hmmm, seems like the opposite of supporting our troops.
Support the President who set this whole mess in motion? Apparently, the buck doesn’t stop there (he doesn’t make mistakes) so that would be pointless.
I supported our troops, God damn it: I voted for Kerry.
I’ve been ruminating about the general state of the nation, and I’m ready to share some thoughts about the direction the country’s going, and why, as I see it.
I think the fundamental issues are two.
First, there are some people who, consciously or unconsciously, are disturbed by the economic implications of globalization. The main outcome of globalization for most folks is downward pressure on wages, as jobs move overseas.
Second, there are people who either out of sheer greed or pure philosophy, have been seething over the role of the federal government since the New Deal.
These two groups have made common cause, in large part to a well-funded campaign of deception by the second group.
I’ll further stipulate that the “cultural conservatives” are people who don’t really appreciate that the source of their anxiety is not whether, say, gays get married, but that their economic future is in peril.
I’ll be looking at this more closely in future entries.