Omniquity

Why is it that Republicans don’t want government involved when it comes to the economy (opposing the auto bailouts) but do want government involved when it comes to telling people how to live their lives?

Maureen Dowd, Rick’s Religious Fanatacism, 22 Feb 2012

(Source: The New York Times)

Permalink: http://tmblr.co/Zk0w2xGqtaRi

The American people are “starved for three things,” concludes Walker: “truth, leadership and solutions.” Unfortunately, the two parties are just offering “laggardship — waiting for something to hit the fan” so they can again just react “without adequate due diligence.”

Thomas Friedman in his editorial “A Third Voice for 2012”, quoting David Walker.

(Source: The New York Times)

Permalink: http://tmblr.co/Zk0w2xGef0Oh

I am thoroughly disgusted by the US Government’s blatant and continued disregard for human rights in connection with the “war” on terror. The link below is but the latest example. Either we believe in them or we don’t. The excuses about Guantanamo or Bagram being outside the jurisdiction of this law or that treaty are lame and pathetic.

In addition to not doing what is right, every day we cede more moral high ground to those who are in fact our enemies. This can have nothing but bad long-term consequences.

President Cheney…er, Bush…may have started this, but Obama is fast pulling close in the blame department by perpetuating the practices. He needs to stand up and say clearly and directly that what we are doing is wrong, is against everything that America stands for, and that he is putting an end to it immediately. Not Guantanamo-style immediately, but immediately.

To the protestations that “this is more complicated than you think” or “these are dangerous men”, well, you should have thought about that before you started this mess. These are not new laws or moral principles that have been dumped on you in the middle of the conflict. They have been around for hundreds of years and you knew the rules going in. That you chose to ignore them and now find yourself in a dilemma is no one’s fault but your own. Instead of devoting your best legal minds (a chilling thought in itself) to developing clever legal arguments to flout the rules, you should have focused those minds on compliance instead. The time is past. Fix it.

(Source: The New York Times)

Permalink: http://tmblr.co/Zk0w2xGNtTrs

America has lost its way. Not completely. Not irrevocably. But there’s no unifying vision any more. Independence from the tyranny of the British monarchy? Check. Unite the territory “from sea to shining sea”? Check. Land of opportunity for anyone willing to work their tail off? Check. Beacon of freedom and civil rights for the world? Check. Liberator of Europe (twice). Check. Scourge of communism and counterbalance to the USSR? Check.

Now what?

We seem to be at a pause in the historical trajectory of the United States. Without that unifying vision, we have a lot of groups scurrying around trying to impose their vision on everyone else. While I happen to think the political right is worst about this, the left is not immune either. It would be overstating it to say that there is a struggle for the soul of the nation, but on a smaller scale that is what I think is happening. America is no longer the melting pot that it once was, as ethnic, religious, and racial groups tend more to retain their own identities rather than relinquish them for some common “American” identity. When white Christian men descended from Europeans held sway over the politics, business, and culture of America, it was relatively easier to propagate a common “American” identity. It didn’t hurt that most immigrants looked up to those perceived paragons of success and virtue and wanted to be like them, and were willing to shed their own identities (to a large degree) to achieve that.

But as immigrants who are not white Christian people descended from Europeans—blacks, hispanics, Asians—began to populate America in serious numbers, they decided they did not want to melt into the prevailing culture, but to keep their own languages, religions, cultures, and ways of thinking. And that’s OK, because the freedom to do that is enshrined in the US Constitution. The problem is that the prevailing culture is now feeling threatened, particularly as its adherents are no longer a majority of the population. So what will the prevailing culture of the USA be in the next 10, 20, 50 years?

One definition of a “nation” is “a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.” [Oxford Dictionaries] One can question whether, by that definition and if you believe what I said above, America is losing its nationhood.

What I think we need as a nation is that common objective, that unifying vision, to knit us together ever more tightly. The malaise of our current politics exemplifies that lack. The right seems to pander ever more slavishly to the fringes of conservatism whose vision of America is rooted in the 1950s (see: hegemony of white Christians descended from Europeans). That is destined to be a losing political strategy, if not in this election then the next one. But the left has not put forth a compelling vision of its own, which is just as sad in its own way.

Another definition of nation is “a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own.” [dictionary.com] Perhaps our political process is in fact the means we must use to give voice or consciousness to the current reality of our unity (or lack thereof), which is somewhat of a depressing thought. Perhaps instead we need something akin to a constitutional convention, where representatives of all interests can gather to debate and hopefully, through compromise, agree on, what the unifying vision of America should be for the next 235 years.

Permalink: http://tmblr.co/Zk0w2xGHK8Or

It is almost inconceivable to me that our government even considers proposals like this.

The Justice Department has gotten the message from journalists, interest groups and government watchdogs and has decided to withdraw its proposal to allow federal agencies to lie to people seeking sensitive documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

The US government somehow acts as if it is separate and distinct from the American people. (It is far from being the only government that thinks this way.) It’s time to get back to “of the people, by the people, and for the people”.

By the way, any “law and order” Republican administration would be far worse.

(Source: MSN)

Permalink: http://tmblr.co/Zk0w2xBWOtlT

Further to my earlier post on the death penalty, a case in point:

http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/21/7880191-two-versions-of-justice-in-troy-davis-case

Seven of the nine witnesses who testified against Davis later recanted or changed their statements. Several claimed police coercion. One of those witnesses, Jeffrey Sapp, said, “I got tired of them harassing me… I told them that Troy told me he did it, but it wasn’t true… I didn’t want to have any more problems with the cops, so I testified against Troy.”  Davis’ defense also claims a lack of physical evidence. The murder weapon was never recovered.  All of it was presented during previous appeals and attempts at a retrial. Those attempts failed.

I’m mystified how the police or prosecutors can look at this case and feel good about themselves or the jobs they are doing. This is not justice, it is the state wielding its ultimate power to satisfy some primal urge for revenge-any revenge. Shameful.

Coincidentally, if ever there were a case to be made for the death penalty, this would be it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44613428/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts

A horrible, horrifying, remorseless crime. Did he “deserve” the death penalty? In some cosmic sense, probably yes. But there are equally horrible criminals who committed equally horrifying crimes who are not facing the death penalty. When a penalty so severe, so uncorrectable, so final, is administered so randomly, it cannot be seen as just.

(Source: tumblr.com)

Permalink: http://tmblr.co/Zk0w2x9nxrw3

I love a good laugh. We’re not blessed with a lot of options for live comedy in Singapore, but as with most things cultural there has been steady improvement. Unfortunately, in one respect at least, comedy itself has taken a step backwards.

I am very difficult to offend, and the F-bomb does not, in an of itself, bother me at all. But judging by the comics we saw last night, if you’re not dropping that bomb every other word then you’re either a newbie or consigned to the Catskills / Poconos circuit. Is it not f*#king possible for these f*#king people to express their f*#king selves without saying “f*#k” or some f*#king variation of it six f*#king times in a f*#king sentence? For f*#k’s sake, I’m not f*#king offended by it, I’m simply f*#king annoyed by it. I mean, how f*#king hard is it for you, you f*#k, to read this f*#king sh!t? You get pretty f*#king weary of this pretty f*#king fast, don’t you? f*#king right. And after a while, you start counting the times they say “f*#k” instead of listening to what they’re saying.

Don’t get me wrong, these comics were funny. Seriously funny. Hilariously funny. (At least 4 out of the 5 were. The Aussie, who curiously was the Scottish comic of the year, was uneven at best, and not coincidentally he used “f*#k” most liberally and crudely.) Some gags had people on the verge of rolling in the aisles, literally. And some of the funniest lines made judicious use of the F-bomb. But the fact is, “f*#k” is no longer shocking and, by itself, is rarely funny. So I don’t understand why they feel the need to sprinkle it liberally about their routines.

And that’s all the f*#k I’ve got to say about that.

Permalink: http://tmblr.co/Zk0w2x9bvon5