Check for web archive captures
Frantic or Frenzied
By lindamuralidharan on 2015-12-19 00:07:12
Structure of the Constitution
* Preamble:
— Statement of purpose
* Articles:
— |: Legislative Branch
Il: Executive Branch
Ill: Judicial Branch
IV: Relations Among the
States
V: Amendment Process
Vi: Federal Power
Vil: Ratification
* Amendments:
— 27 Total
= 1*ten are the Bill of Rights
I seem to have a tough time
choosing a topic for this week's post. There is so much being said just now about the primary campaign...especially with
respect to the Republican candidates and so much commentary about the desirability or otherwise of our government
abusing people with Muslim names or religion, that I don't like the idea of just adding more this or that to the debates. And
this blog has had much to say in the past about our pervasive Islamophobia and why it is both irrational and reprehensible. I
hate it; I fear it; and I don't want to discuss it directly just now. I feel frantic at the thought of putting cohesive thoughts to
paper that would make any difference. Or maybe I just feel frenzied. I will thus address a number of related topics that
have grown out of the current political season and out of current violent experiences of people in our world. Maybe this is
venting and maybe the discussion will include more people in thinking things through. I am fully aware that politicians of all
times and places and stripes not only exaggerate the significance or seriousness of many circumstances but they lie about
both the nature of current problems and about solutions to both real and imagined problems. Still I want to vent about some
of this because I find a lot of commentary on TV lacking in efforts to cut through the fog. So many lives are at stake as we
try to establish both effective and humane foreign and domestic policies with regard to violence at home and abroad. Let's
start with our current President being reported on by a CNN anchor. It was said that the President was forced to admit that
the US government cannot prevent all possible violent (terror) attacks, especially the variety currently referred to by defense
experts as "lone wolf" efforts. Why do I find this offensive? Because it is obvious. No government can ensure 100%
safety for all inhabitants and when there are individuals developing nefarious plots on their own....whether it be the white
supremacist Dylan Roof or the radicalized couple who murdered so many in San Bernardino.....we can be vigilant but in our
democracy we cannot track all private correspondence or thinking or personal conspiracies. It may have been a good thing
for the president to remind people of the obvious since some people seem to be misinformed on any number of issues, but I
don't think of his statement as an "admission". Or that he was forced to admit to something he had been denying. It was a
statement of the obvious that any careful observer could figure out. [caption id="attachment_7882" align="alignright"
width="290"] John Locke[/caption] Next I will return to another frequently
discussed topic on this blog...for a number of years now. That topic is Iran and its role in the world and its relationship with
the United States. I heard a politician state this week that if we didn't do thus and so (I believe it involved removing Assad
from Syria and/or giving Russia a drubbing for aiding Assad or both) we would have an Iranian Empire all across the
Middle East. It was not exactly stated but the implication was that all the Sunni States (including the very undemocratic
Saudi Arabia) plus Israel and etc. would perish. I'm not quite sure how all the inhabitants of the region would take this lying
down, but the practical matter is less significant to me than the ignorance behind the statement. Iran has for many years felt
threatened by the dominance of the Sunnis. In the past it could see Iraq and Saudi Arabia and the population of Syria (if not
the minority leader) and some of the smaller states, Egypt perhaps as well, Afghanistan, Pakistan....all aligned against it. It
was surrounded by Sunnis. And some inside Iran had visions of grandeur of it becoming a leading force....as much by wit
and economics as by military might...as a renewed "Persian" style state. Who can blame them for some paranoia? There
was truly an imbalance of power as some of our presidential hopefuls and sometimes some of our Democratic folks seem to
ignore. For years, in many places and from many sources I have heard these apocalyptic arguments. I rarely hear any
counter argument from the media in general. In fact, many in the media seem to relish stoking these fires of concern....."hey,
ain't it awful," "what can we do", "keep listening to be titillated by discussions of the villains." I agree these sentiments are
not stated out loud; they just seem to be the underlying message. Iran is not in any danger of actually setting up a Shia
empire. However, it will keep pushing for some kind of balance of power. And, it would seem to me and to many scholars
and defense experts from our side that the US could play a big role in establishing an actual balance of power...with no
advantage to any one side, not to Shia or Sunni, with minimum militarism and maximum diplomacy. However, this
approach has a much better chance if the American public is not misled. Jorge and Maria, Mark and Lisa of suburban USA
are not really studying Mideastern history on their own to any significant degree. I would that public schools taught more
logic as well as world history and geography. Generally I remember having to teach myself rules of logic (and I have
forgotten a lot of the specifics) although I did have some formal training with a great social studies teacher who over 3 years
taught us to really analyze pros and cons in legislative policies of modern American history and I took a one semester
philosophy course in college. Probably adults and political operatives today do not have to read Locke verbatim but how
nice if more would at least peruse some summaries of world class philosophers and look up a crash course in logic in the
library or on the internet. If so maybe more would confront the self-serving who say ISSIL or Iran are existential threats to
the the US. There is less talk about Iran right at the moment, but the price of freedom and peace is eternal vigilance so we
need to be alert to when the hawks and Neocons start beating war drums again with regard to Iran. I think I have asked in
other documents for someone to say why she .... or he....thinks Iran is our enemy. There is no attempt whatsoever on their
part to attack US soil or even US ships and the like. They are clearly interested in some international trade and some
international influence as most large countries are, whether Canada or Mexico or France or Germany or Russia....... We play
in to many of the proxy wars in the Mideast. Right now the horror is our siding with the Saudis in their fight against
Houthis in Yemen and the Houthis are treated as proxies for Iran. Well, whatever Iran is about, the Houthis are not classic
Shia and the Saudis have partly been motivated by just not liking unrest on their border that could spill over in to their
country since every so often somebody in Saudi Arabia makes like they might want to get rid Royal House of Saud and its
oppression. Who knows whether a benign presence would then take its place but the point is we have no reason to fight the
Houthis and make life more miserable and unstable in Yemen. I have written in more detail about them before. Check the
archives. [caption id="attachment_7884" align="aligncenter" width="316"]
What can Confucius teach us?[/caption] Now I will return to some of the more specific statements of the past week that are
so difficult to accept as part of American discourse without a sufficient outcry against them. I do give credit to those in the
media who pounced immediately on a political candidate who wanted to be taken seriously as an expert and strong actor in
international affairs who talked about developing a relationship with a king who has been dead over a decade. And the
media explained (at least on some channels) that a candidate's idea of carpet bombing ISSIL was not a useful tactic and
another one stated that carpet bombing is now a war crime. We hear little peeps now and again about domestic terrorism of
various stripes but it does not seem to me to measure up to the steady drum beat of speculation and reporting about two
murderers who might have wanted to express their inner rage and hate through external acts of unspeakable nature against
decent people of all kind, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, atheist, male, female, single, married, parents, what have you. Also
some of the media immediately confronted a candidate who claimed that she wanted to restore a warrior class and seek the
counsel of several generals who....she claimed... had been fired because they had a view of the conflict in the Middle East
that conflicted with that of President Obama. It turned out she was telling real lies. None of the generals had been fired
under the circumstance she claimed and one of them had completely retired from public service well before President
Barack Obama had obtained office as Commander in Chief. [caption id="attachment_7885" align="aligncenter"
width="550"] Rene Descartes...what
might he have to tell us?[/caption] Finally, I am distressed by the repeated phrases of so many politicians, the President
included. And I don't hear the media confronting anybody about it. So often someone, says "I will keep America safe" or "I
will do all in my power to keep America safe." What does this mean? ISSIL and Al Qaeda are terrible forces in the world
and they kill many people who deserve to live a quiet, peaceful life. But they have no power to damage the USA ata
significant level unless we defeat ourselves by fear and loathing and acting counter to our founding principles. Can any
president, present or future, stop all killings? The murders in schools and churches and movie theaters and medical clinics
and homes? What about our dreadful statistics of gun violence that includes all kinds of murders and suicides and accidents
and police violence and domestic violence? What about the children who consumed lead laden water from their home
faucets when lead was leached out of the municipal pipes in Flint, Michigan? Our media need to be more vigilant about
confronting illogical statements as well as policies. Our people need to be more willing to think for themselves. Iam
surprised and somewhat pleased that the recent presidential primary debate did raise some policy issues and begin to move
away from just a contest of personality and popularity. We have a long way to go, however, before we can realize a certain
increased level of peaceful enjoyment of our own country. [caption id="attachment_7888" align="aligncenter" width="473"]
Zion National Park...can we enjoy more peace in
our land?[/caption]
