Posts
I will be making an announcement in the next few days regarding When Towns Had Teams and the publication of the book. I will also be doing some marketing for the book over the next month at various Maine festivals, including this weekend's Moxie Festival in Lisbon Falls.
Stay tuned for details!
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Monday, July 04, 2005
The 4th of July
Today is the 4th of July, that day when we celebrate the myth many of us have been socialized to accept--this idea that America is this beacon of freedom and liberty to the rest of the world. We are the shining example of democracy and equality that is so much hogwash when the facts are analyzed.
I won't be flying the flag today, nor will I be attending any fireworks tonight. I used to enjoy fireworks, but I've become uncomfortable gathering where jingoism is openly promoted and flaunted.
I've developed a deep respect for Howard Zinn that began when I read his A People's History of the United States. I'm eternally grateful for that book, as it opened my eyes to that which I didn't want to believe--that the United States and its history was one of imperialism, not exceptionalism. I've read several other books by Zinn since then.
I had the good fortune of being able to attend a lecture by Zinn back in November of 2002 at Bates College. Along with my son Mark, home from college, we went to hear Zinn--at the time, 77 years old--clearly make a case for the injustice of that war. Here we are almost two years later, without a clear plan and no intention of leaving the region.
For your 4th of July reading, I've posted a portion of Zinn's essay from Boston Review; a deflation of the American myth of exceptionalism. You can read the remainder here:
The Power and the Glory: Myths of American exceptionalism
by, Howard Zinn
The notion of American exceptionalism—that the United States alone has the right, whether by divine sanction or moral obligation, to bring civilization, or democracy, or liberty to the rest of the world, by violence if necessary—is not new. It started as early as 1630 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony when Governor John Winthrop uttered the words that centuries later would be quoted by Ronald Reagan. Winthrop called the Massachusetts Bay Colony a “city upon a hill.” Reagan embellished a little, calling it a “shining city on a hill.”
The idea of a city on a hill is heartwarming. It suggests what George Bush has spoken of: that the United States is a beacon of liberty and democracy. People can look to us and learn from and emulate us.
In reality, we have never been just a city on a hill. A few years after Governor Winthrop uttered his famous words, the people in the city on a hill moved out to massacre the Pequot Indians. Here’s a description by William Bradford, an early settler, of Captain John Mason’s attack on a Pequot village.
"Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword, some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so as they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived that they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible was the stink and scent thereof; but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the praise thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them, thus to enclose their enemies in their hands and give them so speedy a victory over so proud and insulting an enemy."
The kind of massacre described by Bradford occurs again and again as Americans march west to the Pacific and south to the Gulf of Mexico. (In fact our celebrated war of liberation, the American Revolution, was disastrous for the Indians. Colonists had been restrained from encroaching on the Indian territory by the British and the boundary set up in their Proclamation of 1763. American independence wiped out that boundary.)
Invoking God has been a habit for American presidents throughout the nation’s history, but George W. Bush has made a specialty of it. For an article in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, the reporter talked with Palestinian leaders who had met with Bush. One of them reported that Bush told him, “God told me to strike at al Qaeda. And I struck them. And then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did. And now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East.” It’s hard to know if the quote is authentic, especially because it is so literate. But it certainly is consistent with Bush’s oft-expressed claims. A more credible story comes from a Bush supporter, Richard Lamb, the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, who says that during the election campaign Bush told him, “I believe God wants me to be president. But if that doesn’t happen, that’s okay.”
Divine ordination is a very dangerous idea, especially when combined with military power (the United States has 10,000 nuclear weapons, with military bases in a hundred different countries and warships on every sea). With God’s approval, you need no human standard of morality. Anyone today who claims the support of God might be embarrassed to recall that the Nazi storm troopers had inscribed on their belts, “Gott mit uns” (“God with us”).
Not every American leader claimed divine sanction, but the idea persisted that the United States was uniquely justified in using its power to expand throughout the world. In 1945, at the end of World War II, Henry Luce, the owner of a vast chain of media enterprises—Time, Life, Fortune—declared that this would be “the American Century,” that victory in the war gave the United States the right “to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit.”
This confident prophecy was acted out all through the rest of the 20th century. Almost immediately after World War II the United States penetrated the oil regions of the Middle East by special arrangement with Saudi Arabia. It established military bases in Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and a number of Pacific islands. In the next decades it orchestrated right-wing coups in Iran, Guatemala, and Chile, and gave military aid to various dictatorships in the Caribbean. In an attempt to establish a foothold in Southeast Asia it invaded Vietnam and bombed Laos and Cambodia.
I won't be flying the flag today, nor will I be attending any fireworks tonight. I used to enjoy fireworks, but I've become uncomfortable gathering where jingoism is openly promoted and flaunted.
I've developed a deep respect for Howard Zinn that began when I read his A People's History of the United States. I'm eternally grateful for that book, as it opened my eyes to that which I didn't want to believe--that the United States and its history was one of imperialism, not exceptionalism. I've read several other books by Zinn since then.
I had the good fortune of being able to attend a lecture by Zinn back in November of 2002 at Bates College. Along with my son Mark, home from college, we went to hear Zinn--at the time, 77 years old--clearly make a case for the injustice of that war. Here we are almost two years later, without a clear plan and no intention of leaving the region.
For your 4th of July reading, I've posted a portion of Zinn's essay from Boston Review; a deflation of the American myth of exceptionalism. You can read the remainder here:
The Power and the Glory: Myths of American exceptionalism
by, Howard Zinn
The notion of American exceptionalism—that the United States alone has the right, whether by divine sanction or moral obligation, to bring civilization, or democracy, or liberty to the rest of the world, by violence if necessary—is not new. It started as early as 1630 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony when Governor John Winthrop uttered the words that centuries later would be quoted by Ronald Reagan. Winthrop called the Massachusetts Bay Colony a “city upon a hill.” Reagan embellished a little, calling it a “shining city on a hill.”
The idea of a city on a hill is heartwarming. It suggests what George Bush has spoken of: that the United States is a beacon of liberty and democracy. People can look to us and learn from and emulate us.
In reality, we have never been just a city on a hill. A few years after Governor Winthrop uttered his famous words, the people in the city on a hill moved out to massacre the Pequot Indians. Here’s a description by William Bradford, an early settler, of Captain John Mason’s attack on a Pequot village.
"Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword, some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so as they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived that they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible was the stink and scent thereof; but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the praise thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them, thus to enclose their enemies in their hands and give them so speedy a victory over so proud and insulting an enemy."
The kind of massacre described by Bradford occurs again and again as Americans march west to the Pacific and south to the Gulf of Mexico. (In fact our celebrated war of liberation, the American Revolution, was disastrous for the Indians. Colonists had been restrained from encroaching on the Indian territory by the British and the boundary set up in their Proclamation of 1763. American independence wiped out that boundary.)
Invoking God has been a habit for American presidents throughout the nation’s history, but George W. Bush has made a specialty of it. For an article in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, the reporter talked with Palestinian leaders who had met with Bush. One of them reported that Bush told him, “God told me to strike at al Qaeda. And I struck them. And then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did. And now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East.” It’s hard to know if the quote is authentic, especially because it is so literate. But it certainly is consistent with Bush’s oft-expressed claims. A more credible story comes from a Bush supporter, Richard Lamb, the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, who says that during the election campaign Bush told him, “I believe God wants me to be president. But if that doesn’t happen, that’s okay.”
Divine ordination is a very dangerous idea, especially when combined with military power (the United States has 10,000 nuclear weapons, with military bases in a hundred different countries and warships on every sea). With God’s approval, you need no human standard of morality. Anyone today who claims the support of God might be embarrassed to recall that the Nazi storm troopers had inscribed on their belts, “Gott mit uns” (“God with us”).
Not every American leader claimed divine sanction, but the idea persisted that the United States was uniquely justified in using its power to expand throughout the world. In 1945, at the end of World War II, Henry Luce, the owner of a vast chain of media enterprises—Time, Life, Fortune—declared that this would be “the American Century,” that victory in the war gave the United States the right “to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit.”
This confident prophecy was acted out all through the rest of the 20th century. Almost immediately after World War II the United States penetrated the oil regions of the Middle East by special arrangement with Saudi Arabia. It established military bases in Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and a number of Pacific islands. In the next decades it orchestrated right-wing coups in Iran, Guatemala, and Chile, and gave military aid to various dictatorships in the Caribbean. In an attempt to establish a foothold in Southeast Asia it invaded Vietnam and bombed Laos and Cambodia.
Friday, July 01, 2005
When wrong is right and other morality tales
Moral relativism could be defined as moral propositions not reflecting absolute or universal truths. A relativist might posit that moral judgments emerge from social customs and personal preferences. There is no single standard by which to judge an ethical position as right or wrong, such as the Bible, or the Ten Commandments. You could even go as far as to say that one person's ethical judgments or acts cannot be judged by another, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.
A moral relativist is often a pragmatist. His/her decisions as to right and wrong are determined by what’s best for them. While it’s convenient for many on the right to affix that label in a perjorative manner to those on the left, those “nasty” liberals or progressives, it seems as those their own personal Jesus, George Bush, is in fact a moral relativist, also.
Thom Englehardt at TomDispatch.com dishes out the dirt and shows us that George Bush, for all the political mileage and capital he garners from those with very fixed guideposts of ethical behavior, is actually a pragmatist afterall.
Englehardt writes, “In his speeches, George Bush regularly calls for a return to or the reinforcement of traditional, even eternal, family values and emphasizes the importance of personal "accountability" for our children as well as ourselves. ('The culture of America is changing from one that has said, if it feels good, do it, and if you've got a problem, blame somebody else, to a new culture in which each of us understands we are responsible for the decisions we make in life.') And yet when it comes to acts that are clearly wrong in this world -- aggressive war, the looting of resources, torture, personal gain at the expense of others, lying, and manipulation among other matters -- Bush and his top officials never hesitate to redefine reality to suit their needs. When faced with matters long defined in everyday life in terms of right and wrong, they simply reach for their dictionaries.”
I mean, good ole' Bush is a card-carrying member of the postmodern club, bejesus! Don't believe it? There's alot more in Englehardt's piece for ammunition, such as this zinger; "Here's the strange thing, then: No one in our lifetime has found the nature of reality to be more definitionally supple, more malleable, more… let's say it… postmodern and relative (to their needs and desires) than the top officials of the Bush administration."
Let me break it down real simple for 'ya. Just because you say something's true, or happened when it didn't, doesn't change reality; no matter how many times you say it's so.
It's amazing how our Teflon president can continue to skate by, propped up by lies that aren't just immoral--they are getting young men and women killed. But, with the current state of our cowering press and an American populace addicted to flags and yellow ribbons, none of it matters. War is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength. Oh yeah! And when you've drunk the Kool-aid, let's add that Bush is God!
A moral relativist is often a pragmatist. His/her decisions as to right and wrong are determined by what’s best for them. While it’s convenient for many on the right to affix that label in a perjorative manner to those on the left, those “nasty” liberals or progressives, it seems as those their own personal Jesus, George Bush, is in fact a moral relativist, also.
Thom Englehardt at TomDispatch.com dishes out the dirt and shows us that George Bush, for all the political mileage and capital he garners from those with very fixed guideposts of ethical behavior, is actually a pragmatist afterall.
Englehardt writes, “In his speeches, George Bush regularly calls for a return to or the reinforcement of traditional, even eternal, family values and emphasizes the importance of personal "accountability" for our children as well as ourselves. ('The culture of America is changing from one that has said, if it feels good, do it, and if you've got a problem, blame somebody else, to a new culture in which each of us understands we are responsible for the decisions we make in life.') And yet when it comes to acts that are clearly wrong in this world -- aggressive war, the looting of resources, torture, personal gain at the expense of others, lying, and manipulation among other matters -- Bush and his top officials never hesitate to redefine reality to suit their needs. When faced with matters long defined in everyday life in terms of right and wrong, they simply reach for their dictionaries.”
I mean, good ole' Bush is a card-carrying member of the postmodern club, bejesus! Don't believe it? There's alot more in Englehardt's piece for ammunition, such as this zinger; "Here's the strange thing, then: No one in our lifetime has found the nature of reality to be more definitionally supple, more malleable, more… let's say it… postmodern and relative (to their needs and desires) than the top officials of the Bush administration."
Let me break it down real simple for 'ya. Just because you say something's true, or happened when it didn't, doesn't change reality; no matter how many times you say it's so.
It's amazing how our Teflon president can continue to skate by, propped up by lies that aren't just immoral--they are getting young men and women killed. But, with the current state of our cowering press and an American populace addicted to flags and yellow ribbons, none of it matters. War is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength. Oh yeah! And when you've drunk the Kool-aid, let's add that Bush is God!
Thursday, June 30, 2005
What's good for Spain....
The parliament of Spain legalized gay marriage in this staunchly Catholic nation. While adamently opposed by Catholics and conservatives in the country, the bill is just the latest of many progressive initiatives pursuied by the ruling Socialist-majority government of Prime Minister Zapetero.
In my home state of Maine, however, the conservative Xians, led by Michael Heath and other Jesus-lovers, have just turned in the required signatures to put a "people's veto" on the ballot in the fall. This will be the third time this divisive issue has been thrust in the faces of Mainers since 1997. It's bound to get ugly here in the Pine Tree State, as the out-of-state morality policy such as James Dobson's Family Research Council and others are already descending on the state, as well as fattening the coffers of the anti-gay proponents.
Interestingly, our governor John Baldacci had signed into law a bill granting legal protection to gays and lesbians, allowing Maine to join the rest of the New England states that have similar forms of legislation.
While Maine certainly has a progressive element, as well as those who go by the declaration of live-and-let-live, the anti-homosexual crowd will whip up the fears of others and this one could get extremely ugly come the fall. FMI about how you can join those who would like Maine to leave the 16th and join the 21st century, a good place to start is with Maine Won't Descriminate.
In my home state of Maine, however, the conservative Xians, led by Michael Heath and other Jesus-lovers, have just turned in the required signatures to put a "people's veto" on the ballot in the fall. This will be the third time this divisive issue has been thrust in the faces of Mainers since 1997. It's bound to get ugly here in the Pine Tree State, as the out-of-state morality policy such as James Dobson's Family Research Council and others are already descending on the state, as well as fattening the coffers of the anti-gay proponents.
Interestingly, our governor John Baldacci had signed into law a bill granting legal protection to gays and lesbians, allowing Maine to join the rest of the New England states that have similar forms of legislation.
While Maine certainly has a progressive element, as well as those who go by the declaration of live-and-let-live, the anti-homosexual crowd will whip up the fears of others and this one could get extremely ugly come the fall. FMI about how you can join those who would like Maine to leave the 16th and join the 21st century, a good place to start is with Maine Won't Descriminate.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
The Future of Petroleum
It's important to understand what lies behind our failures in Iraq. Regardless of what Washington tells any of us, we aren't leaving Iraq any time soon. "Why?" you ask. Because of oil and the massive quantities of it that our mega-consumption demands.
This article on Saudi oil says alot about the war in Iraq and possible scenarios for our future.
Drive your H2, Expedition and whatever other gas-guzzling behemoth with your "I support W" decal, yellow ribbon or other pro-oil slogan while you can. The day is coming when it will sit idle in your yard.
You can call it schadenfreude; I just say it's the future.
This article on Saudi oil says alot about the war in Iraq and possible scenarios for our future.
Drive your H2, Expedition and whatever other gas-guzzling behemoth with your "I support W" decal, yellow ribbon or other pro-oil slogan while you can. The day is coming when it will sit idle in your yard.
You can call it schadenfreude; I just say it's the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)