posted                   

quote:

---

Working with multinational corporations to refrain from outsourcing jobs to low-cost countries might be a nice start.

---

quote:

---

Efforts to reverse the polarized economic demographics after 8 years of inhumane economic mismanagement is another

---

quote:

---

The way to defeat extremists, would-be Islamic as well as would-be Christian, is to remove their base of support. This is best done by supplementing military and intelligence efforts with humanitarian ones.

---

quote:

---

During the reign of George W. Bush, America has, regrettably, lost part of its soul. America needs to take true leadership in the world by showing a renewed moral strength and compassion.

---

quote:

---

Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush have tried one approach -- and we can safely say that America has not endeared itself to the citizens of Muslim countries, nor even to that of its allies.

---

quote:

---

One more thing: Settle the Palestinian issue, and recruitment to terrorist organizations will lessen considerably!

---

Posts: 417 | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

The grand chamber of 17 judges at the Strasbourg court found unanimously that an attempt by Italy to send a man back to Tunisia violated the ban on torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in the European convention on human rights.

The case was brought by Nassim Saadi against the Italian government. The British government intervened in the hope the court would sanction the return of suspects regardless of their home country's human rights record.

Ministers argued the right of the public to be protected against terrorism should be balanced against a suspect's rights not to be ill-treated.

---

A recap - a convicted terrorist brought the case to the EU court against the Italian government, and won! Good job! I would've like to have seen him win this in Tunisia!

BTW, The Guardian tends to be a liberal, anti American publication.
-------------------
Here's one for you, HP!

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1515254.ece

quote:

---

"I think mullah Krekar can get a mortgage and prepare for a long and secure stay in Norway," Sjødin said.

Sjødin is Krekar's legal counsel in the mullah's civil suit against the state. Sjødin is ready to parry any attempt at deportation with the regulations protecting people who risk inhuman treatment.

"If a warning of expulsion comes we will immediately file a new case for the breach of article three of the European Convention on Human Rights. Probably an emergency petition would also be issued to the European Court of Human Rights," Sjødin said.

---

Posts: 417 | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                

quote:

---

Originally posted by AMH v2.0:
RE: JB’s issues
----------
It would be pretty hard to find someone who wouldn’t be touched by your poster, but the issue is really about whether or not you feel that the federal government (or state ,for that matter) provides the best solutions for improving the issues highlighted. It has been over 40 years and billions of dollars since the Great Society – I know there have been some very good things, but I would suggest that this model is flawed. My view is that Obama (and Hillary) will continue this pattern and actually grow the entitlement sector.

---

I pretty much totally agree with you. I've written exhaustively about subsidiarity but noted, however, that one shouldn't knee-jerk react to a BIG vs small government solution every time an issue comes up, even if smaller is the proper default? And that's what I see partisans doing and that's all I ever see them doing, on both sides.

That was a collage of images that represents the seven pillars of Catholic Social Justice, which include, under their umbrella, defeating Islamo-Fascism and a healthy economic order.

And the entitlement model has been flawed and some corrections have been made (no small role played by Bill Clinton, btw); more need to be made.

In my view, though, as an over-riding issue, where the presidency can most definitely and unequivocably make a substantive difference (unlike, let's say, re: abortion, for example), a MAJOR change in direction of US foreign policy, in general, and the prudent deployment of our armed forces, in particular, needs to be accomplished. And this is to suggest that, albeit ironically, Barack Obama will, better than John McCain, effect a return to my brand of conservatism in that specific regard, a brand that is best articulated by Bill Buckley (RIP), George Will, Tucker Carlson, Colin Powell and their ilk. Pat Buchanan gets this right, too, although I can't follow him on other stuff. I resonate more with the libertarian-type conservatives of the Western states than with the fundamentalist social conservatives of the Southern states, who often give religion a bad name with their theocratic thrust and sanctimonious piety, who, allied with the likes of Bill Cunningham, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, are about to torpedo McCain's candidacy anyway.


p.s. OK, I'm ranting about social conservative elements of the party and will temper my remarks by saying, not all, but, WAY too many of 'em, especially the most vocal cohort.

[ February 28, 2008, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: johnboy ]

--------------------
http://christiannonduality.com

Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon
And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich

Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phil:
c. Appealing to voters in Ohio, where an election will take place soon?

---

Yes, unfortunately.

--------------------
http://christiannonduality.com

Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon
And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich

Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                

quote:

---

It would also be much better if he were promoting the kinds of faith-based initiatives that Bush got going. These groups are much more efficient in meeting social needs than government agencies.

---

quote:

---

IOW, you can't have peace and justice at the expense of a strong economy, national defense, and traditional values.

---

Real simple, ain't it?

Surely, these are not mutually exclusive?

Surely, no political party or presidential candidate has the monopoly on these goals?

Surely, not all would agree that, for example, Dubya has strengthened and not rather weakened our economic posture?

Surely, not all would agree that, for example, Dubya has strengthened and not rather weakened our national defense posture?

Surely, the values voters have come to realize that, for decades, their support has been exploited and their policy agenda ignored?

Surely, immigration, gun control and the death penalty are justice issues for both parties?

Surely, both liberal and paleoconservative cohorts have articulated a more realist approach to military deployment than the neoconservative cabal and, arguably, this has profound implications for our prospects for peace?

Why do we need federal oversight of traditional values? Why doesn't subsidiarity work here? Why don't faith-based initiatives work here? Why cannot local communities and states translate their values into reality without Big Brother or Nanny State coercion? Why the departure from libertarian conservative principles?

And when you respond, please, don't call me Shirley.

[ February 28, 2008, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: johnboy ]

--------------------
http://christiannonduality.com

Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon
And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich

Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

MAJOR change in direction of US foreign policy, in general, and the prudent deployment of our armed forces, in particular, needs to be accomplished. And this is to suggest that, albeit ironically, Barack Obama will, better than John McCain, effect a return to my brand of conservatism in that specific regard, a brand that is best articulated by Bill Buckley (RIP), George Will, Tucker Carlson, Colin Powell and their ilk. Pat Buchanan gets this right, too, although I can't follow him on other stuff.

---

quote:

---

I resonate more with the libertarian-type conservatives of the Western states than with the fundamentalist social conservatives of the Southern states, who often give religion a bad name with their theocratic thrust and sanctimonious piety, who, allied with the likes of Bill Cunningham, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, are about to torpedo McCain's candidacy anyway.

---

Posts: 417 | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phil:
JB, which of these questions do you think we need to discuss? My sense is that we already know the turnout of the discussion before it starts.

The one area I'm inclined to comment about is subsidiarity. As AMH has noted as well, I think Democrats have been greater violaters of this principle than Republicans. Since you asked about faith-based initiatives and brought in subsidiarity, I will respond in saying that I don't think Bush has violated such. I'm not sure from your comments about "Nanny State coercion" that we're talking about the same thing here, so here's a reference. I know the guy who oversees this in Wichita and in talking to him have come to believe that it's a very creative approach -- one that would have never come from a liberal/Democrat. The latter would have government agencies delivering services instead of helping to fund local organizations to do so. This initiative has been one of the successes of the Bush admin., imo. My sense is that Obama or Clinton would set about dismantling it ASAP, but I could be wrong, here.

---

quote:

---

Why do we need federal oversight of traditional values? Why doesn't subsidiarity work here? Why don't faith-based initiatives work here? Why cannot local communities and states translate their values into reality without Big Brother or Nanny State coercion? Why the departure from libertarian conservative principles?

---

Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnboy:
Surely, not all would agree that, for example, Dubya has strengthened and not rather weakened our economic posture?

---

Actually, as I said before, I think this is pretty much a bogus issue. I don't believe in political business cycles. I also remain unconvinced that there will be a recession. The issue is being demagogued by Obama et al.

--------------------
http://christiannonduality.com

Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon
And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich

Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                

quote:

---

Originally posted by AMH v2.0:
I also agree that exercising prudent judgment is key, especially regarding decisions that involve deploying troops. But, I also think this is easier said than done, especially in deciding on what is actually in America’s interest vs. what is the right thing to do – sort of a subsidiarity vs. socialization corollary. I think that the people you highlight are ones who take that pretty seriously, including Pat Buchanan, who is clearly more isolationist that the others.

But I find it difficult to agree that somehow Barack Obama would be better at this than John McCain. I actually believe that John McCain, coming from a military family, with his first hand experience in the military, front line no less, and years of experience in Washington dealing with military matters, understands exactly what is at stake when the military deploys and would show exactly the type of prudence that you state is needed. A great example of this is when, as a Congressman, he voted no on the resolution regarding the continued deployment of Marines in Beirut as part of the multi national force, against Reagan and the GOP - we all know how that turned out. Though Obama seems like a thoughtful man, I believe he is naïve about the “bad guys”, at best.

---

Since this is my signature issue, these considerations will be at the forefront as the General Election nears (I'm guessing Tuesday)

Perhaps you saw how McCain's Lebanon decision was parodied a couple of weeks ago?

quote:

---

John McCain’s reputation as a maverick is no recent contrivance. The senator first captured the media spotlight in September 1983, not long after he’d been elected to his first term in the House, when he voted against President Reagan’s decision to put American troops in Lebanon as part of a multinational “peacekeeping” force. One of 27 Republicans to break with the White House, the freshman McCain made a floor speech that reads as if it might have been written yesterday—by Ron Paul:

The fundamental question is: What is the United States’ interest in Lebanon? It is said we are there to keep the peace. I ask, what peace? It is said we are there to aid the government. I ask, what government? It is said we are there to stabilize the region. I ask, how can the U.S. presence stabilize the region?... The longer we stay in Lebanon, the harder it will be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the first place.

What can we expect if we withdraw from Lebanon? The same as will happen if we stay. I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave. I regretfully acknowledge that many innocent civilians will be hurt. But I firmly believe this will happen in any event.

Now insert “Iraq” where McCain said “Lebanon.” It’s as if McCain the Younger foresaw our present predicament and taunted his future incarnation, showing that wisdom doesn’t necessarily come with age.

---

Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Still waiting, after all these months, for evidence of these "Christian extremists." Drawing an implied equivocation between them and Islamic terrorists -- as though both pose equal dangers at this time in history -- seems more about PC analysis than a realistic appraisal of the dangers.

---

Posts: 10 | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bluenose:
Perhaps not the place (given the provenance of this site) to raise this issue since I don't want to offend, but you are equating "extremist" with "suicide bomber" and "dangers" with "physical injury and property destruction" in the quoted statement, Phil.

An extremist is a person who goes to extremes, typically in political matters, but more generally in any behavior. There are lots of forms of "danger" as well. When I hear Christian extremist and danger linked, I think of it as the political, educational, and social dangers involved in attempts to force certain viewpoints on others in a multicultural society; to hijack the definition of what is moral and what is not.

---

quote:

---

"What is this (contemplative prayer) in relation to action? Simply this. He (and she) who attempts to act and do things for others or for the world without this deepening of his own self-understanding, freedom, integrity, and capacity to love, will not have anything to give others. He will communicate to them nothing but the contagion of his own obsessions, his aggressiveness, his egocentered ambitions, his delusions about ends and means, his doctrinaire prejudices and ideas." Thomas Merton," The Climate of Monastic Prayer"

---

Driven by life's fears, unable to tolerate ambiguity, countenance paradox, engage creative tensions and abide with mystery, some give themselves over to easy answers, false dichotomies, facile analyses of complex global affairs, black and white answers to vexing moral problems, with a faith that remains clear but tentative, never dispossessed of their first naivete, never acquiring that second naivete where faith is obscure but certain.

In recent years, rather than translate their moral imperatives into the lingua franca of that pluralistic political discourse that traffics in terms and categories transparent to human reason, they eschewed dialogue, spewed monologue and attempted a deliberative end-around through a raw and naked political power ploy, demonizing all who would challenge their arrogation of moral superiority, scapegoating their defects onto others with the most virulent alterity, since, as Kristoferson says, everybody's got to have somebody to look down on, someone doing something dirty, decent folks can frown on. So, they proceeded with Bonhoeffer's cheap grace and their unnuanced bumper-sticker sloganeering, never earnestly trying to understand how or why others of large intelligence and profound goodwill might see reality differently.

This element and its representatives are not who we'd want applying just war calculus in an unholy alliance with others, who may have their own bias toward militaristic action, in a political coalition. They are not who we want representing authentic religion to a world already scandalized by the frail human nature of many high profile religious leaders and institutions, making our children suspicious of their own formative upbringing, giving the secularistic forces fodder to even further marginalize religion in the marketplace of ideas --- social, cultural, political and religious.

The dangers are indeed political (incivil discourse, theocratic hegemony - albeit unsuccessful, war & peace), educational (creationism) and social (squandered transformative opportunities). I find little solace in the notion that: at least they aren't as bad as suicidal terrorists. Spiritual tragedy is not measured in temporal mammon but in souls unconverted, spirits not transformed, journeys to authenticity aborted.

The Religious Right in America is in retreat because it was not rooted in the spirituality of the revivals that led to slavery's abolition, the solidarity movement that overthrew communism, the inspiration that triumphed over apartheid, the Gospel that informed the civil rights marches.

I use the term Religious Right to describe that cohort of religious influence that was radically fundamentalistic, understanding and appreciating that other, more authentic, voices were allied with their efforts out of political necessity.

Along with the neoconservative element, whose vision violates subsidiarity in foreign affairs, I'm all for driving the fundamentalistic Christian element from the temple, too, inasmuch as they, too, violate subsidiarity with their moral statism, however impotently. These folks deserve political exile because they are a danger, broadly conceived.

Let me just say, while I am here, despite all of my protestations and invocations of Buckley and Will, let there be no mistake they were backing McCain and the Republicans, even if otherwise disappointed. There are not quite as many Obamacans (less than half as many, I reckon) as there are McCainocrats

As for the provenance of this site, I assure you that reasoned and civil disagreement is encouraged and affirmed.

--------------------
http://christiannonduality.com

Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon
And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich

Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnboy:
I use the term Religious Right to describe that cohort of religious influence that was radically fundamentalistic ...

---

One of the very real dangers involving matters of war and peace has been the Religious Right's uncritical, unnuanced and biblically-inspired stance regarding Israel. These are not the folks who can provide a good counter-argument, for example, against the well-reasoned but otherwise tunnel-visioned perspectives of such as Charles Krauthammer or other neoconservative influences, whose bellicose rhetoric I often find to be too inflammatory re: the Middle East. The Christian Zionist Lobby frightens me, in fact. These folks have a just war calculus that is biased by a warped and ahistorical, otherwise biblically fundamentalistic, perspective. Pastor John Hagee was already meeting with McCain a year ago; yesterday's hoopla was not the beginning of this recent storm in that campaign. Neither McCain nor Huckabee have unqualifiedly denounced and rejected (Cf. Hillary & Obama re: Louis Farrakhan) Hagee, himself, choosing merely to distance themselves from some of his views; but WHICH of his views, only the anti-Catholic bigotry or the apocalyptic approach to Iran? This is incredibly dangerous. Hagee and his ilk should be unequivocally denounced. See McCain Hedges on Hagee Endorsement . Looks like Obama will get a free pass now on the stupid things his pastor has done, too.

[ March 01, 2008, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: johnboy ]

--------------------
http://christiannonduality.com

Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon
And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich

Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bluenose:
Perhaps not the place (given the provenance of this site) to raise this issue since I don't want to offend, but you are equating "extremist" with "suicide bomber" and "dangers" with "physical injury and property destruction" in the quoted statement, Phil.

An extremist is a person who goes to extremes, typically in political matters, but more generally in any behavior. There are lots of forms of "danger" as well. When I hear Christian extremist and danger linked, I think of it as the political, educational, and social dangers involved in attempts to force certain viewpoints on others in a multicultural society; to hijack the definition of what is moral and what is not.

---

Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phil:
... unless Obama cuts a deal with her to be his VP ...

---

Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phil:
I know you mean to take a break, but I'd be interested in hearing your take on where things stand and how you see developments unfolding after the elections today.

---

I appreciate that but I feel somewhat competent discussing political philosophy and totally imcompetent re: political punditry.

I'll say this, if one takes a fairly cynical perspective, which has some justification

Due to what's at stake: Hillary won't gracefully bow out; Huckabee ain't gone 'til the actual math is fait accompli (as oppossed to the probable math); Obama's honeymoon is OVER (which is good, actually, for the vetting process and scrutiny); McCain will become POTUS if national security picture deteriorates in any significant measure.

I'll say this, if one takes a fairly optimistic perspective, which has some justification


Hillary will be a real stateswoman and, for party unity, will bow out most gracefully, saying how she would have married Barack (because of his big feet) if she hadn't fallen for Bill first, because she will see that the only mathematical possibility she has is tied to over-turning the elected delegate numbers with superdelegates and this is true even under the most rosy scenarios in primaries going forward; Obama and McCain will run the most civil and high-minded campaign in US History, no mention of McCain's extramarital escapdes of old, no virtual indictment of Obama for old Chicgo political shenanigans; Huckabee will go on a lecture tour and write a book and try to revive the Christian Coalition.

[ March 04, 2008, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: johnboy ]

--------------------
http://christiannonduality.com

Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon
And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich

Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged |