Head-in-the-Sand Liberals

[whimsicaldeb]

Speaking of democrats and compassion did you see this?

Time To Socialize MedicineHow Democrats can make themselves useful.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Wednesday, Nov. 8, 2006, at 4:33 PM ET
May I put in a word for socialized medicine?


Have you been inside a hospital lately?
The signs of breakdown are everywhere, from the emergency room overflowing with uninsured people to the film labs unable to locate MRIs that cost thousands of dollars to produce (usually because a doctor misfiled them) to the medical chart whose privacy is guarded so fervently that the patient may need a law degree to get his hands on it, only to discover that results of his last three blood tests never made it out of the fax machine. (Before she died of liver cancer, my wife found that the only place she could read her medical chart unmolested was the hospital ladies' room.) The National Academy of Sciences estimates that 3 percent to 4 percent of all people admitted to hospitals end up suffering some sort of injury due to medical error and that the number who die as a result may approach 100,000 annually, which exceeds the number of people who die annually in car crashes. The problem isn't incompetent doctors or medical technicians; it's the seat-of-the-pants way medical care must be delivered under the current jerry-built system. By comparison, your local Department of Motor Vehicles is a model of efficiency and cheery service.
http://www.slate.com/id/2153275/

I am putting a lot of hope in Pelosi...

So have I (hope in Pelosi - and all the rest) working from a wiser position via past experiences.

And 2: Yes I have seen that our hospitals operations are in need of revisions, for as synch would have it, hospital issues have dominated the front page of my local paper for a couple of weeks now.

...

Speaking of religion and what/how do we deal with religious extremism -- something new, and interesting has recently come up:

ON FAITH
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/

About On Faith

Religion is the most pervasive yet least understood topic in global life. From the caves of the Afghan-Pakistan border to the cul-de-sacs of the American Sunbelt, faith shapes and suffuses the way billions of people-Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and nonbelievers-think and act, vote and fight, love and, tragically, hate. It is the most ancient of forces. As Homer said, "All men need the gods." Even the most ferocious atheists find themselves doing intellectual battle on a field defined by forces of the faithful.

And so, in a time of extremism -- for extremism is to the 21st century what totalitarianism was to the 20th -- how can people engage in a conversation about faith and its implications in a way that sheds light rather than generates heat? At The Washington Post and Newsweek, we believe the first step is conversation-intelligent, informed, eclectic, respectful conversation-among specialists and generalists who devote a good part of their lives to understanding and delineating religion's influence on the life of the world. The point of our new online religion feature is to provide a forum for such sane and spirited talk, drawing on a remarkable panel of distinguished figures from the academy, the faith traditions, and journalism. Members of the group will weigh in on a question posed at least once a week, perhaps sometimes more often, depending on the flow of the news. We encourage readers to join the conversation by commenting on what our panelists have to say, offering their own opinions and suggesting topics for future discussions.

From the nature of evil to religious reformation, from the morality of fetal stem-cell research to the history of scripture, from how to raise kids in multi-faith households to the place of gays in traditional churches -- of the asking of questions, to paraphrase Ecclesiastes, there shall be no end. We think that the online world, with its limitless space, offers us a unique opportunity to carry on a fruitful, intriguing, and above all constructive conversation about the things that matter most.

Posted by Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham on November 9, 2006 10:19 AM

Source:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfa ... ments.html

Even Ram Dass in on the panel!

Maybe there is hope for this world after all...

[jimboloco]

I have been thinking about the moniker head-in-the-sand-liberals
and have to concurr with mnaz'z'z estimate, alarmist writing, the standard from the militarists.

We need to scale back the defense spending, through closer scrutiny of accounting, thru open-ness transparancy in granting defense contracts, and challenging how these monies are miss-spent,
we need an active and capable military that is poised to interact in the world as an agent of peacemaking

I supported much of the military actions in the Balkans, save for thhe intensive air ccampaignn into Montenegro, Serbia

I supported stoppinng Iraq in Kuwait, but was opposed to the air barrage into Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, also opposed to the murder of 80,000 Iraqi troops fleeing in terror on the Highway of Hell,
slaughtered after they tried to run. We wouldn't accept a surrender or a retreat, meant to exorcise the defeatest "Vietnam syndrome" for once and for all.

I supported the Afghanistan war also with broad international support, but would have taken closer scrutiny again over the air war, and certainly over the treatment and detention of prisoners.

These rabid militarists would have you believe that the current status quo is essential, but that is a bunch of hogwash, plenty of room for "redeployment" and changing the way we disberse funding into and through the Pentagon.

Essentially they would have you believe that promoting the USA as a member of the world community would be an irresponsible attitude, and dangerous in terms of not realising the evil nature of the "terrorist" states.
It is not accurate and is dysfunctional and we have got to supercede that mentality, also including the closed minded fundamentalist religiosities.

[mnaz]

well said, jim.

religion isn't necessarily confined to churches, mosques, or the taliban.... depends on how one looks at "religion", and its pros and cons, saving grace or fanatical face. tunnel-visioned militarism is just another extremist religion in an already crowded marketplace, isn't it? and when tunnel-visioned militarism is concocted from lies, corporate bullshit, and general abuse to begin with, then do the math. (we are doing the math).

are we at risk of terrorism? not really the point. of course we are. all the more reason not to start useless bullshit wars. let's get ourselves up to speed on terrorism-- look at how we got here. and let's fix our international human intelligence capability, if it's broken, without resorting to the abuses of the reagan era and fascist tactics here at home. we might make mistakes, i suppose, but let's try to make them honest mistakes that we can live with. the war machine should not be given such free reign anymore. enough already. if al qaeda is a demonstrated threat, then at least try to focus on al qaeda (instead of things like halliburton's no-bid welfare check and cheney's stock options).

we should try to work with our allies; we'll need them. let's at least try to get some sort of "grip" on the problem. we haven't tried yet. not really. and by "we", i mean that collective, reeling organism called the U Ess of Ay, which confiscates my money to put toward more madness. i want my money back.

it's not just the war; it's the also the worship of things, the near-deification of raw capitalism and profit over all else (a golden calf for all fans of moses and the tablets to consider), the loud, unsophisticated "linear thinking" (as lenny used to say) of an adolescent nation that seems propelled by little more than raging hormones at times. science warns you to clean up the environment before it cleans you out? no problem. recruit a few well-paid scientists to put a new label on it, and/or use popular slurs such as "the blame america first crowd", and it's business as usual-- back to those loud, adolescent raging hormones... and no, I don't belong to the "blame america first" crew, though i suppose i'm as guilty as the next guy for not acknowledging america's positive contributions. i'm just weary of the current spate of tantrums and greed.... oh well....

if you've made it this far, i want to thank you for indulging my quiet rant. seems i've done a lot of that on these boards lately (and not so quietly at times). please accept my personal apology for that.... and i guess that's about it for now. as cecil would say...... [enough].

[whimsicaldeb]

if you've made it this far, i want to thank you for indulging my quiet rant.... seems i've done a lot of that on these boards lately, and not so quietly at times .... please accept my personal apology for that.... and i guess that's about it for now. as cecil would say...... [enough].

Rant away ... what's not to rant about. No apology necessary.

There was only one thing I disagreed with in your rant and it began with the word "if"

"if al queda is a demonstrated threat, then shall we at least try harder to focus on al queda"

There is no "if" - al queda is a threat: fact. And has been all along, and showing so all along. No "ifs" about it.

It's comments like these, this type of indecision or inability to clearly see and address a threat to our nation, our peoples, that causes someone like Sam Harris to write with passion "head-in-the-sand" liberals, and for others to vote Republican – even against their better judgment. (and, no - I did not vote bush)

One tiny little word ... but the effects of it can be tremendous.

Bush&Co are focused on al queda as they should be and that’s why he was elected twice. But it was Bush&Co’s own ineptness at actually do the job right that has shown so clearly what complete fuck-ups they really are, and more importantly, how dangerous that type of ineptitude is when facing this type of threat.

Just as dangerous to our nation as those who can’t make up their minds if something is a threat to our nation, or not.

Flip sides of the same coin (imo).

[mnaz]

deb, the "if" here is embedded in a statement of if-then logic.... if A = problem, then focus on A. i meant it as a "common sense" thing. the "if" here isn't meant to challenge whether or not A = problem in the first place. Bush & his merry band of corporate thieves failed to keep their focus on the main problem; that was my point. has bush been focused enough on al qaeda? why did the u.s. military invade iraq? why did bush say, "i don't know where he (bin laden) is.. i don't spend too much time on it"?.... you know, i still can't believe that 2004 election. where was our collective bullshit detector?

and since no one had responded yet when i logged in, i did go through and rewrite some of my thoughts. apologize if it affected any of your quotes.

[whimsicaldeb]

deb, the "if" here is embedded in a simple statement of common sense logic.... if A = problem, then focus on A. the "if" here isn't meant to challenge whether or not A = problem in the first place. Bush & his merry band of corporate thieves failed to keep their focus on the main problem; that was my point. has bush been focused enough on al qaeda? why did we invade iraq? why did bush say, "i don't know where he (bin laden) is.. i don't spend too much time on it"?....

and since no one had responded yet when i logged in, i did go through and rewrite some of my thoughts. apologize if it affected any of your quotes.

You're rewrites didn't effect my reply, and thank you for clarifying what you meant by "if" it wasn't clear in the way you were using it.

As to why did Bush&Co failed ... why he invaded Iraq and didn't care/know where bin laden was and all the other crap ... because he is, and they are inept and the depth of their ineptness did not come to the forefront until after 9/11. Time, along with other things such as Katrina brought out into the open to the public exactly how inept they actually were. 9/11 and Katrine were this administration's test - which they failed miserably. They had the information way back then but they chose to discard it and took off in their own direction - at our expense - and as things work in this world, their continued bunglings and failings came out into the open where they need to be to addressed.

Thank Gawd!

[mnaz]

re: bushko ineptness.... is it symptoms (vs. cause?).... sounds like we agree as to Bushko's all-around ineptness and blind eye/deaf ear toward 'we, the people'. however, in the case of the so-called 'war on terror', i think we need to recognize the extent that bushko's "ineptness" therein is driven by a PNAC neo-con, corporatist agenda.

re: al qaeda's threat.... true enough, but to what degree and what nature? To me, it is very real, and also very much overblown and overused to manipulate and deceive for power and personal agenda by foaming-at-the-mouth, alarmist politicians and pundits. and there is almost no credible attempt made to try and understand the nature and underlying causes of this threat... instead we're constantly fed such inane platitudes as "they hate us for our freedom", etc....

just some thoughts.

[stilltrucking]

Did some one mention to what extent religion/theocracy is driving the masses. For some reason as if I have been here before it reminds of 1914 but worse. This time we fight a truly holy war.

sorry for ramble mnaz
my day took a unexpected turn
nothing much to do except sit her and type.

[whimsicaldeb]

re: bushko ineptness.... is it symptoms (vs. cause?).... sounds like we agree as to Bushko's all-around ineptness and blind eye/deaf ear toward 'we, the people'. however, in the case of the so-called 'war on terror', i think we need to recognize the extent that bushko's "ineptness" therein is driven by a PNAC neo-con, corporatist agenda.

re: al qaeda's threat.... true enough, but to what degree and what nature? To me, it is very real, and also very much overblown and overused to manipulate and deceive for power and personal agenda by foaming-at-the-mouth, alarmist politicians and pundits. and there is almost no credible attempt made to try and understand the nature and underlying causes of this threat... instead we're constantly fed such inane platitudes as "they hate us for our freedom", etc....
just some thoughts.

To get a better idea, understanding, I suggest checking out "Hostage - The Jill Carroll Story" It will give you a more detailed idea of what we're actually dealing with. Because I agree with you mnaz, we have not received the best of information through the mainstream media, and it's more than just the platitudes - including the platitude that it's all corporate agendas. Corporations do indeed have their agenda's but even they have been pulling out and doing the 'cut & run' that Bush&Co said so strongly they'd never do. Bechtel's pullout is the latest.

The handwritings on the wall...

But to really know, you have to see how they work and why ... and the Jill Carroll story will show you large bits of that.

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/carroll/index.html

Intro:

Jill Carroll, a freelance reporter for The Christian Science Monitor, was kidnapped by Sunni Muslim insurgents in Baghdad on Jan. 7, 2006.

Over the next 82 days, she had closer contact with Sunni insurgents than any American who has lived to tell the tale.

She cooked with the women. She played with the children. She was locked away in rooms to the sound of cocking guns.

Deprived of control over the smallest aspect of existence, she feared for her life every day.

Her chief captor required his journalist hostage to "interview" him for hours at a time. He would expound on the insurgent worldview and the ruling council set up by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

In her last hours of captivity this man told her: "Forget about the council. You can't talk about the women or the children. You have to say you were in one room the whole time. Everything is forbidden. You must forget it all."

She couldn't. This is her story.

[mnaz]

the neo-cons wanted iraq's strategic dirt ever since the 1st gulf war. bush's security team discussed the possible removal of saddam in its very first cabinet meeting in jan., '01, and cheney reportedly asked some of those players, just hours after the 9/11 attacks, to judge whether those attacks might be used to persuade americans to "hit Saddam".

given the documented aggressive, preemptive, and violent nature of neo-con philosophy, the $gazillion-dollar no-bid sweetheart deals handed out to Bushko's corporate cronies, the unprecedented major corporate tax cuts in a time of war, the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of an Iraq-al qaeda connection, the constantly-shifting "justifications" for the Iraq war, and everything that's come out in the last couple years about intelligence being cooked or even made up by Bush's war team, i don't think "corporate agenda" is much of a stretch or a "platitude" when describing the actions of bush's cabal. i really don't. it certainly doesn't compare with, say, "they hate us for our freedom", on the platitude index. not even close.

bechtel is pulling out of iraq? that's because the invasion didn't go just like it was supposed to; it continues to meet violent unrest and resistance. yes, the factions fight among themselves, but they also fight the u.s. presence, which has become a big part of the problem. been that way for awhile. yes, bechtel may be leaving, but bechtel also made obscene amounts of money, our money, on the war. we, the people, need to stand against this kind of profiteering and unaccountable blood money, paid for with our taxes.

i have to say, my jaws get a little tight when i hear people try to retroactively justify the Iraq war based on various ruthless thugs who came to iraq to fight as insurgents. that type of thinking doesn't wash with me. when these same type of (cia-trained) jihadist thugs fought the russians in afghanistan in the 1980s, they were called "freedom fighters" or some such thing. so let's get our story straight. i don't mean to apply this criticism directly to your article reference. just an observation. terrorism is obviously an emerging threat to be reckoned with, but please don't cut those lying, thieving neo-con thugs too much slack either. seriously.

[whimsicaldeb]

i don't mean to apply this criticism directly to your article reference. just an observation. yeah, terrorism is a problem to be reckoned with, but don't cut those lying, stealing neo-con thugs too much slack either. seriously.

I won't cut them too much slack, and I don't feel criticized by your comments mnaz. I'm listening, taking in what you're saying, your concerns.

Plus - I have something for you...

I've found a couple important others who agree with you regarding how Sam Harris can spin his writings, or as you put it as: "what a bunch of hot air the rest of this article is. I think someone else has their "head in the sand"" - and - "the article just strikes me as yet another oversimplified, alarmist piece of writing"

Check out what these people have to say. This first one is one of his peers:

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/scien ... ref=slogin
A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
By GEORGE JOHNSON
Published: November 21, 2006

excerpt: (page 2 - emphasis added by me)

Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University known for his staunch opposition to teaching creationism, found himself in the unfamiliar role of playing the moderate. “I think we need to respect people’s philosophical notions unless those notions are wrong,” he said.

“The Earth isn’t 6,000 years old,” he said. “The Kennewick man was not a Umatilla Indian.” But whether there really is some kind of supernatural being — Dr. Krauss said he was a nonbeliever — is a question unanswerable by theology, philosophy or even science. “Science does not make it impossible to believe in God,” Dr. Krauss insisted. “We should recognize that fact and live with it and stop being so pompous about it.”

That was just the kind of accommodating attitude that drove Dr. Dawkins up the wall. “I am utterly fed up with the respect that we — all of us, including the secular among us — are brainwashed into bestowing on religion,” he said. “Children are systematically taught that there is a higher kind of knowledge which comes from faith, which comes from revelation, which comes from scripture, which comes from tradition, and that it is the equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence.”

By the third day, the arguments had become so heated that Dr. Konner was reminded of “a den of vipers.”

“With a few notable exceptions,” he said, “the viewpoints have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?”

His response to Mr. Harris and Dr. Dawkins was scathing. “I think that you and Richard are remarkably apt mirror images of the extremists on the other side,” he said, “and that you generate more fear and hatred of science.”

Dr. Tyson put it more gently. “Persuasion isn’t always ‘Here are the facts — you’re an idiot or you are not,’ ” he said. “I worry that your methods” — he turned toward Dr. Dawkins — “how articulately barbed you can be, end up simply being ineffective, when you have much more power of influence.”

Chastened for a millisecond, Dr. Dawkins replied, “I gratefully accept the rebuke.”

--end excerpt

and then this one from one of my favorite authors and a most respected historian on religion - Karen Armstrong - who btw agrees in many areas with Sam Harris (amazingly enough!). But in all ways, and this is what she had to say about 'what' he writes (his ability to "cherry pick")...

Source:
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/05/30/armstrong/

Going beyond God
Historian and former nun Karen Armstrong says the afterlife is a "red herring," hating religion is a pathology and that many Westerners cling to infantile ideas of God.
By Steve Paulson
May 30, 2006

Excerpt: (page 3)

SP: This does raise the question, though, of how to read the sacred scriptures.

KA: Indeed.

SP: Because there are all kinds of inflammatory things that are said. For instance, many passages in both the Bible and the Quran exhort the faithful to kill the infidels. Sam Harris, in his book "The End of Faith," has seven very densely packed pages of nothing but quotations from the Quran with just this message. "God's curse be upon the infidels"; "slay them wherever you find them"; "fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." And Sam Harris' point is that the Muslim suicide bombings are not the aberration of Islam. They are the message of Islam.

KA: Well, that's simply not true. He's taken parts of those texts and omitted their conclusions, which say fighting is hateful for you. You have to do it if you're attacked, as Mohammed was being attacked at the time when that verse was revealed. But forgiveness is better for you. Peace is better. But when we're living in a violent society, our religion becomes violent, too. Religion gets sucked in and becomes part of the problem. But to isolate these texts as though they expressed the whole of the tradition is very mischievous and dangerous at this time when we are in danger of polarizing people on both sides. And this kind of inflammatory talk, say about Islam, is convincing Muslims all over the world who are not extremists that the West is incurably Islamophobic and will never respect their traditions. I think it's irresponsible at this time.

-- end excerpt

You're not alone in your view of him being perhaps a bit much and I agree that he can go over the top, quickly.

However (and this is not to justify his actions), I've found that when dealing with things that have a history of taboo regarding any ones questionings ... or even a first attempt to explain something "new" (idea, etc.) the communication of this new idea, thought, way of thinking/seeing the world is always (ummm…. ) clumsy at best – neither well written, said or stated/presented. Yet despite all that … the points Harris is trying to make are coming through. More than Dawkins, I think Sam Harris is actually paying attention to what his critics are saying about his “reckless” style, especially those within his own community. But what I’m saying is … don’t disregard his cautioning and insights just because they are not well written, or show his fears.

[jimboloco]

may the mystic flow guide us
showing softness and generosity as a man us not a sign of somebody who doesn't take alk0qatduh seriously enough
seriously

yes, bechtel may be leaving, but bechtel also made obscene amounts of money, our money, on the war. we, the people, need to stand against this kind of profiteering and unaccountable blood money, paid for with our taxes.

we, the people, need to stand against this kind of profiteering and unaccountable tax moneyz, paid for with our blood.


we gotta stop demonizing syria and iran
we got smotes in our befuddled eyes
tragicallyy so
we aint without sin
we cast th first stone on iraq

al quaidi bluez

[mnaz]

jimbo,
you are on the money,

our money was robbed last year for a good cause,
and robbed thirty-plus frickin' years ago, endlessly,
and robbed again three or four years ago, yet again,
y'know, to pay to kill children collaterally for a good cause
while we sleep, in right-headed airstrikes, you know,
where necessary, you know, for a good cause and all,
lest we should let the terrorists win, you know,
with our money and all...

[stilltrucking]

Yeah what the fuck is the point of talking about the dead, the maimed, the raped, the tortured...

But the got dam fucking money, when are those got dam fucking beurocrats in washington going to stop terrorizing Halliburton?

Cut and Paste
GSA Chief Seeks to Cut Budget For Audits
Contract Oversight Would Be Reduced
By Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, December 2, 2006; Page A01

The new chief of the U.S. General Services Administration is trying to limit the ability of the agency's inspector general to audit contracts for fraud or waste and has said oversight efforts are intimidating the workforce, according to government documents and interviews.
The GSA is responsible for managing about $56 billion worth of contracts each year for the departments of Defense and Homeland Security and other agencies.


"There are two kinds of terrorism in the US: the external kind; and, internally, the IGs have terrorized the Regional Administrators," Doan said, according to the notes.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01645.html

[whimsicaldeb]

Yeah what the fuck is the point of talking about the dead, the maimed, the raped, the tortured...

But the got dam fucking money, when are those got dam fucking beurocrats in washington going to stop terrorizing Halliburton?

Cut and Paste
GSA Chief Seeks to Cut Budget For Audits
Contract Oversight Would Be Reduced
By Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, December 2, 2006; Page A01

The new chief of the U.S. General Services Administration is trying to limit the ability of the agency's inspector general to audit contracts for fraud or waste and has said oversight efforts are intimidating the workforce, according to government documents and interviews.
The GSA is responsible for managing about $56 billion worth of contracts each year for the departments of Defense and Homeland Security and other agencies.


"There are two kinds of terrorism in the US: the external kind; and, internally, the IGs have terrorized the Regional Administrators," Doan said, according to the notes.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01645.html

Good article Jack.

I worked in accounting ... getting audited is normal and yes "terrifying!" And they always seem to find something. Yet, I found the auditors themselves to be really cool people and at one point I wanted to become one myself.

Cal talked me out it … “You’re too sensitive.”
He was right, especially back then.

But I’ve never forgotten how auditors and audits are two different experiences, terrifying – but with really cool people.

…

I’m not talking about IRS audits, now. I don’t know much about those. I’ve not had one, and hopefully never will.