Run Around
All quiet on the Western Front...
Shopped for the apartment today, got some paint and a few other things. Moving is an expensive process, in both time and treasure. Hit the rec and got through a couple of other errands. Work day tommorow as I paint my bedroom and meet up with the cable guy downtown.
The big item of note in the news this week is the recasting of the "War on Terror" as the "Struggle Against Extremism." Either Jon Stewart or Stephen Clobert on "The Daily Show" today made a very interesting and insightful point, if in the usually tongue-in-cheek manner. Basically, a war is defined. It has a beginning and an end, and when the state is at war, it has clear goals, clear enemies (rival states, uniformed soldiers, etc.), and, most importantly in this case, a clear endpoint. A struggle, on the other hand, is much murkier, and is something you live with everyday. For example, you struggle with problems in your life, but you don't war with them. Struggle really is a much better term than war for the current situation, better in that it is more accurate.
The bigger issue, though, is the substituion of Extremism for Terror. Terror, while vague, and not particularly accurate, has, through common parlance, become the basic term for the forces that everyone understands is the enemy in the conflict. Specifically, those who attempt to recast the world and combat their enemy ideologies through the use of terror. Extremism is, again, more accurate as a descriptor of those forces. Bin Laden and his crew are fighting for their extreme ideology, using terror as a strategy. Calling the war against terror is akin to calling the Second World War the War Against Entrenched Occupation, for example. Extremism does capture this idea better, in that the battle is against a Grand Coalition of non-state actors. However, it is also a very interesting word that can have a broader understanding. The question provoked thus is what interest does our government, and, more importantly, our people have in controlling the extremist elements of our own culture. This is particularly interesting in that the closest allies ideologically to the Islamo-fascists are on the far right of the American system. Fundamentalist Christianity does not differ too far in its interpretations of society from radical Islam. This is not to say that the two are the same: organized Christian Terror does not exist in this country. Those who argue most strongly for the war, generally, have similar ideologies to the 'Extremists' than those who argue against. I find this curious. This is also one of the reasons why you don't see a call for appeasement (there have been calls for a change in American foreign policy, a reigning in of megacorporations, and anti-globalization, in general, but these are all 'tactics' being debated). The extremists' goal of a dominant radical Islamic State in the Middle East and a stronger influence of radical Islamic culture globally in general, have not been seen as acceptable to anyone in the broadest sense of the mainstream. Nevertheless, at what point do we look at the extremists in our mist and the threat they pose to our current lifestyle. I do not stand opposed to the revision or revocation of previously given rights on principle...I think it is only correct, intellectually, to maintain the option to take 'reactionary' as well as 'progressive' measures. However, as a conservative, in principle, I tend to favor the status quo, and, furthermore, as someone with libertarian leanings, I question the right of the government to regulate entertainment and vice for adults.
I am noting the implicit theme in the above paragraph, and not really sure I agree with it...but that's part of the intellectual proces. I'd like to hear what you think...first, whether anything I said makes sense. Second, what you think might be implied above and whether it matches with mine. So feel free to comment on this post, I'd be intrigued.
This is also strange in that I agree with the Christian right on several of their most important issues, at least personally: first and foremost that the interpretation of the Establishment Clause and its companions the Free Exercise Clause has drifted too far towards secularism (basically, I think that you can always find someone to be offended by something, and that, by and large, the interpretation that people's rights are somehow being suppressed by public displays and the like is a jump of logic). On a lot of social issues, I agree with their general idea, but also understand the legal interpretation of privacy rights and my libertarian streak wins out (although this sympathy has waned some.) The two big disagreements I have are on gay marriage, which I have touched on recently, and abortion, where I think that there is far too much controversy for an outright ban to really be a logical decision, regardless of one's opinion on the act itself. Practicality reigns!!
I've also found it very interesting how much my political views have drifted in the recent year or so. I've twice voted for Bush...the first time because I was impressed by the campaign and a great respect for the foreign policy of his father...the second time because I was thoroughly unimpressed by the Democratic candidate and campaign. As a libertarian conservative in regard to governance (small government, pro-status quo), I find myself entirely bereft of representation politically, and I feel that I am a member of probably the largest intellectual group to be so represented. I think that this is a sympathy that has historically leaned Republican and represents a significant opportunity for the Democrats to appeal to (I would flatter myself by calling it the only opportunity, but that would be another logical leap). Nevertheless, another nomination of the 'elite' would be a terrible misstep, in my opinion. This is also specualtion, so take it as it is.
A brief note, Federalist No. 10, where Madison writes to some extent on relationships between majorities and minorities, and, particularly "the tyranny of the minority" offers some intellectual backing to this argument.
Wow, this post was a lot longer than I thought it would be when I sat down. Anyways, feel free to comment on this one...or e-mail me your thoughts.
Peace
Shopped for the apartment today, got some paint and a few other things. Moving is an expensive process, in both time and treasure. Hit the rec and got through a couple of other errands. Work day tommorow as I paint my bedroom and meet up with the cable guy downtown.
The big item of note in the news this week is the recasting of the "War on Terror" as the "Struggle Against Extremism." Either Jon Stewart or Stephen Clobert on "The Daily Show" today made a very interesting and insightful point, if in the usually tongue-in-cheek manner. Basically, a war is defined. It has a beginning and an end, and when the state is at war, it has clear goals, clear enemies (rival states, uniformed soldiers, etc.), and, most importantly in this case, a clear endpoint. A struggle, on the other hand, is much murkier, and is something you live with everyday. For example, you struggle with problems in your life, but you don't war with them. Struggle really is a much better term than war for the current situation, better in that it is more accurate.
The bigger issue, though, is the substituion of Extremism for Terror. Terror, while vague, and not particularly accurate, has, through common parlance, become the basic term for the forces that everyone understands is the enemy in the conflict. Specifically, those who attempt to recast the world and combat their enemy ideologies through the use of terror. Extremism is, again, more accurate as a descriptor of those forces. Bin Laden and his crew are fighting for their extreme ideology, using terror as a strategy. Calling the war against terror is akin to calling the Second World War the War Against Entrenched Occupation, for example. Extremism does capture this idea better, in that the battle is against a Grand Coalition of non-state actors. However, it is also a very interesting word that can have a broader understanding. The question provoked thus is what interest does our government, and, more importantly, our people have in controlling the extremist elements of our own culture. This is particularly interesting in that the closest allies ideologically to the Islamo-fascists are on the far right of the American system. Fundamentalist Christianity does not differ too far in its interpretations of society from radical Islam. This is not to say that the two are the same: organized Christian Terror does not exist in this country. Those who argue most strongly for the war, generally, have similar ideologies to the 'Extremists' than those who argue against. I find this curious. This is also one of the reasons why you don't see a call for appeasement (there have been calls for a change in American foreign policy, a reigning in of megacorporations, and anti-globalization, in general, but these are all 'tactics' being debated). The extremists' goal of a dominant radical Islamic State in the Middle East and a stronger influence of radical Islamic culture globally in general, have not been seen as acceptable to anyone in the broadest sense of the mainstream. Nevertheless, at what point do we look at the extremists in our mist and the threat they pose to our current lifestyle. I do not stand opposed to the revision or revocation of previously given rights on principle...I think it is only correct, intellectually, to maintain the option to take 'reactionary' as well as 'progressive' measures. However, as a conservative, in principle, I tend to favor the status quo, and, furthermore, as someone with libertarian leanings, I question the right of the government to regulate entertainment and vice for adults.
I am noting the implicit theme in the above paragraph, and not really sure I agree with it...but that's part of the intellectual proces. I'd like to hear what you think...first, whether anything I said makes sense. Second, what you think might be implied above and whether it matches with mine. So feel free to comment on this post, I'd be intrigued.
This is also strange in that I agree with the Christian right on several of their most important issues, at least personally: first and foremost that the interpretation of the Establishment Clause and its companions the Free Exercise Clause has drifted too far towards secularism (basically, I think that you can always find someone to be offended by something, and that, by and large, the interpretation that people's rights are somehow being suppressed by public displays and the like is a jump of logic). On a lot of social issues, I agree with their general idea, but also understand the legal interpretation of privacy rights and my libertarian streak wins out (although this sympathy has waned some.) The two big disagreements I have are on gay marriage, which I have touched on recently, and abortion, where I think that there is far too much controversy for an outright ban to really be a logical decision, regardless of one's opinion on the act itself. Practicality reigns!!
I've also found it very interesting how much my political views have drifted in the recent year or so. I've twice voted for Bush...the first time because I was impressed by the campaign and a great respect for the foreign policy of his father...the second time because I was thoroughly unimpressed by the Democratic candidate and campaign. As a libertarian conservative in regard to governance (small government, pro-status quo), I find myself entirely bereft of representation politically, and I feel that I am a member of probably the largest intellectual group to be so represented. I think that this is a sympathy that has historically leaned Republican and represents a significant opportunity for the Democrats to appeal to (I would flatter myself by calling it the only opportunity, but that would be another logical leap). Nevertheless, another nomination of the 'elite' would be a terrible misstep, in my opinion. This is also specualtion, so take it as it is.
A brief note, Federalist No. 10, where Madison writes to some extent on relationships between majorities and minorities, and, particularly "the tyranny of the minority" offers some intellectual backing to this argument.
Wow, this post was a lot longer than I thought it would be when I sat down. Anyways, feel free to comment on this one...or e-mail me your thoughts.
Peace
posted by David Ebersole at 11:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home