So I didn't make it all the way through on my lenten promises. I just have no other way to bounce my philosophical thoughts. It's horrible trying to bounce them off of yourself. I tried bouncing them off of my roommate and my girlfriend, but I think they probably want to duct tape me with amount I blab about random stuff.
Here are the topics to look forward to:
-Collective Unconscious
-What's this all about? Comes up quite a bit in Northern Exposure.
-Revisiting Dreams
-I still feel strongly about this and I'm not sure if science quite has their hands around it though I did enjoy Dan P's article.
-Where in the world is Paul Robinson?
-The legend has never, to my knowledge, ever shown himself on this blog. Probably too caught up with investment bankers. God speed man...'dem tough folk.
-Revisiting Identity
-How do we define ourselves?
-Why do people like to belong?
-How do they choose to belong?
-Is ethnicity important?
-What defines a community?
-I think America is missing this as the very important question.
-What makes Barack Obama the ideal candidate?
As you can see I have been kickin' too much around in my mind. Have fun:)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
DP is going to be elated :-)
Hooray for another way of procrastinating my homework!
Knock yourself out Joe:)
YAY! Glad to have you back Joe! Lets get started:
-What do you mean by collective unconsciousness?
-Communities are defined by the shared experiences of their members. They can be defined by geography, occupation, education, beliefs, hobbies, experiences, or needs. I don't think that America is devoid of community. My hometown is a community. Its members share geography, heritage, and values. Military families with loved ones abroad form a STRONG community. I would argue that we are all members of a community at some level. We simply need to recognize the bonds that connect us. Failure to recognize those bonds produces apathy. Maybe when people blind themselves to these bonds they are exercising your "collective unconsciousness"! :)
-My number one requirement for any candidate for a leadership position is INTEGRITY. This means honesty, openness, dedication to service, courage to stand for your principles, and protection of the public interest. Protecting the public interest means removing the money gag from the mouths of the public. Campaign finance reform is VITAL to every other aspect of government. I like to use the stream analogy. It may be near impossible to stop a river but if you travel to its source you can change its course much more effectively. When Barack came to Madison it was the first thing he talked about. Hilary's record on campaign finance reform is pathetic. She has consistently opposed reform and she takes large amounts of her money from powerful private interests. McCain is better but he has not been as supportive of public funding as he should be. Obama has a great record of fighting for reform. Most recently he has been working with Feingold in the senate on legislation. This makes Barack the best candidate in the race. My ideal candidate however, is Russ Feingold. Russ Feingold has more political integrity than anyone since the mighty Fighting Bob LaFollette.
Collective unconscious is this term I have been talking about recently with Rory. It is a psychology term. She brought it up as I started Northern Exposure again. I have just noticed how much it shows up. I just threw it out there to see if anyone knew more about the term.
As for the definition of communities...I'm glad to hear that your hometown has a strong sense of themselves. I'm not so sure if it is so transparent across the country. I often feel (and this may be because I live in a suburban metropolitan area) that people just want to get on with their way. In that way, is my suburb really a community or just a collection of people who share an administration and public goods. I'm trying to express that as best as possible, but I'll bring it up more so that I can tease that out better. I am strong advocate of avoiding gridlock in Congress. I think a Republican President would just try to espouse his agenda and snub Congress. Nothing would occur. This Congress needs a strong President that will see their policies through. I think Barack acts as he does because he hasn't been playing this game as long as Hillary and Bill. Bill was pretty inspirational when he started out. I still they are a very smart family and they know how to play bi-partisan politics. That doesn't mean abandoning your party for policies, but sacrificing on policies to cause agreement between parties. That's where my beef occurs with Feingold and McCain. While they may have integrity, they are political mavericks at times. That scares me at times. However, I still think campaign finance is important. I'm not sure if pork barrel politics will ever die;(
-I'll say one thing about the merits of Obama, is he has the opposite direction idea of McCain in Iraq. To not be starting in some way to get troops out of Iraq is seriously ridiculous. There obviously can be no mass pull out, but honestly.
-A negative quality is the "hysteria" surrounding Obama. I personally find this incredibly... worrisome. Not quite scary because he is not some sort of radical or anything, but there is just a sense of hysteria that is sweeping the nation. I know people who previously either were fairly conservative or completely apathetic, (or some who in a very arrogant opinion: political ignorant (and still are)) who are getting caught up in the Obama hysteria.
Sure it is good that the electorate might finally care... but I just worry that too many uninformed people are just being carried along. Think about it: The Democrats basically hand picked Obama at the 2004 National Convention to be their prodigy. Anyone who didn't know that Obama would now be in this position BEFORE the 2004 election was even over, obviously was not paying any attention. Not that I am one for conspiracies, but... just something to consider.
Not that McCain is the better candidate, but everyone needs to be careful and not get caught up in the "hype" so to speak.
Oh quick note to Finance Reform - how about candidates put up their own money (a la Steve Forbes) and no one can donate and therefore waste millions every 4 years on campaigning? These people have been campaigning for 2 years now practically, and for what purpose?
It is ridiculous. WHATEVER.
I'm been thinking to myself why I can't get myself to support Barack Obama for president. I guess I don't know what makes him the ideal candidate. He's not corrupt and he has proven that he cares about change, so I guess that's enough for now.
Joe, do not be afraid of nothing getting done in Congress. That would be a good thing, for Congress hasn't done anything useful in years. If McCain becomes president, he'll veto everything until the pork is removed--and I say it's about time. He has a proven record of standing up to lobbyists.
As for Obama, it is true that he's never shown a propensity to be corrupt. However, he doesn't have a record to prove that he isn't corrupt either. I'm not bashing Obama, I like him, but I agree with ck that we need to be wary of the hype. I like Obama, but I'm not excited about him--he promises "change we can believe in" but I haven't heard much substance (which is typical of elections--I don't blame him). It would be awesome to see Obama get elected and do things differently, but I think McCain could do that too. Either way, the elite establishment loses, which is good for America.
McCain's stance on the war will cost him the election, by the way.
Joe, I understand your desire to make the President and Congress work together but I want to caution against going to far with that. The attitude that "half a loaf of bread is better than no bread at all" is not necessarily true with legislation. Half a loaf maintains the starvation diet but dulls the ambition to get more. "It is usually better to be beaten and come right back at the next session and make a fight for a thoroughgoing law than to have written on the books a weak and indefinite statute." -Bob LaFollette.
He faced this question as governor of Wisconsin when he was fighting for the establishment of a direct primary. After a bitter fight in the lobbyist controlled legislature a "half loaf" bill that would have instituted direct primaries for only for county positions was sent to him and he vetoed it. He was painted as a radical. Bob responded that it was simply common sense and clear comprehension of the principle involved. "I have always believed that anything that was worth fighting for involved a principle, and I insist on going FAR ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH THAT PRINCIPLE and to give it a fair trial. I believe in going forward a step at a time, but it must be a FULL STEP. When I went into the primary fight, and afterward in to the railroad fight - and it has been my settled policy ever since- I marked off a certain area in which I would not compromise, within which compromise would have done more harm to progress than waiting and fighting would have done."[emphasis in original] I don't think that there is any question that he was effective in this. He destroyed the railroad control of the state legislature, established direct primaries, popular election of senators, and championed dozens of other noble causes including the protection of children against forced labor. In 1957 he was named one of the five greatest senators in U.S. history by a committee headed by John Kennedy. He did that by both working across the aisle (with the democrats) and by maintaining the utmost political integrity and strict adherence to principles. Even if that made him "radical".
Post a Comment