Your understanding is what I meant. There is another kind of optimism, the optimism that a little akin to Bribite's everexpanding pie. This mindset of openendedness is especially true about the human potential. One example: while there may or may not be enough oil in the ground to last another 50 years, there is incredible potential to create new energy sources, had we the will. A great book, Cradle to Cradle, written by William McDonnough is one example of someone very concerned about the environment who presents a creative model of how to produce and manufacture and consume without degarding the environment. Ford and others use his ideas.
As to accelerating change - this is a fact in all dimensions of life. From the dramatic shift in the nuclear family, to the number of decisions made daily, to the amount of information we receive, to consolidating global businesses, to genetic engineering where the very concept of life is being challenged and science can supplant what once was reserved to God, to the enormous global population and its growing consumer capacity, to the technology of weaponry and its proliferation, to the introduction of a new "Age," the Information Age, a transition measured in decades not centuries.
I'd say this met the criteria of rapidly accelerating change, the likes of which we've not come close to seeing before. WWII, as mighty a force as it was, did not hold out anything like this combination of factors.
The other change is that information itself is increasingly global. This means that one is not so bound by local religions and customs. We are starting to see really good work that culls the essence about what we have in common across the globe. Of course, I hope our sense of identity with other cultures and peoples grow, but I think I am ... optimistic. Or is that delusional?
-- Modified on 6/25/2004 9:09:06 AM
Reading the review in today's Los Angeles Times of Fahrenheit 9/11, there was menton that like Passion of the Christ, this movie would be loved or hated.
Aligned with my previous post about the USA Today's article that said church attendance was the single best predictor of voting behavior, I think very few people will find both movies inspiring. They might grudgingly respect the skill of the contrary moviemaker, but if they really love the message of one, they will not like the message of the other.
I remain stunned by this polarization. I think I understand it. I wish I saw leadership on the horizon with a clear and compelling enough vision for the 2st century to galvanize consensus about the basics.
Total Dearth of us people
lots of we and them people
US Politics is a drag
I don't see a statesman in the whole lot of them!
BTW- Doesn't everybody know that Moore is "Film Maker"? Are they expecting scholarship?
I love his films- he always DOES have good points- you just have to realize he will try to make them with his coverage, not try to be balanced. I love the Chariots of the gods stuff-Moore is a political Von Dynaken (sp?)
"I love his films- he always DOES have good points- you just have to realize he will try to make them with his coverage, not try to be balanced." WTF, the slimey fuck just makes shit up to fit his agenda! Why am I not surprised you would love his films!
Like even Puck stated in an earlier post, Moore is an embarrassment to the left! Not to mention his country! Moore is a political bozo, shit he even makes Al Franken look good. I've got old shoes with more integrity than Moore.
His latest film was given KUDOS by Hammas, nuff said! I just hope he gets out there and campaigns for "Hanoi John"!
BTW, based on the numbers and WmBlakes theory, Bush looks good, Moore's latest effort will not be seen by nearly as many Americans as POC!
Pretty hard to "make shit up" in a documentary- special effects are hard to justify and you only have so much coverage.
I tend to see it like an ad. Bush ads only show his side of the story- conveniently leave out the other side. So does Kerry. It's called advertising. Moore's works are like big ads for his point of view and he makes no promise of being fair and balanced.
Since one knows that going in- I can deal and use my own BS filter.
I do think FOX NEWS is worse, as they purport to be "fair and balanced" and then behave astonishingly similarly, leaving out any elements that do not support their right of center views. That is being dishonest.
And if you say movies should be different from ads- tell that to Hollywood, where product placement has made many movies just big format ads for products for years. If one comes along and is an ad for ideas, so be it. At least we can choose to watch or not.
I think the right is just jealous that they don't have someone of Moore's caliber on their side.
Rush, O'Reilly and the rest look like rank amateurs in comparison.
The argument has been made, and justifiably so, that if Fahrenheit 9/11 is only so much B.S., then why is the right so hot and bothered? They should have no problem revealing Moore's deceptive practices, through any number of op/ed columnists (e.g., Will, Boot, Novak, Krauthammer etc.) and radio and TV personalities (e.g., Rush and FOXTV).
Your main point is so on target.
It's all about marketing. I think I hate the press and marketing most of all. The whole thing is organized to sell stuff, not to make sense. Make the economy work. These are tough issues. Merde.
The question in my mind is, can a leader of thoughtful stature emerge and have a global impact. I am not optimistic.
I know I am delusional. I keep hoping the Web will introduce consumer based marketing and further the substance that is the basis of democracy. Either that, or we all think the new SUV is equivalent to understanding purpose and meaning.
The reason I remain a member at TER - I no longer hobby and you'll see my, count 'em, 2 reviews - is that I respect the marketplace of ideas here. Whether it's an amazing woman, a ROB, or a James86. Bound by the scent of a woman (excuse the reference, all respect to the movie). But it's real marketing, of the highest ethical calling.
I don't know, I'm just scared about my beloved children's futures. And your children's too.
While Nero fiddled.
-- Modified on 6/23/2004 7:11:22 PM
Right now, we have a situation where a pragmatic centrist politician, like John McCain or Colin Powell or Arlen Specter on the Republican side, or Joseph Leiberman on the Democratic side, cannot get nominated by their party. BOTH of the party organizations are in the hands of extremist portions of the overall population. Someone who could capture the viewpoints of 60% of the people in the center cannot get nominated by thier party to even run in the general election.
Frankly, I am at a loss as to how this needs to be fixed.
I'm not sure we need a centrist. I think we need someone to reframe what our core challenges are to galvanize support over the time it'll take to respond. Energy, environment, emerging global economies in India, China, WMD & Middle East, etc.
Who am I kidding?
My Principles, by Bill Clinton
Lifesaving Techniques, by Teddy Kennedy
Comrades in Arms, by John "F'in" Kerry, aka The Poodle
GREAT MODERATE LEADERS, by sdstud
Things I've Accomplished Without the Help of Rich and Powerful Friends, by G. W. Bush
Envy & Covetousness by agrkej
Uh ... is this a personal attack by bribite? I think it is trying to be, but wouldn't short book with this title mean that I am not envious or covetous? So maybe it is a compliment which means that bribite has finally seen the light.
Guide to Judicial Ethics by Antonin Scalia
Well, just for starters, among Great MODERATE U.S. Presidents, I'll go with:
Franklin D. Roosevelt,
Harry Truman
Abraham Lincoln,
Thomas Jefferson,
Theodore Roosevelt
and, among great MODERATE leaders of other nations:
Anwar Sadat,
Mohandes Ghandi,
Nelson Mandela,
Willi Brandt,
Mikhail Gorbachev
That's just for starters.
put his wealth, estate and his own neck on the line in the pursuit of freedom from King George....a moderate???? There were a great deal of moderates in those days. Many of them felt that the rule of the King wasn't really that bad, and negotiation was certainly the way to resolve any disputes or inequities. The only signers of the Declaration of Independence that were true moderates probably did so with Jefferson's foot in their ass or his hand on the back of their neck, forced to the table to sign.
(with good reason, I might add), and even assuming you have one, we'll never know.
However, that you consider any of these individuals "moderates" reveals more about your ideological biases than anything else.
There was nothing "moderate" about any of these leaders. Each was bold and innovative, even if I disagree with their politics. FDR, for one. Harry Truman wanted to socialize health care. Nothing moderate about that. Lincoln took quite bold steps to preserve the Union (like suspending the writ of habeas corpus, ultimately held to be unconstitutional). Thomas Jefferson doubled the size of the nation with the Louisiana Purchase, something an earlier Jefferson would have been appalled by, and exercised his "right of revolution," serving as virtual poet of the American Revolution. TR brought the United States into the world, starting the American Century, and a trust-buster. Nothing "moderate" about any of them.
Ditto for the foreign leaders. Sadat challenged radical Islam with a peace move every bit as radical as his opponents, and got shot for his trouble. Gandhi challenged the greatest empire in the world. Mandela challenged apartheid, but was only "moderate" in governing and insuring that racial spoils were not put into place as South Africa's president as predicate to a bloodbath. And most people agree that he was a Marxist, at least in his youth. Willi Brandt was no moderate, and neither was Gorbachev.
Moderation is not an attribute of leadership. It's a characteristic of faint-heartedness.
And, for the sake of our discussion, the title of my book would be: "Great Progressive Leaders who Changed the World"
BTW, even in simply listing a few names, in the abstract, my book is already longer than "The Wit and Wisdom of George W. Bush", as that book is just an empty page.
And your point is well taken about SOME of the men I cited, but not all.
Truman WAS a moderate. The fact that he wanted to socialize medicine does not disqualify him, as he never took the dramatic steps to actually accomplish it, and in almost every other position, was a centrist.
Gorbachev WAS a moderate. He moved the Soviet Union forward from reactionary thinking into the modern world, but he did NOT go as far as Yeltsin in fully overthrowing the system.
Mandela WAS a moderate. His personal courage was unmatched, but as a LEADER of his country, he steadfastly resisted the opportunity to avenge those who had oppressed his people under Apartheid, thus MODERATING the viewpoint of most of his supporters, and thus, made his nation's emergence from Apartheid FAR more successful than that of other African states that emerged from white rule.
When one is overthrowing or reversing a prior history of extremism, moderation in one's actions but with courage and steadfastness, is often the most successful way. Mandela's South Africa is a perfect example of this.
... have several candidates on the ballot and allow people to vote for ALL the candidates they would find acceptable. This has actually been tried in some forums with success. A little thought will show you why that happens.
Harry
Actually, wmblake, if you look at the map of the States that supported Bush and those that went for Gore, it does look like the Mason Dixon line. My father noted that it looks like the South won the civil war, even to the point that doughfaced states in the north (States in the North that supported States' rights-- like Indiana,) supported Bush.
Many of the same states are going to line up the same way in this election. Its the results of the influence of Christianity in this culture, and the fact that it has been turning up the political pressure on anything else that challenges it politically. We've heard about a culture war, and what's going on is Christianity vs. Secularism. The lines are drawn. I know what side I'm on, and I know why.
/Zin
-- Modified on 6/23/2004 11:54:36 PM
If it comes to that, you will be rethinking your 2nd Amendment stance. 
But I would contend that those who think all is lost if our candidate loses are lefties! I have faith that our system could succeed even if subjected to the leftist ideas of John Kerry, wait a minute, that isn't fair, Hanoi John has offered any ideas, only a lifetime legacy of socialistic leanings.
As long as the American people are free to vote the bums out, we will be OK. Although a couple of John Kerry appointees to the Supremes and we might lose that too!
Ultimately the left are the gloom and doom crowd, conservatives are much more optimistic and yes their faith may have a lot to do with that optimism.
Perhaps my primary observation is that we are in a time of accelerating change. Change always mobilizes, in some more than others, a craving for familiarity and certainty. And it always invokes anxiety - ambigiuity, high stakes, etc drive this. So is that gloom and doom? Or is it people trying to address novel challenges without great models of what works with them?
Ironically, one of the most optimistic people in recent politics is my boy William Jefferson.
And indeed, the origin of optimism is often based on the recognition of spiritual truths. I also see what is often couched as optimism being being on the winning end of win-lose scenarios. These are separate and distinct emotions.
Conservative optimism comes from the knowledge that the pie is not limited in size!
Liberals pessimism can be tracked to their belief that the pie is static, so if I do well, someone else must be doing worse! If your piece is bigger than mine, you have taken some of mine.
This static pie mentality breads pessimism. The only hope is for the state to re-cut the pie and when they don't, all is lost.
Conservatives are happier people because they do not want to depend on anyone or any government to provide for them. They believe that they can succeed and for the most part in varying degrees do.
As far as Bill Clinton, I would contend that he is so upbeat because he has millions to spend on his hobby.
Change, accelerated or not is constant. Our country went through some accelerated change in December of 1941, but throughout that period we pulled together. If you study your history, you will know that we were getting our asses kicked for quite a while after we entered WWII. If we had to fight that fight now, we would be in deep shit with the support of the "loyal opposition" as it stands now. Actually, I think we are in a similar situation with our war on terrorism ("War on Fundamental Islam") And I fear we may lose.
I think your analysis of Clinton misses the man by a lot. Look at his personality with an open mind. Read the interview in Time this week. Assume for a moment it's not all lies. What do you see?
What I see is a man who refuses to take responsility for anything he has ever done that crosses the line. He blames everyone else, not once does he take responsiblity for his actions. The fact that so many buy it hook, line and sinker may be cause for his optimism.
I also think that the remark about Clinton was hardly the meat of my post and your focus on this one simplistic and uselss issue belies your desire to be seen as the philosopher of the board.
Why not discuss the size of the pie issue? It is afterall, the reason the immerging black middle and upper middle class is turning towards conservative politics. Or do you think they are all just turning into Uncle Toms?
I had already responded to the expanding pie idea in the response to NOSC below, but probably you hadn't seen this when you wrote. No harm, no foul.
I suspect the black conservatism is an important development for this community that has had to overcome so much in America. It signals to me a group who thinks that they can succeed on the merit of their contribution.
Maybe the only real comment about all of this is that the labels "conservative" and "liberal" are both overused. They tend to box thinking in. I am conservative on this idea, liberal on that, and on many others don't see either concept applying.
And, I think the Time interview reflected a man who has done a lot of soul searching regarding his behavior especially vis-a-vis his marrige. I doubt that's what you are talking about re him taking responsibility, but I just don't see in him the kind of deceipt that I do in Bush. Degrees of magnitude of difference. Maybe neither of us can see past our own assumptions and biases...
-- Modified on 6/25/2004 2:32:01 PM
Have you ever seen an expanding pie in real life? Don't you think before you attach your well being to this notion you should ask more about what this is?
One thing for sure, if it's expanding, it can't be a pie. So that's poorly defined. So how well defined is this growth? Are possibilities expanding? Horizons? Waist-lines?
Is it gaining any substance as it expands? Galaxies are expanding, but they are not creating anything from it, they are simply dissipating. If it's something like a pie, and it's expanding and not gaining substance, then it's more like a bubble-- can you feel optimistic about that thought?
If it's gaining substance, then where is it coming from? What's the source? Is "the pie" or whatever, just creating it? Is it taking it from another source? Is it being donated?
Furthermore, how fast is it expanding? Is it a renewable resource?
I know genuises like Rush Limbaugh sold you this feel-good Zen koan, buy you should have bought cigarettes instead. They make you feel good, and they're healthier. This is a cobbling together of two metaphors, "economic expansion" and the pie chart. When an economy is good, we say it's expanding. However, we might as well say it's getting denser, it's heating, it's accelerating. The pie chart, of course, we use to give a visual impression of finite percentages. So, you have two vague metaphors put together to make nonsense.
This is not even a fantasy. This is a gimmick. Is this where you get your optimism?
/Zin
-- Modified on 6/26/2004 7:47:32 PM
I don't think he got it. Don't think that he will get it in a million years.
Good post regardless. I have read other posts by you and feel that you seem to think through what you are writing instead of launching the knee-jerk BS of the left and right.
We are living in a time of "accelerating change." The problem is, most people are drawing spiritual inspiration from scriptures written 1.5-2 thousand years in the past for dubious purposes.
This is now a completely different universe from the one in which those scriptures were written. Yahweh/Jehovah and Allah alike do not make sense here. They want to fight evolution, but monotheists were finished when Gallileo pointed his telescope at the sky. Not only was there no God, there was no there, either.
We have to adapt to a universe where apparently nothing is in charge. So far people are not handling that news very well. The effect is to try to cling to the authority, to make arguments about how benificial it is just to believe, whether it's true or not.
What spiritual truths are you talking about? There are psychological truths, there are material truths. The spiritual is comprised of things that people mistakingly thought they couldn't place into either category. Fire. Lightning. Air. Once humankind thought these were spiritual. It turns out, they are material. I don't think there's anything left of the spiritual now.
Optimism. Pessimism. A person shouldn't recreate their assessment of things just to keep themselves going. Ideally, I think you should talk like a pessimist but act like an optimist.
/Zin
Now, here's a conversation worth having! The nature of being.
I first want to highly recommend to you a writer named Ken Wilber. This prolific genius does the best job I have encountered resolving religion vs science. One of his points - and this is key - is that the world we think we live in is, by definition, a function of our own perceptual origins. That is to say, we develop in our consciousness from the moment we are born. And the unconscious assumptions we make about identity absolutley define what we see.
In the West around the time of the Renassiance we in the West divided science, spiritual inquiry and creativity into separate buckets. For better and for worse.
Wilber argues that the scientific injuntion, boiled down into its essence is: do this action, observe with these tools, and see for yourself whether you confirm the same findings. He asserts that subjectivity, can be an observational tool, if the reported findings are commonly asserted.
He (along with many, many others) observes that throughout history and in all cultures, people who undertake certain, essentially common practices to develop their consciousness (which, being accomplished, have global impact on the personality) and all report essentially the same findings. Eureka, there is a fundamental truth to being.
Take the concept of faith. This is a fundamental psychological reality in all major wisdom traditions. It's not necessarily bound to a very difficult concept like "Jesus was the only son of God and only through accepting that idea does one go to Heaven." It is a condition of mind and spirit, and in fostering it, one accesses joy, generosity, and makes peace with one's own mortality. These are conditions of mind and spirit which cannot be artificially manufactured. One must work diligently, with self honesty to attain. There are no "tricks" to the process.
Or let's look at prayer. There is a writer, Larry Dossey - a physician. Now, he divides the concept into 2 basic approaches: one is the sending of requests to an outside agency (God) who then acts or does not act. The second is the concept that there is no sending of energy somewhere - that the nature of reality is not linear like that and that there are "non-local" connections made through meditative states. He quotes enormous amounts of research - some compelling, some not so compelling - that support this second concept's validity.
One of my best friends was diagnosed with kidney cancer. Surgery to remove the kidney occurred about 4 weeks after diagnosis. In the intervening time, prayer of the second sort was undertaken by many people. When the kidney was removed, the cancer had died. True story.
The point is, there are two factors to consider regarding spiritual truths: one, where are you in your own development - what are your core assumptions about things, how honest are you in examining these, and two, what are the commonality and differences between a local wisdom tradition and other major inquiries into existence. For those who are certain their tradition is the one and only way, I already know I will not dissuade them. But for those who question....
I'll have to ask you to wait. I'll to post it later in a separate thread. Entitled "The Nature of Being."
/Zin
And pro-abortion. I have no friends.
Perhaps it was Washington's totally, utterly, unpredictable victory over Cornwallis that saddled us with it. But I'll point out that Washington was not known to be the most optimistic fellow. Hardly like Reagan.
/Zin
I think you confuse the virtues of optimism and pragmatism that Washington possessed.
No sane pessimist would have taken on the British!
Are you saying that an optimistic pragmatist can be confused for a pessimist? Please Bribite, how do you tell the difference? Are you saying that a pessimist looks a lot like a pragmatic optimist?
It's not an observation that I've ever made, but now that you've connected the dot, the logic of it is irresistable.
In your second statement, I think you confuse pessimism with cowardess. One does not have to be hopeful of victory to fight. Perhaps you find that imponderable. But we have all kinds of murder suicides to prove it, not including 9/11, which show that people can be willing to fight and kill until they are dead.
/Zin
Washington was a pragmatist! I'm saying that you have confused pragmatism with pessimism.
A pragmatist knows and acknowledges the difficulties ahead, but sees a way to success or chooses to fight another day!
A pessimist, like a quitter, does not.
Do all optimists find success, no. Do all pessimist fail, no.
But to say that George Washington was a well known pessimist is pure hogwash. Only an optimist would have put all he had gained at stake for something he thought he couldn't win.
As far as your cowardice statement, those murder -suicide assholes actually think that they are going to get laid for doing it! The are very optimistic about their future.
People will fight to the death to defend themselves and for an ideal, such as the Alamo, but those who you refer to are known to throw down their arms and surrender if they know they are going to die. For example the Iraqi Republican Guard or the hordes of Taliban taken prisoners in Afghanistan!
In practical knowledge, I participated in several firefights and surely did realize that I could die (pragmatism), but I didn't believe that it would happen. Call it adrenaline, guts, or optimism, whatever, but I always thought we would win, so did Washington.
That sounds like a pessimistic outlook to me. He's an optimist if he's told the odds or 100 to 1 but he bets anyway thinking he will likely win, perhaps due to some unknown fact about the universe (like there is a god). But Washington had no odds to calculate, so this does not apply to him.
Pragmatism has nothing to do with either optimism or pessimism. Might he have not stood up for his convictions, come what may, whether he thought he would win or not (please note "would" not "could")? Or is this courage unknown to you? Is someone who stands up for his rights only when he's confident of victory really that courageous? Or just good at marketing his courage for consumers like you?
For Washington, his hope was that the British underestimated the value of the American colonies (and he did, too) and overestimated its prospects of regaining them. This is, in fact, what happened. If the British had been willing to send more armies after Cornwallis's, things would have been different.
My cowardice statement didn't apply to the current terrorists we are at war against. It applies to people who fight like trapped rats when they believe they are going to lose and not get laid in the afterlife. Like Masada. Or the Jews in Warsaw. Or perhaps the Alamo. Or the Russians sent against the Germans on the Eastern Front. Its the courage that you saw in "Saving Private Ryan," when the Lieutenant, shellshocked and mortally wounded, unable to stop the tanks from crossing the bridge, pulls out his sidearm and empties it into the first tank.
It applies in a terrible way, to Kleibold and Harris, who committed their atrocity at Columbine knowing full well that they were going to die, and they weren't getting laid in the afterlife even if they had one.
A trapped rat might be courageous, but it's still a rat.
/Zin