I agree that Obama’s SOTU seemed centrist. I would go further and say a reasonable and idealistic proposal for ways to begin to govern an ungovernable nation. On the other hand I detect equal disapproval in the extreme left and right in their response. But I don’t watch tv news very much at all, so I don’t know how the talking heads responded. Having read Obama’s book, “Audacity of Hope,” he continues to make sense to me even when I sometimes disagree with the way he is trying to govern. It seems to me that the political rancor that Obama and a few others are seeking to calm down became more extreme in the wake of 9/11. This has always seemed a mild reaction to me, because I expected the country to swing even further the right than it has. I didn’t listen to Michelle Bachmann. Do you think I should? My impression of the Tea Party is that the people who are identifying with this movement are being quickly exploited by others and any clear platform or purpose co-opted so far.

Sorry WordPress is so clunky. I am terrified of upgrading because last time I did I got entirely locked out of my web site. It was only with Elizabeth’s help that I got restarted. Right now I’m trying to figure out how to renew my domain name which will be expiring in a few weeks. It was so long ago that I purchased it that I don’t have the information on how to do this (passwords) at my fingertips. So maybe the whole deal will go down in flames if I can’t figure it out. Yikes!

In the meantime, thanks for reading my silly blog from time to time. Beside my own weird and perverted needs, you and Elizabeth and Sarah are main reasons I do it.

I comment not as a critique, but as an observation. The President is running for reelection. So, he is sort of moving in words to the center. He is not a leader, however. He may acquire that trait,but it is often difficult when you have not really lead anything before. Not a criticism, just an observation.
I always like reading David’s comments. He was just a baby when I saw him last. And it is always fun for me to read about you and your family. I do read your blog every day.

I am puzzled that you and I can see Obama so differently. It must be that we understand leadership differently. I would be curious who you think a good leader is right now on the political scene and what qualities in the person lead you to that response. I think Obama is trying to be a good leader because he presents a calm presence in the face of hysteria, articulates an intelligent vision, and gets things done (like get elected for one thing… “Poppy” Bush was famously quoted as once replying when he faced private criticism: “If you’re so smart, how come I’m president.” Heh. I like that.)

I also think he is trying to change the conversation in our public life. This is something that George Bush said he wanted to do in the 2000 presidential campaign. I think the circumstances of the presidency and 9/11 overwhelmed him and this wasn’t possible.

My understandings of leadership are colored by being a leader myself and having leaders in my family and also by an understanding of how I see human system psychology working right now in the USA. Undifferentiated emotional reaction is common; listening, analyzing and responding with intelligent informed compassion, not so much. Rabbi Freedman (who I admit has strongly influenced me…. he was a student of Murray Bowen who founded family systems theory) says that when you lead and differentiate yourself, people will respond with a strong negative reaction. This negative reaction is sometimes an indication of leadership. This negative field in all walks of life in the US makes leading difficult and unattractive.

I experience this all the time in church work. As a leader, when I am routinely confronted with people’s unregulated behavior (emotional over-reactions and boundary issues), I see it as my responsibility to try to help the situation be constructive and respectful at best and at the least keep my own responses non-anxious and unprovocative. I have worked with many difficult unhappy people in church life and this is how I see what I try to do when I interact with them.

Of course this is all micro stuff, which is how I tend to see life. Anyway, thanks for reading and responding, dude.

Leadership and management are different issues. One may be a good manager, but not necessarily a good leader. And leadership does not necessarily mean being a good manager.
The media is tilted so far to one side that it is difficult to assess. They have an agenda which must be understood by the receiver to evaluate their reporting. As a society, we have common beliefs and expectations of living together, but the idea that the state is above the individual is wrong headed. The individual is our society and the formation of institutions which support that have become muted. The state is not responsible for the individual. The individual is responsible for the state. This idea that the state is better able to manage people’s lives has been a focus of education for a very long time. People have been educated in ways that support the state and does not allow “Critical thinking skills”. And this is the problem our society faces today, the ability to assess information. There is more of it and less time to assess.

years ago I read a book by Daniel Bell that is in my library titled “The Cultural Contradictions Of Capitalism”-interesting book

She is fortunate that the injury was not more severe. I wish her “GET WELL SOON”

Might want to see if some extra calcium is in order as well. I also wish her a get well soon and speedy recovery.
David j

Information is manipulated and it requires critical decision making skills to effect an understanding of what is going on in today’s world. I believe that this nonsense about George Bush is just that, Nonsense. Presidents make decisions all the time about situations that are filled with misinformation.

Boy do we disagree about this. Bush advocated torture and invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. He is a war criminal. This is not misinformation. It is the truth.

I wasn’t go to touch this one, but figured what the heck. For what its worth, I have another take on the entire situation. Almost by definition an opinion cannot be wrong and I respect many people’s opinions especially on such hot and debated topics. In one sense I would agree that one cannot believe anything the media says in any form whether it is newspaper, television, or the internet reporting. All the stories about Bush during his term were so varied that I could not keep them all straight. I remember reading an article about a Bush issue in 2 different papers (concerning the same issue) and each had a different outcome for the same story.

In terms of weapons of mass destruction, there were many reports that Saddam had WMD’s depending on what your definition of WMD’s are. If by WMD’s you include biological/chemical weapons than Hussein did have these and used them not only on his own people, but there is evidenced that these were used during the Gulf war as well. If by WMD’s you only include nuclear weapons than as far as I can tell, there was no evidence of having them immediately in his possession, but there was evidence that just like Iran and other Middle Eastern countries, Iraq was seeking them. Of course all this is only prefaced by the fact that we as citizens were not privy to the highest levels of information concerning foreign affairs and our government until recently.

With the advent of Wikileaks, I have been reexamining how things have happened concerning such issues over the last few decades. That is of course if all the Wikileaks are real. For the most part I would consider this information as close to “raw data” as possible given my current position as a citizen in this country. This data gives me ample food for reexamination and critical analysis.

In terms of 9/11, I have examined many theories from very credible resources. Most of these theories are conspiratorial in nature, but there are a few that are noteworthy. Especially some studies by a professor named Dr Lance DeHaven-Smith who was ostracized from a major university for critically analyzing and researching the events that happened on 9/11 and shortly thereafter. He published some research on the events that took place and ideas around structural engineering. I encourage you to look him up and read some of his materials that deal with the physics and engineering around the collapse of the twin towers.

However, nothing I have read or come across has made me believe that 9/11 was undoubtedly some kind of inside job. The people involved were Arabic nationalist’s not American nationalists.

As far as Bush being a war criminal, I would look at the bigger picture in that presidents for decades have made decisions based on advisors input that could be considered “criminal” in nature. The question should be who decides what is criminal? The Center for International Rights? The Geneva Convention? The British Secret Service? The FBI? Etc. As a citizen of this world I do not recall ever being asked to participate in designating criteria for what constitutes “criminality” in an international context. If one of the citizens of my country is being accused of international criminal activity regardless of public stature, than I would want to be involved with a common consensus of what constitutes criminal behavior at the international level. Hopefully you get my line of reasoning.

Again examining the raw data (for me) that I can get my hands on will assist in conceptualizing historical events that have unfolded over the past 4-5 decades.

Of course this is all food for thought and is all just my opinion…..
David J

David,

Thank you for responding. It is very interesting to see how you have arrived at opinions I know are prevalent in the U.S. And I really appreciate you taking the time to raise questions about my offhand remarks in such a civil and reasonable way.

There are media sources in the World that I often find credible. This morning I was checking out the Mubarek resignation and found myself on web sites in the U.K., France, not to mention the online presence of the excellent Aljazeera.

I often quickly double check things that confuse me or seem questionable to me, though. As a high school student I was very interested in journalism and believe that information reporting is essential to a functioning democratic society, the better the info, the better able we are to function as citizens. There’s no question that we are deluged with much that fails to be actual journalism. I would say that most TV news I see falls in this category.

Last night Eileen and I happen to watch the NBC news all the way through. A lot of time was spent on the Cairo story, but there was not a whisper about the Conservative leadership meeting in DC which is what the PBS Newshour report led second after a Cairo update. Over and over I see news stories that are not news but calculated to titillate.

I don’t think information is the same thing as opinion. It takes a strong crap detector to filter out bad information. And lots of work as you point out in the areas you mention.

However, I completely respect your and others right to see things the way you do even if it differs from me.

Either Bush did or did not know there were no WMDs (defined by the US and UK leaders in a private memo as “unconventional weapons”). My reading leads me to reasonably suspect he did.

Not only this 2006 article on the NYT about the memo I just mentioned: http://tinyurl.com/4d39pw2

but also Ron Susskind’s excellent book: “The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism.” This book is about a lot of different things, but part of it describes how the former head of the WMD analysis at the Cia, Alan Foley, was ignored by the government in his accurate depiction of the lack of these weapons in Iraq prior to the invasion.

This is part of what why I think the way I do. I offer it only in that spirit, not to convince you or Ray or anyone else for that matter.

I did look for Dr. Lance Haven-Smith. Is he the man who is currently Professor, Reubin O’D. Askew School of Public Administration and Policy, Florida State University? His writings have quite a range, but I don’t see anything by this man about the twin towers. Maybe I have the wrong guy. Here’s a link to the CV I looked at: http://www.askew.fsu.edu/faculty/resume/dehavenl.pdf

As to your point about being asked about what is criminal. Most countries in the world (including the U.S.) are signatories to the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Reagan actually apparently signed it. So in a sense this country has had this discussion. Not to say it couldn’t re-open the discussion. Here’s where I was reading about it this morning:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/George+Bush+above/4262888/story.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

I put all the links into this comment to demonstrate how I am trying to approach some of these difficult questions with some critical thinking.

But I do find it terribly difficult to analyze the huge raw date in the wiki-leaks. It’s beyond me. I prefer to read analyses by people to whom I have given credibility with citations that make sense to me.

But that’s just me, of course.

Thanks again for your comment. I am very interested in what’s going on in your head!

Dad

[…] Licky Weaks, the poo tarty system & the pee tarty […]

Regarding the the professor, I got my cookie professors mixed up. Dehaven-Smith is involved with “State Crimes Against Democracy”. Steven E. Jones is the physic prof I was thinking of. his info:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/atomic/physics1/atomic/jones_cv.htm
David

Thanks for the link! I have read about these questions before and also am unconvinced that it was an inside job. But the science is interesting and definitely makes one pause.

For the record I don’t believe information = opinion. However, I would argue that how the information is disseminated is riddled with subjectivity, bias, and opinion. I also took journalism, but in college and learned a bit about mass communication, media, and reporting.
From your New York Times article:

Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined to talk further about it, citing Britain’s Official Secrets Act, which made it illegal to divulge classified information. But one of them said, “In all of this discussion during the run-up to the Iraq war, it is obvious that viewing a snapshot at a certain point in time gives only a partial view of the decision-making process.”

Of all that was reported on in this article, this paragraph stood out to me most. It reminds me of perceptual differences given our unique individual thought processes and experiences. I am reminded of a colleague who once gave a presentation about the deceptiveness of visual media. He presented an actual police video of a shooting of a person from the viewpoint of one police car. The video depicted an unarmed African American running in front of the police car with his back to the video at night and two Caucasian police officers opening fire on the suspect from behind him.
The initial reaction or impression for some was this was racially motivated. For others it was a reminder of the brutality of a corrupt or overzealous police force riddled with men and women who can do anything they want with a badge.
However, my colleague showed a video of the same scenario from a different police car video that showed what had happened seconds before the African American walked in front of the other police car. The African American man had just shot 2 police officers and had thrown his gun at another one before turning around and running away.
After the 2nd video was shown it made perfect sense and clarified the situation. However, if the media got a hold of only the first video, it could have been disastrous for community relations and even sparked riots, but the media would have gotten there information and made news.
The point is, I really don’t know how one can believe anything they read in the newspaper, watch on TV, or read on the internet.
Here is a link to another example of a different view on the WMD idea.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/24/wikileaks-documents-show-wmds-found-in-iraq/

David

The way I believe things I read is the way I suspect you might trust anything you trust (such as the presentation of your colleague or research in your area of expertise): I evaluate the context and people who are giving the information and see if it seems coherent, objective, and reasonable. As I said before, I find the information from TV journalists generally very unreliable. It would never occur to me to give Morrissey (the guy at your link) the credibility of the New York Times. Admittedly I don’t buy everything I read and I was much more influenced by Ron Susskind’s book that I mentioned than the 2006 NYT report I linked.

I think that in my mind there is a difference between information and knowledge. It’s a bit of philosophical thing but I realize that I am interested in the comparing, evaluating, and synthesizing of ideas and developing new insights.

This is what draws me to reading and spending time alone thinking.

In reality the topics we are discussing (politics, WMD, journalism) are not a big part of my thinking. I’m much more interested in other things like my family and my life’s work in music and church work. Along with literature, poetry and art. That’s where I do most of my reading, thinking and acting.

Your comments and point of view make sense top me of course. I am aware of the unreliability of subjective observation, the unreliability of human memory and the fallible nature of second hand reporting. But I helplessly persist in observing, using my memory and factoring in second hand reports even though I know they are inevitably distorted.

Again thanks for the conversation. I hope you find my comments as civil and respectful as I have been finding yours.

Dad

I looked at David’s link and it is this kind of information that is missing from a media with a bias to report it in their own view. This kind of misinformation has been going on for years. Even in the Viet Nam conflict a famous book “News from Nowhere” is illustrative of this kind of reporting. My own Father in-Law has made this observation over and over in his columns.
(americanpoliticalcommentary.com) It is the blatant misreporting of information and using it to support a point of view. This kind of stuff was what made the Third Reich. It is also, a crucial technique in all socialist mantra. Create a problem by exposing it under some unevaluated pretext to support an elite position. This is typical of current media influence. I believe that the only way to stop this kind of reporting is to teach people the idea of critical thinking. Find out the information for yourself. Look to reliable sourcing of information and even that must be approached with great trepidation.
George Bush is not a war criminal. Interpretation of this point is subjective and requires the learned notion that evidence would prove it. It is not my belief, however and until someone proves that they saw him make these decisions with a disregard for life and that he was not acting in Preserve, Protect and Defend the country, I cannot see any other condition. By the way, anyone can file a petition with the world court and say anything about anyone for any reason. This is not the first time that it has been done against an American President.

I have read a lot of Louis “Studs” Terkel. The comment that you highlighted is hard to find issue. It is what the human spirit is trying to achieve. I think that observation and age mellowed his point of view over time.
His last book, “P.S.,Further Thoughts on a Life Time of Listening” exemplified this. Although, I believe that many journalist’s have portrayed his with august praise, I think that he was a man that truly wanted the best for the common person.

The book you mention “P.S.: Further Thoughts From a Lifetime Of Listening” is also one I checked out this week. It seems to me to be left-overs from his career not new insights (see the preface, “Among My Souvenirs”).

I was interested to read Terkel’s comments when asked what he would say to candidate Obama. (Terkel died Oct 31, 2008 just days before Obama was elected.)

“I’d ask Obama, do you plan to follow up on the program of the New Deal of FDR?
I’d tell him, ‘don’t fool around on a few issues, such as health care. We’ve got bigger work to do! Read FDR’s second inaugural address!’

The free market has to be regulated. And the New Deal did that and they provided jobs. The government has to. The WPA provided jobs. We have got to get back to that. We need more reg-u-la-tion.

I was just watching Alan Greenspan, he’s an idiot, and by the way so was Ayn Rand!

Community organizers like Obama know what’s going on. If they remember. The important thing is memory. You know in this country, we all have Alzheimer’s. Obama has got to remember his days as an organizer. It all comes back to the neighborhood. Well I hope the election is a landslide for Obama.”

Studs Terkel

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-lifson/studs-for-obama_b_137278.html

Yesterday was a tough day. Well, actually most days are rough since my son passed away. But yesterday was the 2nd.anniversary of his passing. I have a very tough time with prayer and I am unsure of the reasons for it. And yet maybe it is a way to clear the mind and develop clear focus. I have always thought of myself as a spiritual person, but since his passing not so much. I was with him when he died. I was helpless. I did not feel relieved that he was going to heaven or that I had faith that this was what happened. My Southern religious background is really devastating about this faith in God. One must be saved.
Bret’s knowledge of faith mostly came from study and discussion, never really forced “church” on him. His wife, Jen was a Catholic and she brought him into the “church of God”. I always appreciated that she brought a strength of faith into their relationship. I think that was positive. But I do not feel faith. It is intellectually, emotionally, and physically barren to me. I can find no evidence that Bret’s death is anything more than that, death. This is very hard to understand and accept. But he is not here, forever.
I did find a long lost friend,though. I was desperately looking for a connection with my past to reconnect with the people whom I had gained some knowledge of my own convictions about life. You are one of the most spiritual persons that I have had a connection with in my life. You represent for me a connection to faith. I sought you out because I needed this connection. Actually, I realized that finding you was not happenstance. It was providential. Does that mean I have faith? Well, I am unsure of that answer.
Children that we have are precious to us and when they die before we do, it represents in some ways our failure to protect our child. I know that this is all emotional, but it is about the permanence of death. I have thought about this quite a lot for the last couple of years and I am still thinking about it. I have not reached the end, yet. Maybe this dialog helps to explain for me the very private, deep emotional trauma that I am trying to reconcile within me. I don’t know.
Prayer is something that is lost for me. I do seek solace, peace and a reconciliation, however and I do this in quiet meditation.