Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
............. the election of the US president does have international consequences. .............
Thank you for opening this particular can, Bushi! It astonishes me that we can so easily blind ourselves to the wider consequences of our actions. Just as individuals cannot act without interacting, with others or the wider ecosphere, the same is just as true of nations. And the more powerful or bigger the actor, the wider the scope of the acted-upon.
As elections approach, the general view of the electorate tends to reduce, to become more local, short-term and personal. We have seen, this year, what happens when an incumbent president decides to stay on and uses force to skew the elections: nobody can condemn those Zimbabweans who chose personal survival over electoral honesty. And yet, the 're-election' of Mugabe and the violent suppression of opposition has a much wider effect, well beyond the borders of the nation. This is so serious that the other nations of Africa and the wider world gather to condemn the result and debate what action can be taken.
And yet these same 'wiser' nations appear to fail to understand that they are sending a message that it is legitimate for those outwith the national electorate to criticise another nation's electoral process - and even to intervene to upset the result.
When viewed objectively, from a "Martian" pov, there are seriously flawed double standards at work here.
A little history would help:
Elizabeth I hesitated for a long time before signing the death warrant for another reigning queen, Mary I of Scots. She was right to worry. A week under 62 years later, it was a king of England who went to the scaffold: Elizabeth had established a precedent which was to be used again in 1793 in France.
It is dangerous to set precedents in law. We cannot be certain of the long-term results. If, today, it isa deemed appropriate for the US, the UK and the rest of the 'democracies' to intervene in others' elections, what is to stop others to intervene in ours?
If we accept that a US presidential election (or UK/French/German/etc.) has an international dimension, can we truly say that it is 'democratic' when only 'nationals' can vote? Should we not accept that it is a form of quasi-democratic imperialism? After all, one of the areas of difference between the US candidates is how long to continue the military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan - but the voters of those two 'sovereign nations' have no say. Is this democracy? Only, I would submit, in the same sense that our own nations could be called democracies before the enactment of universal suffrage.
I have wondered if there is a specifically 'Buddhist' aspect to these reflections and I return to what I said (above) and which is kindly quoted by Nirvana:
We have a view of sentience which stresses interbeing, the connectedness of all that lives. Whilst human life is perceived to be of great value, its connection with the rest of the universe is integral to our view................we can bring moderation and respect to the debate. We can speak for the voiceless, peacefully. We can work, as do such teachers as HHDL and TNH, for peace-filled and just solutions to international, national and ecological problems. We can examine the Noble Eightfold Path in the light of each politico-economic problem in order to generate creative solutions. They will not be permanent nor will they be perfect. We can only hope and work towards their being better than the mess around us today.
I'm glad that no one jumped on me yet for what I said a few posts above. Thank you for not thinking I wanted to argue just for the sake of arguing. It really is so refreshing that we see NEWBUDDHIST first and foremost as an online Sangha, a place where we come for fellowship and support. People just want to be understood and a great many of us also earnestly desire to understand others also.
I do wonder what you meant above, Bushi, in saying that no one will be objective in an election year. Is it not the duty of all reasonable people everywhere to try to be as impartial as possible, thereby opening themselves to further unfoldings of the greater truths?
I find very illuminating and thought provoking what our Pilgrim friend Simon said just above about the potential shortsightedness of the electorate. We simply cannot afford huge numbers of the electorate to vote their personal likes and dislikes of human personality types at the expense of the important issues. It's indeed very interesting the issues you raised about democracy in the modern world, Simon.
As for me, I firmly believe that it is morally wrong for people to vote their emotions without first examining their motives, the facts being debated, and the situations in which their countrymen have to live. Moreover, I think that anyone who calls himself a Christian or a Buddhist and lets his likes and dislikes rule his thinking is none other than an unenlightened bully. We all have our likes and dislikes, but a spiritual person will not let himself or herself be ruled by them, but will instead be ruled by compassion and fairness.
I agree with what you said, Pilgrim, and hope that people will try to be objective and just to the candidates. And may the best man win!
As elections approach, the general view of the electorate tends to reduce, to become more local, short-term and personal. We have seen, this year, what happens when an incumbent president decides to stay on and uses force to skew the elections: nobody can condemn those Zimbabweans who chose personal survival over electoral honesty. And yet, the 're-election' of Mugabe and the violent suppression of opposition has a much wider effect, well beyond the borders of the nation. This is so serious that the other nations of Africa and the wider world gather to condemn the result and debate what action can be taken...
Alright, the go ahead is on for this, as I don't know the details regarding how it got from Iraq to Canada, but there was several hudred tons of Yellow Cake Uranium in Iraq, which the Iraqi government has sold to a nuclear power company in Canada. They got a killer discount rate on it, as the Iraqi government wanted it out. What this means is that the stuff wasn't weapons grade, or even fuel grade, but it could have been used to make "dirty bombs", or all it would have needed was some enriching. Now, Saddam did have the facilities to enrich Uranium under some of his palaces, he just didn't quite have all the technology. We're still shy of a "smoking gun" but we do have a clear violation of the UN resolution regarding Iraq.
I still hold my position that Saddam was not an immediate threat. The war in Iraq could have waited five more years at least. But at least we know now that Iraq was in violation of UN Mandate, and this war wasn't a total waste.
As for all the secrecy, well, let's just say we didn't want to advertise to a dozen terrorist groups that there were the materials for making some serious dirty bombs or nukes lying around in Iraq, waiting for a buyer.
Well, this news certainly has me filled with mixed emotions. Oh, well. I was hoping the secret was going to be something like the Canadian military finding a cure for cancer. I don't get my hopes up much, do I?
I have just been reading the obituary notice of Thich Huyen Quang, patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, who spent years in house arrest, opposing successive oppressive governments in Vietnam (French, US-backed South Vietnamese, Communists). A quotation from him seems to fit extremely well into our reflections* here:
Vietnamese citizens have the choice between only two alternatives: either to go to prison or to toe the Party line.... Those who toe the Party line must abandon their identity. They must have mouths but cannot speak, have brains but cannot think, have hearts but cannot love their people or their country as they choose.
There is a lesson to be learned from the voices that make themselves heard under oppression.
* I think that 'reflections' is a more useful term than debate, discussion or dialogue to describe what we are about here. Indeed, with the exception of direct answers to direct questions, the number of reflective responses in our threads is one of the distinguishing features of our little sangha.
Nirvana, what I mean is about the same as what Simon said. People are turning inward. Some are being altruistic, and voting from what they believe, but many are worried about the state of our nation, and what the outcome of the election holds for us. So, many are indeed ignoring what the other side has to say, and pushing their party man. Unfortunately, the best man isn't even running. McCain will be good for some groups, Obama for others, but is there really a candidate that will be better for the nation. Not when each group is worried about getting what they need while the getting is good. One of my biggest hopes is the next president will be less divisive than the current one. Whoever is elected. Who knows, in the next few months, we could see a third party candidate rise above the current pall over politics.
I somehow manage to go between liberal and libertarian, if that's possible. I'm for minimal government intervention where privacy, etc is concerned. I'm not a big fan of foreign entanglements either, other than for purely humanitarian efforts, but I do realize that globalism is inevitable and that we have to embrace it to some extent. I believe in fiscal responsibility in regards to government programs, but I also feel that unless private institutions stop screwing over the general population, that the government has a responsibility to intervene on their behalf. This is how I feel about the current health care situation among other things. I could go on, but I'll stop there.
I think that we have somewhat similar views. Politically, I am all over the place. When it comes to civil liberties, I am libertarian to moderate; when it comes to the ecomony, I am predominately moderate; when it comes to national security, I am conservative to moderate; when it comes to social welfare, I am moderate to liberal; when it comes to the federal government in regard to size and spending, I am conservative, et cetera. I imagine that at first look, my positions seem conflicting (e.g., I too believe in fiscal responsibility in regard to government programs, but I also feel that if private institutions screw over the general population, wreck havoc on the environment or whatever, the government has a responsibility to intervene on our behalf), but I firmly believe that a satisfactory balance can be reached between these various economic and political philosophies, especially if our country can transcend the two-party duopoly that is currently dominating the United States' political landscape. That is my [admittedly idealistic] opinion at any rate.
Yeah, I could hit every major area of political interest in a similar way. IMO, every political system has its advantages and disadvantages. I used to be a pretty much straight free market capitalist. Until i took some American History courses and realized that there's a reason we have the laws we have now. A similar thing happened with my view on social reforms and programs. Now I advocate a hybrid system of government that takes advantage of highly democratic aspects of governance with socialistic programs in regard to basic human needs such as health care and assistance with utilities, rent, etc. We are wealthy enough as a society, imo, that food, water, shelter and health care should not be lacking for citizens at least to some degree (though I don't agree with the Soviet model for providing such things). Aside from that, I believe in the principles of Life, Liberty and Property and a central government without too much control over the lives of its citizens (especially in regard to their personal lives).
In a system that is akin to a beauty contest, candidates must tell lies or spread exaggerations.
There is a real question here about the whole system that we call 'democracy', particularly in those areas which implement monarchical presidencies but just as vital elsewhere, such as our own UK Parliamentary democracy. What is it that we really want to achieve? What do we mean by 'government by the people'?
Of course, the presidential candidates are far too busy to address these fundamental questions but we, as electors in our various places, need to examine them. In many ways, I think these questions and the answers we elicit are more important than here-today-gone-tomorrow politicians themselves.
I notice that all the political choices in this poll are selected from within the Western democratic mind-set. We appear to fail to notice how recent and local this system is. Three centuries or so is only a blink of humanity's eye and there is no overwhelming evidence (yet!) that it is a better system than others we have tried over the millennia.
I typed out a long tirade about how I hate American politics and what I think of the current tyrranical reign of King Dimwit, but it wouldn't go through. Maybe the Homeland Security felt it was too critical or too many spelled right big words for Georgie to understand. I may type it again later when I have thought more as I feel an intelligent response is owed to my fellow members.
Fede, Chester Tate killed Peter the Tennis Pro. He found out that Jessica (and his daughter Corrine plus every lonely wife at the country club) was having an affair with him. It broke Chester's heart to see Jessica in another man's arms. Which is funny because he had no problem holding another woman in his arms. It's from a show called "Soap" which was on in the early 1980s.
Cock Robin? Is that Batman's sidekick. By the way "The Dark Knight" is a fun film. I must say that Heath Ledger was a better Joker than Jack Nicholson but the character is much darker in this film. When you get the chance, well worth the 2.5 hours to spend. I will be buying it the moment it comes out on DVD and I'm not a fan of the genre.
"Who killed Cock Robin?" "I," said the Sparrow,
"With my bow and arrow, I killed Cock Robin."
"Who saw him die?" "I," said the Fly,
"With my little eye, I saw him die."
"Who caught his blood?" "I," said the Fish,
"With my little dish, I caught his blood."
"Who'll make the shroud?" "I," said the Beetle,
"With my thread and needle, I'll make the shroud."
"Who'll dig his grave?" "I," said the Owl,
"With my pick and shovel, I'll dig his grave."
"Who'll be the parson?" "I," said the Rook,
"With my little book, I'll be the parson."
"Who'll be the clerk?" "I," said the Lark,
"If it's not in the dark, I'll be the clerk."
"Who'll carry the link?" "I," said the Linnet,
"I'll fetch it in a minute, I'll carry the link."
"Who'll be chief mourner?" "I," said the Dove,
"I mourn for my love, I'll be chief mourner."
"Who'll carry the coffin?" "I," said the Kite,
"If it's not through the night, I'll carry the coffin."
"Who'll bear the pall? "We," said the Wren,
"Both the cock and the hen, we'll bear the pall."
"Who'll sing a psalm?" "I," said the Thrush,
"As she sat on a bush, I'll sing a psalm."
"Who'll toll the bell?" "I," said the bull,
"Because I can pull, I'll toll the bell."
All the birds of the air fell a-sighing and a-sobbing,
When they heard the bell toll for poor Cock Robin.
A truly appropriate song for this thread, whether (as popular imagination would have it) "Cock Robin" refers to Robin Hood or, as is far more likely, a satire on Robert Walpole's administration.
I think this version of the Joker really personifies the spirit of 19th century Russian nihilism-to-the-extreme quite well.
Jason
Jason,
Most of the time, I did not feel the Joker was really scary. Sure he did some evil stuff, but with the other times portrayed in movies or television, it didn't made me think he was a prankster, not a psychotic killer. This portrayal showed what an evil little man the Joker is. I'm sorry that Harvey TwoFace was killed off. Or was he? We shall have to tune in as it would make a great sequel.
I must say the nurse/handwashing moment with the Joker was especially funny as you are to wash your hands before and after you see each patient. He was quite hygienic.
Comments
Thank you for opening this particular can, Bushi! It astonishes me that we can so easily blind ourselves to the wider consequences of our actions. Just as individuals cannot act without interacting, with others or the wider ecosphere, the same is just as true of nations. And the more powerful or bigger the actor, the wider the scope of the acted-upon.
As elections approach, the general view of the electorate tends to reduce, to become more local, short-term and personal. We have seen, this year, what happens when an incumbent president decides to stay on and uses force to skew the elections: nobody can condemn those Zimbabweans who chose personal survival over electoral honesty. And yet, the 're-election' of Mugabe and the violent suppression of opposition has a much wider effect, well beyond the borders of the nation. This is so serious that the other nations of Africa and the wider world gather to condemn the result and debate what action can be taken.
And yet these same 'wiser' nations appear to fail to understand that they are sending a message that it is legitimate for those outwith the national electorate to criticise another nation's electoral process - and even to intervene to upset the result.
When viewed objectively, from a "Martian" pov, there are seriously flawed double standards at work here.
A little history would help:
Elizabeth I hesitated for a long time before signing the death warrant for another reigning queen, Mary I of Scots. She was right to worry. A week under 62 years later, it was a king of England who went to the scaffold: Elizabeth had established a precedent which was to be used again in 1793 in France.
It is dangerous to set precedents in law. We cannot be certain of the long-term results. If, today, it isa deemed appropriate for the US, the UK and the rest of the 'democracies' to intervene in others' elections, what is to stop others to intervene in ours?
If we accept that a US presidential election (or UK/French/German/etc.) has an international dimension, can we truly say that it is 'democratic' when only 'nationals' can vote? Should we not accept that it is a form of quasi-democratic imperialism? After all, one of the areas of difference between the US candidates is how long to continue the military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan - but the voters of those two 'sovereign nations' have no say. Is this democracy? Only, I would submit, in the same sense that our own nations could be called democracies before the enactment of universal suffrage.
I have wondered if there is a specifically 'Buddhist' aspect to these reflections and I return to what I said (above) and which is kindly quoted by Nirvana:
I do wonder what you meant above, Bushi, in saying that no one will be objective in an election year. Is it not the duty of all reasonable people everywhere to try to be as impartial as possible, thereby opening themselves to further unfoldings of the greater truths?
I find very illuminating and thought provoking what our Pilgrim friend Simon said just above about the potential shortsightedness of the electorate. We simply cannot afford huge numbers of the electorate to vote their personal likes and dislikes of human personality types at the expense of the important issues. It's indeed very interesting the issues you raised about democracy in the modern world, Simon.
As for me, I firmly believe that it is morally wrong for people to vote their emotions without first examining their motives, the facts being debated, and the situations in which their countrymen have to live. Moreover, I think that anyone who calls himself a Christian or a Buddhist and lets his likes and dislikes rule his thinking is none other than an unenlightened bully. We all have our likes and dislikes, but a spiritual person will not let himself or herself be ruled by them, but will instead be ruled by compassion and fairness.
I agree with what you said, Pilgrim, and hope that people will try to be objective and just to the candidates. And may the best man win!
* I think that 'reflections' is a more useful term than debate, discussion or dialogue to describe what we are about here. Indeed, with the exception of direct answers to direct questions, the number of reflective responses in our threads is one of the distinguishing features of our little sangha.
_/\_
I think that we have somewhat similar views. Politically, I am all over the place. When it comes to civil liberties, I am libertarian to moderate; when it comes to the ecomony, I am predominately moderate; when it comes to national security, I am conservative to moderate; when it comes to social welfare, I am moderate to liberal; when it comes to the federal government in regard to size and spending, I am conservative, et cetera. I imagine that at first look, my positions seem conflicting (e.g., I too believe in fiscal responsibility in regard to government programs, but I also feel that if private institutions screw over the general population, wreck havoc on the environment or whatever, the government has a responsibility to intervene on our behalf), but I firmly believe that a satisfactory balance can be reached between these various economic and political philosophies, especially if our country can transcend the two-party duopoly that is currently dominating the United States' political landscape. That is my [admittedly idealistic] opinion at any rate.
Jason
_/\_
1-20-09: The end of an era of error
There is a real question here about the whole system that we call 'democracy', particularly in those areas which implement monarchical presidencies but just as vital elsewhere, such as our own UK Parliamentary democracy. What is it that we really want to achieve? What do we mean by 'government by the people'?
Of course, the presidential candidates are far too busy to address these fundamental questions but we, as electors in our various places, need to examine them. In many ways, I think these questions and the answers we elicit are more important than here-today-gone-tomorrow politicians themselves.
I notice that all the political choices in this poll are selected from within the Western democratic mind-set. We appear to fail to notice how recent and local this system is. Three centuries or so is only a blink of humanity's eye and there is no overwhelming evidence (yet!) that it is a better system than others we have tried over the millennia.
Fede, Chester Tate killed Peter the Tennis Pro. He found out that Jessica (and his daughter Corrine plus every lonely wife at the country club) was having an affair with him. It broke Chester's heart to see Jessica in another man's arms. Which is funny because he had no problem holding another woman in his arms. It's from a show called "Soap" which was on in the early 1980s.
Cock Robin? Is that Batman's sidekick. By the way "The Dark Knight" is a fun film. I must say that Heath Ledger was a better Joker than Jack Nicholson but the character is much darker in this film. When you get the chance, well worth the 2.5 hours to spend. I will be buying it the moment it comes out on DVD and I'm not a fan of the genre.
I think this version of the Joker really personifies the spirit of 19th century Russian nihilism-to-the-extreme quite well.
Jason
All the birds join in and have a part to play. I will go and dig a copy out to post.
"Who killed Cock Robin?" "I," said the Sparrow,
"With my bow and arrow, I killed Cock Robin."
"Who saw him die?" "I," said the Fly,
"With my little eye, I saw him die."
"Who caught his blood?" "I," said the Fish,
"With my little dish, I caught his blood."
"Who'll make the shroud?" "I," said the Beetle,
"With my thread and needle, I'll make the shroud."
"Who'll dig his grave?" "I," said the Owl,
"With my pick and shovel, I'll dig his grave."
"Who'll be the parson?" "I," said the Rook,
"With my little book, I'll be the parson."
"Who'll be the clerk?" "I," said the Lark,
"If it's not in the dark, I'll be the clerk."
"Who'll carry the link?" "I," said the Linnet,
"I'll fetch it in a minute, I'll carry the link."
"Who'll be chief mourner?" "I," said the Dove,
"I mourn for my love, I'll be chief mourner."
"Who'll carry the coffin?" "I," said the Kite,
"If it's not through the night, I'll carry the coffin."
"Who'll bear the pall? "We," said the Wren,
"Both the cock and the hen, we'll bear the pall."
"Who'll sing a psalm?" "I," said the Thrush,
"As she sat on a bush, I'll sing a psalm."
"Who'll toll the bell?" "I," said the bull,
"Because I can pull, I'll toll the bell."
All the birds of the air fell a-sighing and a-sobbing,
When they heard the bell toll for poor Cock Robin.
Jason,
Most of the time, I did not feel the Joker was really scary. Sure he did some evil stuff, but with the other times portrayed in movies or television, it didn't made me think he was a prankster, not a psychotic killer. This portrayal showed what an evil little man the Joker is. I'm sorry that Harvey TwoFace was killed off. Or was he? We shall have to tune in as it would make a great sequel.
I must say the nurse/handwashing moment with the Joker was especially funny as you are to wash your hands before and after you see each patient. He was quite hygienic.