Now…talk among yourselves…
A recent issue of time magazine has an excerpt from Al Gore’s new book, “The Assault on Reason.” Judging by the excerpt, Gore has many thought-provoking things to say.
Look, I know it’s Al Gore…the vice-presidency, the run for president, “An Inconvenient Truth.” It seems people either like him or not, believe him or not…but c’mon, give it a chance.
I’ve been trying to choose one topic on which to focus, and I can’t decide. So here’s what I’m going to do…I’ll throw out a few of Gore’s ideas for you…see what you think of them…then we’ll talk…
1. “It is too easy—and too partisan—to simply place the blame [for what’s wrong in our country] on the policies of President George W. Bush. We are all responsible for the decisions our country makes. We have a Congress. We have an independent judiciary. We have checks and balances. We are a nation of laws. We have free speech. We have a free press. Have they all failed us? Why has America’s public discourse become less focused and clear, less reasoned?”
2. “At first I thought the exhaustive, nonstop coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial was just an unfortunate excess—an unwelcome departure from the normal good sense and judgment of our television news media. Now we know that it was merely an early example of a new pattern of serial obsessions that periodically take over the airwaves for weeks at a time: the Michael Jackson trial and the Robert Blake trial, the Laci Peterson tragedy and the Chandra Levy tragedy, Britney and KFed, Lindsay and Paris and Nicole.
While American television watchers were collectively devoting 100 million hours of their lives each week to these and other similar stories, our nation was in the process of more quietly making what future historians will certainly describe as a series of catastrophically mistaken decisions on issues of war and peace, the global climate and human survival, freedom and barbarity, justice and fairness.”
3. “Many Americans now feel that our government is unresponsive and that no one in power listens to or cares what they think. They feel disconnected from democracy. They feel that one vote makes no difference, and that they, as individuals, have no practical means of participating in America’s self-government. Unfortunately, they are not entirely wrong. Voters are often viewed mainly as targets for easy manipulation by those seeking their “consent” to exercise power. By using focus groups and elaborate polling techniques, those who design these messages are able to derive the only information they’re interested in receiving from citizens—feedback useful in fine-tuning their efforts at manipulation. Over time, the lack of authenticity becomes obvious and takes its toll in the form of cynicism and alienation. And the more Americans disconnect from the democratic process, the less legitimate it becomes.”
4. “But the Internet must be developed and protected, in the same way we develop and protect markets—through the establishment of fair rules of engagement and the exercise of the rule of law. The same ferocity that our Founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the Internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic. We must ensure that the Internet remains open and accessible to all citizens without any limitation on the ability of individuals to choose the content they wish regardless of the Internet service provider they use to connect to the Web. We cannot take this future for granted. We must be prepared to fight for it, because of the threat of corporate consolidation and control over the Internet marketplace of ideas.”
You see my problem? Any of these issues could make an interesting discussion. Let’s see who out there is more decisive than I am. Take your pick…now, discuss.
Be brave. Be human. Be more decisive than I am…
Susan
June 1st, 2007 11:52
Have I mentioned how much I love this site? Yes, as the Official Right Wing Wacko of Brave Humans, I often have a different opinion than …well… the rest of the planet.
But I enjoy the fact that we can discuss all of this.
I’ll take them all, but with really, really short answers:
1) Because of politicians (on both sides) like him (Al Gore has blamed just about everything on George W. Bush) repeating hyperbole as fact, many voters have believed what they said and, as a result, refuse to talk calmly with “the opposition” because instead of just plain wrong, they are now evil and trying to destroy “us”.
2) The television media has never had good sense or judgment. They know that those who slow down to see an accident on the side of the road will do the same on TV, resulting in ratings and money. That is all the sense they need.
3) Agreed (witness the Immigration Bill).
4) Agreed. I only hope we fight more effectively than we have for free speech of citizens AND media in the U.S. (no partisan political speech within 30 days of an election!?)
Dan
June 1st, 2007 21:09
I very much liked your story. You are right on: “At first I thought the exhaustive, nonstop coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial was just an unfortunate excess—an unwelcome departure from the normal good sense and judgment of our television news media.” GREAT JOB!!
CHECK OUT MY STORY ALSO? WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE. http://www.clarenceghanley.com
June 4th, 2007 17:35
Hi Daniel-
If you want to be our wacko, you can be our wacko…but I have a hard time thinking of you as such! Right wing, sure. : )
I so agree that Americans have become devisive… “us” vs “them.” That’s why I value Gore’s statement from the book, “It is too easy—and too partisan—to simply place the blame [for what’s wrong in our country] on the policies of President George W. Bush.” Despite the “King George” jibes, he could NOT do it all alone. Voters, Congress, the judiciary…we all share some responsibility.
Susan
June 4th, 2007 17:40
Hi Clarence-
Welcome to Brave Humans.
I remember ages ago…probably more than 25 years…I bet it was before Court TV…our local cable TV station would broadcast important local criminal trials. I found them fascinating from a procedural standpoint (I’m a legal geek). There was no purient interest involved…they just weren’t those kind of trials. Viewers could see how the local legal system worked. That I could watch. Today, there’s a whole different reason to broadcast a whole different kind of trial… and I can’t stomach that.
Susan
June 6th, 2007 15:40
Right on Susan with your thoughts about television and its history. You lend a sense of goodness in the world. Thanks. So much these days has become nonsensical. There seems to be no chance of ever getting back to reality in this country - at home nor abroad.
My position - only - is LOVE, JUSTICE, WISDOM, POWER, AND PEACE for human kind. There is a force who will not allow those positives.
I wrote the book in order to creat dialogue toward good.
Geek, you are… Smile.
June 6th, 2007 22:00
Regarding No 3…. unresponsive government.
From my viewpoint (Australian), the current US govt looks VERY unresponsive. Unresponsive to its own people and unresponsive to its peers in the world community.
Bush is far too liable to take unilateral stands. And the world community simply will not go along with this approach. Iraq is the unmitigated disaster that many people predicted it would become. The trumped up ‘coalition of the willing’ has eroded, leaving the US carrying the can, as it rightly should. In the news today I see that the invasion has created 4.2million refugees. Stupid.
Also in the news this week is Bush’s sudden suggestion that the US will convene a 15 country summit to address Climate Change. This is widely recognised as a diversionary tactic prior to the G8 meeting. Countries on all continents have dismissed the idea as another piece of US unilateralism and asserted that there is already a multi-lateral process in place, through the UN, and they want to stay with that.
The US govt needs to listen and accept that unilateral action will simply cause it to be left out on a limb, while the rest of the world gets on with addressing the serious problems that face us all. The US runs the risk of becoming marginalised and irrelevant. It needs a government that knows how to listen and to cooperate better than this one can.
I think that this unilateralism is a rear-guard action as the US tries to protect its current level of power in the world. Over the next decades this power will gradually diminish as other countries grow and increase their share of world GDP. As its relative power declines, the US will be forced to listen better, or pay a high price — as it it paying right now in Iraq.
June 8th, 2007 10:05
Hi all-
I’ve been wondering about a connection I see between Clarence’s and Gillian’s latest comments. Clarence said, “There seems to be no chance of ever getting back to reality in this country - at home nor abroad.” Gillian suggested, “The US runs the risk of becoming marginalised and irrelevant.”
Wouldn’t that be something…the US not at the (perceived) top of the heap anymore because we’re seen (with justification) as a bully. What we do within our borders may be our business, but the minute we step outside (whether physically or metaphorically), we need to consider world views.
I could see Gillian’s scenario happening…and we’d deserve it.
Susan
June 8th, 2007 17:07
Susan, I agree with Gillian. We are being marginalized even at the present and we are loosing our splendor around the world. Sadly… the damage has been done, but greatness remains with us.
China actually owns more than 7% of our debt and could call in those notes anytime. In essence they own 7% of our country. They sell us their products, but put stenuous tarriffs on us when we try to sell to them - as do some other countries.
Our government is now looking at another loan from China presently. All of the above is devastating to our economy and will surely leaves us in a quagmire soon. We are loosing our bargaining chip. Our politicians are selling us out, and with the metaphor of chess, we are just pawns.
We spend billions each day toward a war that could have been handled with diplomacy. Our arm forces is smaller. We are looking at nuclear from countries who are developing an attitute with their new found power, and it goes on, and on and of course laws don’t mean anything to us anymore - boarders, drugs, crooks, incarceration, etc.
Yes! Technically we still have the power, (the edge I should say) but as Gillian said, we are becoming marginalized. The legacy we think we should leave to our children may turn out to be a very different story. Our job has been to protect the future for them. We are failing miserably.
June 8th, 2007 17:11
strenuous tarriffs
June 9th, 2007 02:29
Just a note about this erosion of power that the US is facing. I believe that it has two aspects - one is the power that comes from simple material dominance. This will diminish gradually as China and India develop and grow their share of world GDP - as their share grows, the US share will lessen, cos the total pie is always 100%. Relative to other countries, the US will not be so materially dominant. It should try to accept this with grace because there is nothing that can be done about it, and the final result may be a more healthy balance in any case. Relative decline of material power would not put the US on the margins, it would put it at a table of peers, as one of the group — not the most dominant one, but not on the margins.
The second aspect is that of moral power, and this is eroding cos the US leadership is throwing it away with both hands. Moral leadership comes from integrity, not from wealth. It is earnt through hardship and kept by espousing universally acknowledged values. Two current world leaders who have massive moral power, but limited material wealth are Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. Martin Luther King is an American who had strong moral power but limited material wealth.
From where I stand, I see elements of US society that have strong moral power, but they seem to be undercut by the leadership. Such a mixed bag.
It is the appalling morals shown by current US leadership (e.g. Guantanamo just gets messier) that is causing the country to be marginalised. It is particularly grinding to see the country that is loudest in espousing democracy and freedom acting in direct opposition to those values. A bully, as you say, Susan.
Clarence, I agree that the future looks bleak. The legacy left to the next generation is a lot of hard work to rebuild a damaged reputation and moral leadership.
June 10th, 2007 00:40
“table of peers” scary Gillian.
Great piece. You and Susan have the mind of many, but we all have our hands tied. Politics you know.
I did my bit in the sixties and all of my guys got killed off - Kennedy brothers, King, Malcolm X, Jesus. Ghandi thought he could starve himself to death to make a difference, but no on cared. I guess they were all trying to make a difference. The jury remains out.
However… one wonders what nexts.
June 10th, 2007 00:41
‘no one cared’
June 11th, 2007 20:02
Hi Clarence-
I’ve got to believe that we can still make a difference…I have a 6 year old, and I don’t want to live in constant fear for her.
We recently read a biography of Ghandi in my adult Sunday School class…made me aware of what little I’d really known about that man. After that we read one about a woman called simply “Peace Pilgrim.” Another amazing life. Reading those helps me remain hopeful and gets me involved.
Susan
June 11th, 2007 21:00
Thanks Susan, and wrong of me to appear negative. I am not. You are right. One can make a difference, but it is a real journey.
I like it that you read about Ghandi in you church class, that surely gives hope for many. Faith it is…….. I am Catholic and of course sometimes one wonders about moral values in the church as well - you know the stories. So don’t get me wrong, I think we both know that all of Gods angels are on the move against that bad one. He is everywhere you know.
In any event, we should not ever give up. Sorry for my negativism, as I am not that at all.
Where is Gillian on this subject? He did not go on vacation did he? He had me thinking - with an open mind I should say. Gillian the town crier is calling. Where are you?
June 11th, 2007 22:30
Hey Clarence-town-crier…. You’ve got me smiling.
Gillian is a ’she’… English spelling of Jillian…
Where do I stand on political activism? Not giving up.
The area of activism that has caught me is the sudden understanding that we are well on the way to ending extreme poverty on the global scale. This insight was one of those sudden shifts of perspective that energises and reveals.
I read the figures about the huge decline in absolute poverty in Asia and Central/South America in the past 20 years. The momentum has started and most countries in these region are on the way. That leaves Africa. That’s all. Just one place. That is do-able! Especially when I see the power that is being leveraged into helping African countries…. Leaders like Tony Blair are REALLY pushing this, philanthropists like Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett are on board, influential economists like Jeffrey Sachs are driving international policy (e.g. Millennium Deve Goals). And things are changing.
I am amazed to think that I might actually see the effective end of extreme poverty in my lifetime. What a shock this new idea was. I saw that I had taken for granted that extreme poverty was unsolvable. But, when I wasn’t looking, while I was raising my children, half the world was transformed. India refused international aid for the Tsunami cos it had the internal resources to send aid to the afflicted area. Amazing.
So, now that I believe that this outcome is possible, I am throwing my weight behind it. Here’s what to do…
* look for a really poor country that has a stable government with relatively low corruption;
* find a great project that will make a difference, is well run and is sustainable.
Then give them money, time and your skills.
For me, this is the School of St Jude in Tanzania, run by an Australian married to a Tanzanian, it aims to fight poverty through education by providing free schooling to bright children from the poorest homes. My blog is http://www.schoolstjude.blogspot.com.
The US government, like all OECD countries, has pledged to give 0.7% GDP to helping poor countries. Currently it gives about half that. So, one path towards an easy conscience is to lobby your politicians to meet their promises.
Our hands are never tied. Our voices need not be silent. Of course, our elected representatives may choose to ignore us, but that need not stop us saying our piece, holding them accountable, and living more easily with our consciences.
June 12th, 2007 11:41
Nuff said Gillian, very pretty I should say, and thanks for the explanation on same - Jillian.
I will do my research on proper representatives - as well as mine - and go to work. Throw me a bit of info from time to time. You are right, we are never without power in some form or fashion. However… sometimes, it appears that we can do very little when dealing with these politician types, (crooks they are, perhaps even carpetbaggers). Of course political polarizations got us in a quagmire also.
Les ye forget… scripture (Jesus) says, “the poor will always be with us.’ Perhaps he prophetically meant spiritually, as in - poor in our thoughts and understanding of scripture.
Living with faith over carnal understand usually works better for me in the long run of things. However, I am not without knowledge - well just a little bit of that. My gig-a-bits are running out on me these days. I am trying to get most said, or as much as I can before the crash comes. [Computer talk, but you know what I mean.] Smile.
In closing, I find myself these days playing with human shortcomings and their like of wisdom by speaking with satire and metaphors and cliches. Everything has gotten so crazy that humor seems to be the only way of conveying any wisdom at all. OVER AND OUT, I AM GOING TO WORK ON YOUR ADVICE. GOD BLESS.