... A Few More Things.

(This may go on a while.)

Like how this is not a shocker.

Before Moving On...

One building-block closer to heaven on earth?

Cool Reason

Here's some excellent discourse on, basically, the question I ended up leaving the good folks at "Southern Appeal" with, one post ago.

The idea of the bible being "the inerrant word of god" seems to me to be at the actual foundation of the abortion debate. If one person thinks abortion is murder and another thinks it's not, well, then there is going to be intense debate. That's alright. But if the first person also thinks that their opinions derive from (translated) text they consider to be "the inerrant word of god," well, loggerheads'll come quickly and more heatedly.

Thanks again to the fine One Good Move.

Venturing Out

I think I did alright in the comments thread here, under my web alias of Shimmy. I particularly like the language around "distinct from the reproductive system" and "abortion cell-death." What language to like!

I wish I had thought to respond to the "facetious" "reductio" about automobile-use causing death, and so why don't I oppose people driving. Well, I do oppose people driving (so much.) Duh. The number of roadway deaths is only part of it. And like so much of what's annoyingly on my mind, my reasons also fall squarely into the standard liberal vs. conservative mindset blah-blah debate. Let's see, there's the environmental reason, the personal health reason, the public health reason, the aesthetic reason, the fossil fuels funding oppression and radicalism reason...

Too much for my little mind to keep all at the ready...

Like how my thoughts on abortion have to do with biology, religion, morals, civics, health, sexual politics, and more. Oi, my achin' vey! As I've written here on before, blogging (or comment-threading) politics is hard.

What's that religion where some of them wear masks and sweep in front of them as they walk, to keep from killing insects? Them I'm curious to listen to on these matters. Many Christians, or conservatives, not so much. (I guess I'm being facetious there. Or emotional. I am curious to hear, because I'd rather not go around thinking people are simply being ridiculous. Wrong, OK, ridiculous, oi.)

P.S. - In response to no one in particular: "Work to reduce the number of abortions? Of course. Duh."

P.P.S. - Also hard: not being inflammatory when discussing abortion or religion. That wingnut Boortz has one thing right when he bans the abortion topic on his radio show.

Soulless Clowns, Indeed

While I sort out in my head some coming commentary on a recent conversation with friends, I suggest visiting here. If you are able, take a few minutes to listen to what's on offer at the speaker icon. The main page for onegoodmove offers a fine supply of spot-on and/or funny political commentary, much of it in video form. It's a favorite page of mine, out of New Zealand. (I love the sub-heading.)

The idea of memes got me thinking. If the ability to imitate and accumulate a wide range of memes is what distinguishes us from animals, then maybe innovation is not the human element, as is often assumed, but a divine one. (Whatever that means. Up to you.) This fits with my general feeling of mass religion as un-divine, and actually basely and blatantly human, since it depends much more on imitation than actual inspiration. And art, as I implied in the above-mentioned-and-someday-to-be-blogged-about conversation, may actually be more of a divine "religion" than, well, religion. Because as we all know, artists never copy.

1. The question that fuels doubt: "In whose political image have we endeavored to shape the Middle East?"

Response that yields points of view: "Royally rich businessmen and evangelical Christians."

2. "Are Republicans aware that they hold a widely perceived advantage over Democrats when there are wars or even rumors of war?"

"Yes."

3. "Are there long-standing problems of highly consequential financial, spiritual, and violent discontent among the people of the Middle East?"

"Yes."

Soothe

One way to look at it, of course, is that Lieberman has been adjudged to be "not part of the solution." Which sounds about right to me. The Decembrist gave me this:

---

"First, is there a better expression of what I called 'checklist liberalism' than Lieberman’s I-gave-at-the-office answer to George Stephanopoulos this morning, complete with the Rumsfeldian question-answer format?:

"Lieberman: 'Did I keep in touch with Democrats? You bet I did….I have the support of most of the key inner constituencies, advocacy groups within the Democratic Party : the AFL-CIO, the League of Conservation Voters, Defenders of Wildlife, Human Rights Campaign, NARAL, Planned Parenthood PAC. They wouldn’t support me if I lost touch with them.'"

---

Which brought on thoughts about judgement. Some folks love to judge, eh? I do! And I suspect that a lot of my friends do, too. Some on the other side would say that people like me actually judge not enough. Perhaps. From the mouths of many moralists, though, I would take it to mean I must be doing something right. Here's to the hope that someday I will judge even less. Instead, I shall be more aware.

And so it makes me a little uncomfortable to hear in the 'sphere about Lieberman not being a Democrat, not a real Democrat, get out of our party, you jerk. How off-key to my ears. How distasteful. How judgemental.

And yet, feeling aware enough, I am going to let myself think of yesterday as an acceptable judgement of a person by open committee and more-or-less with integrity. I'll place it somewhere between a Rowe camp council and a high school book review... only more far-reaching. Currently, it cannot be known if Connecticut made a wise choice. And that's alright.

The people can judge, now-and-then. Sometimes it helps.

Not About God

I don't actually recall much about the Clinton years. Wasn't paying much attention.
But I do seem to remember they were able to talk about exactly, specifically how Jews and Muslims would behave and organize themselves peacefully in Jerusalem, going about their practices. I don't remember it working, but that's what the conversations were about, at least for a time.
In my first post here, I wrote that this blog is about civics, but I think that's not quite true. As I write it, post after post, it is now about war. Eww. Wars with weapons and wars of words. War of both at once. This is the crucible of civics. The ultimate test. It may itself be the abscence of civics, but I've never been there, so I do not know. (And so this is not journalism.) Is there a separate civics in wartime, degraded and miraculous? There must be, if only there are people still alive and communicating and acting. Listen up.
Moving outward, there is is the heart, then the mind, then the hand; then there is ethics, then morals, then civics, then spirituality. Always.

I'll also be thinking on this page about the run-up to war. And the way it pulls hard at the fabric of a people placed on that edge.

Even if we are an ocean away from almost every bit of "the action," America is yet rife with pulling forces that debate and coalesce not only around the actual war/s in the Middle East, but just as much (and I can't believe I'm saying this) around the culture war: the B.S. media culture war that also has real elements in schools, families, town-gown relations, television, bedrooms. It's no coincidence that the usual sides of each debate are usually peopled by the same two sides of people. And more than the other ones, this war is waged on the fabric of America itself. Look out there.
There is the child, the adult, the community, the local and state governments, the churches, universities and other civil institutions, and then the federal government. And the Feds have the army.

I once saw a clip of George Bush on TV, responding to an admirably direct question from the audience by drawling, "you know, I never thought about [how evangelical yearning for the apocalypse might affect my Middle East policy]."

I yelled at the screen, loudly, "LIAR!"

See, I think it is all related.

And it now brings more than rumors of war.

Eww.

Switcheroo

After calling for a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah (which is an iffily realistic request, anyway, especially on the Hezbollah side of the equation), here's some reasons why conservatives have weight.

There's this column purporting to show why some Democrats have been less-than-forthright in staking out "Bush Lied, People Died" claims. There's the fact that Israel is small and had 200 rockets fired into it the other day, to take only one day as an example. I mean, come on, what if someone were firing rockets into the middle third of North Carolina, where I live? Would we let Virginians punk us like dat? There's the way bullies operate if allowed free reign, and the fact that militants in the middle east are basically bullies, even if their enemies are also bullies. There's what does seem to be a horrible aspect to Currently Powerful Islam. Horrible enough, in actual practice, that any comparison to the disagreeable aspects of Currently Powerful American Christianity are not always useful in a surface discussion such as this. That would be like starting off a conversation about a dispicable wife-beating husband by bringing up the cheating, lying, and stealing of his wife: maybe she really did provoke him to it, but he must not allow himself to be so provoked. Must not. OK, that's a twisted analogy. I'm making a single-person-level ethical point, not a political-level moral one. Drilling a power-tool hole in the head of a fellow Iraqi who is of a different sect, and dumping his body in the river is not defensible, regardless of circumstances. Neither is suicide bombing, on the previously defined level. Whew, blogging politics is hard.

I could go on; but, actually, I can't. It's too depressing, and I'm not clever enough, nor is this coffee strong enough, to sort it all out in my head at the keyboard -- especially when I'm trying to pull a POV switcheroo. I have responses to most conservative talking points, but when it comes to this war, or set of wars, oy!, I like these words by Gershom Gorenberg in the Times:

"I don’t have a quick list of alternate strategies, not today. Yet the fact that I do not have a screwdriver, cannot even describe one, does not mean that a sledgehammer is the proper tool. Now that the sledgehammer has been chosen, I’d still like to hope it produces something positive – say, a breakthrough to peace. The hope does not eliminate doubts."

And neither does my own viewpoint eliminate the interestingness of other views, to me.