Seattle-Times, as we are so often told, have changed. We are once again seeing the American political masses racing to select a chosen few around who the voters, obediently, will coagulate. Then, we are told, the nation will be led away from eight years of toxic anemia and back to healthy circulation among the other nations of the planet. What we need, we are told, is change. Change is good, but the status quo is bad. Even the Republicans who march lockstep with the Bush administration loudly proclaim change while they simultaneously perpetuate the policies of that administration. If any words can firmly be associated with the 2008 presidential fiasco they must be "change" and "fear." Fear is a powerful motivator. U.S. General George Patton, upon assuming command of armored forces in North Africa in 1942, told his staff that he wanted his soldiers to fear him more than they feared the Germans. Fear of the right things, but not all things, has often been used to help fortify people against difficult circumstances. But sometimes a leader feels quite differently. "So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke these words at his first inauguration in January 1933, and though he was talking about the economic travails of the midst of the great depression, his sentiments have resonated with innumerable people in the following years. FDR was not telling people that they didn't have reason for fear, but that they could not afford to let fear control them. Every soldier who faces combat, every EMT who encounters their first auto wreck victim, and every mother who thinks here child is drowning in a swimming pool know fear. If they give in to those fears they greatly increase the chances of fulfilling the fears, but if they push fear aside and react appropriately, they may very well "convert retreat into advance." Ever since that day, September 9th, 2001 - "a date which will live in infamy" when "the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by" terrorists, our leadership has not urged us to fight fear, but rather to see fearful things in every shadow and in every neighbor's house. We were told to fear anthrax attacks in our mail, to report suspicious persons to the authorities, to grant the administration unprecedented powers to ignore treaties and Constitutional guidelines. We are told that suspension of habeas corpus is alright because Lincoln did it-but we are not told that Lincoln did it during the Civil War and that shortly after the war the Supreme Court ruled that the action was unconstitutional. In other words, no one should do it again. We are told that voting for a Democrat, or even a "moderate" Republican is to aid our enemies, so be afraid of voting incorrectly! It is also said to aid the enemy if Americans question, let alone criticize, the Bush administration, object to torture and secret prisons on foreign soil, or even ask why the U.S. led an attack against Iraq based on completely false premises. The people are told to go shopping, protect your homes with duct tape and plastic sheeting, and vote far-right wing Republican or face dire, fearful consequences. In contrast to President Roosevelt, Mr. Bush would tell us that "we have everything to fear," and we'd better be very afraid right now. Then there is the matter of change. Every candidate seems to be using the word, pointing accusatory fingers at the Washington insiders who have led us over the brink towards social and international Apocalypse. They depend on the citizens forgetting that they are, in fact, all Washington insiders. Anyone whose first name is Senator (Thompson, Obama, Clinton, etc.), or has worked for the administration in some capacity (Giulianni, Huckabee, etc.) is an insider. Voting for one of them will create change of party in the Executive Branch, or change of the names of the people extending the influence of the Bush administration, but none of them can really "change Washington" or they way government does business. The best the citizenry can hope for is a government that actually protects, supports, and adheres to the Constitution, puts checks and balances back into place, assures accountability of the government to the people, and enforces what pass for ethical rules in government. Frankly, accomplishing any one of those items would call for massive change, but none would really "change Washington." It would also be satisfying to see a government that thought lying to Congress about an oral sex incident in the White House was really far, far less consequential or criminal than lying to Congress about doctored intelligence that presents a false case for invading a sovereign nation; revealing the name of a CIA operative and, by extension, everyone who was working covertly through that agent; disassociating from the Geneva Convention (is there a World War II movie that features a POW sequence and doesn't have a scene where the Nazi or Japanese officer tears and tosses away the American or British officer's copy of the Geneva Convention?); establishing secret prisons off U.S. soil for the express purpose of torturing foreign nationals; or for providing non-bid contracts to cronies in war zones and natural disaster areas. But, hey, I'm still a wee bit idealistic. This election will be more of the same as earlier elections, but if issues come into play it will also be quite different. Yes, there will be race and gender questions (if the GOP had decided to run Condi Rice, they could have one candidate that represented race AND gender questions), but also questions of senility, experience, idealism, and, most important, electability. Because, by golly, we can't have a president who doesn't look good on TV. Dr. Sprackland is a biologist, former anatomy and physiology instructor, and long-time student of human ecology. As a result, he is applying for membership in a different species. His blogs present a view of human nature as might be observed by a visitor from another world, or by a very observant dog. Sunday, August 17, 2008
We Have Nothing To Fear But Fear Itself - Or Do We?
Seattle-Times, as we are so often told, have changed. We are once again seeing the American political masses racing to select a chosen few around who the voters, obediently, will coagulate. Then, we are told, the nation will be led away from eight years of toxic anemia and back to healthy circulation among the other nations of the planet. What we need, we are told, is change. Change is good, but the status quo is bad. Even the Republicans who march lockstep with the Bush administration loudly proclaim change while they simultaneously perpetuate the policies of that administration. If any words can firmly be associated with the 2008 presidential fiasco they must be "change" and "fear." Fear is a powerful motivator. U.S. General George Patton, upon assuming command of armored forces in North Africa in 1942, told his staff that he wanted his soldiers to fear him more than they feared the Germans. Fear of the right things, but not all things, has often been used to help fortify people against difficult circumstances. But sometimes a leader feels quite differently. "So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke these words at his first inauguration in January 1933, and though he was talking about the economic travails of the midst of the great depression, his sentiments have resonated with innumerable people in the following years. FDR was not telling people that they didn't have reason for fear, but that they could not afford to let fear control them. Every soldier who faces combat, every EMT who encounters their first auto wreck victim, and every mother who thinks here child is drowning in a swimming pool know fear. If they give in to those fears they greatly increase the chances of fulfilling the fears, but if they push fear aside and react appropriately, they may very well "convert retreat into advance." Ever since that day, September 9th, 2001 - "a date which will live in infamy" when "the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by" terrorists, our leadership has not urged us to fight fear, but rather to see fearful things in every shadow and in every neighbor's house. We were told to fear anthrax attacks in our mail, to report suspicious persons to the authorities, to grant the administration unprecedented powers to ignore treaties and Constitutional guidelines. We are told that suspension of habeas corpus is alright because Lincoln did it-but we are not told that Lincoln did it during the Civil War and that shortly after the war the Supreme Court ruled that the action was unconstitutional. In other words, no one should do it again. We are told that voting for a Democrat, or even a "moderate" Republican is to aid our enemies, so be afraid of voting incorrectly! It is also said to aid the enemy if Americans question, let alone criticize, the Bush administration, object to torture and secret prisons on foreign soil, or even ask why the U.S. led an attack against Iraq based on completely false premises. The people are told to go shopping, protect your homes with duct tape and plastic sheeting, and vote far-right wing Republican or face dire, fearful consequences. In contrast to President Roosevelt, Mr. Bush would tell us that "we have everything to fear," and we'd better be very afraid right now. Then there is the matter of change. Every candidate seems to be using the word, pointing accusatory fingers at the Washington insiders who have led us over the brink towards social and international Apocalypse. They depend on the citizens forgetting that they are, in fact, all Washington insiders. Anyone whose first name is Senator (Thompson, Obama, Clinton, etc.), or has worked for the administration in some capacity (Giulianni, Huckabee, etc.) is an insider. Voting for one of them will create change of party in the Executive Branch, or change of the names of the people extending the influence of the Bush administration, but none of them can really "change Washington" or they way government does business. The best the citizenry can hope for is a government that actually protects, supports, and adheres to the Constitution, puts checks and balances back into place, assures accountability of the government to the people, and enforces what pass for ethical rules in government. Frankly, accomplishing any one of those items would call for massive change, but none would really "change Washington." It would also be satisfying to see a government that thought lying to Congress about an oral sex incident in the White House was really far, far less consequential or criminal than lying to Congress about doctored intelligence that presents a false case for invading a sovereign nation; revealing the name of a CIA operative and, by extension, everyone who was working covertly through that agent; disassociating from the Geneva Convention (is there a World War II movie that features a POW sequence and doesn't have a scene where the Nazi or Japanese officer tears and tosses away the American or British officer's copy of the Geneva Convention?); establishing secret prisons off U.S. soil for the express purpose of torturing foreign nationals; or for providing non-bid contracts to cronies in war zones and natural disaster areas. But, hey, I'm still a wee bit idealistic. This election will be more of the same as earlier elections, but if issues come into play it will also be quite different. Yes, there will be race and gender questions (if the GOP had decided to run Condi Rice, they could have one candidate that represented race AND gender questions), but also questions of senility, experience, idealism, and, most important, electability. Because, by golly, we can't have a president who doesn't look good on TV. Dr. Sprackland is a biologist, former anatomy and physiology instructor, and long-time student of human ecology. As a result, he is applying for membership in a different species. His blogs present a view of human nature as might be observed by a visitor from another world, or by a very observant dog. 