Democracy, the Good

Just feel like I ought to shake things up a tad tonight. Not like it really matters, unless somebody dares to drop in on the Rant. For those that do, this is what I have to say. Do some people delight in torment? Can it be fun to be cruel and callous, or must evil always be evil? Personally, I doubt if there even is such a thing as good, or as evil. There are terrible things, and wonderful things, but why should they be inherently good, or inherently evil? In political terms, can a politician do evil, even if it benefits a nation, or a region? Somehow, during the Cold War, much of the West felt that there were cruel and nearly evil things out there that could be used for our own benefit, and as long as it did so, somehow, it wasn't so evil anymore. The major definition of good was Non-Communist, and yet, what evil was done in the name of that good? Did not America and others take the name of good in vain, by supporting dictators like Pinochet, who "only" killed about three thousand people? And tortured thousands and thousands more? Just because they were opposed to the evils of communism? Stranger yet, when faced with the Villany of Hitler, we were bedfellows with the mother of that evil, the Soviet Union. How does that translate into a moral message for the generations after? What have the people of the younger generation, who listen back to stories in history books of men and nations the USA supported but did such terrible things? Many were non democracies, which toppled our beloved democracies, because democracy bred communism when the poor longed for a voice. Now we are being told that democracy is the ultimate good, and must endure because it is good and great and just. But what of the democracies democracy killed? Were they not just, Communism and All? Lobolius

More Campfire Tales

Well, everyone, it seems the Wolf has fallen into an exile of sorts on the web. My local library has been closed until it reopens somewhere else in March, so I have been cast out in search of an alternative library source. I found one, and am happily blogging away as ever.
What to talk about? Nothing political is coming to mind that I have any strong desires to rant about, so how about I resume the story about the young boy by the campfire. If you recall, awhile back I told this tale of a young boy whose mother was telling him campfire stories about the ghost of Bin Laden. I left off with him being told that all was well, and we should hush up our critisicm.
"But mother, I thought we could have free speech. Isn't that what the terrorists hated about us? But we beat them, didn't we mother?"
"We will one day defeat evil my son. Until that day we must all trust to the Lord God above and hope for a brighter day when the nonbelievers are doomed."
"But my teacher told me on Friday that all of us have the same God, and worship him in differant ways, like people climbing a mountain that has many paths but only one summit. If we all have the same God, aren't we all believers? So this war, it is only between people fighting how to climb this mountain, not about which mountain of God is better."
"Wise words son. It is on those wise words that peace may come."
"So why are we fighting people, mother, if we all believe alike?"
The boy's mother hung her head, gazing into the fire. Its flames cackled warmly, invitingly. "I don't know son. Maybe us humans just can't get God's signals right, and keep thinking we know what He said, and are arguing over what the words are, but there is no difference between what is said to us and what is said to them."
The boy thought about it, studying the sparks that snapped above his head. "Then you know what I want to do when I grow up Mommy? I want to tell everyone that we all have the same belief in the same God, and should all learn to listen to what he really says. Doesn't that sound like a good idea mommy?"
"Yes my son. It is a wonderful idea."

Words to bear in mind, all of you out there and about who happen to drop in on me.

Roman Wolf

Ellison

You know what? Why the heck is it that the conservatives are howling with rage at the idea of Keith Ellison, a Muslim Representative from Minnesota, is going to be allowed to swear in on the Koran? I thought conservatives were supposed to be the ones who believed in a strict interpretation of the Constitution. When reading the Constitution of the United States of America, just where does it say that those who are being sworn in MUST USE THE BIBLE? Hmm, Hmmm? I have however, read in the First Amendment that Congress shall make no law establishing religion. Saying Representatives of all faiths must use the Bible sounds an AWFUL lot like establishing religion.
I have watched interviews of Keith Ellison on TV. He believes very strongly that his Muslim faith encourages him to treat all people as brothers and sisters, and that nobody in this nation or the world should be abandoned in favor of big money and the power that comes with it. Anyone who doesn't believe that is actually a teaching of Islam should look beyond the terrorists who dominate our nightly news and study what Muhammad really wrote. Treating all people equally and with love is in there, just like the Bible, and I'd be very surprised if anything to the contrary was written in the Tora, or any other religious book. "Religion is love." Anna Stewart wrote in Black Beauty, and if any religious person who believes that wants to go to Congress and act on that belief, I don't really care if they are sworn in on a batch of mom's delicious brownies. Just get them in there. This country needs a few good men and women.

Roman Wolf

Negotiations

Greetings. How do you all do?

So, if the recommendations go into failure, what is left in Iraq will be a power vacuum. Power vacuums are filled by the most powerful force, which right now is looking like either Iran/Syria. So it will go to them, which is the last thing that Bush and the American Government want. So what do we gain/lose by talking with those two? Hard to say.
Now, the pe0ple in those countries would hardly benefit from a mass influx of immigrants, and no country likes to have a lot of really upset people on the loose. So they need to see Iraq stablize one way or another. If America can't they will. That's the mutual interest in Iraq, and when it comes to negotiations, that is a first step.
Secondly, what harm could talking bring? Bush has made it perfectly clear that he is capable of hearing without listening like a parrot, so I doubt he'll just nod and obey what Syria and Iran say.
So I support the negotiations. If all else fails, we can just argue about the size of the table for a year and stall them out.

Roman Wolf