Sunday, January 11, 2009

Exchange of Political Views

Thanks to Pat Fields and to Adamaria Francis:

Dear loving Friends of the Heart,

In a recent issue, Boone Posey wrote about some minority political feelings. We feel that we owe it to our readers to give both sides of a controversial issue; but we also owe them a response to every serious inquiry, or any serious challenge.

Thus, we have written the following letter to you, our peace-loving

[NOTE:] We will place the original letter in quotation marks, and our responses will be outside the marks:

"Dear Barbara,

Over the past few months, I have read your contribution to this newsletter, and I have a few comments. I wish that this type of political comment were a part of this newsletter, as it was intended, I believe, to be a forum for positive and more spiritual banter and good information."

Yes, we do work hard and consistently to keep the uld ["Universal Love Digest"] spiritually relevant. Spirituality implies positivity, but our real world is not some "Pollyannish" dream without negativity. Exposing negativity is a part of the positive path.

The areas that appear political, on first glance, are really not about mere politics at all, but about spiritual principles. We know that the shame and greed of foolish leaders is against not only our country, but crimes against ecology and humanity. They are truly spiritual concerns.

They need to be exposed. And spiritually educated people need to be introduced to these lies, crimes, and acts of horrible violence. Exposing lies and liars has always been a part of truth-teaching. [Jesus set a good example in Matthew 23.]

"I believe it has been used as a political 'soap box' for too many things."

We have tried hard to "cut down" the number of articles that we share with you, our beloved efamily, with the public, and with other friends. We have had much to say about the interfaces between politics and compassion-- especially when the never-elected administration has broken all the rules of decency, resulting in the deaths of four thousand American girls and boys, and perhaps, a million others, including women and children.

You say that "too many things" have been considered in the ezine. But, actually, in the tens of millions of books written about politics and morality, we have considered only one subject: The failure of the present administration, which claims to be "Christian," to live up to simple and clear guidelines of compassion, and to serve greed. That is not many, but only one subject!

For us to keep silent about these issues would make us appear as apathetic, or even supportive of evil-- which we will never be!

"And most of these political statements is to trash our President."

He might well be your president, but he is not mine. I have had no president since the year twenty-hundred.

And those sound and solid, fact-based criticisms were elicited by his behavior. Very few have turned against bush because they simply don't like the man. Instead, he has become the primary representative of greed, of corporation-rule (a definition of "fascism"), division, murder, and general hatred. His policies have made America the most feared country in the world, according to 71% of Europeans. The Europeans and other foreign people have come to hate America, once the "light upon a hill" to the world. For the U.S., under bush, has actually invaded a third-world country, and a very poor one, to steal its oil for a few rich bush-cronies. Do gallons of oil really cost gallons of blood?

"I admit that he made some mistakes and is not one of the best leaders we
have had,..."

It is good as a reality-test that you can at least create some agreement in your heart about this. Jimmy Carter expressed the shared thought of tens of millions of Americans when he said that bush was "the worst president in history."

From the beginning, he was a man unfit for leadership. He has proved beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt that he is incompetent, inept, and woefully ignorant.

"but I think he deserves some respect in the fact that he still is our President and the office alone deserves some consideration and respect."

Until this monstrous administration began to ruin the environment, give corporate welfare to giant corporations, and to murder American children for oil, I would have agreed one hundred percent with you.

This is a common, and tired, old argument: "If you don't respect the man, at least respect the office." But this is a very fine, and often impossible, distinction. For, during any administration, the officer is the office, for all practical terms. As I was growing up, I went to a public school; in that school, we were drilled thoroughly to be patriotic, to love and respect our country. We were taught to honor the office of president above all. And I did greatly honor it, until it was
revealed that a rich daddy could buy the office for mere bucks, and then, lie it in the lap of an uneducated, ignorant, and foolish son. Any office that can be "bought" does not deserve our respect-- much less, the profound respect that virtually everyone used to share for this high office. And when the office becomes the source of policies and laws that are anti-ecological, anti-economic, and anti-middle class, it is no longer possible to respect that office.

"I don't agree with war as a solution to any problem..."

Well, then, once again, we are in agreement. But can you not see that by supporting a "war-president," you are in fact supporting all the blood, agony, and torture, rape, and starvation that inevitably comes with any war?

"...but he did what he did because of the advisors around him,..."

What a false and manufactured argument! Bush has grandiosely reminded us, more than once, that he is "the decider." You are, for some reason, trying to clear the record of this man, who is more criminal and thief than president. He himself brags continuously about how he personally made all the important decisions. He sees some of his most horrible mistakes as a "legacy," about which he is very concerned. And he should be! Although he is parading around the country, blowing his own trumpet, boasting of what a "great president" he was, no one is really taking this blow-hard seriously. He has worked hard to cultivate the worst record in history; every time that he could have made a major error, by making the wrong decision, he did make that wrong decision.

"and so we are into two wars."

Yes, this is part of the bush legacy. He has made it clear that he would be doing just fine if we entered a third war, in Iran. The man is psychopathic. (He does not have a conscience.) When five hundred thousand women, children, and innocent men die agonizing deaths, they are just numbers on a report to george. His anti-ecology proves that he has no respect for life, and his eagerness for war proves that he does not know the value of human life either!

"The original war, with Afghanistan, was to retaliate for the attack on 9-11,..."

Maybe. But the bin Laden family had close economic arrangements interwoven with bush's own bank account. One of bush's companies even made fire-arms, making war profitable for both him and Cheney (big-buck connections with Halliburton). War was a delightful win-win! Except for all those inconvenient dead bodies. But they really didn't matter; they were "only" bad guys, "only" Muslims.

So, bush, for money, refused to attack the Middle Eastern country responsible for 9-11, which was Saudi Arabia. No, too many bucks from bush and company's personal bank accounts. But to appear "tough," he attacked a pitifully puny country with a rag-tag "army" whose "soldiers" were sometimes twelve-year-olds!

"and the Iraq war, was to keep the spread of support for Al-Quaida (sp?)..."

When george was told, by a reporter, that Al Queda (Al Chaida) was not even in the entire country of Iraq until the U.S. Invasion, do you know what he nefariously said? He said, "So what?"

"For all the wrong decisions he made, he still has keep the terrorists on the run, and they have not been able to launch another attack on our soil, since 9-11."

This is a tired and wearisome argument, but it says absolutely nothing about bush's competence or incompetence. It is a medal to be pinned, not on george's chest, but on all the hundreds of thousands of women and men in law-enforcement and national protection-- people who carefully did their jobs, often while george slept, or went on another of his interminable vacations to Crawford, TX.

"Now, the future Obama administration has already said that they will slacken up on the security of this country, by not tapping anyone's phones, or keeping a close eye on suspected terrorists groups in this country."

You seem to be missing the entire point that people are willing to sacrifice their rights in order to feel safe. But, in sacrificing their human rights, they also sacrifice mine. Ben Franklin said that if one were willing to give up her freedom in order to be "safe," then she deserved neither safety nor freedom. Bush has voluntarily and deliberately trashed even the most sacred political document in our
history, the Constitution, only because it was convenient. His profile is one of a dictator, not an elected president. He got away with an administration polluted and corrupted with scandal, bribery, dishonesty of many kinds, and a general attitude that the common person did not even matter. All who mattered were his "crony-buddies," the oil-billionaires, plus the billion--dollar corporations. In all of his legislative history, bush never once stood up for the common man, but did so
repeatedly for the corporations. Far from being "a man of the people," he was the perfect "corporation man."

"He [Obama] will be putting us in more danger by doing this and he doesn't think it is a bad decision."

First of all, you have no proof that Obama is adopting, or considering, any legislation, or any action, that will make the common person less secure. If Obama can raise our level of respect as Americans, if he can open diplomatic relations with Middle Eastern countries, then Americans will be safer than ever-- on their own soil, and around the world! For bush has made it clear that he hates all Middle Eastern peoples, and all Muslims, and so they naturally despise him. A president whose middle name is "Hussein" might do wonders for American International politics. The texture of the geopolitical map is going to change; and it is so pitiably ugly, destructive, anti-human, and irrational that it almost has to get better!

"He has also chosen a man to head up the CIA that has no experience in this type of responsibility, and would probably mess it up worse than it was when the Clintons were in the White House."

Not everybody agrees that the FBI was in worse shape when Clinton was in the White House; many say that it became worse, and weaker, under the lawless attitudes of bush and co. At any rate, when it comes to appointments, let's please keep in mind two principles: 1) Almost never is it possible to "hook up the perfect person wit the perfect job." Everyone is imperfect; everyone lacks education and/or experience in some areas. And 2) You can never please all the people all the time. Even the very best of presidents will, from time to time, have less than ideal people working for her. This is where the art of forgiveness interfaces with politics. In time, we all must learn to forgive even george.

"I hope and pray that the new President will succeed in leading this country on a peaceful path, and show great leadership in solving our economic crisis."

We are in fullest agreement here, my friend. Obama has been left a huge pile of unsolved problems; the stacks of paper are ten feet tall!

"I want him to have every success and hope he governs like he said he would in his campaign, by reaching across the aisle to show cooperation with both parties in Congress."

His history in working with Congress is very promising.

"But, I think he has already made some bad decisions in his choices for his cabinet, and this has shown that he may be in for some long and hard confirmations from the Congress."

Congress is notoriously difficult to please, as it should be, in a polycultural society. But Obama has a fine way with words, and has even written a couple of books. If you have not read them, they do come highly recommended!

"I could be wrong about this, but I think there will be some controversy about the new cabinet and how well they can perform their duties."

No doubt; every new cabinet in history has stirred controversy-- often, not surprisingly, from the losing party. There has never existed a "perfect president," "perfect Congress," or "perfect cabinet." But Obama is, so far, surrounding himself with people largely of wisdom, well-educated, and with shining reputations for integrity. There are no perfect people on this planet, so let us be careful not to demand perfection! But when an honest cabinet replaces the likes of Cheney and Rice, that very honesty can lift our country together into a new feeling
of hope and optimism.

"As you can probably tell from all I have said, I lean toward the republican side of the political spectrum."

Yes, your lean to the right is a part of your pattern of selfexpression. But beware the tendency of rightwingers to see only themselves as right, and to paint all disagreement as "unpatriotic or even "evil."

"I did vote for McCain/Palin, as I thought they had a better chance of achieving the change in Washington that we needed."

Unfortunately, and a bit amusingly, John McCAin stole the theme of "change" from Obama. Johnny, you will remember, first ran on a ticket of "experience," until the inexperienced and comical Palin got on board!

"I hope that Obama will do a good job, as I have said before, and I will support him in his efforts where I can."

I think that this is a healthy and rational decision.

"I also hope that any decisions made about our national security will be made with the utmost of care and that we don't end up fighting the terrorists on our soil and possibly having a major conflict right here in our own back yard."

I am certain that Obama shares this concern, as do the hundreds of thousands trained in emergency-management, law-enforcement, military strategy-- in other words, the large ocean of people who will still be carefully guarding Americans against fanatics and crooks.

"A lot more Americans will be in danger and we will suffer more losses than we ever did on 9-11."

Yes, that would be true; but, at the moment, this is nothing but science-fiction. So, let's keep our heads, and not panic! Terrorists have their reasons for attacking America; but so far, the reasons not to attack have been stronger and more valid. (This has almost nothing to do with who is president, btw.)

"I hope you and your supporters have given this some thought."

Of course we have. We are not idiots! My friends, if anything, are more intelligent, educated, and observant of the world-situation than are average people.

"Fighting on our own soil will change the whole picture of this 'war on terror'"

Yes, but let's always remember that it has not happened. It is the negative illusion, the favorite scare-tactic, of some rightwingers-- nothing more.

"I just hope that the liberals won't do away with gun ownership before this happens."

This is another matrix-threat of the right. They have an almost "armageddonish" approach to the future, bathed in blood and horror. In this scenario, everyone grabs as many dried bananas as she can, and shoots with her handy little machine-gun anyone who threatens her bananas. And there are always "hordes" of mobs trying to get her bananas! It's all just bad science-fiction.

"I have carried on long enough, but wanted to reply to your comments, both the recent ones and the past ones. I feel this country is one of the best in the
world to live in."

I, and most of my friends, might surprise you when we agree with you. We also love America. The right has no monopoly on this, whatever they tell you about those "evil liberals who hate our country." This is sheerest nonsense, and anyone who is a "liberal" or who has "liberal" friends will deny this false accusation. In fact, it can be strongly argued that we progressives care more for our country than those who care only for dollars. For those on the right, anything can be justified-- war and ecological ruin, for example-- if it brings in enough dollars. This utter consumption by materialism and bucks is a major disease that severely infects the Republican Party. Until they relax a little, and loosen up, they will continue to drive away the young, and anyone else with a conscience. (Did you notice that almost everyone in the McCain/Palin crowds were white and old? There's a reason for this!:)

Anyway, we progressives are not from another planet. We share the strongest values with most Americans. We believe in the sacredness of life; kids should not be murdered out of greed for gold, nor should others.

We are delighted with the great blessings of this country; in fact, the way that we celebrate that freedom is by speaking our minds. Those who celebrate freedom, and yet, would like for the progressive side to shut up and sit down are mere hypocrites. For the founding fathers and mothers of our country were often "radical liberals," from the vantage point of the Crown. And, at any rate, they lived-- and died-- so that all voices could be heard.

We love and treasure our country so much that we work every day to preserve laws that guarantee liberty. We also work to save our country-- its ecology, clean air, and pure water. There are no better ways to love one's country.

Joy and Peace,

the staff of the uld

No comments: