|
freesoul21
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: freesoul21
Gender: Male
Interests: International Travel, Model Railroading, MUN, French, Music, Kayaking, Cycleing, poltics woodworking.
Expertise: US History, Broadway shows / history, being a friend et al...
Occupation: Education/training
Message: message me
Member Since:
12/30/2003
|
|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| I recently listened / watched Sarah Palin's speech at the Tea Convention via youtube. I know some of the more conservative commentators on here may hail the tea party movement as a great, powerful force to be reckoned with. I distinctly remember Sarah saying that "America is ready for another revolution... and I agree with her... just not in the philosophical sense she believes.
I for one do not believe the movement is nearly as large as the supporters and organizers claim. The DC march in 2009 "ABCNews.com reported an approximate figure of 60,000 to 70,000 protesters, attributed to the Washington, D.C., fire department." While a conservative may claim ABC news is trying to shortchange the movement with their supposed liberal sway... I do not think that the DC fire department is in cahoots with the "vast liberal conspiracy." I have a feeling the marriage equality march held in Washington during 2009 had larger numbers. I also think the 2003 protests against the war in Iraq also had much larger attendance numbers.
Philosophically, the tea party movement is disjointed. There may be tea party groups in many / nearly all of the United States but they lack the kind of cohesion necessary to create a lasting political movement and / or party. As much as I love the radicalism of the 1960's and 70's I realize the reason few of the organizations still exist or exist in a fashion as they did when they debuted in American society is because the cohesion just was not there. When you look at the progressive era and their accomplishments (although they would say they did not accomplish enough... an entirely different blog entry) you come to realize their power came through the cohesion reformers had. When you have a tea party in New Hampshire that has entirely different ideas than a tea party in Ohio... you can not build a strong and lasting movement.
Even when you look at the "convention" to be a real "convention" everyone would have had to be there... in reality the tea party convention was really just a media and fund raising act. I for one do not think the organizer(s) really had the "movement" or the adherents of the "movement" at heart. I think the convention is actually very symbolic of what the tea party movement is at large... a pseudo movement. More pronouncments and challenges will come out in the next year or two but the actually ability for the movement to mature and grow is minimal... because the movement isn't really a movement at all.
| | |
| Equality in the Military History was made on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. More than 16 years after their predecessors helped impose the odious “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, the nation’s two top defense officials called on Congress to repeal the law that bans gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military. The principled courage of the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a major step forward for civil rights. Their action leaves no further excuse for Republican lawmakers to go on supporting this discrimination. President Obama must not let the opponents of repeal, who are already mobilizing, keep this terribly unjust law on the books. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was passed by Congress in 1993, with the support of Les Aspin, who then was the secretary of defense, and Gen. Colin Powell, who was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It compelled gay men and lesbians to hide who they are and to live in fear of being reported. Many thousands of men and women have been drummed out of the armed forces under this law. Critics argue that the presence of gay service members makes the military less unified and effective. There is strong evidence that this is not so, including the experiences of nations, such as Canada and Britain, where gays serve openly. A policy of driving out good and talented people — including ones with much-needed skills in Arabic, Farsi, and other languages — makes the military less effective. At Tuesday’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Robert Gates, the secretary of defense, and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made a clear commitment to end “don’t ask, don’t tell” — following up on the promise President Obama made in his State of the Union address. The question, Mr. Gates said, “is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for it.” He said, however, that more time will be needed to work out how to change the policy. While the policy is being reviewed by the Pentagon’s top lawyer and the commander of the United States Army in Europe, Mr. Gates said the existing law will be carried out in a “more humane and fair manner.” One welcome change would be a decision by the military to no longer aggressively pursue discharge cases against people whose sexuality is revealed by third parties, including jilted romantic partners. Since “don’t ask, don’t tell” is a federal law, the Obama administration will have to work to get Congress to repeal it. There will be considerable opposition. Senator John McCain, a Republican of Arizona, declared his opposition on Tuesday. Representative John Boehner, the leader of the House Republicans, indicated earlier that with two wars under way it was not the right time to change the policy. In fact, it is an ideal time. The armed forces need every qualified person who wants to serve. Polls show that Americans broadly support repealing the law. President Obama has spoken out forcefully for jettisoning the policy, and his party controls both houses of Congress. The armed forces have evolved. Gen. John Shalikashvili, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently called for a repeal, declaring that “as a nation built on the principle of equality, we should recognize and welcome change that will build a stronger, more cohesive military.” The United States has traveled far since 1993 on gay rights. It is ready for a military built on a commitment to equal rights for all. -- The last line of this editorial from the NY Times is incredibly true and timely in my opinion... "The United States has traveled far since 1993 on gay rights. It is ready for a military built on a commitment to equal rights for all." When we have more and more states practicing marriage equality and the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act finally being passed... it is time that the military end the archaic and demoralizing "Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy."
| | |
| It was with some shock and great sadness that I read about the passing of the late Howard Zinn who wrote the landmark work, A People's History of the United States. I only recently completed this major work of Zinn and was continually amazed by the depth and strength of it. A quote on the front cover from Eric Foner, an NY Times book reviewer states, "Historians may well view it as a step toward a coherent new version of American history." I think Foner is right on the mark.
One of the chapters towards the end of the book discusses history and the future. Zinn asserts,
"But most histories understate revolt, overemphazize statemanship, and thus encourage impotency among citizens. When we look closely at resistence movements, or even at isolated forms of rebellion, we discover that class consciousness, or any other awareness of injustice, has multiple levels... History which keeps alive the memory of people's resistance suggests new definitions of power. By traditional definitions, whoever possesses military strength, wealth, command of official ideology, cultural control, has power. Measured by these standards, popular rebellion never looks strong enough to survive... However, the unexpected victories- even temporary ones- of insurgents show the vulnerability of the supposedly powerful. In a highly developed society, the Establishment cannot survive without the obese and loyalty of millions of people who are given small rewards to keep the system going: the soldiers and police, teachers and ministers, administrators and social workers... They become the guards of the system, buffers between the upper and lower classses. If they stop obeying the, the system fails." (Zinn 635)
Zinn later explains this could only be realized / done if communities of cooperation were built and if various movements for social change worked together to create a radical community of caring and change. If this sounds kind of like a koombaya (sp?) Drum Circle moment / scenario... it is, for sure... but I for one don't see it as being such a bad thing. I think so much more could be realized and accomplished if we'd just acknowledge the power of tolerance and cooperation... the society of war and competition we continue to live in, create, and sustain is not bringing us anywhere... it is only downgrading and regressing us.
I for one am ready to move forward... are you?
| | |
| I have been coming closer and closer to the end of A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present by Howard Zinn... a long time coming as I have had to put the book down during many of my undergraduate academic semesters. I recently read an interesting comment from a historian in a chapter entitled "The Unreported Resistance." Zinn quotes noted historian Marilyn Young:
"The U.S. can destory Iraq's highways, but not build its own; create the conditions for epidemic in Iraq, but not offer healthcare to millions of Americans. It can excoriate Iraqi treatment of the Kurdish minority, but not deal with domestic race relations; create homelessness abroad but not solve it here; keep half a million troops drug free as part of a war, but refuse to fund the treatment of millions of drug addicts at home... We shall lose the war after we have won it."
Young is reflecting on the US actions in Iraq in the early 90's but her commentary is rather timely. The United States thinks it can fix the entire world yet we have massive deficiencies in many of the areas the United States claims to have expertise in. Am I suggesting the United States should not help out foreign neighbours in great need of help? No, I am not. What I am suggesting though is that the United States should take a deep, honest, and proactive look at the domestic opportunities that abound. The issues of health insurance, racism, poverty, homelessness, drug abuse have been constant thorns in the side of our nation during the twentieth century... if not longer for most of those issues.
Lack of health insurance, racism, poverty, homelessness, and drug abuse do not persist because people are lazy (some people are but not many as some people would like to suggest) the prior mentioned problems exist because the United States a government and also in a larger respect as a people do not want to face these difficult problems that face our country. It is easier to sweep these issues under the rug or even deny they exist in some cases. There seemingly "is no problem" if one will deny the problem's very existence. Why spend money helping people when we can simply spend it on expansion and indirect colonialism? Until the United States can acknowledge the shortcomings it has sustained or created the issues of health insurance, racism, poverty, homelessness, and drug abuse will continue to plague the United States.
| | |
| I am beginning my Master's degree in history this semester. The first course I am taking is entitled, "Seminar in Late Modern European history," which will cover approximately 1800 to the present. The following are the books being read in the course:
-Making of the English Working Class
-European Imperialism 1830 - 1930
- Pity of War, Explaining the First World War
- Atlantic Crossings, Social Politics in a Progressive Age
- Last Days of Europe, Epitaph for an Old Continent
-The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, New Edition 2nd Edition
The course is being taught by a British history specialist so a lot of the course will reflect her specialty. I am interested in this course and look forward to considerably large but interesting readings we will be completing throughout the course. I am also happy this course is being taught in a seminar format so that we will actually get to discuss and interrogate these books and each other as the semester progresses on.
| | |
|
