When I bought my first home, Russ Gunsalus and I put in a stairway and converted the attic into a room for the girls. Needless to say, I have not been a very practically minded fellow throughout my life, and my family was curious about my stair adventure to say the least.
When my mother and father visited, my father started to go up the stairs when my mother unthinkingly blurted, "You're not going to go up there, are you?" Regardless of whatever niceties she might say about my handiwork, her subconscious brought forth (not unreasonably) her deeper feelings--I love Kenny, but I'm not sure how much I trust his stairmaking skills.
Now I don't know whether the UAB deal is safe and trustworthy or not. At the very least it's a political fiasco for Bush, whose primary sustenance has been some strange American sense that he can protect us because at least he's bombing somebody. So now he tries to "do the right thing" and stick up for his political allies, not to profile, to do the Christian thing and show confidence in a nation that everyone else suspects because of their location and the color of their skin. Sorry, you weren't elected because of those kinds of Christian values, if indeed that's what they are (there might of course be more worldly factors at play behind the scene). On this issue, I think I'll be "wise as a serpent" and pick the British company.
But I think we are also seeing the true subconscious of the American people again, just as we did with social security. "Go ahead and bomb whoever you want, Bush, especially if their skin is the same color as the people who caused nine eleven. But we really don't trust your judgment when it come to matters here at home."
I think Bush isn't a bad guy (I've shifted in the last few months from my earlier, I think Bush is a good guy, just misguided). He lies a little sometimes, but that's politics, right? His basic intentions are good, I think. But I don't think any of us would really trust him to build us some stairs--no matter what niceties you might say about his handiwork.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Ken,
Just curious, what's the definition of "He lies a little sometimes"?
Rick
There were a couple of times recently where I thought, okay, so he does lie a little sometimes "in service of the right." The one was when he told the media he would have to have approval from the FISA court to wire tap Americans and it turns out he had long since approved wire taps without FISA approval. The other time was the Abrahamof issue recently where he denied ever meeting him even though pictures exist of him with the guy and he's not the type of power person that you don't know about and remember. These things finally convinced me that he is not just stupid but that he occasionally at least tells little lies because he thinks it's appropriate.
Of course I think of Cheney as a bold face liar, especially after the debate with Edwards where he denied ever meeting him in person even though they had sat beside each other at a prominent event.
I'm still trying to figure out my opinions on this topic.
I really am just taking up space on your page to tell you that you need to read my latest post. I tackled the label you have given me "thinktavist on the move" and the next few posts will be exploring that label but i need you to comment in order for me know your thoughts behind it all.
Ken,
Thanks for the explanation. I understand your perspective better.
The reason I asked was because of the rather casual way people refer to lying these days. I’ve had people who were full of good will tell me something and then a few days later see me again and correct or add to the information. To introduce the conversation they often confessed to lying during the earlier conversation.
As I understand it, this scenario does not qualify as lying. Lying is a deliberate attempt to mislead. My friends were not trying to mislead me and in fact the second conversation shows their sincerity and desire to avoid misleading me and be completely truthful.
In much the same way it appears that the media defines lying as any information that turns out to be incorrect. But even that is not applied uniformly. According to some in the media Bush lies. However, Dan Rather’s use of forged documents was the truth as he knew it and never called lying; an obvious double standard. Then there was the reluctant admission that Bill Clinton lied, but it didn’t really matter. You get the idea.
In this context events are framed based on the perspective of the person reporting them. People who like Bush deny any deliberate attempts to mislead. People who oppose him discover lies and deliberate deceptions. The obvious and very real danger here is that we will not know who or what to believe.
From my distant vantage point I don’t know, can’t know if Bush lied in any instance. Perhaps he and Cheney did lie in the instances you cited, but maybe not.
Some years ago a person showed up at church that I did not recognize. This person knew me and my wife recognized her as well. I could not place her even when reminded that she attended a church I previously served where I saw her regularly. I still have no memory of knowing her.
So if I denied knowing her would I be lying? It certainly would not be a deliberate deception. I hope it’s not an early sign of dementia!
Anyway, thanks for the way you continually challenge my thinking. Sometimes my response is “Amen” other times it’s “Ahem.”
Rick
I will be glad to apologize to Bush if I have formed the wrong conclusion. For the record, I am willing to believe that Bush tells the truth most of the time. And it is only in the last few weeks that I have felt like I have enough evidence to convict. I find it highly unlikely that Bush would not remember meeting Abrahamof, but on that one I might still be convinced of a memory loss.
But the one that really sticks out to me seems beyond any reasonable doubt. I've heard the audio recordings of him telling the press not to worry about wire taps because of FISA. The dates when he consciously authorized these kinds of wire taps are prior to it. Frankly, I am almost willing to consider this an honorable "Rahab" type lie. But it opens the door for me to believe Bush has lied on other times to "get around" public issues.
So I make this comment from the middle. I have family who think Bush is an evil maniac in some sort of oil scandal and I have family who would find a way to explain it if Bush were found in a drunken stupor with a gun in his hand and a dead victim with video tape.
Standing between these extremes, I would consider my appraisal one of the most fair minded in my immediate environs.
Thanks for dropping by my blog. It's not as deep and intellectual as yours though. When did you graduate from SWU? What other graduate or post-grad education have you done or are in the process of doing?
And yes, the theology of GC is my one reserve for why I wouldn't want to go there. I'm not sure yet. If you read some of my previous posts, I give my explanation for why I am considering GC. If you'd rather email me instead of leaving comments, my email is codyLthomas@gmail.com
America is a nation that suffers from ethonophobia. We can except you as long as you conform to our Norman Rockwell pictures and know how to bake a good apple pie. This is disbturbing to say the least. However, let me also suggest that while there probably were deals done in backrooms, there are also some critical factors to take into account. 1.) Do you really think Dubai would subversively plot to take over the ports in order to let terrorists into the country? 2.) If anything ever did come in through these ports, don't you think the UAE would be held responsible first and foremost?
3.) Don't you think UAE knows that if something goes wrong Americans will be clamoring for war. After all, we were awefully trigger happy to take on Afghanistan and Iraq.
4.) Don't you think UAE has more to lose than you realize? If ANYTHING gets through the ports and ends up harming American lives, they will be held directly responsible. Since less than 10% of shipments received through ports are checked anyway, they are taking on a HUGE risk. UAE isn't out to kill America, they're out to make money. And ticking off a trigger happy country with colossal power is not a way to do it.
I will fully acknowledge that I don't know the particulars of the set up--there may be nothing to fear. But it's ultimately not the UAE itself or even the company that I fear in this scenario. It's some individual who works for the company who is working their way through the system. This fear may also be unsubstantiated. I guess I'm already wrong on one point in this entry, since someone told me the British company I mention is actually owned by the UAE company as well. Don't know.
Ken, perhaps you've raised an issue here that deserves more exploration--not Bush's lies-mistakes-errors so much as the question if governing CAN be done with truthfulness at all. Are the Lutheran’s correct in postulating that in governing a fallen world we must sometimes make compromises? Can a Christian President practice the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount as national policy and survive? Can a nation survive with this kind of leadership.
As an idealist I hope the Lutherans are wrong. As a realist I’m afraid they may be right. So that brings us to discuss which kind of actions are wrong and wrong-er. I suspect that most every American would allow for national-defense-lies. Many would permit lies in the national self-interest. Lots would allow for political-promise-lies and “never-meant-it-in-the-first-place lies. However, I suspect many would reject lies for personal interest (self protection, intern affairs).
We spent a year of lunches discussing this with our Political Science colleagues but I never landed completely on the issue—I’m still circuling the runway..I'm an idealist at heart who (howbeit grudgingly) accepts the realist Lutheran position in “real life.” Are you ready to post your position on this? You often help me think these sorts of things through. --Keith
Post a Comment