[Dialogue] Some replies on Glorisky

[Bill Schlesinger]

Well, Jim, I never questioned your seriousness!  My critique is broader than
President Bush and addresses his administration and the Republican Majority
as a whole:

 

1.	Its focus is on protecting the options ('freedom') of wealthy folk
at the cost of providing basic structures to everyone.  This includes the
language about health care (and the use of a separate tier of primary care,
'Community Health Centers,' including ours), tax cuts, energy and
environmental policy.  
2.	It seeks to impose a particular morality by fiat instead of
addressing and changing behaviors that have a destructive impact on
individuals and those around them.  This is the 'war on drugs,' (not unique
to this administration), 'Abstinence Only' - which includes sexual activity
only within legally sanctioned marriages, and Indian gambling in Texas.
3.	It refuses to recognize that it has created many of the problems it
seeks to address.  The reason we have an undocumented labor problem is the
refusal to grant enough of the existing work visas to seriously address the
demand and the supply.  Iraq.  I'm not sure what to say here that better
folk haven't addressed, but the refusal to look seriously at consequences to
'morally correct actions' creates the irresponsibly obedient administration.


 

These are some of the elements I see in the presidency at this point, even
though the President has a more realistic view of immigration.

Bill Schlesinger
Project Vida
3607 Rivera Ave
El Paso, TX 79905
(915) 533-7057 x 207
(915) 490-6148 mobile
(915) 533-7158 fax
pvida at sbcglobal.net

  _____  

From: dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net
[mailto:dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of jim rippey
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 3:08 PM
To: Dialogue
Subject: [Dialogue] Some replies on Glorisky

 

 

Bill Schlesinger: You are right, it has been fun. We should all thank Harry
Wainwright for posting so many good articles that we might otherwise miss.
We need more mind stretching moments.   I don't think you and I are very far
apart on the essentials. I personally didn't see Karen's mention of William
Jennings Bryan as connected to today's "triumphalistic fundamentalism." Nor
do I necessarily believe Bush buys into it. But with Congress and public
opinion as divided as they are, I do believe Bush will cater to that crowd
when things are tight, whatever his beliefs.

I think maybe this statement of yours was what troubled me most: "I think it
weakens critique to blame a superstitious and (literally) fantastic
fundamentalism for his (Bush) actions and those of his supporters." In
contrast, I believe "fantastic fundamentalism" is a strong motivation for
many of his most ardent supporters. And I think that Karl Rove and the
"Swift Boat" hatchet types, play to those people, cynically, in my opinion.
Perhaps these are instances in which you and I can honorably disagree.

I'd be interested in seeing you elaborate on how you believe the "Bush you
see" should be challenged.  I'm serious.

---------------  

Steve Rhea: I was delighted to read your comments. I hope you will continue
to supply your thoughts including, particularly, those as a knowledgeable
oil man

----------------

As for Karl Hess' posting, I'm puzzled he'd make such a broad brush claim
that "the religious left is in denial about the nature of science, according
to some of its leading proponents, especially biologists." I wonder just how
Karl defines "the religious left. Who are these people so deeply in denial?
Give us some names and examples of their "straightforward" assertions. Tell
us their affiliations and credentials. 

I think of Jim Wallis of Sojourners magazine. A while back, Karl told me I
should pay attention to Wallis, so I subscribed to Sojourners. W hat I found
is that Wallis is reaching out to all kinds of people. And he doesn't shy
away from criticizing the religious right on occasion. Is Wallis part of
this religious left that's in denial?

I go back to Bill's Schlesinger's quote: "Science says what we can do.
Religious values argue for what we should do - including caring for the poor
and weak, seeking peace, and acknowledging the complexities of the human
condition."  Is there a significant "Religious left" openly denying this?

Jim Rippey 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060805/d0beaedf/attachment.html