American Goals
by Anonymous at 10/08/2004 01:39:00 PM
I would like to remind those that think they are justified in performing actions that disobey laws that they are by definition "un-American". Patriotism (or at least my patriotism) is not defined by a geographic boundary, or by the people who live within it. America is a process by which citizens come together to govern themselves, and agree to abide by the decisions of that process.
Civil disobedience to the law can be an effective way to gain media attention and command public attention on the law. However, it is critical that the law (however unfair) be enforced by those sworn to do so until changes are made via the process. Those who feel that they should get to pick and choose the laws they obey are in direct conflict with the American form of government and the principles it rests on. Those who justify their lawbreaking by pointing to their vision of the (political) truth are merely advocating the use of force (or threat of force) against their fellow men to impose their viewpoint upon them and fall into the same category as dictators and tyrants. Those who take glee in breaking the law and not getting caught or punished, incrementally undermine the principle of law itself and endanger us all.
I was going respond to Amy's comments on Dialogue, but I find I am now at a loss for words on the subject. Maybe my next epiphany will help or maybe I should ask a Professor. I still think it was important, and maybe Amy will be willing to say a little more about it.
Anyway, Amy also had this to say:
"I used to think that we all wanted the same end but had different ideas of how to get there, but lately I'm realizing that this isn't the case. It's not about what is the best way to accomplish a goal, it's about the goal itself..."
Amy, since you sense a difference can you more fully extrapolate on what goals you see being pursued? The rest of your comment doesn't appear to be about differing goals, but instead differing priorities. I thought the goal on both sides was "to protect America and Americans"
Are you implying that one side has a different goal in mind? Is my definition of the Goal wrong?
Civil disobedience to the law can be an effective way to gain media attention and command public attention on the law. However, it is critical that the law (however unfair) be enforced by those sworn to do so until changes are made via the process. Those who feel that they should get to pick and choose the laws they obey are in direct conflict with the American form of government and the principles it rests on. Those who justify their lawbreaking by pointing to their vision of the (political) truth are merely advocating the use of force (or threat of force) against their fellow men to impose their viewpoint upon them and fall into the same category as dictators and tyrants. Those who take glee in breaking the law and not getting caught or punished, incrementally undermine the principle of law itself and endanger us all.
I was going respond to Amy's comments on Dialogue, but I find I am now at a loss for words on the subject. Maybe my next epiphany will help or maybe I should ask a Professor. I still think it was important, and maybe Amy will be willing to say a little more about it.
Anyway, Amy also had this to say:
"I used to think that we all wanted the same end but had different ideas of how to get there, but lately I'm realizing that this isn't the case. It's not about what is the best way to accomplish a goal, it's about the goal itself..."
Amy, since you sense a difference can you more fully extrapolate on what goals you see being pursued? The rest of your comment doesn't appear to be about differing goals, but instead differing priorities. I thought the goal on both sides was "to protect America and Americans"
Are you implying that one side has a different goal in mind? Is my definition of the Goal wrong?
First off, in case you misunderstood, my comment re: differing goals was not my way of excusing violent behavior on either side of the political spectrum, just an idea about why I think it's happening.
As far as my comment about differing goals; I am most probably voicing my sole opinion on the matter, so it's not worth spending too much time upon.
In reference to your wording of the goal: "to protect America and Americans". I don't think your statement of the goal is wrong, but I think your definition of what it means to "protect America/Americans" is too different from mine for us to ever see eye to eye--in other words, even if we use the same words to state the goal, the goal is still different. There are many things that I could go on and on to define what I think protecting America/Americans means, but it would be a million pages long! For the sake of this conversation, I'll focus on one issue.
For me, the ultimate goal is peace (which can also be stated as protection of America/Americans). War does not spawn peace. I don't believe that the goal of the war in Iraq is to protect us or to bring about peace (or democracy for that matter). It has nothing to do with that. This war is leading to the opposite of attaining the goal of my definition of protecting America/Americans, and I don't believe for one second that the Bush administration is in Iraq to protect me or you or anyone except its own power. Power does not equal peace (or protection).
I fear future violence due to the actions of the Bush administration. I am angry that I had no say in this. I am angry that this president has forced my future to be wrought with hatred. This war pisses me off so badly that the idea of ripping a sign supporting a war-mongering policitician out of someone's yard doesn't sound so bad. Seriously Jeff, I'm angry. This doesn't mean I'm angry at you, but I'm angry...oh, am I angry, and I'm voting.
We don't and won't agree. It doesn't matter how much we go on about it. The gap is too wide. Don't you agree?
Jeff, As for "Dialogue", did you get a chance to look into the book? I haven't read it all yet, but it looks like a very interesting study in communication and the, well, way the world works.
Hopefully emotions aren't so high that discussion is no longer possible. What do you think will bring about peace, in other words, what would you have rather seen happen?
Michelle,
I don’t think emotions are too high, but I do think that no matter how much we put each other down, none of us will change our minds. I don’t think that means we can’t discuss, I guess it just means that we have to agree to disagree. It’s hard to do when we’re only a few days away from an election that we all feel strongly about.
Who can begin to claim to know how to bring about world peace, especially considering that it’s not what a lot of people want? I really do think that there are people who think that winning wars and having power equals freedom (kind of like having money equals being successful)—I don’t agree. I am more interested in daily life to be honest. How can I bring about peace in myself, my community? What small change can I make in my life that could make the world better? What can my community do to make positive changes? Why? Because I’ve given up on believing politicians. I think that these are the only arenas in which change ultimately happens because the people involved in making changes are still people rather than strange outsiders who have become oblivious to the “real world” in their hunt for more power. Sadly, I don’t think that leaders of nations are capable of leading the world to peace—they might have to start thinking about people rather than power. I am of the opinion that by the time a person is elected into high office, they are incapable of anything beyond trying to stay there. This obviously makes voting in national elections a little less fun. All I can do is try to make my corner of the world better while trying to be heard by those in control of the nation and voting for the dude who I believe is going to do the best job.
Jeff,
…but is anger a good way to make reasoned decisions about what is best for the country?I don’t get to make any decisions about what’s best for this country. I get one vote that will be voided by yours so I think it’s OK if I’m angry when I head to the polls ;) Seriously though, that question might be a good one to ask GW in the next debate.
The gap may be too wide between us. But it can also be too wide between Nations.Well, the gap is too wide between us and it’s not OK to participate in an “individual act of war” but it’s OK to do it as a nation? Maybe the world should sit down and have a nice long talk.
I have finally started reading, "Dialogue" a little more thouroughly. It's VERY interesting. All of these things we've been discussing (according to Bohm, "discuss" is what gets us into messes, by the way!) are fun to think about in comparison to his theories about communication.
First:
...discussion, which has the same root as percussion and concussion...really means to break things up. It emphasizes the idea of analysis, where there may be many points of view, and where everybody is presenting a different one--analyzing and breaking up. That obviously has its value, but is limited, and it will not get us very far beyond our various points of view. Discussion is almost like a ping pong game, where people are batting the ideas back and forth and the object of the game is to win or to get points for yourself. Possibly you will take up somebody else's ideas to back up your own--you may agree with some and disagree with others--but the basic point is to win the game. That's very frequently the case in a discussion.
In a dialogue, however, nobody is trying to win. Everybody wins if anybody wins. There is a diffferent sort of spirit to it. In a dialogue there is no attempt to gain points, or to make your particular view prevail. Rather, whenever any mistake is discovered on the part of anybody, everybody gains.
Bohm goes on to talk about how discussions are never deeply serious because we won't go into arenas that we hold to be non-negotiable or untouchable. This is where discussion ends....it's also where dialogue begins. Dialogue is less about what we believe to be true (ultimately, our opinions), but why we believe it.
I guess I'm not always seriously focusing on Bush vs Kerry or right vs left, but instead, I'm wondering how it is that we come to believe what we believe (because ultimately what we believe as 'truth' is merely our own or our society's opinion about what 'truth' is). Maybe these questions are harder to discuss because we find it hard to think about them outside of our own experience--and we are too busy defending them to think about them in this manner? I don't know. Anyway, you asked if I had more comments about Dialogue, so there you go. As for your comments above, maybe I'll respond later...I'm worn out.
» Post a Comment