![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 6 to 30 of 72. Go back in thread:
Posted by floatingbridge on November 8, 2011, at 13:32:53
In reply to Re: Chris Hedges' column today » floatingbridge, posted by sigismund on November 7, 2011, at 21:22:42
I wonder what that is from. I was think about McCarthy as I was reading Hedges and then the column you posted. His last book, The Road, was grueling. But it ended on hope, oddly enough. The family the boy ended up with did not cannibalize ("I can't") and ended with the mother figure gathering the boy to her. Love was still alive.
There is an end similar in The Grapes of Wrath.
Chris Hedges spoke with three older women in Yugoslavia.
They were old friends who watched out for each other through the years, two Serbs and a Muslim. One said, the war began with words. They also said we all felt the same
pangs in childbirth. We do not believe in war.The point is not that women are special. It is that they were rooted to being parents as any man or woman could be. As the father in The Road was. They are rooted to each other and committed to loving something. Hedges says such love for another person can inculcate against the insanity of rhetoric.
You might imagine I need very much to believe in something.
I went into a local pharmacy/market today and the loudspeaker played non-stop advertising, informing people how to save more money if they spent more money using their special store card. It is almost never quiet anymore. Silence is a form of blasphemy. It is a waste of good commercial airspace.
There is a book called "Indian Tales".
http://www.amazon.com/Indian-Tales-Jamie-Angulo/dp/0865475237
It is based on the tales of the Indians in my area. The stories are wonderful and absolutely free of self-pity. The gods are tricksters and also beneficent and so are people and the people are related to the animals and the animals are gods and everyone has a good time playing gambling games. What comes around goes around without a hint or meanness only playful irony. It is refreshing and a break from this sort of naturalized sturm und drang prevalent in the Western world.
Sorry. Very long winded. Happens when I read a lot and spend my time with a seven year old. Our conversations are delightful (though yesterday I placed a moratorium on 'why' to which he cleverly started asking 'how come' and then asked what's a moratorium...).
Be well.
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 9:05:32
In reply to Re: Chris Hedges' column today » sigismund, posted by floatingbridge on November 7, 2011, at 20:19:35
> Sarah Palin and Rick Perry are psychopaths.
That's a pretty serious charge. Has any qualified professional who has personally examined these people ever made that diagnosis?
I'm not a fan of either of them, myself. But I am not sure I find it supportive of open discourse to try to diagnose the major presidential candidates. (Or noncandidates for that matter. - I don't really understand why Palin is still a topic of interest to so many.)
> It's frightening and sad that god is used as a smokescreen.
In Dr. Laura's book on the ten commandments, she says that the meaning of "Do not take the Lord's name in vain" is more about using the name of God to further one's own goals than it is about the occasional curse. When I read that, I really understood the importance of that commandment for the first time. But I suppose it's difficult to discern who is using God, and who truly believes what they are saying.
Posted by floatingbridge on November 10, 2011, at 13:56:06
In reply to Re: Chris Hedges' column today, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 9:05:32
> > Sarah Palin and Rick Perry are psychopaths.
>
> That's a pretty serious charge. Has any qualified professional who has personally examined these people ever made that diagnosis?
>Yes, you are right. I do feel pretty seriously about them and what I feel they represent regarding the state of affairs in this country, but I spoke hastily. I would be better saying that
they are not psychopaths and have not been given the opportunity by access to the power that might (might) cause them to behave as psychopaths. I was echoing Chris Hedges assessment, and while I cannot speak for him, I think he likely chose his word carefully, though not as a diagnostician. Personally speaking, my unprofessional appraisal would be narcissists seeking power. Psychopath is too strong, implying the inability to form human attachment. I do not accuse Ms. Palin of not caring for her family. Rick Perry scares me because he seems to be a good old boy based on comments I have heard. Who was it he quipped about coming to Texas so he could show them the Texas treatment? Yikes. That is not funny nor the sort of statement I ever want to hear coming out of a candidates mouth.> I'm not a fan of either of them, myself. But I am not sure I find it supportive of open discourse to try to diagnose the major presidential candidates. (Or noncandidates for that matter. - I don't really understand why Palin is still a topic of interest to so many.)
Major candidates? Is this still true? I hope not. I certainly hope after Rick Perry's major gaff yesterday he will be discredited. Personally, I do not feel either is qualified to hold the presidential office, regardless of political stance.
>
> > It's frightening and sad that god is used as a smokescreen.
>
> In Dr. Laura's book on the ten commandments, she says that the meaning of "Do not take the Lord's name in vain" is
more about using the name of God to further one's own goals than it is about the occasional curse. When I read that, I really understood the importance of that commandment for the first time. But I suppose it's difficult to discern who is using God, and who truly believes what they are saying.I do not pretend to read the minds and hearts of anyone. I do feel that there are those self-interested and savvy enough to use the people around them and their uneven or perhaps unweighed, unexamined beliefs in a higher power to their own ends. Those are the one's that spin god into a smoke screen. It's not the people of the Tea Party that carry signs and walk on Washington. I do not even believe it is a smoke screen to Sarah Palin (though I have my personal suspicions about Rick Perry).
Dinah, it's nice to see you on the politics board :-)
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify some hasty comments.
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 14:47:47
In reply to Re: Chris Hedges' column today » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 10, 2011, at 13:56:06
Is it nice? I don't really feel welcome here, as a moderate. It doesn't seem to me that there is a lot of balance on this board. A lot of negative things get posted about Republicans and Conservatives. And there isn't a lot of rebuttal because people don't really come here to have flame wars. Politics is not the main focus of this site. And it's difficult to maintain the focus on mental health support and education if there are a lot of angry feelings from politics. I occasionally come here, but rarely feel comfortable posting.
For the record, I'd be just as uncomfortable if this site was weighted in the other direction, and things similar to what are posted about conservatives and Republicans were posted about liberals and Democrats. These are huge groups of people. I refuse to assume that they have bad intent.
I believe strongly that Republicans and Democrats alike have the best interests of the country at heart. They may disagree on the methods to achieve common goals, and may disagree with some of the goals themselves. But there's room for respect for the opponent in a political dialogue.
I'm relatively tolerant of most political slants, although I may disagree. Where I need to work on my tolerance is with regard to intolerance. Which at least generally makes me laugh at myself.
As far as personality disorders of candidates, it seems to me that among those who feel strongly enough about being president to run the gauntlet of public and media scrutiny and the disruption to personal life that comes from a presidential campaign, there might be a loose correlation with traits that might also be associated with narcissists. Which doesn't mean they fit the diagnostic category. I feel uncomfortable making broad negative assumptions about them. Although I'd likely feel more comfortable to discussing particular traits. Volatility, will, stubbornness. These things have both good and bad aspects.
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 15:15:04
In reply to Re: Chris Hedges' column today » floatingbridge, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 14:47:47
I probably framed that badly. What I meant was that people don't generally come to Babble looking for conflict, so they might not engage on a topic that isn't central to the site purpose. At least, that's often true of me.
If I weren't a tad unpleasantly hypomanic today, I'd have probably again ignored the Politics board content. Because I don't feel like my views are particularly welcome.
I do miss Daddy. I often suspected he took a position just to engage in spirited yet rancor-free discussions. He was interested in ideas more than anyone I've ever known.
Posted by floatingbridge on November 10, 2011, at 19:50:37
In reply to Re: Chris Hedges' column today, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 15:15:04
Whose Daddy?
I wish you felt more comfortable here. I have been enjoying the discussion with you. Otherwise I fall to solipsistic talk.
As far as the site purpose, I am not sure I follow. This is the politics board and politics are being discussed. For a long time it has been neglected. Not much posting at all. I would love more people to post. Certainly no one has been
attacked or flamed here. There is room for anyone's voice. I love it that you posted and am truly sorry you feel unheard or unwelcome. Please come and talk!I have to go. Sorry to be abrupt. My child calls....
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 11, 2011, at 1:03:22
In reply to Re: Chris Hedges' column today » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 10, 2011, at 19:50:37
> Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify some hasty comments.
Thanks for clarifying them.
> I wish you felt more comfortable here. I have been enjoying the discussion with you.
>
> I would love more people to post. Certainly no one has been attacked or flamed here. There is room for anyone's voice. I love it that you posted and am truly sorry you feel unheard or unwelcome. Please come and talk!I'd say Sarah Palin and Rick Perry got flamed. And their supporters might have felt attacked.
Why not post positive things about the candidates you like instead of negative things about the candidates you don't?
Bob
Posted by floatingbridge on November 11, 2011, at 3:42:25
In reply to Re: the candidates you like, posted by Dr. Bob on November 11, 2011, at 1:03:22
Dr. Bob, your message makes sense. So my initial incivility was my comments about Palin and Romney. Thank you for pointing that out, and again, I apologize for my comments. I hadn't realized that could upset people or create a discomfort or hesitation to post which was never my intention.
Talking about candidates I like might be difficult given the alarm I feel about the current political climate, though again your suggestion makes sense as a guideline for conversation.
I may need to refrain from posting until I can think of something truly positive to say.
I appreciate the gentle tone of your suggest and observation. Thank you. A new level of civility has been explained to me.
Apologies to Dinah.
Posted by Dinah on November 11, 2011, at 5:28:46
In reply to Re: the candidates you like » Dr. Bob, posted by floatingbridge on November 11, 2011, at 3:42:25
I *am* sorry, floatingbridge.
You didn't make me feel unwelcome once I posted - quite the contrary. Perhaps if I posted more often, I wouldn't feel out of place here at all.
Posted by floatingbridge on November 11, 2011, at 6:34:06
In reply to Re: the candidates you like » floatingbridge, posted by Dinah on November 11, 2011, at 5:28:46
I would like you to post more often, when you feel moved to do so. You make me think, despite my strong beliefs.
Thanks, Dinah.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 11, 2011, at 11:45:09
In reply to Re: the candidates you like » Dr. Bob, posted by floatingbridge on November 11, 2011, at 3:42:25
> Talking about candidates I like might be difficult given the alarm I feel about the current political climate
OK, if there aren't any candidates you like, what about the political climate you would like?
Bob
Posted by sigismund on November 12, 2011, at 1:05:22
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by Dr. Bob on November 11, 2011, at 11:45:09
I don't hate every single candidate in every respect. For example I disagree with Ron Paul about many basic things (I imagine) but so often when he speaks he says things that seem right (although I hardly get to hear them).
Posted by Dinah on November 12, 2011, at 11:29:04
In reply to Re: the candidates you like, posted by Dr. Bob on November 11, 2011, at 1:03:22
While I haven't heard enough about him to be sure, I think I like Jon Huntsman. He appears to demonstrate good moderate ideals. Last time I voted for Obama, but I think he may be more temperamentally moderate than ideologically moderate. I'm not sure. Not that anything he did was anything different than what he said he would do.
Also, an old favorite from the governor's office was running a quixotic campaign for a while. I'm not sure if he gave it up. Buddy Roemer was the first candidate I did volunteer work for, back when he was a Democrat, I think. Like most candidates I support, he eventually disillusioned me a bit. Nothing unique in that.
I really like our wonky governor Bobby Jindal - when he's being himself. He's the sort of person with his fingers on all the details. It fills me with so much confidence when he's giving his hurricane reports. My husband laughs that he will say something like "And a tree is down on Mrs. Smith's driveway. We have the situation well in hand, and a crew is on its way." But he isn't always himself.
I think I usually end up not liking anyone, and voting for the person I dislike less. Or choosing not to vote at all, because it's a contest that can't be won. But I suppose the candidates I like best are the ones often attacked as being not Democratic/Republican enough. I was quite sad that Paul Tsongas dropped out of the race in '92, since he seemed to embody that dynamic. To me, those candidates are more likely to vote in terms of ideas as opposed to ideology and party loyalty. And more likely to compromise to achieve things rather than be mired down in partisanship. And less likely to assume a "mandate". I never intend my vote to be a mandate to anyone at all for any reason at all.
Overall, candidates I like is often a difficult discussion for me, especially past the early primaries. Now policies I like is a different matter. It's far easier for me to like policies than candidates. Although I suppose even policies mire down in unintended consequences and become less than wholeheartedly approved.
It's no wonder moderates have a hard time uniting. Even my most fervent endorsements come hand in hand with reservations.
Posted by floatingbridge on November 12, 2011, at 16:08:59
In reply to Re: the candidates you like, posted by Dinah on November 12, 2011, at 11:29:04
I really don't know about Jon Huntsman. I do like that he seems to be a good ambassador and speaks Mandarin. I'll pay more attention to him. Much of my attention has been taken up by the media attention given to Perry or Palin. Or now Herb Cain.
I will follow debates, but cannot imagine at this point I would vote for someone other than Obama. There were a number of actions I wanted him to take ASAP upon entering office and was very disappointed he did not. Closing Guantanamo Bay prominent among them. It's been said there was not the funding allotted by congress to do so, but idk. I can't imagine what might trump releasing people from a prison that has been globally exposed as violating human rights. I suppose bailing out banks. Sigh. But that wasn't under his watch.
But could it have been insurmountable? Idk.
Dennis Kuchinich brought, or tried to bring a high level of integrity to the 2004 presidential debates. I like him, though I
do not think there is a snowball's chance he would ever come close to running again.I agree that I appreciate when the Republican/Democrat difference is not played up. I feel that is often a distraction from talking about issues whether it is an intentional ploy or sometimes simply evokes a knee-jerk defensive response. Either way, it seem to shut down productive dialogue.
Your comment about Obama being more temperamentally moderate than ideologically moderate is very interesting. Actually, I think you have identified something that has both attracted me to and disappointed me about him as a president. What I appreciate on a personal level, a sense of quiet intelligence and 'moderation' in bearing has, well, I wonder if kept him from pressing his more liberal, idealistic agenda more strongly.
Posted by floatingbridge on November 12, 2011, at 16:30:58
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by Dr. Bob on November 11, 2011, at 11:45:09
Hi Bob,
The answer to that isn't an easy one for me to give because I am deeply unhappy with some of the decisions and paths the United States is pursuing.
That said, I would like a political system invested in dialogue of issues rather than ideology. That would be a great start.
I would also like the coverage of politics in this country to be less based on personality and more on past actions and accountability.
And I would like the qualifications of candidates to be held to higher standards. This would not necessarily lead to an ivy league elite. My favorite presidential candidate from 2004 was Dennis Kucinich, from a blue collar family.
Is there some things you would wish for in today's political climate?
Posted by sigismund on November 13, 2011, at 2:29:30
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » Dr. Bob, posted by floatingbridge on November 12, 2011, at 16:30:58
Here the trivial destructive type of politics is enabled by private school boys (mainly) who did debating at school and law thereafter.
They are so sure of everything.
Posted by floatingbridge on November 13, 2011, at 6:55:43
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by sigismund on November 13, 2011, at 2:29:30
I could see how that could be oppressive and another form of being counter-productive. While looking productive.
Posted by sigismund on November 13, 2011, at 13:23:37
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » sigismund, posted by floatingbridge on November 13, 2011, at 6:55:43
You would have the permanent political class too.
I finished the Bacevich book. It made me feel sad.....something of his restrained sadness at the waste.
Posted by Dinah on November 13, 2011, at 14:49:49
In reply to Re: the candidates you like » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 12, 2011, at 16:08:59
My impression has, I suppose naturally, been different. I think the fact that he was able to pass the health care bill meant that he was able to press his idealistic, liberal agenda quite well. The American people seemed to think so as well, and at the first possible election brought the nation closer to the center via gridlock. Which is useful at times, certainly, but went on to bring its own ills in the budget debates. And didn't even result in a repeal of the healthcare bill that brought on the backlash to begin with. Even gridlock, IMO, is best in moderation.
I'm not that familiar with the situation at Guantanamo Bay. Did he promise to do this in his election campaign? I often suspect that candidates promise to do things, then learn things from briefings as president that makes it less feasible to fulfill their promises. What difficulties would arise from the closing, and how could the legitimate goals it serves be met in other ways? Would reform rather than closure be a viable alternative? Has he made effective reforms?
I like to think that a reasonable and civil leader can be as effective as a more bombastic one. But I suppose it's impossible to deny that politicians who play ball in the accepted way tend to be more effective than ones who put idealism over pragmatism. Certainly it's my belief that some of my favorite politicians have made less than impressive legislators because they don't play the game of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."
I suppose it's also hard to deny that charismatic leaders seem more able to bring about change. And the sort of candidate I prefer tends not to be that high in charisma.
The politician I never did get really disillusioned with and liked throughout his career didn't fit my usual mold at all. I really liked Ronald Reagan. The real one, not the one conjured up by the people who claim to be following in his footsteps. It's not that he never did anything that might disillusion me. It's more that his charm and humor diffused my anger before it got a chance to build up. He wasn't at all wonky. He was less open to compromise than my ideal. So I suppose I'm as capable of being swayed by charisma as anyone.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 14, 2011, at 7:33:23
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like » Dr. Bob, posted by floatingbridge on November 12, 2011, at 16:30:58
> That said, I would like a political system invested in dialogue of issues rather than ideology. That would be a great start.
>
> I would also like the coverage of politics in this country to be less based on personality and more on past actions and accountability.
>
> And I would like the qualifications of candidates to be held to higher standards.Thanks for replying. What's the difference between issues and ideology? Can you give me an example?
Bob
Posted by sigismund on November 15, 2011, at 22:20:08
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by Dr. Bob on November 14, 2011, at 7:33:23
I'm not sure that issues vs ideology is the problem.
Here it is the cynical positioning to find a (relatively) blame free position from which to cast blame on the other side, and this can get subtle and devious.
Posted by sigismund on November 15, 2011, at 22:21:28
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by Dr. Bob on November 14, 2011, at 7:33:23
And nobody cares about the real issues. It's all focus group driven.
Anglosaxon politics, IMO.
Posted by floatingbridge on November 16, 2011, at 12:36:40
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by sigismund on November 15, 2011, at 22:21:28
Indian writer Arundhati Roy was broadcast on Democracy Now! yesterday, and here are her comments on the significance of OWS for India and also on President Onama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1iwoHUIKvo&feature=youtube_gdata_player
The mention of Anglosaxon politics and two party opposing systems brought this to mind.
Posted by sigismund on November 16, 2011, at 15:34:49
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by floatingbridge on November 16, 2011, at 12:36:40
The stuff on India was fascinating and news to me.
I had no idea of the numbers of tribal people or the scale of it all.
Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 16:44:32
In reply to Re: the political climate you would like, posted by sigismund on November 15, 2011, at 22:21:28
Anglosaxon? An interesting concept.
https://www.msu.edu/~stumpdan/hs/anglo.htm
How do you see Anglosaxon politics differing from the Roman imperial politics that preceded it, or the Norman French politics that followed it, at least in England? Did they bring the political system from their native lands, or did they take up prevailing European fashions in government?
I found this quote interesting:
http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/123/123%2051%20anglo%20saxons%20ii.htm
"The country had been devastated by Vikings and everybody complained about government inefficiency and failure to act and implement policy. Things could not really get much worse. It was at this point that Archbishop Wulfstan of York preached a sermon to the highest people in the land.
'The devil has led this people too far astray... the people have betrayed their own country [literally their "earth"]. And the harm will become common to this entire people.
'There was a historian in the time of the Britons called Gildas who wrote about their misdeeds; how their sins angered God so much that finally He allowed the army of the English to conquer their land. Let us take warning from this... we all know there are worse things going on now than we have heard of among the ancients. Let us turn to the right and leave wrongdoing... Let us love God and follow God's laws.' "
I always enjoy reading the ancients complaining about the good old days.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.