My wife and blog commentor appear to think I’m close to redlining on the misanthropy. I take that seriously, so from here in you can expect lots of cat videos, amusing anecdotes, and lifestyle observations. No, don’t expect that completely. But I am sensitive to that idea of anger of anger and unhappiness. It’s not obvious to me actually that conservatives are angrier than liberals. I think that’s a bit of a trope, and we could argue about that. But anger is bad, kinda corrosive, and I don’t want to be ‘that guy’. So I am looking to a different, disciplined manner of contemplation that is not a misplaced aspiration for kinda dicky wit and wryness… which is not actually my strong suit and has been almost impervious to improvement through practice here.
To conclude gay wedding pizza week: I do, and gotta continue, watching what I believe from the righties. I said, yeah, RFRA in Indiana, no big deal…. I ended up being persuaded by this http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/03/31/mike_pence_is_either_lying_or_deluded_about_indiana_s_religious_freedom.html
Engagement is why. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-obama-chose-the-iran-talks-to-take-one-of-his-presidencys-biggest-risks/2015/04/01/403b7a06-d7af-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html So as method, you have engagement, and you have non-engagement (..boycotts, imposing of quasi isolation). I would think it’s fair to say there’s wisdom in either, depending on circumstances. They are both valid methods. And ya know, one of my truths of life is, there’s never only one way…. It’s to say as well, non-engagement probably has a chance to work here too, but that’s not the direction the people in charge want to point the efforts. So the President believes in engagement, that’s what is happening. Another one of my truths of life is, don’t be apocryphal. Realists should understand the deal is very unlikely to lead to nuclear war, things will be fine, (more or less…)
Let’s note that I’ve articulated 2 of my truths of life:
- There’s never only one way / there always is a way (maybe these should be separate)
- Don’t be apocryphal
I’ll think of more. Never swing on 3-0 is one.
I recall ‘engagement’ as ‘constructive engagement’ during the 80’s, which represented the Reagan Administration’s unwillingness to bring the economic hammer down on South Africa over apartheid. My debate teacher, who was also the current White House Chief of Staff’s debate teacher, was keenly interested in this. He disapproved, and it was the kind of thing Democrats felt pretty self-righteous about. Shoe is on the other foot now with Democrats being in at least tacit approval of nuclear talks. You could say apples / oranges, so I don’t know if that’s ‘hypocrisy’ on engagement or not. If it were a Republican president there would though certainly be more Democrats feeling free to give voice to their discomfort now and be non-engagers.
Hillary land: I’m looking for a proper article on Martin O’Malley to make my point, and I can’t find one. But the point would be, the Democrats never do coronations. I can’t think of where they have, and I’m not convinced that’s changed. And to expect a reasonably uncontested nomination now is kinda fanciful, because they have never happened before…. And to expect Hillary to prevail in a vigorous nomination contest in which a second tier candidate of some skill becomes a first tier candidate by virtue of their mere presence and appeal as an alternative to the establishment candidate…. That’s danger territory for Hillary, see Barack Obama…
Readers, join my fantasy baseball league…. If you are a candidate for that and care to. It’s fun, but its always hard rounding these things out.