update :)
I got complaints that I don't update often enough. Amazement on the fact that I hadn't put any opinion up on Katherina, the US gov't response to the disaster and eventually president Bush. This is on purpose, forming an opinion at this moment is quite impossible since we don't know all the facts and I for one seriously doubt this time if the responsibility for handling the disaster lies with the president. The US being a federal state and all. I will seriously read up on this matter and get back to that.
Good thing though is that as the BBC reports in http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4214516.stm the media starts to wake up again after years of cuddling up in the lap of luxury:
The most spectacular example came last Friday night on Fox News, the cable network that has become the darling of the Republican heartland.
This highly successful Murdoch-owned station sets itself up in opposition to the "mainstream liberal media elite".
But with the sick and the dying forced to sit in their own excrement behind him in New Orleans, its early-evening anchor Shepard Smith declared civil war against the studio-driven notion that the biggest problem was still stopping the looters.
On other networks like NBC, CNN and ABC it was the authority figures, who are so used to an easy ride at press conferences, that felt the full force of reporters finally determined to ditch the deference.
As the heads of the Homeland Security department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) appeared for network interviews, their defensive remarks about where aid was arriving to, and when, were exposed immediately as either downright lies or breath-taking ignorance.
And you did not need a degree in journalism to know it either. Just watching TV for the previous few hours would have sufficed.
When the back-slapping president told the Fema boss on Friday morning that he was doing "a heck of a job" and spent most of his first live news conference in the stricken area praising all the politicians and chiefs who had failed so clearly, it beggared belief.
The president looked affronted when a reporter covering his Mississippi walkabout had the temerity to suggest that having a third of the National Guard from the affected states on duty in Iraq might be a factor.
Talking about the US I remember a comment by Jenmarya on my LJ entry of 25 april this year... she asked "I was just remarking on how ironic it is that America was founded on the idea of religious tolerance, but for the most part has evolved to have less of it than Europe. Do you have an explanation handy?"
I replied on that one with (and I couldnt help of course editing it a bit for clarity):
Hmm.. I don't think I agree on the founding of america on the idea of religious tolerance in the first place. Like France and the UK the idea of enlightened freedom in the 18th century was in general largely limited to white male christians. The french went a bit overboard and expanded this to white women during the latter part of the french revolution. No matter what the documents say on 'liberté, egalité and fraternité' or 'all man created equal' this at that time has never been applied to blacks, asians, muslims, natives or whatever minority. Broadening liberty is something that only quite recently has taken flight (female suffrage, black civil movement etc.).
I think THE difference between Europe and the US is the fact that in the US labour did not organise itself to form a Labour party in the early 20th century. Franklin Delano Roosevelt incorporated them in the Democratic party during the 30s and thus broke up the left side of the political spectrum. While France, Germany and the UK (and The Netherlands and I guess Belgium) had a growing social democratic movement you ppl got stuck with two parties who are conservative (D's) and then some more (R's).
Also interesting to know is that D's and R's now and then flip sides when it comes to conservatism. The Republican party was absolutely liberal during the 1860s civil war. You obviously don't get more liberal than Lincoln with his abolitionist policy and the Gettysburg adress: 'Gov't of the people, by the people and for the people'. Republican backbone at that time was the US urban northeast. Democrats were concentrated in the conservative south. Compare that to our current era and the flip will be obvious.
It illustrates the problem with the meaning of the word "liberal" and it's political ideas. US Liberalism could be on the agenda of british tories or dutch VVD. Both are conservative parties. However liberal in the US has this nasty taste of leftishism but on this side of the pond it is seen as a bit rightish of the centre *I myself am a proud liberal* ;)
Add to this political situation a cold war legacy of a superpower who defeated the left, a list of conservative presidents (ok ok not counting Carter and Clinton) and a political reallignment after 9/11 and you get what you have today.
In short the US lacks a true parliamentary opposition. It actually has little to do with religious tolerance per se. It is frankly, intolerance in general on the side of the governing elite and a use of religion for political gain. It is a subject that makes me incredibly sad. I have a great respect for the USA in general. There are a lot of ppl around here with whom I clashed over this... ask P and Richard ;) It is just such a pity that this legacy of great thinking (Ben Franklin, Woodrow Wilson) is so abused in this day and age.
Now if I were to give any opinion on Katherina, I would say that this disaster illustrates clearly of how much the US (governing) elite has detached itself of the people. The gap is huge and is a much bigger problem than gun control, abortion or the war in Iraq. These are merely effects of the underlying issue.
As I am reading back on Jen's question I notice another one:
Do you think we've moved back toward polytheism? Between religious tolerance and individualism, seven people at a dinner party can each have a disparate notion of who god is, or several separate gods, the incarnation of each differing depending on why they are invoked, like a wrathful old testament style god (vengeance), loving god (presumably orgasms), Mother of God (healing), all the saints for various things, etc. etc.. Is that polytheistic enough to count as such? Are we moving back that way or have we always been?
Which is of course incredibly interesting but deserves more thought than I can give on a fridaymorning at the office. At least this proves that I didnt forget about it. Well I did for while, but now it is firmly back in my mind.
On another level, uni has started again yesterdaymight with a lecture on Dutch History titled 'Forming dutch national awareness and identity in the late 16th and early 17th century'. Very interesting considering the fact that with our neo-conservative government the call for more dutch history in schools and the building of national identity is stronger than ever. Whether this is a good thing or not remains to be seen. Problems with immigration are of all ages and The Netherlands is effectively formed by immigrants and refugees from the Hugenots to Shia Muslims. You'd guess we would have 'learned' (read my earlier post) something from history by now .
Good thing though is that as the BBC reports in http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4214516.stm the media starts to wake up again after years of cuddling up in the lap of luxury:
The most spectacular example came last Friday night on Fox News, the cable network that has become the darling of the Republican heartland.
This highly successful Murdoch-owned station sets itself up in opposition to the "mainstream liberal media elite".
But with the sick and the dying forced to sit in their own excrement behind him in New Orleans, its early-evening anchor Shepard Smith declared civil war against the studio-driven notion that the biggest problem was still stopping the looters.
On other networks like NBC, CNN and ABC it was the authority figures, who are so used to an easy ride at press conferences, that felt the full force of reporters finally determined to ditch the deference.
As the heads of the Homeland Security department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) appeared for network interviews, their defensive remarks about where aid was arriving to, and when, were exposed immediately as either downright lies or breath-taking ignorance.
And you did not need a degree in journalism to know it either. Just watching TV for the previous few hours would have sufficed.
When the back-slapping president told the Fema boss on Friday morning that he was doing "a heck of a job" and spent most of his first live news conference in the stricken area praising all the politicians and chiefs who had failed so clearly, it beggared belief.
The president looked affronted when a reporter covering his Mississippi walkabout had the temerity to suggest that having a third of the National Guard from the affected states on duty in Iraq might be a factor.
Talking about the US I remember a comment by Jenmarya on my LJ entry of 25 april this year... she asked "I was just remarking on how ironic it is that America was founded on the idea of religious tolerance, but for the most part has evolved to have less of it than Europe. Do you have an explanation handy?"
I replied on that one with (and I couldnt help of course editing it a bit for clarity):
Hmm.. I don't think I agree on the founding of america on the idea of religious tolerance in the first place. Like France and the UK the idea of enlightened freedom in the 18th century was in general largely limited to white male christians. The french went a bit overboard and expanded this to white women during the latter part of the french revolution. No matter what the documents say on 'liberté, egalité and fraternité' or 'all man created equal' this at that time has never been applied to blacks, asians, muslims, natives or whatever minority. Broadening liberty is something that only quite recently has taken flight (female suffrage, black civil movement etc.).
I think THE difference between Europe and the US is the fact that in the US labour did not organise itself to form a Labour party in the early 20th century. Franklin Delano Roosevelt incorporated them in the Democratic party during the 30s and thus broke up the left side of the political spectrum. While France, Germany and the UK (and The Netherlands and I guess Belgium) had a growing social democratic movement you ppl got stuck with two parties who are conservative (D's) and then some more (R's).
Also interesting to know is that D's and R's now and then flip sides when it comes to conservatism. The Republican party was absolutely liberal during the 1860s civil war. You obviously don't get more liberal than Lincoln with his abolitionist policy and the Gettysburg adress: 'Gov't of the people, by the people and for the people'. Republican backbone at that time was the US urban northeast. Democrats were concentrated in the conservative south. Compare that to our current era and the flip will be obvious.
It illustrates the problem with the meaning of the word "liberal" and it's political ideas. US Liberalism could be on the agenda of british tories or dutch VVD. Both are conservative parties. However liberal in the US has this nasty taste of leftishism but on this side of the pond it is seen as a bit rightish of the centre *I myself am a proud liberal* ;)
Add to this political situation a cold war legacy of a superpower who defeated the left, a list of conservative presidents (ok ok not counting Carter and Clinton) and a political reallignment after 9/11 and you get what you have today.
In short the US lacks a true parliamentary opposition. It actually has little to do with religious tolerance per se. It is frankly, intolerance in general on the side of the governing elite and a use of religion for political gain. It is a subject that makes me incredibly sad. I have a great respect for the USA in general. There are a lot of ppl around here with whom I clashed over this... ask P and Richard ;) It is just such a pity that this legacy of great thinking (Ben Franklin, Woodrow Wilson) is so abused in this day and age.
Now if I were to give any opinion on Katherina, I would say that this disaster illustrates clearly of how much the US (governing) elite has detached itself of the people. The gap is huge and is a much bigger problem than gun control, abortion or the war in Iraq. These are merely effects of the underlying issue.
As I am reading back on Jen's question I notice another one:
Do you think we've moved back toward polytheism? Between religious tolerance and individualism, seven people at a dinner party can each have a disparate notion of who god is, or several separate gods, the incarnation of each differing depending on why they are invoked, like a wrathful old testament style god (vengeance), loving god (presumably orgasms), Mother of God (healing), all the saints for various things, etc. etc.. Is that polytheistic enough to count as such? Are we moving back that way or have we always been?
Which is of course incredibly interesting but deserves more thought than I can give on a fridaymorning at the office. At least this proves that I didnt forget about it. Well I did for while, but now it is firmly back in my mind.
On another level, uni has started again yesterdaymight with a lecture on Dutch History titled 'Forming dutch national awareness and identity in the late 16th and early 17th century'. Very interesting considering the fact that with our neo-conservative government the call for more dutch history in schools and the building of national identity is stronger than ever. Whether this is a good thing or not remains to be seen. Problems with immigration are of all ages and The Netherlands is effectively formed by immigrants and refugees from the Hugenots to Shia Muslims. You'd guess we would have 'learned' (read my earlier post) something from history by now .