Baltimorei

[LDAHL]

-LDAHL, yes, realism is important, but I lean towards idealism, and I think both are called for.

That is a noble sentiment, although I suspect some of history's greatest butchers would have considered themselves to be idealists. There are plenty of ideals out there, but only one reality. ISIS is acting idealistically, just not in ways that a Western Liberal (in the classic sense) might understand.

I think it was Trotsky who said "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."

[flowerseverywhere]

Here is an interesting article about the high level of homicides recently in Baltimore - one mans Interesting opinion.

http://blackamericaweb.com/2015/05/2...o-is-to-blame/

I think the number is 29 shot and 7 killed over the holiday weekend. Tragic.

another blog I read reported when the police arrive they are swarmed by people holding cameras within inches of their faces.

So so what would you do if you were a police officer in that city?

[bae]

So so what would you do if you were a police officer in that city?

Not respond terribly quickly. Or move somewhere else.

Where are the voices raised up against the absolute epidemic of black-on-black violence, btw? Do #blacklivesmatter only when a police officer shoots someone?

[catherine]

There are plenty of ideals out there, but only one reality.

Even reality is subject to interpretation.

Idealism is not zealotry any more than realism is. I might be an idealist, but I'm adamantly not an ideologue. I try to follow Thich Nhat Hanh's 1st Mindfulness Training:

Aware of the suffering created by fanaticism and intolerance, we are determined not to be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. We are committed to seeing the Buddhist teachings as guiding means that help us develop our understanding and compassion. They are not doctrines to fight, kill, or die for. We understand that fanaticism in its many forms is the result of perceiving things in a dualistic and discriminative manner. We will train ourselves to look at everything with openness and the insight of interbeing in order to transform dogmatism and violence in ourselves and in the world.

That is an IDEAL I try to follow, and following it, I know I'm constrained by my human limitations, personal filters and faulty perceptions. That makes me a realist. But it doesn't stop me from trying or believing I can progress. That makes me an idealist.

And from a political/economic point of view, I am realistic enough to see the the fatal flaws in capitalism at this point in time, and idealistic enough to believe that your litmus test for a valid culture (being able to defend itself--which I'll go along with even though I don't agree) and a more equitable and sustainable way of life are not mutually exclusive. How about just changing the rules about how we measure standard of living, productivity and growth? That would be a start.

[jp1]

Fixed that first paragraph for you.

That is a valid point. If I live in a region of the world where the US has routinely picked and chosen who should be in charge of the various governments including causing a coup of my country's democratically elected head so that they could install their own puppet dictator, I've got to feel threatened by the very existence of places like the US.

[JaneV2.0]

People have the (Constitutionally supported) right to record what their tax-supported public servants are doing--especially when said servants, in many places, have a history of going rogue and shooting up the place. A few blue-suited sociopaths have ruined it for the rest of them. Like the recent case in Cleveland where two unarmed victims, fleeing from the police (who wouldn't, given the history), were shot 137 times by the brave boys (plus one girl) in uniform--thirteen of them.

Initiating community policing, rooting out good-old-boy attitudes and corruption, rigorous psychological testing, hiring stable, mature officers and paying them well would be the way to start. Something is clearly wrong with the entrenched system.

[LDAHL]

Even reality is subject to interpretation.

Idealism is not zealotry any more than realism is. I might be an idealist, but I'm adamantly not an ideologue. I try to follow Thich Nhat Hanh's 1st Mindfulness Training:



That is an IDEAL I try to follow, and following it, I know I'm constrained by my human limitations, personal filters and faulty perceptions. That makes me a realist. But it doesn't stop me from trying or believing I can progress. That makes me an idealist.

And from a political/economic point of view, I am realistic enough to see the the fatal flaws in capitalism at this point in time, and idealistic enough to believe that your litmus test for a valid culture (being able to defend itself--which I'll go along with even though I don't agree) and a more equitable and sustainable way of life are not mutually exclusive. How about just changing the rules about how we measure standard of living, productivity and growth? That would be a start.

You can interpret the meaning of the missile coming through your window any way you wish, but it doesn't change the objective reality of your situation.

I wouldn't say that the ability to survive was a test of a culture's validity so much as a test of it's viability. Absent that, discussion of it's spiritual, moral or artistic qualities become more or less irrelevant.

It may be that capitalism is fatally flawed (although I think people want to make laundry lists of all their favorite political and cultural defects and label the whole thing as "capitalism"). Perhaps some new improved version of enlightened thought will "change the rules" of what we want and at the same time deter or defeat our enemies. Show me a viable alternative that can be constructed from the crooked timber of humanity, and I'll get on board.

[kib]

Just wanted to say I agree with LDAHL's objection to labeling the whole ball of wax as "capitalism" but "unchecked-capitalist-consumerist-free-market-corporate-imperialist-democratic (as opposed to socialist) personal-responsibility-lacking society which apparently encourages violence and murder, environmental suicide and the complete disregard for other cultures and disenfranchised people in the name of economic gain" seems a bit unwieldy. I'd be happy to call this thing I object to something other than capitalism if there's a more accurate and simpler term.

"Corporatism"? "Discorporealism?" "Us"?

[LDAHL]

Fixed that first paragraph for you.

You keep trying to turn a practical question into a moral one. The thrust of my argument has been that the first function of any political system has to be survival, and that if it fails there nothing else much matters. There are certainly a fair number of blotches on the American escutcheon, but as a political system it has managed to survive and thrive since the eighteenth century.

[kib]

I think the American escutcheon has been replaced with a global logo, the granddaddy of all brand labels. We just don't see it because economically we're still toward the top of the heap. I think American firepower has really been co-opted to protect the whole world - the world of a few giant corporate interests, that is.

As far as police brutality - but it's all connected - ... perhaps it's a reflection of the mentality that says there can only be one winner, in which case a fight to the death that removes your competitors entirely is an unspoken best solution.