Happy President’s Day!
In honor of our recently retired Commander in Chief, here are a few gems of wisdom from George W. himself:
1. “The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country.”
2. “If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.”
3. “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
4. “No senior citizen should ever have to choose between prescription drugs and medicine.”
5. “I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change.”
6. “One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is ‘to be prepared’.”
7. “I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job.”
8. “I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future.”
9. “Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?"
10. “I’ll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office."
—Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
d'Holbach (1723-1789)
d'Holbach was born in Pfalz, Germany. He went to Paris and was naturalized to France. His main work was
Système de la nature ou de lois du monde physique et due monde moral (1770)
At his early years, he contributed to Encyclopedia on Chemistry, but later he was deeply influenced by Diderot and became a materialist philosopher. His residence on rue Saint-Roch in Paris became the central salon of the free thinkers and the intellectuals.
Any supernatural thing exists only in our imagination. What really exists is matter and its motion. This matter and its motion are governed by the strict natural laws. Descartes mechanistic view of nature was extended to the entire universe.
Buffon (1707-1788)
Buffon was a natural historian and was also a materialist. He held that a living organism changes under the influences of its environment. The forerunner of the evolutionist before Lamarck and Darwin.
Hi Mehmet,
Thanks for the background on d’Holbach. I am quite a fan of his. This quote of his is one of my favorites:
MANY MEN WITHOUT MORALS HAVE ATTACKED RELIGION BECAUSE IT WAS CONTRARY TO THEIR INCLINATIONS. MANY WISE MEN HAVE DESPISED IT BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO THEM RIDICULOUS. MANY PERSONS HAVE REGARDED IT WITH INDIFFERENCE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NEVER FELT ITS TRUE DISADVANTAGES. BUT IT IS AS A CITIZEN THAT I ATTACK IT, BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME HARMFUL TO THE HAPPINESS OF THE STATE, HOSTILE TO THE MARCH OF THE MIND OF MAN, AND CONTRARY TO SOUND MORALITY, FROM WHICH THE INTERESTS OF STATE POLICY CAN NEVER BE SEPARATED.
Was not familiar with Buffon. Will do some reading about him. Thanks.
"One of the very difficult parts of the decision I made on the financial crisis was to use hardworking people's money to help prevent there to be a crisis."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009
"In terms of the economy, look, I inherited a recession, I am ending on a recession."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009
"The best way to ensure that there is a sustainable cease-fire is to work with Egypt to stop the smuggling of arms into the Gaza."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009
"I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009
"So I analyzed that and decided I didn't want to be the president during a depression greater than the Great Depression, or the beginning of a depression greater than the Great Depression."—Washington D.C., Dec. 18, 2008
"People say, well, do you ever hear any other voices other than, like, a few people? Of course I do."—Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2008
"I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system."—Washington, D.C., Dec. 16, 2008
Wow, I'm going to miss that guy. We Canadians kinda got used to America-bashing! Now you have a leader with intelligence, wisdom and dignity. What are we going to do now????
I would like to add that I blame evangelical christians for "voting" in Bush (you probably know why I put "voting" in quotations...he wasn't technically voted in at all). I had an argument with my christian uncle years ago, probably around 2004. I went as far as to call Bush/Cheney evil. My uncle got all red-faced and furious - pointed his finger at me and said "how dare you call a christian man evil!!!!" I'm not sure what my uncle thinks now - I won't discuss it with him. But do these evangelicals have any clue that they are largely responsible for the destruction of the economy and worse? They have a lot to apologize for. But they are so stuck in their fundie ways that they refuse to even see it. I don't see any apologies forthcoming. Musta been the devil that dunnit.
Janet, Thanks for the additional quotes. And I agree that fundamentalist Christians were the force behind him becoming president and therefore share the responsibility for his evil actions. And sadly, they seem ready to repeat the madness by electing Sarah Palin if given the chance.
I will take issue with one thing you said (though I imagine you are only using the label “evil” as shorthand for actions rather than claiming Bush/Cheney are inherently evil). One of my biggest problems with the Jesus character is how he demonized people—calling them evil, serpents and children of the devil. It’s so easy for us to demonize or dehumanize as Jesus did when he called a mother and child “dogs” simply because they weren’t Jewish.
It’s critical we recognize that even people like Hitler are not inherently evil. Their thoughts, plans and actions may be evil but they themselves are merely human. When we forget that, we suppress compassion and justify our own evil thoughts and actions in responding to them.
So I would say Bush and Cheney were responsible for horrible evils of all kinds but were not evil in themselves.
Hate the sin, love the sinner??? I don't know if I can completely buy that separation. That sounds evangelical to me. I think at some point we become what we do. I realize that people's decisions are based on nature & nurture. Hitler was abused and deprived as a child, and took out his rage on others. What is our soul, and how do we destroy it? Is it our conscience? Bush/Cheney have never demonstrated empathy. Not even once. I do not think they are capable of that. They appear completely narcissistic. They are rigid in their beliefs in the face of strong evidence that their decisions hurt people. They make jokes about people's suffering. They treat the pain and devastation of war like a video game. I give people a great deal of leeway with respect to poor decisions; I have been the queen of bad decisions in my past. However, I think there is a point at which we ARE what we do and can no longer separate it.
First of all let me be clear that I don’t relish defending the likes of Hitler and Bush/Cheney. It takes effort for me to refrain from labeling them wicked lizards. But I will defend their humanity against demonizing.
Surely you recognize they must show some empathy some times-with a spouse, a child, a friend, a pet? So they cannot be “evil” through and through. No one can be all evil unless perhaps they are profoundly mentally ill and then it is the illness causing the wickedness.
I would say it is the believing that people can be pure evil that is Evangelical thinking. It is this type of thinking that Yahweh used to justify genocide through Holy Wars and what George W. used to justify preemptive attack in his own holy War.
You make an excellent point. I will not be dogmatic about this argument and I see the slippery slope of that kind of thinking. My sister would fully agree with you. She is an atheist who believes that people always do the best they can in every situation, considering thier level of information, health, and strength. Therefore, she would likely say that Bush really doesn't know better and did the best he knew how; or he is a sociopath and is incapable of empathy (so it wouldn't be his fault then). I see the sense in this argument but it sticks in my craw to have compassion for people who cause so much pain and suffering and laugh all the way to the bank. Maybe my argument is more emotional than rational.
John, if you have a moment can you check out http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-seery/cheney-chief-of-churls_b_167451.html.
It outlines the unbelievable SADISM behind US policy in Gitmo. It is hard not to classify Cheney as evil in this article. Then I noticed that I was using the same terminology as Cheney himself when he called the "enemy" evil. So I guess I've only strengthened your argument - that when we call others evil we are acting the same as christians, fundies, and repubs - we are lowering ourselves to their level in a sense.
Nothing turns my stomach more than torture and humiliating a helpless prisoner. Dark, dark, days for America. I love my country but was often ashamed to be an American the last 8 years. (Though I am sure this kind of behavior has often gone on behind the scenes to some degree in the name of national security or freedom or God.)
And I totally agree that it is hard to find compassion for people like Bush and Cheney who profit so handsomely from their wicked ways. That may be the main reason the ideas of heaven and hell came into being. We want justice and if the Bush and Cheneys of the world get away with their cruelty on earth we can at least dream of them suffering in hellfire.
But as you said, this type of thinking is what we detest in the first place. We have to rise above the natural desire for revenge which is never easy. Breaking the vicious cycle requires compassion and a desire for justice, not demonizing and a thirst for revenge.
This is a good reminder for me. I tend to get quite, uh, "emotional" about some of these issues! I really had a problem with Sarah Palin and I constantly had to guard against negativity about that. But I agree with you. Hate and revenge only escalate the problem. As Celia Murray Dunn explains so well in her book, christians are taught to "hate sin" or "hate the world". She explains how ANY hate breeds more hate; you cannot be healthy mentally and physically if you have hate for anything or anyone. Now, to remember this when Sarah Palin does an interview....mmm..
Like your point about “hate” very much. There is a difference between vehement disagreement and hate. We can strongly disagree yet remain empathetic but with hate, compassion evaporates.
“Understanding” is another good word here. I think we need to work to understand why people think the way they do, what brought them to this point, and when we really understand something we can figure out how to respond to it effectively. If we just get blinded by hate there can be know real communication.
By the way, Celia‘s book was excellent. Thanks again for the recommendation! My one big criticism of it was that I was never quite sure where she stood-she seemed to remain a Christian or at least a believer in a God which was a disconnect for me. She however had great insights into the psychological poisoning done by much of the bible and will refer back to the book again.
I liked her perspective on the issue - she is the only one I've come across who discusses the psychological damage caused by religion. I agreed with you about the disconnect - she seems to think of herself as christian even though she doesn't believe anything in the bible. I feel the same way about Spong. I feel that "Jesus" is superfluous to his belief system.
Recommended: Greta Vosper - With or without God
Sorry to inundate you with reading, but here's another one (VERY similar to Spong - you may already be familiar with her). She is another one of those authors where her religious beliefs differ almost completely from "christianity" yet for some reason remains in the church. I think it might be a good book for "doubting believers" since she is passionate but respectful.
Here's a review of her book:
Gretta Vosper, founder of the Canadian Centre for Progressive Christianity and a minister in Toronto, believes that the church, as we have built it and known it, has outlived its viability. What she proposes in the provocative With or Without God is a radical change that lies at the heart of faith.
The new church she envisions will play a viable and transformative role in the shaping of a future society. What will save the church from certain demise, Vosper argues, is a new emphasis on just and compassionate living. Without this reform, the church as we know it faces extinction.
In a thoughtful and passionate discourse that speaks to a wide audience, Vosper tackles the issue that concerns so many of us today: how to find spiritual fulfillment, comfort and connection in the here and now. In the vein of Tom Harpur’s The Pagan Christ, this is a book that dares to discard old doctrines but does so with respect and dignity. Vosper imagines a new church that leads in ethics—fostering relationships, meaning and values that are solidly rooted in our own best selves.
You have before you a confrontation. I hope it challenges you. I hope it disturbs you. I hope it changes something in you and gives you the permission to let go of some of the things you’ve always thought you were supposed to hang on to. . . . I know this book is difficult. I know it will cost you much. But I hope you agree that the price is not too high if, in exchange for your losses, you help build a church that can inspire the world of tomorrow with beauty, justice, integrity and a constant yearning after truth.
—From With or Without God
The Vosper book sounds really great. That is next up.
Another book I am reading now is Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin. Pretty fascinating. Did you know our hands were once fins? And human arms/hands share the same basic structure with everything from therapod dinosaurs to birds, bats, seals, lizards, penguins and even humpback whales! We are all family.
I just read the Amazon review on this book - it looks amazing!! More and more it seems so incredible to me that there was an artificial separation between people and other live creatures of the earth - that we have souls but they don't! This belief is solely based on biblical principles and is totally out of sync with reason and common sense. Why do people persist in using a book 2000 years old to explain things that we had no knowledge of in those days?? How can people not see that these fairy tales in the bible were an attempt to explain the unexplainable. As science and knowledge progress, our stories should change also. It's like using a 2000 year old medical textbook - it's just ridiculous.
Thanks for the recommendation John.
Post a Comment